On 6/3/04 9:58 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read with interest Mark Snyder's response to my post on how the smoke > banners' two pet studies didn't support the idea that secondhand smoke causes > lung cancer. > > The problem I have with Mark's response is that he didn't address my > arguement, which was: There is no hard evidence that secondhand smoke is > killing people. > > I'm not argueing that direct cigarette smoking isn't linked to fatal > diseases. The point is that secondhand smoke isn't linked. It's discussions like this that make me glad I chose the career path I did. I'm glad that M.G.'s not arguing that direct cigarette smoking isn't bad for you, since that makes my task easier. However, it would appear that M.G.'s argument is that if there isn't a bunch of studies and reports saying something is bad, then it must be OK. Here's why it's not OK. There are two components to secondhand smoke. One is what is exhaled by the smoker. This is of similar composition to what is inhaled by the smoker, but no longer contains some of the toxic chemicals that lodged themselves in the smoker's lungs or somewhere else along that path from the mouth to the lungs. So it's probably slightly less toxic than what smokers inhaled to begin with. The other component is what comes off the burning tip of the cigarette. This stuff is probably a bit more toxic than what the smoker inhales. The reason for that is because cigarettes contain a filter at the end that traps some of the toxic chemicals contained in the smoke before it enters the mouth and respiratory system of the smoker. Unfortunately, no cigarette manufacturer has figured out a way to make a filter for the burning end to protect the rest of us. In other words, cigarette smoke is pretty darn toxic and it really doesn't matter whether it's directly inhaled by the smoker or inhaled as secondhand smoke by someone nearby. Maybe it's because I'm a chemist and I have more experience with this kind of stuff, but I don't need a report or a study or series of statistical analyses to tell me that, regardless of whether it's direct or secondhand, cigarette smoke is toxic. This whole idea of there being some major difference between the two is actually kind of mind-boggling to me. It's like arguing the difference between being shot by a gun pointed directly at you or being struck by a ricocheting bullet from a gun pointed in another direction. I think it's pretty evident that either scenario is really gonna suck. I'm sorry if I've disappointed anyone who was looking forward to a bunch of links to reports showing just how harmful secondhand smoke is, but the simple fact of the matter is that I don't need to read that X number of people died from secondhand smoke inhalation or Y number of people developed asthma or whatever in order to understand that secondhand smoke is not good for you. It's essentially the same stuff that pretty much everyone under the sun (shy of the Cato Institute and some die-hard tobacco industry loyalists) has agreed is killing way too damn many people that actually chose to use the product. It's even worse when it's harming people who didn't even make that choice. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
