Wow, someone should explain this to my son’s asmtha, because when it inhales smoke, it tries really hard to kill him. The last time he was exposed to second hand smoke ( in a home, not walking through a group of smokers) he ended up in the hospital.
Sorry, that was vague, I was refering to this line: **There is really no risk of killing someone with exposure to second hand smoke. **
kellibelli:
I can certainly understand that some people have allergic reactions to the stuff. I have the same problem that your son has but with cats. I don’t think pet stores should be closed down because of that. I also wouldn’t force people to remove their cats and shampoo their rugs before I came to their house.
PeeQueue
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/strsfs.html
now waiting for that perfume or sweatiness cite…
Good point, when referring to adults. My son is a child, if he is in the care of an adult who is smoking in an encosed space, he is not at liberty to just leave the area.
Nobody forces you to go into a pet store. When you go visiting and you ask: " Do you have cats? I am terribly allergic." without someone getting in your face about their ‘right’ to have a cat, and how cats arent really hazardous to your health, how its all the rhetoric of the anti-cat movement… do they?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kellibelli *
**
Following along the same lines as kellibelli, i wouldn’t assume i had a right to bring my cat (or dog) over to someones house without first asking
kellibelli
I know many people with allergies who restrict those around them from smoking, or wearing certain perfumes, or even cooking shellfish like clams. The responsibility for your sons incident seems to lie with you in that you did not enforce the fact that your son could not be around anyone smoking.
There are people who cannot be around campfire smoke, incense, spray room deodorants and so on, so your example of /harmful/ cigarette smoke is a weak one. As of this date there is no conclusive evidence that tobacco smoke causes cancer, tho there is some evidence that wood fired cooking smoke contains carcinogens. I would think manufactured charcoal smoke is worse because of the heavy metals left in the ash. They do tell you not to discard manufactured charcoal ashes in any vegetable garden or around fruit trees for that reason.
The current antismoking league likes to promote anything concerning tobacco that might be dangerous to others. They left out blaming smokers for starting all of the great forest fires in the nation this year.
Sorry about your child, though, and I sincerely hope he grows out of the condition. I know someone who seems to have beaten it by starting an exercise program after the Doctors pointed out she was allergic to virtually the whole State of Virginia, but her case might be rare. 
Fortunately Ted does seem to be getting better as he gets older. I DO enforce the no smoking policy around him - to the point that most think I am a nazi bitch. Sadly, I cannot be everywhere. If he goes to a friends house, they often dismiss my concerns as ‘anti smoking crap’ and light up anyway. My former inlaws were the same. A parent voluneer on a school field trip smoked with him in the car!
Its everywhere. Ted is 9 now, and will often ask people to not smoke around him, it sounds obnoxious, but its his health, even his life depending on it.
Smokers are also responsible for virtually ALL the home fires as well! 
Unca beer (and others): go back to those Cecil threads. Note that he disputes whether or not there is solid eveidence that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer or heart dis. Cece says no solid evidence ( which is different that it does not, but…) But then read the article in full. Cece says clearly that 2nd-hand smoke kills those with lung problems, or with weak lungs. Primarily the aged & children. Kills, as in dead. You do not have to die from cancer, to be dead. This was the first link between 2nd-hand smoke & deaths, and it is very strong, and proven, with some 10K a year.
Some 53K deaths are attributed, overall to 2nd hand smoke, but some maybe cancer etc “guesses”
And drivers are responsible for virtually all of the automobile accidents too.
Yes, they are. But cars have a value to Society, as they allow us to get to work, so we can live in cities, and not in caves. Cigs have no value to society at all, in fact they only have negative value. They only do harm.
Perfume, and deoderants have only some small value to society, but they do not KILL people. Cigs KILL. 2nd hand smoke has been shown to KILL kids with lung problems.
I wouldn’t say so. I did a little calculation some time ago on why the government had not banished smoking altogether if it were that bad for your health. Turns out, smoking brings in a lot more money for the government than hospitalisation costs. In fact, just the reason why people don’t want other people to smoke gives the government another excuse to raise the taxes on cigarettes again.
If the government really wanted us to stop, why don’t they multiply the prices by a factor of 4 or 5 in stead of just adding a couple of cents each year?
Yes, the taxes do possibly bring in more than smoking cost the Govt. But not “society”, as it is hard to measure the value of parent to a family, etc.
The Gov’t would LIKE to ban smoking, but they know that it won’t work, as Prohibitions didn’t. They have raised the taxes to about what the market will bear, without massive smuggling, protests, etc.
So what do you suggest then? I strongly believe (although I’m not a smoker myself), that as long as smoking is not illegal, people should be allowed to smoke, just like they are allowed to eat endive (now that is a smell they should banish altogether).
The link provided by beagledave mentioned that it highly likely that second hand smoke causes cancer, but I doubt it that getting a whiff of it at the busstop would, just as eating one charred piece of toast would cause it.
As I said before, I do believe that people who don’t like smoke shouldn’t be forced to breathe it, but when I’m standing outside in the open, they can just stand back a few steps and let me get my fix. And I think that employers should provide a place where people can smoke if they want to (even if it is outside in the cold).
Guess you missed this one, huh?
Federal judge William Osteen found that the EPA had "publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific
norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to
disseminate findings to influence public opinion.
In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. Judge Osteen’s scathing 90-page indictment of the EPA left no doubt that their reports were not to be believed.
You’ve just stated one major reason the War on Smokers is so damaging. When everything from the anti camp is SO exaggerated (John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health is encouraging people to try to take children away from INTACT HOMES if the parents smoke), smokers have become defensive and tend to disbelieve even those whose complaints are real.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Max McGarrity *
**
Ahhh so you extrapolate from one anti smoker extremist and group all anti smokes as “so exaggerated”…guess that makes the debate easier…
Arrrgggghhhh! Now, there you go! Exaggerations, overstatements, and lies abound in this anti-smoking, politically-correct society! It is absolutely NOT TRUE that smokers are responsible for “virtually ALL” home fires!
According to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), in 1989, smoking MATERIALS were responsible for only 6.7% of home fires. Of that 6.7%, ALL BUT 16% included alcohol. How did THAT change to what you stated above? Now in the fervor to blame smoking and smokers for every bad thing that happens in the world, the anti-smoker cartel says that smokers are the number one cause of home fires, but they include kids playing with matches, lighter fluid used to start charcoal grills, etc. Nowhere have even the most rabid antis said that smokers are responsible for “virtually ALL” home fires. That’s nonsense and it adds to the divisiveness in our country to propagate such exaggerations.
that would be the Judge William Osteen who was a former lobbyist for a tobacco firm eh?
guess you missed THIS one huh? It’s not quite the slam dunk you portrayed it as…
http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/Extra/hotdocs/OsteenArticle.htm
but if you don’t like the epa report…there is always this one http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/980 or http://www.mayohealth.org/mayo/9708/htm/2nd_hand.htm
but what the hell…I’ll even CONCEDE that perhaps the evidence is not conclusive. My link to the EPA report was in reponse to a challenge to provide a cite about second hand smoking as a carcinogen. (after I had asked for cites for sweating…perfume etc as carcinogens, since a previous poster had equated them)
I have certainly provided cites that indicate that second hand smoke/passive smoke is at least seriously being considered by the medical community as possible carcinogens. I have yet to hear ANY cites about sweating…perfume etc having the same concerns…the comparison between these concerns is ludicrous unless cited otherwise…
Well it would appear that there is plenty of nonsense to go around…Actually visiting the FEMA web site to check your facts (imagine that) brings me to http://www.usfa.fema.gov/safety/facts.htm
which states “Careless smoking is the leading cause of fire deaths.”
- Smoking is NOT the leading cause of house fires (cooking is)
- Smoking IS the leading cause of fire deaths
At least tell the WHOLE truth when you try to cite sources.