Here we go again !

Message

Gio · #16 Post by **Gio** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:39 pm

I wonder what the incidence of cancer is in a dirty atmosphere, ie any busy city.

Always beats me how they can be so selective.

Firestarter · #17 Post by **Firestarter** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:40 pm

BG, look at my previous post where I talk about Sam's comments, taking responsibility for your actions. You obviously do that - good on you. A lot don't. I'm not actually advocating any sort of ban, but I understand the reasons why people are talking about it. If everyone showed the respect that you show to your kids/grandkids, there wouldn't be any discussions like this.

Sam, your comments are NOT from the WHO, but from a private individual's "critique" of a 1998 WHO report (posted on a pro-smoking website, from what I can tell), the comment you highlighted is his interpretation not that of WHO. Your post is misleading, it suggests that WHO think that the risk of cancer is less for kids subject to passive smoking, this isn't the case. I can't see any evidence in Michael J McFadden's critique saying smoking reduces the risk of cancer - just that one-liner, with nothing else there to back it up. If you're going to shoot me down and ask for sources, please post yours. If anyone is interested, I believe it is this - http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/mcfadden-wales.pdf.

By the way, I don't think that I've got very confused about smoking vs passive smoking, as I did find this - http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/sec ... ke/faq/en/

There is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to SHS. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women and 30% in men who live with a smoker (2). Similarly, it has been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS in the workplace have a 16 to 19% increased risk of developing lung cancer

OK, adults not children, but if there's a risk to adults, I'll not be blowing smoke at my kids with a view to reducing the risk of them developing cancer.

Also, from the same World Health Organisation page:

Small children whose parents smoke at home have an increased risk of suffering lower tract respiratory infections and otitis media (6,7). SHS has also been linked to an increase in the number and severity of asthma episodes in asthmatic children (8). There is also evidence that SHS increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) (9).

Edit - Kwack, you beat me to it. Agree with your last line - common sense would mean there's no need for a ban.
OK, not cancer, but plenty of other negative health effects for children subjected to passive smoking.

Me, I'll err on the side of caution, and assume that kids are people too, and given a 20-30% increase in the risk of cancer from PASSIVE smoking (note no confusion), I'll keep them out of the smoky car.

Samray · #18 Post by **Samray** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:43 pm

kneescratch wrote:
What a load of BOLLOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! What about all the other deseases and problems passive smoking causes?????????

Don't make kids breath your second hand smoke...........Wether in the car or not......

Don't quote me out of context. It was a reply to Firestarters statement about cancer.

kneescratch · #19 Post by **kneescratch** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:08 pm

Samray wrote:
kneescratch wrote:
What a load of BOLLOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! What about all the other deseases and problems passive smoking causes?????????

Don't make kids breath your second hand smoke...........Wether in the car or not......
Don't quote me out of context. It was a reply to Firestarters statement about cancer.

Sam that statement allegedly from WHO is total garbage.... Nuff said.......

Samray · #20 Post by **Samray** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:32 pm

Sam, your comments are NOT from the WHO, but from a private individual's "critique" of a 1998 WHO report

I posted it as a critique.
Who better than a statistician to dismantle bogus statistics?

Trumpeteer · #21 Post by **Trumpeteer** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:35 pm

I truly believe in education not legislation.

I too endured smoking parents in the family car, but they didnt complain about my heroin habit so I didnt complain about their smoking.

Fausto · #22 Post by **Fausto** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:39 pm

Surely the issue with smoking is not the individual's right to harm him/herself but the selfishness of the effect of a lit cigarette on others in the immediate vicinity. Why don't smokers come up with something that limits the smoke to just them (divers helmet?) and most complaints would disappear. Nicorettes anyone?

After all, most don't mind if I drink alcohol but would complain if I then drove a car or vandalised the market square etc. I don't care if people want to take drugs as long as they don't affect others..... cost of healthcare ignored here as that's a whole other argument.

I am just trying to say that I don't wish to take away anyones personal freedom to smoke - I am just sick of them taking away mine to clean(ish) air.

I can't actually remember the last time I sat in a car/bus/train with someone smoking - I think I'd go nuts now. And I love pubs even more now!!

BikerGran · #23 Post by **BikerGran** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:15 pm

Fausto wrote: I am just trying to say that I don't wish to take away anyones personal freedom to smoke - I am just sick of them taking away mine to clean(ish) air.

I can't actually remember the last time I sat in a car/bus/train with someone smoking - I think I'd go nuts now. And I love pubs even more now!!

I don't want to take away anyone's right to clean air either. But the anti-smoking thing is all overkill. You might like pubs more but I like them less because I can't smoke. Why couldn't they have had a smoking room for the smokers, and keep the rest smoke-free for those who prefer it? The answer is, because you have a right not to smoke but I don't have a right to smoke.

Samray · #24 Post by **Samray** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:20 pm

Has it occured to you that the vast majority of ANY medical evidence is based upon nothing but statistics?

How many times in just the past few days have we seen a complete about turn on what is and what isn't good/bad for you and contradictary conclusions, even the admission that the recommended alcohol levels were a figure grasped out of thin air by some committee 20 years ago and never questioned?

I don't think I have argued in favour of smoking in the presence of children, or anyone in particular, but I have argued against yet more unnecessary legislation and also against blind faith in statistics.

Fausto · #25 Post by **Fausto** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:29 pm

BikerGran wrote:
Fausto wrote: I am just trying to say that I don't wish to take away anyones personal freedom to smoke - I am just sick of them taking away mine to clean(ish) air.

I can't actually remember the last time I sat in a car/bus/train with someone smoking - I think I'd go nuts now. And I love pubs even more now!!
I don't want to take away anyone's right to clean air either. But the anti-smoking thing is all overkill. You might like pubs more but I like them less because I can't smoke. Why couldn't they have had a smoking room for the smokers, and keep the rest smoke-free for those who prefer it? The answer is, because you have a right not to smoke but I don't have a right to smoke.

No - we both have a right not to smoke and we both have a right to not have smoke forced upon us. To be silly about this - I don't drink half of my pint and throw the other half over your head do I ?

Hell - I couldn't afford to..... and I wouldn't want to start a fight

Fausto · #26 Post by **Fausto** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:32 pm

Samray wrote:Has it occured to you that the vast majority of ANY medical evidence is based upon nothing but statistics?

How many times in just the past few days have we seen a complete about turn on what is and what isn't good/bad for you and contradictary conclusions, even the admission that the recommended alcohol levels were a figure grasped out of thin air by some committee 20 years ago and never questioned?

I don't think I have argued in favour of smoking in the presence of children, or anyone in particular, but I have argued against yet more unnecessary legislation and also against blind faith in statistics.

I am not getting involved in health aspects or statistics ( although I appreciate that this is how the thread started) I am just pointing up the selfishness and anti social elements of smoking. I'm not a great champion of 'rights' but children in cars have them too.

Samray · #27 Post by **Samray** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:50 pm

Fausto wrote:
I am not getting involved in health aspects or statistics ( although I appreciate that this is how the thread started) I am just pointing up the selfishness and anti social elements of smoking. I'm not a great champion of 'rights' but children in cars have them too.

Nobody has disagreed with that as far as I can see.

#28 Post by **Kwackerz** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:43 pm

Glad thats all sorted out then..

The smoking age has just been raised.. for buying cigs... half my Troop now cannot buy cigarettes.

BikerGran · #29 Post by **BikerGran** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:44 am

Fausto wrote:
BikerGran wrote: The answer is, because you have a right not to smoke but I don't have a right to smoke.
No - we both have a right not to smoke and we both have a right to not have smoke forced upon us. To be silly about this - I don't drink half of my pint and throw the other half over your head do I ?

Ok, if you want to be pedantic, we both have a right not to smoke and not to have smoke forced on us - but neither of us has a right smoke.

That matters to me but not to you cos as long as you have your rights you're not bothered about mine if they aren't the same as yours.

Fausto · #30 Post by **Fausto** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:49 pm

BikerGran wrote:
Ok, if you want to be pedantic, we both have a right not to smoke and not to have smoke forced on us - but neither of us has a right smoke.

That matters to me but not to you cos as long as you have your rights you're not bothered about mine if they aren't the same as yours.

This is what's wrong with rights

As soon as we start telling ourselved we have rights then people start to demand a right to do anything at all. Do you insist you have a right to thump people?

Erm... I hope I have a right to pedantism though