Surgeon chap says secondhand smoke bad

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I saw an interview with a former heroin addict who said that it was harder for her to quick smoking than it was for her to quit heroin.

Never been hooked on heroin, but knowing I almost died made things a bit easier on the quitting smoking. Of course, I still want one of the damn things even now. I keep getting this image of Mr. Butts from Doonesbury beckoning to me..................

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And when you ban smoking in bars then you'll have all the fun and the smokers can't have any fun.

if you ban smoking then there will be no smokers and everyone can have fun. See, it really is the best solution!

[embalmer42]

Originally posted by PLATO


if you ban smoking then there will be no smokers and everyone can have fun. See, it really is the best solution!

Or just ban bars and force everyone to stay home.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by embalmer42


Or just ban bars and force everyone to stay home.

Now where is the fun in that!?!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


Having seen people's withdrawal symptoms to both, I have to question the seriousness of their comments. Watching somebody go through heroin addiction is just plain brutal.

I am basing it on what they said. It might relate to lots of people arround you smoking, the social acceptance of it, and the ease of access to it.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
Now where is the fun in that!?!

People won't die of alcohol poisoning .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=GePap]there is no rational arguement for smoking, PERIOD. It is a dangerous habit with no redeeming values. At least alcohol in moderate amounts has been found to have health benefits.[/q]

And, of course, we knew about the health benefits of alcohol since the earliest times it has been consumed, right? Yet alcohol was seen to be something of value even before studies came out (except for temperance ninnies who were ultimately on the losing end).

Alcohol is dangerous IN EXCESS. Just as with Junk food. IE, you have one drink a week, you have one monster thickburger a week, and there is likely no long temr health risk, because in the end you body can process those substances. It is only in excess that these substances become a danger to the body.

Your body does not process carcinogenic tar under any conditions. The smoke from smoking (as this study states) is bad for you, PERIOD. The problems is ANY exposure to it, NOT in excess. There is therefore a qualitative difference between fat and alcohol, and tar and carcinogesn from smoking. This analogy you keep abusing is a false one. Smoking is qualitatively different from eating high fat foods or drinking alcohol. Add to that the fact that there is no such thing as "second hand alcohol" or "second hand fat" and the analogy between those acts becomes even more absurd.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: We have ways of making you stop smoking

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Hilarious, Spiff. Hitler had just the one ball, though, according to the song.

The parallels are about state intrusion into people's lives, and the health-as-morality ethic.

Eating is also on the agenda for state control, then car-use, and at some point in the future computer games will certainly come under the spotlight as dangerous and addictive things. Should people be allowed to play them?

Walking in the fells / mountains is risky - perhaps we should ban that, and sports generally are injury-zones waiting to happen.

This is about much more than smoking. Smoking is a great way to get people to accept the principle of state control over our lives, because there aren't really any good arguments in favour of it - except as John Reid (then Defence Sec. ISTR) said - it may be one of the few pleasures many working class people have in their lives - whatever the consequences and costs to them.

Once everybody accepts the principles of increased state regulation of our personal lives, we can forget those old fuzzy notions of freedom and liberty. The prevailing paradigm seems to resent those concepts as dangerous and immoral.

This old canard.

There is a fundamental difference between LIBERTY and LICENSE (as in licentiousness). Limits of licentiousness do nothing to limit Liberty, and it is Liberty that matters.

I see no one clamoring for laws against public sex and nudity to be overturned. Sex is most certainly a much greater pleasure than smoking. Why not let people have sex anywhere, anytime, period? Isn;t that a limit on thier beloved "freedom" to have personal enjoyment?

Don;t you agree Cort Haus that next time you tride the tube, the guy next to you should be free to masturbate right next to you, to whip it out? Who are you and the state to deny him that simple pleasure?

The "slippery slope" is a monumnetally stupid arguement, but of course, it assumes everyone is monumentally stupid and can;t discern simple yet critical differences between conditions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
When I was in vocational school, our school sport trainer organized a swimming contest smokers vs non-smokers. Unfortunately, he missed to prove his point, because the non-smokers were pwned in an embarassing way. Afterwards he tried to explain it by the lungs of smokers being much more trained.

Well statistics doesn't forbid things like that from happening

I know somebody who is 90+ and smoked all his life. Fairly healthy for his age, too. Though you can't generalise that to The Average Person.

I reckon if you make a swimming contest between 200 teams of random smokers and non-smokers within a certain age bracket, the non-smokers will win most of the time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ming
They obviously weren't Heroine addicts...

The thing is it is easier to get hooked on nicotine than heroin. That is one of the indicators of a substance's addictiveness.

[Nostromo]

Aren't cigarettes a lot more addictive nowadays than they were 20 years ago?

Anyway, there's a new law in Quebec banning cigarette smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants. I just love not stinking like an ashtray afterwards.

[Urban Ranger]

We'll have a similar law here by the end of the year as well, although initially it applies only to restaurants.

About time, they have been talking about this for the last 6 years at least.

[Colon™]

Stinking like an ashtray is part of the whole charm of going out. Like hangover and missing underwear.

[Dis]

as you can see, I don't mind cigarrette smoke as much as I claimed in above posts. As I have friends who smoke. It's either that, or I have no friends. As nearly everyone in my city smokes.

So cigarrette smoke is something I just put up with. You get used to the smell. .

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Driving in general provides an economic benefit that vastly outweighs any possible harm it causes.