Surgeon chap says secondhand smoke bad

[GePap]

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/NEWS01/60627015/1008/NEWS01

So at this point the Surgeon General of the US has come out with a report saying no level of second hand smoke is safe. What shall smoking supporters do?

I know, ignore facts. Works for everyone...now they will simply look sillier doing so.

[Lorizael]

I wouldn't trust the Surgeron General. He's a high school dropout.

[Kuciwalker]

Isn't this a bit like Ted's Spanish Influenza thread?

[Colonâ„¢]

I'm out of smokes.

[Lancer]

Europe is more addicted than the US.

[chequita guevara]

So much for 2nd hand smoke being junk science. Looks more and more like those peddling teh anti-"junk" science are teh most guilty.

[Colonâ„¢]

Smoking not an addiction, it's a pre-emptive counter-measure against greying.

[Lancer]

Going belly up for the byproducts of incineration.

[Sava]

Re: Surgeon chap says secondhand smoke bad

Originally posted by GePap

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/NEWS01/60627015/1008/NEWS01

So at this point the Surgeon General of the US has come out with a report saying no level of second hand smoke is safe. What shall smoking supporters do?

I know, ignore facts. Works for everyone...now they will simply look sillier doing so.

wow... you should probably read your own article before jumping to conclusions there Gepap...

The U.S. Surgeon General said Tuesday that evidence confirms or suggests a wide range of health problems caused by exposure to second-hand smoke.

Sure, if you are exposed to "second hand" smoke for 20 years on a daily basis, you will probably develop health problems. But all this anti-smoking nonsense is going too far. You won't get lung cancer from going into a restaurant that has a smoking section and a non-smoking section.

And sorry Gepap, you are misrepresenting what this report is saying.

There are dangers with smoke from cigarettes, as with anything else, but the anti-smoking laws the government is imposing on private establishments is not right. Your decision to go into a restaurant that where people are smoking is the same as a person's decision to light and smoke a cigarette. This is not a health issue, this is an issue where people want to legislate their personal tastes. Let's be honest here.

Nobody is getting cancer from going out to dinner. It doesn't work that way. Anyone who believes that is misrepresenting the facts or is just a complete moron.

And if we're going to use the government to legislate our tastes, hell, then I'd like to ban a lot of stuff... like cell phones in public. They annoy me more than cigarettes. And loud children.

And how about the internal combustion engine... you talk about a public health risk... what spews out more deadly gases, a cigarette or a car?

I agree with smoking bans in the workplace and in public areas. But when you start to encroach upon private establishments, that's wrong.


BTW, I've seen reports that say burning wood releases more dangerous particulates than cigarette smoke. So hell, we might as well stop building fireplaces in houses.

Radon gas contributes to more lung cancer deaths per year (according to 2004 stats) than second hand smoke... by a factor of ten... (the link I had is broken, but if you want to dig up an old thread, I posted the text there... stats from a National Cancer Institute report)

So Gepap, are you going to go on a crusade to get radon gas detectors in peoples' basements?

Didn't think so.

Until then... STFU NOOB

[Lancer]

I'm for a ban in private establishments also, for the sake of the other guests and non smoking employees.

[alva]

And how about the internal combustion engine... you talk about a public health risk... what spews out more deadly gases, a cigarette or a car?

'nuff said

[Lancer]

Why does that matter?

[alva]

I see noone trying to ban cars.

[Colonâ„¢]

Found some tobacco leftovers in a drawer.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by alva
I see noone trying to ban cars.

I am in favour of baning cars.