Adults Smoking at Scout Events

[Bob White 20]

"And Bill Clinton never had relations with that Lewinski women, either!"

 

Has anyone ever lied to cover up something they did right? Are we really to believe that Philip Morris is lieing about what their product to hide thae fact that they are a healthy product with nothing but healing and regenerative side efffects, but they don't want the public to know?

 

PPPLLLEEEAAASSSEE! Let's rejoin the real world. Even the manufacturers say this is a product and activity that should not be used in front of minors, and they agree that there are harmfull health effects from second-hand smoke.

 

Anyone willing to overlook overwhelming evidence such as this, in order to allow tobacco use in front of scouts, needs to take a serious look at what their motivation is. I have to think that they ar either unconcerned about the scouts and wiling to put their personal bias ahad of the wlfare of the scouts they serve, or they lack the leadership and personal strength to protect the scouts from those who are willing to expose them to the harmfull habit of tobacco use.

 

This has nothing to do with your definition of "may not". This is about what our actions should be as adults who have accepted responsibility to safeguard other peoples children while they are with us. Rule or no rule, prohibiting tobacco use in front of the scouts is the right thing to do. You should not need a written rule to get you to do what is right.

 

Bob White

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"Even the manufacturers say this is a product and activity that should not be used in front of minors,"

 

Did you believe the citizens of Jonestown when they said that they were happy?

[SR540Beaver 116]

BW,

 

I respectfully disagree with you. Whether something is the right thing to do or not, we do need a clear concise rule spelling it out. That is the whole purpose of the G2SS. Without it, there would be some SM somewhere who wouldn't think twice about taking an 11 year old poor swimmer on a white water rafting trip and throw him in a raft with a bunch of other 11 year olds. Obviously the right thing to do would be to consider the boy's physical capabilities and the safty concerns. Without the rules though, some rocket scientist out there would do it. Without rules, it is left to the individuals discretion. If the BSA wants to prohibit smoking for any reason, they need to use a word that is understood the same way by everyone.....PROHIBIT. Until they do, the controversy and waffling will remain.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I do not pretend to be an expert on the relationship between smoking and cancer, and I have not spent hours reading the studies. Here is what I understand to be the case. Studies HAVE shown a causal relationship between smoking and cancer by demonstrating such a big difference between the cancer rate of smokers and that of non-smokers, and after eliminating other potential causes, that the difference cannot be explained otherwise. This is the best science can do at the moment, and apparerently it is good enough for the scientific community, and it is good enough for me. However, when people say that no study has PROVEN that smoking causes cancer, there is a small grain of truth there. That grain is that nobody has been able to prove HOW smoking causes cancer -- in other words, scientists do not yet know which molecule interacts in what way with which other molecule to cause a cancer to begin forming. But as I say, the statistical evidence in this case is so overwhelming that I think it is "close enough" to say, yes, smoking does cause cancer.

 

I also believe that the "mechanism" type of proof -- HOW smoking causes a particular disease -- DOES exist for some lung and heart diseases, other than cancer. One example is emphysema, which I suspect I have misspelled.

 

FatOldGuy, your anecdote about a smoker living to a ripe old age, cancer-free, doesn't prove anything. I can tell you, anecdotally, that I have never heard of anyone having one particular kind of cancer, throat cancer, who did NOT smoke.

[Hunt 11]

It may just be semantics, but it seems to me that it's crystal clear that smoking causes lung cancer. It doesn't cause all cases of lung cancer, and not all smokers get lung cancer, but it's clear that the vast majority of lung cancer cases would not occur but for smoking. It may be that the confusion comes from the fact that you can't clearly establish that any particular smoker's cancer was caused by smoking--he might be part of the small group that would have gotten lung cancer anyway. So saying that smoking causes cancer is like saying driving blindfolded causes traffic accidents--clearly true, but not necessarily true in an isolated case.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

New Jersey dude, I'll tell you what my wife's oncologist told me. With few exceptions, they avoid saying anything "causes" cancer because the correlation isn't high enough. In other words, if smoking caused cancer most smokers would get cancer. Smoking only increases your risk.

 

I don't smoke but I do expect scientific honesty.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

FOG (that's not me calling you FOG, that's some guy named "New Jersey dude") says:

 

New Jersey dude, I'll tell you what my wife's oncologist told me. With few exceptions, they avoid saying anything "causes" cancer because the correlation isn't high enough. In other words, if smoking caused cancer most smokers would get cancer. Smoking only increases your risk.

 

Oh, I see, it "only" increases your risk. Your risk, that is, of contracting a terrible disease that often leads to a long, slow, horrible painful death, and even if it doesn't, seriously disrupts your life. And here I thought it might be the actual cause, but I feel much better now that I know that it only increases your risk. I think I'll run right out and buy a pack of smokes so I can start getting addicted to this wonderful stuff, so in 20 or 30 years my wife and/or kids can decide whether it's time to disconnect poor old Dad's feeding tube.

 

This reminds me of the old line, "But otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

[NJCubScouter 1389]

 

Let's try that again:

 

FOG (that's not me calling you FOG, that's some guy named "New Jersey dude") says:

 

New Jersey dude, I'll tell you what my wife's oncologist told me. With few exceptions, they avoid saying anything "causes" cancer because the correlation isn't high enough. In other words, if smoking caused cancer most smokers would get cancer. Smoking only increases your risk.

 

Oh, I see, it "only" increases your risk. Your risk, that is, of contracting a terrible disease that often leads to a long, slow, horrible painful death, and even if it doesn't, seriously disrupts your life. And here I thought it might be the actual cause, but I feel much better now that I know that it only increases your risk. I think I'll run right out and buy a pack of smokes so I can start getting addicted to this wonderful stuff, so in 20 or 30 years my wife and/or kids can decide whether it's time to disconnect poor old Dad's feeding tube.

 

This reminds me of the old line, "But otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

 

[packsaddle 753]

And so we have stumbled into one problem with statistical relationships. That is, a correlation (or a regression) does not thereby explain the numerical relationship. It doesn't show cause. What it does show is a promising line of investigation and when interpreted in a slightly different light, it quantifies risk. However, risk played no role whatsoever in my decision not to use tobacco. My body made that decision loud and clear back when I tried it for the first and last time. So I am interested, among those of you who do use tobacco products, how did you get started? Are you glad you did? Do you think there is a greater health risk associated with your use of tobacco?

The edited part: NJ, I forgot to add, having gone through some exquisitely painful throat surgery this summer (not cancer), conversations with my ENT specialist revealed a number of cancer cases for whom there had been no history of tobacco use. It does happen, just more often with tobacco.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"FOG (that's not me calling you FOG, that's some guy named "New Jersey dude") "

 

Hey, that's okay. There's only one denizen of this forum who may not call me FOG and he knows who he is.

 

"I think I'll run right out and buy a pack of smokes"

 

You've been taking lessons on how to misconstrue from Bob White, haven't you. I don't advocate smoking. I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. However, I do expect scientific honesty in making scientific claims.

 

 

[evmori 11]

I don't disagree with you on this point, Bob. What I do disagree with is the wording.

 

Try this. I can tell you "Bob, I may not allow you to drive my car." That leaves the door open for me to allow you. Same wording in the G2SS. If the BSA wants to prohibit smoking then say "smoking is prohibited when youth are present". Then the controversy goes away. Obviously there is some reason why it isn't worded this way in the G2SS.

 

Ed Mori

[Bob White 20]

"Same wording in the G2SS."

 

No it's not Ed. Its not even close.

 

This woould be the same wording using cars.

 

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without automobiles and may not allow the use of automobiles at any BSA activity involving youth participants."

 

Ed that has an entirely different meaning than "Bob, I may not allow you to drive my car."

 

The problem is I really don't think you see the difference.

[evmori 11]

Doesn't make any difference, Bob. Put any word you want in & the meaning is the same!

 

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without knives and may not allow the use of knives at any BSA activity involving youth participants."

 

Or

 

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without fire and may not allow the use of fire at any BSA activity involving youth participants."

 

Or

 

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without dutch ovens and may not allow the use of dutch ovens at any BSA activity involving youth participants."

 

I could go on. Do you read these examples as knives, fire & dutch ovens are prohibited?

 

Ed Mori

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Ed, elsewhere in the G2SS, for example, is wording, "For all street or pavement skating activities, participants should wear properly fitted helmets that meet American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards; padded gloves; wrist supports; and elbow and knee pads. No street or pavement skating is authorized without helmets."

 

The even wafflier term 'should' is used initially regarding wearing helmets. Do you consider this to mean that helmets are optional?

Then it states that no skating is authorized without helmets. Do you and others read this as contradictory?

 

My point is that if one applies your standard of clarity to the entire G2SS, a number of important safety-related policies are in jeopardy. I sympathize with your desire to have policies worded clearly. Nevertheless, I understand that the intent regarding tobacco is more to limit use rather than to allow as an option.

 

I would like to hear someone from the committee that created these words defend them in this forum.

[Bob White 20]

Ed,

Yes!

Bob