2nd Hand Smoke, the Myth

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Name an Iraqi civilian killed by the war...no, too public, too easy to locate some names... Name a victim of the Rwandan genocide... See, just 'cause you can't name individual dead folks doesn't mean they aren't corpses...

I am not making any claims regarding Ruwanda. Let those who make the claims supply the names.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: brien I am not making any claims regarding Ruwanda. Let those who make the claims supply the names.

So let me get this straight, brien. You allege that no one has died from the effects of passive smoking? :eek:

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry So let me get this straight, brien. You allege that no one has died from the effects of passive smoking? :eek:

No PH. You making a leap of judgement here. I am only asking for those who make the claims of 38,000, or 58 000, or even 1,000, people dying every year from the effects of passive smoke, to furnish some names to support their claims.

I have, as I think you do, a healthy skepticism of government claims. I merely want the evidence to support their statistics. And I am not even asking for all of the names, merely some of them. Surely someone must have these names since they were used to compile the numbers. Do you think this irrational? Do you think this is unreasonable. Or should we merely take as gospel that thousands upon thousands of people die every year due to passive smoke. Surely if there are indeed this many, it should be relatively easy to provide the names of these victims.

[Fonceai]

@brien

Your argument is nothing new.

Name Three - Second Hand Smoke Nannies Are Unable to Supply a Single Victim's Name

Nobody's Business: Name Three Victims of Second-Hand Smoke

Valid points, but I found another answer.

The problem is in the Wiki link below. Second hand smoke doesn't necessarily cause cancer. But it can accelerate the already existing tendency for disease.

This is precisely what happened to my mother.

My grandmother has smoked for the past 60 years. Because of the nature of second-hand smoke, and because my mother helped her by doing her laundry for the past 10 years and otherwise being around her for the past 50, they think that it developed into Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia.

The trick with A.L.L. is that they don't know what causes it. 2nd Smoke is a possible cause, but they don't know for sure.

In the end, with many cases they never really know. The cause of death is listed as the cause of death. But they never really get into what caused the cause because they can't really know.

So to answer your question, and as evident in the links above and below, the problem is that it needs to be pursued as to what caused the cause. Not an easy thing.

---

Second-hand smoke and you
The effects of second hand smoke. Fairly objective writing; not appealing to emotion or anything like that.

Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wiki's take on it. Notice that they don't say that 2nd Smoke causes problems so much as it accelerates the appearance of problems that were already there (genetic proclivity for certain diseases, etc.).

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site
Lots of "death" numbers there.

Take all the sources with as large a grain of salt as you choose, but at least there are some sources for you, brien.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai @brien Your argument is nothing new. Name Three - Second Hand Smoke Nannies Are Unable to Supply a Single Victim's Name Nobody's Business: Name Three Victims of Second-Hand Smoke Valid points, but I found another answer. The problem is in the Wiki link below. Second hand smoke doesn't necessarily cause cancer. But it can accelerate the already existing tendency for disease. This is precisely what happened to my mother. My grandmother has smoked for the past 60 years. Because of the nature of second-hand smoke, and because my mother helped her by doing her laundry for the past 10 years and otherwise being around her for the past 50, they think that it developed into Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia. The trick with A.L.L. is that they don't know what causes it. 2nd Smoke is a possible cause, but they don't know for sure. In the end, with many cases they never really know. The cause of death is listed as the cause of death. But they never really get into what caused the cause because they can't really know. So to answer your question, and as evident in the links above and below, the problem is that it needs to be pursued as to what caused the cause. Not an easy thing. --- Second-hand smoke and you The effects of second hand smoke. Fairly objective writing; not appealing to emotion or anything like that. Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wiki's take on it. Notice that they don't say that 2nd Smoke causes problems so much as it accelerates the appearance of problems that were already there (genetic proclivity for certain diseases, etc.). Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site Lots of "death" numbers there. Take all the sources with as large a grain of salt as you choose, but at least there are some sources for you, brien.

Fonceai: All well and good, but since the government allegedes that 58,000 people per year die from 2nd hand smoke, there should be at least 1% of the names available That is 580 names. We have 3000 names for the dead from 911. We have 58,000 names dead from Viet Nam. Where are the names? Surely some government agency can provide the names if it can provide the stats. Someone had to compile and count the names.

Sorry, I just don't take for granted anything the government shoves across the table at me. Seen too many lies.

[Fonceai]

I completely agree with you.

If they have a number, they should have that many names.

The answer I got when I asked my mother's oncologist is that the answer is unknown. If they don't know the cause of a disease when the person gets it, and when they're dying of it, they sure aren't going to list the cause on the death certificate. They're going to list the disease.

I definitely understand your opinion.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai I completely agree with you. If they have a number, they should have that many names. The answer I got when I asked my mother's oncologist is that the answer is unknown. If they don't know the cause of a disease when the person gets it, and when they're dying of it, they sure aren't going to list the cause on the death certificate. They're going to list the disease. I definitely understand your opinion.

I am not asking merely to be correct. But rather, I ask merely out of curiosity and in all fairness to the claim being made by the government. I really would like to know. Someone, somehwere, must have these names if the make the claim with the numbers. This is only a logical question.

[RickSp]

You want a name?

Andy Kaufman. A gifted if odd commedian. Non-smoker, spent his adult career in smoky comedy clubs. Died of lung cancer at 35.

I think many of the government's figures are based on non-smokers who contract lung cancer. They all have names, even if I don't know them. There are other causes for lung cancer other than smoking - radon, for example. Nevertheless, second hand smoke is a likely candidate.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp You want a name? Andy Kaufman. A gifted if odd commedian. Non-smoker, spent his adult career in smoky comedy clubs. Died of lung cancer at 35. I think many of the government's figures are based on non-smokers who contract lung cancer. They all have names, even if I don't know them. There are other causes for lung cancer other than smoking - radon, for example. Nevertheless, second hand smoke is a likely candidate.

Thanks Rick. I understand that people who succumb to lung cancer have names. This is why I asked because I wanted to illustrate that these people aren't just numbers. They are human beings. They had lives and families. All I am writing about here is that I mistrust the government when it comes to their figures. How can they positively attribute lung cancer, to someone who never smoked, primarily to 2nd hand smoke. I think they maybe out on a limb there.

Kaufman worked in smoky clubs, for sure. For how long? Probably for about 8 hrs a day for about 15 years. How long does it take to contract lung cancer by breathing 2nd hand smoke? Smokers usually succumb to cancer from smoking cigarettes after about 25 to 30 years and up. Was there any lung cancer in Kaufman's family? Is lung cancer genetic? There are very good arguments for some cancers being genetic. Prostate for one. You see, I have so many questions when it comes to cancer that I will never stop asking them.

The government, it seems to me, is satisfied lumping suspicious deaths together for the purposes of funding their research. Then, citizens like you and I take their figures and are supposed to believe them, when in fact they may be inaccurate.

In any event, I have no doubt that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous. I merely have a healthy suspicion that some of the statistics used to bolster the argument are suspect in order to continue the taxpayer's funding of their research. If the government researchers don't get the results they require to continue the research, they sometimes manufacture them. I believe in cancer research, but I also believe in focusing the research in the correct direction as well. I am merely looking for truth in numbers.
.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

Complete and utter bullshit. I smoke, and I've never noticed any addictive properties.

[Fonceai]

Then quit.

Let us know how you feel those first couple days.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Fonceai Then quit. Let us know how you feel those first couple days.

Ok, Mr. Smartass. Tell me exactly what you mean by "quit". The first couple days of what?

[Fonceai]

You didn't understand that? Okay, I'll spell it out for you in crayon...

Quit smoking cold turkey.

Not a single cigarette ever again.

During your first couple days without cigarettes, report how you feel.

You don't feel the addictive properties because you smoke. Try quitting and you'll see what kind of hold the nicotine has on you.

[JohnMK]

This pertains:

Reason Magazine - H

The same study found that 32 percent of tobacco users had experienced substance dependence. Figures like that one are the basis for the claim that nicotine is "more addictive than heroin." After all, cigarette smokers typically go through a pack or so a day, so they're under the influence of nicotine every waking moment. Heroin users typically do not use their drug even once a day. Smokers offended by this comparison are quick to point out that they function fine, meeting their responsibilities at work and home, despite their habit. This, they assume, is impossible for heroin users. Examples like the businessman described by The New York Times indicate otherwise. Still, it's true that nicotine's psychoactive effects are easier to reconcile with the requirements of everyday life than heroin's are. Indeed, nicotine can enhance concentration and improve performance on certain tasks. So one important reason why most cigarette smokers consume their drug throughout the day is that they can do so without running into trouble. And because they're used to smoking in so many different settings, they may find nicotine harder to give up than a drug they use only with certain people in secret. In one survey, 57 percent of drug users entering a Canadian treatment program said giving up their problem substance (not necessarily heroin) would be easier than giving up cigarettes. In another survey, 36 heroin users entering treatment were asked to compare their strongest cigarette urge to their strongest heroin urge. Most said the heroin urge was stronger, but two said the cigarette urge was, and 11 rated the two urges about the same. In a sense, nicotine's compatibility with a wide range of tasks makes it more addictive than alcohol or heroin. But this is not the sort of thing people usually have in mind when they worry about addiction. Indeed, if it weren't for the health effects of smoking (and the complaints of bystanders exposed to the smoke), nicotine addiction probably would be seen as no big deal, just as caffeine addiction is. As alternative sources of nicotine that do not involve smoking (gum, patches, inhalers, beverages, lozenges, oral snuff) become popular not just as aids in quitting but as long-term replacements, it will be interesting to see whether they will be socially accepted. Once the health risks are dramatically reduced or eliminated, will daily consumption of nicotine still be viewed as shameful and déclassé, as a disease to be treated or a problem to be overcome? Perhaps so, if addiction per se is the issue. But not if it's the medical, social, and psychological consequences of addiction that really matter.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Fonceai You didn't understand that? Okay, I'll spell it out for you in crayon... Quit smoking cold turkey. Not a single cigarette ever again. During your first couple days without cigarettes, report how you feel. You don't feel the addictive properties because you smoke. Try quitting and you'll see what kind of hold the nicotine has on you.

Wow, you sure are presuming a lot, you presumptuous shit.

How the hell do you know how often I smoke? What makes you think that I don't know what happens after a few days of not smoking?

I wouldn't exactly be in a position to make the statement I made if I had never tried that, now would I?

Nicotine doesn't have any "hold" on me, or for that matter, many other smokers that I know. We can smoke 1 cigarrette a minute or 1 a year, it makes no difference. There is no addiction.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: Fonceai You don't feel the addictive properties because you smoke.

If I recall correctly, he doesn't smoke daily. That quite aside, everyone's addiction potential is different. You will find some people who can become addicted to pretty much anything and everything. Others have a more stoic neurobiology and will be relatively immune to some or most addictive processes. Naturally you are making generalities and I understand that -- perhaps you should be more clear, however.

[Nathan Struth]

Cigarretes cause lung cancer but you have the choice to endanger your life morgan. I'm sorry that you have to get lung cancer, nearly everyone does who smokes. I cry for my grandpa who got it because he smoked cigars and cigarretes. These things are horrible for you why do you want to endanger your life?!?!?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Nathan Struth Cigarretes cause lung cancer but you have the choice to endanger your life morgan. I'm sorry that you have to get lung cancer, nearly everyone does who smokes. I cry for my grandpa who got it because he smoked cigars and cigarretes. These things are horrible for you why do you want to endanger your life?!?!?

Maybe I should never drive a car too. That's pretty life-endangering.

[JohnMK]

Nicotine itself is usually quite harmless: it's the cigarettes that are problematic

For what it's worth, I have seen anecdotal reports that nicotine patches are helpful in treating ADHD.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Morgan Wow, you sure are presuming a lot, you presumptuous shit. How the hell do you know how often I smoke? What makes you think that I don't know what happens after a few days of not smoking? I wouldn't exactly be in a position to make the statement I made if I had never tried that, now would I? Nicotine doesn't have any "hold" on me, or for that matter, many other smokers that I know. We can smoke 1 cigarrette a minute or 1 a year, it makes no difference. There is no addiction.

Nice.

Other than the problematic comment, you're the one who generalized.

When you say "I smoke" you failed to specify the frequency. Since we are talking about smokers as people who smoke with a degree of regularity multiple times a day, I'm making a logical presumption based on your lack of information.

Either you didn't think to include more information, or you were intentionally trying to be misleading. Either way, it falls on you.

Since you claim nicotine isn't addicting, prove it.

Quote by: JohnMK Naturally you are making generalities and I understand that -- perhaps you should be more clear, however.

Only made them in response to vagueness.

I agree that nicotine is harmless other than the addictive properties. But Morgan, through his "presumptuous shit" comment, is infering that nicotine isn't addictive at all.