Page 1 of 3
#1
In the Scottish metro today there was an article about a recent journal paper on second hand smoke that made some interesting claims about the effects of second hand smoke.

I looked up the article itself, here are the abstract and conclusion:

Quote by Heiss et al 2008
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to analyze the effects of acute secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure on the number and function of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) over 24 h. BACKGROUND: Secondhand smoke increases the risk of vascular disease and is a major public health concern, but the mechanism(s) of action are not fully understood. METHODS: Healthy nonsmokers (age SEM 30.3 +/- 1.3 years, n = 10) were exposed to 30 min of SHS yielding cotinine levels commonly observed in passive smokers and to smokefree air on 2 separate days. Measurements were taken before exposure (baseline), immediately after (0 h), and at 1 h, 2.5 h, and 24 h after. The EPCs (CD133(+)/KDR(+), CD34(+)/KDR(+)) and endothelial microparticles (EMPs: CD31(+)/CD41(-), CD144(+), CD62e(+)) were determined in blood using flow cytometry. The EPC chemotaxis toward vascular endothelial growth factor was measured. Endothelial function was assessed as flow-mediated dilation (FMD) using ultrasound. RESULTS: Secondhand smoke exposure increased EPCs and plasma that SHS not only affects the vascular endothelium, but also the function of EPCs.

Quote by Heiss et al 2008

These results show that brief exposure to real-world levels of
SHS leads to a mobilization of dysfunctional EPCs in
response to acute vascular injury that persists for more than
24 h. Mechanistically, these effects are linked to an impairment
of NO production in EPCs. Taken together, these
findings provide further evidence that even a very short
period of passive smoke exposure has strong, persistent
vascular consequences. The SHS may harm the vasculature
not only by directly injuring the vascular endothelium but
also by interfering with the vascular repair system, which
may lead to chronic damage with recurrent exposures. These
results provide further scientific evidence that involuntary
SHS exposure constitutes a significant public health risk
even at low levels.


The full article is paid subscription only, students with Athens accounts can view it for free at here

So, what do we think? it appears that second hand smoke not only increases the risk of cancer, but also vascular injury increasing your likelihood of heart disease by 33%. And damaging after only half an hour.

Note: there's been a 20% drop in heart attack admissions in places with public smoking bans.
#2
I think it should be banned, why should I have to suffer for other people's bad habits?
Quote by Vincent Vega
Haikus are awesome
but sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator



Quote by KissingShadows
People always tell me I solo like Zakk Wylde. Thats how I know that I suck.
#3
edit: sorry im dumb

They just banned smoking from restauraunts here in Tennessee.

Lots of angry rednecks... ::shudders::
#4
It should be banned indoors where it can effect people that don't smoke, but I have nothing against people having a fag outside.
#5
Quote by Archaon
It should be banned indoors where it can effect people that don't smoke, but I have nothing against people having a fag outside.
Agreed.

I'm waiting for the opinions of some hardcore smokers. I want to see what they have to say.
#6
Quote by Archaon
It should be banned indoors where it can effect people that don't smoke, but I have nothing against people having a fag outside.



#8
Yes cigarettes are very annoying and second hand smoke is horrible, but it is not the government's place to wrap us all up in cotton wool and protect us from everything. I believe restaurants and pubs should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want people to be allowed to smoke on their premises.
#9
Quote by Archaon
It should be banned indoors where it can effect people that don't smoke, but I have nothing against people having a fag outside.

+1
A hero of war, Yeah that's what I'll be

(.)(.)..........(.)(.)..........(.)(.)..........(.)(.)..........(.)(.)..........(.)(.)..........(.)(.)
#10
[quote="'Tommy[fin"]']I'm a regular smoker, and I think it's great that indoors smoking has been banned in restaurants/nightclubs/bars. Did your avatar always change facial expressions or is that new? I never noticed that before.
#11
Quote by blynd_snyper
Yes cigarettes are very annoying and second hand smoke is horrible, but it is not the government's place to wrap us all up in cotton wool and protect us from everything. I believe restaurants and pubs should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want people to be allowed to smoke on their premises.


so it's not the governments place to outlaw murder and other crimes?

They should allow people to roam the streets and beat people. after all if people didn't want to be attacked they could just not go out.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#12
I smoke herb but I can't stand the smell of cigarettes. Glad they are banning them in confined areas.
#13
Sure, as a smoker its' of a bitch at times (And in clubs, the smell of smokes has been replaced with BO and sweat... A worse smell, but better for you, apparently), but I can see why its' been implemented... If there was actual proof behind this and evidence to back it up, I'll never complain, and now we definitely have such proof - Also, when the smoking ban was implemented in Scotland first, the feedback they recieved shortly before it was implemented in England and Wales definitely showed that it does work for the intents and purposes made.
I'm going to avoid the obvious politics in this because I don;t want to start a huge flame-war, but suffice it to say it was implemented for stupid reasons, but the effects are worthwhile. Therefore, I'm for it, and don't mind frezzing my moobs off in winter for it. It just means I'm not taking as many people with me as I was before, is all
The rig:
Gibson SG faded special -> Marshall MG 50/100 (working on a valve amp)
Backup: Vintage AV1
Newcastle United
#14
Cigarettes should be more highly taxed to discourage people from taking it up. The less people in the next generation smoke, the less they will be affected by second hand smoke.
Xbox Live tag: Dream Away Rain
Add!

Quote by marko'd
dont sweat how quick your progressing, i heard that Jimi hendrix didnt get his legendary guitar skills until he was dead


Quote by Dreadnought
+ MOTHERFUCKIN' 1
#15
Quote by Lemoninfluence
so it's not the governments place to outlaw murder and other crimes?

They should allow people to roam the streets and beat people. after all if people didn't want to be attacked they could just not go out.

OK, is it the government's place to ban cars? They're bloody dangerous yet it's not their place to ban them. Should the government ban sex? You can pass on STDs with great ease yet it's not the government's place to ban sex, is it?

Murder is a completely different case, your purpose is killing people. I really don't think that smokers plan on giving other people cancer.
#16
Quote by freedoms_stain
Did your avatar always change facial expressions or is that new? I never noticed that before.




Been drinking much lately?

I'm a smoker, but I still don't want to hang out in smokey rooms. It makes your clothes smell awful, and your eyes get teary.
#17
I don't mind people smoking, just people smoking near me

But its been banned everywhere for enclosed public spaces in the UK anyway so its not so much of an issue as it was.
#18
I've been smoking for 10 years and honestly think the smoking ban in public places was a good thing.
My only quarrel with it is that i think bars/clubs with secluded rooms should be allowed to have a smoking area with no bar and no eating area so that if you want to smoke you can but to order a drink you need to go to the non smoking area so that the bar staff have a smoke free enviroment to work in.
For example the solid rock cafe in glasgow has 2 levels, upstairs for smoking and down stairs for food and non smoking.
I dont drive so should they ban people from driving? They polute my air as much as me smoking polutes peoples air.
i understad people not wanting to breath in my smoke and can see both points of teh argument..
essay over.
#19
Quote by Archaon
It should be banned indoors where it can effect people that don't smoke, but I have nothing against people having a fag outside.

I love it when people call them fags!!!
Quote by andy_thomas
That depends, when you look at a map is west left or right?


If you think I care about what you say to me you are sadly mistaken.
#20
it's brilliant that people can't smoke in many indoor places here

the other day i was driving with my window open, and caught the smell of smoke and i thought 'yuk that is gross, i havent smelt that smell in so long'


considering i used to not care in a smoky night club because my mum used to smoke indoors when i was younger, for that tiny smell to annoy me is pretty positive change in the world.
The Elephant asked the Camel , oh why is your breast on your back Camel? To which the Camel replied, Why that is a strange question from someone with their dick on their face!
#21
Quote by blynd_snyper
OK, is it the government's place to ban cars? They're bloody dangerous yet it's not their place to ban them. Should the government ban sex? You can pass on STDs with great ease yet it's not the government's place to ban sex, is it?

Murder is a completely different case, your purpose is killing people. I really don't think that smokers plan on giving other people cancer.


So the Government does have a place in telling us what we can and can't do?

Did the Government ban cigarettes? I think you'll find that it's a 'no'. This smoking ban is akin to posting speed limits.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#22
Quote by Ichimaru
Cigarettes should be more highly taxed to discourage people from taking it up. The less people in the next generation smoke, the less they will be affected by second hand smoke.
Cigarettes already have pretty huge tax in the UK I'm sure. about 75% of the price from some page I just found on google.
Quote by blynd_snyper
OK, is it the government's place to ban cars? They're bloody dangerous yet it's not their place to ban them. Should the government ban sex? You can pass on STDs with great ease yet it's not the government's place to ban sex, is it?

Murder is a completely different case, your purpose is killing people. I really don't think that smokers plan on giving other people cancer.
Last time I checked nobody was revving up their 2litre in a pub.

[quote="'Tommy[fin"]']

Been drinking much lately?

I'm a smoker, but I still don't want to hang out in smokey rooms. It makes your clothes smell awful, and your eyes get teary. I swear it moved before... You're messing with my mind!
#23
Quote by Lemoninfluence
So the Government does have a place in telling us what we can and can't do?

Did the Government ban cigarettes? I think you'll find that it's a 'no'. This smoking ban is akin to posting speed limits.

This is a step towards the eventual banning of tabacco. Just like the Nazis didn't round up the Jews and send them on the trains immediately, they edged in closer and closer. (Bad analogy I know, but it's all I care to think of right now).

The government has a place in telling us what we can and can't do, but not to the extent that they're doing at the moment.

Anyway, I'm not getting into a discussion now as this is really a political debate now and I'm not going to hijack this thread. Also, you don't seem to understand libertarianism.

So to that end, good day sir.
#24
What do you guys think when it comes to health care and smoking? I think that if you're a smoker you should pay more for health care since you are knowingly harming your health.
Quote by Vincent Vega
Haikus are awesome
but sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator



Quote by KissingShadows
People always tell me I solo like Zakk Wylde. Thats how I know that I suck.
#25
Quote by thsrayas
What do you guys think when it comes to health care and smoking? I think that if you're a smoker you should pay more for health care since you are knowingly harming your health.

that's one of the reasons cigarette are taxed highly over here.

we generally don't pay for our health care as it's government funded.

but health insurance firms usually do increase the premium if you're a smoker.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#26
Quote by blynd_snyper
This is a step towards the eventual banning of tabacco. Just like the Nazis didn't round up the Jews and send them on the trains immediately, they edged in closer and closer. (Bad analogy I know, but it's all I care to think of right now).

The government has a place in telling us what we can and can't do, but not to the extent that they're doing at the moment.

Anyway, I'm not getting into a discussion now as this is really a political debate now and I'm not going to hijack this thread. Also, you don't seem to understand libertarianism.

So to that end, good day sir.
Smoking is fine outside because it disperses into the air and anybody walking past bits a quick blast and that's it, indoors it just sticks around until someone sucks it into their lungs.

You can't equate them to cars, cus like I said cars aren't driven in pubs or restaurants.

And lemoninfluence is a pretty smart dude.
#27
Quote by freedoms_stain
Agreed.

I'm waiting for the opinions of some hardcore smokers. I want to see what they have to say.


Well I'm a pretty addicted smoker, and to be honest; solid proof like that shows me that yes, the Government banning smoking in public enclosed places was a good idea. I don't want to cause harm to people around me. Why bring more people down with smoke from my cigarettes? I know plenty smokers will disagree with the ban, but I'm all for it. Plus I hate the stink of cigarettes in enclosed places, which is why I smoke in the garden even in the rain and winter.
#28
Quote by blynd_snyper
OK, is it the government's place to ban cars? They're bloody dangerous yet it's not their place to ban them. Should the government ban sex? You can pass on STDs with great ease yet it's not the government's place to ban sex, is it?

Murder is a completely different case, your purpose is killing people. I really don't think that smokers plan on giving other people cancer.


Cars are required to maintain the economy

Sex is required for procreation

Banning smoking is only a annoyance to those who do smoke, its nothing like banning cars or sex
#29
Quote by Roughage
Well I'm a pretty addicted smoker, and to be honest; solid proof like that shows me that yes, the Government banning smoking in public enclosed places was a good idea. I don't want to cause harm to people around me. Why bring more people down with smoke from my cigarettes? I know plenty smokers will disagree with the ban, but I'm all for it. Plus I hate the stink of cigarettes in enclosed places, which is why I smoke in the garden even in the rain and winter.
I'm liking the positive responses from the smokers
#30
Quote by blynd_snyper
This is a step towards the eventual banning of tabacco. Just like the Nazis didn't round up the Jews and send them on the trains immediately, they edged in closer and closer. (Bad analogy I know, but it's all I care to think of right now).

The government has a place in telling us what we can and can't do, but not to the extent that they're doing at the moment.

Anyway, I'm not getting into a discussion now as this is really a political debate now and I'm not going to hijack this thread. Also, you don't seem to understand libertarianism.

So to that end, good day sir.

The Government won't ban tobacco. They get too much tax revenue from it. Why completely ban it when it can reduce it's effects to only the people who choose to harm themselves? As I've said, the government hasn't banned cigarettes, they've just restricted where you can do it so as to reduce it's impact.

also, Godwin's Law.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#31
Quote by alkalineweeman

My only quarrel with it is that i think bars/clubs with secluded rooms should be allowed to have a smoking area with no bar and no eating area so that if you want to smoke you can but to order a drink you need to go to the non smoking area so that the bar staff have a smoke free enviroment to work in.


Smoking rooms in bars and clubs are horrible.

I can't see why you wouldn't slip outside for a smoke, getting some fresh air trough a filter for a change, instead of musty bar air. It's a nice break I think, when you're clubbing.
#33
Quote by freedoms_stain
In the Scottish metro today there was an article about a recent journal paper on second hand smoke that made some interesting claims about the effects of second hand smoke.

I looked up the article itself, here are the abstract and conclusion:


The full article is paid subscription only, students with Athens accounts can view it for free at here

So, what do we think? it appears that second hand smoke not only increases the risk of cancer, but also vascular injury increasing your likelihood of heart disease by 33%. And damaging after only half an hour.

Note: there's been a 20% drop in heart attack admissions in places with public smoking bans.


Well its already done in Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland so why not Scotland?

You just go and smoke outside, it's no big deal...
#34
[quote="'Tommy[fin"]']Smoking rooms in bars and clubs are horrible.

I can't see why you wouldn't slip outside for a smoke, getting some fresh air trough a filter for a change, instead of musty bar air. It's a nice break I think, when you're clubbing. Aye, but he's Scottish and there's a high likelihood of rain at night pretty much all year round.
#36
Quote by str84ever
Well its already done in Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland so why not Scotland?

You just go and smoke outside, it's no big deal...
What do you mean? Scotland had the smoking ban a whole year before England and Wales.

I'm quite clearly in favour of a ban...
#37
Quote by freedoms_stain
Aye, but he's Scottish and there's a high likelihood of rain at night pretty much all year round.


Well fuck me, but most bar facades around here have sunshades and roofs you can stand under.
#38
[quote="'Tommy[fin"]']Well fuck me, but most bars around here have sunshades and roofs you can stand under. Most Scottish cities are pretty cramped, there's not much room for that kind of thing.
#39
How about this, let certain restaurants, pubs, cafes, ban smoking in their places, and make no fuss about it; but, also let other pubs, restaurants, cafes allow smoking in their places, and make people know full well that there's smoking in those buildings. Therefor, only people who smoke or don't mind smoky atmospheres will work/attend and then the sort of non-smokers who feel the need to make everyone who smokes feel bad about how they're "murderers" will be safely cooped up in clean air - drinking themselves to death, since that is acceptable - and people who smoke can enjoy themselves in a run down tavern.

Also, let smoky joints serve food, too, and drinks obviously, and maybe the food there will be better than in the clean places, now that would be a laugh, people who can't even taset their food, eating better food than those who can taste it.

And, smoking is cool, everybody knows that.
Quote by DrewsGotTheLife
yea man, who ever doesnt like pantera or think they suck doesnt like metal, end of discussion, they changed the freakin world n made history, so don't be sayin they suck, have respect, same goes for machine head n lamb of god cuz their good too
#40
Quote by blynd_snyper
This is a step towards the eventual banning of tabacco. Just like the Nazis didn't round up the Jews and send them on the trains immediately, they edged in closer and closer. (Bad analogy I know, but it's all I care to think of right now).

The government has a place in telling us what we can and can't do, but not to the extent that they're doing at the moment.

Anyway, I'm not getting into a discussion now as this is really a political debate now and I'm not going to hijack this thread. Also, you don't seem to understand libertarianism.

So to that end, good day sir.



I call Godwin

*EDIT

Damn, beaten to it!

TIME


...I've created my own time signature. Geddit?

Are You a PROG-HEAD? I am.
Page 1 of 3