#32 wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:I think that taxing smokers is a good thing to do because it discourages the new smoking trend in Los Angeles that's risen up over the last couple of years. People are replacing anorexia with cigarettes to lose weight (since it makes you less hungry). This tax won't stop people who are already addicts, but it will help prevent new people from becoming addicted.

Yes, but what about the people that are already addicted?

They're being exploited by 86. We already have enough cash shoveled into various anti-smoking organizations. We don't need to take a bigger cut outta some 60-year old lady's wellfare check.

If moronic 17-year old girls start sucking cancer sticks to lose a few vanity pounds, than screw them. That's just plain ignorant. But I don't feel it necessary to tax a steel mill worker off a 12-hour shift that needs to relax.

The college students that become addicts? Idiotic. They've been told ALL their life not to smoke. I'm a college student who smokes cigars every could of weeks, but I'm far from addicted. Anybody out of my generation whose become addicted to ciggarettes is a flat out moron. No questions, no excuses, no BS. You're a moron. Your life is NOT that hard.

addiction is a genetically-based disease, no doubt, and we need to keep working on treatments. I agree that the info isn out there, but since you are in college, you also know that folks your age believe they are immortal, anyway. I think at this point, it is fair to say that if you smoke in the US, esp. California, you are likely to be one or more of the following: Young, uneducated, from Euro or Asia or Latin America.

One thing that always puzzled me - it never seemed like the tiny rush from cigarettes was worth the health cost. I can totally understand other addictions, from drugs to booze to sex to gambling, because the payoff is much bigger, but cigarettes taste horrible to me, and it just seems like they are a calming agent for nervous folks with an oral fixation...

Smoking is the #1 cause of death in the US, no doubt. But it seems that the smoking coupled with peoples' lifestyles is what makes it so much worse in this country. In Europe, people smoke all the time (in a lot of countries- I'm thinking of mainly France, Italy, and The Netherlands) but it doesn't seem to cause nearly as much health concern as it does here. There isn't nearly the outrage against smooking as there is here. Second-hand smoke is not an issue there. Yet they still manage to have socialized health care. You'd think if it were really an isolated problem for their health care system (as people are saying it is here) then they would have a much bigger campaign against it than they do. Or at the very least outlaw it indoors or in closed public spaces!

It just seems to me that when people are already unhealthy (overwight, high colesterol, blood pressure, etc.) the risk of getting cancer or emphasyema from smoking is so much higher. I went to school in Ohio, where smoking is legal inside. The midwest is very smoker friendly. Going into Denny's at 3 am was always a trip. You get these overweight people sitting at the counter, chain-smoking, and stuffing themselves with chicken-fried steak. It was always a pretty depressing sight. I'm not saying smoking isn't a massive problem, it just seems that out lifesyle as a whole makes everything worse.

Also, if you haven't seen the movie 'Thank You For Not Smoking' it's a pretty good satire on the cigarette companies and smoking policy in the US.

Second hand smoke has never been proven. Just to throw that out there. Studies have never conclusively shown that it dramatically increases a non-smoker's risk of cancer or other diseases.

And, as far as the Europeans go, I think the product is just a whole lot cleaner there. Over here, you pick up a pack of Marlboros or New Ports... and the whole delivery is just slathered in tar. European ciggarettes (at least, the ones I've tasted) are more focused on the flavor of the tobacco, rather than getting you hooked.

I think that's why I'm a cigar smoker, really. I agree with colt. Ciggarette smoking in the US is just not worth it. The flavor is terrible, the buzz lasts for barely a minute or two (and isn't that great to begin with), and packs cost 4 bucks a pop now.

At least when I'm picking up cigars, I don't have to deal with that BS. I can just buy it, cut it, light it up, and enjoy. A pure tobacco buzz is a beautiful thing, but you rarely feel it from ciggarettes. I'll take my Onyx or Cohiba anyday.

In fact, I believe this has brought me to another thread idea...

#32 wrote:Second hand smoke has never been proven. Just to throw that out there. Studies have never conclusively shown that it dramatically increases a non-smoker's risk of cancer or other diseases.

And, as far as the Europeans go, I think the product is just a whole lot cleaner there. Over here, you pick up a pack of Marlboros or New Ports... and the whole delivery is just slathered in tar. European ciggarettes (at least, the ones I've tasted) are more focused on the flavor of the tobacco, rather than getting you hooked.

I think that's why I'm a cigar smoker, really. I agree with colt. Ciggarette smoking in the US is just not worth it. The flavor is terrible, the buzz lasts for barely a minute or two (and isn't that great to begin with), and packs cost 4 bucks a pop now.

At least when I'm picking up cigars, I don't have to deal with that BS. I can just buy it, cut it, light it up, and enjoy. A pure tobacco buzz is a beautiful thing, but you rarely feel it from ciggarettes. I'll take my Onyx or Cohiba anyday.

In fact, I believe this has brought me to another thread idea...

Hmmm - here is one of numerous studies that shows a strong link between 2nd hand smoke and cancer: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

There definately is a danger with passive second smoking. There is alot of information about this. Cigarettes have alot of crap in them and so any smoke from them is harmful.

Whatever happened to the goodness of good old weed

coltraning wrote:

#32 wrote:Second hand smoke has never been proven. Just to throw that out there. Studies have never conclusively shown that it dramatically increases a non-smoker's risk of cancer or other diseases.

And, as far as the Europeans go, I think the product is just a whole lot cleaner there. Over here, you pick up a pack of Marlboros or New Ports... and the whole delivery is just slathered in tar. European ciggarettes (at least, the ones I've tasted) are more focused on the flavor of the tobacco, rather than getting you hooked.

I think that's why I'm a cigar smoker, really. I agree with colt. Ciggarette smoking in the US is just not worth it. The flavor is terrible, the buzz lasts for barely a minute or two (and isn't that great to begin with), and packs cost 4 bucks a pop now.

At least when I'm picking up cigars, I don't have to deal with that BS. I can just buy it, cut it, light it up, and enjoy. A pure tobacco buzz is a beautiful thing, but you rarely feel it from ciggarettes. I'll take my Onyx or Cohiba anyday.

In fact, I believe this has brought me to another thread idea...

Hmmm - here is one of numerous studies that shows a strong link between 2nd hand smoke and cancer: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

Yes, but, even then, it's not scientifically proven. There's still a missing link. I agree, there's a lot of evidence there... but it's not conclusive evidence.

EPA wrote:The finding that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults is based on the total weight of the available evidence and is not dependent on any single analysis. This evidence includes several important facts.

First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.

Second, although secondhand smoke is a dilute mixture of mainstream" smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream" smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product, it is chemically similar to the smoke inhaled by smokers, and contains a number of carcinogenic compounds.

Third, there is considerable evidence that large numbers of people who do not smoke are exposed to, absorb, and metabolize significant amounts of secondhand smoke.

Fourth, there is supporting evidence from laboratory studies of the ability of secondhand smoke both to cause cancer in animals and to damage DNA, which is recognized by scientists as being an instrumental mechanism in cancer development.

Finally, EPA conducted multiple analyses on the then-available 30 epidemiology studies from eight different countries which examined the association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in women who never smoked themselves but were exposed to their husband's smoke. Since the epidemiology studies are the major thrust of the tobacco industry arguments against the EPA report, these studies are examined in more detail below.

Nowhere in there does it say, "second hand smoke is proven to kill".

I'm not saying second hand smoke is safe... but I think it's heavily exhaggerated by ultra-liberals. For one thing, I, personally, don't think casual second hand smoke can kill.

#32 wrote:Nowhere in there does it say, "second hand smoke is proven to kill".

I'm not saying second hand smoke is safe... but I think it's heavily exhaggerated by ultra-liberals. For one thing, I, personally, don't think casual second hand smoke can kill.

But "casual second hand smoking", through the course of a lifetime, can have those effects. It may take longer... but it happens anyway.

Yes, but I consider "casual" second hand smoke as innocent as inhaling car exhaust every once and a while. It's just something that ends up happening... but its not directly fatal.

If you're married to a smoker and sit 5 inches from them everytime they light up a ciggarette, obviously you're at a higher risk. But I'm not going to shield my mouth and dart out of the room everytime one of my buddies has a cigg.

#32 wrote:

coltraning wrote:

EPA wrote:
First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.

Nowhere in there does it say, "second hand smoke is proven to kill".

I'm not saying second hand smoke is safe... but I think it's heavily exhaggerated by ultra-liberals. For one thing, I, personally, don't think casual second hand smoke can kill.

32, it is a given that lung cancer kills, right? You aren;t disputing that. And the EPA study says "First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer." So that's pretty clear. The epidemiological studies are pretty overwhelming if you read them, there is a link...most estimates are that somewhere around 50,000 close family members a year will die from second hand. In the case of children, who have no choice, that is criminal. You are right that you won't be seriously harmed by the occasional waft of nasty cig smoke from your buds. If you were married to a chain smoker, different story. That's why they banned it in restaurants and bars in california. As a waiter or bartender (or musician in my case) you had no choice. An oncologist told me that as a passive smoker, I smoked about a pack of cigarettes a night doing a gig in a smoky bar, so it was a true blessing to me occupationally when they banned smoking in the clubs...we are way behind the euros in many areas, from health care to guns, but we are definitely ahead of the curve in smoking policy.

Definite distinction between caual second-hand smoke and prolonged.

Now to take this thread even further off-topic - what instrument do you play coltraning? I'm a big fan of mr. Coltrane. I'm actually a jazz sax music major (went to Oberlin conservatory in Ohio). Just wondering what kind of stuff a fellow musician is into.

baytobrooklyn wrote:Definite distinction between caual second-hand smoke and prolonged.

Now to take this thread even further off-topic - what instrument do you play coltraning? I'm a big fan of mr. Coltrane. I'm actually a jazz sax music major (went to Oberlin conservatory in Ohio). Just wondering what kind of stuff a fellow musician is into.

great to have a fellow player on the board - I'm tenor and soprano -very into Trane, Wayne and Lieb among saxists, and all the usual suspects, including Miles, Herbie, Keith, etc...on the more obscure front, love Nguyen Lee, Oregon and Jean Michel-Pilc. I am pretty well-known as a player whatever that means), which of course means zero in the larger world, where 9 times out of 10 Herbie Hancock could walk the aisles of Target without folks batting an eye. Also love everyone from Aretha to the Beatles to Stravinsky to (some Eminem) to Nascimento, so eclectic. I think Duke's quote is the best - there are only 2 kinds of music, good and bad. I love jazz cause it is the ultimate meeting of head and heart, more than any other music I've played. how about you? What's your music saga?

Cool, dude. Yeah, I just graduated from school and am trying to do the music thing for now. I'm from the bay area originally but was living in brooklyn for a while recently, so I thought I'd try to do some playing here before I move back to New York. I grew up listening to trane, sonny rollins, wayne, lester, etc. I also love Orenette, Cecil Taylor, Evan Parker and all those crazier dudes. I'll always consider myself a jazz musician, but lately I've been playing more experimental/free improvised/rock kind of stuff. I'm basically just a fan of a lot of different music. There's so much good music being made (and that has been made) it's just crazy. So just trying to play with some groups and friends around the bay right now, teach some lessons, etc. Where do you play (are you in the bay area)? Do you have a website or a name perhaps?

coltraning wrote:

#32 wrote:

EPA wrote:
First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.

Nowhere in there does it say, "second hand smoke is proven to kill".

I'm not saying second hand smoke is safe... but I think it's heavily exhaggerated by ultra-liberals. For one thing, I, personally, don't think casual second hand smoke can kill.

32, it is a given that lung cancer kills, right? You aren;t disputing that. And the EPA study says "First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer." So that's pretty clear. The epidemiological studies are pretty overwhelming if you read them, there is a link...most estimates are that somewhere around 50,000 close family members a year will die from second hand. In the case of children, who have no choice, that is criminal. You are right that you won't be seriously harmed by the occasional waft of nasty cig smoke from your buds. If you were married to a chain smoker, different story. That's why they banned it in restaurants and bars in california. As a waiter or bartender (or musician in my case) you had no choice. An oncologist told me that as a passive smoker, I smoked about a pack of cigarettes a night doing a gig in a smoky bar, so it was a true blessing to me occupationally when they banned smoking in the clubs...we are way behind the euros in many areas, from health care to guns, but we are definitely ahead of the curve in smoking policy.

Well, I would hardly call you a casual victim of second hand smoke. As your oncologist pointed out, you were inhaling the equivalent of a full pack of ciggarettes every night. I'd hardly call that casual.

On the other hand, do you believe that, had the law not gone into effect, you would have had long-term damage sustained from second hand smoke?

I read the study... and I was a bit weary to take it completely litterally. Afterall, look at the quote you used:

EPA wrote:First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.

Right... but there's also no evidence that shows smoking directly WILL cause cancer.

It's all how you word it. I'm not defending defending second hand smoke; as I said before, I know it's dangerous. My problem is that I don't think it's as dangerous as people make it out to be.

we'll just ahve to disagree, bro. I think the evidence is overwhelming that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and even philip morris agrees now...

coltraning wrote:we'll just ahve to disagree, bro. I think the evidence is overwhelming that cigarettes cause lung cancer, and even philip morris agrees now...

The evidence is overwhelming that cigs cause lung cancer. I'm not agreeing with 32, but I don't think he's arguing that they don't, he's arguing that second hand smoke doesn't necessarily (I don't agree with this, but that's what he's saying).

And Phillip Morris is forced to make those adds (IMO a good thing) as part of a lawsuit. It's not necessarily their opinion