[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31785581]Reduces the risk of heart disease.[/QUOTE]Woah, seriously? I'm going to binge drink for the rest of my life now! I'll never die from heart disease!
Seems pretty fair as they are completely honest.
[QUOTE=zzaacckk;31789782]Seems pretty fair as they are completely honest.[/QUOTE]
but what about their constitutional right to free speech, and to avoid self-incrimination
corporations are people too.
(!)
[QUOTE=Pepin;31786840]That is no evidence of danger, that is evidence that it has an effect on the air. It's similar to making the claim that lead is dangerous, providing a scientific study that shows that there is lead in lipstick, and then providing no risk assessment for those levels of lead for the typical exposure time. Just don't read the press release because for whatever reason the press release never connects with the data. A good example of this is the WHO study that found no increased risk, yet in the press release they claimed otherwise. Yes, there are legit studies that show negative effects of second hand smoke with children and long term couples where one partner smokes in the bedroom nightly.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Stanford]"Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air," said Neil Klepeis, assistant professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and lead author of the study. "But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels." [/QUOTE]
Whops, guess you missed that part.
[QUOTE=Stanford]Klepeis pointed to the 2006 Surgeon General's report, which found that even brief exposures to secondhand smoke may have adverse effects on the heart and respiratory systems and increase the severity of asthma attacks, especially in children. [/QUOTE]
Oh dear me, you seem to have missed alot.
Here is another study from Harvard School of Public Health that links to the American Academy of Pediatrics: [url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/07/06/peds.2011-0023.abstract[/url]
More evidence that supports that secondhand smoking is in fact: Dangerous for both children and adults.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31789672]Woah, seriously? I'm going to binge drink for the rest of my life now! I'll never die from heart disease![/QUOTE]
Yeah because that's exactly how it works
It's been about two decades here in Canada. Meh.
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;31790246]
Oh dear me, you seem to have missed alot.
Here is another study from Harvard School of Public Health: [url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press10052006.html[/url]
More evidence that supports that secondhand smoking is in fact: Dangerous for both children and adults.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the study?
Smoking in a car with the windows open has a mean concentration that is the limit of what is considered hazardous to children (and other at-risk groups), and the peak concentration was twice the limit of what is considered hazardous to children, but still less than half what is considered hazardous to adults.
The mean concentration with the windows open is approximately one fifth of what is considered hazardous to adults.
[editline]18th August 2011[/editline]
In addition, the company that funded the research (the FAMRI) [quote][B]was created out of a class action law suit brought against the tobacco industry[/B] on behalf of non-smoking flight attendant[/quote]
In terms of potential for bias, it's akin to the tobacco industry funding a study which concludes that secondhand smoke is entirely safe.
[editline]18th August 2011[/editline]
In addition, the guidelines for determining hazardous concentration is based on 24-hour exposure.
[editline]18th August 2011[/editline]
The maximum carbon monoxide levels were not considered great enough to be hazardous, however the study indicates that it was likely that such levels would become hazardous after a continual smoking in a closed-ventilation environ
[QUOTE=Contag;31790624]Did you read the study?[/QUOTE]
Forgive me, I took the wrong link. This is the one I wanted to show: [url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/coverage-in-the-media/secondhand-smoke-children-alpert/[/url]
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;31790977]Forgive me, I took the wrong link. This is the one I wanted to show: [url]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/coverage-in-the-media/secondhand-smoke-children-alpert/[/url][/QUOTE]
I actually agree that people shouldn't smoke a great deal around children, but I find it difficult to accept the inference that the association between secondhand smoke and ADHD, learning disorders and conduct disorders is indicative of some causative relationship. I would personally argue that it is likely to be a result of socio-economic factors. Not to mention the authors of the study are, once again, rather biased.
I'd rather a concrete physiological link between SHS and ADHD, learning and conduct disorders, than inferences based on statistical associations.
[editline]18th August 2011[/editline]
Perhaps the parents were dedicated smokers because of their children's ADHD/learning/conduct disorders!
I joke, but statistical association is fairly weak.
my dad has been smoking heavily for my entire life and I have no health issues associated with second-hand smoke, nor do my 4 siblings. I actually like the smell of smoke
it's really annoying when people speak of smokers like they're the second coming of hitler
[QUOTE=Sanius;31791482]my dad has been smoking heavily for my entire life and I have no health issues associated with second-hand smoke, nor do my 4 siblings. I actually like the smell of smoke
it's really annoying when people speak of smokers like they're the second coming of hitler[/QUOTE]
Well that's not true at all, you clearly have a severe case of liberalist egalitarianism, which could be terminal.
No, really, with the current composition of congress you're already at a high risk of suicide.
[QUOTE=Contag;31791401]I actually agree that people shouldn't smoke a great deal around children, but I find it difficult to accept the inference that the association between secondhand smoke and ADHD, learning disorders and conduct disorders is indicative of some causative relationship. I would personally argue that it is likely to be a result of socio-economic factors. Not to mention the authors of the study are, once again, rather biased.
I'd rather a concrete physiological link between SHS and ADHD, learning and conduct disorders, than inferences based on statistical associations.
[editline]18th August 2011[/editline]
Perhaps the parents were dedicated smokers because of their children's ADHD/learning/conduct disorders!
I joke, but statistical association is fairly weak.[/QUOTE]
Since I didn't want you to feel that I just picked biased sources I decided to take a few from Sweden. I agree with the whole ADHD deal, it sounds a bit far fetched but that's because the chance is very small.
When you said this: "I would personally argue that it is likely to be a result of socio-economic factors." I got curious and what do you know: People without a job, low education and women smoke more then the public in Sweden. Which is pretty sad :(
So I went into the Swedish Environmental Health Report from 2001 and The National Institute of Public Health from 2010 and here is what I found out.
[QUOTE=Environmental Health Report 2001]"Environmental tobacco smoke is estimated to cause around 30–60 cases of lung cancer and about one case of sudden infant death annually in Sweden. Environmental tobacco smoke is also related to cardiovascular disease and has been estimated to cause over a thousand cases of myocardial infarction and ischaemic heart disease annually in the country, many with a fatal outcome."[/QUOTE]
And from 2010 we have a death rate of 200 which they believe is thanks to taking away smoking from restaurants and work places thanks to regulations we put in law in 2005.
I couldn't find any links between ADHD and such things in the Swedish reports but I managed to find out that SHS is actually dangerous and should be avoided at all costs for children.
not really a fan of the government using private packaging to market their messages
that's really invasive
[QUOTE=Sanius;31791482]my dad has been smoking heavily for my entire life and I have no health issues associated with second-hand smoke, nor do my 4 siblings. I actually like the smell of smoke
it's really annoying when people speak of smokers like they're the second coming of hitler[/QUOTE]
Smoking heavily? Have you ever had astma or anything?
Let's put warning labels on alcohol. That is 10,000x worse because it impairs your judgment, ruins your liver and lowers your inhibitions. Oh, and let's not forget that you CAN get mouth and throat cancer if you drink too much alcohol. But for some reason, tobacco gets a bad rap because you CAN get throat and lung cancer. Yeah, if you smoke a pack a day for 5 years. If you're a casual smoker, the risk is still there, but not quite as significant. Need I remind you all that people who have never been around tobacco CAN still develop cancer. The only possibly way to avoid cancer is to live in a plastic bubble, but even then you'll probably still get cancer from the plastic.
If people want to smoke they'll smoke. If people want to drink, they'll drink. And this, 'selling an addictive substance' is pure fantasy. People can get addicted to pornography or coffee as much as they can cigarettes or alcohol.
[QUOTE=bodenlan2;31787317]last and least I'd just like to say where I stand on it.
Most drugs are bad in some way, some more some less. I'm not for legalization because I think it feels stupid to make more drugs legal just to get money from it.[/QUOTE]
yeah good idea lose millions of dollars every year to keep people locked up for shit they do for recreational purposes instead of taxing it and potentially making millions smart plan
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;31792880]Smoking heavily? Have you ever had astma or anything?[/QUOTE]
no, no breathing complications at all
[QUOTE=Extroll;31792881]People can get addicted to pornography or coffee as much as they can cigarettes or alcohol.[/QUOTE]
Not as easily and not anywhere as extreme of an addiction if you even manage to get one.
So no, that's pretty much false.
[QUOTE=Extroll;31792881]People can get addicted to pornography or coffee as much as they can cigarettes or alcohol.[/QUOTE]
except cigarettes and alcohol cause physical dependencies while pornography only causes mental dependencies in extreme cases. coffee can cause a physical dependence but it's so weak that it's not even worth mentioning
[QUOTE=Sanius;31793197]no, no breathing complications at all[/QUOTE]
Have you been near your father when he smoked and how much did he smoke? Does he smoke like, in the fan near the kitchen or just, wherever he wants?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31793238]Not as easily and not anywhere as extreme of an addiction if you even manage to get one.
So no, that's pretty much false.[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. People can have addictive personalities. These people will often trade one addiction for another.
[QUOTE=Sanius;31793312]except cigarettes and alcohol cause physical dependencies while pornography only causes mental dependencies in extreme cases. coffee can cause a physical dependence but it's so weak that it's not even worth mentioning[/QUOTE]
what? that works the other way around
Caffeine withdrawal leaves you drained, tired, acting like you need more to function
[QUOTE=Extroll;31793441]I beg to differ. People can have addictive personalities. These people will often trade one addiction for another.[/QUOTE]Yes, but that's within their own mental state. Smoking can ensnare any healthy minded individual.
[QUOTE=Extroll;31793441]I beg to differ. People can have addictive personalities. These people will often trade one addiction for another.[/QUOTE]
What are you even trying to say? By this logic video games might as well be as addictive as alcohol!
As has already been said, you don't need a predisposition to addiction to become dependent on nicotine or alcohol, but you do for pornography and I have never, ever, heard of someone getting addicted to caffeine.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;31794429]Yes, but that's within their own mental state. Smoking can ensnare any healthy minded individual.[/QUOTE]
One part of the addiction model that I really hate, is that it absolves the individual of responsibility.
Like your use of the term 'ensnares'.
As though I'm just walking down the road, and get attacked by thousands of cigarettes and am forced to smoke them.
-snip-
'shocking' pictures don't shock me by themselves anyway, what the fuck is putting them on my marlboros going to do?
[QUOTE=Contag;31794588]One part of the addiction model that I really hate, is that it absolves the individual of responsibility.
Like your use of the term 'ensnares'.
As though I'm just walking down the road, and get attacked by thousands of cigarettes and am forced to smoke them.[/QUOTE]Responsibility is key, but there are irresponsible people, and some addictions can be taken to a point where they have no control. Then and only then is when intervention is necessary.
[QUOTE=Contag;31794588]One part of the addiction model that I really hate, is that it absolves the individual of responsibility.
Like your use of the term 'ensnares'.
As though I'm just walking down the road, and get attacked by thousands of cigarettes and am forced to smoke them.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand the mechanics of physical addictions
[QUOTE=Sanius;31794793]I don't think you understand the mechanics of physical addictions[/QUOTE]
I understand, but I disagree that it entirely displaces rational thought.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.