Smoking in the car - with children (bias, money, Ohio)

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by vamos

Au contraire. I was simply curious what the rationale could be. I confined my question to exposing children to cigarette smoke and asserted that I don't care what an adult does to him/herself. That was all! Imagine, a person simply asking a question without having an ulterior motive...

Alas, you obviously cannot possibly discuss any of that because any question regarding smoking a person might have is simply deemed an attack.

Smoking must, indeed, be horrible if you feel such a desperate need to be defensive at all times. I never attacked you, never claimed that your habit must be curtailed by law, and even confirmed that some people feel the issue is controversial - and yet you show nothing but aggression toward me.

Originally Posted by vamos

Obviously, smoking is well known to cause quite a few health problems and this information is well disseminated. In essence, nobody can claim ignorance to the detrimental effect of tobacco on humans. There also seems to be rather convincing evidence that smoking (even second-hand smoke) can and will adversely affect a child's development.

As I waited at a red light today, I noticed that the car behind me had an girl (roughly eight years of age) on the passenger seat and a toddler in a child seat on the rear bench. The mother was vigorously smoking a cigarette while the windows were closed.

To me, people who smoke either have a really hard time breaking their addiction or they are stupidly choosing to ignore the problems associated with smoking. Still, since they are adult and since smoking is legal, I think that they have every right to be idiots and smoke. I do not appreciate that their habits cause higher health insurance rates, but so does eating an unhealthy diet or not exercising. Thus, for the sake of this argument, I am willing to ignore this.

What I don't get is why people would do this to their children (or to any child, really).

Some smokers on CD seem to argue that second-hand smoke has no adverse effects - but healthcare professionals seem to strongly contradict such assertions (as does common sense).

Any ideas?

Seems like a bit of an attack to me, and an underhanded one at that......and thats just the OP.

and yet you show nothing but aggression toward me

If you want to check the silent sarcasm at the door and leave your judgements behind, I would be more than willing to discuss this topic with you civily.

[vamos]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Thats right, because I specificly asked for studies conducted by a neural to the issue entity, DUH!

And you assert "neutrality" how? By being unrelated to the medical field?

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Wrong, independant orgs. conduct plenty of health related studies.

And what does "independant" (sic) mean to you? What requirements would need to be met that you would find them acceptable.

For now, you are stating that medical studies cannot be conducted by the medical field and that they must be performed by "independant" organizations.

You see, by making your requirement ever so narrow, you ensure that you can simply discount anything that does not confirm your perceptions. That seems rather desperate, don't you think?

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Thanks for giving one last laugh before I retire for the night.

There you go again with your aggression.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Would you care to quote the post I said anything of the sort?

As I said, you SEEM to suggest this. If you don't, then just say so.

[vamos]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Seems like a bit of an attack to me, and an underhanded one at that......and thats just the OP.



If you want to check the silent sarcasm at the door and leave your judgements behind, I would be more than willing to discuss this topic with you civily.

So you are saying that having knowledge that you are inflicting harm on your body and simply ignoring that fact is not stupid? It sure sounds stupid to me.

And yes, I do believe that knowingly inhaling toxins is idiotic. I also think that, as an adult, you should have the right to do so - which is what I said.

None of that is a personal attack unless you make it such.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by vamos

And you assert "neutrality" how? By being unrelated to the medical field?

And what does "independant" (sic) mean to you? What requirements would need to be met that you would find them acceptable.

For now, you are stating that medical studies cannot be conducted by the medical field and that they must be performed by "independant" organizations.

It would have to be an org. that would not stand to profit or gain from the results i.e. not an org that is looking to pass anti smoking legislation, sell cessation drugs or be connected with a companyor entity that does, so on and so forth. Basicly, and org. that did the study, just for the sake of an inquiring mind.

As I said, you SEEM to suggest this. If you don't, then just say so

Well let me go on the record as officialy saying that I am not suggesting that SHS is not unhealthy. It very well could potentialy be. Do I think certain orgs. paint a FAR more bleek picture of it than what it actually is? You bet I do. Do UI think they do so in order to make it easier to pass anti legislation and sell cessation drugs? Again, you bet. Do I think they have done a good job at fooling the public? Yesser.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by vamos

And yes, I do believe that knowingly inhaling toxins is idiotic. I also think that, as an adult, you should have the right to do so - which is what I said.

None of that is a personal attack unless you make it such.

And I commend you for that.

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by pommysmommy

I have lungs that look like I smoked all my life. I blame that on second hand smoke. Discount it if you want but that is the only reason I can see for having diseased lungs.

Really? SHS is the ONLY thing you've ever been exposed to which can cause lung damage?

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Right! Hypocrisy at its finest. The hypocrisy is clearly evident when smoking legislation is passed in a state { as it iis here in Ohio } where the law reads that smoking in a public venue is completely prohibited. Including the smoke from any plant being burned in any area where it can be inhaled by people inside the venue. Then it goes on to say that this EXCLUDES wood-fired stoves...... am I missing something? When I read this it became so clear to me that "health" was never the concern when the law was written.

They generally exclude casinos too. If SHS is so dangerous for everybody else, why isn't it dangerous enough to gamblers to ban it in casinos too?

Money, that's why. It's been proven that if smoking is banned in casinos, a goodly portion of those gamblers will just go somewhere else to gamble, taking their money with them.

Now stilkit, so far ive been behind you, but never have I heard of smoking listed as the CoD on a certificate.

His lists bladder cancer with smoking as the causative factor. My daughter in law's grandmother set her apartment on fire smoking in bed and died. Her cause of death is smoking too. It was, indirectly, but the real cause of her death was burning.

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by pommysmommy

That is because there is a box on the death certificate asking if smoking contributed to death.

Is there a box asking about other things which might have contributed to death, or just smoking?

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

So you would agree that businesses should be allowed to permit smoking in their establishment so long as it is well ventilated?



.

You bet your sweet bippy I do!

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by vamos

Your response made it pretty clear that you are not interested in reading that SHS is harmful. In that sense, you are no different than any other addict who desperately tries to justify his/her behavior as "not so bad." So, what's the point. It's like showing Obama's original birth certificate to a "Birther." It's pointless.

I know you weren't referring to me, but I'll explain our position a bit better. Especially since I don't take the odd "If it's written by a doctor it is invalid" stance.

My position on secondhand smoke isn't that it is completely harmless, but rather that the risks and evidence are overblown and many of the scientists who conduct the studies do so for political reasons and the organizations that fund them do so for financial ones.

The majority of secondhand smoke studies fail to achieve statistical significance and the Relative Risks are generally very low by epidemiological standards and there are also a sizable minority (a bit under 40%) of studies regarding secondhand smoke show a protective effect (which I am equally skeptical). Relative Risks of 1.17 or 1.35 and whatever are consider to be small by conventional epidemiology, usually inconclusive, and seem to only be considered major findings when an issue is heavily politicized (like the government's studies on marijuana for example).

Also, many tobacco control organizations and anti-smoking activists have tendency to leave out inconvenient facts or bury studies when they don't match their stated conclusions. Members of the tobacco control branch of the World Health Organization denied it's 1998 study on secondhand smoke even existed when it came up with increases in risk that were less than half of what the WHO claims regarding secondhand smoke. The American Cancer Society pulled all funding from the largest secondhand smoke study ever conducted when they reviewed the raw data and found small decreases in lung cancer and heart disease. The EPA doubled its margin of error when its 1993 meta-analysis on secondhand smoke when the standard acceptable margin of error (a Confidence Interval of 95%) didn't produce the desired results.

So, yeah, I don't trust them. If major organizations have played a bit loose with the facts and stats, I can only imagine what anti-smoking scientists and doctors who much less oversight and who are often much more rapid in their beliefs do when nobody is watching.

Tobacco smoke contains various toxins. Inhaling any toxins is, by definition, detrimental to a person's health. I wouldn't think that this is a difficult concept to grasp - and most people around the world agree. You, however, seems to believe that toxins inhaled (by a child) have absolutely no effect. How does that make any sense - rationally, not emotionally?

Actually I grasp the fact that tobacco smoke has many toxins in it. That is why I have always said it should be treated like other toxins. Anti-smoking groups love to mentions all the chemicals found in secondhand smoke ("Hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, carbon monoxide...") and make a direct comparison to all those chemicals being put into your body and being released as secondhand smoke. But they fail to mention that those same chemicals have levels considered safe by both government regulations and general scientific consensus, yet we hear claims like "There is no safe level of secondhand smoke". Which is absurd. There are safe levels of plutonium and safe levels of VX nerve gas. And there are safe levels of the chemicals that make up secondhand smoke, most of which can be handled by ventilation and circulation, but once they come from a cigarette they become magical (at least according to anti-smoking activists) and there is no safe level.

Well, DUH! Does smoking affect your ability to discern obvious sarcasm? Or is it that you feel so strongly about your position that you are always in "fight" mode? And what does either suggestion make you? Daft? Aggressive? Both?

Well, one of the reasons why smokers become so defensive is because of the browbeating and dismissal smokers receive from anti-smokers. There is also the blatant doublethink present in the anti-smoking movement. Smoking is "a horrible addiction that enslaves its defenseless and innocent users against their will in a manner more complete than heroin" when it comes to suing tobacco companies, but all of sudden becomes a "disgusting vice used by the absolute dregs of society who care not for their health nor the health of others" when it comes to cigarette taxes, the employment of smokers, or just not being a complete dick to smokers.

There is a very large segment of the anti-smoking movement that hate smokers and I do mean hate. A lot of the anti-smoking groups and organizations that are devoted to tobacco control (like Action on Smoking and Health) have as intense of a hatred for smokers as a skinhead has for Jews. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has habit of having its members move into apartment buildings and threatening to sue both the landlord and smoking tenants of the building even when they know full well beforehand that there were smoking tenants in that building. Members of some anti-smoking organizations openly support the "right" of doctors and public hospitals to refuse medical treatment to smokers. I have heard anti-smokers compare smokers to murderers, child molesters, call us "the worst society has to offer", and so on. There are people out there who base the value on another person entirely on whether they smoke or not. That would be fine if we talking about a few marginal extremists, but quite of few of those people are very prominent and respected in tobacco control.

Also, most people who don't like smoking support laws restricting it and punitive measures towards smokers. So whenever we hear somebody railing against smoking we automatically think, "This dips--t is going to start calling for $30 a pack cigarettes and he's going to start comparing us to child molesters". However, you have stated that you don't and I commend you for that. Not many people can say they disagree and dislike something, but still think that it is not the government's place to play morals police. Regardless of our disagreements; I can respect that and there is little need for defensiveness in our debate.

My text is in bold.