Second hand smoke - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #46 03-13-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

Prop 29 in CA will increase taxes on tobacco (not sure about chaw) and thus increase the funding for more ads and education about the dangers related to smoking.

Regarding more-restrictive laws, as an asthma sufferer, I generally welcome anything that limits my involuntary exposure to unnecessary pollutants.

Will it go to the cause you stated or just a token sum? Reason I ask is that back a few years we had that "Tobacco Windfall" that was supposed to do just that. Do you remember what happened to the money? Critics Feel States May Misspend Their Tobacco Windfall

I do have asthma too but I DO NOT welcome those well meaning laws. Reason? Quite often, that is how they start out. Much like they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

chilcutt · #47 03-13-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Second hand smoke is being used as the excuse to pass more and more legislation. Right now the MD legislature is preparing to pass a law to make it illegal to smoke in a car with an occupant under 8 years old. The sponsors wanted to prohibit allowing a achild in any car in which someone had ever smoked. The "dangers" of second smoke is cited as the reason we need to protect the children.

My question is simple. Are there studies that show causality? I know of anecdotal stories, but are there scientific studies? I also know that the UN spiked its own study about a decade ago because it did not find a solid link.

So, is second hand smoke as dangerous as they want us to believe, or is this more junk science passed off as real research?
Please notice that I am not advocating any position regarding legislation--I am only asking questions.

I thought this was the topic. Not addiction. Talking about addiction pushes buttons on me, so I try to stay away from that topic.

Altho, some premium Hash does sound good right about now...

spdrun · #48 03-13-2012, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Altho, some premium Hash does sound good right about now...

Don't they shoot you for that type of thing in S'pore? Come to CA where weed is becoming more legal than ciggs.

aklim · #49 03-13-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dseretakis

My take on smoking is... You have the right to smoke in your own home, in the absence of underage children but if you live in a condo or apartment complex then smoking should be strictly prohibited because it WILL enter the other units.

Smoking should also be prohibited in ANY public place because I don't feel like getting a headache smelling the smoke of another person walking past me on the sidewalk. I also don't feel that I must be obliged to hold my breath every time I enter or exit a building where there is a pathetic bunch of nicotine addicted fiends bundled around the entrance sucking on cigarettes.

Dunno. When I lived in an apartment, I didn't seem to smell the smoke from others much. One exception to that was when the person rented the apartment above and "sub-rented" it for cash to a bunch of other people (maintenance guy said 10 at any time before they finally kicked them out) we could smell some smoke.

THAT part, I have a little trouble with. In an enclosed space, fair enough. In open air, I have a hard time telling someone they can't smoke regardless of how I feel about smoking personally.

aklim · #50 03-13-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Don't they shoot you for that type of thing in S'pore? Come to CA where weed is becoming more legal than ciggs.

Death sentence is only for drug dealers who are over the limit. What constituted an "Over the Limit, Under arrest" drug dealer? Depends on the drug and the amount you carry. And no, it isn't a firing squad at dawn. Rather a "Necktie Party" where YOU, the offender, are the guest of honor with your own state supplied "necktie" for the event. A side benefit is that your height, and therefore your BMI is altered positively. If you were boarderline overweight, after the party, you could be in a more healthy class.

Singapore drug dealer death sentence lifted - CNN

cmbdiesel · #51 03-13-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

If I'm in a restaurant, I usually don't have to worry about someone leaving their '67 Impala running at the next table....

What about Sonic?

Of course the chili dog is probably worse than the smoke...

cmbdiesel · #52 03-13-2012, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

I believe that most people have a pet peeve about smokers that believe that cigarette butts are not only biodegradable (filters not so much) but also constitute nutrient rich mulch and an attractive alternative to pristine beach sand or grass medians.

Little bits of toxic trash. Definitely a DB move to throw them anywhere but a trash can.

cmbdiesel · #53 03-13-2012, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

What about all the old Mercedes Benz DIESELS, "cmbdiesel"?

Do *they* get a free pass from you?

diesel smoke - irritant

gasser smoke - health hazard

Let's not dredge up that thread about snow banks again....

aklim · #54 03-13-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

diesel smoke - irritant

OEHHA Air: Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust

What are the health effects of diesel exhaust?

As we breathe, the toxic gases and small particles of diesel exhaust are drawn into the lungs. The microscopic particles in diesel exhaust are less than one-fifth the thickness of a human hair and are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, where they contribute to a range of health problems.
Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. In fact, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant evaluated by OEHHA. ARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles.
In its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers and equipment operators. The studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who were not exposed to diesel emissions. These studies provide strong evidence that long-term occupational exposure to diesel exhaust increases the risk of lung cancer. Using information from OEHHA's assessment, ARB estimates that diesel-particle levels measured in California's air in 2000 could cause 540 "excess" cancers (beyond what would occur if there were no diesel particles in the air) in a population of 1 million people over a 70-year lifetime. Other researchers and scientific organizations, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have calculated cancer risks from diesel exhaust that are similar to those developed by OEHHA and ARB.
Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.
Diesel engines are a major source of fine-particle pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children's lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children.
Like all fuel-burning equipment, diesel engines produce nitrogen oxides, a common air pollutant in California. Nitrogen oxides can damage lung tissue, lower the body's resistance to respiratory infection and worsen chronic lung diseases, such as asthma. They also react with other pollutants in the atmosphere to form ozone, a major component of smog.

SwampYankee · #55 03-13-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Will it go to the cause you stated or just a token sum? Reason I ask is that back a few years we had that "Tobacco Windfall" that was supposed to do just that. Do you remember what happened to the money? Critics Feel States May Misspend Their Tobacco Windfall

The state of CT rolled it into a slushy fund and away it went.

Thirdem · #56 03-13-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Have you ever had someone close to you die of lung cancer?

Not lung-cancer, but cancer, yes. That is a terrible thing that I would not want anybody experiencing, much less from their own actions! My parents, and moms parents are smokers, and I am so flipping sick of the cigarette smoke, and the cost of them!! That alone should put an end to smoking!!

Hmm, I just don't understand why somebody would smoke, but be against suicide, that is what they are doing to themselves. It just takes longer to kill them!

aklim · #57 03-13-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

The state of CT rolled it into a slushy fund and away it went.

NO!!!! You must be mistaken. They said that it was used for anti-smoking stuff. Much like what the other states said.

Here is the joke. I believe the state used the DA's office to get the money (IOW money spent) and the tobacco companies get to write it off, the politicians say "Hey, I did something for you. Vote for me next time." and the money gets used for all sorts of other crap so the elected can say "See there. We gave you all this and didn't raise your taxes. Vote for me.". Everybody's happy.

SwampYankee · #58 03-13-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

NO!!!! You must be mistaken. They said that it was used for anti-smoking stuff. Much like what the other states said.

Here is the joke. I believe the state used the DA's office to get the money (IOW money spent) and the tobacco companies get to write it off, the politicians say "Hey, I did something for you. Vote for me next time." and the money gets used for all sorts of other crap so the elected can say "See there. We gave you all this and didn't raise your taxes. Vote for me.". Everybody's happy.

That's what we were told. It's hard to believe, but I think some politicians may have been less than thruthful!

aklim · #59 03-13-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thirdem

Not lung-cancer, but cancer, yes. That is a terrible thing that I would not want anybody experiencing, much less from their own actions!

My parents, and moms parents are smokers, and I am so flipping sick of the cigarette smoke, and the cost of them!! That alone should put an end to smoking!!

Hmm, I just don't understand why somebody would smoke, but be against suicide, that is what they are doing to themselves. It just takes longer to kill them!

I have a list of people I would want dying of cancer.

Question. If I made a trip and watched you for a month, would I find ANY action that you do which could be said medically to be committing suicide? How about not eating right, Not resting enough, Not enough exercise, doing dangerous activities, etc, etc? Before you play the suicide card, are you sure I can find that NONE of your activities or lack of them could be called suicidal? Sure it shortens your life but it is the individual's choice as far as that goes. A lot of activities we do shortens our lives but it is a choice we can live with. You might not think it is a good choice any more than your parents hate your spouse but such is life.

aklim · #60 03-13-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

That's what we were told. It's hard to believe, but I think some politicians may have been less than thruthful!

Which explains why I always say "Dear Politician. Do me a favor by NOT doing me any favors.". It gives a nice fuzzy feeling when we say "Tax this and use the money for some good.". After which we forget what it was for. In WI, the 2 things that chafe me that they do are the road tax fund and the heating for gramps.

I have ZERO issue with paying my fair share for road maintenance for the damage my vehicle caused but when you lie to me and tell me that it is for road maintenance and use it for something else (Gov Doyle "borrowed" a few bucks for something else), it makes me wonder what else you are doing. Are you collecting too much that you have nowhere for it to go? In which case, give me a refund. Or are you indiscriminately taking money from any source?

They told us that paying utility customers have to chip in a bit more so that Grandpa and Grandma who couldn't afford the heat get heat. Who could complain, right? They took that money to fund the DA's office thus making the utility company an unofficial tax arm of the state govt.

Wonder why I feel that the less they "help" us, the less sore my a$$ feels?