AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-04-02, 00:05   Link #501
Throne Invader
Protecting the Throne
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Asia Tour
Age: 23
Send a message via Skype™ to Throne Invader
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
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.
__________________


It's time to start letting her make her own decisions. - Mom's dermatologist~
Throne Invader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 00:19   Link #502
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
*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?

Quote:
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 ).
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 00:34   Link #503
Throne Invader
Protecting the Throne
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Asia Tour
Age: 23
Send a message via Skype™ to Throne Invader
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
*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.
__________________


It's time to start letting her make her own decisions. - Mom's dermatologist~
Throne Invader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 01:26   Link #504
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
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.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 01:27   Link #505
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Has anyone here actually planted their own tobacco and try to smoke the dried leaves?
__________________
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 01:34   Link #506
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
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.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 01:37   Link #507
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
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.
__________________
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 01:58   Link #508
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
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.

Last edited by Cinocard; 2009-04-03 at 20:18.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 01:59   Link #509
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
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?
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 02:03   Link #510
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
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.
__________________
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 02:13   Link #511
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
So? There are indeed people who don't BBQ in weekend (or grilled/fried stuffs at all) to prevent cancers, aren't there?

Quote:
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)
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 02:15   Link #512
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Well, does nicotine occur naturally during the growth of tobacco leaves?
__________________
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-02, 05:02   Link #513
Quzor
It's the year 3030...
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spaceport Colony Sicilia
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
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:


Quote:
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:


Quote:
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:


Quote:
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:


Quote:
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:


Quote:
"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:


Quote:
"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...

Quote:
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:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
If you have stress, you can take a pill...
Spoiler for response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
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:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
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:
__________________
http://www.tg-media.net/the_chaos/QuzorSig488.jpg

Last edited by Quzor; 2009-04-02 at 06:23. Reason: Tried to save space...sorry for the obscenely long post...
Quzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-03, 05:06   Link #514
Woodchips
つかれた!
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
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.
Woodchips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-03, 17:11   Link #515
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quzor View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-03, 19:50   Link #516
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
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:

Last edited by Cinocard; 2009-04-03 at 20:17.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-03, 19:59   Link #517
Nosauz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Age: 25
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
Nosauz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-03, 20:28   Link #518
Cinocard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
It's because they don't use heroin in public, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
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.
Cinocard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-03, 20:33   Link #519
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinocard View Post
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?
__________________
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-03, 20:38   Link #520
Nosauz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Age: 25
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.
Nosauz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
debate

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.