@Rodney21a He didn't smoke. Non smokers die of cancer all the time. even the majority of "smoking related" cancers occur in people who have quit. Get a clue.
@Glasya666 Since ETS cannot be quantified, and all the studies are inconclusive ( as many studies show an inverse correlation, or no increase risk), we must move on to first hand smoking- which has also never been proven using good science. I am NOT saying it cannot cause problems- anything can cause problems. But there are no randomized studies or animal studies that have proven it is bad. that is just the way it is.
There are millions of seniors alive today ages 50-100 that smoked & ones who were around smokers (long before these stupid bans) that are alive & well. Is that not hard proven evidence that smoking does not kill you? or do you anti's need a good kick in the ass to learn?
At time 2:32, look at the blank stares of those little liberals, future street union protestors. Unions exist to rip off the tax payer, who is cut out of the negotiations. It's a workers monopoly, as if all the airlines got together and decided to charge $5,000 per ticket, so they could have a better life. They'll protest to stuff their own wallets!! There's no noble cause there. It's all greed. But liberal students can't see through the rhetoric. Smug idiots who will bankrupt us all. Hate 'em!!
"Passive smoking" in other words is a total lie, invented by health and safety agitators and connived in by the state in order to railroad through an iniquitous law by pretending it's about the "public interest".
@davros59 You missed Crichton's point. It is indeed in the public interest, because smoke is a nuisance. I don't like smoke being blown towards me or having to wash my clothes every time I come back from a smokey place. What Crichton is trying to point out is that public policy is susceptible to dicey science that is well promoted through the use of, among other things, fear; in this case the unsubstantiated fear of second hand smoke as a factor in lung cancer.
Because these honest scientists have been ignored by governments and smeared by health campaigners as being in the pay of "Big Tobacco". Indeed this is partially true - but only because the anti-smoking organisations that originally supported their research (such as the American Cancer Society) dropped them like a hot potato the moment they realised they were failing to reach the "right" answer. Scientists need funds, so their work had to be completed with support from the tobacco industry.
Between 1960 and 1998, James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, two American researchers - fiercely anti-smoking, both of them - conducted a survey of 118,094 Californians in a bid to discover once and for all whether or not the inhalation of other people's cigarette smoke causes heart disease or cancer. Their conclusion? No it doesn't.
So why are the results of the world's only large-scale, long-term survey in this field not more widely appreciated?
Dr. William Farone, former Director of Applied Research for Philip Morris from 1976 to 1984 where he supervised five divisions and a staff of approximately 150 scientists, has issued a statement in which he asserts that Philip Morris has long known of the toxic nature of secondhand smoke and has intentionally kept that information from the public. (July 13, 1998 statement by William A. Farone, Ph.D.)
CIGARETTE SMOKE IS (candid) LEGAL GENOCIDE! It does absolutely no one any good, robs the body completely of any nutritional intake. THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS ANYONE HOOKED IS OBVIOUSLY THE TURBO BOOSTED NICOTINE ADDITIVES PUT IN THE TOBACCO VIRTUALLY MAKING ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO QUIT PERMANENTLY!
TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER CRAP THAT'S FOUND IN CIGARETTE TOBACCO SUCH AS HYDROGEN CYANIDE!
Tell that to the woman who DIED of irreverable LUNG CANCER due to working in a SECOND HAND SMOKE establishment at the Newport Restaurant in Ottawa, Canada, or to those who are constantly bombarded by second hand smoke and develop a whole shit load host of respiratory illnesses, mental disturbances, acute hyper sensitivity reactions. I tried smoking a bit to try to alleviate the second smoke discomfort, which didn't help!
Had developed acute bronchitis which lasted two weeks and had to quit!
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
The simple rule of thumb is that more smoke exposure is worse for you, and that a little is worse than none at all.
The fact that the effects of second hand smoke fail to show up in a statistical analysis testifies to the petty insignificance of those effects. But I agree that thes junk science methods are a bad precedent, which is also used with other political issues like global warming and domestic violence, where hysteria prevails over facts.
When Crichton says 2nd hand smoke DOES NOT cause cancer, he is right. However, he still wants to outlaw people who do smoke. I fail to see the logic in this. Because he, in his own words "don't like it when people smoke", he'd take part in making it ILLIGAL to smoke certain areas. Maybe he doesn't like smoke after a meal, but some people do. Why are his likes and dislikes better than others making it morally acceptable for him to makes law to outlaw smokers. Let it be said that I am a NONSMOKER.
Back in the 50's, huge swaths of the population smoked, and all of society was exposed to second hand smoke. Shouldn't everyone who grew up then have died from cancer by now?
Back in the early 90's, there was a study done somewhere in northern Europe. They went to the homes of married couples where one spouse smoked and the other did not. There was no statistical increase in the rate of cancer in the non smoking spouse compared to the homes where no one smoked.
Even if Crichton is right, nobody can do the computation of cause and effect in physiology without computer models, or at the very least hardcore mathematics. There are simply too many variables.
We mathematicians hate those who guess the right answer but with an incorrect proof.
So, for now - I still trust the mainstream scientific opinion that second hand smoke does cause a significant increase in cancer. (Always must quantify moral-legal-political issues.)
The federal judge that said there is no danger from secondhand smoke used to work for the tobacco industry. His decision was overruled by a higher court. Why did Michael Crichton leave out those facts - especially that the court decision that he mentioned was overturned?
That is more misinformation put out by the anti-smoking activist. And the judge did not rule that there was no danger from secondhand smoke. He ruled that the EPA could not use a cohort study of cherry picked data to create regulations. And the decision was never overturned as far as I know. But if you have a link to the appeal which overturned the original ruling I would like to know. But considering your facts are wrong about the judge and the case I doubt you have a link.
Big Tobacco hand picked the Middle District in North Carolina as the legal venue in which to file their bogus suit, precisely because they knew they might find some tobacco-friendly judge willing to declare the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Its all part of their discredit the science playbook this is just the latest play in a very old game.
On August 20, 1995 , the Associated Press reported that Judge Osteen once worked for tobacco growers as a lobbyist, and raised the issue of his impartiality in this suit.
Dr. William Farone, former Director of Applied Research for Philip Morris from 1976 to 1984 where he supervised five divisions and a staff of approximately 150 scientists, has issued a statement in which he asserts that Philip Morris has long known of the toxic nature of secondhand smoke and has intentionally kept that information from the public. (July 13, 1998 statement by William A. Farone, Ph.D.)
This war on nonsmokers rights began in 1978 when a study commissioned by the Tobacco Institute found that the information about how smoke affects the health of nonsmokers is "this most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred." (1978 Roper Organization poll.)
The truth will set you free, and damn the tobacco companies.
Did you know the tobacco companies were found to be guilty of racketering a year or so ago?
Judge Osteen did not invalidate the EPA's extensive findings regarding secondhand smoke and respiratory disorders other than lung cancer. The EPA's findings, thus, remained intact regarding secondhand smoke and its effects on
· Acute respiratory illnesses in children;
· Acute and chronic middle ear diseases;
· Cough, phlegm and wheezing;
· Asthma;
· Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS);
· Lung function in children; and
· Respiratory symptoms and lung function in adults.3
The EPA cherry picked the data sets they included in their cohort study. Only using the ones that showed some effect and ignoring the ones that showed no effect or even some beneficial effects. And Judge Osteen had found in favor of anti-tobacco lobby in many cases prior to this one.
Now years later the number of kids with asthma has doubled while smoking rates are drastically down. That fact alone makes the EPA study blaming smoking for increased Asthma via second hand smoke sketchy.
Smokers should know that "light" cigarettes are another lie from the tobacco companies. They are actually more dangerous because they cause smokers to smoke their cigs like pot smokers - they inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs longer to extract the nicotine "hit" that they need to feel normal. Nicotine is the drug that smokers must have to feel normal.
Smoking doesn't make you calm, it releaves the stress of not having enough of the drug in your body.
So what caffeine is a drug that coffee drinkers need to feel normal. Going to ban coffee and colas next? Then Alcohol, then salt, then fat....
In small doses nicotine acts as a chelation agent removing heavy metals? And why it is thought that smokers have the lowest rate of of Parkinsons. Not that I endorse smoking but there is vaporizing which poses zero threat. Prohibition will only lead to violence on a massive scale.
@NFPOmaha PREACH THIS YOU WILL TRULY BE BLESSED second hand smoke look how many people walk outside you can be killing someone without knowing it second hand smoke the government needs to stop this look at the innocent people walking on the streets i understand if a person wants to
@NFPOmaha harm there self but harming others is a mega mega sin SECOND HAND SMOKE MURDER SECOND HAND SMOKE people need to start thinking peace please preach this to people this is what god wants god will be so happy and you will be blessed not even one person should be
@NFPOmaha effected god lives in every human being creature animal helping one person is helping all of hummanity hurting one person is doing evil to all of hummanity just think my brothers and sisters about second hand smoke you can be killing someone without knowing it remember not even 1 person should be effected THINK? god bless peace amen and amen amen and amen
@NFPOmaha WE SHOULDNT WASTE ELCETRICITY AND WATER WE EVERYONE NEEDS WATER AND ELCETRICITY SOME PEOPLE GET DIRTY WATER WE HAVE TO STOP WASTING THIS ELEVATORS TAKE A LOT OF ELECTRICITY ALOT WHEN IM DOWNSTAIRS AT NIGHT I TURN THE LIGHTS OFF I TRY MY BEST NOT TO WASTE
@NFPOmaha WATER AND ELECTRICITY EVEN WHEN YOU TAKE A BATH OR SHOWER MAKE IT REALLY LESS AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED PREACH THIS AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED GOD BLESS PEACE AMEN AND AMEN WE SHOULD TRY OUR BEST TO REDUCE THIS GREEN HOUSE GASES THIS
@NFPOmaha AMEN AND AMEN WE SHOULD TRY OUR BEST TO REDUCE THIS GREEN HOUSE GASES THIS PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THEM IN FACTORIES ETC AND TRY NOT USING THE CAR THAT MUCH GOD BLESS AMEN AND AMEN PEACE
Something really needs to be done about these airborne drugs: pot, tobacco, whatever the hell else people smoke. When people smoke these drugs, they hurt everyone breathing the air around them. Second hand smoke is just awful. Other people shouldn't have to get sick for their addictions.
I have yet to see any conclusive REAL scientific study proving the dangers of second hand smoke...
The truth is that many of the "chemical's" found in secondhand smoke, are present at much the same levels from other sources as they are from second and smoke.
I am really having a hard time having any respect for the EPA or any type of anti smoking organization for their use of phony science to help their case... its against everything I know as a scientist
There are far worse things in our food and water produced by uncontrolled industries, but ppl still bust our balls about smoking I' ll tell u what i wil quit smoking the day u make marijuana legal again. Fucking fascists
Because Crichton was a smoker, he suffered from the mental illness caused by tobacco addiction. Therefore, it's not surprising that he would lie about the weapon of mass destruction which very prematurely killed him.
He said it himself IN this video that smoking causes cancer... he was talking about SECONDHAND SMOKE... which has yet to be conclusively shown to cause any major problems... I did not hear him lie ONCE in this video... he even said he supported anti smoking legislation... he merely said that he disapproves of legislation being based on false science... which as of now it is
If the next decision by the E.P.A affects non-smokers in a serious way, using the same biased criteria, then it will be better understood. It has such bad consequences for everyone. As far as asthma is concerned i'm not sure one way or the other regarding it's connection to smoking but I do know it is on the rise for children, as are peanut allergies and these are not because there are more smokers but do seem to be related to a rise in environmental toxins.
If you watch the video, he does state that smoking itself IS bad and does cause cancer. He did in fact die of smoking related throat cancer. However his REAL point was about passing laws based on phony science. If the government can pass laws based on random decisions then the government is being irresponsible. It can be swayed by many means that are not entirely logical or justified. That IS a real problem.
What he said is true. However, however, it had been proven that second hand smoke cases throat irritation and can set off asthma. People with asthma that was cured, it was brought back by second hand smoke. Just look at the experiment that was held in New York with people of the third age...they were feeling pretty bad jajaja!
One of my best friends has asthma and once he started smoking it got worse for a short period of time but now is almost completely gone. I also used to have severe asthma when i was young, both my parents smoked(my father quit ~2000) while they never smoked in the house my dad smoked in the garage and i spent allot of time in there with him and while it flared up my asthma at first it eventually stopped and I grew out of my asthma.
Ohh yes it does I can get around smoke and my blood pressure goes up and my head rings and I almost pass out it is very dangerous for me at least so help Me God it is sicking I feel like I got the flu after being around it....very dangerous for me.
What you are experiencing is largely psychosomatic, a mere placebo effect. While there is no carcinogenic danger posed some people are really sensitive to smells, one of my aunts became really sensitive to smells after exposure to toxic fumes that if i remember correctly were from paint or some type of cleaner.
OXTHEII: Yes we can and have and will continue to do sovia schience and law, and no it does not infringe on the right to smoke in public. Your argument and Creighton's reminds me of folks that said it was ok to have lead in paint and pipes with water running through it and on and on...wake up and pull your heads out of the sand or you will suffocate.
Non-smokers! Please stop being hypocritical. You kill people too with your cars! So please. At the very least, be honest with yourselves. You are pompous assholes who don't want to be BOTHERED by smoke. Your health? Pssshhh. I've smoked a pack a day for about 10 years now and I will continue to smoke for another 30 :) And you people seriously think, that a little bit of second hand smoke, once or twice a day, puts you at a health risk? Give me a fucking break. So pretentious.
Smokers must realise that with or without evidence, people smoking are gambling not only with their own lives, but with the lives of others around them. They do not have the right to gamble with my life. I was born a non smoker, as is everyone. Someone makes a concious choice to smoke, that is their right. However, they should not take away my rights to not breathe the chemicals, or make me smell like an ashtray. Smokers.... Skum of the earth.
See? That's the whole unproven part. There is no real evidence that second hand smoke causes you any health hazard. No one is gambling with your life. You are just arrogant. Think about your contradictions please. You most likely drive an automobile. Which puts out more fumes than a cigarette smoker ever could. Which will kill you faster if you lock your self in a garage and a) turn the car on and leave it on or b) smoke a carton of cigarettes? That's right. A. This is all about majority rule.
You are ignorant as many people who have commented on this video are.
Just humor me this, do you drive a car? Contrary to popular belief, the gases given off by a car can lead to serious health problems and can cause death.
I was born a non driver as everyone was. Someone makes a concious choice to drive, that is their right. However, they should not take away my rights to not breathe the chemicals or make me smell like car exhaust... Drivers... Skum of the earth (PS its spelled scum ;))
Driving is an accelerator of life. Smoking is a catalyst of death. But I agree, you should have the right to do both, at your own discretion, and in the privacy of your own home.
Driving is an accelerator of life... I like that, its catchy hahaha
I don't see how driving can be done in the privacy of your own home though...
Anyway, I quit smoking, but when I did smoke, I made a conscious effort to not blow smoke into areas were walking, or expose people to the smoke, and I believe most smokers make that same choice... and indirect exposure to secondhand smoke (like from across the street) is not proved to be lethal,
Not only is he WRONG about 2nd hand smoke but now we are learning that 3rd hand smoke is a problem - cigarette smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals and a sizable number of carcinogens and contaminants, including benzene, butane and hydrogen cyanide and it lingers on curtains, carpets and drapes long after smoker has left the room. See January 09 Journal of Pediatrics.
mrmadcoil: just keeping loose cannons like you and the late Mr. C. on a tight leash. Of course he and you are wrong and I don't need to prove anything that isn't apparent to anyone who is concerned about their health and the dangers of smoke, cigarette and campfire. I don't eat apple seeds or the seeds of many other fruits and that's why bird lovers don't feed their birds a steady diet of such seeds because it will kill them - thanks for the interesting sidebar.
@mrmadcoil KARMA TRULY REM EM BER MY FRIEND REMEMBER KARMAAA REM EM BERR GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIEND GOD BLESS YOU GOD BLESS YOU TRULY ALMIGHTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY GOD BLESS YOU ALMIGHTY BLESS YOU TRULY ALMIGHTYYYYYY TRULYY
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Third hand smoke? Haha. How about you non smokers start concentrating more on your own life and stop giving a shit what is going on in others, or how others could be hurting you? Oh boo hoo. And please. Every time a non-smoker dies from lung cancer let's not instantly blame it on smokers. There are plenty other pollutants in our air and in far greater quantities than cigarette smoke. This is just about people not wanting to be annoyed and being arrogant enough to try and get their way.
Mr. Creighton is just playing devil's advocate. He says it's dangerous in one breath then that it' not with another breath. His contribution was his fictional literature. Too bad he went off the deep end talking nonsense. Hopefully these dazed out kids don't just mindlessly agree but rather investigate for themselves. Meanwhile common sense tells me that I should avoid standing in a room full of smokers or over a camp fire.
He said SMOKING is proven to cause, but SECOND HAND smoke has not been demonstrated to cause cancer. Try watching again and see if you can follow his reasoning.
I heard what he said and he is just plain wrong. There are numerous places to look but I recommend the American Lung Association but for folks like you and Mr. Crighton I guess death from lung cancer is th only thing that might convince you. By the way, wasn't that what killed Mr. Crighton? What caused it?
Oh, WOW, in an interview in march 2005 Crichton is unaware of a study dated to JULY 2005!!! How insane is that? Oh right, it's NOT!
And what's this? The study linked to by the ALA refers to the very study conducted by the EPA that was thrown out by a federal judge in '98. Whoops. I see it mentions 'numerous epidemiological studies and several meta-analyses' but effortlessly avoids naming them. Yes, this is science at its finest, all right.
Don't know what you are referringn to - does not matter what he knew when, only what he said is false. Get over it. I'm moving on now.,,you can have the last word.
OK. Your argument was that he said that second-hand smoke is dangerous, and that he said that second-hand smoke is not dangerous. I demonstrated to you that this argument is fallacious. I'm glad we could clear this up.
You demonstrated nothing. C is wrong on both counts (DDT & 2ndHS) and even a argumentative hair-splitting fellow like you can't fool folks who want to live long healthy lives. If you want to eat DDT if you find any and breath 2ndHS, have at it "god".
To demonstrate again, his STATED POSITION on second hand smoke is that IT DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
You've said that he expresses a contradiction.
If this is true, he would at some point in the video have stated that SHM DOES CAUSE CANCER. He does not. Therefore there is no contradiction in this clip, which makes your opening argument (He says it's dangerous in one breath then that it' not with another breath) fallacious.
@mrmadcoil SECOND HAND SMOKE MURDERRR SECOND HAND SMOKEEE MURDER SECOND HAND SMOKE A PERSON A PERSON CAN BE KILLING KILLING SOMEONE WITHOUT KNOWING IT WITHOUT KNOWINGG GOD IS THE KNOWER OF ALL GOD WATCHESS ALL KARMAAA TRULY KARMAA TRULYY see the thing is people
@mrmadcoil want to do un justice un rightousness to others do evil to others MAKE FUN JOIKES ABOUT OTHERS HURT PEOPLES HEART BRING THEM PAIN CAUSE THEM PAIN WANT TO DO BAD BAD TO OTHERS SEE THATS WHY THOSE PEOPLE THOSE PEOPLE ARE SO SAD AND MISERABLEE PEACE KARMAAA TRULY REM EM BERRR REM EMBERRR
You realize all the organizations who claim second hand smoke causes cancer are basing that statement on the same study? Thus you cannot claim that multiple sources make this claim. In reality it is all coming from one source. That source did not base their findings on solid science. The anti tobacco people are doing the same thing the tobacco industry did years ago when they said smoking isn't harmful. By the way I am a non smoker. These laws infringe on peoples rights.
Three people in my family died of lung cancer. None of them smoked and none of them
were exposed to second hand smoke.
There are other causes of lung cancer people are not talking about. Or is it that we all have to die somehow, someday? I was very sad to hear of Michael's death. Love his books.
Well, my grandfather died at the age of 57 of a heart attack. He smoked all the time. My mother died of surgical complications at 54. She smoked two packs a day.
@whovian1971 BLESS YOU TRULYYYY GOD BLESS YOU PEACE REM EMBER WHAT WHAT I SAID PEACE GOD BLESS YOU GOD BLESS ALL INSECTS ANIMALS BUGS EVERY EVERYONEE GOD BLESS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE PEACE ALL god bless
Very saddened when I heard of your death Michael. You are by far my favorite author and you refused to toe the politically correct pseudoscience line and instead exposed all the manipulation that was going on in the scientific community. You are already missed.
Ok seriously who HASN'T come into contact with second hand smoke please raise your hand. If you didn't raise your hand, you have lung cancer and you are going to DIE!!!perfectly healthy people die everyday by the thousands. I really do wonder if the people picketing their local state senate really know they have a better chance of getting run the fuck over while they are out there with there little sign. Wish the hell they would. It's sad day when a business owner can't decide that 4 themselves
My husband has lung cancer - he has never smoked however his mother smoked constantly - I can tell you my opinion is he has lung cancer because his mother smoked. Smoking aside no one deserves lung cancer and this is Lung Cancer Awareness Month!
how is second hand smoke MORE carcinogenic than smoking? i mean the smoker is taking it all in and then exhaling and then breathing in some of his own second hand smoke!!! while a causual paserby mearly breathes in a small portion of his second hand smoke...it was a ploy to get non smokers to pass anti smoking legislation...its un ethical immoral and chicken shit way of doing things.
Yes it is a chicken shit way of doing things. That's why anti-smokig movement is nothing a bunch of dumbasses trying to persecute smokers on a buckload of bullshit lies.
Anti-smoking hypocrits should stop driving coz that's killing people faster than anything else.
i mean if marjiuana/cannabis was legal would it be healthy or a good idea for a large group of people to just light up a spliff inside a restaurant and inadvertantly affect other people around them?For once i agree with Crichton here.
Why would you go to a restaurant that has smoking? How dare you get government on business owners and allow oligopolization.....its neoconservatives/liberals like you that sent this country of liberty down the drain!
even if second han smoke is true or not cleaner air in the office and restaurants is better.here in ireland public areas have never been cleaner especially for those with pre-existing lung conditions ie asthma(like myself) who are otherwise adverserly affected by smoke particulates and other chemicals in cigarette smoke.Even if it doesnt cause cancer it can still irritate and cause discomfort for many people.I dont care what you do in you home but many just find smoke to be harmful.
Crichton is correct, however, people who have never taken BioStats won't get it and will either attack him personally or change the topic. He's right on target however. Don't smoke because smoking DOES cause cancer.
welcome. I am more concerned about H1N1 and H5N1 than SHS. Its an irritant, to be sure, but its not a carcinogen that can knock out the Rb and p53 system and cause cancer. It's really very simple.
Didn't he just say it didn't you dumbass. You know what causes cancer - the air pollution from your car when you drive it you hypocrit. I drive a golf cart - so how about you stop polluting my air.
Breathe fumes from an exhaust pipe and see how long you live - you will be dead in 15 minutes. Now that is a killer not a harmless waft of smoke from a burning plant.
That second hand smoke nonsense is a myth. Their is no study that proves that second hand smoke causes cancer. Only in 1993 some crack pot bill by the EPA that claimed to have made scientific studies, which were later found to be completely false, and is now the only document brought up by non-smoking activists. In 1998, Judge Osteen of the federal court announced in a written report that the bill failed to present facts and deviated from acceptable scientific procedure.
This clip should be shown to every student in the country. Let the hysterics, the health alarmists, which are mainly well-meaning but stupid liberals, prove him wrong. Yeah, outlaw smoking in restaurants and bars based on bogus science, but allow every woman and girl have an abortion on demand without parental consent. Now that's progressive!
they say about 50,000 people die every year on the roads. think to yourself how many times you've heard about ppl dying on the roads! I'm sure you have heard of ppl dying that way at least a couple times a year! That's about the same number of people who they claim die every year from 2nd hand smoke. Think to yourself's how many times you've personally directly heard of ppl dying from 2nd hand smoke! IT'S GOV. PROPOGANDA!
Very few persons who research the effects of secondhand smoke will tell you "secondhand smoke has been proven to cause cancer". They will tell you, as it is stated in countless studies, that there is a correlational relationship between the two and that therefore it is LIKELY that secondhand smoke causes cancer. It is comical that he references SIX studies without conclusive results when thousands have been done.
I don't care whether it is proved that secondhand smoking is dangerous or not. Cigarette smoke smells awful. Anyone that says something different is either a liar or a very strange person. And don't forget what Mr Crichton said: "Smoking is bad cause smoking causes cancer." If kids see many people smoke they think it is normal. Where I live many kids smoke - about 13 years old. We should be role models for them. Good that many politicians in Germany want to prohibit smoking in public places now.
Dcider1 wrote, "Um, sorry to burst your bubble Dr. Crichton, but secondhand smoke has been proven to be very dangerous, and fatal. I've read many scientific reports on it..."
Dcider1 needs to learn to read critically. The SHS/ETS health scare has been repeatedly debunked in everything from the federal courts to popular media. Bans are never reasonable. Antismoking historically brings an avalanche of oppression and false science--without compromise.
There is evidence of microscopic structural damages deep in the lungs which are caused by secondhand cigarette smoke. It increase the chances of emphysema, bronchitis, etc. on nonsmokers. This is especially dangerous for those who already suffer from respiratory problems.
Have you seen it? Got an electron microscope and a cadaver lung that's been in secondhand smoke for awhile? Actually, secondhand TOBACCO smoke has some interesting therapeutic benefits. CIGARETTE smoke contains a few weird chemicals because of the manufacturing process and the paper wrapper, but in moderation/low doses (as secondhand smoke is) it doesn't hurt anyone either. So get a pipe or cigar and lose the cigarettes, for your own sake. But don't worry about your companions; they're fine.
Actually yes, I have seen pictures of it. I've also read recent scientific journals and articles talking about the dangers of secondhand smoke, and those were enough to convince me.
Plus, therapeutic effects of 2ndhand smoke? Are you joking? From what I've read, there are way more harmful effects from any kind of tobacco smoke than therapeutic ones.
Anyway, I wouldn't go too far on Dr. Crichton. When he said this, it was about a year before the Surgeon General report in 2006.
Whatever. Read the actual SG reports before you get too excited about them. They don't prove what you think they do. Like a previous poster said, it's government propaganda. That way, they make people feel like they're doing the world a favor by taking away freedom.
Oh noes! It's 'government propaganda'! LOL I've read the reports, and I'm still convinced that secondhand smoke is dangerous. The number of deaths may be exaggerated, yes, but saying it's not deadly is ridiculous!
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm now going to write for the lulz. =)
Um, sorry to burst your bubble Dr. Crichton, but secondhand smoke has been proven to be very dangerous, and fatal. I've read many scientific reports on it, and they all led to the conclusion that 2ndhand smoking can, in fact, increase the risk of SIDS, asthma, acute respiratory problems, etc. in kids. It can also increase the risks of heart disease and lung cancer in adults (Whether smokers or nonsmokers). I understand the bans of outdoors to be a bit harsh, but IMO the indoor bans r reasonable.
Second hand smoke has never been proven to cause lung cancer just as Dr. Crichton has said. The term 'passive smoking' was coined by Dr. Fritz Lickint in his book 'Tobacco and the Organism' Lickint was a member of the German Anti-Tobacco League during Hitler's 1933 - 1945 reign, (Lickint also claimed the coffee caused stomach cancer). Today various anti-smoking campaigners cite Lickint's 'findings' they however forget to mention the fact that Lickint was an ardent Nazi and a medical fraud.
Even the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health admitted that it has been unable to produce evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, let alone fatal:
SCOTH 2006 Review: pg.5, art.3, line 8.
Yet there are general surgeon warnings on cigerette packets (like the one in my pocket) stating that second hand smoke can be FATAL when SHS has not even been proven to be harmful!
One day Crichton will be recognised for the great thinker and doer he is : a man seeking truth and ready to change his mind, if the facts change. In previous generations, his wise counsel would prevail but now.....?
If we can make everybody happy through technology lets do this! I would like to see people GET what they want, without the unwanted detrimental effects as well. If companies can DO THIS, maybe we can all laugh about this, later on, when it's solved.
I'm no scientist, but I can't understand "why" a room of smoke wouldn't cause cancer in a non-smoker that frequented the same mentioned room as the smokers that get cancer...Same room, same smoke, inhaling 100's of cigarettes being smoked at the same time...NAW, I would have to belive the data that says it's harmful. How could one NOT ? lol
Simple. It doesn't cause cancer firsthand or secondhand unless it's in extreme doses. I think I remember a study with rats that in order to get one CLOSE to lung cancer (but not actually there) they had to make it smoke the equivalent of a human smoking 1,280 cigarettes a day.....
The bottom line is, smoking pure tobacco in moderation is harmless, but the additives (and paper) in most cigarettes are somewhat harmful in excess, and people tend toward excesses. But what does that prove?
Crichton is correct. Not only did the EPA fake its study, but the WHO covered up its own study--the most thorough ever conducted--that showed no harm. All the studies that supposedly "prove" an effect are meta-studies, studies of studies, where they cherry-pick the data they want and throw most of it out. The SHS myth is pure junk.
I don't get him then. He says that smoking causes cancer. The smoke that comes off the end of the cigarette while its burning can be inhaled too, duh, let alone the smoke thats exhaled from the smoker's lungs.
Second hand smoke isn't bad ? That's ludicrous, this guy should have said that smoking DOESN'T cause cancer, what the hell is he saying ?
The poison is in the dose, and second-hand smoke is too attenuated (and therefore too low a dose) to have one iota of harmful effect. All reports to the contrary are nothing more than propaganda, and smoking bans are nothing more than another means of grabbing control. They're simply adding another substance to the War on Drugs, which has already been demonstrated not to work.
But by all means, believe whatever you want to believe.
OK, the dose. If a non-smoker is a environment where smoking occurs, the "dose" would surely depend on the proximity,
concentration, and exposure time the non- smoker is subjected to. Those numbers would EASILY be large in a bar or the workplace, say a factory where hundreds are present.I can see second hand smoke causing problems then. A lot of smokers want to quit, and non-smoking laws gives the ones that want to quit the extra incentive TO quit. Bravo for them.
Actually, no reputable study has ever shown any harm from SHS in any concentration, and in fact, that 400,000 deaths per year figure you always hear for active smokers is pure fabrication. But the bottom line is, no government should have the right to restrict a legal activity on private property.
However, I see you are a lover of the Nanny State. I'm very happy for you.
Hey, people don't like to breathe in others people's so called "pleasures". Too bad if you don't like that... If you don't like that fact that people are "represented" like me, and want to call it "Nanny" that's your call. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, not 400K, dummy.
Your reading comprehension needs work. I said 400K per year "for active smokers."
Sidestream smoke hasn't caused a single death, ever. Not one. Crichton is correct, and you are brainwashed.
But I understand. Most people love junk science that affirms their ignorant prejudices. The Nazis loved the "science" that proved Jews were inferior, too.
I did. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
I assume you're quoting the CDC, which is quoting "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" from the California state, which in turn quotes the EPA report that was vacated by a Federal Judge. This was later overturned, not because the science was good, but because there was no regulation tied to this report, no legal action could be taken.
Aside from any studies given, many people just don't like breathing it, period. People like my self wrote their rep and complained about it, I can comfirm this to you. And I saw action taken on behalf of my elected officials, one case of the gov't finally listening to citizens. I'm all for smokers killing themselves if they want to, but I don't care to participate in their pleasure while they are doing it.
Then don't patronize businesses where they do allow smoking. The problem with this is that it sets a precedent. Government has now passed a law to "protect our health" - and while smoking in public places is not something we all like (myself included) it is none the less a freedom we had, a freedom that is now removed.
When a persons particular freedom curtails anothers. (Smoker vs. non) I Don't knock a person if they chose to smoke, I just don't care to share that persons enjoyment. Even without all the technical data people STILL don't care for the smell, like myself. People wrote their reps and complained, and we got represented, forget the data, it's also the SMELL.
And like I said, you were free to take your business elsewhere. If you believed people hated smoking so much, open a non smoking restaurant - you'd do a booming business. The free market it far better equipped to deal with giving people what they want rather than government.
OK, so you don't like the smell. I can't stand it when I'm eating and someone walks by wearing really strong perfume. I don't like to hear people being foul-mouthed in public, or to see people with obscenities written on T-shirts. I can't stand little kids who stare, or scream and cry, while their parents do nothing. Should we outlaw all those too?
All that's good, and guess what? If one wears really strong perfume in a hospital, guess what they DO with that person ? They escort them out. All the rest of your rant's won't cause you to get cancer. I don't know about YOU, but I write my rep, when I've got a concern...Sounds like all you do is complain. How far will THAT get you..?
Who's complaining? Not me, I realize I can't have everything my way. That's my whole point -- DUH. As for cancer, if you're so considerate of others, why don't you give up driving? Or do you think all that car exhaust is OK, it's only cigarette smoke that's bad?
esdel: "I don't like to hear people being foul-mouthed in public, or to see people with obscenities written on T-shirts. I can't stand little kids who stare, or scream and cry, while their parents do nothing. Who's complaining? Not me"
You're a complainer too; you just complain to different people. If you don't like smoking, there are establishments who will cater to you, but don't try to get the government to make everything your way. Why can't smokers have some places "their way?"
Well its the old My freedom vs your freedom. I certainly hope technology can answer this. I know of one company that seeks to have cigarettes totally ordeless, whereas the nicotine is distributed in a vapor when drawn and H20 vapor somes off the end of a cigarette sized "canister". Hey "bring it" is what I say !
Damn! He should have been president! He's smarter than any of those dipshit politicians! XD
iboneic13 1 month ago
He DIED of THROAT CANCER.... For a Guy who so believed in KARMA he sure got it in spades
Rodney21a 3 months ago
@Rodney21a He didn't smoke. Non smokers die of cancer all the time. even the majority of "smoking related" cancers occur in people who have quit. Get a clue.
aguineapig 2 months ago
There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed studies showing the dangers of second hand smoke. Michael Crichton doesn't know what he is talking about.
Glasya666 4 months ago
@Glasya666 Since ETS cannot be quantified, and all the studies are inconclusive ( as many studies show an inverse correlation, or no increase risk), we must move on to first hand smoking- which has also never been proven using good science. I am NOT saying it cannot cause problems- anything can cause problems. But there are no randomized studies or animal studies that have proven it is bad. that is just the way it is.
aguineapig 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aguineapig Are you actually suggesting that smoking has not been proven to be harmful? Seriously?
Glasya666 2 months ago
Maybe this is off-topic, but was anyone else severely disappointed with his new book, 'Pirate Latitudes'?
melbyRick 5 months ago
There are millions of seniors alive today ages 50-100 that smoked & ones who were around smokers (long before these stupid bans) that are alive & well. Is that not hard proven evidence that smoking does not kill you? or do you anti's need a good kick in the ass to learn?
Godzie1 6 months ago
At time 2:32, look at the blank stares of those little liberals, future street union protestors. Unions exist to rip off the tax payer, who is cut out of the negotiations. It's a workers monopoly, as if all the airlines got together and decided to charge $5,000 per ticket, so they could have a better life. They'll protest to stuff their own wallets!! There's no noble cause there. It's all greed. But liberal students can't see through the rhetoric. Smug idiots who will bankrupt us all. Hate 'em!!
DexterHaven49 10 months ago
He went too soon. Such a talented man. RIP.
EnemyAce88 1 year ago 2
"Passive smoking" in other words is a total lie, invented by health and safety agitators and connived in by the state in order to railroad through an iniquitous law by pretending it's about the "public interest".
davros59 1 year ago 8
@davros59 You missed Crichton's point. It is indeed in the public interest, because smoke is a nuisance. I don't like smoke being blown towards me or having to wash my clothes every time I come back from a smokey place. What Crichton is trying to point out is that public policy is susceptible to dicey science that is well promoted through the use of, among other things, fear; in this case the unsubstantiated fear of second hand smoke as a factor in lung cancer.
GorterPoss 1 year ago
Because these honest scientists have been ignored by governments and smeared by health campaigners as being in the pay of "Big Tobacco". Indeed this is partially true - but only because the anti-smoking organisations that originally supported their research (such as the American Cancer Society) dropped them like a hot potato the moment they realised they were failing to reach the "right" answer. Scientists need funds, so their work had to be completed with support from the tobacco industry.
davros59 1 year ago
Between 1960 and 1998, James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, two American researchers - fiercely anti-smoking, both of them - conducted a survey of 118,094 Californians in a bid to discover once and for all whether or not the inhalation of other people's cigarette smoke causes heart disease or cancer. Their conclusion? No it doesn't.
So why are the results of the world's only large-scale, long-term survey in this field not more widely appreciated?
davros59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. William Farone, former Director of Applied Research for Philip Morris from 1976 to 1984 where he supervised five divisions and a staff of approximately 150 scientists, has issued a statement in which he asserts that Philip Morris has long known of the toxic nature of secondhand smoke and has intentionally kept that information from the public. (July 13, 1998 statement by William A. Farone, Ph.D.)
NFPOmaha 1 year ago
CIGARETTE SMOKE IS (candid) LEGAL GENOCIDE! It does absolutely no one any good, robs the body completely of any nutritional intake. THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS ANYONE HOOKED IS OBVIOUSLY THE TURBO BOOSTED NICOTINE ADDITIVES PUT IN THE TOBACCO VIRTUALLY MAKING ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO QUIT PERMANENTLY!
TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER CRAP THAT'S FOUND IN CIGARETTE TOBACCO SUCH AS HYDROGEN CYANIDE!
daonfpe 2 years ago
Tell that to the woman who DIED of irreverable LUNG CANCER due to working in a SECOND HAND SMOKE establishment at the Newport Restaurant in Ottawa, Canada, or to those who are constantly bombarded by second hand smoke and develop a whole shit load host of respiratory illnesses, mental disturbances, acute hyper sensitivity reactions. I tried smoking a bit to try to alleviate the second smoke discomfort, which didn't help!
Had developed acute bronchitis which lasted two weeks and had to quit!
daonfpe 2 years ago
Good WORK Lord Monckton.
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
Cheers to you Monckton
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
The simple rule of thumb is that more smoke exposure is worse for you, and that a little is worse than none at all.
The fact that the effects of second hand smoke fail to show up in a statistical analysis testifies to the petty insignificance of those effects. But I agree that thes junk science methods are a bad precedent, which is also used with other political issues like global warming and domestic violence, where hysteria prevails over facts.
St37One 2 years ago 2
statistical significance is not the issue here, because the question of whether or not there is any effect at all has no value in this context.
If direct smoking increases cancer risk, then why wouldnt breathing in second hand smoke?
It is not a question of causality but of quantity.
How much smoke exposure is bad for you?
How much does it increase your risk?
How much should your own personal freedom be compromised in the interest of public good or public taste?
St37One 2 years ago
When Crichton says 2nd hand smoke DOES NOT cause cancer, he is right. However, he still wants to outlaw people who do smoke. I fail to see the logic in this. Because he, in his own words "don't like it when people smoke", he'd take part in making it ILLIGAL to smoke certain areas. Maybe he doesn't like smoke after a meal, but some people do. Why are his likes and dislikes better than others making it morally acceptable for him to makes law to outlaw smokers. Let it be said that I am a NONSMOKER.
bbkingzor 2 years ago
to smoke IN certain areas lul
bbkingzor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You will not believe what I discovered, I advice all to read about this religion Called
( ISLAM) it will surprise you and you will be passion of it
You can search for the Islam thru internet or reading some books
You will lose nothing
If you want to know meaning of love and soul peace read about this religion
I Love you all
Multisclerosis 2 years ago
He's spot on,
:( if only there were more people around like Crichton
Jonnymont 2 years ago 8
Groundless:
Another mind numbed robot. Never let the facts get in the way of your religion of Second Hand Smoke.
willym62 2 years ago
Michael Crichton is a damn fool
groundless 2 years ago
Back in the 50's, huge swaths of the population smoked, and all of society was exposed to second hand smoke. Shouldn't everyone who grew up then have died from cancer by now?
Back in the early 90's, there was a study done somewhere in northern Europe. They went to the homes of married couples where one spouse smoked and the other did not. There was no statistical increase in the rate of cancer in the non smoking spouse compared to the homes where no one smoked.
willym62 2 years ago 2
good argument. you are retarded.
groundless 2 years ago
Even if Crichton is right, nobody can do the computation of cause and effect in physiology without computer models, or at the very least hardcore mathematics. There are simply too many variables.
We mathematicians hate those who guess the right answer but with an incorrect proof.
So, for now - I still trust the mainstream scientific opinion that second hand smoke does cause a significant increase in cancer. (Always must quantify moral-legal-political issues.)
ecordy75 2 years ago
The federal judge that said there is no danger from secondhand smoke used to work for the tobacco industry. His decision was overruled by a higher court. Why did Michael Crichton leave out those facts - especially that the court decision that he mentioned was overturned?
NFPOmaha 2 years ago
That is more misinformation put out by the anti-smoking activist. And the judge did not rule that there was no danger from secondhand smoke. He ruled that the EPA could not use a cohort study of cherry picked data to create regulations. And the decision was never overturned as far as I know. But if you have a link to the appeal which overturned the original ruling I would like to know. But considering your facts are wrong about the judge and the case I doubt you have a link.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
Big Tobacco hand picked the Middle District in North Carolina as the legal venue in which to file their bogus suit, precisely because they knew they might find some tobacco-friendly judge willing to declare the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Its all part of their discredit the science playbook this is just the latest play in a very old game.
NFPOmaha 1 year ago
On August 20, 1995 , the Associated Press reported that Judge Osteen once worked for tobacco growers as a lobbyist, and raised the issue of his impartiality in this suit.
NFPOmaha 1 year ago
Dr. William Farone, former Director of Applied Research for Philip Morris from 1976 to 1984 where he supervised five divisions and a staff of approximately 150 scientists, has issued a statement in which he asserts that Philip Morris has long known of the toxic nature of secondhand smoke and has intentionally kept that information from the public. (July 13, 1998 statement by William A. Farone, Ph.D.)
NFPOmaha 1 year ago
You mean Dr. William Farone who was fired in 1984. Again FIRED can you say disgruntled employee.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
This war on nonsmokers rights began in 1978 when a study commissioned by the Tobacco Institute found that the information about how smoke affects the health of nonsmokers is "this most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred." (1978 Roper Organization poll.)
The truth will set you free, and damn the tobacco companies.
Did you know the tobacco companies were found to be guilty of racketering a year or so ago?
NFPOmaha 1 year ago
Judge Osteen did not invalidate the EPA's extensive findings regarding secondhand smoke and respiratory disorders other than lung cancer. The EPA's findings, thus, remained intact regarding secondhand smoke and its effects on
· Acute respiratory illnesses in children;
· Acute and chronic middle ear diseases;
· Cough, phlegm and wheezing;
· Asthma;
· Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS);
· Lung function in children; and
· Respiratory symptoms and lung function in adults.3
NFPOmaha 1 year ago
The EPA cherry picked the data sets they included in their cohort study. Only using the ones that showed some effect and ignoring the ones that showed no effect or even some beneficial effects. And Judge Osteen had found in favor of anti-tobacco lobby in many cases prior to this one.
Now years later the number of kids with asthma has doubled while smoking rates are drastically down. That fact alone makes the EPA study blaming smoking for increased Asthma via second hand smoke sketchy.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
Smokers should know that "light" cigarettes are another lie from the tobacco companies. They are actually more dangerous because they cause smokers to smoke their cigs like pot smokers - they inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs longer to extract the nicotine "hit" that they need to feel normal. Nicotine is the drug that smokers must have to feel normal.
Smoking doesn't make you calm, it releaves the stress of not having enough of the drug in your body.
NFPOmaha 1 year ago
So what caffeine is a drug that coffee drinkers need to feel normal. Going to ban coffee and colas next? Then Alcohol, then salt, then fat....
In small doses nicotine acts as a chelation agent removing heavy metals? And why it is thought that smokers have the lowest rate of of Parkinsons. Not that I endorse smoking but there is vaporizing which poses zero threat. Prohibition will only lead to violence on a massive scale.
libertyfizz 1 year ago
@NFPOmaha PREACH THIS YOU WILL TRULY BE BLESSED second hand smoke look how many people walk outside you can be killing someone without knowing it second hand smoke the government needs to stop this look at the innocent people walking on the streets i understand if a person wants to
mosiefool 1 year ago
@NFPOmaha harm there self but harming others is a mega mega sin SECOND HAND SMOKE MURDER SECOND HAND SMOKE people need to start thinking peace please preach this to people this is what god wants god will be so happy and you will be blessed not even one person should be
mosiefool 1 year ago
@NFPOmaha effected god lives in every human being creature animal helping one person is helping all of hummanity hurting one person is doing evil to all of hummanity just think my brothers and sisters about second hand smoke you can be killing someone without knowing it remember not even 1 person should be effected THINK? god bless peace amen and amen amen and amen
mosiefool 1 year ago
@NFPOmaha WE SHOULDNT WASTE ELCETRICITY AND WATER WE EVERYONE NEEDS WATER AND ELCETRICITY SOME PEOPLE GET DIRTY WATER WE HAVE TO STOP WASTING THIS ELEVATORS TAKE A LOT OF ELECTRICITY ALOT WHEN IM DOWNSTAIRS AT NIGHT I TURN THE LIGHTS OFF I TRY MY BEST NOT TO WASTE
mosiefool 1 year ago
@NFPOmaha WATER AND ELECTRICITY EVEN WHEN YOU TAKE A BATH OR SHOWER MAKE IT REALLY LESS AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED PREACH THIS AND YOU WILL BE BLESSED GOD BLESS PEACE AMEN AND AMEN WE SHOULD TRY OUR BEST TO REDUCE THIS GREEN HOUSE GASES THIS
mosiefool 1 year ago
@NFPOmaha AMEN AND AMEN WE SHOULD TRY OUR BEST TO REDUCE THIS GREEN HOUSE GASES THIS PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THEM IN FACTORIES ETC AND TRY NOT USING THE CAR THAT MUCH GOD BLESS AMEN AND AMEN PEACE
mosiefool 1 year ago
What a well-groomed, Elite Bio-Hunk
Ataraxian13 2 years ago
Lol.. didnt this dude die of throat or lung cancer.. and he's preaching about how secondhand smoke is harmless. doH!
ssidiouss 2 years ago
Something really needs to be done about these airborne drugs: pot, tobacco, whatever the hell else people smoke. When people smoke these drugs, they hurt everyone breathing the air around them. Second hand smoke is just awful. Other people shouldn't have to get sick for their addictions.
yezelsqueeze 2 years ago
yezelsqueeze, what do you base that statement upon?
bbkingzor 2 years ago
I have yet to see any conclusive REAL scientific study proving the dangers of second hand smoke...
The truth is that many of the "chemical's" found in secondhand smoke, are present at much the same levels from other sources as they are from second and smoke.
I am really having a hard time having any respect for the EPA or any type of anti smoking organization for their use of phony science to help their case... its against everything I know as a scientist
icepick511 2 years ago
There are far worse things in our food and water produced by uncontrolled industries, but ppl still bust our balls about smoking I' ll tell u what i wil quit smoking the day u make marijuana legal again. Fucking fascists
o0n1 2 years ago
Because Crichton was a smoker, he suffered from the mental illness caused by tobacco addiction. Therefore, it's not surprising that he would lie about the weapon of mass destruction which very prematurely killed him.
tripjet999 2 years ago
look up 'ad hominem' before you ever touch a keyboard again
bowfz 2 years ago 2
You are ignorant...
He said it himself IN this video that smoking causes cancer... he was talking about SECONDHAND SMOKE... which has yet to be conclusively shown to cause any major problems... I did not hear him lie ONCE in this video... he even said he supported anti smoking legislation... he merely said that he disapproves of legislation being based on false science... which as of now it is
icepick511 2 years ago
My dad went back to smoking recently... and he's been quitting for almost 2 months
He smokes upstairs, but still, I'm morbidly dissapointed. Not to be selfish but he knows how much I hate people smoking.
xoxAngelFirexox 2 years ago
If the next decision by the E.P.A affects non-smokers in a serious way, using the same biased criteria, then it will be better understood. It has such bad consequences for everyone. As far as asthma is concerned i'm not sure one way or the other regarding it's connection to smoking but I do know it is on the rise for children, as are peanut allergies and these are not because there are more smokers but do seem to be related to a rise in environmental toxins.
surfmcgoogler 2 years ago
If you watch the video, he does state that smoking itself IS bad and does cause cancer. He did in fact die of smoking related throat cancer. However his REAL point was about passing laws based on phony science. If the government can pass laws based on random decisions then the government is being irresponsible. It can be swayed by many means that are not entirely logical or justified. That IS a real problem.
surfmcgoogler 2 years ago
Wait...didnt this guy also claim that global warming is a hoax...
beefygoblin 2 years ago
What he said is true. However, however, it had been proven that second hand smoke cases throat irritation and can set off asthma. People with asthma that was cured, it was brought back by second hand smoke. Just look at the experiment that was held in New York with people of the third age...they were feeling pretty bad jajaja!
cjla1987 2 years ago
One of my best friends has asthma and once he started smoking it got worse for a short period of time but now is almost completely gone. I also used to have severe asthma when i was young, both my parents smoked(my father quit ~2000) while they never smoked in the house my dad smoked in the garage and i spent allot of time in there with him and while it flared up my asthma at first it eventually stopped and I grew out of my asthma.
new01 2 years ago
Michael Crichton... I loved Jurassic Park, but the man sort of misrepresents science.
DoctorExplosion 2 years ago
Ohh yes it does I can get around smoke and my blood pressure goes up and my head rings and I almost pass out it is very dangerous for me at least so help Me God it is sicking I feel like I got the flu after being around it....very dangerous for me.
fromthispoint 2 years ago
Does that mean it has given you cancer because your blood pressure goes up?
poodleproblems 2 years ago
What you are experiencing is largely psychosomatic, a mere placebo effect. While there is no carcinogenic danger posed some people are really sensitive to smells, one of my aunts became really sensitive to smells after exposure to toxic fumes that if i remember correctly were from paint or some type of cleaner.
new01 2 years ago
guess what kids hes dead
tom4342 2 years ago
OXTHEII: Yes we can and have and will continue to do sovia schience and law, and no it does not infringe on the right to smoke in public. Your argument and Creighton's reminds me of folks that said it was ok to have lead in paint and pipes with water running through it and on and on...wake up and pull your heads out of the sand or you will suffocate.
jereuter01 3 years ago
Non-smokers! Please stop being hypocritical. You kill people too with your cars! So please. At the very least, be honest with yourselves. You are pompous assholes who don't want to be BOTHERED by smoke. Your health? Pssshhh. I've smoked a pack a day for about 10 years now and I will continue to smoke for another 30 :) And you people seriously think, that a little bit of second hand smoke, once or twice a day, puts you at a health risk? Give me a fucking break. So pretentious.
bweazel 3 years ago
Smokers must realise that with or without evidence, people smoking are gambling not only with their own lives, but with the lives of others around them. They do not have the right to gamble with my life. I was born a non smoker, as is everyone. Someone makes a concious choice to smoke, that is their right. However, they should not take away my rights to not breathe the chemicals, or make me smell like an ashtray. Smokers.... Skum of the earth.
mikecro1111 3 years ago
See? That's the whole unproven part. There is no real evidence that second hand smoke causes you any health hazard. No one is gambling with your life. You are just arrogant. Think about your contradictions please. You most likely drive an automobile. Which puts out more fumes than a cigarette smoker ever could. Which will kill you faster if you lock your self in a garage and a) turn the car on and leave it on or b) smoke a carton of cigarettes? That's right. A. This is all about majority rule.
bweazel 3 years ago
You are ignorant as many people who have commented on this video are.
Just humor me this, do you drive a car? Contrary to popular belief, the gases given off by a car can lead to serious health problems and can cause death.
I was born a non driver as everyone was. Someone makes a concious choice to drive, that is their right. However, they should not take away my rights to not breathe the chemicals or make me smell like car exhaust... Drivers... Skum of the earth (PS its spelled scum ;))
icepick511 2 years ago
Driving is an accelerator of life. Smoking is a catalyst of death. But I agree, you should have the right to do both, at your own discretion, and in the privacy of your own home.
FreedInsanity 2 years ago
Driving is an accelerator of life... I like that, its catchy hahaha
I don't see how driving can be done in the privacy of your own home though...
Anyway, I quit smoking, but when I did smoke, I made a conscious effort to not blow smoke into areas were walking, or expose people to the smoke, and I believe most smokers make that same choice... and indirect exposure to secondhand smoke (like from across the street) is not proved to be lethal,
icepick511 2 years ago
Not only is he WRONG about 2nd hand smoke but now we are learning that 3rd hand smoke is a problem - cigarette smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals and a sizable number of carcinogens and contaminants, including benzene, butane and hydrogen cyanide and it lingers on curtains, carpets and drapes long after smoker has left the room. See January 09 Journal of Pediatrics.
jereuter01 3 years ago
You're still going on with this stuff, jereuter?
Crichton's position is consistent with all statistical inquiry into SHS, and you haven't produced anything to prove him wrong.
If you're worried about cyanide particulates in your drapes, then I guess you don't eat apples because their seeds contain cyanogenic glycoside.
mrmadcoil 3 years ago
mrmadcoil: just keeping loose cannons like you and the late Mr. C. on a tight leash. Of course he and you are wrong and I don't need to prove anything that isn't apparent to anyone who is concerned about their health and the dangers of smoke, cigarette and campfire. I don't eat apple seeds or the seeds of many other fruits and that's why bird lovers don't feed their birds a steady diet of such seeds because it will kill them - thanks for the interesting sidebar.
jereuter01 3 years ago
A loose cannon would be someone who ignores statistics in favor of sensationalism.
mrmadcoil 3 years ago
@mrmadcoil KARMA TRULY REM EM BER MY FRIEND REMEMBER KARMAAA REM EM BERR GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIEND GOD BLESS YOU GOD BLESS YOU TRULY ALMIGHTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY GOD BLESS YOU ALMIGHTY BLESS YOU TRULY ALMIGHTYYYYYY TRULYY
mosiefool 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Third hand smoke? Haha. How about you non smokers start concentrating more on your own life and stop giving a shit what is going on in others, or how others could be hurting you? Oh boo hoo. And please. Every time a non-smoker dies from lung cancer let's not instantly blame it on smokers. There are plenty other pollutants in our air and in far greater quantities than cigarette smoke. This is just about people not wanting to be annoyed and being arrogant enough to try and get their way.
bweazel 3 years ago
Mr. Creighton is just playing devil's advocate. He says it's dangerous in one breath then that it' not with another breath. His contribution was his fictional literature. Too bad he went off the deep end talking nonsense. Hopefully these dazed out kids don't just mindlessly agree but rather investigate for themselves. Meanwhile common sense tells me that I should avoid standing in a room full of smokers or over a camp fire.
jereuter01 3 years ago 2
He said SMOKING is proven to cause, but SECOND HAND smoke has not been demonstrated to cause cancer. Try watching again and see if you can follow his reasoning.
mrmadcoil 3 years ago
I heard what he said and he is just plain wrong. There are numerous places to look but I recommend the American Lung Association but for folks like you and Mr. Crighton I guess death from lung cancer is th only thing that might convince you. By the way, wasn't that what killed Mr. Crighton? What caused it?
jereuter01 3 years ago
Oh, WOW, in an interview in march 2005 Crichton is unaware of a study dated to JULY 2005!!! How insane is that? Oh right, it's NOT!
And what's this? The study linked to by the ALA refers to the very study conducted by the EPA that was thrown out by a federal judge in '98. Whoops. I see it mentions 'numerous epidemiological studies and several meta-analyses' but effortlessly avoids naming them. Yes, this is science at its finest, all right.
Again, he's talking about proven vs unproven.
mrmadcoil 3 years ago
Don't know what you are referringn to - does not matter what he knew when, only what he said is false. Get over it. I'm moving on now.,,you can have the last word.
jereuter01 3 years ago
OK. Your argument was that he said that second-hand smoke is dangerous, and that he said that second-hand smoke is not dangerous. I demonstrated to you that this argument is fallacious. I'm glad we could clear this up.
mrmadcoil 3 years ago
You demonstrated nothing. C is wrong on both counts (DDT & 2ndHS) and even a argumentative hair-splitting fellow like you can't fool folks who want to live long healthy lives. If you want to eat DDT if you find any and breath 2ndHS, have at it "god".
jereuter01 3 years ago
To demonstrate again, his STATED POSITION on second hand smoke is that IT DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
You've said that he expresses a contradiction.
If this is true, he would at some point in the video have stated that SHM DOES CAUSE CANCER. He does not. Therefore there is no contradiction in this clip, which makes your opening argument (He says it's dangerous in one breath then that it' not with another breath) fallacious.
mrmadcoil 3 years ago
@mrmadcoil god bless
mosiefool 1 year ago
@mrmadcoil SECOND HAND SMOKE MURDERRR SECOND HAND SMOKEEE MURDER SECOND HAND SMOKE A PERSON A PERSON CAN BE KILLING KILLING SOMEONE WITHOUT KNOWING IT WITHOUT KNOWINGG GOD IS THE KNOWER OF ALL GOD WATCHESS ALL KARMAAA TRULY KARMAA TRULYY see the thing is people
mosiefool 1 year ago
@mrmadcoil want to do un justice un rightousness to others do evil to others MAKE FUN JOIKES ABOUT OTHERS HURT PEOPLES HEART BRING THEM PAIN CAUSE THEM PAIN WANT TO DO BAD BAD TO OTHERS SEE THATS WHY THOSE PEOPLE THOSE PEOPLE ARE SO SAD AND MISERABLEE PEACE KARMAAA TRULY REM EM BERRR REM EMBERRR
mosiefool 1 year ago
You realize all the organizations who claim second hand smoke causes cancer are basing that statement on the same study? Thus you cannot claim that multiple sources make this claim. In reality it is all coming from one source. That source did not base their findings on solid science. The anti tobacco people are doing the same thing the tobacco industry did years ago when they said smoking isn't harmful. By the way I am a non smoker. These laws infringe on peoples rights.
OXTHEII 3 years ago
I wouldn't exactly call the American Lung Association un-biased...
icepick511 2 years ago
Three people in my family died of lung cancer. None of them smoked and none of them
were exposed to second hand smoke.
There are other causes of lung cancer people are not talking about. Or is it that we all have to die somehow, someday? I was very sad to hear of Michael's death. Love his books.
Thinkingisallowed 3 years ago
Well, my grandfather died at the age of 57 of a heart attack. He smoked all the time. My mother died of surgical complications at 54. She smoked two packs a day.
whovian1971 3 years ago
@whovian1971 BLESS YOU TRULYYYY GOD BLESS YOU PEACE REM EMBER WHAT WHAT I SAID PEACE GOD BLESS YOU GOD BLESS ALL INSECTS ANIMALS BUGS EVERY EVERYONEE GOD BLESS THE WHOLE UNIVERSE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE PEACE ALL god bless
mosiefool 1 year ago
@mosiefool You must be on some heavy shit man.
VogtTD 1 year ago
Very saddened when I heard of your death Michael. You are by far my favorite author and you refused to toe the politically correct pseudoscience line and instead exposed all the manipulation that was going on in the scientific community. You are already missed.
Duke1839 3 years ago
Ok seriously who HASN'T come into contact with second hand smoke please raise your hand. If you didn't raise your hand, you have lung cancer and you are going to DIE!!!perfectly healthy people die everyday by the thousands. I really do wonder if the people picketing their local state senate really know they have a better chance of getting run the fuck over while they are out there with there little sign. Wish the hell they would. It's sad day when a business owner can't decide that 4 themselves
moses1424 3 years ago
Micheal may you rest in peace- the world will miss you. RIP.
prochoicechuckles85 3 years ago
My husband has lung cancer - he has never smoked however his mother smoked constantly - I can tell you my opinion is he has lung cancer because his mother smoked. Smoking aside no one deserves lung cancer and this is Lung Cancer Awareness Month!
kimikeli 3 years ago 2
That's not fair
TeamFruit 3 years ago
Thank you for speaking the politically incorrect truth Michael Crichton. RIP.
RedPillonTopix 3 years ago 8
how is second hand smoke MORE carcinogenic than smoking? i mean the smoker is taking it all in and then exhaling and then breathing in some of his own second hand smoke!!! while a causual paserby mearly breathes in a small portion of his second hand smoke...it was a ploy to get non smokers to pass anti smoking legislation...its un ethical immoral and chicken shit way of doing things.
markbotv3 3 years ago
Yes it is a chicken shit way of doing things. That's why anti-smokig movement is nothing a bunch of dumbasses trying to persecute smokers on a buckload of bullshit lies.
Anti-smoking hypocrits should stop driving coz that's killing people faster than anything else.
fuzzman999 3 years ago
i mean if marjiuana/cannabis was legal would it be healthy or a good idea for a large group of people to just light up a spliff inside a restaurant and inadvertantly affect other people around them?For once i agree with Crichton here.
oreolvrs1987 3 years ago
Why would you go to a restaurant that has smoking? How dare you get government on business owners and allow oligopolization.....its neoconservatives/liberals like you that sent this country of liberty down the drain!
shanklinmike 3 years ago
the word of the day is...oligopolization...AHHHHHHH!!! hehe
markbotv3 3 years ago
lol ROLFMAO!! oligopolization!
alphalink 3 years ago
I think after 10 minutes, most of the patrons wouldn't really give a shit. They'd be ordering tons of side dishes and desserts.
doctorcane 2 years ago
even if second han smoke is true or not cleaner air in the office and restaurants is better.here in ireland public areas have never been cleaner especially for those with pre-existing lung conditions ie asthma(like myself) who are otherwise adverserly affected by smoke particulates and other chemicals in cigarette smoke.Even if it doesnt cause cancer it can still irritate and cause discomfort for many people.I dont care what you do in you home but many just find smoke to be harmful.
oreolvrs1987 3 years ago
Crichton is correct, however, people who have never taken BioStats won't get it and will either attack him personally or change the topic. He's right on target however. Don't smoke because smoking DOES cause cancer.
doctorcane 3 years ago 5
very well put...
Smoking is not a good idea, and it does have serious health effects, but secondhand smoke studies are biased and inconclusive...
Thank you for being intelligent and acknowledging the risks, but also acknowledging that the science behind secondhand smoke is faulty
icepick511 2 years ago
welcome. I am more concerned about H1N1 and H5N1 than SHS. Its an irritant, to be sure, but its not a carcinogen that can knock out the Rb and p53 system and cause cancer. It's really very simple.
doctorcane 2 years ago
Don't try to tell me that secondhand smoke is harmless...cigarette smoke causes cancer, doesn't matter if it is first or second hand.
brichrmer25 3 years ago
Didn't he just say it didn't you dumbass. You know what causes cancer - the air pollution from your car when you drive it you hypocrit. I drive a golf cart - so how about you stop polluting my air.
Breathe fumes from an exhaust pipe and see how long you live - you will be dead in 15 minutes. Now that is a killer not a harmless waft of smoke from a burning plant.
fuzzman999 3 years ago
That second hand smoke nonsense is a myth. Their is no study that proves that second hand smoke causes cancer. Only in 1993 some crack pot bill by the EPA that claimed to have made scientific studies, which were later found to be completely false, and is now the only document brought up by non-smoking activists. In 1998, Judge Osteen of the federal court announced in a written report that the bill failed to present facts and deviated from acceptable scientific procedure.
amayagab 3 years ago 3
a dumbass
tom4342 3 years ago
I don't understand why they're wasting this opportunity to speak to a great author by bringing up his old quotes.
thejobloshow 3 years ago
This clip should be shown to every student in the country. Let the hysterics, the health alarmists, which are mainly well-meaning but stupid liberals, prove him wrong. Yeah, outlaw smoking in restaurants and bars based on bogus science, but allow every woman and girl have an abortion on demand without parental consent. Now that's progressive!
archstan8 3 years ago 5
Secondhand smoke, in total, is a lie. Screw the reports! Secondhand smoke is not dangerous, and it also doesn't exist!
mykoolaidstastefunny 3 years ago
Thats complete BS....
CMIL21383 3 years ago
Fuck you!
mykoolaidstastefunny 3 years ago
As soon as scientist come up with a cure for cancer they will know what caused it.
wilfredsnipple 3 years ago
when michael crichton blew me i came in his hair.
byrthfood 3 years ago
they say about 50,000 people die every year on the roads. think to yourself how many times you've heard about ppl dying on the roads! I'm sure you have heard of ppl dying that way at least a couple times a year! That's about the same number of people who they claim die every year from 2nd hand smoke. Think to yourself's how many times you've personally directly heard of ppl dying from 2nd hand smoke! IT'S GOV. PROPOGANDA!
youboob1989 3 years ago 2
Dude - great post. I had never thought of it that way.
cmyersnbt 3 years ago
my parents smoked around me and i started cause i thought what the hell i have to breath it in anyways... thats why people shouldnt smoke around kids
dabighomie1234 3 years ago
Agreed... smoking around kids is a no no.... doesn't say anything about the effects of secondhand smoke though =P
icepick511 2 years ago
Very few persons who research the effects of secondhand smoke will tell you "secondhand smoke has been proven to cause cancer". They will tell you, as it is stated in countless studies, that there is a correlational relationship between the two and that therefore it is LIKELY that secondhand smoke causes cancer. It is comical that he references SIX studies without conclusive results when thousands have been done.
ballerfitz22 3 years ago
I don't care whether it is proved that secondhand smoking is dangerous or not. Cigarette smoke smells awful. Anyone that says something different is either a liar or a very strange person. And don't forget what Mr Crichton said: "Smoking is bad cause smoking causes cancer." If kids see many people smoke they think it is normal. Where I live many kids smoke - about 13 years old. We should be role models for them. Good that many politicians in Germany want to prohibit smoking in public places now.
EPR89 3 years ago
Dcider1 wrote, "Um, sorry to burst your bubble Dr. Crichton, but secondhand smoke has been proven to be very dangerous, and fatal. I've read many scientific reports on it..."
Dcider1 needs to learn to read critically. The SHS/ETS health scare has been repeatedly debunked in everything from the federal courts to popular media. Bans are never reasonable. Antismoking historically brings an avalanche of oppression and false science--without compromise.
Good video. :-)
DancingTigerBait 3 years ago
There is evidence of microscopic structural damages deep in the lungs which are caused by secondhand cigarette smoke. It increase the chances of emphysema, bronchitis, etc. on nonsmokers. This is especially dangerous for those who already suffer from respiratory problems.
Dcider1 3 years ago
Have you seen it? Got an electron microscope and a cadaver lung that's been in secondhand smoke for awhile? Actually, secondhand TOBACCO smoke has some interesting therapeutic benefits. CIGARETTE smoke contains a few weird chemicals because of the manufacturing process and the paper wrapper, but in moderation/low doses (as secondhand smoke is) it doesn't hurt anyone either. So get a pipe or cigar and lose the cigarettes, for your own sake. But don't worry about your companions; they're fine.
edifyguy 3 years ago
Actually yes, I have seen pictures of it. I've also read recent scientific journals and articles talking about the dangers of secondhand smoke, and those were enough to convince me.
Plus, therapeutic effects of 2ndhand smoke? Are you joking? From what I've read, there are way more harmful effects from any kind of tobacco smoke than therapeutic ones.
Anyway, I wouldn't go too far on Dr. Crichton. When he said this, it was about a year before the Surgeon General report in 2006.
Dcider1 3 years ago
Whatever. Read the actual SG reports before you get too excited about them. They don't prove what you think they do. Like a previous poster said, it's government propaganda. That way, they make people feel like they're doing the world a favor by taking away freedom.
edifyguy 3 years ago
Oh noes! It's 'government propaganda'! LOL I've read the reports, and I'm still convinced that secondhand smoke is dangerous. The number of deaths may be exaggerated, yes, but saying it's not deadly is ridiculous!
Anyway, have a nice day. I'm now going to write for the lulz. =)
Dcider1 3 years ago
I wouldn't call it propaganda, thats a little bit extreme..
But I have yet to be convinced by a study proving the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.
That is your choice, but so you know much of it is based on false science
icepick511 2 years ago
Um, sorry to burst your bubble Dr. Crichton, but secondhand smoke has been proven to be very dangerous, and fatal. I've read many scientific reports on it, and they all led to the conclusion that 2ndhand smoking can, in fact, increase the risk of SIDS, asthma, acute respiratory problems, etc. in kids. It can also increase the risks of heart disease and lung cancer in adults (Whether smokers or nonsmokers). I understand the bans of outdoors to be a bit harsh, but IMO the indoor bans r reasonable.
Dcider1 3 years ago
Second hand smoke has never been proven to cause lung cancer just as Dr. Crichton has said. The term 'passive smoking' was coined by Dr. Fritz Lickint in his book 'Tobacco and the Organism' Lickint was a member of the German Anti-Tobacco League during Hitler's 1933 - 1945 reign, (Lickint also claimed the coffee caused stomach cancer). Today various anti-smoking campaigners cite Lickint's 'findings' they however forget to mention the fact that Lickint was an ardent Nazi and a medical fraud.
Number7smokesForEver 4 years ago 4
Even the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health admitted that it has been unable to produce evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, let alone fatal:
SCOTH 2006 Review: pg.5, art.3, line 8.
Yet there are general surgeon warnings on cigerette packets (like the one in my pocket) stating that second hand smoke can be FATAL when SHS has not even been proven to be harmful!
Number7smokesForEver 3 years ago 2
One day Crichton will be recognised for the great thinker and doer he is : a man seeking truth and ready to change his mind, if the facts change. In previous generations, his wise counsel would prevail but now.....?
haldenver 4 years ago 3
I'm no smoker but the various bans are terrible
rambo26 4 years ago 5
If we can make everybody happy through technology lets do this! I would like to see people GET what they want, without the unwanted detrimental effects as well. If companies can DO THIS, maybe we can all laugh about this, later on, when it's solved.
gblueslover1 4 years ago
So, we've shown that the studies were flawed, and yet you still believe SHS is carcinogenic...? Arrrgggghhh, lets here it for confirmation bias.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago 2
I'm no scientist, but I can't understand "why" a room of smoke wouldn't cause cancer in a non-smoker that frequented the same mentioned room as the smokers that get cancer...Same room, same smoke, inhaling 100's of cigarettes being smoked at the same time...NAW, I would have to belive the data that says it's harmful. How could one NOT ? lol
gblueslover1 4 years ago
Simple. It doesn't cause cancer firsthand or secondhand unless it's in extreme doses. I think I remember a study with rats that in order to get one CLOSE to lung cancer (but not actually there) they had to make it smoke the equivalent of a human smoking 1,280 cigarettes a day.....
The bottom line is, smoking pure tobacco in moderation is harmless, but the additives (and paper) in most cigarettes are somewhat harmful in excess, and people tend toward excesses. But what does that prove?
edifyguy 3 years ago
This is a scary man.
ChekhovsGun 4 years ago
Crichton is correct. Not only did the EPA fake its study, but the WHO covered up its own study--the most thorough ever conducted--that showed no harm. All the studies that supposedly "prove" an effect are meta-studies, studies of studies, where they cherry-pick the data they want and throw most of it out. The SHS myth is pure junk.
racookster 4 years ago 3
I don't get him then. He says that smoking causes cancer. The smoke that comes off the end of the cigarette while its burning can be inhaled too, duh, let alone the smoke thats exhaled from the smoker's lungs.
Second hand smoke isn't bad ? That's ludicrous, this guy should have said that smoking DOESN'T cause cancer, what the hell is he saying ?
gblueslover1 4 years ago
The poison is in the dose, and second-hand smoke is too attenuated (and therefore too low a dose) to have one iota of harmful effect. All reports to the contrary are nothing more than propaganda, and smoking bans are nothing more than another means of grabbing control. They're simply adding another substance to the War on Drugs, which has already been demonstrated not to work.
But by all means, believe whatever you want to believe.
racookster 4 years ago
OK, the dose. If a non-smoker is a environment where smoking occurs, the "dose" would surely depend on the proximity,
concentration, and exposure time the non- smoker is subjected to. Those numbers would EASILY be large in a bar or the workplace, say a factory where hundreds are present.I can see second hand smoke causing problems then. A lot of smokers want to quit, and non-smoking laws gives the ones that want to quit the extra incentive TO quit. Bravo for them.
gblueslover1 4 years ago
Actually, no reputable study has ever shown any harm from SHS in any concentration, and in fact, that 400,000 deaths per year figure you always hear for active smokers is pure fabrication. But the bottom line is, no government should have the right to restrict a legal activity on private property.
However, I see you are a lover of the Nanny State. I'm very happy for you.
racookster 4 years ago
Hey, people don't like to breathe in others people's so called "pleasures". Too bad if you don't like that... If you don't like that fact that people are "represented" like me, and want to call it "Nanny" that's your call. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, not 400K, dummy.
gblueslover1 4 years ago
Your reading comprehension needs work. I said 400K per year "for active smokers."
Sidestream smoke hasn't caused a single death, ever. Not one. Crichton is correct, and you are brainwashed.
But I understand. Most people love junk science that affirms their ignorant prejudices. The Nazis loved the "science" that proved Jews were inferior, too.
racookster 4 years ago 2
LOL, Whatever....
gblueslover1 4 years ago
Then post a study that points to number of deaths due to second hand smoke.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
I did. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
gblueslover1 4 years ago
I assume you're quoting the CDC, which is quoting "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" from the California state, which in turn quotes the EPA report that was vacated by a Federal Judge. This was later overturned, not because the science was good, but because there was no regulation tied to this report, no legal action could be taken.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
Aside from any studies given, many people just don't like breathing it, period. People like my self wrote their rep and complained about it, I can comfirm this to you. And I saw action taken on behalf of my elected officials, one case of the gov't finally listening to citizens. I'm all for smokers killing themselves if they want to, but I don't care to participate in their pleasure while they are doing it.
gblueslover1 4 years ago
Then don't patronize businesses where they do allow smoking. The problem with this is that it sets a precedent. Government has now passed a law to "protect our health" - and while smoking in public places is not something we all like (myself included) it is none the less a freedom we had, a freedom that is now removed.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago 2
When a persons particular freedom curtails anothers. (Smoker vs. non) I Don't knock a person if they chose to smoke, I just don't care to share that persons enjoyment. Even without all the technical data people STILL don't care for the smell, like myself. People wrote their reps and complained, and we got represented, forget the data, it's also the SMELL.
gblueslover1 4 years ago
And like I said, you were free to take your business elsewhere. If you believed people hated smoking so much, open a non smoking restaurant - you'd do a booming business. The free market it far better equipped to deal with giving people what they want rather than government.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago
OK, so you don't like the smell. I can't stand it when I'm eating and someone walks by wearing really strong perfume. I don't like to hear people being foul-mouthed in public, or to see people with obscenities written on T-shirts. I can't stand little kids who stare, or scream and cry, while their parents do nothing. Should we outlaw all those too?
esdel1955 4 years ago
All that's good, and guess what? If one wears really strong perfume in a hospital, guess what they DO with that person ? They escort them out. All the rest of your rant's won't cause you to get cancer. I don't know about YOU, but I write my rep, when I've got a concern...Sounds like all you do is complain. How far will THAT get you..?
gblueslover1 4 years ago
Who's complaining? Not me, I realize I can't have everything my way. That's my whole point -- DUH. As for cancer, if you're so considerate of others, why don't you give up driving? Or do you think all that car exhaust is OK, it's only cigarette smoke that's bad?
esdel1955 4 years ago
Well then if you realize it , then you'd appeciate the efforts of "others" calling upon their elected officials to represent them. DUH
gblueslover1 4 years ago
Hmm I don't complain, so I'd appreciate the efforts of others to complain? What are you talking about? LOL, never mind.
esdel1955 4 years ago
PFFFT.lol
gblueslover1 4 years ago
esdel: "I don't like to hear people being foul-mouthed in public, or to see people with obscenities written on T-shirts. I can't stand little kids who stare, or scream and cry, while their parents do nothing. Who's complaining? Not me"
LOL
gblueslover1 4 years ago
You're a complainer too; you just complain to different people. If you don't like smoking, there are establishments who will cater to you, but don't try to get the government to make everything your way. Why can't smokers have some places "their way?"
edifyguy 3 years ago
Well its the old My freedom vs your freedom. I certainly hope technology can answer this. I know of one company that seeks to have cigarettes totally ordeless, whereas the nicotine is distributed in a vapor when drawn and H20 vapor somes off the end of a cigarette sized "canister". Hey "bring it" is what I say !
gblueslover1 4 years ago