Slate article on secondhand smoke

[deepspringfarm]

We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans

 

[cosmicfolklore]

See, this will be interesting. On another thread about kids, almost the entire forum had said that they don't smoke around their kids, to protect them from second-hand smoke, which is different that it used to be on here. There used to be guys who thought that there was no such things. but...
let me go get some popcorn.

 

[lestrout]

Yo dee
Great find! I was trying to figure out when this great Slate article was published?
hp

les

 

[kanse]

Cosmic

Internet pipe-smoking community I've noticed is unusually nice, the contrast from general population is certainly there, to say the least.

My point being here is that, forum demography is a very inaccurate representation of what smokers in general are.

I've seen enough people smoke around kids to know.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I've seen enough people smoke around kids to know.

Or, getting people to admit it on a forum seems to be the difference.

But, it used to be that people would always post on those types of threads that there was no such thing as second-hand smoke. I don't see that much any more.

 

[ashdigger]

Ah, science for sale.

 

[snowyowl]

I was trying to figure out when this great Slate article was published?

The article was published this morning -- 13 Feb 2017 (light gray type over the headline)
Slate is known for its "click bait" and the comments are just shy of 800 mid-morning (maroon, squared quote bubble along side the subhead).

 

[pappymac]

I smoke my pipe around the grand children when I'm outside or if they come wandering into the garage when I'm in there.

I don't smoke around them inside the house (I don't smoke in the house anyway) and I don't smoke in the truck when other people are in the truck with me.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

They usually let me smoke my pipe in non-smoking areas, because they are understood to be anti-cigarette. But, I would never even think of smoking my pipe if there were a lot of people. But, when I do find a coffeehouse with a no-smoking sign, and not many people around, I always ask if I can smoke my pipe. I have NEVER been told no.

Maybe a Southern thing, but when someone asks something reasonable, in a nice way, the expected response is a reasonable and respectful response. I cannot imagine someone being a jerk to someone else intentionally. And, with all the crap that gets put on The South in the news, I find it hard to imagine myself living somewhere where people are rude.
But, in the rare cases when someone does say "No" to something asked in a reasonable way, all of us Southerners just think to ourselves, "They must be from up North. Bless their heart." ::

 

[alexnorth]

Not to be outdone, the Association for Nonsmokers in Minnesota wrote in a press release that just 30 seconds of exposure could “make coronary artery function of non-smokers indistinguishable from smokers.”

:rofl: all hail science!

 

[pappymac]

Wow! An article in Slate that actually makes sense. He will never write for them again.

 

[sablebrush52]

Secondhand smoke made from junk science??!! Like the study that used a strain of mice genetically prone to cancer, putting them in small glass enclosures and then pumping in the equivalent of 2,200 cigarettes worth of smoke per day for months on end? Yeah, I'm aware of it.
Has no bearing on why I don't smoke around my kids, or anyone else's, or with non-smokers unless they're cool with it (which most of them are - they like pipes). But note that it doesn't say smoking isn't a health threat to the smoker. And the marginalization of smoking as a practice isn't likely to change direction.

 

[toobfreak]

I still think it not a bad idea to avoid children from constant exposure to heavy smoke. And kids should not smoke. That is, until their lungs are mostly matured (16-18 years old). Smoking or constant heavy exposures does carry with it the potential to retard growth and development of the lungs and might lead to an increased chance of respiratory issues. Unless the kid has a pre-existing respiratory condition, intermittent exposure to even thick smoke is nothing more than an irritant or an annoyance at best. Just another phantom threat drummed up by special interest groups to justify their existence and put money and control in their pockets. Not that smoking 2 packs of cigs a day isn't bad for you, but pipes? Forget it. Smoking 1-2 bowls a day of pipe tobacco is probably statistically imperceptible from a medical standpoint from a total non-smoker.

 

[fitzy]

I'm surprised Slate published that I thought they were very liberal.

 

[toobfreak]

I will copy to you the thoughts of a friend of mine who IS a doctor upon reading the article:

There have been problems with the data all along. The problem being that you can only get case control data at best when we would really need double-blinded studies in order to get data at the level we should want.
Nevertheless, the author doesn't really take a comprehensive look at the issue. For respiratory illnesses even the anecdotal stuff is pretty overwhelming after you've practiced medicine for a few decades, but anecdotal is always problematic - but the author sort of didn't address the better studies in this area.
But let's take a libertarian view of things? A lot of us find cigar and cigarette smoke offensive. If you keep it downwind it is your problem, not mine. And vaping is not a good idea but it is also not very offensive to others.
The weight of evidence is still against willful smoke exposure. But if you aren't bothering others and you are an adult you should be free to do even harmful things to yourself.

 

[deepspringfarm]

I imagine we'll see a reversal of most antismoking laws :roll:

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I imagine we'll see a reversal of most antismoking laws

I wouldn't hold my breath. Did you read through the comments on the article? I don't think smoking laws are really based on science. Maybe in the beginning they were, but I don't see tides turning anytime soon.

 

[sablebrush52]

I imagine we'll see a reversal of most antismoking laws :roll:

I doubt it. More likely there will be an extension of the language of existing laws to include pot smoking, and to add further restrictions related to it. There might be a market for a smoker's helmet, like a deep sea diving helmet, but with more comfort and a bit of style. That would allow smokers to enjoy their life curtailing activities in a form of quarantine while allowing non-smokers to enjoy breathing in their hydrocarbon and other cancer causing pollutant filled air while maintaining an illusion of safety.

 

[daveinlax]

I imagine we'll see a reversal of most antismoking laws [:roll:]

LoL! And the outdoor/garage smokers will get invited inside to enjoy an ocational bowl in the comfort of their homes.

Seriously, anyone who worked in a smoke filled environment in the good old pre smoking ban days know that second hand smoke is a real issue. 8O

 

[perdurabo]

This is all in the name Of Pot. Back peddle it to fit the mold, move the goal post as needed.
Not much is based on science these days Cosmic. A is B so forth and so on.