Contra Costa Times Blowing Smoke About Hookahs
The Contra Costa Times featured this article in their Health section about hookah smoking, which it calls “…just as dangerous as cigarette smoking.” It cites an article from the American Institute in Beirut – a university I definitely turn to first when looking for health studies.
Hookah, of course, is very popular here in Berkeley, with Greeks often going to hookah bars for exchanges and the constant supply of hookah tobacco from several stores on Telegraph.
Now, before I begin, let me just say that I obviously am not an expert on lung cancer, etc. I am also a hookah supporter, and a former cigarette user. But, after observing unsuccessful drug policy in this country go from bad to worse, it seems obvious that a course of action that includes blatant lies and hyperbole is not going to help anyone who is truly concerned with tobacco use.
A simple look at Wikipedia clears some of the air on the issue. I, of course, give them much more credibility, considering their sources and the track record of the Times. Some excerpts from their article on hookah:
Fruit-flavored shisha got its start in the late 1980s when Egyptian tobacco companies experimented with flavored tobacco as a way to transition people away from cigarette smoking.
The [hookah] filtration is suggested to filter out, in part, tar and nicotine from the tobacco. However, most brands of shisha tobacco generally contain a mention saying “no tar” and very small amounts of nicotine (0.5%) to begin with.
Shisha smoking is generally believed to be less damaging to health than cigarettes. Research has shown that since the tobacco is being heated (as opposed to burned), fewer carcinogens are produced in the smoke.
The reality of the matter is that all tobacco smoking endangers personal health. But so does eating too much red meat. And walking in the Berkeley Hills. The American Lung Association can spout its exaggerated opinion all it wants, but hookah smoking is still a safer and more enjoyable alternative. And, by the time any of us get lung cancer, we’ll have working stem cell therapy. Right?
On a side note, my favorite section of the CC Times article:
And many youths don’t stop with tobacco. One East Bay teen, who asked not to be identified, said many of his friends like to smoke marijuana through the water pipes as well — though ‘it doesn’t work as well as a regular pipe or bong.’
Nice little scare tactic just to put paranoid parents over the edge. Note: he’s obviously not doing it right.
right, wikipedia is so reliable, good call.
Comment by anon54 — July 13, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
you mean they smoke the marijuana in Berkeley? but dont they have all those drug free zones? (sarcastic tone)
Comment by anon — July 13, 2005 @ 3:12 pm
you are an idiot if you trust wikipedia over a university
Comment by smart person — July 13, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
I mean, honestly. It’s not like wikipedia is definitely wrong, but just for the credibility issue…couldn’t you have found that info somewhere else?
Comment by cecilia — July 13, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
I dont suppose any of you saw the multitude of articles quoted in that article, did you… or the multitude of universities and studies it cited…
Comment by Ben — July 13, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
Why does Wikipedia even exist?
Comment by Anonymous — July 13, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
Wikipedia is a free source of consolidated information that is generally more reliable than a random webpage. Things that get onto the site are peer-reviewed, which is more than can be said for some academic publications.
The better question is why would someone ask a question as stupid as “why does wikipedia exist” when anyone with a 4th-grade education could probably rattle off at least three good reasons.
Comment by Hippo — July 13, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
“Peer-reviewed” is not quite accurate. Generally, it’s good for information on non-controversial topics, or geeky topics that a few dudes know a whole lot about but most people don’t care about. But considering the demographic that uses Wikipedia, it (at least its English version) shouldn’t be considered a particularly reliable source for disputed info on something such as hookahs, especially since it seems to be written by someone who found hookahs an interesting enough topic for a thesis.
Comment by Beetle — July 13, 2005 @ 8:24 pm
You are a shill for the greek community and interests. Worse than a lobbyist in Washington DC. Grow a clue.
- A hookah owner and user
Comment by Spanky McCrackers — July 14, 2005 @ 12:14 am
You better not use one of those in union square in San Francisco. They made smoking outdoors except in parking areas and streets illegal.
Comment by anon — July 14, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Alle details can be found at:
http://www.sacrednarghile.com
and http://www.narghile.blogspot.com
Comment by Genevieve — July 16, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
Isn’t it true you can delete Wikipedia entries and enter in crap?
Comment by Anonymous — July 17, 2005 @ 12:18 am
on what basis is the American University in Beirut not credible! because its in Beirut? you are stupid. and you trust a dictionary definition more, even more an online one! You are definitely a NARROW MINDED DICK!
(wink wink)
Comment by Crazyguy! — July 17, 2005 @ 1:18 am
The studies carried on by the American University of Beirut on hookah are certainly interesting. However, they contain a certain number of problems related to the puffing parameters (machine-based and obviously different from happens with humans), the use of non-natural charcoal, etc.
For these reasons, their results can be seriously discussed and quick conclusions should be avoided.
These questions are discussed in detail on our site (www.blogspotnarghile.com)
Comment by Genevieve — September 30, 2005 @ 4:21 am
Sory, the correct URL is www.narghile.blogspot.com
Comment by Genevieve — September 30, 2005 @ 4:26 am