Report Says Tobacco Kills 6 Million a Year: What Is Being Done ...

[Non-Cas Fan]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't find it so. I have not done the studies myself, but have seen nothing to refute the ubiquitous premise that only a very small portion of smokers begin after the age of 18. Some sources cite 19, which would allow for one year during which it is legal in most parts of the US. I have read industry documents that show their marketing researchers were attentive to smoking habits down to the age of 14. There is nothing spurious in making the connection.
I have also read portions of studies finding relevant physiological factors in sub-adults.
The sociological basis for protection of minors draws heavily on acceptance of psychological vulnerability and the shifting sense of self in adolescents is not exactly a radical new hypothesis.
I believe I am on solid ground here.

The tobacco companies are not now, nor have they (that I am aware) marketing cigarettes to young people.

Yes, young people take it up, but not because of advertising. I thought we had already discussed this somewhere on topix. Maybe it was someone else.

Tell you what, show me some recent examples of tobacco being actively marketed to young people, and maybe I'll accept your point. But just to point to the industry document that examined the smoking habit of young people IS a spurious connection.

See, the young people whose smoking habits (by brand, if I recall correctly) they were examining already HAD a smoking habit. Hello! Where's the marketing to those kids?

As has been mentioned before, kids start smoking because they see their parents (or other relatives) doing it, and their peers who smoke are the biggest influence, not some phantom marketing to kids.(They're under court orders to specifically NOT market to kids, or even to make ads that might possibly be misconstrued as being a cartoon. Remember?)

Any way, it's quite a leap to go from "most smokers start before they turn 18" to "they're marketing to youth". The two are not necessarily an actual correlation, despite your portrayal otherwise.

[discusseded]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>Again, I say that if you are arguing for a ban on all smoking, you're on point. But unless the law dictates that Great Aunt Martha cease from smoking in her own home in case nonsmoking relatives come calling, you're not completely addressing the actual problem. A total ban does that. A ban on indoor smoking in "public places" fails there.<SNIP>

A lengthy "short version" just got swallowed by my browser.

I'll try a shorter version. There are too many digressions involved in your post for me to corral them and get anything said.

I used the word "reduce" numerous times in laying out my case. The existence of an "Aunt Martha" is irrelevant in that context.

My post regarding the vaccine approach should clarify my reference to unshackling the regulatory hands.

In quoting the article on the study, you took "too long" but left "too often". That wasn't polite.<G>

The context in which I said it applied only to SHS was one of smoking or SHS, and in that context saying it only addressed SHS was accurate. Cooking oil is not part of that picture. If you bring in diesel you go back to the intrinsically nonfrivolous. I am not going with you.

Smoking has, over time, become common. It has NOT become "normal". It remains an anomalous element of society.

Nicotine addiction may be a widely ignored disease, but it is a disease nonetheless.

Other things call. Nice to encounter something more cohesive than the norm here. Of course, "nice" might be a bad thing, if it causes me to justify continuing to waste my life plowing through all the other garbage in here.

Later

[Non-Cas Fan]

discusseded wrote:

Check for studies on "third hand smoke". The accumulation of condensate is implicated in cotinine levels found in toddlers whose parents do not smoke in the home.
There is also work out there showing that contamination from tobacco smoke goes deeper than the surface (making it "absorb" rather than "adsorb"--I used the word advisedly.). Clean and clean and clean, and furniture from a smoker's home will continue to smell like smoke. The smell comes from contaminants.
The same is true of walls.
This is not the most significant of reasons, but I believe it rises above the level of frivolity.

I thought that the cotinine levels in the toddlers was due to their gnawing on toys that had adsorbed the SHS. Maybe that was just part of the study's (or the press release's) broadly speculative conclusion, but that is what stuck with me. Toddlers gnawing on smoke-covered toys.

And I will concede that some surfaces will "absorb", rather than "adsorb". But the release from "adsorbed" SHS is easier than "absorbed". Like you say, clean and clean, but it's still nasty stinky smoke.

I used to despair that the TV we got for free (amusing story, for another time) would ever stop smelling like cigarettes. It's been just over 10 years now, and it's no longer noticeable. But enough of my anecdotal...

Last I knew, there were no studies that definitely linked "third-hand exposure" to any health hazard, and the contaminants on other peoples' walls are not generally anybody else's concern. THAT is what makes your point frivolous.

You want to make an issue of other peoples' property, but you don't find that frivolous?

[Non-Cas Fan]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Right you are. I noticed that in looking back just now. Sorry.
Here is a link to the abstract (what I found quickly this time).
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abs...
The abstract ends with "Supported by the External Research Program of Philip Morris USA."

Thanks. I had found this by googling that excerpted text you posted.

I didn't, however, read far enough to see the Philip-Morris line. Interesting.

[Non-Cas Fan]

discusseded wrote:

I do hope you are not so thoroughly aligned with the flat-earthers as to claim that SHS is not harmful.

oblique ad hominem. Earth is a sphere. SHS has yet to be proven harmful in casual exposures -- though that April 2009 study looks interesting, the "harm" seems subjective.
BTW, you may be likewise aligned with flat-earthers if you claim "no safe level" without any science to back it. ;-)

discusseded wrote:

Proceeding from the assumption that you are not, I'll backtrack to what I believe was my premise back when I posted what you question.
Studies involving spousal exposure to SHS have often shown correlation between exposure levels and disease rates. The portion of a day spent with a spouse may or may not equal or exceed the portion of the day spent in a smoky bar. Many people smoke in a bar, as opposed to any non-Mormon spousal exposure.
For the other, I'm talking about effect, not assigning blame.
<quoted text>
There is generally a large room involved in a bar, yes, and there is ventilation. Usually, ventilation is accomplished by drawing air in a particular horizontal direction and upward. The smoke typically originates at a level below that of the nose and mouth of the exposed person. It is also generated from a wide number of point sources so that the horizontal component is almost certain to bring some of it past the person.
Add to this the prevalence of forgotten cigarettes smoldering in ashtrays (or burning their way into wooden bars, etc.). People who are drinking are, I posit, more likely to forget about their cigarettes--even to lighting up another before realizing they just did that. Many of the toxins in tobacco smoke are more highly concentrated in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.
Smokers in bars are often lined up along the "bar" and create a micro-environment in the room. If the ventilation draws the smoke up and behind the line of patrons, the patrons themselves form a barrier that breaks up the path of dispersal and channels the smoke along the line of patrons resulting in a higher concentration of the smoke.
So, for the volume and ventilation to impact exposure, there may be all of these countering effects to deal with.
And, since we are talking about the potential to affect a person, we have to consider those I mentioned, who may be in the bar from just after work until 2 AM. If being exposed to one smoker for the few hours during which the average couple is awake and together (Can we assume this is the only time during which one of them will be smoking?) is enough to cause a significant increase in risk of various diseases, then clearly exposure to the smoke of who-knows-how-many smokers over the course of eight or nine hours is also enough to cause such an increase. Sitting in bars for extended periods is often as much of a life-style as a marriage, and a spouse may quit but a bar is unlikely to--failing a law requiring it.
I'm rambling so I'll stop.

Rambling, and given the current hour, I have forgotten what possible point you may have been trying to make here.

I will simply point out that the 2006 Surgeon General's Report states that the remaining area of greatest exposure of nonsmokers to ETS is in the home.

Headed to bed, it's been a long day. Thanks for the distraction.
I appreciate your ability to communicate with clarity and politeness -- a rarity around here, it seems -- even though I know we disagree on several points, and will likely continue to.

[Lil Ticked]

discusseded
"I do hope you are not so thoroughly aligned with the flat-earthers"

So, is that your way of saying that those who do not agree with your point of view are uneducated?

[discusseded]

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. I had found this by googling that excerpted text you posted.
I didn't, however, read far enough to see the Philip-Morris line. Interesting.

I suspect the Philip Morris interest lay in producing something that would give the impression of similarity among the three types of smoke, without attention to the circumstances under which the three are generated. It also serves as good PR as evidence that they are doing public research that shows SHS to be hazardous.

[Sheri]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
The prospect of a significant positive effect from nicotine and the impossibility of synthesizing an effective product create a remote "could happen" scenario.
There are at least a couple approaches to vaccination in development now. At least one of these takes the approach of attacking the nicotine, not the receptors.
That one is in late stages of testing. If it is found to be safe and effective, it will offer a significant advantage to those who wish to quit smoking. Virtually every statistic I've seen suggests that means at least 70%. If those unwilling smokers can make the decision once and be assured of sticking to it for half a year or more, a huge number of current smokers can be expected to quit.
Again, assuming the product is proven safe, it offers possibilities in treating under-aged addicts. If they are not addicted by age 18, statistics suggest that very few will ever take up smoking.
So, if even 40% of smokers choose and are enabled to quit and recruitment is curtailed as well, demand for tobacco will bottom out.
The tobacco industry would have a hard time affording all the propaganda programs and slick marketing needed to sustain the profit margin in an environment like that. So, the recruiting would lose intrinsic efficiency, losing even more customers.

If you think I am getting this vaccination or that any smoker I know would fall for that, you are out of your F'n mind, Dr. Mengele. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

[just candid]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think I am getting this vaccination or that any smoker I know would fall for that, you are out of your F'n mind, Dr. Mengele. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

Perhaps the viccination will be needed for all smokers who wish to recive Medicare, or something like that.

[just candid]

vaccination* <;~(

[Freedom]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Perhaps the viccination will be needed for all smokers who wish to recive Medicare, or something like that.

Sure...and then your kind can "fix" the soda drinkers...those who enjoy alcohol...and the meat addicts...ect.

Good Lord you people are positively frightening.

If they come out with a shot to fix narcissistic control disorders...will you be first in line?

[PreachingtotheGa rbage]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Perhaps the viccination will be needed for all smokers who wish to recive Medicare, or something like that.

Lets not forget the Obese Non Smokers.

[just candid]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure...and then your kind can "fix" the soda drinkers...those who enjoy alcohol...and the meat addicts...ect.
Good Lord you people are positively frightening.
If they come out with a shot to fix narcissistic control disorders...will you be first in line?

The average person is not always able to make the best decision about many things. That's one reason there have always been people who point out the correct way. People who are able to get the general population to go along with them and their ideas. We like to call that type of person a leader.

[just candid]

PreachingtotheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>Lets not forget the Obese Non Smokers.

Obese NON-SMOKERs or anyone else gets the same treatment. No group gets more or less than any other.

[Sheri]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Perhaps the viccination will be needed for all smokers who wish to recive Medicare, or something like that.

How much have you personally paid into Medicare? I have paid into it for almost 40 years, so if Medicare wishes not to cover me because I will not participate in a NAZI experiment, then I want my money back. At least the refund will be something to leave my children when I die because I refuse to be a part of eugenics.

[u cannot own me]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
A lengthy "short version" just got swallowed by my browser.
I'll try a shorter version. There are too many digressions involved in your post for me to corral them and get anything said.
I used the word "reduce" numerous times in laying out my case. The existence of an "Aunt Martha" is irrelevant in that context.
My post regarding the vaccine approach should clarify my reference to unshackling the regulatory hands.
In quoting the article on the study, you took "too long" but left "too often". That wasn't polite.<G>
The context in which I said it applied only to SHS was one of smoking or SHS, and in that context saying it only addressed SHS was accurate. Cooking oil is not part of that picture. If you bring in diesel you go back to the intrinsically nonfrivolous. I am not going with you.
Smoking has, over time, become common. It has NOT become "normal". It remains an anomalous element of society.
Nicotine addiction may be a widely ignored disease, but it is a disease nonetheless.
Other things call. Nice to encounter something more cohesive than the norm here. Of course, "nice" might be a bad thing, if it causes me to justify continuing to waste my life plowing through all the other garbage in here.
Later

You know where they can stick their vaccination. BTY, I enjoy my nicotine which is really none of your business. I would suggest you go get your nose bobbed in order to fix yourself.
A vaccination for people who can't seem to mind their own business would be nice, regardless, you are right you are wasting your time because you have no say as a minority of one.

[u cannot own me]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Perhaps the viccination will be needed for all smokers who wish to recive Medicare, or something like that.

I don't think they want to piss off the older generation whom they depend on for votes,,nice try though

[u cannot own me]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text>Obese NON-SMOKERs or anyone else gets the same treatment. No group gets more or less than any other.

Candid, there is no such thing as a perfect human being who is guaranteed that they won't develop a health or weight problem whether they smoke or not and set socked as you hare promoting. Karma!!

People are at their best when left alone, I think you will find out how true that is when its your turn

[u cannot own me]

plenty of typos

[u cannot own me]

I think there is something bad wrong with peoples mentally who targets any class of people to satisfy whatever is lacking in their own miserable lives which must be very lonely or they would be happy living it instead of interfering with others.

Sorry antis, you don't possess the intellect to run your own lives so you sure as hell don't qualify to run mine.