A Smoking Rant

[the_std]

Except, blas, to a lot of us non-smokers, most smokers are like your grandpa. Even if they only smoke one or two a day, most of the time I can smell it on them, because I am sensitive to smoke. That doesn't mean that I try to avoid them or make them pariahs, but when it come to regular smokers (half to one pack a day), I always gag and begin to have allergic reactions if I have to deal with them up close. I work in a sale's position in a retail store and have to get up close and personal to easily over fifty people a day. I would say that 65% of those people smoke, and 80% of those smokers smoke often enough that they really do stink of it. I try and hold my breath, I am still as courteous as I would be with a non-smoker, but it's not fun at all. I can honestly say I vehemently hate the way smokers smell. Nearly all smokers, even if you think you're being nice about it.

If I could, I'd never want to deal with a smoker in my air space ever again. But this is life, I have to accept reality and understand that people make decisions I might not personally like. Doesn't make my hatred for smoking any less viable.

[BlaqueKatt]

care to cite some sources on this? and the epa all seem to disagree with you.

Hmmm the EPA that had their "study" THROWN OUT BY A FEDERAL JUDGE in 1998 FOR FUDGING THE NUMBERS*

the information on this page was compiled from the 92 page report filed by the judge that INVALIDATED the EPAs report

Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results before completing the study. So they changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error.

Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of SHS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:

• Exposure to the SHS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an unimportant result. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.

Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results.

Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.


*In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.

The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds.(not because the study was valid, they knew it was not)

In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism on the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Only thing found by the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION studies was that children from homes of smokers(as in constant exposure to SHS/ETS) have a 22% lower chance of developing lung cancer

linked article is 10 biggest lies about smoking

[Ree]

You will not get cancer from second hand smoke. It's impossible.

Rather a sweeping statement there.

May we see the statistics and research to definitively prove that?

I just find there are so many things in this world that are proving to be linked to cancer in some way, that it's a bit presumptuous to come out and declare that lung cancer from second hand smoke is impossible.

When tobacco in a cigarette burns, it produces toxins and chemicals.

"Chemical analysis shows the tobacco leaf to contain an unusual number of constituents. Nicotine, nicotianine, and tobacco acid or malic acid are characteristic. Nitric, hydrochloric, sulphuric, phosphoric, citric, acetic, oxalic, pictic, and ulmic acids are also present. The quantity of mineral matter is large, amounting in some cases to 27 per cent."—Prof. John I. D. Hinds, Ph.D., The Use of Tobacco (Nashville, Tenn: Cumberland Presbyterian Publishing House, 1882), p 36.

Cigarette smoke contains toxins and carcinogens.
That's been proven.

How then, can anyone say that the smoke coming off the end of that cigarette does not contain carcinogens and toxins?

[DrFaroohk]

How about....where are you standing when all this toxic smoke is rolling off the end of the cigarette? Are your lips right over the cigarette tube? Well yeah, man you're gonna die.

Are you 3 feet away, having an intimate conversation? Are you five, ten feet away? That makes a big difference. Yeah, the smoke aint filtered, but it's also not in full force or concentration.

[Ree]

That's rather a silly argument.
I am assuming your argument is that they are dissipating into the air the longer it takes to reach one's lungs.

They don't just disappear, however. They have to go somewhere.

Toxins and carcinogens are still toxins and carcinogens, whether they take 3 feet to reach you or 10 feet.

I simply do not understand how anyone can seriously argue that second hand smoke does not cause or contribute to cancer, claiming that there's no scientific evidence to prove a link when they can't even provide 100% scientific proof for their own side that it does not cause cancer or that there is no link.

At one time, I was the only nonsmoker living in a house with 5 other smokers.

I stayed in my room most of the time because I couldn't stand to inhale all that crap floating in the air.

I had a chronic cough, just as if I was a heavy smoker.

I ran an air filter, and every time I changed the filter, it was dark brown, just like the filter on the end of the cigarette.

A new ruling came out that there couldn't be any smoking in foster homes any more.

What a relief that was.

Other than the occasional cold, my cough eventually cleared up and the air quality has much improved.
The colour of the filter in the air cleaner has certainly changed quite a bit.

I think some smokers are in denial about their choice to smoke, and will justify their smoking by whatever rationale works for them.

[DrFaroohk]

I know they don't just disappear, but if you're a few feet away from me you're not getting 100% of the smoke off the end of the cigarette. The farther you are away, the less you're getting.

And the anti-smokers use just as much bullshit as we do. I've seen how some of those tests are done. "Oh yeah, smoking in cars is bad for everyone, we did a test to prove it! Of course, what didn't tell you was that the car was stationary, the windows were rolled up, and there were four people in the car smoking three cigarettes apiece."

[Lace Neil Singer]

There's also the toxins coming out of various exhaust pipes if you happen to be in town. Like the local buses; some of them, a giant black cloud comes out every time the bus starts out. That can't be healthy if you're breathing it in.

[guywithashovel]

Other than the occasional cold, my cough eventually cleared up and the air quality has much improved.
The colour of the filter in the air cleaner has certainly changed quite a bit.

I think some smokers are in denial about their choice to smoke, and will justify their smoking by whatever rationale works for them.

This may be a bit OT, but this brings up something that I've noticed a good number of smokers doing. An example would be a long-time co-worker of my dad's. For years, he smoked a pack or two of cigarettes per day, and every time he went to the doctor, he'd come back and say, "He said I have the heart and lungs of a 20 year-old non-smoker!"

Yeah, right. Sure.

Listen, it's your choice if you want to smoke, and as long as you're courteous about it, I really don't care. But don't try to say things like that, because anyone with any inkling of common sense knows it isn't true.

[Ree]

Like the local buses; some of them, a giant black cloud comes out every time the bus starts out. That can't be healthy if you're breathing it in.

I'm sure it isn't, but I don't get too many buses idling beside me on an outdoor patio where I might go to get a bit of fresh air or sunshine.
I do, however, quite often have a smoker or too plunk down near me and light up.

It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison going on with that line of argument.

[Anthony K. S.]

You will not get cancer from second hand smoke. It's impossible.

If you disagree, I would very much like to see a real case in which a nonsmoker was diagnosed with cancer and it is confirmed - beyond all reasonable doubt - that second hand smoke was the cause.
. . .
I want conclusive evidence.

Crescent Cat, there is a difference between (1) arguing that a proposition has never been conclusively proven, and (2) arguing that a proposition is not true.

The proposition here is, "Secondhand smoke causes cancer."

To say that "it has never been conclusively proven" is to say that we don't know whether secondhand smoke can cause cancer or not. It's possible that it can, and it's possible that it can't.

Now, if you had said that, then it would have been up to your opponents to disprove your statement by citing scientific evidence that conclusively shows cancer to be caused by secondhand smoke.

. . . But you didn't say that.

You stated that it is impossible for secondhand smoke to cause cancer.

(In other words, you didn't just assert that the proposition has never been proven. You asserted that it isn't true.)

That's a much stronger statement than saying that it has never been conclusively proven that secondhand smoke causes cancer. And if you're going to make a statement like that, you need to back it up.

What is your evidence that secondhand smoke cannot cause cancer?

What studies led you to this conclusion?

What is your justification for claiming that it isn't possible to develop cancer from inhaling secondhand smoke?

So far, you haven't provided any, as far as I can see. Instead, you've challenged your opponents to conclusively prove that secondhand smoke can cause cancer. And you seem to have taken the position that if they can't prove that, then it justifies your conclusion.

Well, as BlaqueKatt pointed out to me in another thread not too long ago, "A lack of evidence is no evidence at all."

You seem to be saying, "If you can't conclusively prove that secondhand smoke can cause cancer, then it means that secondhand smoke cannot cause cancer."

No, it means that we don't know whether secondhand smoke can cause cancer or not. And if that's your position, then, fine.

But if you're going to continue asserting that it's impossible for secondhand smoke to cause cancer . . . Then it's no longer up to your opponents to prove that you're wrong. It's up to you to prove that you're right.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm sure it isn't, but I don't get too many buses idling beside me on an outdoor patio where I might go to get a bit of fresh air or sunshine.
I do, however, quite often have a smoker or too plunk down near me and light up.

It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison going on with that line of argument.

You can always ask politely for them to move, or move yourself. Sadly, I find that a lot of nonsmokers tend to take the ruder way to ask, which makes me feel less inclined to do so. Either that, or they start doing the stupid pretend cough I mentioned earlier.

[Ree]

You can always ask politely for them to move, or move yourself. Sadly, I find that a lot of nonsmokers tend to take the ruder way to ask, which makes me feel less inclined to do so. Either that, or they start doing the stupid pretend cough I mentioned earlier.

Excuse me, but why should I have to be the one to move?


Sadly, it's been my experience that the idea of even asking the smoker to move is taken as an insult, no matter how nicely it gets phrased.

(BTW, for me, it's not a fake cough.)

[Fryk]

If they ask, I move. I don't have a problem with that at all, it's only polite.

But if they do the fake cough thing (and you CAN tell when it's a fake cough), that just makes m dig in my heels.

[Lace Neil Singer]

If they ask, I move. I don't have a problem with that at all, it's only polite.

But if they do the fake cough thing (and you CAN tell when it's a fake cough), that just makes m dig in my heels.

THIS. And believe me, it's perfectly obvious as a fake cough. Let me give an example.

NS: Excuse me, but you're ruining your health and mine by smoking. Put that out at once! *fake cough*
Me: *ignores*

Compared to:

NS: Please could you move along? I have asthma. *coughs guts up*
Me: Sorry, I'll shift. *moves along*

See the difference? Also, unless I personally know you, I'm not going to know that you are physically affected by cigarette smoke. I'm not a mind reader, and I won't know unless you tell me. However, that does not give a nonsmoker the green light to act like an arsehole and forgo basic politeness. I'm basically a nice person, and a considerate smoker. However, rudeness and bitchery from a nonsmoker is enough to make me into an inconsiderate smoker.

[HYHYBT]

...and every time he went to the doctor, he'd come back and say, "He said I have the heart and lungs of a 20 year-old non-smoker!"

...who was kind enough to sign an organ donor card before the accident.