Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Second-Hand Smoke

Second-hand smoke from cigarettes. Well, the handwriting is on the wall. The Surgeon General of the U.S. released a study and scientific report yesterday, backed up with multiple documents and press releases, a large scale news conference, and an appearance on PBS’ The News Hour that flatly states second-hand smoke will kill you.

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

The report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, finds that even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause immediate harm. The report says the only way to protect nonsmokers from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking indoors.

“The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought,” said Surgeon General Carmona, vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service. “The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.”

I watched the entire interview with Admiral Carmona on The News Hour and watched the Q&A session after yesterday’s HHS presser. The admiral side-stepped direct questions in both venues as to whether federal anti-smoking laws should be enacted, claiming that isn’t his job. His job, according to the admiral, is to “keep the spotlight on the issue.” While I don’t believe the Feds will ban smoking outright in the immediate future, I do believe there will be a flurry of state and municipal laws banning smoking, not only in public places, but in private space as well. Louisiana has already begun, enacting a law banning smoking in private cars containing children under the age of 13.

State Rep. Gary Smith, D-Norco, author of the bill aimed at protecting children from concentrated secondhand smoke, said the surgeon general's report confirmed the data he and his staff presented to the Legislature supporting his bill.

"This will let the people who were a little bit unsure about what they were doing know they were right in supporting the bill," Smith said. "The primary goal was not to punish anyone but to raise awareness of the public."

Governor Blanco hasn’t signed the bill into law, as yet, but I’m betting she will. How could she not? The Surgeon General has given anti-smoking forces all the ammo they need to further their agenda of eliminating smoking completely. It’s only a matter of time before smoking is prohibited altogether. But, hey…it’s “for the children,” and that’s an argument where no dissent is allowed. Ever.

Score another victory for the Nanny-State. I hate it when this happens.

Second-hand smoke from burning flags. You may have to dodge that, too. The NYT:

WASHINGTON, June 27 — The Senate today fell one vote short of approving a constitutional amendment that would have enabled Congress to ban desecration of the American flag.

The vote was 66 to 34. To pass, the measure needed 67 votes.

Desecrating the American flag is roughly equivalent to pedophilia in my book. It’s a deplorable, despicable, and reprehensible action, so far beneath contempt that I cannot find the words to adequately express my loathing of those who would “express” themselves by burning or otherwise desecrating the flag. Got it? In the final accounting, however, I agree with this man:

"This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic," said Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and winner of the Medal of Honor for his service in World War II. "But I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to make certain all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts."

Amending the constitution is serious, serious business, an act that should never be taken lightly, even for so serious a subject as flag desecration. The Senate acted correctly.

Second-hand smoke from burning convictions. The AP has been caught, again. A press release from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works states:

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP.

It ain’t the first time, nor will it be the last.

Second-hand smoke emanating from the ears, or, Lessons-Learned Dept.: I’m pleased to report that Edwards’ Chocolate Silk pie is every bit as good as their Key Lime pie. I’m not nearly as pleased to report the frickin’ pie plates they use are flimsy beyond belief and chocolate silk pie filling is pretty heavy. Yesterday afternoon I reached into the fridge to pull out that delicious pie for a little snack. Unfortunately, I grabbed the pie plate by its empty section (I’d only eaten two slices of the pie), and the pie plate immediately folded up as I withdrew it from the fridge, depositing three-quarters of a chocolate silk pie into my shoes (which are neatly aligned on the floor directly under the fridge). Cream-side down. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to clean out whipped cream, chocolate filling, and flecks of shaved chocolate out of your shoes? I thought not. Boy, was I p!ssed.

15 comments:

  1. Both of my parents smoked while I was growing up. I can remember long car trips fighting with my brothers over who would sit by the windows so that we could crack them a little and breathe fresh air. Then we got a Buick Electra. Dad would yell that we did not need to crack the windows because there was fresh air coming in all the time - yeah right. It is the reason I never wanted to smoke. Dad smoked unfiltered Camels until the day he died of lung cancer. It is something I am kind of angry about.

    I'm not big on the government passing laws that tell you how to raise your kids or conduct your life, but it does seem like if they can pass a seatbelt/child safety seat law, they could pass a no smoking in the car with your kids law.

    Hmm, haven't tried the chocolate silk pie. Thanks for the caution on the flimsy plate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, here in NY they have a no smoking in public buildings law. That includes in bars & restaurants. While I do not much care for the government legislating such things, I really do appreciate the clean air, I'm pretty sensitive to smoke of any kind and even some kinds of perfumes etc. I'm with Lou, what's the difference between that and seatbelt laws? Yeah, smoking should be a personal freedom but if it puts others in danger, then no. Drinking alcohol is a personal freedom too but you can't get in a car afterward because of the danger you pose.

    It sucks about the pie. I'd be more upset that I didn't get to have any, than I would be about cleaning it up. LOL! I did like your turn of phrases as you introduced each topic. Very clever, Mr. P.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Both your points are well taken, ladies. I agree non-smokers shouldn't be subjected to the foul-smelling fumes smokers generate. But I also think there are ways to accomodate smokers besides banning them altogether.

    Re: that pie, Laurie. I seriously considered driving over to Wally-World and buying another immediately after cleaning up. I was that disappointed. And thanks for your kind words on the writing!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lou: I'm very sorry about your Dad. FWIW, both my parents smoked, too. My sister never started; I began while in high school. And smoking killed my father, as well. It took quite a while for him to go, as he succumbed from bladder cancer and its complications. Smoking will kill me also. Every smoker (me included) believes he will be the statistical anomaly, i.e., that 94 year old guy who smoked a pack a day and died peacefully in his sleep. It's a terrible rationalization. But we all do it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post, Buck!

    So, we can ban smoking but we cannot ban flag burning. That gets me so fuming mad (pun intended). You put these all in the right context, I think.

    I guess since smoking is a choice and not a statement/expression, we can ban that case. Smoking is always evil - uhhh, but it is a choice. And, since it infringes on the right of another, again, bannable.

    So, what about someone burning a flag infringing on my rights? Where does all this go?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, and my parents smoked, my friends parents smoked, people on planes used to smoke, my roomies in the USAF smoked, guys would smoke in the airmens club, my Mother-In-Law smokes (like a chimney and drinks like a fish) ... all these people are still alive. And, my second hand experience, while not fun at the time, has not made my health any worse. I still have TWICE the regular level of good cholesterol (40 is good, mine is 80) and my bad cholesterol is near the top of the good range ... can maybe one's physiology have something to do with all this ... ???

    Dang, great post, and I BETTER GET BACK TO WORK!!! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do these idiots really believe that by eliminating second hand smoke, that the air that they're breathing will then be pristine? Puh-leese. And when will they pass laws to keep parents from taking their children to McDonald's? Seen children there so large they could barely fit on the playground equipment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, I'll jump in with both feet and hope they don't end up in my mouth... Second hand smoke does harm people. The extent to which it harms is argueable. Banning smoking for the sake of eliminating second hand smoke is, IMHO, a good thing. It won't make the air pristine, but it will help. I think smoking is crazy. It is killing you and you are cognizant of that fact, yet you still do it. The costs on society are incredible. All those baby boomers that smoke are going to create HUGE health costs for taxpayers to absorb.
    The only real reason it has not been banned yet is tradition. Sad.
    My $.02

    ReplyDelete
  9. Physiology and a few other factors are more likely to exacerbate the results of smoking than smoking by itself. I believe that there is more to this because of the human machine.

    No smoking at all could be better. No drinking at all could be better. No riding behind a diesel truck could be better. No BBQ smoke could be better. No McDonalds could be better.

    I'm just saying that to focus on only one element produces a flawed result in any test. I am not saying you are wrong, Son #2, I am saying that from where we are getting research results aren't perfect. There is an agenda here - just like Global Warming.

    [HA! I SAID IT!]

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am not sure about no smoking laws. Personally, I don't like saftey belt laws either, but there is no denying they can save lives. I just hate government regulation. But like Laurie, I do appreciate the clean air. Son#2, I loved my dad, and he was a smart man, but the smoking thing was just not something I ever understood.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sam and I discussed the smoking thing on the phone last evening, so no direct reply is necessary except to say (repeat) "this IS, or used to be, America." That was my whole point about the Nanny-State.

    And yeah, Steve, I believe there is an agenda here. You're right on target, but THAT'S nothing new...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've always wondered how it would be if I were to apply some eau d' skunk and then go out in public.
    Honestly, I like it better (if it isn't too strong) than I do many perfumes I've forced to absorb in public places. It's all a matter of taste (smell), I suppose.
    As for cigarette/pipe smoke, years ago, when we stayed at my father-in-law's in Tucson for a week, I had the first migraine ever in my life from his constant smoking. It came through the air conditioning no matter where you were in the house. (My parents never smoked.) I've been super sensitive to it ever since. Even if it's on someone's clothes, my eyes will water and I'll get a headache.

    I don't know how far a nanny state should go, either, but would you complain if I reeked like a skunk out of choice? (It's a free country, right?)

    Just askin' :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey bec, pile on the stank! It is a free country and that is the point.

    Again, look deep within the agenda out there. Truly look into the research and how the statistics have been derived. It's all in the math and how they present it to us.

    Now, I can get behind you on the headache and the reaction to smoke. Some people ARE very sensitive, and that is where if you walked up to me and said, "Can you please put that out, or maybe move down wind, I would really appreciate it? I am very allergic." Well, by-gumm I'd be movin' down wind for you!

    See, using a little bit of common sense and some nice words can get you more. It used to be that way, until the Smoke-Nazis came out of the woodwork.

    Oh, and for the record, I DO NOT and NEVER HAVE smoked in my life! I do, on occasion, smoke a pipe or cigar (maybe 3 to 4 times a year). And, I am always outside, and I ask anyone at the table if it bothers them. The first sneeze, I move ...

    The State/Govt doesn't have to TELL me to be nice to others. I can damn well do that myself.

    If I were over at Buck's place, you can damn well be sure I'd not be telling him to put out his cigarette. It is HIS house, and I am there as a guest. Dats the rules I was raised by ...

    Damn cotton-headed-ninny-muggins' ... ;)

    (i'm not mad at you, bec, just using the occasion to stop the nanny state, as buck has coined here)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, and when I am smoking my pipe or cigar, guess what?

    I'M IN MY OWN BACKYARD!

    I always ask my friends if they mind. It may be my backyard/house, but kindness to your friends comes first, in my book.

    I wish everyone would leave the smokers alone ... just sayin' ...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hiya fix4rso,

    One thing I wish I had said in my last post, darn it, is how much I appreciate it when people are considerate about their smoking. I'm sure that Buck is considerate in that way because I know he's that kind of guy.

    As for me, in public I'll always move myself before I'll ask anyone to put out a cigarette or to move. I've never felt entitled to ask someone to stop smoking in public, because it's a free country. If I'm in a smoker's house, or a fellow guest, I grin and bear it and take Advil when I go home. If they come to my house, I am extremely apologetic about asking them not to smoke.

    On the whole, people are more considerate these days - maybe because they are aware now that many people can't stand it, that health effects are now known, and also because the government has stepped in a few times in certain areas and they're feeling a little hunted.
    However, I've also seen other people ask nicely for someone not to smoke and be met with a hostile glare.
    Like I said, I don't know how nanny government should come into it. I sure do like the fact that I don't have to worry anymore about a smoker spoiling my meal in a restaurant here in California. (I remember my parents agonizing over whether to ask the people at the next table to put out their cigarettes, or just suffer with it. Mostly they'd suffer with it after a few bad experiences.)
    Personally, I like that I don't have to worry about getting headaches at work anymore, too. Still can't get away from it, though. Our neighbors hang over their balcony right above our kitchen door and smoke. Being in a old beach cottage with no insulation or air conditioning there's not much recourse, but I'm not about to tell them they can't smoke (I always smile at them in a neighborly way) and I wouldn't want the government to be involved either. We just suffer in silence. I imagine many other people do, too. One thing I've often heard from former smokers is how they had no idea how smelly they were. They really aren't aware.

    I often remind myself, too, of the fact that our modern lives have much fewer "trials" than people had in, say, medieval times - or during the Industrial Revolution in the cities. I count my blessings and look at the bright side most days. Getting a headache once in awhile is a small price to pay for the personal freedoms we have as well as for our extended life spans. Life will never be perfect - certainly not through regulation, that's for sure.

    But some regulation for public safety is necessary. Drawing the line is what's difficult. I can think of countless times and ways when it has saved lives. (Safe drinking water, stopping the source of cholera and tainted meat come to mind)

    Nice talking with you.
    You really wouldn't mind if I smelled like a skunk?)

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask.