Thread: Anti - anti-smoking rant

Originally Posted by Pete_S

1) There has never been a death proven to be related to second hand smoke. Its that simple. No, not one. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

You're ignoring the fact that the majority of the smoking bans are rooted in claims that second hand smoke is deadly and and thus the choice of the smoker regarding their own health is negated.

BBC News - A World Health Organization study in 192 countries states that second hand smoke causes 600,000 dearths world wide annually.

The problem with the "proof" idea is that you can not say that had these specific people not been exposed to smoke they would still be alive, because they were and are now dead. Personally I think the comparative analysis provides compelling proof and I take the view that the WHO are not a bunch of propagandists publishing falsified studies.

IMO those that take the attitude that their 2nd hand smoke is harmless to others are just choosing to believe what is comfortable to them.

I am prepared to consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong and that 2nd hand smoke is fine, in which case the impact on smokers has been at a social and convenience level. However, if one considers the possibility that it is right the impact on non smokers is on a medical level. So which is more important?

Originally Posted by Jeltz

BBC News - A World Health Organization study in 192 countries states that second hand smoke causes 600,000 dearths world wide annually.

The problem with the "proof" idea is that you can not say that had these specific people not been exposed to smoke they would still be alive, because they were and are now dead. Personally I think the comparative analysis provides compelling proof and I take the view that the WHO are not a bunch of propagandists publishing falsified studies.

IMO those that take the attitude that their 2nd hand smoke is harmless to others are just choosing to believe what is comfortable to them.

I am prepared to consider the possibility that my opinion is wrong and that 2nd hand smoke is fine, in which case the impact on smokers has been at a social and convenience level. However, if one considers the possibility that it is right the impact on non smokers is on a medical level. So which is more important?

Well, first, regarding the report you linked, its pretty much extrapolated information. "We released a study saying that 1 in 1000 people exposed to second smoke will die in a year. 600 million people died last year. So, therefore, 600,000 people must have died from secondhand smoke." Those figures I listed are just made up, of course, but you get the idea.

I actually figured that second hand smoke was dangerous for a while as well, but it just doesn't add up. There should be things like clear statics showing that more people died from cancer related illnesses caused by second hand smoke when smoking was more prevalent, but I've never seen them or hear of them. There were several studies that showed secondhand smoke was not dangerous in the 90s, including a report from OSHA that clearly stated that it didn't contain the amount toxic levels of ...anything. Then suddenly in the early 2000s reports stated popping up and news people would say things akin to "A report finally shows that second hand smoke is dangerous". That sounded to me more like studies where they set out to prove a result, instead of proving or disproving it, something thats been discussed in this forum a few times on various subjects like global warming. These reports coincided with the ramping up of production of smoking cessation medicines, and I think its unlikely that was a coincidence. Tobacco is a 6 billion a year business, and a slice of that is enough to cause plenty of motivation and "studies".

As far as the WHO is concerned, I don't think much of them or their integrity at all. But thats a whole other thing all together.

Regarding your last paragraph I'd say that the govt staying out of peoples business is the most important. Someone phrased my feeling on it much better than I ever could--

"The most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power."

Anyway, this is winding down, and I don't wish to appear boorish so I'll go ahead and retire from this thread. There were many good points made by all.