Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

just to tell you we've already had the ban in scotland for a few months now

I'm asthmatic aswell, but mine is very light.

I'm all in favour: increase national health, decrease national spending.

It's win-win!

ban FTW

I see no problem with people going to their own private space for a fag. Excellent progress.

At 2/17/06 11:34 AM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Imperator I really would like to see those statistics, as many as you can find.

114,000 people die every year from smoking related illnesses . And if you take a look at the first bit that isn't even filtering in the amount of non fatal thigns that can affect smokers because of their habit.

Now then, if your so sure that walking out in the air is going to kill you faster than smoking then pelase show us some proof. I'm sure if I could be bothered I could find more sources that say the same thing as this one, the actual stats may differ though. ,but as it is I think you'll strugle to find some credible statistics from a credible source that shows more people die due to air puollution than smoking.

At 2/17/06 11:34 AM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: Imperator I really would like to see those statistics, as many as you can find.

Christ....

Fine, I'll give you only .edu or related sites, so you know they are more reliable than other shit online.

http://www.purdue.ed...Anderson.study.html

http://www.cdc.gov/o..pressrel/r050630.htm

(This next one is a good reason to ban smokin in public places)
http://fsi.stanford.edu/news/268/
http://www.berkeley.../09/04_smoking.shtml

http://www.news.harv..9.18/26-tobacco.html

(here, don't even have to die due to the actual smoking. Die from burning due to badly placed lit cigs).
http://www.ucdmc.ucd..gdisaster_costs.html

https://www.utexas.e..news/recent/smoking/

http://www.epa.gov/s..free/pubs/etsfs.html

http://www.ox.ac.uk/..w/ar98/smoking.shtml

http://www.umich.edu../0001/Apr16_01/4.htm

(yeah, umich ROCKS!)
http://www.biomed.li..11/19981120_chi.html

http://www.ucsf.edu/..00/12/14_smoking.htm

(proof anti-smoking laws work)
http://www.csa.com/p..43&setcookie=yes
http://jama.ama-assn..nt/abstract/267/1/94

(American Medical Associaton's Journal. Kinda hard for them to lie......)

I refuse to continue on the basis that I have provided AMPLE evidence, from Harvard, Purdue, the American Medical Association, Cambridge, the Center for Disease Control, the Enviormental Protection Agency, Oxford, and my own friggin University of Michigan.

You are such an asshole for not spending the time yourself to look this up yourself.

Clearly you've never seen the back of an American cigarette pack:

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:
Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.

You've got to be one of the biggest morons I've EVER seen in my life. Smoking kills, it's about as obvious as saying the sky is blue.....

How the hell are you still alive? Aparently Natural Selection seems to have its exceptions.......

All it means is every pub with a beer garden will now advertise themselves as a smokers' haven.

I'll ignore the theory it means the Working Class are being oppressed by having their main vice made illegal in public for the time being, at least until it's banned in their homes as well.

At 2/15/06 10:43 PM, themagicalpig wrote: We have the same law here in Georgia. I hate it, i think it infringes on bussiness owner's rights. if a customer doesn't like someone smoking they can leave.

i wish we had the same law in michigan. If you wanna smoke, smoke home. Don't ruin other peoples health because of your stupidity. Smoking is just stupid, your ruining your health, and your not getting anything out of it. It tastes like shit, it doesn' t get you high, and did i meantion it tastes like shit?

At 2/17/06 06:02 PM, Imperator wrote:

and my own friggin University of Michigan.

yay for university of michigan! I wanted to go there, but i decided that wayne state is better for me under the circumstances(yes i know, its unrelated to the topic, but i dont care)

At 2/17/06 07:00 AM, dcx_666 wrote: also hitler was a vegeterian (saving the animals promote mass genocide i think) back to the topic i think the smoking ban is great but i hope this won't raise taxes

No he wasn't. Read these articles: his cutting back (not abstaining from) on meat consumption was not ideologically motivated. His "vegetarianism" was exaggerated for propaganda reasons.

About the ban: there was a discussion about this a few months ago and I still believe that the market should handle this problem. If there really is a demand for non-smoking bars than the non-smoking bars will push the other ones out of business. Fact is that lot of people who drink also like a cigarette to accompany it. I can understand not wanting people to smoke in a restaurant, even I find it annoying and I'm a smoker but that's still something the free market can take care of.

I'm also still skeptical about the dangers of second hand smoke as I find it hard to believe that the annual four cigarette equivalents that the median non-smoking wife or husband of a smoker inhales in carcinogens have even the mildest negative effect on their health. And even if there is a risk people should be allowed to take them. The government could force bar employees to sign a contract that states that they're aware of the possible harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke, but to force them not to work in a possibly harmful environment is not what I consider to be one of the responsibilities of the state.

At 2/17/06 12:27 PM, mrdurgan wrote: just to tell you we've already had the ban in scotland for a few months now

It hasn't come into effect, though, so we've yet to see the results.

Apart from 124TMB, 135TMB, 13BDIENE, 1BUTENE, 2MEPENT, 3MEPENT, BENZENE, ETHANE, ETHBENZ, ETHENE, ETHYNE, ISOPRENE, MEPENT, PROPANE, PROPENE, TOLUENE, c2BUTENE, c2PENTEN, iBUTANE, iPENTANE, mpXYLENE, nBUTANE, nHEPTANE, nHEXANE, nPENTANE, oXYLENE, t2BUTENE, t2PENTEN, 1PENTEN, iOCTANE, nOCTANE, 123TMB, NO2, SO2, Black Smoke, Ca, Ca(D), Cl, Cl(A), Cl(C), Cl(D), Cl(F), H+, H+(D), H+(STR), H+(STR)(D), HCO3(D), HNO3-N, K, K(D), Mg, Mg(D), NH4-N, NH4-N(A), NH4-N(C), NH4-N(D), NH4-N(F), NO2, NO2-N, NO3-N, NO3-N(A), NO3-N(C), NO3-N(D), NO3-N(F), Na, Na(A), Na(C), Na(D), Na(F), PO4-P, PO4-P(D), SO2-S, SO4-S, SO4-S(A), SO4-S(C), SO4-S(D), SO4-S(F), SO4-S(NM), SO4-S(NM)(D), cond, pH, r, Cl(A), PM10, PM10, NH4-N(A), NO3-N(A), Na(A), PM2.5, SO4, SO4-S(A), BENZENE, 1234678 HpCDD, 1234678 HpCDF, 123478 HxCDD, 123478 HxCDF, 1234789 HpCDF, 123678 HxCDD, 123678 HxCDF, 12378 PeCDD, 12378 PeCDF, 123789 HxCDD, 123789 HxCDF, 234678 HxCDF, 23478 PeCDF, 2378 TCDD, 2378 TCDF, OCDD, OCDF and 13BDIENE. The biggest threat I feel, is ground level Ozone.

Ozone (O3) is an allotrope of oxygen, the molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms instead of the more stable diatomic O2. It is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth's atmosphere: ground level ozone is an air pollutant with harmful effects on lung function

Some kinds of electrical equipment generate significant levels of ozone. This is especially true of devices using high voltages, such as television sets, laser printers, and photocopiers. Electric motors using brushes can generate ozone from repeated sparking inside the unit. Large motors, such as those used by elevators or hydraulic pumps, will generate more ozone than smaller motors.

Ground-level ozone is the major part of air pollution in most cities. Ground-level ozone is created when engine and fuel gases already released into the air interact when sunlight hits them. Ozone levels increase in cities when the air is still, the sun is bright and the temperature is warm. Ground-level ozone should not be confused with the "good" ozone that is miles up in the atmosphere and that protects us from the sun's harmful radiation.

Air pollution can irritate the eyes, throat and lungs. Burning eyes, cough and chest tightness are common with exposure to high levels of air pollution.

Different people can react very differently to air pollution. Some people may notice chest tightness or cough, while others may not notice any effects. Because exercise requires faster, deeper breathing, it may increase the symptoms. People with heart disease, such as angina (chest pain), or with lung disease, such as asthma or emphysema, may be very sensitive to air pollution exposure, and may notice symptoms when others do not.

Tobacco smoke, has been made a scapegoat, to cover for all the pollutants released into the atmosphere, by modern society. Tobacco smoke is a drop in the ocean.

Ok fine, just ignore the 14 or so studies I posted.....

Believe what you want, you can continue to believe that somehow air pollution is more deadly than smoking.

It very well may be, but air pollution is a bit stickier to solve.

At least with smoking we can pass these laws for stupid people so they can stop shortening my life span.

For air pollution we have to research, shut down plants, and rerout our entire industrial society...........or you could just stop smoking..........

But as I said, tobacco smoke is just a drop in the ocean. And even banning it outright will do nothing to change the health of the population.

if they don't like the smell of someone smoking in a restraunt, they have the ability to get the fuck up and leave. The only person who should have a right to tell people not to smoke in a place is the owner of that place. I promise you, if the demand is high enough, many non-smoking restraunt will be made(I know several existed here before the law was created). Why should bar owners suffer and cigarette companies suffer just to make people, who arn't even their main clientele, more comfortable

Lets turn this logic opposite. What if the bar there is nobody snoking and some dick wad decides to light up? And what about the waiters they have to work in the bar and if everbody smoking then they are going to get lung cancer

At 2/18/06 12:38 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: But as I said, tobacco smoke is just a drop in the ocean. And even banning it outright will do nothing to change the health of the population.

Except save 114,000 peoples lives a year. Not to mention all the money hospitals save treating smoking related sickness. And the fact that smoking is a major contributer to cancer and heart disease the two leading cause fo death in the USA.

At 2/18/06 04:13 PM, mjairlax wrote:

Lets turn this logic opposite. What if the bar there is nobody snoking and some dick wad decides to light up? And what about the waiters they have to work in the bar and if everbody smoking then they are going to get lung cancer

No waiter HAS to work in a certain restraunt. if they're not happy with the bussiness's desired to allow smoking they should quit and go somewhere else. And if no one is smoking in a bar that allows smoking then one person does, the people should reconcider where they sat if it bothers them. Go to a non-smoking section and if there isn't on go to a restraunt that has one.

At 2/18/06 04:22 PM, mjairlax wrote:

At 2/18/06 12:38 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: But as I said, tobacco smoke is just a drop in the ocean. And even banning it outright will do nothing to change the health of the population.

Except save 114,000 peoples lives a year. Not to mention all the money hospitals save treating smoking related sickness. And the fact that smoking is a major contributer to cancer and heart disease the two leading cause fo death in the USA.

So you're an expert on everything health related, and you can say with 100% certainty that tobacco smoke kills 114,000 people a year?

At 2/18/06 04:22 PM, mjairlax wrote:

At 2/18/06 12:38 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: But as I said, tobacco smoke is just a drop in the ocean. And even banning it outright will do nothing to change the health of the population.

Except save 114,000 peoples lives a year. Not to mention all the money hospitals save treating smoking related sickness. And the fact that smoking is a major contributer to cancer and heart disease the two leading cause fo death in the USA.

Why don't we make sure every American eats 5 servings of vegetables everyday as well. And make them run laps and lift weights everyday too. Yeah, that's the ticket. Just like in 1984.

So you're an expert on everything health related, and you can say with 100% certainty that tobacco smoke kills 114,000 people a year?

More proof you simply glazed over my sources above.....

Yes. Let's me PROVE to you that smoking kills, and is a complete and preventable waste.

Smoking cost the nation about $92 billion in the form of lost productivity in 1997-2001, up about $10 billion from the annual mortality related productivity losses for the years 1995-1999, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new lost productivity estimate when combined with smoking-related health-care costs, which was reported at $75.5 billion in 1998, exceeds $167 billion per year in the United States.

The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. In comparison, approximately 440,000 smoking-related deaths were estimated to have occurred annually from 1995-1999.

From the CDC

The study estimated that in 2002, 48,400 women in China died from lung cancer and ischemic heart disease attributed to passive smoking compared with 47,300 lung cancer and heart disease deaths from "active" smoking.

From Berkley University

"The research, published in the Sept. 13 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, shows that global tobacco deaths were about 4.8 million in 2000, with about 2.4 million each in developing and industrialized nations. The study shows that for men, the shift has already occurred. About 2 million men died in developing nations in 2000 from smoking-related illnesses compared with 1.8 million male deaths in industrialized nations. "

From Harvard

"Smoking causes an estimated 30 percent of fire deaths in the United States and 10 percent of fire deaths worldwide."

From; University of California Cancer Research Coordinating Committee, the Departments of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Human Resources/Employee Health of the University of California, Davis

"Tobacco smoking has long been recognized as a major cause of death and disease, responsible for an estimated 434,000 deaths per year in the United States. Tobacco use is known to cause lung cancer in humans, and is a major risk factor for heart disease."

From the EPA

"In Britain, at least, the message is getting through: cigarette sales have fallen from 150 billion per year in 1970 to 80 billion today. When he spoke at the British Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in September 1998, Professor Peto was able to report that since 1970 British men had moved from having the highest rates of tobacco-related deaths in middle age in the world, to having the world’s biggest decrease in such deaths – from 80,000 to 40,000 per year."

From Oxford University

"“For every million dollars spent on basic smoking-cessation counseling to pregnant women, we can save almost five infants from dying as a result of SIDS. That is $210,000 per life saved from SIDS. The accepted threshold for cost effectiveness of a health measure is more than $7 million per life saved,” says study author Harold Pollack, assistant professor of health management and policy at the School of Public Health.
“Of the 3,000 SIDS deaths each year, more than 700 are related to maternal smoking. All 700 deaths appear to be preventable if expectant mothers quit smoking. This study shows that it is possible to prevent up to 108 of those deaths with basic smoking-cessation counseling. These smoking-cessation services are highly cost-effective when compared with child auto safety seats and other interventions Americans value to save and extend human life,” Pollack says. “The cost of basic smoking-cessation counseling services used in this study were estimated at about $45 per participant, based on previous research.” "

From the University of Michigan

" approximately 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from ischemic heart disease among never-smokers and long-term former smokers are estimated to have occurred annually in the United States as a result of ETS exposure in the early 1980s"
"An individual male never-smoker living with a current or former smoker is estimated to have an approximately 9.6% chance of dying of ischemic heart disease by the age of 74 years, compared with a 7.4% chance for a male never-smoker living with a nonsmoker. The corresponding lifetime risks for women are 6.1% and 4.9%. "
"The public health burden due to ETS exposure is likely to be much greater for heart disease than for lung cancer, which has been the focus of most debate to date. Individual lifetime excess risks of heart disease death due to ETS of one to three per 100 can be compared with much lower excess risks of one death per 100,000, which are often used in determining environmental limits for other toxins. Exposure to ETS is not currently regulated at the federal level, except for domestic air traffic. "

From the Journal of the American Medical Association

I rest my case. Pull your head out of your ass, smoking kills a LOT more than 114,000 a year in the US alone.........

I can say with 400% absolute certainty, that tobacco kills more than 100,000 people every year, and preventive measures against smoking (like the Oxford study suggests), not only saves thousands of lives, but the all important reason governments do anything, $$$$$$$.

Lives and money saved, simply by not puffing away while in a restaurant or bar.

At 2/18/06 08:05 PM, Imperator wrote: Lives and money saved, simply by not puffing away while in a restaurant or bar.

Okay, he claimed smoking didn't kill and it does, or at least it increases the probability of a smoker suffering from lung cancer and coronary heart diseases later on their life. This can be considered to be scientifically proven. I don't see how banning smoking in bars will decrease overall tobacco consumption however; even if people don't smoke in bars they'll compensate at home after visiting the bar or smoke outside every now and then. If you want to eliminate those 114,000 deaths in the UK due to smoking then you'd have to ban smoking altogether.

Second of all, I have a problem with the last link you posted about the dangers of ETS exposure. First of all it only takes nine epidemiological studies into account which is nothing compared to the myriad of studies that have been done regarding the subject, maybe because your article is from 1992. More information about the studies in this list can be found by doing a Google search for "name of the author" and "ETS". Note that most studies could not conclude with 97.5% certainty that there was a correlational relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer, the main alleged harmful effect of passive smoking. Some even report a statistically significant negative correlational relationship (Wu-Williams being the largest).

Even one of the nine studies your article listed found a negative correlation which shows how poorly generalisable these studies are. Remember that one of the leading meta-analyses used to support public smoking bans, the 1993 EPA report, has already been called junk by an independent court (I can also recommend this article).
Besides, it's irrelevant. Statistical "evidence" is meant to support hypotheses and the ones we have now does not apply considering the minimal carcinogen levels a passive smoker is exposed to and the relationship is considered to be linear.

Second hand smoke is still very unpleasant to asthmatics among others of course but serious negative health consequences? I don't buy it. And the people who choose to work in a bar could simply be informed of the risk and be obligated to sign a contract which states that they're aware of the possible dangers. But with the risk being as low as it appears to be, a government ban seems to be hardly necessary. They might as well ban paragliding to protect the instructors.

At 2/19/06 06:23 AM, lapis wrote:

They might as well ban paragliding to protect the instructors.

not quite:

if you are to use that, then you would have to say all bar men smoke

At 2/19/06 06:47 AM, -dELta- wrote:

At 2/19/06 06:23 AM, lapis wrote: They might as well ban paragliding to protect the instructors.

not quite:

if you are to use that, then you would have to say all bar men smoke

They're apparently exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. If a government ban is needed to protect bartenders from the potential harm that ETS exposure might cause then paragliding instructors need to be protected as well as their job involves certain risks, low as they may be.

At 2/15/06 10:32 PM, daniel_breaden wrote: This is one of those marmite topics, love it or hate it?

i love it 'cos i'm asthema*cough*tic

The new laws are going to cause alot of pubs and clubs to shut down. A few pubs by me are already no smoking and they're always empty. Who wants to go and stand outside for just to have a smoke.

Alot of non smokers i know don't really care about people smoking in pubs or in public places.

Imperator, tobbaco smoke is just being blamed for these deaths, there is no evidence at all to suggest that second-hand smoke is the SOLE cause of lung cancer and heart disease.

My granda, smoked anything he could get his hands on, died at the age of 84 of liver cancer. Even though he never drunk alchohol once in his life.

Cancer just happens. The reason there is no cure for it yet, is because no one knows what causes it.

Tobacco smoke is just being made a scapegoat.

Imperator, tobbaco smoke is just being blamed for these deaths, there is no evidence at all to suggest that second-hand smoke is the SOLE cause of lung cancer and heart disease.

No one was making that claim. You questioned whether tobaco actually kills people, I have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that tobacco does indeed kill people.

This can be considered to be scientifically proven. I don't see how banning smoking in bars will decrease overall tobacco consumption however; even if people don't smoke in bars they'll compensate at home after visiting the bar or smoke outside every now and then. If you want to eliminate those 114,000 deaths in the UK due to smoking then you'd have to ban smoking altogether.

Lapis, point taken. I don't think anyone was arguing that smoking should be completely banned or anything of the sort. It's more a matter of second-hand consumption that is being curtailed by the laws.

Second of all, I have a problem with the last link you posted about the dangers of ETS exposure.

That's fine. When he asked for links, I just went through the list, I wasn't really checking dates.

"The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke."

That's from the CDC link, dated June 30, 2005. It doesn't say how many second hand smoke kills compared to first-hand, but it's still accepted that second-hand smoke is harmful. I don't really have any other evidence to support ETS, so I'll concede the point to you.

Tobacco smoke is just being made a scapegoat.

You've got to be kidding me.........
So Harvard, Cambrigde, Oxford, Stanford, the EPA, CDC, JAMA, and the University of Michigan are all some big conspiracy to just pass blame onto tobacco, instead of finding a real cause?

I want links if you're gonna make the claim that tobacco doesn't kill, and it's just a scapegoat......

Because this:

The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. In comparison, approximately 440,000 smoking-related deaths were estimated to have occurred annually from 1995-1999.

The study estimated that in 2002, 48,400 women in China died from lung cancer and ischemic heart disease attributed to passive smoking compared with 47,300 lung cancer and heart disease deaths from "active" smoking.

"The research, published in the Sept. 13 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, shows that global tobacco deaths were about 4.8 million in 2000, with about 2.4 million each in developing and industrialized nations. The study shows that for men, the shift has already occurred. About 2 million men died in developing nations in 2000 from smoking-related illnesses compared with 1.8 million male deaths in industrialized nations. "

"Smoking causes an estimated 30 percent of fire deaths in the United States and 10 percent of fire deaths worldwide."

all suggests that not only is tobacco a killer, but it's also rather preventable.
If 30% in the US, 10% worldwide is just a "drop in the ocean" to you, well.........

Most normal people conclude that tobacco can kill, what's often debated is if second hand smoke can kill. I'll be glad to debate that, but I won't sit here and throw legitimate sources at you if you just shoot them down and claim conspiracy theories, or scapegoat............

I suggest you read "Remembering Satan", and look at how lack of evidence was misconstrued as evidence for the prosecution.

I have given plenty of evidence, but you have given none to support your claims. Your lack of evidence is not evidence that tobacco is the victim of a worldwide conspiracy to blame millions of deaths on tobacco, rather than the real cause......

The real cause? How about, since the moment of birth, we've begun a slow process of death. It can't be avoided so why ruin the fun of people who are just trying to enjoy their lives just because you can't face your own mortality.

Tobacco smoke cannot kill you, only death/God or whatever you believe in can. You already are dieing. All matter is in a state of decay so why give a fuck if people smoke tobacco?

Life shouldn't be taken so seriously, it's pointless. Just enjoy yourself while you can.

At 2/19/06 02:29 PM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: The real cause? How about, since the moment of birth, we've begun a slow process of death. It can't be avoided so why ruin the fun of people who are just trying to enjoy their lives just because you can't face your own mortality.

How is smoking fun?

Tobacco smoke cannot kill you, only death/God or whatever you believe in can.

God doesn't kill people and neither does death.

Diseases can kill you, bullets kill you, falling off of high rise buildings kills you. But God and death don't.

You already are dieing. All matter is in a state of decay so why give a fuck if people smoke tobacco?

That's a cheerful thought. If you think about life like that then why don't you jsut kill yourself?

And, personally I don't give a shit if people want to smoke and kill themselves but I don't wanna inhale something that's going to shorten my life.

You want to go an inhale fuems that'll kill you? Be my guest. Just don't do it around me or anyone else that doesn't want to increase their chances of getting cancer.

Life is not short, but it is shorter then you think, so I dont want my life to be cut short because of cigarettes.