Will everyone stop being so dramatic? "Let them kill each other"? Really? There's just no need to treat other people with such contempt. I agree, there should be "smoking rooms" or "smoking boxes". Can't people express what they think about smoking regulations without resorting to such phrases?
The following 2 users would like to thank Kamarate for this useful post:
Will everyone stop being so dramatic? "Let them kill each other"? Really? There's just no need to treat other people with such contempt. I agree, there should be "smoking rooms" or "smoking boxes". Can't people express what they think about smoking regulations without resorting to such phrases?
"Rauchen ist tödlich" (smoking is deadly)
I don't think anyone on EF coined that phrase, but it is a medical fact and that phrase is on a lot of cigarette packages and advertisements.
So if we say, "put them in a box and let them kill each other," then I find it rather appropriate.
This user would like to thank KeinFranzösisch for this useful post:
Yes but i was born with asthma, AND ITS ALL YOU SMOKERS FAULT
And I have sensitive eyes AND ITS ALL YOU SMOKERS FAULT
And PASSIVE SMOKING KILLS 600,000!!!!!!
FACTually, not one death certificate in the world has cause of death as passive smoking.
Antis will argue its the diseases associated that kill. Really? Really? Well, not every smoker gets cancer, in fact, most dont, and if they do as they do stand an increased chance, it is generally after decades of smoking and contracted in relative old age. The statistical increase in chemicals in the body for passive smokers is so minute, they would have to passive smoke in a concentrated area for something like 300 years to consume the amount a smoker does! In fact, I think the official statistics is 12 years to consume what a smoker consumes in a day. Now I know life time expectancy has increased in this modern day, but 300 years is a push. Likewise, the studies do not even take into account the exposure those studied have had to other cancer causing chemicals, which can be found in various other pollutions and foods, for example tomatoes contain a chemical that causes cancer and is also present in cigarette smoke, as does whole milk.
Some studies out of the 140 or so that have been carried out even show passive smoking to cause a protective effect.
One shouldnt discount the overall objective of the WHO and other anti smoking organisations, and that is to cut down the number of people smoking and dying as a result. But the passive smoke argument is so exaggerated, purposefully, in an effort to convert these smokers and/or have them be alienated by the people who buy all the guff.
This user would like to thank JBZ86 for this useful post:
The corresponding estimates for lifelong nonsmokers are a 1.1% probability of dying from lung cancer before age 85 for a man of European descent, and a 0.8% probability for a woman.
Just to understand where you are coming from; do you believe there is absolutely no danger to health from passive smoking?
In the fresh air? Out in the open? You're more at danger from the poisons being spewed from the exhaust fumes of cars or the dog mess of inconsiderate owners.
Indoors is an entirely different matter, as I have already said.
Linear Mode
