I apologize to everyone who was upset by my anti-smoking thread.

[Fridays Child]

I did take a strong position but I wasn't disrespectful and I was hoping for civil discussion. By and large that didn't happen. I had no idea I was poking such a hornet's nest. But, clearly, I did.

That was not my intention.

I don't want to re-hash the topic here. I just want to say that I never meant to rub anyone the wrong way. So, if my words angered you, made you uncomfortable, or generated any negative feelings, I'm sorry.

This is a fine place, filled with well-intentioned members whose widely divergent opinions completely dispell any notion anyone might ever hold of Liberals as monolithic thinkers. I don't take the flame-throwing personally, and I hope to meet you all out there, again. Soon.

FC.

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. No need for you to apologize to anyone for your beliefs, or anything else...

I'm a smoker myself, but I respect your right to voice your opinions and concerns...

I'm may not agree with you on this issue, but I'd die defending your right to have and voice your own opinion....

:hi: :hug:

[Fridays Child]

3. Many thanks.

:hi:

[RB TexLa]

2. Doubt there are going to be any civil smoking threads

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Fridays Child]

4. It was my first real foray into this area on DU.

So if I caused anyone to have a "Tums" moment, I just wanted to say that I didn't mean to. :)

[pnwmom]

15. Well, smokers give me an "Albuterol" moment,

as it kicks up my asthma. Thankfully, that happens less and less because of anti-smoking laws.

[Fridays Child]

17. A lot of people with lung issues are grateful for th restrictions.

Hope you're dong okay. :hug:

[tandot]

5. Boy, I was reading that thread a while ago.

It was like the first piranha took a bite and then a feeding frenzy ensued leaving only bones behind. I was shocked how some DUers responded.

Smoking is one of those topics that triggers the worst in people. There are lots of considerate smokers and some who just give a shit. I once was one of the latter ones. I am sorry about all of the rude responses. I wish there would be a more civil way to discuss these issues. The internet just seems to make it easier to insult and denigrate people.

:hi:

[Fridays Child]

8. I think it showed me a real vulnerability among some DUers.

And I understand how that feels, so I just wanted people to know that I really did not think I was being hurtful.

Thank you to you, too, for responding here. I appreciate knowing that someone recognizes the "feeding frenzy" nature of that thread. It was shocking to me, too.

[emilyg]

6. Thanks.

[Fridays Child]

10. ...

:)

[Occulus]

7. My parents were both smokers from the time I was an infant.

I grew up around secondhand smoke.

When I was seven or eight, I walked out into the living room while there was a superbowl party going on. I very vividly remember walking through what must have been a two-foot-thick haze of hovering smoke, which for me was at eye-level. Years later, both my parents would tell me about how I would rail against them for smoking and would vow I would never do it myself.

The thing is, I'm dead certain living around and in that haze of smoke not only influenced the fact that I would later do so myself, but in fact addicted me to nicotine long before I ever had even the chance to decide- and then exposed me to that same secondhand nicotine for well over a decade.

If you're going to say that smoking or secondhand smoke is harmful, you must go the step further and say that secondhand smoke contains nicotine- I simply cannot believe 100% of the nicotine in a cigarette puff is absorbed each time, and not exhaled- and admit nicotine is addictive as hell.

Let me say, my very first hit on a "real" cigarette was a relief. I mean that literally; I was finally satisfying my until then perpetually-denied addiction.

All I'm saying is, those of us who grew up around smokers very well may have never once had a choice in the matter as to whether they themselves would end up being a smoker, or not. The old TV ad says, "parents who smoke have kids who smoke". I wonder if that's statistically true, and I also wonder whether secondhand nicotine exposure lies at the root of that.

[Fridays Child]

9. I suspect that you're onto something regarding secondhand smoke...

...contributing to the likelihood that children of smokers grow up to become smokers themselves.

But I really was stunned by the responses that I received, and I just wanted to apologize for the obvious unhappiness my thread caused my fellow DUers.

[pnwmom]

16. Yes, nicotine can be measured in the air in smokers' homes.

And then children can inhale it. Wow. It's bad enough that the kids are at higher risk for infections -- they also may be getting addicted, too.

http://www.dana-farber.org/abo/news/press/060200.asp

Young children exposed to passive, or second-hand, smoke have a higher risk of ear infections, asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia than children of non-smokers. In the United States, surveys show that almost 40 percent of children under five live with a smoker. Yet there have been few studies of ways to protect children from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, Emmons remarks.

Project KISS focused on low-income parents of young children, because that socioeconomic group has the highest rate of smoking. The researchers recruited 291 parents or caregivers of children younger than three years through community health centers in Boston and Providence, R.I.

SNIP

The health educators used the readouts of nicotine-sensing air samplers to give the participants an objective measurement of air quality in their home. The message is "we measured the nicotine level in your home and it's about the same as in the bar down the street','' Emmons says. That might help the parent understand why her child has so many respiratory symptoms, she continues. "Then we would ask, "What do you think you might do?''

SNIP

[RebelOne]

37. Both of my parents were smokers.

Even after they were divorced, they both married smokers. So I was exposed to it on both sides. And, of course, I grew up to become a smoker, which I still am.

[Nutmegger]

11. Ok now let's talk about circumcision...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[tandot]

12. Well, as long as you don't talk about Olive Garden

:evilgrin:

[MiniMe]

14. Or Circuit City

:evilgrin:
:hi:

[wicket]

21. You forgot Poland!

:rofl:

[tandot]

27. Damn, I must have missed the Poland thread

What was it about?

[wicket]

30. Oops, my bad

There was no particular thread on this, just a really dumb comment Bush made during the 2004 debates (he was nearly hollering when he said it). Testy testy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_forgot_Poland

Here's a better link.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you+forgot+poland

[Fridays Child]

13. Dare we?

:scared: I'll tell you what. I sure ain't starting any threads about circumcised smokers. Or smoking circumcisers. :P

[Totally Committed]

33. Looks like a big thumbs-up for circumcision from John Edwards!

LOL!

Did you mean to do that? It's cute and funny, anyway.

TC

[distantearlywarning]

18. I don't think anyone was hurt or upset.

I think most of us thought you were being silly.

But thanks for the apology anyway. I'll assume you have good intentions here and are not posting this to be condescending (i.e., implying that your detractors were somehow so wounded by your statement that they couldn't help but attack you to make themselves feel better).

[Phillycat]

26. Ah, but it seems that's just what she's doing.

Witness her post about "smokers feeling vulnerable" upthread. It's not an apology, it's a chance to feel superior. Because her original post WAS silly, and she's feeling stupid.

Which she should. Because that cheeseburger and fries will kill her WAY faster than a whiff of smoke from a cigarette burning 15 feet away.

[Jamastiene]

19. In the spirit of your good natured apology, from a smoker,

just let us know it's bothering you. Most of us will gladly work with you to NOT bother you. We are used to living in a whirlwind of smoke and don't think sometimes. We aren't trying to be rude either. Seriously, you'd be surprised at how many smokers would respond kindly to you, apologize and move if you let them know in a polite way what's happening.

I know I would. It's all politics. Life is politics. It's 1% what you say and 99% how you say it that makes the difference in people's reaction to what you have to say.

Peace.

[Marrah_G]

20. Thank you!

You just gained alot of respect here.

[truebrit71]

22. Absolutely no need to apologize...you have a right to voice your opinion...

...I don't think you rubbed anyone the wrong way...but you most certainly hit a hornet's nest!!

[Richard Steele]

23. As a two-pack-a-day smoker, I was not offended by your thread.

It certainly didn't seem disrespectful to me.

But I've learned to avoid posting in ALL smoking threads,
as even the most neutral ones always become flamefests,
no matter how reasonable or well-intentioned.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. A Most Wise Choice

Sheesh! That thread was a warzone. Whining, name calling, then people apologizing for other people's comments.

The whole thing REEKED of condenscension.

I posted there, but it was in objection to someone apologizing for other people.

I never enter the fray about smoking itself, with one exception: Since i was one of the data reviewers of the 2000 CDC study on 2nd hand smoke, i know the EPA and OSHA classified it as a Class II irritant, based upon the science. It's not a carcinogen or mutagen. It's an irritant, to be sure, and it bothers peope with pre-existing pneumatologic conditions, absolutely. But, i just can't let people make stuff up, when i participated in the analysis of the study.

Other than that, i keep my head down, like you.
The Professor

[distantearlywarning]

28. Now there you go bringing science into the debate.

That just proves you're one of those snobby Ivory Tower types who can't wait to destroy other nice DUers strongly held anecdotal beliefs with your so-called "facts"! Don't you know that all opinions are equally valid, even those based in no reality whatsoever?

:sarcasm:

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Sorry

Don't know what i was thinking. Won't happen again. Well, probably it will, but i'll be just as sorry then, too.
The Professor

[tandot]

32. You mean facts like these:

http://www.cancernews.com/data/Article/329.asp

<snip>

In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) formally listed secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen in The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 10th Report on Carcinogens. The most recent report can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html on the Internet.

<snip>

Here is the actual report: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html

Scroll down to Tobacco Related Exposures and click on the link.


11th Report on Carcinogens

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
National Toxicology Program
Pursuant to Section 301(b) (4) of the Public Health Service Act as Amended by Section 262, PL 95-622

Tobacco Related Exposures
Introduction
Tobacco contains more than 2,500 chemical constituents, many of
which are known human carcinogens. Chewing tobacco and snuff are
the two main forms of smokeless tobacco used in the United States.
Tobacco smoking produces both mainstream smoke, which is drawn
through the tobacco column and exits through the mouthpiece during
puffing, and sidestream smoke, which is emitted from the smoldering
tobacco between puffs.
Environmental tobacco smoke, smokeless tobacco, and tobacco
smoking were first listed (separately) in the Ninth Report on
Carcinogens (2000). The profiles for these compounds, which are
listed (separately) as known to be a human carcinogen, follow this
introduction.

<snip>

More info at link.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. You Said That Already

Saying it twice doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
The Professor

[tandot]

39. You are claiming to be an expert on the issue but post incorrect information

not supported by any scientific evidence and without any links.

You don't have to believe what I say. I didn't claim to be an expert. I gave you links so you can check it out for yourself.


on edit:

Here is a link to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that you said you reviewed a study for:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/health_effects.htm

<snip>

Fact Sheet
Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking
(updated December 2006)

Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body; causing many diseases and reducing the health of smokers in general.1 The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 438,000 deaths, or nearly 1 of every 5 deaths, each year in the United States.2,3 More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4

<snip>

[tandot]

31. You are posting incorrect information. Tobacco contains carcinogens

http://www.cancernews.com/data/Article/329.asp

<snip>

In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) formally listed secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen in The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 10th Report on Carcinogens. The most recent report can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html on the Internet.

<snip>

Here is the actual report: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/toc11.html

Scroll down to Tobacco Related Exposures and click on the link.


11th Report on Carcinogens

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
National Toxicology Program
Pursuant to Section 301(b) (4) of the Public Health Service Act as Amended by Section 262, PL 95-622

Tobacco Related Exposures
Introduction
Tobacco contains more than 2,500 chemical constituents, many of
which are known human carcinogens. Chewing tobacco and snuff are
the two main forms of smokeless tobacco used in the United States.
Tobacco smoking produces both mainstream smoke, which is drawn
through the tobacco column and exits through the mouthpiece during
puffing, and sidestream smoke, which is emitted from the smoldering
tobacco between puffs.
Environmental tobacco smoke, smokeless tobacco, and tobacco
smoking were first listed (separately) in the Ninth Report on
Carcinogens (2000). The profiles for these compounds, which are
listed (separately) as known to be a human carcinogen, follow this
introduction.

<snip>

More info at link.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Don't Know Much Chemistry, Do You?

The causative mechanism for cancinogencity is free radical attack at specific bond regions within individual cells. Free radicals do not form except under extreme conditions where sufficient heat, uV light, or other severe parameters are present.

Besides, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I clearly stated that the CDC study was on second hand smoke. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The smoke that goes into the lungs of the smoker CLEARLY still has enough thermal energy to retain the free radicals, and the fire/plasma at the end of the cigarette contains about 30x times the needed energy to form them.

On a second hand basis, the smoke cools to room temperature in under 1 second. (Do the math based upon the Cp, Tc, and mass of the smoke particlulate.) Free radicals will oxidize with the air as the temperature falls, react with the nitrogen in the air earlier, or will absorb atmospheric moisture which satisfies the radicalized carbon atom. At which point, they aren't free radicals anymore.

So, i'm not posting any incorrect information. I said what i said. I was right. The CDC classifies it as i said, and has for 7 years.

Sure tobacco has a small amount of carcinogens in it. Yes, those become far more abundant upon combustion. But, i wasn't talking about immediate influence.

And you're not talking about any science you understand. I am.
The Professor

[tandot]

38. Please post links.

There have to be scientific articles supporting your position.

Google Scholar is your friend.

Here is my search result with tobacco and carcinogen

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=tobacco+carcinogen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

[rucky]

24. It wasn't disrespectful. Just a bit of an overreaction.

Which leads to an equal and opposite overreaction.

I wish we could feel comfortable posting here when we're upset about something.

[DemGa]

35. I made a joke on that thread

but I did not mean to offend.

I actually do see your point on the matter. I don't like smoke coming out of peoples' lungs into my face: even outside.

This place turned into a wild lib hatefest!!

[Javaman]

40. No need to appologize...

smoking, guns, etc are all flame inducing posts regardless of the OP's intent.

I will always degrade to: "I know you are but what am I?" type of arguments.

I usually get out the popcorn and watch. :)

[rasputin1952]

41. All of us are going to die...there is a factual basis for

that somewhat obvious disclosure.

Everything we eat, drink, breathe or come into contact with will affect us in either a dramatic or benign way.

I am more of the mind that the air I breathe is toxic for many reasons, not just some second hand smoke. Acids, ozone, carbons tossed into the air by internal combustion engines...jeez, there is so much garbage in our air, I see second hand smoke as a mere minor irritant. seeing someone smoke for 3 minutes, and looking just a little farther out to see a smokestack of a powerplant of chemical plant, and I don't think the guy next to me is much of a bother.

Mercury and lead in water supplies; the rampant use of pesticides and fertilizers; the list is endless, and the current administration reducing the EPA to a non-entity is a much greater worry than some of the things we "don't like".

In any case, I really don't think you should have to apologize for your views. It is wise to have put on a suit of armor and have thick skin to boot when posting on a message board.

I am glad you did not use the card...that seems to crop up often.

Be well and post on...:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. What's to apologize for?

Somebody was smoking in a non-smoking restaurant. You had a valid complaint about it. The way I see it is, the only person who owes an apology is the guy who smoked in a non-smoking restaurant, and the people giving you grief about it.

[taterguy]

43. The only reason I was offended . . .

Is that you did a much better job than I did with the "Start a ridiculous thread just to provoke angry responses" trick than I did.

Bravo.

And starting a second thread about it?

Pure genius

:yourock: