Are there certain times of the year when grants are handed out?

Today we are getting told more than 2 sodas a week is bad, and now 3rd hand tobacco smoke is bad?

After the Global Warming fiasco, it's time we start taking a closer look at these junk scientists, and start thinking about what their agenda is. Most times their agenda is putting grant money in their pockets, but sometimes it goes alot further than that.

Hmmmmm, hardly surprising that my study exploring if second-hand smoking leads to second hand coolness was rejected.

Smoke if you want to, if you don't you might get hit by a bus, killed by a terrorist or die in a freak yachting accident. At least the slow lingering death afforded by smoking will enable you to sort out your financial affairs before you pass away and prevent the government stealing, sorry taxing, the inheritance you leave your loved ones.

I'm guessing seventh-hand smoke give dyslexic children rickets.

In todays world its hard to die of natural causes....

Second and third hand smoke; As dangerous as standing near a fire!

My solution: Bio-hazard forehead tattoos on all smokers. I'm getting mine tomorrow, except for a little fun I'm putting the Philip Morris crest right in the middle of mine. Gotta show my brand pride (;

Originally posted by jjjtir
1 question for now.

The radioactive contamination on tobacco for decades.

Question: how many of the countless of studies done took into account this radioactivity in their results?

A multitude of radioactive isotopes were found in tobacco.

Includes for example uranium, thorium, strontium, radon, lead.

Uranium? There ya go, Iran can start growing a bunch of tobacco and get the remaining amount they need! LOL

Anyway, third hand smoke ? Besides making the walls yellow or clothes smell I do not buy it. The chemicals at that point have been burned out.
Smokers have yellow teeth but the teeth are not radioactive or anything.
That would put a whole new spin on kissing a smoker,lol

I think they want to make it look even worse than it is so they can tax even more health tax to it than they already are.

addiction is louder than logic to the average smoker.

if the SMOKE is full of poison (benzene for example),

then the smoke residues are filled with poison also.

We know you (smokers) are willing to kill yourselves rather than face the truth. What society needs then is a way to ensure the safety of its citizens from the dangers that you spew.

Find a way to "enjoy" the smoke entirely by yourself and I will support your actions in the name of personal freedoms.

but until you can smoke without ME smoking WITH YOU, then we have issues...

if i walked around with a spray bottle full of benzene and ammonia and squirted it at smokers... I would get arrested.

I think we are entering a new dark age. Science is used to prove anything
and everything. Its gotten to the point where the first question to ask is
who payed for the study and what axe they have to grind. It might
improve a bit if the MSM realized it and reported science with more
cynicism.

I think our society will veer so far from reality as to self destruct.

Tobacco is poisonous, but not nearly as much as many other substances
we are exposed to. For crying out loud the lethal dose in humans is
60mg/Kg. This means that an adult male would have to consume more
than 26 oz of tobacco to kill themselves! The symptoms would be most
alarming! It would be far easier to check out using alcohol.

All that said, tobacco isn't healthy, particularly delivered in smoke(20 times
as dangerous as chewed). The dynamics of its addiction are rather
diabolical, because it reinforces the memory of ingestion, giving positive
feedback to the addiction process.

People will manage to find some way to ingest addictive substances.
Society needs to determine cost benefit. In Saudia Arabia they don't drink
alcohol, but they smoke like crazy, drink coffee that walks and talks, and
chew Ghat. After prohibition, alcohol consumption stayed low for more than
a generation, but smoking became almost universal. Is tobacco worse
than some other choices?

I am personally opposed to tobacco consumption, but I think the pendulum
has swung too far. I remember when every public building reeked
strongly of stale tobacco. Now people act as if the mere smelling of
tobacco smoke will do irreparable harm.

It seems to be too much to ask that we approach the problem intelligently.

i think an intelligent approach would be to control toxic emissions.

public smoking is a grand place to start. wanna smoke? fire up at home and take precautions for your family, pets, and neighbors.

and let us also look at our industries and other sources of pollution.

The essential argument that I'm opposing says that it is OK to be harmed a little bit here and there in the name of convenience, or culture, or public pleasure.

i say that it is not. this is the rapists argument, your pain does not invalidate my pleasure. or perhaps, your pain is not real pain, you get more real pain from other sources...

of course no ARGUMENT can overcome TOXICITY. Defense of public smoking then can only rely on a denial of toxicity, or upon the INSANE notion that we are only being poisoned A LITTLE.