Passive smoking risks in doubt, study says

Times OnLine ^ | 5/16/03 | Nigel Hawkes

[Fraulein]

Ping, ping, ping!

[Fraulein]

Ping, ping, ping!

[SAJ]

Interesting, but don't tell us.

Tell the ambulance chasers and the morons who 'serve' on tort juries.

[jwh_Denver]

This is old news. There have been tons of studies done that have shown 2nd hand smoke has no effect on anybody. We just hear about the junk science ones.

[Drew68]

I have an uncle who smokes; his wife didn’t. She is the one who died of lung cancer.

I had an aunt who never smoked in her life and died from lung cancer. These deaths are automatically attributed to second-hand smoke.

Never mind the fact that she lived in a major metropolitan area which was perpetually engulfed in a brown cloud of pollution so thick to be seen from space!

In industrial societies, people get cancer. It is not always the cigarette's fault!

[leadhead]

Next we're going to hear that you won't go blind from m........Oh, never mind.

[College Repub]

Maybe not. But the health problems caused by smoking sure have a huge effect on the pockets of taxpayers!

[BagCamAddict]

How is this breaking news?

[1_Of_We]

"the health problems caused by smoking sure have a huge effect on the pockets of taxpayers!"

Commenting just on the effect smokers have on taxpayer pockets: If not for the taxes (excessive in many states) paid by smokers, our collective pockets would have billions less dollars in them.

[Qwerty]

I'll be real annoyed if my girlfriend reads this.

Hard enough getting her to smoke outside as it is. ;-)

[The Raven]

A study confirming what everyone already knew.

[Timesink]

Yoo hoo, Mr. Bloomberg!

[evad]

How is this breaking news?

It breaks all the myths about second hand smoke?

Since noone seems to know what breaking news really is, that one's as good as any.

[LaineyDee]

In industrial societies, people get cancer. It is not always the cigarette's fault!

Unless these people were in a bubble for 40 yrs, had exactly the same type of diet, exercise habits and immune system....or the exact same environmental exposures or levels of stressors... the research is doomed from the start.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

I had three uncles who smoked, die from lung cancer. I also had a female cousin die from lung cancer who was never even around second hand smoke, of any significance. ____ happens!

[teeman8r]

i am sorry, the screen is getting harder and harder to read for some reason..... what did you type again?

[Glock19C]

I would not be surprised if there were little/no serious health problems from second-hand smoke (i.e. cardio. or cancer). I'm in no way a fan of some of the draconian crack-downs on smokers.

However, there are minor health issues, no doubt. Second-hand smoke triggers allergy type symptoms in many people (myself included) for instance.

I think we'd all benefit if:

1. Smokers would consider non-smoking / smoking areas in public places as reasonable. Not as a restriction on your rights, but as a courtesy toward non-smoker's rights to _not_ breathe your smoke. (I'd rather see this a free-market approach however, not a legislative one.)

2. Smokers would STOP THROWING THEIR BUTTS ALL OVER THE PLACE. In fairness, this is more of a problem with everyone not just smokers. There's way too much littering by pretty much everyone nowdays. This is not an enviro-nazi view, just a "do you have _no_ manners?" view.

3. Non-smokers really need to wake up to the reality that we're being very un-fair and heavy-handed with anti-smoking legislation, lawsuits and taxes. It's really crazy. I could basically care less what you do to yourself. Taxes, for instance, should be based on the costs to society for caring for smokers that do not have insurance (and perhaps cleaning up litter, but that's a slippery slope, you'd have to tax everything that can be thrown away.)

So on this issue, I'm quite the fence sitter I guess. ;-)

Do what you want to yourself, but you should expect that non-smokers don't want to be forced to stay inside their homes to avoid your smoke any more than you want to be forced to stay inside your home in order to smoke. The issue should be more of one of courtesy rather than legislation/litigation, but that's not the way things are nowdays it seems. :-(.

[teeman8r]

actually, considering most smokers die early from complications of smoking, they are less of a burden on society than those that live longer and have more health problems and require long term health care and such...

think about it. the tobacco industry should be subsidized for saving medicare some really big bucks... i also believe there is a study on this.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Has anybody told the New York state govt.? I'm sure they pretended not to hear it, smoking tickets are a new source of revenue.