Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

The "edit" function was included in the trade to Memphis.

 

I don't think YOU understand. You challenged me. I'm calling you on it. Be a man, or admit that your example was a lame attempt at humor, and that you probably have far more health issues than second-hand smoke.

 

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good one...that was actually really funny

 

No different than not drinking alcohol while you're pregnant and then being able to enjoy alcohol afterwards.

 

First off, fatty the challenge was to establish once and for all that first-hand smoking is bad for your health (which I thought has been established for the last half century), NOT second hand smoke. The goal of the race is not for me to beat anybody, but for SCIENCE - therefore a large sample size is needed.

Second off, Fatty, I accept your modified challenge to a FOOTRACE of some sort. The only problem is that there is no smoking in bars in New York so if you come up here to race me you might create a scene, as you have threatened in prior posts. This FOOTRACE will have less bearing, I'm afraid, on the long term effects of cigarrette smoking as I've never been particularly fleet afoot by my own admission - otherwise I ADMIT NOTHING, ADAMANTLY.

I do have many health issues other than second hand smoke - the penis reduction surgery is something I've contemplated for a long time. It weighs heavily on my conscience.

Hayes, I must REJECT your basketball challenge insofar as my utter lack of basketball skills is difficult to control for on a scientific basis.

 

Fatty Fat prepares for the big FOOTRACE.....

 

Sam we may have to start calling you Muhammad Ali.

 

some of you would be great spokesmen for Big Tobacco...




Kid #3: My Mommy says smoking is bad for you
Nick Naylor: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?

 

I'm guessing that the failure to respond to any of the points I've made above is implicit consent that it is a reasonable and correct argument.

 

Word! Common Sense Speaks! Way to fight the good fight bigtexx!

 

i don't need science to tell me, my body tells me... when I am in a bar filled with smoke, I have allergic reactions, my lungs tighten up, my eyes burn... this lasts for a day or two, usually...

 

6 is a large sample size, eh?

No. You were trying to act better than us by challenging us to footrace. Quite frankly, I'm tired of your "better than thou" attitude. Are you ever in Houston? I'm quite sure I could outrun you in anything.

I like how you keep trying to play it off like I'm the one with the attitude. You've had that since you've been on this board, and from now on, I'm calling you on it. Now go work, or something. You seem to have way too much free time on your hands.

 

If you are having an allergic reaction then you are in the .000001 % of the population with that condition. However, that is no different than being sensitive to too much light, noise, fragrance etc. That doesn't mean ETS meets the threshold for regulation as a health issue. Kitchen cooks have the same reaction every day when they cut onions - the lungs tighten up, eyes burn etc that doesn't mean we should ban onions.

 

why not?

 

bwahahah. Uh yeah. You smoke, are an alcoholic, and stay out late at bars weekly. Yeah, one of the more fit people on the board, that is a good one.

 

where did you get your evidence on kitchen cooks and the onion's efffct on the respiratory system? what study did you use to determine the .000001% population that I belong to? what condition is it that I have, Doctor?

we arent talking about onions here folks... we are arent talking about fajitas, either... you re not going to get off that easily with a canned response like "should we ban onions?"

 

I'm not a smoker, never have been, never will be.

I could down three cartoons of cigarettes and still smoke you in any athletic endeavor you desire to be embarassed at.

The fact remains, this "net negativity" is BS. It's a personal risk evaluation.

 

Hardcore smokers find that smoking is in fact good for you - what a shocker.


DUH

 

I forgot to add... I read another study about how there is a temporal aspect to smoking that also provides benefit to smokers. It's a de-stressor because this activity takes place at a routine clip throughout the day. Regularity, etc.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...Rezvani-2000.pdf+positive+effects+of+nicotine

Abstract about positive cognitive benefits to nicotine.