2nd hand smoke = Bullshit

[Hydrosun]

If there is puke and stale beer as the aroma of the pub, then no doubt BO will be stronger than any cologne or purfume Be a good hippy and light up some incenses to cover the BO and leave the smoking to cannabis.

Cannabis smokers rights before big tobacco's interests....

 

[The OrigF/clred]

Perfume was a big trigger for me also, I can say that I am not a fan of its use in excess.

Cats really screwed me up.

I had hypoallergenic bedding.

Pipe tobacco never seemed to trigger it, I liked to smell of that. It was always ciggs.

I now smoke tobacco on rare occasion out of a chillum with hash for spiritual/ceremonial purposes. (1-2x a year)

Im all for venues deciding for themselves, they have well ventilated smoking areas in airports.

just fyi I haven't had asthma in over a decade, I can sleep next to cats and wake up with a clear nose, Ive smoked blunts and spliffs. Only thing that changed was I started puffin pot.

i'll suggest one of the reasons pipe tobacco might not trigger a reaction as the cigarette smoke does - cigarette tobacco, at least here in the states, has been treated with 70 chemicals, including ammonia, where pipe tobacco hasn't.

One reason for the cig tobacco being adulterated with all those chems - cig tobacco is taxed at $26.80 per lb by the feds, pipe tobacco is taxed at $2.18 per lb by the feds. And because of the higher tax rate in europe, i suspect the same is true there, for the reasons you'll see below.

the Cig mfgrs (phillip morris et al) had to bring their cost on a carton down - in the 70s, avg carton contained .76 lbs of tobacco, today .46 lbs. Bringing the amt of tobacco down dropped the cost (just from the savings on the fed tax) considerably. These numbers are from industry trade study organizations.

One way they did that without decreasing the volume or size of the cig, was to "puff" the tobacco (like rice krispies, the cereal) by injecting it with CO2 causing it to expand and occupy more space by weight. But once "puffed" or expanded, it burns faster / hotter, so they had to add chems to bring the burn rate down and re-create the earlier taste.

They also indicated that while all 70 chems were approved by the FDA for human consumption (in the amounts present), the FDA had not studied what those chems became once exposed (individually) to the combustion process. One example i'm familiar with, re chems changing after being burnt, that really shows a Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde nature was silicone. we worked with pure silicone (we had a consultant that was a retired lab chief from Dow Chemical's research lab). Anyway, pure silicone is so non-toxic, you can swallow it and piss it out with no ill effects (kind of like gypsum). Pour it on the ground and bacteria life in the soil shows zero effect, no decrease in population etc. But in the combustion process, some of it converts to formaldihyde - very toxic and cancer causing.

And none of those chems were studied in relation to what they become in combination with each other exposed to the combustion process. This was from 3 retired FDA scientists appearing on a segment of 60 minutes (there's a vid on youtube of their interview).

another chem in cigs is the fire retardant used in the paper. Phillip morris developed (and patented) the process to make cigs go out if not constantly being puffed on - and then urged congress to pass legislation to make the cig mfgrs use the paper treatment they had developed, to "save us from smokers falling asleep with lit cigs". Congress did - phillip morris now collects 15 cents per pack as a licensing fee from every other cig mfgr for the license to use their patented process.

The biggest chem though is ammonia - phillip morris developed the process in brazil. With ammonia treated tobacco, the nicotine hits your blood stream 33X stronger, so the addiction becomes stronger, and harder to quit. Think like "crack cocaine".

When i first started rolling my own or stuffing my own cigs, my consumption initially went from 1.5 - 2 packs a day with factory cigs to 3 packs of home rolled. My body wasn't getting the "fix" it was used to. Then, after a period of 5-6 weeks, my consumption fell - 10 months later i was smoking 12-18 cigs a day - i now only smoke when i have the time to stop and actually enjoy it (picture your uncle or grandfather who may have gone out on the front porch after dinner to smoke his pipe - he was enjoying the flavors in his tobacco.

I use some pipe tobaccos in my cigs that are so delicate in the different taste or nostril notes (mild hint of citric notes + slight aroma of fresh cut field hay) that if you're doing anything while smoking (ie on the phone, at the computer, listening to the radio in a car) you don't notice the sweet flavorings or essence.

Btw, for those that are still smoking factory cigs, my cost (depending on which tobacco i'm smoking) is anywhere from 76 cents per pack to $2.20 / pack. Those prices include filtered cig tubes and some amortization on the stuffing machine (70 cents per carton). And they look like factory cigs, with filters, not doobies. And after the first 10 days of smoking home rolled cigs, i couldn't finish a factory cigs - the chem taste was so apparent, it felt like someone had wiped the back of my throat with dry cotton. But as a smoker of 35+ years, the cig mfgrs had added a new chem, a little at a time over the years, so it went unnoticed.

fwiw

to the OP - agreed on the 2nd hand smoke report - but stick around, tomorrow it'll be something new, whatever the emu crowd (emu = emotion based logic) feels the need to promote. In the 80s, too much salt was bad for you (researchers had found), then it became pepper - now it's come out we need salt in our diet and pepper ain't shit - just don't eat pounds of it at a time or you'll develop serious indigestion

elvis leaving the bldg

 

[Harry Gypsna]

The Ammonia thing, that is used to add the nicotine version of crack to the baccy. They actually add more nicotine, which is in a more efficiently used form.. Evil motherfuckers.

 

[The OrigF/clred]

The Ammonia thing, that is used to add the nicotine version of crack to the baccy. They actually add more nicotine, which is in a more efficiently used form.. Evil motherfuckers.

Yeah, that crack cocaine effect kind of caught my attention too. The "saying" on the RYO or STO cigarette forums is pretty much, "I used to smoke for the sake of smoking (the addiction), i now smoke because i enjoy it". And that pretty well sums it up

if you're in the UK, some of the best pipe tobaccos come out of UK (and denmark) - Gawith Hoggarth tobaccos are like the columbian punto rojo of MJ - and what's crazier, i can buy their tobaccos cheaper here (about $50 half kilo) vs $115 in UK

 

[Harry Gypsna]

the "saying" on the RYO or STO cigarette forums is pretty much, "I used to smoke for the sake of smoking (the addiction), i now smoke because i enjoy it". And that pretty well sums it up

if you're in the UK, some of the best pipe tobaccos come out of UK (and denmark) - Gawith Hoggarth tobaccos are like the columbian punto rojo of MJ - and what's crazier, i can buy their tobaccos cheaper here (about $50 half kilo) vs $115 in UK

To be honest, I roll my own. I only smoke 10-15 a day, and I'm talking about handrolled with extra slim filter tips, but I will pack in the cigs myself eventually, as I do not dispute the damage it is doing to me. It's just that I am affronted by being stigmatised and pushed out of - wherever, on the basis of bad science, conclusions of which are jumped on by the anti smoking lobby. It really gets on my wick, when a motorist non smoker berates me for polluting their air, when their car churns out toxins at a rate that is orders of magnitude above what my smoking produces.

77% of the price of tobacco in the UK is tax.

 

[Green lung]

Honestly One study or even 1 million studies will not erase the memory of being in the er hooked up to respirators filled with roids to help me breath after some second hand smoke caused a bad asthma attack.

Maybe it doesnt "significantly" increase your risk of cancer but it certainly has given me a few asthma attacks.

Sounds like a bullshit story to me, are you a "bubble boy" something? Your telling me you get asthma attacks from second hand smoke, you must practically die on the spot if you had to walk next to a bus or diesel car.


We can't bend over backwards for all weak bodies we have out in the world if your system can't handle a little whiff of smoke just stay inside your home because the world is lot more dangerous than a little smoke.



.

 

[Stoner4Life]

If there is puke and stale beer as the aroma of the pub, then no doubt BO will be stronger than any cologne or purfume Be a good hippy and light up some incenses to cover the BO and leave the smoking to cannabis.

Cannabis smokers rights before big tobacco's interests....

we don't always see eye to eye Hydro but you nailed this one spot on.......

 

[supermanlives]

I have ciggie machine hand crank and use tubes.the way taxes go the new deal is calling it all pipe tobacco.13$ and up per lb. theres some Indians in on it too and their tobacco aint bad . I try an not smoke around peeps that don't smoke themselves. I step outside or whatever. its my one weakness other than kryptonite lol

 

[supermanlives]

. Why can't venues be allowed to decide for themselves? The non smokers can go to a non smoking pub, or if they don't mind the smoke, go to a smoking pub. That's fair.

couldn't agree more. most places in cali have outdoor patio/ covered areas for smokers.well atleast the places I go lol no smoking in cali ,not even supposed to be like 20 ft from a doorway public smoking. when I go back east its like the twighlight zone as ya can toke inside still. the whole rule was to protect worker safety as I remember right. well they can also choose to work at an non smoking job. what about if they smoke already then ,you aint helping em at all lol. aaaaah how the bullshit persists

 

[Harry Gypsna]

the whole rule was to protect worker safety as I remember right. well they can also choose to work at an non smoking job. what about if they smoke already then ,you aint helping em at all lol. aaaaah how the bullshit persists

And this is exactly what pisses me off. This worker protection thing, is based on the spurious notion that 2nd hand smoke is a thing in the 1st place. It can be argued that the worker has no choice if the job market isn't great, but when the risk to their health is non existent, they should grow up. Fry cooks go home smelling of chip fat and sewage workers...you get the picture. the smell of smoke washes out easily enough. Like I said, it is all about turning a nuisance into a health issue, so that people who just don't like it, can get their way...everywhere.

EDIT
Added this to keep it light
[YOUTUBEIF]AKicDzV64qE[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[bentom187]

I would actually label my self what Noam Chomsky calls a "social libertarian". Again, using the real meaning of libertarian, and not the twisted US corporate version.

The twisted version is Chomsky's conflated logic and literary backflips. As you can tell I don't like him. You probably are a real libertarian from the sound of it.

[YOUTUBEIF]mJjKxi5cFrs[/YOUTUBEIF]

Yes the terms are confusing because he makes them that way. If he believes a coercive state is the same voluntarism then he has some reading to do.

Libertarianism is simply the belief that you own yourself ,and that the initiation of force on others is always wrong and is a violation of their natural rights as well as yours. The non-aggression principal.

In whatever socialist reconfiguration of the term he wants to spin, he will fall back onto the state or "controlling authority" as the solution which is the epitome of force and aggression. That is the opposite of what would make one a free individual.

We are talking about two distinctly different philosophies and he insists on calling it the same thing, Its not.

Even anarcho socialist is a contradiction of terms whats anarchic about absolute control by a central authority ?

The only true free market and free population would be that of anarcho capitalist voluntary society.

Even in that state of affairs if you wanted your own socialist paradise in the middle of that society the libertarians would respect your right to do so ,as long as you did not try to violate anyone who didn't want to participate, rights. I don't think socialist/progressives have the same consideration.

What is a Libertarian?
[YOUTUBEIF]1W5xmPidG8Q[/YOUTUBEIF]

as opposed to


Noam Chomsky - A short explanation of Libertarian Socialism
[YOUTUBEIF]31VAUFVPF8E[/YOUTUBEIF]

Chomsky is intellectually dishonest at best. Earning a living is wage slavery ? I believe the voluntary portion of that contract between employer and employee was overlooked a bit. The fact that a 3rd party arbitrator (government) sets minimum wages in this country might be the roots cause of their complaints. If it is not enough money to live on why have them get in the way in the first place they are too incompetent to know what everyone could possibly need, or for the employer afford, and the fact that unions exist is proof but is only doubling down on the stupidity of their proposed solution, more government intervention.

The Truth about the Minimum Wage
[YOUTUBEIF]siW0YAAfX6I[/YOUTUBEIF]

I would also point out that socialism is institutionalized slavery they are taking what you earn without asking, that was pretty much the problem in the case slaves of the southern states. The owners took what they wanted, today socialist would call that their fair share or doing their part for living in that orderly society of servitude. The degree of slavery does not matter. Is being a free range slave better and for whom you or your master ? I think its clear the degree does not matter. Your either free or you are not.

As for cigarettes I don't smoke them, but if anyone else does smoke'em if you got'em its your body no point in me being a hypocrite here.

 

[The OrigF/clred]

To be honest, I roll my own. I only smoke 10-15 a day, and I'm talking about handrolled with extra slim filter tips, but I will pack in the cigs myself eventually, as I do not dispute the damage it is doing to me. It's just that I am affronted by being stigmatised and pushed out of - wherever, on the basis of bad science, conclusions of which are jumped on by the anti smoking lobby. It really gets on my wick, when a motorist non smoker berates me for polluting their air, when their car churns out toxins at a rate that is orders of magnitude above what my smoking produces.

77% of the price of tobacco in the UK is tax.

i know the feeling well

 

[HempKat]

The Ammonia thing, that is used to add the nicotine version of crack to the baccy. They actually add more nicotine, which is in a more efficiently used form.. Evil motherfuckers.

To kind of back that up with some unverified information, a clerk at a local tobacco store told me once that when the government really started driving prices up with "sin" taxes the tobacco companies responded by upping the nicotine content of individual cigarettes in order to increase the addiction to a point that wasn't as easily broken by the cost of cigarettes because they were losing too many customers because of the cost factor.

 

[Weird]

2nd hand smoke is bollocks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...lung-cancer-and-secondhand-smoke-9004077.html







{There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Published in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study found that among current smokers, lung cancer was 13 times more common than in non-smokers, and four times more common among former smokers. But for women who had never smoked, it found that exposure to secondhand smoke did not significantly increase the risk of lung cancer.

Among the group of women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more, however, the study concluded that there was a relationship of "borderline statistical significance" between exposure to passive smoke and lung cancer.

Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study in June at this year's meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, said: "The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in non-smokers]."

The findings of the study will likely be questioned by Cancer Research UK however, who state on their website that "second-hand smoke can increase a non-smoker's risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter, and may also increase the risk of cancers of the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (upper throat)."}




The WHO has known this for years. In fact, they ordered their own research to be stopped, when preliminary results didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. Passive smoking is a big con, dreamt up by anti smokers, who don't like the smell or smokey eyes in bars, so they had to turn a nuisance, into a health risk.

Passive smoking is cover for industrial and automotive pollution. Every single breath you take when in an urban area, contains thousand of times more toxins and carcinogens, than 20 cigs a day do. Every time a non smoker whines about me smoking, I ask them when they will be fucking the car off, and running their home purely from solar and wind energy.


EDIT
It seems the neg rep fairy doesn't like science. Presumably, they don't believe all the studies which show medical value for Cannabis either...Or are they just prejudiced against something they don't like. Science, great when it says what you want to hear and confirms your pr-existing bias.

how about its effects on lung disease such as asthma?

have you researched the increase in asthma related to expose to second hand smoke?

you sound like the kind of human who likes to not give a fuck about causation and liability

and imho if you think the smoke you breath in through the filter is the only way it can cause cancer, well is save that I think it makes you

imho without science we know second hand smoke is an irritant at best and it makes you a grossly selfish if you think you need science to establish what at minimum should be common courtesy

remember there are billions at state here and studies are can be very ambiguous in there findings when billions are stake

remember the studies that established the dangers of marijuana

 

[Harry Gypsna]

how about its effects on lung disease such as asthma?

have you researched the increase in asthma related to expose to second hand smoke?

you sound like the kind of human who likes to not give a fuck about causation and liability

and imho if you think the smoke you breath in through the filter is the only way it can cause cancer, well is save that I think it makes you

imho without science we know second hand smoke is an irritant at best and it makes you a grossly selfish if you think you need science to establish what at minimum should be common courtesy

remember there are billions at state here and studies are can be very ambiguous in there findings when billions are stake

remember the studies that established the dangers of marijuana

What is the problem with venues being allowed to decide?
In my own home I do what I like.
The nonsense is even spreading to outdoor situations, where smoke is diluted in millions of times more air than a smoker exhales. Air which contain many times more pollutants than a cig.
Again, about asthma, many things cause asthma. Cars are not being ordered off the roads, and particulates from cars are the main cause of childhood asthma.
Perfume makes me want to puke, but I ain't trying to get it banned from all pubs.
Frankly, when we are only talking about a nuisance, Fuck courtesy.

Yes, the smoke is the only way you can get cancer. Looking at it, touching it will not give you cancer.

If you din't want me to smoke in your house, that's fair enough, but the whole world isn't your house.
A few weeks ago, a plane passenger was refused a bag of peanuts, because their was someone with an allergy on board. Ludicrous, You can't legislate away all risk.
I would like to add, I have no problem with the existence of no smoking venues, requirements that smoking venues have extarction systems. My problem is legistlationm that is putting places out of business, based on hysteria.

 

[Storm Shadow]

American or UK studies that say Tobacco are safe are a complete joke... The Pure stank and disgusting breath and yellow teeth people get from it.... ewwwwwwwwwww

Who the hell would want to kiss anybody with nasty gross death cancer breath... Unless they are ashtrays themselves...most people will be so turned off by that nasty gross synthetic junk ... disgusting ... every Tobacco CEO should be hung by their necks for all the death sentences they have handed out to the world...

How stupid do you have to be to not understand Big Corps are paying for all these BS studies... Do yourself a favor and ignore Western Propaganda

Only one type of smoke for these lungs...the only one proven to keep me alive longer...and oh yeah..its the same smoke these folks claim will kill ya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXrz6rJdMtE

 

[Harry Gypsna]

American or UK studies that say Tobacco are safe are a complete joke... The Pure stank and disgusting breath and yellow teeth people get from it.... ewwwwwwwwwww

Who the hell would want to kiss anybody with nasty gross death cancer breath... Unless they are ashtrays themselves...most people will be so turned off by that nasty gross synthetic junk ... disgusting ... every Tobacco CEO should be hung by their necks for all the death sentences they have handed out to the world...

How stupid do you have to be to not understand Big Corps are paying for all these BS studies... Do yourself a favor and ignore Western Propaganda

Only one type of smoke for these lungs...the only one proven to keep me alive longer...and oh yeah..its the same smoke these folks claim will kill ya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXrz6rJdMtE

The study doesn't say tobacco is safe. It says that only the people who are actively smoking are at risk, in which case, it's their own business.


Weed makes your breath stink too. So do many food items, but as luck would have it , there is a solution. There are these things called toothbrushes, and mints.

As for the stupid remark, I'm not the adult with an imaginary friend....


I will not be back to this thread, I can't be bothered, it is just the same as trying to explain to someone who hates weed, how they've been lied to.

 

[LEF]

some people (in my area) whose parents smoked in the house, while they did not

we're told by their docs that it would be healthier for them to start up smoking

 

[Babbabud]

if im standing in a line and someone lights up a cig and no one complains... i light a joint .. so far no one has made a negative comment. but if they do they better be ready for it .. if they can put up with the cig then i have every right to fire up imho
otherwise ... i keep my smoke to myself

 

[Weird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking



US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies

On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris and other major cigarette manufacturers.[158] Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[4] In particular, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had:
conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking;
publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and
destroyed documents relevant to litigation.

The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants. The ruling also concluded that tobacco companies continue today to fraudulently deny the health effects of ETS exposure.[4]

On May 22, 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court's 2006 ruling.[159][160][161