A New Cigarette Hazard

These people need new things to worry about in my eyes...

... second hand smoke must have some kind of an effect.. a relation of mine has lung cancer.. never smoked in his life.. spent a lot of time in snooker halls and pubs tho almost every night of his life.. hes about 58...

...his sister is 53 and smoker since 16 20+ since 20+... healthy as of yet.. touch wood....

..thats fucking life eh.. a bitch..
 
Hammilton said:
This is essentially the thinking of religious types. They start with a preconceived notion, if something comes along that doesn't agree with that notion, then it's preposterous.

It's the reason why they don't believe in evolution. They believe the bible is the one true word, all verifiable scientific evidence indicates that evolution in some form resulted us coming up out of lower primates. They don't like that idea, so it's just preposterous to them.

Most people, sadly, are not capable of being fully rational, or even mostly rational, especially in the face of ideas they don't like or agree with.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be dense, but I cannot tell if you quoted my post to agree with it or to ridicule me. Please clarify. Thanks.
 
Fjones said:
I don't mean to be dense, but I cannot tell if you quoted my post to agree with it or to ridicule me. Please clarify. Thanks.
Click to expand...

i think he's trying to ridicule you ;)

but his post equally applicable to anyone from the anti-smoking camp. logic and science have left the whole smoking discussion years ago...
 
I think he was ridiculing me also. Which is absurd, since he has me completely mislabeled. I am not a religious type. And the rest of his rant is nonsense also; I used to be in favor of all this silly anti-smoking legislation util I realized it had gone way overboard.

And, since when did calling something preposterous make one a rigid, irrational, religious type?
 
Fjones said:
I think he was ridiculing me also. Which is absurd, since he has me completely mislabeled. 1I am not a religious type. And the rest of his rant is nonsense also; I used to be in favor of all this silly anti-smoking legislation util I realized it had gone way overboard.

2. And, since when did calling something preposterous make one a rigid, irrational, religious type?
Click to expand...

1. I said your thinking resembles religious thinking.

2. When you use nothing but emotion to justify your statements. You ignore well crafted science in favor of emotional claims.

Everyone who criticizes the study ought to consider actually reading it. Obviously you haven't, because you haven't criticized a single aspect of it, only it's results.
 
this is so ridiculous.
by the time im old enough to buy a pack it'll be fucking illegal.
this shit is going WAY overboard.
the ban was enough.
unless you're around smokers for a large portion of you're lifetime, second hand smoke won't affect you.
people should be entitled to enjoy a damn ciggarette. if other people don't like it, then they should go somewhere else ya know? or deal with it.
some people's cologne and perfume are ridiculosly horrible smelling that i'll get bad migraines.
you don't see shitty fragrances being banned now do you?

and im sure there's much more thing out there that are 100x's worse then second-hand, and third-hand smoke.
really i never understood people's vendetta with smokers.

before you know it they'll be putting us smokers away on a island like lepers.
 
Hammilton said:
1. I said your thinking resembles religious thinking.

2. When you use nothing but emotion to justify your statements. You ignore well crafted science in favor of emotional claims.

Everyone who criticizes the study ought to consider actually reading it. Obviously you haven't, because you haven't criticized a single aspect of it, only it's results.
Click to expand...

You are right, I didn't read the study. And I am willing to concede that there "third hand smoke" might have some health risks.

However I do not see the big deal. If we made a list of all the things that possibly have health risks, it would be a very long list that would include many people's daily activities.

I still disagree that my thinking resembles religious thinking. I am using more than emotion, I am using my belief that at some point we have to allow certain things even if they pose possible health risks.

Maybe if we did everything an exact way to maximize health and lognevity, we would all live to be 105 years old. Except life would be so boring that most people would take a gun and blwo their brains out before they reached that point.
 
The point of the study has nothing to do with restricting peoples choices, and almost nothing to do with adults even. The concern is really about young children living in homes with smokers, as they are at higher risks of health problems and are unable to consent to the risks.
 
melange said:
the people that complain about this shit are the same people shoving their faces with mcdonalds
Click to expand...

Really? I'm will to bet 50 dollars that any study of peoples preferences would find that the more rabid anti-smokers are also anti-fast foods, and that smokers consume mcdonalds at higher rates than the rest of the population.

That probably will have to do with economics, but I'm fine with that.
 
really ham well i guess i will have to just do a poll then


im willing to bet that these fucking idiots blabbing about "third" hand smoke have a pretty awesome normal intake of sodium and cholesterol - "on average"


do you know how many things are bad for you


please someone show me the findings that THIRD HAND smoke has shortened someones life


there are potent carcinogens and germs everywhere


not just from fucking smoke

ham all you do is fucking argue with people


shits annoying
 
Hammilton said:
Really? I'm will to bet 50 dollars that any study of peoples preferences would find that the more rabid anti-smokers are also anti-fast foods, and that smokers consume mcdonalds at higher rates than the rest of the population.

That probably will have to do with economics, but I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

This is ludicrous. Hammilton ARE YOU SERIOUS?

You blasted me for saying that a study was preposterous; you even went so far as to imply that I was a religious type or that I generally resort to using broad assumptions and emotional statements to make my points, and then you write that nonsense?

Yes, in an ideal world, the anti-smoking zealots would also be hardcore nutritionists and vegans, but, in my experience, that has not been the case. Has yours been different or do you have a special privilege to employ the close-minded kind of thinking that you rail against in others?
 
Fjones said:
This is ludicrous. Hammilton ARE YOU SERIOUS?

You blasted me for saying that a study was preposterous; you even went so far as to imply that I was a religious type or that I generally resort to using broad assumptions and emotional statements to make my points, and then you write that nonsense?

Yes, in an ideal world, the anti-smoking zealots would also be hardcore nutritionists and vegans, but, in my experience, that has not been the case. Has yours been different or do you have a special privilege to employ the close-minded kind of thinking that you rail against in others?
Click to expand...

I don't know about your personal experience, but anecdote isn't very useful. However, I have found additional papers showing that nonsmokers make better dietary choices than smokers.

Prev Med 23 377-384 (1994) look most precisely at the issue. Look at table three.

Soz Praeventivmed 1992 37, pg. 293-300 also provides good data, though it requires reading german if you want to get anything besides the summary.

im willing to bet that these fucking idiots blabbing about "third" hand smoke have a pretty awesome normal intake of sodium and cholesterol - "on average"
Click to expand...

Unless this particular group has more in common with smokers than the rest of nonsmokers, that seems unlikely.
 
New studies show fourth hand smoke. That is where particles from the ash of your cigarette goes in to baby manatees mouths, resulting in throat cancer.


SERIOUSLY? THIRD HAND SMOKE?!?!?!
 
Is it the terminology you object to? Because if you are just objecting to what scientific research is finding, then you should know that both the Mormons and the Scientologists are recruiting right now!

This is exactly why scientific research should not be published in popular literature. Unless you actually see the data, how can you come to an opinion? Not that it stops millions from doing so.

What's so funny about this entire discussion is that not one of you has even read the paper. This paper isn't even about the dangers, it's about perceived risk- the papers documenting actual risk have already been covered, and are in the citations. Has anyone here read those papers? Nope.

I have the relevant papers as well; they're actually quite well done, and thorough.

No real discussion can be had until you've actually gotten the papers and read them.
 
Hammilton, some people just think that soem ideas seem so silly that it isn't worth the time reading up on them.

Given the controversey over second hand smoke, as well as the belief that many have that the dangers of second hand smoke were overblown, I can understand why some people would have a strong and immediate negatvie reaction to "third-hand smoke."

That doesn't mean those people are scientologists or Mormons. By branding people as such you are being as close-minded as you claim the rest of us are.
 
Yeah, I am sure that third hand smoke is more harmful to children than the fumes emitted by the millions of cars on the roads, or by all the chemicals in our food supply, or by the generally terrible diets kids have along with their increasingly sedentary lifestyles.
 
^ Its easier to blame cigarettes :)

I dont smoke, but i bet alot of anti-smoking crusaders go apeshit about people smoking cigarettes but will then go start the ignition of there car without a second thought :)
 
Because, you know, the chemicals that are already in the carpet, furniture, cosmetics, and personal grooming products people use and expose - gasp - their precious children to daily are all 100% safe and not linked to cancer at all . . .8(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top