Post by: Nick1911 on January 11, 2008, 10:13:21 AM
Should one be allowed to smoke in a restaurant? An often argument is that it is like "peeing in a swimming pool". What about in your car?
General thoughts?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 10:27:44 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 11, 2008, 11:11:27 AM
Play nice, folks.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 11, 2008, 11:13:10 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on January 11, 2008, 11:58:38 AM
Banning alcohol or smoking probably wouldn't affect me much, but banning Dr. Pepper would. 
Smoking gets into a lot of private property rights issues in my view. I like the fact that it is restricted in public buildings like sports stadiums, but I think restricting it on private property is nonsense.
People who are supersensitive to cigarette smoke should be required to jump through hoops to avoid smokers just as smokers are required to jump through hoops to find places to smoke.
Should it be illegal? No. But the way some people talk about it, I think they would be much less hypocritical if they did push for making it illegal instead of trying to restrict and tax it away.
Post by: Strings on January 11, 2008, 01:01:20 PM
For the record, although I smoke, our home is smoke-free (I go outside). That said...
The moves made in so many places to ban smoking in restaurants and bars get seriously under my skin. That decision should be left to the owners and operators of said establishments.
As far as a complete ban on smoking: yeah, because we see how well the ban on other drugs has turned out...
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 01:58:23 PM
Post by: jefnvk on January 11, 2008, 02:28:37 PM
Secondly, it shouldn't be illegal. It should be illegal in public property where people are required to go (courthouse, etc.). After that, no one requires you to go to a bar. Not too many people even see going to a bar as being healthy, smoking ain't changing much. Same thign for restaurants. No one forces you to go. If you choose not to, thats your decision. If you choose not to go, and pressure the owner to make a smoke free area or go completely non-smoking, and they do, good for them.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 02:44:07 PM
BTW, the public smoking ban started right here, in the city of San Luis Obispo.
Post by: Tuco on January 11, 2008, 04:32:46 PM
The acceptability of tobacco use is decreasing, tobacco use is decreasing, and within a few generations, it will be all but gone???
The addictiveness of nicotine throws a monkeywrench in the argument for less regulation. As does the public health concerns.
I say allowed in the privacy of one's own space, like sex with the ole' lady. No need to light up after a cone at the dairy queen, although sometimes I'd like to.
Post by: Standing Wolf on January 11, 2008, 05:14:49 PM
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 05:30:07 PM
Post by: Regolith on January 11, 2008, 05:36:36 PM
Post by: Dannyboy on January 11, 2008, 05:49:09 PM
In all fairness, SW, you need to disclose that you're a smoker, so your opinion may be biased.
I saI'm not a smoker and I totally agree. You aren't entitled to anything. Don't like the smoke, go somewhere where this no smoke. It's really very easy.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 05:55:59 PM
Post by: Bigjake on January 11, 2008, 06:09:48 PM
Quote
No. My rights as a nonsmoker trump the smoker's rights. He's polluting MY breathing air. If he can't control himself, the law will.
Horseshit, you don't like the establishment's atmo, go somewhere else. Smokers' rights and private property rights trump yours, you don't like it, stay out.
And no, I don't smoke either.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 06:15:11 PM
Quote
Horseshit, you don't like the establishment's atmo, go somewhere else. Smokers' rights and private property rights trump yours, you don't like it, stay out.
The law in many place says different. And those laws are spreading. You don't like it. Too bad. Smokers don't have the right to contaminate the air breathed by others. How about I move next door to you and start a pig farm and burn trash 24/7? It's my 'private property right'.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 11, 2008, 06:21:02 PM
I won't eat at a restaurant where the smoke is objectionable, why do you? Do you enjoy telling others what they can do with their property? How very statist of you.
Chris
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 06:24:37 PM
Quote
I won't eat at a restaurant where the smoke is objectionable, why do you? Do you enjoy telling others what they can do with their property?
Yep, when their actions affect and destroy my property, like the air I breathe. If that's 'statist', get used to it, because there's more coming. People can't do whatever they want when they want just because they want to do it regardless of the effect on anybody else.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 06:27:26 PM
Quote
I won't eat at a restaurant where the smoke is objectionable, why do you?
I don't have to because no smoking is not allowed in restaurants in California.
Post by: BridgeWalker on January 11, 2008, 06:41:27 PM
Public places, business, restaurants, bars? Heck, no! If I'm "entitled" to smoke-free air, then better shut down factories, energy plants, and freeways.
I'm an ex-smoker. I've developed the extreme sensitivity to smoke that many ex-smokers develop. I do have a hard time with smoke. Life is rough sometimes. We all start demanding that the world provide us with an optimal health environment at all times and suddenly everything is hyper-regulated. Oh wait, it already is. Well, this is one more road we shouldn't go down. We are of course, because hey, laws are *awesome* and make the world a better place.
I'm not a libertarian and I do think that gov't has a place in regulating various things. But more laws that just say "NO!" are not useful.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 06:47:56 PM
Quote
Property rights should trump the dubious safety argument in this case.
The property right is the right of children, the elderly, the infirm, indeed everyone to be protected against obnoxious pollution from smokers. My body is my property. Get it? Don't poison my air, and don't do anything to jeapordize my health. You can't control your addictions? Then the law will. Grow up. You live in a society and there are other considerations than your own selfish desires.
Post by: Bigjake on January 11, 2008, 06:56:15 PM
Quote
The law in many place says different. And those laws are spreading. You don't like it. Too bad. Smokers don't have the right to contaminate the air breathed by others. How about I move next door to you and start a pig farm and burn trash 24/7? It's my 'private property right'.
Wrong. Most, if not all Agricultural townships have ordinances that basically read, If the hog farm is there first, and you move in and don't like the smell, tough (pig) *expletive deleted*it. Being a farmer, I know all about such regs.
Quote
The property right is the right of children, the elderly, the infirm, indeed everyone to be protected against obnoxious pollution from smokers. My body is my property. Get it? Don't poison my air, and don't do anything to jeapordize my health. You can't control your addictions? Then the law will. Grow up. You live in a society and there are other considerations than your own selfish desires.
You're right, comrade! The VFW or Applebee's that Allows smoking ought to be locked up, It's for the children after all
. You don't like the air in a given establishment, stay the hell out.
Again, this from a non smoker.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 07:10:41 PM
Post by: Regolith on January 11, 2008, 07:12:21 PM
Y'all best stay on the pigfarm Bigjake, because the rest of us are using government to protect destroy individual rights.
Fixed it for you.
Post by: BridgeWalker on January 11, 2008, 07:12:46 PM
Don't poison my air,
It's not your air. It's the property owner's air.
Quote
You can't control your addictions? Then the law will. Grow up. You live in a society and there are other considerations than your own selfish desires.
I sure hope this was general and not addressed to me, the party to whose quote you were responding. If not, what part of "ex-smoker" did you not get?
Post by: Bigjake on January 11, 2008, 07:21:04 PM
Quote
Y'all best stay on the pigfarm Bigjake, because the rest of us are using government to protect individual rights.
I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. That coming from a Libertarian and Cail resident is priceless.
FWIT, when the next recession/ depression, whatever you want to call it hits, I'll be eating steak and brats, and I have the weapons to keep it that way.
Post by: Bigjake on January 11, 2008, 07:22:04 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2008, 08:34:57 PM
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 08:37:55 PM
Y'all best stay on the pigfarm Bigjake, because the rest of us are using government to protect destroy individual rights.
Fixed it for you.
One of the purposes of government is to protect the weak from predators. If you think your 'rights' have been destroyed, maybe they needed to be.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 08:48:16 PM
I agree with Riley. I have a right to go into someone else's restaurant or bar and then breathe whatever sort of air I want. While we're at it, alcoholic beverages smell gross, and cause automotive wrecks, property damage, loss of life and illegitimacy. And illegitimacy leads to higher crime rates, drug abuse, and more illegitimacy and drinking. Therefore, I have a right to demand that all bars and restaurants be alcohol-free.
Yet you're using the internet, which distributes pornography, which leads to infidelity, divorce and spousal abuse and broken homes, which increases welfare costs which takes my money. Therefore, I have a right to demand that the internet be outlawed.
Post by: Paddy on January 11, 2008, 09:08:50 PM
Quote
FWIT, when the next recession/ depression, whatever you want to call it hits, I'll be eating steak and brats, and I have the weapons to keep it that way.
Good fer you, Bigjake. I have several acres on a hilltop in a town of 27k in an agricultural county. I have weapons, too. And ammunition. I don't expect to be hurtin'. What's yer point, anyway?
Post by: Balog on January 11, 2008, 10:03:40 PM
I miss being able to go down to the Tinder Box and try out a bowl of pipe weed before buying an ounce. Remember, children and the elderly have a reasonable expectation of being able to go to a bar or tobacco store without their virginal nostrils being assaulted by the eeevvviiiillll second hand smoke.
Post by: BridgeWalker on January 11, 2008, 10:26:01 PM
Quote
I miss being able to go down to the Tinder Box and try out a bowl of pipe weed before buying an ounce.
That sounds pleasant. I'm sorry it's gone. There are few things more pleasant than quietly sitting and smoking and talking. From time to time some of the older guys at the range will indulge, and I'll enjoy it vicariously, even if I do end up coughing for a couple of days now that I've gotten so sensitive.
Ah well, I guess it's for the children...
Post by: Tecumseh on January 12, 2008, 02:39:33 AM
Don't poison my air,
It's not your air. It's the property owner's air.
Quote
You can't control your addictions? Then the law will. Grow up. You live in a society and there are other considerations than your own selfish desires.
I sure hope this was general and not addressed to me, the party to whose quote you were responding. If not, what part of "ex-smoker" did you not get?
What about when the smoke from the restaurants patrons drifts next door to the smoke free store? What then? Can you guarantee that ciggarette butts, ashes, and smoke will stay off other peoples property?
*I am not a fan of smoking bans at all. I just want to further the discussion.
Post by: Stetson on January 12, 2008, 04:00:18 AM
Do you drive a car? Then you are polluting MY right to clean air. You must stop because I demand it!!!
B.S.
I know who to stay away from now.
Post by: Nick1911 on January 12, 2008, 05:13:41 AM
Nice to see the controlling personalities here. "*whine* My right to clean air trumps any rights you have." Get off your high horse and go after the cars and other things that pollute as much or more than I do. Seen the LA skyline lately? How about the brown cloud over Denver?
Do you drive a car? Then you are polluting MY right to clean air. You must stop because I demand it!!!
B.S.
Do you drive a car? Then you are polluting MY right to clean air. You must stop because I demand it!!!
B.S.
That's an interesting angle. RileyMc - what do you think about the air pollution generated by automobiles, factories, and power plants? Would you argue that the net positive effect (collective good) that comes from these institutions outweighs the air pollution costs that we all have to deal with?
Post by: seeker_two on January 12, 2008, 06:27:53 AM
You know.....Hillary & Barak also believe in "regulating" our addictions.....to liberty, free choice, personal property (including money).......
Post by: Otherguy Overby on January 12, 2008, 07:21:28 AM
Quote
Seen the LA skyline lately?
Actually, the air around LA is better than it's been since the 40s. They've even had to lower the requirements a time or two, so they could still declare smog emergencies.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 12, 2008, 09:44:35 AM
I agree with Riley. I have a right to go into someone else's restaurant or bar and then breathe whatever sort of air I want. While we're at it, alcoholic beverages smell gross, and cause automotive wrecks, property damage, loss of life and illegitimacy. And illegitimacy leads to higher crime rates, drug abuse, and more illegitimacy and drinking. Therefore, I have a right to demand that all bars and restaurants be alcohol-free.
Yet you're using the internet, which distributes pornography, which leads to infidelity, divorce and spousal abuse and broken homes, which increases welfare costs which takes my money. Therefore, I have a right to demand that the internet be outlawed.
Thank you for proving my point. Which is that your idea of rights is all screwed up.
Post by: grampster on January 12, 2008, 11:04:50 AM
Post by: Sindawe on January 12, 2008, 01:04:03 PM
Quote
I think they should allow pot smoking in restaurants. That would end the recession in the restaurant bidness.
Hmmm...works for me. I've observed that stoners are are lot less noisy than drunks. I'd support the bar near my home becoming an "Amsterdamn style" coffee shop over it becoming a dress shop as one owner here would like. Far better to have a group of teen slackers grooving on the wind than a horde of middle aged matrons brawling in the parking lot over the latest fashions from Paris.
But on tobacco being illegal. We TRIED that with EtOH last century and look what it got us.
Post by: jefnvk on January 12, 2008, 01:31:47 PM
Quote
What about when the smoke from the restaurants patrons drifts next door to the smoke free store? What then? Can you guarantee that ciggarette butts, ashes, and smoke will stay off other peoples property?
If the smoke is crossing property lines, then I don't see it being any different than a neighbor who refuses to cut their grass or who has too many carson blocks in the front yard. Take it to local court, if it is a real problem, than that one place gets a smoking prohibition.
If butts and ashes are a problem, fine the individual offenders for littering.
I see no reason for bans because in a bar of 20 people, there is one person that thinks they are entitled to demand smoking stops. Heck, I see no reason for bans because in a bar of 20 people, 19 think they have the right to be there without smoke. If 19 out of 20 people demand smoking stops, either owner will cave to what the market wants, or he will find 19 new patrons. If he chooses neither, he will go out of business, paving way for someone who will privide a smoke free bar.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 12, 2008, 07:41:30 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 12, 2008, 07:50:28 PM
Smoking should be illegal only in premises where second-hand smoking is unavoidable and objectionable. Not ok in...the workplace.
How is the workplace unavoidable?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 12, 2008, 09:06:43 PM
Smoking bans should be determined by the person who owns the property. If any law is needed, it should be to have the owner declare the property "smoking" or "non-smoking" in the zoning declaration so the owner can have the police remove someone who violates the declaration.
You know.....Hillary & Barak also believe in "regulating" our addictions.....to liberty, free choice, personal property (including money).......
You know.....Hillary & Barak also believe in "regulating" our addictions.....to liberty, free choice, personal property (including money).......
Usually it is the Republicans who want to control what we do with our bodies and what we put into our bodies. It seems both parties are becoming the same.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 13, 2008, 07:16:17 AM
How is the workplace unavoidable?
Clearly, there are many workplaces in the world. For most people, the workplace involves common premises with a ranging number of coworkers. If the smoker is allowed to smoke on the premises, then the coworkers cannot avoid second-hand smoking because they have to remain in the premises to conduct their professional functions.
Post by: stephpd on January 13, 2008, 07:55:22 AM
Hate to tell you but that car you drive puts more toxic gasses into the air in a week then any cigarette. You should give up driving before telling someone else how to live their life(splinter in someone elses eye). Read an article about the removal of lead from gas, heavy metal, falls to the ground quickly, and replaced it with benzene and other carcinogens. Making gasoline more unhealthy then before.
The burning of fossil fuels is way worse then any forest fire on the air quality and health of animals.Living on the East Coast the quality of the air is deemed dangerous. Don't think it's from the smokers spending more time outdoors and puffing tuff. Low lying ozone filled with unburnt hydrocarbons and the nitric oxides from catylitic converters has made it impossible to breath clean air in the summer, not that it's very clean in the winter.
And as far as individual rights to not have to breath the stench and smoke from cigarettes do those of us who believe in less government intrusion think that more intrusion is good for us as a whole. Would any of us like not being able to shoot because of the pollutants from gunpowder? Or have to trash compact our fishing boats because of the pollutants it gives off and the oil slick left behind by a 2 stroke engine. Or maybe we should ban grass cutting and make lawn movers illegal to own.
And don't even get me started on alcohol and drinking. No one should benefit from that drug. Bars should be totally illegal. Shouldn't even be able to buy that poison since it cause my health insurance and auto insurance to be so high to cover the costs of others.
Sure we don't mind intruding on others rights as long as the bad things we do aren't regulated into non existence.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 08:01:08 AM
It is an idiotic argument.
I have started asking "yes, X is bad. But is your solution to make it even worse?" Some things can and should be regulated. The fact that not everything can or should be regulated doesn't negate the need to regulate some things.
Post by: El Tejon on January 13, 2008, 10:47:28 AM
The hills are alive with the sound of music!!!
What a wonderful world that would be. Make it a felony, make it a federal and state crime. *tears of joy and happiness*
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 13, 2008, 11:18:41 AM
How can so many here be against any government intrusion in to private life think one way about something as deadly as guns and want to intrude on others lives and use some lame excuse.
Second-hand smoking kills. Second-hand legal gunowning does not.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 13, 2008, 03:31:03 PM
Secondhand Smoke
(updated September 2006)
Definition of Secondhand Smoke
* Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1
* Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1
Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure
* Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 2530% and their lung cancer risk by 2030%.2
* Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2
* Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2
* Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2
* There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2
Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure
* Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2
* From 198891 to 200102, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3
* Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3
* More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2
* Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2
* Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 311 yearsor almost 22 million childrenare exposed to secondhand smoke.2
* About 25% of children aged 311 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2
* The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,70069,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4
* Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,50015,000 hospitalizations, annually.5
Smokingstinks.com
Post by: gunsmith on January 13, 2008, 03:35:44 PM
part of a restaurant and the guy next to me lit up.
I said "we're in a non smoking section" He said "the waitress gave me an ashtray"
I gave him the evil eye and said "yeah? the waitress gave me a knife"
He moved to the other section
Smoking sections are useless though, its like have part of a pool you're allowed to pee in.
In principle, I think it should be up to the owner of bar etc to decide if it
is smoke free, but I wanted ciggs to be illegal when dad was alive, just to prove to him they're as addictive as heroin, and he would break the law to score some if they were illegal.
Dad died of cancer very young.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 13, 2008, 04:39:17 PM
In principle, I think it should be up to the owner of bar etc to decide if it
is smoke free, but I wanted ciggs to be illegal when dad was alive, just to prove to him they're as addictive as heroin, and he would break the law to score some if they were illegal.
is smoke free, but I wanted ciggs to be illegal when dad was alive, just to prove to him they're as addictive as heroin, and he would break the law to score some if they were illegal.
So true. I know a lot people who would rather die (and have come pretty close to doing just that) than quit smoking.
Post by: RevDisk on January 13, 2008, 06:21:55 PM
And, furthermore, what restrictions on it's usage should apply, if any?
Should one be allowed to smoke in a restaurant? An often argument is that it is like "peeing in a swimming pool". What about in your car?
General thoughts?
Should one be allowed to smoke in a restaurant? An often argument is that it is like "peeing in a swimming pool". What about in your car?
General thoughts?
No, tobacco should not be illegal. Nor will it ever be made illegal. There's too much money involved, between the producers and consumers. If anything, they'll just keep bumping up the taxes to squeeze more money out of smokers.
Alcohol is absolutely FAIR more dangerous. It would make a heck of a lot more sense to ban alcohol. It's quite rare for a smoker to be medically incapable of functionally operating a vehicle due to nicotine. A small amount of alcohol does render a driver's reflexes. Of course, we already tried to prohibit alcohol, and look at the wonderful bounties THAT charlie foxtrot caused.
I have no problems with a property owner banning smoking of their own accord on their own property. Unilaterally banning it via government action, I do have a problem with. Banning smoking in my own car or house? I fail to see the sense in that. My car puts out far more emissions than even the nastiest cigar I've ever smoked.
But I suspose all of that is more or less irrelevant. By what authority would they have to ban smoking? Usually the only answers I get are either "It's bad for you" or "It's for your own good!" Well, no kidding. I've never met a single person who thought smoking was good for them. As for legislating for my "own good", indeed, the most evil acts ever committed by human beings are generally for "their own good."
Post by: Firethorn on January 13, 2008, 07:29:49 PM
On every drug discussion that has come up the typical argument has run "well X is even worse and we don't regulate X so why should we regulate Y?"
It is an idiotic argument.
It is an idiotic argument.
That may be the typical argument that you see, but most of the ones I've seen are along the point of: The Banning of Y isn't working and is imposing costs A, B, and C, which are worse than simply allowing people to use Y.
Quote
I have started asking "yes, X is bad. But is your solution to make it even worse?" Some things can and should be regulated. The fact that not everything can or should be regulated doesn't negate the need to regulate some things.
There's a world of difference between regulating something and banning it.
Quote
Smoking sections are useless though, its like have part of a pool you're allowed to pee in.
The local Arbies has a separate glass enclosed section of their building for the smokers, that they now can't smoke in since the universal ban came into effect. That's much better than 'useless'. I've also seen some funky things you can do with fancy air handling systems, filters, and some creative modeling for air flow. IE the smoke goes straight up into the air system to be filtered, it doesn't hang around.
I think that if it was really about safety they'd come up with some sort of air quality test - not blanket bans like are going up left and right. So it's about control by non-smoker types much like the prohibitionists back in the day.
Post by: Strings on January 13, 2008, 09:44:22 PM
when the smoking ban hit Appleton, it made a mockery of those establishments that had spent thousands of dollars installing high end air filtration systems, to make life more pleasant in the non-smoking section (many less than a year prior).
Banning anything is nothing more than exercising control over others. Personally, I'd rather others have as little control as possible over any aspect of my life...
Post by: grampster on January 14, 2008, 05:57:15 AM
We need a constitutional amendment that makes ALL laws that involve spending money or that regulate personal behavior sunset in 7 years and not re-instituted except by a 90% majority.
Post by: LAK on January 16, 2008, 03:06:46 AM
How many american indians died from smoking tobacco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century? Pure tobacco in pipes with no filters? They must have been dropping like flies. Lung cancer, emphysema, throat cancer, mouth cancer. Must have been real carnage.
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 16, 2008, 06:42:54 AM
Did someone say "cancer" somewhere on this thread?
How many american indians died from smoking tobacco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century? Pure tobacco in pipes with no filters? They must have been dropping like flies. Lung cancer, emphysema, throat cancer, mouth cancer. Must have been real carnage.
How many american indians died from smoking tobacco in the 17th, 18th and 19th century? Pure tobacco in pipes with no filters? They must have been dropping like flies. Lung cancer, emphysema, throat cancer, mouth cancer. Must have been real carnage.
They did not live long enough to develop cancer.
For the most part, a healthy young body can offset the genetic damage from carcinogens. But as the body grows older, its regenerative capabilities are progressively diminished. That is why environmentally/behaviorally caused cancer usually sets in later in life. If the average life expectancy of American Indians was 35-40 years, most would not develop cancer before they die from other causes. Finally, AFAIK pipe-smoking was more of a ritualistic than daily activity with the Indians. A shared pipe once a week cannot be compared to several cigars or packs of cigarettes a day today.
Incidentally, genetic predisposition to cancer often kicks in later in life as well. The simple reason is that the type that kicks in early would not allow many carriers to procreate and pass it on. Previously, it would not be noticed, because before the 19c., people simply did not live that long - infectious diseases and exposure would do their work. Modern medicine largely took care of those and now people live incredibly long by comparison, so the genetic predisposition has the time to kick in.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on January 16, 2008, 07:21:22 AM
I do not agree that it should be up to the government to make it legal or illegal. I think it should be up to the individual shop owner.
If they, THE OWNER, allows smoking, and you don't like it, you have the right to go somewhere else.
Conversely, if they, THE OWNER, does NOT allow smoking, and you don't like it, you have the right to go somewhere else.
We'd end up with some non-moking establishments, some smoking establishments, some middle of the road with non-smoking sections. Everyone would be happy, no?
In my inane mind, it would be like someone coming to my gun club and indicating that they don't like guns, and the government shuts my gun club down.
Post by: LAK on January 17, 2008, 03:25:50 AM
Quote
They did not live long enough to develop cancer.
Are you trying to say that they did not live past 40, 50, 60 and older? Says who?While many in particular tribes in particular geopgraphical locations may have perished early in life through starvation, diseases, conflicts etc - this was by no means universal.
Rather than sweeping claims like that - which is not true based on general history reading - I would like to know if anyone has any references to works written by people who have written about the subject if it exists.
We have sweeping claims by the modern medical institutions that "smoking tobacco causes lung cancer". Even as a lay person I can challenge that because they have not conducted studies using control groups that smoke pure tobacco only as opposed to factory processed tobacco, paper and filter material of unspecified chemical makeup - including combusted products - and their effect.
Additionally, they have not established even control groups with factory processed tobacco products isolated from other things that may cause cancer.
I keep hearing and reading things coming from the modern med establishment - the ones that are joined at the hip to the pharmaceutical industry who seem to like to market treatments more than cures - that "[this or that] causes cancer"; but where are their control groups?
I have known and know - as do just about everyone else I know - a good many very old people who have smoked heavily most of their lives. Half a century and I still have not known firsthand, or by aquaintance, anyone who has even contracted lung cancer - let alone through smoking. And I know, have known alot of people who smoke/d.
I smoke cigarettes, cigars and pipe. If I could afford a mid to premium cigar or two a day I would probably leave cigarettes behind; but I am not going to do it because some empty shirts and skirts say so.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 17, 2008, 04:19:59 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 17, 2008, 06:26:24 AM
Quote
I have known and know - as do just about everyone else I know - a good many very old people who have smoked heavily most of their lives. Half a century and I still have not known firsthand, or by aquaintance, anyone who has even contracted lung cancer - let alone through smoking. And I know, have known alot of people who smoke/d.
Well, there you have it! Definitive proof that smoking does not cause cancer. Its just a conspiracy by the government, researchers, modern medical institutions and Big Pharma to bilk us out of our money, all because they didn't do tests using Indian tobacco.
I'm gonna run right down the the tobacco store and get me a couple cartons of smokes! Might help me cough up some of this mucus I have from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that I thought was caused by 35 years of smoking.
Then I can call my cousins, my former neighbors and a few other people I know that their loved ones lung cancer was just a BIG Pharma plot to sell drugs to them.
Smoke'm if ya got'em!
Post by: Firethorn on January 17, 2008, 06:31:51 AM
Are you trying to say that they did not live past 40, 50, 60 and older? Says who?
The proportion that did was tiny, resulting in that 'lung cancer', indeed the primary killers today of cancer, heart attack, and stroke were tiny proportions of the death rate.
Quote
We have sweeping claims by the modern medical institutions that "smoking tobacco causes lung cancer". Even as a lay person I can challenge that because they have not conducted studies using control groups that smoke pure tobacco only as opposed to factory processed tobacco, paper and filter material of unspecified chemical makeup - including combusted products - and their effect.
I believe that sufficient studies have been done to show that smoking increases the odds* of various cancers, primarily lung. I think cigarettes are the main target because more people smoke them than pipes or cigars. Those are more of an 'occasional' enjoyment, not an hourly dose.
Even chewing tobacco has been linked to mouth & throat cancer. The link between occasional second hand smoke hasn't been proved sufficiently to me to argue about banning smoking from all buildings - though some clean air standards in commercial buildings might not be a bad idea. Heck, living within a couple miles of a coal power plant is worse than the occasional second hand smoke. Of course, if I had my way I'd be building nuclear plants to replace the coal ones, but there you go.
Does it really matter if it's the tobacco, processing, or the paper that causes it? On second thought - it does. If it's the processing or the paper, it's a very easy fix. However, I believe that at least some studies have looked into pipes, cigars, and even water bong tobacco smoking and found that cancer rates still increase.
The general gist I've gotten is that breathing smoke is bad for you. (duh!)
*Smoking doesn't cause cancer, it simply increases the odds of it occuring. Non-smokers still get lung cancer, some smokers don't. Smoking is a very good indication for it, though.
Post by: LAK on January 18, 2008, 02:38:31 AM
There is no place on earth you can lit a cigarette; and "not [be making that] decision for others as well."
So it is a ridiculous idea, outside allowing private property owners and businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking on their property or inside their places of business.
Otherwise I can just as easily say that I do not want to breathe the solvents and other chemicals from the varnish someone sloshes on the exterior woodwork of their house next to mine, or the dust particles blowing my way from a cement yard two miles down the road.
Post by: LAK on January 18, 2008, 03:02:01 AM
Quote
I believe that sufficient studies have been done to show that smoking increases the odds* of various cancers, primarily lung
Really? Which study or studies in particular are you going to believe?I actually heard some tripe awhile back on a videotape extract from one of those TV "news" stories that some new study had suggested that small amounts of mercury was good for people. That's interesting.
There are studies emerging - now from "credible" institutions - that fluoride is really bad news. The ADA even suggested in 2006 that infants under a certain age not be given water containing fluoride. Yet I see something in supermarkets called "Nursury water" intended for infants - distilled water with fluoride added.
Cancer rates have skyrocketed since right around the time of WW2. Tobacco smoking be it cigarettes, cigars or pipe has been around a long time. If you want to use timelines, there is a very good correlation between the rise in cancers of all types along with many other ailments and the consumption of refined sugar.
Sgt BoB,
Ever worked with cement? Around an airport where tons of jet fuel is pumped and burned? A metal foundry? Anything containing solvents; paints, resins, asphalt etc? Anywhere wood is sanded? How about the others you speak of; how about them?
Post by: Firethorn on January 18, 2008, 05:38:54 AM
Cancer rates have skyrocketed since right around the time of WW2. Tobacco smoking be it cigarettes, cigars or pipe has been around a long time. If you want to use timelines, there is a very good correlation between the rise in cancers of all types along with many other ailments and the consumption of refined sugar.
For one, we've taken on, what, another 20 years of life expectency from back then?
Life expectancy chart.
If you were born in 1940, you could be expected to live ~60 years.
If you were born in 1980, your expected lifespan is 74 years.
Guess when heart disease, strokes, heart attacks start showing up?
Refined sugar isn't a good thing, corn syrup is worse, but neither is too bad in moderation. Then again, the same can be said for smoking and just about anything else.
As for smoking causing cancer - there is a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer later in life. People who don't smoke or hang around those that do are least at risk, people who quit smoking show a lower tendency to get cancer the longer they've quit. Active smokers are the most at risk.
Some of this might be social status, genetic predisposition linking tendency to smoke and tendency to get lung cancer, etc... Still, analysis of cigarette smoke has shown many cancer causing substances - where these properties have been verified in lab tests.
As for your comment to Sgt Bob, I mentioned coal plants in my post. There are many places with less than optimal air standards. Thus my comment - don't necessarily forbid smoking in buildings by government fiat*, instead tighten up air standards. There's plenty of other nasty chemicals out there that aren't from cigarettes.
As for the flouride thing, it's up in the air. There's a chance that they might eventually stop flouridation if it's proven unsafe, but I haven't found any peer-reviewed articles, which I'm fairly sure would show up if it was really that serious. It should be fairly easy to track it's metabolization in the body as well.
Personally, I'd rather keep it out of the water and simply brush with a flouride toothbrush, rinse with a flouride mouthwash, and get the gel at cleanings. That's targeted application, rather than a shotgun approach with putting it in the water. As for the infant water - well, there's no telling how much research went into it. Heck, it might even be the local tap water of the factory run through a couple filters. You want scary? They put it in the baby food when I was an infant. I have a mild case of fluorosis as a result.
*Thought the government banning them in their own buildings is fine.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2008, 05:47:40 AM
There is no place on earth you can lit a cigarette; and "not [be making that] decision for others as well."
Do you also defecate on your kitchen table? If not, then clearly not all locations are born equal.
Bottom line: you are the addict. And I am the sod silly enough to expect rationality out of one. Therein the need for laws that protect my healthy lungs from your failures of character.
Post by: Paddy on January 18, 2008, 06:12:38 AM
What are the medical consequences of tobacco use?
Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 440,000 U.S. citizens each yearmore than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fire, and AIDS combined15. Since 1964, more than 12 million Americans have died prematurely from smoking, and another 25 million U.S. smokers alive today will most likely die of a smoking-related illness7.
Cigarette smoking harms every organ in the body. It has been conclusively linked to leukemia, cataracts, and pneumonia, and accounts for about one-third of all cancer deaths14. The overall rates of death from cancer are twice as high among smokers as nonsmokers, with heavy smokers having rates that are four times greater than those of nonsmokers17. Foremost among the cancers caused by tobacco use is lung cancercigarette smoking has been linked to about 90 percent of all lung cancer cases, the number-one cancer killer of both men and women18. Smoking is also associated with cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, cervix, kidney, ureter, and bladder7.
In addition to cancer, smoking causes lung diseases such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and it has been found to exacerbate asthma symptoms in adults and children. More than 90 percent of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases are attributable to cigarette smoking. It has also been well documented that smoking substantially increases the risk of heart disease, including stroke, heart attack, vascular disease, and aneurysm7. It is estimated that smoking accounts for approximately 21 percent of deaths from coronary heart disease each year16.
Exposure to high doses of nicotine, such as those found in some insecticide sprays, can be extremely toxic as well, causing vomiting, tremors, convulsions, and death19. In fact, one drop of pure nicotine can kill a person. Nicotine poisoning has been reported from accidental ingestion of insecticides by adults and ingestion of tobacco products by children and pets. Death usually results in a few minutes from respiratory failure caused by paralysis.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/nicotine/Nicotine3.html#consequences
Post by: Tecumseh on January 19, 2008, 08:30:33 PM
Post by: LAK on January 20, 2008, 03:12:02 AM
Quote
If you were born in 1940, you could be expected to live ~60 years.
If you were born in 1980, your expected lifespan is 74 years.
Guess when heart disease, strokes, heart attacks start showing up?
Three of the oldest recorded people were born in the 1860s, 70s and 80s.If you were born in 1980, your expected lifespan is 74 years.
Guess when heart disease, strokes, heart attacks start showing up?
No one has addressed the control issues for the basis of these "studies" that show smoking causes cancer or "kills people". Where is the control data for them? The hard evidence that prcludes me or anyone else from saying that most of these people with cancer, lung diseases, cataracts, leukemia, and a thousand and one new "syndromes" etc did not get sick from exposure to chemical solvents, the ingestion of a plethora of harmful particulates, consumption of refined sugar, and a thousand and one food additives?
Show me the proof.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 20, 2008, 03:27:40 AM
Show me the proof.
Nah, you don't need us to show you proof. Maybe you figure it out for yourself when you're taking off your O2 mask to puff on a butt.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 20, 2008, 05:54:51 AM
How is the workplace unavoidable?
Clearly, there are many workplaces in the world. For most people, the workplace involves common premises with a ranging number of coworkers. If the smoker is allowed to smoke on the premises, then the coworkers cannot avoid second-hand smoking because they have to remain in the premises to conduct their professional functions.
You miss the point. If your employer requires that you expose yourself to second-hand smoke, either work things out with him, or find a more reasonable employer. You don't have a right to any job you want, or to demand clean air on someone else's property.
Post by: Nitrogen on January 20, 2008, 07:53:35 AM
Oh, wait...
Seriously, no.
Personally I hate the smell of smoke, and on one hand I'm glad it's banned in so many places, but I sure as hell wouldn't complain if smokers did something about it to get those bans repealed.
Post by: Firethorn on January 20, 2008, 08:20:53 AM
Three of the oldest recorded people were born in the 1860s, 70s and 80s.
We already know that people live varying amounts of time. Statistical outliers are to be expected.
Quote
No one has addressed the control issues for the basis of these "studies" that show smoking causes cancer or "kills people". Where is the control data for them?
You're like a flat earther who demands proof, but says 'it's FAKE' when shown a shot of the earth from the shuttle.
Scientifically: Many of the compounds in tobacco smoke have been found to cause cancer. Mice and rats, regularly exposed to tobacco smoke suffer higher rates of lung cancer.
Statistically: Smokers are much more likely to die from lung cancer than non smokers. Much like old Coal Miners tended to die from specific lung disorders that appeared pretty much nowhere else.
Due to the ethics of experimenting on humans, we don't have the nice control groups you want. Looking at correlations - Smokers in an area are more likely to get lung cancer than former smokers, who are in turn more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers. The increased rate of cancer drops off to the non-smoker rate after about a decade.
Quote
The hard evidence that prcludes me or anyone else from saying that most of these people with cancer, lung diseases, cataracts, leukemia, and a thousand and one new "syndromes" etc did not get sick from exposure to chemical solvents, the ingestion of a plethora of harmful particulates, consumption of refined sugar, and a thousand and one food additives?
The non-smokers(like me) are exposed to that stuff as well. The only difference, averaged across tens of thousands of people, is smoking.
I'm not saying that that stuff isn't bad, just that smoking is proven so.
DESPITE THIS, I still support your right to smoke and use tobacco if you want to. I support the right of businesses to make the choice themselves. Just as I have the right to avoid them if they don't mediate it well enough.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 20, 2008, 01:49:19 PM
You miss the point. If your employer requires that you expose yourself to second-hand smoke, either work things out with him, or find a more reasonable employer. You don't have a right to any job you want, or to demand clean air on someone else's property.
Ok, so what happens if I am the employer? I have to pay medical insurance premiums for all my employees. If one of them smokes and gets others sick by second-hand smoking, it comes from my pocket in increased premiums. If I fire somebody because they smoke, they will sue me for unlawful termination since abstinence from smoking is not a reasonable part of their duties as employees. So, again it comes from my pocket. Under what you propose, I am screwed as an employer.
Now let's see what happens if I am an employee. I have to choose between my health and my career because of somebody else's habit. If I stay, I will get sick. If I go, I incur monetary and professional penalties.
fistful, under your system, the only people with true freedom are the smokers. Everybody else's freedom is limited as a result. If we should argue from the viewpoint of freedom maximization, your system is tyrannical.
As far as I am concerned, tobacco smoke is gaseous excrement. Smoking in my presence is like shitting in my face. I do not oppose the people's right to poop. I just expect them to poop in designated locations, as we do for stools.
Post by: Strings on January 20, 2008, 06:44:27 PM
You're talking about rats and mice that, if you touch them, get cancer. Not exactly proof to me...
>Ok, so what happens if I am the employer? I have to pay medical insurance premiums for all my employees. If one of them smokes and gets others sick by second-hand smoking, it comes from my pocket in increased premiums. If I fire somebody because they smoke, they will sue me for unlawful termination since abstinence from smoking is not a reasonable part of their duties as employees. So, again it comes from my pocket. Under what you propose, I am screwed as an employer.<
Ummm... noooo...
If you, as an employer decide that the risks of smoking in the workplace bother you, ban smoking on your property. Your right as a property owner.
there's a baked goods factory here in Manitowoc that doesn't allow smoking, caffiene, or "sweets" on their property. If the workers don't like it, they're free to seek employment elsewhere.
Big difference between the government saying "no smoking", and a property owner...
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 20, 2008, 06:54:27 PM
Post by: LAK on January 20, 2008, 10:31:15 PM
Quote
The non-smokers(like me) are exposed to that stuff as well. The only difference, averaged across tens of thousands of people, is smoking.
The difference is not proven unless there is a control group not exposed to any other known harmful substance.I could question ten thousand cancer patients and ask how many of them have ingested, just for the sake of arguement, an "average amount" of refined sugar. Or how many have mercury amalgam dental fillings.
If more than x percent said yes, many said "alot" and a few said "none", I could say that it is obvious that these two things cause cancer. If it is lung cancer, and you are going to say it was smoking tobacco - you have to exclude those who use refined sugar and have mercury amalgam dental fillings.
While the Surgeon General, AMA, CDC, FDA etc etc will all fall on smoking, they have little to say about anything else. Write and ask them about such things as refined sugar - and disease and cancer - and they will say something like;
"There is no evidence to show that refined sugar [We just have not bothered to look and have no intention of doing so] .... blah blah blah". Ask them about high fructose corn syrup and you will get a similar reply with the integral disclaimer.
We can say that almost anything in excess is likely to give you health problems. Red wine is reckonned to be full of anti-oxidants and otherwise very good for you. Drink five bottles a day and all of a sudden it is not so good for you anymore. A shot of scotch or brandy after a meal is probably not going to shorten your life; a pint bottle a day is another matter. Sugar, in various forms in small amounts probably won't hurt you. In the form of raw unheated honey it is probably quite beneficial in moderate amounts. Guzzle a mugful everyday and it is probably not not so good for you. A teaspoon of refined sugar in your morning coffee is not likely to kill many people; make it three in ten cups a day, and much more in the form of candies, sweetened this and that, and I would say it is very likely to lead to problems or death.
Smoking tobacco is not going to kill anyone in moderation. Smoking a few modern factory cigarettes with chemically treated tobacco, paper and filter probably won't cause your heart to fail later on. Smoke a few packs a day and it is likely you are asking for trouble.
Quote
You're like a flat earther who demands proof, but says 'it's FAKE' when shown a shot of the earth from the shuttle
Rubbish. Ask any scientist the what, why and how of a control group in any study. If do not have a substantial control group, your "study" means very little.Show me any study on smoking proving that it causes cancer, with a control group that eliminate the effects of refined sugar. Or airborn particulates of the type that come down from industrial plants, construction sites, etc.
I've seen the curvature of the earth from altitude for myself thanks; show me the conclusive study that "proves" smoking tobacco causes cancer.
Sgt Bob
Quote
Nah, you don't need us to show you proof
How so? It is "modern medicine", and you, who claim "smoking kills". You therefore have the burden of proof.
Post by: Paddy on January 21, 2008, 05:30:30 AM
Quote
Smoking tobacco is not going to kill anyone in moderation. Smoking a few modern factory cigarettes with chemically treated tobacco, paper and filter probably won't cause your heart to fail later on. Smoke a few packs a day and it is likely you are asking for trouble.
The problem with that theory is that nicotine is extremely addictive. So much so, that continued use increases nicotine receptors in the brain which further increases demand. So you won't have 'casual' or 'moderate' use of tobacco, it will always be excessive, and a risk factor for cancer.
Post by: jefnvk on January 21, 2008, 09:35:53 AM
Quote
So you won't have 'casual' or 'moderate' use of tobacco, it will always be excessive, and a risk factor for cancer.
As a 'casual' or 'moderate' smoker, I'd disagree. Considering in the last four months, I have had about 3 cigars, I'm not too worried. This is after a summer of smoking a few cigars a week
Post by: Firethorn on January 21, 2008, 06:40:56 PM
The difference is not proven unless there is a control group not exposed to any other known harmful substance.
Actually; that would violate the rules for a double blind study. If you're trying to isolate whether or not smoking causes increased rates of cancer you WOULDN'T want to sit there and isolate your test group from other substances.
If you sit there and do a test where you do a test group of Smokers+Coal exhaust+car exhaust+industrial cleaners and a control group of none of that, you don't have the same amount of isolation. All you get is that lung cancer decreases if you removed TSmoke&coal&car&cleaners. We know pollution from coal power plants is bad for you because there are increased illness rates around coal plants, that decreases as exposure decreases(you move further away or at least upwind on average from the plant).
As long as the other exposures are similar in both the test and control groups, it evens out.
Quote
I could question ten thousand cancer patients and ask how many of them have ingested, just for the sake of arguement, an "average amount" of refined sugar. Or how many have mercury amalgam dental fillings.
This is closer to the way studies such as this go(I'm oversimplifying):
We ask 10k people, of say 70 years old. The two questions are: Do you smoke? and Have you had(or currently have) lung cancer?
Let's assume at the time of the study, 50% respond yes to the first question. We end up having a 50% smoking rate for 70 year olds.
For the second question, we get that 5 non-smokers got lung cancer, and 28 smokers did.
More realistically, we hit all age groups and get more data points to analyze to control for things like age.
And you'd likely get that, at least for lung cancer, that the rate of fillings or sugar are NOT higher than the general population. Once you have correlation, then you start investigating closer. While double-blind tests would be nice, ethics about human studies combined with the length of time and actual percentage rates make that impractical.
Quote
If more than x percent said yes, many said "alot" and a few said "none", I could say that it is obvious that these two things cause cancer. If it is lung cancer, and you are going to say it was smoking tobacco - you have to exclude those who use refined sugar and have mercury amalgam dental fillings.
You're missing a critical point: What's the rate of these two items in the non-cancer population? Nearly everybody is going to have a filling - so while there will be a correlation if you only look at cancer patients. Such correlation will disappear if you consider that nearly 100% of people period have fillings.
When you look at lung cancer and see that 90% of those with it smoked, and the percentage of smokers in the general population is only 50% - then you have an issue.
Quote
Smoking tobacco is not going to kill anyone in moderation. Smoking a few modern factory cigarettes with chemically treated tobacco, paper and filter probably won't cause your heart to fail later on. Smoke a few packs a day and it is likely you are asking for trouble.
I think I mentioned something like that - cigarettes are targeted more because people tend to use them more. The occasional cigar isn't too bad. Heck, the occasional cig isn't too bad, but how many 'occasional' cigarette smokers are there? Then again - who's to say that chemically treated tobacco isn't worse than untreated tobacco? We're also not talking about heart failure - we're talking about lung cancer.
Quote
Show me any study on smoking proving that it causes cancer, with a control group that eliminate the effects of refined sugar. Or airborn particulates of the type that come down from industrial plants, construction sites, etc.
Like I said, a real control group, especially one of adequate size, controls for all of those. You don't eliminate refined sugar, you simply make sure that there's not a bias in your study group that's independent of the the control factor. Plenty of smokers eat lots of sugar, as do plenty of non-smokers. Thus I have to ask you: Do you have any evidence that either smokers or non-smokers consume more sugar?
Wikipedia states that less than 10% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers.
Gallop reports smoking rate in 1944 at 41%
Wiki also states that there's a 20 year lag between smoking rates and lung cancer.
Let me ask you a question: What environmental or behavioral condition, other than smoking, would cause smokers to vastly over represent themselves for cases of lung cancer?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 21, 2008, 07:46:55 PM
You miss the point. If your employer requires that you expose yourself to second-hand smoke, either work things out with him, or find a more reasonable employer. You don't have a right to any job you want, or to demand clean air on someone else's property.
Ok, so what happens if I am the employer? I have to pay medical insurance premiums for all my employees. If one of them smokes and gets others sick by second-hand smoking, it comes from my pocket in increased premiums. If I fire somebody because they smoke, they will sue me for unlawful termination since abstinence from smoking is not a reasonable part of their duties as employees. So, again it comes from my pocket. Under what you propose, I am screwed as an employer.
No, I didn't propose any of that. I'm saying that employers have every right to hire, fire, employ or not employ, insure or not insure, serve or not serve, any employee or customer they wish, for any reason they wish, so long as they honor contracts and agreements. I support Walgreen's right to fire pharmacists who won't dispense abortifacients. And I am anti-abortion. I support the rights of uh, uh, that company in Oklahoma (whoever they are) that won't allow their employees to leave guns in their cars. And I am pro-gun. Employers have a right to make such demands. Their employees have a right to move on. Just so long as contracts and agreements are fulfilled.
Quote
Now let's see what happens if I am an employee. I have to choose between my health and my career because of somebody else's habit. If I stay, I will get sick. If I go, I incur monetary and professional penalties.
Tough. You don't have a right to expect others to stop smoking, so that you can have the job you want. Quote
fistful, under your system, the only people with true freedom are the smokers. Everybody else's freedom is limited as a result. If we should argue from the viewpoint of freedom maximization, your system is tyrannical.
No, employers can also refuse to hire smokers altogether, under "my system." They can hire them and not insure them. They can hire them and then make them wear yellow stars. So long as the employee can terminate his employment, no one's rights are infringed.
Post by: LAK on January 22, 2008, 10:41:09 PM
Quote
The problem with that theory is that nicotine is extremely addictive. So much so, that continued use increases nicotine receptors in the brain which further increases demand. So you won't have 'casual' or 'moderate' use of tobacco, it will always be excessive, and a risk factor for cancer.
Wasn't it not so long ago that internal memos turned up from the factory cigarette makers exposing how they were tweaking their cigarettes with more nicotine?In any case, I for one have quit smoking a few times. I smoke primarily because I like smoking good tobacco. Especially in a cigar or pipe. The Skydancer cigarettes made in OK by Seneca indians not only has good tobacco - it is additive free. AS a bonus they are one of the cheapest cigs on the market.
-------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on January 22, 2008, 11:14:06 PM
Quote
[etc] ... As long as the other exposures are similar in both the test and control groups, it evens out.
Most unscientific; since you can not prove which element is the actual cause.
Most unscientific; since you can not prove which element is the actual cause.
Quote
While double-blind tests would be nice, ethics about human studies combined with the length of time and actual percentage rates make that impractical.
= past studies showing smoking causes cancer are inconclusive.Quote
You're missing a critical point: What's the rate of these two items in the non-cancer population? Nearly everybody is going to have a filling - so while there will be a correlation if you only look at cancer patients. Such correlation will disappear if you consider that nearly 100% of people period have fillings.
Actually, you will find that mercury amalgam fillings are nowhere near the 100% mark in use - except amongst the lower classes.Quote
When you look at lung cancer and see that 90% of those with it smoked, and the percentage of smokers in the general population is only 50% - then you have an issue.
It is still important to know what other factors are involved. I would be very sceptical of any study that claims that 90% smoked tobacco products. And there is no differentiation between modern factory cigarettes and pure tobacco; therein lies another factor. Cancer is largely a post WW2 affliction, I would speculate that the chemical treatment and additives in modern cigarettes is higher post WW2.Quote
Like I said, a real control group, especially one of adequate size, controls for all of those. You don't eliminate refined sugar, you simply make sure that there's not a bias in your study group that's independent of the the control factor. Plenty of smokers eat lots of sugar, as do plenty of non-smokers.
Yes, but how many?I am certain that the higher up the class system, the lower the consumption.
Quote
Thus I have to ask you: Do you have any evidence that either smokers or non-smokers consume more sugar?
Why ask me? This is something the medical establishment needs to answer before making sweeping claims about tobacco.Quote
Wikipedia states that less than 10% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers.
Gallop reports smoking rate in 1944 at 41%
Wiki also states that there's a 20 year lag between smoking rates and lung cancer.
Let me ask you a question: What environmental or behavioral condition, other than smoking, would cause smokers to vastly over represent themselves for cases of lung cancer?
I am still sceptical of the 90% figure; smoking is an easy out for some of the medical establishment and their cronies in mother gov - and the most profitable industries in food, chemical industry etc etc.Gallop reports smoking rate in 1944 at 41%
Wiki also states that there's a 20 year lag between smoking rates and lung cancer.
Let me ask you a question: What environmental or behavioral condition, other than smoking, would cause smokers to vastly over represent themselves for cases of lung cancer?
Just speculating though, heavy smokers, and perhaps smokers in general in the lower classes, are more likely to work in environments laden with solvent and other chemical vapors, particulates, dust, etc. And consume almost entirely or at least more processed food, and food containing harmful additives.
------------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: cordex on January 23, 2008, 04:07:06 AM
Just speculating though, heavy smokers, and perhaps smokers in general in the lower classes, are more likely to work in environments laden with solvent and other chemical vapors, particulates, dust, etc. And consume almost entirely or at least more processed food, and food containing harmful additives.
Whoa, whoa, whoa ... don't start your biased ranting against good old solvents, chemical vapors, particulates, dust and processed foods with additives! You're one o' them medical establishment henchmen, aren't you? How are your cronies in mommie.gov?I know folks who used solvents all their lives and never got sick. All of the oldest people alive today were born when dust and particulates were very common around big cities. NOT EVEN ONE WAS BORN AFTER ANTI-POLLUTION LAWS BECAME COMMON! Finally, processed foods and food additives have never been proven in a double-blind study unconnected to Big Heathcare to be harmful to your health.
Check your facts. Cigarettes aren't the only things getting a bum rap here! Many other healthy things like coal dust and smoke, processed foods and additive, mercury vapor and solvents are considered to be unhealthy just because Mommie.Gov doesn't want us to be free.
Post by: Firethorn on January 23, 2008, 05:41:36 AM
When I compared you to the flat-earthers, I didn't say that I think that you think that the earth is flat. What I'm saying is that you will generate any excuse to continue your belief that smoking isn't hazardous to your health. Either you deny evidence, say it's not good enough, that there are other factors, or it's not studies enough. Etc etc etc...
The rest of the stuff you talk about is stuff you study once you've found the link. There are probably studies out there that address every point. Just like I've mentioned that yes, we do have other things to blame for lung cancer, like coal power.
For example, my simple two question test can be expanded to questionaire size(along with $20 to get people to fill the monster out). Economic standards can be considered, tobacco type used(cigs, cigars, pipes, snuff, water bong, etc...), rate of usage, etc... Just count on having to send out more questionairs for good statistical significance for some of the more estoric correlation possibilities.
It still comes up that there is a positive correlation between tobacco, especially heavy use, and lung cancer. If you look at the segment of the population that's quit smoking - cancer rate is initially as high as the smokers, but over the course of a decade or two drops down to that of a non-smoker. This is at an extremely significant statistical level.
Second, tobacco smoke contains significant levels of a number of known carcinogens* - so we have a Method.
If 'tobacco' was in court for murder of various people via lung cancer the amount of evidence the prosecution could come up with would guarentee a conviction - it's beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, you'd have a hard time pinning any one case on smoking - but when you look at the statistics - it's clear.
Now, on another point - why can't we blame any particular case of lung cancer in a smoker on smoking?
From the wiki stuff - 90% of lung cancer cases occur in smokers. While the actual rate of smoking in the USA never reached 50%, we'll use that figure because it's easy.
10% of the cases were for non-smokers, so on average you'd expect 10% of the cases of cancer in smokers to be 'natural' cases. Well that or 'other causes'.
You have to realize, my standard of evidence requirements are quite high - I doubt global warming will be as bad as they say, but it's a difference between studies looking at millions of humans vs 1 earth, for a condition that has about a 20 year lag time vs a weather system that's been KNOWN to have cycles in the eons and longer, including ice ages, as well as regular warm periods where it's far warmer on average than today.
*determined to be such through various lab testing methodoligies.
Post by: LAK on January 25, 2008, 02:26:18 AM
And precisely where are the double blind studies?
How many of those ex-big gov folk you mention from the FDA, CDC, AMA etc go on to hold well paid positions in the industries they regulate; such as food additives?
Quote
I know folks who used solvents all their lives and never got sick.
Ditto; heavy smokers.Quote
All of the oldest people alive today were born when dust and particulates were very common around big cities.
I did mention that myself earlier in this thread concerning longivity in general. And tobacco was often smoked rolled paper sans filters - and chemical processes - in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Food additives were far less comon - so was gov regulation of food in general.Firethorn
Quote
Either you deny evidence, say it's not good enough, that there are other factors, or it's not studies enough. Etc etc etc...
Well; where are the studies. The scientific proof?You are arguing a position for which there is no concrete evidence.
You go on to state;
Quote
The rest of the stuff you talk about is stuff you study once you've found the link. There are probably studies out there that address every point.
So there you have it. "Probably"? I'd like to see them."Smoking kills" has become a religion of faith. An assumption; "everybody knows". It is really a case of, everyone has been led to believe.
Quote
If 'tobacco' was in court for murder of various people via lung cancer the amount of evidence the prosecution could come up with would guarentee a conviction - it's beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would say not; so far the only "evidence" presented is circumstantial.-------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on January 25, 2008, 05:07:14 AM
Chromium - [and refined sugars? - LAK ] a major player in the prevention of arteriosclerosis
Chromium - a major player in the prevention of arteriosclerosis and a risk factor for diabetes. From Dr John Mansfield's paper on arteriosclerosis and heart disease.
Since the early 1960s chromium has been recognised as being essential to human beings. Substantial geographic and racial variations have been found in chromium concentrations reflecting probable differences in chromium ingestion in various parts of the world and chromium appears to be absolutely necessary in the maintenance of human health. There is now an exceedingly well documented paper coming from the Biolab Medical Unit demonstrating a marked decrease of chromium levels both in the sweat, hair and serum with age.
Chromium levels can be seen to be lower in males than females from about the age of 20 onwards and there is a marked decrease in chromium levels between the ages of 45 and 65 which correlates well with the increase in coronary artery disease during those years. This study was the result of a retrospective computer analysis of chromium levels in 51,665 samples of hair, sweat and serum from 40,872 patients according to age and sex. The numbers involved here are so enormous that very little doubt can be ascribed to these findings. [24]
Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus have lower serum chromium than non-diabetics and chromium supplementation in diabetics has been shown to improve glucose tolerance, decrease blood cholesterol and triglycerides and increase high density lipoprotein cholesterol. [25]
The aorta in patients dying of coronary artery disease has been shown in an Israeli study [26] to contain exceedingly little chromium, whereas the aorta of patients not dying in accidents has been shown to contain aortic chromium. Chromium supplementation has been shown to reverse arteriosclerosis in rabbits.
To test whether increased chromium intake could improve glucose control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Richard Anderson (Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, M.D., USA) and colleagues in the USA and China studied 180 people with Type 2 Diabetes. Patients were assigned to three groups; a placebo group, a group where the normal diet was supplemented with 100 meg of chromium (as chromium picolinate) two times a day and a third group given 500 mcg of chromium - 2 x three times a day. All patients continued to take their normal medications. There was enormous improvement in all objective criteria in patients taking high dosage chromium, even by two months, and more markedly so by four months. [27]
Natural sugars and grains do contain substantial concentrations of chromium sufficient to facilitate the metabolism of these high carbohydrate foods. However, almost all chromium is removed during the refining process leading to the production of most of the sugars which we eat, either in the form of sucrose or glucose. Evidence from human studies links deficient or marginal chromium intake with diets high in such processed carbohydrates.
Such findings would correlate well with the observations that societies who increase their refined sugar intake have a very high incidence of coronary artery disease. While the amount of fat in the diet has not increased significantly over the past one hundred years, refined sucrose intake has increased by over a thousand percent and it is this factor which lead me, back in the 1960's, to feel very uncomfortable about the cholesterol theory.
Thus, chromium depletion is demonstrably a major factor in the formation of high serum cholesterol levels. Chromium supplementation of a previously low chromium diet decreased rat serum cholesterol levels and in males restrained the tendency of cholesterol levels to increase with advancing age. Other studies showed that elevated age dependent serum cholesterol levels in rats consuming white purified sugar. In contrast, low cholesterol levels were found in rats ingesting brown sugar or white sugar with added chromium. All these findings and countless other ones of a similar nature suggest that serum cholesterol is not a fundamental cause of coronary artery disease, but a result of other factors such as chromium deficiency, which are themselves major factors in the engendering of this disease.
http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/article.cfm?id=319
Note:
Quote
In addition, there is some evidence that refined flour and sugar deplete even more chromium from the body. Reduced absorption related to aging, diets that are stressful to the digestive system, and the modern refined diet all contribute to chromium deficiency. Higher fat intake also may inhibit chromium absorption. If chromium is as important as we think it is to blood sugar metabolism, its deficiency may be in part responsible, along with the refined and processed diet, for the third leading cause of death (more than 300,000 yearly) in this country, diabetes mellitus, and this figure does not reflect other deaths that may be related to chromium deficiency, since high blood sugar levels seen in diabetes also increase the progression of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, our number one killer.
http://www.bodyandfitness.com/Information/Weightloss/Research/chromium1.htm
Post by: LAK on January 25, 2008, 05:22:37 AM
? 2006 American Society for Nutrition
ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION
Consumption of sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and the risk of pancreatic cancer in a prospective study1,2,3
Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist and Alicja Wolk
1 From the Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (SCL and AW), and the Department of Surgery and the Centre for Clinical Research, Central Hospital, V?ster?s, Sweden (LB)
Background: Emerging evidence indicates that hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia may be implicated in the development of pancreatic cancer. Frequent consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer by inducing frequent postprandial hyperglycemia, increasing insulin demand, and decreasing insulin sensitivity.
Objective: The objective of the study was to examine prospectively the association of the consumption of added sugar (ie, sugar added to coffee, tea, cereals, etc) and of high-sugar foods with the risk of pancreatic cancer in a population-based cohort study of Swedish women and men.
Design: A food-frequency questionnaire was completed in 1997 by 77 797 women and men aged 4583 y who had no previous diagnosis of cancer or history of diabetes. The participants were followed through June 2005.
Results: During a mean follow-up of 7.2 y, we identified 131 incident cases of pancreatic cancer. The consumption of added sugar, soft drinks, and sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit was positively associated with the risk of pancreatic cancer. The multivariate hazard ratios for the highest compared with the lowest consumption categories were 1.69 (95% CI: 0.99, 2.89; P for trend = 0.06) for sugar, 1.93 (1.18, 3.14; P for trend = 0.02) for soft drinks, and 1.51 (0.97, 2.36; P for trend = 0.05) for sweetened fruit soups or stewed fruit.
Conclusion: High consumption of sugar and high-sugar foods may be associated with a greater risk of pancreatic cancer.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1171
Post by: LAK on January 25, 2008, 05:34:41 AM
http://www.newstarget.com/009797.html
Comparing what I know, see and have read, I would say that sugar is a greater killer than smoking tobacco. And there is so much overlap on the claimed effects, without some difinitive research it is impossible to say for sure that smoking pure tobacco in moderation or less does much harm to anyone.
Post by: Firethorn on January 25, 2008, 08:20:58 AM
That sugar, especially in large quantities, is bad for you is already widely known. Heck, I've stated in previous posts that corn syrup(the usage of which is promoted due to governmennt policies) is even worse. Personally, I think that it's a big source of our obesity epidemic, and might save more lives with some controls than banning smoking. And I've already stated that I DON'T WANT TO BAN SMOKING. I do not support bans on smoking, believing that that is a personal/business decision.
I'm hardly arguing that smoking is the only ill in the world; that with it eliminated we'll be living in a land of peace, prosperity, and immortality. There are many other dangerous substances out there ranging from apple seeds and char-broiled meat to stuff like mercury and botullism toxin.
I've simply stated that smoking causes lung cancer. There are studies that show smokers, even when the study controls for various factors like location and economic condition, have a vastly higher chance of developing lung cancer than non-smokers. That the risk of cancer goes up as the exposure goes up, that the rate drops when usage decreases. Cancer causing substances have been found in tobacco and it's smoke.
Tobacco smoke is NOT the sole cause of lung cancer. It also has links with cardiovascular disease(like the first of your articles), but I stay away from that as there are plenty of other risk factors that interfere-sloth, overeating, overeating the wrong foods, heredity, etc... Pancreatic cancer? I haven't even poked that with a stick.
Post by: LAK on January 25, 2008, 03:35:51 PM
Post by: Firethorn on January 25, 2008, 05:32:09 PM
Right; and I am simply saying it is unproven. There is plenty of overlap in the claimed effects of refined sugar for just one example - and smoking. The bottom line is what is needed is some conclusive scientific work - not circumstantial evidence. Other than that it looks like you and I do not disagree abut alot of things.
Where's the link between refined sugar and lung cancer?
Post by: LAK on January 26, 2008, 03:14:08 AM
Why are "vaccines" being offered for cancer? Well, it is claimed that it is a virus that causes cervical cancer for example. A virus?
That's right - so they say. Hepatitis B is linked to liver cancer, and so on. And in addition to preventative vaccines, they are proffering therapeutic vaccines which are claimed to boost the immune system, which in turn more effectively fights the cancer.
So how is it that it is viruses which are being pinned to other cancers and not that of the lung? Is it not possible, even logical, that it is perhaps a virus or viruses that are causing lung cancer?
Refined sugar is linked to a number of serious health problems. People with these problems often have immune deficiences. They get sick more often, get colds, flu viruses etc more often than others. If it is viruses that cause cancers, and people with immune deficiences that get them, then it is quite possible - logical - that the intake of things like sugar might be among the causes.
Smoking tobacco, among other things has been very common among many cultures all over the world for thousands of years. It is only late twentieth century western culture that has experienced the explosion of cancer and other unexplained maladies. The growing number of "syndromes" on the list continue to be described in terms of symptoms only, while the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry peddle hundreds of "treatments" for the symptoms, not much progression seems to be generated on identifying specific causes.
Something rotten in Denmark. As the saying goes.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 26, 2008, 05:34:02 AM
Something rotten in Denmark. As the saying goes.
Yep. You're certainly right about that! Smoke'm if ya got'em!
Post by: The Rabbi on January 26, 2008, 02:56:07 PM
Post by: Firethorn on January 26, 2008, 03:21:24 PM
Why are "vaccines" being offered for cancer? Well, it is claimed that it is a virus that causes cervical cancer for example. A virus?
Yes, a virus. To be specific - one that inserts it's materials into the host cell's nucleus and messes with the reproductive cycle of the cell.
Any wonder that it might increase the odds of cancer, then?
Quote
So how is it that it is viruses which are being pinned to other cancers and not that of the lung? Is it not possible, even logical, that it is perhaps a virus or viruses that are causing lung cancer?
Almost exclusively in smokers?
Quote
Refined sugar is linked to a number of serious health problems. People with these problems often have immune deficiences. They get sick more often, get colds, flu viruses etc more often than others. If it is viruses that cause cancers, and people with immune deficiences that get them, then it is quite possible - logical - that the intake of things like sugar might be among the causes.
Again, why is it targeting the smokers so much more than the non-smokers? Would you consider smoking at least a contributing factor then?
Quote
Smoking tobacco, among other things has been very common among many cultures all over the world for thousands of years. It is only late twentieth century western culture that has experienced the explosion of cancer and other unexplained maladies. The growing number of "syndromes" on the list continue to be described in terms of symptoms only, while the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry peddle hundreds of "treatments" for the symptoms, not much progression seems to be generated on identifying specific causes.
For thousands of years? Maybe for the native americans, with their generally short lifespans and little in the way of records, maybe, but for Europeans it didn't enter the picture until the 1700's.
As for the various studies, I'd suggest using the internet. As I have already heard and seen enough evidence to convince me, I'm not up on the various studies. That's why I say that there is probably a study about some of your points - I'm not going to lie and say there is when I don't remember seeing one that addresses just that point.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 26, 2008, 03:37:06 PM
Quote
As for the various studies, I'd suggest using the internet. As I have already heard and seen enough evidence to convince me, I'm not up on the various studies. That's why I say that there is probably a study about some of your points - I'm not going to lie and say there is when I don't remember seeing one that addresses just that point.
Don't bother arguing with LAK. If he drank a gallon of whiskey and then one beer then woke up with a headache, he'd argue that you need to give him proof it wasn't caused by that one beer.
Post by: Strings on January 26, 2008, 07:09:05 PM
I COULD see that: either the virus being carried in certain tobacco products, or smoking (and certain other activities) decreasing the body's ability to fight said virus. Still says "a link between smoking and lung cancer" though...
And I'm a smoker: just finished one, actually...
Post by: LAK on January 27, 2008, 02:55:31 AM
Quote
Again, why is it targeting the smokers so much more than the non-smokers? Would you consider smoking at least a contributing factor then?
It is the medical establishment that has targeted smokers.I would speculate that some of the processing chemicals and additives in factory cigarettes might depress the immune system among other things.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 27, 2008, 09:28:39 AM
It's threads like this that make me glad I've stopped posting. Next someone will start a thread about whether rocks are edible or whether it is just a gov't inspired plot to keep people from having free food.
So you are saying that rocks aren't edible? Do you have any links and evidence?
Post by: Firethorn on January 27, 2008, 12:16:48 PM
It is the medical establishment that has targeted smokers.
Is it targeting smokers when they point out that they've noticed that 90% of the people they see for lung cancer are smokers?
Quote
I would speculate that some of the processing chemicals and additives in factory cigarettes might depress the immune system among other things.
You're still back to the smoking being a cause for trouble - And if the processing chemicals and additives depress the immune system then there would be various other detectable effects, organic pipe/cigar smokers wouldn't be effected as much as their consumption would warrant, etc...
Oh yeah, and the cigarette companies WOULD deserve to be sued into non-existence for that. It's a mitigatable risk. Don't use those chemical processes to treat the tobacco then.
Post by: gunsmith on January 27, 2008, 12:45:02 PM
It was a chore keeping it lit, not like a regular cig at all.
I'm not really involved in this thread, but just to add to the noise...
I was at an Irish hippie rainbow gathering thing and it rained the whole week so we were stuck in communal tents and the non smoking hippies got into a debate with the smoking ones because the non smokers tried to ban smoking in the communal tent.
Just as a guy tried to say that smoking wasn't harmful at all, he was beset by a smoking fit.
Hilarious, SNL couldn't do any better.
Post by: LAK on January 28, 2008, 12:51:40 AM
Post by: Firethorn on January 28, 2008, 04:21:08 AM
I used to smoke Organic tobacco.
It was a chore keeping it lit, not like a regular cig at all.
It was a chore keeping it lit, not like a regular cig at all.
Perhaps they weren't properly dried/rolled?
Post by: Strings on January 28, 2008, 08:30:11 AM
Post by: seeker_two on January 28, 2008, 04:43:54 PM
It's threads like this that make me glad I've stopped posting. Next someone will start a thread about whether rocks are edible or whether it is just a gov't inspired plot to keep people from having free food.
So you are saying that rocks aren't edible? Do you have any links and evidence?
I don't know if they're edible, but I've seen plenty of people who carry them around in their heads.....
Post by: LAK on January 29, 2008, 04:18:39 AM