Smoking's giving drinking a bad name

The Newark Star-Ledger ^ | April 01, 2004 | Paul Mulshine

[dallasgop]

GABZ asked "What evidence of harmful effects of SHS other than to those with pre-existing conditions?????"

Asthmatic kids' lungs react fast to 2nd-hand smoke

---

Last Updated: 2003-03-12 12:00:18 -0400 (Reuters Health)

DENVER (Reuters Health) - Children with asthma have worse lung function just a day after being exposed to second-hand smoke, according to a new study by Colorado researchers.

But when parents don't smoke at home or in the family car, the effect of smoke on their child's lungs is less severe, noted Dr. Nathan Rabinovitch of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.

"The good news is that keeping the smoke outside the home makes a difference, although children will still get some tobacco exposure," he told Reuters Health. Rabinovitch presented the findings here this week at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology's annual meeting.

He studied the effects of second-hand smoke by recruiting 40 schoolchildren with moderate to severe asthma and observing them over a four-month period.

Children wore a small, portable monitor that measured tiny airborne particles to gauge their second-hand smoke exposure. Their lung function was tested twice daily, at which time the filters in the monitors were weighed to gauge smoke exposure.

Rabinovitch and his colleagues found that children living with smokers were exposed to more airborne particles than were kids from non-smoking households.

But when parents only smoked outside of the house, their children were exposed to 30 percent fewer particles than were children whose parents smoked indoors.

On the day after the exposure, a child's lung function was lower in proportion to the amount of second-hand smoke he or she had inhaled. The investigators documented no such changes in the children in non-smoking households.

These findings show that banishing smoke from the house may decrease asthma severity in children whose family members smoke, Rabinovitch said.


Copyright 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.









NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
251 EAST HURON STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60611
312.926.2000

[Gabz]

In other words, nothing that is proof of causation, as opposed to correlation..........

I have never claimed smoking is a healthly habit, and have never encouraged anyone to take it up - but I've read all the studies that have been made public and have at least read the abstract of the the most conclusive one that is being supressed because it proves that exposure to SHS is not harmful in the way the antis wish it to be.

Reaction to SHS smoke because of a pre-existing condition is not any kind of proof that SHS causes anything.

I go back to my original premise - if you don't want to be around it, don't go where you know it is permitted and don't blame the smokers for your negligence of taking your children to where it is permitted.

I got a call last month from the school nurse because my daughter was complaining about an earache.....I didn't get a call out of some SOP, I got the call because it is so unusual for my daughter to be sick at all. A quick dental exam solved the problem - a popcorn skin caught up in the gum.

It's a sad thing that a child that has been exposed to SHS is so healthy, isn't it? I wonder how I made it to 43 or my husband made it to 49.........and in perfect health.

According to the experts we both should have been dead before we even bothered to start a family, so would his parents and my parents.

[Reddy]

I am a conservative who values personal freedom. And I disagree with wrapping the smoking issue in the mantle of personal freedom. Citizens have the personal freedom to jump off a roof, but they don't have the personal freedom to land on innocent bystanders.

I have a similar story to dallasgop. My mother smoked many years because, goshdarnit (not the word she used) it was her right to do so. She is currently dying from small cell lung cancer. It's not a good way to go. As was mentioned in another post, it was her decision to smoke. But did the use of her "personal freedom" to smoke affect anyone else? Disregard the issue of SHS. Who takes care of her? Who pays for her medical bills? (We all help, she goes to the VA.) Other people are attending to the consequences of her "personal freedom". So you see, smoking is not a "personal" freedom issue. No man is an island.

I guess I wonder why a conservative would use smoking as a banner for personal freedom? Someone mentioned in an earlier post that their mother is ill because of her poor nutritional choices. Big difference, we all must eat, but there is no necessity to drag on a burning piece of weed hanging out of your mouth.

I'm glad that NYC has given businesses the ability to not have smokers on their premises. My mother wouldn't go anyplace where she wasn't allowed to smoke. Smoke free environments might have given her the impetus to stop or never start.

Donning flame (and smoke) resistant suit.

[dallasgop]

Gabz, You are in denial and seem to be blind to the facts.

[NYCVirago]

As was mentioned in another post, it was her decision to smoke. But did the use of her "personal freedom" to smoke affect anyone else? Disregard the issue of SHS. Who takes care of her? Who pays for her medical bills? (We all help, she goes to the VA.) Other people are attending to the consequences of her "personal freedom". So you see, smoking is not a "personal" freedom issue. No man is an island.

But where do you stop? Alcoholics often need new livers because of their lifestyle choices (and if they're celebrities, they usually get to the front of the line, but that's for another thread.) People get AIDS from their own lifestyle choices. Obese people have all sorts of health complications due to their lifestyle choices. Do you see what a slippery slope there is once you start legislating against these things?

[EveningStar]

I haven't fully digested this article, but Mulshine is one of my favorite columnists.

[Gabz]

I will keep your mother in my prayers.

I don't see anyone wrapping smoking in the mantle of personal freedom, including myself. My references generally regard to rights of private property owners.

I'm glad that NYC has given businesses the ability to not have smokers on their premises.

NYC did no such thing, all businesses have always had that ability. What NYC (and NYS, as well as California, Delaware, Maine, etc)have done is remove the ability of businesses to have smoking on their premises.

I am pretty sure those of you extolling the virtues of the smoking bans would be the first to scream if the government mandated that all business be required to permit smoking. However, it is the same principle, if you agree the government has the right to do one, you then agree it has the right to do the other.

This has nothing to do with my being able to smoke in someone else's establishment, I happen to patronize establishments that voluntarily prohibit smoking for a variety of reasons....just like I have a variety of reasons for patronizing those that permit smoking. However, except when absolutely necessary, I do not patronize establishments that have been forced at gun point (government edict) to ban smoking. My reason is the government obviously isn't interested enough in my tax dollars to accomodate me, so I have no intentions of further giving them any more of my tax dollars than is absolutely necessary.

[Ditter]

How is the fight with the mold going? Are you winning or is the mold winning?

[Gabz]

I believe we are winning. It has been an extremely wet winter and early spring (I forget what the sun looks like!) but I haven't found any new mold in a while....it seems the more I paint, the less I find. hurray!!

Thank you for asking.

[Ditter]

Nasty stuff that mold, but not everyone is not affected. I know a family of 5 & only the 13 year old girl was made sick by it. They were about to take her to a psychiatrist when they discovered the reason she refused to go to school or even to get out of bed.
In our family it was only me. My husband, children or grandchildren were not bothered at all. Possibly they would have been by longer exposures.

It was in our weekend house on the bay & none of us spent more than one night per week there. That was enough for me to be terribly sick but not the others. We sold it (as is) rather than go the the HUGE expense of fixing it. I still miss that place. sigh

[Reddy]

The examples you mention, aside from maybe alcoholism, are all the results of unhealthy choices during the course of living a life (eating, sex). Smoking, OTOH, is something that is totally unnecessary. My concern was that conservatives would use the right to personal freedom to extol smoking, which is harmful to the person actually smoking as well as those around them. I don't want more government intrusion in my life, but as I said, if it helps even one person quit or not start or not be affected by SHS for x amount of time, it's a good thing.

[Reddy]

Thank you for your prayers for my mother. It is hard to watch someone go through.

Maybe I was unclear, but my concern about smoking and personal freedom was meant for business owners, too. Removing the ability to have smoking on your premises just doesn't seem like a negative. You stated that if I believe smoking can be prohibited, then conversely the mandating of smoking should be permitted. I get your point. I just don't understand why a business owner would WANT to purposely increase the chances of their patrons getting lung cancer.

I don't like government intrusion into my life any more than you do. But in the instance of smoking, less is always better.

[Gabz]

I remember you telling me about having to get rid of that house and how much you miss it.

As the family you mention, we were on the verge of taking our daughter to the doctor because of her behavioral problems..............since we discovered the mold, and believe we have eliminated the source, I have not gotten any calls from school about her behavior. In fact the last time I spoke with her teacher we discussed the total change in her ..........

[Ditter]

Glad to hear you have gotten a handle on the problem. Now that you know what was bothering your family, you can avoid it.

[Gabz]

The lingering illness of anyone, for any reason is a horrible experience for anyone.

I'm glad you seem to get at least part of my point. In the case of these smoking bans, many of them, including NYC, NYS and Delaware, they effect EVERY business, not just bars and/or restaurants. What you are advocating is the denial of a property owner to freely use his/her property as they see fit.

There is absolutely no statistically significant proof that exposure to the tobacco smoke of others does anything more than possibly exacerbate an already existing condition or be annoying to some people.

Is smoking a healthy habit? I don't know anyone who would say yes, including myself. Is it a sure thing death sentence to anyone that does it? Absolutely not.

And by going along with the statistics, a non-smoker has a higher chance of getting lung cancer from drinking whole milk than from exposure to second hand smoke. Of course neither risk is statistically significant and therefore should not be given any significant notice.

I do not promote smoking, in fact I am the first to be supportive of those who choose to stop doing so, but on the other hand, I despise the misuse of science and statistics to promote something that actually amounts to nothing more than social engineering.

I truly wisdh that even 1/4 of the money, time and effort that has been invested in attacking smokers and the businesses that choose them as their customers was spent in shutting down the abortion industry........which is a 100% proven killer. In my 20+ years of professional involvement with government (I do not and have never worked for any government agency) I have found a very common thread among those who support a woman's right to "choose" - they are among the most vocal in working to remove choices in other areas whether it be seat belts, guns, or smoking.

[NYCVirago]

I don't want more government intrusion in my life, but as I said, if it helps even one person quit or not start or not be affected by SHS for x amount of time, it's a good thing.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but you're using the rationale that liberals say about virtually every proposal they want, particularly the part about how "if it helps even one person."

[Reddy]

There is statistical proof that 4000 smokers contract lung cancer to the 1 non-smoker that develops lung cancer. And if smoking admittedly exacerbates an already existing condition, then why allow it?

Would you please direct me to the site for the documentation for this statement- "a nonsmoker has a higher chance of getting lung cancer from drinking whole milk than from exposure to second hand smoke"?

ITA with your statement about time, money and effort going to appropriate causes. Had my mother never smoked, the probability of her getting lc would have been astronomically reduced, that would have been money well spent.

[Reddy]

I don't think that being against smoking has to be a liberal position. And I don't think desiring that no one would have to endure the horror of lung cancer is a liberal, position, either.

At least I didn't say, "It's for the children!"

[NYCVirago]

I don't think that being against smoking has to be a liberal position. And I don't think desiring that no one would have to endure the horror of lung cancer is a liberal, position, either. At least I didn't say, "It's for the children!"

You know, I was going to tell you in my response that I was glad you didn't use the "it's for the children" excuse!

[Gabz]

There is a 1.19 chance of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer because of SHS (19% increase). There is a 1.65 chance of contracting lung cancer from drinking whole milk (65% increase).

Neither increase is statistically significant, and even the EPA pooh-poohs the milk incident as insignificant, yet pushes the far less incident of SHS exposre as a MAJOR problem. I am sorry to be unable to provide a direct link to the info, but my references to it are on my other hard-drive. It is probably from the NCI, NIH or EPA......but whichever one it is, they keep it fairly well-hidden (I wonder why) a direct link to the government info can probably be found at the Forces.com website.....if you can bring yourself to look at a site that opposes your view, but backs up everything it says with citations and science.

I'm not looking for an arguement about smokers and their elevated risks - I've already acknowleged them. Smoking bans are not about smokers smoking........they are about "protecting" others.....including many people that never asked for such "protection."

I'm sure the bartenders and waitstaff who have been "protected" right out of jobs thank you for your promotion of the bans......and I know a lot of them in Delaware. I have a friend here in VA who's band no longer even bothers with gigs in Delaware. The places they used to play can no longer pay them because business is so off because of the ban.

No one is forcing anyone to enter an establishment that permits smoking and no one is forcing anyone to work there either. If there was such a demand for non-smoking places there would have been lots more of them, without government intrusion. And that is another unacknowleged casualty of the smoking bans, the establishments who built their clientele on the market of non-smokers....those businesses have also been hurt.

You are trying to convince me, because of your personal experience, that is quite alright with you to put another person out of business just because you don't like something he chooses to do. Cigar bars were created for like minded folks to have the freedom of assembly with other like minded folks. Many tobacconists and tobacco shops regularly had special nights for their customers.......not any more. All because people like you refuse to allow the owner of an establishment to choose his/her own clientele and build a business.

I don't believe you understood my comment regarding time, effort and money at all.........