Surgeon chap says secondhand smoke bad

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Nicotine, most addictive? You have obviously never heard of crack?

And I do know social smokers, or smokers who only smoke when they drink, so yeah, I think you are generalizing a great deal.

What does any of that have to do with either the report that no amount of second hand smoke exposure is safe, or the fact that there are no "personal freedom" issues when it comes to what conditions the government can place on people who want to run restaurants or bars, given that such extablishemts can only be started with approval and licensing from the government?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, because if the government can do something that means there are no personal freedom issues.

Come on, GePap, I was ignoring you because you were being silly, but I thought even you, by now, would understand the difference between a 'what should be done' and 'what they can do' argument.

It's like walking into an argument about whether pot should be legalized and saying "the government can ban it under X". Uh.. yeah, we know. Still doesn't mean criminalization of marijuana isn't a personal freedom issue.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, because if the government can do something that means there are no personal freedom issues.

Come on, GePap, I was ignoring you because you were being silly, but I thought even you, by now, would understand the difference between a 'what should be done' and 'what they can do' argument.

There is no right to smoke. There is no right to own a bar, or a restaurant. If you want a bar or a restaurant, you need to meet the standardas and rules set by the government. Its nice and simple.

Any limit "limits personal freedom", which is why "personal freedom" is a bull**** arguement. By not allowing me to beat the crap out of anyone else, my "freedom" (ie. ability to act without retraints) is limited. So what?

As to "what should be done", there is no rational arguement for smoking, PERIOD. It is a dangerous habit with no redeeming values. At least alcohol in moderate amounts has been found to have health benefits. There is NO BENEFIT to smoking, period. NOw we have a study stating that no amount of exposure to second hand smoke is acceptable.

So, just as it is reasonable and correct to limit personal freedom by limiting the ability of one person to physcially assault another, it is reasonable to limit personal freedom by not allowing one persons habit to endanger the health of others.

If you want to hurt yourself, go ahead. When you hurt others, you cross a line over which you should have no freedom to cross.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Nicotine, most addictive? You have obviously never heard of crack?

Yeah, I heard of crack and heroin. They aren't more addictive than nicotine, IIRC.

On current evidence, we can conclude that cigarettes are properly categorised among the most addicting substances as this form of nicotine delivery maximises the addictive effects of the drug.

cite

Also

Depends. Nicotine is more addictive by virtue of the fact that it is rapidly absorbed into the blood and hits your brain extremely quickly (around 10 seconds) and is then removed from the receptors very rapidly and broken down to form cotinine. This rapid reward and reward loss leads to the physical craving.

The craving from opiates is less severe and is dependent on various factors. E.G. Heroin is given to patients suffering sever pain and trauma in hospitals and yet patients don't necessarily become addicted. 99.9% of herojn addicts during the Vietnam war never took heroin upon their return to the US. Heroin is a relatively safe drug when given as a pure substance by a professional.

Crack produces an intense high, and again gives a rapid hit with rapid absorbtion which also leaves the reward center (in this case Dopamine being a key player) and thus the addictive qualitiy of the drug is obvious.

source

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And I do know social smokers, or smokers who only smoke when they drink, so yeah, I think you are generalizing a great deal.

So there's no problem for them not smoking, then.

[Harovan]

When I was in vocational school, our school sport trainer organized a swimming contest smokers vs non-smokers. Unfortunately, he missed to prove his point, because the non-smokers were pwned in an embarassing way. Afterwards he tried to explain it by the lungs of smokers being much more trained.

[Cort Haus]

We have ways of making you stop smoking

We have ways of making you stop smoking
The parallels - and differences - between Nazi Germany's 'war on cancer' and New Labour's crusade against the evil weed.
by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick

[Tobacco is] 'one of the most deadly poisons'.

Adolf Hitler, 1941

There are striking parallels between the Nazi 'war on cancer' and the New Labour crusade against smoking (1). In Nazi Germany, every individual had 'a duty to be healthy'; furthermore, to ensure that individuals fulfilled this duty, the government insisted on 'the primacy of the public good over individual liberties' (2). Tony Blair acknowledges that smokers - and non-smokers - have rights. More importantly, however, 'both have responsibilities - to themselves, to each other, to their families, and to the wider community' (3).

To ensure that smokers meet these responsibilities, the government is planning further bans and proscriptions on their activities. In Germany in the 1930s, the medical profession played a leading role in the state campaign to restrict smoking. In Britain today, doctors again provide medical legitimacy and moral authority for state regulation of individual behaviour.

There are of course also striking differences between the Nazi and New Labour anti-smoking campaigns. The anti-Semitic and eugenic themes of the 1930s are absent today; many of Germany's leading anti-tobacco activists were also war criminals (4). Another difference is in the consequences of an authoritarian public health policy for science. Whereas in Nazi Germany pioneering scientific research took place into the health effects of tobacco, we find today in Britain that epidemiology has been degraded in the service of political expediency.

There has been a marked reluctance among British medical authorities to acknowledge German achievements in research into the health effects of smoking. Yet according to Robert Proctor's authoritative account, The Nazi War on Cancer, up to the Second World War, 'German tobacco epidemiology was the most advanced in the world'. In 1929 Franz Lickint, a physician from Chemnitz, published the first statistical evidence - a 'case series' study - suggesting a link between cigarettes and lung cancer (5). He went on to become a leading campaigner against smoking in the Nazi era.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7A4.htm

also on Nazi anti-smoking policy : http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2.htm

This commentary depicts with great precision and accurate bibliographical references the astonishing similarity of the nazi propaganda against smoking with the current propaganda of the antismoking industry. Had we removed the refereces to the Nazis, the reader would think that this is contemporary material.

We hope that what follows is an eye-opener for people of good conscience about what is going on in these bleak times. The resurgence of fascism under the guise of health is not new, and we better learn the lesson of history once and for all, or the price to pay for our ignorance will be dear indeed.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So? Same can be said for absurdly loud music... which DOES have an effect on the people there (can cause hearing loss).

And I would have no problem with some sort of a decibel restriction to cut down on that.

It would have the added benifit of making me a heckuva lot happier when I do end up in a bar.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
When I was in vocational school, our school sport trainer organized a swimming contest smokers vs non-smokers. Unfortunately, he missed to prove his point, because the non-smokers were pwned in an embarassing way. Afterwards he tried to explain it by the lungs of smokers being much more trained.

Well, I guess all the cool kids were doing it, eh?

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by PLATO
just as some in this thread reveal volumes about the rationalization powers of the addicted.

You seem to be misunderstanding my POV on of this.
I am by NO MEANS trying to justify or rationalize my addiction. And neither am I ignoring or denying the dangers of smoking.

What I am saying is that smoking is indeed a health risk, but so are many other activities. It is indeed a slippery slope when government starts getting involved in legislating lifestyles due to health reasons. How far will they go... I am discussing the limitations on personal freedoms... If taken to the end, once could see the government making cigs and booze illegal... forcing restaurants to only serve healthy food... outlawing motorcycles... and lord knows what else.
Heck, from a health standpoint, we should outlaw cars as well...

There are assumed risks in all we do... It would be very difficult to find an individual who does not participate in some unhealthy activity...

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=GePap]there is no rational arguement for smoking, PERIOD. It is a dangerous habit with no redeeming values. At least alcohol in moderate amounts has been found to have health benefits.[/q]

And, of course, we knew about the health benefits of alcohol since the earliest times it has been consumed, right? Yet alcohol was seen to be something of value even before studies came out (except for temperance ninnies who were ultimately on the losing end).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ming


You seem to be misunderstanding my POV on of this.
I am by NO MEANS trying to justify or rationalize my addiction. And neither am I ignoring or denying the dangers of smoking.

What I am saying is that smoking is indeed a health risk, but so are many other activities. It is indeed a slippery slope when government starts getting involved in legislating lifestyles due to health reasons. How far will they go... I am discussing the limitations on personal freedoms... If taken to the end, once could see the government making cigs and booze illegal... forcing restaurants to only serve healthy food... outlawing motorcycles... and lord knows what else.
Heck, from a health standpoint, we should outlaw cars as well...

There are assumed risks in all we do... It would be very difficult to find an individual who does not participate in some unhealthy activity...

Fair enough.

However, there does need to be a line drawn for where government can and should get involved. If this was not true then many illegal drugs would be legalized or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would be okay. I do find your argument for personal freedom well founded...I am a big supporter as well. In the case of nicotine, however, there is no reason that it should not be a controlled substance. In fact, other than its tobacco uses, it is. The reason that it is not controlled there is simply the effect of economics and a demonstration of lobbying power.

Just a quick question...If nicotine were to be illegal tommorow, would you go to the black market for it, or would you quit? Would you be better off if you quit? Would society be better off if everyone quit?

GePap is right in saying that some of the other activities you denote have some redeeming values. In the case of smoking, there are none.

I really do hope that you physically prove me wrong. I would hate to see your life cut short when the evidence is so clear before you. Best of luck with it.

[Spiffor]

Re: We have ways of making you stop smoking

Originally posted by Cort Haus

We have ways of making you stop smoking
The parallels - and differences - between Nazi Germany's 'war on cancer' and New Labour's crusade against the evil weed.

ZOMFG!!1 And Hitler had two arms and two legs, just like Tony Blair!!1

[Ming]

Originally posted by PLATO
The reason that it is not controlled there is simply the effect of economics and a demonstration of lobbying power.

As is the case with many things

Just a quick question...If nicotine were to be illegal tommorow, would you go to the black market for it, or would you quit?

To be honest, I don't know... until faced with the situation, any other answer I give is just lip service.

GePap is right in saying that some of the other activities you denote have some redeeming values. In the case of smoking, there are none.

Neither does drinking... If you say it relaxes you... hell, so does smoking. Both give you a "buzz"... We outlaw many drugs, but drinking is still ok... WTF!

And what is the redeeming value of driving a motorcyle without a helmet... what is the redeeming value of driving a SUV... What is the redeeming value of eathing bad fast food... a healthy rice and veggy meal would be cheap, fast, and wouldn't be bad for you...

[Cort Haus]

Re: Re: We have ways of making you stop smoking

Originally posted by Spiffor

ZOMFG!!1 And Hitler had two arms and two legs, just like Tony Blair!!1

Hilarious, Spiff. Hitler had just the one ball, though, according to the song.

The parallels are about state intrusion into people's lives, and the health-as-morality ethic.

Eating is also on the agenda for state control, then car-use, and at some point in the future computer games will certainly come under the spotlight as dangerous and addictive things. Should people be allowed to play them?

Walking in the fells / mountains is risky - perhaps we should ban that, and sports generally are injury-zones waiting to happen.

This is about much more than smoking. Smoking is a great way to get people to accept the principle of state control over our lives, because there aren't really any good arguments in favour of it - except as John Reid (then Defence Sec. ISTR) said - it may be one of the few pleasures many working class people have in their lives - whatever the consequences and costs to them.

Once everybody accepts the principles of increased state regulation of our personal lives, we can forget those old fuzzy notions of freedom and liberty. The prevailing paradigm seems to resent those concepts as dangerous and immoral.

[Spiffor]

We have plenty of state regulation already. What's the ban on drugs, if not state regulation over pleasure? What about punishing highway speeding?

Besides, I don't know if the New Labour actually pushes for an outright ban of the substance, or if it pushes for a ban in public places.

Personally, I have nothing against smokers killing themselves and only themselves. However, I want their smoke get the **** out of my air.