Just Ban Smoking - Then Legalize Marijuana
    By News Staff | December 18th 2013 05:24 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    California academics have found that banning smoking - including inside the home and in entire cities - will reduce smoking.

    This makes sense. The death penalty also cuts recidivism of criminals by 100 percent, yet we don't use it for every crime. Meanwhile, Californians want to legalize marijuana, which involve smoking. 

    Wael K. Al-Delaimy, MD, PhD, professor and chief of the Division of Global Health in the UC San Diego Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, says a survey underscores the public health importance of smoking bans inside and outside the home as a way to change smoking behaviors and reduce tobacco consumption at individual and societal levels. 

    "When there's a total smoking ban in the home, we found that smokers are more likely to reduce tobacco consumption and attempt to quit than when they're allowed to smoke in some parts of the house. California was the first state in the world to ban smoking in public places in 1994 and we are still finding the positive impact of that ban by changing the social norm and having more homes and cities banning smoking," he said.

    Well, it was a survey. That is not really what we call qualitative. Al-Delaimy and colleagues surveyed 1,718 current smokers and found that total home smoking bans were significantly associated with reduced consumption and successful quitting, but partial bans were not. Similarly, smokers who report smoking is broadly banned in their city were also more likely to attempt to quit and succeed than in places where smoking is not banned. 

    They then declared based on the survey results that total home bans were more effective in reducing smoking among persons 65 years and older and among females, while city smoking bans were significantly associated with quit attempts in males, but not females. Total home bans, in surveys, were more effective in households without children, possibly reflecting the ultimate goal of cessation rather than primarily reducing children's secondhand smoke exposure. Neither race nor income significantly modified relations between total home bans and smoking reductions.

    "These results provide quantitative evidence that smoking bans that are mainly for the protection of nonsmokers from risks of secondhand smoke actually encourage quitting behaviors among smokers in California."

    Well, second-hand smoke is another matter. Banning fireplaces would help more people with breathing issues than banning cigarettes would. And California has also declared war on hamburger grills. When it comes to banning personal conduct for someone else, Californians frequently invoke this notion of leadership. Only really crazy ideas, like warning labels on genetically modified foods, can't get passed statewide. In San Francisco, it probably could. 

    Published in Preventive Medicine.


    It appears OSHA had it right all those years ago………..and weve had to endure 30 years of second hand B.S.

    As Mike points out here on the Forbes story:

    The only category of exposure that showed a trend
    toward increased risk was living in the same
    house with a smoker for 30 years or more.”

    A Confidence Interval **THAT INCLUDES 1.0** is now being stated, in a scientific journal, to be STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT! Oh, yes, they add a weasel-word qualifier of “borderline” but that’s sort of like the Princess Bride guy saying “Well, he’s only MOSTLY dead.” or you trying to tell your girlfriend’s dad that “I only got her a LITTLE BIT pregnant!”

    There’s no such thing as a finding with 1.0 being counted as statistically significant. At least not in any NORMAL science. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it even in the perverted world of antismoking science

    Then we look to OSHA standards

    The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

    I was thinking about this if exposure is at 30 years and that’s roughly 168 hours per week and OSHA allows 40 hours a week that would tend to put the standard for a bar or waitress or casino staff at roughly 160 years of a safe workplace………Going by OSHA and the 30 year work rule as compared to the study.

    This DESTROYS all the fabled second hand smoke myth!

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

    The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
    “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
    The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
    Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008

    This is a Swedish study.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
    Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14