Great American Smokeout

[AstroBlue]

I guess I would care if I lived in a Communist country. But here in America we can choose what we do for a living. If bartenders are worried about it they can get another job. And from everything I've heard from places where smoking in bars is illegal, bar workers tend to be quite pissed about it because sales (and therefore tips) are down.

OH&S is a good thing, if you think otherwise, fuck you.

If this is from the JL Repace study you listed, he included ex-smokers with non-smokers, which is total bullshit. I stopped reading the study there.

You probably should have read far enough to find out he gave a non-smoker mortality rate. Did you read the other articles though? Some of them are quite conclusive.

What's the average age that lung cancer is diagnosed at?

I'd say 65 as an empirical guess.

And what was the average life expectancy prior to 1914?

Much lower than nowadays.

[Saint of Killers]

OH&S is a good thing, if you think otherwise, fuck you.

I used to work in the fifth most dangerous job in the US according to this but oddly enough I don't think the government sould outlaw pizza delivery.

Maybe if I saw bartender on that list somewhere my heart would bleed just a little for them.

You probably should have read far enough to find out he gave a non-smoker mortality rate. Did you read the other articles though? Some of them are quite conclusive.

The number you gave (59) is both non-smokers and ex-smokers.

The part where he defines nonsmokers as "neversmokers and ex-smokers" made me give up on the study. Maybe'll I'll slog through the rest of it some other time.

Feel free to give me the "neversmoker" mortality rate if it's in there, though.

I'd say 65 as an empirical guess.

Much lower than nowadays.

So there goes that argument.

[AstroBlue]

I may or may not have have thrown in a couple of articles supporting "your side"

So there goes that argument.

Well no. Considering the spike in incidence happened in the 1940's. Unless you're implying cigarettes have nothing to do with lung cancer, in which case I can label you a "fucking moron" and be on my way.

I used to work in the fifth most dangerous job in the US according to this but oddly enough I don't think the government sould outlaw pizza delivery.

They can't stop crazies from making pizza delivery boys gimps and killing them, but they can make people smoke outside. Is a few steps really worth someone elses life?

[Diff-chan]

Its really not that hard to step outside of the bar when you want to smoke a cigarette. I mean, you have to step outside of the, say, office when you want to smoke, so whats the big fucking deal? If the bar is good then the tips arent gonna be affected adversely. Besides, losing a few bucks in tip every night is a small price to pay for not having to suffer a horrible, horrible existence because of lung cancer. California has banned smoking inside bars for I dont even know how long and nobody cares. GET OVER IT.

[AstroBlue]

Its really not that hard to step outside of the bar when you want to smoke a cigarette. I mean, you have to step outside of the, say, office when you want to smoke, so whats the big fucking deal? If the bar is good then the tips arent gonna be affected adversely. Besides, losing a few bucks in tip every night is a small price to pay for not having to suffer a horrible, horrible existence because of lung cancer. California has banned smoking inside bars for I dont even know how long and nobody cares. GET OVER IT.

Exactly, I can't believe there are people that would put a few steps and enjoyment over someone elses life. No wonder smokers are hated so much.

The number you gave (59) is both non-smokers and ex-smokers.

I never read the complete articles since Acrobat runs like a dog on my computer. Wow, that's complete shit, I'm sorry I even referenced it.

Maybe'll I'll slog through the rest of it some other time.

No point, it's bullshit.

Anyway, here's the abstract from another sudy:

Although the risk of lung cancer among never-smokers living with a spouse who smokes has been extensively studied, the impact of lifetime residential and workplace environmental tobacco smoke has received less attention. As part of a large population-based case-control study of lung cancer, we collected lifetime residential and occupational passive smoking information from 71 women with lung cancer and 761 healthy control subjects, all of whom reported being lifetime nonsmokers. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer associated with residential passive exposure only was 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-2.8). Although more years of and more intense residential passive smoke exposure tended to be associated with higher risk estimates, no clear dose-response relationship was evident. The OR for women with passive exposure as a child and as an adult was 1.63 (95% CI 0.8-3.5) and for those only exposed as an adult 1.20 (95%CI 0.5-3.0). Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke only in the workplace was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.27 (95% CI 0.4-4.0). Risks associated with increasing occupational exposure year tertiles were 1.24, 1.71 and 1.71. Total smoker-years of residential and occupational exposure combined resulted in a statistically significant trend (linear test for trend p = 0.05) with ORs for tertiles of exposure of 0.83, 1.54 and 1.82. Our results are consistent with the literature suggesting that long-term, regular exposure to either residential or occupational environmental tobacco smoke is associated with increased lung cancer risk in never-smoking women.

If you need me to explain what an odds ratio or p-value is, just ask, and if you want a PDF of the whole article, I can send it.

[SpoDaddy]

People hate smoke nazis that run around screaming "You're killing me!!!!" even more than smokers. Again, show me the study that proves second hand smoke causes cancer. This is America, if I want to smoke in a public place that's my right. You don't have to be there.

[Joust Williams]

Um...you don't either.

[Punky Skunk]

This is America, if I want to smoke in a public place that's my right. You don't have to be there.

So so right. It's the guy who smokes and the guy who plays loud music who will always have first dibs on the area they're making unpleasant. That definitely is America. I'd be surprised if it wasn't written into law somewhere. The inalienable right to assery.

[SpoDaddy]

So so right. It's the guy who smokes and the guy who plays loud music who will always have first dibs on the area they're making unpleasant. That definitely is America. I'd be surprised if it wasn't written into law somewhere. The inalienable right to assery.

Exactly. It's my civil right to smoke, it's not your civil right to never get pissed off or annoyed in a public place.

[AstroBlue]

People hate smoke nazis that run around screaming "You're killing me!!!!" even more than smokers.

I don't mind if people smoke in front of me, my friends do all the time.

Again, show me the study that proves second hand smoke causes cancer.

I already have. If you want to argue with a p=0.05 confidence level, be my fucking guest. It would only prove how much of a dead shit you are.

But here is another:

The interpretation of the evidence linking exposure to secondhand smoke with lung cancer is constrained by the imprecision of risk estimates. The objective of the study was to obtain precise and valid estimates of the risk of lung cancer in never smokers following exposure to secondhand smoke, including adjustment for potential confounders and exposure misclassification. Pooled analysis of data from 2 previously reported large case-control studies was used. Subjects included 1,263 never smoking lung cancer patients and 2,740 population and hospital controls recruited during 1985-1994 from 5 metropolitan areas in the United States, 11 areas in Germany, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal. Odds ratios (ORs) of lung cancer were calculated for ever exposure and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke from spouse, workplace and social sources. The OR for ever exposure to spousal smoking was 1.18 (95% CI = 1.01-1.37) and for long-term exposure was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.01-1.51). After exclusion of proxy interviews, the OR for ever exposure from the workplace was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.99-1.36) and for long-term exposure was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.03-1.57). Similar results were obtained for exposure from social settings and for exposure from combined sources. A dose-response relationship was present with increasing duration of exposure to secondhand smoke for all 3 sources, with an OR of 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10-1.79) for the long-term exposure from all sources. There was no evidence of confounding by employment in high-risk occupations, education or low vegetable intake. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of misclassification (both positive and negative) indicated that the observed risks are likely to underestimate the true risk. Clear dose-response relationships consistent with a causal association were observed between exposure to secondhand smoke from spousal, workplace and social sources and the development of lung cancer among never smokers.

This is America, if I want to smoke in a public place that's my right. You don't have to be there.

I agree. Because, if you smoke in front of me out in the open, you're not going to give me cancer. But if some poor bitch who can only get work as a bartender breathes medium levels of cigarette carcinogens day in day out for her whole working life, there's a decent chance she will get lung cancer and die a horrible death.