SMOKING KILLS

[qwertysaur]

To me it's the same effect that a "caution: hot" label on a cup of coffee.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Passive/second-hand smoking is in fact ten times more dangerous than first-hand smoking (when just counting the amount inhaled. First-hand smokers still tend to be at a higher risk since they inhale a whole lot more.)

This is almost certainly not true, and seems illogical. I read about a study done in Britain which measured levels of smoke inhalation, and it concluded that working in an office of regular smokers was the equivalent of smoking about five cigarettes a year. Once exiting your mouth, smoke starts immediately dispersing exponentially. Being mere feet away, you would still only get the tiniest fraction of the level of actual smoke (though unfortunately the smell is still there).

Well, I got that one from a TV-show about smoking.

This almost made me lol. I am sure that TV show had no biases at all.

Basically, what the smoker breath out contains a ten times higher % of the dangerous particles in the smoke that may cause the side-effects.

How does the smoke which a smoker breathes in -- through a filter -- magically become more dangerous upon exhalation? Again, fails a common sense test. I doubt even "ten times" more dangerous would make much of a difference, considering the thousands, millions of times smaller the exposure is (unless you did something like kiss and blow it into the other person's mouth, which is really, really gross and I regret coming up with it).

This. Quit stealing what I'm going to say, Raist.

[Alive-Cat]

Strangely no one has put forward the point yet that; yes indeed, more non-smokers die every day.

[Loony BoB]

Strangely no one has put forward the point yet that; yes indeed, more non-smokers die every day.

By that logic, suicide must be healthy!

[Tarshish]

I'm pretty libertarian on this issue. I'm not a smoker myself. I knew a bar owner who went to the doctor, and they asked him how long he had smoked, and he said "never". Doctor said well it looks like you've smoked for years. Now this was in an extremely smoky bar with a low ceiling and little ventilation. that's when second hand smoke can cause problems. Just getting a whiff now and then is not going to kill you.

That bartender decided to not allow smoking after that. That's cool with me, let the business owner make the decision. It's where the state comes in and restricts liberty that it bothers me. I'm not saying the state doesn't have that power, it just bothers me.

Children of smokers, I can understand the issue there. But for the most part adults have the choice to be around second hand smokers or not. Freedom of association.

Not saying that if you showed me a stack of studies showing that even alittle second hand smoke is dangerous I wouldn't change my mind. I'm just really skeptical.

[Alive-Cat]

By that logic, suicide must be healthy!

Please don't talk like that, Loony BoB.

[Peegee]

Sorry I'm not trying to be a killjoy. I had a pointless lol@usa thread in my head until I looked up the Family Smoking Prevention and pikachu act of 2009:

[q]Passage of the law was supported by the American Cancer Society, whose CEO noted in a press release that "[t]his bill forces Big Tobacco to disclose the poisons in its products and has the power to finally break the dangerous chain of addiction for generations to come."[1] The ACS press release also noted that the legislation would "require cigarette companies to disclose all ingredients used in cigarettes and to stop using words like 'light' and 'ultra-light' to give the impression that some tobacco products have a lower health risk."[1] The legislation also garnered support from the American Heart Association, whose CEO noted that the bill "provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults." [2][/q]

Anyway, back to lol@usa: when are you going to hide all of the cigarettes so that you need to know the brand of cigarette you want to buy?

Man if they don't want people to smoke cigarettes they should just ban it under the drug and fun things control act. I do not understand why they sell a product that cannot be consumed anywhere [legally]

- not near a building
- not in your house with kids in it
- not in your car with kids in it
- in apartments deemed 'smoke free'
- not in a bus
- not on a truck
- not in your hair
- not anywhere

[Vyk]

I think Ultima Shadow may have confused himself on his point. I bet he was aiming for the idea regarding the smoke dissipating from the end of the cigarette. Which is not filtered. And the smoker isn't breathing that as much as everyone around him 'cause some of the smoker's breathes are being taken through the cigarette and filtered. While everyone around him is taking breaths out of the air which is filled with his cigarette's unfiltered smoke

I'm not sure if there's a much higher basis for concern, considering the study Raist pointed out. But the concern for breathing straight from the end of a cigarette seems more worrying than breathing in a smoker's exhale

[Peegee]

I think Ultima Shadow may have confused himself on his point. I bet he was aiming for the idea regarding the smoke dissipating from the end of the cigarette. Which is not filtered. And the smoker isn't breathing that as much as everyone around him 'cause some of the smoker's breathes are being taken through the cigarette and filtered. While everyone around him is taking breaths out of the air which is filled with his cigarette's unfiltered smoke

I'm not sure if there's a much higher basis for concern, considering the study Raist pointed out. But the concern for breathing straight from the end of a cigarette seems more worrying than breathing in a smoker's exhale

Look even if we successfully agreed that second hand smoke is pollution - there's far more dangerous pollutants out there, and all we do with that is increase the tax or create some sort of externality cost to justify it. So it's a ridiculously trivial issue at best to quibble over second hand smoke.

I don't smoke regularly but I'll fight to the death the right to smoke.

[Madame Adequate]

I had to look to make sure the host of those images was not The Onion.

The mind... it boggles.

I did too.

What the hell kind of ack-basswards country sells cigs in packs of twenty five? Dear God.

[Shlup]

Me? A non-smoker that doesn't like that smoking is legal? However did you guess?

Heaven forbid people be able to make their own decisions about what goes in their bodies. I suppose you'd like to see Big Macs outlawed too?

[Ultima Shadow]

I think Ultima Shadow may have confused himself on his point. I bet he was aiming for the idea regarding the smoke dissipating from the end of the cigarette. Which is not filtered. And the smoker isn't breathing that as much as everyone around him 'cause some of the smoker's breathes are being taken through the cigarette and filtered. While everyone around him is taking breaths out of the air which is filled with his cigarette's unfiltered smoke

I'm not sure if there's a much higher basis for concern, considering the study Raist pointed out. But the concern for breathing straight from the end of a cigarette seems more worrying than breathing in a smoker's exhale

Yeah, could be. In fact, that makes way more sense.


Also, I'm personally a bit of a smoke-alergic who reacts very strongly (in a negative way) to smoke under any circumstances, making me way more cautious and paranoid when it comes to smoking than the average person.

[Bunny]

Me? A non-smoker that doesn't like that smoking is legal? However did you guess?

Heaven forbid people be able to make their own decisions about what goes in their bodies. I suppose you'd like to see Big Macs outlawed too?

So rape should be legal?

GOOD TO KNOW

[Raistlin]

Also, I'm personally a bit of a smoke-alergic who reacts very strongly (in a negative way) to smoke under any circumstances, making me way more cautious and paranoid when it comes to smoking than the average person.

And I'm an asthmatic. So what? There's a difference between what I personally desire around me and what I believe I can force others to comply with -- between what I want and what I am forced to conclude by the evidence is right. That is a distinction that an unfortunately few people are able to make.

Heaven forbid people be able to make their own decisions about what goes in their bodies. I suppose you'd like to see Big Macs outlawed too?

Or alcohol, even more aptly. Tobacco is a bogeyman, a convenient target of uncontroversial hatred. I think it's become so brainwashed into most people from a young age that, similar to religion, they don't even bother questioning it.

That being said, I don't smoke and have no desire to ever do so. I definitely agree it's a stupid thing to do, but I feel the same way about drinking heavily and listening to rap music. I may urge people not to do so, but I have no right to say they can't.

EDIT:

So rape should be legal?

I am struggling to come up with some sort of crazy logic you must have used to relate that to what Shlup said about personal choice and failing. I can only assume it's a joking reference or parody, in which case its complete lack of sense would be appropriate.

[Ultima Shadow]

And I'm an asthmatic. So what? There's a difference between what I personally desire around me and what I believe I can force others to comply with -- between what I want and what I am forced to conclude by the evidence is right. That is a distinction that an unfortunately few people are able to make.

Yeah, I won't deny that I choosed to more easily accept the information provided by anti-smoking people than I probably should have, since my personal view on smoking is very negative in general as a result of my bad experiences with it.