PDA

View Full Version : Uh-oh surgeon general says second hand smoke IS clearly harmful...


memyselfI
06-27-2006, 04:02 PM
and other truths smokers will NOT want to hear. Perhaps this will help in enacting more smoke free zones. :clap:

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/06/27/ap2844315.html

Associated Press
Surgeon General Warns of Secondhand Smoke
By LAURAN NEERGAARD , 06.27.2006, 04:28 PM


Breathing any amount of someone else's tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers, the surgeon general declared Tuesday - a strong condemnation of secondhand smoke that is sure to fuel nationwide efforts to ban smoking in public.

"The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," said U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to smokers' fumes - what Carmona termed "involuntary smoking" - and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

The report calls for completely smoke-free buildings and public places, saying that separate smoking sections and ventilation systems don't fully protect nonsmokers. Seventeen states and more than 400 towns, cities and counties have passed strong no-smoking laws.

But public smoking bans don't reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes their parents' smoke - and youngsters' still developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Secondhand smoke puts children at risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, as well as bronchitis, pneumonia, worsening asthma attacks, poor lung growth and ear infections, the report found.

Carmona implored parents who can't kick the habit to smoke outdoors, never in a house or car with a child. Opening a window to let the smoke out won't protect them.

"Stay away from smokers," he urged everyone else.

Even a few minutes around drifting smoke is enough to spark an asthma attack, make blood more prone to clot, damage heart arteries and begin the kind of cell damage that over time can lead to cancer, he said.

Repeatedly questioned about how the Bush administration would implement his findings, Carmona would only pledge to publicize the report in hopes of encouraging anti-smoking advocacy. Passing anti-smoking laws is up to Congress and state and local governments, he said.

"My job is to make sure we keep a light on this thing," he said.

Still, public health advocates said the report should accelerate an already growing movement toward more smoke-free workplaces.

"This could be the most influential surgeon general's report in 15 years," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The message to governments is: The only way to protect your citizens is comprehensive smoke-free laws."

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.

Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.

Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer by up to 30 percent, Carmona found.

Some tobacco companies acknowledge the risks. But R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has fought some of the smoking bans, challenges the new report's call for complete smoke-free zones and insists the danger is overblown.

"Bottom line, we believe adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," said RJR spokesman David Howard.

And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to smoking bans is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits.

But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not true. It cites a list of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state smoking bans - including evidence that New York City restaurants and bars increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free.

To help make the point, Carmona's office videotaped mayors of smoke-free cities and executives of smoke-free companies, including the founder of the Applebee's restaurant chain, saying business got better when the haze cleared.

In addition to the scientific report, Carmona issued advice for consumers and employers Tuesday:

_Choose smoke-free restaurants and other businesses, and thank them for going smoke-free.

_Don't let anyone smoke near your child. Don't take your child to restaurants or other indoor places that allow smoking.

_Smokers should never smoke around a sick relative.

_Employers should make all indoor workspace smoke-free and not allow smoking near entrances, to protect the health of both customers and workers, and offer programs to help employees kick the habit.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2006, 04:21 PM
I'm suddenly reminded of this scene from the movie, The Paper:

Phil (Jack Kehoe): Aw, Jesus, Bernie. Come on with the smoke. You know the doctor found nicotine in my urine again.
Bernie (Robert Duvall): Then keep your dick out of my ashtray!

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 04:23 PM
Why are they still showing tv commercials with the other surgeon general, the dude who looks like Captain Ahab? (sorry, his name eludes me for the moment)

HC_Chief
06-27-2006, 04:25 PM
Why are they still showing tv commercials with the other surgeon general, the dude who looks like Captain Ahab? (sorry, his name eludes me for the moment)

That's for LifeAlert.... you know the "I've fallen and I can't get up" people.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 04:27 PM
That's for LifeAlert.... you know the "I've fallen and I can't get up" people.
Ah, is that what that is? I wasn't paying that much attention, I just looked up on the screen and saw C. Everett Koop (that's his name!), and thought, "Wait a minute, he's not the surgeon general anymore!"

Baby Lee
06-27-2006, 04:37 PM
Ah, is that what that is? I wasn't paying that much attention, I just looked up on the screen and saw C. Everett Koop (that's his name!), and thought, "Wait a minute, he's not the surgeon general anymore!"
At least it's not Jocelyn Elder for Jergens for Kids. ;)

AustinChief
06-27-2006, 04:42 PM
Yep... the good old Surgeon General... and do you know what this report is based upon? Why, the same old (already proven to be wrong or misleading) studies from 1989 and 1994.

I wonder which insurance lobby funded this one?

Until SOEMONE is willing to actually LOOK at the studies and stand up on here and show a little PROOF... I am going to continue to rail upon these bullshit "studies".

Anyone want to engage in this argument AGAIN? Just pull up the old threads on it.. because this piece of shit "study" has NO new facts to add... just rehashed garbage.

Dartgod
06-27-2006, 04:46 PM
Breathing any amount of someone else's tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers...
I stopped reading at this point.

Baby Lee
06-27-2006, 04:48 PM
I assume we're banning all internal combustion engines and coal power plants next.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 04:51 PM
Yep... the good old Surgeon General... and do you know what this report is based upon? Why, the same old (already proven to be wrong or misleading) studies from 1989 and 1994.

I wonder which insurance lobby funded this one?

Until SOEMONE is willing to actually LOOK at the studies and stand up on here and show a little PROOF... I am going to continue to rail upon these bullshit "studies".

Anyone want to engage in this argument AGAIN? Just pull up the old threads on it.. because this piece of shit "study" has NO new facts to add... just rehashed garbage.Actually, I can prove that second-hand smoke leads to illness in non-smokers, and even other smokers. I was sick one time with a mild case of the flu, when I went to a rock concert downtown. A guy near me blew some cigarette smoke into the air, making me cough. I spewed all my germs into the air. A couple days later, my friends who were with me at the show were sick with the flu! And it was all because of that smoker, dammit! Or maybe it was Sugarcult's fault, because if they hadn't played that show, I would have stayed home like a proper sick person!

AustinChief
06-27-2006, 04:54 PM
Here is a site that lists most(if not all) the studies done on ETS...

http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm

75% of the studies came back as statistically insignificant. ... But I guess we should only count the studies that support our narrow agenda pushing fascist views eh?

AustinChief
06-27-2006, 04:55 PM
Actually, I can prove that second-hand smoke leads to illness in non-smokers, and even other smokers. I was sick one time with a mild case of the flu, when I went to a rock concert downtown. A guy near me blew some cigarette smoke into the air, making me cough. I spewed all my germs into the air. A couple days later, my friends who were with me at the show were sick with the flu! And it was all because of that smoker, dammit! Or maybe it was Sugarcult's fault, because if they hadn't played that show, I would have stayed home like a proper sick person!

NO NO NO.. it was Philip Morris agents who planted those germs on you to begin with!

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 05:00 PM
Personally, I'm a non-smoker, have always been a non-smoker, and will always be a non-smoker. I don't care for being in close proximity to smokers, and I hate breathing their smoke. I especially hate kissing a smoker on the mouth. However, I don't feel that I have an inherent right to ask them not to enjoy themselves with a cigarette if it isn't causing me significant harm (and I don't buy that it is), and I'm perfectly capable of getting up and crossing to the other side of the room under my own power. Certainly, there are some places where it is sensible to ban smoking - hospital waiting rooms, for instance, or at the gas pump, or in a prenatal care facility. But the banning laws are getting out of hand, in my opinion.

JBucc
06-27-2006, 05:03 PM
Most people complain about the smell but I like it for some reason. In fact I like the smell of most burning things. I wouldn't actually smoke myself though.

AustinChief
06-27-2006, 05:05 PM
Oh and lastly... IF this is such a big economic BOON to cities... why the need to LEGISLATE it? Wouldn't businesses see the upside and ban smoking on their own? Oh, I forgot, the people don't know better, they need government to tell them what is best.

Pitt Gorilla
06-27-2006, 05:06 PM
The sky is blue?!?

irishjayhawk
06-27-2006, 05:09 PM
Oh and lastly... IF this is such a big economic BOON to cities... why the need to LEGISLATE it? Wouldn't businesses see the upside and ban smoking on their own? Oh, I forgot, the people don't know better, they need government to tell them what is best.

I didn't agree with you earlier but I can't help but agree with this. :clap:

AustinChief
06-27-2006, 05:13 PM
The sky is blue?!?

Unfortunately, people have been force fed this propoganda to the point that they accept it easily as fact... when OVER 75% of the studies done DISAGREE with that assumption.

Check out the real facts sometime, it is amazing how this has been SOLD by the zealots

Brock
06-27-2006, 05:18 PM
The sky is blue?!?

lambs

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 05:23 PM
Oh and lastly... IF this is such a big economic BOON to cities... why the need to LEGISLATE it? Wouldn't businesses see the upside and ban smoking on their own? Oh, I forgot, the people don't know better, they need government to tell them what is best.


You hit the nail on the head. Maybe that's why there are some who have already been ahead of the govt on this. Village Inn's completely banned smoking sometime around 2003. I don't remember the name of the other chain, but it alternated nights of no smoking with nights with smoking. Let the market handle it.

On and btw...I am a non smoker.

HC_Chief
06-27-2006, 05:33 PM
Let the market handle it.

:clap:

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 05:47 PM
Most people complain about the smell but I like it for some reason. In fact I like the smell of most burning things. I wouldn't actually smoke myself though.
I love the smell of pipe tobacco smoke. Cigars are iffy, some of them I like, some of them I don't. Can't stand cigarette smoke, though.

mlyonsd
06-27-2006, 06:01 PM
I have no problem with a bar/tavern banning smoking. It's their right to do so.

But I also have a problem with any form of our government telling a bar owner he can't allow smoking.

Until tobacco is banned in this country across the board I believe owners of establishments have a right to choose how they run their business.

unlurking
06-27-2006, 06:33 PM
You hit the nail on the head. Maybe that's why there are some who have already been ahead of the govt on this. Village Inn's completely banned smoking sometime around 2003. I don't remember the name of the other chain, but it alternated nights of no smoking with nights with smoking. Let the market handle it.

On and btw...I am a non smoker.
Village Inn locations here in CO are smoking, except during lunch rush (10-2 or something). At least they will be until July 1st (statewide smoking ban).

Personally, I'd like to do what KC used to do, and open a "private club" so I can have a bar to go smoke in. That really pisses me off that they banned smoking in bars too, but the casinos have enough money to lobby to be exempted. Pathetic.

Pitt Gorilla
06-27-2006, 08:41 PM
You hit the nail on the head. Maybe that's why there are some who have already been ahead of the govt on this. Village Inn's completely banned smoking sometime around 2003. I don't remember the name of the other chain, but it alternated nights of no smoking with nights with smoking. Let the market handle it.

On and btw...I am a non smoker.Wow, totally not true. The Village In here has non-smoking hours, but is smoking most of the time.

Rausch
06-27-2006, 08:54 PM
The stupidity of the anti-smoking nazis stupifies me.

If some business wants to go non-smoking that's great. It's their right. I'd prefer it that way myself, because that invisible ****ing barrier erected by only the most powerful warlocks in the universe that seperates my smoke in the smoking area from the wrinkled-faced bitching pussies 4 feet away in the non-smoking area has always confused me anyway...

alanm
06-27-2006, 10:35 PM
Yep... the good old Surgeon General... and do you know what this report is based upon? Why, the same old (already proven to be wrong or misleading) studies from 1989 and 1994.

I wonder which insurance lobby funded this one?

Until SOEMONE is willing to actually LOOK at the studies and stand up on here and show a little PROOF... I am going to continue to rail upon these bullshit "studies".

Anyone want to engage in this argument AGAIN? Just pull up the old threads on it.. because this piece of shit "study" has NO new facts to add... just rehashed garbage.
Hear, hear.. :clap: :clap:
Just because the sturgeon general pulls up some outdated info to push some more nazi anti smoking agenda shit doesn't make it so.

Logical
06-27-2006, 11:31 PM
This pleases me because quite frankly I am a selfish bastard just like the smokers. I see no reason I should be forced to live in their environment so they can enjoy a vice that fouls the air (is possibly harmful definitely to some such as asthma sufferers). On the other hand I will and have sat all evening with smokers to be in their company if they are good people like say Kyle (AustinChief). I think in the end it comes down to one groups selfish self interest over the others. In the end erring on the side of the health is good for both whether the smokers want to admit it or not.

Phobia
06-28-2006, 07:48 AM
The only proof I need in this matter is my wife's grandmother - who never smoked a day in her life - exhibiting all the symptoms and cancers of a lifelong smoker in her later years. She worked in an insurance office in which she was the only non-smoker and absorbed all that harmful 2nd hand smoke into her body for years.

If is kinda funny watching smokers get all uppity about it though. Obviously, smoking is bad for you. That much is undeniable. So if you're blowing smoke around and somebody has prolonged exposure to your smoke you want to debate that it's harmless to them? Okay, I'll play that game and win every time.

banyon
06-28-2006, 07:54 AM
shouldn't this have been titled "OOOPS"?

Dartgod
06-28-2006, 08:00 AM
The only proof I need in this matter is my wife's grandmother - who never smoked a day in her life - exhibiting all the symptoms and cancers of a lifelong smoker in her later years. She worked in an insurance office in which she was the only non-smoker and absorbed all that harmful 2nd hand smoke into her body for years.

If is kinda funny watching smokers get all uppity about it though. Obviously, smoking is bad for you. That much is undeniable. So if you're blowing smoke around and somebody has prolonged exposure to your smoke you want to debate that it's harmless to them? Okay, I'll play that game and win every time.I'm not going to argue that prolonged exposure isn't harmful. I'm sure it is. It's the following quote that I have a problem with. Breathing any amount of someone else's tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers, the surgeon general declared Tuesday... That's bullshit and everybody knows it.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 09:57 AM
This pleases me because quite frankly I am a selfish bastard just like the smokers. I see no reason I should be forced to live in their environment so they can enjoy a vice that fouls the air (is possibly harmful definitely to some such as asthma sufferers). On the other hand I will and have sat all evening with smokers to be in their company if they are good people like say Kyle (AustinChief). I think in the end it comes down to one groups selfish self interest over the others. In the end erring on the side of the health is good for both whether the smokers want to admit it or not.

I'd rather err on the side of freedom: letting property owners decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property and letting everyone else decide whether or not to visit any given property.

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 10:05 AM
In the end erring on the side of the health is good for both whether the smokers want to admit it or not.
You're just holding on for dear life as the pendulum of your mind swings free.
About now, you're swinging loud and proud over Nader/Kuchinich nanny-state territory.
Where oh where will you swing to next?

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 10:17 AM
"The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard,"

I am not an expert on the issue, but from the little I have read, I find this statement to be laughable.

You hear Al Gore making the same statements about global warming.

The sad truth in both cases are scientists wanting to make sure they come up with the correct results so they can continue to ride on the governmental gravy train.

Science has been corrupted by politics. There needs to be a complete overhaul on how federal agencies disperse research funds.

AustinChief
06-28-2006, 12:44 PM
The only proof I need in this matter is my wife's grandmother - who never smoked a day in her life - exhibiting all the symptoms and cancers of a lifelong smoker in her later years. She worked in an insurance office in which she was the only non-smoker and absorbed all that harmful 2nd hand smoke into her body for years.

If is kinda funny watching smokers get all uppity about it though. Obviously, smoking is bad for you. That much is undeniable. So if you're blowing smoke around and somebody has prolonged exposure to your smoke you want to debate that it's harmless to them? Okay, I'll play that game and win every time.

Umm no you won't... you will come away looking the fool.. take ONE toxicology class and you will regret making that last statement. The dose makes the poison.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-28-2006, 12:45 PM
Aspartame is 1000 times more dangerous but no one would think of banning that, and the crap they inject into meats and vegetables is MORE likely to cause cancer than ciggie smoke. Carry on the brainwashing.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 12:54 PM
I'd rather err on the side of freedom: letting property owners decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property and letting everyone else decide whether or not to visit any given property.

I feel the same...at least on this issue. No one has a "right" to be on someone's private property especially when that place is purely discretionary. The people have to take some repsonsibility for their own health. Now if smoke was blowin' into someone's space that is truly theirs it would be another matter to me.

AustinChief
06-28-2006, 01:06 PM
I'm not going to argue that prolonged exposure isn't harmful. I'm sure it is.

I will make this argument... anyone who has ANY background in toxicology will tell you that prolonged exposure WITH a certain dosage can cause harm (ie smoking) but at some point the dosage goes to a level that is insignificant from a health standpoint (ie second hand smoke)

75% of the studies done show NO evidence of risk, yet if you polled the public I would wager that 80% truly believe there is hard science to back up the myth that second hand smoke is a major health hazard.

Does anyone here actually want to debate the science? Because it is a TOUGH argument to support when you strip away the hysteria and go right to the FACTS.

Rausch
06-28-2006, 01:32 PM
The only proof I need in this matter is my wife's grandmother - who never smoked a day in her life - exhibiting all the symptoms and cancers of a lifelong smoker in her later years. She worked in an insurance office in which she was the only non-smoker and absorbed all that harmful 2nd hand smoke into her body for years.

If is kinda funny watching smokers get all uppity about it though. Obviously, smoking is bad for you. That much is undeniable. So if you're blowing smoke around and somebody has prolonged exposure to your smoke you want to debate that it's harmless to them? Okay, I'll play that game and win every time.


If you're working with 10-15 people indoors and they're all constatnly smoking I'm sure it's pretty darn close to smoking yourself. I won't argue there, and I won't argue that office settings in most buildings should be smoke free.

The exceptions I have are bowling alleys, bars, restaurants, etc. These are private property and while kitchen areas and such should automatically be non-smoking (for obvious reasons) there are already plenty of places you can work that are no-smoking.

But then, it's also your choice. If you've made the dicision not to smoke because it's harmful why make the choice to work somewhere you're still exposed to it? Grammy-n-law might not have known about all the dangers when she worked but that's no longer an excuse...

Rausch
06-28-2006, 01:32 PM
I feel the same...at least on this issue. No one has a "right" to be on someone's private property especially when that place is purely discretionary. The people have to take some repsonsibility for their own health. Now if smoke was blowin' into someone's space that is truly theirs it would be another matter to me.

:clap:

Phobia
06-28-2006, 01:59 PM
Umm no you won't... you will come away looking the fool.. take ONE toxicology class and you will regret making that last statement. The dose makes the poison.

I have no doubt you're correct about that. But why are children and spouses of smokers and others who have been exposed to second hand smoke for prolonged periods having health issues that suggest it is smoke related?

Logical
06-28-2006, 02:06 PM
You're just holding on for dear life as the pendulum of your mind swings free.
About now, you're swinging loud and proud over Nader/Kuchinich nanny-state territory.
Where oh where will you swing to next?
On this issue you would just be wrong. I have been on this side of this issue for as long as this BB has been in existence. In fact it was the first thing I ever debated AustinChief on back in the BB's infancy. So both Kyle and Tim (Frazod) can attest that I have not changed on this subject.

Rausch
06-28-2006, 02:06 PM
I have no doubt you're correct about that. But why are children and spouses of smokers and others who have been exposed to second hand smoke for prolonged periods having health issues that suggest it is smoke related?

I lived in a smoking home for 17 years and had no problems. I played soccer for 8 years and wrestled for 7 without any lung/wind problems.

Now, my house was clean growing up. I'm alergic to dust, and if the "smoker's dust" was allowed to accumulate I'm sure I would have had problems, no doubt.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 02:10 PM
I lived in a smoking home for 17 years and had no problems. I played soccer for 8 years and wrestled for 7 without any lung/wind problems.


Ditto! Mom and Dad smoked in our house.
I think people's immune systems have something to do with these things though, as with other health hazards. Some are more suspectible than others. Seems to be the only thing that explains why some can endure lottsa smoke and never get sick from it but others do seem to...unless there is something else they are doing regarding their lifestyle that also contributes to it. Just a guess.

FringeNC
06-28-2006, 02:14 PM
I will make this argument... anyone who has ANY background in toxicology will tell you that prolonged exposure WITH a certain dosage can cause harm (ie smoking) but at some point the dosage goes to a level that is insignificant from a health standpoint (ie second hand smoke)

75% of the studies done show NO evidence of risk, yet if you polled the public I would wager that 80% truly believe there is hard science to back up the myth that second hand smoke is a major health hazard.

Does anyone here actually want to debate the science? Because it is a TOUGH argument to support when you strip away the hysteria and go right to the FACTS.

I'd say it's well over 80% of the public thinks it's bad. How could they not when we have health nazis making claims like this:

"The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."

www.junkscience.com is a good debunking site.

AustinChief
06-28-2006, 02:50 PM
I have no doubt you're correct about that. But why are children and spouses of smokers and others who have been exposed to second hand smoke for prolonged periods having health issues that suggest it is smoke related?

How exactly do their health problems "suggest" that they are smoke related? Anectdotal "evidence" is never good science. We need to show causality.

Here is a good article on non-smoker lung cancer...
http://www.pulmonaryreviews.com/may05/lungcancernonsmokers.html

I can point to study after study that shows NO cause/effect relationship between ETS (second hand smoke) and "health issues"

Duck Dog
06-28-2006, 03:39 PM
The Mayo Clinic was successful in getting smoking banned city wide in Rochester, MN. They have cameras and security watching the streets looking for employees smoking on Mayo properties.

Phobia
06-28-2006, 03:50 PM
How exactly do their health problems "suggest" that they are smoke related? Anectdotal "evidence" is never good science. We need to show causality.

Here is a good article on non-smoker lung cancer...
http://www.pulmonaryreviews.com/may05/lungcancernonsmokers.html

I can point to study after study that shows NO cause/effect relationship between ETS (second hand smoke) and "health issues"

Truthfully, I'm not all that interested in anybody's studies. I make the majority of my decisions based on my life experience and that dictates 2nd hand smoke is bad for you. Based on my life experience, those individuals who state otherwise are simply rationalizing their own bad habits. I'm fine with that, I used to do the same with my own tobacco habit.

I won't allow anybody to smoke in my car, house, nor around my family. If my smoking friends smoke in their house we won't go over there. People who claim health problems related to 2nd hand smoke could be mistaken but I'm not going to take that risk - no matter the Surgeon General's stance.

AustinChief
06-28-2006, 07:24 PM
I won't allow anybody to smoke in my car, house, nor around my family. If my smoking friends smoke in their house we won't go over there. People who claim health problems related to 2nd hand smoke could be mistaken but I'm not going to take that risk - no matter the Surgeon General's stance.

I agree with that. Hell, I don't let people smoke in my house (car is convertible so that doesn't matter).

BUT I won't claim health reasons that just don't exist... This whole topic is a big pet peeve of mine... junk science. I hate to see people use "science" to justify opinion. Science should be about facts not an agenda.