Slashdot Mirror

Oh please, there a just as many studies saying second hand smoke is harmless.

Shame you didn't link to any. And if you do, please link to the actual articles instead of right-wing news sites who claim such studies exist. Do it like this:

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/...

http://www.jabfm.org/content/2...

http://ash.org.uk/files/docume...

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...

See, the thing is, when you dig a little into those claims about "studies that show no risks from second-hand smoke", you find that they don't really exist except in the minds of "skeptic" sources like Reason or the Cato Institute.

I'm not a smoker, but cigarettes are carbon neutral. The tobacco plants pull the CO2 from the atmosphere,

What's interesting about your statement is that the guys who advertise tobacco are now also advertising the idea that global warming is fake. That, and that it's a raging load of bullshit. Where do you get this crap?

I'm yet to be convinced that second-hand smoke harms anybody

Have you even bothered looking at the evidence? Try this factsheet on passive smoking for example -- yours for the price of Googling "second hand smoking evidence" and reading the second hit. (For those who are curious but can't be bothered to follow the link: it's by an anti-smoking lobby group, but cites numerous scientific papers from diverse sources to back up its specific criticisms.) If you don't buy that one, go ahead and follow a few more links from the same Google search. There's no shortage of studies, and no shortage of campaign groups happy to highlight them for you.

In contrast, the only link I found among the first few hits that actually sided (somewhat) with the smoking lobby groups argued that one specific study (which wasn't really a new study, but rather an attempt to combine data from existing research in a new way -- a warning sign of something on dubious scientific/statistical ground anyway) could be interpreted at best to find a level of damage that was only slightly above noise. That same web page then suggests that we should ignore statistics, and that only a rise of 100% or more in the damage observed is significant enough to concern us because... well, because. Not exactly as compelling as "We conducted a formal study, and in households where both parents smoked, there was a >70% increase in childhood respiratory problems", is it? (That's one of the results in the factsheet I mentioned earlier.)

Seriously, this isn't rocket science: the often-devastating effects of smoking to the smoker are well-documented, and at best those around the smoker are still breathing in most of the same stuff after the smoker exhales it, just at a lower concentration (though possibly not much lower, depending on where you are). How can anyone with the slightest shred of understanding of basic science possibly assume that passive smoking is harmless?

From Action on Smoking and Health an anti-smoking organaization: tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness. So smokers are subsidizing non-smokers health care. Granted, I'm not British so this doesn't apply to me, but it appears you are as you mentioned the NHS.

From Action on Smoking and Health an anti-smoking organaization: tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness. So smokers are subsidizing non-smokers health care. Granted, I'm not British so this doesn't apply to me, but it appears you are as you mentioned the NHS.

That is not clear at all. You hear more from the smokers because they're obnoxious assholes. When strangers smoke near me, I generally give them an unpleasant look and move away. They never know or care how much of a problem they're causing me. Do you smoke? Do you get those looks? Next time, ask why.

It is common to some have degree of problems caused by second-hand smoke. The grandparent's watery eyes and headache are similar to my symptoms, just not as severe. People don't speak up because smoking is accepted. That's changing in most areas.

If you want to see scientific studies that link second-hand smoke to short-term medical problems, just google "second-hand smoke asthma". First hit. I've also heard that smoking in the home is either the #1 or #2 risk factor for asthma in children. You can debate that, of course, since correlation is not causation. (Smoking is more common among the poor and in the South.) But there is evidence, and more is coming. For better or for worse, there will come a day when you can have your children taken away for smoking around them.

If I start having seizures whenever I see the color red, am I justified in asking everyone to stop wearing red for me and the other 3 people in the world with my affliction?

No, because you just made that up. I have real physiological problems that are much more common than you think. Do you really think you can blow known carcinogens and toxic chemicals into the air around you and not cause people problems?

A better analogy would be peanut butter allergies. Very similar, fairly rare. There are people around who will die if they eat peanut butter. They demand accurate ingredient lists so that they don't eat peanuts involuntarily. I demand that I don't get second-hand smoke forced on me. They aren't suggesting outlawing the sale or consumption of peanuts. I'm not suggesting banning smoking in your own home. If you want to kill yourself, that's fine. But don't involve me.

It's not a habbit, but an addiction!

If you are truly discusted, don't support us idiots in our attempt to justify stupid behaviour!

Same situation as with internal memos from the tobacco industry. When an antismoking advocate says the tobacco industry markets to kids, it's one thing. When we discover R. J. Reyholds and Philip Morris memos talking about how to get kids to smoke, that's another thing entirely. The public takes notice. It's proof from the horse's mouth.

Those once-secret tobacco industry memoshave had impact, gotten the public to see the tobacco industry for what it is. Perhaps more Microsoft memos like this one is exactly what we need.

Same situation as with internal memos from the tobacco industry. When an antismoking advocate says the tobacco industry markets to kids, it's one thing. When we discover R. J. Reyholds and Philip Morris memos talking about how to get kids to smoke, that's another thing entirely. The public takes notice. It's proof from the horse's mouth.

Those once-secret tobacco industry memoshave had impact, gotten the public to see the tobacco industry for what it is. Perhaps more Microsoft memos like this one is exactly what we need.

You make some interesting points. As you say, correlation is not causation.

There are really two points to be made:

1. Cigarette companies have been targeting youth with their advertising.
2. Cigarette advertising encourages increased consumption of cigarettes.

The King and Siegel study is not trying to prove the second point, only the first. It makes no comment on the effectiveness of this advertising, it is only showing that cigarette companies are specifically targeting advertising to youth. It speaks of their intentions, not the results.

You are right that I did not back up the second point adequately.

Here are some exerpts from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998:

This study provides "the first longitudinal evidence to our knowledge that tobacco promotional activities are causally related to the onset of smoking." According to the authors it "provides clear evidence that tobacco industry advertising and promotional activities can influence non-susceptible never-smokers to start the process of becoming addicted to cigarettes ... our data establish that the influence of tobacco promotional activities was present before adolescents showed any susceptibility to become smokers ... we estimate that 34 per cent of all experimentation in California between 1993 and 1996 can be attributed to tobacco promotional activities."

Here is a quote from Emerson Foote, former Chairman of the Board of McCann-Erickson, which handled $20 million in tobacco account sales:

"The cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function that has been shown to increase consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco products."

Here is a quote from a leaked internal paper by Claude Teague, Assistant Chief in R&D at RJ Reynolds:

At the outset it should be said that we are presently, and I believe unfairly, constrained from directly promoting cigarettes to the youth market ... if our company is to survive and prosper, over the long term we must get our share of the youth market ... Thus we need new brands designed to be particularly attractive to the young smoker, while ideally at the same time appealing to all smokers ... Perhaps these questions may be best approached by consideration of factors influencing presmokers to try smoking, learn to smoke and become confirmed smokers.

But if I told you I had something that would not just cure but outright prevent cancer and specifically the most lethal cancer, the type that causes 30% of all cancer deaths, wouldn't you be interested?

It's not sexy, it's not high-tech, it's not at the cell level, but I have a vaccine for the most lethal cancer. It's called tobacco prevention. It's proven effective and cost effective.

Tobacco product causes 30% of all cancer deaths in America.

The most effective way of fighting those deaths is not at the cellular level, when the cancer has already started. The most effective way is prevention, reducing tobacco consumption as rapidly and effectively as possible.

This is not sexy, doesn't involve high tech -- and there's nothing high tech cancer cures have ever delivered that even comes close.

Put yourself in an oncologist's shoes and think about it.

Better yet, think about all the people you know, and chances are you knew someone who died from tobacco product. You should. This product kills 1 out of 5 Americans.

You want to fight cancer? Stop it before it starts. Learn about tobacco .

Learn about the scope and scale of the problem, the big picture

Learn about what tobacco product does to the customer, to those nearest the customer, to all of us:

Learn how tobacco product is engineered, marketed, and spread across the globe:

And, if you decide you do want to do something about this, learn what and who you will be fighting, and how to fight effectively.

It's not sexy, it's not high tech, but it's nothing less than a vaccine for cancer, and it works.

This simply isn't true - its just one more piece of crap picked up by the media then ignored when the rebuttals come in.

http://www.ash.org.uk

And bare in mind that Ash are an ANTI-smoking lobby group in the UK - definately not a pro-cannabis group.

It pisses me off how easy it is for the prohibitionists to spread their lies - people are just too willing to atomatically accept the evils of drugs because 'drugs are bad, m'kay'.

Bullplop! Bullplop I say!

http://www.ash.org.uk/

And bear in mind Ash are an anti-smoking lobby group.

Welcome to the world of Government sponsored lies.

but no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern

And whats Good For GM is Good For the United States of America.

This 'trust' them attitude is absurd. In REALITY our friends at Monsanto have a history of astonishing irresponsible behaviour. As do our friends at Big Tobacco... as do any number of irresponsible private entities who took private gain in exchange for a "charge to the public".

DDT, Asbestos etc etc etc - in fact, history tells us that in time, some things will come to surprise us about their danger. What we are talking about here is exposing the future of the worlds FOOD SUPPLY to uncertainty. We already have the means to feed ourselves, this is not the issue, the issue is that the Monsantos of the worlds intend to use the "Food Market" to make profit -- this desire to make profit will cloud their vision (as it always does) and encourage them to take chances, cut corners and move 'forward'... the reality is that we must not let people, who's REAL motive is selfish (profit), expose OUR food supply to unnecessary risk.

Its far to big a chance (for 100% of the world) to take for No real gain (outside of a few very rich people getting far richer).

Would I support genetic research of food from a different motivation? Maybe, because the new risk analysis will exclude the Motivations of Capitalists -- it would therefore be lower... that *new* risk tolerance would have only public good as reward. Why would the public recieve only Risk in exchange for nothing?

And car manufacturers have been doing it for even longer.

Except that instead of adding shit that will kill you even more to enhance addictive properties, car makers sometimes add safety devices, like fucking airbags.