Mad Kally

Did anyone else read all the links to studies in LadyShea's post on Page 1? At first it looks like a bunch of smokers got together to say it's all BS, but take a closer look.

I am not a smoker or trying to promote smoking. My terminal lung CA patients who are/were all smokers is what I am wondering about.

Corwin

Asbestos has been proven to be a critical health concern even in extremely small doses. Secondhand smoke has been proven not to be, but has been proven to be a minor health risk in moderate to large doses.

Is smoking healthy? No. Do I know and accept this? Yes.

Do either of these justify basing public policy on flawed science just to push a particular agenda?

No.

simian

I think we agree that tobacco smoke is a health concern. I think you acknowledge that it is a health concern in smokers.

Where we differ is if what non-smokers are exposed to is also a significant concern.

Anybody out there familiar with the chemical markers that are indicators of exposure to tobacco smoke? If so, any of you have the time to look for peer reviewed articles comparing the marker levels in non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke to the levels in active smokers? I would suspect they may be very similar. I have neither the time nor the expertise to look this info up in a reasonable manner.

Mad Kally, perhaps you expertise/ability to find this?

It would, of course, be looking directly at exposure levels to tobacco smoke, not directly looking at the long-term health effects of the exposure. But I would assume similar exposure levels result in similar disease rates, wether the tobacco smoke is intentionally inhaled or not.

Simian

scombrid

Hell, the fact that I can smell it on my clothes the next day is reason enough for me to dislike second hand smoke exposure. Well that and the fact that it affects my asthma. I college I'd usually suffer from asthma as well as a hangover after a night at the bars. I'm headed over to my parents for dinner tonight and that's the first thing that will greet me at the door, smoke.

Shake

... and while I basically agree with what they're pushing, I don't like how they're doing it either. This kind of ad will scare kids, and I know it's designed to do that in part, but you don't necessarily need to be shocked like that into not smoking. I never saw this kind of ad growing up, and I have absolutely no inclination to smoke whatsoever! Of course, I've got some family history that keeps me away from it, too.

How about those ads from The Truth? Pretty powerful stuff there, too.

rem

Sounds fishy to me too. Aren't smokers also inhaling second hand smoke as well? They are not constantly breathing through the filter. I would think they are getting just as much, if not more, second hand smoke than non-smokers.

Edited to add: Oh, and I hate those 'The Truth' ads too! They reek of propaganda.

rem, non-smoker

Viti

The disease rates have no significant increase in those who live with smokers vs. those who don't. Read the links I provided...

Wyz_sub10

As I mentioned on the first page, a study I did for British Columbia WCB looked at other studies and noted a common observation that second-hand smoke did not have an impact on the health of employees in restaurants and bars where smoking was present.

However...

It also found that ventilation could not eliminate second-hand smoke unless there existed a physical barrier with separate ventilation systems.

So if you hate the smell and effects (as I do, in a big way!) then avoid restaurants where smoking is permitted.

But it isn't likely killing you.

Mad Kally

Smoking isn't allowed anywhere in California. Even outdoors in the parking lot or in your car at a big Kaiser Hospital and all their clinics. It doesn't seem legal to tell people they can't smoke inside their own car, but it is. At the hospital they have security roaming around looking for people smoking in the gutters on the side streets. I always thought the streets were public property!
Very strange eh? Remind anyone of Big Brother?

scombrid

Those kind of regs make me want to go out and buy a pack of the cheapest stinkiest cigars money can buy and chain smoke the fuckers in some law makers office.

I prefer when a restaurant excludes smoking because it annoys non-smoking patrons or employees and they can exlude smoking without hurting profits. There are several restaurants here locally that I don't go in because they're too smokey. Fortunately Virginia and NC will likely be the last places legislate smoking bans. I think some cities have developed ordinances though. I'll tolerate smoke in a pool hall but not where I'm taking my meal. I'm also very glad that airplanes don't allow smoking.