I’m a bit confused as I just got here from the James Randi Educational Foundation site, so I hope I’m in the right place after all that registration nonsense.
My comment is that just because nicotine MAY have been found to be helpful in preventing or treating certain conditions, that doesn’t mean ergo: smoking tobacco products as a nicotine delivery-system will confer these benefits and not cause harm to your lungs as well!
Also, I think it’s not evidence to quote from studies that are not identified. It should also be noted whether these findings have been confirmed yet, and if there has been follow-up from peers.
I’m hoping this is a new site where I can join in the fight against scientific ignorance, but I haven’t figured out yet just what this site is about.
Hi Anthro, welcome to the SDMB. If you like Randi, you’ll like it here.
It’s traditional, when discussing one of the columns, to provide a link to the one you have in mind. I’m not 100% sure which one you’re thinking of, but I’m betting it’s this one:
As for your comment that nicotine is still unhealthy because of the typical delivery system (i.e. smoking), I think Cecil covered that caveat pretty well when he noted:
But your point is taken.
Anyway, have a look around and make yourself at home. Two of our forums are to discuss the columns (“Comments on Cecil’s Columns” and “Comments on Staff Reports”), and the rest are for different types of general discussion. Make sure you keep up the attitude that every substantive assertion requires a citation: it’ll come in handy down the road.
I found the JREF post Anthro was referred from. Here. In a nutshell, the JREF people came across a quack who was promoting smoking as a cure-all. Before they began taking him apart, they pointed out that there was a grain of truth in his arguments, and linked to Uncle Cecil’s column.
I would hasten to point out that The Straight Dope, Cecil Adams, and the SDMB are not affiliated with “Dr. Douglass” from the flier.
why cant there be signs in the windows of taverns: smoking yes or smoking no. come in/ work here at your own risk. i need a beer and a smoke and other citizens to sink my teeth into sedition.
I think the justification of that was the hazardous work environment for the bartender and waiters – they would basically be forced to breathe second-hand smoke.
They are not forced to do any such thing. They choose to work for an establishment that allows smoking. If they don’t want to expose themselves to second-hand smoke, they simply choose not to work there.
It’s state-nannyism, pure and simple. There are, of course, some good economic arguments in favor of that nannyism.
You can say the same thing for any hazardous work environment. Coal mines have to meet safety standards, factories can’t have toxic fumes in the air or dangerous floor conditions. Why not? The miners and factory workers can choose to work someplace else.
OK, cigarette smoking is legal, so maybe it’s not a complete parallel, but I’m pretty sure that was the rationale for banning smoking in bars and restaurants.
Only if you smoke those other brands. Try the New Philip Morris, probably the best natural smoke you ever tasted. No filter, no foolin’, a cigarette with a taste a man can get next to, in the convenient crushproof box. My name is Stranger On A Train. The cigarette is Philip Morris. Now, back to our thread.
I sorta agree with DSYoungEsq. In fact, I think some hazardous work environments should be allowed to exist, as long as there are non-hazardous alternatives, and there is a clear reason to allow the hazard.
In other words, a place should be able to buy a smoking license to appeal to clientèle who smoke. Non-smoking restaurants would still be the norm, as the license would cost enough that only a few restaurants would be able to justify the expense (i.e., if too many restaurants had the license, the number of smoking patrons wouldn’t offset the cost of the license, and they’d all lose.)
Anyways, in this environment, DYE’s assessment would be correct. If people didn’t want to work at a smoking restaurant, they’d have several equal alternatives. Unlike what happens in Rittersport’s.
ETA: forgot the clear reason to allow the hazard: they get in more clientèle, and more money, without sacrificing the health of anyone who didn’t volunteer. Heck, the workers could all be smokers themselves. Second-hand smoke is less hazardous than first-hand smoke.
Just today I saw our local junior college has a class in traditional Cherokee healing. Wife, roughly 1/128 Cherokee, said, “I’ve seen that! They blow tobacco smoke in your ear and then you recite the Lord’s Prayer together.” I’m not sure if that’s the original ceremony, but it is when your tribe is all Baptists.
