On 6/22/04 9:13 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You also brought up the CATO Institute report once again, along with its > critique--but again you failed to note that the critique addressed only the > issue of direct smoking, not secondhand smoke. > > I've never argued, nor will I, that direct smoking isn't harmful. Nor would > I argue that secondhand smoke wouldn't cause cancer if you exposed someone to > a high level of it over a long period of time--a level equivalent to what a > smoker is exposed to by direct smoking. But even the worst ventilated bar > doesn't do that.
My focus has been on the characteristics of the smoke itself. If you recognize that direct smoking is harmful, then you have to recognize that secondhand smoke is harmful. It's the same stuff. > We are exposed daily to many, many "known carcinogens." After all, saccarine > is a known carcinogen, and people use that daily. The trick is understanding > how many dozen diet sodas the rats have to drink every day to get the cancer. Actually, saccharin has never been classified as a "known" carcinogen. It has been classified as a "reasonably anticipated" carcinogen. I agree it's a little nitpicky, but there is a significant difference between the two. The "known" category is reserved for those substances for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans that indicates a cause and effect relationship between the exposure and human cancer. The "reasonably anticipated" category includes those substances for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and/or sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. The other significant difference between saccharin and tobacco smoke is that there's no documented cases of anyone ever having been subjected to secondhand saccharin exposure. > Argue all you want about how you don't like it, it makes you sneeze, it > smells bad, it makes your hair unpleasant. That's fine, and perfectly valid as > far as it goes. But if you're going to say it kills people, then you need to > put up some serious, uncontested evidence of this--and it hasn't happened yet. I think I've been pretty consistent in simply arguing that secondhand smoke is harmful without necessarily calling it lethal. I don't have to - there was a doctor who wrote in to the PiPress saying that "1.8 percent of all U.S. deaths are due to secondhand smoke" http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/letters/8972961.ht m The letter writer seemed to be minimizing the significance of that figure because 1.8% sounds pretty small. All I wanted to do with it was create a better context for just what that means. 1.8% of the annual deaths in the U.S. is almost 45,000 people, more than are killed by homicides each year. Pardon me if I find that significant. On 6/23/04 3:18 PM, "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An analogy of smoking rooms to automobiles would be for risky drivers > to only be allowed to drive dangerously only on roadways that > are not connected to rest of the highway system (of course > they'd also have to drive non-polluting cars as well). Right. Who's in favor of building a separate roadway system for risky drivers to drive on to keep them isolated from the rest of us? Anybody? So why would it make sense to build separate rooms in bars and restaurants for smokers to smoke in? If we hold drivers accountable for behaving responsibly with regards to those around them through our traffic laws, why wouldn't it be OK to hold smokers accountable for behaving responsibly with regards to those around them by setting limits on where people can smoke? 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
