Smoking Rant

[Gravekeeper]

I've known for years, from actual research that second hand smoke is a joke; a distraction to keep people from realizing that it's our cars that are killing us (and our planes and buses and our industry), not the cigarette smoke. Here, have some of that data.

Oh bullshit. You're going to brush aside countless studies done by multiple countries, research centers, the international agency for cancer research and the WHO by using a ranting conclusion that uses the term "brainwashing" based on a vehicle emissions test? Bullshit.

Maybe you should re-read the "Actual research" you're claiming is a joke. Yeah, sucking down smog is horrible for you too, but to dismiss one because of the other is pretty stupid.

The worst part is that this information isn't new. I'd heard about similar studies that were conducted over 20 years ago, but the anti-smoking lobby continues to spread lies and wonder why they can't get kids to stop picking up the habit.

As opposed to the smoking lobby who knew second hand smoke was dangerous since the 80s but kept it a secret? And who have been directly and actively trying to sabotage second hand smoke research for years by releasing their own "studies" and manufacturing media controversies over legit studies?

I really hate the reactionary, rabid, and inaccurate anti-smoking propoganda that gets spewed out. I wouldn't care so much if it weren't so patently biased and based so much on emotional investment as opposed to real scientific study.

So you you figured you'd do the same for the other side? ;p

But at least I know that the guy smoking next to me at the bus stop isn't hurting me nearly as much as the asshole with the out-of-tune truck belching smoke who drenches us all with his smoky exhaust as he passes by.

Maybe you should try not to breath either one. The WHO pegs deaths from air outdoor pollution ( both vehicle emissions and industrial/factory emissions mind you ) to 900,000 a year and second hand smoking deaths at 600,000 a year. Remove industrial emissions and you're likely dying just as fast no matter which you're sucking down at the bus stop.

A large part of appears to specifically be diesel emissions though. So it'd have to be a diesel truck that drove by. Its also greatly inflated by nations going through their own industrial periods right now that don't have the controls or regulations that we do.

You't got a 1 in 100 chance of dying from second hand smoke ( and 2/3rds of said deaths are children ). According to the CDC in the US, over half of children between the age of 3-11 test positive for second hand smoke exposure. Along with 40% of adults. Children exposed obviously have a spike in risk for practically every major lung disease. Exposure to cigarette smoke leaves several biomarkers in the body, its very easy to test.

[Arcade Man D]

Well, it's a bit iffy. Public place, who says you have the rights to decide what's an offensive smell or not? Maybe the smoker thinks you have terrible BO. Are you obligated to move as well?

The difference is, someone who has terrible BO may not be able to do anything about it (a friend of mine had to get botox injections in his underarms to control his). The person smoking could wait. Or, you know, go over to the shelter where people are already smoking.

And smelling terrible BO won't cause an asthma attack, secondhand smoke can.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, that link also confuses correlation with causation. There are many reasons that despite there being more smokers, there might not be as many non-smokers getting lung cancer from secondhand. For one, the fact that you basically can't smoke in a restaurant or bar any more reduces the number of people frequently exposed to secondhand. And two, people just aren't lighting up around non-smokers any more.

Well, except for that whole thing that the data is from over a 40-year period, which includes pretty much my entire life, and when I was young, you were still allowed to smoke everywhere but offices.

Everybody my age and older should be affected by second hand smoke. Yet, the incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers remained unchanged.

I've known for years, from actual research that second hand smoke is a joke; a distraction to keep people from realizing that it's our cars that are killing us (and our planes and buses and our industry), not the cigarette smoke. Here, have some of that data.

Summary: The pollution in our air that we breathe every single day is at minimum 30 times worse than hanging out in a room full of smokers.

The worst part is that this information isn't new. I'd heard about similar studies that were conducted over 20 years ago, but the anti-smoking lobby continues to spread lies and wonder why they can't get kids to stop picking up the habit.

I really hate the reactionary, rabid, and inaccurate anti-smoking propoganda that gets spewed out. I wouldn't care so much if it weren't so patently biased and based so much on emotional investment as opposed to real scientific study.

And, just to remind everybody, I don't smoke, have never smoked (unless you count that evil second-hand smoke I spent the first 20 years of my life with ), and don't understand why anybody would ever start 'cause it's a vile habit. But at least I know that the guy smoking next to me at the bus stop isn't hurting me nearly as much as the asshole with the out-of-tune truck belching smoke who drenches us all with his smoky exhaust as he passes by.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

Round where I live, the bus shelters are nonsmoking. However, the ones in the next town are not. Therefore, if I light up in the smoking bus shelters, deal with it. I might be offended over your misbehaving children, body odour, obnoxious phone calls or loud ipod, but I'm not demanding you shift.

[blas87]

If you want to take a break with me at work, knowing that I smoke on my breaks where we are allowed to leave, don't get in my car with me. I won't smoke in your car unless you say it's ok. But, don't get in my car with me and complain that I'm smoking.

Unlike a lot of smokers, I roll my window all the way down no matter what the weather, even stick my arm out the window when sitting in parked position, because I don't want a cloud nine car. If that's not good enough for you, stay inside and take break with your non-smoker friends.

Aw, what's that? You just want to hang out with me? Well, I smoke. Deal with it. I obey the rules of my landlord and my own rules of my car, which is to not have it smelling too horridly of smoke. I don't think I should be guilted to not smoke outdoors or not in my own car because someone else doesn't like it.

[Greenday]

Well, it's a bit iffy. Public place, who says you have the rights to decide what's an offensive smell or not? Maybe the smoker thinks you have terrible BO. Are you obligated to move as well?

Smoking is a known offensive smell to many non-smokers. Most smokers know this. It shouldn't come as a surprise.

[DrFaroohk]

Well, it's a bit iffy. Public place, who says you have the rights to decide what's an offensive smell or not? Maybe the smoker thinks you have terrible BO. Are you obligated to move as well?

[Arcade Man D]

This depends on the location. Are you standing in the smoking area outside of a bar? Then piss off, you knew what you were getting into.

Are we sitting in your car? Then the smoker is being an ass.

As for the filter thing...no. As a smoker, I'm getting a direct hit off the end of the cigarette, albeit through a filter. As a non-smoker, you're getting a severely diluted, spread out hit of smoke.

Normally, sitting at the bus stop.

[DrFaroohk]

Which brings me to my own rant on smokers, smokers who don't ask the people around them if they mind if they light up. And then look at YOU like you're rude when you ask them to move somewhere else with their cigarette. I'm sorry, I'M not the one who introduced an irritant into the environment without asking if others were fine with it. Whether or not secondhand causes cancer, it does irritate the respiratory system, moreso than firsthand because you don't have the benefit of the filter. And it definitely does trigger some people's asthma, like my brother's.

This depends on the location. Are you standing in the smoking area outside of a bar? Then piss off, you knew what you were getting into.

Are we sitting in your car? Then the smoker is being an ass.

As for the filter thing...no. As a smoker, I'm getting a direct hit off the end of the cigarette, albeit through a filter. As a non-smoker, you're getting a severely diluted, spread out hit of smoke.

[Arcade Man D]

As for that...

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01...nd-hand-smoke/

And that link's not from the pro smoking lobby either.

Yeah, that link also confuses correlation with causation. There are many reasons that despite there being more smokers, there might not be as many non-smokers getting lung cancer from secondhand. For one, the fact that you basically can't smoke in a restaurant or bar any more reduces the number of people frequently exposed to secondhand. And two, people just aren't lighting up around non-smokers any more.

Which brings me to my own rant on smokers, smokers who don't ask the people around them if they mind if they light up. And then look at YOU like you're rude when you ask them to move somewhere else with their cigarette. I'm sorry, I'M not the one who introduced an irritant into the environment without asking if others were fine with it. Whether or not secondhand causes cancer, it does irritate the respiratory system, moreso than firsthand because you don't have the benefit of the filter. And it definitely does trigger some people's asthma, like my brother's.

[bex1218]

Heh, was at a concert last night and went outside to smoke. We had to go back inside instead of going down the stairs of the main entrance and go through the exit, get stamped and walk past the gate. Well, we didn't know we had to go past the gate. But we were two feet from it and they wanted to overcrowd us while smoking. I'm glad I didn't get burned. After all the bitching, though, no one else was forced past the gate.

[Lace Neil Singer]

As for that...

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01...nd-hand-smoke/

And that link's not from the pro smoking lobby either.

[Gravekeeper]

So, does that mean that we're going to start going after diet drinks and foods since people end up eating/drinking more of those to get the sugar they need?

If sugar were a highly addictive and regulated substance you might have a point.

It's a stupid argument. It's taking personal responsibility and tossing it out the window. People know that smoking is likely to lead to cancer and lung disease and heart problems. They've known that fact since our parents (and in some cases grandparents) were young. Anyone who claims that Big Tobacco is responsible for their developing health issues as a result of their decision to start smoking is an asshole, full stop.

An argument I didn't make. All I did was explain why the law existed and how the advertising was exploiting consumers. People did smoke lights because they thought they were healthier. Period. Thats a fact. Studies proved that said health benefits did not exist. Boom, you get a law stopping them from using the term "Light".

Furthermore, the first thing tobacco companies did afterwards? Polled consumers on what they thought the "healthiest" looking colour was in regards to cigarettes and slapped that colour on the packages instead.

So no, big tobacco is not responsible for anyone's desicion to start smoking in recent times, but they sure as fuck are complacent in trying to push any angle they can that their product isn't cancer in a box. To claim otherwise is hilariously naive.

Until everybody admits that it's the smoker who is responsible for the damage they do to themselves from smoking, it's just going to keep making it more difficult for smokers to quit. They have to own their own responsibility before they can own the responsibility necessary to take control and quit, and anyone who undermines that by blaming everything but them is enabling their habit, not empowering them to quit.

Again, not what I was talking about. But nice soapboxing. -.-

So we shouldn't hold the tobacco company equally responsible for enabling by giving people the impression they have a product thats "better" for you then those mean old nasty "real" cigarettes?

The general public would probably give smoker's more of a pass if second and third hand smoke didn't exist. But seeing as it does, and there are a solid portion of smoker's that don't give a rats ass, then its more than just a personal responsibility.

[blas87]

Exactly. I've known since day 1 that it was bad. I would never blame marketing or Big Tobacco for my own addiction.

I never felt that "lights" were a safer option, I only started smoking them when full flavored cigarettes began to be too much for me to inhale, I wanted a lighter flavor to puff on. I didn't treat it like it was diet soda or light beer, thinking I could smoke more to make up for it.

[Andara Bledin]

...ended up smoking more of them anyway to get the same amount of nicotine they needed.

So, does that mean that we're going to start going after diet drinks and foods since people end up eating/drinking more of those to get the sugar they need?

It's a stupid argument. It's taking personal responsibility and tossing it out the window. People know that smoking is likely to lead to cancer and lung disease and heart problems. They've known that fact since our parents (and in some cases grandparents) were young. Anyone who claims that Big Tobacco is responsible for their developing health issues as a result of their decision to start smoking is an asshole, full stop.

And people who support that attitude aren't much better. Until everybody admits that it's the smoker who is responsible for the damage they do to themselves from smoking, it's just going to keep making it more difficult for smokers to quit. They have to own their own responsibility before they can own the responsibility necessary to take control and quit, and anyone who undermines that by blaming everything but them is enabling their habit, not empowering them to quit.

^-.-^