View Poll Results: Do you smoke?
Yes.



42
23.60%
No.



115
64.61%
Sometimes.



15
8.43%
Doesn't matter to me.



6
3.37%
Voters: 178. You may not vote on this poll
Smoking!
And why the hell is a state full of people that build their homes on constantly eroding cliffs, and in the path of landslides, and in the area with the highest concentration of earthquakes, allowed to make all the laws for the rest of us? The state has been trying to kill them for a LONG TIME!! You'd hope natural selection could go a tiny bit faster, as these individuals surely aren't all that bright.,,,,98
No offense to anyone living in CA, who doesn't have a home on a constantly eroding cliff, in the path of a possible landslide, or in an area of high earthquake activity.:o
No offense to anyone living in CA, who doesn't have a home on a constantly eroding cliff, in the path of a possible landslide, or in an area of high earthquake activity.:o
Last edited by 98SCREAMER; Mar 5, 2006 at 05:31 PM.
How about a little tit for tat. Make smoking legal anywhere; but, also make it legal for non-smokers to spit upon smokers who are being inconsiderate, with a stiff penalty for retribution. That's no worse than taking their expulsed second hand smoke into one's body.
Originally Posted by CrAz3D
Assuming the spitter didn't eat peanut butter & then hit a peanut butter allergic guy...

"Excuse me Sir, are you allergic to peanuts? No?" *splat* "Have a nice day."
Originally Posted by 98SCREAMER
Sure spit on me all you want, just be careful when you walk by
,,,,98
,,,,98
It is ridiculous, actually. I don't smoke anywhere that I'm not "allowed" Open air, and bars in TX are free range for now. I don't walk up to people and blow smoke in their face. Personal space distance outdoors, is about far enough to not even smell it. I even smoke outside at my buddys' house, and he smokes far worse things inside than cigarettes
,,,,98
,,,,98
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
How about a little tit for tat. Make smoking legal anywhere; but, also make it legal for non-smokers to spit upon smokers who are being inconsiderate, with a stiff penalty for retribution. That's no worse than taking their expulsed second hand smoke into one's body.
let's get this straight.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS HARMLESS!!!!!!
You show me a study that proves it is harmful THAT WAS NOT COMMISSIONED BY THE ANTI-SMOKING LOBBY. Guess what? You wont find one.
ALl of theose studies are biased and full of lies. But because anti-smoking is the political 'no-brainer" it is allowed to pass as legitimate research.
There are studies being surpressed right now that show that a person needs to inhale the second hand fumes of 1000 cigarettes to get the same chemical content as 1 direct inhaled cigarette.
Guess what people? CANCER IS GENETIC!!!!! Cigarettes DO NOT cause cancer! If a private company eveer made such a claim they would be sued for false represenatation and shut down by the government.
All smoking does is encourage the growth of those cancerous cells already existant in your body.
Originally Posted by J-150
let's get this straight.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS HARMLESS!!!!!!
You show me a study that proves it is harmful THAT WAS NOT COMMISSIONED BY THE ANTI-SMOKING LOBBY. Guess what? You wont find one.
ALl of theose studies are biased and full of lies. But because anti-smoking is the political 'no-brainer" it is allowed to pass as legitimate research.
There are studies being surpressed right now that show that a person needs to inhale the second hand fumes of 1000 cigarettes to get the same chemical content as 1 direct inhaled cigarette.
Guess what people? CANCER IS GENETIC!!!!! Cigarettes DO NOT cause cancer! If a private company eveer made such a claim they would be sued for false represenatation and shut down by the government.
All smoking does is encourage the growth of those cancerous cells already existant in your body.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS HARMLESS!!!!!!
You show me a study that proves it is harmful THAT WAS NOT COMMISSIONED BY THE ANTI-SMOKING LOBBY. Guess what? You wont find one.
ALl of theose studies are biased and full of lies. But because anti-smoking is the political 'no-brainer" it is allowed to pass as legitimate research.
There are studies being surpressed right now that show that a person needs to inhale the second hand fumes of 1000 cigarettes to get the same chemical content as 1 direct inhaled cigarette.
Guess what people? CANCER IS GENETIC!!!!! Cigarettes DO NOT cause cancer! If a private company eveer made such a claim they would be sued for false represenatation and shut down by the government.
All smoking does is encourage the growth of those cancerous cells already existant in your body.
Originally Posted by mountaineer02v8
I'm not looking for an argument, but I do not agree that second hand smoke is harmless. I have always been taught when I was in school about how bad second hand smoke was to a human Body and it's no worse then if you were actually smoking. As we speak just a few minutes ago on a T.V theres a commercial thats on that tells you about 200,000 people every year die from second hand smoke.
do they ever tell you their source to establish that 200,000 die from second hand smoke?
And the lessons you learned as a kid. WHo told you that second hand smoke was bad?
First you have assumptions and unsubstantiated guesses.
Secondly, you have outright lies.
But who is going to tell the anti-smoking lobby and the politicians looking for cheap points that they are wrong?
It falls into the same camp as "cell phones hinder your driving ability more than a .08 blood alcohol level" WHo wants to get into that debate? Not a single politican will get into it because its political suicide.
Originally Posted by J-150
do they ever tell you their source to establish that 200,000 die from second hand smoke?
And the lessons you learned as a kid. WHo told you that second hand smoke was bad?
First you have assumptions and unsubstantiated guesses.
Secondly, you have outright lies.
But who is going to tell the anti-smoking lobby and the politicians looking for cheap points that they are wrong?
It falls into the same camp as "cell phones hinder your driving ability more than a .08 blood alcohol level" WHo wants to get into that debate? Not a single politican will get into it because its political suicide.
And the lessons you learned as a kid. WHo told you that second hand smoke was bad?
First you have assumptions and unsubstantiated guesses.
Secondly, you have outright lies.
But who is going to tell the anti-smoking lobby and the politicians looking for cheap points that they are wrong?
It falls into the same camp as "cell phones hinder your driving ability more than a .08 blood alcohol level" WHo wants to get into that debate? Not a single politican will get into it because its political suicide.
http://abrannen.home.mindspring.com/alag/second.htm
I highlighted this paragragh out of that article since it talked more about what this subject really is about in here... I'm not saying whos right or wrong, but I do know second hand smoke can't be good for you...
Secondhand Smoke and Lung Cancer
The fact that cigarette smoking is the main cause of lung cancer in smokers is well-known. In 1986 the Surgeon General of the United States reported that involuntary smoking can cause lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. Recent studies also indicate that secondhand smoke causes death from heart disease. What this could mean is that tobacco smoke and radiation may have this in common: there are just no safe levels of exposure. Secondhand smoke has an especially bad effect on infants and children whose parents smoke. A number of studies show that in their first two years of life, babies of parents who smoke at home have a much higher rate of lung diseases such as bronchitis and pneumonia than babies with nonsmoking parents. A study involving children ages five-to-nine showed impaired lung function in youngsters who had smoking parents compared with those whose parents were nonsmokers. And smoking by pregnant women seems to predispose premature babies to respiratory distress syndrome. Parents who smoke at home can aggravate symptoms in some children with asthma and even trigger asthma episodes. Parents should only smoke outside the home or, better yet, quit smoking altogether. Even among children without asthma, a team of researchers found that acute respiratory illnesses happen twice as often to young children whose parents smoke around them as compared to those with nonsmoking parents
The fact that cigarette smoking is the main cause of lung cancer in smokers is well-known. In 1986 the Surgeon General of the United States reported that involuntary smoking can cause lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. Recent studies also indicate that secondhand smoke causes death from heart disease. What this could mean is that tobacco smoke and radiation may have this in common: there are just no safe levels of exposure. Secondhand smoke has an especially bad effect on infants and children whose parents smoke. A number of studies show that in their first two years of life, babies of parents who smoke at home have a much higher rate of lung diseases such as bronchitis and pneumonia than babies with nonsmoking parents. A study involving children ages five-to-nine showed impaired lung function in youngsters who had smoking parents compared with those whose parents were nonsmokers. And smoking by pregnant women seems to predispose premature babies to respiratory distress syndrome. Parents who smoke at home can aggravate symptoms in some children with asthma and even trigger asthma episodes. Parents should only smoke outside the home or, better yet, quit smoking altogether. Even among children without asthma, a team of researchers found that acute respiratory illnesses happen twice as often to young children whose parents smoke around them as compared to those with nonsmoking parents
Originally Posted by J-150
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS HARMLESS!!!!!!
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
I didn't know you had done any research on the topic Professor; but, generally, so is spit. It still pisses you off if someone spits on you. Doesn't it? I wonder if second hand smoke can carry germs from a sick smoker? I've googled the heck out of it and haven't seen a study on it yet.
oh and what do you know... the link from Matt is from the Georgia Lung Association. They are in the business of perpetuating the myth.
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
I didn't know you had done any research on the topic Professor; but, generally, so is spit. It still pisses you off if someone spits on you. Doesn't it? I wonder if second hand smoke can carry germs from a sick smoker? I've googled the heck out of it and haven't seen a study on it yet.
Oh Professor Odin. Never fails. The non-believers saying "show me the proof" when you in fact have none yourselves.
Ask yourself this... why are second hand smoke recipients not addicted to nicotine?


^^^^