It sets a bad example for President Obama to smoke 2 packs a day. (locked)

174 posts

Flag Post

As an American, I am ashamed that President Obama has a 2 pack a day cancer stick habit.

He is said to smoke like a chimney.

Since the people who raised me smoked around me all the time I have a deep hatred for smokers and would drop the life I have if it suddenly became legal to hunt down and kill smokers, burn the crops, and generally wage a war on the tobacco industry.

All money taken from smokers would to go to fund lab research on genetic weapons to make all forms of the tobacco plant extinct.

Change you can believe in – a smoker in the white house.

I am assuming smokers will flame me, so go ahead you addicted souls.

What are your thoughts?

Ashamed of Obama and his 2 pack a day habit?

 
Flag Post

2 packs a day IS excessive, but it is his right to smoke the cigarettes so long as he does so in designated areas and the cigarettes he smokes are legally acquired.

 
Flag Post

You have a disturbingly offensive prejudice against people who smoke.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

You have a disturbingly offensive prejudice against people who smoke.

That is what being forced to inhale second hand smoke my entire childhood does to a person. I had to tape up my door every night to seal the smoke out. I went though 2 rolls of duct tape a week.

I hate smokers, they have no ## RIGHT TO POLLUTE MY AIR.

They have chosen to do this – that makes me hate them more. I wish I could kill each and ever single one of them who refuse to change.

I want that genetic weapon as well.

I am serious about this.

 
Flag Post

Second Hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer or asthma any more than the top 25% of major US cities. Standing behind a car for 10 seconds will give you more smoke inhalation than second hand smoke will give you in a week. The active chemicals that are so harmful to the smoker are only being consumed by the smoker. His exhale and the stuff at the end of the cigarette cannot carry a majority of the material.

You have what we call Paranoia which has lead to an illogical bias towards smokers. The only reason why no one else calls you crazy is because almost everyone else believes the made up world of second hand smoke, too.

 
Flag Post

Smoking Kills. You are a prime example considering from your posts here.

But Obama has the right to smoke. What are you really up to?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Second Hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer or asthma any more than the top 25% of major US cities. Standing behind a car for 10 seconds will give you more smoke inhalation than second hand smoke will give you in a week. The active chemicals that are so harmful to the smoker are only being consumed by the smoker. His exhale and the stuff at the end of the cigarette cannot carry a majority of the material.

You have what we call Paranoia which has lead to an illogical bias towards smokers. The only reason why no one else calls you crazy is because almost everyone else believes the made up world of second hand smoke, too.

Sadly, you are talking out your ass. I am well informed about this dangerous problem.

“Second-hand smoke is made up of the smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or pipe, and the smoke that is blown into the air by the person smoking.

Second-hand smoke has over 4,000 chemicals; many of them cause cancer. Two thirds of the smoke from a cigarette is not inhaled by the smoker, but enters the air around the smoker.

  • Second-hand smoke has at least twice the amount of nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker
  • It has five times the amount of carbon monoxide, a deadly gas that robs the blood of oxygen
  • It also contains higher levels of ammonia (better known as window cleaner) and cadmium (also found in batteries)
  • The concentration of hydrogen cyanide (a poisonous gas that attacks respiratory enzymes) in tobacco smoke is considered toxic
  • It contains nitrogen dioxide which is measured at fifty times higher than the standard for harm
  • Non-smokers who breathe in second-hand smoke can get many serious diseases. It can cause lung cancer, heart disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) asthma and other diseases
  • Regular exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of lung disease by 25% and heart disease by 10% "

- Source http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/second-secondaire/index_e.php

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand_smoke/index.htm

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

 
Flag Post

Oh, and I am sure you also have no clue about the dangers of third hand smoke:

http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/second-secondaire/thirdhand-tertiaire_e.php

The only reason this filth is tolerated is the income in produces.

 
Flag Post

The only reason this filth is tolerated is the income in produces.

This is pretty much true, though if people want to legally kill themself, why not?

 
Flag Post

Those quips you just copied are based on a single associative study that doesn’t consider the other possible effects of lung cancer like living in a city with high smog. Taking a room full of elderly individuals, asking them their history of second hand smoke, and then determining an extensive reasoning behind the 15% who have lung cancer is not a double blind scientific study, it’s called “medical research” and it’s been selling ideas for years.

The EPA report you copied from has been proven fallacious and poorly structured by people from both sides of the argument. Funding for new second hand smoking research always gets pulled as researchers discover in double blind tests that, psst, people living in Chicago have more lung cancer than second hand smoke people living in Colorado. Why? Because second hand smoke must be inhaled within close proximity of the cigarette to still contain any ACTIVE chemicals that are still burning to the point of harm.

The point is that there’s no more harm in your driving habit than in my smoking habit.

 
Flag Post

The point is that there’s no more harm in your driving habit than in my smoking habit.

In the defense, though I really don’t like doing that in Vanguarde’s topics, smoking causes additional harm over what every normal human being is already doing. Both of you may be able to drive, but if only one of you smokes, the latter can get easier complications.

 
Flag Post

How many people go on Sunday drives for fun? You can’t honestly impose behavior laws on one group and not the other.

The simple fact is that we can’t have a police state where we ban everything you don’t like. There are better ways, and we should use those.

I don’t think non-smokers should have to deal with smokers smoke, I agree. I think there should be designated smoking areas and buildings (Although, this should be the choice of the building’s owner) that are clearly identifiable. Banning smoking because the possibility that smoke from my front porch could harm you however is patently unconstitutional.

 
Flag Post

additional harm

Spend a day with my mum and you’ll learn that EVERYTHING causes harm.

EGGY DON’T DRINK TAP WATER ITS FULL OF CHEMICALS
NO WERE ONLY EATING ORGANIC VEGE’S DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CHEMICALS ARE IN NORMAL ONES
EGGY, SON. IF YOU SMOKE POT YOU WILL DIE

BE QUIET MUM!

 
Flag Post

If you stop smoking by your mid 30s the risk of increased lung cancer isn’t that high.

 
Flag Post

Spend a day with my mum and you’ll learn that EVERYTHING causes harm.

Does your mother really refer to you as Eggy? That’s awesome.

Anyway, I personally don’t see a problem with Obama’s smoking habits. While I agree that two packs is rather much, you can’t blame him for doing it. What about the Native Americans? They had those peace pipes. Can you look down in shame on them? The point is, smoking a cigarette (or a whole bunch, in this case) does not make you a bad person. Are you sure you hate all smokers? Or just the ones who smoke around you?

 
Flag Post

I wouldn’t care if my president was a crack addict if all of his policies were agreeable.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Conco:

I wouldn’t care if my president was a crack addict if all of his policies were agreeable.

I just shot milk out of my nose. The force is strong with this one.

 
Flag Post

TheBSG, I don’t want to ban smoking. I’m even against this topic. People can smoke their lives out all they want. My problem with some smokers is that they say they are as healthy as non-smokers.

Again, I don’t know why the trouble about Obama smoking. He can do what he want and, as Conco said, if he’s being a good president, why bother bashing his smoking habits?

 
Flag Post

It’s a bad habit of him, it would be better if he tried to stop so he could set a better example (as a media figure).
It doesn’t make him a worse president, though.

 
Flag Post

My problem with some smokers is that they say they are as healthy as non-smokers.

Some of them undoubtedly are. Nonsmokers die all the time, and some smokers are quite healthy. Of course, they would probably be healthier were they not smokers, but that’s mostly speculation.

 
Flag Post

I knew when I saw the title that this would be a Vanguardian thread.

My problem with some smokers is that they say they are as healthy as non-smokers.

My Dad’s smoked almost all his life constantly and he hasn’t had any health problems. Not that I am happy with it. Whether or not it is healthy for me I don’t like breathing in the smoke.

Of course, I’ve been brainwashed into believing smoking is bad. I never questioned that until recently. I’d probably say this was because I disliked breathing it in.

 
Flag Post

Some of them undoubtedly are. Nonsmokers die all the time, and some smokers are quite healthy. Of course, they would probably be healthier were they not smokers, but that’s mostly speculation.

So you have found studies where the ingredients of cigarettes you get into your lungs are actually healthier than when you don’t? Or studies where a group of smokers is set against a group of non-smokers and followed until they die, where the average age of the smokers is higher?

It is speculation, I’d agree, and I’d even agree some smokers are healthier than non-smokers. Thoughts behind it? Some non-smokers could drink themself to half-death every evening, some non-smokers could be policemen. However, the text on the cigarette packs aren’t there for nothing. You would be healthier when you won’t smoke, no matter if you’re healthier than a guy who drinks or has a dangerous job. It isn’t, after all, relatively calculated towards other people, but relatively calculated with your own lifestyle.

EDIT:

My Dad’s smoked almost all his life constantly and he hasn’t had any health problems. Not that I am happy with it. Whether or not it is healthy for me I don’t like breathing in the smoke.

A one-man experiment isn’t really representative for the entire population. My grandfather has smoked for a good portion of his life, and is now about 85 years old, getting only health problems due to his physical situation. Doesn’t say anything, though, our family is just very healthy and overall lived to high ages. It could be my grandfather would live even longer had he not smoked, but that’s impossible to say.

 
Flag Post

That is what being forced to inhale second hand smoke my entire childhood does to a person. I had to tape up my door every night to seal the smoke out. I went though 2 rolls of duct tape a week.

wow thats sad

 
Flag Post

A one-man experiment isn’t really representative for the entire population. My grandfather has smoked for a good portion of his life, and is now about 85 years old, getting only health problems due to his physical situation. Doesn’t say anything, though, our family is just very healthy and overall lived to high ages. It could be my grandfather would live even longer had he not smoked, but that’s impossible to say.

I know that. I was not implying that smoking is healthy. Just that smokers may very well be as healthy as non smokers.

 
Flag Post

Do the people who say second-hand smoke is harmless have any actual scientific studies to support it (preferably ones that aren’t funded by the tobacco industry)? Because I’ve always been taught that it certainly is a carcinogen, and there are studies to support this from the WHO and the US Department of Health. These are recent reports, not the studies from the 80s that are widely known to be flawed. Some tobacco companies have even managed to accept it eventually, despite others carrying out biased research to attempt to disprove it. Any scientific controversy that exists is only that created by the tobacco companies and whatever scientists they can pay enough to endorse their views.

With regard to Obama smoking, I assume he won’t be allowed to smoke inside the White House, since it’s a workplace, so as long as he does it outdoors allowing the smoke to disperse there’s really no problem. I’ve got several friends who smoke and it doesn’t bother me apart from the fact their breath stinks. When we’re out somewhere they’ve got to go outside to smoke so it doesn’t affect me in the slightest.