no smoking as of 4-15... ways to get around?
- Thread starter wannaplaySOME?
- Start date
Flex said:
This really highlights my arguement. They get the ban in place for bars and restaurants, tell smokers they can go outside and smoke. Then they decide that isn't good enough either, so now they can't go outside to smoke. No matter what they get, they aren't happy.
I've got an idea. We all know sunlight causes skin cancer. Maybe we should put curfews in place during daylight so nobody gets exposed to sunlight. Or at least close all the beaches during the day.
WHEN DOES IT STOP?????????????????
Steve
Purdman said:I have been smoking since I was 13 and am 56 now.. My mother died from lung cancer 4 years ago. Her sister died 2 years before. I see older people dragging around oxygen tanks to walk their dogs. My coworker has asophogas cancer and has dropped 100 lbs. in the last 4 months. He has a tube in which he is fed. He is still working but it won't be long. He accidently ripped the tube out the other day and was rushed to the hospital. My wife hates the way I smell when I come home from the pool hall. I put one out in a flower pot full of Pro Mix and just about burned down my house.
Maybe you have your own reasons to try and quit, I highly recommend it. I want to see my grandchildren grow up and spend my golden years with my wife.
There is absolutely no excuse for smoking. It is ruining your health and the health of those around you when you do. I have been without for over 30 days and don't even chew the gum anymore. It really isn't that hard to quit. I encourage you to try. I am determined to never go back.
I hope this doesn't upset all of you who are defending your bad habit.
Purdman
Congratulations man, you are probably half way home.
Just remember, under no circumstances can you "just have one"'. Not because you are in a match, not because you are drinking, not because you are legitimately upset. Don't give in-You will never regret it
Flex said:
Smoke is smoke, whether from a cigarette, pipe, weed, cigar or burning leaves. Toxic smoke is an oxymoron. Smoke was not meant to be inhaled. The levels of toxicity would range depending on the chemicals being burned.
As far as threshold factors, you are doing a big leap there from nothing to skin cancer and radiation sickness. If you studied radiation biology, you would know that the lenses of the eyes, the thyroid and white blood cells are the most vulnerable. Also, any cell in the act of separating and reproducing quickly, hence the dangers to developing fetuses and children. As a cell pulls apart, that stretched part in the middle is at its most vulnerable. In the eyes, you will see cataracts and in the white blood cells, you will get lymphoma. Other radiation-induced cancers abound.
Did you know that living in high altitudes like Colorado, or living in brick houses increases your lifetime risk of radiation-caused cancers? Toxins are everywhere..in the food we eat, the water we drink, the clothes we put on, and the air we breathe, etc.
It is the synergistic effect, not just the cumulative effect of all carcinogens working on each and every cell in your body at once that triggers a cell to go haywire and leap over the threshold.
Can that threshold be forestalled with good nutrition, exercise (which brings more oxygen to the cells), etc? Absolutely.
Smoking actually FIGHTS oxygen, takes over and REPLACES oxygen receptor sites. Look at a smoker's skin and the ravages over time and you will see what the effects of the lack of oxygen look like.
Have you seen a thermograph of a smoker's arms? In the normal state, there is a core of blood flow going up the arms with red/orange and then going out to green/blue as you near the skin. With ONE puff on a cigarette, the blood vessels immediately clamp down and the circulation is impaired and the figure then turns to almost all green and blue with a small core of orange in the center.
Seeing that in college, plus working on cadavers and seeing creosote-covered lungs is what turned me off of smoking for good.
That is why sharing smoke with others is not a good thing, especially those who don't want to share it and should not be forced to take into their lungs even 1 part per million. Could that be the part that sends them over their cellular threshold for cancer or other disease states?
Last edited:
Rackmsukr,
Your post is the most enlightening one I've read so far. Very helpful.
You seem to know a lot about the scientific aspects of this subject. Do you know by any chance when a steak is cooked inside the house and burns a bit, or when something on the stove boils over and is burned up and produces lots of smoke, how that compares to the smoke from a single cigarette over a short period of time, say 5 minutes in a large kitchen? Or perhaps when someone cuts their lawn with a gaspowered mower and it sputters and kicks and bellows out some of that blue smoke? I'm not trying to be cute here with this sort of question. I'm just wondering how these things compare.
Thanks again for the excellent post.
Flex
Your post is the most enlightening one I've read so far. Very helpful.
You seem to know a lot about the scientific aspects of this subject. Do you know by any chance when a steak is cooked inside the house and burns a bit, or when something on the stove boils over and is burned up and produces lots of smoke, how that compares to the smoke from a single cigarette over a short period of time, say 5 minutes in a large kitchen? Or perhaps when someone cuts their lawn with a gaspowered mower and it sputters and kicks and bellows out some of that blue smoke? I'm not trying to be cute here with this sort of question. I'm just wondering how these things compare.
Thanks again for the excellent post.
Flex
pooltchr said:
So if is cost prohibitive a business owner should not have to adhere to fire or health codes either? How about jamming twice as many people in a building then it is designed for, you could make more money and isn't it your right? Believe me, the last person you want making those decisions is the business owner who has a financial motive to ignore the well being of the customer.
I got food poison from some mom and pop restaurant years ago and almost died eating their rotten food. Regardless what one thinks about the smoking issue, you really don't want small business owners or any business owners left to their own devices, they could care less if they kill you to make a buck. There was a company selling counterfeit parts to the airline industry. After hurricane Andrew they examined many of the houses the came apart and they weren't even built to what was the old standard.
I saw more then one house that had like 6 nails holding down 4 x 8 sheets of particle board in a roof that came apart. Brick walls so poorly built there was one little slat of concrete between the blocks before they were set. The wall was basically just standing there under it's weight waiting to fall over. Yea, I really want the government to step out of the way and let the business to as they please and count on them to do the right thing. Could you even imagine.
One other comment to those that smoke and oppose the government's control - have you thought about how you bought into Big Business, the tobacco companies, and how you are being controlled by them?
If you really want to have personal control of your life, I recommend doing as Purdman did, put down the damn things and tell yourself that a little white stick is not going to control you anymore.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
Linda
If you really want to have personal control of your life, I recommend doing as Purdman did, put down the damn things and tell yourself that a little white stick is not going to control you anymore.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
Linda
rackmsuckr said:
There is legitimate scientific evidence to suggest, though not prove, that all else being equal, those that smoke cannabis and tobacco have a lower rate of lung cancer than those that only smoke tobacco.
One of the major studies that suggesting such a negative correlation was headed by Dr. Donald P. Tashkin, of UCLA. The purpose of the study was to provide irrefutable evidence supporting Taskin's previous claims that cannabis did in fact cause lung cancer. Not only did he find his hypothesis to be incorrect, but he found that the opposite could possibly be true, that cannabis could actually prevent cancer.
That is but one case where the benefits of smoking may well outweigh the hazards.
Chris said:There is legitimate scientific evidence to suggest, though not prove, that all else being equal, those that smoke cannabis and tobacco have a lower rate of lung cancer than those that only smoke tobacco.
One of the major studies that suggesting such a negative correlation was headed by Dr. Donald P. Tashkin, of UCLA. The purpose of the study was to provide irrefutable evidence supporting Taskin's previous claims that cannabis did in fact cause lung cancer. Not only did he find his hypothesis to be incorrect, but he found that the opposite could possibly be true, that cannabis could actually prevent cancer.
That is but one case where the benefits of smoking may well outweigh the hazards.
how about heart disease?
Flex said:
Thank you, a couple things from Radiation Biology did stick to my brain, lol. First off, yes, there is evidence that the whole browning process itself can produce carcinogens. That said, a charbroiled steak and its attendant chemicals are still going to be enjoyed every now and then.
Like I said, smoke is smoke and was not meant to be inhaled. Most deaths in fires are from smoke inahalation, not by being burned. The amount of smoke inhaled is the key. All things being equal as to the amount being inhaled, the ones with the most toxins and carcinogens in them are going to be the most damaging. Sort of like a belt (the smoke from burning food) flogging you, as compared to a belt with spikes (smoke with gas fumes or cigarette smoke). Strange analogy, but hope this helps.
The commerce clause was setup so a state couldn't do business with a country we are at war with. If we are fighting France then Georgia can't sell cotton to France to help make their uniforms.Jude Rosenstock said:
I also don't recognize many acts put in place after the 1860s becuase the majority of them don't follow the intentions of our founding fathers. Especially during and after FDR.
Nor do I believe in government licensing of business'.
rackmsuckr said:Thank you, a couple things from Radiation Biology did stick to my brain, lol. First off, yes, there is evidence that the whole browning process itself can produce carcinogens. That said, a charbroiled steak and its attendant chemicals are still going to be enjoyed every now and then.
Like I said, smoke is smoke and was not meant to be inhaled. Most deaths in fires are from smoke inahalation, not by being burned. The amount of smoke inhaled is the key. All things being equal as to the amount being inhaled, the ones with the most toxins and carcinogens in them are going to be the most damaging. Sort of like a belt (the smoke from burning food) flogging you, as compared to a belt with spikes (smoke with gas fumes or cigarette smoke). Strange analogy, but hope this helps.
Helpful analogy. Just how much second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous, for most people, versus second hand cigar smoke?
I spoke with Dr. Barry Kaufman (WBBM radio - Chicago Healthy Minute program http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/763.php? ) about cigar smoking, as he enjoys them from time to time, to get his take on their riskiness. Better quality cigars aren't spiked like cigarettes, as far as I know, with extra chemicals to help addict the smoker. He told me that while cigars can be harmful, that moderate smoking of cigars probably isn't dangerous. Moderate in his opinion being perhaps one or two a day. Also, most cigar smokers don't inhale the smoke, although the aroma of a good cigar is very enjoyable for many people.
Please feel free to comment!
Flex
Chris said:There is legitimate scientific evidence to suggest, though not prove, that all else being equal, those that smoke cannabis and tobacco have a lower rate of lung cancer than those that only smoke tobacco.
One of the major studies that suggesting such a negative correlation was headed by Dr. Donald P. Tashkin, of UCLA. The purpose of the study was to provide irrefutable evidence supporting Taskin's previous claims that cannabis did in fact cause lung cancer. Not only did he find his hypothesis to be incorrect, but he found that the opposite could possibly be true, that cannabis could actually prevent cancer.
That is but one case where the benefits of smoking may well outweigh the hazards.
As with any scientific studies, you can always find one to refute it. Doing a quick search, I found a pretty lucid one:
Conclusions about long-term drug effects need long-term research studies, and that's why the jury is still out on some of the cannabis consequences that may show up down the road. Despite the fact that humans have been growing the marijuana plant for thousands of years, and using it recreationally in the U.S. since the early twentieth century, its effects have not been as thoroughly studied as those of tobacco and cigarette smoking.
From the studies which have been conducted, we know that incidents of cancer from cigarette smoking are far more numerous than cancers from smoking pot, at least in part because more people smoke cigarettes. Also, even frequent marijuana users consume less than heavy cigarette smokers. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that marijuana smokers do tend to inhale more deeply and keep the smoke in their lungs for a longer period than tobacco smokers. It is possible that these behaviors increase the lung's exposure to the chemical by-products of smoking. Burning marijuana for smoking releases many substances other than THC, the ingredient which produces the drug's psychoactive effects. THC does not appear to be carcinogenic, but some of the other chemicals released by both marijuana and tobacco smoke are problematic. These include tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. One known carcinogen, benzopyrene, though found in both types of smoke, seems to be greater in pot smoke.
When it comes to health problems related to breathing and their lungs, heavy smokers of either substance have more difficulty than nonsmokers. These include chronic cough, phlegm, wheezing, and bronchitis. Recent studies have indicated that people who smoke both marijuana and tobacco may be more likely to develop lung cancer, and at an earlier age, than smokers of tobacco alone.
There are some other things to think about. For one, pot is usually not smoked with a filter. Using one would cut down on the amount of "bad" chemicals entering the body. Also, consuming marijuana through a water pipe, or bong, would eliminate some of the by-products of smoking. Some researchers also suggest that inhaling marijuana deep into the lungs and holding it there is something smokers should stop doing. Apparently, this ritualized practice does not significantly increase the drug's effect anyway.
For now, it does appear that pot smokers may run an increased risk of cancer, as well as bronchial irritation and possibly other health problems. Some recent research found associations between pregnant marijuana smokers and the development of rare leukemias in their young children. However, there has not been enough investigation of this possibility for the link to be clear.
Guns don't kill people, people with cancer sticks do ! !
Does anyone care that smokers are murdering people ! ! Not on purpose, but they still are.. They use the excuse that they have done it all their life, so why should they quit now...
In the past losts of WRONG things were ignored and overlooked.Child abuse, wife beatings etc etc...Society has finally realized that It's time to correct another wrong..
I have the choice of putting on a helmet when I ride my cycle down the street. I don't have the choice of inhaling second hand smoke. Don't go to those places, you say ! Well those places are the whole planet ! !
I have had TOO MANY friends and loved ones die from cancer ! ! It's time to stop the killing.
Does anyone care that smokers are murdering people ! ! Not on purpose, but they still are.. They use the excuse that they have done it all their life, so why should they quit now...
In the past losts of WRONG things were ignored and overlooked.Child abuse, wife beatings etc etc...Society has finally realized that It's time to correct another wrong..
I have the choice of putting on a helmet when I ride my cycle down the street. I don't have the choice of inhaling second hand smoke. Don't go to those places, you say ! Well those places are the whole planet ! !
I have had TOO MANY friends and loved ones die from cancer ! ! It's time to stop the killing.
Flex said:
I enjoy the aroma of a GOOD cigar, but abhor bad ones! However, that would mean to say I am not blanketed in it and it's only one whiff or so of the cigar. More than that would be overload for me.
I would say because
A. They are not inhaled as much
B. They are not smoked as frequently and
C. They are not spiked
Then the risk from smoking them is certainly not as great. However, as in chawin' terbaccy, one would have to worry about mouth and lip cancers.
Also, as far as second-hand smoke, they are more expensive as a rule than cigs, and they are banned from even a lot of smoking places so we're not as likely to be exposed to them.
Dave <----- Cigar smoker.
For all I can tell, the insurance companies don't even have numbers that are appreciable for the risks involved with cigars.
Cigs have a whole lot of addatives and are pretty much gentically engineered to create the addiction that drives thier business.
I smoke when I'm away from the house, as I'm not allowed to smoke at home. I may smoke 3 or occasionally 4 cigars on an evening out.
I can then go the whole week without jonesing like a cigarette smoke does in 30 min.
Not really the same in my book.
Our place may have to go to a private club. Maybe 1$ a year membership fee.
For all I can tell, the insurance companies don't even have numbers that are appreciable for the risks involved with cigars.
Cigs have a whole lot of addatives and are pretty much gentically engineered to create the addiction that drives thier business.
I smoke when I'm away from the house, as I'm not allowed to smoke at home. I may smoke 3 or occasionally 4 cigars on an evening out.
I can then go the whole week without jonesing like a cigarette smoke does in 30 min.
Not really the same in my book.
Our place may have to go to a private club. Maybe 1$ a year membership fee.
pooltchr said:
That was always my opinion, but the more I thought about it I just don't see how that is logical. Either the government can impose restrictions or they can't. If they can, they can impose any restriction they want, including smoking bans. If they can't then they can't even require a license be obtained. So either the whole licensing deal is a violation of rights and anybody can open any kind of business they want no matter how many others there are, or the government can set as a license condition that smoking is not allowed.
The Libertarian/capitalist in me wants to say remove all restrictions, the pragmatist in me says we need licensing and the incumbent restrictions imposed by the government.
macguy said:
I've been combing through studies and articles via Google, and the general consensus seems to be that in the short term, risks of heart attack may be increased within 1-2 hours after smoking cannabis, and in the long term, cannabis use may help decrease arterial inflammation, decreasing risks of heart disease.
It is worth noting that most doctors agree that cannabis consumption via a vaporizor, which does not burn the vegetable matter, is a healthier option than smoking. The important thing is that the cannabinoids are ingested via the lungs.