Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science: On second thought, no, secondhand smoke won’t kill you
Hotair.com ^ | 12/19/2013 | Mary Katherine Ham

Posted on 12/20/2013 8:27:07 AM PST by rktman

Now it can be told. Now that smoking has been banned everywhere but the dryer vent at your apartment based on the notion that secondhand smoke kills everyone around you, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute can tell us this via Jacob Sullum:

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acs; nannies; smokenazis; smoking; smokingiscool; tobacco; wellduh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last
Never thought about turning on the dryer and exhaling in to a cut out in the vent pipe to maybe keep your apartment/condo neighbors from calling the tar and nicotine cops on you. Kind of depends on where the vent stack goes. How did we think that smoking in the boys room wouldn't be noticed? LOL!
1 posted on 12/20/2013 8:27:07 AM PST by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

The problem is, politics and lawsuits always trump science and facts.


2 posted on 12/20/2013 8:29:31 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Merry Christmas to all my fellow Americans. "Whatever" to everybody else!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Embrace the suck.


3 posted on 12/20/2013 8:30:52 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
I'll just prop my feet up here on the desk and fire up a cigarette while I look at a tobacco plant that is growing WAY out of season.

Don't like 2nd hand smoke? Stay outta my house.

/johnny

4 posted on 12/20/2013 8:31:16 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Aw come on, it’s proven science that simply SEEING someone with a cigarette can take 20 years off your expected life span.


5 posted on 12/20/2013 8:31:50 AM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

As a non-smoker I must admit that I do enjoy not smelling smoke in restaurants and other places. I also hate the smell of it in people’s clothes. However I have never been in favor of not allowing smoking in bars. If it bothers you stay out of them.


6 posted on 12/20/2013 8:33:09 AM PST by Venturer (Half Staff the Flag of the US for Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Read what it says, not what you think it says:

“this analysis doesn’t tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.”


7 posted on 12/20/2013 8:33:27 AM PST by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

.


8 posted on 12/20/2013 8:34:05 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084

Ping


9 posted on 12/20/2013 8:34:26 AM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

Dang. Forgot all about the anxiety factor and the ravages of the fear of seeing the image of a cigarette. Couple that with a picture of an AR and your just about done. LOL!


10 posted on 12/20/2013 8:34:35 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Back in the 1980s or 1970s when so many people smoked, and legal to smoke inside, it was hard to notice in smell,

but without those its easy to smell smoke even on clothes now.


11 posted on 12/20/2013 8:35:14 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

My understanding, regarding secondhand smoke, is that they definitively know that it is harmful to cats, but that is it.


12 posted on 12/20/2013 8:36:23 AM PST by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I knew they were lying about it - but then it was “settled science” doncha know.


13 posted on 12/20/2013 8:36:35 AM PST by Fido969 (What's sad is most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle

That must be the impetus behind banning the e-cigarette.


14 posted on 12/20/2013 8:37:15 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

And, shouldn’t it be the business owner who decides to allow or disallow the activity? I seem to remember some posit that there was a 3rd hand smoke issue. Would that be the odor that one smells? Possibly just smelling the odor is hazardous even with no 2nd hand smoke present? I don’t know.


15 posted on 12/20/2013 8:37:41 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Recently ran across denunciations of "third-hand smoke." This is an environment where people have been smoking and tobacco constituents have settled out onto surfaces. The primary symptom of which is the tobacco smoke odor lingers.

Claims are made that it will be deadly, primarily to children.

The kicker that there is absolutely no evidence to this effect is that the articles call for studies to prove the effect.

Anybody who knows the subject is aware that there is, contrary to popular opinion, absolutely nothing uniquely hazardous or toxic about tobacco smoke. It's really remarkably similar to smoke from burning any other plant. Inhale campfire smoke in the same quantities and you'll develop similar symptoms.

It's just that no other plant has ever succeeded in inducing large numbers of people to inhale its smoke at anything close to the dosages tobacco has. Even MJ users seldom smoke anything like the quantities a heavy cigarette smoker will.

16 posted on 12/20/2013 8:38:15 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

If second had smoke was your only exposure it might be defensible but there is car exhaust, food, life in general and I have never believed you can pinpoint a specific thing.


17 posted on 12/20/2013 8:38:41 AM PST by edcoil (System now set up not to allow some to win but for no one to lose!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
In front of my car on my fall commute:

You can roll your own cigars from what falls off these things. Seriously.

18 posted on 12/20/2013 8:39:45 AM PST by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrB
That must be the impetus behind banning the e-cigarette.

Actually, it is. They know that e-cigs are perfectly safe, but they claim that the mere appearance gives the "wrong impression".

19 posted on 12/20/2013 8:39:49 AM PST by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Next they are going to discover that guns don’t kill people all by themselves. This science stuff is good stuff.


20 posted on 12/20/2013 8:40:14 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (Liberals can afford for things to go well, to work, for folks to be happy. They'd be out of work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Well, if you take some lab rats (hairy screed comes to mind), and force them into inhaling the equivalent of 10 packs per day, I guess you could conclude that the rats are gonna have an issue with 2nd hand smoke. Say, who’s getting the 1st hand smoke and forcing the rats to inhale it?


21 posted on 12/20/2013 8:40:31 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
Aw come on, it’s proven science that simply SEEING someone with a cigarette can take 20 years off your expected life span.

If you complain about a customer smoking while you are in a biker bar, it can be fatal.

22 posted on 12/20/2013 8:41:02 AM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
I grow my own. Tobacco grows almost everywhere. I refuse to comply with the nanny staters.

/johnny

23 posted on 12/20/2013 8:43:27 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

That’s what I was talking about. I think. Yet in Colorado, the recent okay for pot isn’t an issue? I guess even if there is a harmful(definition required because there could be a lot?) side effect from inhaling pot smoke, who’s gonna care? Dude!


24 posted on 12/20/2013 8:44:06 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

As someone who quit in 1984, I must say that I enjoy the smell of frsh cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke but, like you, I don’t find it pleasing to smeall the residual in someone’s hair or on their clothes.

Once I hit 90-years-old, I’ll probably take up cigars.


25 posted on 12/20/2013 8:47:09 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym defines the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

“...they definitively know that it is harmful to cats, but that is it.”

Another good reason to light up!


26 posted on 12/20/2013 8:48:26 AM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are Affirmative Action for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I once asked a respiratory specialist what the cancer rate was among smokers. Looking very sheepish, he admitted it was around 1%. One percent can be a fairly high number of individuals if millions of people smoke, but when they use numbers like 13 times higher than non-smokers, they intentionally mislead the entire public.

The overall affect of misleading is that greater and greater numbers of people eventually begin to ignore possibly valid warnings regarding health issues.

While nonsmokers may have less than a 1% chance of acquiring lung cancer, they DO get it, and they get other types of cancer as well.

It can be very depressing watching your 28 year old neighbor whose never smoked, die of breast cancer.

It’s also depressing to see 4 year olds who have never held a driver’s license, die in a car accident.

I have to wonder, how many people die in car accidents per year compared to how many smokers die of lung cancer?

The point is, the whole smoking propaganda is exactly that. Propaganda. An experiment in controlling the public and to what degree.


27 posted on 12/20/2013 8:51:22 AM PST by PrairieLady2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“Back in the 1980s or 1970s when so many people smoked,...”

Back in the day, I remember attending department meetings at work, where 8 of the 12 attendees smoked during the meeting. The conference rooms were small with closed doors. Every one reeked of smoke when the meeting was over. Also there were cigarette vending machines in the hallways.


28 posted on 12/20/2013 9:00:19 AM PST by duckman (I'm part of the group pulling the wagon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I’ve never smoked, but was a soldier for 10 years and breathed enough second hand smoke for at least 10 people. It’s never bothered me. What bothers me is smokers being treated like criminals. I value freedom. Oh, and if you’re making any good chili, count me in, I love chili, secondhand smoke, I don’t care about heh.


29 posted on 12/20/2013 9:01:06 AM PST by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2
I once asked a respiratory specialist what the cancer rate was among smokers. Looking very sheepish, he admitted it was around 1%.

I'm sorry to say he is wrong. About 17% of smokers contract lung cancer. About 95% of them live at least another 1 1/2 to 2 years. The rest die within 6-9 months.

The 1% figure is for non-smokers who contract lung cancer.

For the record, I am a smoker and my brother, a smoker, died of lung cancer.

30 posted on 12/20/2013 9:01:56 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
A friend of mine HATES cats, and cigars. I tell her "Did you know that it's a proven scientific fact that a cat in your house will absorb cigar odors? It seems like magic, but it's been proven".

She is not amused by that comment.

31 posted on 12/20/2013 9:02:02 AM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2

Some folks are probably genetically inclined to develop certain condition regardless of what they do. When I was still working we had to have a yearly physical and it always involved one of those machines that checks lung function and capacity. Nearly every time the tech would run the test on me, after looking at the results would say “Well, looks like you never smoked.” Then I’d tell them yup only about a pack a day. Then they’d look at the chart and just shrug. Always showed above 100% Weird, I know.


32 posted on 12/20/2013 9:02:42 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: duckman

I recall workplace was legal in some counties here, like Baltimore county, till the end of the 1980s.


33 posted on 12/20/2013 9:07:55 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Fascinating! If it is not the smoke that kills those on the other end of a cigarette;
What is it then that causes lung cancer?
The heat from drawing it smoke into your mouth?
The hand gestures when lighting or smoking?

I don’t get it....


34 posted on 12/20/2013 9:09:55 AM PST by BillT (If you can not stand behind our military, you might as well stand in front of them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2

And there are 2 types of lung cancer (having to do with the size of the cell, IRRC). One is more likely to develop in the non-smoker (thus no correlation with smoking) but “we” make no such distinction in our media.


35 posted on 12/20/2013 9:16:20 AM PST by Patriotic1 (Dic mihi solum facta, domina - Just the facts, ma'am)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Depends what he is smoking.

One of those little girlie cigs is asking for a beat down.

In all honesty, the last time I was at a “biker” bar, one patron asked politely if I minded if he smoked. I laughed a bit.

If it bothered me, I wouldn't’ have been there. This was before all cigs got banned.

36 posted on 12/20/2013 9:19:07 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BillT

What kills you is some anti-smoking zealot who goes berserk at the mere sight of you firin’ up and beats you. More than likely, in nyc, if some transient (funny how they can always afford some smokes isn’t it) were to fire one up in public, mothers would shield their children’s eyes to keep them from seeing the event. Oh, the horror! Just like the campaign against firearms, vilify the object, make it socially unacceptable, ban them. Weird how that works huh?


37 posted on 12/20/2013 9:21:40 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I grow my own. Tobacco grows almost everywhere. I refuse to comply with the nanny staters.

I quit smoking awhile back. Switched to e-cigarettes and then was able to give them up.

But I wouldn't mind a cigarette now and again if I were able to grow my own. I'm of the opinion that at least some of the danger is related to the additives and not the tobacco itself.

Was it difficult to get started? How much do you need to plant to harvest the equivalent of a pack?
38 posted on 12/20/2013 9:27:54 AM PST by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Has there been a study done of putting people in a closed room for two hours and filling it with exhaust fumes from one car; another room with people in a room where everyone smokes and see which room has more deaths? Oh then there should be a third room filled with carbon monoxide which emits no odor.


39 posted on 12/20/2013 9:36:01 AM PST by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: facedown

What your post doesn’t claim (not your fault, there are no studies to my knowledge) is how many of that 17% would have died of lung or other cancer anyway. The Breast Cancer folks claimed an even higher rate of smoking-related deaths, altho I can’t remember the figure. But I have my own evidence. Of my six aunts and my mother, five were lifelong smokers. The other two had never TOUCHED a cigarette and lived with nonsmoking husbands. The two who had never smoked had radical mastectomies (and are still living). Of the remaining five, my mother died of stomach cancer and an aunt who smoked died of lymphosarcoma (neither related to smoking). All my aunts but one are still living. The youngest is 89.

Insofar as lung cancer’s concerned, smoking MIGHT be a catalyst, but it’s never a cause. The 17%-claim, by itself, seems to prove that 83% of smokers (at least as of the study-date) either didn’t contract lung cancer or that lung cancer springs from something other than or in addition to smoking or that other diseases claimed the remaining smokers and/or that some unknown number of smokers in the test still live.

And, of course, nothing you’ve cited disproves the respiratory specialist’s 1%-claim. Cancer-rate is significantly different from lung cancer-rate.


40 posted on 12/20/2013 9:43:54 AM PST by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
Tobacco is easy to grow. Seeds can be ordered off the internet, and there are lots of instructions.

One tobacco plant can produce up to 100 cigarettes.

/johnny

41 posted on 12/20/2013 9:48:12 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

That’s “unsettling”.


42 posted on 12/20/2013 9:48:43 AM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Indeed not one case has been proved that secondhand smoke kills it’s just an agenda for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


43 posted on 12/20/2013 9:51:40 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2

After watching my father in law die from complications of emphysema, I have a profound bias against tobacco.

This is a product designed to addict children before they are capable of making an informed opinion about whether they want to live a life of lessened physical capacity and eventual debilitating disease.

I can forgive people who grow their own tobacco and never expose others, but anyone who smokes in public or purchases cigarettes is a willing accomplice to the corruption of our youth.


44 posted on 12/20/2013 10:02:22 AM PST by Go_Raiders (Freedom doesn't give you the right to take from others, no matter how innocent your program sounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

Its interesting that this subject has come up. I remember reading an article a long time ago, that, in part, cast doubt on the idea that cigarettes caused cancer to the degree that was claimed (and made a point similar to yours — smoking is involved in lung cancer, but not the cause). This was a mainstream medical article, and seemed credible. The following point was not the main point in the article, and had an otherwise anti-smoking theme.

Apparently, there were a lot of studies back in the 60s and 70s which calculated the expected drop in lung cancer, correlated to various scenarios in terms of reduction of usage. The articles’ point is that we have seen a reduction in usage, but the drop in lung cancer (both incidence, and fatalities), hasn’t been nearly as significant as expected. The result has been in a reduction in lung cancer among smokers (due to fewer smokers, but I do remember that the rate had also changed, but can’t remember which way), but an increase in lung cancer among non-smokers (by number, but also by rate, by a non-trivial amount).

Given that this article was at least 15 years ago, and I only remember bits and pieces of it, I was curious if anyone knows whether it has any validity to it.


45 posted on 12/20/2013 10:09:29 AM PST by jjsheridan5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
Most of my older relatives WW2 age people, died of smoking related diseases. Emphysema, COPD and lung cancer. My mother in law died of Oat Cell Carcinoma about 3 months after diagnosis. She had it easier than the others, they choked to death slowly over a period of several years.
46 posted on 12/20/2013 10:09:42 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
One tobacco plant can produce up to 100 cigarettes.

That's five packs - which would have lasted me 2 days in my heyday.

47 posted on 12/20/2013 10:11:28 AM PST by Fido969 (What's sad is most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Go_Raiders
This is a product designed to addict children

While I sympathize with the loss of your father, this statement is complete, 100% bull. It is a product designed to meet the demands of those who like to smoke. Smoking has been enjoyed for 100s of years (if not thousands), and all that time, it was never about "the children". It was always about the fact that people enjoy smoking. Just as a certain percentage of the population always has, and always will.

Just because your admitted (and understandable) bias does not allow you to accept this, doesn't make it any less true.
48 posted on 12/20/2013 10:16:48 AM PST by jjsheridan5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mach9
What your post doesn’t claim (not your fault, there are no studies to my knowledge) is how many of that 17% would have died of lung or other cancer anyway.

True. They claim mouth, esophageal and even bladder (!?) cancer is affected by smoking, but have demonstrated no causal mechanism.

The 17%-claim, by itself, seems to prove that 83% of smokers (at least as of the study-date) either didn’t contract lung cancer...

Exactly.

Cancer-rate is significantly different from lung cancer-rate.

Correct; it would be much higher.

49 posted on 12/20/2013 10:22:11 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: facedown

AGW, SECOND HAND SMOKE, FOREIGNER CARE, The left exists only until their lies are exposed.


50 posted on 12/20/2013 10:30:10 AM PST by spawn44 (MOO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson