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.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohKnip
What do you mean? You want the name of an actual person who was killed by second hand smoke? Or are you asking for something that proves second hand smoke is alright from all those who say its fine? Sorry for misunderstanding you I just don't know what you mean by a "case for second hand smoke."
Maybe it's me and I'm not articulating this correctly. So...let me try again. (seriously, please, be kind as I have my moments)
Quote:
"The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults." U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking - washingtonpost.com
How do they know this? Where are the actual link to the people of these studies that they produced the reports to where they will have us believing their studies?
A person has to stop and think, there has been no, example, "so-and-so died to day, the cause of their death...second hand smoke." However, one does hear more often than we care to think about, "so-and-so died today in a car accident, the driver of the other car was drunk. The drunk survived, however, the infant in the car seat, was pronounced dead at the hospital. "
A person can still go out in public and drink to high heaven and get behind the wheel of a car and drive home, (cause death by second hand drinking) but a person can not light a cigarette in public. Yet, they will have us believe these reports that second hand smoke will cause serious illnesses, when there are no actual cases of people effected, on file.
The other one, and this is off topic, is Rye syndrome, which is suppose to be an illness caused by taking aspirin when a person has phlegm from cold or flue. This came out about the time Tylenol hit the market. Aspirin was the leading over-the-counter medicine for swelling, body aches, etc. This has been around for 40 years, yet I know of no one that has been hospitalized due to Rye syndrome. But I haven't googled it either.
Do you understand where I am going with this? Can you follow me now?
I have a family member that she smokes. She does not wish her grandchildren to see her smoke or the mother either, or the father. They hide out in the garage, but, they will hit the wet bar at dinner time in front of the kids, every time. I happen to see irony here that is both sad and ignorant. There's our new adopted social standards at work.
Don't let the kids see us with a cigarette in our hands, but a glass of scotch in it, is A...okay.
It is very hard to be patient with non-physicians and people who know nothing of science. I love the "LOL" part, as it harkens the image of a child thinking he pulled a fast one on an adult.
1. Because it is illegal there are not large demographic studies available. In order to evaluate the specific health risks, one needs a very large "n", or number of patients to enroll in a study.
2. Given that it is illegal, very few "users" will step forward for a study for fear of prosecution.
3. Further, a long period of observation (10-20 years) relative to age matched controls would be required.
4. The study would have to prospective and blinded
I just laugh my ass off when pot heads dismiss any health risks from smoking weed. Smoke away- I do not care if anyone else smokes pot, as it is thier buisness. However, to assume no health risks associated with inhaling a burning weed is simply assinine. Do you feel, in your esteemed medical opinion, that it is simply the nicotiine in cigarettes that increases the risk of cancer? Of course not. Nicotine is a cholinergic compound that has much more to do with coronary artery disease and perhipheral vascular disease than cancer. Nicotine is addictive as it activates central cholinergic receptors in the brain which increase levels of dopamine, which creates a sense of well being. Perhpas, just perhaps, it may be the phenolic compounds produced by burning plant material that leads to increase cancer risk. But then again............. you are the "expert".
Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
[MOD CUT/copyright]
MOD EDIT: Click on the above link to see the "fact."
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.” New York. (1995): 36.
Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.
Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. “Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.” New York Times 4 December 1993: A20.
Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. 2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.
Maybe it's me and I'm not articulating this correctly. So...let me try again. (seriously, please, be kind as I have my moments)
How do they know this? Where are the actual link to the people of these studies that they produced the reports to where they will have us believing their studies?
A person has to stop and think, there has been no, example, "so-and-so died to day, the cause of their death...second hand smoke." However, one does hear more often than we care to think about, "so-and-so died today in a car accident, the driver of the other car was drunk. The drunk survived, however, the infant in the car seat, was pronounced dead at the hospital. "
A person can still go out in public and drink to high heaven and get behind the wheel of a car and drive home, (cause death by second hand drinking) but a person can not light a cigarette in public. Yet, they will have us believe these reports that second hand smoke will cause serious illnesses, when there are no actual cases of people effected, on file.
The other one, and this is off topic, is Rye syndrome, which is suppose to be an illness caused by taking aspirin when a person has phlegm from cold or flue. This came out about the time Tylenol hit the market. Aspirin was the leading over-the-counter medicine for swelling, body aches, etc. This has been around for 40 years, yet I know of no one that has been hospitalized due to Rye syndrome. But I haven't googled it either.
Do you understand where I am going with this? Can you follow me now?
I have a family member that she smokes. She does not wish her grandchildren to see her smoke or the mother either, or the father. They hide out in the garage, but, they will hit the wet bar at dinner time in front of the kids, every time. I happen to see irony here that is both sad and ignorant. There's our new adopted social standards at work.
Don't let the kids see us with a cigarette in our hands, but a glass of scotch in it, is A...okay.
Red: They can, but that would be breaking the law, so its not really acceptable. What we are arguing is it should be against the law to smoke.
Blue: First off there is no such thing as second hand drinking. What kills the person in your example (not in the blue area) is the drunk driver hitting them with the car, not the actual alcohol on the breath. The reason I don't have a problem with people drinking is because you are not harming anyone but yourself if you drink. There is no smoke or vapor fumes coming out of a beer bottle. That can not be said about the cigarettes though.
Bold: your right this is off topic and I don't know enough about rye syndrome to comment about it.
Green: The reason you hear about the drunk driving thing in the news and not second hand smoke deaths is because an autopsy would have to be done first to determine whether or not they were killed by that. If someone gets hit by a car and killed and then the person driving the car is pulled over and is given the breathalyzer test you know immediately that this person killed someone because they were driving drunk. Another reason this is in the news more is because drunk driving deaths are seen as murder by most people in society. Also the drunk driver is the specific person who killed these people. It isn't one specific person who kills someone through second hand smoke.
Purple: The reason you probably don't see a list of people's names in these studies is probably a privacy thing. Also whose to say those lists aren't out there? Also whose to say these tests were done on humans and not pigs or some other animal that has a very similar body structor. I don't think they would be testing something on a human that will then give them cancer. That isn't very smart.
How so? Care to present a post of mine where I am not directly responding to someone and saying something to them in that response? I never brought up anyone else's mother or sister and made sexual references with them.
Its just my personal view on it. I don't think anyone should be subjected to all those preservatives and chemicals in most processed foods. I don't want to hijack this thread but at the very least I believe meat processors and any food processor for that matter should be required by law to label their products as to whether or not they contain genetically modified substances. Many companies don't want to do this for whatever reason and say these "GMOs" are perfectly safe. My question is, if they are perfectly safe why not make it known they are there...thats just my views on this. But I want to leave it at that because this is meant for a separate thread.
If processed foods are bad for us, as you say cigarettes are, then we should either ban both--or neither.
Half this thread is an off topic fight against you and some other guy. Just be the bigger man and let it go.
I did eventually when he started getting personal, and I admit it wasn't the highlight of this thread, but I was making points with my posts I would have hoped.
Hey, I've gotten a contact high from folks stoned on LSD.
...That doesn't even make sense. Isn't LSD just in the form of a stamp looking thing? You don't smoke it do you? (not you specifically but people in general.)
If processed foods are bad for us, as you say cigarettes are, then we should either ban both--or neither.
I'm going with neither.
The reason they should ban cigarettes and not processed foods is because cigarettes can harm others around the smoker. I'm not so sure how processed foods can harm others standing next to someone who is eating cold cuts.
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.
Yet, they will have us believe these reports that second hand smoke will cause serious illnesses, when there are no actual cases of people effected, on file.
Isn't LSD just in the form of a stamp looking thing? You don't smoke it do you? (not you specifically but people in general.)