Grow tired of anti-smokes...

[old.Tohtori]

So to ask someone for a summary;

Is there any proof, scientific(not speculation) that considerate smoking is harmful?

This means not smoking in enclosed space and moving away from people to smoke.

Also, is there any proof that smoking WILL kill you or cause you health issues, or is it a "might"?

 

[liloe]

Frankly Toht, you either don't want to see it, or you're too blind to see it. That's not a judgement, it's merely an observation.

Just to remind the original question:

Could someone link me proof that second hand smoke, beyond living with and inside smoker for 50 years, kills or harms you?

Now let's start simple. The question wasn't only about killing, but also about harming. Now where does harm start? The answer to this is rather easy: Harm starts the moment a negative thing influences the body.

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

The question was not about the amount of harm, but about harm, so this calls for a binary answer. Either it harms or it doesn't. As you're so fixed on the initial question - which is ok - let's answer the initial question and not something else.

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.

If someone is very sensitive they will react to it, but again, that was not the question.

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.

"Carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless, but highly toxic. It combines with hemoglobin to produce carboxyhemoglobin, which is ineffective for delivering oxygen to bodily tissues." (Carbon monoxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Every single CO molecule will cause your body to malfunction and thus harm it. I can only insist: The question was not wether there was a lot of harm or less harm, but simply if smoking outside could harm someone.

And just to add something: I don't want to hear a single comparison with fires, cars or whatever also produces CO, because that wasn't the question either.

Take any of the toxins a cigarette contains and you will find that even the smallest concentration will increase the chance of getting some kind of illness and again I will say it: The way you asked your question, anything >0 equals to 1.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's carbon monoxide everywhere, where's your proof that someone smoking outside will inflict any significant amount of CO to you?

You could say, by your standard, that every insult on this forum towards me has done harm to me because in a miniscule undetectable way, it might some day make me go

That is not harm and what you posted does not prove that my smoking outside harms people in any significant way.

Your opinion on ti is not proof, i asked if there was any proof. Scientific proof. Studies etc.

You've twisted the original question into some "Yes, it might be possible that a molecule of smoke enters another persons lungs." which was NOT the original question if kept in context. "Kills or harms" would suggest to you that it's more then just a molecule.

And to add something;

IT's only harm if your body can't handle it, in other words, causes damage. Your body can handle an outside smokers miniscule effects.

Do you honestly think yourself even, that someone smoking in the street might give you cancer or harm you?

And anyone getting an asthma attack from someone smoking several feet away, has bigger problems to worry then that. Like...air.

 

[liloe]

There's carbon monoxide everywhere, where's your proof that someone smoking outside will inflict any significant amount of CO to you?

I took CO as example, there are a lot more toxins in cigarettes. If you want, take tar as example. Every µg of tar you breathe in adds up in your lungs.

You could say, by your standard, that every insult on this forum towards me has done harm to me because in a miniscule undetectable way, it might some day make me go

Yes

That is not harm and what you posted does not prove that my smoking outside harms people in any significant way.

It is harm as it causes other bodies to malfunction.

Your opinion on ti is not proof, i asked if there was any proof. Scientific proof. Studies etc.

"CO + haemoglobin = carbohyxohaemoglobin" is a proven fact. Don't ask me to post a video of me doing the experiment or I'll ask you to prove that CO2 exists …

You've twisted the original question into some "Yes, it might be possible that a molecule of smoke enters another persons lungs." which was NOT the original question if kept in context. "Kills or harms" would suggest to you that it's more then just a molecule.

You have twisted the original question and changed "harm" to "a bit of harm" or "massive harm", which was not the original question.

And to add something;

IT's only harm if your body can't handle it, in other words, causes damage.

My body can't handle CO … actually no body can. Maybe you can do a self test and cut your finger with a knife. I'm sure it won't harm your body because after a few days you won't see anything of the cut - i. e. the body handled the situation.

Your body can handle an outside smokers miniscule effects.

As you said: "minuscule effects" - i. e. there is an effect.

Do you honestly think yourself even, that someone smoking in the street might give you cancer or harm you?

It gives me a higher risk, even if it's only 0.0000001% which is > 0 and as such leads us to "Yes"

And anyone getting an asthma attack from someone smoking several feet away, has bigger problems to worry then that. Like...air.

Which is why some people have problems to enter big cities and live more outside. Smoke near them and you'll see the result. And again you're trying to change "harm" into "affects healthy people".

I don't want to stir shit, but remember the thread about children and computer games? You got quite annoyed when people went off-topic, but now it's you who is trying to change the initial topic.

 

[Marc]

How on earth have I missed this beauty of a thread started by the fan favourite!??

 

[old.Tohtori]

Liloe show me the study where outside smoking causes your body to malfunction.

You took the initial question as "does it cause even 0.000001 harm", it was clearly not the question and the context should show that.

If you're seriously claiming that people shouldn't smoke outside because the smoke causes second hand trouble, then you're the one being silly.

 

[ST^]

Liloe show me the study where outside smoking causes your body to malfunction.

Show me the study that says it won't cause harm.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Show me the study that says it won't cause harm.

Doesn't work like that, as i think anti-relig peeps said on numerous proof of god threads.

 

[Billargh]

Liloe show me the study where outside smoking causes your body to malfunction.

Lolwat? Are you really suggesting you're only affected by smoking indoors?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Lolwat? Are you really suggesting you're only affected by smoking indoors?

Ngh...second hand smoke. That my smoking causes someone bodily dysfunction.

No wonder UK peeps get so annoyed, they can't understand basic english.

 

[chipper]

and you cant understand basic reasoning. you have been given evidence put together by people much smarter than you and me and yet you see fit to question them. all you want toht is people to agree with you not give you an answer.


the damage starts the second you breathe in that shit and as i stated it has a cumulative effect. you get tar in your lungs and all those other fun little chemicals you dont seem to think cause any harm.
so for instance its a windy day someone is 20-30 feet behind you and you spark up do you take into consideration the wind factor or just think they are nowhere near me ill spark up. and all the person 30 feet behind is thinking thanks for that you asshole.

you are wrong admit it and move on. you may have the best intentions in the world but at some point you are going to affect other people with your smoking. a none smoker doesnt want to breathe that shit in period. not take it as part of lifes little hazards. industry, cars etc are needed smoking is not

 

[liloe]

Liloe show me the study where outside smoking causes your body to malfunction.

*sigh* In easy words:
a) Smoke contains toxins
b) Smoke expands in the air
c) We breathe air

d = a+b) Toxins expand in the air

c + d) W breathe in toxins

You took the initial question as "does it cause even 0.000001 harm", it was clearly not the question and the context should show that.

I'll remind you next time you ask a question.

If you're seriously claiming that people shouldn't smoke outside because the smoke causes second hand trouble, then you're the one being silly.

Are you giving your own answer to your own question there?

Btw … I will not comment further on this matter as it seems quite useless. Many people have made good points, which you seem to ignore.

 

[Billargh]

Ngh...second hand smoke. That my smoking causes someone bodily dysfunction.

No wonder UK peeps get so annoyed, they can't understand basic english.

I was aware you meant second hand smoke, so I'll ask again.

Are you really suggesting people are only affected by second hand smoke indoors?

 

[Calaen]

true story!

 

[old.Tohtori]

I get what people are saying that people might breath in smoe miniscule toxins by otuside smoking, but i was asking for studies or proof that it's actually in any relevant form harmful.

Does someone get cancer from being 30 feet from a smoker outside?

Does the smoker have to blow the smoke in their face?

Is the random encounters of miniscule smoke particles enough to cause you anything even remotely noticable?

Now the answers in this thread have nothing to do with that.

I never claimed that people aren't breathing it in, or that the toxins aren't there or even that the toxins aren't harmful.

And chipper how can i be wrong when i'm not claiming anything? What am i defending and where?

I asked for proof, i didn't claim "outside smoking is perfectly safe".

 

[liloe]

I asked for proof, i didn't claim "outside smoking is perfectly safe".

orly?

If you're seriously claiming that people shouldn't smoke outside because the smoke causes second hand trouble, then you're the one being silly.

 

[old.Tohtori]

orly?

That is not saying "smoking outside is perfectly safe" and i honestly don't know how you can see it as such. That was saying that are you seriosuly against outside smoking beause it harms via second hand smoke.

Maybe that's the problem you're(plural) having.

Everything must be either pro or against.

Now do you have some proof that it's in any relevant way harmful?

Is there a case of "man gets ill from people smoking in his vicinity at the busstop"?

You know full well what the context is, so don't try to grab some semantic point about "But you said harm, that's 0.000001%!".

 

[Lethul]

ACS :: Secondhand Smoke

 

[liloe]

You know full well what the context is, so don't try to grab some semantic point about "But you said harm, that's 0.000001%!".

I know full well what the context is, but you seem to ignore the different effects the same situation can have on different people. Why do you think are mobile phones forbidden in hospitals. The waves they emit could maybe have a tiny little chance of causing stuff to malfunction and therefore they're forbidden. I'm not even sure how high the chances would be that something happens, but it's possible.
Would you go into a hospital and start using your mobile phone there, telling anyone who comes by to "fuck off, cause the harm done is so little and it only affects a few people"?

Same thing goes for smoking. One person might not be affected much by your little bits of smoke, others will be affected a lot, so who are you to judge that?

It's as egoistic as having a garden party on weekdays, using the vacuum cleaner at 2am or driving around with a tuned car + ultra loud music at 2am.

Your judgement is 100% based on your own perception, not caring at all what kind of problems others might have with that.

So saying harm = harm isn't some semantic point, but simply the truth. And shit, I came back to the discussion :<

 

[CorNokZ]

Makes perfect sense to me!

 

[georgie]

Just when I think I've seen the true pinnacle of your artistic genius Cokenornz, you come back with something new that just blows my mind!

I just don't know where you can go from here!!111212

 

[Olgaline]

it's the filters !!!
filters kill people!

 

[Sparx]

Guns dont kill people, filters do

 

[Olgaline]

Just say no to filters!

 

[Sparx]

Ban filters!!

 

[Lethul]

fucking filters

 

[Fafnir]

fucking filters

Dam you have a small one then...

 

[Ch3tan]

.... or just a very large filter

 

[megadave]

is he perma banned or am i getting my hopes up?

 

[Billargh]

Why's he banned again?