It seems that the reality of second-hand smoke has joined that club of politically-correct concepts commonly accepted by society – we seem to accept that second-hand smoke is dangerous almost blindly, without any real reason or facts to back up our conclusions. There may be no better definition of ignorance, and the purpose of this article is to explore, on a logical and factual basis, the claims made by the anti-smoking and anti-second-hand smoke interests.
First, it’s important to know what second-hand smoke is. Known to the scientific community as ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke), it is the inhalation of tobacco smoke from the environment, simply put. One common observation from the anti-smoking interest is that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than inhaling cigarette smoke directly from the cigarette because of the lack of a filter – and as such, is more dangerous. A 1993 study by the EPA found that inhaling ETS can increase the risk of lung cancer by up to 25%. The same study also claimed to be conclusive that ETS is, without a doubt, significantly dangerous to the public.
So, let’s examine this study. The 1993 EPA study is the most-cited study to make claims regarding the effects of ETS, so it stands to reason that if this study is flawed, so is the most basic argument that second-hand smoke is significantly dangerous to the pubic.
The EPA study wasn’t actually a study – it’s what was called a Meta Analysis, a survey of already existing data, with no actual research or testing conducted by the EPA. They chose, initially, 33 studies to base their conclusions on, and eventually even threw one out because the data didn’t support their preconceived conclusion. Now I realize that this is an inflammatory argument, but don’t discount me quite yet – I’ll back this claim up further as we go along. Okay, so the EPA has picked 30 studies to decide, once and for all, whether ETS is dangerous. It stands to reason that with a selection of 30 studies, with such a wide variety of data, it seems that the truth will certainly come out, right? Well, it didn’t. In fact, the EPA actually had to manipulate this already cherry-picked data to fit their desired conclusion! In the world of statistics, there is a standard for determining the margin of error is this kind of analysis – 95%. The EPA was forced to use a margin of error of 90% – so why did the EPA decide to use this particular margin of error when the rest of the scientific world is content to use the standard of either 95% or 98% (when you really want to be accurate)? It’s simple – with a larger margin of error, it’s possible to come to conclusions that the data doesn’t necessarily support while still using that data!
Now, back to the claim by the EPA study that being exposed to ETS increases your chances of lung cancer by 25%. This statement leads us to believe, by the language it uses, that on one hand, if you aren’t exposed to ETS, you have a 0% chance of getting lung cancer (that’s not true, but for the sake of argument, let’s use this standard). So, if you’re exposed to ETS, you have a 25% chance of getting it! Of course, this statement is startling and should scare the tar out of every one of us – but it’s important to realize how this data was refined – for example, the odds of getting lung cancer after exposure to a significant level of ETS is 1:80,000. Not a 25% chance, right? Well, the odds of getting lung cancer without exposure to ETS is 1:100,000. If you’ve ever been to Vegas, you should know that it seems a pretty fatal folly to place our bets on public policy by an increase in 25% odds – in other words, you never buy insurance when playing blackjack, and you don’t ban smoking according to an increase in 1:20,000 odds.
Enough odds-talk. Back to the facts – how much cigarette smoke is the public really exposed to? The EPA study claims that someone who is around cigarette smoke regularly (for example, a bar tender) smokes the equivalent of 1/5 of a cigarette a day. However, according to the same study, that number somehow adds up to 4 cigarettes a year. Now, I’m no mathematician, but that doesn’t seem to add up to me – but I guess if I say that with a 90% confidence level, I guess I don’t have to be right.
But that’s just me. Oh wait, no it’s not! In 1995, a congressional panel was commission to review the EPA study and found that the EPA exaggerated its facts, “cherry-picked” its data, and came to baseless conclusions. No kidding.
So why do we continue to live in fear of cigarette smoke and ETS? I’m not here to defend smoking or say that it’s okay to inhale noxious fumes, but if we’re going to be afraid of something, let’s at least of afraid of it on a rational basis, not just blindly accept what TV ads and political pundits tell us is true. Humans are blessed with the ability to reason, and to paraphrase Galileo, we weren’t given that logical ability to ignore it. If ETS is dangerous, let’s fear it. Let’s ban smoking anywhere and everywhere. Let’s put smokers is glass cages and laugh at them for trying to kill us all. However, if we find that it’s not dangerous, let’s do the rational thing and see it for what it is – smelly, but non-lethal. An annoyance, not a killer.
The EPA is often cited as saying that ETS causes more than 50,000 deaths per year – but according the the same study, in all its inflated data, ETS only causes 3,000 deaths per year! So what should we believe – what the EPA says, what other people say the EPA says, or actual science? In 2003, the UCLA school of public health conducted a study in which they found no connection – that’s zero connection – between living with a smoker (being exposed to ETS on a daily basis) and heart disease or lung cancer. Lead researcher James Engstrom was stated as saying, “We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers — not at any time or at any level.” Not at any time, not at any level. Pretty conclusive – no manipulation of statistics needed, no inflammatory numbers, just basic, rational science.
So it seems silly that so many states, including our home of Idaho, has banned smoking in nearly all public (and many private) places, presumably based on this misconception. They ban smoking based on this study, but if the study is proven to be flawed, then shouldn’t we at least revisit the ban on smoking? It seems to me that the ban rests on one or both of the following premises:
1) ETS is a public health issue, causes health problems, and a ban is in the best interest of the public. Banning smoking may inflinge on the liberties of individuals, but this is an acceptable exchange for preventing up to 50,000 deaths per year.
2) It is the government’s job to decide whose rights should prevail – the right of the individual to smoke when and where he or she wants, given the consent of the business or residence where he or she is smoking vs. the right of an individual to be free from annoyance or inconvenience because they just don’t like cigarette smoke.
I believe the first presumption has been disproven, or at least discredited and deserves to be revisited in the public light. The second, well, that’s a very basic question of the society in which we live, isn’t it?
Now if you disagree with what I’ve said here, don’t take my word for it – if you’re concerned about ETS, do the research, find out the facts for yourself. Read the studies, learn how to understand them, and never, ever let a self-interested group tell you what is true and what your should believe. We are told on a daily basis what to eat, who to befriend, where to shop, how to exercise, what religion is right, what political party is best, and what we should be afraid of – the very definition of liberty is the right to choose for oneself what we want to do to make our lives better or what we want to make our lives worse. It is every American’s God-given right to decide for himself what they want to accept into their bodies and what to accept into their minds – so I’ll say it again. It’s been said many times, in different ways, throughout history: If you don’t like cigarette smoke, don’t hang out in places where people smoke. Better yet, don’t smoke. However, don’t force others to make the same decisions you have.
“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. ” – Ayn Rand
Selected works cited:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3011851
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artid=13833
Popularity: 16%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s interesting that the one study cited as “basic rational science” that finds no connection between second hand smoke and health effects, is blasted by one of the “works cited” for (a) being funded by the tobacco industry, (b) being severely methodologically flawed by, among other things, failing to track tobacco exposure of the subjects for the last 26 of the 39 years of the study, and (c) cherry-picking the subjects.
Seems no study, on either side, is immune from attack. I commend Jeremy’s call to do one’s own research. I would suggest, however, that doing so will be, given the volume of studies, a substantial career’s work.
While I don’t extend the federal government my unqualified trust, I do find the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report pretty persuasive.
Nice work Jeremy. Very Interesting. I have thought for years that all that 2nd hand smoke stuff was rediculous. Just overkill. Its obvious that smoking is unhealthy — introducing anything into your lungs other than nice clean air is likely not doing you any favors. everyone knows that. I smoked for years while my children grew up. I never smoked in the house or in the car. I knew that it wasn’t good — even before that “knowledge” became popular. It was just obvious. Neither of my children smoke now and neither have any lung issues as they approach their 30’s. To what degree 2nd hand smoke can be bad for someone is the debate. That crap about 2nd hand smoke being worse than smoking because it was not filtered — I recongnized that as BS the first time I heard it. The cigarette filters the smoke — the smokers lungs filter it again, and somehow now is many times worse than before all that filtering? The BS card went flying on that one! The truth is this: Smokers have a right to smoke. People who don’t smoke have a right to clean air. Anything that has to be done to make sure that both sides are considered is the answer. If smokers have to go outside — so be it. The non smokers right to clean air prevails. Anyone — at any time in history should be smart enough to know that we do not subject healthy young lungs to smoke — of any kind. This isn’t brain surgery. I just get sick of all of the hype, BS and overkill. I am nearing 50 and still smoke, though I have cut way down almost to nill. I have lost 2 of my closets friends to lung cancer. Both of whom never smoked a cigarette in their lives and one of which was a returned mormon missionary who never even drank a beer in his life — let alone smoke a cig. Both came from non smoking homes, and I promise you, were exposed to a lot less crap in the air than I have been. So whats the reason for those deaths? I don’t have a clue. We all just need to do the best we can, try to live helthy lives, be considerate of others — and don’t ever think that the train can’t hit you. Both of those dead friends of mine at one time years ago told me that smoking was gona kill me. Is 2nd hand smoke harmful for those who are subjected to it? I don’t need a “study” to confirm that it is. Its HOW unhealthy that makes up that debate. And my position is, does that matter? If its at all unhealthy, thats enough said. matters.
Leaving aside the health effects, what if a person randomly went around spraying people with a bottle of skunk spray. They would be pretty upset wouldn’t they? Well this is exactly what smokers do to everyone around them. The cigarette smell permeates everything around it and forces everyone to smell it as well. If a person wants to stink up their own home thats their right. But out in public I see it differently.
Yes, but smokers aren’t spraying you with a bottle of skunk spray – they’re smoking. It’s not “like” anything – it is what it is. I’ve heard a lot of comparisons from shouting profanity to running around naked, and none really talk to the real issue here – smoking is smoking, it’s not being naked or being profane. It’s smoking. It’s been going on for ages. In fact, I could argue that our nation wouldn’t exist without smoking – lest we forget that it was tobacco exports that made the Jamestown colony survive! Oh, how much changes in just a few centuries …
See, personally, I don’t mind the smell all that much. Tobacco smoke is naturally sweet (ever smelled a really good cigar? Nothin’ like it.) and I don’t see the outrage.
It’s like this – look, I just find really obese people really disgusting. I can’t eat around them, and I find it hard to avoid flat-out judging them – that’s my problem, one that I live with. I’m not about to make it someone else’s problem by legislating that fat people can’t go in public because it annoys me! The same thing with smoking – I understand you don’t like it, I empathize, but that does not give you the right to self-righteously dictate what people can and cannot do around you!
If we’re really going to start legislating everything that affects us negatively, there goes cars. I guarantee you more people die every year as a result of motor accidents than second-hand smoke, whether that number is 3,000 or 30,000. More people are dying from weight-related diseases. More people are dying from all kinds of things – often in numbers that dwarf cigarette deaths. The difference? Ciggies are just the flavor of the week, and we’ve all been duped by the media into getting worked up over it. Now don’t we feel silly?
A fat person eating doesn’t directly affect anyone else unless they throw up on you or throw their food at you. Alcohol consumers don’t affect you unless they spill it on you or puke on you. Cigarette smoke, again leaving aside health effects, does affect everyone around as the smoke gets into your clothes and then forces you to smell just like it all day. Maybe you like smelling nasty all day because someone was smoking around you. Most of us don’t.
Again I personally don’t care if someone wants to stink up their house, their car, or other personal property. But when in public they should show a little decency, or be forced to be decent, by not smoking around others. If they want to open a smoking club where they can go stink themselves up with other smokers more power to them. But in general public they shouldn’t be allowed to do so until a day they come up with odorless cigarette smoke.
A forest fire burning far from town has many things in the air from the fire.
Why is tobbacco diferent?
I do not think the study is valid. Second hand smoke is not dangerous. Its a leaf burning wraped in paper I am sure a forest fire has alot more stuff in the smoke and air.
Sorry Jeremy this wasnt a good story from you I think you write better then this.
Go get some more fact bud before posting this stuff. This makes you look bad. I am glad I have seen other articles you write or I would think you just make stuff up.
Well, then refute me. I directly contradicted the EPA study with facts … so I’m not sure where my argument fell short. Inform me.
I didn’t make anything up in this article – it’s either statistical analysis or factual data. So I apologize if it wasn’t entertaining (I’m not much of a populist), but if you’re challenging my reason or facts, refute me. Please. I am actually dying to hear a rational argument against smoking in public rather than “it smells bad and annoys me.”
Peculiar, that this article doesn’t once mention the word “carcinogen”, yet environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) contains at least 40 known carcinogens.
The definition of a carcinogen is any substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue.
Here are just a few facts that refute the basis of this article.
• Nitrogen dioxide, a gas that can damage lungs, is so toxic that air levels of five parts per million are considered dangerous; ETS contains 250 parts per million.
• Long-term exposure to hydrogen cyanide, another poisonous gas, is hazardous at 10 parts per million; the concentration in smoke is 1,600 parts per million.
• The annual death rate in the United States for people exposed to ETS is 53,000 (annual death rate for automobile accidents is 47,000.)
ETS is made up of not only the smoke regurgitated by the smoker, it includes the smoke emanating from the burning end of the cigarette, which is entirely unfiltered.
In one comment, Jeremy lectures that it is fallacious to compare smoking in public to profanity or nudity. Then in the next paragraph, he compares it to obesity, suggesting that if he has to “deal” with other people’s portly appearance, then we should all tolerate ETS.
Consider the source of the above article, exercise some common sense, and if necessary, do some research of your own. But certainly do not mistake the drivel at the top of the page for fact or anything even close to rational thought.
Furthermore, I’ll excerpt a comment I posted on an earlier discussion about smoking:
“Whatever happened to the old American belief that “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose beginsâ€?
Someone please explain how smoking in public does not apply, if we believe that statement to be true.”
Studies, statistics, gambling odds, and conjecture aside, I think that sums up what a lot of people feel about public smoking and ETS.
There are countless annoying “non-lethal” activities that are simply not allowed because they compromise the rights of others in a negative way. Smoking in public should be viewed no differently.
Smelly and annoying is one thing. Lethal is yet another. But how can one possibly argue that ETS is not at least harmful to others, and that it should be an accepted risk for everyone?
I didn’t compare being obese to smoking, I was illustrating a point – really obese people annoy me, but it’s not my right to force my preferences on others! I thought I made that clear.
Look, I’m not saying that people can do whatever they want. I thought I made that pretty dang clear. It’s about an institution that is entrusted by the American people to formulate public policy that protects us from things we can’t protect ourselves from – and this organization has flat-out lied to us! Lied. Misrepresenting facts, manipulating data, even just making things up. That’s the issue here.
Now, to your argument about carcinogens – only an idiot would say that cigarettes don’t have cancer-causing elements. Hence, why I don’t smoke. But you mention two particular carcinogens in ETS … what about all of the other harmful chemicals we’re exposed to on a regular basis. What about the carcinogens in red meat? In noxious fumes emitted by automobiles? Are we going to mandate veganism? Ban cars? What about all of the harmful chemicals in Twinkies? Those little delicious cakes are the food-grade equivalent of paper mache! Are we going to ban Hostess Cakes?
I’m not here saying “Aw cigarette smoke’s just fine! Smoke em if you got em!” What I’m saying is that ETS has been targeted because it’s convenient for the rest of us – we don’t have to sacrifice a dang thing in exchange for a little piece of mind and an extra dose of accommodation. And here’s the final note – if you’re really that concerned about all those nasty carcinogens, don’t eat meat, ride your bike, and I cannot say this enough … stay away from ETS. My goodness, do we really need a babysitter telling us where we can and cannot eat to preserve our own health? Are we really that dependent on the government that we’re going to let them decide every little part of our lives?
And I should note in your reply that you again mention the 50,000 deaths statistic – but do you know where that number comes from? The EPA study, the one that the WHO study was based on, and the same study that the surgeon general basis his data off of (but was thrown out not once, but TWICE by congressional committees) says 3,000! Where did the extra 50,000 deaths come from? The only way to get that number is to dramatically manipulate data – in fact, it’s kind of pathetic that they only arrived at 53,000. Let’s just say that EVERY death in the US is caused by cigarette smoking. That’ll really get em scared.
I don’t buy the argument that second-hand smoke should not be allowed anywhere. While it’s not the same as being naked or spraying skunk spray, it’s not a lot different than the nasty fumes diesel trucks spew. One thing that annoys me is all these stinky, loud diesel pickup trucks that people think they need. There are several of them on the block where I live, and as far as I can tell they seldom if ever tow or haul anything. They are just used for commuting. They are loud, stinky, and it seems like people are always warming them up for half an hour before they drive off. While I can’t stand so many diesel trucks fouling my neighborhood I put up with them because I believe it’s a person’s right to have them if they want. Same as smoking. If we’re serious about contaminants in the air, let’s not just ban smoking everywhere. Lets get some pollution standards in place for vehicles. That’s got to be a much bigger problem.
I was with you until that last part – sure, we need to curb our pollution output, but it’s gotten so much better since the 1970’s, it’s ridiculous. We’ve made some amazing progress in waste output on all levels, and the next step shouldn’t necessarily be reducing output, but changing the output – ethanol’s a decent choice, but what if we were able to apply fusion, nuclear, and cell technology to cars? Wouldn’t that be flippin’ sweet?
But anyway, I don’t see a need to legislate against diesel trucks. It’s just another part of living in society. We should learn to deal with noise and smelly things.
I know I’m coming in a little late on this but here are my points:
1) So far, I haven’t found any refutation of the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report. As a matter of fact, John cites it in the very first comment on this article, and is conveniently glossed over by every single participant since then. Granted, the original EPA report may or may not have been flawed. But to completely discount literally HUNDREDS of independent studies (in the case of the Surgeon General’s Report) because of one UCLA study is equally flawed. In addition, most of the studies cited in the Report are post-1995 fall out. I invite you to read it extensively.
After you read the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report, I offer the next three refutations:
2) I completely understand the “choose to go somewhere else” argument. Honestly, I do. However, we also have to accept the fact that Idaho is a HIGHLY rural state. This severely limits choice, which is the rock-bottom basis of this libertarian stance. I am going to use bowling centers as an example, only because it has been the only major Clean Indoor Air amendment since the original 2004 bill. Unlike Idaho Falls (where we’re lucky), places like Weiser, Malad, Grace, Orofino, etc, only have one bowling center. When there is no choice, libertarian arguments simply can’t be used.
3) In addition, highly vulnerable populations often have no choice of the places they frequent, i.e. children and the physically and mentally handicapped. For example, many school, developmental, and social organizations take trips to bowling centers, thereby exposing citizens to secondhand smoke without their consent.
4) And one more small thing…. I just happen to have S.1283, 2004 in my hands right now, and I can’t find ONE private place where smoking is prohibited. Jeremy, you claim that “So it seems silly that so many states, including our home of Idaho, has banned smoking in nearly all public (and many private) places, presumably based on this misconception.†Please, show me “many private places†in Idaho.
I feel dumb about it, but all I can say is “ditto”. That was an excellent comment.
Hey there Adrean. Long time no see
Anyway, I’ll have a full reply soon, but I have just one note right now to think about – aren’t businesses private places? They’re privately owned, operated, and businesses are generally not considered public (that is, owned by the people through the government).
Don’t bowling alleys, at least those not owned by the government (snicker), private places? I seem to think that “public” places should be defined at government buildings, lands, and other places owned by the city, state, or federal government. Or am I just way off here?
Okay, so I’ve taken some time to read through the Surgeon General’s Report, and while I’m not really interested in a full critical analysis, I’ll make a shorter reply to your arguments.
1) I’m yet to see a refutation of the Surgeon General’s report, this is true – However, remember that it’s only been a year and so many months since it was released. There just hasn’t been enough time for peer review for us to know if it’s going to be generally accepted by the scientific community – for example, it took two years for the original EPA study to be discounted, and then another seven years before it was discounted … again. And yet, it’s still cited by some sources as a credible authority on ETS.
Now, about the Surgeon General’s study – was it an actual study or a meta-analysis? That’s important, because like you said, there have been many studies that indicate that ETS is dramatically harmful. However, there have been many that say it’s not. In a meta study, the researcher is to use ALL of the available data (not cherry-picked studies that support your desired conclusion) and come to conclusions based on all available data. If the surgeon general actually conducted testing, I couldn’t find it in his report.
2) The argument against this is pretty simple – if you live in an area that has only one bowling alley, the alley allows smoking, and you don’t want to be exposed to smoking – take up hopscotch, right? I mean, I’m pretty familiar with the constitution, and nowhere in it are we guaranteed the right to go bowling. Bowling alleys are private businesses, and as such, should be allowed to choose their clients and business model – I guess I just don’t see the mandate for governments to treat private businesses as if they were an extension of the government based on the shifting preferences of the public.
3) Maybe I would have a different opinion here if I had someone close to me who was mentally or physically handicapped, but I just don’t buy this as the trump card for public policy – if we’re going to form public policy based on people who can’t choose for themselves, won’t we be taking away every other individual’s right to choose? In this case, what’s good for the goose is oppressive to the gander – so perhaps if ETS is really a concern for these people, then the organizations that care for them should either find a bowling alley that does not allow bowling or choose to let these individuals take part in another activity. Actually, come to think of it, in Pocatello, a little 40 minute drive away, you can bowl for cheap, smoke-free, in a public environment at ISU’s Pond Student Union Building. See, there’s really nothing to be worried about here – there is always another option. Isn’t America a beautiful place?
As a whole, you and I seem to agree on one basic premise – either ETS is a public health hazard, or it isn’t. I don’t want to seem unreasonable, so I’ll admit this – IF ETS does, indeed, kill 50,000 people every year, directly and clearly according to evidence, then we should regulate indoor smoking. However, if it doesn’t and the EPA study was closer at 3,000, then we should not regulate it – you, as a former debater, should know that if you lose Significance, you lose the debate. If it’s not a real problem, then there’s no need for a solution.
And I will re-state that not liking the smell or being bothered by cigarette smoke is not significant – dying because of someone else’s choices is.
So, let’s direct the discussion this way – I know you’re a smart girl and wouldn’t BS me, Ad, so if you want to convince me, convince me that ETS causes 50,000 deaths per year. That’s causes, not associated with. You know this already, but I’m a big fan of the whole “correlation does not imply causation” argument, so that’s your burden of proof.
Oh, it’s like being back at the salon, isn’t it?
You can’t compare carcinogens in meat to those in seconhand smoke because each person has to make a personal decision to put meat in their mouth not so with ETS. Please apply the same logical thinking you demand from others to your own arguments.
Okay, then throw it out. What about diesel emissions? Or is it illogical to compare smoke to smoke?
A study done in Italy last year already compared them, Jeremy.
They found that particulate matter concentration from 3 cigarettes, lit one at a time sequentially over a 30-minute span was 10 times more than that from a diesel engine idling for 30 minutes.
Alright, now we’re getting somewhere. Facts, not fear! Wonderful.
Okay, so now I’ve been debunked on outlawing diesel engines – so let’s tackle the elephant in the room: Conflicting and debunked reports about the significance of ETS. As I’ve shown, the major study of the last 20 years has been lambasted by critics and government committees, and that there are many, many studies that both suggest and deny the effects of ETS. So, we have two conclusions to draw – either ETS is significantly harmful, or it’s not. If studies show both to be true, which should we believe? The scientific method has one distinct advantage: continuity. The same process done over and over again will yield the same result – so why haven’t all of these studies come to the same conclusion?
“Okay, then throw it out. What about diesel emissions? Or is it illogical to compare smoke to smoke?”
No it is not. It’s a valid point and that is why I didn’t question that part of your argument because it was logical. I appologize my post did come off sounding a little condescending.
I’m on the fence when it comes to second hand smoke. I don’t MIND the smell (as a long ago former smoker sometimes I enjoy it) but I see where other people don’t like it being forced in their faces.
It’s like my dis-enjoyment of opening a knock on my front door and having a Book of Mormon forced into my face.
I get both sides is what I’m saying.
Having said THAT, I hope this hasn’t been talked about yet and I missed it – but – I heard yesterday on XM’s Air America (in the news) that a new study (sorry – can’t cite the source I was @ work and didn’t write it down) says that KIDS who are subjected to second-hand smoke score substantially lower on cognitive reasonaing tests than kids who are not so subjected. They also determined that the MORE a kid is subjected, his / her scores plummet in relation.
I’m just quoting what I heard – if I hear it again or find it on the internet I’ll give my source.
As you were.
I’ll post soon…promise. Life has just been too nuts right now. Why, you ask?
WE GOT THE VETO OVERRIDE!!!
As of July 1, bowling centers will be 100% smoke-free! How excited am I!?!
Anyway, I’ll get back to the real, substantial refutation soon. Thanks for the awesome discussion!
the tax on smoking is alot would it hurt economy if everyone quit.
The amount lost from the tax would be made up several times over by the savings in health care if everyone quit.
How would it hurt the economy? I believe cigarette taxes are used to fund government projects, not fuel the economy. Actually, a shift away from highly-taxed goods would be good for the economy as a whole, but bad for infrastructure.
Land of the
freeregulated.So ETS/SHS (whatever acronym you want to use) may be harmful…but in what concentrations? Most of the studies done have looked at people surrounded by ETS, people living with smoking spouses or employees who work in a smoke filled environment. Basically, these people have been exposed to higher concentrations over longer periods than your average Joe.
Also, indoor smoking bans are forcing smokers to smoke outside, which I think would increase the exposure of non-smokers to ETS, no? Before the ban occured in my neck of the woods I had a choice to enter an establishment where I would be exposed to smoke. After the ban, I was forced to walk past smokers lined up on the street and to inhale more ETS than I was previously exposed to. This might have more of an impact on urban vs. rural or suburban areas but it’s something to think about.
I find it very irratating, that when I do smoke…mind you only in a blue moon, by an entrance, and have to stand 20 feet away. Well, thats not a problem, what is, is that people walk by, and cough a fake cough, as though they are going to plop over right then and now. Phuuuuleeesssseee! I don’t want to offend anyone, nor do I want to take their health. I don’t smoke inside anyones home or place, even if I am offered that I can. Then, it’s funny to see some of these same people, getting into there gas guzzuling SUV’s, and pollute the air, many more times then all the smoke, smokers exhale. Come on, I knew when this all started, that it would go downhill like a snowball getting a bit too big for its britches. What more do people want. Why can’t they be satisfied that a person is smoking where they should, to stop this so called “Outside Second Hand Smoke” crisis. LOL! It sounds like a popular religious idea, around here. Please don’t tell me otherwise. I am onto it, period. Get over yourselves, and stop being hippocrites, to those who know they are.
i agree smoking should be band from people with kids
Interesting comments. I support the idea that I should have some say over whether someone is smoking in my “personal space” but how far does that space reach? If a restaurant decides to be a smoke-free environment and I don’t like smoke, then I can choose to support that restaurant and not the one who permits smoking. It just seems to those of us who have an issue with always being told by beltway bureaucrats how to live our lives, that we should have some choice in the matter. The no-smoking laws have taken our individual choices out of it. And I believe there are states that are trying to pass laws about whether or not you can smoke in a car with children and other more personal areas. If they get these laws passed in these states, Idaho will be next. After all, this all started with smoking in bars in California and now look where we are.
Didn’t I read somewhere that every casino in Las Vegas that tried to go smoke-free went broke? That tells me there are a lot less people making noise about the smoke issue than we are led to believe. The smokers, or the people who don’t mind smokers, appear to be the silent majority on this issue.
I understand the dangers of second hand smoke, and refuse to smoke around anyone especially children indoors. But as far as the outdoors goes, especially with the people coughing as they walk by just to make their point is rather mute, especially on a windy day. I think second hand smoke advocates are going to far, when they complain just because I am standing a good twenty feet away with a cigarette, then complain as they get into their gas guzzling and polluting SUVs and barrel down the road to make a mute point. Sounds hypocritical to me.
I don’t smoke, but I don’t for the life of me understand why a business can’t decide on it’s own whether or not it wants to allow smoking.
I have the right to choose which business I support, but the business can’t make those same decisions, doesn’t sound fair to me.
It’s just one more time that I support their rights even though it doesn’t really pertain to me because I don’t want all my rights taken away by the time they get to one that I care about.
I think you are missing the point completely. All of the studies do have one common fact in common. It’s inhaling ETS that is dangerous. They should ban inhaling. Oh…wait…
It always amazed me that people complain about SHS, but then get in their gas guzzling trucks, suvs and cars, and pollute our atmosphere. What hippocrates. I smoke outside at all times. And away from entry ways, at least 20 feet. When someone complains or does the infamous “Cough cough!”, I smile and say, don’t worry, you won’t die just yet. It will probably take a few years.
OK…I am a former longtime (25+ years) smoker, freed from the stupidity thereof for nearly 18 months now. I’ve been on both sides of the fence, seen and felt both sides and here, for better or worse, is MHO on this topic.
If people wish to smoke, they have every right. Though not specifically written intot eh Cinstitution, we all have a God given right to be stupid.
And because it has been scientifically proven that inhaling this smoke (first hand, second hand or both hands) is harmful, it shoudl also be the right of people to go anywhere and be FREE of it.
I think a good rule of thumb is, if I can’t smell it then I can’t inhale it to my detriment. So as long as you keep it away from me, you are free to do it where ever you like.
Remember…our freedoms are allowed so far as they do not impede on the rights of others. And that includes my right NOT to be subjected to the stupidity of smokers, of which I was one for many years.
PS…pardon the typos on the above entry…
I think a lot of people forget that people have as much a right to smoke as they do to be free of smoke.
If we could just all be a little more courteous to each other, there wouldn’t be a problem, and that goes for rude smokers and equally rude people who make a scene even if they are nowhere near the smoke.
Here’s to EVERYONE’S rights!
I was a smoker for 45+ years. I quit in January of 2008. I have absolutely no problem with people smoking near me. I actually feel that all the non-smokers are making a mountain out of a molehole with all their comments and rude remarks.
Since I quit smoking, I have had a whole host of medical problems. I gained 40 pounds, developed diabetes, my thyroid quit working, and because of the weight I am having trouble with my knees and hips. I am working on taking the weight off, but some of the medication that I am taking is making that quite difficult.
My point being, please all of you nonsmokers out there be more tolerant of the smokers. I actually try to get close to my neighbors when they are smoking outside.
In response to DJ “Remember…our freedoms are allowed so far as they do not impede on the rights of others. And that includes my right NOT to be subjected to the stupidity of smokers, of which I was one for many years.”
My gosh DJ, I’d like to get your list of rights!!! Everyday I’m annoyed and exposed to not so healthy environments. I could stub my toe on someone else s bed, get hit by a car, have a sky diver land on me. As I can see you are yet another SELFISH individual who believes the world should work around your convenience. The whole point of this article for me was to show you how people like yourself has distorted and UN-ETHICALLY driven public fear to discrimination. I wonder if Hitler is not your personal idle. He also drove peoples fear to discriminate others.
i smoked for 20 years and quit about 10 years ago, thankfully. i am now repulsed by the smell of it – on my clothes, on other people’s clothes, and in the air – even outdoors (20 feet ain’t far enough!).
but i also sympathize with the libertarian concept of free choice – as long as it doesn’t affect others’ free choice. banning tobacco smoking in public (not to mention the fuzzy line between what is considered a public place vs. private place) is a sticky issue as smokers’ liberties would be impaired. therefore, i am reluctant to jump on the legislative “ban smoking” bandwagon, but that is the ONLY reason.
despite any uneasiness i may have about smoking bans, i welcomed the ban in restaurants, etc. i’ve also come to the point that i wish the ban would extend to bars as well.
both before and after i quit smoking, i used to like going out to clubs for a few drinks to meet the local wildlife, take in some entertainment, and what-have-you. after i quit smoking, i figured smelly clothes and hair, was the price i had to pay to play. but that changed after i developed allergies to smoke. suddenly, i went from being a second-class citizen who willingly put up with smokers who could care less what non-smokers thought and felt, to a third-class citizen who has to suffer asthma like effects for hours afterwards if i want to go night-clubbing. so, for me (and i know my medical condition puts me in a small minority), smokers’ free choice and rights have curtailed MY free choice to breathe relatively clean air. if the tables were turned, at least THEY could go outside or into a smoking room for a few minutes then come back in. it’s not feasible for me to step out for a few minutes to catch my breath in between breaths. i guess i could wear a gas mask but i think that might hamper my sociability.
i know, jeremy’s remedy would be something like – go to vinno’s or the cellar. they have a smoke free establishment. hmm. not exactly the sort of places a blue collar dude like me would feel too comfortable. or he might say find something else to do for entertainment and socializing. what? join the church? sheeyah! not too fun for agnostics like me. and i surely don’t have the bread to go out and start my own smoke-free establishment.
bars may be private businesses, but the public, nonetheless, generally tend to occupy these spaces. while they may not be libraries or court rooms, they serve (and in some cases harm) the public by providing an atmosphere in which to socialize. therefore, the argument that the owners should be able to allow smoking if they so damn well please, doesn’t seem to be all that cut and dry. maybe it is – i don’t know – i am definitely biased about this issue.
at any rate, my point is that an across the board ban on smoking would give EVERYONE the privilege of enjoying relatively clean air – a level playing field, which we can’t have in enclosed spaces where smokers are free to smoke – and will smoke, by golly. certainly not a legislative priority, nor a constitutional imperative (maybe even a slippery-slope to socialism?), but it would sure be SSSWWWEEEEET! and i would support it whole-heartedly!
i thank you as i draw a long, deep, clean breath of air and wish i could do so while checking out my favorite band with some friends at the local watering hole…
What really gets my goat, is when I’m standing 20 feet away from an entrance to a public place, so that I am legally smoking, and someone walks by with a fake cough. Then says something rude regarding my smoking, and as soon as they are out of the place, they head to there gas guzzling SUVs and pollute the atmosphere. Sounds very hypocritical to me. I smoke because I enjoy it, not because I am hooked. I think the laws have gone far enough for us smokers. But I think it won’t be long for anti smokers to get their way, and smoking is banned all together.