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.
Have you seen the latest medical things on nicotine? It is very interesting, to say the least. It is not bad either.
Nicotine: It may have a good side (http://www.aolhealth.com/conditions/nicotine-it-may-have-a-good-side - broken link)
There are other write-ups that go along with all of this.
"Nicotine" alone is different from cigarettes. It is possible for an individual to reap the alleged rewards from this substance without exposing the rest of us to ALL of toxins found in cigarettes.
I, and I think just about every other anti-smoking person on this board, have been saying all along that we don't care what anyone does with their own bodies except when it affects innocent bystanders.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by mearth
"nicotine" alone is different from cigarettes. It is possible for an individual to reap the alleged rewards from this substance without exposing the rest of us to all of toxins found in cigarettes.
I, and i think just about every other anti-smoking person on this board, have been saying all along that we don't care what anyone does with their own bodies except when it affects innocent bystanders.
Unfortunately, I work at a long-term health care facility. Here, I see smokers admitted with lung cancer, and, at the same time, I observe those who are in their 70's and 80's who are still smoking. with no signs of lung cancer, and those dying of lung cancer who have never smoked. Very confusing to any smoker. That lung cancer will subject all smokers to lung cancer is proof I'm waiting to see.
The most recent articles in the press on Smoking, that health care costs to the country for smokers (we live 10 years less saving the country Medicare and Social Security payments), over the long term, is no different than non-smokers. Very refreshing and overdue to finally see this in the news. And why did it take so long? Could it be the indirect result of finally have a smoker for President?
Now, perhaps, the anti-smokers are going to have to have to find another avenue or target for their witch-hunting pleasures and their hatred.
And other sources of ego-fulfilment. There's nothing more harder to heal than a bruised ego.
"Nicotine" alone is different from cigarettes. It is possible for an individual to reap the alleged rewards from this substance without exposing the rest of us to ALL of toxins found in cigarettes.
I, and I think just about every other anti-smoking person on this board, have been saying all along that we don't care what anyone does with their own bodies except when it affects innocent bystanders.
Not really. You may be saying that but others have said that they think that smoking should be outlawed...period. In the first place, there is no absolute prrof that second hand smoke causes any kind of harm to anyone, except by the faux science that so many rely on that is. I understand when someone says that it smells and they don't want to smell it or be around the smoke but to always rely on the faux science that they do shows that they are full of, "Do it my wau or else" attitude.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky
Not really. You may be saying that but others have said that they think that smoking should be outlawed...period. In the first place, there is no absolute prrof that second hand smoke causes any kind of harm to anyone, except by the faux science that so many rely on that is. I understand when someone says that it smells and they don't want to smell it or be around the smoke but to always rely on the faux science that they do shows that they are full of, "Do it my wau or else" attitude.
Second hand smokes doesn't just "smell bad", it makes it uncomfortable to breathe and causes burning of the eyes for those who suffer from allergies or asthma! If smoking just "smelled bad", I could deal with it. Gosh! I just wish that smokers would at least try to understand the misery that their smoke causes a bystander.
Unfortunately, I work at a long-term health care facility. Here, I see smokers admitted with lung cancer, and, at the same time, I observe those who are in their 70's and 80's who are still smoking. with no signs of lung cancer, and those dying of lung cancer who have never smoked. Very confusing to any smoker. That lung cancer will subject all smokers to lung cancer is proof I'm waiting to see.
The most recent articles in the press on Smoking, that health care costs to the country for smokers (we live 10 years less saving the country Medicare and Social Security payments), over the long term, is no different than non-smokers. Very refreshing and overdue to finally see this in the news. And why did it take so long? Could it be the indirect result of finally have a smoker for President?
Now, perhaps, the anti-smokers are going to have to have to find another avenue or target for their witch-hunting pleasures and their hatred.
And other sources of ego-fulfilment. There's nothing more harder to heal than a bruised ego.
I agree, but be careful because they will most definitely go after something for sure because they are not happy unless they are causing undue stress on people that do something they don't personally like, whether it is eating at a fast food joint (which I abhor) or maybe drinking some wine or any number of other things that they deem necessary for someone's health. Those kind of people are always on some kind of crusade of some sort.
Second hand smokes doesn't just "smell bad", it makes it uncomfortable to breathe and causes burning of the eyes for those who suffer from allergies or asthma! If smoking just "smelled bad", I could deal with it. Gosh! I just wish that smokers would at least try to understand the misery that their smoke causes a bystander.
Gosh, I just with the anti-smoking zealots would just understand that not every damn smoker is a bad person or discourteous or any number of other things that ya'll blame on ALL smokers. You want respect? Then give it out? One gets what one gives out.
Unfortunately, I work at a long-term health care facility. Here, I see smokers admitted with lung cancer, and, at the same time, I observe those who are in their 70's and 80's who are still smoking. with no signs of lung cancer, and those dying of lung cancer who have never smoked. Very confusing to any smoker. That lung cancer will subject all smokers to lung cancer is proof I'm waiting to see.
The most recent articles in the press on Smoking, that health care costs to the country for smokers (we live 10 years less saving the country Medicare and Social Security payments), over the long term, is no different than non-smokers. Very refreshing and overdue to finally see this in the news. And why did it take so long? Could it be the indirect result of finally have a smoker for President?
Now, perhaps, the anti-smokers are going to have to have to find another avenue or target for their witch-hunting pleasures and their hatred.
And other sources of ego-fulfilment. There's nothing more harder to heal than a bruised ego.
To tell you the truth, in all the years I've worked in health care, I've never cared for anyone with lung cancer, emphysema, other COPD who wasn't a smoker! I know of one person who got lung cancer who had never smoked.
<major snip>those dying of lung cancer who have never smoked. Very confusing to any smoker. That lung cancer will subject all smokers to lung cancer is proof I'm waiting to see.<snipped again>
The failure in logic here is this:
Smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer; it is only the most obvious and major cause.
No carcinogen causes 100% of the people exposed to it to get cancer.
So you will never see proof that all smokers are going to get lung cancer, because all smokers will not get lung cancer. Many people have gambled their lives on that fact, and lost. Some have won.
To tell you the truth, in all the years I've worked in health care, I've never cared for anyone with lung cancer, emphysema, other COPD who wasn't a smoker! I know of one person who got lung cancer who had never smoked.
Must be a small system then. I know plenty people who got lung cancer and did not smoke and I know plenty who did smoke and got lung cancer. I also know lots who smoke and are in their 80s and still smoke. Oh and they also eat red meat and drink. I wonder if ya'll realize that everyone has cancer genes in their bodies. It all just depends if the cancer will show up or not. I have doctors in my family and they all tell the same thing. Smoking is bad for anyone, but there is no actuall scientific proof that smoking kills anyone. My brother said he has seen some terrible looking lungs in people who never smoked but they lived in LA with the smog and pollution and all. He also told me that the vehicle exhaust is worse than any second hand smoke out there. Of course, he is a doctor and since he doesn't totally agree with the anti-smoking nazis, he is considered fake. The news will tell people that coffee is good for you and within a few months will tell you how bad it is for you and then again in a few more months tell everyone the good aspects of coffee. It is called faux science and nothing else.
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.
