Posted on 01/30/2007 11:38:44 AM PST by neverdem
Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.
Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that...
--snip--
In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.
Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."
It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
B. Thirteen months ago, my father died of stage 4 large cell carcinoma of the lungs.
He was a two-pack-a-day smoker for 27 years. He quit 27 years before his death, but it turns out that 30% of lung cancers happen in former smokers.
I fear a government with arbitrary power to interfere in our private lives more than I fear second-hand smoke, the risks of which are real but small. But I do hate smoking!
I like your style.
Very good. :O)
I always wondered how they came up with that one. Since the smoker is always the closest to the smoker (himself) he gets both the firsthand smoke AND the secondhand smoke. If that's safer than the guy a few feet away getting just the secondhand smoke, then that would imply the firsthand smoke is actualy improving his situation!
LOL! Brilliant -- you've certainly covered all the bases!
"That said, I have no problem with people smoking as long as it doesn't directly affect the reasonable comfort of me or my loved ones."
That is very easily resolved, just don't allow smoking on the property you own and avoid the places that allow smoking and are owned by another entity. It sounds like that is what you did, which is the market at work...
"You make money for the both at a relatively low cost, and they want to tap you as long as possible."
The flaw in your logic is that the smoking employee will generally live to retirement, then will become very expensive for the employer with no productivity. This is the same as the non-smoking employee. The difference is that, per the touted costs by many nannystaters, the smoking retiree will die sooner in their non-productive years. Therefore, resulting in a savings to the business/industry.
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.