"Bridgewater considering ban on smoking on sidewalks, in cars"

[Winter wind]

The fact is, only 5% of people who smoke themselves with get lung cancer. They like to embellish this, twist this, by saying 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking, but still, only 5% of smokers actually get it. So you really think second smoke, from breathing in half a whisp of smoke from a nearby smoker, on occassion is damaging? Hardly.

What study?

I'm getting 1 in 10 will get lung cancer if they've smoked ever in their life and 1 in 6 will get lung cancer if they're still smoking.

Villeneuve PJ, Mao Y (1994). "Lifetime probability of developing lung cancer, by smoking status, Canada". Canadian journal of public health. Revue canadienne de santé publique 85 (6)

Plus, lung cancer isn't the only way you can die.

Kidney cancer, larynx cancer, head, neck, breast, bladder, esophagus, pancreas, and stomach. (these are proven, not just "maybe"s)

1) American Legacy Foundation factsheet on lung cancer; their cited source is: CDC (Centers for Disease Control) The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2004.
2) Lipworth L, Tarone RE, McLaughlin JK. The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2006 Dec;176 (6 Pt 1):2353-8. PMID 17085101
3) Cui Y, Miller AB, Rohan TE. Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: update of a prospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Dec;100(3):293-9. PMID 16773435
4) Calle EE, Miracle-McMahill HL, Thun MJ, Heath CW. Cigarette smoking and risk of fatal breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1994 May 15;139(10):1001-7. PMID 8178779
5) Kuper H, Boffetta P, Adami HO. Tobacco use and cancer causation: association by tumour type. J Intern Med. 2002 Sep;252(3):206-24. PMID 12270001

Then their are other things excluding cancer.

stroke, bronchitis, increased risk of Alzheimer's, the list goes on. I would touch on them but i have to get to class.
bye.

[another day]

My source is a nurse. 1 in 10 might be more right. But still, that's only 10% and thats people who actually smoked.

The idea that you are in any danger from a whiff of smoke from someone smoking at a bus stop, is ridiculous. People need to stop the false health card and just admit that it's annoying and uncomfortable to them. But so what if it is? People wearing harsh perfume are annoying and uncomfortable to those around them. Some people suffer extreme allergies to perfume/cologne and it affects their health to be around wearers. Do you suggest we ban the wearing of perfume in all public places?

[Praxius]

Quote by: another day The residents of bridgewater had a pretty dumb plan for a protest. They gathered on the bridge that was to be the only legal place for smoking, and smoked there. Where's the protest in that? Smoke on the streets, where they are trying to ban it, duh.

lol... they were trying to show the public just how stupid it would look.... if people think someone smoking out in public looks tacky, imagine what the town would look like to tourists when you have hundreds of people piling on the bridges to smoke?

Speaking of tourists, exactly how does one issue a ticket to someone from France who smokes everywhere they go for the most part?

He'll get a pissy, blow some smoke in the officer's face and say something in french, and before you know it, he's down on the ground getting tasered by several mounties.

Oh the Humanity!

[Real Thing 2007]

grandpa - if you've read my bio on the introductions thread you might guess that I'm more than a little sympathetic to ideas like "corporate industry is evil".

Certainly corporate industry can be "evil" - it doesn't have to be "evil", it isn't necessarily inherently "evil", but a person would have to be either hopelessly naive or willfully blinded to reality if they cannot see that multinational corporate culture has been dominated by ruthless, machiavellian "the ends justify the means and the end is my greed" mentality. As illustrated yet again by this scandal in Alaska:

Tales of oil industry's influence in Alaska | csmonitor.com

I have to say, however, that I'm very disappointed and disillusioned about some of the anti-corporate, anti-consumerist, public health and social justice movements I've been involved with since I was a teen. I'm disgusted by the realization that some groups and organizations in these movements have adopted exactly the same machiavellian "ends justify the means" attitude & behaviour as the corporate monsters they've claimed to be opposing.

Adbusters, as an example, now has it's own line of products (!), runs a PR & advertising agency and openly colludes with government agencies in creating social control media campaigns. Some public health/ health promotion and environmental protection organizations have blatantly adopted the mass-media manipulation techniques of industry, routinely mislead or lie to the public and even commission "research studies" that have nothing to do with advancing scientific knowledge but everything to do with propaganda!

SIGH!

It's getting harder & harder to find people you can trust or causes you can believe in, it seems to me...

[Real Thing 2007]

Quote by: Winter wind Thank God. It is one thing to load yourself up with that crap, but it is quite another to threaten those around you. The Libertarian argument is moot, because you are depriving others to the right to life in someways as you fill the air with poisons. Second hand smoking is not a myth.

I've been smoking for 30 years. Please post a listing, here, of the names of the people who have been harmed by my smoking. If you cannot do this, please refrain from slandering me by accusing me of "depriving others to the right to life". That kind of baseless crapola accusation is called "blood libel" and is a tactic historically employed by bigots and genocidal maniacs.

Quote by: Winter wind persecution my butt, the smokers I know aren't the working class, it's the kids that were too cool to follow rules. I'm not saying all smokers are evil (as my dad is one), but the danger they pose to those around is real.

If you know of a smoker whosesmoking has provably harmed other people, why don't you post that person's name and a list of his/her victims here? It's easy to claim that unnamed members of a social minority are causing harm to unidentified members of other social groups - but can you back that up with real names of real people?

[Real Thing 2007]

Quote by: Praxius Actually I think it's a bit more hard core then that. I believe every human requires some sort of vice. Be that Coffee, Tobacco, Alcohol, Weed, Crack, Chocolate, Sex, Coin Collections, etc. Ask anybody and usually you will hear them list off one or two things they usually need everyday to get through..... it's the one thing that you know can't screw up in the day.... that one thing that takes away the stresses you encounter.

Yup.

Every humanbeing is a dopamine addict - that's a hardwired process inherent to how our brains work. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter linked to the experience of "pleasure" and happiness. Everyone is addicted to their own personal means of triggering dopamine "rush". People who cannot generate sufficient dopamine release become self-destructive and suicidal.

What's annoying to me, is the fraudulent self-righteousness of some people who get their dopamine rush from attempting to bully and control the lives of other people in their society, looking down on and judging other people who use substances to stimulate exactly the same dopamine release experience.

[Winter wind]

I've been smoking for 30 years. Please post a listing, here, of the names of the people who have been harmed by my smoking.

I'll get right on that boss...
But seriously, I'm not make a crusade against those who smoke.

If you cannot do this, please refrain from slandering me by accusing me of "depriving others to the right to life". That kind of baseless crapola accusation is called "blood libel" and is a tactic historically employed by bigots and genocidal maniacs.

Whoa, don't take my flaming personally. Second hand smoking is not a myth though. You should check it out. I mean, you got the right to smoke, but it would be better if you checked out the stuff inside the cigarette and made sure where the smoke was going.

If you know of a smoker whosesmoking has provably harmed other people, why don't you post that person's name and a list of his/her victims here? It's easy to claim that unnamed members of a social minority are causing harm to unidentified members of other social groups - but can you back that up with real names of real people?

Well I could start with a friend from seventh grade. His father smoked and he got addicted to smoke before he ever started. Loved the smell, so he began smoking. I'm not giving his name just cause this is the internet. Oh and by the by, I'm not railing against poor people because the kid and his family had a duplex apartment that would stun even the people who build Beverly Hills houses.

I'm not saying your a killer or something, but I would say you should be conscious of what the cigarette can do.

The idea that you are in any danger from a whiff of smoke from someone smoking at a bus stop, is ridiculous.

Again, its not the whiff at the bus stop, its the kids who park outside the kindergarten window day after day. (not an exaggeration, people had to be ban from smoking around the kindergarten next to our high school). It's when every other person is blowing smoke on the sidewalk (welcome to Beijing). Thats when it starts to become a health risk. It's especially bad if family does it.

Oh, and from my earlier post, is it fair to agree that second hand smoking is harmful, or are their disagreements followed by hard core data?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: wind Thats when it starts to become a health risk.

Again, have you any evidence that second hand smoke is a significant danger in an open area? All anyone has been able to provide so far is a "moderate conclusive risk" in enclosed spaces.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Real Thing 2007 grandpa - if you've read my bio on the introductions thread you might guess that I'm more than a little sympathetic to ideas like "corporate industry is evil". Certainly corporate industry can be "evil" - it doesn't have to be "evil", it isn't necessarily inherently "evil", but a person would have to be either hopelessly naive or willfully blinded to reality if they cannot see that multinational corporate culture has been dominated by ruthless, machiavellian "the ends justify the means and the end is my greed" mentality.

Unfortrunately, "hopelessly naive or willfully blinded" decsribes many people. Still, there hasn't been
a complete and total memory failure. Much research can still be done, and not just over the internet. People just need to get around to it. Corporate culture apparently has a way of preventing critical thought. For example, some think that, because I consider the cigarette industry to be sort of 'evil," I must support anti-smoking laws.

False dichotomies are all around. You're either with the anti-human corporation or you're against "freedom." The underlying assumption is that we get freedom from corporation and other elite organizations.
It makes sense, seeing as to how its leaders wouldn't want the followers involved in some "democratization process" (in other words, to not follow along blindly anymore). So we're encouraged to regard basic democratic principles the same way evangelicals regard Satan and hell.

Grandpa h.

[Kevin Dean]

I was strongly anti-smoking for the first several years of my life. In fact, I recall "preaching" to my friends and girlfriends that they could "crap in their hands, smear it on their face and have more respect. After all, the crap thing makes you look stupid and smell bad BUT is much cheaper."

A year later I was chain smoking. Well aware of the "reported health risks" I decided to do so anyway.

In January of 2007 I quite cold turkey and it's been almost a year smoke free.

I am proof that the people on whom militant non-smokers attempt to supress are not "unintelligent" or "uneducated". The "survivors of chilhood abuse or trauma" thing might be true but then again about 30% of the population at any given time is a survivor of incest and a signifigantly higher number of the population have had things that happened to them that would be "physical abuse" by some defintion (spanking, anyone?).

Looking beyond labels and stereotypes, my view is that smoking is protected by the same right that allows you to refuse medical treatment, the same right that is violated by rape and the same right that protects abortion and tattooing - the right to one's own body.

The only justifyable exceptions to this are, in my opinion, the "doesn't have a choice" arguement - we're required to interact with the government, so banning smoking in the DMV is reasonable. Also, children are required to go to school so smoking should be banned there as well. Hospitals fall in there as well.

As for the rest - we don't control our environement we only control that we stay there? Don't like the smoke that other people reek of? Wear a gas mask, seriously. I'd offer the same advice to people who were offended by some lady's horrible perfume or the offensive odor of a man who didn't bathe. Nobody has any right to dictate what others do - smokers can't force people to smoke and non-smokers can't force smokers to not. So, knowing our habits and the routines of our lives we (being smokers and non) must take proactive steps to make out environments as hospitable as we can without infringing on each other's bodies.

That said, I'd like to point out that what we "know" is complete and total bunk. I've seen the "increases chance of lung cancer" statement quoted like scripture, as if it was divine work. We as human beings have a tendency to form a hypothisis and then gather facts to prove that hypothisis - it's a process that seems intuitive (our brains are wired that way usually) and is called the scientific method. This same method used all the given evidence to come to the conclusion that the sun revolved around the Earth.

If we form our hypothesis and then attempt to DISPROVE it we paint a much more interesting story. To actually say "Smoking caused this cancer" means we must be 100% certain that cancer would not have formed under smoke-free conditions. To do so requires 65-years control experiments with human clones - a smoking study that hasn't, to date, been done. Only when this is done can we say with 100% certainty that smoking is THE cause and not "a potential cause" of terminal illness.

[Winter wind]

No no. I'm not saying smokers all belong to some socio economic group. I'm just saying it's dangerous to yourself and others.

If we form our hypothesis and then attempt to DISPROVE it we paint a much more interesting story. To actually say "Smoking caused this cancer" means we must be 100% certain that cancer would not have formed under smoke-free conditions. To do so requires 65-years control experiments with human clones - a smoking study that hasn't, to date, been done. Only when this is done can we say with 100% certainty that smoking is THE cause and not "a potential cause" of terminal illness.

Well, come on. Unless your a nazi scientist, you can't really do this. But the people who get the throat thing are commonly smokers, that's one way of judging it personally. The World Health Organization gains nothing from lying about cigarettes, said that 26% of male deaths in 2002 were attributed to smoking. I'm siding with the experts.

Again, have you any evidence that second hand smoke is a significant danger in an open area? All anyone has been able to provide so far is a "moderate conclusive risk" in enclosed spaces.

Again, again, again. It's when kids take a corner they hang out everyday after school and smoke outside a kindergarden, it might as well be an enclosed place. By the By the definition of enclosed place is the same house as the person. Is it unfair to say that smoke coming in from the window is similar? It's the same chemicals, just not as often.

As for the rest - we don't control our environement we only control that we stay there? Don't like the smoke that other people reek of? Wear a gas mask, seriously. I'd offer the same advice to people who were offended by some lady's horrible perfume or the offensive odor of a man who didn't bathe. Nobody has any right to dictate what others do - smokers can't force people to smoke and non-smokers can't force smokers to not. So, knowing our habits and the routines of our lives we (being smokers and non) must take proactive steps to make out environments as hospitable as we can without infringing on each other's bodies.

BO does not cause cancer. you can't walk around with a vat of burning plastic around main street.

That said, I'd like to point out that what we "know" is complete and total bunk. I've seen the "increases chance of lung cancer" statement quoted like scripture, as if it was divine work. We as human beings have a tendency to form a hypothisis and then gather facts to prove that hypothisis - it's a process that seems intuitive (our brains are wired that way usually) and is called the scientific method. This same method used all the given evidence to come to the conclusion that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Did you see the post with a butt load of evidence? I back up what I say.