Smoking in the Military

[ClydeR]

The iconic soldier photo of Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=on&um=1&sa=1&q=Lance+Cpl.+Blake+Miller&btnG=Search+images) taken during the Fallujah fighting in 2004 shows Miller with a cigarette in his mouth. The Marlboro Marine is an image the military intends to put in its past.

Smoking bans are planned for military bases. And, more intrusively, the military plans to treat smoking like it treats "alcohol abuse and poor physical fitness."


More than 30 percent of active-duty military members use tobacco products of some kind. “Of greater concern, the rate of tobacco use in the military has increased since 1998, threatening to reverse the steady decline of the last several decades,” the report says. “Furthermore, smoking rates among military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may be 50 percent higher than rates among nondeployed military personnel.”

More... (http://www.army.com/news/item/5637)


The committee recommends using a phased approach. The military academies and officer training programs should become tobacco-free first, followed by new enlisted recruits and finally all other active-duty personnel, the report says.


The report also recommends that the Defense Department to stop selling tobacco products in military commissaries and exchanges, to prohibit tobacco use anywhere on military installations, and to treat tobacco use in the same way as other health-related behaviors, such as alcohol abuse and poor physical fitness.

[The Ponzzz]

Seriously? The man is fighting for our freedom. If a soldier wants to do cocaine off a dead iraqi hooker, let them.

[Androidpk]

Will never happen.

[Fallen]

It better not happen. If they made it so NEW soldiers that enlist aren't allowed to smoke, and they sign a contract stating as much that's one thing. You can't just take someone's right to smoke.

[TheLastShamurai]

It better not happen. If they made it so NEW soldiers that enlist aren't allowed to smoke, and they sign a contract stating as much that's one thing. You can't just take someone's right to smoke.

They can't take away your right to smoke, but they can dictate what is and isn't acceptable on/with gov. property. So they can make it where you couldn't smoke on base or in uniform, etc.

[radamanthys]

They can't take away your right to smoke, but they can dictate what is and isn't acceptable on/with gov. property. So they can make it where you couldn't smoke on base or in uniform, etc.

They can also PT the smokers until they cough out the burnt chunks of their lungs.

[Fallen]

They can also PT the smokers until they cough out the burnt chunks of their lungs.

Heh. I've seen soldiers smoke at the starting line of the 2 mile run, hand off their cig, then light up a fresh one when they finish.

[Daniel]

That might be a part of the reason why they are thinking about these rules, but man that's crazy.

[4a6c1]

Bwahahaha. Have no fear.

They will never take away anything that keeps people awake during gate guard.

[Fallen]

That might be a part of the reason why they are thinking about these rules, but man that's crazy.

Heh, yeah. One soldier, Fonzo, would have someone pace him holding out a cig and teasing him with it. Was the most hilarious thing ever.

[ClydeR]

You can't just take someone's right to smoke.

If the government is paying for their health care it can. So you'd all better get ready for it.

[Gan]

Poll sucks:
Should have stated that: Soldiers have the right to smoke, do not have the right to smoke.

I could see smoking made as an Article 15 offense.

Soldier is government property, they can do almost anything they want to with it.

[Tolwynn]

Considering Obama wanted to make wounded soldiers foot their own insurance, I can totally see this kind of preventative measure being put in place instead. If it flies, expect similar measures to follow.

[Androidpk]

Considering Obama wanted to make wounded soldiers foot their own insurance, I can totally see this kind of preventative measure being put in place instead. If it flies, expect similar measures to follow.

I've seen stories where a few wounded vets were billed for their combat wounds but nothing about Obama wanting to mandate it. Got a link? That would be terrible.

[Mikalmas]

I've seen stories where a few wounded vets were billed for their combat wounds but nothing about Obama wanting to mandate it. Got a link? That would be terrible.

That was just part of the story, which is what you usually get from conservatives. Here's a link to some info:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=61466


From the article: Obama explained that insurance companies collect premiums for veterans’ coverage but get a break when veterans use VA for service-related conditions.

I'm not exactly sure how VA insurance works in the first place. Is it like private insurance that the US government pays the premiums on? Or is it government run like medicare?

[4a6c1]

VA sucks so bad.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Bwahahaha. Have no fear.

They will never take away anything that keeps people awake during gate guard.

Lol, my thoughts exactly.

It'll never go through. And even if it did: pointless. Too many officers, etc also smoke to where it won't be heavily enforced if at all.

[Tisket]

I'm just picturing hundreds of thousands of heavily armed people quitting smoking at the same time. It's certainly one way to turn our servicemen into the ruthless, cold-blooded killers they need to be. I think the military should time it with an invasion somewhere...guaranteed success.

[4a6c1]

There is still Monster, RedBull and BaqubahTea. :D

Also, LOL at Chewing Tobacco being regulated.

[radamanthys]

There is still Monster, RedBull and BaqubahTea. :D

Also, LOL at Chewing Tobacco being regulated.

Yea, most military vehicles are held together by chew spit.

And fuck if my buddy (Who I'm kinda ticked at) had a shit of a time quitting when he joined ROTC (they made him).

[Sylvan Dreams]

I don't believe that smoking is a right. Not for civilians, not for military.

That being said, I do believe that the government has the right to impose any rules and regulations on active duty military personnel.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm just picturing hundreds of thousands of heavily armed people quitting smoking at the same time. It's certainly one way to turn our servicemen into the ruthless, cold-blooded killers they need to be. I think the military should time it with an invasion somewhere...guaranteed success.

That or the PTSD-suffering messes they may otherwise be.

Whether people wanna admit it or not smoking is a stress reliever.. Let's just take that away and see what happens!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I don't believe that smoking is a right. Not for civilians, not for military.

That being said, I do believe that the government has the right to impose any rules and regulations on active duty military personnel.

Sure, it's their right.

Doesn't make it any less stupid as fuck.

[diethx]

I don't believe that smoking is a right. Not for civilians, not for military.

If you're 18 and you can afford to buy cigarettes, of course it's your right (as a civilian).

I do agree with the part about the gov't having the right to impose rules for the military, even if as Nikki said, it's stupid as fuck.

[AnticorRifling]

I only meet one of the two conditions needed to have a valid opinion about this matter.

[Ker_Thwap]

Do soldiers also have a right to be obese?

[AnticorRifling]

Do soldiers also have a right to be obese?
Depends on the branch, it also depends on if you're male or female. Just sayin.

[Rocktar]

If you can pass the PT test, unaltered, then you should be able to do what you want, however, that being said, they do want people of a specific size to allow ease of supply, ease of designing equipment and so on. After all, there aren't any extra spacious interiors with adjustable bucket seats sporting fine corinthian leather in an M1 or F-16.

[4a6c1]

Do soldiers also have a right to be obese?

no

[TheEschaton]

Just because you're (currently) allowed to do something, doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

IE, to make an extreme example, at one point in this country, you were allowed to own another human being as property to do your work. To say this was a "right" replaces a substantive analysis of actual rights and justice with a legal positivist attitude of "if it's law, it's moral."


-TheE- <-----critic of legal positivism.

[Bhuryn]

Just because you're (currently) allowed to do something, doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

IE, to make an extreme example, at one point in this country, you were allowed to own another human being as property to do your work. To say this was a "right" replaces a substantive analysis of actual rights and justice with a legal positivist attitude of "if it's law, it's moral."


-TheE- <-----critic of legal positivism.

Except that example infringed on someone else's right, this infringes on your personal rights -- totally different situations.

[AnticorRifling]

Wait for the don't I have the right to clean air counter argument.

[TheEschaton]

I won't go there, but I'll make it comply with your requirements.

Currently, interstates in MA have a speed limit of 65 mph. I, being a citizen, don't have a RIGHT to go 65 mph, I am merely allowed to go 65 mph. Thus, the state can revise this downwards (IE, more restrictive, like this smoking ban), and I cannot claim I have a RIGHT to drive 65 mph. That avoids a substantive analysis of what a right is (something that justice demands as inalienable and self-evident) for the legal positivist attitude of "if it's law, it's moral."

-TheE- <---still a critic of legal positivism.

[Fallen]

Worked SO damn well for prohibition, didn't it? All it does is turn otherwise good soldiers into rule breakers. Good GIs would be getting Article 15s over a bullshit rule. That, and you're just going to be WOWed by the recruitment levels once people figure out they will never be able to smoke again. It is hard enough for soldiers to quit for basic.

What's next? No alcohol for soldiers? No caffeine?

[MrTastyHead]

(something that justice demands as inalienable and self-evident)

I see choosing what I put into my body as fitting that description.

Cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, food. If I want to shoot bleach into my veins, guess what? My fucking body!

[TheEschaton]

LIKE A BABY?


Oh, you see what I did there?

Oh, and btw, those things have never been "inalienable" rights because they've never been necessary. At its base, a right is something a human being living in a democratic society is fundamentally unable to live without.

-TheE-

[Bhuryn]

I won't go there, but I'll make it comply with your requirements.

Currently, interstates in MA have a speed limit of 65 mph. I, being a citizen, don't have a RIGHT to go 65 mph, I am merely allowed to go 65 mph. Thus, the state can revise this downwards (IE, more restrictive, like this smoking ban), and I cannot claim I have a RIGHT to drive 65 mph. That avoids a substantive analysis of what a right is (something that justice demands as inalienable and self-evident) for the legal positivist attitude of "if it's law, it's moral."

-TheE- <---still a critic of legal positivism.

Actually speed limits are there to protect other drivers as well. So, infact, your argument is invalid again on the grounds that this can easily be applied to someone else's rights.

It's really an argument of "does the government have the right to dictate my health." I can see where a soldier might be liable for a portion of an increased premium if they smoke, but you can't dictate what someone does with their body. To me those rights are inalienable and go well beyond the reach of the government.

[Fallen]

Actually speed limits are there to protect other drivers as well. So, infact, your argument is invalid again on the grounds that this can easily be applied to someone else's rights.

It's really an argument of "does the government have the right to dictate my health." I can see where a soldier might be liable for a portion of an increased premium if they smoke, but you can't dictate what someone does with their body. To me those rights are inalienable and go well beyond the reach of the government.

In many cases, they can and do. However, I believe if they are going to do something as drastic as attempting to phase out smoking in the service, they should have that added to a part of the contract that new soldiers sign. Leave the old guard alone. In 20 years, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Bhuryn]

In many cases, they can and do. However, I believe if they are going to do something as drastic as attempting to phase out smoking in the service, they should have that added to a part of the contract that new soldiers sign. Leave the old guard alone. In 20 years, it wouldn't be an issue.

But that shoe doesn't fit everyone so it's not a viable solution for the government =P.

[TheEschaton]

The government has a public policy interest in the health of its citizens. This has been a long-standing tenet in our law.

This is, at best, a balancing test - whether an individual's right to do something is outweighed by society's at-large interest in the health of its citizens. In some cases, it isn't outweighed by society's interest, in some cases it is.

If you look at it fundamentally: smoking A) is not a necessary or fundamental thing to an individual, B) affects society's health, and c) affects costs of health care across the board. If it is ever litigated, I can readily imagine a court finding society's interests outweigh that of the individual.

Unfortunately, the right seems to be completely unaware or dismissive of the idea that the common good may ever trump the individual's rights. But it can, and does, all the time.

And one final example of the law legislating behavior: Once upon a time, there was no asbestos regulation. HOwever, I have no right to live in an asbestos infested house, even if I'm the only one who is going to live there, now. It's not my right to live there, even if I bought the house and wholly own it. New goverment regulation says a house must be asbestos free before it is inhabitable by a human. You might argue that this is to prevent me from renting out to other people, but even I am not allowed to live there, despite what my will may be. It is not my right to live on my property, it can be curtailed by health regulations.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

What's next? No alcohol for soldiers? No caffeine?

We'd certainly save a lot of cash not having to send MP's out to the barracks.

[Daniel]

Actually speed limits are there to protect other drivers as well. So, infact, your argument is invalid again on the grounds that this can easily be applied to someone else's rights.

It's really an argument of "does the government have the right to dictate my health." I can see where a soldier might be liable for a portion of an increased premium if they smoke, but you can't dictate what someone does with their body. To me those rights are inalienable and go well beyond the reach of the government.

You realize you just set yourself up for a dramatic pwning on the harmful effects of second hand smoke?

[AnticorRifling]

We'd certainly save a lot of cash not having to spend MP's out to the barracks.
They're the biggest users though.

[Bhuryn]

You realize you just set yourself up for a dramatic pwning on the harmful effects of second hand smoke?

It was inevitable anyway.

Ask the soliders that smoke this:

"You have two options:"

"Option A -- You can't smoke anymore in the military."
"Option B -- You can only some in designated areas on the base."

One of those, is perfectly within the rights of the military in my opinion (the whole we own you thing aside). The other is not for current military members. Companies in the past (Weyco anyone?) tried this and it failed -- I doubt it'll fair any better in the military. They're not going to toss half of the military in the brig for smoking so it's going to wind up one of those unenforced rules implemented for the sake of having rules. That or we'll have an army full of privates.

Ironically -- Day 2 quitting smoking is alot worse then day 1.... only 12 hours left of this day.

[Gan]

Just because you're (currently) allowed to do something, doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

People confuse "rights" and "privledges" all the time. This thread is no exception.

[Gan]

I see choosing what I put into my body as fitting that description.

Cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, food. If I want to shoot bleach into my veins, guess what? My fucking body!

You're right, its your fucking body. Make sure you use that as your defense argument next time you get loaded up on a mind altering substance and kill a family of 4 when you fail to control your motor vehicle and run a stop light at a busy intersection.

To correct what you just said, I would recommend the understanding of scope. Its your body within the scope of your individual body. When fucking up your body imposes in any way upon another individual and their rights - then you no longer have the only interest in what you do with your body.

[Gan]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifSmoking in the Military (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=967026#post967026)07-13-2009 12:35 PM Didnt have your Wheaties this morning Gan?

FAIL

[Mabus]

Smoking = unhealthy and must be stopped.

Bullets and Bombs = don't worry, they're not harmful.

...

[MrTastyHead]

You're right, its your fucking body. Make sure you use that as your defense argument next time you get loaded up on a mind altering substance and kill a family of 4 when you fail to control your motor vehicle and run a stop light at a busy intersection.

Where the fuck did that come from? I think that people should be able to ingest whatever they want to ingest, so I like to get fucked up and drive around? Huge leap there, and very wrong.

I don't like to drink any more. I don't do coke or meth any more. You know what I like to do? I like to come home from work, hit the bong a few times, play some video games or watch a movie, and go to bed. I don't go out and endanger anybody, so save your assumptions for something you have a clue about.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Where the fuck did that come from? I think that people should be able to ingest whatever they want to ingest, so I like to get fucked up and drive around? Huge leap there, and very wrong.



I think someone must have tried to rape Gan with a cigarette at sometime in his past. Whatever the reason, he has very strong feelings about cigarettes.

[Gan]

Where the fuck did that come from? I think that people should be able to ingest whatever they want to ingest, so I like to get fucked up and drive around? Huge leap there, and very wrong.

I don't like to drink any more. I don't do coke or meth any more. You know what I like to do? I like to come home from work, hit the bong a few times, play some video games or watch a movie, and go to bed. I don't go out and endanger anybody, so save your assumptions for something you have a clue about.

Too bad you completely missed the point I made in my previous post. Hit that bong a few more times and see if it helps with better cognition...

[MrTastyHead]

Please, oh clear-minded one, explain it further. Douche isn't my first language.

You're either saying that people can't use mind-altering substances without going out and endangering people, which is fucking stupid, or that using recreational narcotics will impair my brain function to the point where I cannot safely operate a vehicle while sober, which is also fucking stupid.

Was it one of those, or a stupid fucking third option?

[Stanley Burrell]

Should just switch to some Cope. Imagining our soldiers wearing nicotine patches is sad. This is really, really, really a bad idea.

[4a6c1]

You're either saying that people can't use mind-altering substances without going out and endangering people, which is fucking stupid, or that using recreational narcotics will impair my brain function to the point where I cannot safely operate a vehicle while sober, which is also fucking stupid.



Here, I speak Texan. He very clearly said "Shave your fucking face you dirty pothead hippie."

[Parkbandit]

Too bad you completely missed the point I made in my previous post. Hit that bong a few more times and see if it helps with better cognition...

In his defense.. he doesn't do coke or meth anymore though!

[MrTastyHead]

Here, I speak Texan. He very clearly said "Shave your fucking face you dirty pothead hippie."

I'm already clean shaven. I'm not dirty, nor am I a hippie. I'm not interested in the peace and love stuff or the drug culture in general.

And yes, PB, I've done hard drugs in the past. I don't regret it and I'm not embarrassed by it. But you can (and will!) try to make fun of me for it anyway. Don't care.

[Gan]

Please, oh clear-minded one, explain it further. Douche isn't my first language.

You're either saying that people can't use mind-altering substances without going out and endangering people, which is fucking stupid, or that using recreational narcotics will impair my brain function to the point where I cannot safely operate a vehicle while sober, which is also fucking stupid.

Was it one of those, or a stupid fucking third option?
What you failed to realize is that when you are on mind altering substances, there's no guarantee that you will retain any inhibition that would prevent you from going out and endangering people. When your mind controls your actions, and you alter it (ie. fuck it up with chemicals) then you have a fucked up mind controlling fucked up actions. So, follow me closely here, when you decide to fuck up your body and during that process you put other people at risk (risk to health or any other imposition of individual rights) then its no longer your perogative but society's perogative as to what you do with your body. Find a drug that lets you get high and paralyzes your arms and legs, and you can take it as much as you want. Smoke a cigarette that ensures 100% of the smoke is absorbed into your lungs and not released into the surrounding environment (or dont smoke in public) and you can smoke all you want, anywhere you want (well, not while filling up your car at the gas station, or at an O2 bar)... Can you follow me now? Speaky de Engrish?


Here, I speak Texan. He very clearly said "Shave your fucking face you dirty pothead hippie."
Close! Very fucking close!


In his defense.. he doesn't do coke or meth anymore though!
:lol:

[AnticorRifling]

Douche isn't my first language.


You messed this one up it's "Can someone translate what he said? I don't speak bitch."

It's also years old.


Also to the not being ashamed for doing hard drugs, good for you. I wish I had the ability to be a teenager my whole life.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Here, I speak Texan. He very clearly said "Shave your fucking face you dirty pothead hippie."

Hahahaha

[Tisket]

And yes, PB, I've done hard drugs in the past. I don't regret it and I'm not embarrassed by it. But you can (and will!) try to make fun of me for it anyway. Don't care.

Too bad. Embarrassment and shame are tools of the conscience to help us learn self control and restraint. It is a sign of maturity. Not the kind of shame that is manipulated and abused to make you feel subhuman and humiliated but the kind of shame that you feel when you compare yourself to a better standard. How is that bad? Sounds like you are caught up in self-justification to me.

[Androidpk]

Because not everyone needs to feel embarrassed or ashamed to learn from their past.

[Tisket]

Because not everyone needs to feel embarrassed or ashamed to learn from their past.

You are confusing shame with humiliation. They are not the same thing.

[Androidpk]

You are confusing shame with humiliation. They are not the same thing.

I do understand the difference and I still don't think it applies to this. This being about his use of drugs in his past.

[Bhuryn]

You are confusing shame with humiliation. They are not the same thing.

Of course if your Culture or Social community at that time didn't feel drugs are the debil its tough to feel shame about using them in them within that context.

I think the word we're looking for here is "Regret".

[Androidpk]

What you failed to realize is that when you are on mind altering substances, there's no guarantee that you will retain any inhibition that would prevent you from going out and endangering people.

Either

A. You have never smoked marijuana before and therefore do no know what you're talking about.

or

B. That's the reason why I see so many stoners passed out outside of 7-11 with their semen encrusted pants...

[Tisket]

Of course if your Culture or Social community at that time didn't feel drugs are the debil its tough to feel shame about using them in them within that context.

I think the word we're looking for here is "Regret".

We're getting into semantics here but yeah, I agree that regret is a good substitute. But then again, I think regret itself is a good thing, something that helps most of us grow as humans.

[4a6c1]

We're getting into semantics here but yeah, I agree that regret is a good substitute. But then again, I think regret itself is a good thing, something that helps most of us grow as humans.

I agree with this.

When people are mature enough to reflect on past experiences and learn from them they can plan for the future. Planning and preparing comes next. Making plans for the future denotes adult human intelligence. Living from day to day is what all the other primates do.

When people say 'NO REGRETS!!11!' what I hear is 'I'm 17 (or wish I was), I have no responsibilities, and nobody can hold me down (or make me clean my room.) Then I stop listening and look for an adult to talk to.

[MrTastyHead]

There is no reason for me to feel shame, embarrassment, or regret for using drugs in the past. I never caused harm to anybody in any way, shape, or form. And honestly? I enjoyed it immensely. It was a very fun time. I made a conscious decision to stop using them without any negative feelings about drug use in general.

I'm going to go with Gan doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Bhuryn]

There is no reason for me to feel shame, embarrassment, or regret for using drugs in the past. I never caused harm to anybody in any way, shape, or form. And honestly? I enjoyed it immensely. It was a very fun time. I made a conscious decision to stop using them without any negative feelings about drug use in general.

I'm going to go with Gan doesn't know what he's talking about.

Why would you do this?

I imagine you quit using drugs to prevent a situation where you might regret the decision not to quit using drugs. You probably didn't even realize that was the case. It's very rare for "I just quit" to be applicable.

Proactively quitting essentially precludes you from feeling "regret" for not "quitting", or not causing a situation (that might also include "shame" and "embarassment"), because you "quit" on your own volition.

Both are essentially driven by regret, one just has a much higher emotional cost do to the possible "shame" and "embarrassment" of said situation.

[AnticorRifling]

We're getting into semantics here ....
What do jews have to do with this?

[diethx]

What do jews have to do with this?

http://seiryuulostmymusic.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/facepalm.jpg

[ClydeR]

Embarrassment and shame are tools of the conscience to help us learn self control and restraint.

That was possibly the best post ever on this forum. Guilt, shame, humiliation and regret are the central parts of a righteous life.

[Back]

That was possibly the best post ever on this forum. Guilt, shame, humiliation and regret are the central parts of a righteous life.

Says he with the Led Zeppelin quote.

[4a6c1]

My investigative skillz tell me the R in ClydeR stands for REEFER.

[Tisket]

That was possibly the best post ever on this forum. Guilt, shame, humiliation and regret are the central parts of a righteous life.

We aren't talking about the kind of self-flagellation you probably engage in on a regular basis.

[Tisket]

What do jews have to do with this?

IOU pos rep. lmao

[Gan]

Either

A. You have never smoked marijuana before and therefore do no know what you're talking about.

or

B. That's the reason why I see so many stoners passed out outside of 7-11 with their semen encrusted pants...
So you're saying (and not limiting this discussion to just mary jane) that nobody in the history of drug use has ever endangered any other member of society as a result of being under said influence? Yea, I thought so. Please try and keep up with the conversation about how the rights of an individual can be limited by the government when said rights impose upon the rights of others.


There is no reason for me to feel shame, embarrassment, or regret for using drugs in the past. I never caused harm to anybody in any way, shape, or form. And honestly? I enjoyed it immensely. It was a very fun time. I made a conscious decision to stop using them without any negative feelings about drug use in general.

I'm going to go with Gan doesn't know what he's talking about.
And you represent every single other person in the world who has been under the influence of drugs. You're either lying (this is the internet you know) or you're still walking around with blinders on. The funny thing is that I was department head over areas including a substance abuse treatment facility for the state prison system - of which had a population of individuals who were incarcerated solely for the purpose of punishment for crimes comitted against society while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Imagine that, locking up people for crimes comitted while under the influence. Just think, that could have been you in there while you were experimenting with meth and whatever else you were killing brain cells with.


What do jews have to do with this?
:lol:

[Androidpk]

So you're saying (and not limiting this discussion to just mary jane) that nobody in the history of drug use has ever endangered any other member of society as a result of being under said influence? Yea, I thought so. Please try and keep up with the conversation about how the rights of an individual can be limited by the government when said rights impose upon the rights of others.




Again, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and it's just showing that your reading comprehension skills need some serious work.

[Mabus]

So you're saying (and not limiting this discussion to just mary jane) that nobody in the history of drug use has ever endangered any other member of society as a result of being under said influence? So you are saying that only people under the influence of drugs endanger people? If sober people endanger others should we outlaw being sober?

I cannot speak for the other poster, but asking a question in the manner you did just struck me wrongly.

Crime is crime. If you steal, you are a thief and should be punished. If you wreck your car into someone you should be held liable. It doesn't matter what substance you may or may not have been using.

I do not advocate drug use or abuse, and that includes most of the legally prescribed ones. I do advocate for individual liberty and freedom with personal responsibility.
If people want to screw up their own bodies and their own lives by smoking, doing drugs or by playing online games, I say let them. If they then harm someone, or break a law, deal with it the way you normally would.

What is this urge to give everyone a nanny lately? Why are some people so interested in attempting to run everyone else's lives (when I am pretty sure their own is not perfect)? Have we come to the point that the majority now believes we must control every facet of everyone's lives because of the irresponsible and the idiots?

It sickens me to see this society being turned toward "potential harm" as a major basis for deciding legal and personal issues.

[MrTastyHead]

Well said, Mabus.

Hypotheticals based on other people acting stupid are not reasons to say I can't do something. Going by that argument alcohol should be illegal, it causes far more stupid actions than drugs.

[Gan]

Again, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and it's just showing that your reading comprehension skills need some serious work.


Well said, Mabus.

Hypotheticals based on other people acting stupid are not reasons to say I can't do something. Going by that argument alcohol should be illegal, it causes far more stupid actions than drugs.



So you are saying that only people under the influence of drugs endanger people? If sober people endanger others should we outlaw being sober?

I cannot speak for the other poster, but asking a question in the manner you did just struck me wrongly.

Crime is crime. If you steal, you are a thief and should be punished. If you wreck your car into someone you should be held liable. It doesn't matter what substance you may or may not have been using.

I do not advocate drug use or abuse, and that includes most of the legally prescribed ones. I do advocate for individual liberty and freedom with personal responsibility.
If people want to screw up their own bodies and their own lives by smoking, doing drugs or by playing online games, I say let them. If they then harm someone, or break a law, deal with it the way you normally would.

What is this urge to give everyone a nanny lately? Why are some people so interested in attempting to run everyone else's lives (when I am pretty sure their own is not perfect)? Have we come to the point that the majority now believes we must control every facet of everyone's lives because of the irresponsible and the idiots?

It sickens me to see this society being turned toward "potential harm" as a major basis for deciding legal and personal issues.

Now bring it full circle and discuss why the right to smoke has been legislated with city bans. Its not a hypothetical that 2nd hand smoke injures those in the same general area, especially over repeated exposure. So, not limiting the discussion to just mind altering substances, there is a legitimate reason why the rights of an individual to consume has been overridden due to the rights of others being imposed upon by the comsumption of an individual, be the example given be mind altering drugs to cigarettes - even alcohol consumption is regulated to a certain extent.

With regards to the OP, when you're in the military - you're property of the US Government. They have the right to tell you what you can do with your body, every person who has joined has signed a statement acknowleging that fact.

[Fallen]

How does someone smoking in a designated area hurt anyone? You're going to have to really stretch to make that one work.

"Someone might be passing by the ..fence of the post and see a group of soldiers standing about. ...Wanting to ..thank them for their service, they rush over JUST as one of the soldiers releases a deadly blast of the noxious substance and BAM! Cancer."

[ViridianAsp]

No, only because I think smoking is one of the stupidest things in the world.

[Gan]

Since when has smoke only stayed in the designated smoking area thats indoors? And not all establishments have adequate air filtration systems necessary to handle large volumes of smoke that collects in smoking areas of establishments.

A waiter assigned to work in the designated smoking area. A bartender, where bars are usually the designated smoking area in restaurants. Remember when smoking used to be allowed on airplanes in the US? This practice is not regulated in other countries, how about those passengers who do not smoke? Not like they cant step outside...

This argument was recently hashed out in another thread, so unfortunately this has turned into a rinse/repeat of that discussion.

[AnticorRifling]

No, only because I think smoking is one of the stupidest things in the world.
That logic fails on many levels, but at least your honest.

[AnticorRifling]

A waiter assigned to work in the designated smoking area. A bartender, where bars are usually the designated smoking area in restaurants. Remember when smoking used to be allowed on airplanes in the US? This practice is not regulated in other countries, how about those passengers who do not smoke? Not like they cant step outside...

This argument was recently hashed out in another thread, so unfortunately this has turned into a rinse/repeat of that discussion.
Waitress can request a different area of the resturant as her section, I'm guessing reprocussions from this could be grounds for a lawsuit in sue happy America. Bartenders don't become bartenders without ever setting foot in a bar I don't think. Smoking on planes I can see maybe, just maybe, being an issue but even then I think it's minimal and a very niche example (what % of Americans fly overseas, of that group how many are non smokers, of the non smokers how many actually give a fuck)

[Gan]

Legislation prohibiting smoking on airplanes is probably the best example of why its necessary to limit the privledge of smoking and how the habit does effect those around the smoker in an adverse way.

If this type of legislation is so bad, then one would have expected it to never have been passed to begin with, or at the very least rescinded.

[AnticorRifling]

Legislation prohibiting smoking on airplanes is probably the best example of why its necessary to limit the privledge of smoking and how the habit does effect those around the smoker in an adverse way.

If this type of legislation is so bad, then one would have expected it to never have been passed to begin with, or at the very least rescinded. Because we all know that only good legislation gets passed....

Again a niche example of a contained unit high off the ground isn't what I would call solid grounds for justification of the same regulations to places that you can easily exit, haven't become a requirement of commerce (IE business trips need to happen and planes are the most practical, chillin at the steakhouse not so much), etc.

Also I don't think you can't smoke on der plane is a great rallying cry for quit smoking while you're being shot at protect the fucks that won't fight but will bitch about your cigs while you're fighting for them.

[ViridianAsp]

That logic fails on many levels, but at least your honest.

I have other logic for it, but I thought that one summed things up nicely. Smoking effects one's health, Soldiers are supposed to be held to a high standard of health, certain weight requirements, ect.

[AnticorRifling]

I have other logic for it, but I thought that one summed things up nicely. Smoking effects one's health, Soldiers are supposed to be held to a high standard of health, certain weight requirements, ect. So you're saying that someone that smokes can't possibly pass a PFT (or whatever it's called in the other branches) or be efficent in combat?

[ViridianAsp]

So you're saying that someone that smokes can't possibly pass a PFT (or whatever it's called in the other branches) or be efficent in combat?

I think it would effect their efficiency, sure they could do the job probably be the best, but that doesn't mean they could be better without smoking. Not to mention the effects that smoking has on the people around you, you aren't only exposing yourself to it's effects but your fellow soldiers. I'm not saying someone who smokes couldn't do a great job, I'm just saying it could hinder a person.

[AnticorRifling]

Of all the hazards of combat I'm sure second hand smoke is probably the scariest.....

[ViridianAsp]

Of all the hazards of combat I'm sure second hand smoke is probably the scariest.....

You're right, it isn't the worst ever, but it is more like respecting the people around you. I spent a lot of time around smokers growing up (all of my family pretty much smokes) and developed fun stuff like asthma. Not to mention all the wonderful things it does to the smokers.


I think smoking is stupid it's like paying for a slow suicide, people should have more self respect and if anyone should show a high level of respect for themselves and for those around them (in my opinion) it should be soldiers.

[Fallen]

I think it would effect their efficiency, sure they could do the job probably be the best, but that doesn't mean they could be better without smoking. Not to mention the effects that smoking has on the people around you, you aren't only exposing yourself to it's effects but your fellow soldiers. I'm not saying someone who smokes couldn't do a great job, I'm just saying it could hinder a person.

We should also ensure the soldiers adhere to a strict diet. They must consume not only the proper food, but the right quantity of food. Deviating from approved menu items or amounts should result in UCMJ action. Further, soldiers receiving less than 8 hours of sleep without being specifically excused due to their duties should be seen as less than combat ready, and face disciplinary action. etc etc.

[AnticorRifling]

So when it's self sacrifice to jump on a grenade, catch a bullet, eat a motar dying like that is heroic. Even if it's a choice. But if you do it slowly it's stupid. Gotcha, always go for the quick fix.

[AnticorRifling]

We should also ensure the soldiers adhere to a strict diet. They must consume not only the proper food, but the right quantity of food. Deviating from approved menu items or amounts should result in UCMJ action. Further, soldiers receiving less than 8 hours of sleep without being specifically excused due to their duties should be seen as less than combat ready, and face disciplinary action. etc etc. My manual said I only had to give my guys 4 hours of sleep. Softy.

[ViridianAsp]

Self-sacrifice is heroic. Selfishly killing yourself slowly, totally different.

I get what you are saying, these people are serving to protect us. Should that mean they can get as drunk as they want? Shoot whoever they feel like because they are having a bad day? No, you are taking it to an extreme.

[Fallen]

My manual said I only had to give my guys 4 hours of sleep. Softy.

Stupid fucking basic training. Waking up in the middle of doing pushups, and you dont even know why.

[Fallen]

Self-sacrifice is heroic. Selfishly killing yourself slowly, totally different.

I get what you are saying, these people are serving to protect us. Should that mean they can get as drunk as they want? Shoot whoever they feel like because they are having a bad day? No, you are taking it to an extreme.

I agree we're taking it to the extreme. Outright banning soldiers from smoking is also taking things to the extreme.

[AnticorRifling]

Self-sacrifice is heroic. Selfishly killing yourself slowly, totally different.

God forbid that LCpl that jumps on the grenade has a smoke in his mouth though, that will negate the medal of honor.

I still don't get why people call it selfish, we're going to just disagree on this topic.

[AnticorRifling]

Self-sacrifice is heroic. Selfishly killing yourself slowly, totally different.

I get what you are saying, these people are serving to protect us. Should that mean they can get as drunk as they want? Shoot whoever they feel like because they are having a bad day? No, you are taking it to an extreme.
You're right talking about things that actually happen in combat as an example of a soldier's mortality is extreme in scenario.....wait no.

[Bhuryn]

Self-sacrifice is heroic. Selfishly killing yourself slowly, totally different.

I get what you are saying, these people are serving to protect us. Should that mean they can get as drunk as they want? Shoot whoever they feel like because they are having a bad day? No, you are taking it to an extreme.

How about selfishly living in a country trying to tell the people sacrificing themselves so you have the right to speak at all. How does that rate on your barometer?

Do you REALLY care if health insurance costs for soldiers is A LITTLE bit higher (many of them won't even have the chance to die from lung cancer)?

Really? With all of the wasted spending at home, you really care about this enough to make that stupid post?

[MrTastyHead]

A 2001 study at Chicago Medical Institute suggested that sleep deprivation may be linked to more serious diseases, such as heart disease and mental illnesses, such as psychosis and bipolar disorder. The link between sleep deprivation and psychosis (psychiatric disorders) was further documented in 2007 through a study at Harvard Medical School and the University of California at Berkeley. The study revealed, using MRI scans, that lack of sleep causes the brain to become incapable of putting an emotional event into the proper perspective and incapable of making a controlled, suitable response to the event.

No smoking, that would be bad for soldiers!

[ViridianAsp]

God forbid that LCpl that jumps on the grenade has a smoke in his mouth though, that will negate the medal of honor.

I still don't get why people call it selfish, we're going to just disagree on this topic.

Suicide is selfish, you don't think about those around you. I have opinions on when it is selfish and when it isn't, but whatever.

I don't think smoking is great, I've seen what it does to people who smoke over a long period of time. Yeah, it won't kill a person outright, but why condone something that does kill?


But I'm sure my opinion is entirely biased because I frown upon alcohol, smoking and drugs with immense disapproval. So just take most of my opinions with a grain of salt, I know most people don't feel the way I do about it.

[ViridianAsp]

How about selfishly living in a country trying to tell the people sacrificing themselves so you have the right to speak at all. How does that rate on your barometer?

Do you REALLY care if health insurance costs for soldiers is A LITTLE bit higher (many of them won't even have the chance to die from lung cancer)?

Really? With all of the wasted spending at home, you really care about this enough to make that stupid post?

See above post.

[MrTastyHead]

I think expecting people to live for your sake is infinitely more selfish than suicide.

Do you have such a rigid stance on fast food? Pesticides?

How about driving a car? On a long enough time line, almost everybody IS going to be in a car accident.

[AnticorRifling]

Suicide is selfish, you don't think about those around you. I have opinions on when it is selfish and when it isn't, but whatever.

I don't think smoking is great, I've seen what it does to people who smoke over a long period of time. Yeah, it won't kill a person outright, but why condone something that does kill?


But I'm sure my opinion is entirely biased because I frown upon alcohol, smoking and drugs with immense disapproval. So just take most of my opinions with a grain of salt, I know most people don't feel the way I do about it.
Might as well look down on rock climbing, camping, hiking, or anything that might involve the risk or chance of being killed before you're dying dehydration from yessing out your no hole in to your depends.

I don't smoke and I still think it's a choice that should be allowed. I have no problem not eating at a place that allows smoking, I also have no problem eating at a place that does allow smoking.

Talk about selfish "Your smoke is hurting ME, your smoking is bothering ME, your smoking is ruining MY evening, etc" neither side wants to be the bigger man and walk the fuck away from what bothers them but they are real quick to point out the selfishness of the other side. There is the problem.

[Euler]

wait, pot is legal in the military?

[ViridianAsp]

I think expecting people to live for your sake is infinitely more selfish than suicide.

Do you have such a rigid stance on fast food? Pesticides?

How about driving a car? On a long enough time line, almost everybody IS going to be in a car accident.


Really? I believe too much of anything is a bad thing. Take that as you will.

[AnticorRifling]

wait, pot is legal in the military? That depends on if you're an MP or not.

[AnticorRifling]

Really? I believe too much of anything is a bad thing. Take that as you will.
So in small quantities it's ok? Or are you saying moderation is only good when it's applied to things you deem worthy otherwise abstain so sayeth the Viridian.

[ViridianAsp]

Might as well look down on rock climbing, camping, hiking, or anything that might involve the risk or chance of being killed before you're dying dehydration from yessing out your no hole in to your depends.

I don't smoke and I still think it's a choice that should be allowed. I have no problem not eating at a place that allows smoking, I also have no problem eating at a place that does allow smoking.

Talk about selfish "Your smoke is hurting ME, your smoking is bothering ME, your smoking is ruining MY evening, etc" neither side wants to be the bigger man and walk the fuck away from what bothers them but they are real quick to point out the selfishness of the other side. There is the problem.

Right, again take it to the extreme. I think these things are stupid things, drinking, smoking, use of drugs. I usually won't stick around if someone is smoking, I don't get in people's faces and whine, but at the same time smokers shouldn't whine because their habit is annoying as fuck.

[MrTastyHead]

I believe too much of anything is a bad thing. Take that as you will.

I take that to mean light smoking is acceptable. Check.

[ViridianAsp]

So in small quantities it's ok? Or are you saying moderation is only good when it's applied to things you deem worthy otherwise abstain so sayeth the Viridian.

No, these are my opinions, again like I said I don't get in people's faces about it.

[Bhuryn]

That depends on if you're an MP or not.

Or a mail/pay clerk on a ship. My friend ended up with this seemingly boring job only to find he ate with the officers when they had steak and got a cut of just about everything that came in.

[AnticorRifling]

Right, again take it to the extreme. I think these things are stupid things, drinking, smoking, use of drugs. I usually won't stick around if someone is smoking, I don't get in people's faces and whine, but at the same time smokers shouldn't whine because their habit is annoying as fuck. Annoying to you not to them. Again change is great as long as it's the other party that's doing the changing.

[MrTastyHead]

smokers shouldn't whine because their habit is annoying as fuck TO ME.

Fixed that for you there. I know a lot of non-smokers who aren't bothered by smoking at all.

[Bhuryn]

No, these are my opinions, again like I said I don't get in people's faces about it.

Calling a soldier selfish because he smokes is pretty "in your face annoying".

[ViridianAsp]

I take that to mean light smoking is acceptable. Check.

If I knew you, thought you were a nice person and you smoked, fine but don't expect me to stick around while you light up. I would expect you to respect my opinion.

Do I think soldiers should smoke, no. They are supposed to be held to a standard, I think not smoking should be apart of it.

It's my opinion and I'm just changing it for anyone. kthnx.

[ViridianAsp]

Calling a soldier selfish because he smokes is pretty "in your face annoying".

I've never gone up to anyone and said it. Dipshit. Expressing it on a board and saying it to someone is different.

[Bhuryn]

I've never gone up to anyone and said it. Dipshit.

I bet there are soldiers in this thread that smoked...

[AnticorRifling]

I bet there are soldiers in this thread that smoked...
I don't smoke but I'm irritated at the idea.

[AnticorRifling]

I've never gone up to anyone and said it. Dipshit. Expressing it on a board and saying it to someone is different. Correct. Hiding behind the keyboard is srs biznss. Opinions you can't express face to face have very little face value.

[ViridianAsp]

I bet there are soldiers in this thread that smoked...

And? I'm not discounting their service, I never would. I'm not spitting on them.

[ViridianAsp]

Correct. Hiding behind the keyboard is srs biznss. Opinions you can't express face to face have very little face value.

Anyone who knows me, I mean really knows me, knows my stance. Why would I go up to a complete stranger and say, "Hey you're smoking is stupid.". Because while I don't agree with smoking, I let people do their own thing. I'm entitled to my opinions.

[MrTastyHead]

I'm going to go smoke a cigarette, nobody post until I get back!

[AnticorRifling]

And? I'm not discounting their service, I never would. I'm not spitting on them.

I don't think you're discounting their service but I do think your opinion on what they can and can't do is wrong and I think your examples to justify are horrible.

[AnticorRifling]

Anyone who knows me, I mean really knows me, knows my stance. Why would I go up to a complete stranger and say, "Hey you're smoking is stupid.". Because while I don't agree with smoking, I let people do their own thing. I'm entitled to my opinions. Stance defensive.

/nerd

[ViridianAsp]

I don't think you're discounting their service but I do think your opinion on what they can and can't do is wrong and I think your examples to justify are horrible.

Like I said, they are only opinions and you may think they are horrible, and maybe they are, I never said anyone had to agree with me.

Like I said, take it with a grain of salt.

[ViridianAsp]

Stance defensive.

/nerd

I'm a huge nerd and smart enough to know I don't want a soldier kicking the shit out of me for being a jackass. It's called self preservation, on principle, I have a high measure of respect for anyone who serves, smoking or not.

[ViridianAsp]

Correct. Hiding behind the keyboard is srs biznss. Opinions you can't express face to face have very little face value.

Oh also, I do express my opinions outwardly, I have plenty of straightedge t-shirts, which usually express my opinions succinctly. I don't talk much, because honestly I'm pretty shy, but the keyboard is GREAT.

[Tsa`ah]

If it's mandated that smoking is prohibited on military installations, in vehicles, ships, or what have you ... I don't think anyone's "right" to smoke is up for debate.

Smoking is already prohibited in almost, if not, every state or federal building. If it's extended to the military there's nothing to be done about it. If that prohibition is extended to "while in uniform" or "while in service" ... the "rights" argument is still pretty moot.

I also agree that people confuse right and privilege quite often. Strangely enough there are those that still believe driving is a right.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm a huge nerd and smart enough to know I don't want a soldier kicking the shit out of me for being a jackass. It's called self preservation, on principle, I have a high measure of respect for anyone who serves, smoking or not.
No no you said that's my stance and the first thing that came into my head was stance defensive ala GemStone. So I was then turning off my nerd hence the /nerd.

[ViridianAsp]

No no you said that's my stance and the first thing that came into my head was stance defensive ala GemStone. So I was then turning off my nerd hence the /nerd.

.....Yeah. That is pretty nerdy. I haven't really played in the last few weeks, what with moving to lovely Nebraska and all.

[Androidpk]

I have a high measure of respect for anyone who serves, smoking or not.

Then you should respect their right to smoke cigarettes if they so wish.


And yes, smoking pot is legal in the army.

[Mabus]

Its not a hypothetical that 2nd hand smoke injures those in the same general area, especially over repeated exposure.
Yes, it mainly is.

I know the mass majority of people just accept what they have been told, or they can really heap the anecdotal evidence, but most of the second hand smoke argument is junk science (especially the "number of deaths from second hand smoke a year" stuff).

[Mabus]

Also I don't think you can't smoke on der plane is a great rallying cry for quit smoking while you're being shot at protect the fucks that won't fight but will bitch about your cigs while you're fighting for them.
QFT

[Tisket]

I know the mass majority of people just accept what they have been told, or they can really heap the anecdotal evidence, but most of the second hand smoke argument is junk science (especially the "number of deaths from second hand smoke a year" stuff).

I agree. Understandable then that it feeds a growing hysteria about being exposed to even a whiff of smoke.

[MrTastyHead]

Yet people don't think twice about driving behind a giant diesel truck spitting exhaust all over them.

Stupid people.

[Tsa`ah]

Maybe we should inform the CDC that they're using junk science.

[Mabus]

No need to worry about smoking anywhere, at these costs...

Man is charged $23 quadrillion for a pack of cigarettes

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 15, 2009

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged more than $23 quadrillion.

Josh Muszynski checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number -- a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500.

Muszynski says he spent two hours on the phone with Bank of America trying to sort out the string of numbers and the $15 overdraft fee.

The bank corrected the error the next day.

Bank of America tells WMUR-TV only the card issuer, Visa, could answer questions. Visa, in turn, referred questions to the bank.

-- The Associated Press

[Gan]

Maybe we should inform the CDC that they're using junk science.

QFT



Secondhand Smoke

An estimated 21% of all adults (45 million people) smoke cigarettes in the United States.1 (http://www.cdc.gov/DataStatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html#_ftn1) Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that include smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke), and exhaled mainstream smoke. Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 known toxic chemicals, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.2 (http://www.cdc.gov/DataStatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html#_ftn2) Secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and a number of health conditions, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and respiratory infections, in children.3 (http://www.cdc.gov/DataStatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html#_ftn3)
More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places. Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces. Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.3 (http://www.cdc.gov/DataStatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html#_ftn3)
http://www.cdc.gov/DataStatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html

[Gan]

Secondhand Smokehttp://www.cancer.org/common/images/shim.gifWhat is secondhand smoke?
Secondhand smoke is also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoke. It is a mixture of 2 forms of smoke that comes from burning tobacco:

sidestream smoke: smoke that comes from the end of a lighted cigarette, pipe, or cigar
mainstream smoke: smoke that is exhaled by a smokerWhen non-smokers are exposed to secondhand smoke it is called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. Non-smokers who breathe in secondhand smoke take in nicotine and other toxic chemicals just like smokers do. The more secondhand smoke you are exposed to, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals in your body.
Why is secondhand smoke a problem?

Secondhand smoke causes cancer
Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths
Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in childrenPregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies.

Secondhand smoke may be linked to breast cancer
An issue that is still being studied is whether secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer. Both mainstream and secondhand smoke contain about 20 chemicals that, in high concentrations, cause breast cancer in rodents. And we know that in humans, chemicals from tobacco smoke reach breast tissue and are found in breast milk.

Any link between secondhand smoke and breast cancer risk in human studies is still being debated. This is partly because breast cancer risk has not been shown to be increased in active smokers. One possible explanation for this is that tobacco smoke may have different effects on breast cancer risk in smokers and in those who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

A report from the California Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 concluded that the evidence regarding secondhand smoke and breast cancer is "consistent with a causal association" in younger women. This means that the secondhand smoke acts like it could be a cause of breast cancer in these women. The 2006 US Surgeon General's report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, found that there is "suggestive but not sufficient" evidence of a link at this point. In any case, women should be told that this possible link to breast cancer is yet another reason to avoid being around secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke kills children and adults who don't smoke, and makes others sick (Surgeon General's report)
The 2006 US Surgeon General's report reached some important conclusions:

Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes breathing (respiratory) symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
Secondhand smoke immediately affects the heart and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over a longer time it also causes heart disease and lung cancer.
The scientific evidence shows that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.
The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to secondhand smoke indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to secondhand smoke.http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp?sitearea=PED&viewmode=print&

[Dwarven Empath]

Lettem smoke just not at night

[Gan]

Yes, it mainly is.

I know the mass majority of people just accept what they have been told, or they can really heap the anecdotal evidence, but most of the second hand smoke argument is junk science (especially the "number of deaths from second hand smoke a year" stuff).

See above.

Feel free to refute the sources.

:lol:

[Sean of the Thread]

This is a fucking stupid thread.

I shoot motherfuckers in the face from 500 yards and I'll do it with a smoke in my lips.

[Mabus]

See above.

Feel free to refute the sources.

:lol:
What sources?

Yes, smoke from tobacco contains toxins. Toxins are not good for you.

You likely inhale more carcinogenic toxins on your drive home then in a smoke filled tavern. Ban cars.

Show the statistics of "deaths caused by second hand smoke for a year", and then we can debate the study.

Just because it shows up on sites ran by vehement anti-smokers does not make it gospel, unless you are a vehement anti-smoker yourself.

[Mabus]

an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
There we go. On the low end of some "studies" I have seen, but let's look at it.

Tell me how those figures were generated.

Tell me how we know that the people affected never were around any other toxic agents, or not even predisposed to the conditions.


Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. The term may convey a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

Fits the bill.

[4a6c1]

All the parenting magazines are talking about Thirdhand smoke too right now. Apparently it is the residue left over on things exposed to secondhand smoke.

[Stanley Burrell]

All the parenting magazines are talking about Thirdhand smoke too right now. Apparently it is the residue left over on things exposed to secondhand smoke.

Damn.

I'm too caught up in Better Homes and Gardens. Thanks for the heads up.

[diethx]

Damn.

I'm too caught up in Better Homes and Gardens. Thanks for the heads up.

lol

[Gan]

What sources?

Yes, smoke from tobacco contains toxins. Toxins are not good for you.

You likely inhale more carcinogenic toxins on your drive home then in a smoke filled tavern. Ban cars.

Show the statistics of "deaths caused by second hand smoke for a year", and then we can debate the study.

Just because it shows up on sites ran by vehement anti-smokers does not make it gospel, unless you are a vehement anti-smoker yourself.

If you actually read the link:


American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2009. Atlanta, GA. 2009.
American Lung Association. Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet. Available at: www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422). Accessed October 2, 2008.
Betts KS. Secondhand Suspicions: Breast Cancer and Passive Smoking. Environ Health Perspect. 2007 March; 115: A136–A143.
Borland R, Yong H-H, Siahpush M, et al. Support for and reported compliance with smoke-free restaurants and bars by smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(suppl_3):34-41.
California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005. Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov/air/environmental_tobacco/pdf/app3partb2005.pdf (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/environmental_tobacco/pdf/app3partb2005.pdf). Accessed October 3, 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Current Intelligence Bulletin 54: Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace -- Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects. 1991. (Publication No. 91-108) Available at: www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001001-d001100/d001030/d001030.html (http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001001-d001100/d001030/d001030.html). Accessed October 3, 2008.
Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 1992. (Report # EPA/600/6-90/006F) Available at: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835. Accessed October 3, 2008.
Mennella JA, Yourshaw LM, Morgan LK. Breastfeeding and smoking: short-term effects on infant feeding and sleep. Pediatrics. 2007;120:497-502.
Patten CA, Gilpin E, Cavin SW, et al. Workplace smoking policy and changes in smoking behaviour in California: A suggested association. Tobacco Control. 1995;4:36-41.
Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, et al. Exposure of the US population to environmental tobacco smoke: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. JAMA. 1996;275:1233-1240.
Schuster MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking patterns of household members and visitors in homes with children in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156:1094-1100.
Steenland K. Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease, JAMA. 1992;267:94-99.
US Department of Health and Human Services. 11th Report on Carcinogens. Public Health Service -- National Toxicology Program. 2005. Available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntpweb/index.cfm?objectid=035E5806-F735-FE81-FF769DFE5509AF0A. Accessed October 3, 2008.
US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2006. Available at: www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/). Accessed October 3, 2008.
Last Medical Review: 10/15/2008
Last Revised: 05/22/2009

Your convenient dismissal aside, there's a lot of expertise there to refute.

[Bhuryn]

All the parenting magazines are talking about Thirdhand smoke too right now. Apparently it is the residue left over on things exposed to secondhand smoke.

Yeah welll...

One of the parent magazines my wife reads had a snippet about how you are destroying your child's brain if you let them drink from the hose. Apparently there are appreciable amounts of lead released constantly from the PVC in hoses.

Some advice is a bit over the top.

For your interest:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=1955237&page=1

Secondhand smoke -- even a little is a killer. It's why more of you smokers are banned from bars, restaurants, now even building entrances.

One public service announcement proclaims, "When you smoke, you're not the only one being harmed."

That's not a myth. Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease. But they studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere.

And now Calabasas, Calif., has banned smoking everywhere outdoors where a nonsmoker could get within 20 feet of a smoker. The former mayor, Barry Groveman, said, "It's about public safety."

"This is by every standard a public health law," Groveman said.

How Big Is the Risk?
But if they limit people's choices in the name of public health, we should know if walking past a smoker can really hurt you. I fell for the alarmists' claims years ago when I interviewed activist Stanton Glantz about secondhand smoke.


"And if I were to walk up to you and have an aerosol can filled with 4,000 chemicals and say, 'Excuse me, do you mind if I spray this in your face,' you'd think I was out of my mind, but when somebody smokes a cigarette, that's what they're doing," Glantz said.

Glantz and other activists now say just 20 or 30 minutes of smoke puts you on the road to a deadly heart attack.

Dr. Michael Siegel, a leading advocate of bans on smoking in the workplace because of the harm from daily exposure to secondhand smoke, says the 20 or 30 minute claims are ridiculous.

"If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said.

Siegel, who helped ban smoking in restaurants and bars, now says his movement is distorting science.

The Crusade
"It has turned into more of a crusade," Siegel said. "The cause has kind of taken over."

Some anti-smoking advocates want it banned even inside apartments.

"Now people are complaining about smoke going from one apartment to another apartment," Glantz said.


Glantz said the people in other apartments could be harmed since the "level of toxicity in the smoke is very very high."

Frankly, I like the smoke-free zones, but the science behind them may be a myth.

"I think the documented health effects of secondhand smoke are enough. I don't think we need to be stretching the truth," Siegel said.

[AnticorRifling]

These numbers:

an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children

baffle the shit out of me. How can you say it was secondhand smoke that was the sole cause?

Both of my kids had lung problems and ear infections while they were in the NICU must have been all that smoke.....

Heart disease because they live with smokers, yeah couldn't possibly be things like diet, lack of exercise (you know if you were out running, playing, etc you wouldn't be inside with the secon hand smoke :) ) etc.

I think both sides claim a lot of things and back them up with their science. Don't blame them, everyone wants to win. I just think it's propaganda on both sides of the fence.

[Bhuryn]

Duh,

Smoking can cause lung cancer.
Obviously people that get lung cancer got it from cigarette smoke.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

They should remove all the fast food joints from bases, and offer only healthy raw vegan options, since junk food is linked to heart disease and diabetes!


....

Oh wait.

[Fallen]

They should remove all the fast food joints from bases, and offer only healthy raw vegan options, since junk food is linked to heart disease and diabetes!


....

Oh wait.

Heh, yep. They have a BK on post, and it was the only FF chain here for quite a while. Just opened up a Subway, but the BK is still going strong.

OMG BURN IT...WAIT *NO*, THE SMOKE WILL KILL US ALL!!!!!

[AnticorRifling]

They should remove all the fast food joints from bases, and offer only healthy raw vegan options, since junk food is linked to heart disease and diabetes!


....

Oh wait. I would kill people, cut off their heads, put them on pikes out front of the base, and start parading around in just warpaint if someone said "You're only eating a vegan diet from now on."

[Tisket]

I would kill people, cut off their heads, put them on pikes out front of the base, and start parading around in just warpaint if someone said "You're only eating a vegan diet from now on."

Something to lobby for now. I was looking for a good cause.

[TheEschaton]

As a complete aside, I think the "parenting" industry in this country has become a total neo-liberal fucking nightmare. I expect my kids to have skinned knees and have their hides tanned when they do stupid shit.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

These numbers:

an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children

baffle the shit out of me. How can you say it was secondhand smoke that was the sole cause?

Both of my kids had lung problems and ear infections while they were in the NICU must have been all that smoke.....

Heart disease because they live with smokers, yeah couldn't possibly be things like diet, lack of exercise (you know if you were out running, playing, etc you wouldn't be inside with the secon hand smoke :) ) etc.

I think both sides claim a lot of things and back them up with their science. Don't blame them, everyone wants to win. I just think it's propaganda on both sides of the fence.
QFT

[Mabus]

As a complete aside, I think the "parenting" industry in this country has become a total neo-liberal fucking nightmare. I expect my kids to have skinned knees and have their hides tanned when they do stupid shit.

-TheE-
On this we agree.

There should be parental supervision, but kids will fall down.

I never hit or spanked my children. A disapproving look and they would stare at the ground. I would not tell other parents they should do exactly the same, as every child/parent/situation is different. There should be consistency with any rules and appropriate discipline (not fueled by anger or fear) when needed.

[Bhuryn]

As a complete aside, I think the "parenting" industry in this country has become a total neo-liberal fucking nightmare. I expect my kids to have skinned knees and have their hides tanned when they do stupid shit.

-TheE-

What? You're going to allow your children OUTSIDE?! You Fiend!

[Gan]

baffle the shit out of me. How can you say it was secondhand smoke that was the sole cause?

I think both sides claim a lot of things and back them up with their science. Don't blame them, everyone wants to win. I just think it's propaganda on both sides of the fence.

Once of the sources I posted, with specific regard to the article from the cancer society, has the 4mb .pdf that gives greater detail as to how they came up with the figures that they used. You could probably get some of the more statistical/science people to let you know the depth of the investigation that goes into medical studies, if you really wanted to know.



1.3.1.2. Estimation of Population Risk
The individual risk of lung cancer from exposure to ETS does not have to be very large to translate into a significant health hazard to the U.S. population because of the large number of smokers and the widespread presence of ETS. Current smokers comprise approximately 26% of the U.S. adult population and consume more than one-half trillion cigarettes annually (1.5 packs per day, on average), causing nearly universal exposure to at least some ETS. As a biomarker of tobacco smoke uptake, cotinine, a metabolite of the tobacco-specific compound nicotine, is detectable in the blood, saliva, and urine of persons recently exposed to tobacco smoke. Cotinine has typically been detected in 50% to 75% of reported nonsmokers tested (50% equates to 63 million U.S. nonsmokers age 18 or older).

The best estimate of approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S. nonsmokers age 35 and over attributable to ETS (Chapter 6) is based on data pooled from all 11 U.S. epidemiologic studies of never-smoking women married to smoking spouses. Use of U.S. studies should increase the confidence in these estimates. Some mathematical modeling is required to adjust for expected bias from misclassification of smoking status and to account for ETS exposure from sources other than spousal smoking. The overall relative risk estimate of 1.19 for the United States, already adjusted for smoker misclassification bias, becomes 1.59 after adjusting for background ETS sources (1.34 for nonspousal exposures only). Assumptions are also needed to relate responses in female never-smokers to those in male never-smokers and ex-smokers of both sexes, and to estimate the proportion of the nonsmoking population exposed to various levels of ETS. Overall, however, the assumptions necessary for estimating risk add far less uncertainty than other EPA quantitative assessments. This is because the extrapolation for ETS is based on a large database of human studies, all at levels actually expected to be encountered by much of the U.S. population.

The components of the 3,000 lung cancer deaths figure include approximately 1,500 female never-smokers, 500 male never-smokers, and 1,000 former smokers of both sexes. More females are estimated to be affected because there are more female than male nonsmokers. These component estimates have varying degrees of confidence; the estimate of 1,500 deaths for female never-smokers has the highest confidence because of the extensive database. The estimate of 500 for male never-smokers is less certain because it is based on the female never-smoker response and is thought to be low because males are generally subject to higher background ETS exposures than females. Adjustment for this higher background exposure would lead to higher risk estimates. The estimate of 1,000 lung cancer deaths for former smokers of both sexes is considered to have the lowest confidence, and the assumptions used are thought to make this estimate low as well.

Workplace ETS levels are generally comparable with home ETS levels, and studies using body cotinine measures as biomarkers demonstrate that nonspousal exposures to ETS are often greater than exposure from spousal smoking. Thus, this report presents an alternative breakdown of the estimated 3,000 ETS-attributable lung cancer deaths between spousal and nonspousal exposures. By extension of the results from spousal smoking studies, coupled with biological measurements of exposure, more lung cancer deaths are estimated to be attributable to ETS from combined nonspousal exposures--2,200 of both sexes--than from spousal exposure--800 of both sexes. This spouse-versus-other-sources partitioning depends on current exposure estimates that may or may not be applicable to the exposure period of interest. Thus, this breakdown contains this element of uncertainty in addition to those discussed above with respect to the previous breakdown.

An alternative analysis, based on the large Fontham et al. (1991) study, which is the only study that provides biomarker estimates of both relative risk and ETS exposure, yields population risk point estimates of 2,700 and 3,600. These population risk estimates are highly consistent with the estimate of 3,000 based on the combined U.S. studies.

While there is statistical variance around all of the parameters used in the quantitative assessment, the two largest areas of uncertainty are probably associated with the relative risk estimate for spousal ETS exposure and the parameter estimate for the background ETS exposure adjustment. A sensitivity analysis that independently varies these two estimates yields population risk estimates as low as 400 and as high as 7,000. These extremes, however, are considered unlikely; the more probable range is narrower, and the generally conservative assumptions employed suggest that the actual population risk number may be greater than 3,000. Overall, considering the multitude, consistency, and quality of all these studies, the weight-of-evidence conclusion that ETS is a known human lung carcinogen, and the limited amount of extrapolation necessary, the confidence in the estimate of approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths is medium to high...
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835

[Mabus]

Once of the sources I posted, with specific regard to the article from the cancer society, has the 4mb .pdf that gives greater detail as to how they came up with the figures that they used.
Estimation and modeling.

Call it "facts" and spew it as if it is truth.

Non-smokers using it to fulfill an agenda qualifies it as "junk science".

I could do a study on the "spouses of players of online video games" and provide a model that would give an estimate of thousands of deaths. It would be no more factual then that study.

[Gan]

If second hand smoke is not as dangerous as some are saying, then why do you need a filter on your cigarette?

[Mabus]

Looks like SoD Gates is backing off:

Pentagon won't ban war-zone smoking, despite study
By PAULINE JELINEK, AP

WASHINGTON -Smoke 'em if you got 'em. The Pentagon reassured troops Wednesday that it won't ban tobacco products in war zones.

Defense officials hadn't actually planned to eliminate smoking — at least for now. But fear of a ban arose among some troops after the Defense Department received a study recommending the military move toward becoming tobacco-free — perhaps in about 20 years.

Press secretary Geoff Morrell pointedly told a Pentagon news conference that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is not planning to prohibit the use of cigarettes, chewing tobacco or other tobacco products by troops in combat.

"He knows that the situation they are confronting is stressful enough as it is," Morrell said, noting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I don't think he is interested in adding to the stress levels by taking away one of the few outlets they may have to relieve stress."

Gates will review the new study to see if there are some things than can be done to work toward the goal of having a smoke-free force some day, Morrell said.

"Obviously, it's not our preference to have a force that is using tobacco products," he said, noting health concerns and the high cost of caring for health-related problems.

The study, commissioned by the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department, recommended that the military start making incremental moves toward becoming smoke-free. The report by the Institute of Medicine suggested the services could start by banning smoking at military academies, then among recruits. It said the VA and Pentagon should eliminate use of tobacco on its facilities and the military should stop selling tobacco products at its commissaries.

The military and VA have been working for years to reduce smoking among soldiers and vets through a number of programs. The Pentagon laid out a plan in 1999 to reduce smoking rates by 5 percent a year and reduce chewing tobacco use to 15 percent by 2001 — and still wasn't able to achieve the goals.

"Tobacco use declined overall from 1980 to 2005, but there has recently been an increase in consumption, possibly because of increased tobacco use by deployed troops," the study said.

The military hasn't placed a high enough priority on reducing tobacco use, according to the study, and that while smoking has declined in the U.S., it remains higher in the military than in the civilian world.

In 2005, a third of members of the active-duty military smoked compared to a fifth of the adult U.S. population, the study said, adding that it "has been implicated in" higher dropout rates during and after basic training, higher absenteeism in the military and other problems.
Criticism of the proposals spread across the Internet and among troops.

"Our troops make enough sacrifices to serve our nation," said Brian Wise, executive director of the advocacy group Military Families United. "They give up many of the freedoms civilians enjoy already without being told they cannot partake in yet another otherwise legal activity."

Spc. Charles Rodriguez, 23, said he started smoking long before he joined the Army and that his pack-a-day habit doesn't affect his physical fitness. His Army instructors during basic training made him quit, but he quickly started up again, Rodriguez said in an interview outside of Fort Campbell, Ky.

During his last deployment to Iraq, Rodriguez found a lot of time to smoke while troops were patrolling or just hanging around the base. He said one of his friends who doesn't normally smoke would join him for a cigarette during the deployment, just out of boredom
Said Rodriguez, "There's nothing else to do and they're cheap over there."
(bold my own)

[Back]

If second hand smoke is not as dangerous as some are saying, then why do you need a filter on your cigarette?

It has fiberglass which gets into your lungs and kills you faster than those who do not smoke.

Don’t you know that the tobacco companies and drug/petrol companies are in league just like the drug/petrol companies with the auto companies and health insurance companies? Dur.

[Mabus]

If second hand smoke is not as dangerous as some are saying, then why do you need a filter on your cigarette?
People that smoke "filtered" cigarettes likely do so to partially remove the tar.

Why you believe that filters have anything to do with "secondhand smoke" is beyond me.

[MrTastyHead]

If second hand smoke is not as dangerous as some are saying, then why do you need a filter on your cigarette?

You don't. I started on Camel unfiltered.

[Mabus]

It has fiberglass which gets into your lungs and kills you faster than those who do not smoke.

Don’t you know that the tobacco companies and drug/petrol companies are in league just like the drug/petrol companies with the auto companies and health insurance companies? Dur.
Fiberglass? That urban myth still around?

Snopes.com (look down the page a little for the fiberglass refutation) (http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/menthol.asp)

[Fallen]

Looks like SoD Gates is backing off:

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

[Back]

Fiberglass? That urban myth still around?

Snopes.com (look down the page a little for the fiberglass refutation) (http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/menthol.asp)

Yeah yeah. And KFC puts salt peter in their chicken.

You won’t find anything debunking the rest of my post on Snopes.

[Bhuryn]

If second hand smoke is not as dangerous as some are saying, then why do you need a filter on your cigarette?

It also keeps the tobacco out of your mouth, not everyone likes to chew on them =).

Day 5 is a lot easier then day 4, 3 and 2 =D.

[Gan]

People that smoke "filtered" cigarettes likely do so to partially remove the tar.
Why would you want to remove the tar?



Why you believe that filters have anything to do with "secondhand smoke" is beyond me.
Surely you understand why I'm asking...

[Gan]

You don't. I started on Camel unfiltered.

LOL

I love discussions on the internet.

[MrTastyHead]

Me too. Most amusing thing in my life most of the time.

[Mabus]

Surely you understand why I'm asking...
Because you cannot prove "the number of deaths related to smoking" propaganda that you believed as absolute truth for years and need to sidetrack the conversation.

[Gan]

Because you cannot prove "the number of deaths related to smoking" propaganda that you believed as absolute truth for years and need to sidetrack the conversation.

It has everything to do with the issue and you know it. Answer the question.

Me: Why use a filter?

You: To remove tar.

Me: Why must you remove tar?

[Mabus]

It has everything to do with the issue and you know it. Answer the question.

Me: Why use a filter?

You: To remove tar.

Me: Why must you remove tar?
Guy, look at any smoking thread and you will see me posting that smoking tobacco is not healthy, contains toxins and/or can cause other health issues. That is not up for debate.

Your vehement anti-smoker defense "Second hand smoke kills people!" (paraphrased) and acceptance of junk science as gospel does not surprise me. You are not alone.

Let's go back to those "number of smoking deaths" you trumpet from the peaks.

Today I heard on the tellie that "The American Cancer Society stated that smoking is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths."

1 in 5. Really.

That is equivalent to stating that every case of Ischemic heart disease leading to death last year (451,326) was caused by smoking, skipping other factors such as diet, genetic predisposition, age, etc.

Now that is the kind of propaganda that people like you (those with a militant anti-smoking agenda) agree with, and so you do not question how these statistics were generated, nor their veracity.

Admit it; you are hooked on junk science.

[Bhuryn]

It has everything to do with the issue and you know it. Answer the question.

Me: Why use a filter?

You: To remove tar.

Me: Why must you remove tar?

While I would never disagree that smoking is unhealthy and long term exposure to secondhand smoke within confined area is bad, short term exposure has never proven to be dangerous. The doctor that helped pass the smoking bans all over California said it was "ridiculous" and short term exspoure doesn't harden the arteries and any effects were completely reversable.

I actually posted the article where he said that very thing earlier in the thread.

[Gan]

Guy, look at any smoking thread and you will see me posting that smoking tobacco is not healthy, contains toxins and/or can cause other health issues. That is not up for debate.

Your vehement anti-smoker defense "Second hand smoke kills people!" (paraphrased) and acceptance of junk science as gospel does not surprise me. You are not alone.

Let's go back to those "number of smoking deaths" you trumpet from the peaks.

Today I heard on the tellie that "The American Cancer Society stated that smoking is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths."

1 in 5. Really.

That is equivalent to stating that every case of Ischemic heart disease leading to death last year (451,326) was caused by smoking, skipping other factors such as diet, genetic predisposition, age, etc.

Now that is the kind of propaganda that people like you (those with a militant anti-smoking agenda) agree with, and so you do not question how these statistics were generated, nor their veracity.

Admit it; you are hooked on junk science.

And yet you still wont answer the question...

:lol:

[Mabus]

And yet you still wont answer the question...

:lol:
What question?

:rofl:

Feel better?

[Gan]

What question?

:rofl:

Feel better?

This question:


It has everything to do with the issue and you know it. Answer the question.

Me: Why use a filter?

You: To remove tar.

Me: Why must you remove tar?

You're failure thus far reflects pretty badly on those who do not support smoking bans.

[AnticorRifling]

This question:


It has everything to do with the issue and you know it. Answer the question.

Me: Why use a filter?

You: To remove tar.

Me: Why must you remove tar?

You're failure thus far reflects pretty badly on those who do not support smoking bans.

That's the spirit Gan, judge everyone in a group based on one person! That never ends poorly....

:)

You aren't removing the tar, just reducing it. You're increasing the amount of air per inhalation as compared to smoke. The downside is since you need the nicotine you'll smoke more cigarettes to get the same effect. I know quite a few people that smoke unfiltered, some that smoke filtered I don't think (zomg opinion) that it matters that much. Then again I don't get my ass in a bunch when someone is outside smoking either.

[Gan]

That's the spirit Gan, judge everyone in a group based on one person! That never ends poorly....
Perhaps I should have used italics.

:)


You aren't removing the tar, just reducing it. You're increasing the amount of air per inhalation as compared to smoke. The downside is since you need the nicotine you'll smoke more cigarettes to get the same effect. I know quite a few people that smoke unfiltered, some that smoke filtered I don't think (zomg opinion) that it matters that much. Then again I don't get my ass in a bunch when someone is outside smoking either.

So wouldnt it stand to reason that those of us who are exposed to second hand smoke (smoke drifting off of the lit end of the cigarette) would enjoy the benefit of a filter too? Which is the complete direction I'm taking on why its no fun to be a non-smoker in the same room with those who smoke. And thus why I support a smoking ordinance, as a non-smoker. Since the tar in cigarettes has no ill-health affects or anything...

[Mabus]

Since the tar in cigarettes has no ill-health affects or anything...
When do I get a filter for the tar from your char-broiled food that has no ill affects or anything?

Obviously, you would never want to harm another with the selfish choice of any heat-blackened dish in a restaurant, correct?

Have you ever barbecued? When you did I am sure you provided masks to all of your neighbors.

Now answer my question about why you believe in the numbers from the junk science you posted.

[Mabus]

And thus why I support a smoking ordinance, as a non-smoker.
I just want to say that I can support a smoking ordinance.

I could support one that would require businesses to post "This is a smoking establishment." or "This is a non-smoking establishment.".

In this way prospective customers and employees would know what they were getting into, and maker the choice to support the business (or work there).

Non-smokers usually do not support this choice. They know that the best taverns, music halls, restaurants and other establishments likely would end up being the ones that allowed smoking.

[Gan]

When do I get a filter for the tar from your char-broiled food that has no ill affects or anything?
Obviously, you would never want to harm another with the selfish choice of any heat-blackened dish in a restaurant, correct?

Have you ever barbecued? When you did I am sure you provided masks to all of your neighbors.
So you're equating the smoke from grilling a hamburger to the smoke from a cigarette? LOL

Not to mention that so far no complaint has been issued about smoking outside areas. In fact, everyone here, including myself, has no issue about being around smokers outdoors.

Keep trying.



Now answer my question about why you believe in the numbers from the junk science you posted.

Because I consider sources like the CDC to be pretty reputable with the facts/figures it represnts. Reputable enough to take at face value.

[Fallen]

Not to mention that so far no complaint has been issued about smoking outside areas. In fact, everyone here, including myself, has no issue about being around smokers outdoors.

Much of what was being discussed was completely removing a soldiers right/privilege to smoke, which would include outdoor areas. I believe you had also commented in this thread that how allowing people "Designated smoking areas" will just lead to them violating the terms of that rule and exposing you anyway.

[Gan]

Much of what was being discussed was completely removing a soldiers right/privilege to smoke, which would include outdoor areas. I believe you had also commented in this thread that how allowing people "Designated smoking areas" will just lead to them violating the terms of that rule and exposing you anyway.

You've obviously never followed a thread that had a divergent topic have you?

[Fallen]

You've obviously never followed a thread that had a divergent topic have you?

People don't usually disregard an argument or statement made in the same thread even if the topic has shifted.


Not to mention that so far no complaint has been issued about smoking outside areas. In fact, everyone here, including myself, has no issue about being around smokers outdoors.

[Gan]

ok

[Mabus]

So you're equating the smoke from grilling a hamburger to the smoke from a cigarette? LOL

As "mister science" here you obviously never read "Highly Polar Organic Compounds Present in Meat Smoke" by the American Chemical Society, nor realize that the burning of just about any organic compound can release carcinogenic chemicals.

Nor have you researched how the starch in the hamburger buns can form acrylamides if they are toasted.

Every time you order that hamburg you are subjecting others to your cancerous eating habit.

;)

You are a walking cancer time bomb, just a smokeless one.

[Mabus]

Because I consider sources like the CDC to be pretty reputable with the facts/figures it represnts. Reputable enough to take at face value.
Then you read the words "modeling" and "estimates", but use the results to as if they were "absolute facts".

Let's hope they do a study where they model how many people that have died had television sets, and estimate from that how many other people that own televisions will die. Then you can state that people die from television sets as if it was a fact, and I can continue to get a good chuckle.

[Back]

Reminds me of a quote of John Oliver from the Bugle’s podcasts...


“Who better to give advice on sex than the Pope. Thats certainly a superb area of expertise for him. I always said, if I want advice on Theology I’ll go to the UN Surgeon General but if I want advice on sexually transmitted diseases I head straight to the pontiff.”

[Tsa`ah]

Then you read the words "modeling" and "estimates", but use the results to as if they were "absolute facts".

Let's hope they do a study where they model how many people that have died had television sets, and estimate from that how many other people that own televisions will die. Then you can state that people die from television sets as if it was a fact, and I can continue to get a good chuckle.

You're stretching.

Modeling and estimates are based on statistical analysis (factual numbers), ie in a 5000/5000 sampling of households (smokers and non-smoker) showing almost half of the non-smokers in a home where one person smokes developed either a respiratory cancer or a respiratory/circulatory disease ... while a non-smoking household shows a prevalence of less than 5%.

This should tell you that either there's a 5% chance of a genetic disposition, other environmental causes, or a mixture of both, while being under regular exposure to second hand smoke poses an exceptional increased risk.

In no way is this representative of any factual numbers, but rather an illustration of how this science thing works.

This would be referred to as the lowest common denominator in mathematical terms.

Of course you're the sandiest mangina on this forum, due to the fact that you're such a butthurt blowhard that you have to ignore people, so maybe someone will put this in quotes in the hopes you'll choke on it.

All of this before we get into your slanted study claims of smoking benefits ... rather nicotine benefits that only kick in with an addiction and don't require smoking at all.

[Gelston]

It would be pretty damn easy to stop smoking on base. Remove the smoke pits and stop selling cigs in the PX. Would I be pissed? Yeah. Especially since I live in the center of Camp Pendleton and its a 30 minute drive for me to leave the base. Would it be enforced, however? Probably not at night. Hell, I used to smoke inside my barracks room.

[ClydeR]

Hell, I used to smoke inside my barracks room.

That wasn't very considerate.
:(

[Gelston]

To who? Myself, or the 30 year old barracks?

[4a6c1]

30 year old barracks. Thats it?

Lucky fuckers.

[Gelston]

Considering most of the military has barracks that are either less then 10 years old or have been remodeled in the last 10 years, not so much.

[Methais]

People in the military should be able to buy alcohol at 18 too.

[AnticorRifling]

Ahh good old Camp Pendleton, at least you're out in 29 stumps....although some parts of Pendleton are just as bad.

[Gelston]

Ahh good old Camp Pendleton, at least you're out in 29 stumps....although some parts of Pendleton are just as bad.

Yeah, I think I'm on the worst area on base. Horno.

[4a6c1]

Considering most of the military has barracks that are either less then 10 years old or have been remodeled in the last 10 years, not so much.


:lol2:

Yeah thats funny.

[Gelston]

:lol2:

Yeah thats funny.

Its also completely true.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I quit smoking over the weekend, think I'm done for good! I just need to get past a few more days and then it's easy street.

[Gelston]

I'm quitting when I EAS in the beginning of 2011. I know I'd just start again next time I deploy.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm quitting when I EAS in the beginning of 2011. I know I'd just start again next time I deploy.

I made so much money off of smokers in the field. I almost felt bad...almost. I'd get a few cartons, a few logs and just stow them. Then when everyone ran out of what they brought it was time to set up shop.

[Gelston]

I always ensure I have atleast one pack per day of field time. This is generally too many.

[ClydeR]

To who? Myself, or the 30 year old barracks?

Everybody.

[Gelston]

Right.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I quit smoking over the weekend, think I'm done for good! I just need to get past a few more days and then it's easy street.

I started smoking again yesterday around noon.

[Bhuryn]

I started smoking again yesterday around noon.

Going on my 4th week now =D

[4a6c1]

Its also completely true.

Proof

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah, I think I'm on the worst area on base. Horno.


Fuck 29 stumps.

Can you say SAND FLEAS AND MOSQUITOES GNATS AND NO SEE UM'S?

ffs.


Hollywood Marines... ugh.

[Gelston]

Fuck 29 stumps.

Can you say SAND FLEAS AND MOSQUITOES GNATS AND NO SEE UM'S?

ffs.


Hollywood Marines... ugh.

I'm on Pendleton actually. Yes, off base is way better then Lejeune but... I went to boot at Parris Island. I went to ITB at Lejuene during the middle of summer and during winter, trust me I know all about sand fleas and the cold(Plus I'm going to Bridgeport soon for cold mountain shit because I'm going to Afghanistan at the beginning of next year sometime. I heard all the hollywood Marines bitch about hills and the reaper(I saw this hill, it ain't shit!). I'll take east coast conditions ANYDAY over Horno(Aslong as you can transport all of SoCal with me).