U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:43 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,430,976 times
Reputation: 2608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos View Post
You see, that just can't be! You've been told on this very thread that the negative effects of second hand smoke are, at best, controversial.

I suppose that controversy only exists in the minds of smokers who desperately need to justify why they can't stop exposing others to their toxin of choice.
It could be... or it could not be. It all depends.

Even if it is as such, keep in mind that an individuals reaction to such is not an indicator of a given elements toxicity. If we were to apply as such, then we could use those with allergic dispositions to establish a given elements danger in general, which would be absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:46 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,430,976 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
My pulmonologist knows that I never personally smoked but he sees the damages of inhaled cigarette smoke on my chest xrays. Go figure.
And how does he know this is damage from cigarette smoke? What key defining aspect that allows them to make such a distinction? For instance, what is the difference in the damage of secondary barbeque smoke, camp fire smoke, etc... and that of cigarette smoke?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,496,198 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 View Post

So? Some of these parents need criticism (and to heed it, instead of viewing their children as mere property or whatever their warped mentality is). And I'm sure that parents who ABUSE their children would agree; telling someone how to raise their own children is a bad thing, a slippery slope that can do no good. Please!

I don't need you or the government to tell me how to raise my children. We have way too many busy bodies today who think their opinions should be imposed on others.

You think it's abuse to smoke around children. I may think it's abuse to let them watch TV. Others may think it's abuse to let them read Paul Krugman.

So just worry about your children and I'll worry about mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:51 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,430,976 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
My sister smoked like my parents (now deceased, mother from lung cancer father from complications of emphysema). My sister has COPD. She stopped smoking two years ago when her PCP told her she would die if she didn't stop smoking.

You may have a genetic disposition to a certain element within cigarette smoke.

I once knew a guy who started to use chewing tobacco and in less than one week, he had a hole in his gums. A lot of this is genetic and not simply a case of general toxicity.

As I said before, my grandfather smoked for 60 years and had no indications that he did, nor did he have any complications from it. Genetics plays a big part in peoples susceptibility to a given element.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Austin
2,173 posts, read 2,878,277 times
Reputation: 2186
Folks who smoke are slaves to their addiction, so the willpower to not smoke while in the car, kids or not, just isn't there. It's a self-indulgent habit. Try asking a smoker to wait for their cigarette.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Austin
2,173 posts, read 2,878,277 times
Reputation: 2186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Smoking is legal.

LEGAL does not equal okay. Not everything that is legal should be. Common sense should dictate in a case such as this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Austin
29,546 posts, read 16,496,198 times
Reputation: 8087
Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvet709 View Post
Folks who smoke are slaves to their addiction, so the willpower to not smoke while in the car, kids or not, just isn't there. It's a self-indulgent habit. Try asking a smoker to wait for their cigarette.

Not all smokers are addicted.

You could also make your statement about watching TV. "Folks who watch TV are slaves to their addiction, so the willpower to not watch TV while with kids or not, just isn't there. It's a self-indulgent habit. Try asking a TV watcher to miss their favorite program."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 08:14 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,430,976 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
It is a question on the death certificate asking if smoking contributed to death. If a person is a known smoker the docter will check yes.

And how does the doctor know this to be true? There is nothing scientific about him checking that as such. There was no verification or validation of the question, simply the assumption that it contributed.

Now, take that consistently poor evaluative behavior and then look at the numerous studies that cite your example as evidence of the dangers of smoking. See the problem?

The EPA did one study (it is actually a pretty big one they touted in the past, I think they still do) that was supposedly a 30 year study. The study was actually a piggy-back of another study of cancer development (and it wasn't even given until half way through the study), but theirs was simply a mail questionnaire. The test subjects were the survivors of the Hiroshima blast area and the study allowed family members to answer the questions for the survivors who had already died. The questions were along the lines of asking them how much they were exposed to second hand smoke over a period of 20 years.

It was a comical study as 1) they discounted radiation exposure 2) the subjects were no longer alive 3) the information was memory established and through a 3rd parties perspective.

The study was touted as their "strongest evidence" that SHS caused cancer, yet the study was nothing more than hokum and assumptive garbage.

/shrug
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,671,706 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
no you don't just like to smoke. You have no choice due to your addiction. I challenge you to smoke nicotine free cigs for one month. You won't be able to do it. If it was simply about enjoying smoking you could.
How wonderful that you know more about me than I do! What hubris it must take to make such a bold statement about someone you only know via the internet. I'm sure Freud would be pleased with the development your ego.

I challenge you to smoke for a month, then see if you can quit. I'll bet you can.

Quote:
what it means is that your smoke is more important than your kids. That's really your call as a parent. You assign value and worth to your children for the most part. The difference in opinion here lays with how we each vary in the assigning of value to ourselves and loved ones (to a degree, strangers as well).
This is not surprising, given your first statement. Not only are you superior enough to tell me what's wrong with me, now you're even so much more advanced than me that you can offer a critique of my parenting skills.

It must suck to have live among so many dunderheads who aren't as smart as you, doesn't it?

Quote:
I think for the most part critical thinking is not valued nor applied when considering the available research. For that matter it's often not considered at all. This thread provides enough evidence for that assertion. Addiction trumps reason every time.
Agreed. See your quoted comments above as evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2012, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,078 posts, read 17,671,706 times
Reputation: 7720
Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvet709 View Post
Folks who smoke are slaves to their addiction, so the willpower to not smoke while in the car, kids or not, just isn't there. It's a self-indulgent habit. Try asking a smoker to wait for their cigarette.

What do you think smokers do every time they get on an airplane? Or, go to a ball game? Or a movie? Or a school play? They wait, with no obvious ill effects.

There are lots of places smokers are required to wait, so your statement is false on the face of it.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:21 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top