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.
I don't smoke, and I don't appreciate having to breathe in someone else's cancerous exhalations. But let's face it: how do you pass a law and declare cigarette smoking illegal? If prohibition didn't work (and it didn't!), then how much more difficult would it be to enforce a ban on cigarettes?
This concept of "hey, let's pass a law and then everything will be peachy" gets kind of ridiculous sometimes.
Still waiting for proof that second hand smoke is "cancerous exhalations". So far all that's been offered, here and in general, is unfoudned hysterical ramblings.
Findings by one scientist, or even a group, means nothing until it has passed the peer review process, where their collegues examine not only the findings, but the methodology as well, such as testing criteria.
There are NO peer reviewed clinical testing which proves some inherent danger in second hand smoke, let alone "third hand" smoke.
Until such time as peer reviewed clinical testing is accomplished (if ever), the War on Smokers is bunk, probrably the very reason WHY we do not see such firm evidence.
I didn't ask what peer review was, i asked what YOUR definition of peer review was as it applied to THIS issue.
i want to know in straight unquestionable terms what you sould accept for so called peers?
can you do that without obfuscating further?
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 08-30-2009 at 10:57 AM..
I didn't ask what peer review was, i asked what YOUR definition of peer review was as it applied to THIS issue.
i want to know in straight unquestionable terms what you sould accept for so called peers?
can you do that without obfuscating further?
I think he answered quite concisely. Peer review is having the scientific community scrutinize the results & methodology used to reach those results. So far as I can tell there has been nothing of the sort supporting allegations of the dangers of second hand smoke.
It should be available in abundance the way some folks go on about its dangers & are willing to sacrafice private property rights among other things to avoid it.
Perhaps you could provide us with some.
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 08-30-2009 at 10:57 AM..
How are we supposed to know who "Joel" is? From our point of view, you're representing yourself as being Joel, and the author of this article. This is such an egregious copyright violation on your part that it's pathetic. It's even more pathetic in consideration of this being posted in the Great Debate forum, where it's expected that posters understand simple basic netiquette regarding providing proper citation for someone else's work. Plagiarism isn't cool.
If you must know, I tried to quote the article but the stupid site would not let me, said the text was too short! So I did what I could and I entered it as it was with his name at the end. I'm not overly concerned with copyright policies and directives on internet forums, not do I want to be educated in them; I am just a regular guy who does not want black lungs and that wishes to live to atleast 90! So excuse me to anyone who took offense if I violated copyrights! You should be more concerned that your nasty addictive habit is offending 4/5ths of the people of our country!
I was not trying to deceive anyone or take credit for it. I have posted several times on whyquit.com so there should be no confusion about that! Sheesh!
Their statements are not backed up with peer reviewed clinical research...
NEXT!!!
You are never going to get "peer reviewed clinical research" just like you are not going to ever get it; that you are a patheric addict of Nicotine and it will eventially kill you.
Like someone else said: It simply comes down to Natural Selection! And you were tagged! ....NEXT!!!
I second that motion. If a person is fully aware they are smoking cancer sticks, although everyone else might want them to stick around they are free to chose which way they might leave here. My issue is the fact of second/third hand smoke. I know people that smoke that act like crack heads about it. They can't relax for an hour or two without smoking a cigarette. It's also annoying to go out in social scenes and have to hold down the bar so they can go outside and smoke. I'm like are you outside, or here with me talking/socializing because this isn't working for me.
Yeah! Outlaw it!
I agree with you comletely. It's the most annoying thing! To be with a severe addict like that. My ex was like this and it was more than annoying. The constant need for a cigarette. I use to look at my watch and after a smoke I would think, well in about 20 min she will be back out for another one. Like clock work, that's how it was.
So I know first hand what this does to people. In the end though, they are the ones that have to deal with it and the repercusions. I don't, and I do not want to suffer from their mistakes in life.
Still waiting for proof that second hand smoke is "cancerous exhalations". So far all that's been offered, here and in general, is unfoudned hysterical ramblings.
Amazing what the addicted mind will make one do to "defend" it's addiction.
1. Do you believe that cigarette smoke contains "thousands" of chemicals?
2. Do you believe that it is known that up to 60 of these are cancer causing chemicals?
If you said YES to 1 or 2 above, do you think a person who does not smoke would have a problem with involuntarily breathing in that smoke? Do you really think they are 100% immunte to having ill effects to these chemicals? Nobody knows for sure how much of it is enough to cause a problem, but is any of it acceptible because YOU smoke?
I didn't ask what peer review was, i asked what YOUR definition of peer review was as it applied to THIS issue.
i want to know in straight unquestionable terms what you sould accept for so called peers?
can you do that without obfuscating further?
How peer review fits into this concern is how it fits into any other scientific question or concern, and is part of the Scientific Method.
Do I really need to show you what THAT is?
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 08-30-2009 at 10:59 AM..
Amazing what the addicted mind will make one do to "defend" it's addiction.
1. Do you believe that cigarette smoke contains "thousands" of chemicals?
2. Do you believe that it is known that up to 60 of these are cancer causing chemicals?
If you said YES to 1 or 2 above, do you think a person who does not smoke would have a problem with involuntarily breathing in that smoke? Do you really think they are 100% immunte to having ill effects to these chemicals? Nobody knows for sure how much of it is enough to cause a problem, but is any of it acceptible because YOU smoke?
Think about that for a while!
1. Yup.
2. Yup.
My turn, do you or do you NOT understand the simple concept of "Saturation Level"?
Do you or do you not know that there are, according to every g'ment ageincy responsible for food safety, safe and acceptable levels of everything from mercury to fecal matter, and yes, carcinogens, allowable in any food product you buy at the grocery? Why? Because those levels are far below the recognized saturation levels that would cause harm to the human body.
And please, your attempts at insult with your "addict" addiction is merely harming any credibility you might be trying to achieve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttz
You are never going to get "peer reviewed clinical research" just like you are not going to ever get it; that you are a patheric addict of Nicotine and it will eventially kill you.
Like someone else said: It simply comes down to Natural Selection! And you were tagged! ....NEXT!!!
I actually don't expect to get peer reviewed clinical testing. Smoking cessation has become Big Business, and the War on Smoking has become too large of a political movement. The only people who would actually push for proof that second hand smoke isn't dangerous would be Big Tobacco, and it wouldn't matter WHO they utilized and how much peer review occured, it would still be considered an agenda and dismissed.
However, until such time as peer reviewed clinical testing occurs, and some inherent danger of second hand smoke is proven, you people don't have a leg to stand on.
Natural selection indeed, including those who die from cancer who don't smoke nor are regularly around smokers. But hey, whats a little collateral damage in the War on Smokers.
BTW, the vast majority of smokers die of simple Old Age, same as non-smokers.
You are never going to get "peer reviewed clinical research" just like you are not going to ever get it; that you are a patheric addict of Nicotine and it will eventially kill you.
Like someone else said: It simply comes down to Natural Selection! And you were tagged! ....NEXT!!!
Actually, Nicotine isn't going to kill them. Do you have any idea how many cigarettes you'd have to smoke to die from nicotine overdose? You'd die from smoke inhalation first.
Smoke is whats so bad from tobacco, and that wouldn't be as bad if tobacco companies didn't put the crap in it to addict you worse. Countless American Indian civilizations used and enjoyed natural tobacco for Millenia, with very little in the way of side effects.
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.
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.
