Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
There is no risk-free level of any carcinogen, yet we put up with mild doses every day.
Smoking bans, lead to increased drunk-driving accidents, fatalities
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
There is no risk-free level of any carcinogen, yet we put up with mild doses every day.
So, is that what you're going to reduce your argument to: Well, we put up with in other things, so adding this on, shouldn't be a big deal. Even though earlier you insisted that low levels didn't affect anyone and weren't dangerous.
What about the other complications secondhand smoke cause?
You're right. If we're going to die anyway, we might as well just eliminate drunk driving laws all together. I mean after all we're all going to die someday anyway right?
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
Because they don't affect anyone and they aren't dangerous. In an abstract sense, yes they are. What about the complications with oxygen? Should we ban that? Oxygen is a corrosive gas, after all.
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
Dying at 75 after a lifetime of smoking is not being reckless. Insisting that others follow your same health standards because you don't like the smell is being a fascist.
Shh... You are just an ambulant meat-casing for worms. Who will also die. Probably because they are addicted to eating rotten things.
LMAO, "In an abstract sense" they aren't dangerous. RU kidding me?
If I posted this crap, I'd get dog piled.
LOLOLOL. In an abstract sense.
I'm going to try to use that one. And see what happens.
My issue isn't that people smoke. I don't care what they do to their bodies, which is why I think that chewing tobacco would be a nice compromise. I only care about the health dangers smokers seem to think I should just deal with because they want a drag. That's being fascist.
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
Read what I said: "In an abstract sense, yes they are[dangerous]".
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
What health dangers? Please name one person who has gotten cancer through smokers in a restaurant or smokers outside a doorway.
3000 people die a year from second smoker--- 3000 people WHO LIVE WITH SMOKERS.
Living with a smoker only gives you a 1 in 3 chance of getting cancer (exposed for years and years), so imagine the negligible percentage of being exposed to it for a second or a few minutes every once in a while.
Good point. My vice has no direct impact on your body. Too bad we can't say the same for smokers.
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
I assume that you do not fill your car with gas in public, then. You must be aware that gasoline is a carcinogen (if you don't believe me, go read all the warnings on the pump the next time you are there).
Damo, recent studies have shown that there is no difference in lung cancer rates between those who smoke a pack or more a day, and those who smoke three cigarettes a day. I know that it seems counter-intuitive. I couldn’t believe it. The researches didn’t believe it…at first.
Damo, I hope you have not gone back.
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
Do you have a link to those recent studies?
Where are you getting, "Who live with smokers"? The link you provided doesn't stipulate that.
It just says:
"Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2 "
You're site (good find by the way) states that there IS NO SAFE level of second hand smoke and that its effects are immediate. Why should the people who work at restaurants and bars be forced to be subjected to secondhand smoke?
Antiaris Toxicaria
Unique
"Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home"-- sounds a lot like people who LIVE WITH SMOKERS to me.
Unless you just randomly invite smokers into your home.
I'm addicted to oxygen which is, according to earlier posts, corrosive. I expect to have an abundant supply in all the air that I breathe, including the air that is nearby to you.
Should I be banned?
Heck no. I quit.
Then you'd be making an @$$ out of yourself.
Why would I want more carcinogens added to my environment? Are you saying we shouldn't try to limit certain carcinogens because there are others in our environment too?