What's the point of smoking?

[adam10312]

I just have a quick question- is second hand smoke more damaging to me than car exhaust (I live in New York City so there are cars and trucks EVERYWHERE)? I always smell truck exhaust.

If 2nd hand smoke is not significantly more dangerous than truck exhaust, then we cannot try to stop 2nd hand smoke in public but not stop vehicle exhaust in public.

I just want to put things in perspective. If I count how many times in a day I actually smell cigarette smoke and how many times I actually smell exhaust, cigarette smoke would be less times.

So I am just curious, is this a less important, equally important, or more important issue? Its importance is obviously directly linked to the proof of the level of danger for each.

[Technosoul]

According to my poll being conducted here with 30 people casting a vote.

20% favor a ban.
73.33% say no to a ban on cigarettes.
6% voting "mind your own business".

[Technosoul]

Quote by: adam10312 I just have a quick question- is second hand smoke more damaging to me than car exhaust (I live in New York City so there are cars and trucks EVERYWHERE)? I always smell truck exhaust. If 2nd hand smoke is not significantly more dangerous than truck exhaust, then we cannot try to stop 2nd hand smoke in public but not stop vehicle exhaust in public. I just want to put things in perspective. If I count how many times in a day I actually smell cigarette smoke and how many times I actually smell exhaust, cigarette smoke would be less times. So I am just curious, is this a less important, equally important, or more important issue? Its importance is obviously directly linked to the proof of the level of danger for each.

If you had a choice between staying in a closed garage with a car producing fumes, or a garage contianing 20 people smoking cigarettes, which garage would you pick?

Would you pick the garage with car fumes just because that smell would not "stick to your cloths" and tobacco smoke would? I doubt it.

The toxic contents of fosil fuel is much greater then the minor trace amounts found in 2nd hand smoke.

Plus, smoke is smoke and plant burning would be simular. So you would need to ban fireplaces, and some of the cooking establishments where fumes from viggies are present in the air. And pot smoking would also be a hazard as it produces smoke.

Now it would be best if people picked tobacco that grew wild in a organic envirnomment, and dried it out their self and then made their own cigarettes. Or if they grew their own to insure that what the smoke is totally organic with no other chemicals added. That would eliminate some of the things people might have a complaint about.

But most of us do not have the time nor the space in our yard to do that, so we buy them at a store.

The ban and/or regulations about fosils fuels has lost it's momentum because people are busy attacking cigarette smokers. What is in your garage? New York is like being in a gaint garage.

Now in order to package and sell tobacco they must maintain freshness, to do that certain chemicals must be added. Because no one wants to buy them if they are dry and not fresh. That is one reason they do not package and sell pot cigaretters, it is too hard to keep them fresh on the store shelf and therefore it is not economically practical to make it legal.

Now if they could make car fuel out of tobacco then that would be a good reason not to waste it away smoking the stuff. But pot has oil in it that would be useful for that purpose. (if it were legal).

If pot was legal a lot of people would switch to that instead of cigarettes.
(as many people did during the early 1970s).

Sorry that I added a bunch of comments not related to your actural question.

Fossil Fuels

http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/outreach/...oints/bell.pdf

[Technosoul]

Now if you go camping and are worried about insects that can transmit deadly diseases then lighting up a cigar or pipe is recomended as a way to keep them out of your tent, when outside in the evening use smoke from the camfire for protetion.

The following link gives that advice along with other methods that can be used (other then the toxic chemicals sold in stores).

I guess the same is true if your house is near a lake or place where dangerous insects might breed, and then fly into your house.

Fight disease with cigar smoke!

The Hoodlums > Insect Repellant

If your cloths or skin smells like tobacco that will also be useful in keeping those deadly bugs away. Safeguard your health by making your property smelly.

[Matt W]

Yes, please, let's go back to Middle Ages medicine, because that really worked...

[Muckraker]

Hey Techno,

Ready for the "I Win" analogy supporting the ban of smoking in all public places and businesses? Here it comes:

--------->Some Point in the Past<--------------
Burning Incense Takes the Country by Storm

Two out of three individuals has taken to the fad of burning incense all the time - in their homes, their cars, at work, at the movies. I write this while sipping a beer at a local bar and people all around me are busting out ziploc baggies of incense sticks and cones. From the sensuous musk aroma to the pleasant smell of Michican pine, they light up their scents of choice and bask in the drifting clouds of olfactory delight.

There were a few lawsuits due to the fact that people were starting "mini-fires" in public places. Some annoying complainer got an incense ember flicked in his eye and decided to sue just because he couldn't see anymore. A few other people claimed their clothing was burned by unattended incense sticks. A number of establishments and homes also burned down due to careless individual actions of people burning incense.

---------> Years Later <-----------
The Great Patchouli Debate

Incense supporters are up in arms over a proposed ban on Patchouli incense. They cite their individual right to choose what smells good. The other side claims that patchouli just "stinks." A negative ruling in this manner would be a slippery slope and would deny incense burners their freedoms.

---------->Years Later<-----------
The Incense-Goitre Connection
A major blow was dealt to the incense industry and burners today when a government report showed a correlation between incense burning and the prevalence of goitres.

This study is proving to be a great pain to incense burners, who are already being denied their individual rights by sweeping bans of ALL incense burning on airplanes, public transportation, and governmental buildings.

----------->Years Later<-------------
States Ban Incense Burning in Public. "Incensed" Burners Say the Politicians "Stink"
Lawyers are inundated with new business as the incense industry and burners attempt to reverse unconstitutional laws banning the burning of incense everywhere except individual homes and vehicles. Despite the connection made between incense and goitres, the studies regarding the dangers of "sidestream sniffing," and the ceaseless complaints of the non-incense-burning minority, who have made baseless claims about not wanting to be exposed to incense smoke and have even gone as far as claiming it damages their property, the lawyers and incense supporters feel they have a strong case and expect to have their individual freedoms returned to them by the end of the year.

------------->Minutes Later<-----------------
Frequent Volconvo Poster Technosoul Admits Defeat
Technosoul, an active Volconvo debate site poster, acknowledges defeat when an apt analogy causes him to realize that an individual right to smoke cigarettes in public is no different than an individual right to burn incense in public.

[gela]

I would agree that you should not smoke if you believe it is unhealthy, and I would not advocate a law that everyone must smoke, or else. Fact is that you do not care if it is harmful to other people (your own family excluded) but what you really are prejudice about is the smell and the smoke that other people generate when they smoke (near your self). You know that the smell of tobacco smoke is not really harmful nor is it a health hazard, none the less you find it repulsive. Therefore the only way you can get rid of that smell is to claim that smoking causes a "long list of illnesses". That need makes you want to believe in those studies and claims, because it is a useful weapon for you in your "war on a smell that you dislike". But the fact is that all those reports you site have nothing to do with what you really want to attack or eliminate from your life.... the smell. You could care less if they ban cigarettes in Scotland or not. You are mainly concerned about stopping it where you live and sniff. Right? The old "kissing an ashtray" kind of complaint.

No.. I don't care that much about the smell..

I don't care much about laws surrounding smoking.. I just believe that it is unhealthy.

Example: Eating some fat foods might be unhealthy but fast foods smell good, so few people spend hours trying to ban potatos cooked in greese, or Coca Cola. Except at schools and so Coca Cola came out with a new brand of cola with healthy vitimens added. They can add as much vitimen C as you get in orange juice. No one wants an all out ban on Coca Cola and those other brands of soft drinks. Now I can do a lab experiment. Put some meat in a glass of beer and some meat in a glass of coca cola. The next morning the meat in the Cola would be ate away and the meat in the beer would be well preserved. Aha.. proof. So ban Coca Cola. But that is not happening on a large scale with thousands of people debating such a ban. Because Cola smells good?

Eating certian things is unhealthy.. but you need to eat to survive.
No matter how much crap is in that food, it still gives you energy. Same goes for liquids.

Smoking is targeted because it is a habbit that no one needs to survive.

Im not saying that eating unhealthy is any worse or better then smoking, Im just saying that they are very different and so people are going to react to them differently.

Why would I go to Macca's and/or have a coke? Because Im hungry/thirsty. Its a normal body function. Why would I have a cigarette? Because Im addicted to a drug in them.

What I did prove is that studies based on epidemiology cannot be trusted because of the potential for bias, ramdom errrors, and systimatic errors. The data can be minipulated easly with missguided interpretations. It is possible that "they" then conducted thousands of tests using that flawed science so that they can say "they all cannot be wrong". Because they know that a few tests can be shot down for the reasons I stated ( and provided links for ). Abundance does not = quality.

I have said several times. Every science can contain errors and biased. Epidemiology is no exception.

Im sorry, but the Abundance, coupled with the diversity of studies that have been done do prove it to be true.
Every study can not have the same errors. Theres such a thing as controling the variables, having 'placebos', and having control subjects.
I have said it about 5 times. For them to all get the same faulty results, then they all have to have the same error. This can only happen if the error was deliberate and there was a mass conspiracy.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of scientists out there are perfectly capable of conducting a study. No one is out to 'get' smokers.

The data can be minipulated easly with missguided interpretations.

No it can't.

person 1 did a,d,e and f. No lung cancer.
person 2 did a,b,c and k. He got lung cancer.
person 3 did a,c and k. He did not get lung cancer.
person 4 did b,c, and a. He got lung cancer

Multiply this result by a sample size of about 1000 and there is no room for interpretation.
b contributes to lung cancer. They might be asking the wrong set of questions.. mabe theres action z that is also done by all the lung cancer victims - but it isn't asked. However, the abundancy of studies done ensures that z would have been covered and investigated.

When a study like that is coupled with a study like the following, then it is futher proven to be true:
Let x be a certain number of cigarettes.
person 1 smokes x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 79.
person 2 smokes 1.5 x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 76
person 3 smokes 5x amount per day.
He dies at 68.

Its simple maths, you have a table of results, you graph it, and you will get a pattern.

The only way to 'interpret in wrongly' is to consiously lie about it. That is a conspiracy. That is why a mass conspiracy is the only possible explanation for consistant results like this across a variety of studies.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W Yes, please, let's go back to Middle Ages medicine, because that really worked...

They had cigars back in the middle ages? I learn something new everyday.

Am I safe debating a Mod? Hope so.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Technosoul They had cigars back in the middle ages? I learn something new everyday. Am I safe debating a Mod? Hope so.

No Techno, but it was an accepted 'fact' that pleasant smells kept the 'foul humours' away. As I'm sure you can imagine, that served them oh so well when the Black Death, the Plague, etc hit them.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Muckraker Hey Techno, Ready for the "I Win" analogy supporting the ban of smoking in all public places and businesses? Here it comes: --------->Some Point in the Past<-------------- Burning Incense Takes the Country by Storm Two out of three individuals has taken to the fad of burning incense all the time - in their homes, their cars, at work, at the movies. I write this while sipping a beer at a local bar and people all around me are busting out ziploc baggies of incense sticks and cones. From the sensuous musk aroma to the pleasant smell of Michican pine, they light up their scents of choice and bask in the drifting clouds of olfactory delight. There were a few lawsuits due to the fact that people were starting "mini-fires" in public places. Some annoying complainer got an incense ember flicked in his eye and decided to sue just because he couldn't see anymore. A few other people claimed their clothing was burned by unattended incense sticks. A number of establishments and homes also burned down due to careless individual actions of people burning incense. ---------> Years Later <----------- The Great Patchouli Debate Incense supporters are up in arms over a proposed ban on Patchouli incense. They cite their individual right to choose what smells good. The other side claims that patchouli just "stinks." A negative ruling in this manner would be a slippery slope and would deny incense burners their freedoms. ---------->Years Later<----------- The Incense-Goitre Connection A major blow was dealt to the incense industry and burners today when a government report showed a correlation between incense burning and the prevalence of goitres. This study is proving to be a great pain to incense burners, who are already being denied their individual rights by sweeping bans of ALL incense burning on airplanes, public transportation, and governmental buildings. ----------->Years Later<------------- States Ban Incense Burning in Public. "Incensed" Burners Say the Politicians "Stink" Lawyers are inundated with new business as the incense industry and burners attempt to reverse unconstitutional laws banning the burning of incense everywhere except individual homes and vehicles. Despite the connection made between incense and goitres, the studies regarding the dangers of "sidestream sniffing," and the ceaseless complaints of the non-incense-burning minority, who have made baseless claims about not wanting to be exposed to incense smoke and have even gone as far as claiming it damages their property, the lawyers and incense supporters feel they have a strong case and expect to have their individual freedoms returned to them by the end of the year. ------------->Minutes Later<----------------- Frequent Volconvo Poster Technosoul Admits Defeat Technosoul, an active Volconvo debate site poster, acknowledges defeat when an apt analogy causes him to realize that an individual right to smoke cigarettes in public is no different than an individual right to burn incense in public.

Actually I don't care if I loose or win this debate.

It all started when the wise men brought the baby Jesus some incense as a gift, worthy of the king of Kings. I never found out what a baby would use that for, I would have brought him a toy or something like that. None the less churches around the western world started to use it along with candles.

But what has all the middle age stuff got to do with modern cigarettes?

So... are you saying the Wise Men were unwise that Christmas day?
(watch out, that was a trap to get you into trouble with the rightwing).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W No Techno, but it was an accepted 'fact' that pleasant smells kept the 'foul humours' away. As I'm sure you can imagine, that served them oh so well when the Black Death, the Plague, etc hit them.

I get your point. I tried that once and the cigar smoke did not keep them out of the tent, perhaps for a short time, but once you got to sleep they are right in your ear.... buzzzing.

About the Plague.... I doubt if blowing smoke in God's face would help out much. I don't think those events really happened anyway.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela No.. I don't care that much about the smell.. I don't care much about laws surrounding smoking.. I just believe that it is unhealthy. Eating certian things is unhealthy.. but you need to eat to survive. No matter how much crap is in that food, it still gives you energy. Same goes for liquids. Smoking is targeted because it is a habbit that no one needs to survive. Im not saying that eating unhealthy is any worse or better then smoking, Im just saying that they are very different and so people are going to react to them differently. Why would I go to Macca's and/or have a coke? Because Im hungry/thirsty. Its a normal body function. Why would I have a cigarette? Because Im addicted to a drug in them. I have said several times. Every science can contain errors and biased. Epidemiology is no exception. Im sorry, but the Abundance, coupled with the diversity of studies that have been done do prove it to be true. Every study can not have the same errors. Theres such a thing as controling the variables, having 'placebos', and having control subjects. I have said it about 5 times. For them to all get the same faulty results, then they all have to have the same error. This can only happen if the error was deliberate and there was a mass conspiracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of scientists out there are perfectly capable of conducting a study. No one is out to 'get' smokers. No it can't. person 1 did a,d,e and f. No lung cancer. person 2 did a,b,c and k. He got lung cancer. person 3 did a,c and k. He did not get lung cancer. person 4 did b,c, and a. He got lung cancer Multiply this result by a sample size of about 1000 and there is no room for interpretation. b contributes to lung cancer. They might be asking the wrong set of questions.. mabe theres action z that is also done by all the lung cancer victims - but it isn't asked. However, the abundancy of studies done ensures that z would have been covered and investigated. When a study like that is coupled with a study like the following, then it is futher proven to be true: Let x be a certain number of cigarettes. person 1 smokes x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 79. person 2 smokes 1.5 x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 76 person 3 smokes 5x amount per day. He dies at 68. Its simple maths, you have a table of results, you graph it, and you will get a pattern. The only way to 'interpret in wrongly' is to consiously lie about it. That is a conspiracy. That is why a mass conspiracy is the only possible explanation for consistant results like this across a variety of studies.

I agree with your remarks at the top of your response. But not the 2nd half.

First off most studies use subjects who already have cancer. That saves time because to monitor people for 30 or 40 years to see what will happen would take a great deal of time and money to complete such a study.

Using subjects that do not have cancer would be missleading because they might get cancer later in life.

Cancer is funny, it can come, then vanish, and then come back.

Here would be the questions I might ask of subjects who have cancer.

Were you subject to any of the following on a daily bases.

1 - tobacco smoke.

2 - fumes from cars and trucks.

3 - low levels of stress at home or on the job, or in traffic.

4 - exposure to sunlight with temperatures higher then 80 degrees.

5 - sprays used in farming.

6 - emotional problems.

7 - power lines near your house or workplace

8 - dust.

9 - perfumes.

10 - plant or industrial polution.

11 - TV or Computer monitors.

12 - air conditioners.

13 - x machines ( work as a nurse?)

14 - old books

15 - damp air or fog.

16 - clean air.

17 - the following chemicals (list would be added)

18 - shower water

19 - dogs or cats

20 - pot smoke

21 - TV advertisments.

22 - the following prescription drugs ( list would be added )

Then questions about what tasks they preform at work.
What kind of personality they each have, and attitudes.

And if they have a genetic history of cancer in thier family.

Now I would be surprised in at least 80% might say "yes" to half of those questions.

So imagine that 80% said yes to smoking, dust, TV monitors, stress, emotional problems, shower water, and auto fumes. As it is most likely that they would.

And 20% also said yes to more options. and 5% only said yes to a few of those options.

Or let us assume that we had a percentage of people who were unaware that they had emotonal problems and marked no, when they did acturally have such problems.

You then I repeated that with other groups of people who had cancer and got the same results or close to the same stats.

Okay then you have 7 possible links to cancer from 7 sources. Why then would the headline read "link to cigarette smoke" instead of one of the other potential canidates?

Now let us say that you asked more questions and found out that people smoke to relax (because they got upset by stress or a emotional problem) - that would put stress and smoking at the top of the list.
Who done it?

Sorry, I just cannot grasp how they can narrow it down to just cigarette smoke when most people are subjected to many of the things on my list? What kind of questions are they asking anyway?

Now if my list included only

tobacco smoke - atomic fallout - grapes - redwood trees - and unicorns, then of course smoking would be what they all had in common.

This is why I always ask - show me the study and not just the claims.

You must admit that you at least get my point - right?

[gela]

I get your point, but I think your underestimating scientists.

They know more then we do. They probably have asked all those questions at one point or another; plus hundreds more.

What you are concerned about it activity 'z' that I described in my post. The activity that wasn't asked about nor examined. What I am saying is that because of the abundance and diversity of studies done, every possible z is bound to have been covered. If a single study was done including 'z' and it came up with results pointing to 'z'; then more studies would have been done with z as the subject. If z continued to give results, then even more studies would be done - it would start to become public, scientists would start debating about it - and eventualy the scientific community would come to a conclusion about z.

People can be stressed without smoking, and people can smoke without being stressed.

Two favorite topics of studies are cancer and stress. If there was a definitive link between the two, it would have already been found.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela I get your point, but I think your underestimating scientists. They know more then we do. They probably have asked all those questions at one point or another; plus hundreds more. What you are concerned about it activity 'z' that I described in my post. The activity that wasn't asked about nor examined. What I am saying is that because of the abundance and diversity of studies done, every possible z is bound to have been covered. If a single study was done including 'z' and it came up with results pointing to 'z'; then more studies would have been done with z as the subject. If z continued to give results, then even more studies would be done - it would start to become public, scientists would start debating about it - and eventualy the scientific community would come to a conclusion about z. People can be stressed without smoking, and people can smoke without being stressed. Two favorite topics of studies are cancer and stress. If there was a definitive link between the two, it would have already been found.

Is that a fact? You are making claims before doing your reseach.

Study: Work Stress May Increase Breast Cancer Risk - Videos - WRC

FOXNews.com - Work Stress May Lead to Breast Cancer, Study Finds - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

Stress and fear can affect cancer's recurrence

Probing Links Between Stress, Cancer

Diet, Exercise and Reduced Stress Slow Prostate Cancer, Study Finds

Preclinical Study Shows Chronic Stress Agitates Ovarian Cancer; Reducing Stress Slows Tumor Growth

Normal stress can be useful and if your respond to it correctly your health could be better, but undue and unjustified stress can play hell with your bodies abilities to deal with health risks, putting it out-of-balance and "upset". Even cause things like heart attacks.

Foundation of Human Understanding - Home Page

We deal with two classes of disease, those that attack the body and those that degenerate the body. A persons personality and attitudes can play a role in which classification you might lean towards.

How conspriacy works...

George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian

Los Angeles CityBeat - The Smog Propagandist

Now some webpages that claim that fosil-fuels and industrial polution is a big cancer risk.

Smog and Population Health

It's Your Health - Smog and Your Health

I could add more but you get the point.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Technosoul Actually I don't care if I loose or win this debate.

That's good because you lost

It all started when the wise men brought the baby Jesus some incense as a gift, worthy of the king of Kings. I never found out what a baby would use that for, I would have brought him a toy or something like that. None the less churches around the western world started to use it along with candles. But what has all the middle age stuff got to do with modern cigarettes? So... are you saying the Wise Men were unwise that Christmas day? (watch out, that was a trap to get you into trouble with the rightwing).

The point is that the "right" to smoke in public is no different than the "right" to burn incense in public, barring the fact that one causes cancer and is addictive of course.

If you hope to win the argument that smoking in public should be legal then you also need to win the argument that everyone burning incense in public should be legal.

Try going to a bar that allows smoking and light up a cone of musk incense. Let's see how far you get with that.

There is a line where the individual choice of one person infringes on the individual choice of another person. Smoking clearly crosses that line, as does burning incense. The line isn't being moved with all these new laws. Smokers are just being shoved back on to their side of it.

[gela]

Is that a fact? You are making claims before doing your reseach.

This just proves my point even furthur.

Studies have been done on smoking and cancer, and yet non have linked stress to lung cancer to nearly the degree that smoking is linked to lung cancer.

If the links were as obvious as 90% accuracy between stress and cancer, they would have picked it up in one of those studies.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Technosoul I get your point. I tried that once and the cigar smoke did not keep them out of the tent, perhaps for a short time, but once you got to sleep they are right in your ear.... buzzzing. About the Plague.... I doubt if blowing smoke in God's face would help out much. I don't think those events really happened anyway.

However we were camping next to this creek and I, who had tobacco smells on me, did not have any bug bites on my skin the next morning, my friend who did not smoke was covered in red marks from bug bites.

Not a scientific report.... just a personal observation.

[Technosoul]

[quote=Muckraker;489647]That's good because you lost



The point is that the "right" to smoke in public is no different than the "right" to burn incense in public, barring the fact that one causes cancer and is addictive of course.

If you hope to win the argument that smoking in public should be legal then you also need to win the argument that everyone burning incense in public should be legal.

Try going to a bar that allows smoking and light up a cone of musk incense. Let's see how far you get with that.

********************************************************************************************

Incense was popular in the 1970s with pot smokers, the Stawberry Alarm Clock even had a hit song about it.

I never knew it was unlawful and I even have some for sale in my booth in a store downtown.

They sell "musk" after shave lotion in the stores. Some girls really dig that manly smell. So girls would like it and men would not - because it is made to smell like a man "having sex". Duh

The incense burners that use a tray and burn a stick dipped in incense is not all that safe for usage in a bar, mainly designed for home use.

If you want to use one in a bar get a heavy brass one ( they have lids )
and most shops dealing in brass items form India or China sell them. the link shows a small one.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Antiques-co...-144413172.htm

When it comes to smells, perfumes, and oders, lots of products cross the line. We do not live in a perfect world so deal with it.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela This just proves my point even furthur. Studies have been done on smoking and cancer, and yet non have linked stress to lung cancer to nearly the degree that smoking is linked to lung cancer. If the links were as obvious as 90% accuracy between stress and cancer, they would have picked it up in one of those studies.

Where did you come up with the idea that the studies you advocated are done with 90% accuracy? And that all other studies done with real scicnce in the lab and with the so-called science of epidemilogy are wrong, or are not as "obvious" if they did not point the finger at tobacco?

I hear a little bias in your claims.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Te