Replies

Here's what I don't understand:

I recognize that, as a smoker, you have a much greater risk of acquiring a number of conditions that a non-smoker has a much lower risk of. But smokers are breathing in the carcinogens at a much greater concentration for a much longer time period than the people they live with, let alone those of us who occasionally eat with them in a restaurant.

Consider the following statistics from ASH (Action on Smoking and Health):

Time since quitting	Beneficial health changes that take place
20 minutes	Blood pressure and pulse rate return to normal.
8 hours	Nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in blood reduce by half, oxygen levels return to normal.
24 hours	Carbon monoxide will be eliminated from the body. Lungs start to clear out mucus and other smoking debris.
48 hours	There is no nicotine left in the body. Ability to taste and smell is greatly improved.
72 hours	Breathing becomes easier. Bronchial tubes begin to relax and energy levels increase.
2 - 12 weeks	Circulation improves.
3 - 9 months	Coughs, wheezing and breathing problems improve as lung function is increased by up to 10%.
1 year	Risk of a heart attack falls to about half that of a smoker.
10 years	Risk of lung cancer falls to half that of a smoker.
15 years	Risk of heart attack falls to the same as someone who has never smoked.

If this is correct for smokers, what are the timelines like for people that don't inhale directly from cigarettes multiple times a day?

I can buy the fact that prolonged exposure in enclosed spaces can pose health risks (to some extent) for non-smoking family members, but come on! The level of non-smoking deaths we've been quoted don't pass the smell test at all.

I'm not a doctor. In fact, I have no medical aptitude whatsoever. I do know a behavior-modification con-job when I smell one, though.

I'm sorry. But I never ready anything put out by ASH, the propaganda machine. Got to keep the blood pressure normal you know.

If this is correct for smokers, what are the timelines like for people that don't inhale directly from cigarettes multiple times a day?

Nil

Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test