Metal Reviews

Your analogy is still bad... Smokers can control when and where they smoke. Parents can't control when and where their child screams (since they have to take their child with them because leaving a child unattended is not teh smart). Generally any time a kid has started screaming in public that I've seen the parents have done everything in their power to make it stop... if smokers put the same effort into not subjecting others to second hand smoke I wouldn't mind it being legal indoors

I was sort of being the devils advocate on that one.

My point didn't really matter what the other thing was. it was just principle or that its the same issue to me.

It's amazing how not even smoking companies are arguing this any more and you're still steadfastly ignoring that it's impossible to prove that second hand smoke causes damage because scientific testing has ethical regulations.

Hey Adveser.... Admit that you are just saying all this shit just to provoke?

As for the article, I hope Jaden is trying to be funny of some sort. Because the arguments sucked very very bad. Just take a look at Ken's pics, and then at the line where it is saying "Smoking makes you look good" or something. Bullshit

BUT BRAD PITT DOES IT!!!!!1

Sorry, no. I don't think the equivalent of five cigarettes a year is in anyway detrimental to ones health. That would be like saying eating fried chicken 5 times a year causes heart attacks.

Come on, frequent passive smoking is worse than 5 cigarettes a year!

I wrote a kickass post about this last night, but it got eaten, so I will write something entirely different now.

It's 5 cigarettes on average. Not everyone is average and declaring it as if 5 cigarettes a year is either the maximum or exactly how much everyone gets is stupid, stupid, stupid. Stop bitching about how everyone here doesn't understand the way science works, you're misrepresenting figures.

You're ignoring the outliers. There is anecdotal evidence of people who have never smoked but worked in smoke-heavy environments such as bars before the smoking ban being asked by doctors how many cigarettes they smoke a day because their lungs are coated with tar. They are on the high end of the distribution with significant exposure. The evidence about them is anecdotal, but it is anecdotal precisely because outliers get pruned from studies for statistical convenience as they pull up the average. Even heavy smokers are affected severely by secondhand smoke in smoke-heavy environments.

Not every smoker dies from cancer or develops obvious health effects, but there are subtle, everyday effects of smoking. Those often cannot be measured in passive smokers. Also, there are once-off physical responses such as nausea, headaches and coughing which are very unpleasant. I don't have to do a scientific study to prove to you that I get a headache every time I'm exposed to secondhand smoke.



A private smokers-only bar is fine. Poor bar staff at that place though, I hope they can make the free choice to wear a gas mask without getting fired on their ass. My problem is with mixed venues hosting bands. Thankfully after the smoking ban the inside is smoke -free, and the smokers can just pop outside for their hit. Before that severe asthmatics couldn't see bands at all.



HAHHAHAH according to this my father and I should be savage alcoholics! Get your genetic determinism outta here Where's ya science now? You "think"? Right. So only you're allowed to make fuzzy, unsourced statements. So people who've quit smoking no longer have properly working brains? OH LOL.



I'd rather listen to expert opinion. The government are elected democratically and are professionals. I'm not going to listen to "the people". I hate "the people". They remind me of some sort of degenerate ape gone horribly wrong and then replicated over and over. If I could I would just give harmless, painless birth to telepathic, steel-plated, burrowing hoversharks with laser attachments and enslave the plebs.

P.S. The sharks are also Borg.

You would think, but lab tests prove otherwise. Even if it were say, two a day, that is not even close to being enough to harm anyone's health. I don't have figures to back it up but I have reliable and accurate information on this. Let's just say anyone that smokes a half pack a day should expect thier body to detoxify more than it brings in, that is discounting air sacs being destroyed and the effects of chemical nicotine. The smoke is not really an issue at all, the huyman body heals that damage quite fast and the nicotine is a simple stimulant much like caffeine, just goes through the system much faster and is a little more potent. No where near the level of cocaine or even ephedrine. Not saying smokers are not risking it, but there is a relatively low risk if you keep things in strict moderation. The human body is a living thing. It can heal and recover from some incredible things. We also have the ability to adapt and change over just a few generations. A lot of people don't believe that is true for cigarettes but it is. If you read on of the above links there is a direct correlation between parents smoking and their children have a fairly significant reistance to cancer. Not that this proves anything but almost all of us smoke in my family and there is no incidence of cancer. Likewise no one in my family has died of a smoking related illness.

I not even going to respond to the political argument. I think it's extremely sad people think this way. (insert depostic government/regime here) thought that was true and everyone suffered under "father knows best" governing.

My opinion is not a scientific fact nor am I representing them as such, that is an important distinction.

You don't understand genetic determinsim as it pertains to mental health or genetic illness at all. It is almost absolute that genetics determines these things. If you come from a family of alcoholics and start drinking for a month strait the chances are very slim you would avoid becoming one. That is assuming they are alcoholics in the first place, a term which I believe should only apply (along with addiction) to people that can not psychologically make decisions based on the need to consume a substance. People that drink daily don't fit into that nor do casual drug users. That is based on my experience. I come from two families that people drink a lot in and I know the way they behave is not an irrational need for a substance, but a decision they make because they do it because it is enjoyable.

And by the way, insects and animals have been proven to become immune to the effects of poisons and negative environmental conditions over just a few generations. Why wouldn't humans wouldn't have this ability? (which would be a huge leap in logic akin to believing humans never evolved from anything period and have been the same since uhhh, well, there wouldn't be a beginnning under that scenario. The fact of the matter is that it is false, for instance humans have grown about a foot in average height in the last couple thousand years)

Um, one drop of nicotine is enough to kill a horse. Also, parental smoking, father or mother, dramatically increases the chance of SIDS. Now you're pushing it too far Adverser.

EDIT: Also, there are some poisons you can never, ever adapt to. There is just no mechanism for dealing with them in the human body.

Next you'll say that smoking whitens your teeth,strengthens your lungs and saves you from cancer. The only thing it can decrease the chance of is bowel cancer. Both of my grandpas smoke/d. One died at 41 of bowel cancer, the other is dying of it now, regardless of his heavy smoking which is meant to reduce his risk eightfold.

It is not know to cause SIDS or they would have a name for it when it happens other than SIDS, which is a term that is used when there is no explanation for the death of an infant. That is garbage. This is why no one is being prosecuted SIDS when they think tobacco is the culprit.

Potatoes are poisonous, this is a known fact. That does not imply they are dangerous to eat because the amount of toxin in them is low enough where they can be safely eaten. And often. The same thing with mercury anf fish. This also applies to tobacco and naturally occuring levels of nicotine couldn't kill a fucking horse. Concentrate any toxic substance enough and it will be deadly.

Only applicable to lung cancer. Since Nicotine is not one of these known substances (which apparently science has been monitoring in genetics since before they knew what genetics were) it is irrelevant. I will repeat myself, science has not been studying genetics long-term. any sort of long term genetic mutations are unknwon to them. We only know what will happen over the short haul

Smoking=bad

End of discussion.

Oh yes, almost reflects my thoughts. What good is a drink for a smoker without a fag? Fag=ciggs in this case. I feel it should be left to the management to decide not just for bars, but other places too like hotels and resturants.

I'd hope everyone knows that.

I don't mind smoking being banned from public places for the most part. As a once heavy smoker and a more casual smoker now it really doesn't bother me that I have to go outside... And even when I smoke outside I'm courteous enough to stay away from other people... I know that they're probably not down with it and that's fine with me.

Just don't take away my right to do it and we're golden. I do think smokers should be respectful of those around them though. I never hesitate to ask anyone hanging out with me if they mind if I smoke, and if they do I excuse myself to go elsewhere to do so.

well stated

Uuh what ? I'm either probably not understanding what you're saying or you're completely wrong....

Adveser reminds me of Aaron Eckhart's character in Thank You For Smoking. Still, I can see his point about eeeeevil governments, I think there are better applications for that point than smoking...

Then you should have never started bitching about cars killing people, should you?

Tobacco is not a proven culprit, but it increases the chances of children dying twofold if the smoker is the father. This is an uncontroversial fact and you're still saying that secondhand smoke is harmless?

I restate my opinion on my sharks. If I'm sick, I listen to my doctor. If I need to get something fixed, I take it to the person who can fix it. I don't ask everyone about what they think. It is similar with politics. I trust the party I support to make good decisions, even if I don't agree with one or two points.

Still, I want my sharks.