What should be done with smokers?

[boann]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Smokers are excellent for brisket and ribs.
I also like crock pots.
Both methods make cooking so easy.

ROTFLMAO

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Any landlord, or club owner, is entirely within their rights to ban smoking in their premises. Some do.

If they chose not to, smokers are entirely within their rights to smoke there.

A variant of Spinky's fag tax appeals, however. What if we tax people for saying something crass and moronic in public? Stew would be in debt for the rest of his life.

[Blackwidow24]

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Sikander
Are you really saying that smoking is deadly to anyone who lives or associates extensively with a nicotine addict? It looks like you misplaced your end of soapbox marker. Your hyperbole reminds me of the worst excesses of the drug war propoganda. I don't even have to argue here, your statement destroys itself.

You couldn't refute my statement so you just spouted off how I somehow destroyed my own statement. How so?

People who live with or associate extensively with smokers face a higher risk of damage from inhaling sidestream or second-hand smoke than folks who live in a nearly or completely smoke-free environment. Hell, another story just moved today about babies who are hospitalized more if they're exposed to cigarette smoke.

So, yes, second-hand exposure is DEADLY for non-smokers. For the smoker him or herself, it's not only DEADLY, but ADDICTIVE. I capped the words for your benefit (again), Sikander.

My hyberbole? My misplaced [/soapbox] marker? Whatever. Better than the copout you came up with regarding my statement.

When smoking was introduced to Europe it was not even a minor health concern. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) Most people who did smoke didn't smoke much

Interesting. Is this an opinion, or an informed opinion on your part? Or fact? Genuinely curious.

2) Most people didn't live long enough to develop the cancers and heart diseases that kill some smokers today.

Yeah. I suppose early mortality in an early industrialized world would be a good way to mask the deadly damage inflicted by tobacco in one's body. Score one for you, Sikander.

3) The levels of both indoor and outdoor air pollution in the 1600s make riding in a car with three chain smokers seem like a day in the fresh mountain air.

I really doubt it. Cities would have been bad on days w/o wind, but I'm quite positive the countryside would have fared pretty good most of the time.

This is due mainly to the fact that everyone had fires burning in their tiny houses to cook, and in cold weather for heat. A town or city was a large collection of such fires spewing vast amounts of soot into both interior spaces as well as the out of doors.

Soot is different from a lot of the chemicals and "tars" that are found in a typical cigarette. But, yeah, soot isn't good to breathe into your lungs on a daily basis either. I still bet that the chemicals and tars in butts are just as damaging — if not moreso — than soot. After all, most folks don't deliberately suck a stream of soot into their lungs on an hourly basis (even in the 1600s). But those hooked on cigarettes do suck in a stream of tar and chemicals on a regular basis.

Everyone was "smoking" back then, and in truth for all of human history we have been inhaling the smoke from our cooking fires, and the fires that warmed our caves / tents / huts. This is one of the main reasons why we are so well adapted to handling smoke.

**LOL** Perhaps our bodies are "well adapted" to handling smoke given off from cooking fires and whatnot , but they're sure as hell not well adapted to counteracting the damage done by cigarette smoke in one's lungs, and the resultant chemical contamination of the bloodstream.

We live long enough to have children and raise them before we pass away from the accumulated damage to our bodies, which is the standard for natural selection. It is only in the modern age with it's vastly improved lifespan (and the expectation of the same) and vast reduction in indoor air pollutants for it's richer members that we have even had an opportunity to notice that breathing smoke is not good for your health.

I think people have known for centuries that breathing smoke isn't good for them. Perhaps the difference is that "ordinary" smoke from sources such as cooking fires and fireplaces don't contain the addictive nicotine and other chemical components that cigarette smoke is replete with.

If you feel cheated by people in your family's behavior, then I'm sure you are entitled to do so. But don't paint me with your broad brush concerning second hand smoke or other secondary negative effects. You have never inhaled a wiff of one of my cigarettes.

You're the second smoker to somehow feel that I deliberately targeted you and stomped on your good name. I'm quite sure I was talking in general about the bad effects of smoking, not certain members of this board.

I pay for my own health insurance, and more than my fair share of taxes. I don't owe you or society anything.

I have health insurance and pay taxes, too.

I smoke, other people drink, and still others drive SUVs. We are an imperfect species, and I very much doubt that any of us can stand a strict accounting without some embarrassment.

Yes, we are an imperfect species.

But unlike drinking and driving SUVs, smoking does no absolute good anywhere. You (speaking in general terms here, not you specfically Sikander) can drink in moderation and it might actually help you live longer (according to certain studies). You can always trade in an SUV for a more efficient vehicle. But, boy, when you become addicted to smoking, there is no "up" side. You're hurting yourself foremost and damaging anyone else who might be around when you're smoking. It's harder than hell to get out from underneath that most addicitve and deadly rock as well.

Finally, my main ire doesn't reside with the smokers themselves. It sits with the companies that continue to deliberately market a "product" that does no good at all for society. Apparently the all-mighty word "legal" outweighs *anything* that the words "moral" or "right" might inject into the argument.

CYBERAmazon

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Actually it's reckoned that nicotine may help prevent Alzheimer's Disease. However nobody's going to promote it.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Any landlord, or club owner, is entirely within their rights to ban smoking in their premises. Some do.

If they chose not to, smokers are entirely within their rights to smoke there.

A variant of Spinky's fag tax appeals, however. What if we tax people for saying something crass and moronic in public? Stew would be in debt for the rest of his life.

You're the most moronic-sounding person in this thread.

[Brtndr4u]

Have I mentioned that I quit smoking on Jan.13 after 34 years of puffing.Cold Turkey......no problem,except for my hands feeling empty all the time.I have saved $460.00 so far by putting my cigarette expenses in a Account at the Bank.(I'm saving for a car,cause my Trucks in poor shape)
I was smoking close to 4 packs a day.

Guess What???

My nose works.I can actually smell things I've missed while smoking.(but sometimes its not a good thing)

Also when I awaken in the mornings I don't have that Flim & cough.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Brtndr4u
Have I mentioned that I quit smoking on Jan.

I hope you can stick it out

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drekkus
Ask a person to give up smoking or give up their car, they will gladly give up smoking.

That's pretty vague. I don't see what your point is.

Originally posted by Drekkus
The reason why cars aren't 100% clean, is that people aren't prepared to pay a premium for a clean car. But still they keep *****ing about the dangers of second hand smoke, which are less grave than carexhaust (sp?) fumes. Shell has introduced a petrol calles Shell Pura, which is better for your car and better for the environment, and people are still using normal petrol, because Shell Pura is more expensive.

I am no fan of ICE. They should have gotten rid of it long ago. The evil you're speaking of is not about cars but ICE (internal combustion engine). Now, how is exhaust from a regularly maintained car is more dangerous than tobacco smoke is completely beyound me. Besides of the small quantities of NOx and SOx, what's there that's so hamful? Compared to tar, carbon monoxide and other such good stuff?

Originally posted by Drekkus
Second hand smoke is maybe dangerous in huge quantities for long periods of time.

Is that backed by scientific studies or did you just pull that out from your appendix?

Originally posted by Drekkus
I myself are a non-smoker, but I can't stand
people who whine about smoke (unless ofcourse one has asthma). It always reminds me of two children playing: lots of toys around but one child always wants to take away the toy from the other because it feels the other has more fun then they do.

If you think it's so much fun smoking, why are you a non-smoker? A bit of self-contradiction here, no?

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Boddington's




You're the most moronic-sounding person in this thread.

Your alex is showing.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Boddington's




You're the most moronic-sounding person in this thread.

Far from it, Tiger, and even if was making strenuous attempts to be so I'd be but a callow amateur in the presence of the master in that particular field.

The point is about attempting to impose your values on others. Now you could go to non-smoking bars, but instead you choose go to ones that welcome smokers and whine when the world fails to revolve around your arse. We live in a society and it's inevitable that your needs/desires will conflict with other people's at times- so it's a test of your tolerance to see how you deal with it. In my case, I never smoke unless it's outdoors, or in a pub that welcomes smokers. Therefore the rest of the world is free from my partcular pollutants. Isn't that nice of me?

[Lancer]

That said, if you go to a pub at the north pole the world WILL revolve around your arse.