Doctors group supports smoking ban

Doctors group supports smoking ban

There are 31 comments on the Argus Leader story from Feb 27, 2009, titled Doctors group supports smoking ban. In it, Argus Leader reports that:

While the Legislature debates a tougher smoking ban, the South Dakota State Medical Association has devoted a 72-page special issue of its monthly journal to the hazards of smoking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Argus Leader.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#1 Feb 27, 2009
Funny my doctor SMOKES and so do 3 others in our town.........your point is.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#2 Feb 27, 2009
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.

Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.

Federal Government Reports

A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.

But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.

Low Statistical Association

Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.

One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.

For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#3 Feb 27, 2009
Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data.... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.([email protected]) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.
Smoke Free

Plano, TX

#4 Feb 27, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
Funny my doctor SMOKES and so do 3 others in our town.........your point is.
Now there's a QUACK!!! That's something to be real proud of!!! I'd feel real comfortable with his diagnosis, NOT. I didn't know Jethro Bodine actually had a real license to practice.
I prefer my doctor not to smell like an ashtray especially when I'm sick. YUCK!!!

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#5 Feb 27, 2009
Smoke Free wrote:
<quoted text>
Now there's a QUACK!!! That's something to be real proud of!!! I'd feel real comfortable with his diagnosis, NOT. I didn't know Jethro Bodine actually had a real license to practice.
I prefer my doctor not to smell like an ashtray especially when I'm sick. YUCK!!!
We all know you go to DR Glantz the Mechanical Engineer. BTW when do you go in for your next tune up?
Regular Joe

San Jose, CA

#6 Feb 27, 2009
My mechanic puts sand in his oil. He claims that it increases his fuel mileage. And your point is.
Jon

Seattle, WA

#7 Feb 27, 2009
Go to this site: nicotine - health benefits

Also click on these two links:

http://www.shvoong.com/humanities/410126-rece...

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.ht...
youre outa here

AOL

#8 Feb 27, 2009
Jon wrote:
Go to this site: nicotine - health benefits
Also click on these two links:
http://www.shvoong.com/humanities/410126-rece...
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.ht...
All of this would be humorous if it was not for the fact that many of the cretin smokers actually belive this despite strong evidence from their own bodies that smoking is harmful. I guess most of these morons dismiss the inability to breathe properly of car exhausts and the constant coughs as a reminder of how dirty the air is where thery live. No word yet on how they explain 90% of lung cancer occuring in smokers. I guess it must be sheer bad luck. It is a wonder a piano does not drop on these dolts while they are walking down the street with all of the bad luck the have with cancer and COPD, just to name a few dread diseases that for some odd reason or another strike smokers much more frequently than they strike non-smokers.

Whatever the reason, be it bad luck or not, I do not want to be around these clowns who seem to be a dread disease magnet. So, smokers can just hang out by the dumpster and smoke until they have the bad luck to get bitten by a rat and contract rabies.
youre outa here

AOL

#9 Feb 27, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
MOST learned people would disagree with his hypothesis and his conclusions. He is entitled to his interpretation of the studies out there. Many researchers will tell you that the larger the number of people in the study the smaller the increase that is needed to be able to make a prediction. They will also tell you that if study after study shows evidence that something is happening, more than likely, it IS happening. Therefore, although YOU do not seem to want to accept studies, I will not allow YOU and your sick inbred cretin friends and family to smoke anywhere that I or another smoker may choose to go. I do not feel that an three or four fold increas in MY cancer risk is worth YOUR ability to spew hot toxic gasses anywhere and everywhere that you choose. I am not alone in my feelings. Look at the news. Smoking bans continue to increase, almost geometrically and only 15 or so states do not have a smoking ban of some type or another on the books at this time. Additionally, many states that do have a smoking ban are going back to the books to strengthen and widen the bans.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#10 Feb 27, 2009
youre outa here wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this would be humorous if it was not for the fact that many of the cretin smokers actually belive this despite strong evidence from their own bodies that smoking is harmful. I guess most of these morons dismiss the inability to breathe properly of car exhausts and the constant coughs as a reminder of how dirty the air is where thery live. No word yet on how they explain 90% of lung cancer occuring in smokers. I guess it must be sheer bad luck. It is a wonder a piano does not drop on these dolts while they are walking down the street with all of the bad luck the have with cancer and COPD, just to name a few dread diseases that for some odd reason or another strike smokers much more frequently than they strike non-smokers.
Whatever the reason, be it bad luck or not, I do not want to be around these clowns who seem to be a dread disease magnet. So, smokers can just hang out by the dumpster and smoke until they have the bad luck to get bitten by a rat and contract rabies.
The politically correct medical establishment dances around that question with all of the skill of a lawyer. In the Merck Manual, 14th Edition (1982), we are introduced to a new disease, Chronic Onstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD, and, at page 629, we are shown a diagram, showing that the disease is combination of emphysema and bronchitis, and that some patients may have one disease and some the other, but many will have both. Cigarette smoking is said to "presumably" play a role in COPD. At page 630, we told about AAT deficiency, but this is described as a "rare condition"; it is not clear whether the authors mean that AAT is a "rare condition" that causes emphysema, or that emphysema is rarely caused by AAT deficiency. The language is, I think, deliberate vague.

By 1992, it becomes still more politically imperative to blame smoking for COPD and emphysema. In the 16th Edition of the Manual (1992), it is explained that, yes, emphysema is caused by destruction of lung tissue, caused by an unchecked enzyme. We are told, however, that smoking lowers the body's defenses to the enzyme. No evidence or authority is cited for that proposition.

Thus, we are left with confusing conclusions. We have a new disease, COPD, the exact cause of which is unknown (indeed, the definition of the disease is vague; it seems to be a case of "this patient has something wrong with his lungs, but we don't know exactly what"). Cigarette smoking is thought to play a role; yet the 16th Edition makes it clear that many cigarette smokers never develop the disease, and the authors do not know why. I submit that the reason is very simple: smoking does not cause emphysema.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#11 Feb 27, 2009
youre outa here wrote:
<quoted text>
MOST learned people would disagree with his hypothesis and his conclusions. He is entitled to his interpretation of the studies out there. Many researchers will tell you that the larger the number of people in the study the smaller the increase that is needed to be able to make a prediction. They will also tell you that if study after study shows evidence that something is happening, more than likely, it IS happening. Therefore, although YOU do not seem to want to accept studies, I will not allow YOU and your sick inbred cretin friends and family to smoke anywhere that I or another smoker may choose to go. I do not feel that an three or four fold increas in MY cancer risk is worth YOUR ability to spew hot toxic gasses anywhere and everywhere that you choose. I am not alone in my feelings. Look at the news. Smoking bans continue to increase, almost geometrically and only 15 or so states do not have a smoking ban of some type or another on the books at this time. Additionally, many states that do have a smoking ban are going back to the books to strengthen and widen the bans.
your absolutly WACKED,perhaps youd like to buy some ocean front property in iceland,they say global warming is moving the equator to the north.........nows the time to get in on an early vacation home.........youre a JOKE.
youre outa here

AOL

#12 Feb 27, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
<quoted text>
The politically correct medical establishment dances around that question with all of the skill of a lawyer.
The South Dakota State Medical Association is NOT dancing around the question of whether ot not smoking causes harm.
http://www.sdsma.org/TheNextVitalSignSpecialI...
They state that cigarette smoking causes harm and that second hand smoke causes harm. Period. End of story. Smoking kills. Second hand smoke kills.
http://www.sdsma.org/documents/President_005....
There is no dancing around. there is no mincing of words.
youre outa here

AOL

#13 Feb 27, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Merck Manual, 14th Edition (1982), we are introduced to a new disease, Chronic Onstructive Pulmonary Disease, or COPD, and, at page 629, we are shown a diagram, showing that the disease is combination of emphysema and bronchitis, and that some patients may have one disease and some the other, but many will have both. Cigarette smoking is said to "presumably" play a role in COPD.
Now, in 2009, the Merck Manual does not mince words:
"Cigarette smoking is the primary risk factor in most countries, although only about 15% of smokers develop clinically apparent COPD; an exposure history of 40 or more pack-years is especially predictive."
http://tinyurl.com/d5sok2
It is amazing what a difference 27 years makes. No more dancing around. 15% of smokers develop clinically apparent COPD. That is a lot more than the general non-smoking population.
Again
"Symptoms usually progress quickly in patients who continue to smoke and who have higher lifetime tobacco exposure."
youre outa here

AOL

#14 Feb 27, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
<quoted text>
At page 630, we told about AAT deficiency, but this is described as a "rare condition"; it is not clear whether the authors mean that AAT is a "rare condition" that causes emphysema, or that emphysema is rarely caused by AAT deficiency. The language is, I think, deliberate vague.
You COULD have read up on AAT deficiency to gain a better understanding of the illness:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/copd/alpha1.html
If you have AAT deficiency, you should NOT smoke.
"It is especially important that patients with AAT do not smoke."
Again, that is not dancing around. That is an unequivical statement. Don't smoke. It does not get an easier than that.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#15 Feb 27, 2009
To anyone that came to this link to engage in an exchange of ideas on ending these absurd smoking prohibitions, thank you very much for your time and efforts!
There are several morons, sociopaths, paranoid schizophrenics, pedophiles, and whiney libertards that are paid to come out and post articles and links that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous. Ms Clean Lungs, youou aka Old Yeller Sheets, Smoke Free, just candid, Gammler, Stop the spam, FixedItForYa, Poq Mom, stop, youre outa here - they are all working together to shut down any thread related to smoking.
They will first post BS links that 2nd hand smoke is scientifically proven to cause cancer. Then, they will start posting that you are a patriot if you support smoking bans because you are not taking away the rights of restaurant owners to choose who they want to serve.
What a crock of scat these antis are!
youre outa here

AOL

#16 Feb 27, 2009
Happy Contented Soul wrote:
To anyone that came to this link to engage in an exchange of ideas on ending these absurd smoking prohibitions, thank you very much for your time and efforts!
There are several morons, sociopaths, paranoid schizophrenics, pedophiles, and whiney libertards that are paid to come out and post articles and links that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous. Ms Clean Lungs, youou aka Old Yeller Sheets, Smoke Free, just candid, Gammler, Stop the spam, FixedItForYa, Poq Mom, stop, youre outa here - they are all working together to shut down any thread related to smoking.
They will first post BS links that 2nd hand smoke is scientifically proven to cause cancer. Then, they will start posting that you are a patriot if you support smoking bans because you are not taking away the rights of restaurant owners to choose who they want to serve.
What a crock of scat these antis are!
Gee and you were always the one looking for an exchange of ideas.
NOT!!!!!!
What a moron.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#17 Feb 27, 2009
youre outa here wrote:
<quoted text>
What a moron.
Yes, you're that as well as this.... http://tinyurl.com/bfhnnb
John

United States

#18 Feb 27, 2009
Sad Tormented Fool wrote:
To anyone that came to this link to engage in an exchange of ideas on ending these absurd smoking prohibitions, thank you very much for your time and efforts!
There are several morons, sociopaths, paranoid schizophrenics, pedophiles, and whiney libertards that are paid to come out and post articles and links that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous. Ms Clean Lungs, youou aka Old Yeller Sheets, Smoke Free, just candid, Gammler, Stop the spam, FixedItForYa, Poq Mom, stop, youre outa here - they are all working together to shut down any thread related to smoking.
They will first post BS links that 2nd hand smoke is scientifically proven to cause cancer. Then, they will start posting that you are a patriot if you support smoking bans because you are not taking away the rights of restaurant owners to choose who they want to serve.
What a crock of scat these antis are!
Have you ever had an original thought? You steal other people's ideas like candy! What do you do if your internet connection goes down? Sit there and drool all over yourself?

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#19 Feb 27, 2009
[QUOTE who="youou's John"]<quoted text>
Have you ever had an original thought? You steal other people's ideas like candy! What do you do if your internet connection goes down? Sit there and drool all over yourself?[/QUOTE]

I don't run into those problems. Unlike freeloaders such as you I pay my bills, and the connection stays up. I'm sure you drool all over yourself every time your handlers don't empty your drool cup hourly.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#20 Feb 28, 2009
youre outa here wrote:
<quoted text>
The South Dakota State Medical Association is NOT dancing around the question of whether ot not smoking causes harm.
http://www.sdsma.org/TheNextVitalSignSpecialI...
They state that cigarette smoking causes harm and that second hand smoke causes harm. Period. End of story. Smoking kills. Second hand smoke kills.
http://www.sdsma.org/documents/President_005....
There is no dancing around. there is no mincing of words.
youve got it worse than a street walking nanny........please pass on the koolaide.Your like a crazed obamma supporter. Your sides argument lacks facts.........mainly the fact of any truth...Cant you see youve been led down a trail by a medical southe sayer.......They have made up an entire medical fallacy.......with psuedo-diagnoses and conjurder up politically correct names to keep the lie going.......you're a fool or a well paid one from ACS.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Deadwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Full throttle saloon fire burned to the ground ... (Sep '15) Mar '16 wowitsgone 3
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in South Dako... (Oct '10) Jan '16 gi joe 12
Hells angels give head on the highway to every ... (Jun '11) Dec '15 HAwtf 23
Sturgis Music Selection (Sep '12) Nov '15 Musikologist 12
News Glencoe CampResort and Rock'N the Rally sold (Jan '09) Oct '15 priest 17
how far did you ride to get to sturgis??? (Aug '15) Sep '15 Chrome pipes 5
News Sturgis Rally-goers roll through Madison (Aug '15) Sep '15 Bikers sux 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Deadwood Mortgages