The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

[GaryC 7]

Decades of real science has shown that there is nothing in second hand smoke that isn't carcinogenic or toxic.

As to what extent it affects people - of course there are no guarantees that it WILL make a person sick, and its all very obvious dependent on the amount of exposure and indeed other aspects of an individuals lifestyle.

I mean... what's being suggested here - that smoking should be allowed back into public places because breathing in 2nd hand smoke isn't that bad for you and that people shouldn't find it inconsiderate and socially distasteful.

And then more people feel comfortable smoking, it's less taboo, and the author's employers make more money. But that has nothing to do with his ignoring of actual studies, of course.... The studies he cites are faulty, but Gary, that's not every study ever done. Think about this article critically! Please!

I guess I am suspect of the motivations of the anti-smoking crowd. I can understand and support smoking bans in closed places like offices. But when they ban it outdoors where there is no chance of someone getting enough second hand smoke to do any harm then that is where the line is for me. It has gone from a health issue to a control issue. Now they want to ban it in cars, parks and other places where they are not hurting anyone. That is what makes me very suspicious of the whole thing.

[Jasman0717 9]

Decades of real science has shown that there is nothing in second hand smoke that isn't carcinogenic or toxic.

As to what extent it affects people - of course there are no guarantees that it WILL make a person sick, and its all very obvious dependent on the amount of exposure and indeed other aspects of an individuals lifestyle.

I mean... what's being suggested here - that smoking should be allowed back into public places because breathing in 2nd hand smoke isn't that bad for you and that people shouldn't find it inconsiderate and socially distasteful.

And then more people feel comfortable smoking, it's less taboo, and the author's employers make more money. But that has nothing to do with his ignoring of actual studies, of course.... The studies he cites are faulty, but Gary, that's not every study ever done. Think about this article critically! Please!

I guess I am suspect of the motivations of the anti-smoking crowd. I can understand and support smoking bans in closed places like offices. But when they ban it outdoors where there is no chance of someone getting enough second hand smoke to do any harm then that is where the line is for me. It has gone from a health issue to a control issue. Now they want to ban it in cars, parks and other places where they are not hurting anyone. That is what makes me very suspicious of the whole thing.

Anti smoking is PC these days. The golden age of smoking is gone

[Alex+R 0]

While it might not be the intention of the anti-smoking groups, banning smoking in public places does make smoking harder to do and therefore less visible. Seeing less smoking has got to have some effect on kids.

[GaryC 7]

Anti smoking is PC these days. The golden age of smoking is gone

There is where I get lost on the whole thing. As a matter of principal I object to anything PC.

[peezey 0]

Decades of real science has shown that there is nothing in second hand smoke that isn't carcinogenic or toxic.

As to what extent it affects people - of course there are no guarantees that it WILL make a person sick, and its all very obvious dependent on the amount of exposure and indeed other aspects of an individuals lifestyle.

I mean... what's being suggested here - that smoking should be allowed back into public places because breathing in 2nd hand smoke isn't that bad for you and that people shouldn't find it inconsiderate and socially distasteful.

And then more people feel comfortable smoking, it's less taboo, and the author's employers make more money. But that has nothing to do with his ignoring of actual studies, of course.... The studies he cites are faulty, but Gary, that's not every study ever done. Think about this article critically! Please!

I guess I am suspect of the motivations of the anti-smoking crowd. I can understand and support smoking bans in closed places like offices. But when they ban it outdoors where there is no chance of someone getting enough second hand smoke to do any harm then that is where the line is for me. It has gone from a health issue to a control issue. Now they want to ban it in cars, parks and other places where they are not hurting anyone. That is what makes me very suspicious of the whole thing.

So rahma's example wasn't good enough for you? Asthma is a leading health issue in children. These people don't wear badges so 2nd hand smoke can float over them and on to someone else less susceptible to carcinogens.

[garya505 2]

Decades of real science has shown that there is nothing in second hand smoke that isn't carcinogenic or toxic.

As to what extent it affects people - of course there are no guarantees that it WILL make a person sick, and its all very obvious dependent on the amount of exposure and indeed other aspects of an individuals lifestyle.

I mean... what's being suggested here - that smoking should be allowed back into public places because breathing in 2nd hand smoke isn't that bad for you and that people shouldn't find it inconsiderate and socially distasteful.

And then more people feel comfortable smoking, it's less taboo, and the author's employers make more money. But that has nothing to do with his ignoring of actual studies, of course.... The studies he cites are faulty, but Gary, that's not every study ever done. Think about this article critically! Please!

I guess I am suspect of the motivations of the anti-smoking crowd. I can understand and support smoking bans in closed places like offices. But when they ban it outdoors where there is no chance of someone getting enough second hand smoke to do any harm then that is where the line is for me. It has gone from a health issue to a control issue. Now they want to ban it in cars, parks and other places where they are not hurting anyone. That is what makes me very suspicious of the whole thing.

Actually I'm not anti-smoking, I'm just anti-me-smoking.

My position:

Ban it in public outdoor places? NO

Ban it in private outdoor places? NO

Ban it in places of work and public buildings? YES

Ban it in cars with children present? YES

[GaryC 7]

Decades of real science has shown that there is nothing in second hand smoke that isn't carcinogenic or toxic.

As to what extent it affects people - of course there are no guarantees that it WILL make a person sick, and its all very obvious dependent on the amount of exposure and indeed other aspects of an individuals lifestyle.

I mean... what's being suggested here - that smoking should be allowed back into public places because breathing in 2nd hand smoke isn't that bad for you and that people shouldn't find it inconsiderate and socially distasteful.

And then more people feel comfortable smoking, it's less taboo, and the author's employers make more money. But that has nothing to do with his ignoring of actual studies, of course.... The studies he cites are faulty, but Gary, that's not every study ever done. Think about this article critically! Please!

I guess I am suspect of the motivations of the anti-smoking crowd. I can understand and support smoking bans in closed places like offices. But when they ban it outdoors where there is no chance of someone getting enough second hand smoke to do any harm then that is where the line is for me. It has gone from a health issue to a control issue. Now they want to ban it in cars, parks and other places where they are not hurting anyone. That is what makes me very suspicious of the whole thing.

So rahma's example wasn't good enough for you? Asthma is a leading health issue in children. These people don't wear badges so 2nd hand smoke can float over them and on to someone else less susceptible to carcinogens.

As I said, I have no problem banning it in closed places but if someone wants to walk down the street and smoke then I see no problem with that. Unless Rahma is standing toe to toe with someone smoking outside it isn't going to effect her.

[peezey 0]

Decades of real science has shown that there is nothing in second hand smoke that isn't carcinogenic or toxic.

As to what extent it affects people - of course there are no guarantees that it WILL make a person sick, and its all very obvious dependent on the amount of exposure and indeed other aspects of an individuals lifestyle.

I mean... what's being suggested here - that smoking should be allowed back into public places because breathing in 2nd hand smoke isn't that bad for you and that people shouldn't find it inconsiderate and socially distasteful.

And then more people feel comfortable smoking, it's less taboo, and the author's employers make more money. But that has nothing to do with his ignoring of actual studies, of course.... The studies he cites are faulty, but Gary, that's not every study ever done. Think about this article critically! Please!

I guess I am suspect of the motivations of the anti-smoking crowd. I can understand and support smoking bans in closed places like offices. But when they ban it outdoors where there is no chance of someone getting enough second hand smoke to do any harm then that is where the line is for me. It has gone from a health issue to a control issue. Now they want to ban it in cars, parks and other places where they are not hurting anyone. That is what makes me very suspicious of the whole thing.

So rahma's example wasn't good enough for you? Asthma is a leading health issue in children. These people don't wear badges so 2nd hand smoke can float over them and on to someone else less susceptible to carcinogens.

As I said, I have no problem banning it in closed places but if someone wants to walk down the street and smoke then I see no problem with that. Unless Rahma is standing toe to toe with someone smoking outside it isn't going to effect her.

She said a man smoking at the same bus stop where she was standing sent her into an asthma attack.

[garya505 2]

But I just want our actions based on real science and not conjecture when we are going to take away someones freedoms for the common good.

Someone's freedom ends at my windpipe. I would have to say my right to breath trumps their right to smoke.

Exactly.

[UmmSqueakster 54]

Walking within 5 feet of someone smoking triggers violent coughing for me. I zig zag, crossing back and forth across the street to avoid the smoking crowd that congregates outside of buildings. However, I can't help it if someone is walking down the street and passes me while smoking. I also can't help it if someone who was just smoking decides to sit next to me on the bus. Even thought I switch seats, the damage is already done. I just can't win.

Maybe supporters of smokers' "rights" would like to chip in and buy me a lifetime supply of surgical masks or something, so I can don them whenever I'm outside.

Edited February 1, 2007 by rahma

[bostonparis 0]

I wish that the smokers who drive in front of me would keep their windows closed while they smoke, so I don't have to breathe in their smoke! I love the people who drive with their cigarette out the window, blowing the smoke out the window, so they don't stink themselves up... but then it gets on me when I'm behind them.

[Girona40 0]

Passive Smoking Kills

Immediately I saw this thread I thought of Roy Castle. Some of you Americans may not know who he is, but he died of lung cancer from passive smoking. Click on the link to see two of the video's - they are not gruesome, but get the message across.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Girona40

[GaryC 7]

She said a man smoking at the same bus stop where she was standing sent her into an asthma attack.

If her condition is that fragile then a lot of other things in a city would get her. I am sorry she has that bad of a condition but we can't ban a legal behavior because of a very few people that it may effect.

[GaryC 7]

I ask you this. If smoking is bad for the smoker (it is) and it is bad for the person next to the smoker (as you are saying) then why doesn't the government just outlaw cigarettes? The answer is money. The government makes huge money suing the tobacco industry and collecting taxes on cigarettes. I see the hypocrisy in all this and it makes me dig my heels in. Sorry, that is just my nature.

[Peikko 1,575]

Prohibition doesn't work.