Smoking Ban In Tacoma-Pierce County

[Admiral Valdemar]

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/44808 ... 9401c.html

There's a thread on this over at SB.com, but I'm curious as to what people here think of such bans and whether they're inherently good or bad both medically, economically and socially.

[Chardok]

FL approved a constitutional ammendment not unlie the Tacoma one, only Statewide. It blows. But this board has had this debate before, my argument is simply: It's a Bar (Bowling Alley, etc.) There are exemptions, but it doesn't help all that much. Sad indeed it is to see The Aroma of Tacoma will be without the sweet pungence of Newports anymore... C'est La Vie. Still the best damned Teriyaki on the planet.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Banning smoking hurts bars the most. I think for bars it should be up to the owner, since people under 21 cant be there anyway. CA has had wide scale smoking bans for a while. In the long run it really is better for the health of the citizens. You really notice the smoke again when you go to a smoker state.

[Durandal]

There's no evidence that second-hand smoke is hazardous to anyone's health. The EPA report which stated these conclusions was tossed out by a federal judge for being bias, and subsequent studies have shown that the toxicity levels due to second-hand smoke are well-within established OSHA limits.

[Alyeska]

There's no evidence that second-hand smoke is hazardous to anyone's health. The EPA report which stated these conclusions was tossed out by a federal judge for being bias, and subsequent studies have shown that the toxicity levels due to second-hand smoke are well-within established OSHA limits.

You've got to be shitting me. Of course second-hand smoke is hazardous to peoples health. Children who are raised by smoking parents have a 20% greater chance of getting lung cancer. For a long while flight attendents and pilots had increased rates of lung cancer and other diseases because they breathed so much second hand smoke on flights.

[neoolong]

Banning smoking hurts bars the most. I think for bars it should be up to the owner, since people under 21 cant be there anyway. CA has had wide scale smoking bans for a while. In the long run it really is better for the health of the citizens. You really notice the smoke again when you go to a smoker state.

One of the problems with that is if there are employees. They may not want to work in an environment with smoke, but if they speak up they
might get canned.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Banning smoking hurts bars the most. I think for bars it should be up to the owner, since people under 21 cant be there anyway. CA has had wide scale smoking bans for a while. In the long run it really is better for the health of the citizens. You really notice the smoke again when you go to a smoker state.

One of the problems with that is if there are employees. They may not want to work in an environment with smoke, but if they speak up they
might get canned.

True, but then they dont have to accept a job at a smoking bar. ALthough, they might be able to make a case for "unhealthy" working conditions.

[Durandal]

There's no evidence that second-hand smoke is hazardous to anyone's health. The EPA report which stated these conclusions was tossed out by a federal judge for being bias, and subsequent studies have shown that the toxicity levels due to second-hand smoke are well-within established OSHA limits.

You've got to be shitting me. Of course second-hand smoke is hazardous to peoples health. Children who are raised by smoking parents have a 20% greater chance of getting lung cancer. For a long while flight attendents and pilots had increased rates of lung cancer and other diseases because they breathed so much second hand smoke on flights.

No, I am not. We went over this exact same issue in a previous OT thread, here. Links to studies showing second-hand smoke toxicity levels to be orders of magnitude below OSHA safety limits are contained therein.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There is a good study done two or three years ago by the Department of Cardiology, University of Athens, Athens, Greece on the effects of second hand smoke exposure to people in relation to coronary heart disease. I'll see if I can dig that up along with similar examples showing CHD like carboxyhemoglobinemia by Kawachi et al. Though the two studies cannot be truly compared due to the methodology, they did show increased signs of disease prevalence in subjects.

[The Kernel]

Here is California we have a statewide public smoking ban coupled with even stricter local laws in some areas (in Palo Alto, it is against the law to smoke on the street). About the only place I can go to smoke in public is the tobacco shop where I buy my cigars because they got Grandfathered.

[neoolong]

Banning smoking hurts bars the most. I think for bars it should be up to the owner, since people under 21 cant be there anyway. CA has had wide scale smoking bans for a while. In the long run it really is better for the health of the citizens. You really notice the smoke again when you go to a smoker state.

One of the problems with that is if there are employees. They may not want to work in an environment with smoke, but if they speak up they
might get canned.

True, but then they dont have to accept a job at a smoking bar. ALthough, they might be able to make a case for "unhealthy" working conditions.

Sometimes they really don't have a choice.

[Graeme Dice]

There's no evidence that second-hand smoke is hazardous to anyone's health.

This, of course, is complete bullshit, since second-hand smoke in sufficient quantities is no different that first-hand smoke. The chemicals contained in tobacco smoke have been directly linked with a valid mechanism to lung cancer.

The EPA report which stated these conclusions was tossed out by a federal judge for being bias, and subsequent studies have shown that the toxicity levels due to second-hand smoke are well-within established OSHA limits.

I'm sorry, but would you please explain to me when a federal court became a refereed journal? And also, when did it become a better source of real information than Nature?
Nature

[Durandal]

Linking me to a search page isn't exactly evidence. The links in the thread I posted show that the toxicity levels due to second-hand smoke are negligible and well within safety limits.

[Graeme Dice]

Linking me to a search page isn't exactly evidence.

Damn. I forgot how nature's search engine does that. It was a search for second hand smoke at nature.com A couple of the more recent articles from the past onth or so are:
Passive smoking may speed cancer growth:
For most of the articles you or your university will have to have a subscription to the journal, but the abstracts alone are pretty clear.

The links in the thread I posted show that the toxicity levels due to second-hand smoke are negligible and well within safety limits.

I read them, and, no they didn't. Unless you count those sponsored by the tobacco industry, which still don't have enough evidence to show that they vast majority of all other studies are wrong. Especially not your laughable claim that a federal court is a valid scientific referee.

And banning smoking in public places is a good thing even if there were no health benefits to be gained thanks to the fact that smoking is an obnoxious habit right up there with spitting in public. Though without the concern for TB transmission.

[Durandal]

I read them, and, no they didn't.

Here are some choice excerpts.

Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampled the air they were breathing while at work for a minimum of four hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours. Samples from the subjects were analyzed for ultraviolet absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3-ethenyl pyridine, nicotine and RSP.

The 16-cities study, the largest of its kind ever conducted in a single country, found the highest levels of environmental tobacco smoke nicotine levels in workplaces where smoking is permitted to be between 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms per cubic meter, far lower than the numbers assumed by EPA and OSHA.

"A well-known toxicological principle is that the poison is in the dose," Jenkins said. "It's pretty clear that the environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people."

Also, in the Bullshit link I posted (not available for Canadian residents, for some reason), the president of the American Council on Science and Health states that the link between second-hand smoke and heart disease and cancer is "extremely scanty."

Unless you count those sponsored by the tobacco industry, which still don't have enough evidence to show that they vast majority of all other studies are wrong.

What "vast majority of all other studies"? The most widely-quoted study is an EPA study that has been largely discredited, both in scientific circles and in a federal courtroom. Furthermore, Oak Ridge National Laboratories is not funded by tobacco companies.

Especially not your laughable claim that a federal court is a valid scientific referee.

Even so, when a court throws out such a study, even in a political environment which is vehemently anti-smoking, there's probably something wrong with it. The court stated that the "EPA's procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law", "... the EPA cherry-picked its data" and it "deviated from scientific procedure ... to ensure a preordained outcome."

And banning smoking in public places is a good thing even if there were no health benefits to be gained thanks to the fact that smoking is an obnoxious habit right up there with spitting in public. Though without the concern for TB transmission.

To initiate a ban on something, you must show that it does objective harm to others. This is not the case with second-hand smoke. It may make people uncomfortable, but there is no actual harm done to the person. Banning it in bars and restaurants is just an example of the government overstepping its bounds. If you wanted to make a regulation against littering the street with cigarette butts, however, that's more reasonable and would cut down on the amount of smoking in public as a side-effect anyway.

[Hamel]

Morning Star's post in the Spacebattles thread has some data on detrimental effects from 2nd hand smoking

[Admiral Valdemar]

http://www.signaling-gateway.org/update ... c1217.html

This was one of the best links I could find right now on a study on SHS effects by Californian, German and Stanford scientists. It definitely shows SHS is not as harmless as older studies would suggest. While the infamous ORNL study is often cited as evidence against such problems, a recent BMA study, one of the largest, has been under fire for using fallacious methods to ascertain that SHS isn't harmful. Other evidence from such studies suggest otherwise and many scientists go with the majority data rather than one study that happened to be slightly bigger than normal.

There is always the fact that cigarette smoke is bloody disgusting anyway without it being harmful, but I'm focusing on medical aspects of the stuff. Make of that what you will.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Morning Star's post in the Spacebattles thread has some data on detrimental effects from 2nd hand smoking

I kind of ignore anything by anti-smoking lobbyists, I want to be as objective as possible so an obviously biased organisation is avoided by myself such as BAT sponsored studies and so on.

[Durandal]

Morning Star's post in the Spacebattles thread has some data on detrimental effects from 2nd hand smoking

And it relates mainly to children of parents who smoke, which is not what we're discussing. We're talking about smoking being banned in bars and restaurants because it supposedly leads to 3,000 deaths per year, which is bullshit. Frankly, the idea that sporadic exposure (maybe once or twice per week) to diffuse, ventilated amounts of tobacco smoke can be just as harmful as taking drags from a cigarette yourself is extremely questionable.

This was one of the best links I could find right now on a study on SHS effects by Californian, German and Stanford scientists. It definitely shows SHS is not as harmless as older studies would suggest.

Please post the article text, as it is not accessible without a registration.

While the infamous ORNL study is often cited as evidence against such problems, a recent BMA study, one of the largest, has been under fire for using fallacious methods to ascertain that SHS isn't harmful.

I'm unfamiliar with the BMA study; could you link it? Also, one studies' fallacious methods do not indict another study that happened to come to the same conclusion.

Other evidence from such studies suggest otherwise and many scientists go with the majority data rather than one study that happened to be slightly bigger than normal.

That's right; they're eliminating results out of line with the majority of results because they're treated as statistical flukes. We do the same thing with fluke data points in physics when trying to do curve fits.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Ah, sorry about that, forgot I was still logged into Athens.

Evironmental tobacco smoke promotes tumor growth and angiogenesis, strengthening the link between passive smoking and cancer.

Despite evidence that it is responsible for 3,000 deaths per year in the United States alone, there is still some debate about just how harmful passive smoking really is. This is due, in part, to a gap in our knowledge about the mechanisms by which the inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) might cause cancer. A study by John Cooke and colleagues now indicates that ETS promotes tumour growth and angiogenesis, strengthening the link between passive smoking and cancer.


Cooke and co-workers exposed mice that had been injected with lung tumour cells to ETS and studied the effects of this on tumour growth and angiogenesis. They saw an increase in tumour growth in these mice that was five times greater than that in unexposed animals. The exposed mice also showed an increase in tumour blood-vessel density that was double that seen in control mice, indicating that components of ETS promote angiogenesis.

Nicotine is one of the main components of ETS and, although it is only a weak carcinogen, there is evidence that it can promote tumour development through indirect mechanisms. It has recently been shown that nicotine can induce angiogenesis by activating nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAchRs) on the surface of endothelial cells, which stimulates their proliferation and the subsequent formation of blood vessels. To test whether increases in tumour size and angiogenesis in mice exposed to ETS were due to the effects of nicotine, Cooke and colleagues tested whether this effect could be blocked by mecamylamine, an inhibitor of nAchRs. When exposed mice were treated with this drug, the formation of new blood vessels was almost completely abolished, indicating that nicotine has a key role in the induction of angiogenesis by ETS.

The authors also investigated the effect of ETS on the levels of two other angiogenesis promoters, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP1) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Increased levels of both of these proteins were found in serum from exposed mice. Mecamylamine blocked the increase in VEGF levels by approximately two-thirds, indicating that nicotine induces angiogenesis through VEGF signalling as well as by having a direct effect on endothelial cells. However, mecamylamine had little effect on MCP1 levels, indicating that other compounds that are present in ETS in addition to nicotine can stimulate angiogenesis.

Statins — which are best known for their use in treating high cholesterol levels — are potential angiogenesis inhibitors as they inhibit the secretion of MCP1 and interfere with signalling downstream of the VEGF receptor. Cooke and colleagues tested the effect of one of these molecules, cerivastatin, on tumour development in mice that were exposed to ETS. Cerivastatin substantially blocked the increases in both tumour size and angiogenesis in these mice, indicating a possible method of counteracting the harmful effects of inhaling this type of smoke.

Interestingly, the effects of ETS described here indicate a role for nicotine in promoting the growth of existing tumours rather than in initiating tumour formation. This indicates that it acts in concert with other more strongly carcinogenic ETS components to exert its harmful effects. The authors estimate that the levels of nicotine and other toxic chemicals that are present in the ETS used in these experiments were similar to those that are encountered by people in smoky environments such as bars and casinos. This study therefore provides compelling evidence that passive smoking can stimulate tumour growth and that it does indeed pose a serious threat to human health.

Louisa Flintoft
References

1. Zhu, B. et al. Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth. Cancer Cell 4, 191–196 (2003) | PubMed |
2. Hecht, S. S. Tobacco carcinogens, their biomarkers and tobacco-induced cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 4, 733–744 (2003)

I'm unfamiliar with the BMA study; could you link it? Also, one studies' fallacious methods do not indict another study that happened to come to the same conclusion.

I'll find a proper version of it and not just a fleeting mention in Nature. Hopefully it won't involve me paying anything, can't promise I'll find anything more than an abstract though, but it was a fairly large and controversial study, perhaps like the EPA study.

That's right; they're eliminating results out of line with the majority of results because they're treated as statistical flukes. We do the same thing with fluke data points in physics when trying to do curve fits.

Indeed. It seems that though the BMA study was large and diverse, it didn't exactly fit with the oodles of other studies as of late (most of what I'm looking at is dated after the studies in '94 shown here). They may start another, better planned study sometime in the future, but with so many different groups using different methodologies it can be hard to compare, though this one seemed right off the mark.

[Hamel]

And it relates mainly to children of parents who smoke, which is not what we're discussing. We're talking about smoking being banned in bars and restaurants because it supposedly leads to 3,000 deaths per year, which is bullshit. Frankly, the idea that sporadic exposure (maybe once or twice per week) to diffuse, ventilated amounts of tobacco smoke can be just as harmful as taking drags from a cigarette yourself is extremely questionable.

Ok,~ I don't think I was following the discussion too well >.<

[Durandal]

Evironmental tobacco smoke promotes tumor growth and angiogenesis, strengthening the link between passive smoking and cancer.

Despite evidence that it is responsible for 3,000 deaths per year in the United States alone, there is still some debate about just how harmful passive smoking really is. This is due, in part, to a gap in our knowledge about the mechanisms by which the inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) might cause cancer. A study by John Cooke and colleagues now indicates that ETS promotes tumour growth and angiogenesis, strengthening the link between passive smoking and cancer.

Cooke and co-workers exposed mice that had been injected with lung tumour cells to ETS and studied the effects of this on tumour growth and angiogenesis. They saw an increase in tumour growth in these mice that was five times greater than that in unexposed animals. The exposed mice also showed an increase in tumour blood-vessel density that was double that seen in control mice, indicating that components of ETS promote angiogenesis.

Nicotine is one of the main components of ETS and, although it is only a weak carcinogen, there is evidence that it can promote tumour development through indirect mechanisms. It has recently been shown that nicotine can induce angiogenesis by activating nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAchRs) on the surface of endothelial cells, which stimulates their proliferation and the subsequent formation of blood vessels. To test whether increases in tumour size and angiogenesis in mice exposed to ETS were due to the effects of nicotine, Cooke and colleagues tested whether this effect could be blocked by mecamylamine, an inhibitor of nAchRs. When exposed mice were treated with this drug, the formation of new blood vessels was almost completely abolished, indicating that nicotine has a key role in the induction of angiogenesis by ETS.

The authors also investigated the effect of ETS on the levels of two other angiogenesis promoters, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP1) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Increased levels of both of these proteins were found in serum from exposed mice. Mecamylamine blocked the increase in VEGF levels by approximately two-thirds, indicating that nicotine induces angiogenesis through VEGF signalling as well as by having a direct effect on endothelial cells. However, mecamylamine had little effect on MCP1 levels, indicating that other compounds that are present in ETS in addition to nicotine can stimulate angiogenesis.

Statins — which are best known for their use in treating high cholesterol levels — are potential angiogenesis inhibitors as they inhibit the secretion of MCP1 and interfere with signalling downstream of the VEGF receptor. Cooke and colleagues tested the effect of one of these molecules, cerivastatin, on tumour development in mice that were exposed to ETS. Cerivastatin substantially blocked the increases in both tumour size and angiogenesis in these mice, indicating a possible method of counteracting the harmful effects of inhaling this type of smoke.

Interestingly, the effects of ETS described here indicate a role for nicotine in promoting the growth of existing tumours rather than in initiating tumour formation. This indicates that it acts in concert with other more strongly carcinogenic ETS components to exert its harmful effects. The authors estimate that the levels of nicotine and other toxic chemicals that are present in the ETS used in these experiments were similar to those that are encountered by people in smoky environments such as bars and casinos. This study therefore provides compelling evidence that passive smoking can stimulate tumour growth and that it does indeed pose a serious threat to human health.

These mice had preexisting tumor cells. The only conclusion I see here is that second-hand smoke can contribute to the growth of these tumor cells, not to their formation. Granted, I don't know too much about biology, but I don't think that human lungs come preinstalled with cancerous cells.

Furthermore, as usual, no dosage information is given. How long were these mice exposed? How frequently? Did they have the mice go out to a bar once every week to see what happened? One thing that I've noticed about the studies the anti-smoking people use is that they never mention anything about an established fatal dosage, which there certainly must be. This is typical of people who want things banned outright. It's black and white with them, and in toxicology, that's simply not the case. That is the reason I trust the ORNL study. It gives lengths and frequencies of exposure and uses humans in bars as the test subjects.

Indeed. It seems that though the BMA study was large and diverse, it didn't exactly fit with the oodles of other studies as of late (most of what I'm looking at is dated after the studies in '94 shown here). They may start another, better planned study sometime in the future, but with so many different groups using different methodologies it can be hard to compare, though this one seemed right off the mark.

The ORNL report gives a possible explanation as to why supposed toxicity levels from ETS have gone down in the form of improved ventilation.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I shall fish out better articles when I can, that one was from basically a news review and not too in depth since it had, as far as I could see, no links or illustrations of graphs and charts etc.

Though they had mice with tumour cells implanted, it has been suggested that it can also contribute to the formation of such cells from scratch, I think that was the original study I looked at which was related to this (from a full text subscription).

[Durandal]

Though they had mice with tumour cells implanted, it has been suggested that it can also contribute to the formation of such cells from scratch, I think that was the original study I looked at which was related to this (from a full text subscription).

This is like the argument that smoking marijuana is linked to depression and anxiety disorders. People like to casually fling this relationship around as evidence that marijuana is evil, but what they don't tell you is that marijuana only exacerbates depression and anxiety for people in whom those conditions already exist. It's not a valid argument for banning marijuana, nor is it valid for banning cigarettes.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Though they had mice with tumour cells implanted, it has been suggested that it can also contribute to the formation of such cells from scratch, I think that was the original study I looked at which was related to this (from a full text subscription).

This is like the argument that smoking marijuana is linked to depression and anxiety disorders. People like to casually fling this relationship around as evidence that marijuana is evil, but what they don't tell you is that marijuana only exacerbates depression and anxiety for people in whom those conditions already exist. It's not a valid argument for banning marijuana, nor is it valid for banning cigarettes.

And I wholeheartedly agree. If it truly was just the increased activity of tumour cells in the presence of SHS, then I'd dismiss any claims about it being carcinogenic, that is, causing formation in the first place.

Until I find the article I read that or something like it, I shall simply hold that cancer suffering people should avoid such smoke due to such results.