smoking vs non smoking

CowboyBob

bails87 wrote:

show previous quotes

CowboyBob wrote:

cavegiant wrote:

Give the man a bananna!

A nice list of compounds less toxic than nicotine, bravo for trying.

That comment could be seen as a racist slur. Is it only smokers that you see as second class citizens? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Really, why?

"A Hate Crime is any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race",

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.go ... e00401.htm

Banana's have been used to liken African's to monkeys. A classic example is when banana's where thrown onto football pitches to taunt players of African decent in the 1970's/80's.
It does not matter if the comment was meant as a racial slur but on how it is perceived.

bails87

Is Cat With No Tail African then? I think that's who it was aimed at.

The avatar is a fairly accurate depiction of me btw, but I think you're being overly sensitive.

CowboyBob

cavegiant wrote:

show previous quotes

CowboyBob wrote:

cavegiant wrote:

sometimes, in this life, other people do things you don't like. as adults you kinda just have to get over it

Yes ignore what is going on around you, shut your eyes to the atrocities and accept the murder/rape/torture that goes on in the world because you can't be bothered.

Nice to know there are lots of people willing to stand up to what they believe in.


;-)



p.s. serious question for all those people that say car exhaust is worse than smoke, name a couple of things more toxic that nicotine. I can think of a couple of poisons off the top of my head, but then again I am trained in toxicology so know about this stuff.
I just want to know if any of you blame shifters actually know anything about the harm you cause? Anyone,
I will stop slating smokers if a smoker actually can prove they know anything about toxins?

I bet you are a big hit at parties!

Generally, I am a freindly guy

I bet you do feck all to help child prostitution in the UK or else where.

Yep,

Your debates would not stand up to a teenage debating society from a inner city sink school.

My debates are based on the target audience, smokers, so I have had to dum it down.

When you say you are "trained in toxicology" I take it was at university? Do you work in toxicology or are you one of those self opinionated unemployed students? Are you a Socialist or a Labour voter. Do you want to turn this into a pissing contest with other forum members?

Module at university, one I wasn't that good at either, struggled mixing long names with strong medication. So opinionated student

I don't vote for people who lie, so am struggling finding a party to vote for. If you think pollys don't lie, ask some of your NLP trained friends about their body language, quite funny.

I think I already turned this into a pissing match, thought that was obvious.



You mention about sex crimes but are "trained" in toxicology? I'm a Criminologist and have studied toxins and sex crimes against children. I find it disgusting that you use paedophilia to get one upmanship on a thread about smoking.

So as a toxicologist you can fully appreciate the effects most class 6 neurotoxins have on people? You would understand the permanent damage that these toxins cause to their victims.
Grats on the good job, actually being out there doing something about the atrocities of life. Genuine respect for what you do, respect not envy, I couldn't do that.


Out of interest who or what are you using as your source for the ancient Greeks?

General interest in classics/QI repeated that fact recently

As for toxins, off the top of my head, Botulinums and Ricin are pretty effective at ending life, but as you know it is all about dosage. Warfarin can be deadly but can also be used to thin blood to help circulation in the right dose.

As you are probably aware the words poison, highly toxic and toxic all have definitions based on dosage. So all poisons are effective at ending life, so more so than others, dicyanide is pretty shitty from what I hear

Since you like questions and morals, what is the age of consent in the countries of the EU and the State of the USA?

UK 16 USA 18 hetero, I think we are backwards and still have a higher limit for homo. not sure really, not something I really concern myself with, my wife is older than me ;-)
You can google them if you want

I don't think I would like the info I find, so thanks for the offer but no.
.

I'm not a Toxicologist, i just read up on poison's and toxins 10 years ago for research for a film. I can not say that my degree has benefited society that much. It merged with IT and I became a Corporate Whore for the last 13 years. Though I am giving it up to join the Police (fingers crossed). I can't stand on the side lines.

As for Politics, don't get me started.

CowboyBob

bails87 wrote:

Is Cat With No Tail African then? I think that's who it was aimed at.

The avatar is a fairly accurate depiction of me btw, but I think you're being overly sensitive.

I was being a smart arse and showing Cavetroll that he was not the only one that could twist quotes.

As for the Avatar - I hope you ticked the smoker option

As for the cat with no tail, only he will know the answer......

cat_with_no_tail

bails87 wrote:

Is Cat With No Tail African then? I think that's who it was aimed at.

The avatar is a fairly accurate depiction of me btw, but I think you're being overly sensitive.

It was indeed aimed at me.

I'm manx though, that's an ethnic minority, even on the Island.

I shall now go and cry myself to sleep.

CowboyBob

Cat With No Tail wrote:

show previous quotes

bails87 wrote:

Is Cat With No Tail African then? I think that's who it was aimed at.

The avatar is a fairly accurate depiction of me btw, but I think you're being overly sensitive.

It was indeed aimed at me.

I'm manx though, that's an ethnic minority, even on the Island.

I shall now go and cry myself to sleep.

Nah, just pop out for smoke and pull yourself together.

a.palmer

CowboyBob wrote:

show previous quotes

A.Palmer wrote:

Taking E and drinking coffee doesn't give other people cancer. Poor arguement.

Balls!
Walking down the street in daylight can give you cancer, lets ban going out in the sun and vilify people with sun tans. Lets all be pale and interesting, only venturing out a night?

My remark about E's and coffee was about addiction. How many people do you know addicted to caffeine? What are they like if they do not get their fix?

How do you know E's don't cause cancer? They have only been studying iy for the last 30 years in any great depth. Do you have a secret lab in a hollowed out mountain where you conduct experiments on aging clubbers?
No one knows yet what the long term health implications are from E's. But it is being linked to mental disorders.
But what about the other yummy drugs in that tab of E, it's not all MDMA these days. Drugs are getting cheaper and they are getting cut with who knows what that might harm the user.

I didn't say i know that E doesn't cause cancer. I said it doesn't give OTHER PEOPLE cancer by you doing it. Unlike smoking. Plus, far fewer people as a % of total useage have died as a result of taking E/MDMA than they have from smoking. It baffles me that the government are quite happy to sell something as dangerous as tobbacco, but will prosecute you for stuff like cannabis which have far fewer risks and actually many health benifits.

Chaz.Harding

A.Palmer wrote:

It baffles me that the government are quite happy to sell something as dangerous as tobbacco, but will prosecute you for stuff like cannabis which have far fewer risks and actually many health benefits.

So come on then Frank, err, I mean A.Palmer, what are these ''many health benefits''...? I know in chronic pain cases, it may be used as a pain relief, but what else does it do?

Apart from bring out underlying mental problems and sometimes just create some mental problems, coat your lungs in tar, reduce your coordination and lower your sperm count / fertility? Oh, and if you get caught with it, you may be liable for a sentence, as it's now a Class B drug.

Smoking is more likely to give you lung / throat / mouth cancer (than not smoking at all), and it stinks like crap, but other than that, it's pretty 'safe'. As in, it doesn't affect people's ability to drive or make them mental, or paranoid, or eat loads.....

I fail to see how it can be better than smoking... And I think smoking is a totally pointless, disgusting habit. Least it's legal though :? :!:

a.palmer

How it can be better than tobacco? Well, it isn't cancer causing for one. Infact most studies show than cannabinoids, the active chemical in TCH, have cancer reducing properties. It can be used to treat asthema as where tobbacco smoke shrinks and hardens the windpipe, cannabis smoke increased the diameter of it.
And it doesn't just create mental disease. If you are predisposed to having schizophrenia heavy cannabis use (At least once every day for a number of years) can increase your chance of actually becoming schizophrenic by 1-2%. Hardly a huge risk.
Do you really think that dispenseries for medical mary jane would exist if there were no health benifits?

Chaz.Harding

Well....

I think you might find that smoking ciggarattes, you normally use a filter tip. Which filters out alot of tar. Spliffs usually don't. Nor bongs, nor pipes. So all of that lovely tar ends up in your lungs.

Also ''increases wind pipe diameter''.... Are you on CRACK...???? It still destorys the tissue in your lungs. You can't prove that cigg's give you lung / throat / mouth cancer (who's to say them that smoke wouldn't get it anyway...?) but it's highly likely. Cannabis smoke is the same, or possibly worse, for the reason above. If you smoke alot, chances are you WILL feel some kind of mental problem. Schizophrenia, paranoia, etc etc.

And YES, you can become addicted!

I never said there weren't any medical benefits. Pain relief is the only one I knew of (as mentioned above). So, come on then, where's all these positive health benefits to smokin' loadsa weed...?

NOT the 'active chemical' BS you tryed feeding me. Thats fair enough - extracting a SINGLE chemical for a useful purpose, so how about the WHOLE issue, cannabis in general. Like cyanide (a chemical in cigs) is used for inks (AFAIK).

Whats the positive effects of smoking cannaibs (other than the TOTALLY wrong delusion that you look / are 'cool', because you don't. Infact, you look [and most probably are] a miss-led, following-the-crowd tosser.

a.palmer

Using a water pipe does filter out alot of the tar, hence why bong water turns a nasty brown colour after a while. And cannabis is 100% non physically addictive. If you were to become 'attdicted' to it, it's because you have an addictive personality, and could just as easily become addicted to junk food or whatever else.
The point I originally made, was that it is absurd that smoking,which is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths every year if perfectly legal, where as a plant like cannabis which has not a single death to it's name is class as highly as class B. It's insane.
I won't resort to your highly intellectual name calling, but if you can actually be bothered to do some research you'd know that in most of what you say, you're just wrong. May I suggest you watch the documentary 'The Union', while its main focus is USA/Canada, most of what comes up is relevant here aswell. But, you probably wont watch it, and if you do you will just disregard everything it says.. because of course, you couldn't possibly be wrong, could you?

missmarple

And I thought the car thread was bad! :twisted:

The Big Cheese

LOL, I know.

I smoke, I don't expect anyone else to. I don't smoke in front of children nor inside the house/establishments. This argument will go on forever.

I am aware of the health risks. I also know plenty of young, superfit people that have been taken from us too soon due to accident and serious health problems that were not smoking related. I also know my nan, was fit and healthy and lived to 93. And she smoked 60 a day for god knows how many years.

My point is yes, it's bad for you, but you never know what's around the corner, it adds to your chances of getting cancer, but doesn't necessarily mean you'll get it.

Or you could never smoke, be fit as a fiddle (avoid everything remotely bad for you) and die in an accident or something not smoking related.

But, I understand non-smokers views and respect them. Just as they should understand that we as smokers, have the right to choose as people and adults.

Fantastic Mr Fox

Nothing better than a nice smoke now and again. I'll smoke like 4 cigs on a night out once a month.

I don't have a problem with smokers myself, but I wouldn't want people thinking that I'm a smoker.

The Big Cheese

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

but I wouldn't want people thinking that I'm a smoker.

See, this is what annoys me...... you make it sound as if people go around going "Oooh, look at that filthy man, smoking cigarettes, don't speak to him, what a shame, he looks normal as well...."

Why did you say it like that as if it's a 'taboo' and you wouldn't dare be thought of as a smolker, like smokers are all Heroin addicts??

(this will be my last post on this matter as it will go on and on and on)

bails87

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

Nothing better than a nice smoke.....I wouldn't want people thinking that I'm a smoker.

But you are....

clodhoppa74

A.Palmer wrote:

Using a water pipe does filter out alot of the tar, hence why bong water turns a nasty brown colour after a while. And cannabis is 100% non physically addictive. If you were to become 'attdicted' to it, it's because you have an addictive personality, and could just as easily become addicted to junk food or whatever else.
The point I originally made, was that it is absurd that smoking,which is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths every year if perfectly legal, where as a plant like cannabis which has not a single death to it's name is class as highly as class B. It's insane.
I won't resort to your highly intellectual name calling, but if you can actually be bothered to do some research you'd know that in most of what you say, you're just wrong. May I suggest you watch the documentary 'The Union', while its main focus is USA/Canada, most of what comes up is relevant here aswell. But, you probably wont watch it, and if you do you will just disregard everything it says.. because of course, you couldn't possibly be wrong, could you?

erm, you put anything burning in your lungs, it's carbon and can be carconogenic. weed may not be physically addictive but it is mentally addictive, to those with or without so called addictive personalities.

also, modern strains of skunk have more thc than before, which is fine, but they've cut out a lot of the other 'infredients' that used to actually help stabilise the mental aspect of taking it. the indica/bush that people used to smoke, where most of the folklore comes from, is completely different to what is churned out by grows nowadays, which is all about yield and strength at the expense of decent, quality product.

also, the effects on young brains is significant with cannabis of any sort, and can, and does, lead to psychosis and other social problems.

i'm not saying that it's the most evil thing in the world, or that there's logic in alcohol being legal when cannabis isn't, but the kind of 'hey it's all fine' attitude can lead people who are unsure to trying it, sometimes with devastating experiences. it's not going to have no effect on your brain, else why do it in the first place. all drugs are a relative poison innit.

a.palmer

I don't understand the 'it's different to the weed we used to have in the 70s' arguement. The higher % of THC just means you have to smoke less plant matter to achieve the same affect, which can only be good, because as you say, smoke of any kind is damaging to the delicate tissues in the lung.
And the indica thing you said about, you still get indica strains. Bascially there are 2 main catagories, indica and sativa, both with a whole array of strains. In a nutshell, the indica 'high' is what's called a 'body high', and results in you being couch locked, lazy etc. Sativa strains tend to give a 'head high', whereby you can quite happily [really happily] get on with normal tasks.

OwenBird

There's plenty of dangerous stuff that's still legal. For example In the US obesity is starting to be considered a more serious national health risk than smoking. Should we make pies illegal? Force people to exercise at gunpoint? Of course not; That's retarded.

It's got to be the same way forward for all of these things - Be aware of the risks before you get started (health, addiction, legal considerations) then proceed with caution having made an educated decision.

While I'm being a pedant here, just because something is burning, doesn't mean it's 'carbon'. Yes there will be a lot in plant smoke, but it'll be tied up in compounds, some of which will be dangerous when burned.

bails87

If alcohol was discovered tomorrow, would it be legal?

OwenBird

If E were 'discovered' (created) tomorrow it would be legal. For a while.

Kiblams

bails87 wrote:

If alcohol was discovered tomorrow, would it be legal?

I like your thinking (I am in awe of your mind :shock: ) My opinion would be: No chance

bails87

Kiblams wrote:

show previous quotes

bails87 wrote:

If alcohol was discovered tomorrow, would it be legal?

I am in awe of your mind :shock:

Jesus, what have you been smoking?! :P

clodhoppa74

A.Palmer wrote:

I don't understand the 'it's different to the weed we used to have in the 70s' arguement. The higher % of THC just means you have to smoke less plant matter to achieve the same affect, which can only be good, because as you say, smoke of any kind is damaging to the delicate tissues in the lung.
And the indica thing you said about, you still get indica strains. Bascially there are 2 main catagories, indica and sativa, both with a whole array of strains. In a nutshell, the indica 'high' is what's called a 'body high', and results in you being couch locked, lazy etc. Sativa strains tend to give a 'head high', whereby you can quite happily [really happily] get on with normal tasks.

because, as i said (maybe the weed's effecting your concentration ) that the proportions of the chemicals in the amount you smoke is changed. So, for however much percentage of thc, you USED to get other chemicals, which were in the plant to stop a lot of the negative effects of the THC, which is better for you. There was a series of documentaries on it that i watched. the lab guys, the ones who grow for medicinal purposes, were saying how theyir stuff was different as it wasn't engineered in the same way as commercial crops, because they didn't remove the plants natural safeguards.

i'm not, again, saying it's a demon, just saying to blanket-say 'it's fine' is whitewashing over the facts that any responsible drug user (if you beleive there's such a thing, i do) should make themselves aware of, otherwise it's just daft putting something in your body you don't understand, imho. and i used to use it a lot, while studying, getting a 2:1, working two jobs at the same time etc, so i'm not putting up a wall against it like, just saying.

Fantastic Mr Fox

The Big Cheese wrote:

show previous quotes

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

but I wouldn't want people thinking that I'm a smoker.

See, this is what annoys me...... you make it sound as if people go around going "Oooh, look at that filthy man, smoking cigarettes, don't speak to him, what a shame, he looks normal as well...."

Why did you say it like that as if it's a 'taboo' and you wouldn't dare be thought of as a smolker, like smokers are all Heroin addicts??

(this will be my last post on this matter as it will go on and on and on)

Well my parents seem to think that smokers are on the same level as heroin addicts! So that is probably why I don't want the label.

I have a lot of friends who are smokers, and it doesn't bother me at all.

bails87 wrote:

show previous quotes

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

Nothing better than a nice smoke.....I wouldn't want people thinking that I'm a smoker.

But you are....

By your definition maybe, but not by mine. Everyone who know's me doesn't think I'm a smoker.

bails87

To me, a smoker is someone who smokes cigarettes. Seeing as you have smoked, and it sounds like you intend to carry on, then I'd say you were. But really, it's none of my business as long as you don't walk round my house doing it!

Fantastic Mr Fox

bails87 wrote:

To me, a smoker is someone who smokes cigarettes. Seeing as you have smoked, and it sounds like you intend to carry on, then I'd say you were. But really, it's none of my business as long as you don't walk round my house doing it!

Its only when I go out, and more than that its only when I go out with people who smoke who will give me cigarettes. So to be honest, its like once every 2 months.

I wouldn't call someone who rode there bike once every 2 months a biker, or someone that enjoyed a pint once a week an alcoholic. So by the same logic I'm not calling myself a smoker.

bails87

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

show previous quotes

bails87 wrote:

To me, a smoker is someone who smokes cigarettes. Seeing as you have smoked, and it sounds like you intend to carry on, then I'd say you were. But really, it's none of my business as long as you don't walk round my house doing it!

Its only when I go out, and more than that its only when I go out with people who smoke who will give me cigarettes. So to be honest, its like once every 2 months.

I wouldn't call someone who rode there bike once every 2 months a biker, or someone that enjoyed a pint once a week an alcoholic. So by the same logic I'm not calling myself a smoker.

I wouldn't call them an alcoholic. But I would say they were a drinker.

Anonymous

i think smoking looks cool

myopic

Never have and I don't plan to take it up