Outlawing smoking in the home

[jefferiah]

I am sure Betsy knows smoking is not healthy. She is just saying she does not believe that second hand smoke is the terror some people make it out to be. I don't agree with her, but I do think that there are people who do make it worse than it is. But it is definitely unhealthy. I think when they say it is worse than actually smoking they are not being rational though. Smoke from the end of the cigarette is stronger than filtered smoke, but a smoker is inhaling clouds directly through a tube, whereas second hand smoke scatters. Second hand smokers cannot exhale clouds of smoke. But I know that it is unhealthy and I think smokers should step outside, especially if there are children in the house. And the public smoking ban has been a great thing. Alot of smokers even agree now. I know a lot of smokers who smoke alot less now and find it more enjoyable not to be in a smoke saturated atmosphere.

But as for the advertising. The tobacco companies can no longer say smoking is healthy. Its been like this for years. They have warnings on their product. But people still choose to do so. And I dont see why they cant have taste or pleasure related ads to promote it.

[gc1765]

Read my lips: I do not buy into that second-hand smoke bull. I don’t believe it is the “terror” that you and the anti-smoking busy bodies say it is. Anymore than I believe in your other god, Kyoto.

You don't think that second hand smoke is harmful?

Wow, now that's denial!

[Drea]

Alcohol is definetly harmful but have you seen those sexy Bailey's ads? Blatantly showing people injesting booze and marshmallows (at the same time!) and enjoying it! The shame!

I bet every 15 year old in Canada has run out to stand behind the liquor store and beg for someone to buy them a bottle of Baileys. Advertising is vewwy vewwy powewful!

[BubberMiley]

As a former child, I can tell you right now: Camels dont make you want to try smoking. Thats ridiculous. Its just an ad. And I think businesses should have the right to advertise their product. If they advertise cigarettes as being pleasurable and having great taste I think that is just business.

First you say it's ridiculous that an ad would have any effect on a person's decision-making process. Then you say it's business to say a product is pleasurable and has great taste. Why is it business if the ad has no effect? They must be wasting their money then, which is bad business.

[B. Max]

Read my lips: I do not buy into that second-hand smoke bull. I don’t believe it is the “terror” that you and the anti-smoking busy bodies say it is. Anymore than I believe in your other god, Kyoto.

You don't think that second hand smoke is harmful?

Wow, now that's denial!

Actually the anti smoking industry has history of misrepresenting the studies and out right fraud and corruption.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

[gc1765]

Actually the anti smoking industry has history of misrepresenting the studies and out right fraud and corruption.

If the studies have been misrepresented it doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is harmful.

[B. Max]

Actually the anti smoking industry has history of misrepresenting the studies and out right fraud and corruption.

If the studies have been misrepresented it doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is harmful.

If the studies don't indicate that how can it be harmful.

[gc1765]

If the studies don't indicate that how can it be harmful.

There are enough legitimate studies out there that prove it is harmful. There is enough information out there that there's not much more I can contribute. I thought it was pretty much common sense. Here's a link to get you started: Link . I'm sure you can find lots more on Google.

[B. Max]

If the studies don't indicate that how can it be harmful.

There are enough legitimate studies out there that prove it is harmful. There is enough information out there that there's not much more I can contribute. I thought it was pretty much common sense. Here's a link to get you started: Link . I'm sure you can find lots more on Google.

It's not a matter of legitimate studies, the studies are all the same studies. It's a matter of what the anti smoking industry claim they say. The WHO hid their first study until the british news papers found out about it and hounded it out of them.

I guess you didn't read the link I posted. The judge threw out the EPA claim that tobacco smoke was a class A carcinogen. The fraud continues to be perpetrated that it is.

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."

[gc1765]

It's not a matter of legitimate studies, the studies are all the same studies. It's a matter of what the anti smoking industry claim they say. The WHO hid their first study until the british news papers found out about it and hounded it out of them.

I guess you didn't read the link I posted. The judge threw out the EPA claim that tobacco smoke was a class A carcinogen. The fraud continues to be perpetrated that it is.

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."

I read your link. Not sure if you read mine. Your link (which I've never heard of, and therefore has questionable credibility) claims to refute an EPA report from 1992. My link references studies much more recent, which to my knowledge have not been refuted. The National Cancer Institute is a very reputable source, and they claim the following:

# What are the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke?

Secondhand smoke exposure is a known risk factor for lung cancer (1, 3, 4, 6, 7). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). Secondhand smoke is also linked to nasal sinus cancer (1, 4). Some research suggests an association between secondhand smoke and cancers of the cervix, breast, and bladder. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link to these cancers (3, 4, 8).

Secondhand smoke is also associated with the following noncancerous conditions:

* Chronic coughing, phlegm, and wheezing (4, 6).

* Chest discomfort (4).

* Lowered lung function (4, 6).

* Severe lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, in children (4, 6).

* More severe asthma and increased chance of developing asthma in children (6).

* Eye and nose irritation (4).

* Severe and chronic heart disease (4).

* Middle ear infections in children (4, 6).

* Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (4).

* Low birthweight or small size at birth for babies of women exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy (4).

Certain other noncancerous health conditions may also be associated with secondhand smoke. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link between these conditions and secondhand smoke. These conditions include:

* Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) (4).

* Adverse effect on cognition and behavior in children (4).

* Worsening of cystic fibrosis (a disease that causes excessive mucus in the lungs

Do you have any evidence that the National Cancer Institute (or for that matter the refrences contain within) is presenting facts that are not correct?

[B. Max]

It's not a matter of legitimate studies, the studies are all the same studies. It's a matter of what the anti smoking industry claim they say. The WHO hid their first study until the british news papers found out about it and hounded it out of them.

I guess you didn't read the link I posted. The judge threw out the EPA claim that tobacco smoke was a class A carcinogen. The fraud continues to be perpetrated that it is.

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."

I read your link. Not sure if you read mine. Your link (which I've never heard of, and therefore has questionable credibility) claims to refute an EPA report from 1992. My link references studies much more recent, which to my knowledge have not been refuted. The National Cancer Institute is a very reputable source, and they claim the following:

# What are the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke?

Secondhand smoke exposure is a known risk factor for lung cancer (1, 3, 4, 6, 7). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). Secondhand smoke is also linked to nasal sinus cancer (1, 4). Some research suggests an association between secondhand smoke and cancers of the cervix, breast, and bladder. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link to these cancers (3, 4, 8).

Secondhand smoke is also associated with the following noncancerous conditions:

* Chronic coughing, phlegm, and wheezing (4, 6).

* Chest discomfort (4).

* Lowered lung function (4, 6).

* Severe lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, in children (4, 6).

* More severe asthma and increased chance of developing asthma in children (6).

* Eye and nose irritation (4).

* Severe and chronic heart disease (4).

* Middle ear infections in children (4, 6).

* Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (4).

* Low birthweight or small size at birth for babies of women exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy (4).

Certain other noncancerous health conditions may also be associated with secondhand smoke. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link between these conditions and secondhand smoke. These conditions include:

* Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) (4).

* Adverse effect on cognition and behavior in children (4).

* Worsening of cystic fibrosis (a disease that causes excessive mucus in the lungs

Do you have any evidence that the National Cancer Institute (or for that matter the refrences contain within) is presenting facts that are not correct?

They are part of the anti smoking industry, what would one expect them to say. I see they are still quoting in part at least the link I posted about the EPA.

In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

The fact is there is no such way and no such study that has or can determine that.

[B. Max]

This is also a new one to me. Not surprising though. It's typical of the fraud and corruption with the anti smoking industry.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/ets-whop/files/finn.htm

[gc1765]

They are part of the anti smoking industry, what would one expect them to say. I see they are still quoting in part at least the link I posted about the EPA.

The National Cancer Institute and the National Institues of Health are part of the anti-smoking industry? The NIH is the foremost organization for medical research. I can't think of a more credible source than that, can you?

In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

The fact is there is no such way and no such study that has or can determine that.

In the references in the link I provided, they say there is a 12-19% increase in risk due to second hand smoke. I imagine it's not too hard to figure out how many people die each year of lung cancer, and how many people are exposed to second hand smoke. Simple arithmetic would give the number of deaths per year from second hand smoke.

EDIT: Oh and that's just for lung cancer. For heart disease it's 25-35%, etc.....

[B. Max]

They are part of the anti smoking industry, what would one expect them to say. I see they are still quoting in part at least the link I posted about the EPA.

The National Cancer Institute and the National Institues of Health are part of the anti-smoking industry? The NIH is the foremost organization for medical research. I can't think of a more credible source than that, can you?

In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

The fact is there is no such way and no such study that has or can determine that.

In the references in the link I provided, they say there is a 12-19% increase in risk due to second hand smoke. I imagine it's not too hard to figure out how many people die each year of lung cancer, and how many people are exposed to second hand smoke. Simple arithmetic would give the number of deaths per year from second hand smoke.

EDIT: Oh and that's just for lung cancer. For heart disease it's 25-35%, etc.....

They can say what ever they want and do. But here is an actual study. There are around seventy if I remember correctly.

http://www.data-yard.net/39/cabin.pdf

[gc1765]

They can say what ever they want and do. But here is an actual study. There are around seventy if I remember correctly.

http://www.data-yard.net/39/cabin.pdf

There were "actual studies" in the references of the link I provided.

From your link:

Our mortality data showed a decrease in all-cancer

mortality, which contrasts with the findings from studies of

Nordic cabin crews (2–4), where the SIR for cancer was

slightly increased. However, the precision of published SIR

and SMR estimates (including ours) is still rather low. It

currently seems premature to conclude that cabin crews have

an overall cancer risk which is materially different from that

of the general population, since this cohort is very young and

further follow-up is needed.

The authors computed standardized mortality ratios

(SMRs) for specific causes of death using German population rates.

Your study compares the mortality rates with the general population, which also inhales second hand smoke. Nor does the article mention anything about how much they are exposed to second hand smoke. It also mentions that the SMR for cancer is 0.71 which is less than the general population. Either there is some factor that contributes to a decrease in cancer among cabin attendants (and don't tell me second hand smoke prevents cancer ) or else the error is high. Considering the study I provided showed only a 12-19% increase for cancer, and your "study" shows a 29% decrease (or 29% error, unless there is some other factor involved) the increase in mortality from second hand smoke is well within the experimental error of your study.

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.

[geoffrey]

Cigarette smoke is carcinogenic, there is no other reason needed to ban it in public areas. This is proven, there are chemicals in cigarettes that do cause cancer, bottom line.

I don't feel like I, or anyone else, should be exposed to poision unwillingly. If people want to smoke, do so, but away from anyone that doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Does that include kids in the house? I say absolutely. If your so lazy that you can't smoke outside so instead your children are stuck in a carcinogenic cloud, your not suitable to be a parent.

If you want to say there is no evidence, then fine, don't ban it. But allow lawsuits from kids latter on when they get cancer from the exposure.

Should we bring back smoking in the classroom too B.Max?

I can't believe there are still people in the world that think smoking is harmless.

[betsy]

I am not saying smoking is harmless. I am not saying second-hand smoke is harmless.

But I do not believe that second-hand smoke is the ONLY CAUSE...and the ONLY CONTRIBUTING FACTOR....in all these respiratory illnesses and cancers.

Why is asthma not on every child who grew up in a smoking environment? I grew up...and had worked for a time serving in a bar, at a time when nobody had even thought of smoking as dangerous. The bar was so heavy in smoke it was "foggy."

Who knows, maybe when someone was pregnant....yeah, they were smoking at home...BUT they were also spraying air freshener often, changing dusty kitty litter box, living stressful lives, eating unhealthy, staying in front of that glow from the tv...etc.., Who knows? Are we liable for poor genes?

What the anti-smoking busy bodies are doing is targetting a segment and irresponsibly concluding using medical studies that are refuted by other medical studies. If there are other medical studies refuting the findings, it means NOTHING IS CONCLUSIVE! It needs further...and more extensive studies!

The anti-smoking busy bodies do not want to accept any questions They are only focused on the accomplishment of their agenda....because it is only determined to do one thing...dictate! And legislate! IRRESPONSIBLY and CASUALLY TAMPERING WITH OUR RIGHTS!

[betsy]

I think some of the other people here who are against these suggestion for legislation and banning will agree with me that our main concern is the way SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS such as the anti-smoking busy bodies....are irresponsibly and casually playing around with our rights!

[betsy]

Substance used in making hotdogs and sausages (is it sodium nitrate?) had always been said to be a cancer-causing agent since when I was a child...and yet it is still being used. And who eat hotdogs much more often than anyone else?

If society will legislate and make it a criminal offense to smoke around children for the reason that they are harming their children indirectly .....then I guess feeding your child hotdogs, KNOWING it causes cancer, constitutes to a DELIBERATE criminal act: premeditated attempted murder (for those who have not died of cancer YET)....and murder in the first degree for those who had already croaked!

Have there been any lawsuits against parents by children so far regarding this diet of hotdogs?

Btw, I could swear some parents are deliberately trying to get rid of unwanted children when you see fat and obese children stuffing their faces with french fries and chix nuggets at fast food outlets...with the parents looking on so lovingly. There may be a future term for this: parenting "abortion."

Maybe 10 to 20 years from now, we'll have lawsuits over those chips and cheetos parents stuffed down their childrens' throats....trans fat death traps!

[betsy]

Now, let's take a look at Mom's cosmetics and toiletries and other feely-goody items!

A lot of possible asthma inducers in there! Aerosol hair spray (gee, have you smelled the stink in some of those?)...perfumes and colognes (again, where were they actually made?)....

Anything that is touted to smell good...and making you inhale deeply to appreciate the scent.....are possible suspects!

FEBREEZE! And other room fresheners!

CANDLES! INCENSE!

Aromatherapy items!

The list goes on....

There was already a tv segment that talked of scent sprays for rooms to be causing some illneses. And a lot of moms usually use room fresheners in their childrens' room...where it need it the most! I guess they should be right there along with cigarettes to be banned from your homes!

Cigarettes had been around for decades...but the alarming rise in asthma only happened what, 10 or 20 years ago? I'm willing to bet....the possible cause or triggering factor lies in the other items that we started using around that time. Air fresheners is high on my list!

[betsy]

If you are going to tamper with our rights...using childrens' health as an excuse.....then, at least BE CONSISTENT about it.

Make it thorough!

At least then, we can really say that we've sacrificed and given up our rights for a real reason. It's easier to swallow that way...how bitter the pill may be.

That is, IF the real goal is childrens' health.

[Drea]

Betsy rocks!

[geoffrey]

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..

[B. Max]

Cigarette smoke is carcinogenic, there is no other reason needed to ban it in public areas. This is proven, there are chemicals in cigarettes that do cause cancer, bottom line.

I don't feel like I, or anyone else, should be exposed to poision unwillingly. If people want to smoke, do so, but away from anyone that doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Does that include kids in the house? I say absolutely. If your so lazy that you can't smoke outside so instead your children are stuck in a carcinogenic cloud, your not suitable to be a parent.

If you want to say there is no evidence, then fine, don't ban it. But allow lawsuits from kids latter on when they get cancer from the exposure.

Should we bring back smoking in the classroom too B.Max?

I can't believe there are still people in the world that think smoking is harmless.

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.

[jdobbin]

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