Report Says Tobacco Kills 6 Million a Year: What Is Being Done ...

discusseded wrote:

(non-frivolous reasons against DELAYING taking the obvious steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS.)
1) Whether you quibble over the exact numbers or not, there is overwhelming evidence that a wide number of diseases--including nicotine addiction--are more prevalent among those who smoke than among those who do not smoke.

This is a valid reason to pursue eliminating retail tobacco products, but fails as an argument with regard to SHS exposure of nonsmokers.

discusseded wrote:

(non-frivolous reasons against DELAYING taking the obvious steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS.)
4) Tobacco companies have, for decades, conspired internationally to defraud peoples and governments. They have done this in order to ensure that a significant number of people--specifically the more psychologically and physiologically vulnerable adolescents to whom it is almost universally illegal to sell their products--would scoff at the evidence against their product's addictiveness and/or associated health risk. This remains the only path to maintaining the companies' bottom lines. Delaying action to reduce/prevent generation of SHS supports these companies, when courts in a wide variety of places have determined that these companies owe their profit to criminal practices. That support is destructive to civilization.

Again, you make your argument based on if not outright false, then at least spurious premise.

discusseded wrote:

(non-frivolous reasons against DELAYING taking the obvious steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS.)
5) Generation of SHS has a significant effect on environments, particularly indoors. Condensate leaves dingy walls. Toxins are absorbed into surfaces and will gradually be released for a long while after smoking in the area stops.

This is actually frivolous. Walls and other indoor surfaces can be cleaned, for one thing, and are generally not anybody else's concern. Frivolous.

And the word is "adsorbed", not "absorbed".

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>I don't buy it.
I think that only appeals to those of a politically left, big government perspective. I don't mean that as an ad hominem, just making an analysis.

Okay, to ensure communication, try this. Assume equivalent levels of harm coming from two causes. Addressing one source would significantly impact the function of society. Addressing the other impacts nothing more than a frivolous activity.

I believe that translates into a significant difference in appropriate approach. Don't you?

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

I hope I don't come across as "moving the goalposts", but that study did not indicate "harm". What makes you think it does? What definition of "harm" are you using?(And this is not "moving the goalposts", because I have asked this of antismokers before.)

This is a quote from a write-up on the study--not the actual study, sorry.

"The study found that, particularly among men, exposure to smoke changed breathing patterns, raised blood pressure oscillations in peripheral arteries and shifted control of heart rate toward sympathetic domination. The sympathetic nervous system becomes active during times of stress, but can cause harm to the heart and blood vessels if activated too often or too long."

Now when these effects are observable and measurable over the course of a ten-minute low-level exposure, I believe that demonstrates harm is being done.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

If you are arguing, there, to completely outlaw smoking (or, more generally, use of retail tobacco products) then I think you are on point.
However, since you seem to be arguing, here, to only eliminate the use of it (via smoking) near people who do not elect to participate in that frivolous activity your points of pragmatism fall short.

As this particular study is only applicable to secondhand smoke, it only justifies action to mitigate damage from secondhand smoke.

I agree with the late Ted Kennedy that the specter of 40 million plus addicts doing synchronized withdrawals is a VERY strong reason against outlawing smoking completely. That reason does NOT apply to keeping smoking away from nonsmokers.

I also believe that steps are being taken toward reducing the social impact of nicotine addiction and untying regulatory hands so that the activity itself can be dealt with free of the social destruction that would result if that step were taken now.

This is consistent with my reasoning for addressing SHS.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

BTW... "portable toxic leaf fire"? LOL! I like it. You made that one up?

Hey, if I told you I'd have to...well, you know. If I took credit for it, that would make me identifiable for all these bitter, vindictive smokers.

I like it too. I need some way to express just how truly NOT normal smoking is. How many posters on this forum scream about efforts to "de-normalize" smoking?

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a valid reason to pursue eliminating retail tobacco products, but fails as an argument with regard to SHS exposure of nonsmokers.

Please note, below, that the reasons relate to "generation of" SHS, not "exposure to" SHS.

"(non-frivolous reasons against DELAYING taking the obvious steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS.)"

I apologize if this makes my last response murky. I hadn't troubled to search back far enough to find "my" context before responding to the points you raised. It is smoking that generates SHS.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you make your argument based on if not outright false, then at least spurious premise.

I don't find it so. I have not done the studies myself, but have seen nothing to refute the ubiquitous premise that only a very small portion of smokers begin after the age of 18. Some sources cite 19, which would allow for one year during which it is legal in most parts of the US. I have read industry documents that show their marketing researchers were attentive to smoking habits down to the age of 14. There is nothing spurious in making the connection.

I have also read portions of studies finding relevant physiological factors in sub-adults.

The sociological basis for protection of minors draws heavily on acceptance of psychological vulnerability and the shifting sense of self in adolescents is not exactly a radical new hypothesis.

I believe I am on solid ground here.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
This is actually frivolous. Walls and other indoor surfaces can be cleaned, for one thing, and are generally not anybody else's concern. Frivolous.
And the word is "adsorbed", not "absorbed".

Check for studies on "third hand smoke". The accumulation of condensate is implicated in cotinine levels found in toddlers whose parents do not smoke in the home.

There is also work out there showing that contamination from tobacco smoke goes deeper than the surface (making it "absorb" rather than "adsorb"--I used the word advisedly.). Clean and clean and clean, and furniture from a smoker's home will continue to smell like smoke. The smell comes from contaminants.

The same is true of walls.

This is not the most significant of reasons, but I believe it rises above the level of frivolity.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, to ensure communication, try this. Assume equivalent levels of harm coming from two causes. Addressing one source would significantly impact the function of society. Addressing the other impacts nothing more than a frivolous activity.
I believe that translates into a significant difference in appropriate approach. Don't you?

Sure..just let you decide what is frivolous. How handy.

You self righteous moral busybodies never change as your narcissism always shines right through.

Your kind claims the meat addicts are the number one source of (eehh hhheeemmm) global warming...so what on earth are you doing here on this thread as there is no comparison.

The smokers are not even a blip in the radar in the big scheme of things silly.

Just ask the Vegans if eating meat is "frivolous"...and see what answer you get.

Tell us...after the smokers...the booze drinkers...the soda drinkers...the overweight... and the meat addicts...who should be next?

First they came for the smokers.

discusseded wrote:

(non-frivolous reasons against DELAYING taking the obvious steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS.)
6) Generation of SHS also generates a huge number of toxic left-overs. The individual size of cigarette butts permits users to think of this as insignificant, and this results in inadequate effort to properly dispose of them. This results in an eyesore as well as a few billion point sources a year of known hazardous chemicals leaching into the environment. Both the construction and the toxicity pose hazards to wildlife. A small animal with several filters in its gut is not only subject to the poisons but also to the false impression that its stomach is full of food.

Pollution is already an issue being dealt with by the laws of the land.

(And, yeah, I have read that study on the effect of cigarette butts on water fleas, and was not convinced.)

And animals stupid enough to eat cigarette butts... are you kidding? Frivolous!

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Um.... document contains no data.
Or at least, no link. ;-)

Right you are. I noticed that in looking back just now. Sorry.

Here is a link to the abstract (what I found quickly this time).

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abs...

The abstract ends with "Supported by the External Research Program of Philip Morris USA."

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Check for studies on "third hand smoke". The accumulation of condensate is implicated in cotinine levels found in toddlers whose parents do not smoke in the home.
There is also work out there showing that contamination from tobacco smoke goes deeper than the surface (making it "absorb" rather than "adsorb"--I used the word advisedly.). Clean and clean and clean, and furniture from a smoker's home will continue to smell like smoke. The smell comes from contaminants.
The same is true of walls.
This is not the most significant of reasons, but I believe it rises above the level of frivolity.

Blah blah blah.

You can be so ridiculous.

The Vegans say the same things about the meat addicts homes.

Ever notice how the kitchen walls of the meat addicts are stained and greasy?

If you really wish to freak out oh phobic one...just take a good look and a meat addicts range hood and just smell the toxins.

Now once again oh self righteous one...perhaps you will finally tell us all about these other forms of smoke that have "no safe level"?

How many other forms of smoke qualify for this "special" label?

How many times can you run from a simple question?

discusseded wrote:

(non-frivolous reasons against DELAYING taking the obvious steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS.)
7) There are hundreds of millions of people in the US who are NOT addicted to nicotine. Failure to take steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS exposes these people to SHS virtually everywhere they go--and even if they remain at home in situations where someone in a neighboring apartment smokes. A great many of them regard it as their right to choose NOT to be exposed to SHS. They are necessarily inconvenienced as long as generation of SHS goes unchecked.

That there are so many of us who are NOT addicted to nicotine is irrelevant.

That ETS used to be socially prevalent is also immaterial in modern society, where fewer places allow smoking (by corporate choice, rather than by dictatorial writ). "Unchecked" is a complete misrepresentation of what had been happening in reality.

In the real world, sir, more and more companies were prohibiting in-office smoking (this is even mentioned in the 2006 Surgeon General's Report), with many setting up particular break rooms in which they could smoke. Some companies even began to refrain from hiring smokers.

"Inconvenience" is a frivolous justification for adding any law to the books, and one person's "inconvenience" may not be a bother for others.

And you are correct, that many regard it as their "right" to choose to NOT be exposed to smoke. That is a right that may easily be executed by simply NOT GOING into buildings in which there is smoking. That was the approach that I took, whenever practical.

I don't find much merit to your argument here.

discusseded wrote:

Where taxation and/or fines are levied on the tobacco industry--and particularly when those taxes/fines are presented as associated with the harm the industry does to society--a significant portion of that money should be channeled DIRECTLY into research aimed at defeating the addictive property of nicotine.
Freed of that addiction and immunized against that addiction, a very few people would begin or long continue to generate tobacco smoke--mainstream OR secondhand.

At first I thought you were talking about altering tobacco to be free of nicotine. An interesting approach, but you'd still need to allow for nicotine-producing tobacco plants if those studies that show nicotine is beneficial (not when smoked or ingested) for generating blood vessels.

then it sounded like you are going to "immunize" the people at large. A dangerous mindset to have, sir. The state does not own the people, despite the efforts of the left.

And you can't -- well, SHOULDN'T-- just arbitrarily change human physiology. The nicotinic receptors exist for a reason, you know.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Right you are. I noticed that in looking back just now. Sorry.
Here is a link to the abstract (what I found quickly this time).
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abs...
The abstract ends with "Supported by the External Research Program of Philip Morris USA."

You sure walked into this one....

Did you notice it also says cooking fumes do the same thing?

Hhhhmmm.

Now...perhaps this is the time to finally tell us all about these other forms of smoke that have "no safe level"?

Your top ten will do...but just what is the "safe level" of meat smoke?

Surely this toxin will make the top of your list...right?

discusseded wrote:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpd f/cmaj.080566v1
Here is the actual report mentioned in one of the fluff threads here regarding 60 documents British American Tobacco's Canadian subsidiary destroyed. My recollection is that there was a considerable amount of "OH, HUH!" response to the article that said this work existed. It not only exists but is available free.
There is a considerable bibliography. Some documents are not immediately legible with my aging eyes and slight patience, but they are there.

I have bookmarked this for future reading. I didn't go through the whole thing.

But the section on SHS exposure to the rats still qualifies as chronic exposure, instead of casual.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Even if their exposure level is elevated to the point where their risk is increased (I'm only saying this hypothetically, because the science is not there), those patrons made a conscious decision to subject themselves to those conditions.

I do hope you are not so thoroughly aligned with the flat-earthers as to claim that SHS is not harmful. Proceeding from the assumption that you are not, I'll backtrack to what I believe was my premise back when I posted what you question.

Studies involving spousal exposure to SHS have often shown correlation between exposure levels and disease rates. The portion of a day spent with a spouse may or may not equal or exceed the portion of the day spent in a smoky bar. Many people smoke in a bar, as opposed to any non-Mormon spousal exposure.

For the other, I'm talking about effect, not assigning blame.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Now, let's address your overly dramatized "maybe a thousand cigarettes" thing: is there NO air circulating? How do you compensate for VOLUME in addition to the circulated air?

There is generally a large room involved in a bar, yes, and there is ventilation. Usually, ventilation is accomplished by drawing air in a particular horizontal direction and upward. The smoke typically originates at a level below that of the nose and mouth of the exposed person. It is also generated from a wide number of point sources so that the horizontal component is almost certain to bring some of it past the person.

Add to this the prevalence of forgotten cigarettes smoldering in ashtrays (or burning their way into wooden bars, etc.). People who are drinking are, I posit, more likely to forget about their cigarettes--even to lighting up another before realizing they just did that. Many of the toxins in tobacco smoke are more highly concentrated in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.

Smokers in bars are often lined up along the "bar" and create a micro-environment in the room. If the ventilation draws the smoke up and behind the line of patrons, the patrons themselves form a barrier that breaks up the path of dispersal and channels the smoke along the line of patrons resulting in a higher concentration of the smoke.

So, for the volume and ventilation to impact exposure, there may be all of these countering effects to deal with.

And, since we are talking about the potential to affect a person, we have to consider those I mentioned, who may be in the bar from just after work until 2 AM. If being exposed to one smoker for the few hours during which the average couple is awake and together (Can we assume this is the only time during which one of them will be smoking?) is enough to cause a significant increase in risk of various diseases, then clearly exposure to the smoke of who-knows-how-many smokers over the course of eight or nine hours is also enough to cause such an increase. Sitting in bars for extended periods is often as much of a life-style as a marriage, and a spouse may quit but a bar is unlikely to--failing a law requiring it.

I'm rambling so I'll stop.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>At first I thought you were talking about altering tobacco to be free of nicotine. An interesting approach, but you'd still need to allow for nicotine-producing tobacco plants if those studies that show nicotine is beneficial (not when smoked or ingested) for generating blood vessels.
then it sounded like you are going to "immunize" the people at large. A dangerous mindset to have, sir. The state does not own the people, despite the efforts of the left.
And you can't -- well, SHOULDN'T-- just arbitrarily change human physiology. The nicotinic receptors exist for a reason, you know.

The prospect of a significant positive effect from nicotine and the impossibility of synthesizing an effective product create a remote "could happen" scenario.

There are at least a couple approaches to vaccination in development now. At least one of these takes the approach of attacking the nicotine, not the receptors.

That one is in late stages of testing. If it is found to be safe and effective, it will offer a significant advantage to those who wish to quit smoking. Virtually every statistic I've seen suggests that means at least 70%. If those unwilling smokers can make the decision once and be assured of sticking to it for half a year or more, a huge number of current smokers can be expected to quit.

Again, assuming the product is proven safe, it offers possibilities in treating under-aged addicts. If they are not addicted by age 18, statistics suggest that very few will ever take up smoking.

So, if even 40% of smokers choose and are enabled to quit and recruitment is curtailed as well, demand for tobacco will bottom out.

The tobacco industry would have a hard time affording all the propaganda programs and slick marketing needed to sustain the profit margin in an environment like that. So, the recruiting would lose intrinsic efficiency, losing even more customers.

discusseded wrote:

Okay, to ensure communication, try this. Assume equivalent levels of harm coming from two causes. Addressing one source would significantly impact the function of society. Addressing the other impacts nothing more than a frivolous activity.
I believe that translates into a significant difference in appropriate approach. Don't you?

Again, I say that if you are arguing for a ban on all smoking, you're on point. But unless the law dictates that Great Aunt Martha cease from smoking in her own home in case nonsmoking relatives come calling, you're not completely addressing the actual problem. A total ban does that. A ban on indoor smoking in "public places" fails there.

discusseded wrote:

This is a quote from a write-up on the study--not the actual study, sorry.
"The study found that, particularly among men, exposure to smoke changed breathing patterns, raised blood pressure oscillations in peripheral arteries and shifted control of heart rate toward sympathetic domination. The sympathetic nervous system becomes active during times of stress, but can cause harm to the heart and blood vessels if activated too often or too long."

From an article about that study "The sympathetic nervous system produces the “fight or flight” response, which drives the heart and blood pressure and may cause damage if activated too long." (How long is 'too long'??) I'd like to know what the PPM and particulate sizes were. Can you imagine the response to diesel fumes?? Yowza! Anyway, I was able to find the abstract, but I may have to try to contact Ms. Evans to see if she'd send me any info on the PPM, and PM sizes. It looks like an interesting one for me to see.

discusseded wrote:

Now when these effects are observable and measurable over the course of a ten-minute low-level exposure, I believe that demonstrates harm is being done.

You might, but I'm still holding out as skeptical. But I will concede that this *could* turn out to be that smoking gun I've been asking for for the last three years now.

discusseded wrote:

As this particular study is only applicable to secondhand smoke, it only justifies action to mitigate damage from secondhand smoke.

It implicates cooking oil, too. Which affects me more than SHS, since I enjoy cooking.

discusseded wrote:

I agree with the late Ted Kennedy that the specter of 40 million plus addicts doing synchronized withdrawals is a VERY strong reason against outlawing smoking completely. That reason does NOT apply to keeping smoking away from nonsmokers.

As I've said before, you've got to grandfather most of those smokers, giving them a prescription of cigarettes, administered by a health care professional. Otherwise it would be a disastrous failure.

discusseded wrote:

I also believe that steps are being taken toward reducing the social impact of nicotine addiction and untying regulatory hands so that the activity itself can be dealt with free of the social destruction that would result if that step were taken now.
This is consistent with my reasoning for addressing SHS.

I think your approach is consistent, but consistently from the left and dictatorial. I prefer a method that preserves freedom for the people, rather than state shackles.

discusseded wrote:

Hey, if I told you I'd have to...well, you know. If I took credit for it, that would make me identifiable for all these bitter, vindictive smokers.
I like it too. I need some way to express just how truly NOT normal smoking is. How many posters on this forum scream about efforts to "de-normalize" smoking?

After hundreds of years, smoking has been "normalized".

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Please note, below, that the reasons relate to "generation of" SHS, not "exposure to" SHS.
"(non-frivolous reasons against DELAYING taking the obvious steps to reduce/prevent generation of SHS.)"
I apologize if this makes my last response murky. I hadn't troubled to search back far enough to find "my" context before responding to the points you raised. It is smoking that generates SHS.

It doesn't change the leftist position you've taken, though.

I am less prepared to abrogate the blessings of liberty in the name of reducing/preventing the generation of SHS than you, apparently.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
I have bookmarked this for future reading. I didn't go through the whole thing.
But the section on SHS exposure to the rats still qualifies as chronic exposure, instead of casual.

Please note that this citation was offered as a stand-alone post rather than as related to anything else I've just been addressing.

The post was a response to the general insistence that nothing not paid for by pharmaceutical companies supported an association between tobacco smoke and disease rates.

The documents involved here are not what the industry trumped up in order to defraud. There are studies they assumed--and tried to guarantee--that no one outside of the company would see.

I don't know what's in all of them, and might not be able to sort clear meaning from them if I did. They are probably not for industry propaganda, if they were not meant to have the chance to influence anyone. They were not undertaken by an entity with a vested interest in showing tobacco in a bad light, either.

I didn't post the link as an argument in itself, but rather to make the studies accessible if anyone cared. The story that was linked for a thread here didn't provide that sort of access.

"Community service" Discusseded style.