New Scaratings

There was once a "Smokers' Thread". I searched for it here, but couldn't find it. It might have been on the old "ScaRatings" or perhaps the old "Buzztime" web site, but they are gone. In my search, I found dozens of posts scattered all over the place on the topic of smoking, but no place where they could be viewed together. I'm a smoker and would like this to be a topic of discussion. What prompted me to recreate this thread was something I heard earlier today. If you are a smoker, and don't already carry enough guilt for what terrible things your secondhand smoke does, you now have to feel more guilt, because researches have discovered that your thirdhand smoke, that lingers in rugs, draperies, walls, etc., is far more deadly. Deadly...? I wish it would kill all of the unwanted insects that invade my house.

I personally believe that this nothing more than total bullshit from anti-smoking zealots, who will stop at nothing in their crusade to ultimately totally ban all use of tobacco.

_________________
"The game is afoot."

What was the first country to ban smoking in most public places...? Well, it was not Ireland, as a recent Buzztime answer claimed. It was Germany!

Who was running Germany when this occurred...?

The answer is, people of the same mindset as those, who force smoking bans on everybody they can today. Of course the first were the NASI's in the 1930's and 1940's.



The modern day anti-smoking NASI's are unlikely to send smokers to the gas chamber, but it is very likely that they will put those, who smoke, at the end of the line when they need medical care, as it becomes parceled out.

The frightening thing is the mindset these people have, which is very similar to the NASI's. They want to control your life, because they know better than you.

_________________
"The game is afoot."

As a smoker I am extremely disappointed by fellow smokers, who are too lazy or stupid to dispose of their cigarette butts properly. Just tossing them to the ground wherever they might be is thoughtless and shameful. I can understand that there may be times when smokers don't have many options as to what to do with the butts of the cigarettes that they have just finished smoking, however, throwing them to the ground next to a receptacle for them is something that really pisses me off. (I actually pick them up, and put them in the receptical quite often.)

.................................................................

_________________
"The game is afoot."

While usually avoiding smoking bars I've been in two traditionally heavy smoking bars lately. I was shocked that 70% of the smokers were using electric cigarettes.

Yep, these are also known as smokeless cigarettes, that I believe put little more out into the atmosphere other than H2O, which I don't think can cause anyone any serious harm. However, try to smoke an electric cigarette on an airplane.

http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant ... nes-2013-2

I guess we now need to look out for propylene glycol.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about propylene glycol:

"The acute oral toxicity of propylene glycol is very low, and large quantities are required to cause perceptible health damage in humans; propylene glycol is metabolized in the human body into pyruvic acid (a normal part of the glucose-metabolism process, readily converted to energy), acetic acid (handled by ethanol-metabolism), lactic acid (a normal acid generally abundant during digestion)..."

Let's face it, the anti-smoking NASI's will stop at nothing to deny others any enjoyment that can be somehow linked to tobacco. They will distort the truth, twist science, greatly exaggerate miniscule risks, and ignore any common sense facts that stand in the way of their crusade. Everyone should be more afraid of people, who think like this, than the few people, who stand out in parking lots in the rain to smoke a cigarette.

_________________
"The game is afoot."

Now there are smoke-free shopping malls, where people are banned from smoking on every inch of their property. That would include their sidewalks, parking lots, and probably in your car as you are looking for a place to park. This is insanity, what effect could someone have on others smoking in a parking lot with no one else around...?

Recently, I lit up a cigarette in the parking lot of the big shopping mall in New Hartford, NY. About three or four puffs into it, their rent-a-cop stopped his car next to me, and ordered me to put it out, or else...! This parking lot covers literally acres, and there was nobody around me, other than their rent-a-cop.

This is a tyranny that is frightening. It leaves me wondering what will be next...

_________________
"The game is afoot."

Cloudy, a couple of perspectives:

1) I'm trying to find a British 20-year study from about a half decade ago that found no positive health benefit of quitting smoking. It may have been "vanished" from the Internet. It was a robust study with a huge sample size. It demonstrated that much of the health risk associated with smoking was the result of a significant flaw: there's never been a decades-long study where people were randomly assigned to "smoking" and "non-smoking" groups. Those who choose to smoke are from groups with higher mortality risk, skewing all stats. Just comparing those who quit smoking to those who continued, those who quit had weight-related health issues that offset the worsened cardio-pulmonary health of those who continued. The difference in cancer risk was surprisingly small.

2) That said, my wife is very sensitive to cigarette smoke. She can't walk by a smoker in a parking lot without having severe bronchospasms. She needs "cigarette-free" malls and such. For her it's not luxury, it's medical necessity.

TANAKA, I'm very sorry to hear about your wife's problem with the least exposure to cigarette smoke. When I'm smoking outside, and I see people walking towards me, I always move away from them so my smoke won't offend them. How far away does your wife need to be from a smoker outside so their secondhand smoke doesn't cause her to have severe bronchospspams?

_________________
"The game is afoot."

It varies, but 10-20 feet are often necessary.

This thread reminds me of one of my favorite Far Side cartoons:



Need I say more?

-- RWM

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

I was looking for a similar story about a teacher's assistant, who was fired because she smelled of tobacco smoke, when I ran across this story about a hospital receptionist, who got fired for smelling like smoke:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -work.html

When will this anti-smoking Jihad stop...?

I know the answer... NEVER...! Well, that is until those, who enjoy smoking are not permitted to smoke in their own homes or anywhere, and all tobacco products are banned from the face of the Earth.

......................................................................................

................................................................................. "That's right, Cloudy, and booze is next on the list."

_________________
"The game is afoot."

A couple of years ago smoking was still allowed inside at my country club. After playing golf my group would grab a drink in the grill where several members would smoke cigars. The entire room would reek of the foulest stench imaginable, it was intolerable. One day I asked them if they would consider sucking on their phallic symbols elsewhere because nobody could tolerate the smell let alone the smoke. Naturally I was rebuffed saying the smell was merely a matter of opinion and they had the right to do so.

So I ducked into the restroom where I took a nice smelly dump into a paper bag, I then took the bag and it's contents into the grill where I sat it on a nearby table where the aroma could be savored by all. The smokers were aghast asking why in the world I would bring that in the room, it smells well, like shit. I quickly countered by stating the smell was merely a mater of opinion and I had the right to do so. Furthermore, unlike their cigars, nobody in the room would be exposed to the cancer causing substances found in secondhand smoke. They just sat there not having a clue what to do or say next.

Shortly after this incident smoking was banned inside the entire clubhouse.

Love it.

The science behind the dangers of secondhand smoke is suspect at best. As I understand it, the study of the effects of secondhand smoke on people were entirely based on interviewing people with cancer, who claimed that they never smoked. This sounds more like a political survey to me than science.

A former director of the American Cancer Society said that he was absolutely against smoking, and it was harmful to smokers' health, but that the secondhand smoking studies had little scientific validity. He went on to say that an end to smoking will happen on its own, but it disturbed him that some of his former colleagues were distorting the facts on secondhand smoke, in violation of scientific principals, to further their agenda.

Here's a little more on the scientific method as it applies to secondhand smoke:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html

"Fact: When studying the effects of tobacco exposure, either to the smoker or to those around him, confounders include age, allergies, nationality, race, medications, compliance with medications, education, gas heating and cooking, gender, socioeconomic status, exposure to other chemicals, occupation, use of alcohol, use of marijuana, consumption of saturated fat and other dietary considerations, family history of cancer and domestic radon exposure, to name a few.

Fact: When studying the effects of SHS on children confounders include most of the above, plus breast feeding, crowding, day care and school attendance, maternal age, maternal symptoms of depression, parental allergies, parental respiratory symptoms and prematurity.

A study that does not account for all of these factors is likely to be very inaccurate, and is probably worthless."

_________________
"The game is afoot."

Well, Cloudy, could you take a moment and refute the 167 cited sources here?

Or, barring that, could you maybe reconsider your position, given that I live with someone whose ability to breathe is threatened by secondhand smoke? This comprehensive study estimated a prevention of 1,500 heart attacks annually in the US--one infarction per 200,000 people, not a lot--were secondhand smoke eliminated. That seems about right...and I happen to live with a woman who simply cannot tolerate the smoke.

My link:

http://webarchives.cdlib.org/wayback.pu ... lation.pdf

I wished I had never started smoking, and I don't mind going outside.

I don't smoke in my own house.

Was shitting in a paper bag and placing it on a table in the grill also banned when smoking was banned?

How about the anti-smoking ad on TV with the woman talking through a hole in her neck. 30-40 years ago there was a series of magazine ads that that showed a graphic photograph of a pair of smokers lungs compared to non-smokers lungs.

Of course I don't think smoking is good for people, but I question the science behind the studies of effects of secondhand smoke on most people. I understand that your wife's condition causes her to have what approaches a zero tolerance to tobacco smoke, and know what a hardship that must be for both of you. I feel sorry for you guys.

I wouldn't argue that one couldn't find 167 (or even more) sources that say secondhand smoke causes cancer, and other bad things. However, there is a possibility that those doing the research might have had an anti-smoking bias, that may have led them to look for confirmation of what they wanted to find, rather than to look for the truth using the scientific method. If they simply interviewed people, asked them if they had ever smoked, got a "NO" answer, and never bothered to ask them about any of the other possible factors that could have caused their cancer or other infirmities, I don't think the research is valid. I might add that those, who claimed that they had never smoked, could possibly not be telling the truth.

I want to emphasize that my questioning of the science behind secondhand smoke studies is in NO way directed at you and your wife's condition, which I truly believe is caused by smoke.

_________________
"The game is afoot."

Once again, I don't think smoking is good for people. What I have a problem with is the questionable science behind the effects of secondhand (and now thirdhand) smoke on most non-smokers. I have a sneaking suspicion that there might be some over zealous anti-smoking crusaders out there, who feel that the end they want to achieve justifies any means it takes for them to get there, even if they have to deviate from the scientific method.

What really concerns me is where the anti-smoking crusade is leading to, and what might be next...

_________________
"The game is afoot."

(I would say that all of that is true, but tobacco hasn't killed me yet, and I'm getting pretty darn old, so I think I'll just keep on draining my purse, burning my clothes, and making a chimney out of my nose, because I enjoy a good smoke.)

_________________
"The game is afoot."

In 1947 Tex Williams sang about "That Cigarette":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65_-vNtWLLs



.........................................................................

........................................................"Boys, I Hope you liked the song, now smoke 'em if ya got 'em."

_________________
"The game is afoot."

As a nonsmoker, I have just two things to say on this subject to smokers in general. One, I hope you quit the habit and never start it again, and that you do it before it damages your health or kills you. Two, if you must smoke, do it as far away from me as possible (preferably on another planet. )

If this makes me one of Cloudy's anti-smoking "Nazis", so be it. I happen to like being able to walk into a bar without having to inhale other's fumes.

-- RWM

_________________
"...It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED...."

ZOG, I don't think you qualify as an anti-smoking "Nazi". I have no problem with those, who are non-smokers and don't want to be exposed to others' smoke. I think they should have their own smoke-free space. Sounds fair to me. However, I do have a problem with anti-smoking zealots, who are not satisfied with just having their own space, and won't be happy until they deny me my space to smoke, even when it doesn't encroach on their space in the least. Those guys are the anti-smoking "Nazis".

_________________
"The game is afoot."