Smokers – selfish scum or persecuted minority?

MDWilliams185 states: "First, second hand smoke is no danger as many studies have proven. "

I am a professor and a researcher, and my response here is based solely on the one study you posted a link to - I remember this study, and the firestorm it created. So, first let's be clear, even if we assume this to be a valid and reliable study, it didn't state there was no danger, what it stated was that the level of danger was lower than was being estimated in other studies. However, the study contained some serious methodological flaws which call its validity and reliability into question. A study which isn't reliable and valid is basically worthless except as a lesson in what not to do when conducting research.

This flaws in this study stem in large part from the fact that it is difficult for any study that examines humans over the long run in an uncontrolled environment, In this study, at the time the original data was collected, there were few limits on smoking, so you can't eliminate a major confounding variable (exposures from other sources besides one's spouse). This is a major confounder, as even if a non-smoker is married to a non-smoker, this doesn't mean that they aren't exposed to second hand smoke at the work site or from other family members. So, for the study to be valid, it needed to tighten its controls to eliminate other possible sources of exposure. They couldn't do this as the researchers were reviewing previously collected data (secondary data). This leads us to the second problem, which stems from their use of this second-hand data after being warned that the data might not be 'good'. The researchers were warned by the 'owners' of that the data they were examining that it had not been collected in such a way that the research question the researchers were posing could be validly answered. If a study isn't valid it simply means it wasn't measuring what it claimed to be measuring. If that is the case, then its highly unlikely that the results can be found if the study is repeated with a new population so its results aren't reliable.

In support of my comments, I think it should be noted that, after more analysis, the BMJ, the journal that published that article, published a piece describing the research as being “fundamentally flawed". Why did the researchers persist in examining data that they knew might not produce a valid and reliable study result? The American Medical Journal had refused to publish the article for the same flaws, as well as an additional problem. This problem stems from the fact that this study is fraught with the potential for researcher bias. Both of the study authors had long histories as consultants/researchers for tobacco interests and this study was largely funded by those same interests. This is why today researchers must clearly identify their funding sources when submitting research.

As I remembered these discussions, but didn't have specific references to them I took a look around the internet and found this piece. Its published by a clearly anti-smoking group (so is potentially biased) BUT it has a great list of references if anyone wants to dig them up to assess the accuracy of the site's conclusions - http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333

I don't smoke and never have. Would also never date someone who did.

With that said, your comments have been incredibly ignorant. Everyone has lived under different circumstances. Many people have lived around smokers their entire lives (parents) and many haven't had the education about smoking that many of us have. Some people have friends who've peer-pressured them while they were young and easily influenced.

It doesn't take a genius to see why someone would 'try' smoking and could potentially get addicted.

You never have, I never have. Good for us. But get off your high horse and realize that many people aren't as fortunate.

I had a procedure done on Monday and the woman in the bed next to me had emphysema severely and never smoked a day in her life and neither did her parents etc, she could not recall ever being around cigarette smoke so it may not entirely be the cigarette smoke thats causing such health problems, it could be all the pollutants in the air we breathe.

Until companies stop polluting the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food they serve us and everything else, I will continue to enjoy my only vice, I mean after all it is perfectly legal.

I am very considerate of non-smokers as long as they give the same consideration.

I am going through this thread and I am not sure it's been brought up but, in my experience, smokers tend to litter. A LOT. In that respect, I would say they are selfish scum.

Not all. I will go out of my way to find an ashtray or trashcan or put a butt in my pocket before throwing it on the ground. I've seen plenty of non-smoking people that litter, so that is a pretty generalized stereotype. :flowerforyou:

I'm a smoker - I don't smoke in my house, I smoke outside it. I don't smoke in my car either. Oh and I don't smoke around children, or around my non-smoking friends if I can help it! The one thing that does get me is pregnant women smoking - yes I know its their choice, but I see that as being selfish (my sister in law smoked constantly whilst pregnant, and unfortunatley lost 2 children - not saying its because of this, but it could of been a factor - and now the 2 children she does have both have bad asthma, again, don't know if it is caused by the smoking whilst pregnant - but it doesnt help)

When I smoke at work, it is on the roof, away from people who would likely walk past and cough and splutter because I'm "polluting their air" - what about all the car fumes you inhale - do you cough and splutter everytime one of them goes past you? If anyone does this to me now whilst I'm walking to work, and enjoying my pre-work ciggie, I make a point of blowing the smoke toward them and try and keep up with them - petty, I know - but if you can be like that then so can I!

When I go to the pub, I smoke outside, away from the door (if I can unless there's some inconsiderate non-smoker taking up my space!)

There are so many rude people on here - everyone has their own vices, and not everyone may agree with them, but not everyone goes on about it, and tries to change people!

Oh boo hoo the poor children. And there is no allergy to smoke. Anyone that says they are allergic to smoke is lying. Alleriges are caused by various proteins and cig smoke contains no proteins.

Sweet. Please tell that to my sinuses. Because everytime I attend a show in a smoky bar, my nose pours blood the next day.
And make sure my eyes get the memo cause they burn like hell when I'm around smoke...

Burning eyes caused by smoke is not an allergic reaction. But my advice would be to not attend places that allow smoking. If you do that, then i guarantee you will not have burning eyes caused by cig smoke.

I'm not a fan of people who smoke in public. I think it's rude.

Bottom line is you shouldn't really have the right to smoke in public. It is an addiction, and I hate it for you, but do it at home. Aside from bothering people with allergies or asthma, you're also setting a bad example for the kids that may be around you.................

Oh boo hoo the poor children. And there is no allergy to smoke. Anyone that says they are allergic to smoke is lying. Alleriges are caused by various proteins and cig smoke contains no proteins.

they didn't say allergic to smoke, they said 'people with allergies or asthma'....


I have allergies.
Smoke irritates me, makes me feel sick

Then I would give you the same advice. Dont attend places that allow smoking. Simple fix.

As a smoker I will say that our government over governs. Smokers had their own smoking sections in most restaurants and smoking rooms in hotels. But with the nanny government we allow to control us, those things in most places no longer exist. Most of that is because of very left leaning liberals who are trying to save ourselves from ourselves. I dont need or want their f@cking help. I revolt by simply not eating out at restaurants and will not stay in hotels that do not support my desire to do what is legal. I cant wait for the government to come after what ever you like to do, that is for the ones who are hitleresque in their rabid hate of smokers. Your time will come and I will be smoking away watching what you want to do be denied. I hope it comes for you soon enough.

I think its annoying that non smokers seem to think its ok to lecture smokers.

Hers the thing, I'm an adult, its my body and I'll do it if I want. If I get cancer I will not blame anyone else.

I don;t go into McDonalds poking fat people telling them they are killing themselves.

I smoked for several years. I have been completely cigarette free for probably 5 months now, but slowly weaning for like 5 months before that. I don't have a problem with people who smoke. However, you don't realize how bad you smell. When I walk into a store and someone walks past me, I can immediately tell they are a smoker. They stink to high heaven. I also think it's ridiculous when you walk into a store/restaurant and there's a group of smokers right next to the door and you have to walk through a cloud of smoke to walk inside. It reeks! Or I watch people leaving a store and as soon as they get just into the foyer, they're already pulled out their cigarette and lighter and as soon as they exit, they're already lit up. Jeez, do you really need a cigarette THAT bad?