All disney resorts now smoke free.
Pollen? Seriously? You're comparing something that's naturally-occuring to something voluntarily created by mankind. I doubt there is a way to rid the environment of pollen, since it's a byproduct of many types of foliage that grow with or without human intervention, but there is a way to rid society of the nasty, unhealthy stench of cigarette smoke. After all, no one puts a gun to someone's head and makes them light up.
I don't believe in taking away someone's right to do what they want, but a line is drawn when something affects someone else. Smoking is fine for people that enjoy smoking but it's hell for most that don't smoke. Someone that enjoys using the f-word all the time has a right to enjoy doing that, but that doesn't make it okay for him to go to a church carnival and curse up a storm.
Seems to me the whole "pollen" idea is taking things to an unreasonable extreme.
So, how long until I can't have a fire in my own fireplace because little Timmy across the street has asthma? Once the smoke leaves my chimney it goes wherever the wind blows it. I can smell the smoke anytime any one of my neighbors have a fire going.
So how long until this is banned? After all, a potentially harmful substance that originated on my property is trespassing on my neighbors property, right? Or does this kind of smoke not affect people?
And his post is a good segue to another wacky theory of mine:
Second hand smoke isn't killing you.
(I'll let the shock sink in)
Let me qualify that. :)
Obviously the effects of cigarette smoke are harmful. It's to what degree that I question.
As Inceidentalist started to touch on, there are plenty of factors that lead to diseases and health issues attributed to smoking and/or second hand smoke.
I believe the line I like to use is, "What happens when smoking is deemed illegal and 100 years later people still die of lung cancer?"
I believe cigarette smoke is one of countless factors that leads to these health issues. Granted, it doesn't hurt to start somewhere, but it isn't really helping either.
Suspiciously, I can't seem to find any numbers that are meaningful in any way, but my theory is:
A much lower percentage of the US population smokes than did 50, 60 or 70 years ago. In addition, so many things have been put into place to reduce non-smokers exposure to cigarette smoke that only add to what should be the effects of reduced cigarette use.
So (in theory) if cigarette smoke is the biggest culprit in the occurance of any disease that it can be linked to, then the rate of those diseases should drop in correlation to the reduced number of smokers and on top of that the reduced exposure of non-smokers.
I can't find a single number to prove that.
Yes, I understand there'd be a delay in the data between the cause and the effect. But still given 50+ years of steady decline, you'd think we'd see something proving this is helping.
The three main issues that always seem to come up are:
1. Why should I have to pay to cover the health of people who have no concern for their health.
Without all the thoughful comparisons and such, this can be solved as simply as making smokers pay higher premiums to cover their higher risk. No different than the people who pay higher rates to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or have to pay higher rates to insure their high priced home or pay higher rates for their car because it sits in a bad neighborhood. The higher the risk, they higher the cost. Make smokers pay for their added risk.
2. I hate the smell. It's an annoyance that affects me personally.
Heck, even I get this one. If you don't smoke, smoke is nasty. But there's plenty of annoyances that intrude and I've yet to see designated "old ladies with WAY too much cheap perfume" areas or "big, sweaty, hairy guys with sleeveless shirts" areas.
I understand that majority rules and in the past decade or two the public opinion on this has done a 180 - but there's plenty of personal annoyances that could be avoided or controlled that we all deal with everyday.
3. The health thing. "You're killing us all!"
I covered this in the first half of the post. I see no evidence that proves this. I see no evidence that proves there's been any benefit to the big smoking crackdown of the last 10 to 20 years. Perhaps we will in the future? Who knows? I just want to know what kind of lifestyle one has to obtain where cigarette smoke from others becomes the biggest threat to your health.
Just my take. :)
*** Edited 5/4/2007 7:28:15 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
But what is happening now is smokers, even the considerate smokers, are being shunned and locked out. People who own businesses are being told "sorry, you can no longer allow smoking here and you cannot smoke in your own business".
Society is slowly making smoking illegal, which, I'm sure, will be better in the long run. But in the meantime, the minority of smokers certainly feel ostracized and discriminated against, especially when they can't even smoke outside.
What it means for me is I no longer have the pleasure of my husband accompanying me to any place that bans or severely limits smoking. He's a heavy and long time smoker who has tried many times to quit and has failed. So *I* am being discriminated against as well by association.
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
Lord Gonchar said:
3. The health thing. "You're killing us all!"I covered this in the first half of the post. I see no evidence that proves this. I see no evidence that proves there's been any benefit to the big smoking crackdown of the last 10 to 20 years. Perhaps we will in the future? Who knows? I just want to know what kind of lifestyle one has to obtain where cigarette smoke from others becomes the biggest threat to your health.
Just my take. :)
*** Edited 5/4/2007 7:28:15 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Really? Then what is this:
Stayner, Leslie. "Lung cancer risk and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke." American journal of public health. vol. 97, no. 3 (2007 Mar): 545-51.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis indicated a 24% increase in lung cancer risk (relative risk [RR]=1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18, 1.29) among workers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. A 2-fold increased risk (RR=2.01; 95% CI=1.33, 2.60) was observed for workers classified as being highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. A strong relationship was observed between lung cancer and duration of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this investigation provide the strongest evidence to date that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.
That's one of many you can find on Medline. The fact of the matter is that we will never ever know for sure (since to truly find out we would have to have an case control experiment
where a randomly selected half of the group would be exposed to smoke for no reason) but most signs point to yes there is a problem.
Also the environment and causes of cancer are way too complex to draw and a negative conclusion from the relationship of less smokers and no 1:1 drop in lung cancer. There are other things out there (like radiation which about 20 years ago a large batch of it was nicely spread around the world thanks to the Russians for example.) Limiting second hand Smoke is not and will never be a magic bullet,
but it is something that we can control (unlike say genetic factors or the sun) so every effort should be made to reduce it.
And while lung cancer may be more rare, second hand smoke also causes other incurable diseases like COPD (chronic bronchitis,) hypertension and asthma. Like it or not second hand smoke does adversely effect others around you. While it is truly unfortunate for current smokers out there who cant quit, all this regulation will in the end help the public health.
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
Like it or not second hand smoke does adversely effect others around you.
See you read that totally wrong...as I suspected someone would.
Never said it didn't. In fact, I agreed that it did in my post:
"Obviously the effects of cigarette smoke are harmful."
And while lung cancer may be more rare, second hand smoke also causes other incurable diseases like COPD (chronic bronchitis,) hypertension and asthma.
Again. I agree and it's obvious, but I question how many cases would still occur if smoking were banned. (which again, just to point out is what I was really saying)
...all this regulation will in the end help the public health.
And that's the part I disagree with. There's no proof whatsoever that beyond the smokers themselves, the public health will improve.
I wish I could find some numbers (from an unbiased source - and that goes for both sides of the coin), because what I want to see is something that shows the percentage of population or number of people that smoked over the years side by side with the numbers for the various health conditions that smoking can be attributed to.
I'd be willing to bet that while the number of smokers and those exposed to smoke is on a steady decline that the instance of those conditions remains steady.
In which case, the elimination of smoking does nothing for the public health, because there are countless other factors that contribute to such ailments just as much, if not more so.
Limiting second hand Smoke is not and will never be a magic bullet,
but it is something that we can control (unlike say genetic factors or the sun) so every effort should be made to reduce it.
And again, I must miss the point. If X number of people die or suffer from illnesses that could be attributed to second hand smoke then smoking is eliminated and X number of people still die or suffer from the same illnesses - then what's the point?
Just like to point out again, that's it's just a wacky theory of mine. I base this on no fact, just suspicion, because for some reason no one seems to have these numbers available. (or I don't know where to look)
1. Secondhand smoke has been shown to cause diseases (which you agree with)
2. Secondhand smoke is not the only cause of those diseases.
3. It is unpredictable to guess what would happen if secondhand smoke was eliminated because of point #2. I brought up Chernobyl as an example of something that could skew the study of your hypothesis because the radiation cloud spewed out by that event also raised lung disease around the world (and lets add in volcanoes and industrial events, etc.) Due to this complex relationship there is no way we could ever test your hypothesis under normal conditions (unless you are all for creating two worlds where we can control everything so that second hand smoke is the only variable.)
4. No harm can come from trying to limit second hand smoke, with the worst case scenario being that there is no change while the best case scenario has it significantly reducing rates of lung disease. Therefore since we know that secondhand smoke is harmful, and there is no risk of harming the public in reducing second hand smoke we should try it.
The problem of course is with you smokers out there, which this adversely affects you, which is why I am not in favor of outlawing tobacco. However I see no problem with banning smoking inside any public building (including hotels.)
2022 Trips: WDW, Sea World San Diego & Orlando, CP, KI, BGW, Bay Beach, Canobie Lake, Universal Orlando
I wish I could find some numbers (from an unbiased source - and that goes for both sides of the coin), because what I want to see is something that shows the percentage of population or number of people that smoked over the years side by side with the numbers for the various health conditions that smoking can be attributed to.
I'd be willing to bet that while the number of smokers and those exposed to smoke is on a steady decline that the instance of those conditions remains steady.
http://americancancersociety.org/downloads/stt/CAFF06MrM.pdf
http://americancancersociety.org/downloads/stt/CAFF06MrF.pdf
This is one of the most widely quoted arguments concerning the links between smoking and health outcomes. The rate of death from lung cancer has started to decline in men reflecting the decreased incidence of smoking. Women, as a group, started smoking more recently than men. As a result, lung cancer has replaced breast cancer as the number one cause of cancer death in women. As women smoke less, their rates of lung cancer should decrease after the next 10-20 years. Please note that this data does not deal with second hand smoke but deals with patients that smoke.
This is from the American Cancer Society. I admit ACS has an obvious agenda and some would question it being an "unbiased" reference. Still the link between many forms of lung cancer and smoking is clear.
You also need to realize that lung cancer is heterogenous. Three forms (small cell, large cell and squamous cell carcinoma) are strongly correlated with smoking. Adenocarcinoma on the other hand is not.
The problem of course is with you smokers out there, which this adversely affects you, which is why I am not in favor of outlawing tobacco. However I see no problem with banning smoking inside any public building (including hotels.)
And that's entirely fair. The only place I have a problem with it is when the government tells the private business they have to. I believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking on their premises.
Please note that this data does not deal with second hand smoke but deals with patients that smoke.
That's the problem. I'm not arguing that smoking doesn't contribute to one's health deteriorating - I do suspect the effects of second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated.
And that is this whole thing coming full circle. There's three key reasons (that I listed in that original post) that people feel give them the 'right' to demand a segregation of sorts for smokers. I have 'answers' for the first two and think the third is debatable.
Touchdown said:
4. No harm can come from trying to limit second hand smoke
Really? No harm? Maybe no harm to public health, but certainly harm to my property rights.
If I own a bar, why does the government have the right to tell me I can't smoke in it? If you don't like the smoke, don't come to my bar!
I see no problem with banning smoking inside any public building (including hotels.)
Didn't know hotels were public property.
I have no problem with smoking being banned in some places. If the government doesn't want it in any public place, then it could ban it in such places.
Public health would dictate that smoking shouldn't be allowed within hospitals and other health related facilities.
Safety concerns dictate that smoking shouldn't be allowed in other places as well.
Before smoking was banned by the government, society had already 'banned' smoking in several places. Most retailers learned that their customers didn't want to shop in a smokey environment, nor did they want to take home brand new, yet stinky goods.
Over the years, smoking had been relegated to bars, clubs, restaurants, bowling alleys, pool halls, and the like.
Now I'll agree that the difference between the smoking section and the non-smoking section in several restaurants was laughable at best. As much as I hate government interference, I would much rather see stricter codes for such a problem rather than an outright ban. If it was harder to meet such codes some owners would most likely go non-smoking, but they still had the option to have smoking.
Until smoking is illegal, it's my property right to smoke on my property.
*** Edited 5/5/2007 1:53:07 AM UTC by Incidentalist***
The first part of the argument is the part that I disagree with. The ACS data concerning lung cancer deaths in male smokers clearly shows otherwise.
The arguments concerning second hand smoke and health risks is much harder to come by. As a physician, I suspect there is a slight risk however not nearly to the extent that the media would make you believe. I'll have to review the article Touchdown quoted.
That being said, if you're sitting next to me blowing smoke in my face, I'll have a hard time resisting pouring a glass of water over your head. Although, not you personally, Gonch. ;)
The evidence is clear and consistent: secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer in adults who don't smoke. EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk. Even though the lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking, unlike a smoker who chooses to smoke, the nonsmoker's risk is often involuntary. In addition, exposure to secondhand smoke varies tremendously among exposed individuals. For those who must live or work in close proximity to one or more smokers, the risk would certainly be greater than for those less exposed.
EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among nonsmokers in the U.S.; of these, the estimate is 800 from exposure to secondhand smoke at home and 2,200 from exposure in work or social situations.
You can read more about it here.
This is a pretty good report on shs.
(edited to fix the super long link - LG)
*** Edited 5/5/2007 3:16:55 AM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
First off, I'll give you my personal opinion, which is my own views deplete of objective data. Personally, I am happy to hear that smoking is being banned in various areas. That has absolutely nothing to do with concerns that brief exposure to second hand smoke is affecting my health. It's just that I don't like to be around smoke. However, in the past, I would just chose not to give my business to bars/restaurants that exposed me to smoke. If I was in a non-smoking area of a restaurant near a smoking area, I would ask to be moved. If they wouldn't allow me to move, I would walk out and never return. Does that justify banning all smokers in smoking areas? Not really, but I'm not complaining. I can actually see this eventually being brought before the courts (if it hasn't already), since we're talking about rights of different groups of individuals.
Do I think second-hand smoke can adversely affect some people? Definitely for some people such as asthmatics. I'm also concerned about the effects on children. The rate of childhood asthma is increasing. This may be related to environmental exposure - perhaps a combination of smoking, air pollution, and other factors. Should we thus ban smoking and all cars? I'm much more concerned about the big picture in what man is doing to this planet as a whole. (Excuse me while I go hug a tree.) :)
Is there data to suggest that as more people stop smoking, smoking related deaths from certain diseases does decrease? Clearly, yes. See above lung cancer related links.
How much of a public health risk is second hand smoke? I personally think there is a certain risk, however the exact extent is not clear.
Reviewing the link from the EPA that crazy horse provided. Hard to say since this is a summary and not the hard data. Reviewing the report, a couple of things stood out.
"When looking only at the simple measure of exposure of whether the husband ever smoked, 24 of 30 studies reported an increase in risk for nonsmoking women with smoking husbands. Since many of these studies were small, the chance of declaring these increases statistically significant was small. Still, nine of these were statistically significant, and the probability that this many of the studies would be statistically significant merely by chance is less than 1 in 10 thousand."
Soooo.....only 9 out of 30 studies were statistically significant. And thus 21 out of 30 studies were NOT statistically significant. And we are supposed to reject the NULL hypothesis because WHY???
"The simple overall comparison of risks in ever vs. never exposed to spousal smoking tends to hide true increases in risk in two ways. First, it categorizes many women as never exposed who actually received exposure from sources other than spousal smoking. It also includes some women as exposed who actually received little exposure from their husband's smoking. One way to correct for this latter case is to look at the women whose husbands smoked the most. When one looks at the 17 studies that examined cancer effects based on the level of exposure of the subjects, every study found an increased lung cancer risk among those subjects who were most exposed. Nine were statistically significant. The probability of 9 out of 17 studies showing statistically significant results occurring by chance is less than 1 in ten million."
OK, so most of the epidemiological data comes from non-smoking wives of heavy smoking husbands. That would obviously be amongst the highest risk group you could conceive. Yet in the highest risk group only 9 out of 17 studies reached statistical significance. Thus roughly half did NOT, even in this highest risk group. And from this we are extrapolating to brief exposures while at Walt Disney World????
I'm now much less convinced than I was a couple hours ago when I got hooked into this thread.
And what really scares me is that I'm starting to remind myself of Gonch. ;)
I'm now much less convinced than I was a couple hours ago when I got hooked into this thread.And what really scares me is that I'm starting to remind myself of Gonch.
LOL! Imagine the horror of actually being me.
You have no idea how much I appreciate the open-mindedness. Especially on this issue. :)
Soooo.....only 9 out of 30 studies were statistically significant. And thus 21 out of 30 studies were NOT statistically significant. And we are supposed to reject the NULL hypothesis because WHY???
Because it doesn't fit the agenda.
Yet in the highest risk group only 9 out of 17 studies reached statistical significance. Thus roughly half did NOT, even in this highest risk group. And from this we are extrapolating to brief exposures while at Walt Disney World????
Exactly. :)
"I'm now much less convinced than I was a couple hours ago when I got hooked into this thread.
And what really scares me is that I'm starting to remind myself of Gonch."
LOL! Imagine the horror of actually being me.
I just got off of the phone with the crisis intervention line. They convinced me to climb down off of the ledge, double my dose of Prozac, and make an appointment with my therapist in the morning. :)
You must be logged in to post
