college grads a minority

[kaysixteen]

Forgetting about second hand smoke, what exactly is it about the coffin nails that makes their use something that should be considered anything other than a, pun intended, cancer on society?

[dismalist]

Forgetting about second hand smoke, what exactly is it about the coffin nails that makes their use something that should be considered anything other than a, pun intended, cancer on society?

Smokers more than pay their way!

[kaysixteen]

Ok, let's factor in the enormous health care costs they incur, the costs of supporting survivors after smokers pass prematurely, etc.

And then let's talk about second hand smoke.

[dismalist]

Ok, let's factor in the enormous health care costs they incur, the costs of supporting survivors after smokers pass prematurely, etc.

And then let's talk about second hand smoke.

Ah, but we have talked about costs! The fewer the number of smokers, the less money is around for nice stuff.

Second hand smoke has a nuisance value, of course. Segregate smokers from non smokers, no worries.

As for second hand smoke being a carcinogen, that was junk science.

[Hegemony]

I wonder if dismalist is serious saying that second-hand smoke dangers are junk science.

I see that the CDC says "Since the 1964 Surgeon General's Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.....Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and can cause coronary heart disease and stroke. Secondhand smoke causes nearly 34,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers." https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

If dismalist is sincere in that statement, we could investigate that as an example of how a high level of education does not prevent people from disbelieving science.

[marshwiggle]

I'm curious: For people who are concerned about the costs of smoking to society and the economy, do you support legalization of cannabis (which also produces respiratory and other problems) and the decriminalization or legalization of opiates and other drugs, and if so, why?

Since over the past few decades increased restriction on sales and marketing of tobacco products has reduced the incidence of smoking-related illness, I am baffled by the apparent contradiction in encouraging increased legal access to other substances with similar (or worse) problems associated with them. (Increased legal restrictions on alcohol have also reduced drunk driving, etc.)

[Puget]

I'm curious: For people who are concerned about the costs of smoking to society and the economy, do you support legalization of cannabis (which also produces respiratory and other problems) and the decriminalization or legalization of opiates and other drugs, and if so, why?

Since over the past few decades increased restriction on sales and marketing of tobacco products has reduced the incidence of smoking-related illness, I am baffled by the apparent contradiction in encouraging increased legal access to other substances with similar (or worse) problems associated with them. (Increased legal restrictions on alcohol have also reduced drunk driving, etc.)

No one here (or basically anywhere) is calling for making tobacco or alcohol illegal-- that's a straw man if ever there was one. The comparison to criminalizing cannabis is not regulating alcohol, it is banning alcohol, and we know how well prohibition worked out.

There is no contradiction-- both are exactly the same goal-- reducing overall costs and harms to society.  I'm not a user myself, but I'm all for legalization: Legalizing cannabis reduces the black market and makes it more regulated- sold to those 21 and over, safety inspected for contaminants, etc. in addition to reducing the monetary and society costs of policing and incarcerating people for use, and raising substantial tax revenue for societal good. Not the mention, a lot of cannabis sales are not for edibles, which don't carry the same second hand smoke problem.

Nor have I seen anyone here suggest legalizing opiates and other drugs-- decriminalizing possession of small amounts and diverting to treatment instead is different, and I would support that.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is some serious thread drift...

[dismalist]

I wonder if dismalist is serious saying that second-hand smoke dangers are junk science.

I see that the CDC says "Since the 1964 Surgeon General's Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.....Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and can cause coronary heart disease and stroke. Secondhand smoke causes nearly 34,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers." https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

If dismalist is sincere in that statement, we could investigate that as an example of how a high level of education does not prevent people from disbelieving science.

Wahoo will get angry if we pursue this here, but I'll quit the subject after this post.

When the EPA first declared second hand smoke a Class 1 carcinogen, it did so based on a meta analysis of nearly 20 studies. [Sorry, I'm doing this from memory.] It cherry-picked which studies to include, and lowered the significance level to 90 %. Subsequent studies yield mixed results. That doesn't seem to stop the CDC, but it stops me.

[marshwiggle]

This is some serious thread drift...

Somewhat, although it illustrates the fact that even "college-educated" people can have strong disagreements about "science", so the very idea that people with less formal education should listen to people with more formal education because the latter will have some "clearer" understanding is flawed.

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo will get angry if we pursue this here, but I'll quit the subject after this post.

???

[apl68]

This is some serious thread drift...

That was my thought as well.

[kaysixteen]

Awwright, drift it is.   Before trying to refocus, I gotta ask the main question about denial of the dangers of second hand smoke-- if *first hand* cig smoke is bad, how does being in reasonable proximity to a smoker and inhaling some of his smoke somehow make that smoke not bad?   I do recall the late 1970s, when I, around 12yo, was struggling with repeated respiratory infections and ear infections (likely almost certainly greatly exacerbated by my abnormally large adenoids which were taken out later that year).   My pediatrician decided to have my mom take me to an allergist to see if I might be allergic to anything.   I went twice, had numerous allergens tested-- I suspect that the tech for doing this must be better than it was in 1979, btw, and the guy did not find anything.   I recall sitting in the exam room whilst he and mom talked.   He asked her if she smoked, and she said she did-  she did not quit for almost twenty more years.   He told her she should not be doing that, even though he did not say I was actually allergic to tobacco.   We never went back, and when I asked mom about it, she was evasive and said she did not like something about him, attitude, whatever.   I did not press it.   Like it or not, there is really no doubt now, with 2022 knowledge, that her smoking habit was not exactly beneficial for my health.   Ah well.

Now to try to de-drift things, wrt non-college educated adults and smoking.   Smoking causes numerous health concerns, including second hand residua on the children, and of course said children are *vastly* more likely to become smokers themselves.   Smoking kills people early, causing additional societal financial and other costs, too, and even those poorer and often less-educated smokers end up smoking away large quantities of their money.   It is little different from buying lotto tix in this regard.

[marshwiggle]

Question to Wahoo and others:
In a case like this, where thread drift has occurred, but the OP has continued to follow the drift, as Kay has done WRT smoking, is that "drift" still a matter of concern? Is the problem with drift that the title doesn't reflect the current discussion, or is it something else?
(Serious question; I'm honestly curious.)

[apl68]

Question to Wahoo and others:
In a case like this, where thread drift has occurred, but the OP has continued to follow the drift, as Kay has done WRT smoking, is that "drift" still a matter of concern? Is the problem with drift that the title doesn't reflect the current discussion, or is it something else?
(Serious question; I'm honestly curious.)

Can't speak for Wahoo, but I was simply making an observation.