Secondhand smoke is harmless

Status
Not open for further replies.
Davey59 hit the nail on the head. Not only will it not cause addition, but it is safe as well. That is a proven point.

Thanks.

The scientific facts presented by many people here that responded out way the personal opinions.

here is something related that I found to be very interesting.

researchers await the results of the Parkinson’s studies, they look beyond to nicotine treatments for other disorders as well. “Nicotine has separate mechanisms by which it may protect brain cells, aside from its influence on dopamine,” Boyd says. “One of the functions of nicotinic receptors is to moderate the entry of calcium into cells. The presence of nicotine increases the amount of intracellular calcium, which appears to improve cellular survival.” And nicotine may have an antioxidant effect, serving to mop up the toxic free radicals produced as a byproduct of metabolism, thus protecting the brain. The neuroprotective effects of nicotine were studied in a randomized clinical trial involving 67 subjects in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease, where memory was slightly impaired but decision-making and other cognitive abilities remained intact. They received either a 15-milligram nicotine patch or placebo for six months. The results found “significant nicotine-associated improvements in attention, memory and psychomotor speed,” with excellent safety and tolerability. Other studies suggest that nicotine may be as effective at enhancing attention as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil (Provigil). In 2008, Paul Newhouse, director of the Center for Cognitive Medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, compared performance on a series of cognitive tasks in 15 nonsmoking ADHD patients while wearing either a 7-mg nicotine patch or a placebo patch. After just 45 minutes with the nicotine patch, the young adults were significantly better at inhibiting an impulse, delaying a reward and remembering an image they had seen. Even people without any diagnosed disorder might benefit from nicotine. Psychologist Jennifer Rusted of the University of Sussex in Britain calls the drug “the most reliable cognitive enhancer that we currently have.” In addition to improving visual attention and working memory, nicotine has been shown by Rusted to increase prospective memory: the ability to remember and implement a prior intention. (When your mother asks you to pick up a jar of pickles at the grocery store on the way home, she’s saddling you with a prospective memory challenge.) “It’s a small effect, maybe a 15 percent improvement,” Rusted says. “It’s not something that’s going to have a massive impact in a healthy young individual. But we think it’s doing it by allowing you to redeploy your attention more rapidly.” In short, the drug seems to work by helping users shut out irrelevant stimuli so that important information can come to the fore. The ability to shut out stimuli could also turn nicotine into a treatment for schizophrenia, where afflicted individuals are overwhelmed by sights, sounds and thoughts that most of us would either ignore or quickly dismiss. Studies in the United States, Canada and Germany have shown that nicotine improves the ability of people with schizophrenia to focus their attention and recall recent events. In addition, the potent antipsychotic haloperidol often causes dyskinesia, which Quik’s 2007 study proved nicotine can relieve
 

Jode

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 9, 2014
1,083
4,419
61
Seabrook, NH, USA
hi Jode,
i am sorry about your grandmother and your mother in law.
however i cannot agree with your statement that second hand smoke
was the cause.i ill agree that SHS would certainly aggravate those
conditions.
otherwise healthy individuals will not be harmed by
second hand smoke.people whom live with heavy smokers only
have a slightly elevated risk if at all(some associated risks are actually lower)
to developing a smoking related illness. i am sorry but,that's what the science
says,not me. the science also says that when the figures are adjusted to account
for economic,environmental and hereditary conditions smokers themselves only
have an elevated risk. a demonstrable risk yes but,no where near that which we are lead to
believe.
if second hand smoke really could cause disease and death why have there not
been any convictions for negligent homicide? the proof is supposedly there.

again sorry for your loss.
regards
mike

I made the mistake of posting before I finished thread and with a soap box attitude that I probably should not have adopted in this case. Truth be told, after I finished reading I realized that I really do not know much about this subject and should have probably kept my mouth shut. I guess my reaction was mostly out of frustration that it is so hard to know what to trust about anything in this world. For every pro there is a con group. I appreciate how gently you worded your response to me. I am not usually an alarmist. I guess I have just been fed this information ( SHS kills) for so long that when a report shows contradiction it is hard to accept.
 

Penn

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
May 19, 2013
1,367
1,435
In the wilderness
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...

Nothing more to be said on that topic with you then. You just confirmed what I've been saying is what you believe (well, maybe not the word "relatively" in particular but at least some qualifying word to acknowledged it isn't completely harmless).

But the side topic...

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.

Take 3 people in a room with an undecided person or a person who can be swayed (the subject). Person A promotes the bloated claims of extreme anti-smoking (and by extension anti-vaping) for the subject. Then person B proclaims second hand is completely harmless (and is a proponent of vaping) and offers their evidence. Person C looks at all evidence presented (doesn't matter if they are pro-vaping or not) and says something to extent of, "well it isn't completely harmless but I'd have no problem hanging out in a smoke filled room". Who is the subject likely to respond to?

Hopefully the majority of people proponents of vaping are taking the stance of person C.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
They are often convinced that they possess the thruth and everyone else is being manipulated by some controlling evil forces.
Anyone who doesn't understand that the public has been purposely brainwashed by decades of anti-smoking lies and propaganda...
Is just as out of touch as someone who thinks inhaling significant amounts of smoke for significant periods of time is perfectly harmless...

Just wanted to put that out there.
:)
 

Penn

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
May 19, 2013
1,367
1,435
In the wilderness
Davey59 hit the nail on the head. Not only will it not cause addition, but it is safe as well. That is a proven point.

Thanks.

The scientific facts presented by many people here that responded out way the personal opinions.

You still haven't presented proof of your side. But hey, I'll drop it now and let you feel you have a win so bring some snappy response so you can have the last word.
 

Penn

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
May 19, 2013
1,367
1,435
In the wilderness
Anyone who doesn't understand that the public has been purposely brainwashed by decades of anti-smoking lies and propaganda...
Is just as out of touch as someone who thinks inhaling significant amounts of smoke for significant periods of time is perfectly harmless...

Just wanted to put that out there.
:)

Oh sure, this is like the third or forth time in a week this Chargers fan said something I agree with. I don't care what happened in last year's playoffs. WHODEY!
 
Anyone who doesn't understand that the public has been purposely brainwashed by decades of anti-smoking lies and propaganda...
Is just as out of touch as someone who thinks inhaling significant amounts of smoke for significant periods of time is perfectly harmless...

Just wanted to put that out there.
:)

I 100% agree with this statement. Our beloved government has and always will . Use the population to achieve there hidden agenda while presenting it as unbiased fact.. And they do this by deception. There tools to achieve this are the media. Television/newspapers/internet/radio. in todays society the Indoctrination begins in elementary and continues all the way through college. The public school system is there most valuable tool.
 
Last edited:

Tangaroav

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 16, 2014
1,022
961
QC & FL
.......

Take 3 people in a room with an undecided person or a person who can be swayed (the subject). Person A promotes the bloated claims of extreme anti-smoking (and by extension anti-vaping) for the subject. Then person B proclaims second hand is completely harmless (and is a proponent of vaping) and offers their evidence. Person C looks at all evidence presented (doesn't matter if they are pro-vaping or not) and says something to extent of, "well it isn't completely harmless but I'd have no problem hanging out in a smoke filled room". Who is the subject likely to respond to?

Hopefully the majority of people proponents of vaping are taking the stance of person C.

No intelligent mother would take her baby to hang out in a smoke fill room.
 

firerat

Senior Member
Verified Member
Nov 13, 2014
109
177
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl
I 100% agree with this statement. Our beloved government has and always will . Use the population to achieve there hidden agenda while presenting it as unbiased fact.. And they do this by deception. There #1 tool to achieve this is the media. Television/newspapers/internet/radio. and that goes for all political parties.

Ok. So what is the hidden agenda? To ultimately outlaw tobacco? Seems they'd lose a lot of money doing that.

So what exactly would the government have to gain by propagating the dangers of tobacco? If anything I'd think they would stand to gain more by refuting evidence showing the harmful effects of tobacco.

I'm obviously missing something here.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Ok. So what is the hidden agenda? To ultimately outlaw tobacco? Seems they'd lose a lot of money doing that.

So what exactly would the government have to gain by propagating the dangers of tobacco? If anything I'd think they would stand to gain more by refuting evidence showing the harmful effects of tobacco.

I'm obviously missing something here.

If the once popular and widely used substance is presented as shameful, harmful and uncontrollable (lest you seek anti type activists methods), then some in government stand to gain a substantial money stream for an indefinite period of time. Think of all the things that money could buy!
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
And heck, we could even claim the money collected will be used mostly to solely for the harmful effects caused by that substance.

But not really, we have other ways the money will be spent, and will hope the peddlers of that substance will pony up all costs of the harm we lay claim to everyone experiencing from that evil substance.
 

firerat

Senior Member
Verified Member
Nov 13, 2014
109
177
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl
If the once popular and widely used substance is presented as shameful, harmful and uncontrollable (lest you seek anti type activists methods), then some in government stand to gain a substantial money stream for an indefinite period of time.

From what? What will they be getting money from?

Am I reading this wrong?
 
the hardcore liberals want to have as much control over the population as possible in every aspect of there lives.. So they are rapidly putting there foot in areas the government should not be. Like banks/lenders vehicle companies. unions. healthcare. trying to disarm everyone. by using news to scare people into thinking yeah they need to control all guns so people don't get hurt. What do you think is the end result if it continues at the pace it is going? you think maybe its possible there taking away everyone freedom slowly until they have total control of everything we do.
I certainly hope that never happens but it sure seems like it is heading that way
Tobacco is a cash cow for the government. they can tax the tobacco companies so much because its so bad for u. and more people sympathies with it who aren't even smokers because of the secondhand smoke will kill people who don't even smoke message we are all receiving. and weather its true or not its shoved in our faces as fact.( which is why smokes cost 7$ a pack in dc when they were only like 2$ when I started smoking


they will never outlaw tobacco. because it is wayyy to valuable. but if the government taxed vehicle manufacturers 30% of there profits because manufacturing vehicles is harmful to the environment. and we were bombarded with this message people would swallow it easier . the companies would have no choice but to pay and the consumer would just accept it. but the real reason for the insane taxation would be greed not care for the environment



















5
 
Last edited:

KGB7

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 23, 2014
1,334
1,274
Rockville, MD
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.


So i had a craving for no reason then, even though i never smoked before that?? Interesting.
 

Tangaroav

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 16, 2014
1,022
961
QC & FL
...... but if the government taxed vehicle manufacturers 30% of there profits because manufacturing vehicles is harmful to the environment. and we were bombarded with this message people would swallow it easier . the companies would have no choice but to pay and the consumer would just accept it. but the real reason for the insane taxation would be greed not care for the environment


Not a bad idea, for a cleaner environment...

If they would tax the media for every lie they feed us. I guess Fox news would be out of business by next week !
 
Not a bad idea, for a cleaner environment...

If they would tax the media for every lie they feed us. I guess Fox news would be out of business by next week !


LOl every news station bends how the report to convey there political affiliation. weather it be to the right or left. Which is a shame because the news should be required to be reported in a completely unbiased manner. but hey that's just not the world we live in
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
From what? What will they be getting money from?

Am I reading this wrong?

From excise taxes. The type of taxes that are placed on certain goods. And in the case of cigarettes, in certain jurisdictions, this creates a black market for an otherwise legal product. Gonna insert this here because it is relevant to this discussion, but part of the reason Eric Garner was killed was because he dared to operate in that (black) market and sell an otherwise legal product but at a rate that is far below what NY mandates the price be. And as Garner likely had no intention of sharing his (non-taxed) profits with NY, then I see it as them making an example out of him, but very likely not only him. It does show how desperate they are for the money that comes from this legal product. And to I think everyone looking at this incident, it seems unbelievably ludicrous to arrest someone (with use of force) for such a trumped up charge.

Plus there is the Master Settlement Agreement. Money galore there. Meant to go to persons harmed by smoking. But not really how it is disbursed. States rely on that money to come forth over time as it is understood you're not going to get everyone to stop smoking in 1 day. Yet, some of those funds are coming in way under what was anticipated, and so, I dunno, maybe we can drum up support for another MSA based on all the 'significant harms associated with second hand vapor.' Lots of people getting into that activity. Lots of revenue being generated there. And instead of embracing it as a way to stop smoking (which you'd think some anti-types would absolutely be in favor of), let's instead shame those users, tell them how harmful their activity is to themselves and all people around them, and perhaps a few cases will come forward to help us generate another 50 billion dollars or so to help the states with their extortion fight for addressing the evils of vaping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread