What's the point of smoking?

[gela]

Now let me propose a new study. What percentage of people in America get their information about health from a scientific journal as compared to the percentage of people who get their information about health form TV news or a newspaper? I would speculate that 90 percent of the population get it from a news source and not a scientific journal. If that speculation is correct then we have a problem because we cannot trust the news media to report studies that the station's programer might not like. The media depends on advertising from drug companies and from all those anti-smoking advertisments, do they not? Would they bite the hand that feeds them by a news story that would upset those who advertise and who spend millions for that air-space? Would bias reporting creep in concerning what we are informed about? Why do you think they outlawed tobacco advertising on TV? Because it would remove any bias towards favoring the millions that the tobacco industry would otherwise spend on TV advertising. Shifting favor to the millions spent on TV by anti-smoking organizations and the government's "prevention by education" programs (tax funded). Result - a onesided bombardment of health information over the TV media. That was a "reality check" for u-all.

Again with the conspiracy theories.

You fail to realise that not every country in the world has that bombardment of anti smoking adds.

Newspapers would love to get a story saying that smoking is harmless here. Because the government pays for the adds.
Newspapers always love the 'taxpayers money wasted' articles.
Btw. We don't have any anti smoking adds running atm; so Im sure the current affairs program would get more ratings (hence money) from a huge revelation and scandal like 'smoking is harmelss afterall'

Oh, and the media doesn't have the grip hold on the people that you might think. Ever heard of the socialist movement? They can just about blame anything on capitalism, yet they don't seem to have a problem with anti smokers.

They cannot confirm it by a study in another location using different questions, and a different number of people. Because they are not doing the same exact study. They might have 600 different studies but none of them are really testing another study, or repeating another study per-say - as required in Science.

They can confirm that no errors were in that singular study on New York; but they can also make a hypothesis and test it in other populations and countries.

That is exactly how you confirm it.

Do one study - develop a hypothesis (prediction) from that study.
Do more studies. If they all fulfill the original hypothesis then it can be regarded as true.
A hypothesis is meaningless if it only works for one type of experiment.

A hypothesis was developed 50 years ago. Studies up until today continue to confirm it.

For example: The link you provided said that the Aisan study reversed the findings of a simular study done in Chicago. The newspapers might have reported both studies and their conclusions. A science journal might publish both studies. So the public would believe what ever newstory they happened to come across - even if the findings did not conform to yet another study done in another country.

Perfect example. Hypothesis was made - hypothesis was tested - hypothesis failed the test.
Therefore, they either need to make a new hypothesis, or do some more tests.

The problem with that example is that all the studies done on smoking and lung cancer agree with eachother - regardless of country.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: Technosoul Now you are talking in my ballpark. Let's look at this from that angle, what if there were no health risks. Would it be logical to quit or to not start smoking? It is logical not to get involved in anything that is addictive, needless to say, if you can drink wine in moderation, and not become a wino, there is a difference. If one smoked in moderation they could go for hours betweens cigarettes, perhaps only lighting up a cigar after dinner, once a day. But most people who smoke in moderation end up doing it all the time. Then it creates a problem. I am sitting here right now smoking the last cigarette in my pack, it is almost 8 oclock in the morning here. This means I must stop what I am doing, drive to the store and buy another pack, and then come back home so I can finish posting stuff on this debate. In business - time is money. But today is Sunday. That problem could have been avoided if I had stocked up ahead of time so that I would not run out of cigs at the wrong time. I did not follow the boy scout motto "be prepared". A person must plan ahead and if they did that then that would solve the "panic problem". Same thing can happen with coffee or other things we use all the time. If a person runs out of money and cannot afford to buy a pack, big problem. So it is important to be able to afford a habit, to be able to support a habit. When people use expensive drugs they often turn to crime because it costs so much. The new sin taxes are trying to create that same situation for cigarette smokers. Now some Eastern religions promote extreme moderation. As do the Mormons. Some view materialism as an addiction that prevents freedom and independance - liberty from needing things. The less you absolutly need the more you have. A paradox that make sense when you understand it. If I walked everywhere I would no longer need to depend on gasoline, and would not be concerned about the cost of gasoline. Because I do not need to buy it I have more money to save. If I liberated my self from things like TV sets, CD players, in style clothing, and use cheap things to sit on instead of buying nice chairs, I could via moderation live on next to nothing. My bank account would be full. If we could live without eating food we would not even need a job at all, total liberation and freedom would be possible. Now most of us are not rich, we have only so much money in our household budget to go around. So we employ "selective moderation". If the cost of cigarettes goes up, then we must stop smoking or we most stop buying something else, we have all kinds of materialistic things we can do without, so we just pick one and stop using it, and use that expense to pay the cig - sin tax with. People do the same thing when they want some prescription drugs, they cut down on renting DVDs or whatever. Selective moderation instead of total moderation like a Monk might do in a cave. I am lucky and do not have yellow stains on my fingers or teeth. But the white walls can turn yellow after a while. Just like the carpet gets dirty after a while for other reasons. Painting the walls in the house is common maintenance just like sweeping the floors, or like cleaning the area above the stove where greese can collect. Or cleaning the fireplace in the living room, and the windows. A house is a living space and not a "show room" for perfectionism. Unless you keep very busy cleaning all the time you will have some messy areas. A lot of educated people smoke. Just go to a hospital at night time and you will see the hospital staff smoking outside of the emergency room door. You will see teachers at a university light one up when they leave campus. You do not have to be a PhD to stop smoking ether. Some uneducated hobos have quit smoking. A friend of mine smokes cigars, one lady came up where we were selling stuff at the swapmeet and started to bug him about the cigar smell and he simply said "and what is your vice lady?". Suddenly she became silent and walked away without another word. Anti-tobacco ads are subliminally giving people thoughts? Where did that idea come from? Some people enjoy fresh air and so of course they roll down the windows, some smokers do it so they can flick the ashes out the window instead of getting distracted trying to hit the ashtray target (new cars have no ashtrays). If the windows of the car are rolled up you still are not breathing fresh air even among non-smokers, you just do not know it because you cannot smell it. But fact is, they are breathing out of their mouths and that can reduce the amount of fresh air present in the car. And perhaps even breathing out germs into the car. Good air circulation is wise for a number of reasons. Giving up smoking so that you can be "as strong" as other people you know is not uncommon I guess. It is called "being influenced by peer pressure". And by the competitive urge to "keep up with the Jones" (Jonses - whatever way you spell it?). Example: If James Dean or John Wayne gave up smoking then anyone who wanted to be just like the movie idol they worship would follow suit. If some famous golf star wears Nike shoes, the fans will ware Nike shoes. So what's the point? Such action has nothing to do with thinking for your self or with being logical. It is "copycatism" (new word).

I don't believe in putting extra taxes on cigarettes UNLESS the only thing those taxes go for are non-religious programs that help people quit cigarettes, and even then, I don't think they should be nearly what they are now. The cost of cigarettes is outrageous now. Raising the price via outrageous taxes should not be used as an attempt at getting people to quit.

What I DO believe in though is either a strong ventilation standard for all public indoor places that want to allow smoking (which if the ventilation standard was stringent enough, could allow for people to smoke in office buildings as well and not make their coworkers breathe smoke or smell like an ashtray when they get home), OR what has been happening in a number of states--ban indoor smoking in public places altogether. I'd prefer the former than the latter because it allows more freedom, but not very many people seem to like the idea for some reason.

Before they had the smoking in public places ban here in Washington state, I had thought about going to some of the places I thought were cool with an incense stick and burning it in the bar to make a statement. I didn't feel like getting my *ss kicked, so I didn't, but I sure thought about it a lot--if they would have asked me "put that out. It stinks." I would have replied, "if you do the same."

So I could get some extra cash, last night I was the inside doorman (for the upstairs area) to a bar at a native American reservation called the Cedarwood Dome. Because it's on a reservation, they allow smoking. I had forgotten this and failed to remove my cellphone and wear my metal-framed glasses instead of my plastic ones. Big mistake. Once I got home, to get the smell out of my glasses frames, I had to soak them in bleach water for 20 minutes, something that isn't so great for the frames because over time it can make plastic brittle. Then there was the issue of the phone, especially the rubbery case to it--it reeked the most. Even after a 3 hour soak in bleach water, it still smells like cigarette smoke.

I tell you, not even incense do that to things in that much time. If you buy something at a headshop (you know what I mean) where they have 1,000 incense sticks just sitting around and a few burning at all times the store is open, in a week or so the smell from the incense is gone. This is simply not the case with cigarette smell--it's very strange. I've also never seen yellowed/browned walls from incense--candles maybe that were poorly made or made from poor materials, but not incense.

Anyway, my biggest complaint about cigarettes is the smell. If you hang around a smoker indoors while they smoke, ANYONE that you are around until you take a long shower and soak anything plastic you're wearing in bleach water will think you're a smoker too. I don't like people to think I do something as stupid as smoke cigarettes. Yes, I called it STUPID. Smoking is by far the MOST STUPID addictive product people can do. Heroin and meth are the worst FOR someone, but at least those actually get people high, they don't just take care of a nicotene fit. It doesn't seem worth it for someone to be addicted to something that doesn't even do very much, and what makes it worse is that cigarette smokers usually can hardly get by with 2 hours without having a cigarette--most would have one less than every 10 minutes if their workplace allowed it. Can you think of any other addictive substance that people expect to or wish they could do while working besides cigarettes? Oh yeah--caffeine, but caffeinated beverages don't make other people stink and don't turn things yellow--the only people that are affected by caffeine are the ones ingesting it.

So--in a nutshell, I think smoking is STUPID. And hell no I don't think cigarettes should be illegal.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume I don't believe in putting extra taxes on cigarettes UNLESS the only thing those taxes go for are non-religious programs that help people quit cigarettes, and even then, I don't think they should be nearly what they are now. The cost of cigarettes is outrageous now. Raising the price via outrageous taxes should not be used as an attempt at getting people to quit. What I DO believe in though is either a strong ventilation standard for all public indoor places that want to allow smoking (which if the ventilation standard was stringent enough, could allow for people to smoke in office buildings as well and not make their coworkers breathe smoke or smell like an ashtray when they get home), OR what has been happening in a number of states--ban indoor smoking in public places altogether. I'd prefer the former than the latter because it allows more freedom, but not very many people seem to like the idea for some reason. Before they had the smoking in public places ban here in Washington state, I had thought about going to some of the places I thought were cool with an incense stick and burning it in the bar to make a statement. I didn't feel like getting my *ss kicked, so I didn't, but I sure thought about it a lot--if they would have asked me "put that out. It stinks." I would have replied, "if you do the same." So I could get some extra cash, last night I was the inside doorman (for the upstairs area) to a bar at a native American reservation called the Cedarwood Dome. Because it's on a reservation, they allow smoking. I had forgotten this and failed to remove my cellphone and wear my metal-framed glasses instead of my plastic ones. Big mistake. Once I got home, to get the smell out of my glasses frames, I had to soak them in bleach water for 20 minutes, something that isn't so great for the frames because over time it can make plastic brittle. Then there was the issue of the phone, especially the rubbery case to it--it reeked the most. Even after a 3 hour soak in bleach water, it still smells like cigarette smoke. I tell you, not even incense do that to things in that much time. If you buy something at a headshop (you know what I mean) where they have 1,000 incense sticks just sitting around and a few burning at all times the store is open, in a week or so the smell from the incense is gone. This is simply not the case with cigarette smell--it's very strange. I've also never seen yellowed/browned walls from incense--candles maybe that were poorly made or made from poor materials, but not incense. Anyway, my biggest complaint about cigarettes is the smell. If you hang around a smoker indoors while they smoke, ANYONE that you are around until you take a long shower and soak anything plastic you're wearing in bleach water will think you're a smoker too. I don't like people to think I do something as stupid as smoke cigarettes. Yes, I called it STUPID. Smoking is by far the MOST STUPID addictive product people can do. Heroin and meth are the worst FOR someone, but at least those actually get people high, they don't just take care of a nicotene fit. It doesn't seem worth it for someone to be addicted to something that doesn't even do very much, and what makes it worse is that cigarette smokers usually can hardly get by with 2 hours without having a cigarette--most would have one less than every 10 minutes if their workplace allowed it. Can you think of any other addictive substance that people expect to or wish they could do while working besides cigarettes? Oh yeah--caffeine, but caffeinated beverages don't make other people stink and don't turn things yellow--the only people that are affected by caffeine are the ones ingesting it. So--in a nutshell, I think smoking is STUPID. And hell no I don't think cigarettes should be illegal.

Acturally no help (money wise) is offered to help someone to quit smoking. Nearly none of the medical health insurance polices pay for such treatments or drug store products. Medical does not cover treatments, it only pays doctors to warn us not to smoke. If smoking is such a big problem you would think they would pay for such preventions, before smokers or others get some deadly disease. But no. They apparently do not think it's a big enough threat to worry about. Where as the same insurance companies pay for all kinds of treatments and durgs to help people loose weight (so they do not get health problems and raise the payout amounts of the insurance company). Is that not odd?

The reason is it is cheaper to hang up a no smoking sign then it is to install a air conditioner system (filtering).

You have a very sensitive nose. But I guess smell is an issue. Even I, the smoker, do like to smell cigarettes smoldering in the ash tray when they reach the end, and that is even worse if the filter gets burnt. Letting cigarette smoldering in an ash tray really stinks, ether smoke it or put it out, that is what I think. Of course they make ashtrays that are battery operated that filter that smoke and remove the oder. But they have a very high price tag on them.

They have cigarettes at the store I go to that have been treated so they generate perfumed smells, like roses, strawberry, and so forth. But they come in "girlish" looking packages. But smokers should try them out. Problem is they cost more then the other brands, which are ready overpriced. But for a moderate smoker who only smokes once in a while, worth it as he she does not have to deal with as many complants.

If you could reduce your resentment about cigarette oder then soon your nose would not be as sensitive, and it would not irriate you. Withdrawing form your addiction to the need to find things to resent is just as easy as quiting an addiction to cigarettes. But people get high on resenting things, and getting real mad can really get you high on the horse. but anger costs nothing, and being high from anger addiction seems better then what cigarettes seem of offer. Being high on anger is rightious alright.

Aha! ever think about that?

My purpose for smoking has nothing to do with getting high. I use it to buffer the effects of stress. Stress is a deadly health risk.

But tobacco is not sold by the medical industry, they get not profit form cigarette sales. No one ever made it a prescription drug. No "medical tobacco" products as with pot.

Now without that buffer people get all stressed out and must buy all the products sold at the drug store that claim to combat being up-tight and stressed out, etc. So of course, the medical industry wants to get rid of cigarettes because it is bad for their business. Or they must learn to meditate to relax, along with a need to take a anger-management class. They are loosing a ton of money on everyone who still smokes.

And please do not say "oh no, another conspiracy theory". It is not some wild eyed theory, it is fact founded in reality.

[Kizzume]

Technosoul: Yes, but your reason for stress is because of your nicotene fit. Aha! Ever think about that?

Actually, I stay away from things that irritate my sinuses as much as I can. I'm not willing to go on medications to take care of my allergies, so I just stay away from what gives me problems, like Glade Plug-Ins (the worst scented product ever invented--it desensitizes people's sinuses quicker than anything I know out there) and fabric softener (that gives infants ear infections, but who cares )--and for people whose sinuses haven't been destroyed by the over-usage of products that over the past 10 years have had the scent/fragrance doubled and sometimes even quadrupled (Dawn dish soap anyone?) and cigarettes and other things, you'll notice that people use such strong scents in their products that if you happen to be around a raw sewage manhole cover, the smell of products WAY overpowers the actual smell of sewage. It wasn't that way 10 years ago. So I guess you're right--most people aren't as sensitive as I am to this--most people have almost destroyed their sense of smell--I think my sense of smell is JUST as important as my eyesight and my hearing. I like food--I'm not willing to detract from the flavors of food, and since smell is about 80% of what you actually taste, it's pretty important.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume Technosoul: Yes, but your reason for stress is because of your nicotene fit. Aha! Ever think about that? Actually, I stay away from things that irritate my sinuses as much as I can. I'm not willing to go on medications to take care of my allergies, so I just stay away from what gives me problems, like Glade Plug-Ins (the worst scented product ever invented--it desensitizes people's sinuses quicker than anything I know out there) and fabric softener (that gives infants ear infections, but who cares )--and for people whose sinuses haven't been destroyed by the over-usage of products that over the past 10 years have had the scent/fragrance doubled and sometimes even quadrupled (Dawn dish soap anyone?) and cigarettes and other things, you'll notice that people use such strong scents in their products that if you happen to be around a raw sewage manhole cover, the smell of products WAY overpowers the actual smell of sewage. It wasn't that way 10 years ago. So I guess you're right--most people aren't as sensitive as I am to this--most people have almost destroyed their sense of smell--I think my sense of smell is JUST as important as my eyesight and my hearing. I like food--I'm not willing to detract from the flavors of food, and since smell is about 80% of what you actually taste, it's pretty important.

Wow - that is some interesting stuff you posted.

Plus you have after shave lotion and perfumes that people wear. Some people are so worried about body oder they nearly take a bath in that stuff and it can be rather repulsive. I knew one person who came in to my place looking for unsented candles, because the scented ones make her sneeze.

And it is nearly impossible to get a community to agree to the building of a plant if they know puts out a bad smell.

My cat could care less about taste, they sniff the cat food and if it does not smell they do not eat it. They eat nearly totally by smell and not by taste. I must hide tape with glue in it because the cat thinks it smells good enough to eat. Which is odd. If pancakes have dairy product in it, they can smell that and munch away. They got super snouts.

People sniff wine to see if it is of good quality.

I should award you for coming up with the #1 best reason for not smoking.

I am no doubt missing out on a lot of enjoyment when it comes to eating because I know that I do not have the same "sniffer" like I once had, and I also drink lots of coffee which can distroy taste buds form being at peak performance. I cannot sniff milk to find out if it is spoiled or not.


No doubt anti-smoking people are taking notes. but I must be fair and honest and not bias about this. That is one conclusion I can test my self via self awareness.

Smoking is suspect for eye problems also.

But my resentment theroy still stands. I used to resent mowing the lawn when I was a teenager, year later the smell of new mowed grass made me sneeze. I added two and two and came up with that theroy.

But that would be a personal reason to not smoke or to avoid any smell that is not from a natural orgin. Namely man-made products and man made polutions. And it still does not mean they should stick their nose into someone else's bizzwax.

I ad onions when I am cooking up potatos, not because the onions ad a lot of taste, but because they make the cooking and the food smell better. (in my opinon). So I get your point.

[Kizzume]

Your resentment theory can come into place. Psychosomatic illnesses can be presented in many physical forms. Ever notice that when there's something you don't like the smell of, you smell more of it to try to figure out what it is, and then once you realize it's something really awful, suddenly it's so much worse? Just knowing what it is changes how you physically react to it. Yes.

But this does not change anything really. Extreme anti-smokers are going to be that way regardless. For the extreme anti-smokers, even a heavy-duty ventilation standard is not good enough.

I often wonder how many anti-smokers would support a flat-out cigarette ban altogether. I sure wouldn't.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume Your resentment theory can come into place. Psychosomatic illnesses can be presented in many physical forms. Ever notice that when there's something you don't like the smell of, you smell more of it to try to figure out what it is, and then once you realize it's something really awful, suddenly it's so much worse? Just knowing what it is changes how you physically react to it. Yes. But this does not change anything really. Extreme anti-smokers are going to be that way regardless. For the extreme anti-smokers, even a heavy-duty ventilation standard is not good enough. I often wonder how many anti-smokers would support a flat-out cigarette ban altogether. I sure wouldn't.

Finding out it is worse could be based on factural knowledge or brainwashing, we learn morality. Now we are back to "square one" in the debate.

Most animals have an innate reaction to the smell of smoke and they will run away, where there smoke there might also be a forest fire.
That animalistic reaction is passed on to us also - innate in our genes - because we are also part of the animal kingdom. The fear of a forest fire, or that the house is on fire, as so noted by the smell of smoke, is important and reaction to it could save our life - in case of a real fire.

That is one of the purposes of having a nose.

It therefore is easy to transfer the natural fear into a reaction to cigarette smoke. Via creating a fear that it is a health risk, and we learn to re-interpret the "message".

About you last comment. See my new poll.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul The lawyers showed memos where the tobacco company knew about some of the first studies done that might link smoking to cancer, but attempted to create a different impression via advertising. I recall one ad where they advertised "low tar" in their brand. And they promoted filters - etc.

Couldn't it be argued that they advertised such things as "low tar" because it was assumed people knew some of the risks of smoking and that "low tar" was being portrayed as a reduced risk?

It was the "lack of labeling their products" that nailed them and resulted in them loosing their court case and paying out fines. Not because of debates over the health hazards.

Just like the fast food joint that lost a lawsuit filed against it because some broad was stupid enough to try to start driving with a hot cup of coffee in her lap - after all, the cup wasn't labled (ever since then, the cups in all the fast food joints seem to be conspicuously labeled).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chancellor Couldn't it be argued that they advertised such things as "low tar" because it was assumed people knew some of the risks of smoking and that "low tar" was being portrayed as a reduced risk? Just like the fast food joint that lost a lawsuit filed against it because some broad was stupid enough to try to start driving with a hot cup of coffee in her lap - after all, the cup wasn't labled (ever since then, the cups in all the fast food joints seem to be conspicuously labeled).

When the name tar was used the cig companies needed to off-set the impression that it was the same kind of tar used to pave a road with.

Tar would be the collective chemicals produced by burning tobacco, pot, and other plants. And is visible as a yellow stain in a filter.

In large doses that would be dangerous to inhale. But can be controlled by the makers of cigarettes. Some countries allow only as much as 10mg of tar per cigarette. Which would reduce the risk that high tar levels might pose to the health of the smoker. There-by making the cigarette a risk free product because the 10mg was below what the scentific and governmental standards concidered as being safe enough. Like with your car, the cigarettes must pass the "smog test". Each country or state might set different standards depending on poltical influence.

The ad was designed to let consumers know that they have conformed to the amount of tar so allowed by those reports that set the standards.

Now let me ad something to that.

Each car passes the smog test. But if you live in a city and one million cars are in a area the collective amount of fumes would be above the standards allowed for toxic air in a city. Follow that? In fact L.A. city in California should post a sign "warning - being in this city might be unhealthy". But of course, they do not. Because you cannot sue a city if you get cancer.

Using that concept, if 1000 people lit up cigarettes all at once in an office building then that collective dose might be unhealthy because you are getting more then just 10mg of tar.

That possible fact, is not good for my side of this debate.

But here is an idea. We have the technology to measure the levels of toxic polution, to see if we are at a safe level or not. So why not have a monitor for home use, or for use in a business building? Then have a fine or sin tax for those make the meter rise above the allowed dosage over a certain amont of time. Where action is not taken to reduce the total amount produced or where people do not open a window or whatever to remove the polution?

That is the only fair way to deal with the situation. The meter would measure all toxic fumes - etc. that are present, not just cigarette smoke. To insure total safty.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul When the name tar was used the cig companies needed to off-set the impression that it was the same kind of tar used to pave a road with.

Given some of the other ingredients (urea, for example), don't be too sure they didn't mean the same kind of tar used to pave a road. The List of Additives in Cigarettes

Tar would be the collective chemicals produced by burning tobacco, pot, and other plants. And is visible as a yellow stain in a filter.

Probably.

In large doses that would be dangerous to inhale. But can be controlled by the makers of cigarettes. Some countries allow only as much as 10mg of tar per cigarette. Which would reduce the risk that high tar levels might pose to the health of the smoker. There-by making the cigarette a risk free product because the 10mg was below what the scentific and governmental standards concidered as being safe enough. Like with your car, the cigarettes must pass the "smog test". Each country or state might set different standards depending on poltical influence.

Of course, maybe they'd do a whole lot better if they used tobacco as the sole ingredient instead of all the other things they add. There is very little actual tobacco in cigarettes.

The ad was designed to let consumers know that they have conformed to the amount of tar so allowed by those reports that set the standards.

In theory, anyway.

Now let me ad something to that. Each car passes the smog test. But if you live in a city and one million cars are in a area the collective amount of fumes would be above the standards allowed for toxic air in a city. Follow that? In fact L.A. city in California should post a sign "warning - being in this city might be unhealthy". But of course, they do not. Because you cannot sue a city if you get cancer.

Living in Los Angeles is unhealthy for a variety of reasons and not just the air quality: there should be a warning sign posted.

Using that concept, if 1000 people lit up cigarettes all at once in an office building then that collective dose might be unhealthy because you are getting more then just 10mg of tar.

That depends on the size of the office building and the proximity of the thousand people to each other.

That possible fact, is not good for my side of this debate. But here is an idea. We have the technology to measure the levels of toxic polution, to see if we are at a safe level or not. So why not have a monitor for home use, or for use in a business building? Then have a fine or sin tax for those make the meter rise above the allowed dosage over a certain amont of time. Where action is not taken to reduce the total amount produced or where people do not open a window or whatever to remove the polution? That is the only fair way to deal with the situation. The meter would measure all toxic fumes - etc. that are present, not just cigarette smoke. To insure total safty.

I have a better idea: the government needs to stop trying to protect people from themselves and stop trying to regulate the substances people choose to ingest.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: Technosoul Finding out it is worse could be based on factural knowledge or brainwashing, we learn morality. Now we are back to "square one" in the debate. Most animals have an innate reaction to the smell of smoke and they will run away, where there smoke there might also be a forest fire. That animalistic reaction is passed on to us also - innate in our genes - because we are also part of the animal kingdom. The fear of a forest fire, or that the house is on fire, as so noted by the smell of smoke, is important and reaction to it could save our life - in case of a real fire. That is one of the purposes of having a nose. It therefore is easy to transfer the natural fear into a reaction to cigarette smoke. Via creating a fear that it is a health risk, and we learn to re-interpret the "message". About you last comment. See my new poll.

Well, burning a fire inside without a chimney or proper ventilation, no matter what is burning, is not healthy. Our lungs weren't designed to breath smoke, they were designed to get as much oxygen out of the air as they can. You certainly can't argue that breathing smoke is healthy.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume Well, burning a fire inside without a chimney or proper ventilation, no matter what is burning, is not healthy. Our lungs weren't designed to breath smoke, they were designed to get as much oxygen out of the air as they can. You certainly can't argue that breathing smoke is healthy.

Yes I can.

Stanford research on mice showed that low doses of nictine (found in smoke) can produce new blood vessel grouth.

Smoking is a potent drug for preventing brain diseases, namely Alzheimer's , Parkinson & Tourette's syndrome.

Schizophrenics ( 4 million ) Americans get enough nicotine stimulation to actually switch on a brain receptor that helps filter information.

Smoking improves concentration. ( helpful in education ).

Smoking helps people to better recover from heart attacks.

Is a very useful drug for treating estrogen-dependent endometrial cancers.

Data and other information about the above claims were revealed at Healthcentrail.com. Feb. 21, 2000


More in my following post.

[LadiesMan217]

I only smoke as a social think when I go out and drink with my friends. It is such a good combo to drink and have a smoke.

[Technosoul]

Here is more data about why smoking is good for your health.
Presented in parts.

1. Early humans started to smoke because they discovered that if you inhale a drug it will worker faster and do a better job then if you eat or drink the drug. (medical drugs). They used plants and herbs. It can get into the blood system faster via the lungs then going through the digestive system and have a more effective impact. Re: medical pot as apposed to pills containing the same chemicals.

2. Cancer is a name used which is really the deterioration of the nuclear envelopes within cells. Linked to MIDS or Magnetic Deficiency Syndrome.

3. Which is linked to a definciency of a vitamin - re: niacin, that would otherwise prevent the effects of pellagra.

3. Smoke contains the vitamin that can be inhaled that can supply the cells with what they need to off-set nuclear envelope deteriration within the the cells.

So then why do smokers also get cancer?

Well it goes like this. If a farmer ads something to make his crop grow better or faster, it also makes the unwanted weeds grow stronger and faster. therefore the damaged cells get the same "food fuel" as all the healthy cells.

So smoking is helping all the cells get stronger and healthy, without discrimination.

Now look at the link - scroll down to 33-338.

To check out interesting paper on

High-yield production of human therapeutic protein in tobacco chloroplasts.

Press Releases - Nature Biotechnology

[Kizzume]

I give up. You're right. 1+1 must actually equal 3.

You could be attempting to prove that black is white and freedom is slavery for all I care at this point. I give up. Nothing is unhealthy.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume I give up. You're right. 1+1 must actually equal 3. You could be attempting to prove that black is white and freedom is slavery for all I care at this point. I give up. Nothing is unhealthy.

Nay, don't want to prove anything. I'm not some mouse in a scientific lab. My point is they did not prove the statements they made.

PS - 1 plus 1 equals 3. Not trying to prove otherwise.

Here is the webpage that was trying to prove something ( from which I got some of the data I used so that I would sound "impressive".

SMOKING IS GOOD FOR US

Actually I am not brainy enough to know just what the heck he was saying for sure.

[Kizzume]

When you're ready to stop trying to prove things that are unprovable, let me know.

Smoking is unhealthy. Everyone knows it, it's been proven for many years. Trying to prove otherwise is like what I was saying--trying to prove that black=white and that freedom=slavery.

The only people who could possibly try to prove that smoking isn't unhealthy is from someone who smokes who likes to think of him or herself as doing something that's beneficial.

I'd like to think of my weed usage as something healthy--it isn't. It's breathing in smoke into my lungs--it ISN'T healthy. Sure, it makes me "feel good", but that doesn't make it healthy. Sure, I might use it when I'm depressed over several friends of mine dying in the period of a month and it temporarily makes me less depressed--but that doesn't make it healthy physically, mentally possibly, but mental health is not the same thing in any way.