Originally posted by BanTv
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
Woooah. Talk about challenging preconceived ideas! I'll have to look at those links later, but very interesting and thank you for sharing. It would be nice if law-makers, government organizations like FDA, and health officials would base decisions on facts/science. Anti-smoking nazis are apparently all for health, but then ignore science and mislead the public. So sick. Literally, tobacco or nicotine could be found to CURE or prevent some disease, and these scumbags would rally against it. I think that's the biggest problem. If public health is the agenda, they should be unbiased and open to new information.
Originally posted by kykweer
Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by kykweer
and the whole "second hand smoke will kill you" argument is bunk too...
it's based on a report from the EPA, done in, i believe, the 80's or 90's....and it said that second hand smoke MAY POSSIBLY have a SLIGHT impact on surrounding persons...
the anti-tobacco bunch took that to mean "oh look, smokers are trying to kill us", and so the myth was started that second hand smoke is just as dangerous, if not more so, than actually lighting one up yourself...
i can understand if you don't care for the smell, that's cool...but don't try to make it out like second hand is some massive health risk that's gonna kill you tomorrow..
So it still has an impact? Slightly more sever for children? Like I said, I really couldn't care less who smokes, but people used to smoke in the company of children for years. So that's why im fine with a general ban, just because SOME people were irresponsible, not ALL smokers.
So it's bad luck, but that could go for possibly every law ever made. It's not because everyone breaks them, but as a system we need to say, well if these people just won't listen, then EVERYONE isn't allowed to do it.
For example, in 1889 an anonymous article in the British Medical Journal,30 whilst acknowledging the experimental evidence that the pyridine in smoke kills germs and the evidence that smokers appeared to be at lower risk of diphtheria and typhus, concluded that people who can tolerate tobacco are likely to be robust in other ways and thus able to resist infection; non-smokers, the article concluded, would be ill advised to take up smoking, which would make them more vulnerable. An anonymous article in The Lancet31 in 1913 discusses the ‘pyridin’ content of tobacco smoke and describes experiments showing that tobacco smoke destroys the comma bacillus of cholera; but again it warns that tobacco smoking can ‘give rise to constitutional effects which diminish the resisting power of the body to disease’.
"...the brain adjusts to the overwhelming surges in dopamine (and other neurotransmitters) by producing less dopamine or by reducing the number of receptors that can receive signals. As a result, dopamine's impact on the reward circuit of a drug abuser's brain can become abnormally low, and the ability to experience any pleasure is reduced. This is why the abuser eventually feels flat, lifeless, and depressed, and is unable to enjoy things that previously brought them pleasure."