You shouldn't worry about your children. According to the WHO study, children raised by smokers had a 22% lower risk of lung cancer!
Medicine focuses WAY too much on probabilities. You either get lung cancer or you don't, who cares what the chances are for anything? Studies like this are a waste of money. They should be spending it trying to find cures for diseases, not how doing x lowers/raises your risk of y by z percent. All that does is makes them look like they don't have a clue. Rant off.
I'm very apprehensive about a ban of tobacco cigarettes in public places. I see the reasons behind it, but I'm still apprehensive. In the privacy of your own home, however, it should certainly be allowed. Although, I will have to think a bit about when it affects your neighbors. Perhaps it should be allowed unless it's clearly and unreasonably affecting them. I'm tempted to agree with people who want to ban the use of cigarettes. That shit often smells horrible and gives you cancer. But then I remember my attitude towards the outright ban on marijuana and realize an outright ban on cigarettes is unreasonable as well. The government could get a shitload of money from marijuana too. If they would fucking withdraw troops from Iraq already (by staying, we can only hope to provoke terrorists), they may be able to stop and finally realize, "Hey, we can make money off these stoners, balance the Dubya deficit, and finally pay off the Reagan debt!". And even if the government doesn't profit from it, the private sector would definitely jump on the opportunity to suck as much money as they can out of stoners. I don't imagine it would be too hard either. It'd probably be one of the best things for our economy. I honestly don't understand why the American reich-wing, predominantly self-avowed capitalists, are in favor of such communistic control of the economy as the ban of a substance from being used by an otherwise free market. Not completely. I could understand if you ban it in public places, but what if a smoker in his own home makes the proper accommodations so that no one is exposed to his smoke who doesn't want to be? Something I heard recently which makes a very good point: Being older does not make you an elder. People already pay for the policing required to make sure no one's doing hard drugs or smoking weed. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I just felt like saying it because it's relevant to this thread. Fucking amen! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Like the PATRIOT Act. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not if it's weed you're smoking. Shit together gives you a bad headache. I learned that the hard way this last Saturday. Dude, you shouldn't make assumptions about people. As he said before, he's an accountant. A liberal streak is showing through. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just because you can smell smoke, dos'nt mean your inhaling lethal quantities, it takes minute amounts to create a smell. The guy has every right to do what he wants on his own property, you can't ban basic freedoms. Besides Alcohol is far worse, for health and for society. God knows how many murders or fights have started due to a nicotine high. Buy double glazzing and don't leave the window open thats next to his bathroom. It's not like the guy is walking into your flat and smoking in your face, he's trying to be discreete. You have no fucking clue as to how much exposure you need to get side effects linked to second hand smoke. Unless you work as a bartender in a smoke filled pub three or four days a week for years, you have nothing to fear AT ALL. Walking past someone smoking in the street does nothing to your health. The air you breathe filled with arsinic and carbonmonoxide from car fumes is more likely to give you a disease than sitting with a smoker during your morning coffee. excuse me while I go and light up in the garden, I Invested in double glazzing the house, hence no one inside would smell a thing. Lets just hope I don't give the people in that plane up there cancer.
Wtf are you talking about? I'm ana accountant. :bugeye: And this apartment building is non-smoking. :bugeye:
You know that when you do a study one must draw a conclusion from the data that is LOGICAL in nature? It appears they failed to do that..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I feel tempted to accept that. However, regardless of the situation, smoking is totally useless and it's a huge was of resources.
Odin'Izm , 1) This is a non-smoking apartment building. 2) Smoke was coming from the fan in the bathroom.
Exactly, a whiff of smoke here and there won't have any impact on your health. The whole second hand smoke debate is about people who work in places like bars that are constantly filled with smoke. I'll agree that it smells bad and can be annoying though.
people shouldent be allowed to drive cars either, we should all have horses, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! peace.
Well then that sounds like a problem with the management and not a problem with smoking, now doesn't it?
No, a libertarian streak is showing through. Less power = smaller government = political conservatism. The liberal viewpoint would be to say the government should ban smoking, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.
Toxins build up in the body. It's not like organisms that are fought off and the body learns to resist them.
