I know I said I wouldn't make anymore "tobacco isn

underrated thread

Okay, then go smoke all the bullshit you want dude. No one cares.

>>7809134
>tobacco allergy
And have you checked how common such an allergy is? Hmmmmm? Hmmmmmmmmmmm???

File: loveanon.jpg (31KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x301px

>>7809134
> I said I wouldn't make anymore "tobacco isn't bad for you" threads
> but one last time
Fuck you. You know you'll shitpost the same faggot shit in a couple of days, if not tomorrow.

You're a fucking drug addict. Your drug is nicotine. That will not change. Stop boo hoo'ing that you have to stand out in the cold to feed your fix and just do it.

Darwin's iguana, will we have to put up with this shit every time the temperature falls below freezing?

> I won't be bothering anyone on this board anymore.
We can only wish.

Everyone reading this thread should be aware that OP rejects statistics as valid evidence. Not particular statistics - the entire FIELD of statistics. His wholr argument is that smoking can't be dangerous because some smokers don't get lung cancer. He is crackpot who fails at basic math.

Just a public service announcement in case anyone was wondering if there was anything to OP's claims.

>>7809692
>Fuck you. You know you'll shitpost the same faggot shit in a couple of days, if not tomorrow.

Nah, I post elsewhere now when it comes to smoking related stuff. You won't have to worry about me when this thread dies. I see that not many people agree with me here. That's fine, but I figured a science board would be skeptical about what they hear from mainstream government or scientific sources.

>You're a fucking drug addict. Your drug is nicotine. That will not change. Stop boo hoo'ing that you have to stand out in the cold to feed your fix and just do it.

Maybe you could stop boo hooing and put up with something that isn't even a health risk for nonsmokers? I don't even smoke myself, I just get tired of seeing people or employees in a workplace having to go outside every time they want to light up because people are so limpwristed and can't deal with it indoors. Nicotine is extraordinarily useful for focus and work productivity.

>>7809728
I don't think I've rejected statistics as valid evidence. I do point out that, since an overwhelming number of cases of people with lung cancer are linked to smoking and only fifteen percent of smokers ultimately get lung cancer, I don't dismiss statistics, I dismiss things that come across as faulty. Some of the most important studies and information regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke came from heavily criticized reports by major health organizations. Did you not read the link? Many subsequent studies were based off of those reports, and there are people on the anti-smoking side who have admitted that these studies are questionable when it comes to how they draw their conclusions.

File: drama llama.jpg (17KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x236px

>>7810310
> I post elsewhere now
You just posted here. Again. Darwin in a top hat, don't you get the fucking hint? Or do you like abuse?

> skeptical about what they hear from mainstream government or scientific sources
>>> /x/

> Did you not read the link?
You mean your shill for R. J. Reynolds? No. Not going to either. If you want ad bucks from popup ads, go to YouTube. Else kindly fuck off.

>Most of the people against secondhand smoke also absurdly think that vaping is harmful.
from what i can see on pubmed there just isn't any research published yet on the issue, so we can't make any conclusions either way. there's enough biological material in the literature to suppose that there COULD be some kind of health effect, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet

anecdotally, some other graduate students at my uni work in labs doing research with in vitro models on the effect of e-cigarette smoke on the lungs, and from what i've heard there may be non-trivial health effects associated with exposure to e-cig vapors

File: 1441933969731.jpg (24KB, 401x372px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 401x372px

>>7810310
for fucks sake
just pack your things already and leave
nobody gives a shit

I'm not so concerned about the health risk of 2nd hand smoke so much as I am concerned about the fact that it just fucking stinks and is annoying.

>>7810342
>You mean your shill for R. J. Reynolds? No. Not going to either. If you want ad bucks from popup ads, go to YouTube. Else kindly fuck off.

Dismissing anyone who refutes the dangers of secondhand smoke as a shill pretty much makes it clear that you're not interested in facts, just name calling. Dave Hitt doesn't like tobacco companies and he's made it clear that he thinks the "science" behind secondhand smoke's risk is false and cherry picked.

Second hand smoke was an issue primarily in bars, clubs, and restaurants where wait staff would be subjected to smoke inhalation on a daily basis.

This did, in fact, result in many cases of cancer, even amongst those who did not smoke, and because it was their job occupation, there wasn't really anything they could do about it, so they had no recourse but to sue and appeal to the courts to put in a law that says you can't smoke in public places.

Personally, I think people in bars and clubs should be allowed to smoke, if your not a smoker you really don't belong in a bar or a club, you should go work at a restaurant or a diner.

>>7809134
This, kids, is why you should never smoke. You'll end up so addicted that all you can do is shitpost on 4chan, begging someone to believe it's not you fault your health is shit.

>>7809134
>airborne particulate matter is not a real health risk
>unless you are breathing it
do some research

>Fact: As a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.

stopped reading there

It still smells bad. I don't really care if we have to lie about the health effects to stop people from smoking near me.

>>7810737
Personally, I think people in bars and clubs shouldn't be allowed to smoke. If you are a smoker you really don't belong in a bar or a club, you should go work outside

>>7810737
>Second hand smoke was an issue primarily in bars, clubs, and restaurants where wait staff would be subjected to smoke inhalation on a daily basis.
This has always been one of my "go get another job if you have a problem with it" and the reason isn't the general kind of libertard shit you'll hear, but more along the lines of cigarette smoke is one of the best things you can inhale if you start looking at the shit in the air at various other industries/construction sites/etc.

>>7810862
Too bad because he was right

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/rr.htm

>>7810897

This attitude is a historical indication of just how young you really are.

Historically, bars are for drinking, smoking, unwinding, and the occasional fight. It is only very recently that some jurisdictions have responded to long cultural trends about the public health, and moved to separate the smoking from the drinking, which for many people are like two peas in the pod, and not to be separated. The outdoor space is still never far from the bar however, in my limited experience.

It is also possible, based on what you've said, that you live in a jurisdiction somewhere where the bars are smoky, and you resent this. If so, it just reinforces my early point that that's exactly how bars and public houses have been for most of their existence. Smoking wasn't even fully demonized, much less legislated against, even 30 years ago.

>>7810737
>Second hand smoke was an issue primarily in bars, clubs, and restaurants where wait staff would be subjected to smoke inhalation on a daily basis.

Let's assume that secondhand smoke is bad (I noticed you didn't provide any links regarding your claim), then why are people more concerned with banning it in workplaces or theaters or grocery stores (basically every place except for the ones you listed) and basically exiling smokers to bars, restaraunts, and clubs (and then proceeding to ban it there too in some states?)

>>7810942
My sides! Is that your only education on the topic? A collection of cherry picked quotes?

>>7811002
pretty sure even Wikipedia agrees. Granted, they say it's 1.0 and not 2.0 but I am pretty sure the ETS results are below either of those numbers.

>>7810774
It's really not.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

I still feel like it's weird that people take the word of public health organizations seriously.