You know I don’t smoke anymore but I think we are pretty hard on our poor stinky orange fingered friends. Europe cut out smoking but allowed it outdoors, even at restauraunts, even where they eat! How other worldly is that? But if the nut balls who make up all these rules (could it be the insurance companies?) have any nuts balls at all, we should ban cars and fuel fossil burners too. Now there’s a double standard that leaves you out in the cold. Yup, sure is chilly out there. If we are after pollution, let’s get real folks, cars are big money makers but they are THE killers. Sure is fun cruising though. What about all the other stinky stuff- farts on the bus? paint fumes? greasey burned fast food?
—Michael Kenyon
This article appears in Oct 22-28, 2009.
Give it time MK, in a few years we will have transporter devices, food replicators and warp drives; we won’t need an economy and most diseases will be looked upon as if they were a common cold…I’m not being sarcastic either. With no need for an economy we can really put our resources to GOOD use instead of making fat, rich, old man more fat & rich. No car companies, no tobacco companies, no oil companies, no insurance companies.
The OP is bang on with this one. Especially considering how people are happy and content to sit in traffic for hours and inhale car exhaust. These same people blame smoking for all the health care problems.
“Cars are THE killers”?!?
Get real.
Smoking related deaths in Canada each year: 45,000 or 1 in 5 Canadian Deaths http://www.lungcancercanada.ca/Education/D…
Automobile related fatalities: about 3000
http://www.tc.gc.ca/mediaroom/releases/nat…
Air pollution related deaths: 5000-21000 (depending on who you listen to)
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/…
http://www.reuters.com/article/environment…
And that’s just the surface. Consider how much cars actually contribute to air pollution and how much smoking-related illness like emphysema might predispose someone to air-pollution-related death and smoking still comes out as the #1 killer.
Let’s not be overly dramatic just so we can make a point.
Great post, Miles. I agree!
Therein lies the issue Miles- given the ubiquitous nature of smoking, if one contracts a cardiovascular or lung related disease, it can be easily linked to either second-hand smoke (which is most of the cases) or smoking in general. There is a point to be made however, that vehicles contribute to the issue, despite the OP’s over dramatic presentation.
The nut bars have escaped.
Well, I agree that air pollution is a serious health care issue. However, it is well established that cigarette smoking increases your risk of early death and a host of serious illnesses. These studies include controlling for other risk factors like exposure to air pollution.
I appreciate the fact that the OP addressed air pollution without getting into “facts” about how we’re warming up the planet/ it’s almost too late/ another 100 years we’ll have to move to Antartica, etc.
I guess you COULD say cardiovascular disease can be attributed to the sedentary nature of driving. NGF told me when he had a car he gained weight because he would drive it everywhere and now that he doesn’t he walks everywhere.
And I notice it myself — it’s a lot easier to walk two steps down to the parking garage to use the car (which will park close to my destination) than it is to walk to lacewood to get the 52 then walk from chain lake to the power centre across the street (and up a hill!). so…I think that’s what dr fever is getting at…
Now you’re getting it PK. The medical community is very quick to blame any cardiovascular issue on smoking. While it may be true that 60% of it is indeed the cause, I think we’re missing a part of it. No word of a lie… when I had to rush my mother to the hospital about a month ago, when the paramedics arrived, the first thing they asked is her is if she smoked. The first thing. Clearly, she did but she had told them that the distress was in her stomach (as we found out, an ulcer). The illness had nothing to do with her smoking, but that’s the first thing they went to. It was the first thing on the chart too.
I also heard somewhere that more people smoke in Mexico, yet they have much lower numbers on smoking related deaths….time to do some research, I guess.
Even the medical community loves a convenient taxable minority to blame
Exactly what do you mean by that comment Dartmouthy?
Fever…the medical community plays the odds. Smoking is the leading cause of a lot of medical problems. It’s important to know if a person is a smoker to help assess why a person may have developed the problems they are complaining about. Also, I’m not clear if you are implying that smoking is NOT the major cause of disease the medical community claims it is or if you are just trying to say that it’s important to consider the other causes as well. I totally support the latter, but would argue that there is lots of evidence to support the former.
Miles, the heart and lung folks say that air pollution, including from coal-burning power plants, is a leading cause of respiratory disease and related deaths….hundreds of thousands, in fact.
If you have done some science that purports to isolate smoking, in particular the consuming of “second hand smoke” as the “major” contributor to early deaths, you are probably wasting your time with us peons…have you contacted MIT or Johns Hopkins?
a Nobel prize awaits you, my friend!
Bottom line is that there is no basic necessity for smoking cigarettes whatsoever, and they are proven killers. The issue is certainly up for debate as to what extent car fumes contribute to cardiovascular diseases and general unhealthiness, but the OP’s extreme stance is no help to the cause. I have a co-worker who justifies her smoking habit on this premise also, and ultimately I have to shake my head at her if she can point blankly say that it is okay for her to smoke because she is fucked anyway from car fumes. Sounds like blowing smoke rings up the ass to me.
What are you talking about Frosty? Are you taking exception to any particular point I raised or are trying once again to claim that second hand smoke isn’t dangerous? Would like someone to finally try your unethical experiment you would have them set up to your well-informed standards because you don’t trust epidemiological data and animal models? The data exists to substantiate that smoking and second hand smoke are significant and in some cases major causes of human disease and death. If you don’t believe or can’t be bothered to listen to or look up that information, there’s not much I can say that will help you out.
And what are you talking about when you say “hundreds of thousands of…disease and death”? In Canada? Per Year? I also already said I’m not arguing that air pollution isn’t a significant cause of death, in fact, I cited a news report that said there were about 21,000 deaths/year in canada due to air pollution. That’s compared to 45,000 smoking related deaths in Canada per year making smoking the MAJOR cause of deaths over air pollution.
OP: You are awesome.
I think you’re getting my idea. While I agree that smoking causes diseases, I just feel that that it’s not as bad as the medical community thinks. There are plenty of short term studies that prove secondhand smoke causes X disease, I would say that none of them really study the effect of the environment in accelerating X disease.
You’re probably right Fever but first and foremost, we can stop people smoking a hell of a lot easier and quicker than fixing the environment. Not to say we shouldn’t discount the effects of pollution but realistically, there’s not much we can do about it in our lifetime.
BRoc, you constantly amaze me with your posts. It’s as if you think you’re growing up into a totalitarian society where the government decides what’s good for the idiot citizens but, my friend, it’s just not that way here in Canada. For you to think for even a second “we can stop people [from] smoking ” because “there is no basic necessity for smoking cigarettes” or that government SHOULD dictate all aspects of living to Canadians…. I really worry about you. I wonder if your life consists of only necessities and nothing more but then I shake my head and see you needlessly posting on a bitch board using an unnecessary internet connection and using a polluting piece of hardware to do it all. I worry you think everybody should live to such minimalist standards you imagine but do not, in fact, live yourself. I worry people like you actually get into power one day. Spooky
If only to maintain my independence from state and from you I’ll make a point to really REALLY enjoy my evening smoke and tomorrow I’m booking that “unnecessary” sky-dive I haven’t gotten around to yet. Thanks for the inspiration, BRoc.
BRoc– if we put as much effort and money as we do stop smoking campaigns, NS would we a province running on completely green energy. I see what you’re saying though.
Kay– this discussion is not about the government; stay on topic for once, will you?
Fuck your Fever, web nazi… stop trying to control things you have no control over. You’ll be a happier person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_la…
And Kay’s outta here!
And I’m outta here? Excuse me? I would think the bitch trying to moderate the other bitches is begging for a comparison to a totalitarian tyrant, no?
He’s not trying to control anything rather just told you the same thing you try telling people when they disagree with you. You know, to “stay on topic”.
“A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin’s Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons” and this is no exception
Fever, you tell me “this discussion is not about the government” immediately after you comment on the financial decision making of the NS gov’t.
How disappointing.
It’s a an adage, and your treating it like it’s a rule of debate. Yes, I did use the government. In the context that we spend a significant amount of effort and money on smoking cessation. You were going off on a context unrelated to that; in fact, you did as you always do and went off on a tirade about a “totalitarian state”. Your rant was off topic and not contributing to anything, just a weak attempt to make fun of BRoc. Perhaps I should have worded it better to match your fifth-grade reading level. There was nothing disappointing about my previous comment.
Fever, you’re just being obtuse and you’re becoming so very good at it too… very sheep-like and very disappointing.
Consider the OP’s words…
“But if the nut balls who make up all these rules…” hmmm I wonder who THAT could be? And what is it with BRoc? Oh, never mind that either! Let’s not stray off topic Dr approved topics. Right on! *gag* I LOVE control freaks *gags again*
cars get people and their stuff where they need to go.
What do smokes do again?
I have yet to read, or hear of a peer-reviewed study that proves that the breathing of second-hand smoke by a non-smoker is a major, or even a minor, cause of death, or even illness.
I HAVE read many studies that show that some people don’t LIKE second hand smoke…and I’ve read a few that say that it MAY be “harmful” (whatever that means quantitatively)…but they were always from non-smoking advocacy groups…
Just because, Miles, you would like something to be true, doesn’t make it so…
And to lump second-hand smoking in with heavy smoking itself, and say that together they have been shown to cause death, is misleading…
All I was trying to say was that although we are aware that pollution can cause ill effects on our health, what can WE do about it as individuals. Yeah, yeah, we can recycle, use the car less, sure but we all know this planet is heading to hell in a handbasket eventually. Smoking on the other hand, is known to cause major lung diseases, and therefore puts a strain on our health system. We, as individuals, can very easily effect this by quitting smoking. Maybe my earlier post implied that we ban smoking all together with and that would be a little harsh (although I wouldn’t be against it). So, yes, the government should be looking at pollution as a cause for disease, however, by focusing their attention on smoking, even if it causes a few people to quit, it is not a bad thing. PS Kay, I won’t even justify your post with a reply. Looks like my fellow bitchers did it for me.
Your “fellow” bitches did nothing of the sort, BRoc… I’m still curious how the “world according to BRoc” would force tobacco out of the market and why. I just think BRoc needs to get his head around what adults do and what freedom is BEFORE he returns to North Korea. Gov’t is NOT “Daddy for adults” charged with controlling every move of the save-them-from-themselves idiot Canadian citizens! You remind me of the guy who would outlaw cherry flavoured lolly-pops everywhere because HE didn’t like them and orange flavouring should be enough for you… BRoc said so.
IDrive, “cars get people and their stuff where they need to go. What do smokes do again?” Vegetables provide a solid nutrient source in the diet of human beings. What do beef and chicken do again? What about iced cream? Are these necessary? Come on!!
“Every man dies. Not every man really lives”
How many people die from STUPID?? Can we ban that too while we’re at it??
Thanks!
Why do you care that others might die entertaining themselves and indulging, Frenchie? Are you the New Messiah?
Frosty…I don’t WANT anything to be true or not. I am just convinced by the body of evidence that links smoking to a whole host of human diseases and deaths..including exposure to second-hand smoke. You seem to be the one that WANTS second hand smoke to not be harmful…but that doesn’t make it true either. If you do the research I’m positive you will find lots of reputable papers showing the negative effects of smoking and second hand smoke. You will be hard pressed to find similar research showing that smoking has no effect or is beneficial to you. When thousands of studies all suggest that cigarette smoke is harmful, I tend to believe it. When BMF tells me the opposite…well, let’s just say I don’t recognize his authority on the subject. Show me proof and maybe I’ll consider it.
Careful Miles… you know what they do to “truth seekers” on this board.
At least Miles is coherent, kay. He also strings ideas together without resorting to degrading the discussion of a “totalitarian state”, or when someone disagrees, by calling them a sheep. One could say it lacks arrogance.
A mid afternoon random thought: I wonder what a child conceived between Kay and NGF would look and act like?
Let the games begin
Miles, again with the strawman!
This time, the easy to knock down strawman is that “smoking is bad for you”…indeed it is, and the proof is concrete that heavy smoking is detrimental to one’s health. But you continue with this annoying tactic of co-joining “smoking and second-hand smoke” in your statements like they are the same thing!
Do I WANT second hand smoke to not be harmful to others? Sure, and I don’t think it is, unless perhaps by second hand smoke you are referring to living in cardboard box 24/7, and having pure smoke blown into it for 80-90% of your lifespan…like, erm, a lab rat in one of these “studies” you refer to…
I suppose I would like to see more sanity when it comes to blanket bans, based on bad science, that prevent me from smoking OUTDOORS in public, yes. I am opposed to anti-smoking folks just saying whatever they want with no proof, sure.
Basil, that would only happen if Kay was disguised as a twinkie and NGF was loaded on Bacardi. By the time the child was concieved it would already have created a LTWWB account, realized who it’s parents were, gave a virtual finger to both of them, and then aborted itself.
“You remind me of the guy who would outlaw cherry flavoured lolly-pops everywhere because HE didn’t like them and orange flavouring should be enough for you..”
Great analogy kay, comparing a deadly habit to a dislike for candy. You prove your lack of sound arguments again.
It’s not about a “dislike for candy” BRoc. It’s about egocentric thinking. (how ironic, huh?) What’s good for you is NOT good for me and I don’t really care how YOU feel about that. Got it?
NGF and Kay’s octuplets:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/funny%2…
“By the time the child was concieved it would already have created a LTWWB account, realized who it’s parents were, gave a virtual finger to both of them, and then aborted itself.”
That’s a relief; no chance of having a bastard kid that I’ll be ashamed of and disown 😀
HKM – great choice with the Pei Mei/White Lotus kid haha
Kay, if my thoughts are so ego-centric, why has smoking been banned in most public places? Think before you attack.
NGF: no harm intended 😉
Oh I know, Dino haha. I thought it was quite hilarious and pretty much true!
I should have wrote *WHEW!* first.
Yeah, I thought of you when I saw him, NGF. I thought of Kay when I saw the troll/ogre and Hitler babies.
From here, kay can get a real good view of my foot!
beam me the fuck up scotty,that taint a bit of intelligent life here on this planet, tinkle, tinkle, poof.
Frosty, the data is out there for you to read if you actually care. Most people who bother to read it will come to the same conclusions.
I didn’t bring up the second hand smoke thing…you did. I also didn’t say that you smoking outside qualifies as second hand smoke…because I don’t think it does (and have said as much in previous posts). Most studies that look at the effects of second hand smoke also define second hand smoke as exposure to smoke in an enclosed and poorly ventilated space (yes, I’ve actually read those studies). People have taken the term and inaccurately extrapolated it to include ANY exposure to cigarette smoke. You are attributing words and arguments to me that I didn’t make. I am not setting up strawmen. I have read some of the literature on smoking and the overwhelming body of evidence clearly shows that if you smoke, or work in an area where others smoke, or live in a house where others smoke, will all other things being equal, you are at an increased risk of developing health issues. Are you taking exception to any of those claims?
Miles, no I haven’t read any studies that show conclusively that exposure to “second hand smoke”, and I think we can agree that this term is a bit nebulous, has any significant health risks.
Again, the term “health risk” is also very subjective.
I would be interested in looking at any studies that say, quantitatively, that the “average” exposure to second hand smoke…say by going to a bar a couple times a week, and sharing the odd bus shelter is significantly harmful to warrant these blanket bans.
Personally, I doubt that you can find such a study, even though you keep refrerring to them, and advising me to “read’ a bit more (classic!), as if you are the only one here that can be bothered to “do the research” and the rest of us peons get our facts from Youtube!
As for your last statement, where you (again) lump heavy smoking in with workplace/home second hand smoke… I could just as easily make the meaningless statement that people who climb stairs are at an “increased risk of developing health issues (by falling down them)” as those who do not.
Show me some of these ‘studies” that you say prove that second hand smoke is a “killer”.
…and don’t waste my time with “studies” from pharmacuetical companies that make billions from stop-smoking products and pharmacuetical nicotine either…
I want to hear from the WHO, the medical journals etc…most of who say that second hand smoke is a MINOR risk (although still a risk, sure…like climbing stairs is a risk)….
It’s the makers of Nicoderm and other products that come up with these studies you refer to…The pressure for folks to quit wasn’t enough for their OWN sakes…they had to be convinced that they are killing everyone around them as well!
Frosty, I don’t mean to imply that you get your info from youtube or that you are a peon. I am trying to convey that there is a HUGE body of data out there that points to the conclusions I have repeated. There is not going to be ONE single study that definitively concludes that second hand smoke, however you want to define it, causes XX disease(s). What you have are a number of studies that point to the same conclusion and few if any studies that point to the opposite conclusion that second hand smoke is good for you. You may find some that say second hand smoke has no effect on your health. It is pretty normal practice in science to look at a question from a lot of angles and draw conclusions based on large body of evidence. Since you keep asking me for studies that show this and that, I suggested you look them up and read them yourself. It’s the most effective way to find the answers to your specific questions and probably more reliable to you than an anonymous internet bitcher such as myself.
The term “health risk” is a bit subjective, but it’s also easier than saying “risk of lung cancer, throat cancer, tongue cancer, other oral cancers, head and neck cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, stroke, impotence, infertility, pregnancy complications, etc, etc.” I hope you and others will forgive my imprecision. I assumed most people would be aware of the common health risks associated with smoking.
I also once showed you some studies that supported the claim that second hand smoke was harmful and you dismissed them on various grounds “those were done in hamsters” “they were exposed to too much smoke” “that study was published in an anti-smoking journal”. I will not waste my time looking up more peer-reviewed data to support my conclusions just so you can continue to come up with dumb reasons to ignore them. You can read and you can come to your own conclusions (and maybe you already have). I’m satisfied with the quality of data on the subject and most others are as well.
For those that are not as easily swayed by the propaganda from Big Pharma…I suggest digging a little deeper into the matter than Miles seems to be willing to do…
Here’s a great place to start, it’s actually a radical anti-smoking blog, to prove no bias, as opposed to the links I got from Miles, but it links to some de-bunking and myth-busting of the second-hand smoke hysteria created by Big Pharma :
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8115
Once again, there is no dispute that direct inhalation of tobacco over a prolonged period can be very harmful. The debate here is over the bad science that ignores the massive amount of dilution in ppm when cigarette smoke is mixed with the air. Thank God dilution works for CO2 and CO though, eh? Just not for good ole nicotine…
The studies you cited Miles were weak. If I remember correctly, one was done by a group with a strong anti-smoking agenda…something they themselves admitted, to their credit. The other simply showed that “harm” can be done to labaratory animals by subjecting them to a concentration of smoke far beyond the diluted smoke that one encounters in a bar or “workplace”. If you want to call those deal-breaking criticisms “dumb”, well, that’s about what I would expect from someone who clearly has little or no background in science.
You keep falling back on this tactic of saying “I suggest you bother look them up yourself…” (!?)… as if I will suddenly and inexplicably find that overnight the scientific community has become united in saying that ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) can be shown to be a SEVERE (or even moderate) health hazard. Again, there will be few studies that say that there is NO harm, but risks must be put in proper perspective…and when they are not, we see the result – hysteria about ETS, about vaccines, about children walking to school alone etc etc…
MOST studies, including by the WHO (World health Organization 2003-4) AND the British Medical Journal say that the effects of second hand smoke are FAR less harmful than smoking itself, not even in the same ball park….AND that there is little or no direct provable link between moderate exposure to ETS and cancer. There ARE some links to athsma and certain allergies than have been demonstrated, as well as some health problems suffered by, say, casino workers after 20-30 years of having smoke blown into their face…
But to try, as you do, to lump second hand smoking in with heavy smoking, as if they can somehow be compared, and are both as bad as the other… is fallacious and just plain misinformed, whatever you’ve read online from anti-smoking groups.
So, again, you can repeat over and over and over again that I should “read” more on the subject (lol), or you can in fact do so YOURSELF and find out that you have swallowed the hype, and the the blanket bans on public smoking are the result of hysteria over bad ( and non-existant) science….exagerated by special interest groups such as the makers of Nicoderm…
Anyway Miles, nice chatting with you, you have some great posts on other threads…but here, I can see neither of us thinks the other has any points worth further considering, and you are starting to repeat yourself (as I suppose I am as well…but it’s easier to spot across the table, lol)…and I wouldn’t want you to “waste your time” any more than you have… 😉
So, let’s call the matter closed, without much progress, and unbookmark this rather unproductive (and increasingly boring) thread…
cheers
Jp
The OB just sounds like a bitter smoker, mad because he can’t do what he wants where he wants. Well that’s how the world works. There are lots of things that don’t cause harm and you still can’t do them wherever you please. Why don’t people come here bitching about not being allowed to have sex in the grocery store? Or go to MacDonalds with no shoes on, or ride their bikes in the office? Because only smokers seem to have that air of entitlement added to a persecution complex that makes them ignore stats and common sense. Including Frosty who just wants to believe that he’s only hurting himself, not the people around him, so it’s all ok.
Broc, you ask, “why has smoking been banned in most public places?”
Here’s some food for thought… When 99% of the planet population bends over backwards seeking approval and funding from the other 1% maybe you end up with a new religion of sorts and “thou shalt not enjoy smoking cigarettes” and “thou shalt chastise all who do”.
Perhaps capitalist democracy actually leads to the constructive formation or dissolution of culture given methodical placement of information. Big Brother, whom is also your neighbor in a democracy, is the new Messiah and nobody wants to burn. Maybe those Christians had it right in spreading the idea that people-pleasing or striving to please the government of the day doesn’t get you into heaven no matter what selective science or propaganda is presented to the masses. Laws brought in by democratic society simply reflect the fact that a majority of human beings in the region were educated to think in a certain way. The laws supported by the majority do not necessarily provide for a “truth” in determining right from wrong. So, is smoking bad? It depends who you ask and why you ask. Is public affection bad? Again, it depends who you ask and why. Is the idea of owning guns not appealing to you? Some would call you stupid while others would just call you Canadian. I recommend you think positively for yourself.
Did you just get back from church? 😛
No. Does it sound like a rant from the pulpit? I’m talking about independent thought, the power of choice and thinking for yourself despite what others want you to think. Not a popular view in “churches” unless you agree Christ did exactly this.