England Smoking Ban

[Frogger]

exactly. where were you when i was trying to explain this? you worded it much better than i did.

This calls for the Wikipedia warlocks.

Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.[1][2][3][4]

Hm, let's go further into that.

^ WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; First international treaty on public health, adopted by 192 countries and signed by 168. Its Article 8.1 states "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability."
^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General", 2006; One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke."
^ California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" (June 24, 2005); on January 26, 2006, the Air Resources Board, following a lengthy review and public outreach process, determined ETS to be a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC).
^ WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002; the evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans. [...] Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."

That's a lot of evidence to battle with.

Many former smokers, and those who are trying to quit prefer to not be around smoke as it can cause them to have cravings. Some people simply do not like the odor, which clings to hair, clothing, furniture, and rugs.

Many of these short-term effects terminate after the exposure ends. Repeated exposure, however, is believed to cause more serious long-term effects.


[edit] Epidemiological studies of passive smoking
Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking.

In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[52] Some studies make the claim that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer. Some research, such as the Helena Study,[53] suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. The Helena Study claims that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent.[54] Parents who smoke appear to be a risk factor for children and babies and are associated with low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.[55]

In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[56][57]

Additionally, studies assessing passive smoking without looking at the partners of smokers have found that high overall exposure to passive smoking is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.[58]

The National Asthma Council of Australia[59] cites studies showing that: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:

Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children.
The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households.
Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease.
Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.
Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.
In France passive smoking has been estimated to cause between 3000[60] and 5000 premature deaths per year, with the larger figure cited by Prime minister Dominique de Villepin during his announcement of a nationwide smoking ban: "That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health."[61]


[edit] Studies of passive smoking in animals
Experimental studies in which animals are exposed to tobacco smoke have produced results supporting the view that exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke is carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer expert group concluded that:

There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of mixtures of mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of sidestream smoke condensates.[62]

A study conducted by the Tufts' School of Veterinary Medicine and the University of Massachusetts concluded that a cat living with a smoker is two times more likely to get feline lymphoma than one that is not. After five years living with a smoker, that rate increases to three times as likely. And, when there are two smokers in the home, the chances of getting feline lymphoma increases to four times as likely.[63]

A study by Colorado State University found a "weak relation" (odds ratio 1.6 CI = 0.7–3.7) for an increased risk of lung cancer among dogs esposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the owners household. No strong evidence or trend for further increase in risk was observed based on the number of smokers in the household, the number of cigarettes smoked, or the proportion of time the dog spent within the home. According to the study, the risk was restricted to breeds with short or medium length noses. The authors of this study called their findings "inconclusive".[64]


[edit] Risk level of passive smoking
The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2002 that:

There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans. Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).[65]

Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents a small but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The risk is considered more significant if non-smokers work in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent, although few studies bear this out.[66]

In May 2006, the United States Centers for Disease Control issued its first new study on secondhand smoke in 20 years. Surgeon General Richard Carmona summarized:

The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought. The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.

The study estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30%. The study finds that passive smoke also causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in children.[67]

Ba dum ch.

 

[CCScandalus]

do you realize that wikipedia is NOT a scientific and/or medical journal? and even if it was, the experiments done on passive smoking have shown no significant link between exposure to second hand smoke and cancer/health risks.

sometimes the internet lies.

 

[Loaf-head]

i didn't say it wasn't an addiction, i said it was nothing compared to TRUE addictions which actually reuin lives. of course it is addictive, it would be stupid to say it wasn't!


what a stupid thing to say! pure logic that there is toxins released from cigs...
the smoker has the filtered end, there is smoke released from the unfiltered end that the rest of us have to breath in!!

Hey Ginsburg, did you even ****ing read my post?

Pick up your Wii remote, then smash your head with it. You may just bash some sense into that ****-coconut you call a head, by your logic anyway.

Regards, LH

 

[Loaf-head]

This calls for the Wikipedia warlocks.



Hm, let's go further into that.



That's a lot of evidence to battle with.



Ba dum ch.

When it comes to citing credible sources, NEMJ has Wiki by the balls.

http://content.nejm.org/

 

[Gaz]

do you realize that wikipedia is NOT a scientific and/or medical journal? and even if it was, the experiments done on passive smoking have shown no significant link between exposure to second hand smoke and cancer/health risks.

sometimes the internet lies.

with something posted in the british medical journal do?
http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in its 2002 Monograph on tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke that that "there is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to second-hand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans” and makes the overall evaluation that “Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."

 

[Frogger]

with something posted in the british medical journal do?
http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

You're awesome.

 

[vagrant]

I dunno about you guys, but after smoking for 7 years and trying like 10 times to quick, I am so happy to know I am not addicted. All I had to do to kick the habit was realize, "hey, it aint coke!"

Thank you Gaz.

 

[Gaz]

I dunno about you guys, but after smoking for 7 years and trying like 10 times to quick, I am so happy to know I am not addicted. All I had to do to kick the habit was realize, "hey, it aint coke!"

Thank you Gaz.

hahahahaha. as much as we often disagree. i quite like you.
obviously caught the wrong end of the stick.
i didn't say it's not an addiction.
i was just mearly saying in a strange way, and i didn't get what i wanted to say across how i ment it.
that people should say oh i can't quite because i'm addicted and it's too hard. you can do it and it's not as hard as quiting certain drugs. but i know it's addictive obviously saying it isn't is just a stupid thing to say. like saying that second hand smoke isn't a health risk to other people in an enclosed space.

 

[vagrant]

hahahahaha. as much as we often disagree. i quite like you.
obviously caught the wrong end of the stick.
i didn't say it's not an addiction.
i was just mearly saying in a strange way, and i didn't get what i wanted to say across how i ment it.
that people should say oh i can't quite because i'm addicted and it's too hard. you can do it and it's not as hard as quiting certain drugs. but i know it's addictive obviously saying it isn't is just a stupid thing to say. like saying that second hand smoke isn't a health risk to other people in an enclosed space.

I understood what you were saying, but the only difference between a nicotine addiction and a heroine addiction is the physical side affects. It still doesn't make it any easier to quit.

And I know people with sores/boils on there skin from trying to quit heroine/meth.

 

[CCScandalus]

with something posted in the british medical journal do?
http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

there are WAY more studies done that show no significant link between passive smoke and health problems... there are too many variables to prove that second-hand smoke is the culprit for these people's health problems. how much radon have these "second-hand smokers" been exposed to? how many asbestos? how much smog? what has been their intake of cholesterol and/or dietary fat over the course of their life? how many people in their family have had cancer? have they ever "first-hand smoked?" their age? race? sex? how do you even measure how much second-hand smoke they've been exposed to?

people don't take these things into account... they just "read it somewhere" and assume it's truth. seriously... think about it. and not just this... but anything you ever read, EVER.

i'm sure that doesn't change your minds at all... i'm not really expecting to. i would like to be respected for my point of view. if there's one thing i know about, it's health.

 

[Ashton_burke4]

they did it in Ohio (usa) about 6 months ago. it's weird walking into a bar and not seeing smoke everywhere...

 

[Gaz]

there are WAY more studies done that show no significant link between passive smoke and health problems... there are too many variables to prove that second-hand smoke is the culprit for these people's health problems. how much radon have these "second-hand smokers" been exposed to? how many asbestos? how much smog? what has been their intake of cholesterol and/or dietary fat over the course of their life? how many people in their family have had cancer? have they ever "first-hand smoked?" their age? race? sex? how do you even measure how much second-hand smoke they've been exposed to?

people don't take these things into account... they just "read it somewhere" and assume it's truth. seriously... think about it. and not just this... but anything you ever read, EVER.

i'm sure that doesn't change your minds at all... i'm not really expecting to. i would like to be respected for my point of view. if there's one thing i know about, it's health.

At the end of the day, the masses are against you. it is genreally accepted that second hand smoke is a casues of lung cancer. and of course there are many things that effect an experiment on testing it. but do you really think they tested it on humans? don't be so silly. there will have been tests on rats and mice all of your variables are out of the window.
if there are more studies showing that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or any other health issues, then why again is it genreally accepted that it does?

oh and if one thing you know is medical, then you will probably know that something posted in a widely read medical journal is not going to be BS

 

[BrandonMcAuslan]

So there is nothing wrong or any adverse side effects from filling your lungs with smoke every day? Ever seen a smokers lung, compared with a healthy lung? I suggest you look into this and apply some common sense...
What are your lungs used for? Does filling them with smoke (and coating them with tar) help your lungs perform their only task throughout your life? Or does it in fact damage your lungs over a prelonged time and make them less efficient at taking in oxygen?

If the science isn't 100% conclusive then use common sense.

 

[CCScandalus]

did y'all even read my post???

Gaz, a lot of wrong things are generally accepted... how about a thousands of years ago when everybody thought the earth was flat? it was a generally accepted fact. the people who said otherwise were made fun of.... now it's the other way around. experiments aren't always accurate... especially studying rats and such who are just a little bit different from humans. and medical journals post results of experiments... some being very accurate, and others not so accurate. its for people to study, QUESTION, and learn from. not to accept blindly.


Brandon... i never said that smoking wasn't bad for you. i'm talking about second-hand smoke, and if you didn't realize that, you should use some common sense. i KNOW that smoking is bad for you. i'm not an idiot, despite what you may think.

i'm tired of the ignorance...

 

[Gaz]

did y'all even read my post???

Gaz, a lot of wrong things are generally accepted... how about a thousands of years ago when everybody thought the earth was flat? it was a generally accepted fact. the people who said otherwise were made fun of.... now it's the other way around. experiments aren't always accurate... especially studying rats and such who are just a little bit different from humans. and medical journals post results of experiments... some being very accurate, and others not so accurate. its for people to study, QUESTION, and learn from. not to accept blindly.

how can you compare 1000 years ago today?
things are genreally accepted now because of scientific backing, extensive testing and results given.
At the end of the day second hand smoke is highly unplesent for someone who doesn't smoke.