So Trumpishly touchy, Gaveston. Don't get all reactionary and make others do your reading - the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke (indoors or out, although I can't imagine why anyone thinks there's a distinction) are not debatable. The science is out there, easy to find, and established. Don't be a denier of science - you can't win with that attitude, except with Kellyanne Conway's crowd, perhaps.
And maybe dial it back a bit on the pointless bitchery, if possible.
In case your fingers aren't working, here's what a few minutes of research can find - and from organizations driven by science not funded by the tobacco industry. Let me restate that - these are nonpartisan, objective scientific studies:
But the deal is us addicts are not permitted to smoke anywhere public now. When we come out of what may be a 4 hour or more smoke free facility, after a performance, in the open air.... Leave us alone.
You called me a "fool" and a Holocaust denier, newintown, so don't be surprised if I bristle.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the original assertion. You don't get to make wild, unsupported claims and then expect me to research a rebuttal.
But since you claim you can't understand the difference between air quality inside and outside, I doubt that science is your forte.
I agree South Florida - smoke where it's legal to smoke. That's your right.
Just don't make unfounded assertions that you're not harming anyone. My only objection is to those who try to deny that it's harmful to the smoker and those near the smoker.
The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization, including: World Health Organization U.S. National Institutes of Health Centers for Disease Control United States Surgeon General U.S. National Cancer Institute United States Environmental Protection Agency California Environmental Protection Agency American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society American Medical Association American Academy of Pediatrics Australian National Health and Medical Research Council United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health
"You called me a "fool" and a Holocaust denier, newintown, so don't be surprised if I bristle."
Gaveston, don't engage in pointless logical fallacies with me, and please don't twist my words. I did no such thing.
"I doubt that science is your forte."
If, after reading all the substantiation I provided for you, you still think that secondhand smoke is harmless outdoors, than science clearly isn't your forte, although I'm sure that you're inestimably smarter than all the scientists at the CDC, WHO, and every cancer organization put together.
GavestonPS said: "Otherwise I'd like a law forbidding people to eat garlic or onions outside the confines of their own home."
The difference is garlic and onions don't have secondhand side effects (also, I happen to like the smell, but the smell isn't the issue here). And farting is kind of gross/amusing, but not toxic.
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
To the OP, yes that is wrong, if you're a groupie and want your picture taken with a celebrity, she should be allowed to blow smoke in your face, and not have to give the butt off to someone.
I have no issue with the actor's behavior, and have written nothing against her. As long as she was smoking in an area where it's permitted, that's her choice and right. The only objection I can imagine anyone having is that she, as a role model, might be encouraging some young person to take up smoking. But that's an awfully big stretch. Not my issue.
Michael Kras said: " Second hand smoke has been proven to be not just as bad, but worse, than first hand smoke. Studies have shown that airborne contact with second hand smoke instantly thickens the blood and makes you more vulnerable to heart attack and stroke. And that's barely the tip of the iceberg.
That doesn't sound like "small stuff" to me.
"
Thanks to newintown's links, I think you're confusing, or just not stating clearly, the issue. It isn't that second-hand smoke is WORSE on the whole than first-hand smoke; it's that the worst carcinogens come from the lit end of the cigarette and not the end where the smoker inhales. But the smoker gets the carcinogens from BOTH ends of the cigarette, so his risk is still greater. (It's not as if only others breathe the smoke from the lit end. Smokers do, too.)
newintown said: ""You called me a "fool" and a Holocaust denier, newintown, so don't be surprised if I bristle."
Gaveston, don't engage in pointless logical fallacies with me, and please don't twist my words. I did no such thing.
"I doubt that science is your forte."
If, after reading all the substantiation I provided for you, you still think that secondhand smoke is harmless outdoors, than science clearly isn't your forte, although I'm sure that you're inestimably smarter than all the scientists at the CDC, WHO, and every cancer organization put together.
"
My bad. You EQUATED me with Holocaust deniers and fools, which, in my book, is not better than calling me those things.
As for your links, which I know you didn't have time to read, only one (the second) shows actual surveys, controls and results (in not all but some cases). The others are mere summaries of a claimed consensus--and not at all unbiased. This isn't to say their claims are wrong, just that they provide no more proof than you did. (They do contain citations to surveys, but without links, I have no way of evaluating the citations.)
More important: NOT A SINGLE STUDY in any of the four links deals with smoking OUTDOORS. All the references to second-hand smoke (documented or undocumented) deal with those who live with smokers or work inside with smokers. In short, your citations are not relevant to this discussion. (Yes, the first one says "Don't smoke in parks", but it cites nothing to prove such smoking is harmful to others.)
(FTR, I haven't smoked at all in 8 years; I haven't smoked indoors in 30 years. I don't disagree that the latter is bad for everybody.)
As for your claim that you don't see any difference between smoking indoors and out, remember first year chemistry: gasses expand to fill the volume of the space in which they reside. Now compare the volume of a room with the volume of the entire atmosphere and you will see the difference.
By the way, I don't see a good reason to **** on people who stage door as long as they aren't autograph hounds looking to sell things. It tends to be young people who genuinely admire the performers. As long as they're polite and not entitled, I don't see the harm in letting them have their fun. Actors who don't want to engage can easily choose to not sign.
This thread needs to die. She was leaving her job, went outside and lit a cigarette. There is nothing wrong with this. If people still want an autograph, then that is also fine. Your second hand smoke of being near her for all of 10 seconds, will do nothing to you. Get over it.
I don't think you're quite entirely reading for content, n2nbaby. No one is criticizing the actor for secondhand smoke. That discussion was a digression.
Michael Kras said: "Second hand smoke has been proven to be not just as bad, but worse, than first hand smoke. Studies have shown that airborne contact with second hand smoke instantly thickens the blood and makes you more vulnerable to heart attack and stroke. And that's barely the tip of the iceberg."
I'm definitely not pro-smoking, and some of the things you say are true, but your initial claim is false. Here's a reference:
newintown said: "the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke (indoors or out, although I can't imagine why anyone thinks there's a distinction) are not debatable."
You're right, but the severity of the effects is debatable (see the link in my previous post). Some exaggerated claims have been made on this thread.
Perhaps true, kdogg, however the author's disclosure (all the way at the end of the piece) that he has been on the tobacco industry's payroll in the past raises a (small) red flag.
And despite the results of these studies, the universal belief of all mainstream science is that passive smoking is never healthy, and often deadly. My question is - why even try to defend it (to even a small degree)?
newintown said: "My question is - why even try to defend it?"
Well, you have a good point, and those two posts are about as much effort as I will put into it. :) For the record, I agree with everyone who says that the actor in question wasn't doing anything wrong, based on the OP's description of the situation. I also hate smoking and find it to be rather unattractive.