Smoking

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
whats wrong with banning all bad things???

define bad. i bet its different from my list.

[Hanza]

ok well i dont have much ot say on the subject of smoking apart from the fact i think that people are welcome to smoke aslong as it doesnt harm others health who dont want ot smoke or be near it. But i thought id just post this up cos a) its really good and b)its funny. Althogh the twin towers bit is a bit unthoughtful. Neway it takes a while to load but do wait its worth it!

[Hemel]

I'm not sure about passive smoking not being harmful. It's my understanding that the original research on which this view was based was seriously flawed. Here's a link which says a little bit about the research and reveals some of the criticisms that have been made about it.

link

And it does seem that maybe even occasional minimal exposure can cause problems. Here's a report about how passive smoking for just thirty minutes can affect the heart:

heart

[Millane]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
whats wrong with banning all bad things??? Bad things being all bad, no health benefits, harm the user in no matter what quantity taken and harm others around the user.

thankyou IR, i love it when i dont have to answer, HOBBIT when you refer to bad are you referring only to consumer items, and are you only talking about physical health or what, it doesnt get smaller it just keeps on growing, Plato thought too much sex would ultimately be bad for you and lead you away from the form of the good, should we ban all sex because we will never seek our higher truth? thats whats wrong with banning all bad things...

[Baby-K]

If you're gonna ban all bad things start with Dubya

[Mrs Maggot]

whats wrong with banning all bad things???

I can't agree with that!
1) Cos it eliminates freedom of choice. If i wanna go outside and suck on a cancer stick, then I will!
2) Smoking isn't necessarily 100% bad. It reduces stress, and I for one find it very relaxing. Yeah OK, take me to the emphysema ward if you like, but i like what it does for me at the moment. Oh and by the way,when around non-smokers I take care o be considerate and not blow smoke at them, so don't go crucifying me for that either.
3) If they were gonna ban all bad things, maybe they should start with famine, poverty, guns etc. etc.

That's my little rant for the day!!

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with you there Mrs. Maggot. It is sadly completely impossible to ban all bad things, it would just shift to the black market. We might as well have it legal so we can control it.

I don't agree that simply not blowing smoke at a non-smoker makes it okay for them. If I'm in the same room as a smoker, who is making every effort not to blow smoke in my direction, it still irritates my asthma. Nothing against the guy that was smoking, that's just how cigarette smoke is.

[Hemel]

Thanks and yes. That's the problem, that there is no middle ground for me. Just being around a smoker makes me ill.

Yeah OK, take me to the emphysema ward

And that's another question. There were feelings over here a while ago that it wasn't quite right for resources of the NHS to be used on treating those people who have knowingly inflicted harm on themselves. Now that's a huge broad statement, but the point is that smokers were included in that group. The smokers protested that they'd paid loads to the government in the past, in their taxes on their cigarettes and that should pay for their treatment. But there was still the idea floating for a while that there are the deserving ill and the less deserving ill ....

Which is a bit of a frightening thought for lots of reasons. (Including, what about the family of the smoker - should they be 'punished' too?) But the point is, it made me wonder. What's the situation over there in the US? Are your medical insurance premiums higher if you are a smoker?

Oh, and just a personal note on illness from smoking. I saw my dad struggling to live - he got emphysema and cancer from smoking. Believe me, when you're faced with the back end of what smoking does, the reality of the long deaths and the damage caused to the body beforehand, and the hurt to everyone else ... well, let's just put it this way. It's not something we should be blasé about.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Hemel

And that's another question. There were feelings over here a while ago that it wasn't quite right for resources of the NHS to be used on treating those people who have knowingly inflicted harm on themselves. Now that's a huge broad statement, but the point is that smokers were included in that group. The smokers protested that they'd paid loads to the government in the past, in their taxes on their cigarettes and that should pay for their treatment. But there was still the idea floating for a while that there are the deserving ill and the less deserving ill ....

I don't agree with this stand. Sure, we've known the smoking is harmful for over fifty years, but it would be cruel. I know you're not agreeing with this, I'm just trying to make a point. What about people who have cut themselves or taken pills trying to commit suicide? Should we just leave them to die? Or people who suffer heart attacks. We can't say sorry, you shouldn't have eaten all that fatty food. Reminds me of a joke on Seinfeld.

My Dad has been a smoker for thirty years. He coughs a lot, especially now that he has a bad cold. I know that he's probably going to die from cancer or some other smoking related illness. But there's nothing I can do. He's addicted. We make him smoke outside so it doesn't bother anybody else in the house. But I would hate to think that when he gets sick we wouldn't help him or ease his suffering.

[luinilwen]

maybe we should also ban cars, planes, and electricity. carbon monoxide is undisputedly bad for the environment and its inhabitants. human being do a hell of a lot of things that are stupid, meaningless, and detrimental to our existence.

for the record, i hate smoking, and i think it's extremely hypocritical for any government to allow the sale of certain drugs designed for intoxication and recreation (such as cigarettes and alcohol) and not others (such as marijuana and many others). should it be all or nothing? it's my opinion that this is only allowed because the goverment reaps plenty of money from the sale of tobacco and alcohol. i don't believe that this double standard exists because of social tolerance, because i don't think that smoking is tolerated by a huge part of society anymore.

ok... my two cents.

[BeardofPants]

Maybe we should just ban humans?

[Mrs Maggot]

I don't agree that simply not blowing smoke at a non-smoker makes it okay for them.

Yeah, I agree with that Nurvingiel, that's why I only smoke outside. When I used to be a non-smoker I hated being in smoky rooms cos my eyes always started stinging! Smoking inside is a bit dodgy and I feel it's inconsiderate plus as it stinks the room up. If i smoke outside, it doesn't make me smell as much either. That's why smoking in pubs and clubs is such a big issue…but I suppose that's what the beer garden is there for!

[Hemel]

Very quickly - a report just in the news now ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...4/ixworld.html

This doesn't give any real details, but mentions research that suggests that non-smoking areas in public places don't truly protect against cigarette smoke, and also how babies, even if their parents don't smoke near them or even go outside, can still suffer from something like passive smoking thanks to the changed constituents of house dust.

[The Gaffer]

Just a quick response:

The team measured nicotine levels in dust, air and on surfaces, and levels in urine of cotinine - a chemical by-product of nicotine.

Nicotine is not the harmful part of smoking.

[Hemel]

An even quicker question ... so, isn't nicotine the addictive constituent? Could we then be predisposing children to later addiction?

If the nicotine is present, doesn't this suggest that they are inhaling byproducts from other people's smoking? This may not be active passive smoking ... if you see what I mean ... but it still means that even if they aren't inhaling actual smoke they are being affected by smokers' smoke.

Also, if the nicotine is there, might not other things be?

And what IS the harmful part of smoking, if nicotine is innocuous?

Of course, the study is very small. So there's also the question of how reliable it is ...

(Um ... okay, not an even quicker question then ... )

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Hemel
[B
(Um ... okay, not an even quicker question then ... ) [/B]

He he

Well, in order, my answers would be:

Yes nicotine is the addictive constituent, but there's no evidence at all that we are predisposing them to anything here. There's not even any evidence that you can ingest it. The reason tabs are tabs is that smoking a huge lungful is by far the best way of getting nicotine into your brain quickly. I imagine the amount you'd get from some residue in house dust would be negligible.

Other byproducts may also be present; I wonder why they don't mention them???

The harmful things are the carbon monoxide, tar, benzenes and a whole bunch of compounds in the smoke. We don't know exactly which causes what harm, or how.

What we do know about smoking is that there appears to be a "dose-response" relationship: i.e. the more you smoke, the more you harm yourself.

(here are some links to Bandolier, an excellent source of high quality stuff inhealth care:
- asystematic review of passive smoking and heart disease
systematic review of giving up smoking after a coronary event
survey comparing obesity, poverty and smoking as causes of health problems )

Which is where addiction comes in, since the tobacco companies refine the nicotine in fags to enhance its addictiveness and make you smoke more.

Basically, when you think about it, they are evil and should be strung up. All this hoo-ha about drugs testing is a storm in a teacup: if you really wanted to have an impact on people's health you'd make fags available on prescription only, like they do with heroin in Amsterdam or something, to stop new uptake and help those giving it up.

[Falagar]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Maybe we should just ban humans?

Agreed.

I'm a non-smoker, and have never really considered starting. It smells bad, it's costy and not very healthy so the decision wasn't very hard. Many of my friends smoke though (but 'snusing' has become increasingly popular among them).

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Falagar
'snusing' has become increasingly popular among them).

[Falagar]

Not sure what it's called in English, 'snuff' perhaps.

[Ruinel]

What does the tabacco product look like? Do they chew it? Do they hold it between their cheek and gum?

We have...

• cigarettes... for smoking, usually contain a filter. Such as brands like Marlborough.
• cigars... for smoking. Fatter than cigarettes, usually do not contain a filter.
• chewing tobacco... thin strips of moist tabacco leaf in a pouch that is stuffed into the cheek and then chewed. The mixture of saliva and tobacco 'juice' is spit out by the user. Very disgusting.
• snuff - also called 'dip', the use is called 'dipping'. Such brands are Skol and Copenhagen, and comes in a flat can. A finer cut or ground of moist tobacco that is put between the cheek and gum. The mixture of saliva and tobacco is spit out by the user. Also, very disgusting.