It’s true that nicotine has beneficial effects, but nicotine is not, strictly speaking, the cause of the problems caused by smoking; it is simply the substance that addicts smokers to cigarettes. It’s the particles in which nicotine is suspended and the other chemicals they contain that are the carcinogens–this is why nicotine replacement (patch, inhaler, gum, whatever) is preferable to allowing a smoker to continue smoking; the addictive substance is administered and stepped down (it does have a lot of detrimental effects to counter the nice one we know about) while removing the most serious threat to health.
And while the risk of complications is certainly higher for a smoker than for a non-smoker in the same room/breathing the same air, it hardly seems fair that the non-smoker should suffer such serious consequences due to something they can’t control. And they do, at least often enough that one ought to be careful.
I couldnt agree more with you on the bunch of liars part.<---- they do alot more than lie… But im getting alot of mixed signals here. So am i at a serious risk or just a slight one? I hate the fumes but after so many years… i got used to it. Only thing is, do i need to start watching out for myself? Cause i’d hate to tell my family on my death bed… Yeah you “sorta” murdered me.
Hey Grey,
No, I didn’t miss the part where you specifically mentioned dilution. I also didn’t miss the part where you specifically said:
(Bolding mine)
-Apoptosis
Actually, instead of dilution he is implying diffusion. The smoke diffuses in the air and you, the 2nd hand smoker, inhale a miniscule proprtion of what the smoker acutally intakes.
Apoptosis I suppose if I had said passive smokers receive the same dosage of fumes you would be right. However I said the composition of the fumes is identical, not the dosage. And, while Ludicrous is right about diffusion being the mechanism the end result is a dilution of the chemicals within the air space.
You and Seven do bring up a good point that I guess I buried under some assumptions. Active smokers breathe both primary and secondary smoke/fumes while passive smokers only breathe the secondary.
Israfell basically it comes down to this, passive smoke likely will not kill you but it’s a pain to deal with from a cosmetic point of view (clothes smell, rooms smell) and for some with breathing problems the particulate matter is an irritant. I suggest you speak with your family and figure out a practical way to reduce the amount of smoke you need to put up with until you can move out.
hmm, only just noticed this thread.
[nitpick]
saying that passive smokers face the same health risks as smokers (such as lung cancer), isn’t quite the same as saying “second hand smokers are equally at risk of getting cancer”.
[/nitpick]
whatever nonsense the government might be harping next in their campaigns, it would be better if you’d find something a little more worthy to rant about rather than at a branch of the government looking to clear up the little amount of breathing space we have… and you would do better, Dogface, than to hurl insults like that on a debatable subject as this.
i’d tried to access your link but it’s a subscription site so i’ve randomly googled a couple of links for you on the WHO website instead.
the very first result yields this
and something more recent,
if that isn’t enough for you then i’ll throw IMHO as well - as far as this thread is concerned, the answer to the OP is yes, since there is enough addicted smokers and tobacco industry people who choose to vex seemingly well intentioned people, the road to the final answer (if any) will be in GD. in the meantime, here’s my take - whatever else is in tobacco smoke, there will always be soot, and that is reason enough for me not to have someone else use my lungs as an ashtray.
on preview - why yes, i am not a smoker. and among other things i would very much welcome a study claiming that thick pungent floral perfume is evil for the passive inhalers…
Like all of us I had 2 grandmothers.
One was all about clean living. She never drank, loathed smoking with a passion and was very active up to her last day (she was an avid gardener and club-joiner, a regular social butterfly). She was the nana that used to ring up to give you lectures about feeding children vegetables. She was a wonderful grandmother and died at 89.
My other grandmother smoked like a chimney and was fairly fond of a tipple too. She lacked in confidence and became a bit isolated in later life but she was always fun. As kids we knew visiting her always meant chocolate, lollies (candies to americans), fizzy drink…all the stuff frowned on in my house. She got emphysemia because she was such a heavy smoker and her last year was not the most pleasant. She was a wonderful grandmother and she died at 88.
We all die from something. This past week a friends 34 year old cousin had a stroke while jogging, she was a non-smoker and health fanatic.
I’m a smoker and I will be till I can’t be arsed paying for it anymore. If second hand smokers feel hard done by that I’m sorry. I never smoke in the presence of someone whom I know smoke bothers because I’m considerate.
88 or 89, smoker or non-smoker, we are all going in the end.
Warning: hijack ahead!
calm kiwi, I’m a little bit confused about the meaning of your post. You are absolutely right that we are all going to die of something. Most people would be lucky to reach the age of 88 or 89, smoker or not. My own mother’s family was divided pretty evenly between smokers and non-smokers, and none of them lived to see 70. But you seem to be implying (or perhaps you subconsciously believe because of your own experience) that smokers are more “fun” than non-smokers. If that was, indeed, your implication, I don’t believe it. My mother smoked until about 10 years before she died of lung cancer. She was a huge pain in the ass. My father smoked right up until the day cancer killed him, and he was a fun guy. I’ve never taken up smoking, but I have it on good authority that I’m a fun mom, and have every intention of being a “candy for breakfast if that’s what the little darlings want” kind of grandmom one of these days.
For myself, I have no axe to grind with smokers, so long as they don’t blow it in my face. Logically, it seems that seconghand smoke would almost have to have impact. After all, if one can get high from second-hand pot smoke, couldn’t one get ill from second-hand cigarette smoke? It certianly seems like the answer would be yes. But, seeing as how the jury still seems to be out, I’ll just note that being exposed to too much smoke bothers the hell out of my allergies!