Third Hand smoke

[Hell Kitty]

Er, wasted effort? Diminishing returns? Hypocrisy?

 

It's not hypocritical to focus on one issue over another, and whether the effort is worth it depends on your point of view.

 

I just really hate the constant hate, especially because I feel the vast majority of haters don't have the right to claim the high ground.

 

It's perfectly understandable you would feel annoyed and possibly angry when criticized for doing something you enjoy. Accusing folks of being anti-smoking only as a way to feel better about themselves, despite knowing smoking is not good for you or your surroundings, is simply your own attempt at claiming the high ground you don't really have the right to.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Hell Kitty

[213374U]

Er, wasted effort? Diminishing returns? Hypocrisy?

 

It's not hypocritical to focus on one issue over another, and whether the effort is worth it depends on your point of view.

I was perhaps not as clear as I should have been.

 

What I mean is that it's hypocritical to focus on (read: bash others over the head with) one relatively minor issue, when one is actively or passively involved in other, bigger issues.

 

You guys heard of antibiotic misuse? Hella scary...

Edited February 10, 2010 by 213374U

[Blarghagh]

Oh wow, this is nice. "Two wrongs make a right!" Excellent logic mate. Let's divert the topic to energy instead! And just for reference, there's a good ****ing reason I vote Green: I largely hate fossil fuels. Your sentence shows an ignorant lack of understanding of the patterns of dispersion and health impacts of fossil fuel pollution, too.

 

Why not try replying again without being disingenuous?

 

Edit: This is a matter of civil rights and freedoms. Smokers should be allowed to smoke all they want in private, with the consent of those around them. But trying to argue that the health impacts of second hand smoke are fake or minimal as a defence of smoking around others is blindingly stupid and selfish.

 

No two wrongs don't make a right, but smokers are just an easy target and a great way to shift the blame. I see this (third hand smoking) as having become nothing more than society wanting to feel better about themselves by "making a difference" and "saving the kids", while real, much more serious and a lot harder problems are ignored out of complacency. I don't blame the cars, industry or the rampant consumerism, mostly because that would be hypocritical, but I get a little pissed when people start blaming me. I make sure that my impact is as small as possible and that even with cigarettes I have a lesser impact on air pollution than the majority. Just because you find my habit gross what right do you have to pollute more than I do, when you have an alternative too? How is my addiction worse than what you are doing?

 

And coal plants are serious polluters and pose very serious health problems, look it up some time - here is one article from a random search.

 

Now, I have no problem with smokers, but starting a post consisting entirely of shifting blame with accusations that the other shifts the blame is just poor form.

 

Because, you know what? Both are problems that need to fixed. "But yours is worse!" is a ****ty argument. It's like standing over someone you just murdered and saying "Why are you pissed at me? It's not like I killed as many people as Ted Bundy!"

[Rosbjerg]

Now, I have no problem with smokers, but starting a post consisting entirely of shifting blame with accusations that the other shifts the blame is just poor form.

 

Because, you know what? Both are problems that need to fixed. "But yours is worse!" is a ****ty argument. It's like standing over someone you just murdered and saying "Why are you pissed at me? It's not like I killed as many people as Ted Bundy!"

 

That counter argument only really works if it was Ted Bundy I killed.. As I don't have a problem with people, who actually have their bases covered, criticizing me.

[Hurlshort]

I'm not really sure I understand the whole "there are worse things out there to worry about" argument. I found this on a SIDS website. It was not an anti-smoking website, it was just an informative website on how to possibly present Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, the leading cause of death for infants.

 

Do not smoke, drink, or use drugs while pregnant and do not expose your baby to secondhand smoke. Infants of mothers who smoked during pregnancy are three times more likely to die of SIDS than those whose mothers were smoke-free; exposure to secondhand smoke doubles a baby's risk of SIDS. Researchers speculate that smoking might affect the central nervous system, starting prenatally and continuing after birth, which could place the baby at increased risk.

 

Now the third hand smoke research is fairly new, but it could mean that even if you smoke outside, when you come back in and pick up your child, you are still exposing that child to danger. That seems pretty serious to me, and it is something that is easily prevented by not smoking at all.

 

Also, I've never had a neighbor BBQ 12 times a day, so I'm not buying that deflection either.

[Walsingham]

Now the third hand smoke research is fairly new, but it could mean that even if you smoke outside, when you come back in and pick up your child, you are still exposing that child to danger. That seems pretty serious to me, and it is something that is easily prevented by not smoking at all.

 

Also, I've never had a neighbor BBQ 12 times a day, so I'm not buying that deflection either.

 

Mate, you're being pretty reasonable, but that's just making me more angry at the total scare this is on you. You make it sound like tertiary smoke is like mustard gas, and you should learn CBRN drill whenever handling your baby. There's necrotising bacteria in the soil, and a high percentage of healthworkers have the same and worse on their skin.

 

I'm not saying nothing will happen to your baby because of second hand smoke. I'm saying that once you dial your threshold that low you are going to go bat**** insane.

 

And yes, I'm also saying not to indulge in the guilt free hatred of smokers. It's like health is the new secular fundamentalism and we're a restless stoning mob.

[Hurlshort]

So smoking is as unpreventable as bacteria in the soil?

 

I haven't said anything about hating smokers, I haven't even said everyone should quit. I realize is is a serious addiction. I just would like to see people never take up the habit in the first place. It just seems like a choice that has tremendous negative consequences, far outweighing any of the positives.

[Walsingham]

I'm not disagreeing with you about smoking being a pointless and dangerous activity for the individual. I don't promote it. I don't condone it. But we're not talking about smokers, we're talking about tertiary smoke effects. I don't even mean to attack you personally. Like I tried to say, but maybe didn't, I'm angry that you have been shahoozled into getting concerned about this.

[Hurlshort]

I'm not being shahoozled (is that in the dictionary?) as I've always been a big anti-smoking guy. I just hate the smell, it makes me sick to be exposed to it too long. Really, all this research and evidence is simply justification for my intense dislike of cigarettes.

[Walsingham]

I'm not being shahoozled (is that in the dictionary?) as I've always been a big anti-smoking guy. I just hate the smell, it makes me sick to be exposed to it too long. Really, all this research and evidence is simply justification for my intense dislike of cigarettes.

 

Fair enough then. If it's merely assisting you in your existing dislike.

[Meshugger]

Point one.

 

And of the whole "culture of smoking" comes from being rebellious, living on the edge so to speak. Separate it from that, and smoking goes down by itself. However, you guys are facing two different problems with that:

 

- If you systematically ban/outlaw smoking further, it will only justify the rebellious culture around smoking (hint: look at all the "cool" bands and rockstars that are out there)

- Since smoking is bad for you, and thus, it is part of the whole "living on the edge"-culture. How do you not make it bad?

 

Also, there was a smaller british company that started to produce electric cigarettes, where you only breathed out regular steam out of water. No tar, no smell, no carcinogens, no risk of cancer for you or anyone else. The only thing that you inhaled was the flavour, water and nicotine. But do you know what the non-smoker lobby did about it? Complete ban in most countries, since it sends the "wrong" signals to youths.

 

Thanks a lot, guys.

[Hurlshort]

To be fair, those fake cigarettes were pretty goofy. I'm not sure how that replaces to coolness factor of smoking.

 

I love Bill Hicks, but I'm not sure if a guy who died at 32 because of cancer is the best spokesperson for the cause.

[Gorgon]

I don't think that 'smoking is cool' has been the prevailing media projection for a long time. Hell, even John McClane managed to quit.

[Malcador]

Wonder why they just don't make them illegal. Hm..

[Orogun01]

Wonder why they just don't make them illegal. Hm..

Because is a few of the great American industries.

[Tigranes]

- If you systematically ban/outlaw smoking further, it will only justify the rebellious culture around smoking (hint: look at all the "cool" bands and rockstars that are out there)

- Since smoking is bad for you, and thus, it is part of the whole "living on the edge"-culture. How do you not make it bad?

 

I suggest that the best way is to slowly change the design of cigarrettes so that they become larger, more unwieldy, cumbersome and goofy. I saw a couple of people lighting up with one of those middle eastern long pipes that you have to sit down and plug a hose to your mouth for. Actually, I think those look a lot cooler, but if your only option of smoking was huddle up and get a lot of it back in your face while you hose it up...

[Purkake]

I thought hookahs were commonplace by now...

 

They are around here, at least.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Purkake

[Walsingham]

Wonder why they just don't make them illegal. Hm..

 

Yes. Good idea. Making them illegal would mean tehy'd die out completely. Like heroin or cocaine.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Wonder why they just don't make them illegal. Hm..

 

Alcohol should be made illegal too. It does more harm than cigarettes.

[Purkake]

What about coffee?

 

I hate coffee.

[Malcador]

Well, here at least, government always makes these things out to be the Great Satan, think they're looking at laws making it illegal to smoke in your apartment, it's already so to smoke in your car if you have kids present, but always likes the tax revenue. So I find it funny.

[Hurlshort]

Making it illegal will not work, as someone already pointed out it is a huge industry. Prohibition was also a huge failure, so I'm not sure why we would ever go down that road.

 

 

I challenge the statement that it isn't still pushed as the 'cool thing to do.' There is a reason the tobacco companies give away free cigarettes on the sets of movies and TV shows. Hollywood is absolutely filled with smokers, and the rest of the US looks to those celebrities as role models. It is sad. Again, the only solution I see is a drastic shift in the culture of smoking, and maybe a drastic shift away from where folks idolize movie stars.

[Tigranes]

and maybe a drastic shift away from where folks idolize movie stars.

 

To me that's the first thing the developed world need to wish for when they get a genie in a lamp, but... yeah.

[Orogun01]

I challenge the statement that it isn't still pushed as the 'cool thing to do.' There is a reason the tobacco companies give away free cigarettes on the sets of movies and TV shows. Hollywood is absolutely filled with smokers, and the rest of the US looks to those celebrities as role models. It is sad. Again, the only solution I see is a drastic shift in the culture of smoking, and maybe a drastic shift away from where folks idolize movie stars.

So far the only guys that ever smoke on film are the bad guys, the image of beauty and manliness associated with smoking died out a long time ago (the 60's I guess). I really do not see smoking as deserving prohibition, while in fact they should take the ban out of some controlled substances that have no detrimental effects.

[Humodour]

Wonder why they just don't make them illegal. Hm..

 

Alcohol should be made illegal too. It does more harm than cigarettes.

 

That's patently false. Cigarettes are the biggest killer out of all the drugs. Alcohol-related deaths are mainly due to head injury, and are reasonably small in number.