|
On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote:On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time. Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away.
I would like to point out that these links are not medical studies. They are non even close to conclusive proof of anything. My point, however, is that there is no evidence that NON RESIDENTIAL exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer.
You CANT get cancer from smokers in public. The studies show you have to LIVE with a smoker for you to have any increased risk of cancer, and that is almost completely negated if the smoker does not smoke indoors.
|
On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote:On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time. Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away. I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this.
"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University.
And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
|
On March 07 2012 00:57 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 00:54 lundell100 wrote:On March 07 2012 00:50 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:46 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 00:44 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:42 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight. Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat. And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance. There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means. Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that. Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet. So? That is irrelevant to the argument. Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion.
I was just dispelling the illusion that people get fat because of their genetics. It's entirely up to your lifestyle. Your genetics can only have influence on it if you let them.
Besides, the people that actually need a perfect diet and a load of exercise to not get fat would obviously be people that get fat REALLY fast, thus extreme cases. Extreme cases are usually fewer in number than non extreme cases and I think it's safe to say that in this situation they are.
|
On March 07 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote:On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time. Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away. I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this. Show nested quote +"We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business.
No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
|
On March 07 2012 01:20 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote:On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time. Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away. I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this. "We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business. No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so. Why should he? It's legal, he has every right to be obnoxious in the street. You can't force someone to stop something they have every right to do just because you dislike it, you can just ask them kindly to stop and hope that they do.
|
On March 07 2012 01:18 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 00:57 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:54 lundell100 wrote:On March 07 2012 00:50 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:46 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 00:44 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:42 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight. Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat. And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance. There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means. Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that. Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet. So? That is irrelevant to the argument. Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion. I was just dispelling the illusion that people get fat because of their genetics. It's entirely up to your lifestyle. Your genetics can only have influence on it if you let them. Besides, the people that actually need a perfect diet and a load of exercise to not get fat would obviously be people that get fat REALLY fast, thus extreme cases. Extreme cases are usually fewer in number than non extreme cases and I think it's safe to say that in this situation they are.
Most obese people get that way over years and years of gradual weight gain. These are not extreme cases. They are very common. While I do not disagree that a healthy diet and rigorous and regular exercise can help them keep at a normal weight, this is something that a great many people do not have the means or the knowledge to do.
|
The title of this thread led me to believe there was some sort of new extreme sporting event pitting smokers against fat people.
|
On March 07 2012 01:20 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote:On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time. Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away. I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this. "We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business. No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so.
Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
|
On March 07 2012 01:24 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:20 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote: [quote] Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away. I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this. "We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business. No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so. Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
That is not obnoxious to me, in fact I salute smokers to think about their fellow man and try to keep their smoke away from other people. My problem is when someone is smoking somewhere and I can't do anything to avoid it, and the smoker doesn't care at all.
For example people smoking in front of an entrance to a building.
On March 07 2012 01:22 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:20 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote: [quote] Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away. I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this. "We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business. No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so. Why should he? It's legal, he has every right to be obnoxious in the street. You can't force someone to stop something they have every right to do just because you dislike it, you can just ask them kindly to stop and hope that they do.
Oh it's just this thing called common decency...
On March 07 2012 01:23 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:18 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 00:57 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:54 lundell100 wrote:On March 07 2012 00:50 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:46 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 00:44 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:42 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 00:37 XxMulexX wrote: Obesity has a hell of a lot to do with genetics and metabolism. We really seem to enjoy pinning the responsibility on the obese people themselves, but everyone knows a few people who are very active and eat decently and yet seem to never be able to completely shed that extra weight. Sorry but that is complete bullshit, it is just an excuse for fat people that are trying to lose weight, but keep giving in to eating the food they want. If you are on a nutritionally perfect diet and exercise regularly and efficiently on top of that, you will not be fat. And don't blame it on some medical condition either because the people that get fat through a condition or the medicines they have to take for said condition are really too few in number to be of any significance. There are countless medical studies that have found genetic and biological markers of pre-disposition to obesity, and they're not uncommon by any means. Yes great, you're more likely to get obese or you get obese faster when you have a bad diet and you don't exercise. But your genetics can't do shit to you if you have a nutritionally perfect diet and regularly exercise on top of that. Nutritionally perfect diet? Are you actually serious? Almost no one has a nutritionally perfect diet. So? That is irrelevant to the argument. Yes it is. Saying that predisposition is irrelevant as to whether you're obese or not because simply having a perfect diet and exercising lots will stop you from being overweight is ridiculous. The fact is, two people can have very similar diets and lifestyles, but purely by luck of genetics, one will be overweight and one won't. That's relevant to the discussion. I was just dispelling the illusion that people get fat because of their genetics. It's entirely up to your lifestyle. Your genetics can only have influence on it if you let them. Besides, the people that actually need a perfect diet and a load of exercise to not get fat would obviously be people that get fat REALLY fast, thus extreme cases. Extreme cases are usually fewer in number than non extreme cases and I think it's safe to say that in this situation they are. Most obese people get that way over years and years of gradual weight gain. These are not extreme cases. They are very common. While I do not disagree that a healthy diet and rigorous and regular exercise can help them keep at a normal weight, this is something that a great many people do not have the means or the knowledge to do.
That is very possible indeed, I know some people who don't have too much money and they just get microwave food every day. Problaby unaware too of how unhealthy it is.
|
How can you seriously argue that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that genetics have nothing to do with obesity? These two concepts are widely accepted among the scientific community, they're pretty much facts at this point. Arguing otherwise is just stubborn refusal to accept the truth, and it reminds me of all those conservative dinosaurs who cling to that ludicrous claim that there's no evidence connecting global warming and pollution.
|
I smoke and I enjoy it, but I have to say some of the justifications and 'benefits' in this thread are fucking unreal. You guys sure you're not kidding yourselves? I mean I started smoking to get out on fag breaks with a girl I liked (12 years ago) but I'm sure as shit not going to claim that 'breaking down social barriers' is a reason I smoke now.
I would claim, however, that I could have had just as much luck with the girl in question if I had manned the fuck up and just gone and talked to her without a crutch.
|
On March 07 2012 01:24 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:20 solidbebe wrote:On March 07 2012 01:16 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 01:00 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:40 Tobberoth wrote:On March 07 2012 00:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 07 2012 00:31 naggerNZ wrote:On March 07 2012 00:29 JackDino wrote: [quote] Smoking is 100% a self-choice unless someone chained you and forced a smoke in your mouth over and over. If people want to eat and be fat, that's their choice. If people want to smoke, that's their choice. Smoking annoys others tho, obesity doesn't. Talking on your cellphone annoys others. Whistling annoys others. Threads like these are evidence that there are plenty of people who take personal offense at the existence of fat people. Seriously? Those are your analogies to cancerous drugs and being unhealthy? If I'm sitting on a bench in a park and someone sits down next to me and start screaming in their cellphone about annoying shit, what do I do? I leave. He is allowed to sit there and talk, but it pisses me off, so I switch my location. What can you do in a similar situation with a smoker? Oh, how about the exact same thing? The cause of the situations might be different, the solution is the same. And yet magically, people don't start to choke or develop cancer by merely sitting next to a jerk on a cellphone or a constant whistler. So I guess the analogy only stops at "People can be jerks" and it's not really a good analogy for the actual substances of what the people are doing, huh? So? There's 0 conclusive proof that passive smoking leads to cancer, so your argument is as paper thin as me saying the guy with the cellphone is 1) giving me cancer with his cellphones electromagnetic fields 2) ruining my hearing with his screaming 3) destroying my mental health with his annoying shit. If you dislike a situation, it's up to you to leave it. What are you talking about? There's 0 conclusive proof? American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke National Cancer Institute: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Seriously, at least do a fucking Google search before you make such ridiculous claims. I know kindergarteners who know that cigarettes are bad for you x.x How do you not know this yet? And someone earlier had posted that we don't need to be reminded of the problems that cigarettes cause... jesus. And for what it's worth, if someone else intrudes into an environment and changes the atmosphere, they're the ones that should leave, because they're the ones screwing it up. I'm quite thankful that many places tell smokers to smoke outside the building. Do what you want with your own body, but leave me out of it. I shouldn't be the one who has to go away. I like how you missed a post one the previous page which covered this. "We reviewed the toxicologic, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For each type of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke we have sought articles in the English language reporting studies of effects on human health. Formal criteria that stressed study design, quality of execution and generalizability of results were used to select 116 scientifically admissible reports from over 2,900 articles. We concluded that: (a) there is strong evidence of an association between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and both respiratory illness and reduction of lung function, and also between maternal smoking and reduced birth weight; (b) the weight of evidence is compatible with an association between active maternal smoking during pregnancy and increased infant mortality, and also between residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (primarily spousal smoking) and the risk of lung cancer; (c) there is evidence consistent with a relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and respiratory symptoms, (d) the evidence is insufficient to implicate residential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in relation to other forms of malignant disease or congenital malformations; (e) there is no evidence in the literature of an association between nonresidential exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and any form of cancer. Further studies are required to address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, especially nonresidential exposure, in carcinogenesis and as a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Further work is also needed to improve measurement of exposure in such studies and to assess the importance of confounding factors." Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. And no, you SHOULD be the one to leave. If I'm allowed to smoke a public place X, I'm allowed to smoke there. If you dislike it, you should be the one leaving, then you can go complain to the establishment, that's none of my business. No you shouldn't. If some idiot started being completely obnoxious in the middle of the street. Then HE would need to leave or stop. Not the people around him because it is legal for him to do so. Since when was smoking in your presence being obnoxious? When I smoke in public I stand away from other people and out of the path of passersby whenever I can. For someone to be affected by my smoking they would literally have to walk up and stand next to me. Every smoker that I know acts similarly. How is this being obnoxious?
And we non-smokers thank you for being courteous- which exactly proves how some smokers could be annoying. Cigarette smoke affects the people around you, even if you don't think it causes medical issues. It causes- at the very least- trouble breathing and congestion and other discomfort for those nearby, and that's exactly why restaurants either have no smoking at all or smoking and no smoking sections. It's so we non-smokers don't have to worry about smokers sitting next to us. And you don't have to be actively smoking inches away from us either. Believe it or not, your breath and clothes smell like shit and make the environment less enjoyable- something that the restaurant obviously doesn't want to see. So thank you for being courteous, but others aren't always as respectful as you, and there are rules in place to make sure that everyone remains comfortable.
|
So this thread should just be closed since its another religion debate now, man aren't you guys tired of this? honestly non smokers don't like smokers WE GET IT no matter how much you scream YOU DON'T LIKE IT we have ALREADY HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME AND UNDERSTOOD YOUR SIDE OF IT you don't have to agree with our side and we don't have to agree with yours ......
We know of the health risk's and how you don't like how it effects "your life" just like i don't like how racist's and alcohol, driving, gambling has an effect alot of "my life" as well as other things.
If you don't understand why we smoke or why we may like it that's fine, each to their own.
|
On March 07 2012 01:35 XxMulexX wrote: How can you seriously argue that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that genetics have nothing to do with obesity? These two concepts are widely accepted among the scientific community, they're pretty much facts at this point. Arguing otherwise is just stubborn refusal to accept the truth, and it reminds me of all those conservative dinosaurs who cling to that ludicrous claim that there's no evidence connecting global warming and pollution.
I never argued genetics have nothing to do with obesity. There is a definite correlation. However, to argue that a person is fat because of his/her genetics is outright ludicrous.
Also the matter of global warming and pollution is something else entirely and would derail this thread, so I'm just not going to comment on that.
On March 07 2012 01:43 Azalie wrote: So this thread should just be closed since its another religion debate now, man aren't you guys tired of this? honestly non smokers don't like smokers WE GET IT no matter how much you scream YOU DON'T LIKE IT we have ALREADY HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME AND UNDERSTOOD YOUR SIDE OF IT you don't have to agree with our side and we don't have to agree with yours ......
We know of the health risk's and how you don't like how it effects "your life" just like i don't like how racist's and alcohol, driving, gambling has an effect alot of "my life" as well as other things.
If you don't understand why we smoke or why we may like it that's fine, each to their own.
Religion debate?
|
Your vitriol and anti-freedom, seriously hinders my ability to get a buzz off nicotine.
|
On March 06 2012 22:27 Rassy wrote: Both are (predominantly, in the case of obesity) self-choice issues
I dont know about obesity but smoking is definatly not 100% a self-choice. There are manny people who would love to quit smoking but who are somehow unable to because the adiction is to strong for them.
Here in the netherlands they did the same things to combat obesity as they did to combat smoking. Educational advertisements on tv and newspapers, smoking did get alot more attention though, campaigns against obesity are rare Beside that smoking has been banned from public and work places and taxes on it are increasing all the time. They chose to start smoking. It's not like anyone forced them. If you started something, the sole responsibility to quit said activity, whether it is smoking, drinking or being fat, is yours. Blaming your lack of character on society or peer pressure is just pathetic, as is not doing it because it is hard to do.
|
How can it be that there are so many "America's fucked up"-threads in this forum? I mean sure, the majority (I guess) of users are american but there are like 10 per week...
|
Religion debate?
Yeah atheist's vs or in this case smokers rights vs non smokers rights
|
You can't smoke in any public spaces here in Ottawa, not in city parks or stores and restaurants.
|
On March 07 2012 01:50 Azalie wrote:Yeah atheist's vs or in this case smokers rights vs non smokers rights
Because smoking is a religion now?
|
|
|
|