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.
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.
My pulmonologist knows that I never personally smoked but he sees the damages of inhaled cigarette smoke on my chest xrays. Go figure.
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.
No doubt. I wonder if he was paid for me to have this annoying chronic cough.
We (by that I mean those who defend exposing children to smoke) all know you are just pretending to have this cough from second-hand smoke. Without a doubt, you got it from playing football in high school, right?
We (by that I mean those who defend exposing children to smoke) all know you are just pretending to have this cough from second-hand smoke. Without a doubt, you got it from playing football in high school, right?
lol. I wasn't even in the pep club. I was one of the nerds carrying the books and making the Honor Society.
In my medical record the pulmonologist documented that I have chronic respiratory illness as a result of second hand cigarette smoke.
Blaming health problems on SHS is too easy a diagnosis. I'm not saying it isn't so, but a lot things get blamed on smoking when that may or may not be the cause, not to mention that there are always other contributing factors which are sort of forgotten. It's just the "correct" thing to do these days and it builds statistics.
For instance: My father in law died from complications arising from bladder cancer surgery. Guess what's on his death certificate as his official cause of death? That's right...smoking. Why? I guess because he'd smoked nearly all his life.
Blaming health problems on SHS is too easy a diagnosis. I'm not saying it isn't so, but a lot things get blamed on smoking when that may or may not be the cause, not to mention that there are always other contributing factors which are sort of forgotten. It's just the "correct" thing to do these days and it builds statistics.
For instance: My father in law died from complications arising from bladder cancer surgery. Guess what's on his death certificate as his official cause of death? That's right...smoking. Why? I guess because he'd smoked nearly all his life.
I have lungs that look like I smoked all my life. I blame that on second hand smoke. Discount it if you want but that is the only reason I can see for having diseased lungs.
I'll just say, as I did before, that smoking in front of children should be illegal. Don't get me wrong; if you want to smoke by yourself in your car, or in your basement, that's cool. I won't tell people what to do. But smoking in a car with a kids is about as bad as beating a kid stupid. There are laws against beating children and harming them. I don't understand why smoking with a kid is any different. I mean, I'm sure there are people out there who will say they have a right to smoke, and you do. But you don't have right to poison children. Sorry, that's not a right under any stretch of the imagination or any founding American theory. I suppose you will have some people who will try to convince you that smoking in front of children is harmless. I would lump these people in with those who believe the Earth is flat. There is overwhelming evidence that smoking around other people (especially children) causes disease in those people. So the logical conclusion is that smoking with children present should be illegal.
As I said before, wanting protect a child from the potential dangers of second hand smoke is very admirable. No one { at least not me } is arguing that parents should even have a right to smoke in a car with kids, but if we start banning this and banning that, do you see where it leads to? First they will go for the cars, then the next logical step for the antis to take is to go after the home right? Ok, so now the antis in gov't are in our homes as private citizens, now what? Whats next? Will they start monitoring how much tv we as parents allow our kids to watch? Will we have to start filing reports of what we allowed our children to eat in a weeks time? Complete with caloric intake etc. etc.
It's a slippery slope that leads to nowhere but destruction. The problem is that the anti's expect you NOT to think this far ahead. They think { and goining by this thread are obviously right } that all the public will see is that they want to keep SHS out of cars with children, and WHO could possibly argue against THAT? Right?
If parents would just use their heads and stop smoking around their children, this would not even be a topic of debate. It is a sad admission, but some people just DON'T think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Sure we would. Don't steakhouses have massive wood and/or charcoal fires going, in many cases right there behind the seating without any walls between them? Yes, they have ventilation fans, but the smell of that burning wood is one of the attractions to a steak house.
The point is that we can "suffer" through it when we want to, when it involves something we like. And, the case could well be made that wood and charcoal second hand smoke is as dangerous as tobacco second hand smoke, not to mention the carcinogens grilling brings out in the meat. But who cares about that when it's a nice, juicy rib eye instead of an evil cigarette?
See? Hypocrisy.
Right! Hypocrisy at its finest. The hypocrisy is clearly evident when smoking legislation is passed in a state { as it iis here in Ohio } where the law reads that smoking in a public venue is completely prohibited. Including the smoke from any plant being burned in any area where it can be inhaled by people inside the venue. Then it goes on to say that this EXCLUDES wood-fired stoves...... am I missing something? When I read this it became so clear to me that "health" was never the concern when the law was written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Stillkit
A small enclosed space like a car with the windows closed ( as in the op) is not at all comparable to a sizeable ventilated restaurant and most definately not with the venting required by a grill.
.
So you would agree that businesses should be allowed to permit smoking in their establishment so long as it is well ventilated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
It's quite surprising that so many are on board with children inhaling smoke in an enclosed space all over fiending. That's what it's about, your addiction vs your kids. Addiction tends to win.
Buying into your own bull are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
That's your opinion and that opinion can be argued. I suppose that point isn't easy to figure.
I don't think a pro argument would include status or ego. That might be something you could assert, but it's easily squashed. I imagine, again, the health benefits would be brought up in tandem, as well as learning commitment, discipline, teamwork, etc. Then, finally, the matter of fact statement of "a kid can quit contact sports without suffering" could be made. That's not the case with smokers. They can't just quit, sadly.
The "we don't like smoking" position is nonsensical. There is no good argument for smoking. It's not about folk liking it or not. As a 25+ year (ex thank god) smoker I wish it wasn't a filthy, harming addiction. But, it is. It compromises health. It compromises intelligence. It makes your fatter. It rules you.
To be clear, I don't know if this is about making laws or not, rather a logical, rational position. Subjecting children to smoke in an enclosed space is simply not an intelligent decision.
ah..... that explains the high and mighty "lookt-at-me-now" attitude coming from your end. "ex's" are the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy
In my medical record the pulmonologist documented that I have chronic respiratory illness as a result of second hand cigarette smoke.
QUESTION:
Which came first, the diagnosis? Or the revelation that you were exposed to SHS in childhood?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos
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.
.
Still waiting on you to provide me with that study vamos, but so far, you have completely ignored me. I would expect nothing less from a "truth.org" eduacated anti.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos
I am sure some on here will happily argue that he's been paid off by pharmaceutical companies to make such outrageous claims...
Well, I wouldn't argue that, but it's perfectly within the realm of possibility, maybe notin this instance, but I have no doubt that it happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos
We (by that I mean those who defend exposing children to smoke) ?
No one here is arguing that at all, you know it, and only an ignoramous would suggest it, so what does that make you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
For instance: My father in law died from complications arising from bladder cancer surgery. Guess what's on his death certificate as his official cause of death? That's right...smoking. Why? I guess because he'd smoked nearly all his life.
Now stilkit, so far ive been behind you, but never have I heard of smoking listed as the CoD on a certificate.
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.
When I read this it became so clear to me that "health" was never the concern when the law was written.
