Where should smoking be illegal?

Sun, 29 May 2016 12:16:55 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

You might wanna talk to big pharma if you have an issue with the sale of addictive drugs (which are known for sure to be dangerous and lethal if taken in the wrong dosages or mixed with other drugs) to our young and old people. They don't discriminate.
They make the tobacco industry look like cub-scouts by comparison. They've got it locked down. They're so good at it, the illegal drugs are worried they'll be out of business, and, the feds won't even have to do anything. 'Worried about getting busted John? No Jim, I'm worried about lost sales of cocaine to aderol. It's kicking my ass and it's pharmas" Kids these days would rather pop a pill than do a nice line.. you know it's bad when that's the word on the street. LOL
--
MID: <nb7u27$crn$ snipped-for-privacy@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 12:31:48 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

smokers need to know and accept they are now 3rd class citizens, with their filthy dirty disquisting habit......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Wow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Vic Smith wrote:

makes ya warm and fuzzy, doesn't it? betcha he has a different opinion of ILLEGAL immigrants, though
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is interesting that we treat smokers worse than opiate addicts, drunks and the morbidly obese even though those 3 groups have a worse effect on society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per snipped-for-privacy@aol.com:

Agreed.... but none of them stink and none of them directly effect us on a person-to-person basis (unless we get robbed by an addict).
There's something about separate parts of the brain for "Here-and-now" stuff and more abstract stuff.... and the "Here-and-now" part tends to overrule the more abstract part.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Lots of drug addicts, drunks and fat folks smell bad. If you don't think the obese have an immediate effect on you, I imagine you never fly. I would rather be sitting between 2 cigar smokers in coach than between two 300 pounders. Most of the rational arguments against smokers comes down to financial cost and that pales in comparison to drugs, alcohol and obesity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/5/2016 10:58 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Those are all separate issues, and none of them negate the validity of the problems and medical issues secondhand smoke causes.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I notice you were quiet for a while after I actually put government supplied numbers to that danger ... like needing to smoke over 1000 cigarettes in a small closed room to get to the OSHA TLV for the most dangerous chemicals in cigarette smoke... but fuck science, you are offended by the smell so we need to do what you want. I am offended by the smell of a sweaty fat guy encroaching into my seat space on a plane but I am not getting any help. I have to buy a first class ticket for relief. Maybe the government should subsidize that. Instead they subsidize the drug and alcohol problems of the addicts on SSI for their addictions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/5/2016 11:54 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I responded to your last post about your government supplied numbers.
..........
"Can you provide your source that documents those chemicals at those levels are present in a whiff of smoke, and that it's safe to inhale?" ...........
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:31:10 -0500
"Nice chart, but there are 7000 chemicals in secondhand smoke, and your link doesn't reference anything about allergies." ...........
You've never addressed the 7000 chemicals in secondhand smoke, or even provided evidence the chemicals you listed *exist* in the measured doses you provided in your comments here.
You're the one who claims the OSHA levels don't exceed those measurements. You prove a whiff of smoke is safe.
YOU: "OK demonstrate that a whiff of smoke exceeds these OSHA levels"
Contaminant PEL STEL Carbon Monoxide 35 ppm 200 ppm Nicotine 0.5 mg/m3 Sulfur Dioxide 2 ppm 5 ppm Ammonia 35 ppm Nitric Oxide 25 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 ppm Vinyl Chloride 1 ppm 5 ppm Hydrogen Cyanide 4.7 ppm Formaldehyde 1 ppm 2 ppm Benzene 1 ppm 5 ppm Arsenic 0.1 mg/m3 ...........

Separate issues and irrelevant to the issue of secondhand smoke.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I referenced the chemicals that were dangerous according to our government and trace amounts are not dangerous. What part of that confuses you?
If we regulated everything that some .01% of the people could actually demonstrate a clinical allergy to, not a psychosomatic aversion, we would not have much left in this country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/5/2016 2:02 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I'd sure like to have smoking banned every where.
We would have a lot of Mormons left.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote: ...

So regulation that libs would impose sucks until it fits your agenda?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/5/2016 1:02 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Not dangerous?? How do you know 10 times that amount isn't in a puff of secondhand smoke? You're information doesn't reference anything related to secondhand smoke, or the combination of 7000 chemicals present, OR how it's related to allergic responses, let alone the amounts contained in secondhand smoke or how they interact with each chemical - possibly even making them more dangerous to inhale BECAUSE of them interacting.

Your statement is irrelevant to the issue we're discussing.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/05/2016 07:02 PM, Muggles wrote:
[snip]

Still the "one instance" fallacy? As if "one puff" is all there is.
[snip]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The preeminent safety organization in the government sets daily limits for toxins and the concentrations in second hand smoke does not even bump the needle. I gave the example of Chlorine, one of the deadliest war gasses ever unleashed on mankind yet getting a little whiff when you pour bleach into your washer is harmless and they put it in your drinking water. Typical municipal water runs about 3ppm chlorine and that is far higher than any of the toxins in cigarette smoke. How many thousands of gallons of water do you use in a year?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/7/2016 12:57 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Even one puff of tobacco harmful, reports surgeon general
he 704-page report, the 30th surgeon general's report to address tobacco, "validates earlier findings, expands and strengthens the science base, and describes in great detail the multiple ways that tobacco smoke damages every organ in the body, resulting in disease and death," according to its executive summary.
Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke. *Even a whiff of tobacco smoke* can adversely affect the body, the report concludes.
"The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale, causing damage immediately," Surgeon General Regina Benjamin said in a statement. "*Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA*, which can lead to cancer."
The lining of the lungs becomes inflamed as soon as it is exposed to cigarette smoke, and, over time, the smoke can cause chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, according to the report. *Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and can trigger heart attacks*. Chemicals in tobacco smoke quickly damage blood vessels and make blood more likely to clot, increasing the risk for heart attacks, strokes and aneurysms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120905910.html
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:25:16 -0500, Muggles

That sounds more like opinion than science. If this was true ... "Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals and compounds, including hundreds that are toxic and at least 70 that cause cancer, according to the report. That means there is no "risk-free level of exposure" to tobacco smoke."
... It would not be safe to leave the oxygen tent because most of those chemicals are present from other sources every day. If you believe this bullshit, maybe we should be talking about the chemicals in a milk bottle.,
Bear in mind the SG is not a scientist, she is a political appointee
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/8/2016 5:52 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I also posted a second article that is a study with 26 extensive references. Why'd you ignore it? This website contains studies related to this topic, too. I'll post another one - see other post.
Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Research The Effect of a Single Cigarette Puff on Air Flow in the Lungs.
A puff of cigarette is estimated to contain 1016 oxidants. The degree of smoking or smoke exposure can be ascertained by measuring the serum levels of continine (a metabolite of nicotine)
Inhalation of cigarette puff has an immediate effect on respiration by increasing airway resistance and therefore reducing the amount of oxygen absorbed into the body.4
The present study was designed to examine the effect of cigarette puff on lung function. It is unique in that it focuses on the acute response to a single puff of cigarette smoker.
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jm07001
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, PEFR was reduced after a puff of cigarette. Smoking status influenced the PEFR value as smokers had substantially lower values at the outset of the study. It is well known that from a puff of cigarette, smokers move to a stick and then from sticks to addiction and so the effects accumulate. The effect of tobacco smoking can be deleterious. If a single puff increases airway resistance and reduces PEFR, chronic smoking is bound to do much damage to the lungs.
References
-Bartel M. Health effect of Tobacco use and exposure. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2001; 56: 545-550. -Winstanley M, Woodward S and Walker N. Tobacco in Australia, Facts and Issues. Austrl Ann Med 1995; 16: 31-40. -Jaakkola M, Jaakkolan P, Ernst P, Becklate M. Ventilatory Lung function in young cigarette smokers: a study of susceptibility. Eur Respir J 1991; 4: 643-650. -Gold D. Wang XB, Wypij D, Speizer FE, Ware JH and Docey DW. Effects of cirgarette smoking on lung function of adolescent boys and girls. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 931-937. -Liston J. Breast feeding and the use of recreational drugs -alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and marijuana. Breast-feed Rev 1998 (Aug 6); 2: 27-30. -Pershagen G. Accumulating evidence on health hazards of passive smoking (Review). Act Paediatr,1999 (May); 88(5): 490-520. -Martinez FD, Cline M and Burrow B. Increased incidence of asthma in children of smoking mothers. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 21-26. -Polatly M, Erdinc M, Erdinc E. The early effect of smoking on spirometing and transfer factor. Turk Resp J 2000; 1(2): 31-34. -Iyawe VI, Igweh JC, Orie NN and Umapathy E. Time Course and Bronchodilator effect of caffeine in young Nigerians. J Physiol Sci 1990; 6: 50-56. -Josh LN, Hoshia VD. Effect of forced breathing on ventilatory function of the Lungs. J Postgrad Med 1998; 44(3): 67-69. -Reddy TS, Guleria S, Sanjeer S, Sharina SK and Pandy JK. Domestic cooking fuel and lung functions in healthy non smoking women. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci 2004; 46: 85-89. -Kuperman AS and River JB. The variable effect of smoking on pulmonary function. Chest 1973; 63: 655-660. -Bosse R, Spabow D, Gawey AJ, Costa PT, Weiss ST and Rowe JW. Cigarette smoking, aging and decline in pulmonary fuction -A Longitudinal study. Arch Environm Hlth 1980; 35(4): 247 252. -Chan-yeung M and DimichWard H. Respiratory Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Respirology 2003; 8(2): 131-139. -Hecht SS. Tobacco Carcinogens, their biomarkers and tobacco-induced cancer. Nature Rev Cancer 2003; 4: 733-744. -Mannino DM, Homa DM and Road SC. Involuntary Smoking and Asthma severity in children. Chest 2002; 122(2): 409- 415. -Femi-Pearse D and Elebute EA. Ventilatory function in healthy adult Nigerians. Clin. Sci 1971; 41: 203-211. -Ali MA. Racial differences in ventilatory functions. Nig J Physiol Sci 1990; 6: 59-62. -Ebomoyi MI and Iyawe VI. Variations of peak flow rate with anthropometric determinants in a population of healthy adult Nigerians. Nig J Physiol Sci 2005; 20: 85-89. -Alakija W, Iyawe VI, Jarrikre LN and Chiwuzie JC. Ventilatory function of workers at Okpella Cement Factory in Nigeria. W Afr JMed 1990; 9(3): 187-192. -Lew EA, Garfinkel L. Differences in mortality and longevity by sex, smoking habits and health status. Society of actuaries Transaction 1987; 18: 24-28. -Kucoks, Cokdenizr, Atmaca, Uyram I, Buhur A and Taskih O. The effect of smoking on the glutathione levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Tr J of Med. Sc. Tubitak 1999; 20:643-647. -West JB. Respiratory Physiol The Essentials. 5th Ed. (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore) 1995; P.10. -Zhu B, Enstrom JE and Kabat GC. Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth.. Cancer cells 2003; 4: 191-196. -Flintoft L. Carcinogenesis: Inhaling can seriously damage your health. Nature 2003; 3: 800. -Iyawe VI and Ebomoyi MI. Current developments in the physiology and management of asthma. Nig J Physiol Sci 2005; 20:1929.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/8/2016 5:52 AM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Here is another study:
http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?st15007
International Journal of Environment Science and Technology Center for Environment and Energy Research and Studies (CEERS) ISSN: 1735-1472 EISSN: 1735-2630 Vol. 12, No. 1, 2015, pp. 73-86
Experimental and computational study of particulate matter of secondhand smoke in indoor environment
Tobacco smoke changes chemically and physically after it is released into indoor air; these changes can increase secondhand smoke (SHS) toxicity.
SHS is a mixture of two forms of smoke: side stream smoke, which is smoke from the end of a lighted cigarette, and main stream smoke, smoke that is exhaled by a smoker. The residuals of tobacco smoke that are left on a variety of indoor surfaces are generally considered as ‘‘thirdhand smoke (THS).’’ These residuals are reacting with indoor pollutants to create a toxic mixture which cause adverse health effects.
A number of relevant studies have been performed to investigate tobacco smoke in indoor environment (e.g., see link for references) measured fine particles in four different indoor environments, a lecture room, a restaurant, and two types of offices, and determined that the highest concentration was recorded in the restaurant. Another study in Perth, Western Australia, involved air quality measurements in 20 social venues that permitted smoking and found elevated particulate matter concentrations.
The American Society for heating refrigerating and air conditioning engineers is not recommending a ventilation standard or air purifier for removing secondhand smoke since they have studied drifting secondhand smoke for years (ASHARE 2005). Ventilation cannot remove smoke from air. It may remove smell of smoke but not the dangersof SHS.
The entire study text: http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?st15007
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.