|
On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ?  are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
|
On May 25 2011 07:24 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here. I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside. Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term? The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=24#470
just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review.
Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure.
Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410
so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
|
On May 25 2011 09:17 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 07:24 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here. I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside. Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term? The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=24#470just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review. Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
i dont know half the words in that article(hehe) but it seems to say nothing about outdoor SHS, which is the main debate in this thread it seems.
|
Interesting post, I will go check the article source for more. Thankyou for the good read.
|
On May 25 2011 09:33 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 09:17 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 07:24 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here. I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside. Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term? The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=24#470just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review. Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me. i dont know half the words in that article(hehe) but it seems to say nothing about outdoor SHS, which is the main debate in this thread it seems.
i'm not an expert in this field so i can't vouch for or verify everything in that review - i just work with nicotine, nicotinic receptors in the brain. but from the line " Based on the presented biological evidence, it is concluded that brief, acute, transient exposures to SHS may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard." in the abstract, "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS" would mean a very short term exposure to second hand smoke - meaning what you would get when walking by a smoker on the street.
|
On May 25 2011 09:17 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 07:24 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here. I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside. Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term? The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=24#470just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review. Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
Here's what This One says.
It says that at any detectable level (enough to absorb 25 ng/ml or more nicotine, not that anyone knows how much smoke you need to inhale to get that), cells in the linings of your lungs respond to exposure with changes in their non-coding RNA.
Now I don't know what that means, and I'm guessing you don't either, but Medterms.com says "The transcriptome (non-coding RNA) is dynamic and changes under different circumstances due to different patterns of gene expression." In other words, your lungs know you inhaled tobacco smoke, if you inhale enough to absorb 25 ng/ml niccotine.
This doesn't sound like the end of the world to me, but I'm not a doctor. If you are a doctor or medical researcher, please explain. If not, please find something more decisive.
|
On May 25 2011 09:59 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 09:33 jinorazi wrote:On May 25 2011 09:17 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 07:24 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here. I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside. Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term? The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=24#470just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review. Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me. i dont know half the words in that article(hehe) but it seems to say nothing about outdoor SHS, which is the main debate in this thread it seems. i'm not an expert in this field so i can't vouch for or verify everything in that review - i just work with nicotine, nicotinic receptors in the brain. but from the line " Based on the presented biological evidence, it is concluded that brief, acute, transient exposures to SHS may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard." in the abstract, "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS" would mean a very short term exposure to second hand smoke - meaning what you would get when walking by a smoker on the street.
That's certainly one interpretation, if you emphasize brief/transient. Acute suggests something in a much higher concentration. I don't have access to the full review, but this sounds more like short term exposure to higher concentrations of second hand smoke than you'd get passing someone on the street.
This is also a review. When they say "may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard," they're not talking about conclusions of a specific study. They're setting up the next bit where they suggest new areas of research. They're saying they'd like to see research into the effects of "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS," specifically pertaining to "the concentrations of tobacco smoke constituents in the alveolar milieu following SHS exposure, individual susceptibility to SHS, as well as the effects of SHS on neurobehavioral activity, brain cell development, synaptic development, and function."
I haven't read a scientific paper in a while, but that's what this looks like to me. If I'm mistaken, let me know.
|
California! Where smoking anywhere is banned
|
On May 25 2011 10:28 ScaryGhost wrote:
California! Where smoking anywhere is banned
Woooohhh...by anywhere you mean in public places anywhere? or is it still allowed in houses?
On Topic: Meh, I guess this is for the better. It's annoying to have to smell the terrible smoke. But that's coming from a personal point of view not a scientific. However, on Wikipedia, the effects of second-hand smoking are listed to be large with problems ranging from the ear to Crohn's Disease.
|
On May 25 2011 04:56 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 04:53 SichuanPanda wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun. i have said this like 10 times in this thread, and it's been echoed by many others. clearly you put no effort into reading what has already been discussed and just decided to come in with some random statements. how are the diseases you mention at all related to the topic at hand? do their existence make smoking any less dangerous for you? do their existence justify the companies that market and sell a harmful substance to the public? so let me ask you. what is your point?
I should have thought my point was obvious. If the government of a given country flat out bans tobacco then whats to stop another social group from coming and demanding alcohol is banned. Next we'll be hearing movie theaters should be banned because of potential eardrum damage, or concerts. Everyone is so quick to get up in arms about things these days they don't even stop to see the consequences.
In case you didn't understand, those diseases are a result of alcohol abuse. Is smoking for 5 years in your 20's good for your health (this is merely an example)? No certainly not. However its chances of killing you or giving you a detrimental disease is far less than smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. Likewise drinking to have fun occasionally is great, meanwhile getting drunk on a near daily basis for years on end is not good for your health either. Some studies actually show that alcohol abuse has a faster intake/damage ratio than smoking (i.e 10 years of heavy drinking > 10 years of heavy smoking).
So many of you in this thread fail to see reason and figure 'smoking's bad for people so we should tell anyone who smokes how to make their own life choices by banning it in almost all places one would smoke other than their home'. It's all well and good to try and look out for other people around you, but there needs to be a point where it passes looking out for someone's being and becomes an infringement to civil liberties.
You can kill yourself by drinking too much soda (diabetes), you can die on the road in a terrible car crash (automotive collision), you can die from over-eating(obesity), or under-eating(anorexia), you can die from too little(dehydration), or too much water (electrolyte induced cardiac problems) , you could choke on your next meal and die on your kitchen floor(asphyxiation), you could slip in the shower and break your neck (spinal trauma). The list of ways people could die goes on and on and there is many ways both within, and outside of people's control, and many ways that are a result of habitual use of something.
Bottom line is over use of almost anything in life is going to be bad for your health. Any person who understand this fact will realize that they should leave well enough alone and let people to their own devices. So long as they aren't stealing, killing, or raping and pillaging people, they should be within reason allowed to do what they will. If someone wants to smoke any number of cigarettes a day for any number of years, thats their choice. Same as if people don't want to understand the simple logic of whats been proven over 1000s of years of human history - that society, and nature have a tendency to balance themselves, that's their business. While I don't agree with them, I don't tell them not to think it.
|
I feel that a lot of the negative opinion from non-smokers towards smokers stems from resentment over being inconvenienced in some way, whether it is adjusting their distance while walking on the sidewalk or holding their breath if they can't avoid the smoke. The reason this doesn't apply to being inconvenienced by something like construction, or making way for a disabled person in a wheelchair is because smoking is a choice; one that is negatively perceived because of the health risks attributed to it.
To address the health concerns regarding second hand smoke, I don't really think it's that significant in a non-enclosed area. Just how bad it actually is for you is irrelevant if you make it a point not to inhale it, just like I make it a point not to inhale around vehicle exhaust fumes. Yes, cars are generally restricted to roads and people generally walk on sidewalks but there are plenty of times that an idling car by the sidewalk generates enough exhaust that you would generally hold your breath as you walk by. Yes, there are scenarios where smokers congregate in an area and it becomes impossible to navigate through them without breathing in some smoke and in this case it was inconsiderate of the smokers not to leave a wide berth for pedestrians. Obviously this is not ideal, in a perfect world we be outputting toxic emissions and pollutants of any concentration in the air in our day to day activities but with our current technology and way of life, this is how it is and we're just going to have to deal with it the best way we can.
The fact is that when you're in the city, you are going to be forced to interact/react to people and things around you whether you like it or not. Hopefully we can be respectful to each other:
To non-smokers: You have to deal with an unpleasant smell in which the surrounding air is probably slightly more unhealthy (mixed in with that pleasant cocktail of other pollutants in the city) for you than the air you were breathing a few seconds earlier. Try not to think of smokers as intruding on your way of life and try not have so many negative thoughts when you expend some extra effort on behalf of a stranger.
To smokers: Respect everyone around you by walking those few extra steps away from others who are not smoking. Not smoking in areas that are heavy in foot traffic or at the very least exhaling in a direction away from others is a basic courtesy. Being the first one to expend effort in moving to the other end of the sidewalk is usually appreciated. Making it a point not to get any smoke in the area of pregnant women or babies/little children is good. Who cares whether or not second hand smoke is actually that bad for you? I'm sure anyone would be appreciative of you adjusting your habits to accommodate them.
To cities/business owners: If you notice a large amount of cigarette butts in an area, it would be beneficial to install an ashtray/butt disposal object. I know there are those that think that they actually encourages smoking/loitering but the fact is that if I want to have a smoke I'm going to do it whether or not there is easy disposal nearby but the probability of me disposing of the butt properly is directly related to whether or not there is easy disposal nearby.
The problem is here that both sides just want to live their own lives without being inconvenienced by the other and it just doesn't go down that way when you are forced to share a limited area of space with a large population of people (cities). There are those on both ends of the spectrum who have little regard for people other than themselves and that is why although I think a public ban is over the top, a ban of smoking within close vicinity to entrances/exits (similar to what we have here in Toronto) is a good idea. This is pretty much never enforced but it does give people the right to complain when smokers are standing right outside a door and blowing smoke in the face of everyone who enters/leaves the building.
|
On May 25 2011 10:55 DBunny wrote:I feel that a lot of the negative opinion from non-smokers towards smokers stems from resentment over being inconvenienced in some way, whether it is adjusting their distance while walking on the sidewalk or holding their breath if they can't avoid the smoke. The reason this doesn't apply to being inconvenienced by something like construction, or making way for a disabled person in a wheelchair is because smoking is a choice; one that is negatively perceived because of the health risks attributed to it. + Show Spoiler +
To address the health concerns regarding second hand smoke, I don't really think it's that significant in a non-enclosed area. Just how bad it actually is for you is irrelevant if you make it a point not to inhale it, just like I make it a point not to inhale around vehicle exhaust fumes. Yes, cars are generally restricted to roads and people generally walk on sidewalks but there are plenty of times that an idling car by the sidewalk generates enough exhaust that you would generally hold your breath as you walk by. Yes, there are scenarios where smokers congregate in an area and it becomes impossible to navigate through them without breathing in some smoke and in this case it was inconsiderate of the smokers not to leave a wide berth for pedestrians. Obviously this is not ideal, in a perfect world we be outputting toxic emissions and pollutants of any concentration in the air in our day to day activities but with our current technology and way of life, this is how it is and we're just going to have to deal with it the best way we can.
The fact is that when you're in the city, you are going to be forced to interact/react to people and things around you whether you like it or not. Hopefully we can be respectful to each other:
To non-smokers: You have to deal with an unpleasant smell in which the surrounding air is probably slightly more unhealthy (mixed in with that pleasant cocktail of other pollutants in the city) for you than the air you were breathing a few seconds earlier. Try not to think of smokers as intruding on your way of life and try not have so many negative thoughts when you expend some extra effort on behalf of a stranger.
To smokers: Respect everyone around you by walking those few extra steps away from others who are not smoking. Not smoking in areas that are heavy in foot traffic or at the very least exhaling in a direction away from others is a basic courtesy. Being the first one to expend effort in moving to the other end of the sidewalk is usually appreciated. Making it a point not to get any smoke in the area of pregnant women or babies/little children is good. Who cares whether or not second hand smoke is actually that bad for you? I'm sure anyone would be appreciative of you adjusting your habits to accommodate them.
To cities/business owners: If you notice a large amount of cigarette butts in an area, it would be beneficial to install an ashtray/butt disposal object. I know there are those that think that they actually encourages smoking/loitering but the fact is that if I want to have a smoke I'm going to do it whether or not there is easy disposal nearby but the probability of me disposing of the butt properly is directly related to whether or not there is easy disposal nearby.
The problem is here that both sides just want to live their own lives without being inconvenienced by the other and it just doesn't go down that way when you are forced to share a limited area of space with a large population of people (cities). There are those on both ends of the spectrum who have little regard for people other than themselves and that is why although I think a public ban is over the top, a ban of smoking within close vicinity to entrances/exits (similar to what we have here in Toronto) is a good idea. This is pretty much never enforced but it does give people the right to complain when smokers are standing right outside a door and blowing smoke in the face of everyone who enters/leaves the building.
Some excellent points you've made here, I agree with most of them. I just want to add - as a smoker - that I personally try to make sure my habit doesn't inconvenience others. But unfortunately many other smokers are far from that considerate. As my previous post goes over in detail, if everyone would just ease up with being so concerned with how someone else (how dare they!!!) interferes with your day-to-day life for even a few seconds, and simply accept that we are all here together and have to get along we'd be better off. Lets try and learn to do it without having to get the government to step in like a teacher in a school yard fight.
|
On May 25 2011 10:06 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 09:17 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 07:24 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:32 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 05:20 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car. Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them. Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense. so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs? all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk. there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly? That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation. Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post. How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins". Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian. how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here. I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside. Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term? The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word. Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225934¤tpage=24#470just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review. Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me. Here's what This One says. It says that at any detectable level (enough to absorb 25 ng/ml or more nicotine, not that anyone knows how much smoke you need to inhale to get that), cells in the linings of your lungs respond to exposure with changes in their non-coding RNA. Now I don't know what that means, and I'm guessing you don't either, but Medterms.com says "The transcriptome (non-coding RNA) is dynamic and changes under different circumstances due to different patterns of gene expression." In other words, your lungs know you inhaled tobacco smoke, if you inhale enough to absorb 25 ng/ml niccotine. This doesn't sound like the end of the world to me, but I'm not a doctor. If you are a doctor or medical researcher, please explain. If not, please find something more decisive.
the receptors that let your lungs "know" are the same ones found in many places in the body, you can wiki nicotinic receptors if you want. your interpretation of "knowing" doesn't mean there are no other effects, in fact, there are more than likely other downstream effects - because cells respond to ligand binding, ligand binding itself is not always an energy efficient process that just stops at this stage. so by having receptors that are ultrasensitive to nicotine or other constituents of tobacco smoke likely means that there are downstream effects - not just cellular identification of the presence of nicotine. now what these effects are may vary, and those are covered in part in the review paper. in fact, the transcriptome change is a big thing, because that is a big indicator of "long term" and not transient changes in your cells - this actually furthers the point of shs potentially having lasting effects.
to be honest i have no idea about your question regarding the number of cigarettes 25 ng/ml nic corresponds to. nicotine is a metabolized product, and its exposure in different tissues is differently titrated - making it a bit more complicated when you want to directly measure exposure. the overall picture is that minute amounts (including a single puff of smoke) can lead to high and prolonged levels of activation of these receptors which likely have downstream effects.
On May 25 2011 10:06 Omnipresent wrote:
That's certainly one interpretation, if you emphasize brief/transient. Acute suggests something in a much higher concentration. I don't have access to the full review, but this sounds more like short term exposure to higher concentrations of second hand smoke than you'd get passing someone on the street.
This is also a review. When they say "may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard," they're not talking about conclusions of a specific study. They're setting up the next bit where they suggest new areas of research. They're saying they'd like to see research into the effects of "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS," specifically pertaining to "the concentrations of tobacco smoke constituents in the alveolar milieu following SHS exposure, individual susceptibility to SHS, as well as the effects of SHS on neurobehavioral activity, brain cell development, synaptic development, and function."
I haven't read a scientific paper in a while, but that's what this looks like to me. If I'm mistaken, let me know.
acute doesn't suggest anything other than what brief/transient means to my knowledge. certainly doesn't have any implications on concentration. as for the content itself, they reference many studies. of course they set up further research - as a review should do - but they certainly have both human and animal studies pertaining to each of these effects. can't really help you with the access to the paper though, so i'm sorry.
|
On May 25 2011 10:39 SichuanPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 04:56 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:53 SichuanPanda wrote:On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote:Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ? are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun. i have said this like 10 times in this thread, and it's been echoed by many others. clearly you put no effort into reading what has already been discussed and just decided to come in with some random statements. how are the diseases you mention at all related to the topic at hand? do their existence make smoking any less dangerous for you? do their existence justify the companies that market and sell a harmful substance to the public? so let me ask you. what is your point? I should have thought my point was obvious. If the government of a given country flat out bans tobacco then whats to stop another social group from coming and demanding alcohol is banned. Next we'll be hearing movie theaters should be banned because of potential eardrum damage, or concerts. Everyone is so quick to get up in arms about things these days they don't even stop to see the consequences. In case you didn't understand, those diseases are a result of alcohol abuse. Is smoking for 5 years in your 20's good for your health (this is merely an example)? No certainly not. However its chances of killing you or giving you a detrimental disease is far less than smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. Likewise drinking to have fun occasionally is great, meanwhile getting drunk on a near daily basis for years on end is not good for your health either. Some studies actually show that alcohol abuse has a faster intake/damage ratio than smoking (i.e 10 years of heavy drinking > 10 years of heavy smoking). So many of you in this thread fail to see reason and figure 'smoking's bad for people so we should tell anyone who smokes how to make their own life choices by banning it in almost all places one would smoke other than their home'. It's all well and good to try and look out for other people around you, but there needs to be a point where it passes looking out for someone's being and becomes an infringement to civil liberties. You can kill yourself by drinking too much soda (diabetes), you can die on the road in a terrible car crash (automotive collision), you can die from over-eating(obesity), or under-eating(anorexia), you can die from too little(dehydration), or too much water (electrolyte induced cardiac problems) , you could choke on your next meal and die on your kitchen floor(asphyxiation), you could slip in the shower and break your neck (spinal trauma). The list of ways people could die goes on and on and there is many ways both within, and outside of people's control, and many ways that are a result of habitual use of something. Bottom line is over use of almost anything in life is going to be bad for your health. Any person who understand this fact will realize that they should leave well enough alone and let people to their own devices. So long as they aren't stealing, killing, or raping and pillaging people, they should be within reason allowed to do what they will. If someone wants to smoke any number of cigarettes a day for any number of years, thats their choice. Same as if people don't want to understand the simple logic of whats been proven over 1000s of years of human history - that society, and nature have a tendency to balance themselves, that's their business. While I don't agree with them, I don't tell them not to think it.
well that's a much better articulated argument than your original, and you bring up good points. however, your examples all have to do with things that don't necessarily endanger others (food consumption, choking, slipping). smoking and second hand smoke does have this troublesome attribute. therefore it's not unreasonable to regulate it - just as how firearms, drunk driving, hard drugs are regulated. there are obviously many responsible smokers like many in this forum, but you have to also account for the ones who just don't give a damn. exposing children, pregnant mothers can have severe effects on the lives of the next generation. is it really too much to ask - and too much of a tax on your "civil liberties" to just avoid smoking in public areas and do it at home or in designated areas (which i agree with many of you that governments should provide if they're enforcing a ban like in NYC)
|
they should just study the affects of smoking on a new smoker for 1 week, then divide the affects by an amount to see what the affects would be over a week for a 2nd hand smoker. like, your subject smokes 20 cigs a day for 5 days, you measure X in his blood or whatever shit, then translate that to reflect the amount a 2nd hand smoker would intake in that time.
does that make sense at all?
i know its probably impossible or unscientific or wtvr, but think of it that way theoretically:
if i have 10% reduced performance (say in running) after smoking a pack a day for a year,
then a guy getting 2nd hand smoke equivilent to 0.0001 packs a day will suffer 0.001% reduced performance (some put my . in the right place)
but of course its all about the smell.
|
Smoking isn't healthy, I understand that. But laws like these make people think it's reasonable to trade simple freedoms like this in turn for a feeling of security in some fashion. These laws never go away, they get more and more restrictive, it gives police a reason to harass or fine you. It's stupid. Leave it up to the private businesses to sort where people smoke and don't. It's already illegal and unfriendly in many places, there doesn't need to be more restrictions, people who smoke already pay with their health, and money.
|
On May 25 2011 11:49 FFGenerations wrote:
they should just study the affects of smoking on a new smoker for 1 week, then divide the affects by an amount to see what the affects would be over a week for a 2nd hand smoker. like, your subject smokes 20 cigs a day for 5 days, you measure X in his blood or whatever shit, then translate that to reflect the amount a 2nd hand smoker would intake in that time.
does that make sense at all?
i know its probably impossible or unscientific or wtvr, but think of it that way theoretically:
if i have 10% reduced performance (say in running) after smoking a pack a day for a year,
then a guy getting 2nd hand smoke equivilent to 0.0001 packs a day will suffer 0.001% reduced performance (some put my . in the right place)
but of course its all about the smell.
how can you link 10% reduced performance or whatever other effect you see directly to the smoking? this is really difficult in human subjects because you have to ensure every other variable stays constant. and this is on the assumption that you DO see things after a single year - which is not necessarily the case for every person. now even longer term effects makes it far more difficult as more and more external factors come in.
basically you have the right idea for a simple experiment, but long term human studies are just too difficult.
|
Canada13389 Posts
A law like this has been in place in Ottawa Canada. I don't want to say anything bad of smokers - by all means I believe it is a personal choice and decision that is made with full knowledge of what the effects are. This being said I personally have never liked smoking and have mild asthma so for me when this law came into effect here it became a lot easier to go out to restaurants and parks without having a harder time breathing or coughing. So I think its a good thing but really for smokers its just public buildings If i read that correctly and parks so you can always go somewhere not too far away to smoke.
|
Smoking bans in enclosed spaces is fine for me.
Smoking bans in the outdoors is not.
There has been little to no research on Open Air SHS...which is the crux of the problem here. Until I see definitive proof that Open air SHS causes a significant increase in health problems I'll be against banning outdoor smoking on principle...and I don't even smoke anymore.
|
On May 24 2011 06:04 Valestrum wrote:
I'm glad, smoking is a bad habit. It doesn't do anything good for us.
Neither does alcohol or junk food.
Ban them also?
As a non smoker i say if people want to smoke let them.They pay more than their fair share of taxes and die earlier thus putting less strain on social security/pension schemes.I am also for legalising(or at least decriminalising) weed , ecstacy , heroin etc.Can't see how people can be for banning tobacco but also support legalising weed , it is bizarre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
