Grow tired of anti-smokes...

[old.Tohtori]

I personally havent said once you should quit, its totally up to you, do whatever you want to your body. What is annoying is the forcing it on others.

Try changing smoke to sound, we're all been completely pissed off by the little shits on buses who play their music blaring through their phones, sure play music all you want but please do it controlled where its not annoying other people

Yes, but at what point is a smoker forcing it to you?

Do peopel smoke in busses? Do people walk up to you and blow smoke in your face at busstops? If so, those are not the majority of smokers and that issue is with dickheads, not smokers.

Now that the ban in bars in in effect, there aren't really anything anti-smokers can target.

 

[Sparx]

Yes, but at what point is a smoker forcing it to you?

Do peopel smoke in busses? Do people walk up to you and blow smoke in your face at busstops? If so, those are not the majority of smokers and that issue is with dickheads, not smokers.

Now that the ban in bars in in effect, there aren't really anything anti-smokers can target.

oh i agree things are better now in that sense, and its mostly friends smoking around me that cause the most problems that anything else, you cant walk through any doorway anymore without 5 people huddling around it puffing away. I think they should be like the smoking area in the IT crowd lol

 

[Thorwyn]

No it wasn't. There's your problem, this thread TURNED to some kind fo "smokking is bad for you" thing, but initially it wasn't. It had nothing to do with bars, smoking inside houses or even cars.

Eh? Excuse me, what part of:

Could someone link me proof that second hand smoke, beyond living with and inside smoker for 50 years, kills or harms you? Or proof that it doesn't. Either way.

...is not general?

You were asking for a proof that smoking is or isn´t harmful. Someone came up with a list of toxic substances in a cigarette and you said
"Yes there's harmful chemicals". That was YOUR initial question and it got answered, whether you deny it or not. Smoking doesn´t insta-kill you, but the substances might harm you AND others. For you, it´s the chance that matters, for others, it´s the risk.

I don't smoke inside, i don't smoke in bars, i don't even ask to smoke in a car, i move away from people to have a smoke etc. I don't do one ounce of harm towards others, yet still...well...see thread.

Ok, but apparently not all smokers are as considerate as you are. That´s why people were discussing the cases where smoking affects non-smokers (and to what degree).

 

[old.Tohtori]

oh i agree things are better now in that sense, and its mostly friends smoking around me that cause the most problems that anything else, you cant walk through any doorway anymore without 5 people huddling around it puffing away. I think they should be like the smoking area in the IT crowd lol

Even then considerate people fan out and smoke a bit ways from the door.

But you can see what i'm aiming this at? Looking at this thread, the anti-smoking lobby is still going very strong after smokers and it doesn't make any sense

Eh? Excuse me, what part of:

...is not general?

You were asking for a proof that smoking is or isn´t harmful.

First off, i never asked if smoking is harmful, it was at best about second hand smoke.

I never asked about "is smoking harmful".

Second, the reason why i posted(bitch otuside with carriage) is the context. I did clearly say "outside inside smoking".

I even re-iterated it later.

It was never about smoking, harms of smoking, toxins you inhale while smokign etc.

And EVEN still, no one posted any proof that these days as it's outside smoking only, can be harmful.

Stop tryign to twist my original post to something it's not, just to fit your mold.

 

[liloe]

The example of smog is mentioned again and again in this topic. Yes, everyone living in a city will breathe in a lot of stuff, but it's not like there is nothing done against it. Clean cars pay less taxes (iirc) and in some cities they're not allowed to enter certain areas. At least in Germany, clean and durable are supported with state money and let's face it, the situation has gone a lot better. You don't see so many dirty cars anymore, which is already a big win.

The problem with the new anti-smoking laws is, that you first have to go through a wall of smoke before you enter certain buildings.

But where do you start? And where do you stop? What exactly is voluntarily? And isn´t that just a covered form of "allowing" (meaning that the rich are still able to smpoke away, while the poor can´t afford the extra pay)? And even more important: how do you want to control it?

I agree that drawing the line and controlling can be very difficult. All I can say is that when I signed my insurance contract, I had to answer all kinds of questions about weight, previous operations, etc. basically questions about my physical condition. I live in a healthy way, I have nothing and my body is OK, so in return I'm in an insurance that - if something happens to me - will allow me to get the best treatment possible.

Now the poor sod who was unlucky and had cancer at the age of 15 will either pay a monstrous extra fee because of the risk or will have to choose public health, even though that might mean worse treatment when his cancer breaks out again.

Unfair? 100% ! If you're rich or healthy, you are treated in a much better way in Germany. I guess the only way to make people pay for the treatment is to have an extra tax on cigarettes and alcohol (afaik the recent tax increases on cigarettes in Germany didn't go into the health insurance pool).

Oh well, but that's another sad story :<

No, I don´t. That´s why I was confused.

Phew =)

 

[Thorwyn]

Clean cars pay less taxes (iirc) and in some cities they're not allowed to enter certain areas. At least in Germany, clean and durable are supported with state money and let's face it, the situation has gone a lot better. You don't see so many dirty cars anymore, which is already a big win.

Really? In my opinion, all those actions are a big rip-off. I`m no longer able to drive to a city unless I agree to pay money for a new filter to meet the requirements?! If you´re running a small business that includes logistics, you´re *forced* to invest money just to be able to do your business. I`m living close to Cologne and I can assure you that the city is not healthier than before.
It´s a win on the long term of course. But then... the design plans for 3l / 100 km cars are already there (for years!) but the companies don´t want to build such cars. Hm... I wonder why. It´s easier to milk the cow.

All I can say is that when I signed my insurance contract, I had to answer all kinds of questions about weight, previous operations, etc. basically questions about my physical condition.

I know.. the usual risk-evaluation process of those insurances.
They may have asked you, but what does that mean? What if you lied to them? What if you decided to start smoking after the interview?
There is no way to control your lifestyle and habits unless you agree to surrender a large part of your privacy. My health status is my business and the business of my doctor.. and that´s about it.

But as you said, this is an bottomless pit.

 

[liloe]

Really? In my opinion, all those actions are a big rip-off. I`m no longer able to drive to a city unless I agree to pay money for a new filter to meet the requirements?! If you´re running a small business that includes logistics, you´re *forced* to invest money just to be able to do your business. I`m living close to Cologne and I can assure you that the city is not healthier than before.
It´s a win on the long term of course. But then... the design plans for 3l / 100 km cars are already there (for years!) but the companies don´t want to build such cars. Hm... I wonder why. It´s easier to milk the cow.

It's true that the measure is quite useless when you see signs saying that you need the sticker, but it doesn't matter wether you have the green/yellow/red one (at least that thing only cost 5€ …). What I meant is, that measures are taken (even if not the best atm) and that sometimes vehicles are the only alternative, whereas there are alternatives to inhaling smoke from someone. It doesn't hurt if people have to go out to smoke, but it would hurt if we didn't have DHL driving our stuff around =)

I know.. the usual risk-evaluation process of those insurances.
They may have asked you, but what does that mean? What if you lied to them? What if you decided to start smoking after the interview?
There is no way to control your lifestyle and habits unless you agree to surrender a large part of your privacy. My health status is my business and the business of my doctor.. and that´s about it.

But as you said, this is an bottomless pit.

Basically the contract says that if you lie, they don't have to pay. Some insurances grant a higher payback when you show them sports achievements etc. I agree that it's some kind of control, which is something I don't like at all. As you said, health is a thing between the doc and you. The idea with sports achievements is kinda neat, although not everyone who doesn't do sports is unhealthy and a risk patient.
Then again it's a decision of what is worse. I preferred to prostitute my ideals a bit for the contract and get superb service in return and well, there wasn't anything to show (even though I hate the "I got nothing to hide" argument myself).

Oh well, I could rant on forever about the two classes medical system :<

Btw … near Cologne? Now that's neat =) My gf nears a bit further north so I'm driving nearby quite often, hehe =) Mostly late, though, cause of all the traffic jams

 

[chipper]

Secondhand Smoke | Effects of Secondhand Smoke


bit more info about second hand smoke

Third-Hand Smoke - Third-Hand Smoke and Children

this was an interesting read too yet more proof that smoking in general does affect people and the world around you.

you know a bit of research to back up your arguments at this point toht would be much appreciated, your saying the anti smoking people are not telling you what you want to hear, but ive yet to see you back up any argument beyond your own personal belief. all it takes is 1 breath of smoke to start the process of damaging someones health. and they can be meters away from you and still get a lungful of shit.

sorry toht but i honestly dont think you have a leg to stand on on this one.

 

[Billargh]

God this thread makes me want to fucking kill myself.

 

[Chronictank]

God this thread makes me want to fucking kill myself.

take up drinking and smoking

 

[old.Tohtori]

you know a bit of research to back up your arguments at this point toht would be much appreciated, your saying the anti smoking people are not telling you what you want to hear, but ive yet to see you back up any argument beyond your own personal belief. all it takes is 1 breath of smoke to start the process of damaging someones health. and they can be meters away from you and still get a lungful of shit.

I've not claimed anything besides the fact that smoking might harm you, so i don't have to prove anything.

Can't be arsed to read that link, since i can assume it's about second hand smoke in enclosed spaces and has not one proof about my smoking harming someone outside.

And even if it outside smoking or passing it on in saliva or whatnot, where's the proof that it even significantly increases some risk?

Fact of the matter is, that if you're a considerate smoker and don't expose people to indoor smoke(home/car), then no anti-smoker can talk shit about it as it's my choice to my body. That is what i was looking for in this thread and it is so by all answers.

 

[georgie]

take up drinking and smoking

Drinking if you just want to kill yourself, and smoking if you want to take others with you.

 

[Lightfighter]

Having read most of this thread, I see no reason bothering to argue reasonably, since pretty much every previous attempt have led absolutely nowhere.

So:

F*ck smokers!

Easier this way, and doesn't throw a wall of text at people trying to prove a point the one you're trying to prove it to will refuse to listen to since they've already made up their mind before they even clicked on the thread.

God I love FH ;D

 

[Fafnir]

This morning goin to work we where 10 people standing under the roof at the busstop quite close together when a woman at around 50-60 years of age pulled out a cigarette and started smoking. Another woman quickly took the smoke and dropped it on the ground and stomped it out telling her show some fucking respect, made the rest of us giggle a bit. And the smoker stormed off quite redfaced.

 

[Ch3tan]

This morning goin to work we where 10 people standing under the roof at the busstop quite close together when a woman at around 50-60 years of age pulled out a cigarette and started smoking. Another woman quickly took the smoke and dropped it on the ground and stomped it out telling her show some fucking respect, made the rest of us giggle a bit. And the smoker stormed off quite redfaced.

haha class!

 

[Sparx]

Im afraid you've totally lost the arguement with this statement for me

Can't be arsed to read that link, since i can assume it's about second hand smoke in enclosed spaces and has not one proof about my smoking harming someone outside.

Just shows you arent willing to look at other facts to counter argue, which makes me think how often do you actually read other facts before digging your heels in

Im afraid from here on in your opinion is void

 

[old.Tohtori]

Im afraid you've totally lost the arguement with this statement for me

Just shows you arent willing to look at other facts to counter argue, which makes me think how often do you actually read other facts before digging your heels in

Im afraid from here on in your opinion is void

Am i wrong in that statement? Hmm?

Is the link something that already was posted here by some form?

Or was it some proof about my smoking being harmful to other people outside?

That link was as useful as me posting Google and saying "There's some proof there".

If i wanted to argue if smoking is harmful or not...i wouldn't.

People throw statistics on the chemicals in smokes yada yada, etc etc at me, but i don't care as it's not relevant to what i asked.

OH AND...

Could someone tell me what i'm arguing? What is my argumentative stance i'm taking?

Yeah, kind of hard when yu notice that i'm not arguing anything.

 

[liloe]

People throw statistics on the chemicals in smokes yada yada, etc etc at me, but i don't care as it's not relevant to what i asked.

And this is where you are wrong. The nature of smoke is, that it expands - quite obvious I guess - and as such carries every toxic substance quite far away. Take heavy industry for example. It's not just unhealthy to breathe in what's directly coming out of the chimneys, but it's also unhealthy to be nearby. It's still not good for people living close and when the wind is strong it can even affect pieces of land quite far away.

Now a cigarette isn't an industry chimney, but they both work the same way. You stand nearby, you get the full dose of shit and as distance grows, you get less of it. Now given that toxic substances harm your body the moment they reach you, yes, smoking outside will affect everyone you walk by and everyone who walks in your trail.
So nope, there is no proof and as such you will find none to support your argument.

The amount of toxic substances inhaled in that context wasn't the question, though, but we already had the example of asthma, in which case even a small amount can lead to attacks. Now don't come and say that asthma is a special case because even if it is, it clearly shows that even small particles of that shit will influence the lungs, just the reaction is different when you have asthma.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Now a cigarette isn't an industry chimney, but they both work the same way. You stand nearby, you get the full dose of shit and as distance grows, you get less of it. Now given that toxic substances harm your body the moment they reach you, yes, smoking outside will affect everyone you walk by and everyone who walks in your trail.
So nope, there is no proof and as such you will find none to support your argument.

The amount of toxic substances inhaled in that context wasn't the question, though, but we already had the example of asthma, in which case even a small amount can lead to attacks. Now don't come and say that asthma is a special case because even if it is, it clearly shows that even small particles of that shit will influence the lungs, just the reaction is different when you have asthma.

Where's the proof on that? What amount of outside smoking is harmful?

And i'm willing to bet anything that there won't be an asthma attack on the bus stop if i smoke at the usual length from it as i do.

And i will say that it's a special case, since a single person smoking outside won't cause you to have that attack.

Where is your proof on this? Where is the proof that on particle of smoke is harmful? What are the harmful levels? What are levels that significantly matter?

We are talking about HARMING, not just "You breathe in a molecule of smoke! aaah!". Some people seem to have trouble crasping that.

 

[Sparx]

your now rambling toh cause you know there has been more than enough answers to your question. Please for once just accept the answer

 

[dub]

This morning goin to work we where 10 people standing under the roof at the busstop quite close together when a woman at around 50-60 years of age pulled out a cigarette and started smoking. Another woman quickly took the smoke and dropped it on the ground and stomped it out telling her show some fucking respect, made the rest of us giggle a bit. And the smoker stormed off quite redfaced.

not only a thief and a vandal but also a hypocrite.

guess thats what you could expect from a non-smoker

 

[old.Tohtori]

My two arguments here have been;

There's no proof on outside smoking being significantly harmful (which there isn't, no, your speculations don't count).

Smoking might be harmful. (Which is true, it's not a quaranteed death sentence)

Now can you show me proof that disputes either one of those claims?

your now rambling toh cause you know there has been more than enough answers to your question. Please for once just accept the answer

Again didn't read anything i said, nice lovely hypocrite in action again. There's no rambling, but you've not answered one thing i've asked.

You've answered PLENTY of arguments OTHER people have posted here, but those arguments are not mine.

Get it?

Don't confuse my posting with every other person.

 

[Sparx]

Could someone link me proof that second hand smoke, beyond living with and inside smoker for 50 years, kills or harms you? Or proof that it doesn't. Either way.

I'd love to say there is none to the people who randomly start on me for smoking, my choice, my life, f*ck off and all that.

No this isn't to start a discussion down the road, just asking if there's any proof yet. Prompted by a "lovely" lady with a baby carriage giving me grief for smoking otuside

Yes i told her that if my magical smoke comes in the darkness of the night and strangulates her family, she can come sue me.

I dont see anywhere there where you mention significally. You only mention harm. Thus you are changing your argument to prove your point right.

 

[Sparx]

nice stealth edit there

 

[old.Tohtori]

I dont see anywhere there where you mention significally. You only mention harm. Thus you are changing your argument to prove your point right.

If i pinch you, it's hardly assault or harm. So yes, significant is and always has been quite obvious.

Significant means "effects your health". As stated by original post.

Stop trying to grasp straws and answer the question. If you can.

nice stealth edit there

Stealth edit? I added this;

"There's no rambling, but you've not answered one thing i've asked.

You've answered PLENTY of arguments OTHER people have posted here, but those arguments are not mine.

Get it?

Don't confuse my posting with every other person."

For f*cks sake you ARE grasping at everything.

 

[Sparx]

But it is assault, youve touched me against my will. Regardless how hard you touch me it can still be classes as assault

EDIT: Whats the point, everyone else has answered but your digging your heels in and refusing to budge

 

[old.Tohtori]

But it is assault, youve touched me against my will. Regardless how hard you touch me it can still be classes as assault

EDIT: Whats the point, everyone else has answered but your digging your heels in and refusing to budge

Yeah, that'll hold in court as harm. Way to take an example to sidetrack a point though, well done.

No one has shown me the proof i've asked for, so no one has answered anything except some random statistics about what toxins are in cigs etc.

THERE'S NOTHING TO BUDGE AS I'M NOT DEFENDEING ANYTHING!!!!

Get it?

Or show me what i'm defending, just show that, simple thing.

 

[Sparx]

and theres me thinking statistics are classed as proof. Due to research being carried out

 

[Sparx]

Im going back to just blanking you and not getting sucked into these stupid debates with you. Your a shit devils advocate.

I was much happier trying not to win a fight with a wall

 

[old.Tohtori]

and theres me thinking statistics are classed as proof. Due to research being carried out

Statistics on what toxins cigs have are not proof of outside smoking causing medical problems.

Also;

Show me what i'm defending.

You haven't said one thing that would hold ground here, because you can't, so you u´just jump from one insult to the other.

A: Can't asnwer what i asked.
B: Can't even say what i'm defending/digging heels in about.

People have been so busy screaming that "smoking bad!" or screaming about how second hadn smoke is harmful, that they think i'm saying something opposite.