• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Secondhand smoke is a health hazard

stloldg

Guest
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
654
Points
0
Secondhand smoke is a health hazard
By Lauran Neergaard
ASSOCIATED PRESS
06/27/2006

WASHINGTON

Breathing any amount of someone else's tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers, the surgeon general declared Tuesday - a strong condemnation of secondhand smoke that is sure to fuel nationwide efforts to ban smoking in public.

"The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," said Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to smokers' fumes - what Carmona termed "involuntary smoking" - and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

Advertisement


The report calls for completely smoke-free buildings and public places, saying that separate smoking sections and ventilation systems don't fully protect nonsmokers. Seventeen states and more than 400 towns, cities and counties have passed strong no-smoking laws.

But public smoking bans don't reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes his or her parents' smoke - and youngsters' still developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Secondhand smoke puts children at risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, as well as bronchitis, pneumonia, worsening asthma attacks, poor lung growth and ear infections, the report found.

Carmona implored parents who can't kick the habit to smoke outdoors, never in a house or car with a child. Opening a window to let the smoke out won't protect them.

"Stay away from smokers," he urged everyone else.

Even a few minutes around drifting smoke is enough to spark an asthma attack, make blood more prone to clot, damage heart arteries and begin the kind of cell damage that over time can lead to cancer, he said.

Repeatedly questioned about how the administration of President George W. Bush would implement his findings, Carmona would only pledge to publicize the report in hopes of encouraging anti-smoking advocacy. Passing anti-smoking laws is up to Congress and state and local governments, he said.

"My job is to make sure we keep a light on this thing," he said.

Still, public health advocates said the report should accelerate an already growing movement toward more smoke-free workplaces.

"This could be the most influential surgeon general's report in 15 years," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The message to governments is: The only way to protect your citizens is comprehensive smoke-free laws."

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.

Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.

Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases the risk of a nonsmoker's getting heart disease or lung cancer by as much as 30 percent, Carmona found.

Some tobacco companies acknowledge the risks. But R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has fought some of the smoking bans, challenges the new report's call for complete smoke-free zones and insists the danger is overblown.

"Bottom line, we believe adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," said RJR spokesman David Howard.

In addition to the scientific report, Carmona issued advice for consumers and employers Tuesday:

Choose smoke-free restaurants and other businesses, and thank them for going smoke-free.

Don't let anyone smoke near your child. Don't take your child to restaurants or other indoor places that allow smoking.

Smokers should never smoke around a sick relative.

Employers should make all indoor workspace smoke-free and not allow smoking near entrances, to protect the health of both customers and workers, and offer programs to help employees kick the habit.
 
So is car exhaust and alot of shit in the atmosphere. If someone chooses to smoke, let them. If yer afraid of second hand cancer, be somewhere else
 
Goodieluver said:
So is car exhaust and alot of shit in the atmosphere. If someone chooses to smoke, let them. If yer afraid of second hand cancer, be somewhere else

Sometimes you have no choice. They will follow you around. (Especially in Vegas.)

People shouldn't smoke. At least my weight only hurts me (unless I trip and fall on a Smurf Village). When you smoke you're not only commiting slow sucide, but mass murder as well.
 
"Mass murder" is a bit much.

The only countries where people are justified in their outrage of smoking are ones where healthcare is socialized. Under those conditions, you really are hurting everyone, because by hurting your own health, you're making everyone else pay more in taxes to help your sorry ass. In a privatized system, people should be able to smoke anywhere except for hospitals, public transport, and certain buildings like schools.
 
MrMacphisto said:
"Mass murder" is a bit much.

The only countries where people are justified in their outrage of smoking are ones where healthcare is socialized. Under those conditions, you really are hurting everyone, because by hurting your own health, you're making everyone else pay more in taxes to help your sorry ass. In a privatized system, people should be able to smoke anywhere except for hospitals, public transport, and certain buildings like schools.
Amen brother.Much of the anti-smoking crowd could care less about your health,they want to run everyone's lives for them.Another example would be the attack on the fast food industry.If you eat that junk every day,it's nobodys business.
 
You cannot compare eating unhealthy with smoking. Bad eating habbits ONLY HURTS YOU. Smoking HURTS EVERYONE. Period. It IS mass murder. You're condeming strangers, children, the unborn babies that women might not even be aware they're carrying to death by cancer. And it's WAY more harmful then car exhaust.

Smoking is stupid, gross, and is deadly. Don't do it. Period.
 
Thanks, bugman... 🙂

So, Lurker, we're now classifying secondhand smoke as worse than car exhaust? I've been in towns with paper mills that subject their citizens with far more pollutants than any group of smokers could produce. Yet, here we are condemning smokers, while there is real evidence suggesting that industrial pollution has a much graver effect on people than secondhand cigarette fumes....

I just don't understand this obsession that some people have against smoking. What's next: banning smoking from all businesses? I avoid areas with smoke when I can, but you can't expect all pool halls or bars to ban smoking -- they'd lose half of their clientele.

Besides, if you really want to pick on a substance that negatively affects society, you might as well target alcohol. It's destroyed far more lives than smoking.
 
IMHO, it sucks for smokers, because of the continual decrease of smoking areas. It's the choice (a dumb one yet at that) but still a choice.

But I don't want to be breathing in your smoke. Half the time, nonsmokers have no choice. Especially children with a parent (or parents) who smoke. My dad is a smoker. I hate that he smokes. We (my brothers and me) try not to be in the same room when he's smoking, but it's hard to do when we're watching TV. And rolling down the window to let the smoke out isn't a 100% effective in preventing a kid from breathing in 2nd-hand smoke.

Smokers are always griping about their right to smoke. What about nonsmokers' rights, huh?

I saw the damage smoking caused when my paternal grandfather was diagnosed with colon cancer. If he hadn't been a smoker, he'd probably wouldn't have had as many health problems and maybe could have lived another 5 or 10 years. He was only 72. To me, that's still young. In 1997, when he had a heart attack, it scared my uncle so much that he quit smoking. If I could, I would eradicate cigarette smoking altogether so no one would have to suffer or watch a loved one suffer from the negative consequences smoking causes.
 
Last edited:
I've attached two pictures. One of a normal lung and one of a cancerous lung. Even natural pollutants didn't damage the normal looking lung as bad as smoking did to the cancerous one.
 
The basic point to me, and it always has been, is that "do not judge others, lest you be judged."
I quit smoking several months ago....but I do not wish anyone's rights to smoke or whatever to be taken away from them.
I avoid places I know that have a lot of smoking, and if someone lights up near me..I move. Not because I have to, or because they are "gross" its because I have self-restraint and I decide that Id rather do as I preach and not as others say.
I mean smoking is a CHOICE. If someone makes the choice so be it.
I do not look down on anyone for their choices.
And as far as Overeating being a problem, its already been shown that Obesity will be a bigger killer than Cancer, and already is becomming that way.
Showing children bad eating habits, showing others bad eating habits, obesity can kill for generations just like smoking.
And actually Car Exhaust has Carbon Minoxide, and can kill in hours, smoking cigarettes will take years and years for it too kill you.

Im not saying people shold be able to light up in an elevator, but smokers just as non-smokers have rights. It is still a legal product, so until that changes there is only so much that has/or should be done.

Rob
 
ticklingnemesis said:
I've attached two pictures. One of a normal lung and one of a cancerous lung. Even natural pollutants didn't damage the normal looking lung as bad as smoking did to the cancerous one.


Why dont u show a liver thats clean of alcohol consumption over a life time and one that is not. Why dont u show a heart after a life a high fat\calorie diet and one that is all vegetable. ANYTHING IN EXCESS IS BAD FOR YOU.

PEOPLE choose to smoke, people die and live from it, it is their choice, same as it is to drink soda, eat a fatty steak or pump heroine into their veins. Hell why not show a pic of a penis that is ravaged from promiscuious sex and one that is abstinence, that is how abstinence is taught in society and how to "scare" kids from having sex

You live and end by your choices. There are worse harms and dangers than someone smoking. If u go to a bar or restaurant, u know there will be people smoking.
 
TicklishLurker said:
You cannot compare eating unhealthy with smoking. Bad eating habbits ONLY HURTS YOU. Smoking HURTS EVERYONE. Period. It IS mass murder. You're condeming strangers, children, the unborn babies that women might not even be aware they're carrying to death by cancer. And it's WAY more harmful then car exhaust.

Smoking is stupid, gross, and is deadly. Don't do it. Period.


Eating much raises insurance rates. Some businesses have instituted weight rules, being that unless u are physically fit, u can be Fired since u are a high risk candidate for being fat

edit-Changed hired to fired, was a typo
 
Last edited:
In scotland smoking has just been banned in pubs and restaurants. I'm a non-smoker but i do tire of the non-smokers on there righteous crusade against smoking. The funny thing is they ban smoking in public places, but why do they not ban the sale of cigarettes altogether? simple, they make a fortune off the taxes they put on cigarettes
 
Goodieluver said:
So is car exhaust and alot of shit in the atmosphere. If someone chooses to smoke, let them. If yer afraid of second hand cancer, be somewhere else

true true true
 
We're talking about smoking here, not alcohol, car exhaust or food.

You're arguments are like when a little kid is caught doing something bad and says "But so-and-so did it too!"

Pointing out other things that seem on the same level of wrong-ness as smoking, doesn't make smoking look better.

If not for the fact that I don't want cancer, I'd really like to go to places and be able to enjoy myself without getting face-fulls of smoke, or have to smell like cigarettes when I leave.

We won't even mention the fact that I have asthma.

It's your choice to pick up a pack of cigarettes and fill your lungs with all kinds of crap, and if it means so much to you, then you'll just have to deal with rules like not doing it in public.
 
ticklishgiggle said:
We're talking about smoking here, not alcohol, car exhaust or food.

You're arguments are like when a little kid is caught doing something bad and says "But so-and-so did it too!"

Pointing out other things that seem on the same level of wrong-ness as smoking, doesn't make smoking look better.

If not for the fact that I don't want cancer, I'd really like to go to places and be able to enjoy myself without getting face-fulls of smoke, or have to smell like cigarettes when I leave.

We won't even mention the fact that I have asthma.

It's your choice to pick up a pack of cigarettes and fill your lungs with all kinds of crap, and if it means so much to you, then you'll just have to deal with rules like not doing it in public.

No, the other things listed are lumped into the crusade, part of the moralists who take it upon themselves to "make life better" when they do not speak for a majority. After one is passed, it sets precedence to say "hey, why not that too"

Hell, in dekalb they got a smoking ban for restaurants and then bar passed. This legislation was formed by a group of 60-75 yr old people....funny, never seen them in a college bar my 5 years being here, but they take it upon themselves to do this. For christs sake, you cant even smoke OUTDOORS, in OPEN AIR in some places, being cali and in outdoor sports arenas around the country. So instead they force people to feel ashamed of smoking and have to do it in their house or in some dark lit corner of a place thats designated(Where u contain the smoke even more making things worse) Ive also read some moralists are complainin and wantin to ban smokin on beaches due to cigarette butt litter. Well, due to the indoor smokin ban, smokers are forced to go outside, hence more litter

I really dont wanna be bothered by attention *****s who are so tanned they look oranje and reek of whatever designer perfume they have on, but you dont see me crusading for the saftey of my vision and olfactory senses and the senses of others. If you wanna go somewhere and avoid smoke, then go there but you have no right to tell a human being where they can or cant smoke. If u have asthma, i do hope u dont drive a car or use a bus or anything that pollutes the air even more, because if u do, you are a hypocrit and contribute to the growing problem and shouldnt be complaining about a handfull of smokers in whatever coffee shoppe u frequent

Christ, anyone see demolition man? Good quote by dennis leary
"You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
 
I think the goverment is right to regulate something that has been proven to kill people, whether they smoke or not.

And I'm glad they have.

Seeing orange and walking through a cloud of Romance by Ralph Lauren haven't been proven to cause death.

I'm willing to bet more people die every year from smoking-related deaths than die from pollution, car exhaust, seeing tanned people, being surrounded by people with too much perfume on, or even drinking alcohol.


Next on the moralists' agenda, chocolate.
 
Last edited:
ticklishgiggle said:
I think the goverment is right to regulate something that has been proven to kill people, whether they smoke or not.

And I'm glad they have.

Seeing orange and walking through a cloud of Romance by Ralph Lauren haven't been proven to cause death.

I'm willing to bet more people die every year from smoking-related deaths than die from pollution, car exhaust, seeing tanned people, being surrounded by people with too much perfume on, or even drinking alcohol.


Next on the moralists' agenda, chocolate.

Perhaps u should research before u make bets, it helps. The leading cause of death according to the CDC is heart disease, which some claim smoking can attribute to but mainly due to bad diet\genetics\obesity. So why doesnt the govt pass laws to limit obesity since heart disease raises insurance rates due to the people being high risks. As ive stated in this thread, some businesses have been firing people because they are overweight. Yes the "simple" solution is "lose weight fatty" well its not as simple or easy to many, and the issue of obesity can also be genetic. Cancer is second but that is ALL cancer, not necessarily lung cancer. Lower respritory diseases are 4-5th on the list and several down from that is diabetes. So with that, should the government ban sugar in all drinks and foods since sugar is considered a key source of the obesity epidemic and over indulgence in sugar can lead to diabetes?

Also, since the smoking ban has gone in to effect in chicago, has your asthma gotten better or worse? Smokers arent the cause or the problem you should worry about, buses and downtown traffic is what you should be lobbying against, not some guy who likes to have one or 2 smokes at a bar or club or with a meal(but since yer underage you havent had to deal with the bar issue yet)
 
Again, I think smoking kills more people than pollution.

Also, if someone's fat, that's their problem. Seeing fat people isn't going to cause me health problems.

Inhaling other peoples' smoke, will.

<i>Fin</i>
 
This is going to sound big government, but im for banning smoking in ALL indoor stores, restaurants, sporting events, bars etc. i see it as if your smoking, your bothering people, if your not smoking, your not bothering anyone. seems reasonable to me.
 
ticklishgiggle said:
We're talking about smoking here, not alcohol, car exhaust or food.

You're arguments are like when a little kid is caught doing something bad and says "But so-and-so did it too!"

Pointing out other things that seem on the same level of wrong-ness as smoking, doesn't make smoking look better.

If not for the fact that I don't want cancer, I'd really like to go to places and be able to enjoy myself without getting face-fulls of smoke, or have to smell like cigarettes when I leave.

We won't even mention the fact that I have asthma.

It's your choice to pick up a pack of cigarettes and fill your lungs with all kinds of crap, and if it means so much to you, then you'll just have to deal with rules like not doing it in public.

If a business owner wants to ban smoking from his place, that's fine. It's not ok if the government forces a ban onto business owners though.
 
ticklishgiggle said:
I think the goverment is right to regulate something that has been proven to kill people, whether they smoke or not.

And I'm glad they have.

Seeing orange and walking through a cloud of Romance by Ralph Lauren haven't been proven to cause death.

I'm willing to bet more people die every year from smoking-related deaths than die from pollution, car exhaust, seeing tanned people, being surrounded by people with too much perfume on, or even drinking alcohol.


Next on the moralists' agenda, chocolate.

Drinking kills others when driving is involved. Why not ban drinking too -- it affects people who don't even drink.

But as for the smoking thing killing people... I have to reiterate a scene from "Thank You for Smoking"...

A journalist asks the main character (a representative for Big Tobacco): "Why do you really do this?"

His response... "Population control."

If people die of their own choices, so be it. There might be evidence that secondhand smoke hurts people if they expose themselves to enough of it, but unless you're intentionally seeking out this smoke -- the odds of dying from secondhand smoke are EXTREMELY low. Dying from firsthand smoke is another matter....
 
ticklishgiggle said:
Again, I think smoking kills more people than pollution.

I'll put it this way... you might want to take a closer look on deaths due to smoking. I think you'll find that the vast majority of those deaths involve heavy smokers, not people that are exposed to secondhand smoke.
 
I was thrilled when this report finally came out. I'm very allergic to smoke, and anytime I'm around a smoker my eyes get all red and my throat and lungs constrict. I'm not looking forward to the issues I'll have with my future in-laws, and I'm glad I'll have this report to back me up. My FFIL smokes heavily, in the house, and when my fiance's little nephew used to live near them, he'd spend weekends with them occasionally. He would smoke around the baby, and when they visit they stay in smoking hotel rooms, and keep the little one in there with them. With my baby it won't happen! So even if someone who normally smokes in their home *doesn't* smoke in the home around the baby, there are still harmful levels of smoke in the air. I'll be saving the report. 🙂 It'll be my defense... not to keep the grandparents away by any means, but I won't have my baby spending a split second in a smoky environment. *Climbs down from the soapbox* Great thread!

Brighteyes
:smilestar
 
I'm not saying ban smoking.

If you want to smoke, go right ahead. But people who make the healtheir choice as to not smoke, shouldn't have to deal with your addiction.
 
What's New

12/26/2024
Happy Boxing Day!
Door 44
Tickle Experiment
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top