• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A New Cigarette Hazard: ‘Third-Hand Smoke’

Calling this study "junk science" is a lie and you made it up. You've shown no evidence to dispute the study other than you calling it junk science. This is how you operate. You make it up, you never prove what you make up, you attack anyone who challenges the made up **** that you post and you whine, whine, whine...but you never disprove the truth that you dispute, you just divert away from the truth and continue to post bs like calling the Mass General study "junk science."





nah calling it Junk science is an opinion I hold, not a lie. a lie is you making stuff up about me making it up. you fail yet again.... :lol:


And you complain about me whining? look at all your posts....


btw, have you figured out the context I took Obama out of yet? :lol:

I also asked you:

Tell me what are the known "safe levels" of ETS?

and asked you about there findings on breast milk of smokers still being safer than bottled milk.


Will you be answering these two points soon, i am off to a devils game and can't wait around...... :lol:
 
What science? This is not science. There is only one new study, so it didn't complete the scientific method. It may not be true.

However, the assertion that this is definitely junk science is ridiculous. Non of us has any scientific authority to dispute this with our knowledge and we, presumably, have no contradictory evidence to back that up.

Praise Jesus.

Edit: Science is not an opinion. You have no right to call it junk science.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?em

Very interesting. Thoughts?

(Before people post something about how smoking is evil and should be a crime or how this is fascism seeking to take away your constitutional right to smoke a boge in your own house, take a second to realize that this isn't a political issue, it's a scientific one).

Years ago, Canadian scientists caused a number of substances to be banned because they reported that they were bad for health. Among them was Aspartame, which, years later, was reintroduced as Nutra-Sweet.

Canadian scientists also determined that, if you feed a lab rat 100 gallons of milk, he will burst. I am now waiting for milk to be put on the list of government-mandated "bad substances".

Just because someone has "scientist" as part of his name doesn't mean he is a good one, as there is good science and bad science.

Finally, I AM going to post that forcing people to quit smoking in their own homes IS unconstitutional. With all the problems facing America in the next few years, I would feel much better if our government addressed those problems instead of deciding that they need to protect us from ourselves. Otherwise, they will soon be putting people in jail for having sex, because there is a slight risk that some old people could have heart attacks as a result of it. Damn it, just let me die happy.:mrgreen:
 
The way you prove something scientifically is to get someone else to independently verify your results. The study certainly makes logical sense, insofar as the particles present in smoking clearly are harmful and are detectable even by human senses on clothing and furniture. However, this is merely one study and needs to be replicated in order to lend credibility to its results.
 
But the food you put into your body doesn't have a direct physical effect on those around you, beans and broccoli aside.

But the people you're supposedly killing with smoke are 100 times more likely to die from the **** they put in their own bodies than they are from shaking hands with a smoker.
 
Want a good debunking of the third hand smoke fallacy?

Read this good smackdown of the latest lie from the nannys.

Article is here.
 
This is new?

Every "Responsible" smoker knows to avoid contact with small children if they have not properly cleaned themselves after smoking and prior to contact.

When my children were REALLY little etc. I would wear a hat and jacket when I would smoke and remove them, wash my hands and face after I was done.
 
I read the story. you fail again.


I find a blurb, and some dubious nonsense about some study suspect to say the least.



Tell me what are the known "safe levels" of ETS?



And also if you do a little more research on this junk science, they also state that breast feeding is still better than bottle feeding.... given thier "logic" one would assume that breast milk from a smoker poses some risks, or is it only microparticles on the couch?


Junk science for the lunatic fringe to glom onto...... :2wave:

Actually, about the breast feeding part of your post....There are problems with smoking while breast feeding. They'd prefer you not to, but if you do, they'd like you to wait at least two hours I think it is before you breast feed the baby.
But it's not just smoking that can cause you to give toxins through breast milk. We also give flame retardants in our breast milk too.
However, I cannot say that I have seen or heard anywhere (not that I looked) people saying that if you smoke you would be better off to bottle feed your child rather than breast feed.
 
You know what's still the number one killer out there?

Death
 
Being a poo?
 
An interesting article, I just published.....
In a recently published, double-blind study at the Crippler Institute for Goofy Studies(CIGS), psuedo-scientists have discovered an even more dangerous hazard stemming from cigarette smoking.

Fourth Hand Smoke

Being beat to the punch of trying to uncover third hand smoke, CIGS non-researchers immediatley set out to find the next "dimension" of harm caused by cigarette smoke. What they found was startling.

Fourth Hand Smoke can best be defined as the mental anguish and stress suffered by anti-smokers, when they think about how much they hate smoking and all its ill effects. The symptoms included severe anger and disdain towards smokers, resulting in higher blood pressure, and also a desire to infringe upon the rights of individuals and private establishments. Some of them even masturbate to the "truth" commercials, although those are rare and extreme cases.

So smokers, next time you light one up, remember not only are you damaging your lungs, the lungs of people around you, and making furniture stink. You are also causing the anti-smoking people to have terrible headaches and periods of extreme personal judgment whenever they think you might be smoking.
 
Last edited:
An interesting article, I just published.....

My god... My cigarette is causing this much damage to society!?! I'd better quit!... or not.

By the way, do the anti-smokers get lighter headaches if I smoke ultra-lights? If so do they need pain-killers any time someone lights up a Palmal unfiltered?
 
My god... My cigarette is causing this much damage to society!?! I'd better quit!... or not.

By the way, do the anti-smokers get lighter headaches if I smoke ultra-lights? If so do they need pain-killers any time someone lights up a Palmal unfiltered?

My MIL used to chain smoke everytime she came to visit(she finally stopped at the request of my hubby, she now goes outside to smoke)and when we went to visit her. I always dreaded seeing her, b/c I'd get bad lingering headaches, and my eyes would water. Some ppl can smoke, and you can barely smell anything on them or their house, but some ppl wreak of it 24/7, along with their car and their house.

As for their study, I wish they would have alloted that money used towards finding a cure for certain cancers.
 
My MIL used to chain smoke everytime she came to visit(she finally stopped at the request of my hubby, she now goes outside to smoke)and when we went to visit her. I always dreaded seeing her, b/c I'd get bad lingering headaches, and my eyes would water. Some ppl can smoke, and you can barely smell anything on them or their house, but some ppl wreak of it 24/7, along with their car and their house.

As for their study, I wish they would have alloted that money used towards finding a cure for certain cancers.

Funny thing about people who can smoke and you wouldnt know it... At my Aunts house they smoke right in the living room, and if they aren't smoking... you wouldnt even know they do. It's so odd.

Alternatively... my Dad has a room with an excellent ventillation system and STILL smells like smoke.
 
Back
Top Bottom