>From the Pioneer Press letter written by Dr. Carl Hasbargen: > I think there should be reasoned discussion about this matter. Perhaps we > want to ban smoking, but we should not scare the public into thinking that > secondhand smoke puts them at nearly as much risk as smoking itself does. It > is pure deception to suggest that it does.
I agree with the doctor that there should be reasoned discussion on this matter. According to the National Vital Statistics Reports published by the Centers for Disease Control, a total of 2,416,425 deaths occurred in the United States in 2001. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf 1.8% of 2,416,425 would be 43,496 people. Assuming a population of 280 million, it also works out to 15.5 deaths per 100,000 people living in the U.S. The reason I cite that figure is because it's a common reference used for evaluating death rates. Looking at Table C on page 8 of the report I've cited above, it would appear that deaths related to secondhand smoke exposure are more common then death by homicide (7.1 per 100,000), suicide (10.7 per 100,000), chronic liver disease/cirrhosis (9.5 per 100,000) and hypertension (6.8 per 100,000). Of course, it doesn't show up directly on the table because the deaths are actually attributed to things like "Diseases of heart (heart disease)" or "Malignant neoplasms (cancer)" I find the comparison to homicides particularly interesting in light of the folks who blithely dismissed this smoking ban discussion as trivial in light of important things like homicides taking place in the city... ---------- On 6/20/04 7:44 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All of the organizations you mentioned base their arguements on the 1998 WHO > report and the 1993 EPA report. In the case of the former, the report admits > it finds at very best a weak and statistically insignificant link. With the > EPA report, a federal judge found that the agency had ignored contrary data > to produce a report which agreed with the agency's political motivations. In > other words, they cheated. > > So, if you have good information, produce it. Otherwise, you're free to rant > any way you like. But don't act as if the weight of scientific evidence is > behind you, because it isn't. M.G. posted something along these lines earlier this month and cited a Cato Institute report from 1998 to back it up. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf To debunk it, I shared the following rebuttal: http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.498/pub_detail.asp Since that apparently wasn't convincing enough for M.G. and in light of the fact that this Cato Institute report is six years old, I thought I'd share some other references. Did you know secondhand smoke has been classified as a "known" carcinogen? see: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ets.htm http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/2nd/pdf/tobaccosmoke.pdf key statement: "Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a known human carcinogen, and persistent exposure to ETS is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and other diseases." As for the idea that there are only two references citing the harms associated with secondhand smoke, here's some more for you. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s176toba.pdf References start on page 5 and run through page 7. Yes, that's two PAGES worth of references. Anyone else want to continue this silly argument that we don't know enough about secondhand smoke to cite it as harmful? -------- On 6/21/04 1:55 PM, "phaedrus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The right in question is the right to make one's own > decisions about how one lives one's own life. Is that > not my right? Is it not yours? If it isn't, I've got > a whole list of things I'd like to see changed... Again, nobody's trying to take away anyone's "right to make one's own decisions about how one lives one's own life" It's simply a matter of stating that one who chooses to smoke doesn't get to do it anywhere they please. Just like I can't wander into a park with a six pack of my favorite microbrew and work my way through it or drive on the sidewalk to get around some messy traffic or ride an ATV through wetlands. > Who appreciates Robert Yorga for expressing the views I thought the Green > party believed in - from the smoking ban... As a Green Party member, I'm kind of curious what was meant by this. My suspicion is that it's a reference to the Green value of personal responsibility and that those who wish to avoid secondhand smoke exposure should just take it upon themselves to avoid it rather than have the government play any role. My question in response to that is what about the personal responsibility of the smoker to ensure others are not being harmed (or even just annoyed) from their activities? It would seem that those who oppose a smoking ban think it's OK for smokers to shirk their responsibilities and the rest of us just have to deal with it. That seems more selfish to me than for nonsmokers to want to be able to have a meal or a drink without having to deal with someone else's smoke. I'm also kind of curious how some of the anti-smoking ban folks feel about this discussion going on regarding pedestrians/bicycle riders vs. automobile drivers since there would appear to be some similarities. You've got pedestrians (nonsmokers) being threatened by drivers (smokers). Whose responsibility is it to accommodate who? 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
