Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Smokers beware:

Smoking Health Restrictions

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#21 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 12:17 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 28 2004, 03:45 PM, said:

prolog, on Apr 28 2004, 08:43 AM, said:

Discriminating based on a habit which is known to cause diseases to both the practictioner and those around him or her (cancer from second-hand smoke).
Here's the EPA's page on second hand smoke:

http://www.epa.gov/i...ubs/etsbro.html

This pretty much has 'compelling state interest' written all over it...

EDIT: OTOH, just causing diseases in the practictioner isn't really a problem. Here in America, you cankill yourself just about any way you please... ;)
Sure.  If smoking only caused cancer in those that smoked, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  Part of being a responsible citizen is making your own choices.

Claudius: You've got to be kidding.  The link between smoking and lung cancer is proven.  You think that there's no link between smoke in confined areas and people in those confined areas developing cancer?  That the smoke that causes lung cancer over time in one person can't have the same effect on others in the vicinity?  I'm reminded of the case of a Windsor, Ont. restaurant worker who's never smoked, but who now has a smoker's tumour.  Oops.

Quote

Handmaiden: I'm taking a break for today. I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to watch people argue for the fun of it.

That's okay, I'm bored and my other group members haven't shown up yet, so I'll pour the gasoline.

Edited by prolog, 28 April 2004 - 12:18 PM.


#22 gaius claudius

gaius claudius

    I'm bringing the sexy back!!

  • Islander
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 12:23 PM

prolog wrote:

Quote

Claudius: You've got to be kidding. The link between smoking and lung cancer is proven. You think that there's no link between smoke in confined areas and people in those confined areas developing cancer? That the smoke that causes lung cancer over time in one person can't have the same effect on others in the vicinity? I'm reminded of the case of a Windsor, Ont. restaurant worker who's never smoked, but who now has a smoker's tumour. Oops.


Proven where...what studies??  By Whom...its one of those..we all know it to be truisms that no one can track down the source of ...and no offense..but the example you give is purely anecdotal..how much smoke were they exposed too?? How often??..Did they have any other risk factors?? What was their home enviroment? What's the cancer rate among other workers in the same facility that don't smoke who have the same amt of logevity there that worker does...what are they cancer rates for the patrons, or for workers that have been there longer??



gc :devil:
I seek the truth...it is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance that does harm.
- Marcus Aurelius

King Mob 42

#23 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 12:31 PM

gaius claudius, on Apr 28 2004, 05:21 PM, said:

prolog wrote:

Quote

Claudius: You've got to be kidding. The link between smoking and lung cancer is proven. You think that there's no link between smoke in confined areas and people in those confined areas developing cancer? That the smoke that causes lung cancer over time in one person can't have the same effect on others in the vicinity? I'm reminded of the case of a Windsor, Ont. restaurant worker who's never smoked, but who now has a smoker's tumour. Oops.

Proven where...what studies??  By Whom...its one of those..we all know it to be truisms that no one can track down the source of ...and no offense..but the example you give is purely anecdotal..how much smoke were they exposed too?? How often??..Did they have any other risk factors?? What was their home enviroment? What's the cancer rate among other workers in the same facility that don't smoke who have the same amt of logevity there that worker does...what are they cancer rates for the patrons, or for workers that have been there longer??



gc :devil:
By "proven", I mean the link between smoking and lung cancer.  Or are you going to try to deny that, too?

The case I mention comes from a Health Canada campaign.  Yeah, yeah.  But a study published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2001 found that people exposed to second-hand smoke regularly can see their chance of getting lung cancer triple.

I'm not saying that "second hand smoke *necessarily* causes lung cancer".  I'm saying it increases the risk.  Do you contest that?

#24 gaius claudius

gaius claudius

    I'm bringing the sexy back!!

  • Islander
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 12:50 PM

Quote

he case I mention comes from a Health Canada campaign. Yeah, yeah. But a study published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2001 found that people exposed to second-hand smoke regularly can see their chance of getting lung cancer triple.


Do you have a copy of this study...I tried looking it up on the net..it seems to be a technical journal quoting the same EPA study that was already discredited in another thread...

and no...I not saying 2nd hand smoke doesn't increase the risk of lung cancers ..but by how much...is the statisitically relevant...you're quote about lung cancer chances tripling I've never seen quoted anywhere...

in fact a group of UK monitors recently found this ...
http://www.forces.or...es/passmok2.htm

to quote..

Quote

PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers.






gc :devil:
I seek the truth...it is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance that does harm.
- Marcus Aurelius

King Mob 42

#25 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 01:20 PM

I don't have a copy of the study, no.  It was cited in the Globe and Mail (a national newspaper in Canada, typically not a rag) in 2001.  I didn't know that it was the EPA thing, though.  I have yet to read that, so I can't say any more about it until I do.

Quote

and no...I not saying 2nd hand smoke doesn't increase the risk of lung cancers ..but by how much...is the statisitically relevant...you're quote about lung cancer chances tripling I've never seen quoted anywhere...

Well, I can't give you a date on the paper, but it's online if you wish to search for it (I found it through Google a while back).

As for the "six cigarettes per year" - I'm assuming that's for the average person who is exposed to cigarette smoke on a fairly irregular basis.  Do you have any numbers on people who live with heavy smokers, for instance?

#26 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 01:35 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 28 2004, 07:45 AM, said:

prolog, on Apr 28 2004, 08:43 AM, said:

Discriminating based on a habit which is known to cause diseases to both the practictioner and those around him or her (cancer from second-hand smoke).
Here's the EPA's page on second hand smoke:

http://www.epa.gov/i...ubs/etsbro.html

This pretty much has 'compelling state interest' written all over it...

EDIT: OTOH, just causing diseases in the practictioner isn't really a problem. Here in America, you cankill yourself just about any way you please... ;)
Here's a link to the Canadian Cancer Society (I hit them before the American) about second-hand smoke:

http://www.cancer.ca...ngId-en,00.html

Quote

Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke. Second-hand smoke releases the same 4,000 chemicals as smoke that is directly inhaled, but in even greater quantity. Approximately 50 of these chemicals (carcinogens) cause cancer.

Cigarettes burn for approximately 12 minutes, but smokers usually only inhale for 30 seconds. As a result, cigarettes are spewing second-hand smoke (sidestream) smoke into the air for non-smokers to breathe.

Because sidestream smoke burns at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke (mainstream) it contains:

--2 times more tar
--5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.

Who says second-hand smoke causes cancer?
In June 2002, an international panel of 29 experts brought together by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (an agency of the World Health Organization) determined that second-hand smoke causes cancer.

Health risks of second-hand smoke

Second-hand smoke is linked to the deaths of at least 1,100 Canadians every year.

The short-term effects include:

--eye irritation
--headache
--nasal discomfort and sneezing
--cough and sore throat
--nausea and dizziness
--increased heart rate and blood pressure
--increased risk for people with heart disease (angina), asthma, allergies

Long-term effects include:

--Reduced ability to take in and use oxygen.
--Cancer of the lung. Research on second-hand smoke and the relationship with other cancers is in progress.
--Heart disease and stroke.
--Childhood asthma and other breathing difficulties.

Who is at risk?
Non-smoking Canadians are put at risk because second-hand smoke circulates freely:

--at home
--at work
--at school
--in public places such as restaurants and bars
--in vehicles such as the family car

The costs
In addition to the suffering and loss caused by second-hand smoke-related deaths and the direct medical costs associated with long-term illnesses, there are significant indirect costs related to second-hand smoke.

These costs include:

--increased absenteeism
--decreased productivity
--higher insurance premiums
--higher cleaning costs
--increased property damage resulting from tobacco use by smoking employees
Of course, I guess you  could argue that any of the cancer societies have a "compelling interest" as well (or maybe it's all a conspiracy :p~).
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#27 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 03:44 PM

Smoke where you like, dude, just so long as none of your stuff gets into the air I'm about to breath. I have rights too.
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#28 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 04:07 PM

A smoker damaging their own health is their business, but I recognize the harmful effects of second-hand smoking . . . Except outdoors on a Beach (and there's usually a breeze) I just don't see how anyone can reasonably get any significant amount of of second hand smoke.

What about those gas-guzzling SUVs and other inneficient polluting vehicles?  It may not trigger an asthma attack, but smog and ground level ozone aren't pleasant and I don't consent to breathing it.  I drive an effecient well-maintained compact car--why should I have to deal with the effects of much larger polluters?  How is this different from someone smoking outdoors, aside from being much worse?

Let's talk about real hazards at the beach--Glass containers, polluted water, sharp objects, wayward frisbees and the number one carcinogen you'll encounter on a day at the beach . . . *drumroll please* The sun!!.

These "whiny busy-body" laws do nothing but steam me up.  Some people get far too pushy in trying to control what their neighbors are allowed to do.  Seal yourself up in a lead and concrete block with filtered air, distilled water, pesticide GMO fat-free carb-free mildly-warm-but-not-enough-to-burn-you food some pillows and non-offensive books and magazines and leave the rest of us alone.

:glare:

hrrmph

-Nick

#29 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 04:18 PM

LOTS I suppose you could say that requiring someone to be a certain age before they vote, buy cigarettes, by liquor, or get a license is discrimination.  Most people would call it regulation though.  You have a tendency to  throw the word discrimination around rather...indiscriminately and it tends to undermine the point you are trying to make.  Not a slam, just an observation and hopefully food for thought.  

Anyways, smoking has been banned in the Bay Area *outdoor* stadiums for years now.  I guess I'm used to it.  I don't think it's discrimination per se but I do question regulating how someone runs his business this way.  I mean if a bar owner for example wants to have a smoking section I think he should be allowed to.
Posted Image

#30 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,491 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 04:19 PM

^

Most places, littering is already illegal...

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

#31 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 04:21 PM

Nick, on Apr 28 2004, 02:05 PM, said:

What about those gas-guzzling SUVs and other inneficient polluting vehicles?  It may not trigger an asthma attack, but smog and ground level ozone aren't pleasant and I don't consent to breathing it.  I drive an effecient well-maintained compact car--why should I have to deal with the effects of much larger polluters?  How is this different from someone smoking outdoors, aside from being much worse?

Let's talk about real hazards at the beach--Glass containers, polluted water, sharp objects, wayward frisbees and the number one carcinogen you'll encounter on a day at the beach . . . *drumroll please* The sun!!.
I agree.  But the car lobby has a lot more clout these days than the tobacco lobby.
Posted Image

#32 gaius claudius

gaius claudius

    I'm bringing the sexy back!!

  • Islander
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 05:12 PM

Rhea, on Apr 28 2004, 02:33 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 28 2004, 07:45 AM, said:

prolog, on Apr 28 2004, 08:43 AM, said:

Discriminating based on a habit which is known to cause diseases to both the practictioner and those around him or her (cancer from second-hand smoke).
Here's the EPA's page on second hand smoke:

http://www.epa.gov/i...ubs/etsbro.html

This pretty much has 'compelling state interest' written all over it...

EDIT: OTOH, just causing diseases in the practictioner isn't really a problem. Here in America, you cankill yourself just about any way you please... ;)
Here's a link to the Canadian Cancer Society (I hit them before the American) about second-hand smoke:

http://www.cancer.ca...ngId-en,00.html

Quote

Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke. Second-hand smoke releases the same 4,000 chemicals as smoke that is directly inhaled, but in even greater quantity. Approximately 50 of these chemicals (carcinogens) cause cancer.

Cigarettes burn for approximately 12 minutes, but smokers usually only inhale for 30 seconds. As a result, cigarettes are spewing second-hand smoke (sidestream) smoke into the air for non-smokers to breathe.

Because sidestream smoke burns at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke (mainstream) it contains:

--2 times more tar
--5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.

Who says second-hand smoke causes cancer?
In June 2002, an international panel of 29 experts brought together by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (an agency of the World Health Organization) determined that second-hand smoke causes cancer.

Health risks of second-hand smoke

Second-hand smoke is linked to the deaths of at least 1,100 Canadians every year.

The short-term effects include:

--eye irritation
--headache
--nasal discomfort and sneezing
--cough and sore throat
--nausea and dizziness
--increased heart rate and blood pressure
--increased risk for people with heart disease (angina), asthma, allergies

Long-term effects include:

--Reduced ability to take in and use oxygen.
--Cancer of the lung. Research on second-hand smoke and the relationship with other cancers is in progress.
--Heart disease and stroke.
--Childhood asthma and other breathing difficulties.

Who is at risk?
Non-smoking Canadians are put at risk because second-hand smoke circulates freely:

--at home
--at work
--at school
--in public places such as restaurants and bars
--in vehicles such as the family car

The costs
In addition to the suffering and loss caused by second-hand smoke-related deaths and the direct medical costs associated with long-term illnesses, there are significant indirect costs related to second-hand smoke.

These costs include:

--increased absenteeism
--decreased productivity
--higher insurance premiums
--higher cleaning costs
--increased property damage resulting from tobacco use by smoking employees
Of course, I guess you  could argue that any of the cancer societies have a "compelling interest" as well (or maybe it's all a conspiracy :p~).
I actually talked about this WHO study in a different thread...there's more info about it here...

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html


gc  :devil:
I seek the truth...it is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance that does harm.
- Marcus Aurelius

King Mob 42

#33 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,491 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 05:36 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 28 2004, 05:19 PM, said:

I agree.  But the car lobby has a lot more clout these days than the tobacco lobby.
I think it has more to do with the oil companies than the auto manufacturers.  There are other ways to make a car go.

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

#34 Taryn Wander'r

Taryn Wander'r

    scott pilgrim's precious little lover

  • Islander
  • 605 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 05:40 PM

gaius claudius, on Apr 28 2004, 05:48 PM, said:

in fact a group of UK monitors recently found this ...
http://www.forces.or...es/passmok2.htm

to quote..

Quote

PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers.





gc :devil:
That's still six cigarettes I never wanted to smoke- and go well out of my way to avoid it, but if somebody's doing it in the airport (for instance, the smoking areas at Glasgow International are not separate rooms, they're just *corners* of rooms), in my building (which is not a non-smoking building, and I had no choice in that seeing as I needed to live somewhere) or next to me at the bus stop (which is not avoidable if it's crowded), then it's going to happen anyway. And it's not fair. (Except for the apartment building thing, of course. That's just bad luck for me I think.)

And that study also comes from the UK- which, to me, seems to be permanently blanketed in cigarette smoke, and the fact that you can buy tobacco at 16 doesn't help matters, IMO. It's also got the highest rate of asthma in children in the world. Take from that what you will. My family doctor has speculated, and pretty much accepted, that both my siblings and I got our asthma from our Dad smoking around our pregnant mom and in the house while we were children.

#35 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:05 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 28 2004, 04:16 PM, said:

LOTS I suppose you could say that requiring someone to be a certain age before they vote, buy cigarettes, by liquor, or get a license is discrimination.  Most people would call it regulation though.  You have a tendency to  throw the word discrimination around rather...indiscriminately and it tends to undermine the point you are trying to make.  Not a slam, just an observation and hopefully food for thought.
Hmmm. Interesting observation. Perhaps I am a bit free with the term "Discrimination"? Then again, perhaps not? I'll take your comments into consideration though.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#36 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:06 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 28 2004, 04:16 PM, said:

LOTS I suppose you could say that requiring someone to be a certain age before they vote, buy cigarettes, by liquor, or get a license is discrimination.  Most people would call it regulation though.  You have a tendency to  throw the word discrimination around rather...indiscriminately and it tends to undermine the point you are trying to make.  Not a slam, just an observation and hopefully food for thought.
Hmmm. Interesting observation. Perhaps I am a bit free with the term "Discrimination"? Then again, perhaps not? I'll take your comments into consideration though.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#37 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:23 PM

Rhys, on Apr 28 2004, 11:23 AM, said:

How about non-smokers' rights?  If someone has smoked a cigarette in the last half-hour or so, I can tell within a minute of being in the same room with them - the smell is enough to make me uncomfortable.  Then there are those with asthma or other allergies.  Those aren't even a choice?  How about their rights?

Rhys
I knew this argument would get tossed out there. You say: "What about Non-Smoker's rights?" I say: "What about Smoker's rights?"

The question then becomes whose rights are more important?

In this case, the claim of second hand smoke as a defense for this ban is BS...It's outside, which is also known as the "Designated Smoking Section". You'll get more pollution from the cars and factories then you would from someone smoking a butt. Especially on the beach.

So, since the second hand smoke defense is, at least IMO, BS in this case...that leaves only one other possibility to consider. An attempt to make smoker's in second class citizens.

Perhaps I read too much into your post, but you seem to be implying that it would be alright for a non-smoker to approach a smoker, whose is smoking outside, and demand that they put the cigarette out. That's BS.

As for Asthma and other allergies...Certain perfumes can also trigger asthma attacks...you going to ban perfume next?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#38 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:26 PM

I dislike the mentality behind "no smoking" legislation - the city, state or whoever shouldn't have the right to regulate people's personal habits - but darn it, the restaurants and malls are so clean now it's hard to get very offended. My father has asthma and is very sensitive to things like smoke, temperature changes, and dust, and he used to go into a coughing fit at least once every time we ate at a restaurant, because no matter how far away the smoking section was, the smoke tended to drift and he'd end up getting a lungful anyhow - but now he goes to his favorite diner all the time, spends hours there with his friends, and doesn't have any trouble. The previous quasi-unregulated environment with the ineffectual non-smoking sections discriminated against some people with medical conditions just as much as the current regulated environment discriminates against smokers. Combine that with the second hand smoke argument, as well as the financial argument (Should people be free to make themselves sick if we end up paying for their medical bills?) and you have a compelling public interest for such restrictive laws.

#39 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:33 PM

Quote

In this case, the claim of second hand smoke as a defense for this ban is BS...It's outside, which is also known as the "Designated Smoking Section". You'll get more pollution from the cars and factories then you would from someone smoking a butt. Especially on the beach. 

I don't find this argument terribly relevent. Cars and factories are sadly an industrial necessary evil and have actual positive purposes whereas cigarettes just exist for people to slowly kill themselves with (and the people around them).
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#40 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:37 PM

Josh, on Apr 28 2004, 06:31 PM, said:

I don't find this argument terribly relevent. Cars and factories are sadly an industrial necessary evil and have actual positive purposes whereas cigarettes just exist for people to slowly kill themselves with (and the people around them).
You could always take the train. And I'm fairly certain that if the government put half as much effort into curbing pollution from the factories, as they do in trying to make smoker's second class citizens...the pollution from factories would be almost nothing.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Smoking, Health, Restrictions

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users