This seems to be a point of ignorance...

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: zinfamous
There has been NO peer-reviewd, legitimate study linking second-hand smoke to any harmful effects in humans.

Of course not tard.

What non-smoker is going to subject themselves voluntarily to second hand smoke just to see if it causes cancer?

care to read the rest of everyone else's posts before you make asinine claims as to their actual argument? you are displaying a profound weakness at reading comprehension

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
This does NOT mean it causes cancer or other diseases. Show me a study that is STATISTICALLY CONCLUSIVE, showing that second hand smoke causes cancer or other diseases.

Are you serious?

This is one area where common sense should rule. Cigarettes have been shown to contain elements that cause cancer. The body absorbs what it can from cigarette smoke and then exhales the rest. Are you telling me that it makes sense that the human body upon initial inhale absorb all cancer causing elements and doesn't release any back out?

The reason there is no conclusive evidence is because no test subject (who couldn't be a smoker in the first place) is stupid enough to subject themselves to mass quantities of cancer causing second hand smoke just to prove what everyone but you takes for granted.

No, this is where common sense gets out of control and confuses bad data with good data. There is no proof that second hand smoke is more dangerous than primary.

I have never said that it is more dangerous or even tried to quantify the danger in relation to a primary smoker. I am simply saying it is more dangerous than not breathing it in.

 

[RedArmy]

Originally posted by: Chryso
Second-hand air also has a lot of those properties.
Please remove the similarities of second-hand smoke from exhaled air from a nonsmoker and I will listen to the rest of your argument.

What the hell are you talking about? Exhaled regular air has CO2, H2O, and trace amounts of N2, O2, and whatever else may be in the air. I'm pretty sure in my limited knowledge of smoking that the list for what comes out of ones mouth after taking a puff from a cigarette is a heck of a lot longer. All I'm basing this off like I said was common sense, I don't really have anymore of an argument as I thought it was pretty straight forward.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Bingo!

You'd think the OP would have used his brain when reading the above fact and apply that fact to real world conditions.

But according to his horribly failed logic (and he has posted this in multiple threads thinking it trumps all arguments) non-smokers would be getting addicted to smoke filled rooms by the thousands.

 

[ElFenix]

the smoke may be dirtier, but it's very dilute. per gram it may be twice as dirty, but a smoker is getting like 100x the smoke by weight.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the smoke may be dirtier, but it's very dilute. per gram it may be twice as dirty, but a smoker is getting like 100x the smoke by weight.

QFT.

You'd have to bee basically smoking the other end of the cigarette at the same time for it to be worse.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
This does NOT mean it causes cancer or other diseases. Show me a study that is STATISTICALLY CONCLUSIVE, showing that second hand smoke causes cancer or other diseases.

Are you serious?

This is one area where common sense should rule. Cigarettes have been shown to contain elements that cause cancer. The body absorbs what it can from cigarette smoke and then exhales the rest. Are you telling me that it makes sense that the human body upon initial inhale absorb all cancer causing elements and doesn't release any back out?

The reason there is no conclusive evidence is because no test subject (who couldn't be a smoker in the first place) is stupid enough to subject themselves to mass quantities of cancer causing second hand smoke just to prove what everyone but you takes for granted.

No, this is where common sense gets out of control and confuses bad data with good data. There is no proof that second hand smoke is more dangerous than primary.

I have never said that it is more dangerous or even tried to quantify the danger in relation to a primary smoker. I am simply saying it is more dangerous than not breathing it in.

then why use child-like personal attacks when responding to other posts that you haven't read all fo the way through?

 

[Sinsear]

Can you make a 3rd option saying "I don't care. Smoke em if you got em"

I smoked for 13 years; I don't mind smoke or smokers around me. I don't go out of my way to be near them but I don't cringe or shy away like they are lepers either. It's a smokers right to make the choice of whether to do it or not. There are already enough places and laws that prohibit smoking here and there and everywhere else. If you don't like smoke then don't go to an establishment, someone's house who smokes, etc.

I would suggest the anti-smokers never make that dream trip to Europe. They smoke everywhere. It's no where near as easy to avoid it there as it is here. You can smoke in restaurants, bars, on the train, in the train stations, and in the airport.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Again, and I posted this in teh original roommate, baby, whatever thread (good idea to start a new one, BTW), the only thing data shows is chemical composition of second-hand smoke vs that smoked through a filter. There has been NO peer-reviewd, legitimate study linking second-hand smoke to any harmful effects in humans. Also, when you consider that a smoker will inhale at least 3x the amount of smoke, and therfore chemicals within that smoke, the difference in exposure to said chemicals becomes irrelevent....as other have already said

I'm not a smoker; I freaking hate cigarette smoke. However, until someone produces legitimate data concerning the actual effects of second-hand smoke in humans (this is understandably near-impossible), all of these studies are only good for promoting fear, and possibly unneccesary legislation. I don't think anyone here is condoning second-hand smoke or denying the very likely harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The problem is when studies are missused to promote the interests of one particular group. Such practices do more harm in the long run than the good that they are intended to do...

How do you quantify that? If the only thing that happens as a result is the banning of smoking in public places I see that as a definite good. Sure, it creates an inconvenience to those who smoke...boo fvcking hoo.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Again, and I posted this in teh original roommate, baby, whatever thread (good idea to start a new one, BTW), the only thing data shows is chemical composition of second-hand smoke vs that smoked through a filter. There has been NO peer-reviewd, legitimate study linking second-hand smoke to any harmful effects in humans. Also, when you consider that a smoker will inhale at least 3x the amount of smoke, and therfore chemicals within that smoke, the difference in exposure to said chemicals becomes irrelevent....as other have already said

I'm not a smoker; I freaking hate cigarette smoke. However, until someone produces legitimate data concerning the actual effects of second-hand smoke in humans (this is understandably near-impossible), all of these studies are only good for promoting fear, and possibly unneccesary legislation. I don't think anyone here is condoning second-hand smoke or denying the very likely harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The problem is when studies are missused to promote the interests of one particular group. Such practices do more harm in the long run than the good that they are intended to do...

How do you quantify that? If the only thing that happens as a result is the banning of smoking in public places I see that as a definite good. Sure, it creates an inconvenience to those who smoke...boo fvcking hoo.

Once you start using bad science to promote social change--good or bad--this paves the way for further abuses, and increases the public misunderstanding of science in general. It's bad enough that the public is so easily fed this type of data as gospel by the general media. Sure, all it would take is for an inquisitive mind to investigate the claims for themselves, but how often does that happen?

What happens when similarly mis-appropriated data is used to bring about Prohibition II? I shudder at the thought of that....

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

 

[irishScott]

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/02/13/smoke.html?ref=rss
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2000/2000_26_e.html
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

Well I haven't found the Canadian study, yet, but I found these, and more to come.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
then why use child-like personal attacks when responding to other posts that you haven't read all fo the way through?

Child - like?

I called you a tard - did it hurt your fragile ego?

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Can you make a 3rd option saying "I don't care. Smoke em if you got em"

I smoked for 13 years; I don't mind smoke or smokers around me. I don't go out of my way to be near them but I don't cringe or shy away like they are lepers either. It's a smokers right to make the choice of whether to do it or not. There are already enough places and laws that prohibit smoking here and there and everywhere else. If you don't like smoke then don't go to an establishment, someone's house who smokes, etc.

I would suggest the anti-smokers never make that dream trip to Europe. They smoke everywhere. It's no where near as easy to avoid it there as it is here. You can smoke in restaurants, bars, on the train, in the train stations, and in the airport.

I agree with this except that I have to walk through smoking areas to get into and out of smoke free areas. It is akin to making me walk through a public bathroom to get into a building. I still have to smell their foulness in order to enter.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

i could forcefully have alcohol poured down my throat each day and not become an alcoholic. inasmuch as i could be forced to breath in cigarette smoke every day in an enclosed motor vehicle while my mother gave me a ride to school, but still i never would become addicted to nicotine.

i guess maybe i'm missing what you are trying to say.

Read the misinterpreted assertions of the OP and get back to me.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man with the highest addiction rate AND the highest quit failure rate. the majority of people who smoke have an addiction.

Now, following the OP's logic, we would have a wave of people addicted to nicotine, even though they never used tobacco products... but were exposed to ETS.

We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

1. You are twisting my assertions. I never said anyone got addicted to anything. I'm saying it paves the way for potentially serious health complications in non-smokers depending on the situation; I am also saying that the 2nd hand smoke has more sh!t in it then the smoke inhaled by the smoker THROUGH THE CIGARETTE.

2. They are not just "MY" assertions. They are the assertions of (probably) a few hundred reliable sources, 4 of whom I have linked to. If I could conduct the tests to prove my statement, I would've won the Nobel prize by now.

3. Also, as I have pointed out, it takes certain conditions to make 2nd hand smoke deadly (or in the case of your argument, addictive). It is possible that the nicotine, while released, has such a large diffusion rate as to make it's addictive qualities to minute to matter. I don't know, but it's a possibility.

For those that scoff at the reality of said situations:

1. A guy who frequents a sports bar

2. A Waitress in a bar or restaurant with a smoking section

3. Kids with parents who smoke regularly indoors

I have observed all of the above scenarios. The first 2 are especially widespread.

As someone previously posted, he said he knew 4 waitresses who died of respiratory complications.

To satisfy science and the ravenousness of some of ATOT, a full autopsy and medical analysis would have to be performed on each subject, and I would have to post the exact chemical content of everything in their lungs and make a hypothesis that said chemicals caused the reaction, which would be followed up by a few months of lengthy research and peer-reviews of my work, a published article in a few scientific journals, and the endorsement of several 1337 old gray-haired scientific people and a special on the Discovery Channel.

Unfortunately this is ultimately impracticable for me at the present time. So your perfect scientific data will have to wait while I "assume" with no small amount of common sense that these deaths were caused at least in part by the 2nd hand smoke they were inhaling on a daily basis.

4. The Canadian Government has stated that 2nd hand smoking causes more than 1000 deaths a year in Canada. While I cannot prove this, I am searching for the study which found these findings and will post it if/when I find it.

Your ignorant interpretation of this particular study is that people exposed to ETS are in MORE danger than the smoker. That is patently absurd. That concentrated ETS is more pure than filtered smoke is irrelevant. Non-smokers are never exposed to concentrated ETS unless they are sucking on the wrong end of a cigarette.

You never addressed this post:

More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

That's exactly what Mosh and myself said a few posts ago, although I think the conditions might be a little more liberal than the ones you described.

Actually, no valid study has found a link in any other conditions. Everyone they claimed were harmed were those people exposed to daily heavy concentrations of smoke. (Workplace and/or home life) And one must remember that a person must have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, which is why even in smokers, a minority develop it. Same for heart diseae and just about every other type of cancer.

The dose makes the poison. Remember this. This is why we aren't all droping like flies from exposure to car and truck exhaust.

In short, your original conclusion based on the study you posted was alarmist, and wrong. And the study is pointless out of context. If you are now trying to deny you felt it meant non-smokers were more at risk from ETS than smokers were from smoking, you're lying.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

Not true. Nicotine is not like crack or variations of other drugs that addict on the first encounter. In addition, the levels of exposure are smaller than if we were inhaling directly from the cigarette. In addition, non-smokers do not typically associated pleasure or relaxation with the head rush that comes from inhalation so they are very unlikely to find themselves addicted.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Amused
We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

I agree, but it is still worse than not breathing it in. It still stinks, it still gives me a head rush, dry mouth and dizziness.

I have no problem with people smoking except that they have to exhale.

If I drink too much and start puking in front of buildings so people have to walk through the mess and smell the vomit, there would be an uproar - especially if I and others did it multiple times a day so the smell and mess was there constantly.

This is what smokers do - it is almost impossible to avoid the smell within 10-20 feet of a well used smoker's corner.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

Eating, drinking alcohol, and taking other drugs can be addicting. it doesn't mean i'll get addicted if i eat, drink alcohol, or pop some meds every now and then does it? :roll:

Only certain people can get addicted. You have to have genetic tendencies or the personality that lends to addiction. Stop discounting the carcinogens in second hand smoke with silly analogies.

While I'm not discounting the probable danger of ETS in concentrated, long term exposures, he does make a very valid point about the OP's total failure of logic.

If his logic were true, non-smoking people would be addicted to smoke filled rooms. They are not.

Not true. Nicotine is not like crack or variations of other drugs that addict on the first encounter. In addition, the levels of exposure are smaller than if we were inhaling directly from the cigarette. In addition, non-smokers do not typically associated pleasure or relaxation with the head rush that comes from inhalation so they are very unlikely to find themselves addicted.

Nicotine, when taken in high enough doses is addictive. Be it through smoking, dipping, or even chewing nicotine gum or wearing a patch.

The fact of the matter is the levels of nicotine, even in a smoke filled room, are NOT high enough to cause addiction.

The "rush" doesn't just come from smoking. One can get it from chewing or even a patch. ETS does not cause that, which means the concentrations are FAR too low to cause it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Amused
We do not. For one reason and one reason only. ETS exposure to nicotine is no where near strong enough to trigger addiction, therefore is weaker than first hand smoke.

I agree, but it is still worse than not breathing it in. It still stinks, it still gives me a head rush, dry mouth and dizziness.

I have no problem with people smoking except that they have to exhale.

If I drink too much and start puking in front of buildings so people have to walk through the mess and smell the vomit, there would be an uproar - especially if I and others did it multiple times a day so the smell and mess was there constantly.

This is what smokers do - it is almost impossible to avoid the smell within 10-20 feet of a well used smoker's corner.

Bummer.

Meanwhile, bad smells are a bane of life. As a non-smoker, I'd rather smell smoke than the obnoxious BO some people put off.

You may, or may not feel the same. It's irrelevant.

You've kicked them outside. Be happy with that and go on with your life.