Anti Cigarette site/Pro Smoking Arguments

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. Those figures are based on the fact that you are paid for those hours regardless. The fact that people aren't perfect machines at work does not have any impact on their validity.

Horseshit! They're shown in a vacuum. Put them alongside figures for much coffee costs in lost productivity or email access for office staff or human's ability to converse about non-work related things then you'll have something that's intellectually honest.

You're an imbecile. Those other factors apply equally to both smokers and the non-smoking control group, so they are irrelevant to a comparison of the two groups. Do you have ANY idea how epidemiological studies are performed?

If people miss a certain number of days at work due to smoking-related illness, that is lost productivity and an accurate figure for business losses regardless of whether they work 100% of the time when they are at the office.

Didn't argue with that portion of the figure. Pay attention numbnuts.

Yes you did, you lying sack of shit. You disputed the productivity loss figure, which was one of only TWO figures that I cited. The other one was the health-care cost.

How the fuck is Health Canada a source with a "fairly obvious agenda", asshole? And my sources explain where the numbers come from, while yours don't.

Oh for fuck's sake. The £9.3 billion comes from the Treasury whilst the £1.5 billion comes from the NHS. The source is the BBfuckingC If they put a number on something you can be fairly sure its accurate.

So the REAL source is a government agency, which is of course unbiased, but ...

As for Health Canada's agenda - work it out yourself.

And of course, you dismiss a Canadian government agency because of "agenda", despite the fact that it is EXACTLY the same kind of source and its study is more comprehensive, looking at both health-care costs and worker productivity costs. Nice try, dumbshit.

[RTS]

Nice try, but that is NOT your original claim. Your original claim was that smoking actually provides a net gain to society, and it doesn't.

WRONG! If we compare smoking versus smoking not existing then you have a point. Smoking being legal versus smoking being illegal is what I was talking about - obviously too subtle a point for you - is an entirely different thing. Banning something doesn't make it go away.

You will, of course, provide evidence that anyone who doesn't follow Miss Manners rules must be an "angry kid", right asshole?

Well in your case, an angry kid who grew up to be a sad angry man.

[RTS]

Yes you did, you lying sack of shit. You disputed the productivity loss figure, which was one of only TWO figures that I cited. The other one was the health-care cost.

Nope. Pay attention as I repeat "The major component of those figures is working from a baseline of working non-stop through your shift" Never made ANY mention of absenteeism. I apologise for assuming I was talking to someone with a basic level of reading comprehension. I won't make that mistake again.
As a favour I'll try to my words small from now on as well.

So the REAL source is a government agency, which is of course unbiased, but ...

Oh hell it can be as biased as it wants, any bias would be in a way that works in my favour. MAYBE the health impact of smoking is less than the stated figures OR the tax revenue is greater than published. They're NOT likely to understate the cost or overstate the level of tax now are they?
Clearly you were incapable or working that out for your self.

And of course, you dismiss a Canadian government agency because of "agenda", despite the fact that it is EXACTLY the same kind of source and its study is more comprehensive, looking at both health-care costs and worker productivity costs. Nice try, dumbshit.

Of course it does; it want to reduce smoking prevalence the same as any other health agency and will fall over itself to paint smoking in as bad a light as possible. What? You think they'll be impartial and offer a balanced view? Pffft.

[Twoyboy]

WRONG! If we compare smoking versus smoking not existing then you have a point. Smoking being legal versus smoking being illegal is what I was talking about - obviously too subtle a point for you - is an entirely different thing. Banning something doesn't make it go away.

Right. So we shouldn't do it because it's hard and will cost a lot. Hmmm. Maybe we should legalise all drugs because their regulation is hard? Or stop putting people in prison because it's expensive?

[RTS]

Missed this bit first time.

You're an imbecile. Those other factors apply equally to both smokers and the non-smoking control group, so they are irrelevant to a comparison of the two groups. Do you have ANY idea how epidemiological studies are performed?

Holy fucking shit. How do you manage to remember to breathe?
"The annual loss in productivity that results when employees leave their work area to have a cigarette is calculated by multiplying the time taken for cigarette breaks by the average wage."
ALL they did was add up the fag breaks and multiply by their hourly rate. I've got to explain your own sources to you now? Jesus Christ! This figure means NOTHING unless compared with other productivity reducing conduct. For all YOU know the smoker might waste less time elsewhere than his non-smoking colleague and ultimately be more productive. Not suggesting that he is but until that number is put into context it's irrelevent, but just looks bad - bad enough for Canada Health to publish.

[RTS]

Right. So we shouldn't do it because it's hard and will cost a lot. Hmmm. Maybe we should legalise all drugs because their regulation is hard? Or stop putting people in prison because it's expensive?

Actually I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, despite having nothing to do with them. Surely the aim is to minimise the impact/damage a substance has on society, rather than simply outlaw it because someone artibrarily decided it was the "right" thing to do.
The "war on drugs" has done more damage to our societies than the drugs themselves ever did. Why does continuing the status quo make any sense?

[Twoyboy]

Actually I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, despite having nothing to do with them. Surely the aim is to minimise the impact/damage a substance has on society, rather than simply outlaw it because someone artibrarily decided it was the "right" thing to do.

It's not arbitrary. For one example, recreational drugs can take over a persons life making them an unproductive member of society. They harm the users and in doing so harm the users family and friends. You want to talk about rights? Well I have the right to assume that everyone will contribute what they can back to society as I do.

The "war on drugs" has done more damage to our societies than the drugs themselves ever did. Why does continuing the status quo make any sense?

Got any evidence for this?

On another note, do you really think governments would be continually regulating towards a future total smoking ban if it was NOT in their best economic interest? You must be really stupid if you think the stricter stance on smoking was not weighed up in terms of dollars already.

[Dumbass]

Actually I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, despite having nothing to do with them. Surely the aim is to minimise the impact/damage a substance has on society, rather than simply outlaw it because someone artibrarily decided it was the "right" thing to do.

Fine, so long as those who 'use' don't come to me for money when their bodies start to fall apart.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What? Smoking is a civil liberty now?

Your quite right. I was allowing my personal bias to show. I'm personally a fan of the idea of what does or does not go into my body being my decision rather than the government's.

Is there any other reason why someone should accept the idea that smoking is a civil liberty other than "you say so"?

I realise people who like government force will be appalled at such a seditious idea.

You mean people who aren't anarchists?

[Surlethe]

Your quite right. I was allowing my personal bias to show. I'm personally a fan of the idea of what does or does not go into my body being my decision rather than the government's. I realise people who like government force will be appalled at such a seditious idea.

Apparently, the idea that you smoking also happens to put things into other people's bodies escapes you.

[Cairber]

It seems that RTS's only argument when faced with the realities of second hand smoke is that one must accept this kind of thing if they value liberty (mixed in with some bullshit red herrings about car emissions).

[Surlethe]

It seems that RTS's only argument when faced with the realities of second hand smoke is that one must accept this kind of thing if they value liberty (mixed in with some bullshit red herrings about car emissions).

By that sort of "logic", I'm allowed to do what I want with my gun. If what I want happens to be pointing it at you and pulling the trigger, well, you just have to accept that if you value liberty.

[Cairber]

Maybe RTS missed my post of a recent report on the dangers of second hand smoke (all sources and numbers searchable in a nice, well laid out format):

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

Here are the six major findings (again, you can search the studies that lead to these findings by clicking on the "Involuntary Smoking Database.")

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.

Supporting Evidence
* Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
* Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
* Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.

2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
* Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.

Supporting Evidence
* Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
* Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
* Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
* Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
* Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.

4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

Supporting Evidence
* Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
* Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
* Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
* The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

[Shrykull]

I've been also trying to find some american statistics, I'll keep looking.

Some pro smoking sites say smokers pay far more in sin taxes for cigarettes than what the healthcare system (in this case, not insurance companies, but money coming directly from taxes going to hospitals) pays for thier smoking-related illnesses,

This is another reason why it IS my business if they want to smoke, I must pay for them when they end up in the hospital, never mind when I might because of thier second hand smoke.

[Shrykull]

Show me a source for those figures. The annual business productivity cost of smoking has been estimated at $2565 per employee, and that doesn't even take into account the health-care costs. Total costs of tobacco in Canada are estimated at $9.5 billion, and Canada's population is only a fraction of the UK's population.

What I don't understand is that employers don't have to give smokers special breaks for smoking, although some do. They could simply not hire them, or say if they wish to smoke they must use a break given to everyone to do so

[Cairber]

Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs --- United States, 1995--1999

[Cairber]

updated fast facts on smoking costs with citations

For 1997–2001, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $167 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States ($75 billion in direct medical costs, and $92 billion in lost productivity),13 or about $3,702 per adult smoker.7,13

[Shrykull]

I looked through it, would have been easier if it compared sin taxes on cigarettes and health care costs side by side.

and a billon dollars is a LOT of money. Ever thought about it? You could start the day Christ was born in 1AD, spend a thousand dollars a day, and still have more than half your money left today.

Of course they'd be dead long before that, and I don't think any smoker pays 1000 dollars a day on cigs, but if we have 55 million in the united states. Going by those facts, let's say all 55 million cigarettes smokers buy a pack a day, and we'll use the highest state tax of New Jersey, and federal tax on a pack

55,000,000 times 80 cents times 2.58 (New Jersey tax on a pack) = 141,000,000 times 365 days in a year= 51,793,500,000, still doesn't come close to what we pay in healthcare.

Though, how does business lost productivity effect you if you're not a business owner? I thought they might have to raise your insurance premiums at work if you get insurance through them.

[Darth Wong]

Missed this bit first time.

You're an imbecile. Those other factors apply equally to both smokers and the non-smoking control group, so they are irrelevant to a comparison of the two groups. Do you have ANY idea how epidemiological studies are performed?

Holy fucking shit. How do you manage to remember to breathe?
"The annual loss in productivity that results when employees leave their work area to have a cigarette is calculated by multiplying the time taken for cigarette breaks by the average wage."

Which makes perfect sense, you imbecile. That is time the smoker is not spending doing his job. It's not as if he's any more productive than the non-smoker when he is doing his job; this is the point that clearly sailed over your idiot head.

ALL they did was add up the fag breaks and multiply by their hourly rate.

No, they also looked at absenteeism, moron.

I've got to explain your own sources to you now? Jesus Christ!

Your idea of an "explanation" is what most people call spin-doctoring. Moronic, dishonest spin-doctoring at that.

This figure means NOTHING unless compared with other productivity reducing conduct.

Wrong, fucktard. Given two groups, both of which have productivity problem A, then factor A is irrelevant when comparing the impact of productivity problem B. Clearly, I was correct; you have absolutely no idea how an epidemiological study is conducted.

For all YOU know the smoker might waste less time elsewhere than his non-smoking colleague and ultimately be more productive.

Provide evidence of this absurd claim that smokers in general can be assumed to be more productive than non-smokers when they're not absent or taking a break. Appeal to Uncertainty is not evidence.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I've heard from people who have said their smoking co-workers are out of the office ten minutes every hour to smoke. And they get a full lunch break.

I don't think it's "violating their rights" at all to demand that they keep their asses in their fucking chairs and not get any more break time than the non-smokers.

[Isolder74]

I've heard from people who have said their smoking co-workers are out of the office ten minutes every hour to smoke. And they get a full lunch break.

I don't think it's "violating their rights" at all to demand that they keep their asses in their fucking chairs and not get any more break time than the non-smokers.

Agreed, its not fair to those who don't smoke and have to cover all the time that they are spending smoking, yet the smokers get away with the extra time out of the office anyway.

Using checking e-mail as an example of productivity losing thing is sill because that can be done at their desk in a separate window while they are doing something else. I am typing this right now and doing my job without a problem. A smoker not in the office CANNOT do his/her job while smoking as they are not at their desk. Of course this would not justify smoking in the office.

I take this issue very personally because I am allergic to tobacco smoke and have an anaphalactic attack if in the room with a smoker for more then 15 mins. No smoker can tell me that because they aren't blowing it in someone's face they they aren't causing harm because I am a biological detector for a certain level of the substance's saturation of the environment.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Perhaps the worst, and the most odious pro-smoking argument I have heard from a guy on Libforum is that second hand smoke actually benefits small children according to EPA studies. He tries to claim that studies show SES benefits kids because it has a less than 1 risk factor.



They also tend to argue by simply dismissing the EPA as unreliable. They appeal to an ancient 1990s court case in which a judge threw out EPA regulations. What they consistently fail to recognize is that this decision was eventually appealed and I believe overturned and heavily criticized by the scientific community. It was also heavily biased, since the judge was a tobacco lobbyist.

[Astarial]

How about I form a public pool that allows pissing in it? Don't like it, don't swim there.

Piss is actually sterile, so a better analogy would be allowing people to crap in it.

Either tobacco should be illegal, or all drugs should be legal (but smoking in the presence of others without their explicit consent should not be legal). Either the government has no say over the toxins one puts in one's own body, or the government must protect all its poor mindless drones from all possible harm they might try to inflict upon themselves. Either way, make it a fair standard. -_-

Likewise, if people are allowed to poison themselves willingly, they should then have to pay for the medical costs out of their own pockets, not rely on taxpayer or insurance money to save them from their own stupidity.

[Shrykull]

How about I form a public pool that allows pissing in it? Don't like it, don't swim there.

Piss is actually sterile, so a better analogy would be allowing people to crap in it.

Either tobacco should be illegal, or all drugs should be legal (but smoking in the presence of others without their explicit consent should not be legal). Either the government has no say over the toxins one puts in one's own body, or the government must protect all its poor mindless drones from all possible harm they might try to inflict upon themselves. Either way, make it a fair standard. -_-

Likewise, if people are allowed to poison themselves willingly, they should then have to pay for the medical costs out of their own pockets, not rely on taxpayer or insurance money to save them from their own stupidity.

I said this as well, just a little differently, I asked them what if they wanted to let thier dog crap anywhere in thier restaurant? The board of health would shut you down immediately!

[PainRack]

7. If cigarette smoke causes so much harm, then why in the 50's when most men smoked, were thier lower sickness and fatality rates among thier wives?

Is this one even true ?

I suggest you hunt down the actual numbers.

I suspect they're using the cancer rates and other figures from that era. However, its simply not comparable because even in the 50s, antibiotics was still starting to make its impact on life expectancy.

Therefore, people were still dying more from pneumonia than from cancer. However, every respectable epidemiologist will point to the fact that the fact that lung cancer starts picking up after the 30s is proof positive of smoking link. If a rare cancer only begins to make its impact after the majority of people start smoking(its incidence rate in women in particular after advertisers started targeting women), correlation will lead us to search for causation. And chemical, animal tests have shown the causal factor.

From Twenty Five years of progress: A report of the Surgeon General (1989)
it compared an estimated annual per capita cigarette consumption and lung cancer death rates for both sexes in the US. One can see a clear correlative case in that lung cancer rates started climbing 30 decades after smoking became popular in the US. However, because cancer takes so long to start, in the 50s, the death rate from lung cancer was approximately 10 per 100,000(I'm reading off the graph here), hardly a dramatic rise from previous decades.