Good going anti smokers

[GreenOne]

@Funny: Heavy with typos, I advice you go back and edit.

I won\'t start another debate, on Mary Jane this time, but I have to say something about it.
Unlike cigarette, which can only be good cause you like it, there are positive and negative things with pot, so I don\'t think it goes in the \"bad habit\" section. It\'s a shame most people don\'t know about it and rant about how bad it is. I use it for many reasonable causes, beside it being enjoyable, the main one is to ease my back pains ( I have spinal scoliosis ( Sorry for the typos.)) and \"equalize\" my moods and fits, like some pill I don\'t want to take.
That was my two cents on pot, of course I guess this will create more arguments, but that is what a forum is for.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by GreenOne
@Funny: Heavy with typos, I advice you go back and edit.

Okay, I can\'t tell if that was intentional.
I advise you edit your own stuff first.


p.s. I was just going to tell Funnymouth how to spell naive. It\'s easy to remember: it\'s Evian spelled backwards!

 

[dauber22]

Just a few semi-random thoughts brought on by this discussion...

- ALL extensive studies are funded by SOMEone! Does that mean that all studies are fatally tainted? Or is it just the ones that \"you\" dont\' agree with?

- Can somebody please give me a workable definition of what a scientist is? I hear it kicked around all the time. \"Well, scientists say...\" or \"According to scientists...\" or \"That was (or wasn\'t) done by reliable scientists...\" I hope those of you who work in the sciences don\'t take offense, but I believe it\'s become about as meaningful a term as \"pro painted\".

- That article cited by E.D. did certainly point out one valid thing. This arguement is so filled with emotion and zealotry, that it\'s really not likely that anyone on either side is going to be swayed from their original position one iota.

- And finally, I\'d like to remind people (including the original poster ) that this thread wasn\'t really about smoking to begin with E.D.\'s original post, just as a reminder:
\"By banning smoking, by putting higher taxes on cigarettes, a precedent has been set.
Legislators are now looking into fighting obesity by putting higher taxes on soda.
And they are citing the cigarette taxes and bans as a reference.
Welcome to Big Brother.\"
See!! It\'s actually about our idiots (read:legislators) trying to eliminate obesity by taxing soda. The whole smoking thing was just the precedent that allows them to do so.

Okay. You can carry on now.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Ebonbuddha
Hey Dave...am I cute too?lol

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by ipaintminis
for those that saw me at the GD, you know I\'m not exactly a skinny girl. far from it, matter of fact. and I am technically \"overweight\"

Yeah, maybe, but you\'re still cute as a button.

I\'m sure someone, somewhere thinks so.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by dauber22
- And finally, I\'d like to remind people (including the original poster ) that this thread wasn\'t really about smoking to begin with E.D.\'s original post, just as a reminder:
\"By banning smoking, by putting higher taxes on cigarettes, a precedent has been set.
Legislators are now looking into fighting obesity by putting higher taxes on soda.
And they are citing the cigarette taxes and bans as a reference.
Welcome to Big Brother.\"
See!! It\'s actually about our idiots (read:legislators) trying to eliminate obesity by taxing soda. The whole smoking thing was just the precedent that allows them to do so.

Okay. You can carry on now.

funny I was just about to try to bring it back on topic.

 

[GreenOne]

@VinceGamer: Hey, I\'m french to start with, so it think my english is not so bad.
Should I have written \'Advise\', I think that is what you meant.
Anyway, I do my best, feel free to correct me, cause I believe a properly written forum is important.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by dauber22
Just a few semi-random thoughts brought on by this discussion...

- ALL extensive studies are funded by SOMEone! Does that mean that all studies are fatally tainted? Or is it just the ones that \"you\" dont\' agree with?
who funds the research shouldnt be important, but sometimes it is. often research funding will be conditional (e.g. look at this specific thing), which can skew the study. any time coroporations are involved, or the research is being done in a corporate lab, be suspicious. non-profit funding agencies (nsf, seagrant etc) and lab work done in university labs are *likely* more unbiased than an experiment being conducted in a private lab. the thing to look for is where the article was published. was it an impartial, PEER REVIEWED scientific journal? if it finds its way in to \"nature\" or \"science\" than you can bet your ass its a good article.


- Can somebody please give me a workable definition of what a scientist is? I hear it kicked around all the time. \"Well, scientists say...\" or \"According to scientists...\" or \"That was (or wasn\'t) done by reliable scientists...\" I hope those of you who work in the sciences don\'t take offense, but I believe it\'s become about as meaningful a term as \"pro painted\".

you\'re quite correct. i would say that the painting community mirrors the scientific community closely in many respects. as a serious painter, im sure you can identify others of your ilk, as i can identify another scientist based on his/her work. when people have something to gain they will say plenty of stuff. a kid will paint a crappy mini and sell it under pro-painted because hes sold a few before, a company will cite data from a crappy paper because they can sell more of their product. think of the big company supported painting comps as the big scientific journals - will the minis that win the gd comps be well painted gd minis? yup. will the articles published in \"development\" contain scientifically rigorous information on topics in development? yup.
in science names are the currency - if someone told you that ericj or alexiz painted a very nice mini, i bet you\'d believe them.

i will remove my previous post so that you are no longer subjected to the horror that is typing errors and misspellings. i cant type, and i cant spell, and frankly i could care less. when i need to submit a formal document i proofread, and spell check, and get an outside source to edit it. that being said, this is not a formal arena. i do my best to keep mistakes to a minimum without wasting my time.
i could just as easily criticise you for your flimsy understanding of the sciences. i have devoted my life to learning a different set of rules than you have and i dont hold you to my standards - i would appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy and tolerance to me.

 

[funnymouth]

repost

Originally posted by airhead
@Avelorn, still no hard numbers. \"Likely\" is a very subjective word.

a keen observation. i would like to note, however, that any scientest who says this IS the cause is a fool. even with overwhelming proof it is a tendancy in the sciences to be very careful about what you say; you let the data speak for itself and point the reader in the right direction. look at the graphs methods sections in scientific literature and draw your own conclusions for the real story - untainted by spin.

green one is correct in saying that many of the chemicals are part of the plant itself - but there are undoubtedly thousands of additives which have carcinogenic effects.

i dont smoke \"cigs\" but i do relax with my good friend mary jane and enjoy the occasional hooka - and i can say, without a doubt, that it is bad for me. i can FEEL it, i know its effects. i think that to think it would be a little nieve of me to deny this. will i stop? not in the near future. why? everyone has vices and does things that are bad for them - live life a little and enjoy things while i can. i wont however smoke in public - aside from the possible leagal conciquences (which really are quite minor in many places in cali) i would consider it to be rude.

on an interesting side note \"hyperclean\" environments have been implicated in some athsma and autoimmune disease cases - being a gemaphobe can be bad! esp during the first three months of infancy (when the immune system is most active and is setting tolerances etc). germ/ toxin exposure can be good in that it stimulates the immune system (\"primes it,\" if you will).

does this meet you exacting standards? i draw the line at capitals.

 

[Legacy Account]

I can\'t believe anyone is actually arguing the toss about whether smoking is bad for you or not!

It costs a packet and fucks you up. I watched my grandfather die of emphycema, toking on his pipe in one hand and oxygen in the other. I didn\'t like the look of that, so I quit.

The missus is a clinical oncologist too, so I was pretty fed up with horror stories and seeing tumours in jars....:|~

 

[GreenOne]

@Funnymouth: Did not want to be harsh man, just seemed like it was written a little too fast.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by GreenOne
@Funnymouth: Did not want to be harsh man, just seemed like it was written a little too fast.

no biggie, im just a little sensitive about my crippling inability to type or spell.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Spacemunkie
I can\'t believe anyone is actually arguing the toss about whether smoking is bad for you or not!

It costs a packet and fucks you up. I watched my grandfather die of emphycema, toking on his pipe in one hand and oxygen in the other. I didn\'t like the look of that, so I quit.

The missus is a clinical oncologist too, so I was pretty fed up with horror stories and seeing tumours in jars....:|~

On the contrary, no one here has said anything about smoking not being bad for you, the issue that most were discussing is Second Hand smoke and if it was really as dangerous as they are saying.
I personally believe a person sitting in a bar with a group of people smoking, loses less of his lifespan than someone who lives in a city with a million automobiles spewing toxic fumes every day of their lives.

 

[Evil Dave]

editted because it doubled

 

[Ebonbuddha]

Unfortunately, no.

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by Ebonbuddha
Hey Dave...am I cute too?lol

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by ipaintminis
for those that saw me at the GD, you know I\'m not exactly a skinny girl. far from it, matter of fact. and I am technically \"overweight\"

Yeah, maybe, but you\'re still cute as a button.

I\'m sure someone, somewhere thinks so.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I personally believe a person sitting in a bar with a group of people smoking, loses less of his lifespan than someone who lives in a city with a million automobiles spewing toxic fumes every day of their lives.

Quite possibly true, but that\'s not the choice is it? Unless you are suggesting smoking should be banned in cities and all smokers forced to live in a rural setting....

 

[cdukino]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

On the contrary, no one here has said anything about smoking not being bad for you, the issue that most were discussing is Second Hand smoke and if it was really as dangerous as they are saying.
I personally believe a person sitting in a bar with a group of people smoking, loses less of his lifespan than someone who lives in a city with a million automobiles spewing toxic fumes every day of their lives.

So basically you are saying you loose lifespan due to smoking secondhand, but somewhere else it\'s even worse due to the million automobiles shortening your lofe. So the loss of lifespan from second hand smoking someone else \"forces\" on you isn\'t important anymore becouse something else is worse and you should\'t bitch about it. (I\'m sure if I think I can best the million automobiles with something even worse for your health so the automobiles are no biggy anymore either)... or are you saying we are double f**cked?

Oke I myself prefer non smoking rooms above smoky ones anyday. It smells bad (and clings to your clothes long after), I get a bit short of breath due to it and eyes watering, and I can\'t imagine it being healthy for me. BUT I do think it\'s baning out is gone a bit extreme at places. It would be best if people could just work it out amongst themselves. Though unfortunatly practice has proven this pretty much impossible in a lot of cases.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I personally believe a person sitting in a bar with a group of people smoking, loses less of his lifespan than someone who lives in a city with a million automobiles spewing toxic fumes every day of their lives.

Quite possibly true, but that\'s not the choice is it? Unless you are suggesting smoking should be banned in cities and all smokers forced to live in a rural setting....

Or possibly ban all cars in cities, since if I live there I have no choice but to breathe the exhaust.
But that would be sort of silly wouldn\'t it?
The onus would be on someone bothered by it to move out of the city.
In the same respect the onus should be on the person not wanting to deal with smokers.

 

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I personally believe a person sitting in a bar with a group of people smoking, loses less of his lifespan than someone who lives in a city with a million automobiles spewing toxic fumes every day of their lives.

Quite possibly true, but that\'s not the choice is it? Unless you are suggesting smoking should be banned in cities and all smokers forced to live in a rural setting....

Or possibly ban all cars in cities, since if I live there I have no choice but to breathe the exhaust.
But that would be sort of silly wouldn\'t it?
The onus would be on someone bothered by it to move out of the city.
In the same respect the onus should be on the person not wanting to deal with smokers.

I\'d actually say quite the opposite (what a surprise!! ). So if a company decides to release a couple of tons of toxic wastes in your neighborhood, you would say:

-Hey that\'s fine, I can move!!

Banning some types of cars in cities to enhance the quality of the air is a good idea (if it is necessary). Again I\'m trying to be rather pragmatic in these kinds of issues.

 

[Legacy Account]

They will have to prise my car keys out of my cold, dead fingers....

I have absolutely no objections to buying electric or hydrogen powered cars though. Shame that the major car manufacturers and governments seem so slow to develop these things.

 

[sebrushworth]

I think both Cindy and Sven make very good points. Just because one thing is bad for you (exhaust fumes, smog or whatever), doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try to avoid other things that are bad for you.

And why should non-smokers have to adjust themselves to the smokers? I think it should definitely be the other way around. You want to smoke, fine, but go outside, and don\'t force it on others.