Secondhand Smoke

[Dardedar]

Secondhand smoke debate 'over'

Updated 6/27/2006 11:28 PM ET

Source: The Associated Press
By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Never mind the non-smoking sections or even good ventilation systems in bars, restaurants or offices. Secondhand smoke is a health hazard at any level, a new report from the U.S. surgeon general says.

The 700-page report cites "massive and conclusive scientific evidence" of the "alarming" public health threat posed by secondhand smoke and finds smoking bans are the only way to protect non-smokers.

Q&A:What the study means

"The debate is over," Surgeon General Richard Carmona said in issuing the report Tuesday. "The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard."

Although many states and hundreds of cities have passed smoke-free laws, more than 126 million Americans ages 3 and older continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke, according to the report. Nearly 50,000 non-smokers die from secondhand smoke each year.

Carmona said non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of heart disease and cancer by up to 30%. Even brief exposure to smoke damages cells, beginning a process that can lead to cancer, and increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause heart attacks and strokes.

The report expands on the landmark 1986 report from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, the first to conclude that secondhand smoke causes disease.

Carmona also urged parents not to smoke around children, noting that many children are exposed in the home. He stopped short of calling for specific legislation or other government regulation to restrict indoor smoking, noting that his role was simply to provide accurate information. "The strength of this movement is in the communities," Carmona said.

Anti-tobacco activists said the report is a blueprint for future action. Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said all states and communities should immediately ban smoking in all workplaces: "Anything else leaves Americans' health at risk."

The report does provide strong support for smoke-free laws. Contrary to tobacco industry-financed studies, smoke-free policies do not hurt business for bars, restaurants and other venues, the report concludes. The report strongly criticizes the tobacco industry for financing biased studies to undermine carefully conducted, peer-reviewed research on the economic effects of smoking bans in an effort to "sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus."

Bars and restaurants should be allowed to decide on the policies that best suit their clients, said David Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. "Adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," he says. "People who don't want to work around it don't have to work at that establishment."

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco does not dispute the science in the surgeon general's report, Howard said.

The report notes that bartenders, waiters and waitresses are exposed to some of the highest levels of secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk of disease. "No employee should be forced to choose between making a living and increasing the risk of heart disease and lung disease," Myers said. "No employer should be allowed to place their employees at risk."

Thanks to smoke-free air laws, fewer Americans today are exposed to secondhand smoke, the report says. Yet more than 40% of non-smoking adults and nearly 60% of children ages 3 to 11 are exposed to secondhand smoke.

Because children's lungs are still developing, children exposed to smoke have twice the level of a nicotine byproduct in their blood as adult non-smokers.

***
SMOKESCREEN

THE PROBLEM: 126 million non-smokers are exposed to secondhand smoke that increases their risk of death from lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

THE FINDINGS: U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona declared in a report Tuesday that there is no risk-free level of exposure to someone else's drifting smoke. Separate smoking sections don't work.

THE SOLUTION: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect non-smokers, Carmona said. Fourteen states now have comprehensive smoke-free workplace laws.

LINK

[Guest]

This is where you run up against serious privacy issues. I am very thankful for no-smoking workplace laws. I could not work where smoking was going on (coughing fits and asthma attacks interfer with workplace efficiency). But the worst of the problem is smoking in the home around children - the reason I have coughing fits, asthma attacks, and "exercise asthma" (shortness of breath with exercise to the extent of loss of consciousness) is my first 19 years were spent living with a chain smoker (my mom - deceased at 58). The minute you try to make laws about what people can do in their own homes (except sex - apparently that's anybody's business except the consenting adults involved), you're bonking on a serious freedom issue.

Edited by Savonarola, 20060703 2102: Fixed autoformatting

[Betsy]

The busybodies are at it again

Nov 30, 2005
by John Stossel

(this column is also in his new book called "Gimme A Break"


Smoking can kill you. That's why I don't smoke, and it's why you shouldn't, either.

There. I've just done the only things that should be done in a free society to stop people from smoking: I've told you that it's dangerous, I've urged you not to do it, and I've even set a good example. If you'd like other people to be healthy, you should also discourage smoking, too.

But if you'd like to be free, and you'd like your neighbor to be free, that's all you should do. It isn't my business to come into your home or business and stop you or your guests from smoking. If you like smoking so much you're willing to give up years off your life -- 6.6 years for the average man -- that should be your choice. I have no right to force you to stop.

The busybodies, however, want to force you to stop. When they get themselves elected, they can. Sadly, it's the busybodies who most often run for public office. Most of us want to run our own lives, and help people by selling them things, or offering them charity or advice -- any of which they can take or leave. People who want to run other people's lives are ... different. They are the people we should be most worried about.

I once interviewed the mayor of the tiny community of Friendship Heights, Md. He got his town to pass the most stringent anti-smoking law in America. It banned cigarette smoke outdoors.

"We're elected to promote the general welfare, and this is part of the general welfare," he told me. After I interviewed him, he was arrested for touching a 14-year-old boy's genitals in a bathroom at Washington National Cathedral. The village council finally repealed his law. Finally, we know what it takes to get an anti-smoking law repealed.

Unfortunately, the busybodies keep running for office and, once elected, keep imposing new restrictions on our freedom.

So far, they haven't prohibited smoking entirely. So far. But Tom Constantine, who ran the Drug Enforcement Administration under President Clinton, once told me: "When we look down the road, I would say 10, 15, 20 years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably be outlawed in the United States."

That is the road we're moving down. New York and California already ban smoking in restaurants and bars. All but two counties of West Virginia have some sort of anti-smoking law. Two cities in Georgia have, like Friendship Heights, banned smoking in public parks. This week, Chicago's city council may ban smoking in most public places.

The excuse is secondhand smoke. But there's only flimsy evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful. Studies were done on people who lived with smokers and were exposed to huge amounts of secondhand smoke at home and in cars. The idea that restaurant patrons are threatened is silly, and it's even sillier to fear exposure outdoors. But the politicians have become zealots.

Granted, secondhand smoke is a nuisance. But so are many other things.

If I don't like secondhand smoke -- and I don't -- I can choose to go to restaurants that don't have smoking, just as I can choose restaurants that don't have bad music. If I don't want to work in a smoky place, I don't have to.

But when the politicians ban smoking in bars, people who actually like old-fashioned smoky bars are stopped, by force, from enjoying the kinds of establishments they like. Smoky bars cease to exist. Workers who don't mind smoke are deprived of jobs. Can't the smokers have some bars?

Most Americans don't smoke. If we make it clear we want smoke-free restaurants, many existing businesses will choose to go smoke-free and new ones will open. That's a much better idea than politicians imposing force on everyone.

Some people think the government must decide everything. But when government decides, minorities, even large minorities, lose rights.

When we get to make our own decisions, we don't all have to make the same decisions. Some of the time, at least, we can all get what we want -- even when we don't all want the same thing.

[Savonarola]

The minute you try to make laws about what people can do in their own homes (except sex - apparently that's anybody's business except the consenting adults involved), you're bonking on a serious freedom issue.

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to start a serious discussion with well-informed and educated people...

Barbara points out that intrusion into private life raises serious freedom issues. For example, a major objection to the ban on smoking in Fayetteville's restaurants was that owners ought to be able to make their own decision whether to allow smoking in their establishments. If people can choose to smoke or not to smoke, and people can choose to expose themselves to secondhand smoke by visiting smoking establishments or not to expose themselves to secondhand smoke by visiting smoking establishments, what is the problem?

On the other hand, there are already plenty of laws that regulate "private" behavior. Murdering someone in your own home isn't legal just because it was done in your own home. Snorting cocaine in the home isn't legal just because it was done in the home.

Why are these "private" behaviors regulated? I submit that this is because there is some measure of safety involved. Unfortunately, it seems that exactly what measure is required for something to be regulated isn't very clear. It is evident that secondhand smoke is indeed a health hazard (despite Stossel's assertion to the contrary), but the question remains: what should we rightfully do about it?

[Betsy]

the business owners' point was that they should be able to permit a LEGAL activity within their business if they so choose. Of course they couldn't allow prostitution, or smoking pot, but smoking cigarettes is legal by anyone over 18 years old. So that's the guideline.

[Savonarola]

the business owners' point was that they should be able to permit a LEGAL activity within their business if they so choose. Of course they couldn't allow prostitution, or smoking pot, but smoking cigarettes is legal by anyone over 18 years old. So that's the guideline.

While I think there is some (significant) validity to your point, Betsy, I must point out that -- in a sense -- the legality of the activity was precisely what was being challenged.

Please feel free to elaborate on or defend your argument. (I feel that my "counterargument" is lacking, to be honest.) I'm not looking for a fight or anything, I'd just like a good discussion.

[Doug]

the business owners' point was that they should be able to permit a LEGAL activity within their business if they so choose. Of course they couldn't allow prostitution, or smoking pot, but smoking cigarettes is legal by anyone over 18 years old. So that's the guideline.

DOUG
Having sex is legal, but that doesn't mean you can do it in a restaurant.

At least, not usually.

[Dardedar]

The busybodies are at it again

Nov 30, 2005
by John Stossel
...
The excuse is secondhand smoke. But there's only flimsy evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful.

DAR
I agree with Stossel a lot, but his claim above is out of date. When he doesn't like the science, he just denies it or makes it up. He does this with global warming too.
I am torn on this issue. I really like to err on the side of freedom. But it is far to simplistic to say people have the right to create and expel carcinogins in a confined public place. Perhaps there should be smoke bars and non-smoke bars.

The idea that restaurant patrons are threatened is silly,...

DAR
When Stossel butts up against an idea that challenges his objectivist ideology (Ayn Randism) he often says silly things like the above. The idea that restaurant patrons are threatened, is not silly, because cancer and ashma are not "silly."

STOSS
If we make it clear we want smoke-free restaurants, many existing businesses will choose to go smoke-free and new ones will open. That's a much better idea than politicians imposing force on everyone.

DAR
Maybe something like this will be the solution.

A little background on how nasty and devastating this is:

"Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in America, claiming more lives than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers combined."

LINK

"...about 90% of all lung cancer deaths among women are from smoking. Even though we know its effects are harmful, 1 out of every 5 women in the U.S. still smokes."

LINK

"Lung cancer causes more deaths than the next three most common cancers combined (colon, breast and prostate). An estimated 163,510 deaths from lung cancer will occur in the United States during 2005."

"An estimated 350,679 Americans are living with lung cancer."

Dar note< The vast majority of them will die from it.

"During 2005 an estimated 172,570 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed."

LINK

That's the equivalent of about 54 9/11's per year and there is nothing silly about that. Most of it's volluntary it seems. When people I care about have their reasoning abilities taken over by this addiction it makes me sad but there is nothing one can do about. To my amazement, my brother and two sisters have fallen for it.

"The expected 5-year survival rate for all patients in whom lung cancer is diagnosed is 15 percent compared to 63 percent for colon, 88 percent for breast and 99 percent for prostate cancer. The 5-year survival rate is 49 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized. However, only 16 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors the 5-year survival rate is just over 2 percent.

About 6 out of 10 people with lung cancer die within 1 year of being diagnosed with the disease. Between 7 and 8 will die within 2 years.13

An estimated 1 million people worldwide die from lung cancer annually."

--Ibid.

DAR
The unfortunate part is that it isn't the nicotine that gets you, like heroin you can take that all of your life, in moderation, quite safely. Apparently, it is the delivery device. The smoke. A fellow, Danish I think, has invented a little pellet you put under your tongue. Very low mouth cancer risk (unlike chew) and you still get your fix. But that's just part of the addiction of course, there are other parts to it.
I actually got a little teary eyed when Peter Jennings died. I had been watching him since I was little and living in Canada. After smoking for years he had quit but went back to it during the stressful 9/11 event. He left his family $50 million to play with. I bet they would have rather had him.
Tamara smoked for 19 years and has made herself a bit of an expert on how it takes over your brain. She even wrote a book about it (not finished).

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Unfortunately until the state headquarters of major restaurant chains outlawed smoking, so the company did throughout the chain, we non smokers had no choice about restaurants. Then our choices were restricted to places like McDonalds. It wasn't until Fayetteville banned smoking in restaurants that I could walk into any restaurant in town with at least a certain amount of assurance that I could get through a whole meal without the assault on my respiratory system that 2nd-hand smoke is. Prior to that, although I'd always check to see if anyone was smoking before I sat down, there was no guarantee that someone wouldn't "light up" after I'd ordered. If my food hadn't arrived, I generally had to cancel the order and leave. If it had, I'd get it boxed up and take it home. Just selfish of me, I know, but I consider that a much greater restriction of my freedoms than the smoking ban is of theirs. I've never kept them from eating out, but they were keeping me from eating out.

What's really ironic about the current state of laws is that someone snorting coke or shooting H even in the next booth over does not harm my health, someone smoking does - and you know which one is illegal.

[Betsy]

Actually, that thing about there not being any smoke-free restaurants except places like McDonalds is a myth - we printed a list of about 25 restaurants in NWA that were smoke free at the time the ban was being debated in Fayetteville. Some very nice places, such as Chloe's, Rue D'Orleans, Uncle Gaylord's, etc. Also, some places had very separate smoking areas, such as AQ Chicken House, and Jose's (the whole restaurant was smoke free and the separate bar, separate entrance, even separate bathrooms, allowed smoking). So it wasn't nearly as limiting as you may have thought.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

It's true that by the time the Fayetteville ban was actually enacted there were places one could go - but it was law elsewhere that started that. A relatively few - that list of 25 - decided the health of their workers and the majority of customers was better served by eliminating smoking. The rest were very hit and miss. If there weren't already smoking bans in places like Austin, TX, there wouldn't be one here, and the non-smoker's dining choice would still be severely limited compared to the smoker's - and if there weren't smoking bans in places like NYC and San Francisco, the chains wouldn't have started offering smokefree restaurants through out and the non-smoker's dining choice would be nonexistant.

[Betsy]

I disagree, I think the restaurants that were smoke-free were that way because the owners simply wanted them to be that way. It was their choice to do what they wanted with their own business.

I debated this issue ad-nauseum while the ban was being fought here, and I still believe I was 100% right, that second-hand smoke does NOT cause cancer (there have been too many scientifically valid, long-term studies proving it against not-scientifically valid short-term studies skewed to satisfy the results that the studiers wanted to say otherwise, yet the people want to believe it causes cancer insist that their studies are right and the other studies are wrong) -- it's almost like arguing the existence of God, you can't make anybody change their mind. So I got really tired of arguing it, because it doesn't accomplish anything. The fact is, the smoke-free people (like republicans) are more organized, have more money, and are taking over.

All of Darrel's points above prove only that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer, which of course is true. Secondhand smoke is irritating to some people, causes breathing discomfort, burning eyes, whatever, and no one can argue with that. But it doesn't cause cancer. I get so sick of seeing the propaganda about all the people dropping dead because of secondhand smoke, when there really isn't one single proven case of that happening. But there WAS a massive study of over a thousand people who didn't smoke living in the same home with someone who did, conducted for over 20 years, and the cancer rate wasn't any higher for them than anyone else.

I hate propaganda. It's like this book my mother has for her Sunday School summer book study class - the cover says something like: THE TRUTH and then "9 truths why we're right about everything" or something (Okay, I paraphrased). But of course, calling it "The Truth" is assinine, when they don't really know it's THE TRUTH. But all those Sunday School people look at that book and think "It says it's THE TRUTH, so it must be THE TRUTH!!" I told my mother, that should be called "THIS IS WHAT WE THINK" because that would be more accurate. That's the same thing the smoke-free people do. They say 300,000 people died last year because of secondhand smoke, so people just believe it. That figure was simply extrapolated from the EPA study, which was so much junk science that a judge actually threw it out as invalid. It was based on QUESTIONNAIRES that were filled out by a couple of hundred people - no long term study, no watching people over a period of years, no verifying anything about their lives, no taking any factors about their lifestyles into consideration, nothing. It's BS.

But it doesn't matter, because the smoke-free people are going to get their way no matter what. Just like the republicans, just like the big developers, just like whoever has the most money and is organized better.

I don't really care all that much about smoking per se, but I care a lot about laws getting passed because organized bullshitter busybodies want to take other people's rights away.

pffft.

[Betsy]

Just thought of this - look at it this way:

1. Gay marriage would damage the American Family/desecrate the institution of marriage/don't like it = outlaw gay marriage

2. Abortion is murder/a sin/don't like it - outlaw Abortion

3. Secondhand smoke causes cancer/don't like it = outlaw smoking in public places

Lies/opinion + don't like it = outlaw it

[Savonarola]

I disagree, I think the restaurants that were smoke-free were that way because the owners simply wanted them to be that way. It was their choice to do what they wanted with their own business.

Betsy, if restaurant owners didn't want to keep hot food at no less than 140°F, should they be allowed to even though doing so prevents excessive bacterial growth?
If restaurant owners choose to allow their employees not to wash their hands after using the restroom, should that be protected as a "freedom" as well?

There are regulations because of what is dangerous. Bacteria-laden food is dangerous.
Let us temporarily assume -- merely for the sake of argument -- that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Would you then not be opposed to a smoking ban in restaurants?

[Betsy]

frankly, if restaurants served food that made people sick, no one would go there any more. the market would drive that decision, wouldn't it? i mean, there are restaurants i don't go to because the food sucks, or the service is bad, or there are too many damn screaming children all over the place. it's my choice. how about a rule that no one under the age of say, 10, is allowed in a restaurant? i would like that. then i'd never have to sit next to any crying obnoxious brats ruining my enjoyment of my dinner. (or no cell phones! yeah!) if no one went to restaurants because smoking bothered them that much, restaurants would stop allowing it, period.

To answer your question, sure. yes. but that's a moot question.

[Savonarola]

how about a rule that no one under the age of say, 10, is allowed in a restaurant? i would like that. then i'd never have to sit next to any crying obnoxious brats ruining my enjoyment of my dinner.

Do children under the age of 10 at a restaurant table next to you pose a health hazard?

To answer your question, sure. yes. but that's a moot question.

It is?! Perhaps you've seen the health inspection reports in the newspaper? Each restaurant that has been inspected has its results publicized; I have seen many restaurants with minor or major violations, yet people continue to eat at those places.
Quite frankly, my question is not moot; in fact, it has gotten to the root of the disagreement. You oppose the smoking ban because you do not believe that secondhand smoke is a health hazard. The science doesn't support your position. Frankly, I'll listen to science.

[Dardedar]

I debated this issue ad-nauseum while the ban was being fought here, and I still believe I was 100% right, that second-hand smoke does NOT cause cancer (there have been too many scientifically valid, long-term studies proving it against not-scientifically valid short-term studies skewed to satisfy the results that the studiers wanted to say otherwise, yet the people want to believe it causes cancer insist that their studies are right and the other studies are wrong)

DAR
I would love to look into this one but don't have much time lately. Aside from the science, which I will definitely differ too 100%, it just seems intuitively obvious that if this smoke causes cancer, and it couldn't be more clear that it does, that it would also do this to some degree to people who are getting their smoke second hand.

-- it's almost like arguing the existence of God, you can't make anybody change their mind.

DAR
Oh I'll change my mind alright. And I will work to debunk the myth, if it is a myth, that second hand smoke causes cancer. I went along with this for a while after watching the Penn & Teller "Bullshit" show on second hand smoke. They made some good points about a bogus study that was being passed around. I am very skeptical of extrapolated estimates of tens of thousands of deaths. But I am also skeptical of some of the claims by libertarian Penn. I was at the skeptic conference in Vegas only six months ago when Penn was taken to task on the accuracy of some of the stuff they do on the Bullshit show. He said, roughly "yeah, if you want to bust me on the facts of the show, consider me busted". He went on to say it is entertainment. It's more than that, and they do a good job a lot of the time. But you have to check them, especially when it is something that coincides with his fervent libertarianism.

The fact is, the smoke-free people (like republicans) are more organized, have more money, and are taking over.

DAR
The "smoke-free people" have more money than the hundreds of billions controlled by big tobacco? Really. Where do they get it?

All of Darrel's points above prove only that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer, which of course is true.

DAR
There are still a few loonies that deny this. Frank Whallen has Col. Joe on his radio show regularly. He says cigarettes don't cause cancer at all. Oh, and he has the cure for cancer any way.

Secondhand smoke is irritating to some people, causes breathing discomfort, burning eyes, whatever, and no one can argue with that. But it doesn't cause cancer.

DAR
You started a thread on this on NWA. It was getting pretty busy and had some interesting information, some of it not looking good for your position. I had just put together some research and was going to post it but curiously you deleted the thread entirely and everyone lost what they had posted. I don't think your claim is going to hold up very well. We'll see who is open to changing their mind, and who may be a little stuck....

But there WAS a massive study of over a thousand people who didn't smoke living in the same home with someone who did, conducted for over 20 years, and the cancer rate wasn't any higher for them than anyone else.

DAR
Anymore details on this study?

I don't really care all that much about smoking per se, but I care a lot about laws getting passed because organized bullshitter busybodies want to take other people's rights away.

DAR
Being very much for euthanasia and an individuals right and freedom to die as they wish, I am consistent and thus also for an individuals right to do it via cigarettes and all of the nasty cancers it causes (not a good choice IMO). But I am not for the right or freedom to take other people along with you while you do it. Which is the question at hand. Does second hand smoke cause cancer, asthma, disease, death etc? I am betting it does.

D.

[Betsy]

the study I refer to was done by the World Health Organization (WHO) and it's easy enough to find; I'll try looking it up again.

Big Tobacco can't get involved in these smoking ban fights - so it's big organized smoke-free groups against only grassroots efforts to stop them.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I am not nearly as worried about 2nd-hand smoke causing cancer (which it does) as causing asthma and emphasema - gasping for breath is not a lifestyle I like and I am truly hoping when I leave this body it will not be because I lost a desparate struggle to breath - and nobody who wasn't in the pay of Big Tobacco has ever denied that 2nd-hand smoke causes problems with asthma and emphasema.

[Betsy]

Sav, I just saw your post - you are wrong; science does support my assertion (or I wouldn't assert it). If you did your own research instead of just believing what the propaganda artists pass down, you'd know that...