I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: okarol on October 11, 2007, 09:06:54 AM
-
Calif. bans smoking in cars with kids
By STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press WriterThu Oct 11, 6:04 AM ET
California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.
The ban, which takes effect Jan. 1, joins a string of smoking prohibitions adopted in California, including a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and within 25 feet of a playground.
A Harvard School of Public Health report issued last year said secondhand smoke in cars can be up to 10 times more of a health risk than secondhand smoke in a home.
"Protecting the health of our children is among government's highest responsibilities," said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, a Democrat. "It is clear that increasing public awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke is the right thing to do."
At least 20 states and a number of municipalities have considered limiting smoking in cars where minors are present. Arkansas now bans smoking in cars with children age 6 and younger, while Louisiana has limited it when children 13 and younger are in the vehicle. Maine lawmakers will take up the issue in January.
-----------------------
I think it's a good idea, I never realized smoking in the car with kids was 10 times worse than in the house!
-
Whats wrong with rolling the windows down?
I hate it that government is starting to think for us 'for our own good'. I saw yesterday where in one city in CA now you cant smoke in your own home if it is joined like a townhome. Before you know it they will just outlaw smoking. Creeping incrementalism.
"For the children" is no excuse to chip away at our freedoms. I am also a non-smoker. Maybe they are going to outlaw my twinkies next. More governmental interferance is just not the answer.
-
:2thumbsup; I'm a non-smoker, so I think this is a great law. I wish Mass would do it. Even with the windows down people in the car are subjected to the 2nd hand smoke.
I can't stand behind behind or next to a car where someone in the car is smoking with the windows down and I can smell it.
-
I predict that Britney Spears will be in the news in the future about this ban. :rofl; :rofl;
-
:2thumbsup; I'm a non-smoker, so I think this is a great law. I wish Mass would do it. Even with the windows down people in the car are subjected to the 2nd hand smoke.
I can't stand behind behind or next to a car where someone in the car is smoking with the windows down and I can smell it.
yeah it smells bad..but so does too much perfume, and fried fish, and onion breath.
With the windows down going 25 miles an hour no one gets second hand smoke-its blown out of the car. Maybe they should ban campfires too.
Being in favor of the government taking away our rights cause this particular law suits you...what happens when they get to the laws that don't? It may be too late to save your freedom.
-
I wish they had this law when i was growing up. I have (not so) fond memories of my friend's Dad chain smoking in the car, driving us home from Brownies when we were little. During the winter, he wouldn't roll down the windows and by the time we got home 25 minutes later, from the outside, the car looked like there was a fire inside from all the smoke! It was horrible. Sometimes I ended up throwing up, it was so bad! I am now terribly allergic to cigarette smoke. :P
-
It's about time they did something good, :bandance; finally a law that makes some sense. :clap; I am a smoker, i guess you can say a closet smoker, i smoke 1 cigarette a day but if i am drinking, that's a whole nother story :P I cannot phathom how an adult could even smoke around kids to begin with. I cannot stand to see people smoke in their cars with the windows rolled up, i could just imagine how they smell or the car for that matter. I smoke outside and i try to blow it away, i know i still smell but i am usually by myself when i do smoke cuz i would hate anyone to smell me after i smoke, for my peeps going to Vegas, i apologize in advance ;)
-
I'm a non smoker and grew up with parents that smoked. I hated being in the car when I was a kid.
I think it is a good idea not to smoke in the car with your children.
That said, because something is a good idea doesn't mean it should be a law. I agree with Glitter, when does it stop?
-
:2thumbsup; I'm a non-smoker, so I think this is a great law. I wish Mass would do it. Even with the windows down people in the car are subjected to the 2nd hand smoke.
I can't stand behind behind or next to a car where someone in the car is smoking with the windows down and I can smell it.
yeah it smells bad..but so does too much perfume, and fried fish, and onion breath.
With the windows down going 25 miles an hour no one gets second hand smoke-its blown out of the car. Maybe they should ban campfires too.
Being in favor of the government taking away our rights cause this particular law suits you...what happens when they get to the laws that don't? It may be too late to save your freedom.
Too much perfume, fried fish and onion breath isn't going to give me lung cancer. 2nd hand smoke will. What if a person is sitting in the parking lot with the window rolled down? Doesn't that child/person get the full effect of the 2nd hand smoke?
-
I wish they had this law when i was growing up. I have (not so) fond memories of my friend's Dad chain smoking in the car, driving us home from Brownies when we were little. During the winter, he wouldn't roll down the windows and by the time we got home 25 minutes later, from the outside, the car looked like there was a fire inside from all the smoke! It was horrible. Sometimes I ended up throwing up, it was so bad! I am now terribly allergic to cigarette smoke. :P
Same here. My father smoked cigars and my mother smoked cigarettes. I have awful memories of that smell and lighheaded feeling while driving in the car with them as a kid. Even with the windows rolled down it sucked. I absolutely hate the smell and get nauseous when I smell it to this day.
-
What if a person is sitting in the parking lot with the window rolled down? Doesn't that child/person get the full effect of the 2nd hand smoke?
Then this law will be totally ineffective as they cannot write a ticket unless there is another reason to pull you over.
It is ridiculous to leave it up to the law to do the parenting. Are we going to start seeing lawsuits because the state I live in doesn't enforce this law and therefor caused damage to someone. Personally I don't need the government to think for me and make my decisions. OUT OF CONTROL
If it is such an issue just make them illegal alltogether. Wouldn't that save lives.
-
This is how it begins, slowly and surely the government starts to regulate our lives because they don't believe we have enough sense to raise our kids properly. Our individual rights and privacy are eaten away piece by piece until it's all been swallowed up by Big Brother. I live in Northern California and we always seem to be first to overregulate everyone's lives.
One of these days I'm going to declare a run for the presidency under the "Common Sense Party."
Our tagline: "Sense is Not Common Enough."
Stacy "Common Sense Party 2012" Without An E
-
Go Stacey!
Too much perfume, fried fish and onion breath isn't going to give me lung cancer. 2nd hand smoke will. What if a person is sitting in the parking lot with the window rolled down? Doesn't that child/person get the full effect of the 2nd hand smoke?
I am not argueing that smoke it bad for kids- of course it is, and parents who are decent people protect thier kids. Most people complain about the stinky smell of ciggerette smoke.
What I don't like is laws that chip away at freedoms. I am a parent, the government does not need to tell me how to be one, nor do they need to make laws under the guise 'of protecting the children' this isn't really about the kids- its about creeping incrementalism, they chip away at your rights in tiny little ways that no one can object to, because they know an outright ban on ciggerettes (or whatever) would invite protest. But make no mistake -the agenda is far bigger. They want to control how you think and what you can do- the problem with that is that you become no longer FREE. First it was smoking in government buildings , then all buildings, then parks, now cars where there is kids, homes that ajoin other homes with walls in between. If they would have tried to outright ban ciggs. people would have hollered, no one wants prohibition. Look at whats happening- before you know it ciggs will be outlawed. and even as a non-smoker, i do not want the government deciding what is right and wrong in my life.
-
What if a person is sitting in the parking lot with the window rolled down? Doesn't that child/person get the full effect of the 2nd hand smoke?
Then this law will be totally ineffective as they cannot write a ticket unless there is another reason to pull you over.
It is ridiculous to leave it up to the law to do the parenting. Are we going to start seeing lawsuits because the state I live in doesn't enforce this law and therefor caused damage to someone. Personally I don't need the government to think for me and make my decisions. OUT OF CONTROL
If it is such an issue just make them illegal alltogether. Wouldn't that save lives.
You can still be in a parking lot and have the cop give you a ticket for littering, noise violation. It doesn't matter what speed you are going, you can still get the effects of second hand smoke. If you are on a highway, is your hand going to be out of the car the whole time with the cigar/cigarette? I doubt it.
As I stated before, I personally think this is a great law and hope that other states follow in line. I would think if you had children, people would stop smoking in front of them.
I remember the days when people could smoke in offices. It was hard to get away from it....I remember being in meetings in between 2 bosses who smoked a cigar and cigarette.
-
You can still be in a parking lot and have the cop give you a ticket for littering, noise violation. It doesn't matter what speed you are going, you can still get the effects of second hand smoke. If you are on a highway, is your hand going to be out of the car the whole time with the cigar/cigarette? I doubt it.
As I stated before, I personally think this is a great law and hope that other states follow in line. I would think if you had children, people would stop smoking in front of them.
I remember the days when people could smoke in offices. It was hard to get away from it....I remember being in meetings in between 2 bosses who smoked a cigar and cigarette.
I am dumbfounded..........................
VOTE STACY 4 PRESIDENT
-
You can still be in a parking lot and have the cop give you a ticket for littering, noise violation. It doesn't matter what speed you are going, you can still get the effects of second hand smoke. If you are on a highway, is your hand going to be out of the car the whole time with the cigar/cigarette? I doubt it.
As I stated before, I personally think this is a great law and hope that other states follow in line. I would think if you had children, people would stop smoking in front of them.
I remember the days when people could smoke in offices. It was hard to get away from it....I remember being in meetings in between 2 bosses who smoked a cigar and cigarette.
I am dumbfounded..........................
VOTE STACY 4 PRESIDENT
George chill...it's just my opinion.
-
I think that it should be a parents common sense that keeps them from smoking in their car with kids in it... now the law. I am a non-smoker and hate being in any car with someone smoking in it, or has been smoking in it... but I do not think the law should be the one telling us we can or can't... thats a little f'king insane.
-
George chill...it's just my opinion.
Why when I make a reply is it that you tell me to chill. Why can I not simply say that I am dumbfounded and you just leave it alone?
I am chill. I just think your opinion is crazy and that is just my opinion. It's nothing personal, I don't even know you.
-
I have my own car now...and I remember when it didn't bother me that mom smoked and it smelled bad in the car. When I got my own I got used to no smoke, or filthy film, and it disgusts me too be in her car. I also believe we as Americans should not be forced to do everything either politically correct, or looking over our shoulder wondering if what we're doing is bad or not. I don't think smoking is good but it's also one of those birth rights. Not to mention personal choice. I don't think there is an answer, because everyone can rant about things all day long but if noone is willing to compromise then why discuss it. It's really not worth the energy. People need to spend more time catching real criminals like child molesters and rapists. Life is all about little faults. Noone is going to die healthy. This site is all about coping and dealing with dialysis, just as an example. Instead of trying to change everyone, people need to cope and deal with the smokers. A recent study showed that smokers who have been smoking regularly for awhile, can't or shouldn't try to quit because if they do they will have a severe health problem. It destroys they're body even more than actually smoking. :rant;
-
By the way the only thing an officer has to say, for a reason to pull you over, is they perceived you as suspicious. Totally rediculous.
-
A recent study showed that smokers who have been smoking regularly for awhile, can't or shouldn't try to quit because if they do they will have a severe health problem. It destroys they're body even more than actually smoking
I'd like to see that study- I quit smoking almost two years ago and I do feel like my lung power is waaayyy better! I do defend peoples right to smoke,drink, commit adultry, smoke pot, or smoke toothpaste. I don't want to be as free as you think I should be.
-
I'm not a smoker, but glad I don't have kids. You can't even spank them these days due to politically correctness. In theory it is a good law, but totally impractical. It is just something that is just nice to think about, but not actually putting into law. I wonder if it was a law while Schwartzenager wasn't governor smoked around his kids with his cigars how he would feel about the law. I'm sure he smoked around his kids. But what do I know, I'm the 400 lbs Gorilla. That's my opinion and I'm sticken to it.
-
My mom smoked like a chimney my first 16 years of my life, then I started smoking and did it for 11 years. So I didn't have a smoke-free day in 27 years. I quit 25 years ago because I wanted to have kids.
Yeah it would be great if parent's used common sense and didn't smoke around their precious kids, but it's a powerful addiction. It's more demanding than any other addiction I struggled with. We've known for over 30 years that smoking is unhealthy - warnings were put on cigarette packs:
* Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966)
* Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970)
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (Present)
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.
All this government involvement has probably made some impact. Smoking is forbidden in nearly three out of four U.S. households, a dramatic increase from the 43 percent of homes that prohibited smoking a decade ago, the federal government reports. I would love if all parent's made good choices about what they expose their kids too, but many don't.
My son is 19 and has been smoking for almost a year. It breaks my heart.
-
This is how it begins, slowly and surely the government starts to regulate our lives because they don't believe we have enough sense to raise our kids properly.
A lot of people don't have enough sense to raise kids--those that drink too much around them, do drugs, leave them home alone too young, leave guns laying around, leaving them in a hot car alone, not keeping an eye on them in public, do stupid shit like Brittany Spears, etc. etc. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids if you ask me.
-
This is how it begins, slowly and surely the government starts to regulate our lives because they don't believe we have enough sense to raise our kids properly.
A lot of people don't have enough sense to raise kids--those that drink too much around them, do drugs, leave them home alone too young, leave guns laying around, leaving them in a hot car alone, not keeping an eye on them in public, do stupid shit like Brittany Spears, etc. etc. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids if you ask me.
it would be nice if only perfect parents had kids- but then many of us would not exsist!!
-
I'm not referring to minor mistakes, we all make those and wouldn't be human if we didn't. I'm referring to ones that blatantly put a child in danger, like I mentioned before. Not doing these things doesn't take a whole lot of common sense.
-
This is how it begins, slowly and surely the government starts to regulate our lives because they don't believe we have enough sense to raise our kids properly.
A lot of people don't have enough sense to raise kids--those that drink too much around them, do drugs, leave them home alone too young, leave guns laying around, leaving them in a hot car alone, not keeping an eye on them in public, do stupid shit like Brittany Spears, etc. etc. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have kids if you ask me.
it would be nice if only perfect parents had kids- but then many of us would not exsist!!
So true, Glitter.
-
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
This is the lie that the anti smoking fascists hope you won't suss because it suits their cause. And how can anyone smoking in the open air possibly be causing a health hazard? You inhale more toxicity every time you walk along a busy high street. So some people don't like the smell, well tough! Maybe some people don't like the smell of burger bars, should we ban them as well?
Over the years movements like the anti smoking lobby, health and safety groups and animal welfare organizations have whittled away at our personal freedoms in persuit of their various agendas. They are like fanatical religious cults, intolerant of any opposition and criticism and wont be satisfied until they have reached their goals which in this case is making smoking completely illegal.
Anyone who cares about freedom in our so called western democracies should oppose these tyrants.
-
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
This is the lie that the anti smoking fachists hope you won't suss because it suits their cause. And how can anyone smoking in the open air possibly be causing a health hazard? You inhale more toxicity every time you walk along a busy high street. So some people don't like the smell, well tough! Maybe some people don't like the smell of burger bars, should we ban them as well?
Over the years movements like the anti smoking lobby, health and safety groups and animal welfare oganisations have wittled away at our personal freedoms in persuit of their various agendas. They are like fanatical religious cults, intolerant of any opposition and criticism and wont be satisfied until they have reached their goals which in this case is making smoking completely illegal.
Anyone who cares about freedom in our so called western democracies should oppose these tyrants.
I agree with you on every point except the first one....but I am open to hearing about those studies.
-
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
This is the lie that the anti smoking fachists hope you won't suss because it suits their cause. And how can anyone smoking in the open air possibly be causing a health hazard? You inhale more toxicity every time you walk along a busy high street. So some people don't like the smell, well tough! Maybe some people don't like the smell of burger bars, should we ban them as well?
Over the years movements like the anti smoking lobby, health and safety groups and animal welfare oganisations have wittled away at our personal freedoms in persuit of their various agendas. They are like fanatical religious cults, intolerant of any opposition and criticism and wont be satisfied until they have reached their goals which in this case is making smoking completely illegal.
Anyone who cares about freedom in our so called western democracies should oppose these tyrants.
I agree with you on every point except the first one....but I am open to hearing about those studies.
http://www.forestonline.org/output/page16.asp
-
It upsets me that the Government is taking our rights away everyday and it is very clear with this smoking ban. I agree we need to do what is best for our children, and if parents made the right choices, the government wouldn't have to step in.
-
That upsets me too. I already have too many people telling me what I can't and can do. It is not that I am against protecting our children, I am still a momma bear with her cub and grandcubs. I think so much is taken away from us we need control over some things, The right to say yes or no. When I was younger, I always hated the "Don't do what I do, do what I tell you". You can guess which one I always picked. I am really rambling here, but you get the picture. Mel
-
In all honesty, i think this law is a good one (for the kids sake) I had a friend in North Carolina who smoked with her kids in the car and her kids have ASTHMA? WTF? Somewhere, somehow, someone needs to give these kids a voice if their parents arent going to listen. :twocents;
-
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
There are no human rights being violated.
The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.
-
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
There are no human rights being violated.
The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.
It's too bad people just can not use common sense when others are around or in their cars, it forces the lawmakers to step in. It's a good law but I'm sorry it is still our government taking away our rights (civil liberties) as citizens. Same thing with gun laws and seatbelts etc etc. It is not a matter of keeping order anymore, it's a matter of forcing people to use common sense.
-
Unfortunately, you have some really stupid people in the world.
Personally, I think that this law is excellent and not banning human rights. This is for the sake of children. It really irks me when I see parents smoking in front of their kids. I especially can't stand it when Mothers smoke while they are pregnant.
I have friends who smoke, but they have the common courtesy not to smoke in my house, car, etc. The worst is when people smoke and just let it blow in other peoples faces. That's just being rude.
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
There are no human rights being violated.
The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.
It's too bad people just can not use common sense when others are around or in their cars, it forces the lawmakers to step in. It's a good law but I'm sorry it is still our government taking away our rights (civil liberties) as citizens. Same thing with gun laws and seatbelts etc etc. It is not a matter of keeping order anymore, it's a matter of forcing people to use common sense.
Gun laws are a necessity. I'm all for people having them if they choose. However, even with all the background checks they do, people still get them and use them in the worst way possible. I grew up with a gun and rifles in my house. My Dad taught us kids not to play with them, that they are dangerous. My FIL is an avid hunter, but he has his guns, rifles, etc. locked up. Rob and I personally do not like guns, so we do not have them in our house.
Some laws are just common sense and they are there to keep things in control.
-
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
There are no human rights being violated.
The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.
It's too bad people just can not use common sense when others are around or in their cars, it forces the lawmakers to step in. It's a good law but I'm sorry it is still our government taking away our rights (civil liberties) as citizens. Same thing with gun laws and seatbelts etc etc. It is not a matter of keeping order anymore, it's a matter of forcing people to use common sense.
Common sense is not so common.
-
The banning of smoking in public places is not only a denial of human rights but is based on the lie that passive smoking causes cancer. All clinical studies into this have proved inconclusive.
There are no human rights being violated.
The right to smoke is trumped by the natural right to breath smoke free air.
Of course human rights are being violated. If this law against smoking in cars with kids was just about the protection of kids then it's justified but it's not. It's part and parcel of the militant propaganda campain against those who choose to smoke.
What started out as a sensible restriction of smoking in certain public areas has now become an attack on smokers generally. How else can you justify for instance the the prohibition of smoking in certain open air public spaces. How can secondary smoke when it becomes diluted in air be of any risk. For God's sake recognise a hoax when you see one or would you prefer to endorse it because it suits the purely selfish stance which the anti smoking lobby take in their efforts to crucify all who choose to smoke?
Indeed, the notion that tobacco smoke, heavily diluted in the atmosphere, can kill non-smokers is so implausible that the stop-smoking brigade has gone to exceptional lengths to foster a fear of 'passive smoking'. They have conducted, sponsored or quoted dozens of research projects to nail down this illusive phantom, but all fail the acid tests of objectivity and statistical significance.
One of the few scientists who managed to publicise attempts to measure significant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke - in Swedish homes - was a toxicologist, Professor Robert Nilsson. Nilsson quoted findings that showed that non-smokers who consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke are smoking the equivalent of one cigarette a week to two cigarettes a year, which is hardly going to give the nation nightmares.
Yet only the most diligent or scrupulous students will have heard of such findings because, as Professor Nilsson explained, studies that produce the 'wrong' results (that is, unwelcome to the extensive anti-smoking network) do not get published. So the campaign of intimidation and suppression goes unchallenged.
-
Of course human rights are being violated. If this law against smoking in cars with kids was just about the protection of kids then it's justified but it's not. It's part and parcel of the militant propaganda campain against those who choose to smoke.
Breathing smoke free air is a natural primary right and supersedes the secondary right to smoke and dirty air up. So no right is truly being violated because since smoking is secondary it gets trumped as a right when compared to a primary right.
What started out as a sensible restriction of smoking in certain public areas has now become an attack on smokers generally. How else can you justify for instance the the prohibition of smoking in certain open air public spaces. How can secondary smoke when it becomes diluted in air be of any risk. For God's sake recognise a hoax when you see one or would you prefer to endorse it because it suits the purely selfish stance which the anti smoking lobby take in their efforts to crucify all who choose to smoke?
Yes I am quite sure there are claims secondary smoke does not kill. Just as it was has claimed for decades that tobacco causes no cancer and leads to no other help problems. Hell it was even claimed they were healthy and good for you at one time.
-
Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?
-
Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?
So you wouldn't advise against smoking while pregnant?
-
Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?
So you wouldn't advise against smoking while pregnant?
Lots more that can kill than smoke, sorry.
-
Whats next, ban pregnancy if you are a smoker?
So you wouldn't advise against smoking while pregnant?
Lots more that can kill than smoke, sorry.
a new study just came out 90% of sudden infant death syndrome deaths , babies were born to mothers who smoked while pregnant, they are thinking of banning the sale of cigarettes to pregnant mothers :ausflag;
-
I dont think pregnant mothers should smoke...but I do not think the government should be the moral police. When the government starts protecting us from ourselves...civil liberties are threatened and taken away. Is it a violation of a womans rights to force her to be on birth control if she's a smoker? what about a forceful abortion if she gets pregnant while being a smoker? where does it end? Does that mean some women will make a bad choice? yes. glad they are still free to make a bad choice- before you know it the government will make all our choices for us, so we don't make the 'wrong' ones.
-
i agree glitter anyway if they ban the sale to pregnant women someone else would probably buy them and as you said where would it stop
-
I dont know how true this is but i heard that Christopher Reeves's wife died of lung cancer and never smoked a cigarette in her life BUT, she sang in smokey bars for years, coincidence? ???
-
Didn't know Christopher Reeves had a sex change either :rofl;
You must mean his wife.
-
I dont think pregnant mothers should smoke...but I do not think the government should be the moral police. When the government starts protecting us from ourselves...civil liberties are threatened and taken away. Is it a violation of a womans rights to force her to be on birth control if she's a smoker? what about a forceful abortion if she gets pregnant while being a smoker? where does it end? Does that mean some women will make a bad choice? yes. glad they are still free to make a bad choice- before you know it the government will make all our choices for us, so we don't make the 'wrong' ones.
So, do you agree with the law that people under 18 shouldn't purchase cigarettes?
-
I dont know how true this is but i heard that Christopher Reeves's died of lung cancer and never smoked a cigarette in her life BUT, she sang in smokey bars for years, coincidence? ???
Yes, I heard this too. My sister's niece is only 33 years old and has lung cancer. It's so bad that Chemo won't work on her. She never smoked a day in her life, but her Dad smoked her whole life. Her sister smokes too. Ironic and very, very sad.
-
People in China are getting lung cancer (and other cancers) in record numbers- they beleive its from the severe pollution there. I have heard of people getting lung cancer who were never around smokers too.
-
Radon is a major cause of lung cancer & that's in millions of homes & another of the biggest indoor polluters is burning candles (most wicks have lead centers too) Air, water & food are polluted is that also from cigarette smoke. I don't think so, try fossil fuel.
COPD, lung cancer & allergies are on the rise. Almost every kid I know has allergies & smoking is way down from what it was 20 years ago. When I was young I never knew any kid with allergies, etc & almost all our parents smoked, so what's causing it. Could it really be from cigarettes.
I don't think so. It's because of fossil fuel we burn & we are not doing much about it either, but we are sure spending millions on stop smoking campaigns. OK so we give up cigarettes, but who's going to give up that second car or SUV which is the real culprit.
So before we come down hard on smokers lets look at everyone else & put the blame for our sick children where it really belongs & it's not the smokers.
-
I dont think pregnant mothers should smoke...but I do not think the government should be the moral police. When the government starts protecting us from ourselves...civil liberties are threatened and taken away. Is it a violation of a womans rights to force her to be on birth control if she's a smoker? what about a forceful abortion if she gets pregnant while being a smoker? where does it end? Does that mean some women will make a bad choice? yes. glad they are still free to make a bad choice- before you know it the government will make all our choices for us, so we don't make the 'wrong' ones.
Well said Glitter, exactly the point I am trying to make. I just wish the supporters of smoking regulations would see the bigger picture of whats really going on here. The next step is to restrict hospital treatment for smoking related diseases. And when next section of society to be persecuted are the overweight, wouldn't it be ironic if any of the anti smoking zealots who happen to be also overweight get refused hospital treatment on the basis of some kind of wildly exaggerated anti obesity propaganda.
-
Of course human rights are being violated. If this law against smoking in cars with kids was just about the protection of kids then it's justified but it's not. It's part and parcel of the militant propaganda campain against those who choose to smoke.
Breathing smoke free air is a natural primary right and supersedes the secondary right to smoke and dirty air up. So no right is truly being violated because since smoking is secondary it gets trumped as a right when compared to a primary right.
What started out as a sensible restriction of smoking in certain public areas has now become an attack on smokers generally. How else can you justify for instance the the prohibition of smoking in certain open air public spaces. How can secondary smoke when it becomes diluted in air be of any risk. For God's sake recognise a hoax when you see one or would you prefer to endorse it because it suits the purely selfish stance which the anti smoking lobby take in their efforts to crucify all who choose to smoke?
Yes I am quite sure there are claims secondary smoke does not kill. Just as it was has claimed for decades that tobacco causes no cancer and leads to no other help problems. Hell it was even claimed they were healthy and good for you at one time.
OK if we put aside the fact that there's no real evidence that passive smoking is harmfull and even less evidence that passive smoke in open public places is harmful, and just support the legislation on the basis that it is a 'primary right' for you to breathe clean air, would you call for a ban for example on barbeques because the smoke from a neighbour's barbeque happened to drift into your yard however small and diluted? Would you call for a ban on cars down your highstreet because the exhaust fumes are restricting your right to breath clean air? Would you call for a ban on firework displays? All these things restrict what you feel as your primary right. Why then just target smokers who are causing you far less air pollution than for instance the second example (car exhausts) Do you think it's fair that one section of society who are creating the least air pollution should be the only ones persecuted and harrangued and stripped of their freedom to enjoy tobacco when there are many more sources of greater air pollution to be considered.
The argument that because there was no evidence in previous decades that primary smoking caused lung cancer and coronary heart disease then creates a pemise to suggest that passive smoking is harmfull because one day we will have evidence of it is another ludicrous leap of faith and a vain clutching at straws. The same modern day techniques and resources which proved conclusively that primary smoking causes a certain type of lung cancer have failed to show that passive smoking poses the same danger. But who care's if smokers are penalised bases on falsehoods?!
The plain fact is (and I wish the anti smoking brigade would be honest enought to admit it instead of producing spurious propaganda to justify themselves) that they just have an irrational hatred for smokers and they delight in making life as difficult as possible for smokers. They will present any 'evidence' however dubious they can lay their hands on to further their cause and bury anything they find that doesn't. The whole militant anti smoking network is a kind of social Stalinism, a mine of disinformation which so many of the general public have fallen for.
-
If we are so worried about second hand smoke from smokers than we had really do something about industrial smoke stacks, car exhaust, etc. But that is big business that has a lot of PAC money to hand around. Next you will be fined for weighing too much. :bandance; :bandance;
-
Next you will be fined for weighing too much. :bandance; :bandance;
Some employers and insurance companies do by either reducing your pay or by increasing your insurance premiums. I saw something on TV about this recently. I think it was Dateline or 60 Minutes. It's because they feel that overweight people have more health problems, thus they cost the employer and insurance company more. This higher cost then gets passed on to everyone, so they figure that by charging the employee/customer who is overweight, that will be more apt to lose the weight. They even said some companies offer discounts or increased pay if the employees and/or insurance customers participate in a gym or some sort of fitness program.
-
Then because it cost insurance companies and Medicare going broke, the powers that be decide who should live and who should die, because it would just cost to much to keep one person alive and not another. Some hospitals are already turning away uninsured patients. I have Medicare and Supplemental, but because a nurse decides who goes first, I sat over 6 hours in an emergency room because my kidneys had completely shut down. The dr.'s said they were surprised I was still talking and making sense, when they got around to seeing me, guess I wasn't bloody enough LOL.
-
I don't want to see kids stuck in a car with a smoking barbeque either. ;D
-
I don't know what hospital you go to, but I have been to TONS, in different cities, states... never once been to an ER where they don't see a patient based off the medical status/situation they are in when seen in triage. Hope you complained to someone above, and didn't go back to it. :thumbup;
-
OK if we put aside the fact that there's no real evidence that passive smoking is harmfull and even less evidence that passive smoke in open public places is harmful, and just support the legislation on the basis that it is a 'primary right' for you to breathe clean air, would you call for a ban for example on barbeques because the smoke from a neighbour's barbeque happened to drift into your yard however small and diluted? Would you call for a ban on cars down your highstreet because the exhaust fumes are restricting your right to breath clean air? Would you call for a ban on firework displays? All these things restrict what you feel as your primary right. Why then just target smokers who are causing you far less air pollution than for instance the second example (car exhausts) Do you think it's fair that one section of society who are creating the least air pollution should be the only ones persecuted and harrangued and stripped of their freedom to enjoy tobacco when there are many more sources of greater air pollution to be considered.
No, you claim its not harmful. That is despite evidence that others have shown it is harmful. The fact is it has been shown that those who have been exposed to second hand smoke at least1 hour per week tend to have 20% more thickening of the carotid artery wall vs people who have not been exposed to it.
Rights always boil down to natural law. Primary rights ALWAY supersedes a secondary right. As such, anytime government or the people want to restrict one of those secondary rights when it infringes on a primary right they can. That doesn't make it discrimination or taking of rights. For if it did one could claim just about anything was a right and being taken from them.
Your argument is flawed because it is essentially saying if we ban one thing we should ban all or none.
The argument that because there was no evidence in previous decades that primary smoking caused lung cancer and coronary heart disease then creates a pemise to suggest that passive smoking is harmfull because one day we will have evidence of it is another ludicrous leap of faith and a vain clutching at straws. The same modern day techniques and resources which proved conclusively that primary smoking causes a certain type of lung cancer have failed to show that passive smoking poses the same danger. But who care's if smokers are penalised bases on falsehoods?!
Actually there was tons of evidence that smoking was harmful. The tobacco industry hide it and paid other members of the science community off to lie about it. Hence the multi billion dollar settlements and appearances before Congress where the industry lied.
The plain fact is (and I wish the anti smoking brigade would be honest enought to admit it instead of producing spurious propaganda to justify themselves) that they just have an irrational hatred for smokers and they delight in making life as difficult as possible for smokers. They will present any 'evidence' however dubious they can lay their hands on to further their cause and bury anything they find that doesn't. The whole militant anti smoking network is a kind of social Stalinism, a mine of disinformation which so many of the general public have fallen for.
:rofl;
-
.
No, you claim its not harmful. That is despite evidence that others have shown it is harmful. The fact is it has been shown that those who have been exposed to second hand smoke at least1 hour per week tend to have 20% more thickening of the carotid artery wall vs people who have not been exposed to it.
Your argument is flawed because it is essentially saying if we ban one thing we should ban all or none.
I repeat there is no conclusive evidence that passive smoking is harmfull. Show me the statistics of deaths through passive smoking. You can't because there aren't any! Name three people who have died as a result of passive smoking.
As for your reaction to the last paragraph of my previous post.....Well I rest my case.
-
If we are so worried about second hand smoke from smokers than we had really do something about industrial smoke stacks, car exhaust, etc. But that is big business that has a lot of PAC money to hand around. Next you will be fined for weighing too much. :bandance; :bandance;
Couldn't agree more :clap;
-
http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=quitsmoking&cdn=health&tm=7&f=10&su=p247.3.140.ip_p726.2.152.ip_p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.epa.gov/
Statistics:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
-
http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=quitsmoking&cdn=health&tm=7&f=10&su=p247.3.140.ip_p726.2.152.ip_p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.epa.gov/
Statistics:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
The first link didn't work for me. I think, if possible, it's better to copy and paste info as links are often broken or expire.
-
http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=quitsmoking&cdn=health&tm=7&f=10&su=p247.3.140.ip_p726.2.152.ip_p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.epa.gov/ (http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=quitsmoking&cdn=health&tm=7&f=10&su=p247.3.140.ip_p726.2.152.ip_p284.8.150.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.epa.gov/)
Statistics:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)
The first link didn't work for me. I think, if possible, it's better to copy and paste info as links are often broken or expire.
Hmm. I don't know why. Okay, I'll post it all, but it's a lot!
From the Centers for Disease Control:
Fact Sheet
Secondhand Smoke
(updated September 2006)
Definition of Secondhand Smoke
* Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1
* Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1
Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure
* Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2
* Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2
* Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2
* Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2
* There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2
Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure
* Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2
* From 1988–91 to 2001–02, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3
* Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3
* More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2
* Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2
* Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.2
* About 25% of children aged 3–11 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2
* The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4
* Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations, annually.5
References
1. National Toxicology Program. 11th Report on Carcinogens, 2005. (PDF–219KB) Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2000 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9B512-ACF8-C1F3-ADBA53CAE848F635
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/.
3. Pirkle JL, Bernert JT, Caudill SP, Sosnoff CS, Pechacek TF. Trends in the Exposure of Nonsmokers in the U.S. Population to Secondhand Smoke: 1988–2002. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006;114(6):853–858 [cited 2006 Sep 27].
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Final report, September 29, 2005, approved by Scientific Review Panel on June 24, 2005 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/ets.htm.
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.* Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/6-90/006F, Washington, D.C., December 1992 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. Available from: http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793.
*Also published as: National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: The Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph Number 4. NIH Publication No. 93-3605, Washington, D.C., August 1993.
-
I repeat there is no conclusive evidence that passive smoking is harmfull. Show me the statistics of deaths through passive smoking. You can't because there aren't any! Name three people who have died as a result of passive smoking.
As for your reaction to the last paragraph of my previous post.....Well I rest my case.
Let me get this straight. You are now claiming that thickening of carotid artery walls (heart disease) is not considered harmful? So the fact that its been shown to harm children, infants and reproductive health through acute lower respiratory tract illness, asthma induction and exacerbation, chronic respiratory symptoms, middle ear infection, lower birth weight babies, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome means nothing?
You say name 3. Talk about a bogus propaganda question. Its completely illogical.
First off death certificates list disease conditions as cause of death, not if one died from second hand smoke or let alone even smoking for that matter. So no matter the names listed, you would always claim that there was no proof they died from second hand smoke.
BTW U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona called the evidence of the effects of passive smoke "indisputable" and said: "The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults.".
Tobacco smoke has been shown to be responsible for indoor particulate matter levels far exceeding official outdoor limits. So indeed tobacco smoke is far worse than that barb b que.
-
Let me get this straight. You are now claiming that thickening of carotid artery walls (heart disease) is not considered harmful? So the fact that its been shown to harm children, infants and reproductive health through acute lower respiratory tract illness, asthma induction and exacerbation, chronic respiratory symptoms, middle ear infection, lower birth weight babies, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome means nothing?
You say name 3. Talk about a bogus propaganda question. Its completely illogical.
First off death certificates list disease conditions as cause of death, not if one died from second hand smoke or let alone even smoking for that matter. So no matter the names listed, you would always claim that there was no proof they died from second hand smoke.
BTW U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona called the evidence of the effects of passive smoke "indisputable" and said: "The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults.".
Tobacco smoke has been shown to be responsible for indoor particulate matter levels far exceeding official outdoor limits. So indeed tobacco smoke is far worse than that barb b que.
The American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.
Most recently of all, an explosive new study that seriously questions the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health was published by the British Medical Journal (16 May 2003). According to the study, one of the largest of its kind, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the
American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. Particular focus was on the 35,561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.
The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.
-
The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.
Notice they did not say "was not associated". As such, it does mean it is associated with some death.
Glad you posted that because it disproves your claim: "that there's no real evidence that passive smoking is harmful" Right there at the very least it proves it is harmful.
-
American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J • Berkeley, California 94702 • (510) 841-3032 / FAX (510) 841-3071
www.no-smoke.org • anr@no-smoke.org
Defending your right to breathe smokefree air since 1976
RESPONDING TO THE ENSTROM AND KABAT STUDY ON SECONDHAND SMOKE
November 2004
The tobacco industry has a long history of trying to cast doubt on the science of secondhand smoke. In
its latest attempt, the industry has funded a new study, published in the British Medical Journal. The
study, written by researchers funded by the tobacco industry, misrepresented data from the American
Cancer Society (ACS), and used flawed methodology to come to the inaccurate conclusion that
secondhand smoke does not cause an increased risk for lung cancer and heart disease. Don’t be fooled
by Big Tobacco. Secondhand smoke kills.
“The study is fundamentally flawed.”
–British Medical Association1
The British Medical Journal published a study in its May 2003 issue entitled, “Environmental tobacco
smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-1998,” which was
authored by Dr. James E. Enstrom and Dr. Geoffrey C. Kabat. The study claimed that no causal
relationship was found between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related mortality, after analyzing data
from 35,351 adults over a period of thirty-eight years. As one might expect, the study generated an
enormous amount of media attention. Speculation abounded that the unanimous conclusion of public
health officials and medical practitioners, that secondhand smoke is hazardous to health, had been
premature. Big Tobacco and its allies hailed the study as proof that the adverse health effects of
secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Under closer scrutiny, the inevitable was found to be true:
the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was largely funded by tobacco industry dollars,
conducted by industry allies, and riddled with methodological errors.
Although the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has now largely been discredited, the
tobacco industry and its allies attempt to use the study to cast doubt upon the science of secondhand
smoke. This document provides some basic information regarding the study, its funding, and its
authors, and should help to counter any attempts to use the study to undermine the established body of
research confirming the health hazards of secondhand smoke.
THE STUDY
“The editors believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific
value. We could not judge the merits of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so
inadequately described. I should add that your article contains pejorative comments that should
have no place in responsible scientific discourse.”
—Letter from the Journal of the American Medical Association to James E. Enstrom2
The data and design of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has been widely criticized.
Even the British Medical Association, the publisher of the journal that printed the study, described the
research as being “fundamentally flawed.”3 The misuse of data and flawed methodology are two very
significant faults in the study.
Enstrom and Kabat did not gather original data for their study. Instead, it drew on data from the ACS’s
Cancer Prevention Study (CPS-I), and used only a small subset (approximately 10%) of the total CPS-I
data. Researchers at ACS repeatedly warned Enstrom that the data from CPS-I could not be used to
determine the health effects of secondhand smoke, and they spoke out against the study upon its
release, stating that their data had been misused.4
The study used cohort methodology to look at the rate of mortality from heart disease and lung cancer
in nonsmokers who were married to smokers, covering a time period from 1959 to 1998. A severe
error in the study was the failure to establish a control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to
secondhand smoke. Other critical methodological flaws include not measuring for secondhand smoke
exposure from any source other than the spouse, including workplace (where smoking was extremely
prevalent at the time); not taking into account either spouse’s smoking status after 1972, though the
study continued for 26 more years; and classifying the nonsmoking spouse as still exposed to
secondhand smoke in that 26 year period, during which time the “smoking spouse” could have quit
smoking or died, not to mention that they could have divorced or separated.
THE FUNDING
“A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete
against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the
health effects of ETS and active smoking.”
-- Dr. James E. Enstrom to Philip Morris Research Center5
The Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was initially funded by a grant from the Tobacco
Related Disease Research Program, an organization that manages funds generated by the Proposition
99 California state cigarette tax. After the program’s scientific, peer-review panel, denied continued
funding for the project, Enstrom sought out financial support from other sources. In 1997, he submitted
an application for,6 and ultimately received, $210,000 from Philip Morris and the Council on Tobacco
Research (CTR)7,8,9, a front group created in 1954 by the tobacco companies to fund research on
smoking and health.10 It became well known over the years for sponsoring flimsy scientific research
that promoted tobacco industry positions.
THE AUTHORS
“For the past three years, I have done consulting and research on passive smoking for Jeffery L.
Furr of Womble Carlyle on behalf of RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris.”
-- Dr. James Enstrom to the Center of Indoor Air Research11
• Dr. James E. Enstrom: Enstrom has played down the support that he has received from the
tobacco industry, but his involvement with the industry can be traced back for many years. As
early as 1975, Enstrom solicited the CTR for $50,000 to “assess the possible role which other
factors besides smoking play in the etiology of cancer.”12 The Competing Interests section of
the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study states: “In recent years [Enstrom] has received
funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research
because it has been impossible for his to obtain equivalent funds from other sources.”13
Although the CTR, the Tobacco Institute, and Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) are all
now defunct, Enstrom continued to contract with Philip Morris.14,15
• Dr. Geoffrey Kabat: Kabat’s connections with the tobacco industry over the years have been
well documented. A search of internal industry documents finds Kabat’s name listed as an
industry resource more than 7,000 times, showing his involvement with, among others, Philip
Morris, R.J. Reynolds, American Tobacco Company, and CIAR.16
CONCLUSION
Enstrom and Kabat’s substantial methodological flaws, combined with the tobacco industry’s funding
of the study, and other studies supported by the tobacco industry, can help you to inoculate others
against this misinformation. Over one hundred independently funded, peer-reviewed studies show that
secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death in nonsmokers. Don’t let this one study
undermine the body of solid science that confirms the hazardous health effects of secondhand smoke
exposure. For more information on Enstrom and Kabat or other studies that challenge the credible
science of secondhand smoke, please contact us at (510) 841-3032 or at anr@no-smoke.org.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/enstrom_kabat.pdf
REFERENCES
1
[n.a.], “BMA response to BMJ paper ‘effect of passive smoking on health’,” British Medical Association, May 16, 2003.
2
Rennie, D. “[Letter from JAMA to James E. Enstrom re: published study.],” Philip Morris, August 23, 1996, Bates No.
2073788479. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kiv85c00.
3
[n.a.], “BMA response to BMJ paper ‘effect of passive smoking on health’,” British Medical Association, May 16, 2003.
4
[n.a.], “American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study for Inaccurate Use of Data,” American Cancer
Society, May 15, 2003.
5
Enstrom, J., “Proposed Research on the Relationship of Low Levels of Active Smoking to Mortality,” Philip Morris,
January 15, 1997, Bates No. 2075873003. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dfk37d00.
6
Ibid., 1997.
7
Carchman, RA., “Principal Investigator @ D James E. Enstrom, PhD, MPH, Grant Title @D ‘Relationship of Low Levels
of Active Smoking to Mortality’,” Philip Morris, January 30, 1998, Bates No. 2063654067. Accessed on November 17,
2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hyf67e00.
8
CTR, “CHECK TRANSMITTAL FORM GRANT NUMBER: 3333AR2,” Council for Tobacco Research, February 11,
1998, Bates No. 40001768. Accessed on November 14, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dlx89c00.
9
CTR, “CHECK TRANSMITTAL FORM GRANT NUMBER:333AR2,” Council for Tobacco Research, July 11, 1997,
Bates No. 40001771. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ilx89c00.
10
Glantz, SA.; Slade, J.; Bero, L.; Hanauer, P.; Barnes, D., The Cigarette Papers (University of California Press: Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London) 1996.
11
Enstrom, J., “Proposed Research on Passive Smoking,” Brown and Williamson, July 15, 1996, Bates No. 566944402.
Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tww91d00.
12
Enstrom, J. “[Letter re: funding for tobacco study within Mormon community.],” Council for Tobacco Research, June 3,
1975, Bates No. 50207891-7892. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ldi79c00.
13
Enstrom, J.; Kabat, G. “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of
Californians, 1960-1998,” British Medical Journal, Volume 326, May 17, 2003.
14
[n.a.], “WSA / INBIFO Project Milestone Status Report 000519 – 000615,” Philip Morris, June 22, 2000, Bates No.
2505591306/1310. Accessed on November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqb19c00.
15
Nelson, BL, “[Letter re: speaking opportunity.],” Philip Morris, May 18, 2000, Bates No. 2073736520. Accessed on
November 17, 2004. Download at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vrx85c00.
16
[n.a.], “[Search in American Legacy Tobacco Documents Library re: Kabat.],” http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu, November
17, 2004.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/enstrom_kabat.pdf