ChatterBank3 mins ago
What Is Your Attitude Towards Smoking?
141 Answers
To me it smells terrible and I try to avoid it and those who do it while they are smoking. I don't do it myself but I'm ok with others doing it, as it's their choice.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Nameless14. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
10ClarionSt is simply wrong: passive smoking is understood by scientists to be harmful, as can be seen by many large studies, eg:
https:/
https:/
https:/
And so on. And on. Maybe do some actual research next time 10CS.
https:/
https:/
https:/
And so on. And on. Maybe do some actual research next time 10CS.
Jim, I don't need to do research. There is proof all around you that what I am saying is correct. People such as me, millions of us, who lived through those times as babies, children, teenagers, adults: all being told that we are the lucky generation and will live longer than any previous generation.
Where is the legacy of all the harmful passive smoking? When passive smoking was lots more prevalent than it is today. All the researchers are probably linked to some financial institution or other, to convince the govt to give them money. Look at the history. The history is factual. Passive smoking has never, and never will, kill anyone. There is no proof. None. No matter how many reports and researches you provide links to. Nobody has been certified as dying due to passive smoking. Not even Roy Castle, who was such a nice man that he couldn't be wrong. I don't remember anyone claiming they caught lung cancer through working in clubs. He said it and people believed him. Just because he said it. Without any proof. They believed him because they didn't like smoking and smokers. So they went along with him.
Where is the legacy of all the harmful passive smoking? When passive smoking was lots more prevalent than it is today. All the researchers are probably linked to some financial institution or other, to convince the govt to give them money. Look at the history. The history is factual. Passive smoking has never, and never will, kill anyone. There is no proof. None. No matter how many reports and researches you provide links to. Nobody has been certified as dying due to passive smoking. Not even Roy Castle, who was such a nice man that he couldn't be wrong. I don't remember anyone claiming they caught lung cancer through working in clubs. He said it and people believed him. Just because he said it. Without any proof. They believed him because they didn't like smoking and smokers. So they went along with him.
You very clearly *do* need to do research, because you have -- among other things -- chosen your sample rather poorly. If you only pick the people born in the 1950s and 1960s who are actually still alive today, is it any wonder that you don't see the ones who died, or who have suffered serious ill health from passive smoking? But if you actually start to take a more in-depth look at their health, the rates of various smoking-related cancers, and so on, then you see a pattern that totally undermines what you are saying.
The evidence in front of you means nothing if you are incapable of interpreting it. As to dismissing the research due to possible financial links: there has been no greater vested interest in this case than the tobacco companies themselves, who -- it is now known -- did all they could to suppress research into, or publication of research into, the harmful effects of smoking full stop, be it active or passive. It seems like you have fallen for their propaganda (there's the irony) hook, line and sinker.
As to the claim that "Nobody has been certified as dying due to passive smoking." -- this is a highly misleading point. In the end you die because of cancer. All smoking, or all passive smoking, can ever do in itself is to drastically increase the rates of these diseases. It has been shown that people who are exposed to massive smoking more frequently, eg because they live with an active smoker, have far greater rates of smoking-related cancers than those who are less exposed to it.
There is no more arrogant claim possible than the idea that you, or anyone else, doesn't need to do research.
The evidence in front of you means nothing if you are incapable of interpreting it. As to dismissing the research due to possible financial links: there has been no greater vested interest in this case than the tobacco companies themselves, who -- it is now known -- did all they could to suppress research into, or publication of research into, the harmful effects of smoking full stop, be it active or passive. It seems like you have fallen for their propaganda (there's the irony) hook, line and sinker.
As to the claim that "Nobody has been certified as dying due to passive smoking." -- this is a highly misleading point. In the end you die because of cancer. All smoking, or all passive smoking, can ever do in itself is to drastically increase the rates of these diseases. It has been shown that people who are exposed to massive smoking more frequently, eg because they live with an active smoker, have far greater rates of smoking-related cancers than those who are less exposed to it.
There is no more arrogant claim possible than the idea that you, or anyone else, doesn't need to do research.
Why do I need to do reasearch when, as I still say, the proof is STILL all round. I can see it with my own eyes, Jim. I don't need to do any reasearch. We are constantly told we will be a burden on the NHS by living longer. We lived through it. We were there. And we're still here. And no-one has ever been certified as dying due to passive smoking.
Just slightly off topic; there was a report in The Sunday Times yesterday that said lung cancer is on the increase in people who have never smoked, or whose parents have never smoked. I'm, just like, sayin'. Yer know?
Just slightly off topic; there was a report in The Sunday Times yesterday that said lung cancer is on the increase in people who have never smoked, or whose parents have never smoked. I'm, just like, sayin'. Yer know?
Looking around with your own eyes is no closer to proof, and indeed often far further away, than in-depth research. As I say, you are picking a rotten sample size. It's not unlike concluding that buildings from the 16th Century were meant to last, because all the ones that you see from that era are still standing and perfectly fine -- but, of course, you can't see the multitude of other buildings that have been, and gone, because they were poorly-constructed. It's the same basic error.
The simple fact is that passive smoking has been unequivocally shown to be harmful to people's health.
The simple fact is that passive smoking has been unequivocally shown to be harmful to people's health.
Buildings are not people. Sorry Jim. I can't accept any of it. I think there is an element of hysteria and alarmist about smokers that's been whipped up through the media and people who simply don't like smoking and smokers. It's more of a general thing for me which goes to show that if something is said often enough, people will believe it.
No, buildings aren't people. But that isn't the point. The point is that if you look at only a sample of individuals that support your case then of course you'll find all the evidence you like that backs you up. But in both cases you are ignoring all the other cases. I mean, how often have you actually dug into the medical histories of thousands, if not millions, of people? It's pretty obvious that the answer is "never". Which completely invalidates your case.
If you want to prove that passive smoking is not harmful, then you will, by definition, need to take a large enough sample of people who have, to a greater and lesser degree, been exposed to it, and to check what effect, if any, it has had on their lives. When you do this -- and not before -- you can come back and tell me that you've actually shown that there is no effect. Simply looking at people who are still alive tells me nothing, and more importantly tells you nothing either.
If you want to prove that passive smoking is not harmful, then you will, by definition, need to take a large enough sample of people who have, to a greater and lesser degree, been exposed to it, and to check what effect, if any, it has had on their lives. When you do this -- and not before -- you can come back and tell me that you've actually shown that there is no effect. Simply looking at people who are still alive tells me nothing, and more importantly tells you nothing either.
