Another issue with smoking...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So, I don't care for cigarettes.  I grew up with both parents as smokers.  My stepdad liked to get upset when I would roll my car window down in the summertime because he had the AC on. Lovely lovely times.  Well it turns out there is another way tobacco smoke is problematic:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-worry-smokers-families-thirdhand-smoke/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=newshour

From the article:

New findings highlight the scientific community’s efforts to identify potential dangers of another byproduct of cigarettes that may slip past Miller’s precautions and affect his kids: “thirdhand smoke.”

A recent study in the journal Tobacco Control found high levels of nicotine on the hands of children of smokers, raising concerns about thirdhand smoke, a name given to the nicotine and chemical residue left behind from cigarette and cigar smoke that can cling to skin, hair, clothes, rugs and walls. This thin film can be picked up by touch or released back into the air when disturbed.

The researchers examined 25 children who arrived at an emergency room with breathing problems associated with secondhand smoke exposure.

They discovered the average level of nicotine on the children’s hands was more than three times higher than the level of nicotine found on the hands of non-smoking adults who live with smokers. They said nicotine on the skin of a nonsmoker is a good proxy to measure exposure to thirdhand smoke.

“Because nicotine is specific to tobacco, its presence on children’s hands may serve as a proxy of tobacco smoke pollution in their immediate environment,” the researchers wrote.

They also found that all but one of the children had detectable levels in their saliva of cotinine, a biomarker for exposure to nicotine. All of the children in the study had parents who smoked but did not smoke themselves.

 

 

So, smoking really bad for you and those around you even when you take the time to move away from people when you smoke.  That sucks.

[Ded As Ned]

This is a very bad study to draw any conclusions that are made in the article.  Smoke is bad.  Smoke residue is bad.  Duh. 

But if you read the actual study (it's only a page long), it doesn't draw any conclusions other than children of parents who smoke have some trace nicotine residue on their hands and in their saliva.  No children of non-smokers were tested. Also remember, nicotine in and of itself is fairly harmless unless consumed in massive doses.  It's the other shit in the smoke that is horribly bad for you (particularly the carcinogens, of which nicotine is not). None of the actual, harmful stuff in tobacco smoke was looked for, only nicotine.  The assumption being that the presence of nicotine indicates exposure to the bad substances in the smoke.  But they didn't compare the levels to those of children not exposed to tobacco smoke.

45 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

They discovered the average level of nicotine on the children’s hands was more than three times higher than the level of nicotine found on the hands of non-smoking adults who live with smokers. They said nicotine on the skin of a nonsmoker is a good proxy to measure exposure to thirdhand smoke

The study never mentions this, and the article gives no reference as to where they're getting this data from.  It may be factual and accurate, but even then, you're comparing apples to oranges.  Compare it to the level in children who live with smokers.

 

Yet the study has been picked up by 70 and counting news outlets.  

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Non smoker here, but exposure to third hand smoke seems trivial. I wonder if anyone is studying the 2nd and third hand exposure to the bombing armaments the U.S. drops all over Middle Eastern populations, depleted Uranium and other toxic residues? That seems so much more relevant and dangerous than some smoky smelling clothes on suburbanites.

[aceluby]

While nicotine itself is not a carcinogen, it is a known carcinogen enhancer.

[Ded As Ned]

Ace, maybe so.  Doesn't change the fact that this is another example of a study that doesn't really accomplish or conclude anything useful being used in the news to drum up fear and clicks. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Smoking still sucks and is terrible for the smoker and the people around the smoker.

[Robin Of House Hill]

The insanity of a country bearing the cost of providing healthcare to users of tobacco products, because it doesn't have the sense to make their production illegal.

[Swordfish]

14 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The insanity of a country bearing the cost of providing healthcare to users of tobacco products, because it doesn't have the sense to make their production illegal.

Or alcohol.  or fried food....  MIRITE?

It's not like prohibition has been shown to be costly to society before or anything.

[Ded As Ned]

While we're at it, we should also prohibit illegal drug use.  Those healthcare costs are up there with obesity and tobacco use as well.  

[Robin Of House Hill]

12 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Or alcohol.  or fried food....  MIRITE?

It's not like prohibition has been shown to be costly to society before or anything.

So we all pay for people's stupidity?  It was one thing, before the dangers of tobacco products were known, but having people knowingly do something that jeopardizes their health and having the taxpayers foot the bill for the results, only makes sense if you concede that the entire healthcare system in this country is there solely for the benefit of the healthcare industry.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

So we all pay for people's stupidity?  It was one thing, before the dangers of tobacco products were known, but having people knowingly do something that jeopardizes their health and having the taxpayers foot the bill for the results, only makes sense if you concede that the entire healthcare system in this country is there solely for the benefit of the healthcare industry.

Super slippery slope there. Playing team sports often results in medical injury. Driving, eating poorly, lack of exercise, etc, etc, etc. All health dangers. Where are you going to draw the line?

[Sivin]

1 hour ago, Ded As Ned said:

While we're at it, we should also prohibit illegal drug use.  Those healthcare costs are up there with obesity and tobacco use as well.  

Give me weed or give me death!

Sorry Robin, but people like their self destructive habits.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I don't want to ban smoking.  That would just create a black market.  I do wish people would stop doing it though.

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Super slippery slope there. Playing team sports often results in medical injury. Driving, eating poorly, lack of exercise, etc, etc, etc. All health dangers. Where are you going to draw the line?

The burden of team sports injuries ought to be on the teams.  Since you mentioned driving, I'd like to point out that here is is a really insane situation.  Drivers are forced to pay the costs of airbags, because the law mandates their installation in all cars that are sold.  You would think that somehow pays toward their healthcare, but it doesn't.  While it can be argued that it reduces the level of injury, and therefore, the level of healthcare costs, it does nothing to pay those costs.  It still means the payer of the costs is still unable to control those costs by passing them on to those engaging in behavior that likely raises those costs.  That is a bit of an unbalanced equation.  Yes, it is a slippery slope, but without a means to control costs, those who engage in activity that puts them more at risk than those who don't are getting greater benefits.  That's rewarding people for intentionally doing things that may result in injury or disease.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The burden of team sports injuries ought to be on the teams.  Since you mentioned driving, I'd like to point out that here is is a really insane situation.  Drivers are forced to pay the costs of airbags, because the law mandates their installation in all cars that are sold.  You would think that somehow pays toward their healthcare, but it doesn't.  While it can be argued that it reduces the level of injury, and therefore, the level of healthcare costs, it does nothing to pay those costs.  It still means the payer of the costs is still unable to control those costs by passing them on to those engaging in behavior that likely raises those costs.  That is a bit of an unbalanced equation.  Yes, it is a slippery slope, but without a means to control costs, those who engage in activity that puts them more at risk than those who don't are getting greater benefits.  That's rewarding people for intentionally doing things that may result in injury or disease.

Most folks who play organized sport aren't doing so professionally, so the team paying for it isn't really an option. Things like Little league for example typically require that a waiver be signed wherein the league/team are not liable for any healthcare costs. Injuries and deaths related to driving are on par with or may even exceed those related to tobacco. Granted, driving is more of a necessity certainly, but it is still optional. 

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it is hard to come up with a policy that would be selective in terms of risks one impose upon themselves that society as a whole has to pay for, that is also fair.

 

/Feel compelled to mention that I am a smoker, so my point of view is not entirely objective.

[Swordfish]

34 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The burden of team sports injuries ought to be on the teams.  Since you mentioned driving, I'd like to point out that here is is a really insane situation.  Drivers are forced to pay the costs of airbags, because the law mandates their installation in all cars that are sold.  You would think that somehow pays toward their healthcare, but it doesn't.  While it can be argued that it reduces the level of injury, and therefore, the level of healthcare costs, it does nothing to pay those costs.  It still means the payer of the costs is still unable to control those costs by passing them on to those engaging in behavior that likely raises those costs.  That is a bit of an unbalanced equation.  Yes, it is a slippery slope, but without a means to control costs, those who engage in activity that puts them more at risk than those who don't are getting greater benefits.  That's rewarding people for intentionally doing things that may result in injury or disease.

Um...  That is exactly why insurance exists.  To spread that risk among many people.  This is why you have actuaries and underwriters.

 

 

[Nas!]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't want to ban smoking.  That would just create a black market.  I do wish people would stop doing it though.

I quit smoking cigarettes over a year ago now, after 20 years.  I've gained 35 lbs since then, and I drink like it's going out of style.  I think maybe I just really hate living.

I mean, once you get over yourself, how do you honestly convince yourself to give a fuck how the seconds bother to tick by? Once you've been disappointed again and again and again by the idiotic electorate with their small minded racist, sexist, xenophobic pants-shitting, how do you keep going?  I'm about to vote against my conscience in a provincial election for the first ever time in my voting life and it is making me increasingly sick inside.  I'll vote for the pathetic New Democrat candidate just in case my vote is the one that defeats the "Liberal" incumbent.  One cowardly, corrupt piece of shit to replace a slightly smellier human turd...

Here's something I've started to think about since I quit smoking: You are a cosmic irregularity.  An incalculably unlikely fluke. Don't get all narcissistic about it, for fuck's sake. There's no deeper meaning. Your urge to procreate is a sad irony, not a deep spiritual mission.

This makes me wonder...Should I have kids, maybe? Take the focus off myself? Vainly try to make the world a livable place for them? Teach them to be suspicious of the educated? Teach them that they're special snowflakes when I ought to be teaching them that they are part of a very large, very complex, very disadvantaged team that needs to be pulling together to fight the terrible, terrible bullshit all around them?  Should I tell them how all of my heroes gave up or failed? Fuck Dr. Suess, kiddo, today we're reading Waiting for Godot.  That leaf? It is there to torment you, my child. Without the illusion of hope, there cannot be true despair.  

Maybe tomorrow we'll read Primo Levi.  He lived through one of humanity's greatest crimes, wrote brilliantly about it, and then killed himself 40 years later because he never quite found a proper reason to go on living.

I probably shouldn't have kids I guess.  Don't know why I quit smoking, though.  I could really go for a smoke right now.  Mmm, cigarettes. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm very glad I've never started smoking.

[litechick]

On 4/19/2017 at 4:06 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Smoking still sucks and is terrible for the smoker and the people around the smoker.

I hope you support vaping.

18 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The insanity of a country bearing the cost of providing healthcare to users of tobacco products, because it doesn't have the sense to make their production illegal.

I thought that statistically smokers and fat people don't cost more in health care because they die younger.  If we, as a society, want to be truly ruthless and self serving we should cheer on the self destructive types who live to work and pay into the system and then die promptly at retirement age and don't collect.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

litchick,

We have no evidence that vaping is bad for us.  I don't particularly like it but I don't object to it as I don't come away from it smelling like an ashtray.