As there been negligent homicide convictions for cigarette manufacturers ?
Secondhand smoke is harmless
- Thread starter Lilvapie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
As there been negligent homicide convictions for cigarette manufacturers ?
OP doesn't show the word "harmless" in all caps. Instead it cites 2 links that say: 1) Harmless and 2) No Danger
I don't think it is technically harmless, but also am not aware of anything on this planet (when filtered through 'normal' perspective) that is harmless. So, I'd go with relatively harmless, but in reality I realize it is simply rhetorically harmless and rather have those who think it is 'highly dangerous' back up their claims with actual / legitimate science. I've been waiting on this for a very long time.
I would say it is worth making the claim of 'harmless' for these reasons alone as vast majority are clearly brainwashed by ANTZ rhetoric.
Your answer:
IMO, the battle is either virtually lost or has been lost. Vaping is allowing that to be revisited, but represents same tactics and thus an uphill battle. Plus holds the idea that the original battle could be overturned. And to overturn that, and to put vaping in (perhaps) proper perspective, it helps I think to go with the propaganda rhetoric of "SHS is harmless." That's attention grabbing. That'll get you at least 18 pages on a vaping forum, whereas a OP that states, "I kinda sorta think SHS may not be as harmful as we've been lead to believe" could stumble out of the gates and maybe get to end of p. 1 before non-critical thinking vapers realize this thread isn't worth it as it is just opinion and 'science' has clearly told us SHS is very dangerous, therefore I'm right to dismiss this claim by OP who kinda sorta thinks otherwise.
Saying SHS is harmless resets the original argument back to starting position and while it could demand proof, it can also say, remind me again why you (or anyone) thinks of it as harmful / dangerous? And then like the vaping arguments that we engage in daily, you can rip their junk science to shreds, or at least have all participants think critically on an issue where it truly seems like no one really cares to think critically and instead parrots ANTZ rhetoric as if it is infallible logic.
I started smoking because my step father was always smoking his pipe inside the house. Got addicted to nicotine thanks to him and picked up cigarettes at 16.
"converting chemicals into harmless air" that's some magic voodoo. Your body is an amazing thing but it is not a chemical scrubber in the time it takes to inhale and exhale. You cerntainly aren't under the impression that you body absorbs 100% of what you breathe in right? So what are you breathing out when you smoke?? Water vapor?? There's plenty of evidence out there that a room filled with smoke exhaled by a tobacco smoker is no good. Plus you also have to consider the temperature of the room, airflow, and LIGHT. Light greatly affects chemical composition. There are some great studies involving toxic greenhouse rooms where they pump chemical into the room full of light and heat and pass them over organic membranes to see how tissue is affected by light irritated noxious chemicals. The results reflect a poor health environment for many reasons. Vaping has already had some (and I say some with a lot of umpf!) studies on environmental effects and it seems to hold up well. Cigarettes though........that's just silly. Cigs are bad for you and everyone around you and I don't know why you would try to argue otherwise. But I'm just a friendly neighborhood chemist offering my two cents.
i'm not very certain why i decided to smoke. but i grew up with second hand smoke since i was born. my father was 3 pack a day kinda guy, he quit sometime ago, cold turkey. i didn't really have urge to smoke, but it was something i always looked forward to. every adults that i knew smoked. being able to smoke freely was something grown ups did. when i came to US, i hung around with tough guys. it was either get beat up everyday, or dish out the beating, if it was necessary. we weren't bullies or anything, but there is advantage to numbers. most of us smoked, some choose not to smoke. i begin smoking and it came naturally to me. and it relieved daily stress. it felt good. that was back in 1980. even then, we knew smoking wasn't healthy. we made a point to not smoke front of kids, pregnant women and elderly people. we make it point if there were people around before we got there, we won't smoke. simple common sense approach to being civil. but if we were there first and someone made comment about us smoking, well.. that was different story. i don't smoke any more, about 3 week since i quit, and i use common sense approach to vaping as i did with smoking. i try to be civil, as long as the other side is civil. if they start mouthing off.. well that's different story. i smoked, and now vape on my free will no one forced it on me. i haven't had any doubt that smoking or vaping is completely healthy. i won't push my second hand smoking or vaping on others unless they express that they don't mind.
it is agreed that if one has a pre-existing condition that would make one more
sensitive to smoke,of course it would aggravate you.
at least i won.t dispute it.
regards
mike
At 16 you should have had the wherewithal to make an informed choice about smoking. After all, at this age the government thinks you're responsible enough to drive a ton of metal down a crowded street without killing anyone.
My kids never picked up the habit even with me role modeling it for them. So let's leave "Dad" out of this one.
Smoking causes nuclear war, we read it here first
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
So, ... smokers shouldn't smoke during the day? Or at least do it in completely darkened rooms?
This is all so silly.
Secondhand smoke HAS NEVER BEEN proven to have negatively affected the health of even ONE Raphus cucullatus.
Secondhand smoke HAS NEVER BEEN proven to have negatively affected the health of even ONE Raphus cucullatus.
Last edited:
Rush Limbaugh is a very smart well educated man. He has evidene to back up what he says on his show. people try to debate things he says and always come off as foolish as they honestly form there opinions based on popular trends or something they saw on tv but never took the time to research if its true or not. As far as the second hand smoke being harmless. Show me documented scientific proof and I will absolutely believe it.. not just a claim or a theory. ie evolution they teach it in schools. but how many people realize micro evolution is completely true like environmental changes to species. yet one species completely changing to another such as man coming from monkeys is a theory nothing close to a fact. there are plenty of dinosaur skelletons. but where are the remains of these transitional species? like the fish that had just grown legs and become a land dwelling creature. there is no tangible evidence. therefore it remains a theory, im not giving my opinion or claiming whats true or not. im simply saying if you believe something or claim things. always research facts. don't be a sheep and form opinions based on rhetoric and propaganda . Lol sorry for the rant. todays youth just anger me with there blind willingness to believe everything they hear in the media.
At 16 you should have had the wherewithal to make an informed choice about smoking. After all, at this age the government thinks you're responsible enough to drive a ton of metal down a crowded street without killing anyone.
My kids never picked up the habit even with me role modeling it for them. So let's leave "Dad" out of this one.
I started to have cravings for nicotine, thats why i started smoking. So yeah, its his fault....
There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.
After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.
Published in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study found that among current smokers, lung cancer was 13 times more common than in non-smokers, and four times more common among former smokers. But for women who had never smoked, it found that exposure to secondhand smoke did not significantly increase the risk of lung cancer.
Among the group of women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more, however, the study concluded that there was a relationship of "borderline statistical significance" between exposure to passive smoke and lung cancer.
Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study in June at this year's meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, said: "The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in non-smokers]."
The findings of the study will likely be questioned by Cancer Research UK however, who state on their website that "second-hand smoke can increase a non-smoker's risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter, and may also increase the risk of cancers of the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (upper throat)."
Correct, I don't agree with you. I think your stance is absurd.
I also see you could not answer a simple direct question. Apparently you are not as clever as you think.
Yeah my grandparents smoked all the time around me that is why I picked it up. Well wait... It was that hot little blonde number I met @ 20 in NYC. Yeah yeah that's it.
Or was it that other girl that blew smoke in my face? Or maybe all those jazz bars I visited?
Or could it be, I tried it and liked it.
Yeah that is probably it.
Must be nice to have somebody to blame other than yourself.
Passive other smoke cannot cause a drug test failure. There is zero chance of enough chemical exposure in either case.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
