*cracks knuckles, takes deep breath, applies war-paint*
McSensei, I apologize in advance for what I'm about to do to you.
Smoke does indeed cause structural damage to the lungs, from both the heat and the particulates in it.http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C211471.html
The irritant and inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke lead to increased cell turnover, damage to cells and tissues in the throat and lungs, and interference with the normal barrier and clearance mechanism of the lung. The loss of the protective cilia allows harmful smoke particles, dust and bacteria to invade the lungs... thus reducing resistance to lung diseases.
Studies have indicated that smoking is the primary risk factor for accelerated decline in respiratory function. For instance, "forced expiratory volume in one second" test (FEV1) is an often-used measurement of lung function. FEV1 normally declines with age, but while in nonsmokers this decline is some 20-30ml per year, in current smokers this decline is 25-80ml per year.http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2643239720071126
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One third of people who breath in high levels of secondhand smoke have damage to their lungs similar to that seen in smokers, doctors reported on Monday.
They used a special kind of magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scan to look at the lungs of non-smokers who had high exposure to other people's cigarette smoke and found evidence of the kind of damage that causes emphysema.
"We interpreted those changes as early signs of lung damage, representing very mild forms of emphysema," said Chengbo Wang, a magnetic resonance physicist at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who led the study.
"Almost one third of nonsmokers who had been exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke for a long time developed these structural changes," Wang added in a statement.
"To our knowledge, this is the first imaging study to find lung damage in non-smokers heavily exposed to secondhand smoke. We hope our work strengthens the efforts of legislators and policymakers to limit public exposure to secondhand smoke."
BTW - Passive bullets are a myth, Eh?http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Stray_Bullet
Another Stray Bullet Injures 4yr-old Girl in Macedonia Playground
Dnevnik Macedonia, Transcript
6 August 2007
The celebration bullets kill people too. We seem to not be able to learn this lesson, and because of that, we are often witnesses of incidents in which stray bullets end up hitting innocent bystanders. A family celebration for someone can easily become tragedy for others. Only by chance the 4-year-old Jana from Skopje did not end up being the new victim of the stray bullets, and from representation of life and hope to be turned...
7 Dead, 50 Wounded by Stray Bullets as Iraqi Soccer Fans Fire Guns in Air
29 July 2007
BAGHDAD -- Crowds of ecstatic Iraqis wept tears of joy and fired rifles into the air on Sunday after their soccer team's victory in the Asian Cup triggered the biggest street celebrations since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Police in Baghdad and Kut reported at least seven deaths and more than 50 people wounded by stray bullets as gun-toting revelers took to the streets in a wave of euphoria unprecedented after four years of war....
Stray Bullets Rain Down on Rio de Janeiro: 87 Innocents Hit in 3 Months
San Francisco Chronicle / AP
20 June 2007
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- The toll from stray bullets that rain down on Rio from the city's steep hillside slums as police and drug gangs battle with automatic weapons has grown sharply, with one innocent bystander killed or wounded every day. Businesses and schools in the line of fire have been shuttered. Thousands of children are staying home. Even air travel is affected -- domestic jet routes were diverted from Rio's downtown...
Etc. Plenty more you can find with a quick search.
Actually it has been shown to have a protective effect on conditions like dementia and parkinsons.
Cancer, pulmonary and respitory diseases are "protective effects"?!
Actually I disagree. Society, especially the US, is obligated to allow people to do things which may harm them. That is exactly what freedom is all about.
Sometimes I wonder why your Founding Fathers ever bothered.
No, the founding father were actually quite smart. Society is NOT obligated to allow freedoms which harm others, especially when that harm is the exclusive effect of that behavior.
You may not like the smell and with that I can sympathize, but not liking something is no reason to blanket ban a perfectly legal substance that is enjoyed by a quarter of the population.
Cocaine and heroin were both legal and popular at one point in time. That does not make those activities protected forever. Smoking is a health threat that continues to persist in spite of crushing amounts of data, only because of the monetary influence of the industry. Period.
Then you would also need to ban the other contributing factors as well. I don't think many people would like that and in all honesty, I don't think it would be possible.
Poor logic that I have addressed before. Many of the other incidental hazards referred to are a by-product of an otherwise benign product or effect. Cigarettes have no other purpose than to degrade people's health - including people that don't even smoke.
Except we are not talking about 55 gallon drums here we are talking about a few nanograms, pictograms and femtograms.
Do you realise exactly how small the particles we are talking about are?
Wait, aren't you the one saying "it depends upon the dose"? A quarter of the population is a hell of a lot of "nanograms, pictograms and femtograms" floating around, isn't it? We're not talking about making YOU ONLY put away tobacco products. We mean EVERYONE!
Yes. Why not? I don't have an agenda to push, except freedom to choose.
Health and safety is an agenda? Isn't that a basic human right - almost everywhere?
Would you stay for 20 minutes in a locked room with a car engine running? No, I thought not, but you wouldn't worry too much about spending 20 minutes in an indoor multi story car park. The same car park where you wouldn't be allowed to smoke a cigarette.
Poor analogy for the USA and most of Europe. Vehicle exhaust is treated via catalytic converters to remove most of the pollutants emitted - not true of cigarettes. Would you want to stay in a (same size) locked room with 50 chain-smokers?
And you still haven't been able to name three.
Have a good night. See you tomorrow!