25 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

See, THIS is at odds with the seemingly comprehensive study I referenced above: "Secondhand Smoke Causes Cancer 185You have just read how ETS harms the development of your child, but did you know that your risk of developing cancer from ETS is about 100 times greater than from outdoor cancer-causing pollutants? Did you know that ETS causes more than 3,000 non-smokers to die of lung cancer each year? While these facts are quite alarming for everyone, you can stop your child's exposure to secondhand smoke right now. " I smell a rat. A big, fat, political rat. I'm not willing to lie to get laid and I'm not willing to countenance lying just to have no smoking wherever I go. I'd love to see your evaluation of that study, MM. M

[maineman]

Mark, Please tell me if I'm being naive... (I dread being naive...) and, as someone who is strongly in favor of individual freedom and personal rights... Here's my quandry.... if someone wants to beat themself up, its okay. But its not okay to beat someone else up, right? If you want to get drunk, its okay, but its not okay to get drunk, drive and put others at risk, right? If you want to be a slob and a bum its okay, but probably not okay if you have young kids to take care of, right? While recycling the plastic wrapper that the evening newspaper came in may not save the world, I still do it, because "every day is earth day" and who knows? Every little bit helps? So, where does one draw the line about being around cigarette smoke? Shouldn't we try to protect ourselves from things that are KNOWN to be bad? mm

[OEXCHAOS]

Mark,
Please tell me if I'm being naive... (I dread being naive...)
and, as someone who is strongly in favor of individual freedom and personal rights...

Here's my quandry.... if someone wants to beat themself up, its okay. But its not okay to beat someone else up, right?

If you want to get drunk, its okay, but its not okay to get drunk, drive and put others at risk, right?

If you want to be a slob and a bum its okay, but probably not okay if you have young kids to take care of, right?

While recycling the plastic wrapper that the evening newspaper came in may not save the world, I still do it, because "every day is earth day" and who knows? Every little bit helps?

So, where does one draw the line about being around cigarette smoke?
Shouldn't we try to protect ourselves from things that are KNOWN to be bad?

mm

Well, the line gets drawn at choice and property rights. I.e. you choose to be on a smokers property, you deal.

That said, I'm suggesting that the real risks of second hand smoke may have been cynically exaggerated or perhaps even willfully misrepresented based upon a political or moralistic agenda. Thus, I question the assertion that modest environmental smoke IS that bad. Thus, it may be a trivial risk. Certainly unpleasant. Certainly something I'm not averse to applying moral suasion to, but objectiely BAD. I'm not at all convinced.

It seems much like the claims that drinking and driving is dangerous. In point of fact, it's not. No more than not drinking coffee before getting behind the wheel in the morning. Unless, of course, you're really drunk. But that hasn't stopped MADD and the state and federal governments from imposing draconian penalties upon anyone who has had a drink and gotten in the car. Similar stuff with regard to marijuana claims as well.

There are people who will go to extremes for a good, and cross the line for it. It happens pretty consistently.

I'm smelling it on the second hand smoke thing. I was actually asking you to evaluate the study referenced.

I'm all about winning the RIGHT way, not at "any cost".

Mark

[maineman]

Basically I'm not smart enough and don't have the time or desire to sort through the statistical minutiae of second hand smoke data. So it is entirely possible I could be wrong about what I believe to be so, which in this case is that second hand smoke is "bad". I'm okay with that assumption. I know for a fact that smoking is bad. So I'm making practical assumption that second hand smoke is bad. How bad? Who knows, but I do know its "some" bad... So I ask parents who smoke to consider quitting or not smoking anywhere near the kids. I ask spouses not to smoke anywhere near the relative who just got home from the hospital with a heart attack, pneumonia, etc. I don't agree that someone who wants to run a bar or restaurant who says smoking is okay should be shut down... if you don't mind smoke, go there. If not, stay away. To me, that's simple... where you have a choice. Where there is no choice, like an airplane, I'm okay with the no smoking rules. Or public places you cannot avoid. From a practicing medical point of view, though, I can tell you that the sickest people I've taken care of in my 20 plus years of practice are the smokers. There isn't one who hasn't suffered or is dead. Even the ones who quit, but smoked for some time (like a decade or more) are miserable. It is truly amazing that smokes are stil legal.. Your data on drunk driving is off. Over half and almost 2/3 or all auto fatalities are alcohol related. Having said that, there are worse things that are legal. We know that antihistamines are extremely dangerous, such as Benadryl, yet you won't get a ticket for driving while on Tylenol PM or some other benadryl related "cold" remedy. So it goes with the "law".... I think I recently related here that the local cops have noted a surge in traffic "incidents" related to prescription narcotics, like Vicodin, Percocet etc. They are so pissed off that they are getting legal counsel to see if they can go after the doctors who prescribe these drugs for the repeat traffic offenders. They recently asked me my opinion and I told them to "go for it".... these narcotics are way overrprescribed.... Finally, a minor rant about environmental "toxins" in general... it is extremely hard to pinpoint cause and effect. Our world is so vast and filled with so much stuff, that to nail down a substance as a cause of a specific disease or ailment is extremely difficult. To me, anyway, this is obvious, after 3+ decades of studying science. I understand how the "lay" person can get easily swayed by what may appear to be simple explanations. Scientific proof is tough. Epidemiological proof is VERY tough.... mm

[OEXCHAOS]

Basically I'm not smart enough and don't have the time or desire to sort through the statistical minutiae of second hand smoke data. So it is entirely possible I could be wrong about what I believe to be so, which in this case is that second hand smoke is "bad".

I'm okay with that assumption. I know for a fact that smoking is bad. So I'm making practical assumption that second hand smoke is bad. How bad? Who knows, but I do know its "some" bad...

So I ask parents who smoke to consider quitting or not smoking anywhere near the kids. I ask spouses not to smoke anywhere near the relative who just got home from the hospital with a heart attack, pneumonia, etc.

I don't agree that someone who wants to run a bar or restaurant who says smoking is okay should be shut down... if you don't mind smoke, go there. If not, stay away. To me, that's simple... where you have a choice. Where there is no choice, like an airplane, I'm okay with the no smoking rules. Or public places you cannot avoid.

We are of a like mind on this. I'd even be OK with a ban on smoking on the street, which is now legal, but not in any private establishment or on any private proprety (which is not current the case in Ohio and other states).

From a practicing medical point of view, though, I can tell you that the sickest people I've taken care of in my 20 plus years of practice are the smokers. There isn't one who hasn't suffered or is dead. Even the ones who quit, but smoked for some time (like a decade or more) are miserable. It is truly amazing that smokes are stil legal..

Thank goodness they still are. We do NOT need yet another black market and all the crime and corruption THAT breeds.

Your data on drunk driving is off. Over half and almost 2/3 or all auto fatalities are alcohol related.

See, this is what I'm talking about. First of all, the NHTSA says that it's 2/5ths, or a minority, not a majority. Second of all, I'm talking about the conflation of drinking and driving with driving drunk. The fact that the "Limit" was dropped 10 years ago, and yet alcohol attributable fatalities have remains stable suggests that it wasn't the drinking and driving that did folks in but rather the driving drunk.

But that doesn't stop the state from pushing more and more draconian measures against innocents who are no risk to anyone after 2 glasses of wine.

Having said that, there are worse things that are legal. We know that antihistamines are extremely dangerous, such as Benadryl, yet you won't get a ticket for driving while on Tylenol PM or some other benadryl related "cold" remedy. So it goes with the "law"....

And that's why I have a real problem with bending the truth and the facts of reality to promote even the most well meaning agenda.

I think I recently related here that the local cops have noted a surge in traffic "incidents" related to prescription narcotics, like Vicodin, Percocet etc. They are so pissed off that they are getting legal counsel to see if they can go after the doctors who prescribe these drugs for the repeat traffic offenders. They recently asked me my opinion and I told them to "go for it".... these narcotics are way overrprescribed....

Hmmm...

Finally, a minor rant about environmental "toxins" in general... it is extremely hard to pinpoint cause and effect. Our world is so vast and filled with so much stuff, that to nail down a substance as a cause of a specific disease or ailment is extremely difficult. To me, anyway, this is obvious, after 3+ decades of studying science. I understand how the "lay" person can get easily swayed by what may appear to be simple explanations. Scientific proof is tough. Epidemiological proof is VERY tough....

Sure. But outright fabrication or suppression of evidence is a big problem for me. It should be for you, too.

The right way for us to change behaviors is to pursuade and help people, not bully them and not lie to them. That damages society as a whole, in my judgement, in many, many ways, some totally inobvious or worse than the problem itself.

Mark

[Rogerdodger]

WOW!

Man Who Caused JFK Scare Went to Smoke
NEW YORK (AP) - A passenger who caused an evacuation at John F. Kennedy International Airport has told law enforcers that he breached security after going outside to smoke and then misplacing his boarding pass.
William Contreras Ramos, 20, of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, told Albany County sheriff's deputies that he was running late Tuesday and didn't have his boarding pass, so he went through another door and was able to get to his flight's gate.

The security breach caused two terminals to be evacuated and passengers to be re-screened, the federal Transportation Security Administration said. Thousands of passengers and dozens of flights were delayed for several hours during the evacuation and subsequent security rescreening.

The passenger walked up an exit lane past a private security guard at terminal two at about 6:40 p.m. Tuesday, the TSA said. The guard could not immediately locate the passenger and notified the TSA of the security breach, sparking a wide search for the man at terminals two and three, the federal agency said.

"He was going through the exit lane. That's going the wrong way," TSA spokesman Norm Brewer said. "As I understand it, he was challenged and stopped. And then what happened, I do not know."
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airport, called Albany County Sheriff James Campbell to say the man had boarded a plane to Albany. Deputies there took him in for questioning.
Ramos had no weapons on him, but a straight razor was found in his carry-on luggage, Campbell said. Ramos was being detained Wednesday until the FBI could come get him, Campbell said.

The TSA said in a statement on its Web site that "there is no known nexus to terrorism at this time."
Brewer said Aviation Safeguards, a division of Command Security Corporation, operates private security at JFK airport. Calls to the company were not immediately returned.