I asked for clarification on this behaviour once - it was in an IMHO thread where posters were listing their oddball habits and somebody said “I think people who do X, Y and Z are idiots”. Posts upthread clearly showed people in the habit of doing X, Y and Z so I raised the issue.
I think the ruling was that insults have to be aimed directly at a poster rather than a generic group of people of which a poster just happens to be a member.
So if I told all non-smokers to go fuck themselves that’s OK then is it?
Of the many, many references to research in the Surgeon General’s report, I don’t recall ever seeing conclusions derived from “what used to be reported at a VA hospital”. If your lack of worry is based on this claim (cite?), the report will provide a rude awakening.
Speaking of VAs, one positive in VA care has been the change in attitudes toward smoking. I can remember having to walk through choking clouds of cigarette smoke in a lounge to find a patient. And taking a clinical history from a patient smoking in bed. On oxygen. :rolleyes:
I no read so good…where in the referenced document does it state anything about any illness 100%, no doubt about it, caused by a person not washing his hands after urinating, not counting a person who has just be the giver of anal sex? I hear the rhetoric, I see what the thousands of doctors of say, but where is one documented case? There isn’t, so stop looking.
My layman’s understanding of the mechanics of cancer genesis is probably pretty crude. But don’t carcinogenic substances cause the cellular mutation that leads to cancer by changing a single cell or small number of cells? It’s my impression that the reason the odds of cancer go up with increasing exposure, but are never certain, is that with increased exposure, many more opportunities for that one critical cellular change occur. It’s a game of chance.
So in theory, even a small exposure MIGHT result in cancer. It’s just that more exposure is statistically more reliable at producing cancers.
If I’m not talking out of my hat about cancer formation, it seems to me that arguing about “lower,” “small,” or “negligible” risks from small exposures is vaguely akin to my firing a gun into the air blindfolded. Would a court let me off, or approve of my action, if I hit someone, just because the odds of the bullet actually hitting someone are tiny and hard to calculate? Would firing a few bullets make me innocent, even if they hit people, and only firing a lot make me guilty?
What if I use typical smoker’s excuses: you should avoid people with guns, it gives me something to do with my hands, I grew up admiring the Marlboro Man and HE had a gun, the government used to hand them out to millions of military servicepeople, it relaxes me.
It seems to me that our general inability to reckon statistics, the long delay in cancer showing up, and an unwillingness to think about unpleasant things combine to allow us to pretend small amounts of, or brief exposures to, smoke are okay and harmless. They’re not harmless – they’re just less likely to be harmful, in a way that’s hard to measure, but the harm when it does occur will be just as great.
Sailboat
Does anyone notice a particular surge in lung cancer stats for non-smokers who were children in the days (1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s) when children were regularly exposed to vast amounts of their parents’ and others’ second-hand smoke, often in enclosed spaces (cars, elevators, banks, stores, and in my wife’s case, schools).
Has the change in attitudes to second-hand smoke from the 1980s onwards caused a diminution in non-smokers’ lung cancer?
I don’t buy it either. As a one time occasional smoker (usually only in pubs), I willingly relinquished that pleasure for the greater good when indoor smoking was banned. But now outdoor smoking is being banned nearly everywhere also, and I think it is going too far.
It took over a generation of widespread cigarette smoking for us to learn that it was more than a minimally harmful habit even to the smoker, let alone an outdoor bystander, and now I’m being asked to accept that someone 25 yards away in a park, or on a beach, is being injured by my smoke. This is not to say that smoke is altogether innocuous, but I think we’re being guided by hysteria and not wisdom. It reminds me of the days leading up to alcohol prohibition, when the WCTU as much as said if the father drank any alcohol, the baby would go hungry and the family would be sleeping on the street.
As a quality of life issue I think it’s pretty low on my scale of priorities. I’d much rather see leaf blowers finally and truly banned, and to hell with gardeners who don’t want to use rakes. In my old apartment, I’d rather have seen the use of diesel reefer units on trucks banned, so wouldn’t have to hear that chug-chug-chug for 20 minutes while the bakery truck was delivering to the McDonalds at the end of the block.
Is secondhand smoke more harmful than other outdoor pollution?
For example, if you lived in the city with busses and cars and pretty poor air quality is second hand smoke more harmful than that?
As an aside and something of a hijack:
Here in the UK The Chancellor…good 'ol gobshite Gordon, has just increased the duty on a pack of 20 cigarettes by 11p which brings the price of the brand I smoke up to about £5.35p
All the more reason to quit you might say and you’d be right.
However, I enjoy a cigarette, that’s right ENJOY, so no I’m not going to quit. Instead I’m going to carry on smoking and contributing my money to the coffers of the Govt.
Doubtless they’ll find some fucking useless cause to donate it to in the form of a grant instead of using it to combat crime and/or clean the streets of all the sodding fag ends that thoughtless smokers drop. Not to mention the mountain of fast food wrappers and empty beer/pop cans.
Or maybe they’ll use it to buy another couple of brain cells for Blair and his cronies.
Fuck.
Picture a graph, with some vague definition of “health risk” as the y-axis), and concentration of cig smoke in ppb as the x-axis, decreasing as you go left to right. I would imagine that a line on this graph would drop steeply from left to right, approaching zero asymptotically – but never quite hitting zero.
So the surgeon general is correct in saying that there is no “risk-free” amount of second-hand smoke. Correct, but not adding a whole lot of useful information on the debate.
But when you’re making public policy, policy-makers have to weigh the pros & cons politically, more than the scientific factors. If they’re considering banning smoking in a city park – where the risk is near zero, ignoring the separate litter question for the moment – they undoubtedly realize that the number of people who will object, even though science may be on their side, is minuscule compared to those who will approve.
To expand on this-
I can understand the concerns of second hand smoke and not wanting to be around someone smoking in a confined area like inside a car or in a room with a smoker (I don’t particularly like it either).
What I don’t understand is all the fuss about second hand smoke outside. I don’t know the percentage of population that smokes, but I think it’s pretty small. Does anyone really think there is going to be that much harm walking through a small huddle of smokers in front of a building on your way inside compared to some very real threats due to air quality?
Why aren’t people just as concerned about the quality of our air?
This is from the Sierra club regarding the EPA report.
The fallacy in this analogy is that virtually every person in world is firing bullets. Both blindly into the air, and also at themselves. Drive a car? You’re firing blindly into the air. Ever BBQ a steak? Firing blindly. Drink alcohol? Firing at yourself.
How do you prove that the cancer you come down with at age, say, 60 was caused by second-hand smoke when there are thousands of other (often minimal, but still) carcingens that you are exposed to daily, both by yourself and by others?
Well, that’s the problem. The Surgeon General’s report does not agree with this. It states
IOW, there is some risk associated with any exposure. The fact that someone in Outer Mongolia lights up means that my risk has gone up, if even a single particle makes its way to my lung.
That’s basically what is wrong with the statement. Technically true, but so un-nuanced as to be misleading. It is saying in a rather un-qualifed way that there are no non-neglible amounts of smoke, since the risk goes up from any exposure.
If I walk past someone who is smoking, and can smell the smoke, then by definition some of the smoke has entered my lung (or at least my nose). So my risk has gone up. The fact that it has gone from one in thirty zillion to one in twenty zillion doesn’t affect the basic truth on which most anti-smoking busybodies rely - your smoking has increased my risk of nose cancer by a third. You monster!
Quite true. But it is also true that it is silly to make sweeping statements about outdoor smoking as well.
But that works both ways as well. Insisting that “The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke” can have much the same effect as well.
Regards,
Shodan
We’re traveling a bit far afield of the initial question, aren’t we? Looks to be getting into a policy debate, or a bitch session, or something.
ETA
Shouldn’t that be “there are no negligible amounts of smoke”?
The problem here is that we are not talking about single particles from Outer Mongolia, but clouds of secondhand smoke in the same or the next room. Or for that matter, in heavily trafficked, poorly ventilated areas "outdoors’.
The SG’s report about no safe exposure level being found is factual. It should be a wakeup call to the smoking advocates who complain about “well, it’s not that big a risk - no big deal - why aren’t you willing to breathe our smoke if it’s not that much of a hazard…aw c’mon…wheedle wheedle wheedle”
Sorry, no.
And pulling “thirty zillion to one” figures out of your posterior does not impress. Read the SG’s report for actual numbers, and then tell us how many extra cases of cancer, lung ailments and heart disease we should be willing to accept so that we can escape the stigma of being “busybodies”.
And I don’t know how some of you find the time to complain about anti-smoking efforts, when there are people dying in Darfur. Where are your priorities? 
What difference does it make to this argument how harmful other air pollution is? Is this supposed to be some kind of justification? We have other pollution, so you should put up with this, too!
I’ll tell you one difference: every other form of air pollution is the unfortunate byproduct of an activity deemed to be desirable or necessary for some other reason. Smoking, and smoking alone, only exists in order to create noxious gases purely for the express purpose of inhaling them. It’s unclean, unhealthy and completely unnecessary.
Yes, other kinds of pollution are worse. Yes, we should be concentrating on solutions for abating the unavoidable byproducts. The solution for smoking pollution is obvious: don’t create it.
Of course, I’m not naive enough to think that’s going to happen.
Read it again. I wasn’t trying to justify anything. I never said it was healthy.
I’m wondering if people are so caught up with worring about second hand smoke that they’re missing the big picture. We need to be worrying about air quality.
If someone has some facts that show that walking past a person that’s smoking outside is more more dangerous than breathing unhealthy air I’d love to hear it.
As a fellow non-guy, I assure you that you are getting fecal bacteria on your hands even if you use toilet paper. As Cecil’s essay on the subject pointed out, the skin on your entire pelvic region and upper thighs is “crawling with germs known as coliform bacteria”. When we non-guys pull down and pull up our underwear, we’re touching our pelvic area with our hands. When we reach down to wipe, we’re touching the skin of our inner thighs with our hands. Even if we’re not putting our fingers directly on our girl-bits (and why would you consider that to be “ew”, by the way? 
), we’re getting fecal bacteria on our hands when we adjust our clothes and clean ourselves before and after urination or defecation.
:dubious: Forty of the fifty outbreaks mentioned in my cite as occurring via fecal-oral-route person-to-person transmission took place in child care centers. Are you seriously suggesting that anal sex is a more likely source of contamination in these cases than improper handwashing hygiene?
Then why do you insist on refusing to believe them? We know that several infectious diseases are spread by fecal bacteria via fecal-oral contamination. We know from studies such as this one (pdf) that fecal bacteria in quantities that can cause infection are transmitted to the hands during bathroom use, and that proper handwashing with soap “gives a significant health advantage”, as the study says, in reducing the likelihood of infection from contaminated hands.
So why do you demand to see incontrovertible evidence of a specific fecal bacterium on a specific person’s hands causing a specific person’s infection before you’re willing to acknowledge that handwashing is beneficial to public health?
By your logic, we could argue that smoking doesn’t cause cancer, either. After all, we’ve never once seen an incontrovertible instance of smoke particles in a specific person’s lungs directly causing the formation of cancerous cells (a medical fact that the tobacco companies exploited to the hilt in attempting to avoid lawsuits).
The problem isn’t that second-hand smoke isn’t harmful; of course it is. It’s a question of degree. And it’s not like there are no opposing considerations – society has to balance public health vs individual liberties. There should be a compelling reason why public officials should ban a practice that is otherwise legal.
Let’s put it in stark extremes: let’s say that the presence of a smoker in an outdoor environment (for example, sitting on a park bench) is scientifically determined (for sake of argument) to cause someone walking by the bench to experience a .0000000001% increased cancer risk. Reasonable people would say: Individual Liberties wins this round; anti-smokers need to go find another battle.
Let’s say the same scenario causes a 2% increased cancer risk. Reasonable people would slam an outdoor smoking ban on that immediately.
The problem is that the actual number is somewhere in between, and no one’s sure where it is.
Of course, the problem with smoking in the park is that you get fecal bacteria all over your hands. You got your tobacco field, your raccoons, and no sanitary plumbing facilities. Do the math.
Just to reverse field a moment back to GQ territory - is there some locality that has banned smoking in the park for health reasons? Otherwise, your example has severely limited real-world application.