Most Recent Comments

1) Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking ) [by crazycajun on January 15, 2009]

 let's look at a few pseudo-scientific misnomers, shall we?

 

smoking causes cancer.

scientifically, it is impossible to prove that smoking causes cancer, because EVERYONE WHO SMOKES DOES NOT GET CANCER.

even asbestos, which causes ONLY A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CANCER doesn't cause it in everyone exposed to it, even if some WITHOUT the cancer have a higher level of exposure than those WITH the cancer.

one would believe, with the HUNDREDS OF TOXIC, NOXIOUS, AND CARCINOGENIC chemicals in cigarette smoke, that people would be falling down dead daily from exposure to it.

but they are not.

some smokers live long lives. my grandfather smoked heavily, and he lived to 89. juvenile leukemia killed him. can you say that smoking caused the leukemia? NO. neither could the doctors who autopsied him to find out why he died of a disease that normally affects small children. 

my mother smoked, and she lived to 78. she died of complications of lung function associated with living with a diesel mechanic and being exposed daily to asbestos in brake dust. in other words, the first stages of mesothelioma.

my father never smoked, but he died of congestive heart failure at 67. he had it since just after world war 2.

according to you, everyone in my family, owing to our LONG TERM EXPOSURE to cigarette smoke,should be dead by now.

not only did my family, and millions of others DODGE THE BULLET, but we ALSO SKEW THE STATISTICS that keep the medical community from stating a DIRECT LINK BETWEEN SMOKING AND CANCER. right now, the percentage of smokers who get cancer of any type is under thirty percent.

they percentage of people exposed to asbestos who get mesothelioma is just under fifty percent.

is smoking A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR??? QUITE PROBABLY. but until the MILLIONS OF NON SMOKERS WHO GET CANCER and the MILLIONS OF SMOKERS WHO DO NOT quit screwing up the statistics, WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE. and neither do you.

as for the health risks... everything has a health risk.

you are FAR more likely to die driving to work than you are of getting cancer from smoking.

you are FAR more likely to die in an industrial accident.

you are FAR more likely to be hit by a person talking on a cell phone.

you are FAR more likely to develop liver disease from drinking.

by the way... everybody has a problem with lead paint on toys, but when is anybody going to get mad about the LEAD PIPES IN DETROIT????

 

Reply

2) Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking ) [by crazycajun on January 14, 2009]

 dear sane..

you note thatThere is no option for incidental or passive exposure to tobacco smoke."

 

perhaps because it has not been found to be a significant factor in any deaths. if you have ever been around anyone who has ever filled out a death certificate, you will find that he is UNLIMITED by that form, meaning that he can tack on as many 'white pages' as he needs to explain the nature and cause of the death being investigated.

none so far, out of the millions of people who have died so far lists second hand smoke as even a contributing factor in any death.

now, perhaps you would wish to change that by challenging the medical profession to delve deeper into the past histories of the deceased.

as for the market not working rationally, i find it works VERY rationally.

if there is a demand for chocolate, the market fills it. if there is a demand for gasoline, the market fills it.

nothing irrational there. what you find irrational is the fact that most people who frequent bars frequently smoke.

what you also find irrational is that bar owners would cater to the majority of their customers, not the vocal few who do not smoke, but insist on poisoning their liver with those that do.

what i find irrational is why HEALTH NUTS who are so against smoking are dead set on knocking back a few at the local bar?

where is the rationale for that decision?

truth is, there isn't one.

you speak of the dangers of smoking, yet are totally ignoring the dangers of drinking, especially drinking and driving.

why is this important?

because HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE DIE EVERY YEAR FROM DRUNK DRIVING, the effect is immediate. those that don't die of drunk driving will eventually die of liver disease.

these cases are PROVEN AND WELL DOCUMENTED. yet you quibble about second hand smoke being a proximal cause of death, which has not been PROVEN NOR WELL DOCUMENTED.

now, wake up to what the facts are. when a body rolls into a morgue, the coroner is not putting on death certificates that the stiff died of second hand smoke. until they do, i don't believe that it is killing people at the rate you suggest.

chlorine is a deadly poison, and a known carcinogen.

it's in your tap water.

lead is a deadly poison, and a known carcinogen.

it's also in your tap water.

ammonia is a severe lung irritant, in sufficient amounts it will burn the lining of your lungs out.

it's in thirty percent of every cleaning product you use daily.

i could go on, but your freedom of choice gives you the opportunity to NOT EXPOSE YOURSELF TO THESE THINGS WITHOUT DEGRADING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

you have no right to take away someone else's rights. that is what this bill is all about.

Reply

3) Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking ) [by SaneMichigander on January 14, 2009]

[quote user="crazycajun"]

 two questions, sane...[/quote]

Oh, here we go again.  Another whirl on the same old merry-go-'round.

 

But, ever the optimist, I will endeavor to respond.

 

[quote]”1. why aren't their more NON-SMOKING BARS IN
MICHIGAN if the majority of the people support NON-SMOKING BARS? don't the
business owners SEE the marvelous opportunity slipping between their
fingers?”[/quote]

 

Perhaps someone else can explain this.  I am at a loss as to how irrationality can be explained.  The question assumes markets are
rational.   But as I noted
earlier, real experience shows us that markets do not always (if ever?) behave rationally.  

 

[quote]”2. where is that list of people who died of second
hand smoke? of the thousands of deaths you cite, isn't there EVEN ONE who is
being autopsied by someone with the guts to stand up for non-smokers?”[/quote]

 

This argument, in one form or another has been raised
throughout discussion of this legislation.  A quick internet search reveals this argument is commonly
raised by people who wish to contest the scientifically established fact that
secondhand tobacco smoke contains 250 or more chemicals that are known to be
toxic, including more than 50 known carcinogens.  “Carcinogens” are materials that are known to cause cancer.

 

Worldwide, cancer of the lung is the most common cause of
cancer-related deaths among men, and second most common cause of cancer-related
deaths among women. 

 

As often is the case, the answer to this “challenge” is not
as snappy as the simplistic sound bite character of the questioning. 

 

In order to digest the real answer one must come to grips
with the real meaning of terms like “proximate” or “immediate cause of death”
and “underlying cause,” as defined in the medical profession that deals with
these matters.  I suggest doing
that through not just an internet search, but a real study of multiple sites
and sources until the meanings and usages are digested and grasped.

 

What you will come to realize is that just as “smoking”
would not be listed as either an immediate or “underlying cause” of the “lung
cancer” or “heart disease” that lead to a particular death, “second hand smoke”
would not be written in as an “underlying cause.” 

 

Perhaps to illustrate, while you may find “gunshot wound” listed as a cause of death on a death certificate, you will not find “dealing in drugs” listed as a cause or underlying cause, even though the gunshot wound came as a result of the drug dealing activity.

 

Nonetheless, it is well established and well accepted in the
medical profession that both active and passive breathing in of tobacco smoke
lead to the development of cancer and heart disease.   In other words, there is more than a mere correlation
between active or passive smoking and the occurrence of cancer and lung disease
of certain types; there is a statistically demonstrable cause-effect link
between them. 

 

Thus, that second hand smoke contributed to or caused a
particular death can be legitimately inferred from circumstances surrounding a
particular deceased person’s life and lifestyle based on accepted research
findings.  By “legitimately
inferred,” is meant that the inference is deemed reliable on a true statistical
basis.

 

Internet search also yields a blank copy of the standard
death certificate form used in the United States.  Item 32 in the form takes us to the section that deals in
“immediate” and “underlying” causes of death. 

 

Section 35 asks specifically if tobacco use contributed to
death.  There is some ambiguity
there.  However, a conservative
interpretation dictates that if the deceased had been a non-smoker (or chewer)
one could not say the subject had been a tobacco “user,” which certainly
implies active use of the product. 
That applies even if one had been exposed to others’ smoke.  There is no option for incidental or
passive exposure to tobacco smoke.

 

Reply

View Full Conversation