Anti-smoking law in Michigan?

[phee]

I think the AMA along with all the sources cited in the second hand smoking article may be just a bit more credible than something called, "The Hitman Chronicle"

You want a website saying heroin is good for you I'll make it, it just doesn't make it so.

INDEED!!!!!

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

I think the AMA along with all the sources cited in the second hand smoking article may be just a bit more credible than something called, "The Hitman Chronicle"

You want a website saying heroin is good for you I'll make it, it just doesn't make it so.

actually...the facts support Mr. Hitt...there are few sources that can even name one person killed by SHS, much less three....

[phee]

When you say "The Facts" the facts according to whom? (obviously not AMA)

[torn asunder]

Is there evidence that second hand smoke has ever caused one death?

No.

Are there many studies that say "Maybe"?

Yes.

Maybe is not proof positive.

Is there proof that smoke is an Asthma trigger?

Yes.

Is there proof that to keep an asthatic away from all possible triggers requires them living in a plastic bubble?

Yes.

How much are you willing to go the put the rest of the world in a plastic bubble to protect yourself?

ok, let's forget about second-hand smoke studies - have there been studies that show smoking causes health concerns? i don't have any "proof" but i'm sure there are studies that show a direct link between smoking and things like cancer, emphezema, etc...

now, to logically extrapolate, (and accepting, for the sake of argument, my above statement is true) if smoking causes these things, even when passed thru a filter, i see no way to deny that second-hand smoke, which is unfiltered, also causes the same issues.

i'm open to hearing arguments against this, but to me, it's simply logic. i really don't understand how people can deny this. i mean, hell, if i have a contagious disease, and i cough in public, there's a strong likelyhood that someone near me will catch it as well. smoke transfers the same way, doesn't it?

eh, i know i won't change anybody's mind - i just wanted to share my thoughts...

[odims_sphere]

maybe it's just because I'm citing American sources, Here's one from across the pond from a little known organization called the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2053840.stm

A small excerpt for those who don't like the clickie:

Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke increases the risk of developing lung cancer, international experts have said.

A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the major studies looking at smoking and cancer.

After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30% more likely to develop lung cancer.

Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe

Marsha Williams, ASH

The experts also found cancers of the stomach, liver, uterus, cervix, kidney and myeloid leukaemia could be caused in part by smoking.

The group of 29 experts from 12 countries found second-hand tobacco smoke was carcinogenic to humans and that typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among people who have never smoked.

This means hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from these cancers could now be linked to smoking.

[odims_sphere]

perhaps a world wide organization is better suited:

http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/en/

from the world health organization:

Second-hand tobacco smoke

Involuntary (or passive) smoking is the exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS) which is a mixture of exhaled mainstream smoke and side stream smoke released from a smouldering cigarette or other smoking device (cigar, pipe, bidi, etc.) and diluted with ambient air. Second-hand tobacco smoke is also referred to as "environmental" tobacco smoke (ETS). Involuntary smoking involves inhaling carcinogens and other toxic components that are present in second-hand tobacco smoke.

Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, adopted by all WHO Member States in May 2003, reads:

“Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke

1. Parties recognise that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.

2. Each Party shall adopt and implement in areas of existing national jurisdiction as determined by national law and actively promote at other jurisdictional levels the adoption and implementation of effective legislative, executive, administrative and/or other measures, providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.”

[Der Nister]

Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke increases the risk of developing lung cancer, international experts have said.

A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the major studies looking at smoking and cancer.

After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30% more likely to develop lung cancer.

Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe

Marsha Williams, ASH

The experts also found cancers of the stomach, liver, uterus, cervix, kidney and myeloid leukaemia could be caused in part by smoking.

The group of 29 experts from 12 countries found second-hand tobacco smoke was carcinogenic to humans and that typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among people who have never smoked.

This means hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from these cancers could now be linked to smoking.

Wow - when they use words like could and may or could be linked - makes it sound so much more like they know what they are talking about. But what is not pointed out here is the evidence.

Show me the corpse (or maybe just a death certificate) where a medical doctor has ruled that this non smoker died from SHS.

My grandfather smoked cigars for 40 years and his wife - my grandmother - did not die from cancer (btw - my grandfather didn't die of cancer and lived to be 77 years old). I clearly remember that everytime we visited his home I could smell cigar smoke. My other grandfather was absolutely against smoking and he died at the age of 55 from heart failure.

I don't know - neither side will ever budge I suppose. But I don't take studies that say "could" or "may have caused" as scientific fact. Sorry.

You could say an alien spaceship sank the Titanic and without having hard evidence to back it up (and I don't mean just getting someone to say it could have happened) but real evidence to back it up, does that make it true?

[phee]

ok, let's forget about second-hand smoke studies - have there been studies that show smoking causes health concerns? i don't have any "proof" but i'm sure there are studies that show a direct link between smoking and things like cancer, emphezema, etc...

now, to logically extrapolate, (and accepting, for the sake of argument, my above statement is true) if smoking causes these things, even when passed thru a filter, i see no way to deny that second-hand smoke, which is unfiltered, also causes the same issues.

i'm open to hearing arguments against this, but to me, it's simply logic. i really don't understand how people can deny this. i mean, hell, if i have a contagious disease, and i cough in public, there's a strong likelyhood that someone near me will catch it as well. smoke transfers the same way, doesn't it?

eh, i know i won't change anybody's mind - i just wanted to share my thoughts...

To quote gaf (sort of)

"There you go using logic and reason again"

[phee]

Wow - when they use words like could and may or could be linked - makes it sound so much more like they know what they are talking about. But what is not pointed out here is the evidence.

Show me the corpse (or maybe just a death certificate) where a medical doctor has ruled that this non smoker died from SHS.

My grandfather smoked cigars for 40 years and his wife - my grandmother - did not die from cancer(btw - my grandfather didn't die of cancer and lived to be 77 years old). I clearly remember that everytime we visited his home I could smell cigar smoke. My other grandfather was absolutely against smoking and he died at the age of 55 from hear failure.

I don't know - neither side will ever budge I suppose. But I don't take studies that say "could" or "may have caused" as scientific fact. Sorry.

You could say an alien spaceship sank the Titanic and without having hard evidence to back it up (and I don't mean just getting someone to say it could have happened) but real evidence to back it up, does that make it true?

By this logic then.... because having unprotected sex with a stranger simply "could, may, or could be linked" give you AIDS, but there is no proof that she specifically has AIDS..... you don't use protection then....

[Hellion]

Yeah I roll my own smokes its about a $1.10 a pack,also I have taken one of my rolled cigarettes and a pre-made cigarette(Marlboro),and held them both under a black light,the hand rolled cigarette had maybe one or two glowing spots on it,and the pre-made cigarette had several glowing marks on it,I am guessing the glowing spots are chemicals.found this out several years ago.

carry on.

[odims_sphere]

Wow - when they use words like could and may or could be linked - makes it sound so much more like they know what they are talking about. But what is not pointed out here is the evidence.

Show me the corpse (or maybe just a death certificate) where a medical doctor has ruled that this non smoker died from SHS.

My grandfather smoked cigars for 40 years and his wife - my grandmother - did not die from cancer (btw - my grandfather didn't die of cancer and lived to be 77 years old). I clearly remember that everytime we visited his home I could smell cigar smoke. My other grandfather was absolutely against smoking and he died at the age of 55 from heart failure.

I don't know - neither side will ever budge I suppose. But I don't take studies that say "could" or "may have caused" as scientific fact. Sorry.

You could say an alien spaceship sank the Titanic and without having hard evidence to back it up (and I don't mean just getting someone to say it could have happened) but real evidence to back it up, does that make it true?

it's not a death certificate, but Heather Crowe successfully submitted a claim relating to second-hand smoke exposure in the workplace to the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board for lost earnings and health care benefits.

again not a death certificate, but Dr. Ken Rosenman says it happens. I know what you're thinking, it's the severe asthma attack that killed her, not the smoke, but if that's the case, than it stands to reason that it's not the bullet i fired that kills you, it's the massive blood loss. I'm not at fault!

[jynxxxedangel]

Here are two reported instances of death and illness from SHS:

Bartender collapses and dies from asthma attack due to second hand smoke

I can't imagine a BAR without cigarettes, in spite of the dangers to non-smoking patrons and staff. Ciggies SURE go well with cold potent potables! It should be considered a hazard over which you can make your own choice-- whether to brave it, or not!

[phee]

it's not a death certificate, but Heather Crowe successfully submitted a claim relating to second-hand smoke exposure in the workplace to the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board for lost earnings and health care benefits.

again not a death certificate, but Dr. Ken Rosenman says it happens. I know what you're thinking, it's the severe asthma attack that killed her, not the smoke, but if that's the case, than it stands to reason that it's not the bullet i fired that kills you, it's the massive blood loss. I'm not at fault!

the warning labels though odims.... can you imagin how many less criminials we would have if guns had a sign facing outward that said: CAUTION, DO NOT STAND IN WAY OF....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

ok, let's forget about second-hand smoke studies - have there been studies that show smoking causes health concerns? i don't have any "proof" but i'm sure there are studies that show a direct link between smoking and things like cancer, emphezema, etc...

now, to logically extrapolate, (and accepting, for the sake of argument, my above statement is true) if smoking causes these things, even when passed thru a filter, i see no way to deny that second-hand smoke, which is unfiltered, also causes the same issues.

i'm open to hearing arguments against this, but to me, it's simply logic. i really don't understand how people can deny this. i mean, hell, if i have a contagious disease, and i cough in public, there's a strong likelyhood that someone near me will catch it as well. smoke transfers the same way, doesn't it?

eh, i know i won't change anybody's mind - i just wanted to share my thoughts...

Lets just examine that line of thought...

We can scientifically prove that smoking directly causes Lung Cancer and Emphazema... We can also show that before they can cause those... the person has to be genetically inclined to cellular mutation. Even with a inclination for your cells to mutate randomly and grow out of control (cancer), it still takes an extreme exposure to smoke over a long period of time to actually cause the cancer.

Second hand smoke exposure never reaches the thresh hold to cause cancer. A non-smoker is never going to draw in as much smoke as a smoker does.

[Hellion]

The cigarette above is hand rolled,barely any spots if any at all

the Marlboro,pre made cigarettes (bottom) has lots of glowing marks under blacklights,reason why I roll my own smokes

[Fin]

Second hand smoke exposure never reaches the thresh hold to cause cancer.

I think that has yet to be seen. Claims that SHS causes serious health problems are currently circumstantial at best. There are those of us in the know, however, who see enough damage associated with (if not actually caused by) SHS to realize that currently proven or not, the link exists.

Back on-topic, the argument at hand is less about the health effects of smoking than it is about the proposed "ban" of smoking in Michigan. This ban is actually nothing of the sort--smoking will still be perfectely legal in private residences & behind closed doors. As we discussed earlier, smoking is far from a "right" but rather an approved, regulated activity (like alcohol or prescription drug use) that is facing further regulative activity here. Under the current guide of law, this would certainly restrict the use of tobacco further but by no means would it make it an illegal, "banned" substance.

[Morbid Side]

Wow, this seems to be getting out of hand. I don't completely disagree with the non-smokers, but I think that if you are anywhere near a smokers circle you can gladly excuse yourself from it. If someone asked me to not blow smoke in their direction, I would gladly do. To say that everyone who smokes around others giving them health problems or future ones is a farce to me. I do like the way the clubs out here have a smoking patio so the non-smokers don't feel couped up with smokers.

[phee]

The ironic part is that I love second hand smoke... it relaxes me a lot.... part of my problem

[n0Mad]

I think the AMA along with all the sources cited in the second hand smoking article may be just a bit more credible

You'd think Washington University in St. Louis, MO would be credible, especially with a $500,000 (in 1979 cash) grant to establish the McDonnell Laboratory. And what did years of extensive "credible" research at this extensive "credible" lab "credibly" prove? That Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards possessed paranormal abilities. Yep, it's true. Years of research is there to prove it. Hundreds of scientific studies provided facts to back up these claims. Very credible scientists with credible PhDs signed their names to credible documents stating that these two test subjects were indeed psychics.

Then, at the press conference, Shaw and Edwards admitted to being magicians and using simple tricks to fool the researchers. It was all part of James Randi's "Project Alpha" which shows that no matter how "credible" the researchers are, when they believe something and expect certain results, all the experiments, all the research, all the data will be skewed (even if unintentionally) to support those results and any evidence contrary will be (even if unintentionally) discarded.

And if you think wikipedia isn't a credible source, just Google search "Project Alpha" for more source. Heck, you can even talk with test subject Steve Shaw directly. I have his cell phone number.

[Rev.Reverence]

ok, let's forget about second-hand smoke studies - have there been studies that show smoking causes health concerns? i don't have any "proof" but i'm sure there are studies that show a direct link between smoking and things like cancer, emphezema, etc... TRUE

now, to logically extrapolate, (and accepting, for the sake of argument, my above statement is true) if smoking causes these things, even when passed thru a filter, i see no way to deny that second-hand smoke, which is unfiltered, also causes the same issues. A great deal of said second hand smoke has; been through not only the filter, but also my lungs. So, I surmise that the exhaled smoke is filtered again; and perhaps effects a greater degree of filtration, thusly rendering it less harmful.

i'm open to hearing arguments against this, but to me, it's simply logic. i really don't understand how people can deny this. i mean, hell, if i have a contagious disease, and i cough in public, there's a strong likelyhood that someone near me will catch it as well. smoke transfers the same way, doesn't it?OUTSIDE...In an open area situation, (perhaps walking down the street), I do not see the problem, as last I saw, smoke seeks to rise. Indoors I can see what you are talking about; I am an old school club kid. If you go out to eat every night; I still don't see any real accumulative damage, I've never heard the phrase "she died of second hand smoke". There are several buisinesses that have done away with smoking in their buildings. I choose not to frequent such a place; if it is really beyond my control, I'm that guy you see standing outside in a BLIZZARD._{[caps. for effect]} Why don't non-smokers leave the few spots I can smoke alone? I was a barrista in the cafeteria of a very busy hospital, on midnights, those lifesaving emergency doctors often spoke to me as if I was their barkeeper/head-shrinker, over cigarettes & coffee in a tiny little room outside but in a courtyard. Tell me your going to make crazy overworked stressed out doctors wait to get home for a cigarette break.

eh, i know i won't change anybody's mind - i just wanted to share my thoughts...No worries...

I NEED A SMOKE NOW; DAMN.

[Rev.Reverence]

Wow - when they use words like could and may or could be linked - makes it sound so much more like they know what they are talking about. But what is not pointed out here is the evidence.

Show me the corpse (or maybe just a death certificate) where a medical doctor has ruled that this non smoker died from SHS.

My grandfather smoked cigars for 40 years and his wife - my grandmother - did not die from cancer (btw - my grandfather didn't die of cancer and lived to be 77 years old). I clearly remember that everytime we visited his home I could smell cigar smoke. My other grandfather was absolutely against smoking and he died at the age of 55 from heart failure.

I don't know - neither side will ever budge I suppose. But I don't take studies that say "could" or "may have caused" as scientific fact. Sorry.

You could say an alien spaceship sank the Titanic and without having hard evidence to back it up (and I don't mean just getting someone to say it could have happened) but real evidence to back it up, does that make it true?

WOW...one of my G's smoked cigars and was like 74 when he died; his wife, never had a problem, she died a 5 years ago of "old" (I do not know how old; but she out lived him by 13 years & they were the same age, if she was not the elder).

My other G died at 54or 55 of Chirrosis (sp?) of the liver. (he smoked too though about as much as he drank)

*thinking of changing to cigars*

[Rev.Reverence]

the warning labels though odims.... can you imagin how many less criminials we would have if guns had a sign facing outward that said: CAUTION, DO NOT STAND IN WAY OF....

o.O....I like where that could go...

*not sarcasm*

[Rev.Reverence]

I think that has yet to be seen. Claims that SHS causes serious health problems are currently circumstantial at best. There are those of us in the know, however, who see enough damage associated with (if not actually caused by) SHS to realize that currently proven or not, the link exists.

Back on-topic, the argument at hand is less about the health effects of smoking than it is about the proposed "ban" of smoking in Michigan. This ban is actually nothing of the sort--smoking will still be perfectely legal in private residences & behind closed doors. As we discussed earlier, smoking is far from a "right" but rather an approved, regulated activity (like alcohol or prescription drug use) that is facing further regulative activity here. Under the current guide of law, this would certainly restrict the use of tobacco further but by no means would it make it an illegal, "banned" substance.

Yup...so...if you are rich enough to belong to a Country Club, or lucky enough to belong to a fraternal organization; there is going to be house parties galore! All the little bars will go out of business; the Ma &Pa restaurants; GOOD COFFEE HOUSES...GONE! GONE, gone...What a shame.

Well Fin, some of us in the Tin-Hat-Brigade believe that this is just the first step to THEM trying to "save" us from ourselves...

[odims_sphere]

You'd think Washington University in St. Louis, MO would be credible, especially with a $500,000 (in 1979 cash) grant to establish the McDonnell Laboratory. And what did years of extensive "credible" research at this extensive "credible" lab "credibly" prove? That Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards possessed paranormal abilities. Yep, it's true. Years of research is there to prove it. Hundreds of scientific studies provided facts to back up these claims. Very credible scientists with credible PhDs signed their names to credible documents stating that these two test subjects were indeed psychics.

Then, at the press conference, Shaw and Edwards admitted to being magicians and using simple tricks to fool the researchers. It was all part of James Randi's "Project Alpha" which shows that no matter how "credible" the researchers are, when they believe something and expect certain results, all the experiments, all the research, all the data will be skewed (even if unintentionally) to support those results and any evidence contrary will be (even if unintentionally) discarded.

And if you think wikipedia isn't a credible source, just Google search "Project Alpha" for more source. Heck, you can even talk with test subject Steve Shaw directly. I have his cell phone number.

You've convinced me, Damn the A.M.A., Damn the A.L.A., Damn the B.B.C., Damn the W.H.O., Damn the E.P.A., Damn the Surgeon General, Damn the Department of Health and Human Services, Damn the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. There's no way they're right.

*lights one up* Ahh that's soooo good.

[Rev.Reverence]

You'd think Washington University in St. Louis, MO would be credible, especially with a $500,000 (in 1979 cash) grant to establish the McDonnell Laboratory. And what did years of extensive "credible" research at this extensive "credible" lab "credibly" prove? That Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards possessed paranormal abilities. Yep, it's true. Years of research is there to prove it. Hundreds of scientific studies provided facts to back up these claims. Very credible scientists with credible PhDs signed their names to credible documents stating that these two test subjects were indeed psychics.

Then, at the press conference, Shaw and Edwards admitted to being magicians and using simple tricks to fool the researchers. It was all part of James Randi's "Project Alpha" which shows that no matter how "credible" the researchers are, when they believe something and expect certain results, all the experiments, all the research, all the data will be skewed (even if unintentionally) to support those results and any evidence contrary will be (even if unintentionally) discarded.

And if you think wikipedia isn't a credible source, just Google search "Project Alpha" for more source. Heck, you can even talk with test subject Steve Shaw directly. I have his cell phone number.

"Beware your own subconscious; it is your greatest Enemy." I forgot who said that one too...though it may have been me.