This seems to be a point of ignorance...

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I was trying to read to read this thread, but the nested quotes have the page format screwed...

Nobody needs to see the same text repeated ad-nauseum. Please guys, edit your posts.

I think I broke my scroll wheel

 

[zinfamous]

I hate to be a detail whore, irishScott, but this is where you claimed that 2nd-hand smoking is more dangerous than primary based on studies that don't even suggest that. You sound pretty convinced...
(this is taken from the thread of the ball-less OP who let his friend take over his apartment without paying rent, complained about smoking around the baby, let her cat ruin the furniture, and generally ruined his life, etc )

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: irishScott
To do so is forcing the kid to smoke and inhale 2x the tar you do, which the kid cannot control.

So, I'm safer to smoke firsthand than secondhand? Sweet, I'll go buy a pack.

yes
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm

How dangerous is second-hand smoke?

Second-hand smoke is poisonous and has over 4000 chemicals, including 50 that can cause cancer. Breathing second-hand smoke can be more dangerous than inhaling smoke through a cigarette. It has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that people smoking inhale and five times more carbon monoxide, a deadly gas that starves your body of oxygen.

Other chemicals found in second-hand smoke include:

* Benzo[a]pyrene found in coal tar, one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals.
* Formaldehyde used to preserve dead animals.
* Hydrogen cyanide used in rat poison.
* Ammonia used to clean floors and toilets.

Each year in Canada, breathing second-hand smoke causes more than 1000 deaths among people who do not smoke, mainly from lung cancer and heart disease, and keeps many more from leading healthy lives.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I hate to be a detail whore, irishScott, but this is where you claimed that 2nd-hand smoking is more dangerous than primary based on studies that don't even suggest that. You sound pretty convinced...
(this is taken from the thread of the ball-less OP who let his friend take over his apartment without paying rent, complained about smoking around the baby, let her cat ruin the furniture, and generally ruined his life, etc )

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: irishScott
To do so is forcing the kid to smoke and inhale 2x the tar you do, which the kid cannot control.

So, I'm safer to smoke firsthand than secondhand? Sweet, I'll go buy a pack.

yes
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm

How dangerous is second-hand smoke?

Second-hand smoke is poisonous and has over 4000 chemicals, including 50 that can cause cancer. Breathing second-hand smoke can be more dangerous than inhaling smoke through a cigarette. It has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that people smoking inhale and five times more carbon monoxide, a deadly gas that starves your body of oxygen.

Other chemicals found in second-hand smoke include:

* Benzo[a]pyrene found in coal tar, one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals.
* Formaldehyde used to preserve dead animals.
* Hydrogen cyanide used in rat poison.
* Ammonia used to clean floors and toilets.

Each year in Canada, breathing second-hand smoke causes more than 1000 deaths among people who do not smoke, mainly from lung cancer and heart disease, and keeps many more from leading healthy lives.

At the time, I was. Then I smacked myself in the head and made this thread (and what a thread it has become... )

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

At the time, I was. Then I smacked myself in the head and made this thread (and what a thread it has become... )

So that's what it took for you to finally admit to it?

Wow...

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

There is no valid medical reason to ban smoking outdoors.

 

[DainBramaged]

For these facts to be true, you have to assume filtered cigarettes. Therefore, it's not necessarily true.

Edit: read thread...n/m

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

There is no valid medical reason to ban smoking outdoors.

There is a valid reason. I shouldn't have to breathe smokers smoke. Period. If a bar wants to allow it, fine. But if I'm just walking around outdoors, my right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes a smokers perceived right to smoke.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

There is no valid medical reason to ban smoking outdoors.

There is a valid reason. I shouldn't have to breathe smokers smoke. Period. If a bar wants to allow it, fine. But if I'm just walking around outdoors, my right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes a smokers perceived right to smoke.

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

There is no valid medical reason to ban smoking outdoors.

There is a valid reason. I shouldn't have to breathe smokers smoke. Period. If a bar wants to allow it, fine. But if I'm just walking around outdoors, my right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes a smokers perceived right to smoke.

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

Car and truck exhaust doesn't cause me to cough uncontrollably, cause wheezing and be generally miserable like smoke inhalation does. This also seems to be a medical hazzard if it causes this.

Driving and the pollution it causes is unfortunately a necessity for most people. I am all for the design of cleaner transportation and mass transit, or riding a bike where possible. Smoking, however, is not in any way necessary.

If BO was banned I certainly wouldn't mind.

What if I were to force the most horrible scent upon you on a regular basis. Would you just allow it, or would you want it to be stopped?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

There is no valid medical reason to ban smoking outdoors.

There is a valid reason. I shouldn't have to breathe smokers smoke. Period. If a bar wants to allow it, fine. But if I'm just walking around outdoors, my right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes a smokers perceived right to smoke.

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all. This also seems to be a medical hazzard if it causes this.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

Car and truck exhaust doesn't cause me to cough uncontrollably, cause wheezing and be generally miserable like smoke inhalation does.

Driving and the pollution it causes is unfortunately a necessity for most people. I am all for the design of cleaner transportation and mass transit, or riding a bike where possible. Smoking, however, is not in any way necessary.

If BO was banned I certainly wouldn't mind.

What if I were to force the most horrible scent upon you on a regular basis. Would you just allow it, or would you want it to be stopped?

You're telling me that the occational whiff of smoke you may experience outdoors causes that? Sounds like an allergy. And guess what? You can't ban what you're allergic to. Your allergies are your problem.

And anyone who would actually consider banning BO is a very scary person indeed. Do you think it's OK to ban anything and everything that offends you? Do you think about this much, if at all?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

At the time, I was. Then I smacked myself in the head and made this thread (and what a thread it has become... )

So that's what it took for you to finally admit to it?

Wow...

Wait, so that entire thread war we just had was about my post in the OTHER THREAD?!

sh!t...

oh well. post count++

 

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

There is no valid medical reason to ban smoking outdoors.

There is a valid reason. I shouldn't have to breathe smokers smoke. Period. If a bar wants to allow it, fine. But if I'm just walking around outdoors, my right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes a smokers perceived right to smoke.

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all. This also seems to be a medical hazzard if it causes this.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

Car and truck exhaust doesn't cause me to cough uncontrollably, cause wheezing and be generally miserable like smoke inhalation does.

Driving and the pollution it causes is unfortunately a necessity for most people. I am all for the design of cleaner transportation and mass transit, or riding a bike where possible. Smoking, however, is not in any way necessary.

If BO was banned I certainly wouldn't mind.

What if I were to force the most horrible scent upon you on a regular basis. Would you just allow it, or would you want it to be stopped?

You're telling me that the occational whiff of smoke you may experience outdoors causes that? Sounds like an allergy. And guess what? You can't ban what you're allergic to. Your allergies are your problem.

And anyone who would actually consider banning BO is a very scary person indeed. Do you think it's OK to ban anything and everything that offends you? Do you think about this much, if at all?

If smoke causes that then I am well within my rights to not want to breathe it. It's not a naturally occuring thing. If you want to smoke outdoors then you should have to wear an enclosed suit which filters all the air in and out of the suit and it can just fill up with smoke so that you are the only one that you are subjecting your vileness onto, and not other people.

And you didn't answer me. Would you really want me to subject you to the worst and most annoying smell you can think of on a regular basis? Would you seriously be okay with that?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

We should also not let anyone smoke in public places either then. Which I would agree with.

OK, so no smoking in government buildings and such. Gotchya.

A business is not a "public" place. It is private property.

That's fine. But public places include all of the outdoors.

There is no valid medical reason to ban smoking outdoors.

There is a valid reason. I shouldn't have to breathe smokers smoke. Period. If a bar wants to allow it, fine. But if I'm just walking around outdoors, my right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes a smokers perceived right to smoke.

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all. This also seems to be a medical hazzard if it causes this.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

Car and truck exhaust doesn't cause me to cough uncontrollably, cause wheezing and be generally miserable like smoke inhalation does.

Driving and the pollution it causes is unfortunately a necessity for most people. I am all for the design of cleaner transportation and mass transit, or riding a bike where possible. Smoking, however, is not in any way necessary.

If BO was banned I certainly wouldn't mind.

What if I were to force the most horrible scent upon you on a regular basis. Would you just allow it, or would you want it to be stopped?

You're telling me that the occational whiff of smoke you may experience outdoors causes that? Sounds like an allergy. And guess what? You can't ban what you're allergic to. Your allergies are your problem.

And anyone who would actually consider banning BO is a very scary person indeed. Do you think it's OK to ban anything and everything that offends you? Do you think about this much, if at all?

If smoke causes that then I am well within my rights to not want to breathe it. It's not a naturally occuring thing. If you want to smoke outdoors then you should have to wear an enclosed suit which filters all the air in and out of the suit and it can just fill up with smoke so that you are the only one that you are subjecting your vileness onto, and not other people.

And you didn't answer me. Would you really want me to subject you to the worst and most annoying smell you can think of on a regular basis? Would you seriously be okay with that?

No, you're not within your "rights." No more than the person who is allergic to perfume has the "right" to ban that.

I'm subjected to smells and allergens that annoy me on a daily basis. I learn to adapt, rather than try to force the world to conform to my will.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: irishScott

At the time, I was. Then I smacked myself in the head and made this thread (and what a thread it has become... )

So that's what it took for you to finally admit to it?

Wow...

Wait, so that entire thread war we just had was about my post in the OTHER THREAD?!

sh!t...

oh well. post count++

hehe perhaps....to be fair, you did progress your argument some time ago beyond the original "second-hand smoke is worse" statement that you made. you actually engaged the debate, and started approaching the studies you were using rationally...unlike most people on here.
:beer:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

Car and truck exhaust doesn't cause me to cough uncontrollably, cause wheezing and be generally miserable like smoke inhalation does. This also seems to be a medical hazzard if it causes this.

Driving and the pollution it causes is unfortunately a necessity for most people. I am all for the design of cleaner transportation and mass transit, or riding a bike where possible. Smoking, however, is not in any way necessary.

If BO was banned I certainly wouldn't mind.

What if I were to force the most horrible scent upon you on a regular basis. Would you just allow it, or would you want it to be stopped?

you've never been to Hong Kong, or LA I take it. or any big city for that matter. I guaran-damn-tee you that the instances of asthma and lung cancer in any major urban area are due to exhaust fumes and not second-hand smoke. It is not cigareet smoke that causes that brownish-green hue and noxious odor within Hong Kong, or those lovely purple sunsets in LA

To suggest that second-hand smoke is somehow more deleterious to public health than car exhaust reflects some detachment from logic unprecedented in Philosophy.....

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
What kills me is when some retard says "Second hand smoke is worse than actually smoking!"

Hey numbnuts, the person smoking is breathing the second hand smoke too :tard;

Hahaha!!!
:thumbsup:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

If smoke causes that then I am well within my rights to not want to breathe it. It's not a naturally occuring thing. If you want to smoke outdoors then you should have to wear an enclosed suit which filters all the air in and out of the suit and it can just fill up with smoke so that you are the only one that you are subjecting your vileness onto, and not other people.

And you didn't answer me. Would you really want me to subject you to the worst and most annoying smell you can think of on a regular basis? Would you seriously be okay with that?

No, you're not within your "rights." No more than the person who is allergic to perfume has the "right" to ban that.

I'm subjected to smells and allergens that annoy me on a daily basis. I learn to adapt, rather than try to force the world to conform to my will.

I get yoru point here...but I would really, really like to ban those ladies on the train that douse themselves in the stankiest perfume. The fact that they do so is an affront to common sense...If I can't ban them...can I at least be allowed to smack them silly?
...honestly, that sh1t affects me more than cigarette smoke (my grandmother was a chain-smoking, box-wine drinking lady in my younger days. while I'm a llergic to the smoke, and not a fan, I think I developed some resistence to it...Of course, she died of severe emphysema.....)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

Car and truck exhaust doesn't cause me to cough uncontrollably, cause wheezing and be generally miserable like smoke inhalation does. This also seems to be a medical hazzard if it causes this.

Driving and the pollution it causes is unfortunately a necessity for most people. I am all for the design of cleaner transportation and mass transit, or riding a bike where possible. Smoking, however, is not in any way necessary.

If BO was banned I certainly wouldn't mind.

What if I were to force the most horrible scent upon you on a regular basis. Would you just allow it, or would you want it to be stopped?

you've never been to Hong Kong, or LA I take it. or any big city for that matter. I guaran-damn-tee you that the instances of asthma and lung cancer in any major urban area are due to exhaust fumes and not second-hand smoke. It is not cigareet smoke that causes that brownish-green hue and noxious odor within Hong Kong, or those lovely purple sunsets in LA

To suggest that second-hand smoke is somehow more deleterious to public health than car exhaust reflects some detachment from logic unprecedented in Philosophy.....

Actually asthma is an auto immune disease. Probably not caused by any pollutant at all... although it can be aggravated by them. In fact, the rate of asthma in the US has skyrocketed at the same time the rate of smokers was cut in half, and smoking was banned in most indoor areas. An inverse correlation pretty much destroys any claim of causation.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

If smoke causes that then I am well within my rights to not want to breathe it. It's not a naturally occuring thing. If you want to smoke outdoors then you should have to wear an enclosed suit which filters all the air in and out of the suit and it can just fill up with smoke so that you are the only one that you are subjecting your vileness onto, and not other people.

And you didn't answer me. Would you really want me to subject you to the worst and most annoying smell you can think of on a regular basis? Would you seriously be okay with that?

No, you're not within your "rights." No more than the person who is allergic to perfume has the "right" to ban that.

I'm subjected to smells and allergens that annoy me on a daily basis. I learn to adapt, rather than try to force the world to conform to my will.

I get yoru point here...but I would really, really like to ban those ladies on the train that douse themselves in the stankiest perfume. The fact that they do so is an affront to common sense...If I can't ban them...can I at least be allowed to smack them silly?
...honestly, that sh1t affects me more than cigarette smoke (my grandmother was a chain-smoking, box-wine drinking lady in my younger days. while I'm a llergic to the smoke, and not a fan, I think I developed some resistence to it...Of course, she died of severe emphysema.....)

No one is telling you you can't ridicule them and tell them how much they stink. Hell, I do that all the time to people with BO, smokers and perfume whores.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: FilmCamera

Originally posted by: Amused

Since it is not a medical hazard, you have no right to limit people doing it.

The car and truck exhaust you breath is many, many times more dangerous to your health than the occasional faint whiffs of smoke you smell which is no damger at all.

Funny how no one seeks to ban driving.

What next? Will you ban BO?

Car and truck exhaust doesn't cause me to cough uncontrollably, cause wheezing and be generally miserable like smoke inhalation does. This also seems to be a medical hazzard if it causes this.

Driving and the pollution it causes is unfortunately a necessity for most people. I am all for the design of cleaner transportation and mass transit, or riding a bike where possible. Smoking, however, is not in any way necessary.

If BO was banned I certainly wouldn't mind.

What if I were to force the most horrible scent upon you on a regular basis. Would you just allow it, or would you want it to be stopped?

you've never been to Hong Kong, or LA I take it. or any big city for that matter. I guaran-damn-tee you that the instances of asthma and lung cancer in any major urban area are due to exhaust fumes and not second-hand smoke. It is not cigareet smoke that causes that brownish-green hue and noxious odor within Hong Kong, or those lovely purple sunsets in LA

To suggest that second-hand smoke is somehow more deleterious to public health than car exhaust reflects some detachment from logic unprecedented in Philosophy.....

Actually asthma is an auto immune disease. Probably not caused by any pollutant at all... although it can be aggravated by them. In fact, the rate of asthma in the US has skyrocketed at the same time the rate of smokers was cut in half, and smoking was banned in most indoor areas. An inverse correlation pretty much destroys any claim of causation.

At least 2 years ago, while living here, Chicago was labeled the "Asthma Capital of the US." While I don't remember anything mentioning auto exhaust, I do remember the instance of very old, out-of-code buildings (mold, flaking paint, asbestos, and the big one--cockroach dander spread through ventilation systems) being the big bully in this. I can't imagine that auto exhaust isn't some factor (here we go into that same slippery slope ), but I suppose my larger point is that attributing one factor (such as second-hand smoke) as the primary cause in such cases ignores the larger issue--and the real factors that (I believe) have medical research backing them up.