Ten years ago (sorry, it’s not in the archives yet, though I recently added 1994 and 2002), I did a cartoon about “third-hand smoke.” Now, it seems my silly idea is coming to life.
Third-Hand Smoke Cartoon Comes to Life Ten Years Later
Comments are closed.
6 Comments.
It's the medicalization of all toxins everywhere that were generated in some way through human behavior. They're going after tobacco because there's a political opportunity to pile on this 'whipping boy' of societal ills, when in reality any social distortion can be traced back to root causes and prosecuted in the same way. Adult consequences of child abuse, lingering/chronic effects of underwater gas tank seepage, etc etc etc…..and McCain laughed about Obama insisting that nuclear power be safe. WTF?
They've attempted to go after the junk food industry but it's lobby and supporters are still way too powerful. But it's all the same issue, a failure to catalogue all possible future consequences of an action and justify the trade off.
Of course, Ted, that's completely impossible to do. Maybe some day humanity will link actions to consequences.
It's all your fault, then. Better draw us an antidote.
In the interview it mentions that "third hand smoke is (your) baby and (you're) not giving it up!"
Does this indicate that you mean to file some sort of lawsuit over the terminology?
Just a comment about methodologies… the article provides as relevant data what people think is dangerous.
That is plain stupid. It's not data. It doesn't say what is or not dangerous.
It's a terrible tendency of media today, I could elaborate on it but it would get longish. The idea is: I'm lazy, I want reliable-sounding data, so I'll do a survey instead of studying up.
Provides such insights as in this article. Reporting what people think is the reality as an indication that the said reality is valid.
Applies to internal security, politics, healthcare, and even science it seems.
Material for a column, drawing or both here. (seems no one is talking about this phenomenon, although it hurts reporting a lot, and even goes to influence decision-making)
"Does this indicate that you mean to file some sort of lawsuit over the terminology?"
Are you serious?
Interesting that Alan Blum doesn't buy it.
On Dec. 29, researchers at MassGeneral Hospital for Children decided to use the term "third-hand smoke" for a study to describe a smoking mother passing toxins to her baby while breastfeeding or small children touching surfaces that have been contaminated by smoke.
I'd like to know what dens of inequity people are taking their children to where they can touch surfaces contaminated by smoke. It's hard to find a bar (which are centers of healthy activity, after all) that allows smoking anymore, except here in tobacco country (and it's not unusual here lately, although I doubt the state of NC will be banning smoking anytime soon). And most people, including smokers, don't allow smoking in their houses. So I don't think our kids are in dire, immediate danger of dying from leaving their pristine, sanitized homes and going out into the world and being subjected to minute amounts of tobacco residue and the evil people who smoke.
I grumble sometimes about not being able to smoke in restaurants and bars, but I understand why this has happened. And I can always go somewhere else. I am, I think, as polite a smoker as I can be. But this is ridiculous, and it sounds like an idea cooked up by the rabid anti-smoking contingent intent to eradicating smoking. And that is never going to happen.