Smoke FREE NYC! how does everyone feel?

[jeunefilleparis]

QUOTE (jeunefilleparis @ Feb 25 2003, 03:38 PM)

My dry cleaning bill will be cut in half and when i m drunk, i wont bum smokes from my smoking friends:)))))))))

Lauren is happpppy happppy happpy

irish cream

<

Is NY banning cigs in just restaurants, or bars too? >>>

Yes, I am a horrible hypocrit when I am drunk. but that will be solved now,,,,,,,,

[ngatti]

Yes, I am a horrible hypocrit when I am drunk

I wish more women would adopt this philosophy.

Nick

[tommy]

Sure, Like you wear suits.

Yeah...riiight.

Nick

i don't menstruate either, but i'm aware of some of the implications.

ron, slacks and other dress pants are often worn more than once before a trip to the cleaners. ties, of course. socks, rarely.

[Wilfrid]

Gentlemen, the chemicals in tobacco smoke responsible for the odor are fairly volatile at room temperature. If you come home in a coat or suit smelling of smoke, don't hang it in a closet. Hang it in some open space (I use the bathroom), and if it still has any smell in the morning, I will pay your dry cleaning bills for a year.

Note: you can confidently rely on everything in the above paragraph except the last ten words.

[Ron Johnson]

Yeah, I kind of lumped slack/dress pants in with suits in that post. If I am wearing socks two days in a row, chances are I haven't made it home yet and my head hurts really bad.

[tommy]

Gentlemen, the chemicals in tobacco smoke responsible for the odor are fairly volatile at room temperature.  If you come home in a coat or suit smelling of smoke, don't hang it in a closet.  Hang it in some open space (I use the bathroom), and if it still has any smell in the morning, I will pay your dry cleaning bills for a year.

i dunno dude. i haven't hung a jacket in a closet in many many years. it usually hits the back of the dining room chair. she still stank.

Edited February 26, 2003 by tommy (log)

[tommy]

Yeah, I kind of lumped slack/dress pants in with suits in that post.  If I am wearing socks two days in a row, chances are I haven't made it home yet and my head hurts really bad.

sweaters, too.

[Wilfrid]

i dunno dude.  i haven't hung a jacket in a closet in many many years.  it usually hits the back of the dining room chair.  she still stank.

The next day? Scientifically impossible. Where's Dr Death when you need him?

[tommy]

The next day?  Scientifically impossible.  Where's Dr Death when you need him?

you've obviously never had a whiff of my apartment.

[g.johnson]

Researchers in the early to mid 90s reviewing data concerning silicone breast implants determined that there was no evidence that silicone leaking from faulty implants was having measurable ill effects on womens health.

Result:  EPA ignored research findings and banned further use of silicone implants.  This ban was used by plaintiffs in civil cases that ultimately resulted in the bankruptcy of 2 major pharmaceutical firms.

Not true. First, of course, the EPA has nothing to do with breast implants. You mean the FDA.

The FDA was only given authority to regulate medical devices when silicone breast implants were already in use. In view of health concerns the FDA required manufacturers to provide safety information on both silicone and saline breast implants. This would of course be necessary for any new drug or implantable device. Two manufacturers performed the necessary studies for saline implants, but no manufacturer has for silicone. Silicone implants are available as an 'investigational new device' for post-mastectomy reconstructive surgery.

You are correct that there is no evidence of adverse systemic reactions to silicone implants. However, as there is no medical benefit to implants, the onus is one the manufacturer to prove safety.

Read all about it.

[ngatti]

i dunno dude.  i haven't hung a jacket in a closet in many many years.  it usually hits the back of the dining room chair.  she still stank.

The next day? Scientifically impossible. Where's Dr Death when you need him?

Prolly playing trivia.

I'm gonna land with Tommy, Wilf. I hang jackets and sometimes they still stink. Perhaps the type of fabric has something to do with this.

Nick

[tommy]

Researchers in the early to mid 90s reviewing data concerning silicone breast implants determined that there was no evidence that silicone leaking from faulty implants was having measurable ill effects on womens health.

Result:  EPA ignored research findings and banned further use of silicone implants.  This ban was used by plaintiffs in civil cases that ultimately resulted in the bankruptcy of 2 major pharmaceutical firms.

Not true. First, of course, the EPA has nothing to do with breast implants. You mean the FDA.

The FDA was only given authority to regulate medical devices when silicone breast implants were already in use. In view of health concerns the FDA required manufacturers to provide safety information on both silicone and saline breast implants. This would of course be necessary for any new drug or implantable device. Two manufacturers performed the necessary studies for saline implants, but no manufacturer has for silicone. Silicone implants are available as an 'investigational new device' for post-mastectomy reconstructive surgery.

You are correct that there is no evidence of adverse systemic reactions to silicone implants. However, as there is no medical benefit to implants, the onus is one the manufacturer to prove safety.

Read all about it.

ok, mr. smarty pants, tell me why my sweaters stink the next day.

[Wilfrid]

"Impossible" is an exaggeration of course, but I'm very surprised.

[g.johnson]

Woodward A, Laugesen M: How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke? Tob Control 2001; 10(4):383-8

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number of deaths attributable to second hand smoke (SHS), to distinguish attributable and potentially avoidable burdens of mortality, and to identify the most important sources of uncertainty in these estimates. METHOD: A case study approach, using exposure and mortality data for New Zealand. RESULTS: In New Zealand, deaths caused by past exposures to second hand smoke currently number about 347 per year. On the basis of present exposures, we estimate there will be about 325 potentially avoidable deaths caused by SHS in New Zealand each year in the future. We have explored the effect of varying certain assumptions on which the calculations are based, and suggest a plausible range (174-490 avoidable deaths per year). CONCLUSION: Attributable risk estimates provide an indication for policy makers and health educators of the magnitude of a health problem; they are not precise predictions. As a cause of death in New Zealand, we estimate that second hand smoke lies between melanoma of the skin (200 deaths per year) and road crashes (about 500 deaths per year).

Miner RN, Crutcher JM: Second-hand tobacco smoke in Oklahoma: a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality and means of reducing exposure. J Okla State Med Assoc 2002; 95(3):135-41

Evidence has mounted in recent years establishing second-hand tobacco smoke exposure as a cause of morbidity and mortality in nonsmokers. The ratio of deaths is approximately one nonsmoker dying from illness caused by second-hand smoke exposure for every eight smokers who die from diseases caused by tobacco use. This is equivalent to about 750 nonsmoker deaths each year in Oklahoma caused by exposure to second-hand smoke. This article reviews the components of second-hand smoke, its health effects, its prevalence in Oklahoma, and the means of protecting children and nonsmoking adults from exposure. Oklahoma physicians are encouraged to advise their patients about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke and to actively support public policies that decrease exposure to second-hand smoke in public places and workplaces.

[g.johnson]

ok, mr. smarty pants, tell me why my sweaters stink the next day. 

Because you smoke at home too?

[Ron Johnson]

The next day?  Scientifically impossible.  Where's Dr Death when you need him?

Wilfrid, its possible. I have a coat that stank of cigarette smoke for at least 5 or 6 days, especially the lining, and I turned it inside out and draped it over a chair. I swear this is true, but I was in a very smokey bar that evening and several people around me were smoking.

I also can smell smoke in my car the next morning from having driven home in smokey clothes the previous night.

[Wilfrid]

The second of those studies looks like a review from the quote. Did the first study report a relative risk? That would be the easiest way to see whether it is in line with the other studies or an outlier. Tobacco Control is an advocacy journal rather than a scientific journal, but it would be an ad hominem argument - in a rarely seen correct use of the term - to infer from that that the study is invalid.

[g.johnson]

I only have the abstracts (quoted above in full) so I don't know. It's worth noting that of the 6 or so abstracts I read, none doubted the proposition that second hand smoke kills people.

[g.johnson]

Here’s another.

Wilson N, Thomson G: Still dying from second-hand smoke at work: a brief review of the evidence for smoke-free workplaces in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2002; 115(1165):U240

AIM: To briefly review the evidence on the hazard from, and control of, second-hand smoke (SHS) in New Zealand workplace settings. METHODS: Medline searches and searches of New Zealand health databases for unpublished reports. RESULTS: The New Zealand evidence suggests that over 30% of workers continue to be exposed to SHS in workplace settings. The best available estimate is that SHS exposure in these settings causes around 100 avoidable deaths per year from lung cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke collectively. National survey data and studies in hospitality industry settings (measuring nicotine in hair and cotinine in saliva), strongly indicate that smoke-free workplaces result in reduced exposure to SHS. The data indicate that there is widespread concern regarding SHS and clear support for smoke-free workplaces. CONCLUSIONS:Available New Zealand data are fully consistent with the extensive international data indicating that smoke-free policies in workplaces can improve health protection for workers. New legislation is likely to enhance the control of SHS in New Zealand, but additional actions such as a mass media campaign on SHS are also desirable.

[Wilfrid]

We can't really debate this on a handful of abstracts. There are about fifty published studies of second hand smoke and lung cancer, and a lot more on second hand smoke and other pulmonary conditions. There are very few on second hand smoke and heart disease - heart disease has so many risk factors, that it's hard to isolate an effect of second hand smoke (as opposed to diet, lack of exercise, high blood pressure, etc).

You need to look at the overall data. The EPA report on the subject is the best place to start.

Edited February 26, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[g.johnson]

I was just on the EPA website and couldn't find a link to their report. Do you have it?

[mogsob]

What really gets me is that smokers believe that they have some intrinsic right to smoke in public. Well, you don't, and this law is but the first step in making the world outside of our homes completely smoke free.

I firmly believe that smoking in public is tantamount to a civil battery when second hand smoke comes into contact with a nonsmoker who has not consented to having smoke blown over them. It is the same thing if I took an airhorn and blew it in your ear at close range -- and that IS an actionable tort.

And, btw, if you don't think that 99% of bars and restaurants permit smoking, just look at a Zagat guide from the early 1990s before the non-smoking section became law to see how many restaurants were non-smoking. Don't even start on bars -- I can't think of one that bans smoking voluntarily.

Smoking is an activity that affects all others around the smoker in a way that eating, drinking, and talking do not. It deserves to be banned in all public spaces.

[BigDuck]

What really gets me is that smokers believe that they have some intrinsic right to smoke in public.  Well, you don't, and this law is but the first step in making the world outside of our homes completely smoke free.

I firmly believe that smoking in public is tantamount to a civil battery when second hand smoke comes into contact with a nonsmoker who has not consented to having smoke blown over them.  It is the same thing if I took an airhorn and blew it in your ear at close range -- and that IS an actionable tort.

Smoking is an activity that affects all others around the smoker in a way that eating, drinking, and talking do not.  It deserves to be banned in all public spaces.

Oooooh! A little radical?! As in kill them all, these scum of the earth addicted? In response, I quote Sharon Stone in a movie where she was asked whether or not she knew second-hand smoke killed. Her reply,"not quickly enough."

[awbrig]

It is the same thing if I took an airhorn and blew it in your ear at close range

please don't

[Wilfrid]

Mogsob, I don't think anyone believes that someone blowing a puff of smoke over you will cause you any physical harm. I am guessing that's why it isn't actionable. It's more like someone playing you a Phil Collins record. I'd like that to be illegal in public, but I suppose some people may raise the banner of freedom over the issue.

GJ: I suspect it's not on their web-site because - last I heard - its conclusions had been vacated by a federal court. Not sure what it's current status is. It was a good reference guide.

Edited February 26, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)