Snuffed Out: Smokers Need Not Apply

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Well Researched?

No not really - every myth about the harm of smoking is based on epidemiology. Epidemiology is a very funny soft science. Epidemiology can only prove correlation - that x happened in the presence of y - but epidemiology cannot be used to proved causation - that x happened because of y.

Actually no not all myths as you call them are based on epidemiological studies. They have done studies on animals that prove cigarrettes cause cancer, stroke, heart disease etc. Animal exposed to cigarrette smoke are far more likely to get all of these diseases compared to control animals.

Look if you want to smoke that's fine i really don't care but please don't talk rubbish about the science.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Now I have extensively read studies on smoking and have found that most of the relative risk is below 200 %. Read the headlines for yourself and you will see it is true.

I have read the studies as well and if you are someone that has done extensive reading i am at a loss as to how you missed the animal studies. Study after study done on animals finds that an increase in illness is experience when exposed to cigarrettes.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Wasn't climate change also "well researched" and incontrovertible - beyond debate?

And now we are finding that a large portion of the IPPC report was actually written by journalists and activists?

We're talking about something else though so your point here is mute. If you want to argue this line then every singl scientific theory is false because according to you the global warming one is wrong. Don't bring this kind of debating tactic in because it won't work.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Is it possible that Big Pharma - with its 1.7 billion dollar a year smoking cessation product market - and its interest in nicotene for the treatment of many diseases - and its interest in using tobacco plants for growing vaccines - and its control of RJW Foundation to fund most of the "smoking research, is it possible, just possible that they lied and twisted statistics to suit their own needs?

Big Pharma is against big tobacco so it's a pretty even battle What we need is independant research and oh wait it's been done on animals! This website is about denying ignorance and for some reason you're happily jumping headlong into a pool of ignorance. Do you smoke? If not this is a really weird viewpoint you have which i would say comes from a distrust of any mainstream knowledge.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Notice how smoking rates have decreased in the general population but disease rates (most notably lung cancer) are NOT decreasing?

Tired of Control Freaks

There are two problems with your thinking in regards to disease rates. Firstly many old smokers are now getting to the age when their smoking is catching up to them and so we will see a nice spike in lung cancer for the next oh say 30 years or so. After that we should see a decrease.

However because of the increasing level of obesity it may just carry on going as obesity increases the risk for all types of cancer.

[edit on 13-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by dawnstar


I have asthma and I can't be around people who wear perfume or
smoke.I have to wear a mask when I am around these people.I
understand that my problem is my problem.I don't think it's right
to force people to stop smoking,or lose their jobs if they don't stop.
When you try to force people to do something,it just makes them
want to do it even more.People don't like being told what to do period!

reply to post by mamabeth


I am sorry to hear you have asthma. I have it too, but it must be milder than yours, because I used to be one of those bathe in it perfumers.

I used to wear perfume to one of my jobs. One day I noticed my coworker kept acting mad at me all day. She kept glaring at me, and she took about six extra smoke breaks. I was new so I was clueless.

The next day my boss told me so and so was allergic to perfume and it triggered her asthma. I was stunned, and felt awful to boot. I guess I assumed if you smoke and it doesnt trigger asthma them my perfume would not either. I apologized to so and so and quit wearing perfume to work, and now I never wear it to work. I felt so bad to have caused some one else trouble.

I do think all workplaces have the right to restrict smoking, perfumes, gum chewing, nail polish etc etc while on the clock.

(My asthma only kicks in if I get a cold and its a bad one.)

reply to post by hotbakedtater


What happens to me, when someones perfume bothers me,I start
getting fluid in my lungs.This causes me to cough and to develop
an infection in my lungs.Every time I get an infection,it takes stronger
antibiotics to clear it up.
The last time I was that sick was in january 2008.I was sick for 12
weeks.After I was well,I had to start wearing a mask.If it gets worse,
then I will have to wear a mask that will make me feel like Darth Vadar.
I really like the way children look at me when I wear my mask!The
parents pull their children back,they think I'm contagious. I'm just
glad I don't have to wear it all the time,just when exposed.
What is really funny,not all perfumes bother me.

reply to post by mamabeth


I have to make a correction...Between december 2007-late march 2008,
I was sick 12 weeks.I was not sick 12 weeks starting in january 2008.

Imaginary Reality 1984

The only studies that have been done on animals was to paint mouse ears with tar and to cut holes in the throats of animals and expose them to massive amounts of particulates.

I am afraid that the science is not quite as settled as you would believe. There was a rather famous case in Scotland called McTear vs Imperial Tobacco that was resolved in May 2005 The case itself is rather uninteresting. Just an opportunistic widow trying to claim that her husband got lung cancer from smoking.

What was rather interesting about the case is that evidence was presented by 3 anti-smoking scientists and 3 scientists hired by Imperial Tobacco.

The case revolved around the issue - could smoking cause lung cancer. One of the anti-smoking scientists was Sir Richard Doll. This was the first western scientist to claim to have found the link between smoking and lung cancer.

The Judges name was Nimmo Smith. At the end of it all - Justice Nimmo Smith was particularly upset with the 3 anti-smoking scientients. He most famously proclaimed "The evidence that you have presented to this court amounts to "Smoking causes lung cancer because I say it does""

Notice how the smoking rate has been dropping for 40 years and the highest rate of lung cancer is now occurring in never-smoking woman. As a matter of fact - almost 50 % of all lung cancers are now occurring in never-smoking woman.

Here is a link for McTear vs Imperial

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

This is an exact quote of the judge

[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a non-smoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual's cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).

And further - if you follow the link you will be treated to a full discussion by six leading experts in the field of tobacco and lung cancer.

It would absolutely shock you to know just how UNSETTLED that question really is.

Please - if you want to talk science to me, would you mind providing links? The problem here is that for every study that links smoking to any disease you care to name, then there are other studies that show the opposite but those studies are not the ones you hear about. They are quietly ignored.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Employing smokers in a hospital is like having a fat guy as a dietician. It just doesn't work. Employees should practice what they preach, the hospital has a right to inforce this.

Reply to Verbiage

So you would support that all hospital employees should be of ideal weight, drink no more than 1 alcohol drink per day, eat only fresh foods every day and only of recommended portions, further such people must live their lives as an example to others and must never engage in risky behavior such as having sex outside of marriage.

And this is the sum total of the qualifications that you believe that hospital workers must have?

If you support employment discrimination against smokers by health workers then you must also support employment discrimination against workers for all so-called "unhealthy" behaviors!

And you must also support the idea the people only get sick because its their own fault!

And once you have staffed the hospital with these paragons of health - don't be surprised if you find yourself being cared for by cold humans who look to punish you for your sins (like getting a sexually transmitted disease) or having cancer because you are more than 20 lbs overwieght.

You might also consider that one of these paragons may actually snap one day and come to work with a loaded gun!

Moderation in all things....including moderation!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Of course you are correct in everything you have said so far.

In fact, if the hospital wants to set a good example it would refuse to employ workers who have a poor diet as there are better links for diet and health than anything else as can be seen from 'smoking related' deaths in countries with high rates of smoking and good diet.

The US anti smoking group (I forgot their name) recently sacked its chief scientist, who 'proved' the harmful effects of second hand smoke, when he refused to 'prove' that third hand smoke was harmful despite the lack of any supporting data.

Keep up the good work against the control freaks and their tiny little minds! (in positions of power, not forum members)


[edit on 14/2/2010 by LightFantastic]

You know we got a little off topic in discussing whether smoking is bad for you or not, in the end it doesn't matter if smoking will kill you within 10 months or 10 years. The issue is whether a private organisation can tell you what to do in your private life and the answer for any freedom loving person should be a resounding no.

A company should not have the ability to tell people they cannot smoke, nor should it have the ability to tell you that you can't drink, do dangerous sports, be overweight or anything else. A company should however have the right to refuse to pay your health insurance if you smoke but that's it.

I just sit back in wonder at how so many people on this thread, people who you often see posting about freedom and rights are happy to support the hospital in violating these peoples rights. Just because they don't like smokers!

reply to post by mamabeth

your problem, is a lot of people's problem, and the numbers keep growing and growing. the more exposure you get from the offending substances, the more chance you have of waking up one morning and having a severe reaction to those substances. The chemicals I work with every day at work WILL CAUSE asthma to develope!
I have a nephew that will end up in the hospital if he comes into contact with cigarette smoke. His parents were told it was his father's smoking, so the father quite smoking, then it was the wood burning stove, so, they quite using it, then it was the dust in the house, so they started working their arses off keeping that home CLEAN, then it was, the dirt outside the kid was playing in....that's where they drew the line! No one doctor, medical professional brought up that pool that the kid was coming home every night and was playing in!
One of my kids had asthma also, only not as severe and he has outgrown him. He kept telling us all that the pool was making him sick, the school officials didn't believe him, and it was required for him to take swimming classes....
If would fully support some type of control being put on society that would limit people's exposure to all these offensive substances, I would support even more fully if the gov't would step in and force the companies to remove the offensive chemicals from their products! Most of those dangerous chemicals that they complain about in cigarettes, are added to them by the manufacturers, and well.....but they are being added to so much other stuff, that I dont' care if you wipe out smoking all together! it ain't gonna do any good!
why is it that gee, when I was growing up, there were alot more smokers, heck I spent most nights in a smoke filled bar where my mom worked.....but all of us kids could run and play....BREATH!! I didn't know one soul in my school that had asthma!!
Was in my son's school giving the nurse my son's asthma medication and she opened the medicine chest to put it in....I was dumbfounded at how many inhalers were in the thing!!
why is it, even though the smoking has been reduced so much, that the rate of athsma had increased THAT much?
obviously, it isn't the JUST smoking!!
but alas, it would be very, very costly for all these manufactures to change the way they are making our products....
THEY ARE SCAPEGOATING!!!

reply to post by Anti-Evil


I agree with ant-evil!
My husband and I commented to one another a few years ago about the many, many CVS and Walgreens being built on just about every corner where we live....there might be a CVS on one corner and less than 3 blocks away, a WALGREENS.....

Dawnstar

You bring up a very interesting point and a theory that has been bandied about by scientists for a number of years.

Childhood asthma used to be relatively rare. In fact, childhood asthma rates have shot up over 800 % since the 1960s. This kind of increase in disease rates almost signals a genetic change.

Please before anyone goes off half cocked about how second hand smoke CAUSES asthma - don't bother - I have the links to prove it doesn't and in fact, the childhood asthma rates have increased in lockstep with the decrease in smoking rates in the population and the decrease in exposure to second hand smoke.

Many children currently suffering asthma have NEVER been exposed to second-hand smoke.

We have a serious problem here folks!

Tobacco smoke is simply 1 environmental irritant that triggers asthma attacks and its only one on a list of thousands. Its not even the most important on the list of irritants.

Anyway - to get back to the theory - man has been exposed to smoke for millenia from the burning of organic material used to heat their homes and cook their food. Caves are not well known for their ventilation rates.

Our entire respiratory system evolved and developed in this environment. From the tips of our noses to the bottom of our lungs - it is all structured to filter out common environmental irritants. From moulds, fungus, pollens, bacteria to cockroach poop, mites to dust etc etc.

The theory is that since the 1950s and 1960s people started heating their homes with clean burning natural gas and electricity. Children are being raised in environments where there is nothing to challenge the defenses of the respiratory system. As a result, the respiratory system is unable to develop proper defenses and becomes hyper-sensitive.

Oh and by the way - this is on-topic. The only reason why private employers are able to gain control of the private lives of their employees and their spouses is by way of the manufactured hysteria about second hand smoke.

The most reasonable and logical people will support a smoking ban on patio's and balconies on the basis of health concerns. Asthmatics will claim that the bans are necessary to protect their delicate lungs. Meanwhile, everyone is eating their dinners right next to roadways with cars whizzing past. An idling car will discharge the equivilant pollution of 35,000 cigarettes in particulate and carcinogens each and every minute.

But let a smoker light a cigarette within 20 feet and all of a sudden everyone's health is "at risk"??????

I see that there is even one person here who actually buys into the ludicrous "third-hand smoke" theory.

Time to challenge the hysteria with facts - not spin-doctored statistics and meaningless sound bytes.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I disagree with you about the correlation of smoking and disease however i agree completely with you about second hand smoke. The studies have consistently supported the theory that second hand smoke does not cause disease. As you rightly said though it can trigger an asthma attack.

The other big thing about asthma is the theory that environments are to clean so the immune system never gets challenged and instead starts attacking the body itself. This makes sense and would explain the rise in other autoimmune diseases.

Originally posted by jibeho
Parma is just catching up!! Finally! This is a very small and still independent non profit hospital, which is rare these days. This is also an important hospital in this community. A move like this will keep them competitive and will ultimately keep their costs down. Cheers to them. Parma needs this hospital.

The world renowned Cleveland Clinic has been paving the way.

To take further steps in preserving and improving the health of all
its employees and patients, Cleveland Clinic has recently
implemented a nonsmoking hiring policy requiring all job
applicants and individuals receiving appointments to take a
cotinine test during their pre-placement physical exam. This is a
pre-employment test only. The cotinine test will detect the
presence of nicotine in all forms of tobacco. Beginning
September 1, 2007, appointments that have been offered to
prospective residents and fellows who test positive will be
rescinded. Individuals who test positive will receive a referral to a
tobacco cessation program paid for by Cleveland Clinic. Those
individuals testing positive who test negative after 90 days may be
reconsidered for appointment at the discretion of the program
director should the residency position remain vacant.

my.clevelandclinic.org...

Hospitals all over the country are doing the same thing with great success!!!

Sorry smokers.

Competive to what??? Hospitals in areas are needed services, and the world should have completely free health and dental. So this whole US business scheme just makes me sick.

CONTROL OF ANY KIND IS FASCISM AND ITS TREASON AND A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

Wake up everyone! This is NWO, Rothschild/Illumanit crapola.

Look at the logo for the 2012 London Olympics and ask yourself how ZION represents the world????

The crimes these leaders and the corporate heads behind this are guilty of are unbelievable.

Funny thing about the cotinine test - better not eat too many tomatoes, eggplant or potatoes (all members of the solancea family) and all contain nicotene!

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Complete bullsh*t. Nothing more to say about it aside from this is what you get when idiots can't embrace reality.

Are they going to test them for alcohol and other influential substances? Such as psychotropic drugs, narcotics, etc?

Let me guess. They don't test their doctors or nurses for alcohol use, you know.. something that impairs one's motor and cognitive functions over 24 hours after consumption....

Yeah, that's okay, but cigarette smoking is heinous.

I don't even smoke, and I find this offensive and appalling.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by SyphonX]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Of course, I totally agree with your points, even the exclusion of health insurance. But when you dictate that I cannot perform legal actions (smoking) off the clock, then you better be paying me 24/7!!!! That is the most outrageous thing. I too am stunned by how many people think ripping off another pound of freedom flesh and GLADLY handing it over to the LORDS is a great and dandy idea.

I am beginning to think the push of healthiness is nothing more than another corporate scam in the end. (our end).

It's a dirty, pointless habit and should be banned everywhere. I agree with the company. I wouldn't want a nurse coming up to me who stank of smoke.

reply to post by MFeely88


I was hospitalized years ago for pneumonia, and well, the day before I was discharged, a guy can through my room with mop and bucket fill with water and pine sol. I left he hopsital feeling crappier than I did when I went in!
My son can't be around the stuff either, has about the same effect!

that nice smelling crap that people are putting on their bodies, plugging into the electric socket, burning in the ashtray, hanging in their car, ect......
well, they will affect me also!
and they have many of the same chemicals added to them that is added to the cigarettes, so well, they will have the same effects on your health, regardless of the method of delivery!!!

there are many pretty things in nature that are pretty much deadly!!!
smell is not a good reason to demonize a group of people!!