Smoking

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Nope, it's NOT true. At least not true the way most people understand it.

It depends a lot on how you measure it, and how you define SHS. "Secondhand smoke" refers to the smoke exhaled from smokers' lungs, and that smoke which has already gone through the lung once is more harmful than smoke that is directly inhaled in by smokers. But it doesn't mean that BYSTANDERS have a greater chance of catching diseases than actual smokers. Because, you see, anyone who smokes himself is also a secondhand smoker.

Well someone who smokes isn't exactly a secondhand smoker himself. Victims of secondhand smoking inhale whatever the smoker releases(sidestream and mainstream). You see, some smokers or maybe even lots of smokers choose to not inhale the smoke they blow out of their cigarettes. I strongly oppose the second to the last statement you made because victims of secondhand smoke mainly young girls are more prone to breast cancer.

[Cinocard]

*Sigh*, that is not the right way to perceive things. What you said and "I strongly oppose the second to the last statement you made because smokers mainly male are less prone to breast cancer than women who passively smoke" are basically the same.

To correctly compare a factor of two things, all others factors must be assumed to be the same. A young girl who smokes heavily still has a greater chance of getting breast cancer than a young girl that only smoke passively. Understand now?

You see, some smokers or maybe even lots of smokers choose to not inhale the smoke they blow out of their cigarettes.

You mean there are nonsmokers who choose to inhale that smoke in? And smokers who do not want to inhale the smoke they blew out is capable of doing that? Unless they smoke when they walk.

Two people in the same room, one smoke, one doesn't, the smoker always inhales in more smoke (except when he purposefully exhaled it to the other guy face, and I hope our society doesn't have that many bastards ).

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

*Sigh*, that is not the right way to perceive things. What you said and "I strongly oppose the second to the last statement you made because smokers mainly male are less prone to breast cancer than women who passively smoke" are basically the same.

To correctly compare a factor of two things, all others factors must be assumed to be the same. A young girl who smokes heavily still has a greater chance of getting breast cancer than a young girl that only smoke passively. Understand now?



You mean there are nonsmokers who choose to inhale that smoke in? And smokers who do not want to inhale the smoke they blew out is capable of doing that? Unless they smoke when they walk.

Two people in the same room, one smoke, one doesn't, the smoker always inhales in more smoke (except when he purposefully exhaled it to the other guy face, and I hope our society doesn't have that many bastards ).

Well it's kind of understood. Women victims of secondhand smoke are more prone to breast cancer than women who smoke. The smoker does not inhale more smoke.

[Cinocard]

Well, what I wanted to clarify was the misunderstand in the sentence: "Secondhand smoke is more harmful."

People often understand "smoke" as in the verb "to smoke" instead of the noun "the smoke," and therefore think just sitting there and breathe in the smoke from smokers would cause you to die faster than them.

But when asked the reason behind that, they don't know and often make up something along the line: may be because our body aren't as used to the smoke as smokers; or there's some protective chemical in tobacco that keep us from disease, and it's kept in smokers lung when inhaled, but we secondhand smoke don't have that chemical. You know, I actually know people who started smoking because they live near a tobacco factory, where everyone naturally got addicted to nicotine and smoke, and they think smoking would protect their health from other smokers. Just because of that sentence.

[yezhanquan]

Has anyone here actually planted their own tobacco and try to smoke the dried leaves?

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Has anyone here actually planted their own tobacco and try to smoke the dried leaves?

Now, that I think of it, that's the ONLY method of death stick procurement I think should be legal. The large scale-production of such things should be completely restricted, overt advertisement rights should be withheld, but it should be legal for small-scale manufacturers to make and sell cigars/cigarettes.
Even if national addiction levels don't go down, at least there won't normally be stuff like fiber glass in the products.

[yezhanquan]

Granted, tobacco doesn't grow everywhere, but drying a plant's leaves, setting them on fire, and breathing in shouldn't give you cancer through all those compounds in commercial cigarettes.

[Cinocard]

It's the same as pipe smoking. Quite popular in the upper class of Europe or in Eastern Asia. However, IIRC, it significantly increases the risk of having cancers (not just lung cancer), about 25-30%. Remember, just by burning whatever organic things (Which contains harmful carbon substances when burnt), you risk having a cancer.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

It's the same as pipe smoking. Quite popular in the upper class of Europe or in Eastern Asia. However, IIRC, it significantly increases the risk of having cancers (not just lung cancer), about 25-30%.

as opposed to cigarettes?

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

It's the same as pipe smoking. Quite popular in the upper class of Europe or in Eastern Asia. However, IIRC, it significantly increases the risk of having cancers (not just lung cancer), about 25-30%. Remember, just by burning whatever organic things (Which contains harmful carbon substances), you risk having a cancer.

That means we risk getting cancer everytime we have a BBQ. Sounds fair enough to me.

[Cinocard]

So? There are indeed people who don't BBQ in weekend (or grilled/fried stuffs at all) to prevent cancers, aren't there?

as opposed to cigarettes?

No, it's in comparison to nonsmokers. So you can say it's healthier than cigarettes (6-8 cigarettes per day ~ 30% increases in mortality, but most people consume more than 10 per day. Beware, 20+ per day means 100+ % mortality)

[yezhanquan]

Well, does nicotine occur naturally during the growth of tobacco leaves?

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Yeah, right, nothing is absolute. An idiot know that. Of course there's ppl who are just fine without cars. But look at how vital cars is to many nowadays. And looks at how "vital" tobacco is to people under stress that just want to find an easy way to escape it temporarily. It's like saying inflicting harm to protect oneself from a mad killer is absurd. Because that person absolutely does have a choice whether to inflict harm, or to be killed

Spoiler for response:

Whoops, there are no absolutes. Except when it comes to saving your life right? Sorry, but any conflict that can be resolved by a decision with exactly two outcomes is absolute, though the outcome itself may not be absolute. (Example: If I'm standing on a roof, I can choose to jump off, or climb down. If I choose to climb down, I'm sure I will survive being on the roof. If I choose to jump off, I may live or I may die. However, my choice to jump off the roof remains absolute).

Yeah, sure, may be that was my grammar mistake. Should have written "if it worked" instead of "if it works" See anywhere I said that banning smokers completely would have positive effects overall? "IF it works" means that if there's no harmful consequences. Again, grammar error
And now we have someone here saying making smoking illegal would boost the smokers rate from the current ~20% to more Yeah, imagine 20% population violating drugs law everyday because of "curiosity." What example.

Spoiler for response:

It doesn't matter how you wrote it, you argue that a ban on smoking would be great if it worked. I argued that it would not work, and so theorizing it's effectiveness if it did work is pointless. Also... http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm Please...enjoy!

Where did I say it? All of my point was: smoking is bad for the person himself. The most valid reason for start doing so may be to use nicotine for a temporarily stress avoidance, is also not wise. It also bothers the public. Therefore, people who haven't smoked should never do it. And we need a method to ensure that the next generation does not make the mistake of picking up tobacco. Understand now?

Spoiler for response:

No, I don't. You're making your argument with the assumption that there is some, as yet, undiscovered information that will better inform the public about the dangers of smoking. Here's a news flash; SMOKING CAN KILL YOU! I don't know that there is any other information that could possibly deter someone from smoking. And yet, people continue to pick up cigarettes and try them. Arguing that we can put some new "method" in place "to ensure that the next generation does not make the mistake of picking up tobacco" is frivolous, as death is the ultimate penalty for a poor choice.

Oh, right, you are a smoker, or a saint to tolerate someone who put a pair of haven't-washed-for-days-dirty-socks next to your nose. I insults you? Sorry, but it's that bad.

Spoiler for response:

Nope, your first guess was right; I'm a smoker. Also, I really don't think comparing the smell of cigarettes to days-old-body-odor is appropriate. With proper cleanliness, one can eliminate both smells from their person, and even body odor will overpower cigarette smoke after enough time.

Sure, That's why I said: "not everyone is like," to support my point that many try to not buy a car if they can, but people that didn't smoke at first had better ways to release stress, why sought help from nicotine? Anyway, that's the term credible experts in the fields use to criticize the wastefulness of SUV (housewives using Hummers to do groceries runs) What's wrong with using it? Plz, read more before talk.

Brilliant, it's a perfect excuse for ppl to CONTINUE smoking, but not what I was talking about For ppl who choose to start smoking, it's not a habit yet, why choose to smoke, to get that bad habit? Why not try to prevent the next generation from getting that bad habit? And to "Ridiculing a person for a habit is stupid." But to ridicule him for a BAD habit that discommodes the public is totally fine. "I'm used to shit in public. Don't ridicule me, woo hoo!" Now that wasn't from you, but from someone I replied to before. Again, read first before talk.

And, yeah, it's that way because you already smoke for a long time. But how many people think tobacco tastes good for the FIRST TIME? But when a new good type of ice-cream comes out, I eat it and enjoy it immediately Again, I'm talking about how unreasonable ppl choose to start smoking is, not about people that already smoked should quit it or not.

Spoiler for response:

To the first paragraph, all I can do is apologize. I've never heard that sort of analogy used to describe emissions ratings in America.

To the second paragraph, and why not try to prevent people from smoking; we are! Quite heavily, in fact. Millions of dollars spent each year on advertisements for "Stop Smoking" aides, "Don't Start" advertisements, and the like. They're proving relatively ineffective at prevention, though they are showing promise in the ways of informing people, who may not know, of the dangers of cigarettes. You simply can't outright prevent something like smoking. Not even if you outlaw it. Sorry, but that's just the way society works. Also, if you're insinuating that it is okay for people to ridicule others for bad habits that inconvenience the public, then I have to laugh. Cigarettes are no more of a public inconvenience than alcohol or pedestrians. Are you going to ridicule someone because they enjoy the bar, or because they enjoy walking?

And to the third paragraph; you're operating under the assumption that everyone dislikes the taste of cigarettes at first. I had no opinions about it whatsoever. Surely I can't be the only person who felt this way when they first tried smoking. Like I said before, it was simply a taste I had to get used to, like anything else.

"Bang, I was born in America, I live in America, I have to commute to work. I need CAR." It at least sounds somewhat reasonable. It's not in my control that my life requires me to be like that.

Spoiler for response:

But see, it is in your control. You could use Public Transportation, walk, ride a bike, rollerskate, skateboard, hitchhike, carpool, or find some other method of transportation to get to work. And, as for what is and isn't in your control, you say later that you could also find a new job, or buy a new house. Why do you choose to ignore those two options? Because you CHOOSE to have a car. It's not a requirement, it's a choice.

"Bang, I was born into this world, I somehow got addicted to smoking. I need to smoke." Sorry mate, but it's your fault that you start smoking and got addicted to it. Now, if you somehow were addicted to it without a choice (ex: working in a tobacco factory to live), I won't complain.

And neither will I. I made the choice to smoke, I'll live with it. I know it's my fault, and I'm not blaming it on anyone else. Nor did I ever try to...

You are another excellent example of the swarm in many board that write before read, freely interpreting others' texts for your own convenience, then start bashing it. Reread it, then you will see what I wrote and what you bashed were about completely different points I reasoned smoking is bad and we should prevent the young to unreasonably pick up the bad habit, you ranted about how people that already smokes heavily now are all good and righteous. You even offended me for something I never said (shit-head part). It's so wrong every in single sentence that I had to quote so many.

Spoiler for response:

This is just petty. Diverting from the actual discussion in an attempt to discredit me is very silly. I read the entirety of your post before I chose to respond. Your inability to convey your messages adequately without a "do-over" is on you, not me. You keep reasoning that we should prevent the next generation from smoking, but never offer any suggestions on how to do that. Could that be because those measures are already in place? Also, I never ranted that people who smoke are "good and righteous." I did, however, argue that people who smoke should not be persecuted in the public sector for their personal choices. As to the "shit-head" comment, I apologize for that as well. It was a misunderstanding on my part, as I was unable to discern who was saying what from your post.

Originally Posted by Cinocard

If you have stress, you can take a pill...

Spoiler for response:

This is a frightening fact. One could make a very powerful argument that narcotic addiction is far more powerful than nicotine addiction. The fact that you even suggest "a pill" as an alternative to smoking, as stress relief, leads me to believe you don't recognize that. Regardless of the other suggestions you offer, pills should never be perceived as adequate substitutes for natural stress relief. At the very best, pills and cigarettes are on the same level. Arguing that cigarettes are worse than pills is just...bad.

Originally Posted by Cinocard

And smokers who do not want to inhale the smoke they blew out is capable of doing that? Unless they smoke when they walk.

Two people in the same room, one smoke, one doesn't, the smoker always inhales in more smoke (except when he purposefully exhaled it to the other guy face, and I hope our society doesn't have that many bastards ).

Spoiler for response:

I think I'm confused by this collection of statements. I think the first statement refers to smokers who do not inhale, but hold the smoke in their throat/mouth (like cigar smokers). Walking has nothing to do with it, it's just a matter of blowing the smoke out without inhaling it.
I also don't understand how blowing smoke directly into someone's face makes them inhale more smoke. The smoker is still going to have to inhale the direct smoke, plus inhale the secondary/second-hand smoke. The non-smoker only has to inhale the secondary/second-hand smoke. 2 > 1 last time I checked, but maybe I just misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Cinocard

So? There are indeed people who don't BBQ in weekend (or grilled/fried stuffs at all) to prevent cancers, aren't there?

No, it's in comparison to nonsmokers. So you can say it's healthier than cigarettes (6-8 cigarettes per day ~ 30% increases in mortality, but most people consume more than 10 per day. Beware, 20+ per day means 100+ % mortality)

Spoiler for response:

If there are people who don't BBQ because they're afraid of getting cancer, I've not met any of them. That's not to say that they're not out there, but I'm willing to bet that the number of people who participate in this sort of belief is so small that it would be mathematically negligible.

Lastly, you say that 20+ cigarettes per day, means a 100+% mortality rate. This means that, if someone smokes more than 20 cigarettes a day, they're guaranteed to die from smoking. That's absolutely absurd. There has to be some kind of diminishing return on the mortality rate of smoking, or nearly every smoker would die only from smoking related issues, which is not at all the case. There are plenty of examples, in my family alone; my grandfather smoked 3 packs a day for over 60 years, quit when he was 72 and, at the ripe old age of 78, is on the verge of dieing due to a non-smoking related heart condition. My other grandpa lived until he was 80, smoked about 1.5-2 packs a day, and died of Alzheimer's Disease. His wife lived until she was 86, smoked relatively the same amount, and died of a cardiac infarction, also unrelated to her smoking. Scare tactics like "Beware, 20+ per day means 100+% mortality" are rooted in illogical mathematics. Even if my family is the exception, the previous statement is one where a single exception disproves the rule.

[Woodchips]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

That means we risk getting cancer everytime we have a BBQ. Sounds fair enough to me.

Actually we do.

The fat that drips from a piece of meat onto flames or coals can cause polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to be released as smoke which is a known carcinogen or cancer-causing agent. The smoke then penetrates the flesh of the meat and we ingest it.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Quzor

This is a frightening fact. One could make a very powerful argument that narcotic addiction is far more powerful than nicotine addiction. The fact that you even suggest "a pill" as an alternative to smoking, as stress relief, leads me to believe you don't recognize that. Regardless of the other suggestions you offer, pills should never be perceived as adequate substitutes for natural stress relief. At the very best, pills and cigarettes are on the same level. Arguing that cigarettes are worse than pills is just...bad.

I'll put them on the same footing the day I have to worry about second-hand valium. Or maybe the day the pill-of-choice for most people turns out to provoke uncontrollable bouts of flatulence or something of that order.

I don't really care what you smokers do to yourselves. But I do have to share public streets with you and, because there are some assholes out there, occasionally elevators. I don't even mean riding with someone with a lit cigarette. Just taking the elevator after he's done with it can be enough to make me nauseous.

Lastly, you say that 20+ cigarettes per day, means a 100+% mortality rate. This means that, if someone smokes more than 20 cigarettes a day, they're guaranteed to die from smoking. That's absolutely absurd. There has to be some kind of diminishing return on the mortality rate of smoking, or nearly every smoker would die only from smoking related issues, which is not at all the case. There are plenty of examples, in my family alone; my grandfather smoked 3 packs a day for over 60 years, quit when he was 72 and, at the ripe old age of 78, is on the verge of dieing due to a non-smoking related heart condition. My other grandpa lived until he was 80, smoked about 1.5-2 packs a day, and died of Alzheimer's Disease. His wife lived until she was 86, smoked relatively the same amount, and died of a cardiac infarction, also unrelated to her smoking. Scare tactics like "Beware, 20+ per day means 100+% mortality" are rooted in illogical mathematics. Even if my family is the exception, the previous statement is one where a single exception disproves the rule.[/SPOILER]

I think what it means is that, all other things being equal, a heavy smoker will have double the mortality rate. For example, if a non-smoker has a 0.5% chance of dying this year, a smoker will have 1%. Not, of course, that he'll have a 100% chance of dying.

It's possible to smoke and live to be 100. It's been done. It just is a lot less likely than to not smoke and live to be 100.

[Cinocard]

Ah, yeah, that's what I meant, Anh Minh. Either he just has a low comprehensive lowl, or just didn't bother to read it carefully because of the length. Not like I can't understand that pain, but...

Let's put it the scary way: Most smokers consumes 10-17 per day, which increase 60-70% mortality rate IIRC. 1/4 population are smokers. What does this mean? It means that out of 4.7 person die of disease, 1.7 smoke frequently at one point in his life (> 1/3 ratio).

Spoiler for An eyesore with its length:

It doesn't matter how you wrote it, you argue that a ban on smoking would be great if it worked. I argued that it would not work, and so theorizing it's effectiveness if it did work is pointless.

Except that I didn't "theorized" anything. I just WISHED.

To the second paragraph, and why not try to prevent people from smoking; we are! Quite heavily, in fact.
...
No, I don't. You're making your argument with the assumption that there is some, as yet, undiscovered information that will better inform the public about the dangers of smoking.

No, I didn't. I said: The consequences of smoking is understand fully, and its positive effects can be replace by using others methods, which make starting to smoke unreasonable. Yet people still pick up smoking. Its number is rising by minutes. Which is why the current methods aren't enough.

And in fact, many consequences of smoking aren't known to non-smokers, not until they smoke themselves (ex: more wrinkles, yellow nails, eye diseases...)

To the second paragraph, and why not try to prevent people from smoking; we are! Quite heavily, in fact

I repeat: it's not enough.

Nope, your first guess was right; I'm a smoker. Also, I really don't think comparing the smell of cigarettes to days-old-body-odor is appropriate. With proper cleanliness, one can eliminate both smells from their person, and even body odor will overpower cigarette smoke after enough time.
...And to the third paragraph; you're operating under the assumption that everyone dislikes the taste of cigarettes at first.
...

Again, I'm not an idiot. Of course there are ppl that can live fine without cars, smokers without any smell in public, people who don't cough and bleh the first time they smoke... But they are just minority (in America, at least). If they are more than 50%, I will shut my trap.

Walking has nothing to do with it, it's just a matter of blowing the smoke out without inhaling it... The non-smoker only has to inhale the secondary/second-hand smoke. 2 > 1 last time I checked, but maybe I just misunderstood.

And AGAIN, you misunderstood. Who, if not me, stated that smoking is still more harmful to smokers, exactly because 2>1 ? And it's because it's just sheer impossible to "blowing the smoke out without inhaling it" while sitting still. The toxic is in the room, in the air. It's not gonna go anywhere for minutes after exhaled.
Oh, and please don't talk about "the wind" here, and we will have another minority case, AGAIN.

You could use Public Transportation, walk, ride a bike, rollerskate...find a new job, or buy a new house. Why do you choose to ignore those two options? Because you CHOOSE to have a car. It's not a requirement, it's a choice.

Oh, why don't you kill yourself right here, right now to help the Earth? It can lessen the pollution, you know. You have a CHOICE, you know. Don't neglect our damaged environment.
If I could goddamn do those things without turning my life upside down, yeah, I would do it already.

This is a frightening fact. One could make a very powerful argument that narcotic addiction is far more powerful than nicotine addiction.

I just listed out the alternative. I didn't say anything about them being good or bad, to wnat extent should we use them, etc...Please, It's just a writing technique.

And neither will I. I made the choice to smoke, I'll live with it. I know it's my fault, and I'm not blaming it on anyone else.

And when my grandchildren smoke and die of cancer, I can only blame myself for not doing anything against that.

Whoops, there are no absolutes. Except when it comes to saving your life right? Sorry, but any conflict that can be resolved by a decision with exactly two outcomes is absolute

See the "rolleyes?"

This is just petty. Diverting from the actual discussion in an attempt to discredit me is very silly.

What should I do to not be petty, then? Swallow that discontent down my throat?
If you bother to reread, you can see that I've been saying the exact same thing for my last 4 posts here, and they are long. It's very tiresome, you know?

[Nosauz]

bbq like anything that involves high temperature and then ingestion of said high temperture thing will cause cancer if its consumed in vast quantities. High temperature is known to denature proteins with in meat, and like Woodchips said the smoking process itself increase the carcinogen/mutigen concentration within the meat, at high temperature sugars break down into free radicals thats why eating charred portions of meat, bread or anything is more likely that your eating something that damages your body.

For smoking though, the difference is that OTHER people are directly affected. Of course with illegal drugs, sideaffects are violence related to the trafficing and sellign of those said drugs but if I'm standing next to a heroin addict i'm not gonna get addicted to heroin, or recieve the negative affects of heroin. Its all about choice, and smokers take away choice from those around them

[Cinocard]

It's because they don't use heroin in public, lol.

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Well, does nicotine occur naturally during the growth of tobacco leaves?

Yeah, it does. We actually have a separate genus, name "Nicotiana." So you figure Actually tobacco wasn't plants, but an agricultural product. But we misuse it so much that it become a name of a group of plants itself.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

It's because they don't use heroin in public, lol.

Yeah, it does. We actually have a separate genus, name "Nicotiana." So you figure Actually tobacco wasn't plants, but an agricultural product. But we misuse it so much that it become a name of a group of plants itself.

Fair enough, but I don't think tar and most other stuff in commercial cigarettes are naturally-occuring.... right?

[Nosauz]

yes they are. Tar is the product of heating sap with in a plant. Tarheels or north carolinians were called this because of their production of tar. Tar was produced by collecting the sap of abundant pines in NC and then boiling it until it became the dark bubbling subsatance we assoiciate it with. And since your basically smoking dried sap thats is stored in the leaves of course there will be tar in your cigarretes.

Again cinocard my only predicament with smoking is that is takes away choice from others, it oppresses others much like elitests in government.