It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking in Public / Cancer

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisibleplane
i dont understand why people smoke tobacco to begin with..ESPECIALLY when it's not naturally grown..how stupid can you be

Mary Jane is the smart lane...weed is all ya need! and don't tell me that tobacco and marijuana are even anywhere close to the same health-risk wise, and I'm ready to prove you wrong

[edit on 28-6-2005 by invisibleplane]


Erm...
tobacco isn't naturally grown? Do you mean "it's not grown organically", or something else?

Climb down offa your Horse O' Defensiveness a sec. Marijuana isn't what's being discussed here; I'm sure anyone with even the teeniest skill in Googlology will find enough evidence to concede that yes, marijuana isn't as toxic as tobacco


Of course, smoking anything will hurt your lungs if you do it for long enough - but that's not quite the same thing; also, many Europeans use tobacco WITH marijuana when they're rolling their preferred smokable. Which gives you double trouble.

So. Back to the topic....




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Now - linkages for studies relating to second-hand smoke (I was sure I'd already posted these - maybe it was a different thread. Or maybe I'm senile. Whatever
)

First, there's this set...

American Cancer Society link

World Health Org. Link

Yes, I'm expecting at least one poster to call these sources biased and non-objective; if that's your opinion though, please tell me who you'd consider unbiased.

Enjoy!


Oh Tink....

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am at work now (and seemingly non-stop for the next week), but I promise I will discuss these studies with you very soon.

For now, let me say that I think the WHO's study was done quite well. Reporting; however, is another story altogether. And, as far as the WHO's study, at the very least, it wasn't vacated in 1998 by an anti-tobacco Federal judge for egregious scientific malfeasance.

Curious yet? Check it out: Hoping someone would take the bait



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Ah. So we're talking about the legal capacity in which various organizations may or may pursue in terms of research?


Or the results themselves?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Well it's not hard to see who smokes and who doesn't.

Why are smokers so surprised at non-smokers not wanting to be subjected to their health hazardous filth. Some smoker's defending examples are so lame.

HAHAHA: Hambergler I think it was? Bad Breath and Secondhand smoke are marginally different problems. One is an inconvience and the other is a carcinogen. In fact you had a list of equally ridiculous rebuttles.

Smoking and exposure to Secondhand smoke is unhealthy no matter what way you cut it. I haven't disputed any of smoker's legal rights. I asked you to accept the obvious truth of the matter -- smoking kills. With that truth in mind, what is so unreasonable about asking smoker's to light up away form those that care about their health? Then again, you don't care about yourself enough to take care of your body, why would you care about those you harm around you?

Exactly, you don't. It boils down to morality for me. Given the factual data about Secondhand smoke, you knowingly make the choice to harm others.
Thats both dishonorable and direspectful, in regards to general humanity.

Smoking is a mental and physical weakness. You're not strong enough to control your own actions. In your apathy of personal well being, you expose others to the disgusting poison you're willfully sucking on.

It baffles me that some of you claim not to understand that cigarrette smoke causes cancer and a wide variety of other health problems. On that same note, if I'm able to only enlighten one person, my job is done.

I won't hold my breath on Hamburglar, by the way McDonald's is bad for you buddy. I'm sure that hasn't been proven to your satisfaction either.


The following sources are as reputable as it's going to get. Didin't have to look very far.




Secondhand Smoke

From the American Cancer Society

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoke, is a mixture of two forms of smoke from burning tobacco products:

Sidestream smoke: smoke that comes from a lighted cigarette, pipe, or cigar

Mainstream smoke: smoke that is exhaled by a smoker

When nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke it is called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke absorb nicotine and other compounds just as smokers do. The greater the exposure to secondhand smoke, the greater the level of these harmful compounds in your body.

Why Is It a Problem?

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means that there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Environmental tobacco smoke has also been classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the US National Toxicology Program.

Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.

Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers
About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children
The 1986 US Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking reached 3 important conclusions about secondhand smoke:

Involuntary smoking causes disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.
When compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more respiratory symptoms, and slower development of lung function as the lung matures.
Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
Where Is It a Problem?

There are 3 locations where you should be especially concerned about exposure to secondhand smoke:

Your workplace: Secondhand smoke meets the criteria to be classified as a potential cancer-causing agent by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in the workplace. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), another federal agency, also recommends that secondhand smoke be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. Because there are no known safe levels, they recommend that exposures to secondhand smoke be reduced to the lowest possible levels.

Aside from protecting nonsmokers, workplace smoking restrictions may also encourage smokers who wish to quit or reduce their consumption of tobacco products.

Public places: Everyone is vulnerable to secondhand smoke exposure in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools and daycare centers. Although some businesses are reluctant to ban smoking, there is no credible evidence that going smoke-free is bad for business. Public places where children go are a special area of concern.

Your home: Making your home smoke-free is perhaps one of the most important things you can do. Any family member can develop health problems related to secondhand smoke. Think about it: we spend more time at home than anywhere else. A smoke-free home protects your family, your guests, and even your pets.

Smoking Odors

There is no research in the medical literature about the cancer-causing effects of cigarette odors, but the literature shows that secondhand tobacco smoke can permeate the hair, clothing, and other surfaces. The unknown cancer causing effects would be minimal in comparison to direct secondhand smoke exposure, such as living in a household that has a smoker.

What Can Be Done About It?

Local, state, and federal authorities can enact public policies to protect people from secondhand smoke and to protect children from tobacco-caused diseases and addiction. Because there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke, it is important that any such policies be as strong as possible, and that they do not prevent action at other levels of government.

To learn how you can become involved in reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, contact your American Cancer Society at 1-800-ACS-2345.

Additional Resources

Other Organizations

American Lung Association

Telephone: 1-(800) 586-4872; www.lungusa.org

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Telephone: (202) 260-2090; www.epa.gov/iaq/ets/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) - Tobacco Information and Prevention Source (TIPS)

Telephone: 1-(800) 311-3545; www.cdc.gov/tobacco/

National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Information Service, NCI Public Inquiries Office Building 31

Telephone: 1-(800) 4-CANCER (1-(800) 422-6237); www.cancer.gov

References

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2003. Atlanta, GA.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Current Intelligence Bulletin 54: Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace - Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects. 1991. (Publication No. 91-108) Available online at: www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001001-d001100/d001030/d001030.html. Accessed November 2003.

Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 1992. (Report # EPA/600/6-90/006F) Available online at. Accessed November 2003.

Glantz, Stanton. "Tobacco Biology and Politics," Health Edco, 1992.

Patten, et al. "Workplace Smoking Policy and Changes in Smoking Behaviour in California: A Suggested Association," Tobacco Control 1995; 4: 36-41.

Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, Brody DJ, Etzel RA, Maurer KR. Exposure of the US population to environmental tobacco smoke: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. JAMA. 1996;275(16):1233-40.

Steenland K. Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease JAMA. 1992;267:94-99.

US Department of Health and Human Services. 10th Report on Carcinogens. Public Health Service - National Toxicology Program. 2002. Available online at ehp.niehs.nih.gov... Accessed November 2003.

US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1986. (Publication # HPS 87-8398)

source


Quitting smoking is one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
oh yeah...

and that's unbiased....

good luck to anyone trying to quit smoking!!!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
1.

"Hey man. Mind if I SMOKE?"
"No. Mind if I FART?"

- Steve Martin (when he was a wild and crazy guy.)

2. "The Smokers", by Steve Martin.

He lit the cigarette and smoked it down to the filter in one breath. He silently thanked the cigarette company for being thoughtful enough about his health to include a filter to protect him. So he lit up another. This time he didn't exhale the squeaky-clean filtered smoke, but just let it nestle in his lungs, filing his body with that good menthol flavor. Some more smokers knocked on his door and they came in and all started smoking along with him.

"How wonderful it is that we're all smoking," he thought.

Everyone smoked and smoked and after they smoked they all talked about smoking and how nice it was that they were all smokers and then they smoked some more.
Smoke, smoke, smoke. They all sang "Smoke That Cigarette" and "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes." Then the smokers smoked one more cigarette and left him alone in his easy chair, about to relax and enjoy a nice quiet smoke. And then his lips fell off.

3. Cancer be damned. Too much 2nd-hand smoke gives me migraines.




[edit on 13-7-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Interesting discussion. I think smoking is very bad for non-smokers, and smokers alike, but so is eating MickeyDs, and a host of other things we do with our lives.. However, being a smoker, I'm going to smoke.

My mother, God rest her, was a once in a while smoker. She died of lung cancer. The woman in the room next to her, as she was dying, was a non-smoker with lung cancer... Dying.

On a given day, in an autopsy performed on 60 year old men, or there about... One can not differentiate the lungs of a two pack a day person, and a "normal" city dweller.

Basically, living is going to kill you. You will smply live until you die. And so it goes.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The few autopsies I've actually seen included two males.

One was 74, and had been a smoker (from Nebraska, fwiw); his initial lung cancer metastasized to his liver and brain.

One was 81, and though a non-smoker, had lived in Los Angeles for most of his adult life, and died in a car accident.

There was a world of difference between the lungs; though the latter were indeed congested and with "black spots" relating to pollution, it was not even close to resembling the lungs of the cancer patient. That being said though, living in an area of high smog can increase your chances of lung cancer (even as a non-smoker) thricefold.

There's an image here which illustrates the point a little clearer, although it's never mentioned if the first lung's owner was a city-dweller or not; please, be aware that the pathology pictures are graphic (as are all pathology images).

You make a great point, however - not only will "life kill you", so to speak, but we live in cities were pollution is ruining our health, and this is something which needs to be addressed urgently too. There's another link here illustrating "smog lung". Image of lung cancer, as a comparison

There's a really interesting page here about pollution in London during the 1940s and 50s - although there's not much clinical data, it makes for interesting reading.

More images of lung pathology can be seen here

Source for smog/lung cancer statement

USC piece on smog and lung function in children



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Well, as a non-smoker I have a right not to breathe it in. I don't care if you smoke, don't do it in front of me.


I don't drive a car, but i've never ever had the nerve to ask someone not to drive thier car to stop polluting my air (usualy to the store 2 blocks away)

Bottom line
Smokers choose to smoke while they know it's bad.
Non smokers give smokers a bad time about second hand smoke but never ever stop to think that they are driving a car, wich is a much more severe pollutor of not only our health, but the entire environment.

As a joke i made up some warnings wich should be on teh side of ANY car ihmo (i'm sorry they are in my native languege dutch, i'll post translations tho)


Translation:CAr Exhaust fumes contain high doses of hazardous chemicals like carbonmonoxide, arsenicum and sulfuroxide


Translation: Driving is Deadly

So imho the streets should look like this

translation left sticker: Driving can lead you to a slow and painfull dead
right sticker: Driving can seriously dammage your health and those around you.




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   



Bottom line
Smokers choose to smoke while they know it's bad.
Non smokers give smokers a bad time about second hand smoke but never ever stop to think that they are driving a car, wich is a much more severe pollutor of not only our health, but the entire environment.



I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that car pollution is a very bad thing. How does this negate the argument that passive smoking is also bad? It doesn't.

I'm curious as to why you feel that you can't object to car pollution? Sure, it's not a good idea (in our oh-so-peaceful times) to ask the guy next door to quit driving while you're around....but there are ways we can protest against pollution.

Be active about it!

And don't think that nonsmokers are a) unaware of, or b) ignoring, the facts about vehicular pollution. We're generally neither


(and some of us actually do try to fight on both counts. My local politicians hate me, I'm sure....)


Edited to say: No, I don't drive a car. I'm a non-smoker. I don't wear chemical perfumes, and I don't wear obnoxious hair products. I don't know where that puts me on the grand scale of personal pollution, but at the moment, I'm fairly sure my biggest contributions would be from my derriere and stinky feet, respectively. And neither has ever killed anyone


[edit on 14-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
You're right Tinkleflower, i should have added to my post that i am well aware that smoking and second hand smoke is indeed very bad !

and i to have very smelly feet



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Tinkleflower,

Looks like you should just take over.


Everything I would have said, you've already beat me to it.

Many of you object to the notion of respecting another person's health be not smoking around them, but none of you have a legitimate premise.
Suffice it to say, your defenses are "the worlds already polluted, pollute it more, it doesn't make a difference" and "we're all going to die, so no point in being health-conscious, ignore my willingly exerted carcinogens".

Both of these statements are absurd and ignorant, and more or less, the only objections I see.

I am a healthy person. I CARE about myself enough to take measures that enhance my physical and mental vitality. Life, no matter how you believe it came about, is a precious gift. Especially a life born reasonably healthy. I acknowledge the fortune bestowed by nature and appreciate it.

I hope, one day, some of you can share that appreciation. And in doing so, acquire respect for the health of the person next to you.

The healthier you are, physically and mentallly, the richer and fuller your life can be.

The common misconceptions of overall health may be attributed to folley Western healthcare practices. Despite all of our knowledge, most doctors deny the fact the mind and body directly effect one another, in a healthy or unhealthy manner. Instead of explaining how the causes of diseases could have been prevented, such as not smoking and not participating in other toxic lifestlye habits -- they prescribe a pill.

Preventive healthcare is the most effective approach to health and longevity.

Ancient Eastern Approach: The Three Treasures

Essence refers to the most highly refined substances which constitute the human body.

Energy is the vital force which activates every fucntion and drives every process in the human body, volunatry as well as involuntary.

Spirit refers to the mind and all its various facets and functions.

"The body is the temple of life. Energy is the force of life. Spirit is the governor of life. If one of them goes off balance, all three are damaged. When the spirit takes command the body naturally follows it, and this arrangement benefits all Three Treasures. When the body leads the way, the spirit follows and this harms all Three Treasures."
--Wen-tzu Classic (first century B.C.)


Smoking is the body leading the way.



[edit on 14-7-2005 by Kalibur]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kalibur
Tinkleflower,

Looks like you just take over.




That's my stinky feet, you know. They can bring even the strongest to their knees


But back on the subject (teehee)....I agree, yes....health is not just about the physical, by any means.

We know that we can help with pain, stress, depression, etc by non-physical means (such as meditation, psychoanalysis, hypnosis, etc); like a good working engine (to stay with the vehicle subtopic!), there are several aspects at play - it only stands to reason that when one of these facets is not up to par, the others will suffer.

And I think you're right - to use the "But there's already pollution" excuse is simply denying responsibility, and that's never a good thing.

(Unless you're a politician...)



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by siriuslyone
NEGATIVE thoughts and fear cause it, period!


I absolutely agree with that, though I never experienced cancer. It's a disease caused by a confused immune system, highly psycho somatic. And I think the more you are afraid of it or any other diseases, the more likely you get it. It's a problem of todays civilication, founded on a (christian/catholic) tradition of fear. And the smoking problem tries to blind you by not talking about all the chemicals you eat, drink and breathe every day - as long as you live in a city. But even on a farm there are a lot of chemicals around you that are highly toxic, but they are a thousand times more dangerous if you know it. Problem is, you can't ignore the fear, especially not if everybody is talking about and telling you that you're poisoned. So if you are existancially afraid of death, you are going to suffer from a deadly disease more probably (what doesn't mean there aren't any diseases in the world without fear).
But as a smoker I see that non-smokers have the right to breathe fresh air, so we have to respect that anyhow. But passing by a smoker on the street doesn't cause cancer, that's for sure.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   


NEGATIVE thoughts and fear cause it, period!



I absolutely agree with that, though I never experienced cancer. It's a disease caused by a confused immune system, highly psycho somatic. And I think the more you are afraid of it or any other diseases, the more likely you get it. It's a problem of todays civilication, founded on a (christian/catholic) tradition of fear.



Interesting. Whilst I do think that we can leave our immune systems very badly damaged by stress, that doesn't mean that cancer is a psychosomatic illness. Children and very young babies are also cancer victims - I'm not sure how their illnesses can be attributed to a psychosomatic cause or fear.

And using your theory, can you explain why cancer is found in non-Christian societies too? Or how some cancers are proven to be caused by virii? Cancer has been shown as a cause of death for thousands of years - well before Christ was born.





[edit on 14-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Interesting. Whilst I do think that we can leave our immune systems very badly damaged by stress, that doesn't mean that cancer is a psychosomatic illness. Children and very young babies are also cancer victims - I'm not sure how their illnesses can be attributed to a psychosomatic cause or fear.

And using your theory, can you explain why cancer is found in non-Christian societies too? Or how some cancers are proven to be caused by virii? Cancer has been shown as a cause of death for thousands of years - well before Christ was born.





[edit on 14-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]

It's true, it's not only a psychic thing, it's mainly a disease of the immune system. But I think (and this is well known) that cancer is a disease of civilication, it may have existed before, but never before so many people died of it. There is also much more older people today, which means more exhausted immune systems. But I can't explain babies dying of it (like a friend of mine's did). So what I'm trying to say is: fear of it, or of death in general, is elevating it, and I think a lot of people today are afraid of something - in the end it's mostly just death. But if you're thinking about it a lot, it's coming to you more probably, like a self-fullfilling prophecy. And if you let you influence by all those voices who say: there is poison and this is dangerous too, and don't eat that, and don't wear this, you create an atmosphere of fear around you which affects your soul and your body. The connection to Christianity is just that we didn't live without fear (of an revengeful and scornful god) and guilt (of our sins, of course) for some hundreds of years, that's what I mean by tradition. (Have to log off now, answer in the next days)



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   


it may have existed before, but never before so many people died of it.


Well that's quite easily explainable. More people smoke now.

smoking + lungs = cancer.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Sorry,

Have been very busy lately (new job) and am still very busy, but I feel I have to take just a second to set this right.


Originally posted by Kalibur
Well it's not hard to see who smokes and who doesn't.


Irrelevant.


Originally posted by KaliburWhy are smokers so surprised at non-smokers not wanting to be subjected to their health hazardous filth. Some smoker's defending examples are so lame.


What is surprising is your lack of evidence. What is surprising is that all you have to back up your claims are anectodal evidence [Translation=No Scientific Relevance Whatsoever] and whining about the smell and the inconvenience, which are IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

Must I really remind the originator of this thread that it is about second hand smoke and CANCER? Bad breath? Smells? Irrelevant to YOUR OWN DISCUSSION.


Originally posted by KaliburHAHAHA: Hambergler I think it was? Bad Breath and Secondhand smoke are marginally different problems. One is an inconvience and the other is a carcinogen.

Garbage. Check the link bucko. Your precious EPA report, which you use in your post WAS VACATED IN 1998 BY A FEDERAL JUDGE.

Know what that means? It means that LEGALLY, that study is considered to have no scientific merit whatsoever. Know what else it means? LEGALLY ETS cannot yet be considered a carcinogen. Why?

Read this, unless you are afraid to find out that all of the claims you and rest of the anti-smoking zealots–who really want to ban it entirely and use ETS as a crutch to get rid of something they just don't like–are based in a BS study that has no scientific worth. In short, your precious study was a LIE.

And this is the actual decision (just so you know my source is not making it up).

I'm sorry if you don't like it, Kalibur, but that's the way it is. Not that I expect it will make you even bat an eyelash.


Originally posted by KaliburSmoking and exposure to Secondhand smoke is unhealthy no matter what way you cut it. I haven't disputed any of smoker's legal rights. I asked you to accept the obvious truth of the matter -- smoking kills.


Again, garbage. I just demolished your only source. In fact, your American Cancer Society source comes directly from the EPA study. Sorry, but the judge says that one isn't allowed. So, if the truth is so obvious, surely there must be some other awe-inspiring study that shows a CONCLUSIVE LINK between ETS and LUNG CANCER (as you recall, this was the point of this thread).


Originally posted by KaliburWith that truth in mind, what is so unreasonable about asking smoker's to light up away form those that care about their health? Then again, you don't care about yourself enough to take care of your body, why would you care about those you harm around you?


Ridiculous. First, what is wrong is that it is unconstitutional to deny PRIVATE citizens (and private business owners) the right to decide whether a LEGAL product can be used on their premises. But, I guess folks like you only care about the Constitution when it serves your interests. So quick to throw away rights. Shame on you.

Second, if you don't like it, walk away. Leave. Go to a bar that has (of its own volition) decided to disallow smoking on premises. EVERYONE will be happy. No wants you around anyway, as you are clearly a nosy harpy who uses BS "facts" and ridiculous "obvious truths" to promote a nonsensical agenda.

Third. you don't know whether I smoke or not. Assuming I do, you don't know have any idea as to the state of my health. Lung cancer is quite selective, as Tinkle points out below your post.


Originally posted by KaliburExactly, you don't. It boils down to morality for me. Given the factual data about Secondhand smoke, you knowingly make the choice to harm others.
Thats both dishonorable and direspectful, in regards to general humanity.

Smoking is a mental and physical weakness. You're not strong enough to control your own actions. In your apathy of personal well being, you expose others to the disgusting poison you're willfully sucking on.

It baffles me that some of you claim not to understand that cigarrette smoke causes cancer and a wide variety of other health problems. On that same note, if I'm able to only enlighten one person, my job is done.


And that is really the crux of the issue isn't it? You are clearly not concerned with facts. By your own admission, this "boils down to morality" for you. Sadly, your view of morality is not a strong enough justification for banning smoking. THAT ALONE is what makes all of my rebuttals perfectly germane to the discussion. Becuase for you, it won't matter that I just PWNED your "facts." You'll keep on believing your garbage regardless, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON"T LIKE SMOKING.

That makes you a deplorable individual, and you should be ashamed of your systematic efforts to control something on the basis of your personal preference. You probabaly dislike drinking too, so I guess we should ban that, right? What else dont you like Kalibur? Why don't we ban everything you dislike, because heaven forbid your delicate sensibilities be offended by something and heaven forbid you should have to make a rational, cogent argument as to why something should be banned. Instead, let's just ban everything and let you off the hook.


Originally posted by KaliburI won't hold my breath on Hamburglar, by the way McDonald's is bad for you buddy. I'm sure that hasn't been proven to your satisfaction either.


LOL. It's exactly the same as I wrote before. I do know McDonald's (when consumed with wanton abandon) is bad for me. Does that mean we should ban it? I think not. And there is the difference. But I bet I know what you think, Kalibur. I bet you and your BAN-NAZIS are getting your protest signs and your quasi-scientific disinformation ready to take down the next big elephant, fast food.

P.S., Kalibur. From your own source


Secondhand Smoke

From the American Cancer Society

Why Is It a Problem?

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means that there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Environmental tobacco smoke has also been classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the US National Toxicology Program.


PWNED


As for you, Tinkle. I very much look forward to discussing with you, as you appear to be quite a rational individual. Furthermore, you seem much more inclined to reason a situation out, rather than jump on the bandwagon, which I greatly respect. I appreciate your patience while I get situated in my new job. I will definitely get back to you more, especially regarding the status of the EPA study and the (surprising) results and (not-so-surprising) reporting of the results of the WHO study.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
please delete this..edit

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Boondock78]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   


it seems to me that a lot of the smokers on here are just plain rude.


Some of the non-smokers on this thread are also rude. Maybe that's because we're all individuals, and some individuals in this world are rude. Go figure.



i see many keep saying it's about their "rights"
personally, i think it's because you are all addicted to it and are freaking out that if it gets banned you will not be able to feed your addiction.


Think what you want about smokers, but we're nothing if not resourceful. Outlaw cigarettes, we'll start underground grow operations and distribution rings, mark my words. Trust me, this is the sort of problem America doesn't need. You know the phrase "straw that broke the camel's back", well, if America goes to those lengths to piss off smokers, the anger of the smokers will be the kinetic equivalent of an angry fist descending from heaven, puts the straw to shame and reduces the camel to fur and jelly.




a few say they refuse to go to these places that ban the smoking cause of their rights to smoke. like i said, i think the real reason is because you have a serious addiction and you will not visit the establishment because you can't spark up.


I've never met a smoker who couldn't go an hour without smoking, many smokers can go long periods without cravings. Your characterization is unwelcome and innaccurate, you're trying to paint us like we're foaming at the mouth. Also, I don't know if you know this or not, but people quit smoking every day.

I know plenty of folks who smoke a hell of a lot of cigarettes, but they suffer no discomfort going without nicotine for an hour or several (due to residual effect). Even international flighjts are no problem for me. It is the principle of the thing, no bones about it. For kung-fu triple features in porno theaters, I'll wait to smoke a butt. A meal is no problem. In fact, I don't know anybody who smokes during dinner.



sounds good to me. stay home and light up. kill yourself there.


Make alcohol illegal, pharmaceuticals illegal, pollution illegal, and then come talk to me. If were about health, it would be one thing, but that doesn't wash given the risks presented by other 'acceptable' behaviors.



some of you mention that you are tired of being treated like second class citizens but look at some of the things you say and how you act?


What exactly?



what if i said your breath stinks? what if i complained cause you are fat? that is in no way the same thing. you smokers are blowing all those chemicals all over the place in other people faces.


Blame Canada. Their forest fires loft millions of particles and tons of carcinogens into the air every year. Go hassle them.



do you think it is right for pregnant women to smoke? if so, why? if not, why not?


No, that's a terribly selfish thing to do. Depriving your fetus of oxygen and delivering nicotine instead is ill-advised. Smoking cigarettes is an entirely differnet matter than smelling cigarettes.



if you are a female and you got pregnant would you smoke? if you are a male and your wife got pregnant would you smoke around her?


No, and yes, respectively.



i think you are all making a huge deal out of this. you can still smoke in your car, in your home,


True.



on the sidewalk, in the park, in the street, outside the bar or restaurant you go to.


Some places have statutes against that, and it's bull#.



instead you choose to boycott the establishment cause of your "rights'. own up to your addictions.


Yeah, me make choice. So respect it. Don't condescend to smokers. Our neurons fire faster than yours.



go ahead and hat eme if you will. i don't think less of you. if you're a cool person i'd hang with you just not when you decide to smoke around me.


I don't hate you personally, but I absolutely despise the nanny state, and the people who would wish that on their fellow men because of some perceived inadequacy. That straight pisses me off.



i say your "rights" end when what you do effects other people.


I agree with you, actually, on this. I think that responsibility is a huge component of citizenship that has largely been ignored. I for one am a responsible smoker, because I have no interest in offending my fellow citizens. I do my best to respect others, and I expect them to reciprocate that.

You'll get more flies with honey than vinegar.



some times you can be just plain rude


We have so much in common! Peace is possible...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join