No one has died of second hand smoke. Thousands have died of the complications of disease fostered by second hand smoke. Now would you like to refute that??

 

I don't think you and I will get close enough to each other for my smoke to bother you. And for the record I am considerate of other people and go off by myself to smoke unless they happen to be smokers also.

And so you don't want your taxes going to my health insurance and medical costs. Why is that? I don't begrudge helping to pay the medical expenses of obese people who actually are our number one health care cost. I don't feel that we should outlaw food and I don't think I'm in a position to tell them how to live and die. I don't begrudge paying the medical costs of people with inherited diseases. I don't think I can be in the position to tell someone if they can have children or not.

I guess I just don't feel that I can sit in judgment of others and the choices they make.

You are completely right about people decrying tobacco use while at the same time not really wanting to actually outlaw it. And that would actually be the biggest mistake since prohibition of alcohol.

Geeze tenguy I think most of this is bullshit. My children and relatives don't want me to quit. I don't see many ex-smokers wanting other people to quit. I'm not sure even more than 90% of doctors want people to quit. I know at least three doctors who still smoke themselves.

I stand corrected on my over exaggeration. However, taxes on tobacco products have seen constant increases by both the federal and state governments for more than 20 years now while your taxes have actually gone down. So what are you bitching about?

I think you have to grant that "dangerous to your health" is a relative term. I lost count of the number of anti smoker crusaders I've known where I smoked at their funerals. At least a dozen I think.

Now on the other hand in my personal circle the only person I know that died of smoking related illnesses was my grandfather who died at 86 and was 80 years old the last time he got bucked off a horse. Grandma died or internal problems not related to her smoking. But then she did quit smoking three months before she died. She was 96.

Or they could have actually made a conscious, well informed choice and decided to just take their chances on not living to 96, being confined to bed wearing diapers, where the simple force of gravity becomes more painful than they can bear.

Of course someone pron to prejudices and believing themselves to be a fit judge of other people wouldn't ever consider that.

First, obesity and the related illnesses costs more than tobacco use by far and is our number one health care problem. So should we start passing laws telling people what they can eat and how much of it. Second, you're absolutely right about what would happen if tobacco was suddenly banned. Organized crime would have a field day with that. And third we live in a world full of carcinogens. And here's the example I'm personally aware of. Not many people who work in the oilfield live into their 70's whether they use tobacco and alcohol or not. We've known for decades it has something to do with being around petroleum products constantly. But we do it anyway. I guess if we follow the logic of this thread we also need to ban petroleum products.

Oh hell tenguy if you think that paints an unpretty picture try skin cancer where the lesions open up exposing the person's internal organs to daylight. Try end stage alcoholism where often the skin is sloughing off from the body at the same time the people are absolutely terrified to the point of insanity. Man, have you ever seen some die of internal organ cancer. Now that's a horrendous way to go. You're in constant pain and have to starve to death. There's a lot worse ways to go than lung cancer tenguy.

Yeah at least in part. According to what I read about many of these studies is that they failed to take into account other possible causes. Such as exposure to chemicals, family history, and especially a very under rated risk which is radon gas.

All that being said let me qualify what I've said here. I don't deny the related risks of smoking and tobacco use. I don't advocate smoking or tobacco use for anyone else. I agree with the idea that other people should not be forced to breath my smoke.

But I want to point out that one of our tendencies is to demonize things and people which is akin to pushing the hate buttons in us and I think we need to be careful about that. I also object to the idea that any of us has the right to tell anyone else how to live and die.

Now if you'll pardon me I'm going to step out for a cigarette and enjoy it.

 

I don't smoke, but I have friends who get the shakes when they can't get a cigarette!

 

Good choice Germ, your friends did not make that good of a choice.

Smokers love to lambaste any former smoker who lobbies against the nasty habit. However, in doing so they reinforce the strength of the hold that tobacco has on them.

 

How pray tell did you get this ...............

............... out of this?

 

I quit smoking 8 years ago and it's the best thing I could have done for me. Would I impose my feelings on others - no. It's a personal choice. I loved it. There was nothing I didn't like about it. And as long as its legal - why should we come down on those who are taking advantage of their choice?

 

I quit smoking for four and a half years back around 1993. I started lifting weights and running and was in the best shape of my life. Then I got busted up on the job, took care of my Grandma and great aunt and went back to smoking. I haven't had the inclination to quit again since.

 

It is their right to smoke if they wish, after all it is their own health that they are risking.

The problem arises when they impose their habit on others, considerate smokers are no problem, it's the inconsiderate ones who deserve a comeuppance. In this thread there are several examples of the inconsiderate smoker, challenging the clearly defined risks of second hand smoke to the innocent bystander. Why do they do that? IMO, it is because they are too firmly hooked to rationalize it otherwise.

 

I quit in 1984, I had been smoking for over 20 years and had no desire to quit but I knew I needed to, now the smell is very unpleasant for me. A part of me is glad to see smoking banned in restaurants, diners and bars because it limited the places I could go to eat. The other part of me remembers how good a cigarette was after a meal or with a drink.

 

That is opinion and conjecture made by the anti-smoking medical community. Who is to say that the person that died would not have died of the same thing, whether second hand smoke was a factor or not.

My grandmother lived to be 100, she was around smokers all her life, at home, at work and at church. Just about everyone in the family smoked at one time or another. No smoking related medical problems at all.

My grandfather lived to be 86, died of a blood clot from a leg injury, did not follow doctors orders in the care of it. Started smoking when he was 8. No smoking related health problems.

And the list goes on refute that!

 

Why should I refute that. Do you want me to tell you about my mother who died of emphysema and never smokes a day in her life, but her husband and adult children did.

Why do you ignore the findings of many health organizations who do not fit your anti-smoking clique.

You are another in classic denial.

 

My father in-law died of emphysema and never smoked a day in his life. On the other hand, my grandfather lived to be 97 and smoked cigars for at least 60 years and drank his home made shine every evening (only a pint, no more, seldom less). He had no smoking related illness nor did his liver give out.

I am not saying smoking is healthy but I believe there are other factors that must be considered and the medical field has not found (or announced those factors) in a report that was seen as much more than conjecture. Why does one smoker live to be ninety and another die of lung cancer at 40? Why can one person average 2 or 3 drinks a day and not be an alcoholic while another is an alcoholic in a few months or years. Again, other contributing factors.

 

One man can carry a gun for his entire life, without killing a thing. Another can carry a gun for thirty seconds and kill dozens.

There is no relevancy to either my analogy or to yours. The genetic factors that predispose one to certain illnesses, the environmental conditions in which one lives (including air borne carcinogens) and the life style one chooses for himself all contribute to the fatal illnesses associated with smoking.

The kicker is that when folks who smoke also have the other conditions, their rate of disease is incredibly higher. The same is true for those who are exposed to second hand smoke.

If they were not so exposed, the evidence shows they would be less likely to contract the diseases.

 

show me a death certificate that says death from smoking, does that mean people dont die from smoking?

 

You sit in judgement of people on here every day

 

Ban personal hygiene.

You expose yourself to more toxins when you shower and spray in the morning than you'll ever get from standing next to a person smoking.

Not a lot of people know that ....

 

I am old enough to remember when smoking cigarettes was considered to be cool. I never thought that way, however. As a teenager I knew that cigarettes were unhealthful, and thought that teenagers who smoked them were not very nice.

As a young adult I smoked a pipe and occasionally cigars for about fourteen years. It was easy to quit, and I am glad that I did. I am also glad that there are more restrictions on smoking inside.

I am opposed to outlawing cigarettes, but I am in favor of making the smoking habit more expensive and onerous.

 

Guess its a good thing I don't shower often...:excited:

 

Key word is "can", you "can" also get hit by a bus.

The toxins in your morning shower are irrelevant when you are dying of a disease given to you by a careless smoker.