Guest Kami_removed Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The 1075 smokers that die everyday from smoking products, or the 137 people who die from secondhand smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taeyeon 3,553 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 137 that die from second-hand because they're not intentionally destroying their lives. But then again those thousand that die from first hand probably are addicted so... it's hard. I still choose the 2nd hand smokers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tengoku 23 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Those smokers are smoking the wrong stuff tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denizen mars 5,911 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I'd say they're all victims because smoking is an addiction that's hard to break, but nowadays there is ample evidence that it's a health risk...unless you're just willfully stupid and callous, you'd know better than to start. So I do think smokers deserve what's coming to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mog 5,083 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I feel worse for those who are not making the conscious decision to harm themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meigitsune 2,999 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Both are victims in different senses of the word victim, but the ones affected by second hand smoke are worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margarinebuttercheese 231 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Smoking is a choice, even it become an addiction later. 137 person that died because of that are worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popero44 28 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The people who die because of secondhand smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsachel 84 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 i think both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kami_removed Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 i think both. dont comment if you arent gonna answer the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud 11 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The first one! they not only pave a death road for them, they also force it upon others! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Secret 366 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Both are victims in different senses of the word victim, but the ones affected by second hand smoke are worse. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joon 8,222 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 How can they prove someone died from secondhand smoke? Honestly...I don't think that is possible =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatssosoo 731 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 How can they prove someone died from secondhand smoke? Honestly...I don't think that is possible =/ When the tobacco burns, the tobacco smoke that is created has a whole lot of different chemicals in it that are harmful to the body and may even cause cancer. If you inhale these chemicals, they go in your body and science allows us to calculate traces of it. So if your body has these chemicals in them, and you are around a lot of smokers, you can put one and one together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joon 8,222 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 When the tobacco burns, the tobacco smoke that is created has a whole lot of different chemicals in it that are harmful to the body and may even cause cancer. If you inhale these chemicals, they go in your body and science allows us to calculate traces of it. So if your body has these chemicals in them, and you are around a lot of smokers, you can put one and one together. But what about all the other environmental pollution that makes our air toxic, many of which are carcinogenic. Especially people who live in congested cities...the amount of toxins their lungs inhale from emissions from vehicles...industrial plants...hell even chimney smoke... I'm just curious about how they eliminate these as possible factors and directly pinpoint it down to second hand exposure from tobacco smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loser 784 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 those who died of secondhand smoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatssosoo 731 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 But what about all the other environmental pollution that makes our air toxic, many of which are carcinogenic. Especially people who live in congested cities...the amount of toxins their lungs inhale from emissions from vehicles...industrial plants...hell even chimney smoke... I'm just curious about how they eliminate these as possible factors and directly pinpoint it down to second hand exposure from tobacco smoke. It's because you can't blame pollution for someone's cancer if the entire city doesn't get cancer. People in the same area are exposed to the same air, but if certain individuals are more exposed to these chemicals because of second hand smoking, they are much more likely to suffer indirect consequences. The difference is also in that the toxins in the air are diluted, shared amongst multiple people, are at times designed to produce less chemicals (as opposed to tobacco which thrives on and does not attempt to replace its bad chemicals because the high depends on them), and is usually consumed indirectly. On the other hand, second hand smoking usually happens in a case in which you are very close to the actual source of the chemicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joon 8,222 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 It's because you can't blame pollution for someone's cancer if the entire city doesn't get cancer. People in the same area are exposed to the same air, but if certain individuals are more exposed to these chemicals because of second hand smoking, they are much more likely to suffer indirect consequences. The difference is also in that the toxins in the air are diluted, shared amongst multiple people, are at times designed to produce less chemicals (as opposed to tobacco which thrives on and does not attempt to replace its bad chemicals because the high depends on them), and is usually consumed indirectly. On the other hand, second hand smoking usually happens in a case in which you are very close to the actual source of the chemicals. I think it's negligent to not consider the possibility of environmental pollutants having a factor on lung cancer. Yes, not everyone exposed to diesel exhaust is going to get cancer - similarly not everyone exposed to smoke, whether first, second, or third hand, will develop cancer as well. One of my grandma is 92, almost 93, and smoked for the majority of her lifetime, but she is remarkably healthy and never has has any cancer. My other grandmother is 75 and has COPD but she never smoked and her husband only smoked outside, not in the car or in the house. Now I am not trying to advocate for smoking. I don't think anyone should ever smoke in an area without good ventilation....I'm a former smoker, and I only ever smoked outside or in my own car, when it was moving and with all the windows down. I think it is highly irresponsible to smoke around children and that a smoker should never light up in an area that forced a nonsmoker to breathe in the second hand smoke. ...But I also think it's irresponsible to make an assertion that "blah blah" caused this person to get cancer and die when there are many other factors that could have led to that person acquiring the cancer. Assumption is fine, assertion IMO is not. People publicly shame and humiliate smokers and that has become an okay thing to do...People will outright say "I hate smokers" and refuse to associate with any smokers and a lot of people justify their hatred because of misleading assertions that put a number on how many people die because of smoking related diseases. There are better ways of discouraging smoking without making the smokers seem like they are villains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatssosoo 731 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I think it's negligent to not consider the possibility of environmental pollutants having a factor on lung cancer. Yes, not everyone exposed to diesel exhaust is going to get cancer - similarly not everyone exposed to smoke, whether first, second, or third hand, will develop cancer as well. One of my grandma is 92, almost 93, and smoked for the majority of her lifetime, but she is remarkably healthy and never has has any cancer. My other grandmother is 75 and has COPD but she never smoked and her husband only smoked outside, not in the car or in the house. Now I am not trying to advocate for smoking. I don't think anyone should ever smoke in an area without good ventilation....I'm a former smoker, and I only ever smoked outside or in my own car, when it was moving and with all the windows down. I think it is highly irresponsible to smoke around children and that a smoker should never light up in an area that forced a nonsmoker to breathe in the second hand smoke. ...But I also think it's irresponsible to make an assertion that "blah blah" caused this person to get cancer and die when there are many other factors that could have led to that person acquiring the cancer. Assumption is fine, assertion IMO is not. People publicly shame and humiliate smokers and that has become an okay thing to do...People will outright say "I hate smokers" and refuse to associate with any smokers and a lot of people justify their hatred because of misleading assertions that put a number on how many people die because of smoking related diseases. There are better ways of discouraging smoking without making the smokers seem like they are villains Yeah, I'm not sure if someone's cancer can 100% be attributed to second hand smoking, but those harmful chemicals exist. The difference between pollution and second-hand smoking is that pollution is typically a side-effect of a greater good, such as industrialization, while second-hand smoking is moreso a selfish act. (Selfish when not done in the privacy of your own space, instead of in public places, at work, or near children.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joon 8,222 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Yeah, I'm not sure if someone's cancer can 100% be attributed to second hand smoking, but those harmful chemicals exist. The difference between pollution and second-hand smoking is that pollution is typically a side-effect of a greater good, such as industrialization, while second-hand smoking is moreso a selfish act. (Selfish when not done in the privacy of your own space, instead of in public places, at work, or near children.) I understand. Even when I was a smoker, I was on board with the bans that eradicated smoking in public places and I think it's horrible to smoke in front of children and unwilling participants. I support the right to choose...the right for smokers to smoke and also the right for non smokers to breathe smoke free air. Smokers and non smokers can live in harmony, we just have to have a better understanding of one another and a greater respect for free will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yamanaikaze 24 Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 137 that die from second-hand because they're not intentionally destroying their lives. But then again those thousand that die from first hand probably are addicted so... it's hard. I still choose the 2nd hand smokers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuma Kiryu 1,823 Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 second hand smokers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnx 16 Posted June 15, 2013 Share Posted June 15, 2013 second hand deaths are worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.