Smoking (should or not?)

[Sharing Lights]

all I can say about second hand smoke is I can't tolerate it for very long.

( Thank you for your comment.
Do not doubt for a minute, dear, that most non-smokers literally feel sick from the
SHS (second hand smoke). That is due to the effect of being poisoned, as we are not used to such exhausts being in us, while smokers develop certain tolerance to it.

Many of them fail to realize that the fact that smoke doesn’t bother them is not a logical conclusion that such doesn’t bother non-smokers!)

I fell trees on fire in wildfires on a couple large forest fires back around '92 , for 3 days in one of the larger fires the smoke was so thick you could not see a pickup with its lights on 100 feet away . Ever since then I can not be in a room with a lot of smoke very long or it will make me sick till I puke literally!

(It is not us infringing on their rights but them on ours. I use one simple argument based on facts:

Before, there were smokes and non-smokers; there was the original state in the Nature , where smoke (of cigarettes) was non-existent.

That is self-evident.

Therefore, the “default” Nature’s state is the absence of smoke.

Any smoker who screams that we abuse their rights is non-logical, as we do not force them to inhale anything contrary to their wishes, while they force us to inhale their exhausts.

None of sane non-smokers mind if smokers pollute themselves as that is their right and freedom of choice.
Yet, who did give them the right to pollute us?
World pollution is another issue and doesn’t excuse smokers from doing what they do to us.)

[Freedomless]

The government gets millions of people hooked on cigarettes and then starts taking rights away. This is one way to keep the people at odds with each other and their minds off the real issues.

By the mid 80's, I noticed a big change in the atmosphere. Pollution was starting to gain big time. What changed! The baby boomers children were driving which increased the road traffic 10 fold. Also the over the road semi increased many time over.

With the increased pollution, men, women and children are having respiratory problems. Now sitting in front of a campfire can be intolerable. Those who represent us know these facts but ignore them for self gain MONEY. To hell with the people.

[The Great Owl]

If second hand smoke is so dangerous, how come now that smoking is down, lung cancer is at all time highs? I think we should be a lot more worried about the depleted uranium in the air than a little tobacco smoke.

How about sodium flouride in the water? Mercury in the vaccines? I'm convinced that tobacco is the least of our problems.

[Sharing Lights]

If second hand smoke is so dangerous, how come now that smoking is down, lung cancer is at all time highs? I think we should be a lot more worried about the depleted uranium in the air than a little tobacco smoke.

You are all correct on the issue of pollution.

Yet, please keep in mind that smoking is a part of it.
It may be less than the Country's pollution as a whole but tell that to a non-smoker who is poisoned by the fumes by the smokers when he/she is forced to inhale it practically right in his/her face.

It is so true that when a non-smoker dines in a restaurant and some one smokes next to him/her that is more than rude - it is outright poisoning.

At that moment, the non-smoker may not experience the effects of the world pollution but experiences first hand the effect of being poisoned right there on the spot.

Guess who was doing it at that moment?
Yes, the smoker sitting right there.
So let's be precise on that and not mix two separate issues, while you are correct on the world pollution and the one of the US.



Anytime, people engage their mind, they would involve more and more interesting a useful concepts.

Since you did not provide actual data on pollution but your statement appears to be very probable and logic is sound, as the anti-smoking campaign has been actively utilized, it may have been abused.


The Government is often screwing up even the good cause by the virtue of too many bureaucrats working for it, there is no evidence to assume you are not correct, therefore.

Having stated so, I would, proceed to the question you raised based on common sense and logic in my opinion.

You raised a very important notion that leads to Cause and Effect.

Look at it as a tail of a along snake or a sinus wave.
While some parts of a snake’s body seem to move in one direction, its tale, and or other parts seem to move in the opposite direction.

By the way, not only energy in space but societies “propagates” according to the sinus wave movement.

Now, straight to the point.
Any effects of a disease, toxicity or any negative or even positive side effects last for a while and practically never disappear instantly.

Another word, the one who quits smoking, would, still experience all the effects of the time he/she accumulated the toxins in direct proportion of the time-frame involved.

The effects would diminish as time passes, providing that he/she stopped smoking or even reduced the dosage.
This is a precise mathematical ratio.

As there were truly high numbers of smokers in our society, even when overall smoking is reduced, the effects would linger for quite some time for many and statistics would reflect such.

Anyone who has been developing cancer, for example, would have to go through all it brings as cancer was developing slowly and not over night.
It would also retreat slowly and not overnight when treatments are administered.

Therefore, it may appear that all the negative side effects of smoking are, still, on the rise, while it is the effects of what smoking was accumulating show their fruits to us all.

You would see that in the future, there would be less, smoking related illnesses as society smokes less as the whole.
That takes time and would continue as a movement of the tale of a snake for a while.

I think we should be a lot more worried about the depleted uranium in the air than a little tobacco smoke.

Yes, we should worry about anything that affects us all – I agree.

Yet, smoking should not be underestimated just because corporations pollute us indeed by all means they manage that allows them to make more profit at out expense.
These are sepaartate issues.

“Little tobacco smoke” is not that little to most non-smokers.

As there are millions of us, our rights should be protected indeed on the national level.
A non-smoker who is surrounded by a group of smokers in a surrounded place feels intoxicated and you have to experience in order to know how it is; otherwise, you may not feel that and such is understandable.

Why should we be poisoned against our will?
Let smokers smoke – it is their right but not when they force their "air" on us. That is self-evident.

Non-smokers do not force any other air than the one that ordinarily exists on any one.

There should be some equality then, we do not force our fumes coming from our mouths, so smokers must not force anything coming from their mouth on us either.

Let's exhale what Nature made us to exhale.

Once again, it is customary to apologize when one passes gas accidentally.
Why is proper, then, if smoke-gasses are passed our from the mouth of a smoker right in the face of the non-smokers?

Where is the consistency?

Those fumes do not smell much better to non-smokers than noxious gasses for a smoker.
The case is, therefore, self-evident.



They have their right to do whatever like and we do not dispute that right but support it as long as we are not forced to “smoke-inhale” too.


I believe you represent opinions of great numbers of people. I suspect (that is only my opinion here) that since the Government has been pushing its agenda of nonsmoking so aggressively and acted in a way that appeared to be as infringement on people’s rights, many are appalled by their tactics.

I can see that. Even when the cause is correct but the methods used are not, the people would resist the pressure.
I believe so.

Yet, I encourage to rise above the issue of the Governmental policies and split the topic of smoking/non-smoking into their proper categories so that precise logic and issue are retained:

1) The issue of the dangers of the SHS (second hand smoking) or an opportunity to prove otherwise as I cherish freedom and only present my strong beliefs based on logic, common, sense, and research but all are entitled to share their views.
2) The issue that Government, in my opinion acted in its campaign vs. smoking by means that led many people to believe that their rights were violated.
I, respectfully, ask no to confuse two and address them accordingly as both are valid and do not contradict each other at all.


Having stated the above, I would reply in reference to lung cancer being so high:

Corporation have been allowed to pollute us beyond any reasonable level to the level of criminal activity,
Metropolitan cities produce so much pollution by numbers of cars on the road, busses, not so much factories anymore to my belief, that even without any smoking of cigarettes; we all are forced to smoke the pollution, which has been rising.

As it has been rising, so would raise the incidences of the diseases it causes.

How about sodium flouride in the water? Mercury in the vaccines? I'm convinced that tobacco is the least of our problems.

They are all important enough as poison to many people. You raise the issue of the hypocrisy of the Government and are correct in that.
That is why we all should vote write to the elected leaders, and educate ourselves and share knowledge and use our ways on how to oppose what is unfair.

[Sharing Lights]

"What good fortune for governments that people do not think."
Adolph Hitler

(That is exactly the prerequisite for tyrants)

"It's not the people who cast the votes that matter, it's the people who count them."
Joseph Stalin

(That is precisely what the officials are doing to the country – manipulate democracy into their quest for power.)

[Freedomless]

As a child, I wondered why spouses of smokers lived 15 - 20 years after the smoker died. This can be verified by nursing homes.

Again there are many issues that come into play and it involves the goberment.

Keep the people at odds with themselves.

One of the first things I learned in college. Government loves PROPAGANDA.

[Sharing Lights]

You have a great question.
I will respond in 15 min.

[Sharing Lights]

As a child, I wondered why spouses of smokers lived 15 - 20 years after the smoker died. This can be verified by nursing homes.

Government loves PROPAGANDA

That has nothing to do with smoking or propaganda.

It is important to distinguish such from reality and not see propaganda everywhere where actions are based on reality.

Yet, you are right about propaganda, in general, as the Government is doing what it can to protect itself foremost - not people. It protects people too but only after it, feels the relevant issues are already protected for themselves. If that condition is not meant the unwritten slogan is indeed, “to hell with people.”


Neither males nor females are better than each other but the reality is:

a) too many women defy and oppose their husbands openly undermining them to the point that they
1) drive men either to other women

2) or to the grave.

I talk of average men and not of those who can’t even be called as men by their disgusting behavior and must be opposed.

Many women just love to oppose just to prove their point and would use their looks and sexual power if can.

Men, too often, succumb to women’s charms as their lower head take precedence over the higher one often enough. Then, they feel degraded that gave up certain principle in return for sex and suffer inside.

On top of that, many men have such ego that must prove to themselves that can accomplish something no mater what.

How many die on knifes just trying to prove they are not scared when a hoodlum called them a derogatory name?

They did not take a reasonable chance - they took a stupid chance, as can’t have their ego being wounded.

Now, if a girlfriend left him, sometimes, such guy would kill her and the lover just to prove that she can’t do that to him.

Ego is at the center of most problems in the world.



"War" of sexes is a very complex issue base on the concept of spirit and soul, feminine and masculine, intuition vs. logic, etc.

I am talking of average cases. There are always other cases too as not all are other same.
It is a part of Nature or inherited deal so to say.

That is why men have to be so strong emotionally and fair and truly love their woman so that she learn to respect him and trust his judgment and not undermine whatever he does.


There many older women than men – period, even, in non-smoking families.

Therefore, as consistent as statistics are and accurate age-wise that has nothing to do with the smoking issue at all.

1) This is a reality that most men take emotions much deeper and suffer more from them, while, women suffer not any less, of course, but they are able to resist the emotional stress better on the average.

2) Another, crucial fact is that their genetic structure is stronger as they are meant to be mothers and the Nature bestowed them with extra resilieince in order to survive and enable the survival of their baby. It makes perfect sense.

3) In addition, hormones make difference in the functioning of the heart tissue.
Estrogens helps women more, while testosterone renders heart weaker eventually.

The combination of nature and defiance stated above produces the result of much fewer men living to the age of the older women.