by Duluth News Tribune
August 12, 2010 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Lighting up in a Duluth city park could become tougher if councilors Jim Stauber and Patrick Boyle succeed in their efforts to amend a city smoking ordinance.
Tags: city council, Duluth, local, Outdoors, parks, smoking 116 Comments »
I have no problems with this latest ordinance on City Property called Parks.
However, at the rate this is going if I am smoking in my own back yard and a gentle breeze carries my cigarette smoke to the City Street where people are walking with their children and dogs…..will I get arrested or fined for not maintaining control of My cigarette smoke drifting onto City Property…ie, city streets?
I mean, it’s not like smokers go up to people and blow smoke up their noses….although I do know some folks who blow Figurative Smoke up other orifices. Nevermind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 51 14
Enough with whippin’ on the smokers! They already have been made second class citizens. How about tacklin’ something more useful for the general good? Like economic developement? (jobs)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 55 13
ENOUGH!!!! Either ban the things or don’t, but enough time, energy, money, effort goes into updating, re-writing and writing “ordinances” that I could puke! They’re banned pretty much everywhere, let’s quit wasting all this time and effort on itemizing every square foot of the City as smoke or smoke-free. I swear I could puke every time I hear Stauber’s name too, HE is a cancer, if I never heard or read his name again it’d be too soon.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 47 13
Why is Duluth trying so hard to become Californian?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 44 13
Ban smoking outdoors, really?
Do the members of your city council lay awake nights, pondering what kind of outlandish rules they might possibly get away with, now that they have a little power in their hands?
Shouldnâ€™t they have to do some kind of study to quantify the amount of second hand smoke that a kid would be exposed to if someone were smoking 50-75 feet away from them in the open air?
Seriously Duluthians, be afraid, be very afraid.
This time next year, it will probably be against the law to pee in the lake when you are swimming.
Better get prepared to have to make a trip over the bridge for your burger and fries fix too.
We all know how unhealthy and baaaaaad for you those are. Iâ€™m sure the consumption of them will have to be legislated soon, for your own good.
With the police force already understaffed, I canâ€™t believe the council has no qualms about throwing even more stuff at them to do.
The next time you are being mugged, no whining.
The cops will just be busy down at the playground on a stake-out, looking for smokers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 53 16
I don’t want my son around smoke anymore than the next person but really, there is too much goverment in our lives
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 49 10
Really? The city councilors that bored. How about trying to do something about the horrible roads. Welcome to DFL Duluth, and the sheep of this town keep blindly reelecting the people over and over and over again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 38 12
This just just never stops….and that’s what worries me. We keep legislating “good ideas” as written laws. This process will keep going to it’s logical end which will eventually mean we won’t be free anymore to experience life….we’ll just have to carry the book of laws around with us and check it before we do anything lest we violate any rule, ordinance or law.
This anti-smoking thing isn’t going to stop until they are in your back yard and livingroom. Don’t say it won’t happen, cause it will eventually end up there. Just look at the progression and see where the logical end will be.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 39 10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
It’s common sense. Second-hand smoke is detrimental to a child’s (& an adult’s) health.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 19 48
That’s probably what I dislike most about these kind of laws.
People always want to hide behind the ‘it’s for the children’ thing.
They’ve figured out that it’s very difficult for people to argue against anything that is ‘in the interest of children”.
Remember when the smoking in restaurants thing was first brought up….it was cuz it was “for the children”. After that, it continued to grow till it included bars.
But by then, the issue already had a full head of steam and didn’t need to hide behind the children any more.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 39 13
Living next to a street is detrimental too because of the auto exhaust! or mowing your lawn with a gas mower or using charcoal in your grill or sitting around a bonfire. Actually just breathing air in an urban environment is bad for your health. Where will this BS end?
Like or Dislike: 20 6
I’m surprised by these comments on what should be a no-brainer.
Of course children, on public playgrounds, should be able to play smoke-free.
Of course, people should be able to smoke in their own yards.
And the ordinance allows for both! People are assuming (wrongly) that this will lead to banning smoking in your own back yard, and clearly the ordinance is not meant to do that. No cop is going to enforce this ordinance by ticketing someone for smoking in their own yard!
It is interesting that no comment yet has criticized the ordinance as it *actually* is (preventing smoking around children at a public park). I assume that everyone above is all for letting kids play smoke-free!
So if that is all the ordinance does (and that is all it does), then there should be no objection.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 28 45
Really, no comment? I’m pretty sure I criticized it just as it is.
Seriously, just how much second hand smoke do you honestly think your child is likely to inhale from a person smoking 50-75 feet away from them in the open air?
With the grey/brown haze that you see laying over Duluth as you come down Thompson hill, you should probably be more concerned about the air your child is breathing every time they step out your door.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 35 14
But you seem to agree that keeping the area around the kids smoke-free is good. You are just wondering how far away smokers should be kept to keep the area smoke-free, and thinking 50-75 feet would be okay. Maybe so.
Of course, why not 101 feet, or 99, right? The answer is (a) you’ve got to have some specific rule and (b) if people are actually exposing kids to smoke, they can’t say “But I wasn’t within 100 feet!” If the rule was 20 feet, that would be a common argument with enforcement personnel.
Quibbling with the exact number of feet is a red herring. I suspect the rule generally won’t get enforced unless kids are actually exposed to smoke. But the 100 feet rule will make it hard to for smokers who actually do expose children that they were not in violation of the ordinance.
And there is a lot of specific research showing that secondhand smoke is harmful for kids. Given that smoking is something adults do only to benefit adults (children obviously do not benefit from it), harming a child to merely benefit an adult is wrong. Driving is something adults often do for the benefit of children, but not smoking.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 12 38
I’m sorry if I somehow gave you the impression that I thought it was a good idea to keep the outdoor area around kids smoke free.
Actually, I think the law is nonsense.
Until and unless the council can quantify, as in parts per million or parts per billion, the actual amount of second hand smoke that a child would ingest in an outdoor setting, it’s a bogus argument.
If you’ve got kids playing in Bayfront Park, you should be much more concerned about what’s coming out of those stacks on the ships entering and leaving the harbor than the fact that someone might smoke a cigarette within a hundred feet of them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 37 12
Sam, if you don’t see the progression from where these “ordinances” started, to where they are and to where they’re going, there is no need to even discuss it with you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 32 5
Brian, you’re right. Sam is probably just very naive about how things really work in this world. You can’t always believe what others tell you….you need to look at previous events and see how they progressed. Does anyone remember how many “temporary” sales tax increases we’ve had passed for one reason or another…..and yet not one of them ended up being “temporary”.
You can’t just automatically believe what someone (certainly governments included) tells you….you need to apply some critical thinking skills to each issue and see what is really going on behind the scenes. Governments, and people in control in general, love people who always believe exactly what you tell them…..they are much easier to control.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 27 3
I’m still laughing about a smoking ban outdoors within 15 feet of a DTA bus stop. That’s the most absurd idea I’ve ever heard, and says a lot about how easily manipulated Duluthians are. Ba-a-a-a-a-ad sheep!
Are you seriously going to dial 911 and report someone smoking a cigarette? Good luck getting someone to respond to that call. Your grandparents would be ashamed of you, and ashamed of how sissified people have become. Good grief…..secondhand smoke, outdoors, worries you that much? And you wonder why kids today want everything handed to them and expect to be pampered…..good job.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 40 10
Nun Yuh, the anti-smokers will ABSOLUTELY call 911, multiple times, without a second guess, that’s how they operate. A local bar/restaurant I used to go to had a nice little outdoor smoking “hut”, the only people in there were somokers. It had 3 sides and a wide open front, one of the cult saw that the sides weren’t 50% open, they complained, the owner had to cut out a second wall. Now, the smokers, the only people that ever are in there, smoke outside in 10 below weather protected by only 2 sides of a small “hut”. It’s RIDICULOUS!!!! (I don’t even smoke)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 40 7
I would like to see areas designated “child-free.” Airplanes, restaurants, libraries, recreational areas. This plague of children causes untold stress, noise, spreading of germs – all of which contribute to unnecessary health care esxpenses for the rest of us. Think of the adults.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 46 10
according to those stats, I should have never made it past twelve.
Like or Dislike: 10 4
If a woman increases her estrogen levels 1-part-per-billion with a birth control pill (billion with a “b”), she will generally be unable to get pregnant. So 1-part-per-million (1000 times more) can have significant effects on a person, especially infants.
Smoking bans in bars and restaurants prevented many heart attacks… http://nyti.ms/3TZljn
Secondhand smoke causes asthma and allergies and SIDS in children…. http://bit.ly/8ZsNrS http://bit.ly/dfVOLx According to President George W Bush’s Surgeon General, “secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 202,300 asthma episodes and 790,000 doctor appointments for U.S. children with ear infections annually.” http://bit.ly/cjvCgh http://bit.ly/7qVKWw and http://bit.ly/aU8txF
Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3â€“11 yearsâ€”or almost 22 million childrenâ€”are exposed to secondhand smoke”…. http://bit.ly/dxIm1X
Secondhand smoke disrupts sensitive hormones and can contribute to mental disorders… http://bit.ly/dq66j6
So, obviously, the 15 foot law is reasonable. Maybe people only need to stay 10 feet away, but 15 feet is supposed to ensure that more people stay at least 10 feet away. And the law will works! I’ve notices people smoking farther away at the bus stops.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 14 31
Yes, I’m sure the air quality around the bus stops must be much better, now that the children are only breathing in that diesel exhaust.
But, since everyone is so concerned about “the health of the children” shouldn’t someone be there monitoring all that junk food they are consuming while waiting for the bus?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 29 6
Sam…that article about bans preventing heart attacks is interesting. Most interesting is that it defies logic and reason. “Because of the ban, these people didn’t have heart attacks!” If they had said, “likely to have prevented” heart attacks, then I wouldn’t take issue. As it is, tho, it’s hyperbole. The real downfall of the article, tho, is quoting Dr Hurt at the Mayo Clinic.
â€œThe evidence is now overwhelming,â€ said Dr. Richard D. Hurt, director of the nicotine dependence center at the Mayo Clinic, who was not involved in the report. â€œSecondhand smoke kills a lot of people,â€ Dr. Hurt said, â€œand one of the mechanisms by which it does is through exposure and the effect on the cardiovascular system.â€
Again…hyperbole. I’ve yet to read about one death with the confirmed cause of second hand smoke (and I’ve looked).
However, I’m always willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, there must be a list that can be produced. A list with the names of all those who have died as a direct result of second hand smoke.
About the park ban…it’s public property governed by ‘the people’ and those they elect to represent them. If they go for a smoking ban, they get a smoking ban. While smoking bans in bars and restaurants are completely unnecessary, parks are owned by everyone and, just like public buildings, it may not be possible for people to avoid using them (whereas bars and restaurants with smoking are 100% avoidable).
And finally, Sam…if you don’t see this as another step in the slippery slope of government “taking care of us”, I envy your innocence. I don’t imagine it’ll be long before ‘back yard smoking’ will be ardently regulated as well.
All the while, a nation consumed with the idea that second hand smoke is bad for their kids is feeding their children the what are likely the worst diets in the history of the USA! “Don’t hurt my kid with your second hand smoke,” I can hear them say, “I do enough of that with the garbage I feed them.”
Health concerns…it would seem they’re only a big issue when they’re stinky and unpleasant.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 29 5
Why don’t they do something about that black sooty smoke belching from the steam engine at the railroad station?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 26 6
Because, george, I don’t think parents really care about their kid’s health at that level. It’s easy to complain about second hand smoke and make it rise to the level of a screaming concern…especially when they’re told over and over again you’re committing child abuse if you let your kid near second hand smoke. The other stuff? Meh. They’ll wait until a special interest group starts screaming about it (and they’ll do more of that when they can figure out how to make more money out of it…belching smokestacks? That’s sooo 1970′s!)
Stauber and Boyle are the ones who need to hear it…..not the News Tribune. They’re elected officials…they work for the public and are supposed to represent the interests of the people they’re elected to serve (emphasis on “serve”), whether those people smoke or not.
Email these two loonies at these email addresses, and tell them enough is enough:
Like or Dislike: 20 7
Wouldn’t a better option be for people to actually show up at your city council meetings and tell the whole group that enough is enough?
Sorry but, I think emails sometimes tend to get ‘lost’ or end up in someone’s junk mail folder if they don’t want to hear what the author has to say.
Like or Dislike: 17 5
I no longer live in Duluth so I can’t actually swear to it but, I’m going guess that you actually do have citizens who’s yard is within 100 feet of a playground, park or athletic field so, that ordinance would indeed cover them in their own yard.
Not to mention people simply walking on the sidewalk or street within 100 feet of one.
Then, there’s the case of a parent sitting in their car in a parking lot, waiting for their kid to get done with practice.
Do you really want the cops called in any of those instances, when they are already short staffed?
This can only go one two ways. Either the city council is about the pass a law/ordinance that, since it will have a ticket/fine attached, the police will be forced to respond to or, they are making one more law that’s meant to make people feel good but, that they have no intention of actually enforcing.
And if you read the terms closely, you’ll see that this isn’t even really all about “the children”.
“bar smoking at all city playgrounds and within 100 feet of anyone participating in any city-sponsored, organized or scheduled youth activity”
Like or Dislike: 17 7
You all have seen my comments on Both of the Smoking Ordinance Articles with Areavoices comments allowed so you know where I stand.
Also must say Most of you Get It regarding the Progression of these No Smoking Ordinances being…..well….worrysome. I applaud your memories and your thought process.
However, I have to say I don’t know the
Boyle guy whatsoever. Actually don’t Know Stauber personally either….but I did have some issues with street construction within the last few years and they were Big Issues and you will have to trust me on that because I don’t want to rehash it again. I did Email Mr. Stauber and he not only Responded within 24 hours but also got my District Councillor, Mr. Fedora, involved. They BOTH Stayed involved throughout the Entire Summer and Resolved All the Issues for myself and neighbors (who had other issues) that I spoke with as well.
So I am not sure we should be attacking or necessarily bad-mouthing the councillors involved in this. I DO think we need to Stay On Top of the Progression of these Ordinance Changes and Updates etc…..AND make Others Aware of what we are Seeing regarding the Progression of No Smoking in Open Air Areas.
I would feel Remiss if I did not make you all aware of my own personal experience with the One Time in my 60 years that I EVER contacted a City Councillor. If you have ever experioenced street construction in front of and for blocks around your property you will understand how Grateful I feel toward Mr. Stauber and Mr. Fedora for their Immediate, Constant and Thoughtful Attention to the problems I was personally experiencing.
I feel it is only Fair to let others know my Experience with Mr. Stauber and Mr. Fedora was Excellent. And I realize I have gone off topic….I apologize and don’t want to start a whole new discussion about Councillors either.
Like or Dislike: 9 8
If you haven’t been reading both areavoices comment sections on this topic, please do so. Thank you…..
Like or Dislike: 5 8
I, for one, do like this ordinance….as someone who is allergic to smoke from cigarrettes, I can detect them a lot further away than 15 ft. A lot of you debate whether someone could die from second-hand smoke. I would think most of you are totally aware of people dying from smoking. Both my uncles did and I used to work in pulmonary rehabilitation and watched a lot of smokers there die from smoking. So, did you ever consider not so much the effects of the smoke itself as the action. I sure don’t want my kids around people smoking at a playground and thinking that smoking couldn’t be so bad if they do it. I try to role model for my kids that they shouldn’t start smoking…I don’t need other adults showing them that they could. Also, when I see older kids smoking at a playground/basketball court, etc., it is sometimes hard to tell if they are at least 18. This way the police could ticket them either way….and yes, I’ve known kids that have got ticketed for smoking at playgrounds. Not that it would stop them from smoking elsewhere…they can just go somewhere else where my children are not.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 8 21
How can you possibly be “allergic” to something that doesn’t contain any allergens? That’s a neat trick, and a nice scary anecdote to try out, but you’re not allergic to secondhand smoke because…well…you can’t be. It might annoy you, you might wilt because it’s oh-so-stinky, but you’re not allergic to it. Maybe it bothers some other real allergy you have….if so, your attention to detail (and accuracy) would be appreciated.
And what does a smoker’s risks have to do with this topic? This is about a smoking ban, outdoors in the open air. Speaking of which, I could blindfold you and stand three feet away with a cigarette, and your amazing near-range internal smoke detector would never know it. Hold on now, here comes the in-depth explanation: I’d stand downwind from you. Wow….that’s intense. The smoke would blow away from you and you’d never know it was there. 100 feet? That’s about 97 feet more than required.
And role models? I don’t want my kids seeing fat grownups and thinking it’s okay to be fat and lazy. Should the city regulate fat people? Is it the city’s job to regulate who is a role model for your kids? I didn’t think so.
Hot debate. What do you think? 23 9
Actually, I smell cigarettes a lot quicker than I see them. When I say allergic, it is the toxic chemicals and irritants in the cigarrettes that send me sneezing away from the person smoking them. There are some smokers that do stand downwind and I very much appreciate it. When they don’t, I leave because I cannot take the smell and don’t always carry my bronchodialator. I really don’t care if you smoke…go ahead…all I’m saying that in a public place, those of us that don’t smoke should be able to enjoy the open fresh air without being subjected to it. As far as your overweight adults…I hope they do come to playgrounds and other recreational areas and get active as long as they are there.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 11 21
Bronchiodilator? yaright, did you ever consider it could be in your HEAD? There is one heck of a difference between actual smoke, and odor.
Hot debate. What do you think? 22 14
Here is a nice video from the CDC on how secondhand smoke can cause a heart attack…. http://bit.ly/9eg2ql
Talk to your physician about how smoking can kill even though we cannot tell who dies from the smoking.
Here is an example…
I’ve never heard of a “confirmed case of radon gas killing someone,” but we know radon gas kills a lot of people. So, if 10 out of 100 typically die of cancer if there is no radon gas exposure, and 20 out of 100 die if there is radon gas exposure, we know that 10 excess deaths are due to the radon, even if we CANNOT tell which of the 20 those 10 are!
The deaths from secondhand smoke are known in the same way. We don’t know exactly who died due to secondhand smoke, but we do know that some have indeed died from it.
One argument seems to be this: “Parents often harm their children with unhealthy food, so why should they mind others harming their kids with smoke?”
The answer should be obvious. Harm is bad, and reducing harm is good.
Hot debate. What do you think? 12 20
More detail on disease caused by smoking…
Video on children and secondhand smoke…
Video on affect on arteries…
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 11 22
Talk to your physician. He or she can tell you about the dangers of secondhand smoke to children.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 12 23
Yea, and you might see that same physician, and probably his nurse out back puffing on a Marlboro.
Like or Dislike: 18 5
It is true that, “More non-smoker [physicians] agreed that smoking cessation was the single biggest step to improving health (88% vs 82%).” Only 82% of smoking physicians believe that stopping smoking is THE biggest step toward better health. 88% of non-smoking physicians said so.
Like or Dislike: 10 19
I guess I’m with Ipsofacto on this one, as I also find children are the cause of unnecessary stress, noise and germ-spreading (hence why I haven’t had kids). I would prefer to do my shopping, eating out and traveling without having to listen to whining, screaming and temper tantrums, without having candy thrown at me, or without my seat being kicked, so anytime they want to pass that ordinance… I guess it’s too hard for people to see how ridiculous this city is getting. I can understand with banning smoking inside (though I do not agree with it in the bars, it’s ok to kill your liver but not your lungs?), but outdoors is ridiculous. It’s not like smokers are purposly sitting on the playground equipment blowing smoke twards the kids. Duluth: the city where nothing is allowed anymore.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 23 6
Also, as a non smoker who has spent 30 years of her life inhaling second-hand smoke, I have absolutely no health problems (except bad ankles, does that mean I can get the wearing of shoes banned in public since they are the major cause of my sprains/breaks? I would prefer to go barefoot everywhere but cannot because businesses do not allow that). See how ridiculous you people sound?
Like or Dislike: 16 5
Totally agree. My brother and I were raised, where my dad smoked for 25 years than he quit. We would have people over who smoked, and we would go over to peoples homes when they had gatherings and the rooms where smokers were, I am fine. I saw a story on television once that had some doctor on, that said children need to be exposed to some germs, because that builds the immune system. We have all these parents out now that have a bottle of hand sanitizer with them at all times, so when little Zeke, or little Lafonda gets their hands in some dirt, instantly you have to sanitize them.
Like or Dislike: 12 5
Some people are making something like the following argument:
“I went to war and I came out safe, so war is safe.”
“I was exposed to secondhand smoke and I came out safe, so secondhand smoke is safe.”
The mistake in the argument is clear. For every one American soldier killed in World War II, twenty soldiers came home safe. But that is no proof that war is safe.
Far most infants die of SIDS if their parents smoke, even though most kids don’t die, even if their parent’s smoke. http://bit.ly/8ZsNrS
â€œSecondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 202,300 asthma episodes and 790,000 doctor appointments for U.S. children with ear infections annually.â€ http://bit.ly/cjvCgh http://bit.ly/7qVKWw http://bit.ly/dfVOLx and http://bit.ly/aU8txF
Here is a list of 50 abstracts of medical research journal articles from 2005-2009 that show that parental smoking causing SIDS…
Like or Dislike: 9 16
BS. Sam’s blowing smoke up our rumps, and using the same tired out scientific studies funded by grants to SUPPORT anti-smoking.
The single best campaign to prevent SIDS is not the anti-smoking lobby. Get your facts straight.
Like or Dislike: 15 5
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome has nothing to do with 2nd hand smoke, it’s been around far longer than tobacco has been popular.
Also, I have a second cousin who’s on disability SS, supposedly because of asthma, but when she’s stressed, I’ve seen her smoke.
Like or Dislike: 12 10
b.a.c. said “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome has nothing to do with 2nd hand smoke, itâ€™s been around far longer than tobacco has been popular.”
By that logic, the Bubonic Plague has nothing to do with dying, since DYING was around long before the Bubonic Plague struck.
An alternative interpretation is maybe there is a new cause of death (Bubonic Plague) that did not exist before. Also, there could be a new cause of SIDS (smoking) that was not around before.
Please people! The 50 abstracts of medical research journal articles from 2005-2009 that show that parental smoking causing SIDS should be proof enough!
Most any physician can tell you this is true.
Like or Dislike: 10 12
Sam, I think you’re not presenting an honest argument. You say, “We donâ€™t know exactly who died due to secondhand smoke, but we do know that some have indeed died from it.” Which is a round about way of saying, “We don’t know anyone that’s died due to second hand smoke.”, right? I mean, after all…if you KNOW they died from second hand smoke, you could identify them, couldn’t you? If you can’t find anyone that’s died due to second hand smoke…that tells you that they died from second hand smoke? An interesting way to think, but, in my mind, not very reasonable.
Like or Dislike: 11 7
You can agree that people have died from radon exposure, but no doctor can confirm that in individual cases. Radon causes cancer, but there is no “radon-marker” on the cancer cells. Cancer occurs due to damaged DNA, but we cannot tell exactly what damaged the DNA. Lots of thinkgs damage cells, and DNA. Similarly, lots of things can casue the same damage to a car, and we often cannot tell what exactly casued the damage (“did a ford or toyota casue this damage”).
So there are no â€œconfirmed cases of radon gas killing someone,â€ but we know radon gas kills a lot of people. So, if 10 out of 100 typically die of cancer if there is no radon gas exposure, and 20 out of 100 die if there is radon gas exposure, we know that 10 excess deaths are due to the radon, even if we CANNOT tell which of the 20 those 10 are!
The deaths from secondhand smoke are known in the same way. We donâ€™t know exactly who died due to secondhand smoke, but we do know that some have indeed died from it.
Like or Dislike: 6 15
The University of Minnesota Cancer Research center just released these findings April 20, 2010:
“Lifelong nonsmokers whose mothers smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day for 10 years had a 3.51-fold increased risk of bladder cancer compared with lifelong nonsmokers who were not exposed to secondhand smoke.” http://bit.ly/boZJWn
Like or Dislike: 5 12
Looks like you were a little selective in which parts of the text you chose to copy and paste.
Did you leave this part out on purpose or was it an accident?
“coupled with certain genetic traits increases bladder cancer risk.”
â€œThese findings further suggest that genetic traits may be a factor in bladder cancer risk for a nonsmoker exposed to secondhand smoke. However, more research needs to be done to determine the role of genetics and secondhand exposure on increased risk,â€
Like or Dislike: 6 3
Yes, it is always a mix of genetics and environment. So, imagine that 50% of children are sensitive to smoke in some way (predisposed to asthma if exposed, leukemia, ear infections, colds, etc.). The smoking ban would reduce secondhand smoke exposure to many children who are apt to get disease if exposed smoke toxins. Many of those children would not develop the diseases if they are not exposed to smoke.
Similarly, there was a study on Amish people who had genes for obesity. None of the Amish with the bad genes were obese, since they were not exposed to junk and fast foods, and they exercised daily (the Amish call it “work”).
The take home message: “If you have bad genes, and are not exposed to bad stuff, you will remain healthy!” We can’t control a child’s genes, but we can prevent exposure to bad stuff.
Like or Dislike: 2 7
and “study participants working in an office with coworkers who smoked cigarettes 5 or more hours a day were at a 2-fold increased risk for bladder cancer.”
Sam–I have read many of your wonderful, informed comments about the health hazards of smoking, and I want to let you know that I applaud your efforts at rational thinking. Your comments are not getting lost on those who are able to connect the dots between illness and toxins. And there isnâ€™t a credible doctor or scientist alive today who will dispute the fact that exposures to toxins can damage human health.
The problem is that this topic in general is one of what I refer to as a Christopher Columbus topic. As most of the thinking/literate population realizes –he was also very hated and shouted down in his day by a very misinformed bunch. Didn’t make him one bit less correct however–and today he is certainly viewed in a different light than he was by his contemporaries. It is an embarrassment for anyone over the age of twelve to not see the health hazards and dangers of smoking or other exposures to toxins. And the fact that people would even have to step in to debate the correctness about protecting children–or anyone else for that matter– from second hand smoke on this late date on the calendar—well, it is appalling.
What this topic boils down to in my opinion is one phrase: basic regard for others. You either have it or you donâ€™t. Smokers who demand to blow smoke anywhere they see fit are in my opinion just a person with a basic disregard for others. They donâ€™t care about their own health–as is evidenced in their choice to smoke–and so what kind of regard will they have for someone elseâ€™s health? Simple. Probably none. This is why these types of topics eventually reach the point of legislation. Because people who treat others decently in the first place have no need for laws which demand that they doâ€¦.
â€¦.and just a footnote–I think if you are sitting in your backyard smoking–and it drifts over INTO the yard and up the nose of your neighbor with asthma–who frankly doesnâ€™t want to smell anything you are doing–then by all means ban smoking in backyardsâ€¦..;)
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 3 13
I think some of you should go poll how many heart patients smoke or lives with a smoker in any given heart wing in any hospital on any given day. Easily 75%. While you’re at it, take a good hard look at the long road to recovery they have and take a good look at all the tubes sticking out of them.
I hear so many talk about how considerate they are of others, but yet it must be the minority that light up in a public park among children? Yeah right. Give me a break. The cigarette butt count on the ground says different.
If you don’t want more bans going into effect, then be more considerate. don’t bellyache because you have to stay a certain distance away. Smoking hasn’t been banned. Just in public places where courtesy and consideration could of easily avoided such bans.
We know more about smoking the the effects of smoking now then we did even 5 or 10 years ago and we are learning more every day. What level is safe? very limited exposer can cause asthma attacks in some people. We know that long term smoking can cause severe health problems that can lead to death.
What you put into your body and in your personal space is your business, but don’t harm others. Your second hand smoke can cause harm to others. I know it’s the truth that is hard to hear because I didn’t like hearing it when I smoked because I wanted to smoke so I made every excuse I could too continue and rationalized any situation to make it look like my rights were being violated.
How wrong I was.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 2 13
I wonder how someone charcoal grilling in the back yard would affect a neighbor with asthma? I’m willing to bet that wouldn’t bother the neighbor one bit, especially if they were invited over to eat!
Like or Dislike: 9 10
There are different types of asthma. Some are affected by smoke, and some are not.
I’d feel terrible if something I did caused an asthma attack for someone else, be it a cigarette, or charcoal grilling.
How selfish and inconsiderate.
Like or Dislike: 2 8
How selfish and inconsidered is a Grandma who would deny her grandchildren a BBQ and a bonfire for smores, because SHE has smoke aggravated asthma? Two years ago, we had to nix our picnic plans because of her “health” demands. Two years later, she’s sticking her head in the Weber to see how the brats are doing and later holding a long stick, roasting a marshmallow over the open firepit, and nary an inhaler in hand or pocket.
Her “smoke” related asthma doesn’t seem to stop her from going a 1/2 block out of her way to barge into a group of smokers trying to be considerate of other people’s airspace, and wave her inhaler, fake coughing and sputtering that they are seriously affecting HER air. I smell an activist rat, using an easy to obtain script (albuteral inhalers are commonly scripted for even NON asthma illnesses), to make a spectacle claiming the sympathy card. If she has asthma, we all have asthma because a good dose of ANY smoke can cause irritation in our lungs and coughing, just ask a fire victim after they been adminstered some O2 and got their wind back.
How STUPID would it be for a asthma suffered to go LOOKING for instances in which they can forcefully assert themselves directly into the path of their particular trigger, just so they can complain about being affected? That is the definition of a martyr, someone who would willingly risk DEATH for a principal. I see it as self-destructive and completely against all sane logic to intentionally put yourself in harms way just so you can make point. It’s an activist’s trick. It’s hard to believe that her illness is a valid one, especially since she picks and chooses which instances to complain about being affected.
Like or Dislike: 4 4
First, I’m not sure why people think smoking anywhere they please is a “right.”
Second, every time I have taken my kids down to downtown and Canal Park this summer, the place has been FULL of smokers. Grandparents puffing away merrily in front of their grandkids. Parents exhaling well within the regions of their children. All of this drifting in the breathing space of MY children. After all this time, I cannot understand why people do this. It’s child abuse!
Consequently, we have not gone down there the rest of the summer.
Normally, I am not a big fan of “government telling us what to do,” but public health and safety is within the realm of government. If people would be personally responsible, and not wander around puffing poison into the air and then dropping their disgusting butts any old place they feel like it, we wouldn’t NEED smoking bans. However, we do need them and I hope they make this ALL outdoor public spaces within 100 feet of ANY building or park or recreational area. If you want to smoke, do it at home.
Like or Dislike: 4 12
hate smokers much?
Like or Dislike: 5 2
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first. You can also create an account.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company