Smoking deaths

At least 90 +

Free_America wrote:

Again with the windows, WTF is your fixation on windows. Come to Wisconsin in the winter, you won't find any open windows! You live in Kookifornia so of course the windows are open!

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

What are you smoking ? Oh I see your from Kookafornia that explains it.

Gentlemen, you cannot legitimately dismiss someone's opinion simply based on where they live.

That's especially shameful coming from people living in "fly-over country". People in the Midwest and in the South are routinely given short-shrift by people on the coasts, opinions of people in the country are ignored by those in the cities, &c.

Don't go "tit for tat", that's just bad form.

If you cannot address her point, that's one thing...

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
No, but it supports mine.
Anybody know how long "80 or more pack-years of exposure from a spouse" is?

Ahhh could it be a pack a day for 80 years????? ;o)

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
No, but it supports mine.
Anybody know how long "80 or more pack-years of exposure from a spouse" is?

Yes I do.!
Two thing are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and Im not sure about the universe
Albert Einstein

not necessarily wrote:

And did that happen to coincide with the model year that automobile manufacturers began omitting ashtrays from cars??? Always before, this had been a standard item on EVERY car.(Non smokers used them for tollway change or to stuff candy wrappers.) Now they've all been replaced by drink cup holders, phone chargers, etc.
To get an ashtray now, you have to pay extra for it. Yeah, sure. People are going to do that. So yes, I believe people throw their cigarettes out the window because there's no place else to put them! Not because they're inherently slobs.

There are workarounds for that, though... apparently an empty soda can, or even a cup with water in it solves the butt-chucking problem for well-mannered, environmentally-minded smokers.

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Ahhh could it be a pack a day for 80 years????? ;o)

Which means that an exposed spouse is 90 to a 100 years + old since they usually become spouses at about 18 + years of age

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Gentlemen, you cannot legitimately dismiss someone's opinion simply based on where they live.
That's especially shameful coming from people living in "fly-over country". People in the Midwest and in the South are routinely given short-shrift by people on the coasts, opinions of people in the country are ignored by those in the cities, &c.
Don't go "tit for tat", that's just bad form.
If you cannot address her point, that's one thing...

You may be right but when the question has been asked and answered ad nauseum it gets a little old.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
There are workarounds for that, though... apparently an empty soda can, or even a cup with water in it solves the butt-chucking problem for well-mannered, environmentally-minded smokers.

2 bucks buys a neat little butt bucket that fits in the cup holder perfectly. Has a lid with a hole just the right size to slip the butt into. Better that the built in ashtrays

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
There are workarounds for that, though... apparently an empty soda can, or even a cup with water in it solves the butt-chucking problem for well-mannered, environmentally-minded smokers.

and for around $3.00 you can get one that fits in your cup holder.

Just me - wrote:

Then I have to question your intelligence or lack thereof.

After reading about "filter fiber fallout", I'm not so sure HE's the one lacking intelligence.

There are bits of filter fibers that get ingested, and bits that get inhaled. The shape of the fibers are like a capital Y, so it's hard for the body to eject them through normal means.

And if those filter fibers are coated with carcinogenic smoke remnants prior to their deep inhalation? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

On a time line, the increase in lung disease follows the introduction of the filtered cigarette. Non conclusive, of course, and maybe just a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' observation on my part, but I think filters are dangerous.

For those that do not know a pack year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_year

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>
Which means that an exposed spouse is 90 to a 100 years + old since they usually become spouses at about 18 + years of age

Yes but if the smoker smokes two packs a day it's only 40 + 18

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Yes but if the smoker smokes two packs a day it's only 40 + 18

either way, it makes a liar out of Carmona with his no safe level :D

Just me - wrote:

Those were only my observations on a daily basis. I have visited half the states in the U.S. and have pretty much observed the same thing. Especially in states where the climate is much colder and/or experiences more precipitation than California.

I disbelieve. Again, you are advancing anecdote as a basis for your position. And you would likewise need to analyze EVERY car in order to make that determination -- and even then, every smoker would need to be actively smoking as you made your observation. I question your omniscience and your omnipresence.

Just me - wrote:

Actually, having read the study again, I noticed his study was done 8 years ago. I’m baffled at the almost impossible feat of someone making a turn at a speed of 77 MPH (although the study does not whether anyone going that speed survived). Also, were the cameras close enough to detect whether or not a window was cracked?

Sounds like questions for Mr Johnson.

Just me - wrote:

", even when some of those people from the group you've been attempting to ask have offered you their own personal reasons for it.
And even THEIR answers seem to not be what you are looking for.[/"
Are you referring to the 3 smokers posting here? I hope you're not assuming that their responses adequately represent the entire smoking population.

Oh, so NOW you want a larger sample size?
For that, you'll need to hop around to a few more internet forums. Might I suggest you ask that question at Fark.com ? You'll get a much larger sample of smokers there. Or perhaps you could find a few "smokers' rights" websites, such as forces.org , and ask there.

But if, as you say, there are only 3 smokers here you are wasting your time asking them the same question, especially when you want an answer for the entire smoking population, but you don't like the answers they've given.

Free_America wrote:

Goes to show that you are not too knowledgeable on the subject. But I should have surmised that from your posts.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/ext...

Hey, cut her some slack. It took me over a year dealing with the subject of smoking bans before I stumbled across that information myself.

And as I said, it may be 'post hoc'-- but it might not. Either way, the filter fibers are something that do not belong in anybody's lungs.

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> either way, it makes a liar out of Carmona with his no safe level :D

Yes and if you actually look at the studies the risk is nonexistent until you get to the ext ream exposures and even then it is weak! If you went to the bar once or twice a week, how many years would that be?

without doing the actual math, several lifetimes

Just a reminder of the sources of the bans:

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp...

And how they keep going:

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals....

Just me - wrote:

Thanks for yet another outdated study that was only done in one state with almost entirely white people. BTW, I did not originally state any concerns about long-term health hazards (other than possibly responding to someone's post who thought I had). There are short-term effects and I've already stated them.

Yes, short-term effects.

Just me - wrote:

<excerpted>...eyes to start burning and for them to puke all over your car. They will probably have sore throats as well. Those are just some of the short-term side effects.<excerpted>

and

Just me - wrote:

<excerpted>...felt near death by the time we reached our destination and were often turning shades of green.<excerpted>

and

Just me - wrote:

<excerpted>...it would give me a sore throat and watery eyes... <excerpted>...Also, whatever I was wearing that night would end up stinking up my couch if I didn't immediately change when I got home. I'm not around it enough to worry about any long term exposure hazards.<excerpted>

and so on.

BTW, I also stated them, and with a link to the EPA.

Hey, why exactly do you suppose they are called "short-term effects"?

Just me - wrote:

Thanks for yet another outdated study that was only done in one state with almost entirely white people. BTW, I did not originally state any concerns about long-term health hazards (other than possibly responding to someone's post who thought I had). There are short-term effects and I've already stated them.
<quoted text>

Oh, and since when are health effects different based on race, anyway? The study was almost entirely white people?
Because white people are more immune to the effects of tobacco, or less susceptible than other races???

How, exactly, are we to take your objection seriously?

Humans are still humans, even if they are white, and the effects of tobacco smoke isn't particular toward which race the nonsmokers are that breathe it.

You know, I've heard some pretty silly objections that smokers have had to this or that study, but this is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim a study of health effects should be rejected based on the supposed race of its participants.

So, does that same rejection apply to the study done on Asian women spouses of smokers that was cited in the Surgeon General's 2006 report on SHS?

Amazing!