Comments | phoenix512: Smoking Rant

phoenix512

Smoking Rant

Oct 31, 2006 00:03

Before I start with the rant, I don't smoke at all but what I'm going to say is going against this statement. Also this rant mostly my opinion along with some facts. I don't feel like researching all of this right now especially at this time of night ( Read more... )

Comments 6

snakejg November 1 2006, 03:44:35 UTC

The main argument against smoking is not that it causes problems for the smokers, but that it causes problems to those who are forced in the same area as smokers ( ... )

snakejg November 1 2006, 03:59:26 UTC

You can read the actual issue 4 here:

http://www.smokelessohio.com/law.htm

Their website, is of course, biased, so I wouldn't trust their FAQs or anyone else's, but you can read what the actual text of the issue is.

Issue 5 is located here:

http://smokefreeohio.org/oh/about/ourlaw.aspx

Same goes with issue 5, trust yourselves, don't fall for marketing.

phoenix512 November 1 2006, 04:54:55 UTC

There's one part of Issue 5 that would make this law hard to put into effect by businesses ( ... )

environmental tobacco smoke djohn89 November 1 2006, 12:37:46 UTC

> People should admit that they don't have real proof that second-hand smoke can kill.

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but NIEHS and DHHS have some pretty good evidence that the by-products of smoking are found in the blood and urine of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For details read about formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, and nicotine (just 3 of 50+ carcinogens!) in the Report on Carcinogens 11th Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2005.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html

Re: environmental tobacco smoke phoenix512 November 2 2006, 05:46:54 UTC

Ok, I was wrong after all but it would take a lot to cause death. People should at least admit that the stats for deaths caused by second-hand smoke isn't as much that the anti-smoking groups say.

Re: environmental tobacco smoke djohn89 November 2 2006, 13:03:25 UTC

> People should at least admit that the stats for deaths caused by second-hand smoke isn't as much that the anti-smoking groups say.

Your claim is unclear, but answer this: how many deaths are acceptable? How many years of your life expectancy would you be readily willing to give up by being exposed to ETS? For smokers (not ETS), it's 400,000 deaths/year in the USA[1] with a mean life expectancy reduction of 10 years [2]. So for ETS, would you be willing to have a 1% greater chance of dying of cancer and mean life expectancy reduction of 5 years? I am curious about what numbers you would find acceptable to apply to your life. If you're not exposed to ETS, think about people who are (via workplace).

[1] Thun et al. "Smoking vs Other Risk Factors as the Cause of Smoking-Attributable Deaths." JAMA. 2000; 284:706-712.

[2] http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/240604smoke.html