Are people too hard on smokers?
- Thread starter The Red Bastard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sorry, I don't really want to take this even further off-topic, than it already is, so I will keep this as short as possible. Which might make it very simplistic and blunt, but it is actually very simple:LordOmnit said:
It's not how I or anyone set their standards. It's how our brain(-chemistry) works. There are drugs that trigger the barins reward centre so heavily, that - objectively - nothing can compete.
And I'm just saying that cigarettes greatly enhance that particular kind of drug.
I think people are harder on smoking itself than those who smoke.
I understand that it's an addictive habit, and the people who smoke can't really help it, but that doesn't make smoking (not smokers) any less repulsive to me.
I understand that it's an addictive habit, and the people who smoke can't really help it, but that doesn't make smoking (not smokers) any less repulsive to me.
I'm sorry, but I consider people who smoke to most likely be depressed because they seem to love killing themselves, and in some ways others. Why would I want to enter a relationship where someone is wanting to die like that, or doesn't care the fact they're going to ruin their body permanently within a few years while I'm possibly with them? Or hell, the fact that their smoking can hurt or kill others, including me, with second AND third hand smoke?
I'm sorry, bother I would never date nor friend a smoker. I'm sure it "helps" with whatever's on their mind, and I'm sure some are pretty awesome people, but I'm not going to overlook your smoking habits. They knew the risks of the public's views when they lit that cig, why are they so shocked that we're still looking down on them after their xxx+ cig?
In short, I don't think we're hard enough on smokers.
(And no, most likely I won't reply to this thread if you quote me, just letting you know.)
I'm sorry, bother I would never date nor friend a smoker. I'm sure it "helps" with whatever's on their mind, and I'm sure some are pretty awesome people, but I'm not going to overlook your smoking habits. They knew the risks of the public's views when they lit that cig, why are they so shocked that we're still looking down on them after their xxx+ cig?
In short, I don't think we're hard enough on smokers.
(And no, most likely I won't reply to this thread if you quote me, just letting you know.)
As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to destroy themselves and their properties' value, by smoking, let them go for it. Not my concern. If they want to do the same in a relatively empty, outdoor public area, once again, go for it. Also not my concern. Just for the love of God, don't walk down the street right in front of me spewing that shit in my face, I don't want to smell it (and before someone misquotes me, I'm very much aware there aren't any health effects associated with a few seconds of second-hand exposure, it's still a nuisance).
EDIT: And no, I would not date someone who smokes regularly. I don't want them dying on me at age 50 and leaving me alone for another withmoderntechnologywhoknowshowlong?
EDIT: And no, I would not date someone who smokes regularly. I don't want them dying on me at age 50 and leaving me alone for another withmoderntechnologywhoknowshowlong?
I fucking hate Smokers. Long-tongued pricks, keep grabbing me with 'em and trying to choke me to death whilst a Hunter is trying to rip me guts out...
Oh, we're not talking about Left 4 Dead? Well yeah, they're hated on too much, but they need to get one of 'em nicotine patches someday, I heard they work really well.
Oh, we're not talking about Left 4 Dead? Well yeah, they're hated on too much, but they need to get one of 'em nicotine patches someday, I heard they work really well.
well i don't care much about people who don't care about me
smokers stink... they even leave their stench in the elevator when they are not actively smoking at the moment
would you be kind to people who fart in your face everytime they see you?
...people who fart in restaurants, public places and even non-farting zones?
i don't know why smoking in company is still more acceptable than farting in your company's face...
it both stinks and it both isn't necessary
smokers stink... they even leave their stench in the elevator when they are not actively smoking at the moment
would you be kind to people who fart in your face everytime they see you?
...people who fart in restaurants, public places and even non-farting zones?
i don't know why smoking in company is still more acceptable than farting in your company's face...
it both stinks and it both isn't necessary
Smokers are stupid, selfish, horrible bastards and I would never associate myself with one because I am obviously too clever and morally superior.Colour-Scientist said:
OT: Some smokers get way too much shit for what they do. Smoking harms no one but the one doing it, so there's no reason to get up in arms when someone lights up a cigarette. It's not something I would choose, but there's no reason not to let people make their own decisions.
That said, some smokers (and people in general) really are entitled assholes and deserve every ounce. Specifically, the jackasses who like to smoke right outside the front door of a public building and other similar, heavily trafficked places. Smoking is fine, making me breath your smoke is not. It drives me up the wall to walk out the door of my office building into a cloud of smoke. It's just basic courtesy to avoid smoking where people are going to walk.
Bandwagoners.The Red Bastard said:
Nothing wrong with smoking, however I do ride Marlboro smokers rather hard. There's better cigs out there. Yaknow, ones that are made out of real tobacco, instead of tar shavings off the roads around Pripyat. Those things smell horrible, and its not even like they're that much cheaper than other kinds. I suspect they may smoke less if they enjoyed it more - maybe like eating candy, most people enjoy it but don't have a diet compromised entirely of Snickers' bars. 'Course that's just my two cents, and my views on addiction are plainly different from everyone else's as it is.
There is one kind of smoker which is always disgusting: women who are pregnant.
Seeing women who are pregnant smoke makes me think they aren't suitable to be a mother. The baby could be born deformed or die. Furthermore, smoking with and near young children could lead to their poor health and shorten their lives. I know the odds aren't THAT high but even when the odds are small it doesn't seem right.
When it comes to smoking in general... I try not to judge, but I do find it inconsiderate. Passive smoking is dangerous too; smokers don't have the right to put the general public at risk of ill-health. It's fine if they smoke alone or with their fellow smokers.
Having said that, I don't like being negative about people who are smokers. There are some wonderful people who smoke, and I would still be someone's friend if they decided to adopt the habit or already smoked.
I don't think I could be in a relationship with someone who smoked, though. They'd be damaging their health and I would want them to stop. I doubt they'd be able to stop for me; I firmly believe that to succeed at something, you have to want to do it for yourself. That would no doubt create tension. :/
Seeing women who are pregnant smoke makes me think they aren't suitable to be a mother. The baby could be born deformed or die. Furthermore, smoking with and near young children could lead to their poor health and shorten their lives. I know the odds aren't THAT high but even when the odds are small it doesn't seem right.
When it comes to smoking in general... I try not to judge, but I do find it inconsiderate. Passive smoking is dangerous too; smokers don't have the right to put the general public at risk of ill-health. It's fine if they smoke alone or with their fellow smokers.
Having said that, I don't like being negative about people who are smokers. There are some wonderful people who smoke, and I would still be someone's friend if they decided to adopt the habit or already smoked.
I don't think I could be in a relationship with someone who smoked, though. They'd be damaging their health and I would want them to stop. I doubt they'd be able to stop for me; I firmly believe that to succeed at something, you have to want to do it for yourself. That would no doubt create tension. :/
The habit disgusts me. I'd never date a smoker but I won't look down on someone for smoking. So long as smokers don't smoke near me, I'm fine; if we're outside, I'll have to be upwind.
I'm hard on smokers that have no regard for others, if you intend to stink up a place how about you ask first, otherwise you just gave me permission to free my bowels and let's see who wins the stink competition.
If you got no respect for others why would I have respect for you, and this is not restricted to smokers.
If you got no respect for others why would I have respect for you, and this is not restricted to smokers.
Honestly, what I don't understand are the people that demonize smoking (I've only read the first page, by the way - I figured pages 2-5 were more likely than not just people bickering back and forth).
If you live at a high altitude, the background radiation can be as harmful to you as getting 100+ chest x-rays per year, or living a mile away from the Fukushima nuclear reactor sites post-"incident".
If you live in an urban area, you're "smoking" the equivalent of one cigarette for every 2 hours you spend outdoors, counting the carcinogens from vehicle exhaust, sewer grate exhaust, air conditioner exhaust/etc. If you live in a truly congested area (say, Los Angeles) with a lot of smog, that can go down to as much as the equivalent of 1 cigarette every 30-45 minutes. Passing by someone who is smoking at a building entrance or on a street sidewalk gives you roughly the same exposure to carcinogens as standing at a bus stop in that city and waiting for a bus.
If you eat food that's been exposed to pesticides, preservatives, or growth hormones, you're taking in roughly enough carcinogens to represent the LD50 (the amount of toxins necessary to kill 50% of the test population) of a moderately sized rat every week.
Also, an amusing anecdote.
I work in the healthcare profession. When a patient dies, we have to undergo what's called an "M&M conference", where a bunch of other doctors get together and we present the case, then we all put our heads together and try to figure out what happened, and whether or not we made any mistakes. One of the tools we use to do this is a death certificate filled out by a medical examiner, listing primary cause of death, secondary causes of death, and contributing causes of death.
I had a patient who was hit by a car, rupturing his spleen (among numerous other injuries), and he ended up bleeding out on the operating table while we tried to repair the damage caused by getting hit by a friggin car. On the death certificate, the ME noted that he found evidence of smoking, and listed it as a contributing cause of death.
This happens more than you'd think - anyone that comes onto an autopsy table with more than "normal" wear and tear on their lungs has smoking listed as a contributing cause of death, even if it quite obviously had absolutely nothing to do with it, like with the patient above who died as a direct result of getting hit by a car.
These statistics are what (almost) everyone uses when they try to prove that smoking is harmful to you - the number of people in whom smoking contributed to their COD. It's a direct result of researcher bias. The researchers aren't doing their research to discover anything, rather they're doing it to PROVE that their hypothesis was right.
Now, on to the whole "smoking causes cancer" argument.
If carcinogens actually caused cancer, then everyone would have cancer. Contributing to the CHANCE of getting something is entirely different than actually causing it. It's like, you pick numbers on a lottery ticket. Removing a few of the numbers you DIDN'T pick contributes to the chance of you winning the lottery, but it's not a guarantee.
There has yet to be a study that definitively proves a causal link between smoking and cancer. There are too many other variables to account for for any such study to ever be done, reputably.
As far as personal choice is concerned?
I can understand and wholeheartedly agree with people that say they don't like the smell of cigarettes, or the taste you get when kissing one. THAT is a valid argument. Everything else is just justification.
We as human beings like to think that there is a cause behind every random occurrence. We see something horrible, like cancer, and have to believe that there's some sort of cause behind it, when in fact it's simple random chance. The top two causes of cancer are completely beyond our control - that is, genetics and viral mutations caused by oncoviruses. Environmental carcinogens are a DISTANT third. If you ever got chickenpox as a child, or mononucleosis as a teenager, or you've ever had the flu, or a cold sore, you're at an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some actual numbers:
A twin study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that 42% of cancer risk is genetic in nature (in over 1,000 sets of twins, 42% of the twins studied got the same exact cancer as the other twin that had it) (source: http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/356607961f.pdf )
A study in the September 2010 Journal of General Virology (full text: http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/91/9/2176.full ) suggests that the generally accepted "20% of all cancers are caused virally" is lowballing the figure by quite a lot. It's already known that the gammaherpesvirus (chicken pox) and epstein-barr viruses (something that's present in nearly everyone and has the nickname "the cancer virus") cause about 1/5th of all cancers, because they leave behind fragments of viral DNA/RNA that's replicated in cancer cells. This study shows that there can be viruses that cause cancer yet leave no trace behind after they've been eradicated by the body's immune system. At least read the abstract, it's an interesting study with solid methodology.
And remember, folks: the "American Society" and "American Cancer Society" are lobbyist groups, and wholly uninterested in anything that disproves whatever rhetoric they're spouting at any given time.
If you live at a high altitude, the background radiation can be as harmful to you as getting 100+ chest x-rays per year, or living a mile away from the Fukushima nuclear reactor sites post-"incident".
If you live in an urban area, you're "smoking" the equivalent of one cigarette for every 2 hours you spend outdoors, counting the carcinogens from vehicle exhaust, sewer grate exhaust, air conditioner exhaust/etc. If you live in a truly congested area (say, Los Angeles) with a lot of smog, that can go down to as much as the equivalent of 1 cigarette every 30-45 minutes. Passing by someone who is smoking at a building entrance or on a street sidewalk gives you roughly the same exposure to carcinogens as standing at a bus stop in that city and waiting for a bus.
If you eat food that's been exposed to pesticides, preservatives, or growth hormones, you're taking in roughly enough carcinogens to represent the LD50 (the amount of toxins necessary to kill 50% of the test population) of a moderately sized rat every week.
Also, an amusing anecdote.
I work in the healthcare profession. When a patient dies, we have to undergo what's called an "M&M conference", where a bunch of other doctors get together and we present the case, then we all put our heads together and try to figure out what happened, and whether or not we made any mistakes. One of the tools we use to do this is a death certificate filled out by a medical examiner, listing primary cause of death, secondary causes of death, and contributing causes of death.
I had a patient who was hit by a car, rupturing his spleen (among numerous other injuries), and he ended up bleeding out on the operating table while we tried to repair the damage caused by getting hit by a friggin car. On the death certificate, the ME noted that he found evidence of smoking, and listed it as a contributing cause of death.
This happens more than you'd think - anyone that comes onto an autopsy table with more than "normal" wear and tear on their lungs has smoking listed as a contributing cause of death, even if it quite obviously had absolutely nothing to do with it, like with the patient above who died as a direct result of getting hit by a car.
These statistics are what (almost) everyone uses when they try to prove that smoking is harmful to you - the number of people in whom smoking contributed to their COD. It's a direct result of researcher bias. The researchers aren't doing their research to discover anything, rather they're doing it to PROVE that their hypothesis was right.
Now, on to the whole "smoking causes cancer" argument.
If carcinogens actually caused cancer, then everyone would have cancer. Contributing to the CHANCE of getting something is entirely different than actually causing it. It's like, you pick numbers on a lottery ticket. Removing a few of the numbers you DIDN'T pick contributes to the chance of you winning the lottery, but it's not a guarantee.
There has yet to be a study that definitively proves a causal link between smoking and cancer. There are too many other variables to account for for any such study to ever be done, reputably.
As far as personal choice is concerned?
I can understand and wholeheartedly agree with people that say they don't like the smell of cigarettes, or the taste you get when kissing one. THAT is a valid argument. Everything else is just justification.
We as human beings like to think that there is a cause behind every random occurrence. We see something horrible, like cancer, and have to believe that there's some sort of cause behind it, when in fact it's simple random chance. The top two causes of cancer are completely beyond our control - that is, genetics and viral mutations caused by oncoviruses. Environmental carcinogens are a DISTANT third. If you ever got chickenpox as a child, or mononucleosis as a teenager, or you've ever had the flu, or a cold sore, you're at an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some actual numbers:
A twin study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that 42% of cancer risk is genetic in nature (in over 1,000 sets of twins, 42% of the twins studied got the same exact cancer as the other twin that had it) (source: http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/356607961f.pdf )
A study in the September 2010 Journal of General Virology (full text: http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/91/9/2176.full ) suggests that the generally accepted "20% of all cancers are caused virally" is lowballing the figure by quite a lot. It's already known that the gammaherpesvirus (chicken pox) and epstein-barr viruses (something that's present in nearly everyone and has the nickname "the cancer virus") cause about 1/5th of all cancers, because they leave behind fragments of viral DNA/RNA that's replicated in cancer cells. This study shows that there can be viruses that cause cancer yet leave no trace behind after they've been eradicated by the body's immune system. At least read the abstract, it's an interesting study with solid methodology.
And remember, folks: the "American Society" and "American Cancer Society" are lobbyist groups, and wholly uninterested in anything that disproves whatever rhetoric they're spouting at any given time.
Like someone else said before me I get why people are hard on smokers but at the same time I think smokers are hated way to much I mean no smoking in pubs etc and its not a deal breaker at all I myself have been known to smoke a little while out on the town after a few pints 
Smokers are at least better than Tanks or Hunters.
OT: No, I have no problems with Smokers and they really do get a bum deal sometimes, while I'd never smoke myself nor would I go out with one but nearly everyone in my family does light up. Hell, being too hard on smokers can sometimes have a real ripple effect, as seen over here in England, where pubs banned smoking, a large amount of pubs closed down and are still closing down.
TL;DR: Smoking is a very small, albeit damaging habit, but in the long run, there are much worse things in this world than smokers who really need the notice and hate.
OT: No, I have no problems with Smokers and they really do get a bum deal sometimes, while I'd never smoke myself nor would I go out with one but nearly everyone in my family does light up. Hell, being too hard on smokers can sometimes have a real ripple effect, as seen over here in England, where pubs banned smoking, a large amount of pubs closed down and are still closing down.
TL;DR: Smoking is a very small, albeit damaging habit, but in the long run, there are much worse things in this world than smokers who really need the notice and hate.
People these days are such pansies when it comes to smokers in public. Five minutes of second-hand will NOT hurt you in any way. Seriously, suck it up. (Not literally of course.) It's alright that fewer and fewer people are smoking every year, but banning smoking everywhere is not the right way to discourage it. All it does is inconvenience smokers because it makes days harder for them to get through.
This article best demonstrates a smoker's troubles:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19167_five-surefire-ways-to-piss-off-smoker-5Bchart5D.html
This article best demonstrates a smoker's troubles:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19167_five-surefire-ways-to-piss-off-smoker-5Bchart5D.html
I think they deserve it. It is a decision, and a bad one, and it has demonstrable effects on the people around you when you do it. Now, I don't shun people who smoke, but it's a definite deal-breaker. I can't stand the smell, I hate it, and it makes me cough even if there's no smoke. Just thinking about the smell is often enough to start me coughing, so there's no way I could date a smoker. I also try to convince any friends who do smoke to stop, it's a horrible habbit.
It's funny, it is more of a shallow hate. At least for me, everyone I know hates smokers, I mean they really despise them, and yet I smoke and they love me. Hell if my pass girlfriends actually meant that they would never date a smoker then I would never had a girlfriend.
It's a stupid thing to base whether you will like someone.
It's a stupid thing to base whether you will like someone.