'Third-hand smoke' awareness may curb home smoking


Praxius
#1


CTV.ca | 'Third-hand smoke' awareness may curb home smoking

Quote:

A new study suggests that making the public aware of the dangers of "third-hand smoke" -- the toxic gases and particles that linger on smokers and on furniture -- may motivate people to enforce a strict no-smoking policy at home.
Researchers behind the study, published in the January edition of the journal Pediatrics, are believed to be the first to have coined the term "third-hand smoke."
The study says children are especially susceptible to third-hand smoke exposure because they breathe near, crawl and play on, touch, and mouth contaminated surfaces.
It says children exposed to low levels of tobacco, such as through third-hand smoke, have "the steepest slope in the decrement in reading levels" -- suggesting that compounds in tobacco smoke can be poisonous to nerve tissue, even at extremely low levels.
Researchers assessed health beliefs of adults regarding third-hand smoke exposure of children and whether smokers and non-smokers differ in their views.

Quote has been trimmed
Yes because that's all we need..... more crap on TV telling us how bad smoking is.

If it's so bad, then make it illegal..... oh yeah.... our government won't do that. IF you're not going to make it illegal, then give it up with the propaganda on TV telling people to not smoke.

Quote:

The study found no independent association between the belief that second-hand smoke harms the health of children and rules prohibiting smoking in the home and car.

"New information emerging about third-hand smoke exposure may offer families needed additional information about sources of possible toxic exposure of their children and may enhance their motivation to alter home smoking practices to protect better the health of their children," says the report.

"Third-hand smoke health education campaigns might be more powerful motivators for these families than simply reiterating information about visible second-hand smoke exposure that most families already know."

Among other toxins, third-hand smoke contains arsenic (used in pesticides), lead, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons).

Of 2,000 eligible respondents contacted, 1,510 (87 per cent) completed surveys, 1,478 (97.9 per cent) answered all questions pertinent to this analysis, and 273 (18.9 per cent) were smokers.

So out of 87% of people who completed the survey, only 18.9% were smokers..... now there's a biased statistical study.

Of course non-smokers will believe third hand smoke..... .what the hell is next? 4th hand smoke? 5th hand?

Are my *** farts 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand?

1st hand *** farts I guess would be when they're still in the ****, 2nd hand *** farts would be when it passes through your underwear and out the back of your pants and you smell it...... 3rd hand would be when someone else smells it..... 4th hand would be the 15 minute linger...... oh and 5th hand *** farts would be when you leave your seat and the seat still smells of *** farts.

Cripes... another coined phrase of the new millenium..... remind me to toss that one right next to Global Cooling/Warming when I get home.
 
Ron in Regina
#2
A while back I did the homework, and had all the Links, and had done the math to
figure out the tax loss to government in Canada, and to figure out as a dollar figure
that EVERY Man, Woman, and child would have to pay to balance out that short
fall in tax revenue from the retail sale of tobacco.

It was something like $300 net tax annually for every Man, Woman, and Child in
Canada. That's exactly why tobacco is not a banned substance in this country.
 
Stretch
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

A while back I did the homework, and had all the Links, and had done the math to
figure out the tax loss to government in Canada, and to figure out as a dollar figure
that EVERY Man, Woman, and child would have to pay to balance out that short
fall in tax revenue from the retail sale of tobacco.

It was something like $300 net tax annually for every Man, Woman, and Child in
Canada. That's exactly why tobacco is not a banned substance in this country.

and therein lies the problem........we dont care if it kills you as long as we get the taxes.
 
Praxius
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

A while back I did the homework, and had all the Links, and had done the math to
figure out the tax loss to government in Canada, and to figure out as a dollar figure
that EVERY Man, Woman, and child would have to pay to balance out that short
fall in tax revenue from the retail sale of tobacco.

It was something like $300 net tax annually for every Man, Woman, and Child in
Canada. That's exactly why tobacco is not a banned substance in this country.

Yeah agreed, that was what I was hinting at..... so if they're not going to ban/make it illegal just so they can fill their pockets, then maybe they should stop playing this game of trying to seem like they have our best interests at play and drop all this crap about how bad smoking is for everybody......

Seem's pretty hypocritical for them to keep telling us it's bad to smoke and will kill us, our loved ones, children, etc....... all the while still controlling it's distribution and costs.

As I see it, you can't play both games, it's either one or the other.... if it's that horrible for us and everyone around us, then ban it..... if it's not bad enough to ban and the money is more important, then drop the BS crap about how truly bad it is for us.

-----------------

That actually reminds me of those Crime Stopper commericals that are on the TV all the damn time these days.....

They talk about the "Illegal Tobacco Products" out there being sold for far less cheaper then in the stores..... "They are cheap and available, but come with a cost...."

• They first tell us that you never know what's in these products. (Most of us don't know what's in the tobacco products at the store in the first place)

• Then they talk about how big the fine is if you're caught with illegal tobacco which goes around the $250 - 10,000 range, depending.

• Then they talk about possible jail time.

• Then they talk about how taxes on tobacco products are not going to "Your children's education and health care." (Hey, I paid for those damn smokes and paid those taxes, that money goes to my health care when my lungs cave in!... if not, then why buy legal smokes in the first place if others get my money?)

And that's always good to know that children's education and health care is being funding by the government's monopoly on other people's addictions and health problems.

Then they say "There goes your savings, up in smoke." when the only real consequences they listed were punishments by the government/police for not buying their products with their tax hikes.

No real health issues.... no rat arses within the tobacco..... you just "don't know what's in them"

~ So what's the difference then? I really don't know what's in regular smokes anymore then I do with illegal smokes.... and all the other consequences they mentioned were their own unjustified punishments to maintain a monopoly like some mafia.

And yet..... we have more and more of these things to further confuse the situation, like the invention of 3rd hand smoke and more threats of just how evil smoking tobacco really is.
 
Tonington
#5
Ban tobacco and tax pot instead.
 
Unforgiven
#6
Yep ban cigarettes and toss those smokers in jail, that ought to fix the situation.

Hey handy Andy, can we get a bigger roll eyes emoticon please?
 
Ron in Regina
#7
I remember as a kid that almost every adult smoked....almost everywhere. At that
time, that was perfectly legal and acceptable. Hospitals, Movie Theatres, everywhere....

At 5yrs old I would walk to the store (with a note for the grocer) and purchase my
parents cigarettes for them, in order to have five cents of the change to spend myself.

Times have changed. Knowledge has increased. Social morality has evolved. Smokers
are frowned upon as pariahs today, for supporting a very significant portion of the tax
burden upon their shoulders, and for shortening their lifespans to free up even more of
their tax dollars to support the health care of those non-smokers that will live longer and
might actually live long enough to collect the smokers portion of the CCP fund. Less and
less smokers means that the tax burden is paid by fewer and fewer people, and due to
the highly addictive property of tobacco, they still purchase these products.

I'm a smoker, and I would absolutely love to see cigarettes and other tobacco products
banned right across the board in Canada. The simple knowledge that some arrogant and
non-smoking preachy pr*ck (let say with a wife and 3 kids) would get the privilege of
paying out an extra $1,500.00 NET every year (increasing annually) to cover a portion
of the tax on cigarettes I pay every year. That knowledge would help me quit, and would
also appeal to my sense of humour.

Ban tobacco outright and smokers will have a tough time for a while, but they'll have the
last laugh. I'd love to see the Fed's wean themselves of that revenue but it wouldn't
happen. At, let say, a pack a day, and only $10/pack for the sake of the math...a smoker
would have an extra $3,650.00 NET in his/her pocket annually, and only have to pay an
extra $300.00 of that out in tax to keep the Fed's in lost tobacco tax, as he/she would just
be another non-smoker. That's really funny.

With that in mind, if you're a non-smoker, have a wife & kids, and are barely getting by, &
if you can handle the smell and not complain while you're doing it....go hug a smoker for
improving your financial situation every time they light up. Just offering a different perspective.
 
Ron in Regina
#8
Using the numbers from the article that Praxius posted....of the people that completed
the survey, 18.9% where smokers....and assume that is a representative sample right
across Canada (I figured out my math about several years ago).

Assume (I'm too lazy to look this up again right now) that only 75% of the retail cost
of a package of cigarettes is tax. Assume these 18.9% smoke an average of a pack per
day and assume again only $10 per pack....and assume that only adults got to answer
this survey. That would mean that EVERYONE would be a non-smoker if tobacco was
banned, and every non-smoking adult would get to pay an extra $517.39 NET annually
in increased taxes just to maintain the current level of tax revenue generated by tobacco,
and it might be more, and that'll increase yearly. Current smokers would be huge winners
(health benefits aside) having an extra Three Grand Net annually left in their pockets, &
would laugh and laugh and laugh. Please Ban Tobacco Today! Pretty Please!!!
 
Praxius
#9
it all makes sense to me..... I'm in the process of quitting tobacco at the time being..... had my last one this morning, gave my pipe and bag of tobacco to my father...... ummm.... that's about it for that....

I do gotta go pick up some weed soon through.

And if I decide to go back into tobacco..... well I think the government got enough tax money from me in the last 2 years of me smoking..... time to use my native privilages to get my native smokes.

(Now if I only had enough energy to look into the official details of my family's herritage, I could probably have all my student loans wiped and get the money I paid in back into my pocket...... Hmmmm.... then I'd be able to get more smokes.... Moooo hoooo haw haw haw haw!!!!.)
 
Ron in Regina
#10
I just googled, "percentage tax canada package cigarettes" and went to the site
titled "Cost of cigarettes in Canada" and got hit with the virus (I recognize it as I
have had to deal with it before) Antivirus 2009. Just a heads up. I bailed out
without clicking anything (Cont-Alt-Del) and excaped.

It's a drive-by and it's a bear to get rid of....
 
Scott Free
#11
Hitler would be proud of Canada! His war on cancer never reached these heights of irrational paranoia.
 
karrie
#12
Praxius... informing the public that something is bad for them, and making it illegal, do not go hand in hand. There is a laundry list a mile long of stuff that medical research has proven is bad for us. But medical researchers (the people we count on to tell us the truth about health issues) aren't the same people who decide if we need nanny laws banning the stuff or not.
 
Scott Free
#13
I doubt the chemicals from "third hand smoke" are any worse than those from a new mattress or car.
 
Tonington
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

I doubt the chemicals from "third hand smoke" are any worse than those from a new mattress or car.

Only if the mattresses are made from asbestos...
 
karrie
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

I doubt the chemicals from "third hand smoke" are any worse than those from a new mattress or car.

All the more reason not to pile them on top too.
 
Scott Free
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Only if the mattresses are made from asbestos...

oh wow
 
Tonington
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

oh wow

Well, tobacco smoke contains 11 class 1 carcinogens. Do you know how many you'll find in a mattress?
 
JLM
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Ban tobacco and tax pot instead.

Methinks that may just be switching one problem for another. Apparently pot is also carcigenic.
 
JLM
#19
The world is actually getting to be an unheathy place to live, not because of potential hazards but because people are scared sh*tless to do almost everything. Everything has to be inspected to be sure it's child proof, child safe. When we were kids a lot of the "toys" were things the old man built for us and modtly they had rough edges or splinters and we went to the beach without sunscreen, and rode in vehicles with no seat belts or in the back of pickup trucks. But we had fun and we survived.
 
FUBAR
#20
So in the near future when smoking is illegal, drinking is banned and jogging is mandatory for all with food police checking your diet how long before the government claims we are living too long for pension payments and elderly health care.
 
bobnoorduyn
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Praxius... informing the public that something is bad for them, and making it illegal, do not go hand in hand. There is a laundry list a mile long of stuff that medical research has proven is bad for us. But medical researchers (the people we count on to tell us the truth about health issues) aren't the same people who decide if we need nanny laws banning the stuff or not.

Karrie: Actually it is the medical profession that is forcing the nanny laws on us. They are a huge lobby group that has succeded in getting the government to ban smoking in public areas, including in your own car on school and hospital property, in your own car with minors present. They have succeeded in getting government to enact helmet laws on anything on wheel, including bikes, skateboards, in-line skates, even heelies, (what's next, X-country skis?).

The medical profession does not tell us the truth, only the truth as they see it. Remember, these folks spend about 20 years in a controlled and regimented institutional environment before they are turned loose into the reality of life. And that reality is still a regimented and controlled institution. With the so called doctor shortage you'd wonder where they find the time to lobby government, but they do.

So revered are doctors that no-one questions them, they are held in such high esteem that they are almost devine. Politicians hang on their every word, even when it is obvious that doctors are well out of their field of expertise and just driving their own agenda.

BTW, I quit smoking a long time ago, can't stand the smell of it, but I believe too strongly in freedom to let these busybodies run so roughshod over us.
 
Praxius
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Praxius... informing the public that something is bad for them, and making it illegal, do not go hand in hand. There is a laundry list a mile long of stuff that medical research has proven is bad for us. But medical researchers (the people we count on to tell us the truth about health issues) aren't the same people who decide if we need nanny laws banning the stuff or not.

And yet it always starts this way. They present some sort of concept that has some evidence pointing in one direction, they run off to the media to tell all about it, and like they did last night on The National, they spent a good 10-15 mins freaking out about how dangerous it is, how much it affects the growth of reading in children, how soon most will have to consider if they're going to continue smoking in their homes, or anywhere for that matter........

....... Maybe.

Once again.... in yet another one of these reports they blanket the population with, they continually sneak in that "It Could have an effect." because some evidence is leaning that way..... but it is not absolute fact in one way or another.

So instead of telling everybody this is the problem, this is why, and this is the true effect that occurs from it...... they spent 10-15 mins going on about what they suspect 3rd hand smoke can do, what common trends they have found in a small group study where only 18% or so of those who participated were actually smokers...... fearmonger everybody in thinking that the guy standing in the elevator beside you smelling like nicotine is slowly killing you.......

...... Oh, but then at the end of it all they claim further study is required to confirm any of this.

So wtf was the point in spending 10-15 mins of broadcast time scaring the living sh*t out of everybody based on stuff that hasn't been completely proven one way or another?

I turn back to the Global Warming Mentality....... they don't have all the information, they don't have all the evidence, they have a few common factors based on a crummy study, yet the entire media society spent the entire day yesterday bombarding people into suggesting that it is indeed fact...... when in the end of their reports, they quickly claim further study is required to confirm most of these affects.

But the damage is done.

And the thing I have a real problem with isn't about them making smoking illegal..... it's where this is all going to lead, which is more smokers being cast outs from society more then they are now.

• First they couldn't smoke inside most places
• then they couldn't smoke in bars
• then they couldn't smoke at Tim's and be put in a little booth like some side-show
• then they couldn't even do that and then everybody had to go outside all the time to smoke.
• Then they couldn't even smoke near their work and had to be pushed even further away by 10 ft from all entrances.
• Then they couldn't even smoke on a patio/deck at a food establishment, even though most of those people on the deck eating are 3 feet away from the street with cars pumping out even worse toxins into their lungs.
• Then they couldn't smoke inside their own vehicles if they have people in there who are younger then 19 years of age... even with the windows down.
• And in Bridgewater, NS. You can't even fk'n smoke anywhere outside in town limits other then the bridge in the town because it's provinicially owned.

^ So people there can't smoke anywhere outside, and obviously they sure as hell can't smoke inside..... and you sure as hell can't smoke in your car there either......

And now we got this crap about 3rd hand smoke.

Now amongst all the bullsh*t above thrown on people who are technically doing nothing illegal in the first place and are already jumping through enough hoops for fearmongering goodie goodies who have taken media-hype as fact..... now they're going to have even more harrassment from everybody no matter where they go.

As soon as they enter a building, as soon as they jump in an elevator, as soon as they get in a lineup at the Tim's they used to be able to smoke in not so long ago, now there's going to be more righteous finger pointers telling them to leave or stand out of line away from them because they smell like nicotine and are a danger to their health..... blah blah blah.....

^ That's the problem I have..... if our government, media and our scientists are going to continually screw over and alienate a paticular portion of our population based on something that is still legal to do, I would much rather they make the damn thing illegal, rather then out-casting these people from the mob of ignorance.

And I call it the mob of ignorance, because countless times in the past (And it will happen with this too) people will take these speculative/flawed reports (Which they themselves admitted needed further study to determine what exactly happens and how much of a risk it is) and hold them like the bible as being fact.

They report there is a chance these health concerns could be concerns, but need more study.... but all everybody else hears is that it's a possibility, therefore it's a problem...... therefore it's time to alienate and blame all our problems back on smokers yet again..... more restrictions and laws will be put into place, more hoops for people to go through.

If people want to quit, then they can quit on their own accord when they are ready..... they don't need the government and other ignorant people in the public forcing them to make the decision through all these stupid ploys, these stupid rules and laws......

10 feet away from the entrance please.... right now you're about 8 feet..... no you can't stand there, because now you're 6 feet away from the ventilation....... you're going to have to crawl into those bushes over there in the woods...... oh and stand on your head while you smoke too, because there's a chance that it'll reduce the amount of tobacco getting lodged into your lungs due to gravity........

If people want to force people to quit smoking, then make it illegal.

This whole current situation is a pathetic joke if you ask me.
 
bobnoorduyn
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

The world is actually getting to be an unheathy place to live, not because of potential hazards but because people are scared sh*tless to do almost everything. Everything has to be inspected to be sure it's child proof, child safe. When we were kids a lot of the "toys" were things the old man built for us and modtly they had rough edges or splinters and we went to the beach without sunscreen, and rode in vehicles with no seat belts or in the back of pickup trucks. But we had fun and we survived.

JLM; You've certainly got that right, not only is it unhealthy because everyone is so used to being bubble-wrapped, but there is also the stress of having to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out if what you are doing from minute to minute is actually legal. I don't know about where you live, but the monetary penalties for doing something wrong here would make Draco cringe.
 
Praxius
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

Karrie: Actually it is the medical profession that is forcing the nanny laws on us. They are a huge lobby group that has succeded in getting the government to ban smoking in public areas, including in your own car on school and hospital property, in your own car with minors present. They have succeeded in getting government to enact helmet laws on anything on wheel, including bikes, skateboards, in-line skates, even heelies, (what's next, X-country skis?).

Exactly.

I remember when those dumbass bike helmet laws passed.... that was the exact same time as a child I stopped riding my bike. I fell off my bike once or twice but never came close to hitting my head on anything..... and yet because of these idiots telling us it's good for us to wear one, I have to put some egg crate on my head to protect my little noggin.

It looked stupid, I couldn't turn my head as fast as I normally was used to because of the additional weight, therefore my reaction time dropped..... so I said screw it and I quit riding bikes ever since.

Quote:

The medical profession does not tell us the truth, only the truth as they see it. Remember, these folks spend about 20 years in a controlled and regimented institutional environment before they are turned loose into the reality of life. And that reality is still a regimented and controlled institution. With the so called doctor shortage you'd wonder where they find the time to lobby government, but they do.

Indeed.... did anybody actually see the woman last night trying to explain the dangers of 3rd hand smoke?

She's an idiot, she couldn't even explain herself properly, and she sounded like some hard core bible thumper pulling crap out of her **** to justify her position..... I mean if they had anything decent to back them up, I would expect they would have had a better presenter with a better explination that actually made any sense..... but rather, then just quickly switched over to the reporter to "Properly Explain" what they came up with.

If they couldn't explain it in a decent manner that sounded somewhat logical.... how are we to believe the reporter trying to explain it for them?

That's just a joke is what it is.

For me, unless there is solid evidence and proof of any claim, don't waste time telling the public your half assed assumptions...... that's what they're getting paid to do in the first place.... do it right.

Quote:

So revered are doctors that no-one questions them, they are held in such high esteem that they are almost devine. Politicians hang on their every word, even when it is obvious that doctors are well out of their field of expertise and just driving their own agenda.

BTW, I quit smoking a long time ago, can't stand the smell of it, but I believe too strongly in freedom to let these busybodies run so roughshod over us.

And I just quit a couple of days ago..... just for the simple fact that I got tired of hacking green crap out of my lungs. If someone wants to smoke, go right ahead..... hell, go smoke some crack for all I care..... it's their lives, their bodies, their decisions to make, not nobody else's.

I mean seriously, when I was young, everybody around me smoked, inside, outside, while holding babies, while cooking, in the car, everywhere...... I never started smoking until just a bit over two years ago....... and last I got checked, there is nothing wrong with me, I was quite a healthy child growing up, as was my brother, my sister, and all my cousins.

I don't know of one single person who has any health effects or died from 2nd Hand Smoke, let alone 3rd Hand Smoke. The only people I know who died from smoke related illnesses is one uncle who was a chain smoker and drank beer constantly...... he was a fisherman, go figure.

But out of all of that...... out of all the people who were around me who smoked and smothered me and my siblings with 2nd hand smoke, we all did just fine......

We're not brain dead veggie people, we don't have some nurse coming up behind to wipe our arses, none of us are a burden to the health care system, esspecially myself since I don't remember the last time I was seriously sick......

.... and I imagine the greater majority of you all who are reading this arn't too bad off either for your family/parents smoking around you all the time.

...... So what makes you guys think that all of a sudden this next generation coming up in the world are gonna be so weak and susceptible to everything in the world? (If they are, maybe if you stopped spraying all that anti-bacterial spray all over your house, your children might have a decent immune system and thank you for it)

What about our own parents and their parents? Smoking has been around for quite some time..... and yes granted, chain smoking / smoking every 5 minutes is just asking for death..... but all of my grandparents have hit their 80's in their own times, some have smoked for decades, some didn't......

I could go on forever.... but the point is, they shouldn't be continually clouding up the information out there based on more speculations without solid evidence..... this is what has caused smokers to go through all this crap in the first place.

"Oh you can't smoke in your car with children, they'll inhale the 2nd hand smoke and die."

"Right away?"

"Well no, but over time if you keep doing it."

"What if I wind my window down all the way?"

"Oh, that's not enough...."

"Why?"

"No real answer."

"Like me **** bi!"
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post



CTV.ca | 'Third-hand smoke' awareness may curb home smoking



Yes because that's all we need..... more crap on TV telling us how bad smoking is.

If it's so bad, then make it illegal..... oh yeah.... our government won't do that. IF you're not going to make it illegal, then give it up with the propaganda on TV telling people to not smoke.



So out of 87% of people who completed the survey, only 18.9% were smokers..... now there's a biased statistical study.

Of course non-smokers will believe third hand smoke..... .what the hell is next? 4th hand smoke? 5th hand?

Are my *** farts 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand?

1st hand *** farts I guess would be when they're still in the ****, 2nd hand *** farts would be when it passes through your underwear and out the back of your pants and you smell it...... 3rd hand would be when someone else smells it..... 4th hand would be the 15 minute linger...... oh and 5th hand *** farts would be when you leave your seat and the seat still smells of *** farts.

Cripes... another coined phrase of the new millenium..... remind me to toss that one right next to Global Cooling/Warming when I get home.

As for the low representation from smokers, maybe it just reflects demographics?

And health concerns aside, I know that second hand smoke gives me migraines, and third hand smoke just stinks. If a smoker sits next to me, I just recoil.
 
Machjo
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

A while back I did the homework, and had all the Links, and had done the math to
figure out the tax loss to government in Canada, and to figure out as a dollar figure
that EVERY Man, Woman, and child would have to pay to balance out that short
fall in tax revenue from the retail sale of tobacco.

It was something like $300 net tax annually for every Man, Woman, and Child in
Canada. That's exactly why tobacco is not a banned substance in this country.

But you're missing something here. That tax serves 2 purposes:

1. To discourage people from smoking, and
2. To reduce health care costs.

So if people stopped smoking, health care costs would devlins and the objective of the tax would have been fulfilled. So who cares if it would mean less government revenue. We wouldn't need the extra revenue anymore because of fewer lung cancers in children and people with smoking spouses.
 
Machjo
#27
If you make nicotine products illegal, they'll just go onto the black market. I think a better solution would be to make then available by prescription only, with only addicts haivng access to the prescription, with the doctor gradually prescribing ever less to get the person off the drug gradually.
 
Machjo
#28
Did you know that tobacco contains trace amounts of cyanide? Just a thought.

Now as far as I'm concerned, smoking should be legal only in your own home. Keep it there 'cause I don't want it.
 
Praxius
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Did you know that tobacco contains trace amounts of cyanide? Just a thought.

Now as far as I'm concerned, smoking should be legal only in your own home. Keep it there 'cause I don't want it.

But there in lies the problem... now they're saying all this 3rd hand smoking is just as bad, so even though someone is staying home and only smoking there, when you enter, all that 3rd hand smoke is surrounding you, thereby being a risk to your health...... and I'm pretty sure some **** person will fight to make any place 3rd hand smoke can hide be illegal to smoke around because they fear for their health.

So eventually even smokers won't be allowed to even do what you suggested above by smoking in their homes. Heck, many who live in apartment buildings right now can't even smoke in their homes.

I think all the fear over smoking has gotten way beyond out of control.
 
Machjo
#30
Well, if second-hand smoke gives me headaches, then I think that alone is a good indication there must be something bad about it. The body never lies.

Now I'm guessing you're getting into smokers' rights. All I have to say is this:

Your right to smoke stops at my health.
 

Similar Threads

3
Debate - May leads Dion hand in hand
by Graeme | Sep 15th, 2008
0
Awareness of what is .
by china | Apr 17th, 2008
94
Curb on car-smoking
by dancing-loon | Mar 12th, 2008
no new posts