The "other" danger of playing in most casinos

[johndoe]

AM is correct

I don't have the paper references handy (google it), but there is solid evidence that SMALL, long-term exposure to low-level toxins (such as cigarette smoke) measurably reduces the incidents of cancer. The optimal exposure level is small (probably less than a day of second-hand smoke), but it's most certainly greater than zero. If I remember right it's around 1 cigarette per day worth.

This also goes for various polluted areas, where cancer rates were surprisingly reduced. Something similar may happen in Japan, at least in some areas.

While the statistics are clear, the mechanisms aren't fully understood. The leading opinion is that slight stresses from environmental toxins kill off cancer cells just a bit faster than other cells, and before as many mutate to become malignant.

Obviously this kind of subject is taboo (pollution is good!), but objectively the evidence is solid.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

No solutions, only tradeoffs

Interesting that it apparently lowers your stress; seeing that the long-accepted findings show that smoking causes heart rate to go up. Hmmm, faster your heart beats, the less stress you feel? Amazing... Let's not even mention the 2000+ chemicals that are (primarily) added to the tobacco so that the damn stuff burns, and keeps on smouldering without going out. The vast army of chemists working for Tobacco companies are always fiddling with their formulae. Their job is to keep you hooked and make you believe your cigarette is helping your stress levels. Hey AM, as a physicist, I thought you knew all this stuff. It's been around a long time already.

So what is the effect of inhaling the hugely-toxic fumes of so many differing chemicals? As science has already proved; it's devastating for human health. Science also already has proved that side-stream (second hand) smoke is even more dangerous than 'normal' smoke.

Someone who smokes obviously doesn't give a sh*t about his own health. As for others' health, forget it. :eyepatch:

It doesn't do anything to my stress. I don't smoke and never have, and I feel the same pain as every other non-smoker in the casino. One time I was getting over a cold and still had a bad cough, and when I went into the casino and the smoke hit me I started coughing so hard I :vomit:. So I left, because I was the one who was sick.

The dose is the poison, and anyone who works with chemicals will tell you that. Most of what we consume contains toxic chemicals. Looking at chemicals qualitatively instead of quantitatively is worthless. Some people find it has beneficial effects. Take a guy who is very obese, let's say he can trade in one Twinkie a day for one cig a day with no decrease in metabolism due to the stimulant effect of the nicotine. Now one Twinkie a day adds up to about 10 pounds a year in body weight. You can't prove that one cig a day will hurt you, but I can prove that an obese person losing 10 pounds a year will help him.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Simple Question

Does the right of a smoker in a public building trump that of a person with a respiratory disease?

Who has the right to breathe as they see fit?

 

[blackjack avenger]

Two Arguments

Is 2nd hand smoke bad?

If the above is true, does one have rights to smoke and injure others?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Does the right of a smoker in a public building trump that of a person with a respiratory disease?

Who has the right to breathe as they see fit?

Within reason, I'd say yes. People who have special conditions need to take care of themselves and can't expect everyone else to accommodate them. There are some people who can't even go outside if there is a lot of smog or pollen and I think someone with asthma so severe that they will have an attack in a smoky room just needs to avoid smoky rooms. We would give up a lot of freedom if we tried to accommodate every person with a condition.

Again it's a quantitative thing. If 20-30% of the population had asthma attacks when exposed to cigarette smoke it would be wise to ban it, but if it's under 1% it's harder to justify messing with the much larger percentage of people who want to smoke.

 

[arrando]

While cigarette smoke is as annoying to me as anyone, it's status as a health hazard to the non-smoker is something created by lawyers, not scientists. A person who smokes a cigarette a day has no health risk and may even get some health benefit, while a person merely sitting in a smoky room all day receives far less contamination than a person smoking a single cigarette.

not according to this...

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/20/2684.full?ijkey=7e194bc08c429e71c69f8f855ec12f668d6e3172

 

[arrando]

While cigarette smoke is as annoying to me as anyone, it's status as a health hazard to the non-smoker is something created by lawyers, not scientists. A person who smokes a cigarette a day has no health risk and may even get some health benefit, while a person merely sitting in a smoky room all day receives far less contamination than a person smoking a single cigarette.

"light" smoking doesn't have benefits

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315.full.pdf

 

[arrando]

. For the longest time we thought alcohol was dangerous, now we know that moderate drinking is the best thing for you.

Actually, its not. A low level of drinking (such as a glass of red wine a day) has the benefit of heart protection. However, any level of alcohol consumption poses an increased risk of cancer.

 

[aslan]

I don't have the paper references handy (google it), but there is solid evidence that SMALL, long-term exposure to low-level toxins (such as cigarette smoke) measurably reduces the incidents of cancer. The optimal exposure level is small (probably less than a day of second-hand smoke), but it's most certainly greater than zero. If I remember right it's around 1 cigarette per day worth.

This also goes for various polluted areas, where cancer rates were surprisingly reduced. Something similar may happen in Japan, at least in some areas.

While the statistics are clear, the mechanisms aren't fully understood. The leading opinion is that slight stresses from environmental toxins kill off cancer cells just a bit faster than other cells, and before as many mutate to become malignant.

Obviously this kind of subject is taboo (pollution is good!), but objectively the evidence is solid.

Sorry, don't buy it. For whatever benefit you can find for a small amount of poison, there must be hundreds of other substances you can use that have only benefits and no risk of accidentally imbibing unacceptable levels. I mean, who takes a little rat poison every day because it has been shown to have some minimal benefit for high blood pressure (I made that up)? Don't eat or drink poisons to the best of your ability to avoid them. That's what I think makes most sense. If you do decide that something like cigarettes will have an overall beneficial result, do it under a doctor's supervision (if you can find one that buys into your thought).

 

[Katweezel]

If you do decide that something like cigarettes will have an overall beneficial result, do it under a doctor's supervision (if you can find one that buys into your thought).

As I recall, the Tobacco industry managed to find (and pay well) a battalion of medical doctors who were able to 'prove' that smoking was not really harmful. Big Smoke lost and it cost them a packet. Meanwhile, have a Marlboro; on the off chance it might do you some gud. Cough cought, herk herk.

 

[Tree]

"Hey Doc, is tobacco bad for people?"

"It's terrible, here's 123461731781 different reasons why it will kill those that smoke it, and here 1412312315 different ways it harms those around the smoker."

*Briefcase of money*

"Are you sure?"

"Sure about what? Like I said, it's good for you."

 

[aslan]

As I recall, the Tobacco industry managed to find (and pay well) a battalion of medical doctors who were able to 'prove' that smoking was not really harmful. Big Smoke lost and it cost them a packet. Meanwhile, have a Marlboro; on the off chance it might do you some gud. Cough cought, herk herk.

If you go out of your way to find a doctor who will agree to some preposterous idea like taking heroin in small doses, just remember that you're only fooling yourself. I'm sure there are many doctors who will agree to anything for enough cash. Take for instance, Michael Jackson's doctor, or that famous blond stripper's doctor (can't remember her name), both who allowed massive doses of harmful drugs. It's a dilemma whether to legalize drugs or not. At least it would eliminate part of the crime element attached to it, but you would still have to enforce drug prohibition in the case of children. What concerns me is when I hear, and I just recently did hear, a person say that cocaine is not a harmful drug. They said that they had been taking it for years, and it only had benefits for them. Of course that same person has enphyzema and a bad heart, but he doesn't attribute either in any way linked to cocaine and pot use. He is a heavy cigarette smoker as well.

 

[Tree]

or that famous blond stripper's doctor (can't remember her name)

Anna Nicole Smith?

 

[aslan]

Anna Nicole Smith?

That's her.

 

[KenSmith]

Years from now it will be unimaginable that smoking was ever allowed in public places.

I suffer effects every single week because of my exposure to secondhand smoke in casinos. It takes me two days afterward to recover from the "smokers" cough. Unfortunately I usually don't have two day periods between exposure. I feel certain that I have suffered permanent damage from this.

I have actually reduced my sessions and ev because of smoke and I expect to do so further. Smokers use all kinds of self-delusion to justify their behavior or to convince themselves they're not hurting anyone. It's obviously not true.

This is an issue that is very real in my life at the moment, especially with my father currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer. He smoked for most of his life.

If a nearby smoker's cigarette increases my chance of suffering that fate by even a tiny percentage, that's a pretty hefty offset to my win rate. But, even if you take cancer off the table, don't I have a right to breathe clean air? Kill yourself if you want. Just don't inflict your habit on me.

 

[Tree]

Years from now it will be unimaginable that smoking was ever allowed in public places.

I suffer effects every single week because of my exposure to secondhand smoke in casinos. It takes me two days afterward to recover from the "smokers" cough. Unfortunately I usually don't have two day periods between exposure. I feel certain that I have suffered permanent damage from this.

I have actually reduced my sessions and ev because of smoke and I expect to do so further. Smokers use all kinds of self-delusion to justify their behavior or to convince themselves they're not hurting anyone. It's obviously not true.

This is an issue that is very real in my life at the moment, especially with my father currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer. He smoked for most of his life.

If a nearby smoker's cigarette increases my chance of suffering that fate by even a tiny percentage, that's a pretty hefty offset to my win rate. But, even if you take cancer off the table, don't I have a right to breathe clean air? Kill yourself if you want. Just don't inflict your habit on me.

You hit it right on the head...

I can relate completely to what you're saying, since I have the same problem. I get very sick from being around cigarette smoke; it's not an allergy but I have a very low tolerence.

When I was growing up in Northern Ontario, smoking was everywhere including restaurants where the division between smoking tables and non was a wall no higher than 4 feet with tables against each side. They eventually banned it everywhere in Canada, but still allow it on uncovered patios (which I think is bloody stupid due to wind). It baffles me that the U.S. hasn't done the same, but I'm sure there are reasons...not good reasons, but reasons disguised as such.

I lost my grandfather to cancer, a loss I still can't come to terms with after 7 years. You and your family have my sincere best wishes.

 

[UK-21]

I have similar views on those who smoke dope and argue it's not addictive or harmful to do so.

A friend from the past who ended up in a psyche ward, after many years of indulging in this "harmless" pursuit, is testament to that. This screwed up his life, and the last time I met up with him he was part of the great UK benefit dependency culture, his wife having left him and not having seen his son in many years.

If you want to smoke dope that's a matter of choice - but acknowledge the risks and don't try and kid yourself or others that there are no adverse health effects in doing so.

Rant over.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It's true, I expose myself to a high risk of death every time I go to the casino.

And that risk abates dramatically once I park my car and walk inside the casino, reducing my chances of being a traffic fatality to nearly zero. Driving is by far the riskiest thing most of us do.

Smoking is definitely a health hazard to the smoker. To a non-smoker it stinks, it is obnoxious, it makes it less pleasant to be in the casino, and if someone has a serious respiratory ailment it can aggravate it to the point where they might not be able to go to casinos without oxygen, and we've all seen the oxygen tanks. All that is true. But I am not going to get a fatal disease from sitting in a room where someone is smoking a cigarette, and I refuse to attribute to it a power it does not have.

 

[ChefJJ]

If you want to smoke dope that's a matter of choice - but acknowledge the risks and don't try and kid yourself or others that there are no adverse health effects in doing so.

Some people have destructive addictive personalities, and if it weren't for the "dope" in your friend's case, it probably would have been the booze or something else. Genetics and people's chemical makeups are very powerful, but certainly aren't the only things in play.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Tree]

It's true, I expose myself to a high risk of death every time I go to the casino.

And that risk abates dramatically once I park my car and walk inside the casino, reducing my chances of being a traffic fatality to nearly zero. Driving is by far the riskiest thing most of us do.

Smoking is definitely a health hazard to the smoker. To a non-smoker it stinks, it is obnoxious, it makes it less pleasant to be in the casino, and if someone has a serious respiratory ailment it can aggravate it to the point where they might not be able to go to casinos without oxygen, and we've all seen the oxygen tanks. All that is true. But I am not going to get a fatal disease from sitting in a room where someone is smoking a cigarette, and I refuse to attribute to it a power it does not have.

Are you honestly saying that second hand smoke isnt a health hazard? I'm hoping I read that wrong.