Asthma Triggers Call for Smoking Ban
Jacob Sullum | February 11, 2008, 10:36am
An article in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine attributes the death of a Michigan waitress to an asthma attack triggered by secondhand smoke in the bar where she worked. The title of this dispassionate scientific study is "How Many Deaths Will It Take?" The authors, who say "this is the first reported acute asthma death associated with work-related ETS," conclude "this death dramatizes the need to enact legal protections for workers in the hospitality industry from secondhand smoke." That's one way of looking at it. One might also suggest this death dramatizes the need for people with asthma to take their medication, or to avoid smoky bars if they don't:
[Lead author Kenneth] Rosenman said the woman had asthma since age 2. Her asthma was poorly controlled. She had made four visits to her doctor in the year before her death for flare-ups, and had been treated in a hospital emergency department two to three times that year.
Although she had prescriptions for an assortment of drugs to prevent and treat asthma attacks, she was reported to only use them when she was having breathing difficulty.
On the evening of her death, she had no inhaler with her. When she became sick, she told the bar manager she needed to go to the hospital, then collapsed on the dance floor.
Bar patrons offered an inhaler and the woman tried to use it, but could not. Emergency response workers were unable to revive her and she died shortly thereafter.
Here is a list of asthma attack triggers provided by the University of Virginia Health System. Along with tobacco smoke, it includes pollen, mold, animal dander, dust, dust mites, cockroaches, certain foods, air pollutants, wood smoke, "strong odors and sprays such as perfumes, household cleaners, cooking fumes, paints, and varnishes," "chemicals such as coal, chalk dust, or talcum powder," "changing weather conditions, including changes in temperature, barometric pressure, humidity, and strong winds," and "chemical exposure on the job, such as occupational vapors, dust, gases, or fumes." In addition to casting doubt on the explanation for this particular woman's death, this lengthy list raises the question of why the demand for a ban focuses on just one asthma trigger. How many deaths will it take before people with asthma are protected from perfume and pets?
[Thanks to D-FENS for the tip.]
LightningBoy | February 11, 2008, 3:29pm | #
As the owner of a restaurant (which IS private property) I should be able to reasonably expect that I can design an environment to attract the targeted audience of MY choice. In this case that would be citizens that smoke, specifically because they are clearly in the minority and I can offer an environment that suits their personal preference. This would be good for the bottom line of the business. A Non-smoking environment by force of law diminishes my ability to differentiate my business (menu aside)from any other non-smoking establishment, thereby bolstering the idiotic "level playing field" BS. There is no such animal in what is now laughingly referred to as a "free market economy".
Simple signage is all that is required.
"No Smoking", or 'Smoking Permitted"
In a state that uses "at will" employment law; so long as my hiring policies do not violate EEOC or ADA laws, only smokers could be considered to fill the necessary staffing positions therby eliminating the equally fallacious propaganda of "forcing" employees to "choose between health and job". Police and Fire personnel make this choice everyday, as do high-rise window washers, high-steel construction workers etc. to name just a few, and many of them smoke as well. (Double RISK?!)
Having a staff that smokes, catering to patrons that smoke would provide for an all around much more plesant experience for all concerned, except for the most militant Anti-Tobacco proponents bent on saving smokers from themselves, whether they want or need that help, or not. The average indifferent Non-smokers need only decline the open invitation to enter the premises. It really should be no more difficult than this.
Militant Non-smokers however, that routinely, and gleefuly site that they are in fact the majority, really should have no issue here as they also routinely site how many bars and restaurant are voluntarily adopting "smoke free" policies.
Good for them,... they should support those specific businesses that they are so happy with, but this leaves approximately 55 million people (smokers) literally "out in the cold" and it simply isn't necessary. This makes the militant Anti-smokers appear, not as concerned for someone elses health, but purely vindictive, greedy, or selfish,... maybe all of these things.
It just seems that smoking bans are like trying to douse a candle using Niagara Falls to do it. It's Overkill, and if nothing else, it's not at all representative of the marketplace.
LightningBoy | February 11, 2008, 8:21pm | #
Owners preference aside, until the smoking ban was made official here, there was no issue.
Smokers and non-smokers were living together in harmony. If one didn't smoke, or for any reason didn't wish to be in that environment, then they simply didn't come in. Business was good. The idea of a blanket ban, while making Anti-smokers feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves, really is an insult to all thinking adults, Smokers and Non-smokers alike. Smokers take about 1 second to weigh the decision and easily choose the smoking environment in spite of the non-smokers preference that they choose otherwise. Even many non-smokers would routinely choose the smoking allowed environment with little or no additional thought required.
Non-smokers don't buy into the "science" that ETS is dangerous, or they simply don't care.
Anti-smokers however (a very vocal subgroup of non-smokers) can't grasp why smokers would choose they way they do, and are motivated by their faith in the same "science" that the majority of non-smokers and certainly the overwhelmong majority of smokers completely disregard as pharmaceutical company driven propaganda.
Simple signage is all that is required, ....and the basic ability to read and understand it. Smokers routinely abstained or went somewhere else before the ban, but now that it's prohibited everywhere, they have no choice of venue to accomodate them.
This doesn't reflect the basic principle, and purpose the "free market" at all.
The entire issue has been blown way out of proportion in comparrison to the size of the potential risk of ETS.
Burning candle, ...Niagara Falls,...overkill.
Lynda Farley | February 21, 2008, 3:36pm | #
Interesting, there is almost NO statistically significant correlation of asthma with smoking (and even some studies showing NEGATIVE correlations), and in fact, I personally know some who claim starting smoking STOPPED THEIR asthma, including my new son in law. But asthma DOES correlate highly with EMOTIONAL/STRESS issues. Since smoking is often a SELF TREATMENT for STRESS, and cigarette smoke IN FACT IS 98% WATER VAPOR(!), this DOES make sense. And, many folks ARE highly suggestible, and get PHYSICAL symptoms due merely to their 'beliefs'. This used to be called 'hysterical' somatic symptoms.
"Luparello et al.(1971) instructed a group (40) of asthmatics and a similarly sized control group that they were participating in a study of air pollution. It was explained that the study was to determine what concentrations of various substances would induce wheezing. The asthmatics were advised that they would be inhaling five different concentrations of an irritant or an allergen that had previously been determined as a contributing cause of their asthma attacks. Although both asthmatics and controls were given only five NON-ALLERGENIC SALINE(caps MINE!) solutions to inhale, asthmatics were led to believe that each successive sample would have a higher concentration of the allergen; controls were advised that they would be inhaling pollutants which could irritate the bronchial tubes, and make it difficult for them to breathe. (caps mine again).... SIGNIFICANT AIRWAY OBSTRUCTION OCCURRED FOR 14 of the FORTY ASTHMATIC SUBJECTS; 12 OF THESE DEVELOPED FULL BLOWN ATTACKS. (VERY INTERESTING==>) Respiratory symptoms were NOT observed in ANY of the controls. Even more interestingly, the twelve subjects that had developed full-blown attacks were told that they were being given a bronchodilator to inhale when in fact it was the SAME SALINE SOLUTION. THE CONDITION OF ALL TWELVE IMPROVED, CONFIRMING THE ROLE OF SUGGESTION IN SOME ASTHMATICS" From the book, Rampant Anti-smoking Signifies Grave Danger - Materialism Out of Control, by Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD., Copyright Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD 2003. This illustrates the NOCEBO effect. It is sort of the converse of the 'placebo' effect, but instead of positive responses based on belief that the 'sugar pill' is a helpful medicine (placebo effect), it is NEGATIVE PHYSICAL effects induced by BELIEF that something is 'harmful'.
Folks, I remember when I was younger I NEVER saw prescription drugs marketed to the public AT ALL, let alone in the AGGRESSIVE manner I see TV, and ALL print media (including so called 'health' information) FLOODED with this propaganda these days. And, I think the United States of America and New Zealand are the ONLY TWO countries in the WORLD that are allowing such direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to the public. The potential for nocebo effects is STAGGERING, and will bankrupt our medical care system.
The pharmaceutical industry, especially the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (who owns Johnson and Johnson and the PATENT FOR NICODERM!) has irresponsibly spent hundreds of billions of dollars over several DECADES now, to BRAINWASH a large part of the population into the false, IRRATIONAL belief that we are being 'killed off' by cigarette smoke. Never mind that the so called 'science' of epidemiology has completely THROWN OUT ALL the criteria for REAL scientific proof of cause and effect, and all they are using are Relative Risk ratios, as so called 'proof' of cause and effect. Relative risk ratios are no more than COINCIDENCES, and can NOT 'prove' cause and effect, else I've proved that my rooster crowing causes the sun to come up, as there is a 100% correlation. Eating five or more hot dogs a week, drinking whole milk, and many other nonsensical correlations can be found with LUNG CANCER in the literature that are MUCH HIGHER than 'environmental tobacco smoke' and lung cancer. And, the 'relative risk ratios' they have been using to base their 'proof' that smokING 'causes' lung cancer are only LESS THAN 10% - including ALL LIFE TIME HEAVY smokers. For forty years and less, 98.3% of smokERS DO NOT get lung cancer, proving CONCLUSIVELY that smoking can NOT POSSIBLY BE a 'primary' OR a 'single cause' of lung cancer, yet, we are DROWNED in propaganda that 'smoking causes lung cancer'. And, after 40 years of smoking, the stats are converging with AGE related increases in all cancers. The standard to even DISCUSS POSSIBLE 'cause and effect' with relative risk ratios is correlations OVER 60%. ALL other relative risk ratios for ALL other diseases in smokERS are near ZERO. ALL of the relative risk ratios reported for so called 'second hand smoke' are EFFECTIVELY ZERO. All the propaganda has done is created NEUROSIS and tobaccoPHOBIA among the public on a PANDEMIC scale, and it seems that ANY AND ALL turning society upside down, and ANY AND ALL EXPENSE is justified to attempt to appease people's NEUROTIC FEARS. Children are being removed from loving parents on the basis of NON existent 'risk' of smoke. Belleville, IL right now is forcing 80 and 90 year old folks to hike outdoors through rain, snow, and ice, with their walkers, canes, and wheel chairs, to get 15 feet away from the nearest building, where there is NO shelter whatsoever from the elements, to 'enjoy' a smoke at their retirement HOMES. This is not only CRUEL, it is EVIL.
Please do some HONEST RESEARCH on this issue. This is EXACTLY WHAT ADOLPH HITLER started with, when he was trying to 'create' the 'perfect society'. Hitler is the first one who attempted to promote the idea that 'smoking causes lung cancer'. He and his henchmen stated the philosophy, 'tell a lie, tell it often enough, and eventually everyone will believe it.' Guess that's true. They were running eerily SIMILAR anti-smoking propaganda campaigns in the schools of Nazi Germany, that we are running in our own schools in the USA today. And, just as there was no way to 'appease' Hitler, there is NO way to 'appease' NEUROTICS. EVERY attempt to coddle them by removing the external stimulus onto which they've projected their INTERNAL psychological 'issues' just REINFORCES their irrational beliefs, and causes them to react to even SMALLER stimuli. Some even claim to be having physical reactions to the mere SIGHT of tobacco smoke. Smokers, try this - carry an UNLIT cigarette around in some venues. You will find some anti-smokers COMPLAINING - even if there is NO SMOKE AT ALL.
Folks, cigarette smoke is IN FACT 98% WATER VAPOR, and ALL the chemicals in there are also WIDELY available in your FOOD, WATER, coming from the exhaust pipe of any internal combustion engine, or building materials, in THOUSANDS of times HIGHER concentrations. If you are truly 'frightened' of cigarette smoke, that is understandable. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on anti-smoking propaganda over decades now, and I realize most folks did NOT ask to be brainwashed. But in reality, there is NOT ONE SHRED of REAL SCIENTIFIC basis for those fears. If you are so frightened of smoke, you must QUIT EATING, DRINKING WATER, STAY AWAY from ANY operating internal combustion engine, and watch out for formaldehyde in paneling and other chemicals in building materials. GOOD luck with that.
LOTS more info at www.forces.org
