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.

 

The true cost of smoking

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


No,THREE non-smokers I've known died of lung cancer.
They were all health conscious,healthy people.
One lived in rural Tasmania where the air is amongst the cleanest in the world.




posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Smokers pay over one dollar in tax for every pack.smokers collect less money back from social security.They pay more than a fair share.Now they want another 60 something cents to fund healthcare for kids of parents making over 40 thousand.I can go to the supermarket and buy breakfast sausage with more choleserol than a person should consume in a week and I don't get taxed extra.Smokers are also not automatcaly entitled to free healthcare or even healthcare at a reduced rate even though they pay more in taxes than non smokers.it seems the non smokers want to Rob Peter to pay Paul and always try to twist the real truth so people believe just the opposite of what is true.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


No,THREE non-smokers I've known died of lung cancer.
They were all health conscious,healthy people.
One lived in rural Tasmania where the air is amongst the cleanest in the world.


this could well have been a statistical anomaly, he is correct in saying its relatively small.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Amaxium
 


Perhaps people who have habits that contribute to additional health related issues should have to pay more for their insurance.

But most people, I think, would just lie on the forms.


Smokers do have to pay higher premiums than non smokers for health insurance. They also are first in line for tax increases and are already heavily taxed compared to other items. We all pay for many services not benefiting us directly, namely school taxes. I have no children yet my largest tax burdens to my home and my business are school taxes? And why should elderly people have to pay school taxes their entire life? Using your warped logic, if I commit no crimes or start no fires, why should I financially support those services? But still that's nothing.

The food offered to you has over six thousand toxins detrimental to your health. Pharmaceuticals, plastics, air & water pollution, vaccines, man made viruses, etc.. Your government is, simply for their own profit, increasingly making you a target of hate around the world making travel dangerous. Local police are becoming a serious health threat as well. These are mostly health hazards thwarted upon you intentionally to cause harm, yet no complaints? Soon they will control vitamins and nutrients as well. Walmart poisons you while it degrades your local economy, but you probably shop there anyway? Companies like Nike and Gap use atrocious foreign labor injustices that directly harm thousands of people, many of them children, but you probably don't mind your contribution to that? I bet you even have the nerve to continue paying federal taxes that directly contribute to an illegal war that's killing hundreds of thousands, including your own military servicemen?

What gives you the right to be such a hypocrite, ignorantly choosing what and who should suffer? Why is it acceptable for you to cause so much pain and suffering, yet possible smoke inhalation is so intolerable if misdirected at you?

With all the SERIOUS problems facing the world today you chose to run this up your list? Wishing for another human being to die as painfully a death possible for smoking cigarettes is righteous behavior to you? Are you asking us to consider your life more precious than ours, even though you inflict at least equal harm on others, because you prefer it that way?

If this is your big trouble in life consider yourself fortunate and keep quiet. Or do you only see faults in others? You keep on uncovering other peoples flaws don't be so foolish to think others wont uncover yours as well. Maybe you have too much free time? Why not direct that energy toward a solution to your problem instead of just hating? There are almost 7 billion other people you have to live with here. The chance that they all behave in a manor befitting you is extremely unlikely? You may want to try a new approach?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is a list of _TOXIC_ ingredients in cigarettes:

textfiles.com...

Do you know that cellphones can cause cancer ?

Do you know cordless phones are even more dangerous than
cellphones ? Here is a paper called "health" with more information:

textfiles.com...

For example:
"Do you know the experiment with the egg and the two mobile phones? If
not then let me tell it to you: you take a raw egg and you put it in an
eggcup, then you take two mobile phones - one you put on the left of the
egg and one you put on the right of the egg - and then you make a call
with both of the phones ( the left is calling the right phone ). And
guess what happens after one hour? The egg is done, it is cooked, it is
hard - you can strip off the peel of the egg and you could eat it. Yes,
that is what happens in this experiement, you can find this also as a
video on the internet. This is what happens also to your brain - it will
be cooked. Do you know this: your ear becomes hot when you phone
for a long while? This is due to the strong unhealthy radiation beam."



Never tried the cellphone experiment but I can tell you a few things.
1. I use my cell phone for business and it gets used till the battery dies and I need to recharge, every day.
2. If my brain were going to cook, it would have a long time ago based on the amount I use the phone.
3. My phone never gets hot when I'm talking on it.

I think this cellphone stuff is over blown.

Even if the cellphone thing is true, you could only compare it to smoking if you sat down next to someone and held it up to their ear until they were forced to leave.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
ban alcohol - drink driving kills innocents, bar fights etc..

ban fast food - obesity epidemic, hard to get around them in the mall

ban refined white sugar (drug) - very addictive (rats refer it over coc aine), can cause hyperactivity, obesity, diabetes + more

ban coffee - can causes anxiety, paranoia (sometimes psychosis), cardiovascular/cholesterol problems, dependency etc..

+ fluoride, aspartame, car/factory fumes, mobile phones (cancer), microwaves, deodorant, fragrances, known food carcinogens etc..

oh yeah AND tobacco products.
way to be conditioned by governments.

[edit on 31/1/09 by cheeser]


There's a difference between those other things and smoking.
When someone smokes, it DIRECTLY affects everyone else's health around them.
If I eat a big mac, I can't give you high cholesterol.

Let's be honest, smokers have caused this problem themselves.
They know it's unhealthy and the willingly expose others to the smoke whenever they feel like it. They don't care if it's an elderly person or a child.
We've all seen parents smoking in their cars with their children hacking in the backseat.
I've even seen a smoker sit down at a restaurant next to an elderly woman on oxygen and light up. I did get up and explain to the smoker how stupid he was being but I shouldn't have had to. He should have been able to police himself but his addiction was more important then anything else including that elderly woman on oxygen.

And of course there's that old excuse that when I smoke around people, they're not exposed to it that long so what kind of harm could it do after all, I'm the one inhaling directly through the cigarette?
Well to start, this is a typical addicts excuse.
Second, you're inhaling through a filter, what we get is unfiltered as it burns off the end of the cigarette plus we get your filtered blow back.

You have a right to smoke and it shouldn't be banned but if you can't police yourselves then a ban will happen. Seriously, do you think the vast majority of the people would be here discussing this if they didn't have to deal with it on a daily basis? I'm sure you'd still get a few hard @sses who would insist that it should be banned but I think 95% of the people wouldn't be hear complaining if you didn't put them into situations that cause the complaints.

Smokers, please don't get on your high horses and tell me that you have rights too because I get that. What I don't get is when I sit down at a restaurant for 20 minutes to eat my lunch, you come in and sit down and light up around 20 other people who don't smoke. Why can't you have a cigarette before you come in or wait 20 minutes and light up outside, or in your car, etc... This is an example of why people don't like smokers and are pushing for a ban.


[edit on 1-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Here is a list of _TOXIC_ ingredients in cigarettes:


Nope, not exactly. Firstly, the paper is biased. First statement:

Cigarettes are evil little sticks and many, many people smoke them while they do not care about their health
Source: textfiles.com...

Secondly, not everything listed in the list is toxic: Sodium carbonate had better not be toxic; it's commonly called 'baking soda'. Alfalfa extract is certainly not toxic. Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins. Basil Oil. Calcium Carbonate
is simply lime, commonly found in well water. Ethyl Alcohol, anyone ever dropped dead from drinking a beer?

Thirdly, not all of these are found in all cigarettes. Menthol, for example,is an additive that you specifically request (if you like menthol, which i don't).

Fourthly, the vast majority of the actually toxic and common substances are from the curing process that so many have complained about already, a process that is not inherent to the production of cigarettes. As an example, some houses have lead paint, because it used to be cheap and plentiful. Should we outlaw houses?


Ignorance denied, once again. Next?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
As an example, some houses have lead paint, because it used to be cheap and plentiful. Should we outlaw houses?


Ignorance denied, once again. Next?

TheRedneck

We have outlawed lead paint

Actually the government phased out the use of lead paints some time ago. Any house that has lead paint must receive special treatment as it's considered very toxic and dangerous.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123

You do not get my point. If it is the chemicals used in the curing process in order to maximize profits that are the cause of the problems, why are we talking about outlawing cigarettes? Shouldn't we try to outlaw the chemicals?

Again, if some houses can be covered in lead-based paint, why are we concentrating on outlawing the paint and not the houses?

Answer: because the houses aren't the problem. The paint is. The cigarettes are not the problem. The chemicals are.

(Oh, and lead-based paint, while illegal now, still exists.)

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It seems to me that the valid points being made by the pro-smokers in this thread are being ignored, although some of our posts are being picked apart for any minor "errors" which can be pointed out to make it look like the anti-smokers are winning.

1. The "dangers" of cigarette smoke have been greatly exaggerated. The truth is that the average person will suffer no ill effect, healthwise, from getting a bit of second hand smoke for 5 or 10 minutes.

2. Smoking is now banned in restaurants, public transportation, malls, workplaces, public buildings, etc. etc. So just WHERE, exactly, are you non-smokers being "subjected" to second hand smoke? You aren't. You're dredging up incidents from the past to justify your argument.

3. Complaining about people smoking outdoors in the open air is just ridiculous. The amount of "toxins" you'll get from what little smoke manages to get into your lungs in such a situation is insignificant compared to the pollutants already in the air, unless you live in Tasmania. It's analogous to picking out one tree that you want cut down because it bothers you while ignoring the entire forest around it.

4. A "normal" person will not have adverse health effects from living next door to a smoker. If you're unusually sensitive to smoke, we're sorry, but it's not our responsibility to cater to your infirmities in our own homes. I think I made this point quite clearly in a recent post which was, of course, ignored. If I live next door to you in a pets allowed complex, I don't need to get rid of my cat because you're allergic to cats. (And before you try going there, if cigarette smoke is getting through from your neighbor, so will cat dander.)

Setting the "health concerns" aside, the issue becomes the unpleasant odor of cigarette smoke, which is no different than unpleasant odors from cooking or loud noises or any other "unpleasantness" which apartment residents have to endure from their neighbors.

You don't like the smell of smoke and you would like to control the world so you don't have to put up with it. Unfortunately, this isn't a compelling argument, but now that there is all this "research" and "studies" and "statistics" claiming the dangers of SHS, you have a new weapon: you can claim it's a health issue, and that is compelling! It's still dishonesty and it's still your effort to force other people stop doing something you simply don't like, no matter how you try to dress it up and disguise it as a "health concern."
 


Thin people > fat people.
Vegetarians > meat eaters.
Christians > atheists
smokers > non-smokers
recyclers > non-recyclers
non-hunters > hunters

I personally have never understood the need to be self righteous and be able to see oneself as morally superior to others, but I know it exists because I see it all around me. The characterization of smoking as "evil" and "bad" and (somehow) "immoral" has allowed you anti-smokers to feel that you are justifiably fighting with a white hat on when trying to eliminate cigarette smoking. Like some Christians, vegetarians, "green" recycling people, PETA members, etc. you feel morally superior, self-righteous, and "better than" smokers - and you are quite vocal about it.

The TRUTH is, you think that you should be able to control what other people do and make them do what YOU think is right, and your current battleground is smoking due to popular, governmental, and pseudo-scientific support for your position. Smokers are currently an easy target, and this is a fight you think you can win, so here you are, letting it make you feel like you're actually accomplishing something good and right and wholesome and all that crap.

 


Smokers are hurting their children with second-hand smoke!! Maybe, but what about all the obese kids whose parents continue to eat junk food and fast food and feed it to their kids? Can you honestly claim - or even pretend - that those kids aren't going to have negative health consequences? And yet I don't see anyone trying to put a stop to that. They are, however, trying to prevent people from being able to smoke around their kids. It IS hypocrisy.

What about the guy who's at work or out in public while sick with the flu, or something worse? With every cough, sneeze, and handshake he's exposing everyone around him to something far more hazardous to their health than cigarette smoke, and yet I don't see anyone trying to make sick people stay in their homes. Despite the fact that influenza and other viruses are FAR more imminently dangerous to the elderly and children than cigarette smoke. Second hand smoke supposedly may kill them in 20 years or so; a nasty case of the flu can kill them in a week or less.

I could go on and on with similar examples that show the HYPOCRISY. There are dozens or hundreds of people around you every day doing things that can negatively impact your health, but the only thing you're complaining about - and trying to put a stop to - is smoking.

Why can't you be honest? It's not about the evils of smoking, or the so-called health risks. You aren't worried about the people eating, drinking, purging, and drugging themselves to death, but you want me to stop smoking because it's bad for me. Yeah, right. You don't like the odor, and you don't like the fact that it makes you cough if you aren't used to it. THAT is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But of course even you can see that your dislike of it isn't an adequate reason for legal sanctions, any more than someone's objections to eating meat are a good enough reason to make it illegal for me to have steak. So you've latched onto all the propaganda and the vilification of tobacco and you believe that you have the moral high ground in your fight to outlaw smoking. Hogwash and bullpoop.

Didn't you learn anything from history? Read up on Prohibition. That didn't work, and neither will making tobacco an illegal substance.

And by the way, once again, I don't see any of you anti-smokers addressing the simple and valid question of why we aren't trying to get the cigarette manufacturers to stop using all those toxic chemicals. Chances are pretty good that pure tobacco smoke wouldn't cause nearly the problems for y'all that the smoke from commercial cigarettes now does, and it doesn't have as much offensive odor. But no, let's not fight for anything that makes sense; you'd rather make all the smokers quit smoking and then celebrate your "moral" victory over the evil smokers.



I just hope, with all my heart, that the next popular target is something YOU enjoy doing. There's a slim chance you may come to understand what you've really been doing if it is.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by jfj123

You do not get my point. If it is the chemicals used in the curing process in order to maximize profits that are the cause of the problems, why are we talking about outlawing cigarettes? Shouldn't we try to outlaw the chemicals?

Again, if some houses can be covered in lead-based paint, why are we concentrating on outlawing the paint and not the houses?

Answer: because the houses aren't the problem. The paint is. The cigarettes are not the problem. The chemicals are.

(Oh, and lead-based paint, while illegal now, still exists.)

TheRedneck

Hey if we could get rid of the bad things in cigarettes, that would be great !
I understand your point. Makes sense but I don't think we can eliminate the bad stuff in cigarettes. Tobacco itself is a lung irritant.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
It seems to me that the valid points being made by the pro-smokers in this thread are being ignored, although some of our posts are being picked apart for any minor "errors" which can be pointed out to make it look like the anti-smokers are winning.

1. The "dangers" of cigarette smoke have been greatly exaggerated. The truth is that the average person will suffer no ill effect, healthwise, from getting a bit of second hand smoke for 5 or 10 minutes.

Even assuming this was true, it's not, but lets say it is. Let's just say that it smells horrible and causes burning eyes and coughing in non-smokers. Why would even that be ok?
Let's say I were to urinate on someone because that's just my bad habit. Let's also set legalities aside. Urine is sterile so technically no harm would come to the person being urinated on. It would only cause an inconvenience. Aside from the legality of it, what's the difference?


2. Smoking is now banned in restaurants, public transportation, malls, workplaces, public buildings, etc. etc. So just WHERE, exactly, are you non-smokers being "subjected" to second hand smoke?

I live in USA, Michigan and it's not banned in restaurants, work places, public area's, etc..


You aren't.

see above for details



You're dredging up incidents from the past to justify your argument.

I'm dredging up incidents from last week. Not too far in the past if you ask me



3. Complaining about people smoking outdoors in the open air is just ridiculous.

I must have missed those posts. Didn't see anyone saying that so it must have only been one or two at most.


The amount of "toxins" you'll get from what little smoke manages to get into your lungs in such a situation is insignificant compared to the pollutants already in the air,

2nd hand smoke is worse the 1st hand smoke as we don't have the benefit of a filter.


4. A "normal" person will not have adverse health effects from living next door to a smoker.

But they may if for example they live with the person (ie wife, children, etc..)work in a bar, nightclub, restaurant, etc.. and are exposed to it every day.


If you're unusually sensitive to smoke, we're sorry, but it's not our responsibility to cater to your infirmities in our own homes.

And it's not our responsibility to cater to your addictions.
Do you have any idea how many people in the US have asthma?


In 2002, an estimated 30.8 million people in the United States had asthma diagnosed at some point in their life, including some 8.9 million children. Asthma is estimated to affect as many as 300 million people worldwide.



Asthma accounts for 1 of every 250 deaths worldwide.

www.healthandenvironment.org...


Many factors can trigger an asthma attack, including allergens, infections, exercise, abrupt changes in the weather, or exposure to airway irritants, such as tobacco smoke.

source CDC


I think I made this point quite clearly in a recent post which was, of course, ignored. If I live next door to you in a pets allowed complex, I don't need to get rid of my cat because you're allergic to cats. (And before you try going there, if cigarette smoke is getting through from your neighbor, so will cat dander.)



As particles such as tobacco smoke become very small, they cease to behave as particles. Instead, they begin to behave more like gas phase molecules. Traditional methods of separation do not apply to particles below .01 microns and removing them from air requires techniques reserved for gaseous materials


If you notice below, you'll see that tobacco smoke particulates are smaller then animal dander.




The characterization of smoking as "evil" and "bad" and (somehow) "immoral" has allowed you anti-smokers to feel that you are justifiably fighting with a white hat on when trying to eliminate cigarette smoking.

It bad for you. Everyone knows it yet you deny it. It comes down to this. I don't care if you smoke but I don't want to be exposed to it. If you don't care that MOST people don't want to be exposed to it, then smoking probably will get banned.


Like some Christians, vegetarians, "green" recycling people, PETA members, etc. you feel morally superior, self-righteous, and "better than" smokers - and you are quite vocal about it.

And many smokers play the marter card. Oh poor me, I'm being pursecuted.


The TRUTH is, you think that you should be able to control what other people do and make them do what YOU think is right,

Nope. Don't care what you do, I just don't want to be exposed to it. Smoke away just not by me.


Smokers are hurting their children with second-hand smoke!! Maybe, but what about all the obese kids whose parents continue to eat junk food and fast food and feed it to their kids?

So that makes it right? Got it
Nice excuse.. ehem, I mean logic.


Can you honestly claim - or even pretend - that those kids aren't going to have negative health consequences? And yet I don't see anyone trying to put a stop to that. They are, however, trying to prevent people from being able to smoke around their kids. It IS hypocrisy.

Actually I think most people have heard rumblings of this too.


What about the guy who's at work or out in public while sick with the flu, or something worse?

At least the flu is a temporary condition whereas lung cancer, COPD, etc.. are much more permanent.


With every cough, sneeze, and handshake he's exposing everyone around him to something far more hazardous to their health than cigarette smoke, and yet I don't see anyone trying to make sick people stay in their homes. Despite the fact that influenza and other viruses are FAR more imminently dangerous to the elderly and children than cigarette smoke. Second hand smoke supposedly may kill them in 20 years or so; a nasty case of the flu can kill them in a week or less.

It's funny how you say that these other things are more immediately dangerous which means you agree that cigarette smoke is dangerous over the long term.
Great excuse. That's like a shoplifter that uses the excuse that other people do it too so why are you picking on me?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Let's just say that it smells horrible and causes burning eyes and coughing in non-smokers. Why would even that be ok?


Who said it is? I certainly didn't. Do I have a responsibility to keep my smoke out of your face in public? Of course. I haven't smoked in the presence of a non-smoker in years unless they specifically said it was okay.


I live in USA, Michigan and it's not banned in restaurants, work places, public area's, etc..


It's not? My mistake. It is so prevalent now that I thought it had gotten nearly nationwide. Certainly in my state and the neighboring states, people can't smoke hardly anywhere.


2nd hand smoke is worse the 1st hand smoke as we don't have the benefit of a filter.


You aren't listening to what I'm saying. In an OUTDOOR situation, the amount of smoke you would get from someone smoking near you is insignificant compared to the ambient pollutants, carbon monoxide, and other toxins already in the air you're breathing. Eliminating the cigarette smoke would make no appreciable difference, health wise.


But they may if for example they live with the person (ie wife, children, etc..)work in a bar, nightclub, restaurant, etc.. and are exposed to it every day.


Well, then, that's their choice, isn't it? If I don't like smoke I'm not going to marry a smoker. And last I checked, no one is forcing anyone to work in bars. People who are allergic to peanuts don't go to work for a company that makes peanut butter.



Do you have any idea how many people in the US have asthma? ...

Many factors can trigger an asthma attack, including allergens, infections, exercise, abrupt changes in the weather, or exposure to airway irritants, such as tobacco smoke.


So .. we have to stop doing everything that could trigger an asthma attack in someone? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Perfumes, soaps, and shampoo residue can cause asthma attacks for some people. So we all have to stop wearing perfume and use hypoallergenic soaps and shampoos? Umm, no. I am not responsible to protect other people from their medical conditions. They are responsible to protect themselves.


If you notice below, you'll see that tobacco smoke particulates are smaller then animal dander.


Once again you're missing the point. If something that I am doing in my home affects you because of your medical condition, that's not my responsibility. You're the one with the medical problem, you move, or do whatever you need to do to take care of yourself (without restricting what I can do in my own home).

And how have we, all along, missed the simplest solution of all. If you're bothered by someone's cigarette smoke, GET A HEPA FILTER! I have one and it takes care of the smoke in my house.


It bad for you. Everyone knows it yet you deny it.


Oh, for pete's sake! Almost everyone does SOMETHING that's bad for them. Why single out smoking? Yes, smoking isn't good for me. So what? Driving to work is more likely to kill me tomorrow than smoking. We all get to choose our own risks to take.


And many smokers play the marter card. Oh poor me, I'm being pursecuted.


Can you honestly claim that we AREN'T being persecuted? The evidence is all over this thread, as well as everywhere else. And no, we don't claim to be martyrs, we just ask to be allowed to partake of the things that we enjoy, just as you do.


So that makes it right? Got it
Nice excuse.. ehem, I mean logic.


Makes it right? I didn't say that. But once again you missed the point. Smokers are being targeted and persecuted for doing the exact same things that other people do in different ways.


At least the flu is a temporary condition whereas lung cancer, COPD, etc.. are much more permanent.


Actually, influenza can be a very permanent condition if it kills you. Checked the numbers lately on how many people die of that every year?


It's funny how you say that these other things are more immediately dangerous which means you agree that cigarette smoke is dangerous over the long term.


No, actually I used the word "supposedly" which means that I don't agree but am temporarily conceding the possibility for the sake of the discussion.


Great excuse. That's like a shoplifter that uses the excuse that other people do it too so why are you picking on me?


No, that's like in a more or less "free" society we all have to cope with other people doing things that we don't like and sometimes affect us to some degree. Get over it.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123

I understand your point. Makes sense but I don't think we can eliminate the bad stuff in cigarettes. Tobacco itself is a lung irritant.

Actually, any particulate matter or chemical corrosive (including oxygen!) is a lung irritant. Our lungs are not designed to be inert against such things; we do, instead, have an immunity system which cleans the body of contaminants and malicious bacteria/viruses. That immunity system is necessary since we do not live in a nature which is 'pure'.

So according to your assertion that tobacco in itself is a lung irritant, I counter that there is no conceivable way to rid one's environment of lung irritants. I know, I know, you say why not go a. and rid it of this one irritant; at least we could do that. true, we could as a society outlaw cigarettes, but to do so will create more harm than good. Harm not in the form of tobacco smoke or lung irritants, but in the form of slavery and oppression, not to mention the obvious human tendency to get the things one desires at any cost... even if that cost involves breaking the law.

The real problem is the chemicals, not the cigarettes. Tobacco is a natural substance; toluene and naphthalene are not. The former is easy enough for the body to protect itself against; the latter are deadly. I know this because I recently switched from commercially-prepared cigarettes to rolling my own from tobacco. The taste is much better, the smell is far less to others, I feel better, and I actually desire less tobacco to keep me happy and content. The price is also a third of what I was paying, and in some parts of the country it would be as little as a tenth the cost.

So since the chemical curing agents are the problem, would it not make more sense to start the cleanup of the air you seem to desperately want by concentrating on these dirtiest areas first? There are already regulations on several industries that limit pollution; why is it so hard to believe that a law that says toxic chemicals cannot be used in the production of cigarettes would be unworkable? Sure, it would raise the cost of the cigarettes, but if the taxation rate were more in line with other 'sin' taxes, there would be no noticeable effect on final price, and no more need to concern ourselves about future medical costs.

Your argument is akin to walking into a house that has suffered enough neglect so as to be ready to literally fall to the ground, picking out one wall, and deciding it has to be painted to save the house. No, no, concentrate on the cracked foundation, the holes in the floors, the sagging roof. Then, once the house is structurally sound, perhaps a nice new coat of paint would be appropriate. But to demand the paint while ignoring the rest will do no good, for that nice newly painted wall will mean nothing if it is covering a heap of rotten lumber lying in a heap on the ground.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
Originally posted by jfj123
Let's just say that it smells horrible and causes burning eyes and coughing in non-smokers. Why would even that be ok?



Who said it is? I certainly didn't. Do I have a responsibility to keep my smoke out of your face in public? Of course. I haven't smoked in the presence of a non-smoker in years unless they specifically said it was okay.

I'll be the first to say thank you then. I greatly appreciate it. I wish more smokers were like you.
So to be very clear, thank you for considering others. Big thumbs up !


I live in USA, Michigan and it's not banned in restaurants, work places, public area's, etc..



It's not? My mistake. It is so prevalent now that I thought it had gotten nearly nationwide. Certainly in my state and the neighboring states, people can't smoke hardly anywhere.

Michigan is one of those states where it's everywhere. Again, I don't want to see smoking banned, I just want to see me smoke free



But they may if for example they live with the person (ie wife, children, etc..)work in a bar, nightclub, restaurant, etc.. and are exposed to it every day.



Well, then, that's their choice, isn't it? If I don't like smoke I'm not going to marry a smoker. And last I checked, no one is forcing anyone to work in bars. People who are allergic to peanuts don't go to work for a company that makes peanut butter.

In the country I live in, there's a severe recession and Michigan was hit incredibly hard by it. We were in a recession before the rest of the country. That being said, people are forced to take whatever job they have to so they can survive at this moment. Let's not give them health problems down the road just because they don't want to see their families out on the streets.



Do you have any idea how many people in the US have asthma? ...

Many factors can trigger an asthma attack, including allergens, infections, exercise, abrupt changes in the weather, or exposure to airway irritants, such as tobacco smoke.



So .. we have to stop doing everything that could trigger an asthma attack in someone? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Perfumes, soaps, and shampoo residue can cause asthma attacks for some people. So we all have to stop wearing perfume and use hypoallergenic soaps and shampoos? Umm, no. I am not responsible to protect other people from their medical conditions. They are responsible to protect themselves.

Well to start, I don't wear cologne for that exact reason. It's not a big deal and it helps protect others. Why not try and help your fellow man and woman ?


If you notice below, you'll see that tobacco smoke particulates are smaller then animal dander.



Once again you're missing the point. If something that I am doing in my home affects you because of your medical condition, that's not my responsibility.

Oh I agree. You should have the right to do anything you want to in your own home. I 100% agree with you there.


You're the one with the medical problem, you move, or do whatever you need to do to take care of yourself (without restricting what I can do in my own home).

Well to be clear, I don't have asthma however I try to be sympathetic to those who do have it and COPD, etc..


And how have we, all along, missed the simplest solution of all. If you're bothered by someone's cigarette smoke, GET A HEPA FILTER! I have one and it takes care of the smoke in my house.

Smoke particulates get too small for most filtration systems to adequately block them.


It bad for you. Everyone knows it yet you deny it.



Oh, for pete's sake! Almost everyone does SOMETHING that's bad for them. Why single out smoking? Yes, smoking isn't good for me. So what?

Most smokers won't admit to this so they can continue their habit around others. Once again, I applaud you for admitting this and appreciate your honesty.


And many smokers play the marter card. Oh poor me, I'm being pursecuted.


Can you honestly claim that we AREN'T being persecuted?
Frankly, I think smokers have done this to themselves. Most smokers refuse to police themselves and take others into consideration. As a result, many people complain as they don't want to be exposed to it. I understand you don't do this but the bad ones are taking you down with them and for that, I'm genuinely sorry.


The evidence is all over this thread, as well as everywhere else. And no, we don't claim to be martyrs, we just ask to be allowed to partake of the things that we enjoy, just as you do.

You may not but many do. I've seen it all over this thread.


So that makes it right? Got it
Nice excuse.. ehem, I mean logic.



Makes it right? I didn't say that. But once again you missed the point. Smokers are being targeted and persecuted for doing the exact same things that other people do in different ways.

That's not entirely accurate.
As example, if I eat a big mac everyday, you won't get high cholesterol from it. Does that make eating high fat food ok? Of course not but it doesn't DIRECTLY affect the health of those around someone who eats that food.


Great excuse. That's like a shoplifter that uses the excuse that other people do it too so why are you picking on me?


No, that's like in a more or less "free" society we all have to cope with other people doing things that we don't like and sometimes affect us to some degree. Get over it.


There's a difference between having something affect you such as being late for work and something that negatively impacts your health.

Look, you're obviously an exception to the rule. Based on what you said, you are reasonable about smoking where it won't affect others and I really do appreciate that.
Where I live, people generally aren't as courteous as you are and those are the people that are giving government the EXCUSE to come down on all smokers.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I've been a smoker for years, have quite 3 times for years and have started again 3 times. Now I the last time i quit was in 2004 and i haven't been bored in a while, which is most likely why i haven't picked it up again.

That being said, all you non-smokers out there, ARE ALL doing something un-healthy, that we aren't. Everybody is polluting with they're cars and every day activities.

We are as a species, currently UN healthy. Therefore i see it very pointless for people to talk to smokers as if they're of less importance than them.

You know something really sad? They pass up smokers on the organ transplant list, no matter how long you've waited, if your're a smoker.

Although i do agree that Cigarettes should be illegal. My reasoning behind that is that it is a senseless, useless poison, that we openly buy and enjoy (myself included) that serves no other purpose but to put tax dollars in the governments pockerts.

But we do have the "right" to smoke weather non smokers like it or not. And come on, we already gave you guys restaurants, malls, bars, theaters, and everywhere else that's within 20 meters of public property.

I think you could move for our sakes for once don't you?

~Keeper



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Just dropping into this thread to say it's been 32 days since I've smoked a cigarette.

WOW I feel so much better. It is amazing how much better I breathe and sleep better.

So, 32 days at 2 packs a day has saved me $256.00. That's pretty darned good.


OK, you may now resume your discussion.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by jfj123

I understand your point. Makes sense but I don't think we can eliminate the bad stuff in cigarettes. Tobacco itself is a lung irritant.

Actually, any particulate matter or chemical corrosive (including oxygen!) is a lung irritant.

As far as I know, oxygen does not cause acute onset asthma.
In addition, I've never seen oxygen listed as a lung irritant. As a matter of fact, oxygen is used for advanced COPD patients.


Our lungs are not designed to be inert against such things; we do, instead, have an immunity system which cleans the body of contaminants and malicious bacteria/viruses. That immunity system is necessary since we do not live in a nature which is 'pure'.


One of my points is that the particulate size is extremely small compared to other irritants which make it much more dangerous as it can travel deeper into the lungs.


So according to your assertion that tobacco in itself is a lung irritant, I counter that there is no conceivable way to rid one's environment of lung irritants. I know, I know, you say why not go a. and rid it of this one irritant; at least we could do that. true, we could as a society outlaw cigarettes, but to do so will create more harm than good.

All I'm saying is don't smoke around people who don't smoke. Smoke anywhere else you like.


The real problem is the chemicals, not the cigarettes.

Both the chemical additives and the tobacco itself is a problem.


Tobacco is a natural substance;

So is Nightshade.
So are puffer fish.
Eat some of each and tell me how you feel.
For that matter, your fecal matter is natural.
Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good.



I know this because I recently switched from commercially-prepared cigarettes to rolling my own from tobacco. The taste is much better, the smell is far less to others,

I think that the smell is brand dependent because I know a guy that smokes plane tobacco cigarettes and roles them himself and it smells GOD AWFUL. Much worse then commercial cigarettes.


Your argument is akin to walking into a house that has suffered enough neglect so as to be ready to literally fall to the ground, picking out one wall, and deciding it has to be painted to save the house.

No not at all. My argument is:
Smoke all you want, just not around myself and others who don't want to be exposed to it.



[edit on 1-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


My apologies to you for getting a bit testy there. I'm simultaneously carrying on running arguments in both this thread and the one where people think it's great to have laws that prevent people from smoking inside their own apartment, and it's all gotten mixed together in my ..

Here's what I would consider a reasonable compromise for everyone, and what I would readily agree with:

Owners of bars and restaurants should have the right to decide whether their business is smoking or nonsmoking, and which should be clearly stated in advertising and signs on the doors. Businesses (including restaurants) which cater to children and families should be nonsmoking, or have the family/children areas completely separated, with separate ventilation, from any areas in which people are allowed to smoke. Retail stores and public/governmental buildings should be nonsmoking, but can have a confined smoking area with separate ventilation if they want to. Big shopping malls should reasonably have a smoking area which adequately protects nonsmokers from the smoke.

Businesses and companies should be able to make their own decisions about smoking in the workplace, but must adequately protect nonsmokers from smoke if there are smoking areas.

People should be able to smoke in their own homes, inside their cars, and in the great outdoors except in areas where people are unavoidably crowded close together.
Apartment/condo building owners have the right to decide if their building is smoking, non-smoking, or both. In a building which is not a designated smoking complex, problems with cigarette smoke from neighbors should be an instant and uncontestable reason to break any lease or contract and move out, if the building owner can not make necessary repairs or construction to eliminate the problem.

Deliberately blowing smoke in the direction of a nonsmoker or smoking close to someone who's bothered by it after they've made you aware of it (unless both are in a place that is a designated smoking area) should be a ticketable offense like jaywalking or disturbing the peace.

In short, I can smoke where I live, smoke in my vehicle, and smoke outside if I can maintain a reasonable distance (which should be more like 5 or 10 feet than 20 feet) from any nonsmokers who for some reason need to be in that area. (For example, if I'm standing off by myself smoking a cigarette and you walk over and stand next to me for no reason other than to try to make me put out my cigarette, that's not acceptable. But if you're sitting on a bench at a bus stop waiting for a bus, I can't sit right next to you and smoke.)

Now DANG it, that ought to be good enough for everyone! But what's happening is that anti-smokers want to eliminate smoking completely, and that's just not reasonable. We all have our bad habits and things we do that aren't good for us.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


That sounds perfectly reasonable to me and I'd vote for it. In fact I mentioned a few of those items earlier in the thread.

All of them, good ideas



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join