Smoking Ban Shenanigans

Put up or shut up. Talk about mumbo-jumbo…pfft.

Please provide a source for one, just one death that has been oficially attributed to second hand smoke.

Just one.

There was a T.V. ad from the pro-ban crew that featured a woman who claimed her doctor had diagnosed her with a “smoker’s tumor”.

Please direct our attention to the AMA’s definition of a “smoker’s tumor”.

slightly agreeing with Swiftee I really believe “smoker tumor” is total fiction.  Not to say 2nd hand smoke doesn’t have some level of unhealth to it, but seriously, do they have to make things up?

Which source would you prefer? The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the United States Center for Disease Control, or the University of Minnesota?  Or is the CDC populated entirely by liberal conspiracists, somehow appointed by the Bush Administration?

Alternately, it seems like you’re looking for a source, any source, so you can say they’re full of crap.  Sorry Swiftee, I don’t take direction from you.  You’re simply not that important.

Put it out here! If the The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the United States Center for Disease Control, or the University of Minnesota has records of people whose deaths have been recorded as “death by second hand smoke” I’d be  happy to accept that.

Hell, I’ll even accept one, just one, documented case of someone who is collecting long-term disability or social security due to the fact that they can no longer work because of exposure to second hand smoke.

There is no way that I could dispute an officially documented case…and I’m stating for the record, right now that if you produce one, *just one*, I’m ready, willing and able to admit I’m wrong.

So let’s have it.

If this is a public health issue, there has to a verifiable public health threat, right?

I’m sure that as a serious reporter that has signed a “pledge of journalistic integrity”, you have facts to back up what you write..right?

Surely, you have done the sort of investigation that any reporter would do before publishing your story, right?

You’d *never* stoop to publishing politically motivated, biased mumbo-jumbo, right?

You would never, ever publish a complete fabrication…right?

Let’s have it.

*Crickets* So Robin…

Help me here; is this another instance of one of your “reporters” “reporting an opinion”, or has Joe just straight up fecked this whole story?

You’re still here? Seriously?

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/osh.htm

But your response is to say “Oooh, big deal, they don’t cite specific cases.”  And my response is to sigh and say “but Swiftee, do you expect them to cite every single case of the thousands they look at?  Do you think the people on anti-smoking commercials who have died since they filmed the commercials are lying?”

And your response is to make yet another play on Jeff’s name to impugn our collective reputation.  And my response is to refer you to our code of ethics, and challege you, once more, to show that we have willfully violated it.  And you harp a little bit more on how we have “news” and “opinion” here, and I respond by showing you that yes, indeed, the column headings to indicate that we have News and Opinion sections.  And once more, you get to puff up your ego, beat your chest a few times, and feel good in having shot down one of your mythical moonbats. 

There, feel better?  No?  Too bad.

One…just one. “do you expect them to cite every single case of the thousands they look at?”

Nope; one, just one is all I asked for.

“Do you think the people on anti-smoking commercials who have died since they filmed the commercials are lying?”

Yup, that’s what I’m sayin alrighty.

“And your response is to make yet another play on Jeff’s name to impugn our collective reputation.”

No one made you feck this article, you voluteered. I just calls ‘em as I see’s ‘em.

“And my response is to refer you to our code of ethics”

Bwahahaha. Yeah, I think we’ve all been there already.

“And once more, you get to puff up your ego, beat your chest a few times, and feel good in having shot down one of your mythical moonbats. “

Thanks! Hahahahaha!

There, feel better? 

Damn right I do sport.

Oops. On further thought “Do you think the people on anti-smoking commercials who have died since they filmed the commercials are lying?”

I guess if the’ve died, they are all through lying aren’t they?

The problem is the science It would be impossible to implicate second hand smoke or even direct smoking with any death. It’s just not scientifically possible. A smoker who gets lung cancer is likely to have gotten lung cancer from smoking, but the possibility exists that the lung cancer was a genetic disease or was a result of other chemical carcinogens such as particulates from air pollution.

But the significant amount of carcinogens in smoke ingested by a smoker make it likely that the lung cancer resulted from smoking. The same could also correlate from second hand smoke. The smoke itself is toxic, that is not disputed. The argument is: at what levels does the smoke become toxic to nonsmokers?

Unless you can take a person, Isolate them for life and only expose them to second hand smoke, then you can never truly prove the effects of second hand smoke, or smoking itself for that matter. And that’s the argument the tobacco companies used in stopping warning labels when the cancer risk first became apparent and it’s the same argument being used now.

You can never prove with 100% certainty that second hand smoke causes health problems like heart disease or lung cancer. There are just too many factors involved. You can, however, watch an asthmatic walk into a smoky bar and quickly begin to gasp for air…

Oh and I’m a smoker, just so you know where my bias lies.

It’s not looking good for Joe…. “It would be impossible to implicate second hand smoke or even direct smoking with any death. It’s just not scientifically possible.”

So you agree with me that when people like Joe Bodell say that “the entire legitimate medical community” has concluded that second hand smoke is a clear and present hazard to public health he is:

A) Fecking the legitimacy of the medical comunity

B) Fecking the story by pulling words out of his ass and attaching the patina of “scientificly proven facts”"” to them.

Pfft. And people wonder how “global warming” went from a “scientific” debate to a political debate. And people wonder why no one trusts “science” that can not be proved through repeatability.

Quantative anaylisis has been forever corrupted by people with an agenda.

“The smoke itself is toxic, that is not disputed. The argument is: at what levels does the smoke become toxic to nonsmokers?”

The feds have published acceptable limits for all of the constituent airborn compounds found in cigarette smoke.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/osha-and-environmental-health.html

After the installation of a modern air cleaning system, all of the bars in Saint Paul that were tested were found to be well under these limits.

“You can, however, watch an asthmatic walk into a smoky bar and quickly begin to gasp for air…”

Why would an asthmatic walk into a smoky bar? Why should I, or anyone else have to account for such stupidity?

Joe, I think the public is waiting for your appology about now…it’s what an ethical “reporter” does when his story has been outed as propaganda.

No, I’m Not Agreeing with you I’m just pointing out that your request for information is impossible. And shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the science of public health. Joe is correct in saying that the majority of established medical and public health associations agree that second hand smoke elevates the risk for certain illnesses.

What this debate is about is whether to curtail private (business owners) rights over concerns for public health and safety. There are reasonable points on both sides. And we do that all the time. Seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, motorcycle helmet laws, security screening in airports, laws criminalizing certain substances, limiting alcohol consumption to 21 years or older, and on and on, all curtail someone’s right to mobility, privacy, etc, for a greater good. Is the threat to public health substantial enough? I dunno.

For me this debate goes right down the middle. It would make me happy if they’d ban smoking from April 15 to November 15, that way I wouldn’t freeze my a$$ off smoking in the winter.

As for an asthmatic walking into a smoky bar… Probably to be with friends? Get a drink? That’s why an asthmatic would walk into a smoky bar. My point was not to question the decision of people with asthma to go into a bar, but rather to show that smoke does have a detrimental impact on people’s health.

You shouldn’t be asking questions that are impossible to answer and instead ask: how important is it to curtail rights over this particular threat to public health? There are good arguments to be made.

Since when does an established medical or public health association go with “gut instincts”? “Joe is correct in saying that the majority of established medical and public health associations agree that second hand smoke elevates the risk for certain illnesses.”

Well then he’s missed the real story hasn’t he? Why would the majority of established medical and public health associations agree on something for which there is no proof?

Who, but a paid sock puppet parrot such tripe?

Belief and ‘Proof’ Are you saying that you are able to provide ‘proof’ for all the beliefs that you hold?

No But I do not hold out my “beliefs” as “facts”.

And I certainly haven’t been guilty of posting sham “science” in a pathetic effort to color my beliefs with a patina of credibility.

But then again, I’m not on anyone’s payroll and so am not put in the position of having to dance on someone’s string to a tune I know is off key.

I think my work here is done.

is that the all new Schroeddinger’s cat? “Unless you can take a person, Isolate them for life and only expose them to second hand smoke, then you can never truly prove the effects of second hand smoke, or smoking itself for that matter.”

good go away then

Wrong Argument Frankly, I don’t care if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that second hand smoke is a direct killer.  No one is forced to breath it and therefore not the business of the state.  Period!  For the record I’m anti-smoking to the point of phobic.  I also have very little problems with finding places to go that are smoke free.

  Swifee, I love your stuff but I do have to put a small snag into your argument.  I have had a grandfather and father-in-law die of alcoholism.  Everyone that knew them knows they drank themselves to death.  Alcohol was not mentioned in the causes of death but only complications due to massive ulcers or liver failure.

  This by no means punches any holes in your argument but does show that neither side can point to medical records to form an argument.  We can’t prove second hand smoke causes cancer any more than we can prove it doesn’t.  Unfortunately a lack of evidence has never stopped a Lib from taking swift action.

I like your style but… First thing is first, The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the United States Center for Disease Control, and the University of Minnesota don’t have one recorded death do to second hand smoke.  Some may claim it as a possibility, but not one points to second hand smoke as the absolute cause of death, furthormore, some of those same people, and the surgeon General will tell you that second hand smoke is worse then actually smoking a cigarette.  Now, you sound like a smart person and I hope you can do the math, but seriously, and I do mean seriously, do you think that, and when you do say no, how can you believe any of the other stuff, because if one thing they said is wrong means another and another and another could be wrong.  Thank you for your time

Put up or shut up. Talk about mumbo-jumbo…pfft.

Please provide a source for one, just one death that has been oficially attributed to second hand smoke.

Just one.

There was a T.V. ad from the pro-ban crew that featured a woman who claimed her doctor had diagnosed her with a “smoker's tumor”.

Please direct our attention to the AMA's definition of a “smoker's tumor”.

slightly agreeing with Swiftee I really believe “smoker tumor” is total fiction.  Not to say 2nd hand smoke doesn't have some level of unhealth to it, but seriously, do they have to make things up?

Which source would you prefer? The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the United States Center for Disease Control, or the University of Minnesota?  Or is the CDC populated entirely by liberal conspiracists, somehow appointed by the Bush Administration?

Alternately, it seems like you're looking for a source, any source, so you can say they're full of crap.  Sorry Swiftee, I don't take direction from you.  You're simply not that important.

Put it out here! If the The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the United States Center for Disease Control, or the University of Minnesota has records of people whose deaths have been recorded as “death by second hand smoke” I'd be  happy to accept that.

Hell, I'll even accept one, just one, documented case of someone who is collecting long-term disability or social security due to the fact that they can no longer work because of exposure to second hand smoke.

There is no way that I could dispute an officially documented case…and I'm stating for the record, right now that if you produce one, *just one*, I'm ready, willing and able to admit I'm wrong.

So let's have it.

If this is a public health issue, there has to a verifiable public health threat, right?

I'm sure that as a serious reporter that has signed a “pledge of journalistic integrity”, you have facts to back up what you write..right?

Surely, you have done the sort of investigation that any reporter would do before publishing your story, right?

You'd *never* stoop to publishing politically motivated, biased mumbo-jumbo, right?

You would never, ever publish a complete fabrication…right?

Let's have it.

*Crickets* So Robin…

Help me here; is this another instance of one of your “reporters” “reporting an opinion”, or has Joe just straight up fecked this whole story?

You're still here? Seriously?

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/osh.htm

But your response is to say “Oooh, big deal, they don't cite specific cases.”  And my response is to sigh and say “but Swiftee, do you expect them to cite every single case of the thousands they look at?  Do you think the people on anti-smoking commercials who have died since they filmed the commercials are lying?”

And your response is to make yet another play on Jeff's name to impugn our collective reputation.  And my response is to refer you to our code of ethics, and challege you, once more, to show that we have willfully violated it.  And you harp a little bit more on how we have “news” and “opinion” here, and I respond by showing you that yes, indeed, the column headings to indicate that we have News and Opinion sections.  And once more, you get to puff up your ego, beat your chest a few times, and feel good in having shot down one of your mythical moonbats. 

There, feel better?  No?  Too bad.

One…just one. “do you expect them to cite every single case of the thousands they look at?”

Nope; one, just one is all I asked for.

“Do you think the people on anti-smoking commercials who have died since they filmed the commercials are lying?”

Yup, that's what I'm sayin alrighty.

“And your response is to make yet another play on Jeff's name to impugn our collective reputation.”

No one made you feck this article, you voluteered. I just calls 'em as I see's 'em.

“And my response is to refer you to our code of ethics”

Bwahahaha. Yeah, I think we've all been there already.

“And once more, you get to puff up your ego, beat your chest a few times, and feel good in having shot down one of your mythical moonbats. “

Thanks! Hahahahaha!

There, feel better? 

Damn right I do sport.

Oops. On further thought “Do you think the people on anti-smoking commercials who have died since they filmed the commercials are lying?”

I guess if the've died, they are all through lying aren't they?

The problem is the science It would be impossible to implicate second hand smoke or even direct smoking with any death. It's just not scientifically possible. A smoker who gets lung cancer is likely to have gotten lung cancer from smoking, but the possibility exists that the lung cancer was a genetic disease or was a result of other chemical carcinogens such as particulates from air pollution.

But the significant amount of carcinogens in smoke ingested by a smoker make it likely that the lung cancer resulted from smoking. The same could also correlate from second hand smoke. The smoke itself is toxic, that is not disputed. The argument is: at what levels does the smoke become toxic to nonsmokers?

Unless you can take a person, Isolate them for life and only expose them to second hand smoke, then you can never truly prove the effects of second hand smoke, or smoking itself for that matter. And that's the argument the tobacco companies used in stopping warning labels when the cancer risk first became apparent and it's the same argument being used now.

You can never prove with 100% certainty that second hand smoke causes health problems like heart disease or lung cancer. There are just too many factors involved. You can, however, watch an asthmatic walk into a smoky bar and quickly begin to gasp for air…

Oh and I'm a smoker, just so you know where my bias lies.

It's not looking good for Joe…. “It would be impossible to implicate second hand smoke or even direct smoking with any death. It's just not scientifically possible.”

So you agree with me that when people like Joe Bodell say that “the entire legitimate medical community” has concluded that second hand smoke is a clear and present hazard to public health he is:

A) Fecking the legitimacy of the medical comunity

B) Fecking the story by pulling words out of his ass and attaching the patina of “scientificly proven facts”"” to them.

Pfft. And people wonder how “global warming” went from a “scientific” debate to a political debate. And people wonder why no one trusts “science” that can not be proved through repeatability.

Quantative anaylisis has been forever corrupted by people with an agenda.

“The smoke itself is toxic, that is not disputed. The argument is: at what levels does the smoke become toxic to nonsmokers?”

The feds have published acceptable limits for all of the constituent airborn compounds found in cigarette smoke.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/osha-and-environmental-health.html

After the installation of a modern air cleaning system, all of the bars in Saint Paul that were tested were found to be well under these limits.

“You can, however, watch an asthmatic walk into a smoky bar and quickly begin to gasp for air…”

Why would an asthmatic walk into a smoky bar? Why should I, or anyone else have to account for such stupidity?

Joe, I think the public is waiting for your appology about now…it's what an ethical “reporter” does when his story has been outed as propaganda.

No, I'm Not Agreeing with you I'm just pointing out that your request for information is impossible. And shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the science of public health. Joe is correct in saying that the majority of established medical and public health associations agree that second hand smoke elevates the risk for certain illnesses.

What this debate is about is whether to curtail private (business owners) rights over concerns for public health and safety. There are reasonable points on both sides. And we do that all the time. Seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, motorcycle helmet laws, security screening in airports, laws criminalizing certain substances, limiting alcohol consumption to 21 years or older, and on and on, all curtail someone's right to mobility, privacy, etc, for a greater good. Is the threat to public health substantial enough? I dunno.

For me this debate goes right down the middle. It would make me happy if they'd ban smoking from April 15 to November 15, that way I wouldn't freeze my a$$ off smoking in the winter.

As for an asthmatic walking into a smoky bar… Probably to be with friends? Get a drink? That's why an asthmatic would walk into a smoky bar. My point was not to question the decision of people with asthma to go into a bar, but rather to show that smoke does have a detrimental impact on people's health.

You shouldn't be asking questions that are impossible to answer and instead ask: how important is it to curtail rights over this particular threat to public health? There are good arguments to be made.

Since when does an established medical or public health association go with “gut instincts”? “Joe is correct in saying that the majority of established medical and public health associations agree that second hand smoke elevates the risk for certain illnesses.”

Well then he's missed the real story hasn't he? Why would the majority of established medical and public health associations agree on something for which there is no proof?

Who, but a paid sock puppet parrot such tripe?

Belief and 'Proof' Are you saying that you are able to provide 'proof' for all the beliefs that you hold?

No But I do not hold out my “beliefs” as “facts”.

And I certainly haven't been guilty of posting sham “science” in a pathetic effort to color my beliefs with a patina of credibility.

But then again, I'm not on anyone's payroll and so am not put in the position of having to dance on someone's string to a tune I know is off key.

I think my work here is done.

good go away then

is that the all new Schroeddinger's cat? “Unless you can take a person, Isolate them for life and only expose them to second hand smoke, then you can never truly prove the effects of second hand smoke, or smoking itself for that matter.”

Wrong Argument Frankly, I don’t care if it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that second hand smoke is a direct killer.  No one is forced to breath it and therefore not the business of the state.  Period!  For the record I’m anti-smoking to the point of phobic.  I also have very little problems with finding places to go that are smoke free.

  Swifee, I love your stuff but I do have to put a small snag into your argument.  I have had a grandfather and father-in-law die of alcoholism.  Everyone that knew them knows they drank themselves to death.  Alcohol was not mentioned in the causes of death but only complications due to massive ulcers or liver failure.

  This by no means punches any holes in your argument but does show that neither side can point to medical records to form an argument.  We can’t prove second hand smoke causes cancer any more than we can prove it doesn’t.  Unfortunately a lack of evidence has never stopped a Lib from taking swift action.

I like your style but… First thing is first, The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the United States Center for Disease Control, and the University of Minnesota don't have one recorded death do to second hand smoke.  Some may claim it as a possibility, but not one points to second hand smoke as the absolute cause of death, furthormore, some of those same people, and the surgeon General will tell you that second hand smoke is worse then actually smoking a cigarette.  Now, you sound like a smart person and I hope you can do the math, but seriously, and I do mean seriously, do you think that, and when you do say no, how can you believe any of the other stuff, because if one thing they said is wrong means another and another and another could be wrong.  Thank you for your time