Oxymoron

Would people who have contributed thus far be willing to say if they smoke now, have smoked, or never have smoked?

(I used to, gave up 13 years ago).

Wyz_sub10

Never smoked (never even held a cigarette between my lips).

Two of my sisters (and their then husands) smoked. All three children have asthma, one has it fairly severly.

Asthma is on the rise, for sure, but I think there are many reasons for this increase (although smoking, especially during pregnancy, is a factor).

Corwin

You'll have some trouble finding 'peer reviewed articles' concerning secondhand smoke because there really aren't very many. A better place to look would be the congressional record... the second hand smoke study was, to put it bluntly, bullshit. It was science with an agenda, and it made damn sure it would support that agenda. In a nutshell what they did was expose their test animals to the equivalent of a long, heavy smoking habit.... (more than most people are capable of smoking) and then blamed it on secondhand smoke.

They got caught. They got called on it. In front of the Senate. Their response was effectively, 'Yeah.... so what?'

The damage had already been done and they knew it. Their study had already been unleashed on public opinion, and it was still on file, and they knew people would still refer to it.

Nobody's saying secondhand smoke is healthy.... but neither is car exhaust. These guys made it out to be the most toxic thing since radon.

simian

Using the Life Line database (the only remotely medical database of journals I have handy) for the period 1990 to 12/2002:

Passive Smoking: 420 hits
Passive Smoking and SIDS: 9 hits


vs:

car exhaust: 16 hits
Automobile exhaust: 38 hits

I have not read the journal articles on passive smoking, but I do get some of the basic findings via the news I rely on. Here are some issues I remember:

Children of smokers have a higher incidence of SIDS

Children of smokers have a higher incidence of respitory infection

Maybe there is nothing in the data, but to me it seems there might be. And, personally, I would be very wary of anybody saying we should do away with regulations on automobile exhaust because of the small number of journal articles on them.

Unless evidence is presented otherwise, I will assume that passive smoking and automobile exhaust are both very suspect health concerns. (Breathing in products of incomplete combustion is generally considered to be unhealthy).

I can see it now: the tobacco industry dragging out the "sloppy lifestyle hidden factor" in illnesses of children who live with smokers - the parents are slobs, only slobs smoke, the fact they are slobs increases the incidence of these diseases. Similar to what was done with smoking-related diseases as the strong links were being established.


Simian

Corwin

I don't smoke around children. I don't have children, I don't plan on having any in the immediate future. When and if I have any I plan to either quit or simply avoid smoking around them.

Problem solved.

Now please kindly explain to me why I can't have a cigarette with my coffee after a meal? (Smoking is now illegal in ALL restaurants in Oregon. It's only allowed in bars and getting even that exemption wasn't exactly trivial.)

The whole 'but think of the CHILDREN' bit is generally cause for a red flag to be raised... all too often it's used to justify basing policy on a purely emotional (and easily manipulated) response.

Walross

Aside from volume inhaled, what is the difference between first-hand and second-hand smoke? I always assumed that they are exactly the same thing. If so, second-hand smoke is exactly as harmful as first-hand smoke, it's just that the people near the smoker aren't getting as much of it as the smoker is. I don't know about anyone else here, but, given a choice between inhaling no harmful substance or a small amount of harmful substance, I'll choose the former every time.

BTW for the record, I don't smoke. Never have, but I've inhaled my share of second-hand smoke due to the fact that my parents and one sister were heavy smokers most of my life, and for a long time most of my friends were as well.

Walross

simian

First:

Are children excluded from the resteraunts where you eat? If not, is there some method there for removing the smoke when children come in?

Are there no women of childbearing age working at the places you eat? Is there some method of removing smoke from around a pregnant woman?

Second:

As I read what has been posted, what I see is a question if there is a link between second-hand smoke and illness. Children of smokers is a relatively easy group to find/characterize, as well as being a group that the public will generally try to protect from dangers.

I have no doubt there is a substantial set of studies of professions exposed to second-hand smoke that have been published. Non-smoking spouses of smokers would be another area to check.

I don't see the need for me to go deeply into the subject: tobacco smoke is harmful. Workers in most industries are protected from known harmful chemicals to reasonable levels. Why should it be any different for somebody working in a resteraunt?

Simian

Autonemesis

Not quite. The smoke inhaled by the smoker passes through the cigarette's filter. Second-hand smoke does not pass through the filter. Some people argue that this makes second-hand smoke more harmful than primary smoke. That sounds pretty fishy to me, but the point that second-hand smoke is not filtered does seem important, and does seem to suggest that the makeup of toxic elements in smoke would be different for passive and active smokers.

But of course, no one has done any studies. So it is impossible to say yet that one is more or less harmful than the other.

Corwin

I'll agree that both of these were relevant arguments... 20 years ago.

Any modern air conditioning system can deal with a smoking and non-smoking section. Also, the limited amount of time exposed is a factor. Yes, children are more sensitive to cigarette smoke. Increased incidences of asthma in children of smokers is largely due to the longterm exposure of living with someone who smokes in an unconditioned environment.

simian

Would you have the same feelings if the contaminant of concern was asbestos and you were in the potentially contaminated environment?

I have been into only one building where the air system was up to separating the smoking and non-smoking sections.

Even if the areas could be separated, it still leaves the issue that you potentially have employees (8 to 9 hours/day, 5+ days/week) in an environment filled with a substance known to be hazardous to human health.

I made the mistake on Friday of going out to eat at a pub where "the smoke is not bad." I was sick to my stomach from my first whiff of the cancer sticks at the door. Enduring the time it took to order and eat the meal was difficult. There was nobody near us smoking. I think there are significant issue with the envirornment in building at least as of Friday (at a pub in Minnesota).

If it wasn't for the fact that some people ignore health consequences and suck in the smoke anyway, there is no way an environmental contaminant like this would be endured.

As a consumer, I vote with my feet. I avoid smoking businesses like the plague (which is pretty much what I consider smoking to be). However, this possibility comes only after about 20 years of people pushing for such options.

Simian