namelesstavern.net

Zanchief wrote:

Lueyen wrote:

Zanchief wrote:This story makes me think of Firefly for some reason.

Hmm I was thinking more along the lines of Taco Bell winning the restaruant chain wars as being the next news story, and that it may be time to give more serious thought into how the three sea shells work.

Yea I was actually thinking of Dennis Leary's rant in that film also.

What a world we live in where Judge Dredd is prophetic.

Duh Demolition man, I'm so stupid~

That's one of my favorite movies...

Looks like there's a new shepherd in town...

man banning doughnuts. Gads. Where will all the cops hang out? I predict a police strike over this. People will run thru the streets burning and pillaging. It will stretch into the other citites. soon Anarchy. All over banning a doughnut. The bastards

Duh Demolition man, I'm so stupid~

He doesn't know how to use the sea shells ROFL!

kaharthemad wrote:man banning doughnuts. Gads. Where will all the cops hang out? I predict a police strike over this. People will run thru the streets burning and pillaging. It will stretch into the other citites. soon Anarchy. All over banning a doughnut. The bastards

Just imagine if they banned coffee as well. Utter pandemonium.

Evermore wrote:

10sun wrote:They should ban alcohol, not transfats.

add cigs to that too

Smoking indoors is already banned in NYC as well as smoking in a 10 ft half circle around any entryway... which in essence bans smoking altogether in the city.

Evermore wrote:

Gargamellow wrote:ok that is going too far

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/HealthEffectsofCigaretteSmoking_Factsheet.htm

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

http://www.ash.org/papers/h1.htm


try this too. Pick up a used ashtray and take a whiff. thats what you smell like after smoking. Perfumes etc don't cover it up.

add to that the risks 2nd hand smoke poses to children and other non-smokers. Plus what it does to your looks....

Wow, a bunch of shit smokers already know. First off, smell is less of a concern when it comes to addiction. I know people who smoke and non-smokers can't tell that they smoke. It's a combination of cologne, how you hold your cig and what direction you're standing. It's not rocket science to conceal the fact that you're a smoker.

Secondly, second hand smoke does nothing. I don't know a single person who knows a person who knows a person who has had a serious side effect or death from second hand. You can pull out statistics and documentation, but ask yourself if you know anyone who has had a serious problem with secondhand smoke.

I don't smoke anymore, but it irritates me when people who don't smoke think they're the authority on why smoking is bad for you. No shit sherlock. I especially hate it when people walk by while you are smoking, and they give that fake cough like omg, gross, one of those smoker neanderthals. Makes me want to smoke again seriously.

ask yourself if you know anyone who has had a serious problem with secondhand smoke.

I do. My father. He has severe asthma, and any lung irritants are dangerous to his health. I've seen him go into severe breathing arrest that nearly got us to call 911 because of dealing with someone nearby smoking.

Now, add in all of the medical studies that show that secondhand smoke can give you cancer nearly as readily as smoking it yourself, and you're not left with a leg to stand on.

Get off you high horse. Smoking is bad for YOU and everyone around you. I watched stray smoke nearly send my father to the hospital, go fuck yourself with your "second hand smoke does nothing" bullshit.

-Arlos

Wow, a bunch of shit smokers already know. First off, smell is less of a concern when it comes to addiction. I know people who smoke and non-smokers can't tell that they smoke. It's a combination of cologne, how you hold your cig and what direction you're standing. It's not rocket science to conceal the fact that you're a smoker.

Bullshit. flat out bullshit. first off i was pointing out what people who dont smoke smell. Its a known fact smoking dulls your sense of smell and it sharpens again once you have stopped for awhile. Patchouli (sp) is about the only thing that can ACTUALLY cover the smell of smoke but that shit smells bad on its own.

Secondly, second hand smoke does nothing. I don't know a single person who knows a person who knows a person who has had a serious side effect or death from second hand. You can pull out statistics and documentation, but ask yourself if you know anyone who has had a serious problem with secondhand smoke.

Uneducated bullshit. maybe you dont know anyone but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist and yes i know someone. my 17 yr old lived with her mother and grandmother who both smoke and now has asthma.

I don't smoke anymore, but it irritates me when people who don't smoke think they're the authority on why smoking is bad for you. No shit sherlock. I especially hate it when people walk by while you are smoking, and they give that fake cough like omg, gross, one of those smoker neanderthals. Makes me want to smoke again seriously.

I used to smoke myself. 3 packs a day. I quit. it was tough. and FYI dickhead i was pointing out to someone who i consider a friend some reasons why she should consider quitting. She's an adult it's her choise. if you dont like it, tough shit.

as for that fake cough crap, i agree.

arlos wrote:

ask yourself if you know anyone who has had a serious problem with secondhand smoke.

I do. My father. He has severe asthma, and any lung irritants are dangerous to his health. I've seen him go into severe breathing arrest that nearly got us to call 911 because of dealing with someone nearby smoking.

Now, add in all of the medical studies that show that secondhand smoke can give you cancer nearly as readily as smoking it yourself, and you're not left with a leg to stand on.

Get off you high horse. Smoking is bad for YOU and everyone around you. I watched stray smoke nearly send my father to the hospital, go fuck yourself with your "second hand smoke does nothing" bullshit.

-Arlos

Ok, you can hardly argue your point to me by citing an allergy. My mom has an allergy to strawberries. Doesn't mean I can claim strawberries are dangerous. I made a claim that I felt second hand is not as dangerous as it's made out to be and you pull your fathers near death medical experience in to bash my opinion then tell me to get off my high horse? Go fuck yourself with your "use dad's disability and near death experience to prove a point" bullshit. He inhaled smoke and something bad happened. Don't come attacking me because I don't think cigarette smoke is as dangerous to everyone else as it is to your dad.

Evermore wrote:Bullshit. flat out bullshit. first off i was pointing out what people who dont smoke smell. Its a known fact smoking dulls your sense of smell and it sharpens again once you have stopped for awhile. Patchouli (sp) is about the only thing that can ACTUALLY cover the smell of smoke but that shit smells bad on its own.

Lemme help you with some reading comprehension there buddy.

Jay wrote:I know people who smoke and non-smokers can't tell that they smoke.

Evermore wrote:Uneducated bullshit. maybe you dont know anyone but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist and yes i know someone. my 17 yr old lived with her mother and grandmother who both smoke and now has asthma.

I went to school in Chicago's medical district and once had to argue this same point. I went to 2 hospitals and not one had any case of life threatening secondhand smoke related incidents or extreme medical conditions caused solely from secondhand smoke. I've had doctors tell me that it's extremely rare and that anything secondhand smoke related is usually in addition to and not just from secondhand. Also, I was told, by a doctor, that secondhand alone simply isn't potent enough to do anything.

Now, I'm aware of exceptions to the rule. Maybe your girl is that. Who knows. I will say that it's extremely unlikely that secondhand smoke alone did that, unless either a) you're a doctor b) a doctor diagnosed that.

Secondhand smoke cannot possibly be as bad for you as firsthand smoke. Why, you ask? Because first, a smoker is inhaling filtered smoke into his/her lungs which removes a lot of carcinogenic material. Then the smoker's lungs are acting as yet again another filtering device, absorbing even more of the carcinogenic particulates. If you breathe the exhaled smoke from a smoker, it is not as bad as what the smoker is ingesting... it can't possibly be, because of the dual filtration that exhaled smoke has gone through. Now if you want to talk about breathing the smoke emanating from the ember on the end of the lit cigarette... then yes, that is bad.

Narrock wrote:Secondhand smoke cannot possibly be as bad for you as firsthand smoke. Why, you ask? Because first, a smoker is inhaling filtered smoke into his/her lungs which removes a lot of carcinogenic material. Then the smoker's lungs are acting as yet again another filtering device, absorbing even more of the carcinogenic particulates. If you breathe the exhaled smoke from a smoker, it is not as bad as what the smoker is ingesting... it can't possibly be, because of the dual filtration that exhaled smoke has gone through. Now if you want to talk about breathing the smoke emanating from the ember on the end of the lit cigarette... then yes, that is bad.

Second hand smoke is a Group A Carcinogen.


Of note:

Classification of Secondhand Smoke as a Known Human (Group A) Carcinogen
The finding that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults is based on the total weight of the available evidence and is not dependent on any single analysis. This evidence includes several important facts.

First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.

Second, although secondhand smoke is a dilute mixture of mainstream" smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream" smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product, it is chemically similar to the smoke inhaled by smokers, and contains a number of carcinogenic compounds.

Third, there is considerable evidence that large numbers of people who do not smoke are exposed to, absorb, and metabolize significant amounts of secondhand smoke.

Fourth, there is supporting evidence from laboratory studies of the ability of secondhand smoke both to cause cancer in animals and to damage DNA, which is recognized by scientists as being an instrumental mechanism in cancer development.

Finally, EPA conducted multiple analyses on the then-available 30 epidemiology studies from eight different countries which examined the association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in women who never smoked themselves but were exposed to their husband's smoke. Since the epidemiology studies are the major thrust of the tobacco industry arguments against the EPA report, these studies are examined in more detail below.

Evermore wrote:

Narrock wrote:Secondhand smoke cannot possibly be as bad for you as firsthand smoke. Why, you ask? Because first, a smoker is inhaling filtered smoke into his/her lungs which removes a lot of carcinogenic material. Then the smoker's lungs are acting as yet again another filtering device, absorbing even more of the carcinogenic particulates. If you breathe the exhaled smoke from a smoker, it is not as bad as what the smoker is ingesting... it can't possibly be, because of the dual filtration that exhaled smoke has gone through. Now if you want to talk about breathing the smoke emanating from the ember on the end of the lit cigarette... then yes, that is bad.

Second hand smoke is a Group A Carcinogen.


Of note:

Classification of Secondhand Smoke as a Known Human (Group A) Carcinogen
The finding that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults is based on the total weight of the available evidence and is not dependent on any single analysis. This evidence includes several important facts.

First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.

Second, although secondhand smoke is a dilute mixture of mainstream" smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream" smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product, it is chemically similar to the smoke inhaled by smokers, and contains a number of carcinogenic compounds.

Third, there is considerable evidence that large numbers of people who do not smoke are exposed to, absorb, and metabolize significant amounts of secondhand smoke.

Fourth, there is supporting evidence from laboratory studies of the ability of secondhand smoke both to cause cancer in animals and to damage DNA, which is recognized by scientists as being an instrumental mechanism in cancer development.

Finally, EPA conducted multiple analyses on the then-available 30 epidemiology studies from eight different countries which examined the association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in women who never smoked themselves but were exposed to their husband's smoke. Since the epidemiology studies are the major thrust of the tobacco industry arguments against the EPA report, these studies are examined in more detail below.

You're missing the point (big surprise there). The filtered, exhaled smoke is not as bad as the smoke that the smoker is inhaling. What many people suffer from is the smoke coming off the burning ember.

I didnt miss the point. I got your point and its wrong. What i am telling you and you are convieniently ignoring (typical) is that 2nd hand smoke consists of more ingredients then you are basing your point on. Helps if you actually read the whole thing, and not ignore the parts that prove you wrong.

You don't know the first thing about basic physics.

Narrock wrote:You don't know the first thing about basic physics.

haha, wtf

everytime I think you're as stupid as you can get, you trump yourself

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:You don't know the first thing about basic physics.

haha, wtf

everytime I think you're as stupid as you can get, you trump yourself

Basically, what Evermore is saying (just to show a ridiculous parallel), is that let's say there's a stagnant pool of water somewhere, and it's loaded with bacteria. It also has a creek flowing out of it. A couple hundred yards down it goes through a filtration plant to take out some of the bacteria in the water. Then a couple hundred yards further down stream it goes through another filtration system to take out even more bacteria. Then the stream ends in another pool.

Basically, what Evermore is saying is that the pool at the end of the streams has just as much bacteria in it as the first pool upstream from the two filtration plants. That's exactly what he's saying in parallel, and it's ridiculous.

A smoker's exhaled smoke is not as dangerous and carcinogenic as the unfiltered smoke being drawn in by the smoker. That is basic physics, and if you don't understand that... well, then you're a total retard.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Please keep ignoring the chemistry and making an asshole out of yourself. it's entertaining.

And dont attempt to explain what i am saying when you make stupid statments like this "there's a stagnant pool of water somewhere, and it's loaded with bacteria. It also has a creek flowing out of it." Stagnant pools become stagnant because there isn't any waterflow. if you're going to use hypotheticals make them viable at least..

Please read this again and lets not ignore the parts that make your point wrong, ok?

Second, although secondhand smoke is a dilute mixture of mainstream" smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream" smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product, it is chemically similar to the smoke inhaled by smokers, and contains a number of carcinogenic compounds.


the "filter" isnt so good, is it? Tikker is right

And dont attempt to explain what i am saying when you make stupid statments like this "there's a stagnant pool of water somewhere, and it's loaded with bacteria. It also has a creek flowing out of it." Stagnant pools become stagnant because there isn't any waterflow.

Check...mate?

Narrock wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:You don't know the first thing about basic physics.

haha, wtf

everytime I think you're as stupid as you can get, you trump yourself

Basically, what Evermore is saying (just to show a ridiculous parallel), is that let's say there's a stagnant pool of water somewhere, and it's loaded with bacteria. It also has a creek flowing out of it. A couple hundred yards down it goes through a filtration plant to take out some of the bacteria in the water. Then a couple hundred yards further down stream it goes through another filtration system to take out even more bacteria. Then the stream ends in another pool.

Basically, what Evermore is saying is that the pool at the end of the streams has just as much bacteria in it as the first pool upstream from the two filtration plants. That's exactly what he's saying in parallel, and it's ridiculous.

A smoker's exhaled smoke is not as dangerous and carcinogenic as the unfiltered smoke being drawn in by the smoker. That is basic physics, and if you don't understand that... well, then you're a total retard.

no, that's not what he's saying

let's use your stagnant pool example


let's say it's a pool of 100% disease

it goes down a creek and hits 1 filter, 25% of the disease is removed

hits another filter, and another 25% is removed

now some dude comes along, takes the 50% disease water and dumps it in everyone elses water glass, whether they want it or not



it's not as bad as drinking it from the source on your own, but being forcefed 50% disease water is still the suck, and is the reason all smokers should be shot on sight

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:You don't know the first thing about basic physics.

haha, wtf

everytime I think you're as stupid as you can get, you trump yourself

Basically, what Evermore is saying (just to show a ridiculous parallel), is that let's say there's a stagnant pool of water somewhere, and it's loaded with bacteria. It also has a creek flowing out of it. A couple hundred yards down it goes through a filtration plant to take out some of the bacteria in the water. Then a couple hundred yards further down stream it goes through another filtration system to take out even more bacteria. Then the stream ends in another pool.

Basically, what Evermore is saying is that the pool at the end of the streams has just as much bacteria in it as the first pool upstream from the two filtration plants. That's exactly what he's saying in parallel, and it's ridiculous.

A smoker's exhaled smoke is not as dangerous and carcinogenic as the unfiltered smoke being drawn in by the smoker. That is basic physics, and if you don't understand that... well, then you're a total retard.

no, that's not what he's saying

let's use your stagnant pool example


let's say it's a pool of 100% disease

it goes down a creek and hits 1 filter, 25% of the disease is removed

hits another filter, and another 25% is removed

now some dude comes along, takes the 50% disease water and dumps it in everyone elses water glass, whether they want it or not



it's not as bad as drinking it from the source on your own, but being forcefed 50% disease water is still the suck, and is the reason all smokers should be shot on sight

I agree with that, but it's not as bad as the original water, which was my point.

Smoke bad

More smoke badder

1st hand smoke is more smoke than second hand smoke

Still has same amount of chemicals but less volume

Glass of water and half glass of water is still water

Narrock wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:You don't know the first thing about basic physics.

haha, wtf

everytime I think you're as stupid as you can get, you trump yourself

Basically, what Evermore is saying (just to show a ridiculous parallel), is that let's say there's a stagnant pool of water somewhere, and it's loaded with bacteria. It also has a creek flowing out of it. A couple hundred yards down it goes through a filtration plant to take out some of the bacteria in the water. Then a couple hundred yards further down stream it goes through another filtration system to take out even more bacteria. Then the stream ends in another pool.

Basically, what Evermore is saying is that the pool at the end of the streams has just as much bacteria in it as the first pool upstream from the two filtration plants. That's exactly what he's saying in parallel, and it's ridiculous.

A smoker's exhaled smoke is not as dangerous and carcinogenic as the unfiltered smoke being drawn in by the smoker. That is basic physics, and if you don't understand that... well, then you're a total retard.

no, that's not what he's saying

let's use your stagnant pool example


let's say it's a pool of 100% disease

it goes down a creek and hits 1 filter, 25% of the disease is removed

hits another filter, and another 25% is removed

now some dude comes along, takes the 50% disease water and dumps it in everyone elses water glass, whether they want it or not



it's not as bad as drinking it from the source on your own, but being forcefed 50% disease water is still the suck, and is the reason all smokers should be shot on sight

I agree with that, but it's not as bad as the original water, which was my point.

Yeah but instead of 100% disease water to 50% disease water smoke is like 100% disease stick vs. 1% secondhand.

100% or 1% would you like to be forced to drink it?

Please read this and note the number of no safe exposure lvls. These are the chemicals in second hand smoke.