Outlawing smoking in the home

[B. Max]

I don't make the rules Geoffrey I'm telling you the facts. If you don't like the facts it's no reason to rip on me. Go out and change the rules. Until then the fact remains second hand smoke is not a class A carcinogen. I'll agree on one point and that is to much smoking is bad for you, but there is no evidence second hand smoke based on the studies is any significant risk.

The EPA in the States says second hand smoke is a class A carcinogen.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/s...ir/index_e.html

Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.

Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

[B. Max]

Can you find a study that is more focused on second hand smoke? There's probably thousands of them out there, and I imagine there must be at least a few which support your case, even if the vast majority show that secondhand smoke is harmful.

I don't know what is all here for studies but have a look. It's been years since I was looking at studies.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/financial-ties/index.htm

[betsy]

I don't make the rules Geoffrey I'm telling you the facts. If you don't like the facts it's no reason to rip on me. Go out and change the rules. Until then the fact remains second hand smoke is not a class A carcinogen. I'll agree on one point and that is to much smoking is bad for you, but there is no evidence second hand smoke based on the studies is any significant risk.

The EPA in the States says second hand smoke is a class A carcinogen.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/s...ir/index_e.html

But there are also clinical studies that says it doesn't make that much of a difference. It's not a matter of how many says what and who says boo!

As long as it's being refuted by other medical studies...it is NOT CONCLUSIVE!

[betsy]

Won't work with me there Betsy, I think those that fill their kids full of transfat and carcinogenic foods (like the hot dogs) are equally irresponsible.

Let's face it, kids don't have a choice in the air they breath and the food they eat. It's up to their parents to make wise choices, and unfortunately, many parents don't. That's why we have a massive obesity epidemic in the Western world.

It's a crisis and needs to be dealt with.

Parental irresponsibility goes beyond just smoking in the home, it involves those XBOX's, hot dogs, ect. ect..

Irresponsibility.

Turning around to yell at kids fighting in the back of your car, while you're driving...is an irresponsible act!

Drinking coffee...chatting on your cell phone...while driving with your kids in the back...is irresponsible!

Believe me, I also saw a dad busily picking on his nose while doing so....

So where do we stop?

Do we start legislating for every little thing? I mean...they all involve kids' safety/health...and kids have no control over those actions.

[LonJowett]

As long as it's being refuted by other medical studies...it is NOT CONCLUSIVE!

You can always find someone, backed by the tobacco industry, to refute the studies. Even if it isn't conclusive, that's no excuse for jeopardizing children's health just for the convenience of smoking indoors. Anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves.

[Riverwind]

But there are also clinical studies that says it doesn't make that much of a difference. It's not a matter of how many says what and who says boo!

Frankly, even if the dangers of second hand smoke have not been proven conclusively there is enough evidence that any responsible parent would not expose their children to tobacco smoke just to be safe. A parent that puts satisfying their drug addiction ahead of the welfare of their children is an unfit parent. The only question with this issue is whether it is practical to single out smoking since, as others have pointed out, there are many other things that bad parents do that we have no intentions of passing laws to prevent.

[betsy]

Be careful on tampering with rights. We just might get what we never really bargained for.

We just might make it so easy for the next government...or whoever sits in power...to tweak it some more.

Heaven forbid that someone takes the notion to fight to ban promiscuous sex and make it an offense to have sex without the use of condoms....to prevent the spread of AIDS!

Or to ban drug users from having any children at all!

Do I hear a collective gasp from the left?

[betsy]

As long as it's being refuted by other medical studies...it is NOT CONCLUSIVE!

You can always find someone, backed by the tobacco industry, to refute the studies. Even if it isn't conclusive, that's no excuse for jeopardizing children's health just for the convenience of smoking indoors. Anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves.

You can always find someone to back the lefties' agenda!

[jefferiah]

I think somewhere between the rudest of smokers who dont even try to be considerate about their smoking and do not extinguish cigarettes when asked politely by the parents of a severe asthmatic in a restaurant and the equally militant extreme anti-smokers there is a happy medium. Alot of smokers I know are very considerate of others, while some seem ignorant of how annoying it can be for non-smokers. Also I find many anti-smokers make a big a deal about the slightest whiff of smoke. In an enclosed place with multiple people smoking it can be very very overwhelming-a house more so than a bar. I know many smokers who would agree with this. But things are pretty good now. It was only a decade ago when smoking was anywhere and everywhere. Malls, bars, stores.....you name it. So once in a while if a friend who smokes picks me up to go for a coffee and they crack their window for a puff, its not so unbearable and I dont get all worried about my health because as I said....ten years ago smoke was everywhere.

[Riverwind]

I dont get all worried about my health because as I said....ten years ago smoke was everywhere.

The change only happened because of the 'anti-smoking' zealots. We would still be suffering in smoke if the radicals had not been willing to demand change. IOW what is the happy medium today used to be the territory of the anti-tobacco extremist.

[jefferiah]

Good point Riverwind I dont have any argument with that. But I think now there are some examples of almost phobic revulsion against tobacco smoke, comparable to germaphobia. A little bit of smoke now and again isnt the end of the world. Smokers inhale smoke directly from cigarettes daily for years and years and years. Having to put up with a smoker in a doorway, or put up with a smoker once in a while is not going to kill you.

[jefferiah]

There is point at which the battle for good health is good and healthy, and also a point at which trying to control your environment so as to eliminate all toxins becomes obsessive.

[Riverwind]

There is point at which the battle for good health is good and healthy, and also a point at which trying to control your environment so as to eliminate all toxins becomes obsessive.

Agreed. However, we have moved beyond simply ensuring a smoke free environment to changing the social attitudes towards smoking in general. It is quite possible that some smokers faced with ever increasing social stigmas and harassment will make the choice to give up the habit entirely or not start in the first place. I agree that this harassment seems incredibly petty at times, however, petty harassment is infinitely preferable to prohibition which is the route we followed with other socially undesirable substances.

[Posit]

Substituting emotional conjecture for fact is neither "good" nor "healthy". The fact is there has never been ANY medical study that has linked second hand smoke to health problems. Legislating what we do in our homes out of someone else's fears is neither moral or democratic nor helpful towards those we are pretending to protect. Really the issue is about the anti-smoking lobby using emotional blackmail to enlist legislators to make laws where none is warranted. The same blackmail is used by the anti-abortion camps to assert religious priviledge over personal freedom.

[betsy]

It's winter time now, guys. Anybody noticed how those skidoos really belch up those awful smelling fumes?

I'll be taking license numbers, and if possible also names. Any future busy-body groups that want to focus on "skidoo belchers" can contact me for the list.

I'll be on the look-out for every kid walking by my house and see if they are dressed properly for the season! A lot of kids start sounding like seals during winter when they cough! They give me the creeps.

I'll be taking down names and addresses. Any future busy-body groups that wants to focus on "winter dress-up" can contact me for the list.

[BubberMiley]

The fact is there has never been ANY medical study that has linked second hand smoke to health problems.

The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. There are tons of studies that make that link.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in its 2002 Monograph on tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke that that "there is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to second-hand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans” and makes the overall evaluation that “Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)." http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

[BubberMiley]

It's scary that Betsy operates a daycare.

[betsy]

It's scary that Betsy operates a daycare.

If your kid ever comes to my daycare...and his eyes are rolling around like marbles around his head...I'll be giving your name and address to the busy-body group that wants to focus on "stoned parents!"

So yeah, I'd say you should be scared!

[Who's Doing What?]

I think we need to "hotbox" Betsy with some chronic, and see if she still thinks second hand smoke is harmless. As soon as she stops giggling we could ask her.

[betsy]

I think we need to "hotbox" Betsy with some chronic, and see if she still thinks second hand smoke is harmless. As soon as she stops giggling we could ask her.

Bwahahaha! Now you really got me laughing!

You guys are really serious....bwahahaha!

[Who's Doing What?]

I think we need to "hotbox" Betsy with some chronic, and see if she still thinks second hand smoke is harmless. As soon as she stops giggling we could ask her.

Bwahahaha! Now you made me giggle some more!

You guys are really serious....bwahahaha!

Don't munch out too much.

[betsy]

I think we need to "hotbox" Betsy with some chronic, and see if she still thinks second hand smoke is harmless. As soon as she stops giggling we could ask her.

Bwahahaha! Now you made me giggle some more!

You guys are really serious....bwahahaha!

Don't munch out too much.

I ain't munching! I'm drinking! Red wine! Bwahahahaha!

[Posit]

The fact is you don't know what you're talking about. There are tons of studies that make that link.

The fact is there are NONE. The conclusions of lobby groups...like the EPA.... do not make a "medical study". They merely present an "opinion without basis".

I suggest that you start reading some of the literature you cite. There is NO medical study linking second hand smoke with any illness. That is a fact!

[B. Max]

As long as it's being refuted by other medical studies...it is NOT CONCLUSIVE!

You can always find someone, backed by the tobacco industry, to refute the studies. Even if it isn't conclusive, that's no excuse for jeopardizing children's health just for the convenience of smoking indoors. Anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves.

Wait until you find out who was behind the anti smoking industry.

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/224.html

[jdobbin]

Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.

Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

Judge Osteen's decision was overturned.