And how many of those “careless smokers” had also been drinking? At least tell the WHOLE truth when you try to cite sources.
i agree, too. Fact: cigars and pipes, which are usually not inhaled intentionally by the smoker, were smoked for centuries before cigarettes, which are inhaled, came into fashion. Fact: it was only after decades of widespread cigarette smoking, that the smoking-cancer link was discovered. This isn’t to say that pipe and cigar smokers
aren’t at risk; they are susceptible to cancer where the smoke does come into contact with them–lips, mouth, nose, etc. But if SHS is as dangerous as they make it out to be,
then why weren’t all the pipe smokers dropping like flies from lung cancer? Who would be more exposed to SHS than a
cigar smoker? My information may be outdated, but I once read that even smoking several cigars a day didn’t appreciably increase one’s risk of lung cancer.
I told the whole FEMA story dude…are you claiming I didn’t tell the whole FEMA story? If you wish to dispute FEMAs claims (which YOU cited in the first place), then fine. Perhaps you wish to point to the FEMA page which includes drinking as one of the causes of house fire deaths?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by javaman *
**
Answers to some of these issues can be found at http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/cancernet/600365.html (National Cancer Institute data)
Whats the big deal about second-hand smoke all the time for anyways??
What about second-hand stinky perfume…!
What about having to breath in second-hand diaper smells…?
What about second-hand Bar-b-q smoke if you eat fish…?
What about second-hand farts on a PUBLIC bus or train…?
Get real.
What in this world is first hand anyways.? JMO 
It helps to read the rest of a thread before asking the exact same question that Gabz asked earlier.
Find any source linking perfume…body odor…bbq (second hand exposure) ,etc to cancer (or other serioud health problems) …and then you will have a serious comparison.
I provided several links earlier. I DO agree that the links to SHS and cancer is not as strong a link as that with primary smoking…but there at least is SOME medical literature linking SHS and cancer (or other serious health problems). So again…find me a source linking second hand perfume or second hand B.O etc with serious health issue…and then you will have a serious analogy.
It shouldn’t matter whether second-hand smoke is dangerous or not. I don’t see why it should be legal to light small, foul-smelling fires in closed places and force those who mind the smell to smell it. If you walk into a restaurant wearing reeky, horrid perfume, it’s not likely your scent will waft from corner to corner of the place—but tobacco smoke can do this. Bad perfume will offend only those in the immediate vicinity (as will body odor.) Everyone will smell tobacco smoke in most rooms. In some rooms, only most people will smell it.
Smokers’ rights? Hell, no. I’d say the right not to have to put up with an unpleasant smell is a right. I find it astonishing that this basic courtesy doesn’t occur to some people.
Sorry…gotta disagree here. The associated health issues (and I would include things like asthma etc…not just cancer) are the only real reason to LEGISLATE smoking/non smoking issues. Using environmental annoyance to justify smoking regulation is a slippery slope that pro smoking advocates would love to get you on. (thats why I distinguish smoking from other environmental annoyances in my earlier posts)
That being said, I do think that the notion of smokers “rights” (or drinkers rights…or boom box players rights or cell phone carriers rights…) in a public situation, seems a bit dubious
>> Smokers are also responsible for virtually ALL the home fires as well!
This reminds me of a story. At a funeral a man was crying over the coffin and saying “Oh Fred, I told you tobacco would kill you, I told you!”. The widow comes up to him and says “actually he was hit by a truck when he crossed the street” and the friend, undaunted, says “yeah, but I bet he was on his way to buy cigarettes”.
This joke brought to you by a militant anti-smoker.
I had hoped the insane looking smilie in my remark about smokers causing all the fires would have shown that I wasnt serious.
People seated on an outdoor patio will immediately begin coughing and choking when someone lights a cigarette, yet don’t even wheeze when a passing truck spews diesel exhaust all over their food. Second hand smoke is based on junk science. The researchers started out with a premise and then devoted the research to finding it. All contrary findings were rejected. There have been contrary findings but try mentioning them and everyone starts screaming loudly. Don’t bother with any facts, just play the PC game and it will all be okay.
You’ve got that straight!!!
And a big amen from this corner!
With the taxes on smokes in Canada being as high as they are, I figure that my household is paying for the expenses of my local hospital. I would appreciate all of the non-smokers not using it, please. I’m sick of paying everyones taxes. C’mon. Contribute. Take up smoking. You’ll feel better about yourself.
How many of you non-smokers are paying $4.25 in tax a day, everyday. For 16 years?
This is why the govenment won’t ban smoking. Our government would collapse without liquor and cigarette taxes. Heck, they should be encouraging people to take up smoking and drinking!
We have the courtesy to pay the taxes, and then we die earlier, thus not being a burden on the system. Everytime I light up, a non-smoker should thank me.
A better question might be - How many people are stupid enough to actually pay $4.25 a day (for 16 years) for something that is not exactly a “health cure”, and is considered smelly and offensive to many other people?
What?!? Did they put a gun to your head and make you buy the damned things for 16 years?!?
They obviously don’t have to “encourage” anyone. Apparently some people are eager to take up an expensive, heavily-taxed, unhealthy, smelly habit.
“Courtesy”, exactly how? If you didn’t buy the cigs, you wouldn’t have to pay the taxes, right? It isn’t like the taxes are “optional”. So, it looks to me like you felt it was worth it to pay the tax money so you could light up.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by beagledave *
**
I checked the link and it’s about what I expected. I never
did think it was totally harmless. As far as I can tell, cigar smoking tends to be very occasional, with smokers tending to buy premium, expensive cigars as a special “treat”. So at least in that respect we’re saved some of the risks of exposure. Hey, that’s kind of like the argument of pot smokers, who say that sure, pot might be more carcinogenic than tobacco, but it’s much less often smoked.