30 years ago, you would have been arguing that cigarettes weren't addictive and didn't cause cancer. It doesn't matter what evidence is put before you. I don't do the research anymore than you do. The truth is, while I do believe second hand smoke can be dangerous if exposed to it often enough, I just don't appreciate inconsiderate smokers.


It's more than the American Cancer Association doing research on second hand smoke BTW. Children seem to be the most affected.

http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/tob...hand_smoke.cfm

 

if your entire arguemnt is because you dont like it, why did you even reply? I wasnt talking about the discomfort someone blowing smoke in your face.

FTR, I dont smoke but I have issue with concerned stakeholders passing biased, unsubstantiated reports out as gospel.

 

Since I am not a smoker, I agree with you. But, when the rights of a smoker are being taken away, I have to say that's BS.

If I am around someone that smokes, I have the common courteousy to let them smoke. It's their choice. It's not my business. If I am in a situation that I don't want to inhale 2nd hand smoke, I simply avoid the situation. I don't want to disrupt that smokers choice simply because I don't want the smoke in my face.

It's just not cool to take away the right for anyone to smoke.

*Sorry, I missed a lot on this topic, and I'm just trying to catch back up.

 

I agree. How many studies have been paid for by the tobacco company's? Hmmm?

BTW, my whole argument is that the argument is stupid. Hence the spit comment. If you missed that, then I think it's more than possible that you've missed quite a bit more in coming to your conclusion that second hand smoke is harmless. If not for inconsiderate pr!cks with cancer sticks, a lot of the public smoking issues would never have gotten off the ground. They can thank themselves for becoming a public nuisance in the eyes of a large number of people. Health danger or not, it isn't really the issue.

 

Well we can remedy that. I am not a part of the anti-smoking lobby and based on your inane rants I can safely assume you are not either. So you and I will do the study,

This will be science in action and it will be fun. Here's what I propose we do.

We'll place you in a room where your only source of air is exhaled smoke. We'll find a bunch of people who smoke who I am sure will be happy to participate since they can put this second hand smoke myth to rest once and for all. We'll hook them up to devices that capture their exhaled smoke and pump it into the room. All that you will be able to breathe is the exhaled smoke. Well have a breathing apparatus hooked up to you so that the CO2 you exhale will be removed from the room (we don't want people claiming that, if in the unlikely event you die that you died from the CO2 you exhaled poisoning the room).

That's the experiment. Since it's harmless, you should get thru this with no problem. If you die, well then I'll be sure to go on the science lecture circuit praising you and saying how you gave your life for science and such.

Actually, there's an easer way. We can collect exhaled smoke and store it in scuba tanks and have you breathe directly from that. It also solves the problem of you exhaling. This way we can get you breathing exhaled smoke without having to go thru the trouble of building a special room.

When and where can we meet to do this?

Man . . . this is exciting! We are gonna put the second smoke lies to rest once and for all!!!!

 

as I said... cigarettes do not cause cancer. The body's genetics have already decided if you will have cancer or not. Smoking merely speeds up the process of cancerous cells developing. This is evidenced in 91 smokers that have zero health issues as well as 25 year old non-smokers (with no exposure to second hand smoke) that get lung cancer.


As I said, no private company out there is allowed to make such extremem claims as this. A private company cant say "will/does cause cancer" A private company can only say "may cause cancer" or "potential link to cancer"




Hey, I have one. Ford 150s cause fires and kill people.

 

Agreed, I move away if I'm in an area that allows me to do so. If I'm not, then it's the smoker who's being a jerk... Not me. Smokers generally don't give a crap about anyone else. They gotta have their fix. (Not all smokers. I know.) That's why things have come to the point that banning them in certain areas has been allowed. It has gotten out of hand though. I think that smokers should be allowed to smoke in open areas without harassment. Their choice. Enclosed places should be off limits unless there's adequate ventilation and lots of room for movement. Common courtesy really; but, how common is courtesy anymore?

 

I agree that second hand smoke is VERY harmful. It is harmful. But, there are a lot of things one can come into contact with from day to day that are more harmless then 2nd hand smoke. Fumes of all sorts (gas, paint, etc).

Wait...I think I need to read some more of ya'll posts...BRB

 

fine Kobi. I will rephrase for your benefit.

"Ambient second hand smoke is harmless" Meaning, second hand smoke you are exposed to in a bar. Obviously if you breathed it non-stop from a scuba tank you would see lung damage. But the same could be said of automotive exhaust and even home furnace exhaust. Heck, the plastic emmissions from your truck dash will kill you if you were to breathe it exclusively from a scuba tank.

But both of those, under basic ambient exposures are harmless, wouldnt you agree?


And like I said, I'm a non-smoker.

 

I must have missed it. When did smoking become a right?

If it's a right, then doesn't the non-smoker have rights too? What about your RIGHT to enjoy breathing without someone else's smoke entering your lungs?

 

This is getting interesting. If smoking isn't a right, then what would it be? I'm asking, because I'd like to know for future posts.

I agree 100% that non-smokers have rights too. I have learned something over the years. If people are to "get along" we MUST compromise.
:EXAMPLE:
You will have one group of people saying the car is BLUE, and another group that is saying the car is NAVY BLUE.

Which group is wrong? Which group is right? In my opinion, neither group is right or wrong. Navy blue is a blue color. But, there will always be the debate on who's right and who's wrong.

 

Why don't we get together at Brewdudes this summer and we can discuss all the topics that we disagree on over food and drink. Then we can all go fishing in his pond.

 

How can one have the right to smoke cigarettes and not marijuana? To drink alcohol and not take hard drugs? It's a privilege that can be abridged if abused.

 

No, I wouldn't.

That however does not mean I think we should outlaw smoking.

If I breathe air from a scuba tank I'm not going to die. That's because air, whether concentrated or "ambient" is good for me. Doesn't matter if I breathe only air and nothing but air, it's not going to kill me. Why? because air=good. We need it.

If I breathe smoke from a scuba tank I am going to die. Smoke is toxic. It's not an argument based on levels of degrees.

And yes, so is car exhaust, and a bunch of other stuff. I'm not advocating outlawing it, I just think it's amazingly ignorant for people to say secondhand smoke is harmless. Common sense dictates otherwise. You are just as much a sucker of the smoking lobby propaganda as are the people you claim are brainwashed by the anti-smoking lobby.

It's doesn't take more than simple reasoning to figure out that if you breathe in smoke into your lungs, be it "ambient" or otherwise, it's bad for you. Anyone with a few brain cells can figure it out smoke in your lungs = not good.

That's also why I have no sympathy for smokers who sue tobacco companies. They should get nothing. The charge that ". . . they didn't tell me it was harmful!" or the conspiracy charge that cigarette companies did not disclose . . . so what. If they are stupid enough not to realize that inhaling smoke into their lungs is not what their lungs were designed for and that it's going to cause damage, then they deserve what they get. No one forced them to take up smoking.

I don't need studies to tell me what is bad. I don't care which lobby says what. I don't need a department of transportation study to spend millions of dollars to tell me that getting hit by a car while I'm crossing an intersection can kill me. I don't need an environmental impact study to tell me that smog is bad for me, and I don't need the AMA telling me that smoke is bad to breathe or the tobacco lobby telling me that it's not a problem. If I breathe in smoke, it's hurting my lungs.

It's quite simple really.

 

Well, cigarettes are "legal", "Mary Jane" is not legal, but should be in my opinon.

So we only have "privileges" and not "rights"?