Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

Exactly, you need to take them off.

 

Nice. A rubber and glue response. MB, you wouldn't know a good argument if it slapped you on the ass and called you Sally.

 

I know you are but what am I.

 

Well factually I can smoke my entire adult life and have no reprecussions on my health. So it is an overgeneralization to claim that smoking inherently causes a net negative effect. Further you ignore both the positive physical effects and the nonphysical benefits of smoking.

Best case for you its a draw. Worst case for you the studies are trash and any in depth examination of the 'studies' you depend on lend more credibility to the latter. Either way you can't use ETS as in your net equation since even you admit the studies go both ways.

That we can both have smoking and non-smoking bars makes a sound argument for the labelling of a ban as fascist. The ideological glee with which ban advocates pursue their goal (although I recognize that this is not all inclusive - you Sam, for example I would not say fit this description) also lends itself to such a description.

 

Sure, if you smoke you might not get lung cancer. But you also might win (or not lose) Russian Roulette as well. Either way, you're engaging in risky business with little tangible physical benefit - and the more you play, the more the odds are against you coming out of it unscathed.

Again, I hardly think it's controversial to say that smoking is (net) harmful to one's health as a general matter. If we're going to throw out that baseline then we're getting inot the realm of kooky conspiracy theories.

Regarding secondhand smoke "at best" being a draw for me - how so?

Secondhand smoke is either just a nuisance or a dangerous nuisance to bystanders. At best it's a medical draw for you, unless there's some medical benefit to breathing second hand smoke that I'm unaware of..

 

I think even the cig execs would blush at some of the discussion being raised here

Cigs have no negative repercusions?
Positive physical effects?

Get some sleep boys. It was a rough draft... i know...

 

It's hilarious. Some people just see what they want to see. No amount of facts or arguments will ever change their minds.

 

I don't think anyone said cigarettes have no negative repercussions. OTOH I'm not sure were you get the conclusion that it has no positive physical effects. On what data do you base that on?

 

Common sense

 

haaaaa ha.

 

The pronouncement that it IS net harmful is false. It can be or it can not be so. That isn't to deny that it is harmful for some, only to reign in your overgeneralization.

Because your stance is that studies go both ways - hence at best your stance concludes in a draw. If we took your stated opinion on its face we couldn't conclude there was a health issue - I don't even have to make an argument that the studies concluding otherwise are flawed. I can, and have, but with your stance I don't even have to do that.

As with any health related regulation, much less a ban, you have to hit a certain threshold to justify said regulation. ETS doesn't. If you want to justify a ban on smoking with a nuisance argument then you certainly can do so. I don't think you have the science to back up the health argument. And the nuisance argument circles you back into the facist arena.

 

Lol. Nice. Fortunately the 'bar' for regulation is usually accompanied by a scientific validation (although unfortunately not in this case). But let's examine your 'common sense' argument. Explain for us how it is common sense that cigarette's have NO positive physical effects. Keep in mind that listing possible negative effects is not the same as proving there are NO positive physical effects. I think your 'common sense' is really a lack thereof. I'll give you a starting point (I know that 'science' stuff is a little disconcerting so we'll ignore Burzmali more technical post): cigarette's are stress relievers - clinically verified - both chemically and psychologically. Relief of stress has a positive physical effect.

 

I always find it humorous that the most outraged of the "non-smokers" are the "ex-smokers."

Hypocrites. Gotta love 'em.

 

Yall can try to spin smoking every which way you want but no matter how many times you say smoking can be good, it just isn't true. We get it, you like to smoke. Great. No one is telling you to quit. I, personally, don't feel like I should have to be around it when out in public and eventually that is exactly what is going to happen. It can't get here soon enough.

I just think its funny that you continue to fight a fight that you just can't win. The net effect of smoking is negative no only to the smoker but to the people around them. I can't imagine you needing "scientific evidence" of this.

Obviously non smokers are finally having enough of it because something is being done about it. Deal.

 

im proud to be an ex-smoker and i find it just as humorous that you think a statement by the Surgeon General is "laughable"

 

fooks sake guys. it doesn't matter whether it's good for you or not, it's that smokers are having their refuges taken away from them. smoke where, in their own homes? bars used to be places to go and blow off steam (and cigarette smoke). there should be a choice, end of story. what bugs me, and why hayes keeps rightfully calling out the facism at hand here, is that non-smokers seem so unwilling to compromise and come off as being on a freakin' crusade.

 

Welcome back to "Guess Which Lung Smoked!" Alright, are we ready for Round 1? Ok! Thumbs on buzzers now! Here we go contestants, now can you Guess Which Lung Smoked!

 

Cigarettes are stress reliever to smokers because of the pharmacological effect of nicotine on their nerve systems. None other chemicals in cigarette smoke are known to have any benefit to human body. Get over it, hayes.

 

Please cite your evidence that the net effect of smoking is not harmful for anyone. Smoking is harmful for anyone one who smokes. Lung cancer is not the only negative heath effect for smokers.