The passive smoking "debate"

[one_dreamy_girl]

With the institution of a ban of indoor smoking in all public buildings imminent, the risks of passive smoking have become topical for discussion. Last night I found myself yelling at someone in frustration after he’d made a comment along the lines of “There haven’t been many conclusive studies linking passive smoking with disease

Comments

[sgtbiffo]

I'm not about to deny that there is any arguement against said problems involved in passive smoking. For me I find it some what bemusing that there is a move towards it at the present moment. It seems to be a classic example of the problems inherint in democracy for two reasons

[sgtbiffo]

Though some may argue other wise, retail and cuisine are not known for their narcotic effects. This is why I didn't really touch on this area of arguement.

I think that the need to enforce a ban in pubs and nightclubs by law instead of choice (which are to very differnet things look at legalisation of marajuana for example) shows the publics and proprietors want for such restrictions.

Just because its in vogue doesn't mean every one wants to do it. Restriction of choice is a restriction of personal freedom.

And it's cheaper than buying your own!

[vastneonwolf]

No but seriously, I'm so glad the new laws will finally be put in place.
I'm sick of feeling like I've smoked a pack when I come home from work. So not pleasant at all.

[sgtbiffo]

Oh yeah! As an amusing aside:

I was talking to a cousin of mine at my sisters 21st last night. She doesn't smoke and she said she and a few of her friends went to a night club that already has a smoking ban because she hated the way she smelled like smoke after a night out.

She said the stink of B.O. and vomit was oppressive, and waking up with that smell in your hair with a hangover was desidedly unpleasant.

[hermia8]

thank you. a few months ago i watched a penn and teller episode that attacked the anti smoking lobby in the states. p&t claimed that no study had ever conclusively proved a link between SHS and any health concerns and that the SHS arguments of the anti smoking lobby were just hysteria.
so it's really interesting to see that this is not so. to be honest p&t's claims shocked me quite deeply and i'm really relieved to hear that perhaps they weren't so on the mark. i couldn't believe that second hand smoke was harmless.
p&t claimed that every SHS/damage claim was linked back to a single discredited study. but i can't remember the details.
so thank you again for bringing the information to me that i had been intending to hunt down myself!

in other news, i've resigned so i will be leaving the area. can we squeeze another couple of lunches in between now and friday the 13th when i leave?
x a

[one_dreamy_girl]

I did see some arguments against the research, but mostly they were saying "Yeah, but those people were going to get cancer anyway", i.e. denying the validity of all statistical/observational data, which I don't think would stand up in court! The sheer weight of the number of observational studies conducted, and more recent research with hard evidence that passive smoking changes a person's biology (see the study that used blood testing) is pretty much incontrovertible.
Congratulations on your resignation :) though I'm sorry you'll not be close by anymore. I'd love to have lunch sometime. Please rescue me.
I HATE MY THESIS SO!

[hermia8]

sorry i'm slow at responding!
yup. let's have lunch on friday???
x