So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

[Yellow Mage]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

An estimated 126 million non-smokers are exposed to second hand smoke on a day-to-day basis.

Each year about 3,400 non-smokers die of lung cancer realted to second hand smoke. Second hand smoke also causes an estimated 46,000 deaths per year related to heart disease in non-smokers.

49,400 out of 126,000,000 . . .

Dude, you are aware that that's, like, a .04% mortality rate, right?

Don't get me wrong, I hate second-hand smoke even more than the next guy, but you are being something of a queen in this thread.

[DakAttack]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

49,400 out of 126,000,000 . . .

Dude, you are aware that that's, like, a .04% mortality rate, right?

Don't get me wrong, I hate second-hand smoke even more than the next guy, but you are being something of a queen in this thread.

So, it's ok to kill people so long as the total amount of people you kill is only a fraction of one-percent of the yearly mortality rate of the entire nation? That doesn't sound crazy, to you?

[Taskmage]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

8,000 people die every year of skin cancer due to exposure to the sun. So it seems being exposed to second hand smoke on a daily basis is six times more dangerous as a long term health effect than doing yardwork? That doesn't sound too bad.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/index.htm

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Prevention is fine, but turning prevention into a crusade is utterly futile because humans will be humans and:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jcv6mh0uok]YouTube - Forrest-It Happens.avi[/ame]

[DakAttack]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Prevention is fine, but turning prevention into a crusade is utterly futile because humans will be humans and:

If you're referring to me, I'm not on a crusade. I'm simply trying to provide a counter-weight to the classic "I'm only hurting myself" attitude typical of smokers.

8,000 people die every year of skin cancer due to exposure to the sun. So it seems being exposed to second hand smoke on a daily basis is six times more dangerous as a long term health effect than doing yardwork? That doesn't sound too bad.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/index.htm

I can't tell if you're purposefully misrepresenting the facts or simply don't understand them. The CDC is reporting that over eight-thousand people die a year due to skin cancer caused by exposure to UV light. This includes and is probably mostly consisting of self-tanners in tanning salons and sun bathers. Unless you do a lot of yardwork you're much less at risk. Still, I have no idea what the point you're trying to make is.

[Murphie]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Who in here has said that they are only hurting themselves? Why are you incapable of talking about this subject without misinterpreting what others say and putting words in their mouths? We get it. You don't like smoking. You don't like it a lot. But your approach to this entire discussion is perplexing. You've tried being insulting, you've tried being flip, you've tried "slut-shaming," you've tried emotional appeals. Now we're on statistics.

Who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of?

As I have said, multiple freaking times, smoking is bad. It is a terrible, disgusting habit, and it is an expensive habit to maintain. Smokers know this. They are aware. They do it anyway. Most of them aren't happy about it. But when someone starts behaving as you have, they get really defensive about it, because who enjoys being directly or passive-aggressively attacked?

Unless your only motive is to feel superior to them, you aren't accomplishing anything of value by being shitty about the subject. I'd like to think that you're smarter than that, but I'm honestly beginning to wonder.

---------- Post added at 01:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------

So, it's ok to kill people so long as the total amount of people you kill is only a fraction of one-percent of the yearly mortality rate of the entire nation? That doesn't sound crazy, to you?

He didn't say that. This is what I am talking about. At no point did YM say that it was OK for anyone to die, regardless of the cause. He was simply pointing out that there is a lot of other bad stuff out there, but you don't appear to be getting all worked up about that.

You're missing the forest because you are seriously pissed at a couple of trees, man.

[Taskmage]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

I can't tell if you're purposefully misrepresenting the facts or simply don't understand them. The CDC is reporting that over eight-thousand people die a year due to skin cancer caused by exposure to UV light. This includes and is probably mostly consisting of self-tanners in tanning salons and sun bathers. Unless you do a lot of yardwork you're much less at risk. Still, I have no idea what the point you're trying to make is.

You can't blame skin cancer as a whole on tanning beds. In the past 20 years, the rate of use of tanning beds has increased 5x but the total rate of skin cancer has only increased by less than 2.2%. [source] This suggests that the vast majority of cases are due to other sources of UV light, most obviously the sun.

You have been trying to make the argument that second hand smoke presents a threat that people should be concerned about. My point is that to the average American, the danger posed by second hand smokers is around the same level as the danger posed by sunshine, which I don't think anyone is rationally all that concerned about.

[DakAttack]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Who in here has said that they are only hurting themselves? Why are you incapable of talking about this subject without misinterpreting what others say and putting words in their mouths? We get it. You don't like smoking. You don't like it a lot. But your approach to this entire discussion is perplexing. You've tried being insulting, you've tried being flip, you've tried "slut-shaming," you've tried emotional appeals. Now we're on statistics.

Who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of?

As I have said, multiple freaking times, smoking is bad. It is a terrible, disgusting habit, and it is an expensive habit to maintain. Smokers know this. They are aware. They do it anyway. Most of them aren't happy about it. But when someone starts behaving as you have, they get really defensive about it, because who enjoys being directly or passive-aggressively attacked?

Unless your only motive is to feel superior to them, you aren't accomplishing anything of value by being shitty about the subject. I'd like to think that you're smarter than that, but I'm honestly beginning to wonder.

---------- Post added at 01:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ----------



He didn't say that. This is what I am talking about. At no point did YM say that it was OK for anyone to die, regardless of the cause. He was simply pointing out that there is a lot of other bad stuff out there, but you don't appear to be getting all worked up about that.

You're missing the forest because you are seriously pissed at a couple of trees, man.

This thread was about curbing smoking habits until you brought your classic smoker's attitude in. You believe smoking doesn't hurt anybody but yourself, so we should leave smoking alone. When I argued that it was putting more people at risk than you know, you attempted to straw man your way out with the whole "it's not as bad as other things that can kill you".

Admittedly, I misunderstood slightly YM's message, but my point still stands. If he's going to shrug off the statistics because he's decided they're insignificant, then, in his opinion, killing people through other methods just as acceptable if the mortality rate is judged as just as insignificant?

We can start over, if you want to, or we can just say fuck it. I can't say I've been completely clear with my message, so it's not surprising if there was some confusion. I doubt that we'd agree on anything even if we did start over, so it's probably just best to end it before it gets worse.

[Murphie]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Where did I say smoking hurts no one but myself, so we should leave smoking alone? Where, Dak?

And I wasn't attempting to strawman myself out of everything. I was saying "Yeah, it's bad, but so are X,Y, and Z. Why u so mad about this?"

At no point have I been trying to be a smoking apologist. I'm merely pointing out the reality that it exists, and that the tactics in the OP aren't going to be particularly effective.

[DakAttack]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

The attitudes when smoking comes up are always hilarious. How's that high horse, folks? I mean, when BBQ is being the fairly sensible one? You need to look at yourselves.

WE GET IT. You don't like smoking. So, don't smoke, and if you see someone on a public street who is smoking? Avoid them. You don't need to walk nearby and cough loudly, or give them a dirty look, or do whatever other passive aggressive bullshit thing you do. Grow up, and realize that they don't care that you don't like their smoking. They just think you're a self-righteous asshole.

Hell, you can barely smoke in most places nowadays anyway. Your life as a non-smoker is not particularly affected by smoking. Get over it.

Italicized text is an indication of your smoker attitude. The bolded text is where you clearly state smoking has no effect on non-smokers.

[Murphie]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Not particularly affected != no effect. Jesus, this is basic fucking logic, Dak.

And stop throwing around terms like "smoker's attitude." If anyone has an attitude here, it's you.

In several threads this week people have made overly-dramatic comments about smokers, and how even the thought of smoking makes their asthma act up. And what I said isn't untrue. They don't care that you don't care for their smoking. They know you don't. They aren't asking you to light up, they can't smoke in public buildings and many outdoor locations, and if you do see them on the street, you can avoid them. Walking on the same sidewalk as someone who smokes isn't going to immediately cause cancer to take root in your body. Being rude or overly dramatic about smokers isn't going to help the situation any. Giving them dirty looks, coughing dramatically, or slapping pictures of people affected by cancer onto packs of cigs isn't going to make people stop smoking.

[DakAttack]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Not particularly affected != no effect. Jesus, this is basic fucking logic, Dak.

It doesn't take a genius to know your use of "particularly" was only as a contingency, just like people end their sentences with "I guess" so that when they're proven to be incorrect they can emphasize "I GUESS". What you really meant is no effect.

[Murphie]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

ITT: Dak knows what I actually mean despite what I've actually posted. He hasn't been putting words in people's mouths at all, but rather pulling the thoughts from their very heads!

I hope your telepathy doesn't give me cancer, Dak.

As a little bit of trivia, I meant particularly as in:

–adverb
1.
in a particular or to an exceptional degree; especially: He read it with particularly great interest.

[DakAttack]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

I'm well aware of the word's definition, and I'm well aware of how you used it.

[Murphie]

Re: So I wonder what the cigarette companies think of this...

Clearly, you aren't.