-------------------------------------------------- REMINDER: Only 2 Posts Per Day Per Person --------------------------------------------------
I truly apologize for this very lengthy retort, but it�s absolutely necessary. Hope you can keep all the speakers straight. Andy on 5/8/04 4:17 PM, Thomas Swift wrote: > --- Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In fact, you are absolutely correct, Andrew; you're making nothing up. In >> addition to all of the other damaging substances in smoke, carbon monoxide, >> the same odorless, colorless, deadly gas that kills people breathing car >> exhaust fumes, pours off the burning end of a lit cigarette or cigar and is >> inhaled by everyone around them � not just the smoker. > > This is an assinine tact. > > It's a matter of perspective, which is sorely lacking here. Too much > nitrogen, which we need is poisionous, so is too much carbon dioxide without > which every plant on the planet would die. > > There is no, zero, none, study that links "second hand smoke" with any > debilitating health risk is there Driscoll? We rarely encounter on this list posts that betray the writer as so utterly and irrationally ignorant of the facts in argument and who is so wildly speculative on the motives for public policy pursuits as Thomas Swift is. Not only is he personally insulting, he dares attempt to speak as authority when he couldn't be further from it. Fortunately, I didn't have to go far for sufficient - and official - research to disabuse Mr. Swift of his presumptions. Either he�s been on another planet for the last 50 years or he simply chooses to ignore the findings of so many studies as to reach into the far corners of ignorance across this nation. Of course, knowledge and data, no matter how reliable the source, does not breed acceptance by some. Always will there be that little mouthy minority who will attempt to scream louder that the truth ain't the truth at all. That does nothing to the truth, of course. Truth will out. Laura Waterman Wittstock, one this area's finest writers and public interest advocates, in particular for her American Indian community, posted as part of a similar dialogue on the Minneapolis Discussion list, two pieces of research which refute Swift's assertions utterly. We'll start with this: On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Mike Skoglund wrote: > For that matter, given all the arguments that are flying around, are there > definitive answers on (1) health risks of second-hand smoke; or (2) the effect > of a smoking ban on various businesses. > > I've always assumed that second-hand smoke has some sort of dangerous effect, > but I don't know for sure. I'd feel more comfortable advocating a change in > law based on cancer risks than stinky overcoats. > ---------------- Two snips from the EPA site: (Note - tobacco companies attempted to sue EPA over this ruling but failed). http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html#Secondhand%20smoke%20can%20cause%20l ung%20cancer%20in%20nons mokers. Secondhand Smoke Can Cause Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers * Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). * Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year. Secondhand Smoke is a Serious Health Risk to Children * The developing lungs of young children are also affected by exposure to secondhand smoke. * Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. * Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheeze. * Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation. * Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may also cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year. ----------------------------------- [Wittstock] I added this snip because it is a strong personal concern. Children don't go into bars but they sure do go into restaurants. Their small lungs are far more susceptible as this quote shows. Best, Laura Waterman Wittstock MIGIZI Communications, Inc. http://www.migizi.org Then this: > (-Michael Libby, Cleveland neighborhood ) > > Of the 3,000 who die each year from ETS exposure, how many live in > Minneapolis? Maybe a handful. > I expect most people would want to prevent all smoke related deaths, not set a minimum of acceptable deaths. >From CDC - (The 1995-1999 total) reflects the inclusion of 35,053 secondhand smoking-attributable heart disease deaths and slightly higher smoking-related RRs for cancers, respiratory diseases, and infant conditions. The number of smoking-attributable deaths would have been greater if smoking prevalence among men, women, and pregnant women had not declined since the early 1990s. > We have no recourse for children whose health is impacted by parental smoking. > I cannot sue my mother because her smoking during my infancy may have caused > me to require many ear operations as a child and ongoing complications as an > adult .... > > Smoking bans are an attempt to regulate consensual behavior on the part of > adults. Saying that a smoking ban would protect children is disingenuous in > the absence of more serious sanctions for parents who smoke at home around > children. > C. United States Supreme Court Case Law The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the harm to be considered from secondhand smoke includes both present harm and possible future harm. Accordingly, family courts have an unqualified duty to consider the dangers of secondhand smoke to all children within their care, regardless of the condition of their health. In Helling v. McKinney, the high Court ruled that a state prisoner�s complaint stated a justiciable cause of action. The prisoner alleged that the secondhand smoke of other inmates constituted an unreasonable risk to his health, involuntarily subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court held that the prisoner�s claim was properly based upon possible future harm to health as well as present harm. Because children are like prisoners to the extent they are �captive� within the homes of their parents, secondhand smoke is a danger to those http://www.law.arizona.edu/Journals/ALR/ALR2003/vol453/Chinnock.pdf. > > Personally I think this smoking ban discussion is distracting. Let's focus on > a far more serious health threat: Motor vehicles. 43,000 people a year are > killed by motor vehicles. > By serious do you mean total numbers killed or more serious threat to health? During 1995--1999, smoking caused an annual average of 264,087 deaths among men and 178,311 deaths among women in the United States (CDC report). Back to St. Paul: Now, let's assume Mr. Swift refuses to buy those data. Here's another set from the University of Minnesota (will he accept these? I doubt it): Secondhand Smoke Facts Secondhand smoke, also known as passive or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a combination of: * Mainstream smoke: exhaled by smokers * Sidestream smoke: given off by the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe Between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes. Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans. Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzipyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so (Mayo Clinic release, Aug 97). Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer. Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease. Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries (accelerates atherosclerosis) and damages the lining of these arteries. When a pregnant woman is exposed to secondhand smoke, the nicotine she ingests is passed on to her unborn baby. Women who smoke or are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy: * have a higher rate of miscarriages and stillbirths * have an increased risk of low birth weight infants * have children born with decreased lung function * have children with greater risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to experience increased frequency of: * asthma, colds, bronchitis, pneumonia, and other lung diseases * middle ear infections * sinus infections * caries in deciduous teeth Ventilation systems and designated smoking sections do not protect patrons from ETS. Current estimates of how smoking increases the risk of various diseases are dramatically underestimated because the ill effects of secondhand smoke inhalation are not taken into account. Now this - also from the University of MN (Did you say the ONLY chemical we can get too much of is nitrogen, Swift?) Here�s what OSHA says, too: If you are exposed to hazardous chemicals you have the right to be informed of their effects. �Occupational Safety and Health Administration With each puff of smoke, the body is exposed to over 4000 chemicals, over 50 of which are known to cause cancer. A few of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are listed below. Compound Released � Additional Information about Compound ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Nicotine � Insecticide/addictive drug > Cresol � Main ingredient for industrial plastics and > adhesives > Pyrene � A main constituent of coal tar > DDT � A pesticide that has been banned from use > Carbon Monoxide Bonds with oxygen in blood cells to cause suffocation Car > exhaust fumes > Ammonia � Used for stripping wax from floors, removing varnish > Often a toilet bowl cleaner > > Hydrogen Cyanide A fumigation poison banned from international use > Acetone � Main ingredient in fingernail polish remover > Methanol � Used as rocket fuel > Formaldehyde � Embalming fluid > Butane � Cigarette lighter fluid > Naphalene � Moth balls > Nitrobenzene � Gasoline additive > Arsenic � Poison > Cadmium � Found in batteries > Toluene � Industrial solvent > Isoprene � Natural base for tire rubber > There�s more � a whole list of sites at: <http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/didactic.html> A consolidation of Second-Hand Smoke data: <http://www.no-smoke.org/ets.html> >> [Driscoll] It intrudes on no one's right to smoke, only on their ability to >> create a poisonous atmosphere for workers who can't escape it and others in >> the rooms - the bars and restaurants, including so-called "non-smoking" areas >> where you still can't escape it. >> > You're right Driscoll. It intrudes on the freedom of business owners to set > their own rules of conduct within the businesses that they paid for, took > the risk of opening and pay the taxes for that enable the stinkin' > government to crush their (and our) freedoms. Swift�s libertarian rant notwithstanding, those businesses are licensed to do business because what they sell or produce has ramifications for the public�s health. No freedoms get crushed in this. It�s just like any other change in business conditions to which all businesses must adapt � or fold. If they face a downturn in the economy, they must adjust something or die. If they lose a key employee, they must adjust. If health regulations are changed to protect the public, they must adjust, or be shut down. We�re talking only about restaurants and bars right now. If someone picked up salmonella or E coli in the food or drink of a restaurant, they could die, so we put regulations in place to protect us from that, and still we find occasions where it occurs. If someone picked up asthma or emphysema or deadly carbon monoxide poisoning from sitting in that same restaurant�s air, The restaurant should be liable for it. > And of course since you believe that any shmo has the right to any job at > any time the fact that non-smoking employees now enjoy the right to come and > go as they please never enters your mind. > > This is not Thune's doing any more than his gay marriage proclamation, he's > not principled enough for any of that; as his former supporters have learned > Dave does what is good for Dave. He's merely shoring up his damaged liberal > paint job. > A worker�s 8 hours a day, five or six days a week toiling in that infested air clearly could make them seriously sick � short- and long-term. Workers really haven�t the choices Swift would have you believe they have. When people need work, they need work, and for years, it�s been a buyers� market for jobs, making it all but impossible to quit a job for this kind of health reason � unless of course, one finally keels over from it. And do I believe any �shmoe� deserves a job, smoker or nonsmoker alike? Damned right I do. >> Senkler wants us all to believe a smoking ban will drive him and other places >> out of business. First of all, this is simply not true. The evidence from all >> points east and west where smoking bans have been enacted report a general >> increase - often a doubling - in patronage and profits for those places. New >> York City (Manhattan), California, Florida and many local town and cities - >> all have hailed the change. >> > > Oh yea? That's not the report comming from Duluth pal. Duluth, you say, PAL? Duluth? Please. Get serious. One bar in Duluth loses some liquor sales and this contravenes thousands of establishments in three massive states who rely even more on tourism than Minnesota? Are readers here starting to get this? > > The "benifits" came when the states that you've cited made the ban > statewide. Before that, smokers merely went where they could smoke: and that > hurt and killed long established businesses. > > At least have the common decency to admit that you are fighting for your > cause no matter the consequences to any one else, then at the least you'll > be awarded the rights of honesty. Oh, this one�s a lob: Of course I�m fighting for a cause (not MY cause), regardless of SOME consequences. The consequences of not banning smoke in bars and restaurants is far worse than the consequences on a few stubborn bar owners who have no idea how much better business can be until they do have to stop the smoke. Honest enough? I�ll take that award now. Actually an admission you�ve been all wet all along will suffice. _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
