Pages: 12345
the first victims of persistent smokers are their children
chrisname: no offense but all those are basically the same source, who's to say they didn't skew the facts just like anyone else can, just saying
A large problem with studies on the cause of second hand smoke is that they chalk up any case where the person who developed the illness while living around a smoker as being caused by second hand smoke. most of the smoking related illnesses are quite prevalent on their own right with people who dont smoke.
No they aren't the same source. PubMed is a collection of articles from various medical journals written by various scientists. Those are all totally different sources, hence why one contradicts the rest.

That's a fair point. They don't prove causation, only correlation.
Olysold wrote:
Whether it is cancer inducing or not, I highly doubt the rate of exposure is enough to warrant any kind of worry.

Just further to this :

The Chief Scientist from CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation ) In other words the Australian Government Science Department, was on TV a while back saying there is no safe exposure level for tobacco smoke. One cigarette might give you cancer. One dose of second hand smoke can give someone cancer.

Just to be clear, the person in this role is a proper scientist and are not given over to "spinning the truth".
one of the saddest part of being addicted is finding excuses why it all is not that bad.

if you're standing next to a fire and you inhale the smoke you will immediately cough because the body detects the substances in the lung and tried to get rid of it.

the perfidious thing of smoking is that it tricks the body. the particles the smoker or the person next to him (it doesn't really matter) inhales are that small that the body doesn't detect them until it's too late. they stick in your lung and you cough, but you can't get rid of them.

have you ever seen a lung of a smoker...

it is true that if those particles cause deadly disease is pure chance.
Do you really want to stand this chance?
I suppose that's true, but the probability of getting cancer from a single dose must be very, very small. It's just that smokers face that probability on a regular basis, so they're more likely to get it. And then there are cumulative effects on things like blood pressure.

That's a good point.

I don't even think smokers would argue that smoking makes you hack/cough a lot more and makes you more short of breath.

But then I don't think anyone is saying that smoking isn't unhealthy. I think they're just saying the downsides of it are overinflated in the media.

Just looking at your quote snippets, only the second link says cancer. Heart disease isn't just zoned in on cancer, which I shouldn't have zoned in on. That statement is my personal opinion (which of course has no merit), based on how I behave when I smoke (ie. I actively try not to assault people with cigarette smoke, so it is unlikely I would be the one causing their demise from cancer).

P&T also only zoned in on cancer, not heart disease as a whole. They aren't making claims out of thin air. They are relaying information to us from what they found that's claimed by the professionals. The difference is, I choose to believe these guys over other media outlets because, again, integrity. Try not to let appearances get the better of your judgement (appearances != character).

I was horribly wrong though for linking "harm" to specifically cancer.


I just said it but yeah, it's just my opinion. Wasn't mentioned in P&T at all. I stand by my point of not worrying.


Just to comment on an absolute statement you made.

Anything P&T:BS tells you is opinion. Not fact.

Is it not a factual event that the EPA studies was thrown out for "faking it" by the Federal Court? Sounds like a fact to me.

@ Olysold:

I didn't mean individual points they made. I meant their overall message.
Disch wrote:
But then I don't think anyone is saying that smoking isn't unhealthy. I think they're just saying the downsides of it are overinflated in the media.
I think that's pretty accurate.

I remember this "don't smoke" seminar I was forced to go to while in elementary school. And I remember them putting huge emphasis on "EVERY SEVEN SECONDS SOMEONE DIES FROM SMOKING."
And we all know these brainwashing techniques work on kids. And this one might not have been terribly bad (unlike the sex ed ones that strip kids of their nature) because smoking isn't exactly healthy.
I just find it sill now, because what they fail to mention is that if someone dies every 7 seconds from smoking, that's ~4 million deaths per year (world wide). there are ~6 billion people in the world. ~60 million of those die per year anyway, which equates to about 2 deaths per second. So if you put it into perspective it's like, well that's a stupid ass statistic.
Thumper wrote:
we all know these brainwashing techniques work on kids

As a former kid, I can tell you they don't.
chrisname wrote:
As a former kid, I can tell you they don't.
Allow me to correct myself: They work on kids until they grow up.
Or at least they worked on me until the age of about 14, or 15.
Some kids never grow out of it though.
One cigarette might give you cancer. One dose of second hand smoke can give someone cancer.

Thats is so far off of how cancer works its humorous.

cancer isnt a switch that gets turned on, and cigarettes are not filled with "cancer seeds" .

though everything that pops up about the subject is one cigarette a day.

we all know these brainwashing techniques work on kids

i would say it truly works on a few of them. but honestly, even kids can start to see how most of it is bullshit. it probably does more damage then it does good to be trying to scare kids out of doing drugs
Guys smoking is good for you and everyone around, mmk.
mmmmmkay indeed
Thought I'de add my 2 cents. I smoked for a few years (in Idaho, marlboro reds 100s, 5 a pack if anyone interested). Moved to recently to Cali where they are much more expensive and quit. I don't regret starting, and I think it has its uses. I don't recommend it to anyone but I find that (despite the fact that we bitch about it constently) smokers aren't particularly unhappy about that aspect of their lives. I complained about "needing" to quit, and being "disgusted" at myself for starting such a "stupid habit" for two years but it took a serious look at my wallet for me to make a change. Also I found quitting to be ridiculously easy, for me I just needed a reason.

As for 2nd hand smoke, I smoked outdoors or in my/friend-who-also-smoked's house, and never near non-smoking company (indoors). I don't know how dangerous indoor secondhand is, but I think outdoor is negligable (diffusion in atmo would make particulate count near-irrelevant).
Money is the main reason i want to quit/cut down.

i enjoy smoking to much to fully quit, ill probably just smoke my hookah every so often
I am finding it surprising that so many people here are trying to justify smoking by downplaying the negatives as being overhyped. Yes, cancer is not a switch. Even the smallest bit of secondhand smoke may increase your chance of getting cancer, but by such an insignificant amount that it is hardlynot worth noting. Then again, pretty much everything gives you cancer nowadays. Hell, you're more likely to get some form of cancer as a result of your multivitamins[1] than you are from secondhand smoke. Yes, they try to brainwash children into believing that smoking is this god-forsaken evil that will result in immediate death upon doing or some other nonsense.

My point is that you are right in that sense- the health downsides are likely overplayed by the media due to... well, public standing. It pays better to reinforce common opinion, even based on false information, then to correct them. However, there is one side effect that none of you can really dispute- property damage. If you have ever purchased the house of a chain smoker, you know what I mean. Everything is just... yellow. It's rather disgusting, really. It decreases property value substantially, and you can never really get that smoke smell out of... well, everything. Yes, it can be mitigated by smoking outside, but that isn't always an option. Secondly, as pointed out by the several people above me, the cost. Cigarettes, or even just the tobacco and the paper to roll it in, are expensive in the long term. Health detriments aside, the damn things are pricey when it comes to property and the cigarettes themselves.

A third note, though unrelated from the other two, is stigma. I can guarantee that almost every single smoker who has posted in this thread has felt judged in some way for smoking. Whether by friend, family, or just random passers-by, it's not fun to be against social norms. Now, I personally find these three reasons to be pretty good in regards to me not wanting to smoke. I don't know whether these are sufficient motivations to have smokers quit (other than the second), but I do know that they are at least three undisputed consequences of smoking.
My whole problem with the bullshit of some of the laws

in idaho you cant smoke in public parks

private businesses are forced to ban smoking.

smoking is disgusting, expensive, and bad for you, but in america its our right to have that choice, it should be a businesses right to have a choice of allowing or banning smoking, and if im in a park i shouldnt have to risk getting a ticket for smoking

thats my whole gripe with all of this
Pages: 12345