On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 23:07, Mark Snyder wrote: > 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.
Cigarette smoke is toxic? No it isn't. I inhaled a bunch of it last night because I was near some smokers and I didn't even get sick, let alone die. That's some poison! Usually when I use the word "toxic" I mean that ingesting the alleged toxin will cause immediate illness or death. I have no doubt that cigarette smoke contains some compounds that can legitimately called toxins. The problem is that apparently the quantities found in cigarette smoke are not toxic. I mean, water is toxic if too much is inhaled. Should we ban water, like the town of Aliso Viejo nearly did in California (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1176710,00.html)? Maybe we should avoid the use of misleading words like "toxic" when it's clear that no one is dying from a simple exposure to smoke (aside from people with existing conditions, allergies, etc). Apparently the problem for smokers is long term, repeated, daily, frequent exposure to this smoke. > 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. If that boggles your mind, I don't know what to say. The idea that there is no difference between intentionally sucking in large quantities of cigarette smoke around 20 times a day for years on end and occasionally being in a smoky environment for a few hours at a time is mind boggling to me. In fact, the evidence from the studies is clear. Smoking cigarettes is correlated with a much higher incidence of certain diseases. The correlation for secondhand smoke and higher incidence of disease is much lower. Some might say it's so low that it would be hard to prove causality-- especially given that these types of social questions are notoriously difficult to study in terms of isolating the dependent variable. > 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. You're right, we don't always need a study to prove something. But in this case we do. The common sense of it just doesn't hold up. The body handles a wide variety of toxins and invasive organisms with miraculous ability. To assert that infrequent, indirect exposure to secondhand smoke is somehow different than exposure to other environmental hazards flies in the face of reason. Yes, studies must be done and they must be beyond reproach before we base public policy on the idea that casual exposure to smoke is "toxic". Otherwise why do not have rules forbidding those infected by airborne or touch-borne infectious diseases from going out in public without adequate protections? I have heard that in some parts of the world it is, or has been, the custom, for people with colds and the like to wear a mask over the nose and throat when going out in order to protect others. Perhaps we could have the Minnesota version that simply makes it a crime to have the sniffles and not be wearing a mask? > It's even worse when it's harming people who didn't even make that choice. That may actually be true, but it is far more likely that those people are children living in the homes of smokers than adults going to the bar to watch a band play. This ban does nothing to help those children. As for my own health (and yours). If we are concerned about the effects of secondhand smoke we can CHOOSE to stay out of places that allow smoking (although we can't avoid it so much at bus stops or when trying to enter buildings where smokers congregate around doorways-- none of which is prevented by this proposed ordinance). Yes, I agree it's too bad that I can't go to a show at First Ave or have a drink with some friends at a wide variety of bars without inhaling some smoke, but no one is forcing me to go to those places. Given that I've had hundreds of experiences dining out and going to cafes and the like where there was no smoke I was aware of, I'd say this ban is mostly about trying to force a very few niche establishments to change their ways to please a minority of their customers. -Michael Libby, Cleveland Neighborhood www.andsoforth.com 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
