Call for higher tax, tougher law on smoking

[Roychua]

If smoking is really so damaging to smoker and people around them, why don't they just criminalize it like marijuana.

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[noddy77]

You should be able to do anything in life as long as it does not harm or hurt anyone.

Smoke away all you like.

Just not near me because I hate the smell of it.

[ukrules]

The unknown element with electronic cigarettes is the flavours, I don't really see the need for them at all and there's a real possibility that they could be dangerous.

I've tried these devices and at first I purchased various flavoured liquids. Then I started using liquids with no flavour at all and there's not much difference. I have to ask myself, do I really want to smoke something that 'tastes' like chocolate or strawberry cheesecake and the answer is no. I then did a little reading on the subject.

A flavourless liquid contains only propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG) mixed in various ratios and an amount of nicotine, typically between 6 and 24 mg per ml of the liquid. This nicotine dosage is what people change over time to taper their usage / dependency.

The flavours when used can make up 20% or in some cases much more of the liquid by volume used in the devices. If there's a source of carcinogens in electronic cigarette liquids I believe it's going to be in the flavourings used.

There's some interesting information here :

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/14/1194.full

Specifically :

While nicotine itself is not considered to be carcinogenic, each cigarette contains a mixture of carcinogens, including a small dose of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) among other lung carcinogens, tumor promoters, and co-carcinogens

The above carcinogens don't appear to be present in modern flavourless electronic cigarette juice, however I suspect that these PAHs as mentioned in the link above might be present when some flavourings are used, nobody knows which flavourings are safe to use in this way. To find out for sure individual flavourings would need to be extensively tested.

Another area of concern is the usage of artificial sweeteners in the liquids, this is also an unknown.

There's ongoing research into this subject.

Edited June 1, 2014 by ukrules

[Ulysses G.]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Roychua]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Prbkk]

I doubt that many smokers would object to further restriction on smoking in public, as contemplated in the plan to make Melbourne CBD smoke free. The objection is to the LIE that smoking costs more in health care than is received in tax. Tax receipts far outweigh the cost of smoking related disease. All governments will persist with this lie: it's in their nature.

[Thai at Heart]

The unknown element with electronic cigarettes is the flavours, I don't really see the need for them at all and there's a real possibility that they could be dangerous.

I've tried these devices and at first I purchased various flavoured liquids. Then I started using liquids with no flavour at all and there's not much difference. I have to ask myself, do I really want to smoke something that 'tastes' like chocolate or strawberry cheesecake and the answer is no. I then did a little reading on the subject.

A flavourless liquid contains only propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG) mixed in various ratios and an amount of nicotine, typically between 6 and 24 mg per ml of the liquid. This nicotine dosage is what people change over time to taper their usage / dependency.

The flavours when used can make up 20% or in some cases much more of the liquid by volume used in the devices. If there's a source of carcinogens in electronic cigarette liquids I believe it's going to be in the flavourings used.

There's some interesting information here :

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/14/1194.full

Specifically :

While nicotine itself is not considered to be carcinogenic, each cigarette contains a mixture of carcinogens, including a small dose of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) among other lung carcinogens, tumor promoters, and co-carcinogens

The above carcinogens don't appear to be present in modern flavourless electronic cigarette juice, however I suspect that these PAHs as mentioned in the link above might be present when some flavourings are used, nobody knows which flavourings are safe to use in this way. To find out for sure individual flavourings would need to be extensively tested.

Another area of concern is the usage of artificial sweeteners in the liquids, this is also an unknown.

There's ongoing research into this subject.

The flavours are the same as in food and existing cigarettes. Its a food grade. What it becomes on burning is known, whether the by products are dangerous I don't know.

They have been used in flavoured cigarettes for years.now wouldn't that be a kicker. Its the flavours that are dangerous. Lol

Edited June 1, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[northernjohn]

Yeah, the smokers can afford to be "dubious" about it, can't they now? We should definitely leave it up to self-confessed addicts with a proven self-destructive habit to decide. Yeah, that's the ticket. Who could argue with logic like that?

Read the studies. 2nd hand smoke is barely proven anywhere.

In other words it is proven every where.

[northernjohn]

I doubt that many smokers would object to further restriction on smoking in public, as contemplated in the plan to make Melbourne CBD smoke free. The objection is to the LIE that smoking costs more in health care than is received in tax. Tax receipts far outweigh the cost of smoking related disease. All governments will persist with this lie: it's in their nature.

Well those are some figures I would greatly like to see.

Maybe in Indonesia where due to lack of medical treatment the price difference would be in favor of more tax money coming in. But what about the States where the cost of medical treatment is out of sight. Or the countries with decent social medicine just long waiting lists. They also cost the tax payers a huge amount of money. Plus take up needed hospital space. In Canada my friend waited over a year for a triple bypass surgery.

[Thai at Heart]

Yeah, the smokers can afford to be "dubious" about it, can't they now? We should definitely leave it up to self-confessed addicts with a proven self-destructive habit to decide. Yeah, that's the ticket. Who could argue with logic like that?

Read the studies. 2nd hand smoke is barely proven anywhere.

In other words it is proven every where.

The risk associated to second hand smoking is very very low if at all. In a few years there will have to be another scapegoat for lung cancers associated with people who have never smoked or been exposed to any smokers, and you know what that is going to be.

The internal combustion engine. Now I am not sure about you, but I don't think the car manufacturers are able to pay out in the same way that the cigarette companies have.

And of course, in the USA car makers employ millions and even get protected by the govt. So just imagine if some poor person living surrounded by traffic jams in Mexico city or any large city was to sue for cancer caused by small particles from engines.

And imagine they won...because there was some research a few decades ago about the type of particulates coming from most engines, and the car industry had to pay out, bazillions and millions were going to lose their jobs. You think that is going to happen.

So I guess they will continue to demonize second hand smoke.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

I doubt that many smokers would object to further restriction on smoking in public, as contemplated in the plan to make Melbourne CBD smoke free. The objection is to the LIE that smoking costs more in health care than is received in tax. Tax receipts far outweigh the cost of smoking related disease. All governments will persist with this lie: it's in their nature.

Well those are some figures I would greatly like to see.

Maybe in Indonesia where due to lack of medical treatment the price difference would be in favor of more tax money coming in. But what about the States where the cost of medical treatment is out of sight. Or the countries with decent social medicine just long waiting lists. They also cost the tax payers a huge amount of money. Plus take up needed hospital space. In Canada my friend waited over a year for a triple bypass surgery.

In most of Europe where taxes are so high, the tax take exceeds spending out. In the USA the states have been compensated already by the companies so they can't drink from the trough twice.

If its to believed that all smokers die that much younger they are performing a useful social service by dying early instead of living longer and costing more.

They are doing more than their fair share to help the fiscal situation of most governments.

[Prbkk]

I doubt that many smokers would object to further restriction on smoking in public, as contemplated in the plan to make Melbourne CBD smoke free. The objection is to the LIE that smoking costs more in health care than is received in tax. Tax receipts far outweigh the cost of smoking related disease. All governments will persist with this lie: it's in their nature.

Well those are some figures I would greatly like to see.

Maybe in Indonesia where due to lack of medical treatment the price difference would be in favor of more tax money coming in. But what about the States where the cost of medical treatment is out of sight. Or the countries with decent social medicine just long waiting lists. They also cost the tax payers a huge amount of money. Plus take up needed hospital space. In Canada my friend waited over a year for a triple bypass surgery.

I would say that in every western country the tax exceeds health care expenditure. That is probably the case in Indonesia where treatment options for the poor are still extremely limited but where the power of the cigarette and clove monopolies is huge.

I don't advocate low tax on cigarettes. I believe they should be high..but reject the weakk argument that excise is about health rather than govt income.

If we really want to protect the next generation, let's have a tax on sugar.

[thonglorjimmy]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

No indeed you're not breaking the law, providing you don't smoke in a bar, restaurant, shopping mall, airport, train, station, or indeed anywhere where it's against the law of the land to do so.

I'm a non smoker and whilst I don't like the smell of stale and drifting smoke I have no objection to considerate smokers smoking to their hearts content, within the law, whilst ensuring they don't upset or make others feel uncomfortable.

I think that the majority of smokers are considerate, but sadly there are a few who don't care what discomfort they cause others.

[Roychua]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

No indeed you're not breaking the law, providing you don't smoke in a bar, restaurant, shopping mall, airport, train, station, or indeed anywhere where it's against the law of the land to do so.

I'm a non smoker and whilst I don't like the smell of stale and drifting smoke I have no objection to considerate smokers smoking to their hearts content, within the law, whilst ensuring they don't upset or make others feel uncomfortable.

I think that the majority of smokers are considerate, but sadly there are a few who don't care what discomfort they cause others.

Sorry my previous post was a little vague, but I am referring to those who can't stand the stink of ciggie on smoker shirt or body. I had been a smoker for 25 years and would consider myself to be a responsible and considerate smoker since laws banned smoking in public indoors or air-conditioned area in these parts of the world. Just feeling frustrated by some non-smoking poster who is condemning all smoker because they met a few bad sheep.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[hawker9000]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Smokers can be SO arrogant. But you know it's quite something to see (and sad to say, I've seen it...) how the mindset changes completely in that hospital bed with the tubes sticking out of you towards the end... Yeap, they eventually learn humility the hard way.

And the laws have been and continue to change. Wherever smokers continue to expose others to their filthy behavior, the restrictions continue to mount. If you want to get your ticket punched in some grand & glorious cloud of nicotine madness, go for it! Just do it off on your own somewhere where the saner folk don't have to be contaminated by it.

[Roychua]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Smokers can be SO arrogant. But you know it's quite something to see (and sad to say, I've seen it...) how the mindset changes completely in that hospital bed with the tubes sticking out of you towards the end... Yeap, they eventually learn humility the hard way.

And the laws have been and continue to change. Wherever smokers continue to expose others to their filthy behavior, the restrictions continue to mount. If you want to get your ticket punched in some grand & glorious cloud of nicotine madness, go for it! Just do it off on your own somewhere where the saner folk don't have to be contaminated by it.

Most smoker tends to get arrogant when non-smoker start implying the smoker are something like leper.

If you consider us smoking as filthy behavior then I think you should be the one who should go find somewhere where the government have the same idea that smoking is a filthy behavior, obviously here is not.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[transam]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Smokers can be SO arrogant. But you know it's quite something to see (and sad to say, I've seen it...) how the mindset changes completely in that hospital bed with the tubes sticking out of you towards the end... Yeap, they eventually learn humility the hard way.

And the laws have been and continue to change. Wherever smokers continue to expose others to their filthy behavior, the restrictions continue to mount. If you want to get your ticket punched in some grand & glorious cloud of nicotine madness, go for it! Just do it off on your own somewhere where the saner folk don't have to be contaminated by it.

Do you drive a vehicle that really does pollute the air near the public, ..?

[englishoak]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Smokers can be SO arrogant. But you know it's quite something to see (and sad to say, I've seen it...) how the mindset changes completely in that hospital bed with the tubes sticking out of you towards the end... Yeap, they eventually learn humility the hard way.

And the laws have been and continue to change. Wherever smokers continue to expose others to their filthy behavior, the restrictions continue to mount. If you want to get your ticket punched in some grand & glorious cloud of nicotine madness, go for it! Just do it off on your own somewhere where the saner folk don't have to be contaminated by it.

I dont like smelly sweaty farangs armpits or breathing second hand cooking oil either but I dont make a big deal of it, I move myself out of range. Smokers have never bothered me, each to their own choice and they more than pay for the care they need in the taxes imo, its up to them

Y'know your post is also pretty arrogant.

Just saying

[belg]

is it the nicotine, or all the other cancer chemicals they add to a normal one that gives you the cancer?

[lomatopo]

I think it is widely accepted, by even the most skeptical individuals, along with tobacco company management, that increasing the price of tobacco products, primarily through increasing the tax, leads to a decrease in consumption. The only debate/variable might be the actual decrease in consumption for a given increase. I suspect this will vary quite a bit based on current consumption patterns, local wages, actual % of local disposable income and a bunch of other variables I'm omitting through ignorance/lack of knowledge on the subject.

Increasing the overall price probably does more to decrease consumption than almost any other effort including education, warning labels, health warnings, etc.

[55Jay]

For those who can't stand the stink of cigarette, I as a smoker would recommend them to stay at home.

I, as a non-smoker, would recommend that you stay home instead.

Why should I? I am not breaking any law or hating anyone who is doing something I dislike.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Smokers can be SO arrogant. But you know it's quite something to see (and sad to say, I've seen it...) how the mindset changes completely in that hospital bed with the tubes sticking out of you towards the end... Yeap, they eventually learn humility the hard way.

And the laws have been and continue to change. Wherever smokers continue to expose others to their filthy behavior, the restrictions continue to mount. If you want to get your ticket punched in some grand & glorious cloud of nicotine madness, go for it! Just do it off on your own somewhere where the saner folk don't have to be contaminated by it.

The level of emotion and fanaticism here seems disproportionate to the reality that there are far more places that are non-smoking than places that allow smoking.

Reading your post, and others like it, I get a mental picture of a contorted face sucking on a lemon.

I really enjoyed the one guy a page or so ago, who called his fellow punters at the GoGo bar, "Cretins" because they smoke. Anti-smoking social programming has made it possible to gloss over the fact your are a pervert, in order to be acknowledged as a slightly superior non-smoking pervert. That's amusing, although I'm sure he didn't intend it that way.

[Ulysses G.]

Reading your post, and others like it, I get a mental picture of a contorted face sucking on a lemon.

Better a lemon than this:

[55Jay]

Reading your post, and others like it, I get a mental picture of a contorted face sucking on a lemon.

Better a lemon than this:

When I wrote that, figured someone would walk through the door. Nice photo find.

Still, the bleed over about smoking, caste upon smokers as people, is wrong.

[hawker9000]

@englishoak

Arrogant? Really? Me? Lol. Go to the head of the class!

Just returning the favor...

(Sort of lame, I know, as mine doesn't come with any disease & death causing effects, foul-smelling smoke, etc., but I appreciate the compliment! )

[nisakiman]

Risks of smoking exaggerated

The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated Too much is made of the 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. We're told these chemicals are so harmful that they are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. Untold in this "war on tobacco" is that each of the plants we consume consists of an equally daunting thousands of chemicals many of which are recognized poisons or suspected cancer-causing agents. Cayenne peppers, carrots and strawberries each contain six suspected carcinogens; onions, grapefruit and tomato each contain five -- some the same as the seven suspected carcinogens found in tobacco.High-heat cooking creates yet more dietary carcinogens from otherwise harmless chemical constituents. Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling. Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole. Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab. That's one problem with the anti-smoking crusade. The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs. An in-depth analysis of 400,000 U.S. smoking-related deaths by National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute Robert Levy identified a disturbing number of flaws in the methodology used to estimate these deaths. Incorrectly classifying some diseases as smoking-related and choosing the wrong standard of comparison each overstated deaths by more than 65 per cent. Failure to control for confounding variables such as diet and exercise turned estimates more into a computerized shell game than reliable estimates of deaths. Marimont and Levy also found no adjustments were made to the costs of smoking resulting from the benefits of smoking -- reduced Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, less obesity, depression and breast cancer. If it were possible to estimate 45,000 smoking-related Canadian deaths as some health activists imagine -- and Marimont, Levy and other respected researchers think it is not -- then applying an identical methodology to other lifestyle choices would yield 57,000 Canadian deaths due to lack of exercise and 73,000 Canadian deaths blamed on poor diets. If both the chemical constituents of tobacco smoke and the numbers of smoking-related deaths are overstated -- and clearly they are -- how can we trust the claim that tobacco smoke is harmful to non-smokers? The 1993 bellwether study by the Environmental Protection Agency that selectively combined the results of a number of previous studies and found a small increase in lung cancer risk in those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke has been roundly criticized as severely flawed by fellow researchers and ultimately found invalid in a court of law. In 1998, the World Health Organization reported a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smokers. Despite these invalidating deficiencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization both concluded tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers. One wonders whether the same conclusions would have been announced if scientific fraud were a criminal offence. When confronted with the scientific uncertainty, the inconsistency of results and the incredible misrepresentation of present-day knowledge, those seeking to abolish tobacco invoke a radical interpretation of the Precautionary Principle: "Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activity should not proceed." This unreasonable exploitation of the ever-present risks of living infiltrates our schools to indoctrinate trusting and eager minds with the irrational fears of today. Instead of opening minds to the wondrous complexities of living, it opens the door to peer ridicule and intolerance while cultivating the trendy cynics of tomorrow. If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now?

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent of smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

-Respectfully,

Robert E. Madden, M.D.

Journal Of The National Cancer Institute, Vol 90, 1440-1450, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press

“Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.” Authors: P Boffetta et al.

BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven Euran countries. METHODS: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. RESULTS: ETS EXPOSURE DURING CHILDHOOD WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASED RISK OF LUNG CANCER (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96). The OR for ever exposure to Spouse ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93- 1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative Spouse ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to Spouse or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to Spouse and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to Spouse and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

Copyright © 1998 Oxford University Press.

(Note that the capitalization in “RESULTS: ETS EXPOSURE DURING CHILDHOOD WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN INCREASED RISK OF LUNG CANCER (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96).” was added by me for emphasis. Note also that while the “author’s interpretation” of the childhood figures was simply “no association”, these WERE in fact the only SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT (i.e. with a confidence interval not including 1.0) results found. Imagine the publicity this study would have received if the results had been in the opposite direction! Note also that exposure from “other sources” {e.g. BARS AND RESTAURANTS!} also showed no association!)

[Thai at Heart]

Interesting stuff.

[maprao]

The level of emotion and fanaticism here seems disproportionate to the reality that there are far more places that are non-smoking than places that allow smoking.

Reading your post, and others like it, I get a mental picture of a contorted face sucking on a lemon.

I really enjoyed the one guy a page or so ago, who called his fellow punters at the GoGo bar, "Cretins" because they smoke. Anti-smoking social programming has made it possible to gloss over the fact your are a pervert, in order to be acknowledged as a slightly superior non-smoking pervert. That's amusing, although I'm sure he didn't intend it that way.

+++1

Beat me to it. A moral perv and monger lol.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[nisakiman]

In 1968 fourteen hundred British civil servants, all smokers, were divided into two similar groups. Half were encouraged and counselled to quit smoking. These formed the test group. The others, the control group, were left to their own devices. For ten years both groups were monitored with respect to their health and smoking status.So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

Over the next decade the results of other similar trials appeared. It had been argued that if an improvement in one life-style factor, smoking, were of benefit, then an improvement in several – eg smoking, diet and exercise – should produce even clearer benefits. And so appeared the results of the whimsically acronymed Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial or MRFIT, with its 12,886 American subjects. Similarly, in Europe 60,881 subjects in four countries took part in the WHO Collaborative Trial. In Sweden the Goteborg study had 30,022 subjects. These were enormously expensive, wide-spread and time-consuming experiments. In all, there were 6 such trials with a total of over a hundred thousand subjects each engaged for an average of 7.4 years, a grand total of nearly 800,000 subject-years. The results of all were uniform, forthright and unequivocal: giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer. A decade of expensive and protracted research had produced a quite unexpected result.

EPA Designates Passive Smoking a “Class A” or Known Human Carcinogen – 1993

http: //www.epa.gov/history/topics/smoke/01.html

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY

1993

“Mr. Chairman, I am testifying today in order to report to the Subcommittee the results of my extensive investigation of the EPA’s handling of the controversy surrounding environmental tobacco smoke or ‘ETS’.

AS you know. in the past the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this Committee has conducted hearings on EPA’s abuses of government contracting requirements.

So pervasive is the level of abuse that Chairman Dincell has characterized EPA’s pattern of contract mismanagement as a ‘cesspool’. EPA’s Inspector General recently has confirmed that such abuses also have taken place in connection with a number of EPA contracts involving ETS, and the 0 and I Subcommittee’s own investigation is continuing.”

“EPA’s willingness to distort the science in order to justify it’s classification of ETS as a “Group A” or “known human” carcinogen seems to stem from the Agency’s determination early on to advocate smoking bans and restrictions as a socially desirable goal. EPA began promoting such policies in the mid-to late 1980′s, ostensibly as part of its efforts to provide information to the public on indoor air quality issues.”

“The risk assessment thus was never intended to be a neutral review and analysis of the ETS science. Rather, it was intended from the start to function as a prop for the Agency’s predetermind policy.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the process at every turn has been characterised by both scientific and procedural irregularities. In addition to the contracting violations mentioned at the outset, those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in preparation of the risk assessment and the members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independant evaluation of the document.”

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=8BBAAF910BC5023749AD2368ADE155DE.tobacco03?tid=qpe42d00

[55Jay]

Most people would evacuate a burning building to avoid asphyxiation (and being burned alive). We would move to avoid the heat, fumes and smoke from a BBQ grille, or a camp fire. It is instinct and social norms established by our parents and sometimes reinforced with a painful lesson.

Sucking in heated, concentrated smoke and fumes from chemically treated material, or even all natural "stuff", from an ember burning at 1,200 degrees F an inch or two from your face, on purpose, seems counter-intuitive; but humans have been doing it as part of social and cultural norms in one form or another for centuries. Opponents to tobacco and smoking aren't a new phenomena either.

My thing here is about perceptions and treatment of smokers stemming from the engines that shape opinion, behavior and biases.

I smoked for nearly 30 years, from when it was completely accepted and dare I say "normal", to near the end of my smoking years feeling quite looked down upon as a weak-willed person lacking in self-discipline and stupid enough to carry on with a destructive habit, defying the pressure to conform to the new social and professional norms. Smokers have been and continue to be made outcasts, dinosaurs, figuratively and literally pushed out, forced to huddle together under a small awning in the rain or freezing snow.

The tone and insulting terms in some of the posts here edge toward those reserved for junkies, drug dealers and pedophiles. As with all other prejudice, smokers have been dehumanized, which gives way to the social permissions needed to denigrate them quite publicly, without distinction between the offensive behavior and the person.

The manipulation of human behavior, biases and social attitudes, is a fascinating, powerful thing. It can be dangerous as well, even when it starts with the best intentions for a greater good, as defined by the group with the loudest voice.

[hawker9000]

...can be dangerous, yes. But not nearly as dangerous, to oneself as well as to others, as smoking.

Bottom line is that many smokers feel as free to smoke around others, in complete disregard of their wishes and health, as the law allows. Literally. 'Leaves non-smokers little recourse but to return this lack of consideration, and do all they can to see that laws are passed (and enforced, as they are currently not in Thailand) to place further restrictions and punitive taxes on what is essentially and obviously an anti-social, if not actually a self-destructive and dangerous, behavior. Smokers who cannot govern their own behavior will simply have to be governed. I do lament the fact that the more considerate smokers get caught in this net, but as this thread shows, they really don't have much sympathy for the non-smokers, and are inclined to give lip service only to their pleas.

Govern yourselves or be governed. Smokers have made their choice. Their decision: "if you don't like it, leave..." The message they're sending is loud 'n clear. OK then. Got it. Now it's non-smoker decision time. And THEIR decision is, "tax & regulate the heck out of tobacco, however long it takes.