Name Three Victims of Second-Hand Smoke

One of the more thought-provoking and entertainingly ornery websites I've seen of late is called The Hittman Chronicle, run by a guy called Dave Hitt. He stole my heart with a piece called "Name Three."

When I was a kid, my father used to try to get me to eat stuff I didn't like by claiming, "There are millions of starving kids in India who would love that!" One day I replied, "Name three!" I received a quick slap in the head, and later that night he spanked me to sleep. This taught me two important lessons. One: don't say that to dad again. Two: "Name Three" is a great comeback to people spewing bogus numbers.

Which is exactly what Hitt proceeds to do. With pitbullish tenacity and a Merry Prankster's fondness for provoking authority, he happily pesters tobacco experts who wax dramatic about the deaths supposedly caused by second-hand smoke. Hitt's question is the simple, time-tested "Name three."

It's not as childish as it may seem. The debate about smoking is infused with dishonesty and junk science. Critical, to-the-point questions are needed. And surely, if, according to the anti-tobacco lobby, upwards of one million people have died from second-hand smoke over the past twenty years, the experts shouldn't have the slightest trouble supplying Hitt with a few names.

You know where this is leading: Not one of the nicotine nannies can do it. Not one. "Why not?" Hitt pushes on, in an e-mail to the American Lung Association.

"If I had asked for the names of people who died from primary smoking, I'm sure you could name a dozen without giving it a second thought, and could list a hundred or two with five or ten minutes research ... It's an easy project because primary smoking really does kill people."

I should point out again that I'm not a smoker, but that the assault on smokers' rights — based as it is on lots of questionable research — has gone quite far enough, thank you.

On a related note, here's a reality that few non-smokers seem to be able to wrap their heads around: Smoking tobacco can be extremely pleasurable, irritated lungs be damned. As blogger Southern Avenger points out:

Those who don't smoke can't understand it, as they watch others hack and cough while continuing to light yet another cigarette. ... But hacking and coughing are to a smoker what a hangover is to a drinker, a fat stomach is to a food lover, or an unwanted stalker is to a womanizer — the nasty price you pay for what is otherwise an enjoyable experience."

Comments

[ed psycho]

Stowbridge says I lied about his position yet in an earlier post on this very forum says: "Second hand smoke kills 3000 people a year AND HAS NO BENEFIT. None. Banning it saves lives, is good for the economy and unless you think workplace safety is infringing on your rights, there is no lose of freedoms either."

So you're NOT advocating state-sponsored smoking bans then? Sorry, if you want to state once and for all you are opposed to state-sponsored smoking bans I will gladly retract my accusation that you are a liar and a hypocrite.

But... how exactly am *I* a hypocrite? Because I disagree with you? You asked for facts and figures, for further examples to back my statements up, Stowbridge, and that's EXACTLY what I did.

Are my figures from Maine or California wrong? Is Maine's economy now a better place for bars? How about California's?

How about my commentary on the EPA vs OHSA limits? Do you interpret the numbers differently? Why are specific airborne contiminants "bad" if they comes from a cigarette, yet the same contaminants are "OK" if they come in the same concentrations from a non-tobacco source? Do you really expect me to believe that because it's from a cigarette is it worse somehow?

Should EPA regulations for ourdoor air, which measure the impact of industrial pollution over enormous geographic areas apply indoors too?

How about my critiques of the Repace and Poin/Givel studies? Is 1/1000 a cigarette too much exposure, even though it's 600 times less than the OSHA legal limit?

I never said I was a libertarian. But I agree, the're not a political force, because the portion of the public that actually is involved in civics this day and age prefers sanctimonious know-it-all turds like you to REAL choice and responsibility.

[Tad M]

>>This debate has nothing to do with freedom of choice because... and this is a complex point so pay attention... nicotine is addictive. Once you are an addict, it's no longer about choice. If you choose to become an addict, fine. But don't pretend you smoke because you enjoy phlegm.<<

Okay, well what if you smoke marijuana?? there is no point of that being illegal, but it is, its not addicting, all it really does is kill off brain cells to those who do it and makes them act loopy, big deal. Smoking is addicting yes, we all know that, but there are numerous charts and sites etc. that show that second hand smoking is not the cause of all of this non-sense

[Dave Hitt]

>>>"What scares most of us libertarians is not only the amount of useless propaganda has been used to drive this hate machine, but what comes next? When you've won, what right, choices and freedoms will you take next?">Slipery slope fallacy.<<

Slippery Slope is not a fallacy, it is the way nannies work. They start out with one request, one that may even be reasonable. They get it, wait a year or two, and then work on their next request.

This issue is a perfect example. It started in the sixties, with the perfectly reasonable request that airplanes have smoking and non-smoking sections. If, back then, you suggested that it would lead to people being fired for smoking, losing custody of their children for smoking, and having smoking banned in their own homes, people would have laughed. How ridiculous! Yet, that is exactly what has happened, one small, slippery step at a time.

There is no such thing as compromise with these people. Every "compromise" is just another step toward their final goal – eliminating smoking by demonizing smokers and making it impossible for them to smoke anywhere.

[dougms]

Since we are talking about economy, let’s look at the amount of money made from smoking in gas stations.

The average gas station makes 1/3 of its money, 27.4% to be more accurate from tobacco products. If you took that away, how would they make that up? They would probably raise prices, starting with gas.

The gas station close to my house makes about 6 cents per gallon sold. The rest is pretty much tobacco and liquor.

If that was gone, it’d screw us all over.

[MAK]

CS Stowbridge: Just like you can't masturbate in public places either.

Colson: But yes, you can. Theatrical performances. Movie studios. Strip clubs. Bathroom stalls. Hotel rooms. Doctor's offices.

What the fuck are you talking about geeza? Since when can you masturbate in a strip joint and a movie studio? That is fucking retarded... I dare you to try an masturbate in a strip joint, I bet you end up with your penis severed clean off.

Smoking causes a horrible and slow, painful premature death, which imho is more conviniently achieved with the use of a pistol to the head (or nutsack if you want to make it painful). I don't know if second hand smoke kills you or not, but it irritates the shit out of me, and should be banned. In fact, anyone caught smoking in my face should be battered to the point that they inhale through a straw.

Hows that?

[Devo]

Hey, dougms , you know what? You are a full fledged fascist. People have the RIGHT to smoke and if you do not like it you can get out of their way. We don't have to stop smoking just because you do not like it. In America we have FREEDOM OF CHOICE. And if got caught smoking in your face I would flick my butt in your and kick you square in the nuts. How's that?

[turner915]

The argument that a smoking ban is for the health of the workers is completely bogus!! I was a bartender/server for 20 years and if I thought smoking was going to be a health issue I would've made a career move. I'm really scared of clowns so you'll never see me working in the circus. I would love to hear what the benefit to the private business owner is after he has lost his business, declared bankruptcy,and can no longer afford health insurance just so you anti-smokers can have a soap box to stand on. Believe me, I have seen it happen with this ban. For 100's of years people have enjoyed socializing in bars where many patrons smoke. Don't like it? Form your own group of businesses where smoking is not permitted. Don't take the choice of creating revenue away from the business owner. I think there shoud be a ban on people who believe in living in a world that is dictated by BIG BROTHER.

[M.C. Cahoon]

I have several friends whose lives have been affected drastically by the toxins in secondhand smoke and ETS because their parents smoke. Yes, It is the parents' choice to smoke but maybe they should smoke outside of the house. The father Especially when the mother is pregnant.

As for those in the smokey restaurants, the customers can just get up and leave, this is true. What about the workers? It is true that they can quit and get another job but sometimes money is tight and jobs are hard to find. Some people need to stick with the jobs they have. Should not the employers have a measure of duty towards the health of their employees?

It is a smokers choice to breathe the toxins of a cigarette. A non-smoker has somewhat of a choice to avoid those toxins but most people do not realize just how much of the stuff is in the air. I have been writing several reports on SHS and have been doing a lot of research on the subject. I have found in an article written by several athorities in the Division of Laboratory Science, National Center for Environmental Health and the Office of Smoking and Health.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrex&artid=1480505

They found that approximately 88% of the U.S. non-smoking citizens had detectible levels of cotinine in their systems.

The more research I do on this subject, the more concerned I become. I'm not saying smokers have no rights. They do. Separate places with very effective ventilation systems would be a good place to begin.

[Hermes Ten]

It sure is easy to tell who the smokers are in this thread. I grew up, before any anti-smoking laws, with smokers basically blowing their smoke in everyone's face and giving a big "fuck you" to anyone who complained. I've met one smoker in my entire life who asked if I minded if he smoked in a confined space --like a car where I was a captive rider-- and I obviously gave him the wrong answer. They even get pissed when you tell them not to smoke in your house.

Smokers are drug addicts and they act a lot like drug addicts. As exemplified in this thread, they seem to believe their right to smoke trumps everyone else's right not to breath smoke. Or, let's frame it another way and dispose of either case as a right: they seem to believe that their smoking privileges trump anyone else's "privilege" to breath smoke free air.

I don't give a fuck whether or not I can get cancer from second hand smoke. Smoke irritates my lungs and makes me cough uncontrollably (not that I've ever seen a single smoker who showed the slightest concern about the effect of his smoking on anyone else). And I find smoking repellent and I don't want to walk around all day reeking like an ashtray. I don't complain when I have to breathe in the foul nauseating odor of a chronic smoker because the odor leaves when he does. Wah wah wah, you can't smoke whenever and wherever you want to. Well, I can't piss, cuss, jack-off, or lounge naked wherever and whenever I want to either. We don't live in a "libertarian" society. When we do, I'll accept that set of trade-offs. In the meantime, we live in a very regulated society with a different set of trade-offs, and one of the trade-offs that makes this very regulated world more tolerable is not having to breath cigarette smoke in public places.

No one, including you fucking smokers, would tolerate smelling someone's raunchy farts throughout a meal, and I don't want to smell your foul smoke while I eat either. The difference is, most people would leave the table to fart somewhere else and not inflict their farts on other people in the restaurant; most smokers just whine about their rights to foul everyone else's air. And while not being able to fuck my wife on the dinner table after a restaurant meal, or a drink at the bar, interferes with my pleasure, I have enough self-control to wait to do it in the car or when I get home.

Smoking or not smoking should be a matter of mutual consent and not an issue for the State. Unfortunately, smokers seem to consider themselves exempt from the rules of common courtesy that apply to other public offenses, like farting, and will brook no restrictions on their nasty habit. Now they're pissed because the people whose faces they've been blowing their smoke into all these years have found a trick to get back at them. Some of these anti-smoking laws clearly do go too far, but in good measure, by the attitudes of smokers they have bought it upon themselves.

[tigerlilly]

"It sure is easy to tell who the smokers are in this thread. I grew up, before any anti-smoking laws, with smokers basically blowing their smoke in everyone's face and giving a big "fuck you" to anyone who complained. I've met one smoker in my entire life who asked if I minded if he smoked in a confined space --like a car where I was a captive rider-- and I obviously gave him the wrong answer. They even get pissed when you tell them not to smoke in your house"

The people you associate with must be some serious jackasses. I'm a smoker who is constantly worried about whether or not I will annoy or bother non-smokers around me. Even when outside, I always make an effort to smoke at a distance from and downwind of those who are around. I don't know who you hang around, but I don't know a smoker in this day and age who isn't terribly careful not to piss off the non-smokers around them.

"No one, including you fucking smokers, would tolerate smelling someone's raunchy farts throughout a meal, and I don't want to smell your foul smoke while I eat either."

I don't want to smell the guy who hasn't showered for days. Nor can I bear to be near the woman who has doused herself in perfume (as a matter of fact, I'll have an allergic reaction). Most of all, though, I don't want to smell or hear or be exposed to your germy ass bratty kids while I'm eating. Guess what, though? We live in a world where we have to live with the consequences of others choices. Now, either we can be rational adults and try to sort it out ourselves, or we can let Daddy government do it for us. I'm sure you wouldn't want the banning of perfume in public to take effect simply because most people don't want to smell a gallon of it and a small number will have ill health effects as the result of asthma or allergies, would you?

As I said, I've no clue what kind of people you must be associating with, but I don't know a single smoker who isn't aware of and sensitive to the desires of non-smokers out there. I do, however, know many non-smokers who think it is perfectly acceptable to berate someone they don't even know for lighting up a smoke, even outdoors, and are more than willing to treat anyone who enjoys cigarettes as a social pariah. What kind of common courtesy is that?