Hey Smokers: I Hate You

Originally Posted by zahratustra
And how about driving while intoxicated? And how many wifes/kids were battered because their father had a cigarette?

An absolutely miniscule of drinkers do either. An amount that is not even statistically significant.

Let's stop with the strawmen.

Your lack of knowledge in this field is truly impressive BN:

"Heroin and crack cocaine proved to be the most dangerous drugs to individuals.
However, when combined with the societal impact, alcohol came out ahead as the world's most dangerous drug. And in most societies alcohol, unlike crack and heroin, is perfectly legal for adults to consume.

After alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine, the next worse drugs were crystal methamphetamine and powder cocaine. Then comes tobacco — another legal drug…"

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcoh…ticle20038.htm

"Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17760130/#.UREXoqXlC30

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So, when people assault each other over nothing because they're drunk, it's different from a health risk how exactly?

So then, you'll be proposing another round of prohibition to go with your gun control? I know you tend to throw consistency right out the window when it becomes inconvenient for you, but I'm curious what your proposal is.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
Your lack of knowledge in this field is truly impressive BN:

"Heroin and crack cocaine proved to be the most dangerous drugs to individuals.
However, when combined with the societal impact, alcohol came out ahead as the world's most dangerous drug. And in most societies alcohol, unlike crack and heroin, is perfectly legal for adults to consume.

After alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine, the next worse drugs were crystal methamphetamine and powder cocaine. Then comes tobacco — another legal drug…"

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcoh…ticle20038.htm

"Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17760130/#.UREXoqXlC30

So the lesson of those studies is that pot and ecstasy should be legal?

Legalise everything !!!!!

Originally Posted by zahratustra
Your lack of knowledge in this field is truly impressive BN:

"Heroin and crack cocaine proved to be the most dangerous drugs to individuals.
However, when combined with the societal impact, alcohol came out ahead as the world's most dangerous drug. And in most societies alcohol, unlike crack and heroin, is perfectly legal for adults to consume.

After alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine, the next worse drugs were crystal methamphetamine and powder cocaine. Then comes tobacco — another legal drug…"

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcoh…ticle20038.htm

"Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17760130/#.UREXoqXlC30

Not lack of knowledge at all. Alcohol is most certainly dangerous to the user. That's not the issue. The issue is is it dangerous to the people around the user? The answer is that no, it is not statistically equivalent.

If you want to sit next to me and drink yourself to death, go right ahead, chances are that will have no impact on my health whatsoever. You want to smoke yourself to death right next to me? Fuck you and your 2nd hand smoke.

Originally Posted by jhwisner
So the lesson of those studies is that pot and ecstasy should be legal?

errr… what? Neuropsychopharmacology doesn't deal with questions about legality/illegality of drugs.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
Not lack of knowledge at all. Alcohol is most certainly dangerous to the user. That's not the issue. The issue is is it dangerous to the people around the user? The answer is that no, it is not statistically equivalent.

You haven't really read any of those articles have you?
"Each drug was then rated on societal problems it caused — crime, local decay, family problems, and a general economic cost to society." and later "However, when combined with the societal impact, alcohol came out ahead as the world's most dangerous drug."

Originally Posted by blatantninja
What would you estimate the percentage of people that get in assaults while drunk is to people who drink? 0.00001%?

I would estimate that alchohol is a significant factor in both street and domestic violence.

On the other hand, most doctors agree that exposure to ANY level of 2nd hand smoke is unhealthy.

So they aren't even remotely in the same ball park as to health risks.

This is what we call a strawman argument.

I'm afraid you need to look up the concept, because this isn't it.

Originally Posted by dteowner
So then, you'll be proposing another round of prohibition to go with your gun control? I know you tend to throw consistency right out the window when it becomes inconvenient for you, but I'm curious what your proposal is.

You're not really following.

Let me try and remind you of something. I'm against the banning of smoking until we know with certainty the damage second-hand smoking does in the various ways it happens - and I'm using alchohol to demonstrate the level of hypocrisy in this thread - and the world at large.

People are pretty pathetic in this way, so I like to make that clear.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I would estimate that alchohol is a significant factor in both street and domestic violence.

Have anything to back that up?

I'm afraid you need to look up the concept, because this isn't it.

Actually it is. You're interjecting a completely irrelevant argument to deflect away from the real discussion.

Originally Posted by Pladio
Legalise everything !!!!!

No, ban everything!

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm against the banning of smoking until we know with certainty the damage second-hand smoking does in the various ways it happens… and the world at large.

Wait. You don't think that the damage that second-hand smoking does isn't settled science at this point? Really?

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc…condhand-smoke

Sidestream smoke has higher concentrations of cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) than mainstream smoke.

…

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

…

Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.

SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.

IARC reported in 2009 that parents who smoked before and during pregnancy were more likely to have a child with hepatoblastoma. This rare cancer is thought to start while the child is still in the uterus. Compared with non-smoking parents, the risk was about twice as high if only one parent smoked, but nearly 5 times higher when both parents smoked.

…

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:
• An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers
• About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
• Worse asthma and asthma-related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children
• Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year
• Children exposed to secondhand smoke are much more likely to be put into intensive care when they have the flu, they are in the hospital longer, and are more likely to need breathing tubes than kids who aren’t exposed to SHS
• In the United States, the costs of extra medical care, illness, and death caused by SHS are over $10 billion per year

…

Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health

Since 1964, 34 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports still supports the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:
• SHS kills children and adults who don’t smoke.
• SHS causes disease in children and in adults who don’t smoke.
• Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion, stillborn birth, low birth-weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.
• Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.
• Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.
• SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.
• SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.
• Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.
• There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.
• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.
• On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.
• The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

references for the above:

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2012. Atlanta, Ga. 2012.

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. Atlanta, Ga. 2013.

Betts KS. Secondhand Suspicions: Breast Cancer and Passive Smoking. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:A136-A143.

Borland R, Yong H-H, Siahpush M, et al. Support for and reported compliance with smoke-free restaurants and bars by smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(suppl 3):34-41.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005. Accessed at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/environm…3partb2005.pdf on October 11, 2012.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Current Intelligence Bulletin 54: Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace – Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects. 1991. (Publication No. 91-108) Accessed at http://www.nasdonline.org/document/1…ng-cancer.html on October 11, 2012.

Dreyfuss JH. Thirdhand smoke identified as potent, enduring carcinogen. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(4):203-204.

Matt GE, Quintana PJ, Destaillats H, et al. Thirdhand tobacco smoke: emerging evidence and arguments for a multidisciplinary research agenda. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(9):1218-1226.

Mennella JA, Yourshaw LM, Morgan LK. Breastfeeding and smoking: short-term effects on infant feeding and sleep. Pediatrics. 2007;120:497-502.

National Cancer Institute. Secondhand Smoke and Cancer. Accessed at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f…et/Tobacco/ETS on October 11, 2012.

Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, et al. Exposure of the US population to environmental tobacco smoke: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. JAMA. 1996;275:1233-1240.

Polyzos A, Schmid TE, Piña-Guzmán B, et al. Differential sensitivity of male germ cells to mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke in the mouse. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;237(3):298-305.

Public Health Law Center at William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota. Kids, Cars and Cigarettes: A Brief Look at Policy Options for Smoke-Free Vehicles. April 2011. Accessed at http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sit…tions-2011.pdf on October 11, 2012.

Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(15):6576-6581.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, 12th Edition. Public Health Service – National Toxicology Program. “Tobacco-Related Exposures,” pp 408-414. Accessed at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twe…dExposures.pdf on October 11, 2012.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Children and Secondhand Smoke Exposure-Excerpts from The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2007. Accessed at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar…ure/index.html on October 11, 2012.

US Department of Health & Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2010. Accessed at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar…oke/index.html on October 11, 2012.

US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2006. Accessed at www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ on October 11, 2012.

US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2004. Accessed at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar…ces/index.html on October 11. 2012.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Frequent Questions. Indoor Air Quality. What can I do about secondhand smoke coming from my neighbor's apartment? Accessed at http://iaq.supportportal.com/link/po…or-s-apartment on October 11, 2012.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS). US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; 1992. Accessed at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/record….cfm?deid=2835 on October 11, 2012.

Wilson KM, Pier JC, Wesgate SC, Cohen JM, Blumkin AK. Second-Hand Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Severity of Influenza in Hospitalized Children. J Pediatr. 2012 Aug 3.

Winickoff JP, Friebely J, Tanski SE, et al. Beliefs about the health effects of “thirdhand” smoke and home smoking bans. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):e74-79.

World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Smoke-free Policies, IARC Handbook of Cancer Prevention, Volume 13. 2009. “Chapter 2: Health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS),” pgs 9-58. Accessed at http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/p…ndbook13-2.pdf on October 11, 2012.

World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Strengthens Its Findings on Several Carcinogenic Personal Habits and Household Exposures. November 2009. Accessed at http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/p…fs/pr196_E.pdf on October 11, 2012.

Zollinger TW, Saywell RM Jr, Robinson JJ, Jay SJ, Spitznagle MH. Effect of personal characteristics on individual support for indoor smoke-free air laws, Indiana, 2008. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E153. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2012/12_0091.htm on October 11, 2012.

You're not really this dense, right?

Originally Posted by zahratustra
errr… what? Neuropsychopharmacology doesn't deal with questions about legality/illegality of drugs.

Well yes but it doesn't deal with jokes either apparently.

sorry jhw had another looong day…

Originally Posted by blatantninja
Have anything to back that up?

Yeah, my common sense. That means I don't need to bother going through the super extensive research you're doing by googling for 5 minutes.

If your common sense isn't working too well, I advise you to research it and figure out how alchohol contributes to violence.

I'm not looking to convince you of anything, but I did assume you would concede something so obvious.

Guess I was wrong.

Actually it is. You're interjecting a completely irrelevant argument to deflect away from the real discussion.

No, I'm asking a question that's 100% relevant to the discussion at hand.

Wait. You don't think that the damage that second-hand smoking does isn't settled science at this point? Really?

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc…condhand-smoke

Have you read your own copy/paste? Do you understand what the word estimate means?

This is what I said:

I'm against the banning of smoking until we know with certainty the damage second-hand smoking does in the various ways it happens…

Absolutely nothing in that article or any other article has established exactly what KIND of second-hand smoking is HOW dangerous.

If you always sit right next to a person who smokes 60 cigarettes a day, that's probably not the same as passing a smoker on the street a few times a day.

Get it?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yeah, my common sense. That means I don't need to bother going through the super extensive research you're doing by googling for 5 minutes.

If you can't find something to back up your 'common sense' on google in 5 minutes, then probably common sense is not a good answer.

If your common sense isn't working too well, I advise you to research it and figure out how alchohol contributes to violence.

I'm not looking to convince you of anything, but I did assume you would concede something so obvious.

Why would I conceed something that simply is not true? Alcohol is simply not a major contributor to violence. THAT'S common sense. The vast majority of people that are arrested for violence are not drunk at the time.

No, I'm asking a question that's 100% relevant to the discussion at hand.

Except that its not relevent at all. Its a complete strawman meant to deflect against the issue at hand: smoking and how second hand smoke kills people. I'm not aware of second hand drunkeness being a problem in the world.

Have you read your own copy/paste? Do you understand what the word estimate means?

Uhh, yeah, it means its not an exact number. There isn't a single disease related out there that is not an estimate. You can't get exact numbers in this type of science. Apparently YOU don't understand what an estimate is.

This is what I said:

I'm against the banning of smoking until we know with certainty the damage second-hand smoking does in the various ways it happens…

Absolutely nothing in that article or any other article has established exactly what KIND of second-hand smoking is HOW dangerous.

Bullshit. You're trying to split hairs where there are none to split.

If you always sit right next to a person who smokes 60 cigarettes a day, that's probably not the same as passing a smoker on the street a few times a day.

Get it?

Again you're splitting hairs where it doesn't make any sense to. SHS is dangerous. This is a proven fact. There is no level of exposure to SHS that is considered safe. This is a again a proven fact. If I walk by your street smoker a few times every day for any length of time, my chances of developing a smoking related disease is elevated. Again, this is a proven fact.

I have some statistics from Norway regarding alchohol and murder, and alchohole and traffic accidents where people got killed.

Around 30-50% (it varies) of people committing murder are under influence of alchohol in Norway. Alchohol is involved in more than 60% of deadly traffic accidents involving one single car (which does not mean that only the driver got killed). I don't have statistice for accidents involving two or more cars, but no doubt alchohole is a major contributing factor in these accidents as well.

All in all, drunk people are significantly overrepresented in murder and traffic accidents with deadly outcome. At least that's how it is in Norway. Of course, the majority of people who are drunk don't get involved in any of these events, but alchohol consumption is a major contributor.

As for passive smoking, as I said we see a 30% increase in the risk of lung cancer among people exposed to passive smoking (significant, but small compared to the up to 1000% increase among heavy smokers). Similarly we see a 30% increase in the risk of myocaridal infractions. These are results from people suffering from significant and long term exposure, like living with a smoker or working in bars and restaurants (before the smoking ban). We see a significant increase in airway infactions and asthma in children where their parents smoke. Again, this is about significant exposure over time.

When it comes to random exposure the effect will be of little significance. Sorry, BN, but your claim about the effect of low leven SHS is not proven. It doesn't work that way. To claim that something is proven, would require significant measurable effects, and we don't have that for random exposure. Data suppporting the claim is probably based on extrapolation of data from long term SHS. It may cause an asthma attack, but long term health effects are for all practical purposes of minor importance.

pibbur whose typos are not caused by drinking or smoking

There is a fundamental difference. Drinkers aren't making you or me drink. Smokers are effectively making you and me smoke.

Have you read what pibbur have said about random exposure?

Originally Posted by blatantninja
If you can't find something to back up your 'common sense' on google in 5 minutes, then probably common sense is not a good answer.

I assume it would take less than five minutes to come up with something to back up something so obvious.

Problem is that I'm convinced - so I don't need to look it up.

Oh, look - Pibbur had the energy to educate you out of your ignorance:

Around 30-50% (it varies) of people committing murder are under influence of alchohol in Norway. Alchohol is involved in more than 60% of deadly traffic accidents involving one single car (which does not mean that only the driver got killed). I don't have statistice for accidents involving two or more cars, but no doubt alchohole is a major contributing factor in these accidents as well.

All in all, drunk people are significantly overrepresented in murder and traffic accidents with deadly outcome. At least that's how it is in Norway. Of course, the majority of people who are drunk don't get involved in any of these events, but alchohol consumption is a major contributor.

Clear enough?

Why would I conceed something that simply is not true? Alcohol is simply not a major contributor to violence. THAT'S common sense. The vast majority of people that are arrested for violence are not drunk at the time.

Do you have something to back that up? Let me guess - common sense, right?

But that's ok - it's not like it's important we agree.

Except that its not relevent at all. Its a complete strawman meant to deflect against the issue at hand: smoking and how second hand smoke kills people. I'm not aware of second hand drunkeness being a problem in the world.

I didn't say you had the capacity to correlate the two. That has nothing to do with me.

But if we're going to ban smoking because second-hand smoking kills people - then it stands to reason that we ban alchohol, because alchohol kills people as well.

Same goes for driving a car.

Uhh, yeah, it means its not an exact number. There isn't a single disease related out there that is not an estimate. You can't get exact numbers in this type of science. Apparently YOU don't understand what an estimate is.

The number is exact - that's why it's there and not another number. The estimate part is that the exact number is not necessarily accurate.

You're just not very good at this, are you?

Bullshit. You're trying to split hairs where there are none to split.

Yeah, yeah - I'm a liar. That's me. You got me.

Again you're splitting hairs where it doesn't make any sense to. SHS is dangerous. This is a proven fact. There is no level of exposure to SHS that is considered safe. This is a again a proven fact. If I walk by your street smoker a few times every day for any length of time, my chances of developing a smoking related disease is elevated. Again, this is a proven fact.

Yes it's elevated. Just like drinking alchohol elevates my chances of doing something stupid that might cause harm to myself or other people. That's a proven fact.

I'm pretty sure you know this through personal experience.