If you blame tobacco companies for lung cancer, then you eliminate individual responsibility. If I get wasted and drive, should the alcohol and car company be blamed for my damages? Absolutely not! I made the choice to drink and drive. The same goes for smoking. If you smoke, YOU deal with the consequences. I smoke occasionally myself. If I were to get bronchitis or lung cancer, the fault would be mine.
You have what we call paranoia which has led to an illogical bias towards smokers. The only reason no one calls you crazy is because almost everyone else believes the made up world of second hand smoke too.
Second hand smoke doesn't carry allot of chemicals and/or nicotine, in fact most of the 93(usually) chemicals are left behind in second hand smoke, it's mostly just bothersome,
I agree, I don't think non smokers should have to deal with smokers. I think there should be designated smoking areas and buildings, (although this should be the choice of the building's owner) that are clearly identifiable. Banning smoking in public areas simply because it's harmful however, is not a good argument. The fact is many find it bothersome however is something I can appreciate.
If I were to get bronchitis or lung cancer, the fault would be mine.
Information assymetry is what I object to most with regard to tobacco. Most people who start smoking do so young or underage, for entirely the wrong reasons, without full knowledge of the effect it can have on your body. People are short term minded. Peer pressure is much more likely to override any sentiments of the long term bodily harm it can cause. In this way, informed consent is eroded to the point where it no longer is the responsibility of the individual.
1. Second hand smoke DOES harm you 2. Sorry, but I find it disgusting if I want to eat and somebody on the table next to me is smoking...
Second hand smoke doesn't harm you, and as Firefly said "Second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or asthma, any more than the top 25% of major US cities. Standing behind a car for 10 seconds will give you more smoke inhalation than second hand smoke will give you in a week. The active chemicals that are so harmful to the smoker are only being consumed by the smoker. His exhale, and the majority of the stuff at the end of the cigarrette cannot carry a majority of the material." Also, if you can't eat then go to another restaurant or home.
I read it, but as you can see you information is from wikipedia. Anyone that wants to can edit the info on wikipedia. It's super easy, so please don't cite wikipedia again.
We are responsible for our own actions. Of course 2nd hand smoke is harmful, any darn smoke is harmful. Burn some paper indoors once a day and Im pretty sure you will get some problems after a while. Banning smoking in public places is crazy tho. We walk in citys full of polluting cars and noone bats an eyelid. Crazy!
@ grimml, those quips you posted are based on a single associative study that doesn't consider the othe rpossible effects of lung cancer, like living in a city with high smog. Taking a room full of elderly individuals, asking them their history of second hand smoke, and then determining an extensive reasoning behind the 15% who have lung cancer is not a double blind scientific study, it's called ''medical research'' and it's been selling ideas for years.
The report you linked to has been provven fallacious and poorly structured by people from both sides of the argument. Funding for new second hand smoking research always gets pulled as people discover in double blind tests that, psst, people living in Chicago have more lung cancer than second hand smoke people living in Colorado. Why? Because second hand smoke must be inhaled within close proximity of the cigarrette to still contain any ACTIVE chemicals that are still burning to the point of harm.
The point is there's more harm just walking around a densely populated urban area than there is sitting in a smoking area in a restaurant.
Okay, I researched a bit in the internet. I found studies that say seconhand smoke harms, and some that say it doesn't... But many of those who say it doesn't are sponsored by tobacco industries. Nearly all studies -no matter what they say- are criticized. But most of the universities and health organisations say that secondhand smoke harms you, I think. It's pretty hard to say what's right. I think both sides use propaganda. But still I think that second hand smoke does harm you.
But most of the universities and health organisations say that secondhand smoke harms you, I think.
And most reliable sources say it harms worse than regular smoke, because it's not filtered.
The best cigarettes you can have are Lucky Strike: no filter, but the same formula for 7 decades or some-some. No chemicals n all, ya dig?
Why? Because second hand smoke must be inhaled within close proximity of the cigarette to still contain any ACTIVE chemicals that are still burning to the point of harm.
which would include the tar and poison and shit, if you're in the same car, or room without a ridiculously high ceiling, or downwind from their smoke.
But most of the universities and health organisations say that secondhand smoke harms you, I think.
How many scientific studies are there proving that driving is a dangerous activity? You can't honestly impose special conditions on one behaviour group and not the other.
if you're in the same car
It actually would take you 3 hours sitting in a car with 3 other people smoking for you to inhale one cigarrettes worth of toxins. Second hand smoke is harmful, and it does bother people. But no way near to the extent most people think, and as a result laws are made by well meaning politicians that simply don't match with the reality of the dangers of second hand smoke.
Don't confuse being able to smell someone's smoke and actually being harmed by it. It may be unpleasant to smell for a non smoker, but it isn't actually harming you unless you are about 20cm away from the smoker, breathing in through your mouth.
my dad chews tobacco, and it is his over using of it that makes him have mouth cancer. Not the company. Tobacco is natural, and you cant sue the earth for our addictions.
Tobacco is natural, and you cant sue the earth for our addictions.
I like this, but you CAN however blame the tobbacco companies for saying tobbacco is good for you, and for advertising, spending billions on what could be used to help create a better world.
Okay, I researched a bit in the internet. I found studies that say seconhand smoke harms, and some that say it doesn't... But many of those who say it doesn't are sponsored by tobacco industries. Nearly all studies -no matter what they say- are criticized. But most of the universities and health organisations say that secondhand smoke harms you, I think. It's pretty hard to say what's right. I think both sides use propaganda. But still I think that second hand smoke does harm you.
As you said it's based on propaganda. There are multiple causes of the same illnesses that smoking causes. Many people who have never smoked or been around smoking have the same illnesses as people who smoke a pack a day.
And most reliable sources say it harms worse than regular smoke, because it's not filtered
Your lungs work as a huge filter.
The best cigarettes you can have are Lucky Strike: no filter, but the same formula for 7 decades or some-some. No chemicals n all, ya dig?
I don't agree. I like Darjum Menthol. :P
but you CAN however blame the tobbacco companies for saying tobbacco is good for you, and for advertising, spending billions on what could be used to help create a better world.
They don't say it's good for you. They have a clear warning on the side of a pack of cigarettes stating that smoking will hurt your body. In most new packs they even have a booklet telling you of ways to quite and things that will help.
