Some of those photos that AbFab shared are shocking to me, not only because they're shocking on their own but because even given the attempts at education about the harm caused by smoking, I didn't even know about some of them.
Neck cancer like that? Didn't know. I did know about oral cancers but that image of someone's cheek being pretty much "gone", nope, never considered that either.
So, that's why it is "still" being bitched about - because people STILL don't know just how bad it can be.
Smokers: Mind the wind direction if you can. I have seen several people's good intentions (standing to one end of the platform,etc) wasted because the wind blew their smoke back at everyone else. Throw your butts away properly, PLEASE!
Nonsmokers: Remember, at the end of the day, it's their body and their business. As long as they're making an effort to be considerate of others, leave them alone. :-)
haha, this is why I smoke, I enjoy invoking passionate responses like this on the subject.
I have to ask why all the nonsmokers hang with us smokers outside now though. I mean, whats up, is the pub boring inside now? Leave us suicidal addicts who smell and have stained teeth alone to enjoy our cancer sticks.
P.S. Smoking Quz: what percentage of smokers get cancers?
a) 60-100%?
b) 21-59%
c) 0 - 20%
I dont like guns.
So this isn't a 'defence of your addiction', merely pointing out that you're basing your attack on a flawed idea.
The rest of your post isn't just 'taking the bait' but actually 'feeding the troll'. His original point that he thinks non-smokers have no right to ask him to not do so in their face is indefensible, and the debate should (IMHO) stop there.
Actually, I know you think the answer is C, but there is a lot more that goes into your question rather than simply asking how many...
How long have they been smoking, etc.
But, more to the point...
1. Regardless if it is 1 person in 10,000 who get cancer, isn't that 1 too many?
2. Studies have shown that second hand smoke is just as lethal given equal amounts. So, should someone, even that 1 in 10,000 potentially die because of something he or she didn't even do, but was surrounded by?
I find it interesting that none of my friends smoke, and I think that people generally gravitate towards this (people who smoke are more likely to have friends that smoke and vice versa).
I don't know why people smoke, knowing the health risks (not just cancer btw), and I don't know why more smokers are not more considerate to those who do not smoke.
It is like you have a chip on your shoulder and something to prove.
Not that this is relevant or anyone really cares, and it is shallow... If I see a woman, the most beautiful woman on the planet for me, and she smokes, she is instantly unattractive.
Finally... (and I pray this doesn't turn into that other thread because I am not getting into that again)... There are so many things that is bad about smoking that are not even related to dying....
You smell disgustingly, and because you smoke, you have no clue how bad you smell.
Your teeth generally rot, or get tar build up over your plaque
It damages your skin to a point where it is obvious...
your hair... and more
Sorry... it makes about as much sense as it did in the US when GWB Jr. got elected president, not just once, but twice.
I think the OP, and me, if that is who you are referring to, are making the point that if a smoker decides to come to the exact area in the open air where you are enjoying a cigarette and then moan about it when there is plenty of open space to stand in, then we have no sympathy.
Or do we have a difference of opinion on smoking within a certain distance of someone is akin to smoking in someones face?
I have seen first hand the results of smoking, in my job in the UK. Surely, if smoking can do the damage shown in the photos in another post, why can it not harm the person living with you/standing next to you at a bus stop when they are breathing the same smoke?
when you have time, do a little light reading
So you have a max 1 in 5 chance of getting cancer. Isn't that bad enough?
Also, not only that, what about..
a) Cardiovascular disease (leading to heart attacks, strokes, amputation, dementia, kidney failure)
b) Not just lung cancer, but cancer of the bladder, oesophagus, kidneys, cervix
c) COPD, ie emphysema, chronic bronchitis
d) fertility problems
e) Macular degeneration, leading to blindness
f) Impotence
g) Premature babies
Trust me, I have probably read ten times what you have read on the subjects and more, I have debated this in depth on other smoking threads here, with many counter links etc etc. Of course cancer org will be on the anti side. I actually read all the studies themselves, not just the snippets WHO chose to include to sway their argument, which they even admitted too.
I also analysed the conditions of the studies which is how they supported the ban inside public spaces, which I agree with by the way.
But I think the clue is in what you wrote. Just as lethal given equal amounts or something like that, right? Equal amounts of exposure to to a smokers inhalation is never achieved without smoking yourself, even if in a bar like the old times. The studies were held in alien environments, and proved a marginal link in less than 10% of the 40 odd studies there have been. By alien I mean, not reality situations, i..e. at a bus stop in the open free flowing air.
In a few studies way less than half without going back over it all in depth they established a marginal link in concentrated environments. This is why the ban came in for inside spaces. Although they too conceded that even the studies could not account for the fact in a smokey bar for example there would be free flowing air, windows, doors opening etc. The main study was the link with those smoking heavily in the home and the effects on other habitants. Of couse, free flowing air is subjective and speculative in these cases, but again marginal links, but links none the less, hence the dont smoke around children line, which is totally acceptable of course.
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Take-away foods (most especially those fried in oil)
All drinks containing sugar
Chocolates
Ready prepared "TV" dinners (they contain way too much damaging salts)
While doing this, all bus/train shelters should be done away with - addicts cannot then not partake of their addictions, thereby annoying non-addicts.
I have a friend who is a shop-aholic - she wastes her money in those cheap chinese shops, and is always buying "bargains" she does not need, or duplicates because she has forgotten she already has that stuff.
Perhaps some sort of control can be used in shops? Don`t know what, but maybe a form to fill out stating the necessity of buying the item?
Maybe this would lead to more employment?.... for folks to wear uniforms and go round to check on these shop-aholics and what they bought? They could then be fined, if they`ve duplicated or bought not neccessary stuff, or have expired foodstuffs, and this would subsidise more control measures to be thought up in the future?
I love these smoking threads! They bring out the absurdity in everyone, and righteousness indignation.
How stupid do you actually need to be to question the smoking / cancer link? Is this like an IQ below a dead goat territory?