GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

You're about to see pretty funny flash animation. What you won't see is anything graphic or offensive...unless you think an intern giving a bj is offensive. :lol:

http://media.putfile.com/smokekills

I used to but quit at the beginning of this year.

Now I'm almost done with the snuff too.  The last couple cans I bought dried up before I used it all.  

I am also back to 2 cans or 20 oz bottle of pop a day.  :roll:  I guess every little bit helps.

My father does, and he keeps trying to quit, but can only last for about 6 months before he gives in again. I am really trying to get him to quit, but it's hard on him. Does anyone have any advice for him and me? It would be greatly appreciated.

You kick him in the nads whenever you see him with a cigarette

It work with the dog,  he don't poop on the floor anymore. :dunno:






:mrgreen:

I quit over 2 years ago. Thanks to drugs and a really good support group.

:cheers:

I smoked 1/2 to 1 pack each day from age 16-20.  Then the chronic coughing started and I gave it up.  I went about 5 years without so much as a puff, and now I allow myself the occasional celebratory cigar (maybe four or five in a year).  I don't consider that to make me a smoker.

I don't even think I wanna watch the video. I'm not too bad though, I hardly smoke at all throughout the year, its just during the summer when I'm on course with the infantry that it gets to me.

Quote from: NarcissusI don't even think I wanna watch the video.

it's just a funny flash animation...nothing graphic or offensive to smokers as the title might indicate.

I quit a few years ago.  I really wish I had never tried it in the first place.  That way I wouldn't know what I was missing...

Hanging out with my friends having a few beer.. time for a smoke

Just finished an awesome dinner.. time for a smoke

Half way down one of the most beautiful ski slopes, let's stop.. time for a smoke

Can't solve this damn problem, need some time to think.. time for a smoke

There are probably a few hundred other examples.   I'll be the first to admit that you never really forget how good they really are.  It's just a question of life time control.  It would be soooo much easier if they just stopped selling them everywhere!  

I cold turkey'd the crap out of my system.  3-4 days before your body starts making acetylecholine again and you don't feel like a bag of crap.  And a life time of psychological training.  My wife's a big fan of Zyban + the patch.  She's had a very very large number of her patients stop from this combination.  It takes the edge off the depression which I think is half the battle.  After getting off nicotine nothing feels "fun" for a long long time.

dude now i dont want to quit.  life is depressing enough and now ur sayin nothing will be fun for a long long time..  i wish i had never started either.

Yeah, that was way more negative than I wanted.

I have kids now.  I want to play ball with them.  I want to help them through school.  I want to see them get married.  I want to play with my grand kids.  I want to keep my wife company as long as she'll have me, even after viagra loses its charm.  I want to be around for a while.  That's why I quit.  Yeah, you miss it, but there's a lot more you'll miss more.

My dad quit cold turkey when I was maybe 5.  He's ridiculously stubborn, though, and that probably helps.  I was never even vaguely tempted to try smoking.

Tangentially - it pisses the ever-loving goddam crap out of me to see/smell/feel people flicking their ashes and butts out of their window.  If you want to smoke, fine, but keep that shaZam! in your car.  You have an ashtray for a reason.

I did see someone in a Grand Cherokee flicking his ashes out of the window - and the airstream drew them right into the open rear window.

video was pretty good, until that animated plane hitting what resembled wtc :x

smoked for over 12 years, and ive been off them for about 4.5 years now.  when i finnaly decided to quit,  every time i wanted one, i would put it in my mouth but not light it and continue with what ever i was doing. after a min or so i would slide it back into the pack and tell myself i would have it later on.  after about 2-3 weeks your body has gotten over nic withdrawls and its all mental from there.  for 2 weeks i carried around 3/4 a pack of smokes finnaly i passed them over to my wife who still smokes.   every now and then i want one, but it passes quick, hell now an then i have a dream im smoking and wake up confused.   If someone truely wants to quit, they have all the tools they need in thier head. alot of gimmicks are just that. they make you believe they work but its just a crutch to take the edge off the withdrawls.

Quote from: RoadstergalTangentially - it pisses the ever-loving goddam crap out of me to see/smell/feel people flicking their ashes and butts out of their window.  If you want to smoke, fine, but keep that shaZam! in your car.  You have an ashtray for a reason.

Not all the new cars have ashtrays.  I am not defending them just stating a fact.  They have what they call a smokers package.

I chew Skoal.  I only smoke when I'm drunk.

I tried telling myself that I would only smoke when I was drinking. That didnt go over very well. I found myself opening a beer after I woke up the morning after a party, or in between classes. But hey I was sticking to my goal.

I smoke about a pack a day, and have for somewhere around 16 or 17 years.  I've compiled a quick list of the "top ten reasons smoking rocks"...

10. People with screaming children don't usually sit in the smoking section of restaurants.  (not that we have smoking sections in restaurants anymore, but it was nice when we did).
9. Free pass to avoid the slow, steady decline of old age...No need to save for retirement!
8. Living the excitement of wondering what is going to kill you first, cigarettes or some random idiot.
7. You get to be the social scapegoat so that people don't have to concern themselves with the real health problems they're bringing on themselves.
6. Perfect strangers freely express their concern for your personal well being by lecturing you on how bad for you smoking is.  As if it was news to you.
5. The smoke you're breathing in is probably healthier than the 'normal' polluted air around most major cities (hey, at least it's filtered).
4. You get to feel like a hostage when unable to have a cigarette for 12 hours because you're flying cross country with multiple stops (too short to go out and back in through security, and not a single smoking area)...but once you reach your destination you get to have the Best. Cigarette. Ever. (provided the TSA didn't confiscate your lighter and/or matches in the random enforcement of arbitrary regulation).
3. You get that "runner's high" just walking up a flight of stairs.
2. Constant entertainment examining the wealth of fascinating things you cough up on a regular basis.

And the #1 reason smoking rocks:

1. You live in a world filled with irony:  it's always the folks that think "exercise" means lifting a quarter pounder to their pie hole that like to lecture on the "health risks of smoking", the people that wear an entire bottle of cheap perfume that complain about how bad cigarettes smell, the folks that drive rediculous SUV's that speak of "polluting the air", and the mothers who take their screaming children to restaurants that berate you for forcing your cigarette smoke on them.

Quote from: Badger1. You live in a world filled with irony:  it's always the folks that think "exercise" means lifting a quarter pounder to their pie hole that like to lecture on the "health risks of smoking", the people that wear an entire bottle of cheap perfume that complain about how bad cigarettes smell, the folks that drive rediculous SUV's that speak of "polluting the air", and the mothers who take their screaming children to restaurants that berate you for forcing your cigarette smoke on them.

I fit none of the above, and although I think everyone is free to harm themselves in whatever way they see fit, I don't think everyone is free to harm others when the others have little choice in the matter.  Smoking involves everybody around you.  At least guys who eat 3 Big Macs a day and die of a heart attack at 40 don't drag me into their self-destruction.

Quote from: RoadstergalI don't think everyone is free to harm others when the others have little choice in the matter.  Smoking involves everybody around you.

I'm just going to assume that any debate on the validity of the ETS studies and findings would be a waste of everyone's time.   :P

Nobody in Seattle smokes.  So she is probably a little more freaked out about second hand smoke than she really should be.  I doubt RG has ever even smelled second hand smoke.   :lol:

Now come to KC and walk into a bar.  You'll have to throw your clothes away.

I heard a comedian once say, "People say that smokes should pay for all our health care.  I say screw that, make them pay for my dry cleaning!"

Having said that, I have a had core addiction to chewing tobacco (which costs like $11 a can on the west coast, but like $4.32 here).  Oh, and I bum smokes off people when I am drunk, which is the worst kind of smoker.

When I am 40 I am going to start smoking, at 50 I start drinking, and at 60 I am going to start doing drugs ... none of that retirement crap for me ...  :lol:  ...
Cool.
Srinath.

Quote from: Jake DI doubt RG has ever even smelled second hand smoke.   :lol:

She has...  We've hung out before, and I smoke.   :thumb:


After Dec 8th, non-smokers will have nothing to complain about...  If ANYONE flips me shaZam! about smoking, I'll say to them, "If you want fresh air, go to a bar."   :nana:

I dated a guy who smoked...

When you're riding behind someone who is tipping ashes and butts out of the window, you really have an appreciation for those who keep their habit in the car with them.

I lose the ash out the window...  But, I don't toss the butt...  Unless there's no one around.   :oops:

Quote from: RVertigoAfter Dec 8th, non-smokers will have nothing to complain about...  If ANYONE flips me shaZam! about smoking, I'll say to them, "If you want fresh air, go to a bar."   :nana:

For a while after the 'no smoking in bars' law went into effect, our local tavern put a jar on the bar.  If you had a cigarette, you put some cash in the jar...this was to pay for the fine they would eventually get socked with and as something of an anonymous petition (there was a lot of money in the jar).  That ended when they were threatened with the suspension of their liquor license. :(  

Even as a smoker, I'm torn on the subject of indoor smoking.  I don't smoke indoors at home and I can certainly understand that people don't want to deal with it while they're eating, but I fail to understand the justification for banning smoking at bars.  "You can't smoke near people who are busy destroying their liver," seems a bit nonsensical to me.  :dunno:

The justification is for the people who work there.  The peons who have no say in how the bar is run are the ones who get socked with the secondhand bigtime.

And not everyone who goes to bars is there to destroy their liver.  I go to hang out with friends and play pool.  I almost never drink, and when I do, it's in the some-health-benifits level (I nurse it all night).

I'm a drink as much as possible type guy.  There were girls making out with each other at the party I was at Saturday and I don't even remember watching (and me and another guy are the only ones that watched).  I think I drink too much if I can't remember stuff like that.

But I am sure I smoked probably a whole pack of Ultra Lights.

Quote from: RoadstergalWhen you're riding behind someone who is tipping ashes and butts out of the window, you really have an appreciation for those who keep their habit in the car with them.

:nod:  My perspective changed when I got the motorcycle.  I've been hit by flying embers.

Of course, what that means is that I check behind me for bikers before I toss the butt.  :oops:  If it's a harley I let it fly (just kidding).  Old habits die hard.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16230313&query_hl=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15538318&query_hl=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14985652&query_hl=1

Ahem:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12612356&query_hl=1

If they had a smoking ban that would ban smoking from areas where people under 18 are allowed, I would support it with everything I have.  Back in the old days when lots of restaurants had smoking areas outside of the bar, there was always some 10 year old kid choking to death...  f%$king a-hole parents.  :x

But, in a bar... It's different.

First, you have to be 21 to be in a bar so kids can't be force to be there by their parents.
Second, drinking isn't exactly healthy.
Third, why do people want a bunch of drunk a-holes smoking out on the street?  Why not keep them cooped up in the bar?
Fourth, a lot of non-smokers smoke when they drink (that's how I used to smoke).[/list:u]  
It's stupid to have a smoking ban in bars.  If non-smoking bars are what people want, then they'd succeed...  But, for some

unknown reason, they always fail.  :roll:

Quote from: RoadstergalThe justification is for the people who work there.  The peons who have no say in how the bar is run are the ones who get socked with the secondhand bigtime.

Then they can work in a non-smoking bar.

It's like making a law that office buildings can no longer have ceilings because the workers aren't getting enough sun.   :roll:

Quote from: RVertigoFirst, you have to be 21 to be in a bar so kids can't be force to be there by their parents.

A lot of the justification is for the workers, as described above.  It's the peons who have no say in the matter who suffer (as an ex-peon myself).  And a bar is a social venue, not a place to just sit and drink - see my post above.

Quote from: RVertigoSecond, drinking isn't exactly healthy.

In moderation, it is.  In excess, it isn't.  Smoking cigarettes is unhealthy at any level.

Quote from: RVertigoThird, why do people want a bunch of drunk a-holes smoking out on the street?  Why not keep them cooped up in the bar?

You get drunk a-holes out on the street no matter what.

Quote from: RVertigoFourth, a lot of non-smokers smoke when they drink (that's how I used to smoke).

I don't quite get the point... and a non-smoker who smokes?  That sounds like a 'vegetarian' who eats chicken.

Quote from: RVertigoBut, for some unknown reason, they always fail.  :roll:

See the links above - no economic impact from changing to non-smoking.  Compare the failure for startup non-smoking bars to the failure for startup for smoking bars, and I'd be surprised if you see a difference.  Hospitality industry is high-failure.

Quote from: RVertigoThen they can work in a non-smoking bar.

Not if the smoking bar is the only place that is hiring.  Could you switch jobs tomorrow if it became policy to lace employee lunches at random with strychnine?  I couldn't.  I have too much invested here.  And I have more employment options than a lot of high-school-only educated folk with families.

I'm a non-smoker that smokes (only when I drink).  But I'm also a non-chewer that chews (only when I drive or play PS2).

I really, REALLY like that there is no more smoking in bars/restaurants/etc in New York State. When it was first implemented, there was some tension - but it quickly ceased. A few back-country woodchuck bars allow smoking; you put your money in a jar when you want to smoke and if the establishment gets fined, they use the money in the jar to cover the cost (about $1000 I've heard). :lol:

But it really makes life more enjoyable, I think. Non-smokers should be able to eat, drink, and go out without being subjected to second hand smoke. Smoking is fine, and who wishes to do it can go rigth ahead - but your rights stop where someone else's begins.

It is funny; the bars do not allow you to take your drinks outside. But you have to smoke outside. So you really can't have a beer and a cigaratte at the same time... :lol:

Quote from: PhaedrusSmoking is fine, and who wishes to do it can go rigth ahead - but your rights stop where someone else's begins.

Ja - I have no problem with people chewing tobacco, or doing any number of drugs that are snorted, injected, eaten, etc.  But smoking uniquely involves everyone in the vicinity.

Quote from: RoadstergalA lot of the justification is for the workers, as described above.  It's the peons who have no say in the matter who suffer (as an ex-peon myself).

People that CHOOSE to work in a smoking bar chose to work there...  You don't like smoke, work somewhere else.  Pretty simple.  And don't pull the "can't find something else" BS...  Bartenders can work anywhere that sells booze.

Quote from: RoadstergalAnd a bar is a social venue, not a place to just sit and drink - see my post above.

The number of people that go to a bar for hours (without a competition or show) and have one drink and don't smoke are about 0.001% of the population that actually goes to bars.  I don't see why bars would stay in business if the majority did that...  So, making bar rules for those people makes no sense.  Most people go to bars and drink at least 3 drinks.  Where's the health cut off?  When does drinking start being bad for you?  This ban has nothing to do with health.   :roll:

Quote from: RoadstergalIn moderation, it is.  In excess, it isn't.  Smoking cigarettes is unhealthy at any level.

Deisel fumes are about 1000x worse for you that cigarette smoke.  Try this experiment.  Fill a room with 100 smokers all smoking at the same time...  Wait and see how many die.  Next, put one running Diesel truck in a room with 100 people... Wait and see how many die.  Yeah... That's what I thought.

Quote from: RoadstergalYou get drunk a-holes out on the street no matter what.

But, with the ban, they're forced to be out on the street...  With current laws, when someone it out on the street they can be told to go back in the bar or to go away.  After Dec 8th, you can't tell them to go back in the bar...  It seems silly to me that non-smokers would rather have smokers forced to be out on the street than locked away inside a bar...  I just don't get it.

Quote from: RoadstergalI don't quite get the point... and a non-smoker who smokes?  That sounds like a 'vegetarian' who eats chicken.

I'll explain it to you.  Smoke-nazis call them "social smokers" or "casual smokers."  They are people that don't regularly smoke...  In fact, smoke very very rarely.  But, from time to time they feel like having a smoke when they drink.

Quote from: RoadstergalCompare the failure for startup non-smoking bars to the failure for startup for smoking bars, and I'd be surprised if you see a difference.  Hospitality industry is high-failure.

Actually...  In CA, the few bars that didn't have employees (which is what the CA ban was about, unlike the WA ban) could still have smoking...  They saw a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE increase in profits with the smoking ban.

The smoking ban isn't about health... If it was, we'd ban lots of other things that are unhealthy too...  Burning Tar, Diesel fumes, etc. etc. etc.  Cars kill more people than smoking...  The Smoking Ban is about smell, nothing else...  If you live in a city, you're breathing much worse things than cigarette smoke.

But, hey... Whatever...  I'll happily blow smoke in the face of every passer-by on the street.  When they complain about it, I'll tell them to go in the bar if they want fresh air.   :thumb:

Quote from: RoadstergalNot if the smoking bar is the only place that is hiring.  Could you switch jobs tomorrow if it became policy to lace employee lunches at random with strychnine?  I couldn't.  I have too much invested here.  And I have more employment options than a lot of high-school-only educated folk with families.

There's a HUGE difference...

First...  If I got the job here knowing BEFORE I APPLIED that they "lace employee lunches at random with strychnine" then I'd be pretty f%$king stupid to apply, wouldn't I?

If you're allergic to peanuts, do you apply at the peanut factory?   :roll:

And...  How many places serve alcohol and don't allow smoking?  I'd say as many have smoking as places that don't.  Bartenders can work ANYWHERE that serves booze...  Not just smoking places.  It's not a valid comparison and you know it.

Working in a smoking environment is a choice made by the worker.

Quote from: RVertigoActually...  In CA, the few bars that didn't have employees (which is what the CA ban was about, unlike the WA ban) could still have smoking...  They saw a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE increase in profits with the smoking ban.

Bars without employees?  WTF? :?

remember the guy who sued hooters for discrimination? didn't he win?

Quote from: aaronstjBars without employees?  WTF? :?

Yeah... Owner and spouse...  With sons/daughters on Fri/Sat.  Those people are all family, not employees.   :thumb:

That doesn't work in WA though.  The ban is not about employee health.  Even private clubs, which are not public areas, are banned.   :dunno:

Only Tribal Casinos are free from the ban.  I wonder who could have been backing this law.   :lol:  The same law went into effect in Pierce county (without the 25 ft rule), and was repealed in a matter of months.

Quote from: JetSwingremember the guy who sued hooters for discrimination? didn't he win?

I don't remember that one...  I do remember the Toy Yoda thing though...  She won.  :roll:

Quote from: Roadstergal

Quote from: PhaedrusSmoking is fine, and who wishes to do it can go rigth ahead - but your rights stop where someone else's begins.

Ja - I have no problem with people chewing tobacco, or doing any number of drugs that are snorted, injected, eaten, etc.  But smoking uniquely involves everyone in the vicinity.

As an avid non-drug user who's been in the presence of many people on all manner of illicit substances, I would strongly argue that some drugs do involve everyone in the vicinity.  Have you ever had to deal with someone on a really bad trip?  Dangerous to everyone around.

It's all about perspective.  :dunno:

The long and short of it is this:  smoking is unpopular.  It's an easy target for politicians and legislators.  They can always claim that they have the public health and the best interests of the workers and defenseless children in mind...it's all win for them (the politicians, that is).  Alcohol has no redeeming qualities (other than being tasty and recreational), ultimately causes orders of magnitude more fatalities (of consumers and bystanders alike) than cigarette smoking, and yet there isn't the same stigma to it.  Why?  Becuase it's popular.

Bah.  I'm not saying that they should bring back prohibition.  I'm just generally disheartened by the, "I don't like it, so it should be eliminated" mentality that is the hallmark of the anti-smoking movement.  I don't think the 'it's dangerous to other people' argument holds water when people happliy ignore so many other things that cause so many more fatalities, illnesses, and general malaise becuase it's something they do or like.  

Heck, I think that coughing or sneezing without covering your face should be illegal...I think going out in public with a communicable illness...even a cold...should be against the law.  Leaving the restroom without washing up?  fuggeddaboudit.

If people were to say, "I find the odor offensive" that would be different...then we could come up with ways to eliminate offensive odors.  I'd like to see people get fined for wearing too much perfume, or going too long between bathing.  :thumb:  Hmmm....maybe I'll start a new movement:  "BAN OLD SPICE!"

note:  To prevent this from being misinterpreted...this is not intended to attack anyone or be confrontational in any way.  Interesting discussion.  Everyone is allowed their opinions.  Peace, Love, and Taffy.

Quote from: BadgerHeck, I think that coughing or sneezing without covering your face should be illegal...I think going out in public with a communicable illness...even a cold...should be against the law.  Leaving the restroom without washing up?  fuggeddaboudit.

If people were to say, "I find the odor offensive" that would be different...then we could come up with ways to eliminate offensive odors.  I'd like to see people get fined for wearing too much perfume, or going too long between bathing.  :thumb:  Hmmm....maybe I'll start a new movement:  "BAN OLD SPICE!"

:thumb: The Flu and Food Poisoning are FAR more likely to kill you than 4 hours in a smokey bar.  But, whatever...  Arguing about smoking with non-smokers is pretty much the same as arguing about religion or politics.  Most non-smokers don't see smoking as a freedom...  They see it as a plague.  And most don't see any positive side to the freedom to smoke.  Rather than supporting non-smoking establishments, they want to ban it everywhere.  I think bar owners should have the freedom to choose what legal activities they allow.

I'm on a different bandwagon...  Obesity is the #1 health problem in the US...  I think I'm going to work on a solution for that.  Hmm...  What can I ban...

we should ban everything but soybeans and water. Then regulate how much per person ,perpound, per household, perday.

Force everyone to Bicycle everywhere every other day no matter the weather and swim for 2 hours every other saturday. No kissing or touching anyone,anywhere without Gloves and face mask on Both parties and never ever use them on more then one person.  everyone dresses in white and must wear booties over thier sensable Supportive shoes. each night everyone baths/showers in antibatiral soap and burns thier garments of the day in a certified EPA filtered Mini Incinerator.  NO UNLICENSED, UNSUPERVISED, OR UNSCREEND SEX OR PROCREATION OF ANY LIVING THING will be tolerated.  ALL PROCREATION MUST BE VIA ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION PROCESS to be handled by Commitee certified Medical personel.  


Did i miss anything?

Theres nothing wrong with smoking.

There is definately something wrong with smoking excessively...just like excess in anything else.

A major problem is how the tobacky companies have engineered ciggaretes to be addictive...

Moderation in many things is the key.

ok, putting the blame on the tabacco companies is stupid. even the safest cigarette is still addictive and harmful.

no matter how harmful the tabacco companies makes the cigarette, people will still smoke it.

i know what you're trying to say but saying there's nothing wrong with smoking is pushing it. let's say you smoke moderately from age of 17 to old age...smoking would have harmed your body.

studies have showned that second hand smoking is just as bad.

Quote from: bannerThere is definately something wrong with smoking excessively...just like excess in anything else.

This isn't exactly true.  Unlike something like alcohol which causes trouble at certain quantites or concentrations, quantity in cigarette smoking isn't really a factor.  Cigarettes don't actually cause cancer...they increase the risk of cancer developing, and that can happen at any time.  According to the EPA, there is no 'safe' quantity of cigarette smoke...you could have a single cigarette and develop cancer (thus their interpretation of the risks of environemental tobacco smoke [ETS] a.k.a. "second hand smoke")  Moderation is irrelevant....if you're going to smoke at all, you might as well chain smoke.  :dunno:

I'm not trying to defend smoking.  Smoking is a dirty, nasty habit and I wish I had never started. (although I have no intention of stopping).  What I am defending is the liberty to smoke.  Hume said that "it is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once."  In reality, they are taken away slowly and with the support of the people.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

I'd be a libertarian if it weren't for the fact that all the libertarians I've met are crazy.

Quote from: RVertigoArguing about smoking with non-smokers is pretty much the same as arguing about religion or politics.

+10,000

Quote from: RVertigoI'm on a different bandwagon...  Obesity is the #1 health problem in the US...  I think I'm going to work on a solution for that.  Hmm...  What can I ban...

Start with fast food, then soda pop, then move on to high fructose corn syrup and anything that's been "partially hydrogenated".

But why stop there?  Now we're on a roll!  Let's ban SUV's (they kill a lot of innocent people who didn't choose to buy a large, unstable, dangerous vehicles) and non-commercial pickup trucks.  Let's get rid of all those pesky little airplanes that fall out of the sky all the time...they might fall on innocent people.  While we're at it, let's get rid of motorcycles...what possible purpose could those have?  They're just dangerous.  And loud.  And get in my way.  Let's save those foolish people from themselves!

Smoking is bad for ya'...  But, many studies have proven your health returns to normal after quitting, depending on how much damage was done...  Odd huh?  So, it takes years to screw yourself up and you can recover from it faster than it took to screw you up.

But, somehow a few hours of smoke can kill you...  Hmm... :dunno:

i think it's the opposite...if you screw up for 5 years, it'll take 10 years to recover.

Courtesy of thetruth.com

Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined.

About 1 out of every 5 deaths in the US can be attributed to tobacco products.

Every eight seconds, someone in the world dies due to tobacco.

Cigarette smoke contains 69 chemical compounds that are known cause cancer.

1 out of 3 smokers are estimated to eventually die from a tobacco-related disease.

Over 50,000 people a year die from secondhand smoke in the US alone.

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.

The impact of nicotine is jacked up because tobacco companies add ammonia.

In the US, smoking causes about 445 new cases of lung cancer every day.[/b]

Quote from: JetSwingi think it's the opposite...if you screw up for 5 years, it'll take 10 years to recover.

Nope...  Smoke for ten years and in less that 10 years, you're back to healthy.  In fact, quitting smoking for any amount of time reduces your chances of heart attack and stroke...  The longer you're quit, the better off you are.  Damage from smoking doesn't appear over night...  Or even in a few years.  If smoking was that bad for you, you wouldn't need to worry about smoking bans 'cause smokers would never make it to a bar...  They'd all be dead before 21. :dunno:

Unless you listen to "thetruth.com."   :lol:  They're pretty funny.  'cause tobacco kills everyone that ever had something wrong with them.   :lol:  And second hand smoke is worse that smoking.   :lol: Good one.

Denial is a sad thing  :P

Forget thetruth.com. Read what the American Lung Association has to say about second hand smoke?  :dunno:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

I don't see where either of them said it was worse than regular smoking but then again, I didn't look that hard.  :P

And this is why talking about smoking is so much like talking about politics...propeganda and misinformation.  As we all know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics"
 - Fletcher Knebel

Quote from: PhaedrusCourtesy of thetruth.com

Calling it "the truth" does not make it so.

Quote from: PhaedrusTobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined.

The actual statistic is that Smoking related illnesses kill more smokers than those things.  "Smoking related illnesses" include all cancers, all heart disease, all strokes, and lung deseases like empysema.  If you have ever had a cigarette and then have a heart attack you are part of that statistic.  It helps their numbers that heart disease is still the #1 cause of death in the U.S.  Mostly caused by cigarette smoking?  Doubtful...more likely caused by aging, sedentary lifestyle, poor diet, genetics, or any of the hundreds of other things that cause heart disease.  Looks good in their statistics though.  It is very important when reading these statistics to remember that correlation does not equal causation.

The rest of the death statistics use the same funny accounting and nebulous correlation to get the political impact and outrage they are looking for.  

It is also important to note, since many publications cite the 1993 EPA classification of cigarette smoke as a Class A carcinogen (in "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders; EPA/600/6-90/006 F) that this finding (along with other components of the study) was vacated by a federal court (Judge Osteen) in 1999 becuase they found that the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; ... deviated from its [standard procedures]; failed to dislose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers."  Many places that tout the EPA's 1993 document fail to point this out.  There was a subsequent ruling that overturned some of Judge Osteen's rulings for judicial reasons, but they did not change the basic premise of the ruling concerning his findings about the behavior or motives of the EPA.

As for the "over 50,000" people that die each year from second hand smoke.  The original figure for second hand smoke released by the EPA was 53,000.  I assume this is where this number comes from.  Of course, this number was determined before they actually did a study.  After compiling information from the 31 reports used in the study process, they came up with a figure of only 3,000 deaths.  Even this number...3,000...was part of the 1993 report that was vacated by the federal judge.

thetruth is anti-smoking propeganda, plain and simple.

Dude...  Really.  I know smoking is bad, but look at the stats you posted.  Do the math.  It's pretty funny.

They say 1 out of 5 deaths are because of smoking...  and 1 out of 3 smokers die because of smoking...  And every 8 seconds someone dies from smoking...  So, 3,942,000 people die every year from smoking...  But, here (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/layne/Epidemiology%20220/01.intro.pdf) is says 57,000,000 die every year...  If 1 in 5 deaths is because of smoking, that would mean that 11,400,000 (20%) died because of smoking, but 2 out of 3 were smokers that died from something not smoking related...  So...  11,400,000 died from smoking + they're saying that another 30,400,000 people smoked... 41.8 million out of 57 million people smoked?  So, only 15 million didn't smoke?   :roll:

They basically guess at the numbers...  It's silly.

Number of US deaths in 2002: 2,443,387
Death rate: 847.3 deaths per 100,000 population
Life expectancy: 77.3 years

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 696,947
Cancer: 557,271
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 162,672
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 106,742
Diabetes: 73,249
Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,681
Alzheimer's disease: 58,866
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 40,974
Septicemia: 33,865[/list:u]
Obesity is more likely to cause Heart Disease and Strokes than smoking.  And it causes Diabetes.

Obesity can also be prevented...  So, if we're talking about health, how about we keep the ball rolling?  Make everything that's bad for you illegal.   :thumb:

:lol: Smokers are just as dogmatic as non-smokers...if nto worse.  The only thing is, non-smokers don't think they have to rationalize and justify them NOT smoking. Smokers always get defensive. Do what you want.

I didn't make up the stats. One fact of reality, though, is that you smoking in public creates an offensive byproduct that infringes on the rights of people who choose not to smoke. Why should other people have to breath in your dirty air? :dunno:

Smoking is not a natural act. You have every right in the world to smoke; but you have no right to infringe on others. Remember "your rights stop where another's begins".

I think smoking should be outlawed in all public places everywhere in the country.

Quote from: PhaedrusForget thetruth.com. Read what the American Lung Association has to say about second hand smoke?  :dunno:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

I don't see where either of them said it was worse than regular smoking but then again, I didn't look that hard.  :P

Apparently they didn't look that hard either.  Note that the bases for a good deal of this information hinges on the 1993 EPA study, found in federal court to be biased and predetermined.  :dunno:  

The U.S. Department of Energy (Oak Ridge National Labs) did a study on the prolonged effect of second hand smoke on non-smoking bartenders, waiters, and waitresses (released in 2000).  They concluded that exposure to "respirable suspended particulable matter" was less than 1/6 of OSHA's allowable level.  None of the 173 non-smokers that took part in the study showed any difference in lung function.  They determined that people in these positions take in the equivalent of six cigarettes per year.  Why do you think it is that we don't see those contradictory findings on the National Lung Association's site?  Even though the findings are more recent than 10 of the 13 sources listed?

Look...I'm not saying smoking is good for you.  I'm just saying that the danger of second hand smoke has been grossly overstated.

Quote from: PhaedrusI think smoking should be outlawed in all public places everywhere in the country.

So should wearing too much perfume...  And now showering...  :dunno:

But, whatever...  Your point is my point...  Why not have a designated enclosed area where the smokers are forced to hide?  Why put them out on the street where they'll bother more people?

Quote from: BadgerI'm just saying that the danger of second hand smoke has been grossly overstated.

It's really about the smell more than anything else.  People try to make it about health, but that's total BS.  Second hand smoke is like Vitamin C compaired to diesel fumes.

Quote from: PhaedrusThe only thing is, non-smokers don't think they have to rationalize and justify them NOT smoking. Smokers always get defensive. Do what you want.

I don't understand.  Not once have I attempted to defend or justify why I smoke.  This is a discussion about second hand smoke.  I can't justify why I smoke...I don't think it's a very smart thing to do, but that is beside the point.  What I am trying to 'defend' is the liberty to smoke.

Quote from: PhaedrusOne fact of reality, though, is that you smoking in public creates an offensive byproduct that infringes on the rights of people who choose not to smoke. Why should other people have to breath in your dirty air? :dunno:

And this is exactly where I take exception.  This is not a health issue...this is a personal preference issue.  Look, I don't want to smell anyone's nasty perfume or their body odor.  To me, those are identical complaints to the "why should people have to breathe in your dirty air" attitude.  If that's what you're after then I feel you need to address the issue universally, not pick out one group that you particularly don't like and harass them.  Who gets to determine what is offensive?  Slippery slope, my friend.

Quote from: PhaedrusSmoking is not a natural act. You have every right in the world to smoke; but you have no right to infringe on others. Remember "your rights stop where another's begins".

Where does that end?  And which rights are you referring to being impinged by smoking?  Your right to avoid offensive odors?  Your right to not breathe trace quantities of particulate matter?  Can I force you to stop wearing Old Spice becaue i find it offensive?  Wearing perfume is also not a natural act.  It infringes on me.  Outlaw it.

Quote from: PhaedrusI think smoking should be outlawed in all public places everywhere in the country.

What should we outlaw next?  I've got some ideas.

There are a lot of things worse than secondhand smoke. Having your eyes gouged out with a spoon, or being forced to swallow a razorblade. Having a broomstick rammed up your ass is in there, too. The deflect game is fun - point fingers at things that are worse to make the original topic mild  :thumb: . It doesn't matter why someone doesn't like second hand smoke. So what if it is "just the way it smells", or even if it is for health reasons. The point is, there is no reason for it. If what you do directly affects someone else - and they do not like it - you need to stop.

Would it be ok if I went downtown and sprayed people with some rotten smelling chemical, even if it did not hurt their health?

By the way RVertigo and Badger, I'm not trying to shaZam! in your Easter Basket. Just having a mature, spirited debate. No offense intended  :thumb:

Quote from: RVertigoBut, many studies have proven your health returns to normal after quitting, depending on how much damage was done...  Odd huh?  So, it takes years to screw yourself up and you can recover from it faster than it took to screw you up.

I heard a long time ago that the majority of the damage done was repaired after quitting for as little as two weeks.  I used to think that I get around any health problems by not smoking for two weeks each year.  

Not smoke for two weeks?  Yeah, right.  :lol:

Quote from: PhaedrusWould it be ok if I went downtown and sprayed people with some rotten smelling chemical, even if it did not hurt their health?

Haven't you ever walked through a department store's perfume department?

in the military we whould weld on oxidized alum. (causes althhimers) galvinized steel (after about 30 minutes of having your head in that you literally pass out and fall over from the zinc)  welded plain steel (without the osha approved ventalation the CO2 levels got up to 52% of total volume, almost tripple what's in the atsmophere) same thing with the nickle and Ti.  then when you didn't have any welding to do you were out in the composite shop sanding on fiberglass/ kevlar/ carbon fiber.  being a welder we weren't allowed to wear resperators as welders are not composite repair technitions <--- typical military thinking. even though avaition welding is a secondary occupational speciality to the metalsmithing/composite repair.

and all this was done in a shop whare all the paint on the walls was filled with asbestos, the oven linings were ceramic with asbestos. and then the strip shop which used chem stripper vented into the main shop so you always had headaches. you could never clean up all the dust so you were always kicking it up and breathing it.

smoke breaks were almost religious in thier regularity.

now i smoke when I run out of KY.

or feel the need for a cigar.

Quote from: PhaedrusBy the way RVertigo and Badger, I'm not trying to shaZam! in your Easter Basket. Just having a mature, spirited debate. No offense intended  :thumb:

If I thought otherwise, I would already have written you off as an ass-gasket and left the discussion.

I think Americans, by and large, have abandoned fine art of debate.  Discuss.

and just to get back into the debate, we should outlaw any 4-6wheel viecal that get's less than 10 mpg. as i don't like the smell of the exxessive exaust they produce.  and harleys i don't care for the excessively loude pipes, that's noise polution

to abandon something you must aquire it first.

Quote from: PhaedrusBy the way RVertigo and Badger, I'm not trying to shaZam! in your Easter Basket. Just having a mature, spirited debate. No offense intended  :thumb:

Oh, I've had much worse debates with lots of people that are still my friends...

On two separate occasions I've had someone tell me to "Shut the f%$k up because no one gives a f%$k what you have to say" and "Shut your f%$king mouth before I shut it for you."  And they were both in person, not on the Internet... :lol:   The second one didn't end well though...  That guy ended up totally flipping out. :lol:  Both were over really stupid arguments about nothing important.

The worst was when I told my boss the shut the f%$k up in front of five co-workers...  I thought he was going to kill me on the spot. :o

irreversible harm...IRREVERSIBLE harm!

ahem...let me compose myself...you see even if you quit smoking and feel healthy again, it doesn't mean that you get to wipe out what you've done. your body doesn't work that way.

sure, you may not die from smoking related disease but your longevity has still been affected

Quote from: JetSwingirreversible harm...IRREVERSIBLE harm!

Untrue.

OWNED!   :lol:

Yes.  It does.  

All the cells in your body are replaced every 6 months.  

A brand new you!  Like shedding a skin, except all over.

Quote from: Jake DYes.  It does.  

All the cells in your body are replaced every 6 months.  

A brand new you!  Like shedding a skin, except all over.

shaZam!, no need for quit smoking then. every 6 month you get a new body  :cheers:

Quote from: RVertigo

Quote from: JetSwingirreversible harm...IRREVERSIBLE harm!

Untrue.

OWNED!   :lol:

that is so childish  :roll:

Quote from: daviputo abandon something you must aquire it first.

Badger, in his lifetime, has been both a master debater and a cunning linguist.  :roll:

Let me try to put this in perspective for non smokers.

Imagine this situation:

You like to ride your motorcycle.  Someone (actually a group of someones) decides that the pollution, noise, and bother of you out tooling around (which serves absolutely no purpose other than to bring you joy) is bad for people.  It is.  You create more toxic pollution riding your motorcycle than you would if you stayed home and watched Oprah and ate bon bons.

Those someones decide to propose laws to prevent you from impinging on their freedom of quiet, freedom from pollution, and freedom from you.  They propose that all motorcycles be fit with transponders.  They propose that you must notify authorities of the start and end point of your trip, as well as the purpose of such, your time of departure and estimated time enroute.  It has to be for a valid purpose..."enjoyment", "practice", or "twisties" don't count, you must be travelling somewhere for a reason.  Your route must be the most direct route from your start point to your destination.  You must remain on schedule.  You will be tracked via your transponder.  Disabling your transponder will result in civil and criminal penalties.  Travelling without first notifying authorities will also suffer civil and criminal penalties, and will result in the immediate revocation of your license.  You are no longer allowed to ride your motorcycle simply for enjoyment.  You are being watched.

How do you feel?  Defensive?  Vulnerable?  Angry?  Threatened?

Is this example far fetched?  

I bring this up, becuase it is essentially the content of new rules proposed by a group of citizens to the FAA only a few short years ago.  They are pissed off that recreational airplanes are loitering over their property, ruining their peace and quiet.  Their (very expensive) homes are situated near a fairly empty tract of land around central Massachusetts that is commonly used as the aerobatic practice area of the flight school I rent planes from.  They see no point in recreational aviation, and want it stopped.  The FAA has reviewed and rejected their petitions (which included other covenants including larger registration numbers on aircraft so they could more effectively identify and sue the pilots).

So they want it stopped for no other reason than they don't like it.  But polution, the possibility of crashing on bystanders (although extremely rare), and disturbing the peace are their justifications.  These are frighteningly similar complaints to smoking (pollution/bystanders/smell) and motorcycling.

Of course, the FAA rejected the proposal.  They already have rules that serve the public safety in ways they feel are adequate and that do not impose onerous restrictions on pilots without cause.  That hasn't stopped the group from trying to harass the pilots using the courts and continuing their struggle to get the rules changed to get their world just the way they like it.  And they are trying to gather additional support and public outcry to force the change.  Lots of people don't like having airports near them.  Many are fearful after 9/11.  It seems like only a matter of time.  Already restrictions like the ones above are imposed on any flight travelling near the DC area, and there are changes being proposed to expand this to cover the areas surrounding the 30 largest airports in the nation.  I recently recieved an NPRM (Notice of Proposed RuleMaking) to this effect, and the FAA is holding meetings to discuss the impact.

It's commonly pointed out that Freedom of Speech doesn't exist to protect the speech that we like, it's there to protect the speech we don't like.  Smoking is unpopular.  That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be protected.  I think that smokers would (and have been) generally supportive of rules that serve the public safety (no smoking on airplanes, that kind of thing) but do not impose onerous restrictions.  The latest rash of prohibitive laws is (in my opinion) going over the boundary into onerous territory.

There was a town in Massachusetts (Sharon) that tried to pass legislation prohibiting smoking on any public land within the town limits.  This included pretty much anywhere that wasn't a private residence.  Saying that you have to leave town to have a cigarette is just stupid, and doesn't protect anybody.  From what I understand, Rhode Island has recently put laws in place that prohibit smoking within some number of feet (50?) of a workplace.  

Which liberties are next?

being a former smoker, i smoke cause i enjoyed the flavor of tobacco, and the mild headrush it gave me.  it also helped  (in a sense) to step away from a problem for a differnt veiw.  when i quit, i still enjoyed the smoke but felt my health was more important.  most folks i know still smoke, but it doesnt bother me.  i wont badger them when they light up unless they are chain smoking (too much really is rude)   OR if they have constant health issues involving thier lungs already.   I do feel a smoker has no right to Buddha Loves You about thier health if they refuse to quit smoking

I also agree, some of them older female folk dont know when to say when with thier fumigation session.  If they think they stink that bad, change your diet or shower more often.   i dont find a mild  B.O. near as bad as over splashing the french whore jiuce.  cant say ive found many men hosing thierself down with aftershave or cologne much. i imagine there are some.

Smokers shouldnt be Ostersized for smoking but rather given an Option with as much Curtisy as a Non smoker.   All the Non smoking seats are full but the smoking section is only 1/4 filled? no, you dont have the right to Buddha Loves You, be glad many have chossen not to smoke and support them by waiting to sit in non smoking section.

Quote from: RVertigoThe Smoking Ban is about smell, nothing else...  

um, yea, its not the smoke that makes my eyes start to water and burn or cause me to wheeze and cough  :?

Quote from: tab

Quote from: RVertigoThe Smoking Ban is about smell, nothing else...  

um, yea, its not the smoke that makes my eyes start to water and burn or cause me to wheeze and cough  :?

Could be pollen.  How do people deal with that?  Let's ban gratuitous landscaping!

Okay, I know I'm being facetious.

But...what if bar/restaurant owners who where so inclined were to improve ventilation around designated smoking areas?  As a moderately interesting side note, grilling meat sends carcinogens into the air.  Should we ban this in restaurants?  Of course not...they already have the technology to ventilate the kitchen adequately (and vent it outside).  Also, burning charcoal creates smoke that contains high concentrations of carbon monoxide and carries these same carcinogens.  Should we outlaw barbeques?  Should we shut down rib joints?  Prohibit cooking meat "well done"?

If people want to get outraged about something, I don't understand why folks aren't jumping up and down about the segregation, harassment, and discrimination of an entire group of people.  It is perfectly acceptable to include "non smoker" as a job requirement...I know that (at least at one time, dunno if it still is) this was a requirement to apply for the Massachusetts State Police.  If it were almost anything else, it would be discrimination.  If smoking were a religion, I bet this entire discussion would be moot.

I'm not trying to convince anybody that smoking is a good idea, or try to tell people to "suck it up and deal with it, damnit".  I just think there are other issues related to the legislative restriction of smoking that I feel set some very chilling precedents.  Of course, being a smoker, no one is going to listen to me anyway.  :dunno:

Quote from: BlueknytAll the Non smoking seats are full but the smoking section is only 1/4 filled?

I think you might be missing a critical point...there is no smoking section.  Period.  Not in Massachusetts.  Not in restaurants.  Not in bars.  Against the law.  Go outside...but don't stand near the entrance.  

There have been rumblings about banning smoking on public streets within city limits.  I think it's unlikely (this was already blocked in another town), but I've been surprised before.

badger, good thing you declared that you were being facetious upfront. :lol:

i look it at this way, non smokers also have the right not to be subjected to second hand smoking, when in a bar, restaurant, or any other public places. it's the smokers who have successfully sued the tabacco companies for making cigarette "toxic"...no wonder our society is trying to ban smoking in the public places.

if you choose to go to a restaurant and get a cancer from carcinogens of grilling meat, that's fine. but no one should be force to second hand smoke.

I think you are missing a critical point here...smoking is harmful to you and others around you when you smoke. do you expect the non smokers to be banned?

Quote from: JetSwingi look it at this way, non smokers also have the right not to be subjected to second hand smoking

So, do I have the right not to be subjected to automobile pollution?  Body odor?  Germs?  Screaming children?  There are lots of things I don't like.  What we like is irrelevant.

Quote from: JetSwingI think you are missing a critical point here...smoking is harmful to you and others around you when you smoke.

Smoking is harmful to me.  Accepted.  There is no law preventing me from smoking, that is not the issue.  Laws are not intended to protect people from the stupid things they do to themselves.  Drinking alcohol is harmful to you.  Eating a Big Mac is harmful to you.  Sitting on the sofa eating bon bons instead of training for a marathon is harmful to you.  Guess what?  Riding a motorcycle is harmful to you.

I think what has not been adequately established is the scope of harmfulness to others.  This was the earlier section of this debate.  Even so...driving your car is harmful to others, but that is acceptable.  Sure, you can say that I'm ignoring the 'facts' and 'studies', but I would submit that the findings aren't consistent with my non-scientific observations.  If they were true and accurate, non smokers should be dropping left and right from lung cancer.  I don't see it among the people that I know, and statistically that should be an anomoly.  Regardless of what people say, I find it impossible to accept that second hand smoke harms more people than pollution caused by automobiles.  I would be very interested in seeing data that compares the quantity of pollutants in cigarette smoke to the output of the average SUV exhaust.

Quote from: JetSwingdo you expect the non smokers to be banned?

I don't expect anyone to be banned.  That is my point...that would be taking away liberties.  Prohibition is not the answer.  Why not try to find ways to resolve the real problem?  If the real issue is concentrations of particulate matter in the air, ventilation fixes that.  If the issue is the smell, I think we've illustrated that attacking smokers for this is [unfairly?] singling out only one offender.  Smelling bad is not against the law.  

If the issue is that people just don't like it...then I would say that they should just learn to live with it.  We have to put up with things we don't like.  That's the price of freedom.

My problem with the prevailing attitude on this issue is that there is such an anti-smoking policital climate right now, the predominant reaction is to simply ban smoking everywhere, eliminate the problem, and make The People happy.  No other alternatives are being considered...after all, it only effects a minority of the population...but aren't we supposed to defend the minority?  We do not live in a society of mob rule, and our government is supposed to be structured to prevent that.

Unfortunately, I think this is largely because of a social guilt ingrained in smokers, such that they will not stand up while their liberties are being stripped...and that it is not pollitically correct to defend smokers.  Now that smokers have become a dwindling minority, I expect it's only a matter of time.  I would like to think that even if I wasn't a smoker, I still wouldn't support anti-smoking legislation...but who knows.

let's just establish the fact that harming YOURSELF by eating big macs, drinking alcohol, eating bon bons, or riding motorcycle are harmful to you not others. this should not even be part of this discussion. if a cigarette was like big mac, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

yes, no one cares if you smoke and kill yourself. but you're keep ignoring and dismissing the fact that smoking does harm others. if you accept the fact the smoking is harmful to you, why can't you accept that if someone sitting next to you inhale the same smoke, it would cause harm?

how many people do you know that doesn't drive because the air pollution will cause them harm? exactly! you can not compare life necessity with cigarettes. i can name 1000 more things that cause harm to all human kind but these are the result of our advancement, which we have no feasible solutions to. though we're trying to find solutions for these problems.

as for it being a political issue, any issue that a mass number of people care about is going to become a political issue. the politicians will make it their issue. i don't if there's anything you can do about that.  :dunno:

Quote from: JetSwingriding motorcycle is harmful to you not others.

Wrong.

OWNED!   :lol:

Really though...  People don't really think about the worst things harming them... Things they can't do anything about.  

Additives in our foods that make us unhealthy.
Toxic smoke from machinery and vehicles.

Cigarette smoke is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as vehicle exhaust...  Nowhere near.  Yet...  You can run your diesel truck with the exhaust pointed straight at someone's window...  or let it come in the door...  or get sucked into an air intake.

That's not illegal.  It will KILL you...  A few hours in a room with exhaust WILL KILL YOU, but directly inhaling cigarette smoke into your lungs for years doesn't kill you.  

BBQ fumes are also far worse that cigarette smoke...  I could go on and on...  

Why do cigarettes have to be 25 ft away from a door/window/intake, but all these TOXIC and DEADLY fumes can be right in it...  There's no law against it.

That's really my point...  People are confused about the smoking ban issue.  Second hand smoke is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as smoking...  And smoking is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as breathing the deadly fumes we put up with on a daily basis.

I think smoking should be isolated so people can choose to avoid it...  Not banned. :dunno:

Quote from: JetSwingthis should not even be part of this discussion.

:dunno: you brought it up:

Quote from: JetSwingI think you are missing a critical point here...smoking is harmful to you and others around you

My point was that it was irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote from: JetSwingif you accept the fact the smoking is harmful to you, why can't you accept that if someone sitting next to you inhale the same smoke, it would cause harm?

Define what you mean by 'harm'?  Critical harm?  More harm than burning a candle?  Cooking a steak on a Weber grill?  The only measurement of second hand smoke intake I've seen (the 2000 ORNL study) concluded that employees in a smoking environment got the equivalent of 6 cigarettes a year.  That's 1.6% of one cigarette a day.  Do I think that's harmful?  Not especially.

Quote from: JetSwingyou can not compare life necessity with cigarettes.

Do you think driving a Hummer is a necessity?  How about a Ferrari?  Ford Expedition?  Do you ever go nowhere on your motorcycle...just out for a ride?  Is that a life necessity?  People want to drive their vehicles whenever, however, and for whatever reason...and no one will challenge their right to do so.  How is this different?

Quote from: RVertigoI think smoking should be isolated so people can choose to avoid it...  Not banned. :dunno:

See?  The smokers agree.   :thumb:

what a surprise! you know who funded the 2000 ORNL study? yup, tabacco companies. not only that, they've used flawed methodology. tabacco companies planned to used the study to lift the ban but look how far that has come after 5 years...

just use your common sense. how much harm you would get from second hand smoking depends on how much exposure you have to second hand smoking (duh). it's really on case by case basis. but i could see how a person who's exposed to second hand smoking on a daily basis can be really bad.

Now...  When it comes to young people being forced to be around smoke...  That's totally different.    Since the problem solving portions of the brain form last, society needs to problem solve for them...

Any enclosed area that people under 18 (or maybe 21) are allowed, should be totally smoke free.  Places that only allow people over that age should have the right to choose their own policies.

If the "adults only" business caters to a specific market of non-smokers, then they should be smoke free...  If the market is smokers, then they should allow smoking.

Putting smoking on the street only puts the smoke in more people's faces.  It's hard to avoid the sidewalk, but it's easy to not enter a building where smoking is allowed.

Quote from: JetSwingwhat a surprise! you know who funded the 2000 ORNL study? yup, tabacco companies. not only that, they've used flawed methodology. tabacco companies planned to used the study to lift the ban but look how far that has come after 5 years...

Right.  There are no unbiased studies, no indisputable results.  Their funding ultimately comes directly from tobacco companies or indirectly from anti-tobacco lobbyists.  

Quote from: JetSwingjust use your common sense. how much harm you would get from second hand smoking depends on how much exposure you have to second hand smoking (duh).

That's sort of my point.  Smoke loses concentration quicky as it expands to fit volume.  Equillibrium and all that.  Even a few cubic feet is a lot of volume to fill.  I haven't done the math, but I simply find it difficult to believe that inhaling a dissipated quantity of smoke from the air can be remotely comperable to actively smoking a cigarette.  If someone wants to work it out, I'd love to see it.  The best number that I have is the ORNL conclusion: 6 cigarettes a year.   :dunno:

Just like a clam-bake...  You have to fill a very small area with a very high volume of smoke for anyone to feel effects.

I think there should be smoking lounges.

People go to restaurants to eat, mainly. You expect cooking smells since restaurants SERVE FOOD!

People go to bars to drink (and get laid obviously)  :P

People should go to smoking lounges to smoke.

:dunno:

have you even read what the 2000 ORNL study were conducted? they had people wear a filter to sample air? what kind of conclusion would that bring...?

the researchers have been working with RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris since 1975.

"The study is fundamentally flawed." responed British Medical Association.

they refused to published the study...

the journal wrote back to the researchers, saying "The editors believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific value. We could not judge the merits of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so inadequately described. I should add that your article contains pejorative comments that should have no place in responsible scientific discourse."

these are the most recent article on study on secondhand smoking that i could find.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_2_1x_More_Studies_Slam_Secondhand_Smoke.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-08-smoking-breastcancer_x.htm

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3011851

badger, i don't know what you do for living but you should consider quitting your job and go work a tabacco company. they need people more like you.

rvertigo, i only have one thing to say to you...

O W N E D   :nana:

Quote from: PhaedrusI think there should be smoking lounges.

People go to restaurants to eat, mainly. You expect cooking smells since restaurants SERVE FOOD!

People go to bars to drink (and get laid obviously)  :P

People should go to smoking lounges to smoke.

:dunno:

:thumb:

And if states would allow something like that, I'd vote for it!  Too bad they don't...  I have no problem with segregating the non-smokers (whiners)...  I just don't think smoking should be banned.   :dunno:

Quote from: JetSwingrvertigo, i only have one thing to say to you...

O W N E D   :nana:

Now that's just childish...  I can't believe you would take a serious debate like this and turn it into some kind of "owning" competition...  Just sad.   :roll:





















OWNED! :lol:

that blank space trick is so lame...anyone with half the brains knows you would write "owned" at the end  :roll:

OWNED!  :lol:

i think i'm done chit chatting on the topic of smoking...

Quote from: JetSwingi think i'm done chit chatting on the topic of smoking...

Ur Srsly Trd of ownage!


Yeah...  There's nothing more to discuss here...  Smokers want to smoke and non-smokers want to (whine) not smell it.  :dunno:

Outnumbered again...   :dunno:

Everyone in my family smokes and have friends that do it. Been around it ever since I was born. I took a single puff probably when I was 12 and that's been it for my entire life. I have a feeling I'm in the minority, though. Never appealed to me. Not attracted to it at all. It's a deal breaker with girls if I'm going to start dating them. Also, never tried a single drug (expect drinking... a lot) in my entire life. Go me! :thumb:

I see obesity as a bigger killer...and it is.

i say we harass our chubby coworkers...steal there donuts till they scream in agony. Make them wish they had never eaten a donut in there life.

Stupid chubby people...messing up insurance rates for everyone else. :x  :x

I figure there are enough dangerous things in life, getting my GS added to that for sure. But I guess I can't get my head around paying that much cash (here it's 10$ a pack) for something that's for sure ending your life early.. Yea the air isn't clean but to claim that it's worse then cigs seems to be a crock and a half. Have many of you looked at the actual ingredients of cigs? amoung the many many pollutants you claim are making our air poor there is also the same ingredients as rat poison.
I dunno, I have tried it and didn't enjoy my own comapny till I changed, showered and had mouthwash, but hey that's just my 2 cents.

I do strongly suggest ppl find a reliable source to check the ingredients of what they choose to inhale though, then see what's worse.. Getting drunk or inhaling poison?