Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2018, 02:51 PM
 
776 posts, read 392,004 times
Reputation: 672

Advertisements

Why does it matter whether or not a smoker is walking? What makes a walking smoker any different than a standing or sitting smoker?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2018, 02:58 PM
 
7,293 posts, read 4,074,609 times
Reputation: 4670
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguitar77111 View Post
Why does it matter whether or not a smoker is walking? What makes a walking smoker any different than a standing or sitting smoker?
I think that the poster was talking about this scenario:

If you are walking down the street on the sidewalk, and you are behind someone who is smoking, while also walking on the sidewalk, in front of you, and you are both walking in the same direction, at the same speed, you will likely be subjected to the smoke, for as long as it takes you to figure out how to speed up or slow down or cross the street to avoid the person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Honolulu, HI
24,435 posts, read 9,301,384 times
Reputation: 22796
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguitar77111 View Post
Why does it matter whether or not a smoker is walking? What makes a walking smoker any different than a standing or sitting smoker?
That’s like the asking the difference between farting while you’re walking and farting whil you’re standing. The number of people exposed to your toxic gases increases when walking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,004 posts, read 7,144,621 times
Reputation: 9941
This reminds me of this video I saw on YouTube awhile back where it was illegal to wash your car in your own driveway from what I remember this was in NYC also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB0MLZZc63c
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,290,059 times
Reputation: 24739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
Actually, no. There is no conclusive evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer. Life kills people, and sadly, many people get cancer, no matter what they do (or don't do). But the proof via scientific studies is slim to none. The American Cancer Society says it does, but when I actually attempt to pull up scientific studies demonstrating correlation, I find zip. People tout the 46,000 or 53,000 death figure per year from people exposed to secondhand smoke, but these individuals can suffer from recall bias: People who develop a disease that might be related to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to passive smoking. Some people just get lung cancer. There is no rhyme or reason to it. They just have hellish bad luck.

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/articl...4/1844/2517805
Then there was the brave doctor who asked the question that for some strange reason had not occurred to anyone else to ask:

why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer?

The resulting study discovered something previously unknown - a gene that about 20% of smokers have that increases their likelihood of getting lung cancer whether they ever smoke or are exposed to tobacco smoke or not. That gene also impacts their reaction to nicotine (as I recall, it was a while go that I read it, it makes them more likely to get addicted than someone without the gene). The truly great thing about the discovery, however, was that it was a clue not just for lung cancer but for a direction to look in seeking prevention of other types of cancer, as well.

This does not mean that other diseases are not caused by/exacerbated by smoking, simply that post hoc ergo propter hoc is not always the right answer (rarely is, in fact), and that ignoring statistics like 80% of smokers DON'T get lung cancer has more to do with politics and less to do with science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 06:07 PM
 
Location: City Data Land
17,156 posts, read 12,908,180 times
Reputation: 33164
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Then there was the brave doctor who asked the question that for some strange reason had not occurred to anyone else to ask:

why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer?

The resulting study discovered something previously unknown - a gene that about 20% of smokers have that increases their likelihood of getting lung cancer whether they ever smoke or are exposed to tobacco smoke or not. That gene also impacts their reaction to nicotine (as I recall, it was a while go that I read it, it makes them more likely to get addicted than someone without the gene). The truly great thing about the discovery, however, was that it was a clue not just for lung cancer but for a direction to look in seeking prevention of other types of cancer, as well.

This does not mean that other diseases are not caused by/exacerbated by smoking, simply that post hoc ergo propter hoc is not always the right answer (rarely is, in fact), and that ignoring statistics like 80% of smokers DON'T get lung cancer has more to do with politics and less to do with science.
Correct. I'm certainly not suggesting people take up inhaling other people's cigarette smoke as a hobby. What I am saying is that the health risks of secondhand smoke are probably exaggerated. I believe smokers have been unfairly demonized. Smoking is legal. It's an awful habit, but it's legal, and further singling them out as evil incarnate by enacting nonsensical laws such as these accomplishes nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,004 posts, read 7,144,621 times
Reputation: 9941
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Then there was the brave doctor who asked the question that for some strange reason had not occurred to anyone else to ask:

why do 80% of smokers NOT get lung cancer?

The resulting study discovered something previously unknown - a gene that about 20% of smokers have that increases their likelihood of getting lung cancer whether they ever smoke or are exposed to tobacco smoke or not. That gene also impacts their reaction to nicotine (as I recall, it was a while go that I read it, it makes them more likely to get addicted than someone without the gene). The truly great thing about the discovery, however, was that it was a clue not just for lung cancer but for a direction to look in seeking prevention of other types of cancer, as well.

This does not mean that other diseases are not caused by/exacerbated by smoking, simply that post hoc ergo propter hoc is not always the right answer (rarely is, in fact), and that ignoring statistics like 80% of smokers DON'T get lung cancer has more to do with politics and less to do with science.
I have personally known 5 people who died of lung cancer from family and work all of them smoked like a pack a day plus for years there is a big difference between someone actually sucking on a cig and someone walking behind someone smoking. It's annoying but is there really any evidence that someone exposed outside to 2nd hand smoke is at risk of lung issues I doubt it.

My mother smoked for 50 years she is 80 now she quit about 10 years ago now she came down with emphysema she not on O2 yet but it's coming in the next few years the doctor says.

The Majority of long term smokers who don't get lung cancer end up with COPD. One of my best friends he smoked his entire life he is 60 now has to use oxygen he still smokes I tell him he is crazy smoking while using oxygen. I never understood why anyone would ever suck on a stick that puts all that crap into your lungs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 08:40 PM
 
510 posts, read 368,967 times
Reputation: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490 View Post
I have personally known 5 people who died of lung cancer from family and work all of them smoked like a pack a day plus for years there is a big difference between someone actually sucking on a cig and someone walking behind someone smoking. It's annoying but is there really any evidence that someone exposed outside to 2nd hand smoke is at risk of lung issues I doubt it.

My mother smoked for 50 years she is 80 now she quit about 10 years ago now she came down with emphysema she not on O2 yet but it's coming in the next few years the doctor says.

The Majority of long term smokers who don't get lung cancer end up with COPD. One of my best friends he smoked his entire life he is 60 now has to use oxygen he still smokes I tell him he is crazy smoking while using oxygen. I never understood why anyone would ever suck on a stick that puts all that crap into your lungs.
I've heard it claimed that the intense enjoyment makes one forget about the risks. But some seem to be determined to die from smoking. One smoker said hope to be smoking on the last day of my life. Maybe some feel anxiety about not knowing what they will die from and it some how comforts them to know what they'll die from. One of my friends, a chronic alcoholic, said "everyone should have the right to give themselves lung cancer". A woman at college said since I'm going to die from drinking, I may as well die from smoking, too.

Cigarettes can make some feel great at first and one said "I'll worry about 60 when I get there". If the right to smoke toxins that make cigarettes highly enjoyable is OK, then at least limit the toxins to those chemicals. They all went with fake flame retardants that don't add to enjoyment, but some firefighters say flame retardant furniture makes them sick. Yes, presumed cancer from furniture. If one does not wish harming health with cigarettes, they should probably get rid of flame retardant furniture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 08:47 PM
 
22,626 posts, read 24,477,017 times
Reputation: 20280
Quote:
Originally Posted by livingsinglenyc View Post
You stayed at a Motel what do you expect. Try a hotel next time.
Luck of the draw...........I have had this problem in hotels and motels. Smoke-infiltrations mainly has to do with the design of the room and how tightly it is sealed-up. The last room that I had a big problem with, had a pass-through door to the other room.......although closed, it had a significant gap that let the stinky, reeking smoke through.

I stay in budget motels and hotels.......my estimate is 90+% of the people who stay at budget-motels smoke. And yes, they smoke in their rooms.....smoking or non-smoking, does not really matter.

Law, rules and regulations on smoking are rarely enforced and ignored on a constant basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2018, 09:11 PM
 
1,016 posts, read 729,751 times
Reputation: 1899
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueherons View Post
I would support it.

It's horrible walking behind someone who is smoking.
And walking behind fat people too ! Grosses me out. Ban Them From Walking.

Oh yeah, and those that wear too much perfume or cologne. Fine Them ! or Jail !

Please, just make a list of everything you don't like and and we'll see what we can do for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top