why ban smoking?

point well taken

 

Dopamine is awesome, thank you nicotine. And about public urination, I do a fair amount of that after I've been kicked out of a bar after last call. And I had no idea that cigarette smoke can attract the large amounts of bacteria that urine can! That must be why you used that comparison! No wonder I'm hardly sick, because my body has become a battleground of bacteria where there are no victors- just a Mexican standoff.

And man, what a streeeetccch to say that everyone starts smoking because of peer pressure and things like that. I figured that with how much everyone hates smokers, I assumed it must be pretty damn awesome, and by golly it was. And keep this in mind guys, keep this in mind... If smoking was BANNED just completely BANNED, where would the US get its money from? There has just been a tax hike, and a large tax hike on cigarettes. There are a LOT of taxes derived from cigarettes. I live in California, and the state is nearly bankrupt. Cigarette tax has just gone up a dollar- that's over a 33% increase (in relation to the cost of the pack, not the original tax). Not only that, it's getting higher in April.

I'm not going to do the math or research for you, but look at the average amount of cigarettes purchased in a year or even a month... how much money would the government be without if smoking was banned? The economy is hellish enough, and you KNOW they are not going to cut that money from Government positions. That is going to come out of the education system and welfare.

You also need to keep well in mind that smokers are just one big damn scapegoat, for what I don't know. I think people just like to hate something . Why don't you guys focus your ire on something else for awhile, like corn lobbyists? They want to use corn in EVERYTHING. You know, corn meal in dog food (it breaks down into sugar in a rather not so great manner in their bodies, causes diabetes and other diseases), corn syrup (a very bad sugar alternative, high fructose being an evil crap. It even shuts off your bodies ability to know when it's full to some extent), corn oil (I dunno what's wrong with it honestly) etc.

Now excuse me, I'm going to go have a smoke, a glass of wine, and urinate on the fire escape outside the window of my neighbor's apartment window.

And since I'm a helpful sort, I'll continue on a bit about the corn meal in dog food, because it is something I am passionate about (because my girlfriend got pissed off at me because I bought some cheap shit dog food). Check the first three ingredients of any dog (or cat) food. They should be meat. Not corn meal or some other crap like that, and gluten or something like that should be non-existent or damn way near the bottom. It should be meat. Even more expensive dog foods like Beneful use corn meal as a main ingredient. Be careful my friends.

 

Can... can I kiss the ground you walk on? Y'know, far away from where you publicly urinated.

 

@northofpolaris: I'm sorry to tell you but because my bastard father taught my mother the fine art of smoking & with her carrying me in her womb, the result was disastrous. I can't 100% say it was because of smoking but nowadays everyone knows women shouldn't smoke nor drink while under pregnancy.

What happened to me you ask? Well nothing bad really, except I was born with poorly developed eyes I can't see things clearly beyong four feet of me & in school I use a pair of binoculars to read stuff on the board, I do wear glasses but they're mostly to show people I have eyesight problems & their grades ae 1,300 for each eye & commuting is hell as I can't go to places I don't fully recognise as I can't read signboards of vehicles' destinations. I also have weak lungs & my liver got infected after I was born To top it all off my bastard father didn't want anything to do with me for being handicapped & thankfully he left me & my mom to fend for ourselves. Had it not been for my understanding mother, my deceased Grandmother, my Godmother & my cousins I wouldn't have been strong enough to survive this rotten world we live in.

Growing up was excruciating with alot of people making fun of me & doing nasty things to me like inviting me into their houses & letting their dogs chase after me or school jerks running off with my stuff. Now you tell me nothing bad comes from your nasty addictions, yeah for you there maybe nothing bad since it's your damn body, but what off the others around you :'(

 

I mentioned in another topic that people that smoke while pregnant or people that encourage are just plain stupid, or I forgot to include it. Seriously though I do know the risks of smoking, and people that do smoke and don't understand or know the risks are just plain idiots- no offense to your parents, but I think I'd punch your dad and slap your mother for their "genius".

Ingesting anything potentially hazardous while pregnant is something I do not support in the least. You aren't just damaging yourself, you're also doing some damage to that little bastard growing inside of you. There's no way around that unfortunately. And I never really said nothing bad comes from smoking or drinking, I'd be an idiot to say otherwise.

 

are you a hypocrite? honestly, you hate people who are against smoking but you also don't want those pregnant to ingest smoke or those "anything potentially hazardous".

What are those "anything potentially hazardous" in your opinion? Cigarette smoke, for you, is not "anything potentially hazardous"?

The parents are just 1 factor in that situation, but the envirionment is the next big factor and also one that is lasting. Tuberculosis is 1 of the leading causes of death in the world. And my good professor died of 3rd-degree lung cancer due to prolong exposure to people who smoke and smoke belching. Smoking people are the human equivalent of smoke-producing cars.

As I said in my previous post, I "DON"T" propose on BANNING SMOKING, "BUT" place "SMOKING AREAS", and "ENFORCE" those strictly.

 

I'm a hypocrite? Please explain.

 

And try not to misquote me this time and go off tangent.

 

oh, sorry, the word "hypocrite" is a wrong word to express what i was thinking. Let me rephrase that question "Are you a hypocrite?"

Do you know what are second-hand smokes? Pregnant women who dont smoke but inhales second-hand smokes are also in danger of the effect those smokes?

So here is your "And try not to misquote me this time and go off tangent", You smoke, you inhale and exhale it? right? when you exhale, that is what you call "second-smoke". That "second-hand smoke" is not just idle in the air, it travels and mixes with our lovable oxygen that "We" inhale. Pregnant women and the "little bastard growing inside-you mentioned" also inhale, if you didnt know. Oxygen and "Second-hand smokes" can't be separated by those who inhale, unless you are a scientist and have machines for that.

To be fast and understandable"
Where does second-hand smoke comes from? Answer: Smoker.

Who inhale second-hand smoke? Answer: Living things, like pregnant women, and non-smoker, etc.

Also, I would like to thank you, you just helped me change my point of view on smoking.

The governments of the world should totally ban smoking from all areas except on private owned houses.

 

That's quite a bit paranoid if you ask me. So you're telling me that the concentration of cigarette smoke is so high that all pregnant women are inhaling large amounts smoke?

Let's just see if I'm correct here. According to you, since there are so many smokers and so much second hand smoking hanging out in the air, all pregnant women are inhaling this smoke. So that means that all children that are born are born prematurely with defects, low birth weights, heart problems, the whole deal. I must live in an area where there aren't that many smokers because most people that I know aren't dealing with problems like this. Could you look up some statistics and find out how much second hand smoke is just hanging out in the air, and how many pregnancies are effected by this second hand smoking hanging out in the air?

Another thing, what I meant by misquoting me is how you only took part of what I said and took it out of context. You also said that I "hate" people that are against smoking. I never said that. I also never said that pregnant women should smoke. I also most definitely never said that cigarette smoke is not bad for you. Don't try to make me out into someone I'm not.

 

It gives me something to do, relaxes me, and gives me time to think about everything going on in my life.

 

Well, I'm not going to prolong my argument about smoking, its not going to change anything and i already expressed my concerns and thoughts.

I'll just answer the questions "Why ban smoking?" "Are you in favor of banning smoking?"

I'm in favor of banning smoking because its a cause of lung cancer and it affects people who doesn't like to inhale smoke. Am I in favor of banning smoking?, the answer is yes, not just in enclosed public areas, but also from the streets and in areas that people frequently goes to.

 

That didn't take much...

I was hoping to bring out my big guns which was a study done over the course of 40 years that showed little correlation if any at all with health risks vs. second hand smoke. They followed over 100k people, 32k of which didn't smoke but are or may have been exposed to second hand smoke. The study lasted so long because many anti-smoking lobbyists kept pumping more money into the study to prolong it to see if they could turn out statistics in their favor. Didn't go well, obviously. I may have mentioned somewhere before that it would take hours of exposure to equal even one cigarette, I don't recall if I did but that information was gleaned from studies such as this one.

A lot of the statistics against smoking are largely exaggerated, and most of them weren't even conducted well or thoroughly. The EPA gathered most of their momentum when they started throwing out stats on deaths associated with second hand smoke. Unfortunately, they pulled their numbers from other existing studies, possibly mis-representing the data to exaggerate the numbers and scare people. It's something called Meta-statistics or something like that- the method they use.

This isn't saying that smoking and second hand smoking isn't dangerous, I'm just trying to point out the fact that the media and whatever the hell else is turning people into paranoid freaks about this stuff. I think it really sucks that people are trying to ban smoking even in open areas. I just hate how people think that they are the center of the damn universe and expect everything to go their way just because they're paranoid. You ever heard of I dunno, compromising a bit? Leave us SOME places? We can't smoke indoors, and now you don't want us to smoke outside even? And some of you want it gone completely? Why? Just because you're afraid? I do my damndest to stay the hell out of your way, why can't you even think or consider doing the same for me? Why restrict me to smoking in one small lined off area, and not just anywhere out in the open where people have plenty of space to just move around me if they have a problem with it? Why am I the one forced to all the ethics?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

That's a link to the study I mentioned. There's an actual PDF, but that news journal seems to have summed it up quite a bit. I like the comments calling all of the stats lies and all that, even though they actually conducted an experiment and not just compiled numbers from various resources. If any of you have taken a stats class, you probably know the kind of BS I'm talking about.

Edit: Oh, and just to add, mostly because I think it's funny, some anti-smoking activists were getting all grouchy about smoking causing asthma in children and whatnot, but the number of people with asthma went up when the number of smokers went down... After that they tried to deny that there is no correlation there... Even Adam Corolla went on a 4 minute rant about that.

 

yeah you live only once so you might as well inhale some smoke...everyone inhale polluted city air and smoke from cars and buses and trucks but when a smoker lights up everyone's making a lotta noise.

 

The study you mentioned, your "trump card" so to speak, is controversial at best, and flawed at worst. For one, this "experiment" was heavily funded by big tobacco companies. Enstrom himself reportedly received over $50.000 from the Center for Tobacco Research in the 70's for this study. CTR was a group formed by Big Tobacco to fund research related to smoking and health in the 1950's. So much for unbiased. Second, is the fact that the study does NOT give a source of exposure to second hand smoke OTHER THAN the smoking status of the spouse. You see, in 1960's to 1970's America, virtually everyone in some way or another encountered smoke, in work settings or even at home. It would diminish the value of the study if this fact was ignored. Major organizations related to this subject, such as the British Medical Association and the American Cancer Society have repeatedly stated the flaws and the controversies surrounding the study.

Sources:
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom

I explicitly dislike your arrogance over your position over smoking (second hand / passive smoking specifically). You say that smoking and second hand smoking is dangerous. Yet you accuse people of being paranoid. Of course they are: it's dangerous. It's not a matter of "people can move" or "there are a lot of other places". If people complain about the smoke, chances are they have already inhaled it. rodras said it correct in his analogy with public urination. And, yes, we did leave you SOME places. Smoke on your private property, and I don't give a rat's ass. If you stay out of people's way, that's fine too. But all I'm saying is MAYBE the health of the people around you should be considered important rather than your relaxation.

Anyways, to be perfectly clear: I don't give a fuck about you smoking. Do whatever you want, it's your life. But when it comes to the interests of the public, show some respect, not arrogance.

 

It's funny because I found another source saying that the study was funded entirely by anti-smoking agencies. The wonders of the internet, eh? I'm an arrogant bastard, so sorry for that- but I did talk about showing respect and I was met with a hail of shock and disrespect. I've got almost no support on my side of the argument, and all I get is people getting PO'ed when I ask if they can just give someone as much respect as is given to them. I have to inflate my ego in order to make up for the lack of people arguing on my side.

Well let's say this, even if the study was funded by tobacco companies, what about studies funded by anti-smoking agencies? You're saying that because the study was funded by tobacco companies, there is a conflict of interest. Why can't the same be said about studies funded by anti-smoking agencies? It's a fallacy both ways around. And let me clarify a bit about the paranoia, second hand smoke is dangerous, but no where near as dangerous as the EPA and other agencies make it out to be. I even found a study funded by anti-smoking agencies that said something along the lines of the second hand smoke in the air is a ridiculously lower percentage than that compared to the actual smoker- that it would take something like 250 hours of exposure to equal a single cigarette.

[That same gentleman went on to say that second hand smoke was much more dangerous than first hand... which brings along another question. If that is the case, then why isn't the smoker death rate higher than that of the second hand smokers in the anti-smoking studies? A smoker is inhaling both the smoke from the cigarette, and giving themselves second hand smoke as they sit with the cigarette in their hand. Let's even factor in this new fan dangled third hand smoke. Wouldn't we be dropping like flies then?]

I'm putting that in brackets because I went to go look at the numbers, and each study has ridiculously different numbers, so I have no idea what to believe. I did find something interesting though that said they tally the deaths by finding all the different cases of lung and heart diseases... then deciding what the "risk factor" was and decided how many of those were caused by smoking... Good study habits! That was in the New York times, and a big reason why you should really, really find out where they are getting their numbers from. When I read most articles, they made it out to seem like those exposed to second hand smoke die more frequently than smokers, then they said half a million American's die in a year from smoking, and go on to say that only 3,000 people a year die from second hand smoke. I'm effin' lost. I also hate how they don't really specify what their sample size is, if there were pre-existing medical conditions in ANY of these people, and if they have some factual evidence that their diseases were caused by cigarette smoke...

That's what blows about studies, it's easier to prove that there is no connection than there is to prove a connection. I've yet to see a serious, solid study that confirms anti-smokers fears. They pull numbers from a study, and impose their estimations on it. A credible news source like the New York times even says they do, but doesn't criticize them for it. The only decent study I found was the one I cited, as it names the sample size, the controls, and the conditions that the participants are under. Even if you say it is funded by tobacco companies, and even if it isn't, it is still an actual study.

And commenting on another comment you made about the study... You say that people were smoking all over the place during the time of that study, and that is really, really true. If you look at all the old headshots of celebrities, they were always smoking a cigarette- even if they didn't smoke! You are saying that they are exposed to smoking other than from their spouse... wouldn't that just strengthen the study even more? They're exposed to more smoke, so theoretically speaking, they should be at higher risk for disease; however, the study showed little to no correlation.

Source: http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224

Read further down for the article that talks about the 40 year study. I take it with a grain of salt mostly because the guy sounds overly biased and pissed off, but he does say that no tobacco companies funded the study. I'm sure the same can be said for your sources.

I'm also not digging your arrogant attitude and angry nature, but I saved it for the end of my post so you wouldn't get your feelings hurt like you hurt mine :'(.


Edit: Another edit, sorry for the super post, but I'm reading through one of your sources, and I find it very funny they are using the same arguments that the smoker's rights guys are using- that the study is based on meta statistics. Let's just say F' it all, and I'll get back to you in 40 years and let you know if my girlfriend died from my second hand smoke or not.

 

Yeah, but the smoker is exposed to the same amount of that second hand smoke, if not even more. So the smoker is getting both the smoke they inhale intentionally and the run-off from their cigarette- and, if you're like me, you don't smoke with a filter. Audrey Hepburn in "Charade" put it best, "I can't smoke with one of these (filter). It's like drinking coffee through a veil!".

 

I did not say that the study was essentially wrong. I said it was VERY controversial, given its extravagant claims and the fact that it has been refuted by the ACS, the AMA, and the BMA . The main flaw of the study is misuse of the data obtained (evident in the fact that the data was not original; it was obtained from the ACS Cancer Prevention Study), and the methods of the study (see my last post). Added to the fact that according to almost all the sources I have examined concluded that the researchers (Enstrom and Kabat) received funding from CTR (to the sum of $210.000). If you had a source that said otherwise in this matter, I would gladly look over it. For now, I think it's more prudent to view this study with a certain degree of skepticism and doubt.

I think it's funny that you stated the study was your "end-all" proof of your opinion on second hand smoke, but then retract your statement and say that because the studies against smoking are made by anti smoking agencies, it's a fallacy both ways. That does not detract from the fact that the Enstrom/Kabat study was flawed. Again, because of this it *seems* to prove the lack of correlation between second hand smoke and disease. I recall in my last post that I only commented on this particular study, and did not make claims/ assumptions based on other research. The moral of this is take everything, even scientific research, with a grain of salt whether it proves or disproves your opinion.

Also, forgive me if I fail to clarify: I made that comment to outline the flaws (methodological), not considering whether it could be detrimental to my views. You should note that they also did not report on the smoking status of EITHER spouse from 1972 onwards (and the study went on until 1998). This could mean that they could either have stopped smoking/ divorced/ died.

I have to agree, though, on the fact that it is proportionately less dangerous than first hand smoking. Still, it does not make it somehow safe, as you said. Let me give another analogy: poking people with a thumb tack is dangerous, but FAR less dangerous than, say, shooting someone with a gun. If someone was poking you with a thumbtack, even if all it could do is cause you minor pain/ annoyance, you would try to either get away from the person or ask him to leave. The person doing the "stabbing" should at least acknowledge that others aren't sharing his fun and, you know, leave.

Lastly, I apologize if I seemed agitated or angry in my last response. Being awake for 18 hours can do that to a person

 

I didn't really retract my statement and I did give a source that denied that they received funding from tobacco companies. I was merely going on with my frustration with any statistics and how if it disproves anything for anyone, it always ends up "controversial", and the page you gave me that discredited the study for having received funding from a tobacco company gave me the impression that they went there because they couldn't get any more funding from anti-smoking agencies. Why couldn't they get anymore funding from anti-smoking agencies? Probably because they didn't like the results they are getting. And I never said it was my "end-all", just something alone the lines of a good one- mostly because it was an actually study (from what I read), and it received funding entirely from anti-smoking agencies.

Really though, explain to me why this study has to be viewed with skepticism, but all the other studies such as ones conducted by the EPA aren't viewed with skepticism, but viewed as fact? Why don't you view their claims as extravagant? Some of the studies I read about said that the death toll of smokers yearly was nearly 500,000- in America alone. Do the math on that one, that is obviously a ridiculous exaggeration. The point you are making about the study being flawed because it received funding from a tobacco company could easily be applied to studies funded by anti-smokers. There could be a conflict of interest because the scientists and statisticians want to give them the results they want so they could receive further funding. Why don't you think that this isn't the case?