Does smoking kill iagos? All this and more!

[Screenor]

Check his IP this time, I want to see the 24.'s before beleiving this.

Secondly: Beer shouldn't be a recommendation of any kind, weed is the only thing that wont effect you. (Unless at an early age, so I've been told.)

Beer kills brain cells.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE A FAMOUS MYTHIX QUOTE ON BEER FOR THIS.

[xex]

Check his IP this time, I want to see the 24.'s before beleiving this.

Secondly: Beer shouldn't be a recommendation of any kind, weed is the only thing that wont effect you. (Unless at an early age, so I've been told.)

Beer kills brain cells.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE A FAMOUS MYTHIX QUOTE ON BEER FOR THIS.

Weed doesn't effect you? It kills your sperm cells.

[Screenor]

There is a lot of anti-weed propoganda.  There is also a lot of pro-weed propoganda.  Both sides have lots of arguments about the other, and many of them are BS.  Everybody who does studies in either direction has an agenda, and there's nothing to believe.

It seems to me that weed is at least as bad as cigarettes.  I don't see how it could possibly be better, because you're inhaling the same types of chemicals into your lungs.  But people who want you to smoke weed will tell you their BS to keep you smoking, the same way people who don't want you to tell you their BS to make you stop. 

I don't recommend believing any of it.

I don't think weed is nearly as bad as cigarettes, simply due to the fact that you're not inhaling tar, and you can't give someone else cancer from them just being around you. Atleast according to any medical history of it happening, that is.

I'm not saying it's "better", however, it's certainly a lot less lethal when compared to the fact that no one has ever gotten "second hand weed" before.

To be honest, I'm not pro drugs, but, I do dislike when people give false information/impressions on them.

[iago]

I don't think weed is nearly as bad as cigarettes, simply due to the fact that you're not inhaling tar, and you can't give someone else cancer from them just being around you. Atleast according to any medical history of it happening, that is.

Actually, I'm afraid that it contains more tar than cigarettes. 

'four times as much tar is deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of marijuana than from that of a comparable amount of tobacco, thus amplifying respiratory exposure to the cancer-causing substances in marijuana smoke.'

SOURCE: 2000 July - Journal of Immunology

"With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer."

[.........]

    The following lines of evidence suggest that marijuana may play an important role in the development of respiratory cancer.

    * The tar phase of marijuana smoke, as already noted, contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke.
    * One marijuana cigarette was shown by Wu and colleagues (1988) to deposit four times as much tar in the lung as a single filtered tobacco cigarette of approximately the same weight. The higher content of carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons in marijuana tar and the greater deposition of marijuana tar in the lung act together to amplify exposure of the marijuana smoker to the carcinogens in the tar phase.
    * Bronchial immunohisotology revealed overexpression of genetic markers of lung tumor progression in smokers of marijuana.
    * Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens."

Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., in his 1997 article for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses

I'm not saying it's "better", however, it's certainly a lot less lethal when compared to the fact that no one has ever gotten "second hand weed" before.

Regarding the comparison to second hand smoke, there is actually no evidence that anybody has died from second hand cigarette smoke.  The statistical difference between somebody that died who were exposed to a lot of second hand smoke compared to people that weren't is very, very small (something like 0.000001%, which works out to about 5 people in the US, ever).  I dont' have a source on that, but I remember seeing it on a documentary. 

To be honest, I'm not pro drugs, but, I do dislike when people give false information/impressions on them.

And to be honest, I'm not anti- drugs, but, I do dislike when people give false information/impressions on them.  In either direction.  You can't trust what you hear from either side.  People who want weed to be legal are going to shift things to their side, and people who don't also will.  Don't believe anybody.

[Screenor]

I don't think weed is nearly as bad as cigarettes, simply due to the fact that you're not inhaling tar, and you can't give someone else cancer from them just being around you. Atleast according to any medical history of it happening, that is.

Actually, I'm afraid that it contains more tar than cigarettes. 

'four times as much tar is deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of marijuana than from that of a comparable amount of tobacco, thus amplifying respiratory exposure to the cancer-causing substances in marijuana smoke.'

SOURCE: 2000 July - Journal of Immunology

"With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer."

[.........]

    The following lines of evidence suggest that marijuana may play an important role in the development of respiratory cancer.

    * The tar phase of marijuana smoke, as already noted, contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke.
    * One marijuana cigarette was shown by Wu and colleagues (1988) to deposit four times as much tar in the lung as a single filtered tobacco cigarette of approximately the same weight. The higher content of carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons in marijuana tar and the greater deposition of marijuana tar in the lung act together to amplify exposure of the marijuana smoker to the carcinogens in the tar phase.
    * Bronchial immunohisotology revealed overexpression of genetic markers of lung tumor progression in smokers of marijuana.
    * Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens."

Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., in his 1997 article for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses

I'm not saying it's "better", however, it's certainly a lot less lethal when compared to the fact that no one has ever gotten "second hand weed" before.

Regarding the comparison to second hand smoke, there is actually no evidence that anybody has died from second hand cigarette smoke.  The statistical difference between somebody that died who were exposed to a lot of second hand smoke compared to people that weren't is very, very small (something like 0.000001%, which works out to about 5 people in the US, ever).  I dont' have a source on that, but I remember seeing it on a documentary. 

To be honest, I'm not pro drugs, but, I do dislike when people give false information/impressions on them.

And to be honest, I'm not anti- drugs, but, I do dislike when people give false information/impressions on them.  In either direction.  You can't trust what you hear from either side.  People who want weed to be legal are going to shift things to their side, and people who don't also will.  Don't believe anybody.

People HAVE died from second hand smoke, because it caused cancer, which led them to death. It was on the news about two years ago of it happening.

My man standing point is this:

[xex]

I don't think weed is nearly as bad as cigarettes, simply due to the fact that you're not inhaling tar, and you can't give someone else cancer from them just being around you. Atleast according to any medical history of it happening, that is.

Actually, I'm afraid that it contains more tar than cigarettes. 

'four times as much tar is deposited in the respiratory tract from the smoke of marijuana than from that of a comparable amount of tobacco, thus amplifying respiratory exposure to the cancer-causing substances in marijuana smoke.'

SOURCE: 2000 July - Journal of Immunology

"With regard to the carcinogenic potential of marijuana, it is noteworthy that the tar phase of marijuana smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, which was recently identified as a key factor promoting human lung cancer."

[.........]

    The following lines of evidence suggest that marijuana may play an important role in the development of respiratory cancer.

    * The tar phase of marijuana smoke, as already noted, contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds contained in tobacco smoke.
    * One marijuana cigarette was shown by Wu and colleagues (1988) to deposit four times as much tar in the lung as a single filtered tobacco cigarette of approximately the same weight. The higher content of carcinogenic polycyclic hydrocarbons in marijuana tar and the greater deposition of marijuana tar in the lung act together to amplify exposure of the marijuana smoker to the carcinogens in the tar phase.
    * Bronchial immunohisotology revealed overexpression of genetic markers of lung tumor progression in smokers of marijuana.
    * Preliminary findings suggest that marijuana smoke activates cytochrome P4501A1, the enzyme that converts polycyclic hydrocarbons, such as benz[a]pyrene, into active carcinogens."

Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., in his 1997 article for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses

I'm not saying it's "better", however, it's certainly a lot less lethal when compared to the fact that no one has ever gotten "second hand weed" before.

Regarding the comparison to second hand smoke, there is actually no evidence that anybody has died from second hand cigarette smoke.  The statistical difference between somebody that died who were exposed to a lot of second hand smoke compared to people that weren't is very, very small (something like 0.000001%, which works out to about 5 people in the US, ever).  I dont' have a source on that, but I remember seeing it on a documentary. 

To be honest, I'm not pro drugs, but, I do dislike when people give false information/impressions on them.

And to be honest, I'm not anti- drugs, but, I do dislike when people give false information/impressions on them.  In either direction.  You can't trust what you hear from either side.  People who want weed to be legal are going to shift things to their side, and people who don't also will.  Don't believe anybody.

People HAVE died from second hand smoke, because it caused cancer, which led them to death. It was on the news about two years ago of it happening.

My man standing point is this:

That weed suck and shouldn't be used unless for medical used?

[iago]

People HAVE died from second hand smoke, because it caused cancer, which led them to death. It was on the news about two years ago of it happening.

Where's the studies? Nowhere.  Where's the statistics? Nowhere.  Any facts you hear about that are conjecture, and there is no hard evidence.  Where have studies been done on whether people exposed to second hand marijuana smoke aren't harmed? Nowhere.  What can you prove? Nothing. 

My man standing point is this:

That's just meaningless propaganda.  That's no different from a "don't do drugs" poster. 

[MyndFyre]

People HAVE died from second hand smoke, because it caused cancer, which led them to death. It was on the news about two years ago of it happening.

Where's the studies? Nowhere.  Where's the statistics? Nowhere.  Any facts you hear about that are conjecture, and there is no hard evidence.  Where have studies been done on whether people exposed to second hand marijuana smoke aren't harmed? Nowhere.  What can you prove? Nothing. 

It would be unethical to subject people to a causal experiment to prove this.  Since the alternative hypothesis indicates that they would.... die.

[iago]

People HAVE died from second hand smoke, because it caused cancer, which led them to death. It was on the news about two years ago of it happening.

Where's the studies? Nowhere.  Where's the statistics? Nowhere.  Any facts you hear about that are conjecture, and there is no hard evidence.  Where have studies been done on whether people exposed to second hand marijuana smoke aren't harmed? Nowhere.  What can you prove? Nothing. 

It would be unethical to subject people to a causal experiment to prove this.  Since the alternative hypothesis indicates that they would.... die.

True, but they can do studies on people who are exposed to it anyway, they don't have to force them to.  Or, when somebody is dying, ask them how often they were exposed to second hand smoke.  Not the best way to obtain results, but it beats the current strategy of making them up

[MyndFyre]

Meh, I would still rather make people sit in a small smoke-filled room for 12 hours and see if they develop cancer.

[Sidoh]

Meh, I would still rather make people sit in a small smoke-filled room for 12 hours and see if they develop cancer.

I think a lot of that is based on pure chance and other surrounding factors (temperature, etc).  It's just like Asbestosis.  I've personally been exposed to numerous areas that have tiles treated with Asbestos (drilling through them, peeling them up without face masks, etc).  I don't have Lung Cancer. I was supposed to be taken to the doctor to get chest X-Rays, but they never did it.

[Screenor]

iago: It was on CNN (actually I think there was something on it this year even, due to it happening again) then someone who had never smoked in their life got cancer due to second hand smoke. And weed is just that, a weed, it has nothing to do with tobacco.

iago, if you don't beleive cigarettes can kill you, do this, or stop arguing:

Go buy some cigarettes, and smoke the whole pack in that day, if they're so un-lethal, I want YOU to be the one doing the test, this way you'll know you're wrong when you're 6 feet under the ground.

[xex]

iago: It was on CNN (actually I think there was something on it this year even, due to it happening again) then someone who had never smoked in their life got cancer due to second hand smoke. And weed is just that, a weed, it has nothing to do with tobacco.

iago, if you don't beleive cigarettes can kill you, do this, or stop arguing:

Go buy some cigarettes, and smoke the whole pack in that day, if they're so un-lethal, I want YOU to be the one doing the test, this way you'll know you're wrong when you're 6 feet under the ground.

I don't think iago has ever stated that cigarettes couldn't kill you. If you haven't realized this by now but weed is as bad as tobacco and can kill you faster than tobacco, weed contain 420 chemicals, rather than tobacco only contains nicotine.

[Sidoh]

umm, that aids thing was totally over the top. You should NEVER joke about shit like that.

Completely agreed.  I've been talking to another one of the members that was extremely offended by this.  It was totally uncalled for and inherently unnecessary.

I don't think iago has ever stated that cigarettes couldn't kill you. If you haven't realized this by now but weed is as bad as tobacco and can kill you faster than tobacco, weed contain 420 chemicals, rather than tobacco only contains nicotine.

Natural Tobacco only has nicotine, but cigarettes have way more than that.

[xex]

umm, that aids thing was totally over the top. You should NEVER joke about shit like that.

Completely agreed.  I've been talking to another one of the members that was extremely offended by this.  It was totally uncalled for and inherently unnecessary.

I don't think iago has ever stated that cigarettes couldn't kill you. If you haven't realized this by now but weed is as bad as tobacco and can kill you faster than tobacco, weed contain 420 chemicals, rather than tobacco only contains nicotine.

Natural Tobacco only has nicotine, but cigarettes have way more than that.

More than 420 chemicals? 

[Sidoh]

More than 420 chemicals? 

I wouldn't doubt it.

http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/harmful-chemicals-in-cigarettes.html:

Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals. At least 43 are known carcinogens (cause cancer in humans).

http://ash.org/additives.html:

One news report called the chemicals in tobacco smoke "a lethal cocktail - a horrifying list of toxic chemicals." Another called it "600 poisons in every cigarette."

Tons more: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2005-09,GGGL:en&q=chemicals+in+cigarettes

[MyndFyre]

Split from GameSnake's post.

[Sidoh]

Split from GameSnake's post.

Thanks.  I was planning to do this if it carried on for much longer.

[iago]

iago: It was on CNN (actually I think there was something on it this year even, due to it happening again) then someone who had never smoked in their life got cancer due to second hand smoke. And weed is just that, a weed, it has nothing to do with tobacco.

I know a cat who's covered in fur who developed skin cancer.  And it wasn't caused by the sun!  Not much is known about cancer, including the cause.  It could be genetic, it could be caused by living in cities that are filled with polutants, it could be just random bad luck.  Who knows?  They need to do a study to prove that people who are exposed to second hand smoke do indeed have a higher rate of lung cancer than people who aren't.  I have yet to see a study that shows that. 

iago, if you don't beleive cigarettes can kill you, do this, or stop arguing:

Go buy some cigarettes, and smoke the whole pack in that day, if they're so un-lethal, I want YOU to be the one doing the test, this way you'll know you're wrong when you're 6 feet under the ground.

If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd be at home with a pack of smokes and a short length of hose. 

But seriously, smoking a single pack of cigarettes isn't good for you, but it's not going to kill you.  The same way that smoking a joint every week or two isn't going to kill you.  It's smoking cigarettes or weed frequently that's the cause, over an extended period of time.  And I've never argued that cigarettes aren't harmful, they definitely are.  But you can't say that second hand smoke is as bad as marijuana smoke, because there's no proof of that.  As I said, it's all propoganda, or smoke and mirrors. 

I don't think iago has ever stated that cigarettes couldn't kill you. If you haven't realized this by now but weed is as bad as tobacco and can kill you faster than tobacco, weed contain 420 chemicals, rather than tobacco only contains nicotine.

That sounds like an awful coincidental number.  Do you have a reliable source on that?

[GameSnake]

Holy shit I really dont belong here after all, hide you bullshit and reveal it when it's safe I guess. I cant convince brainwashed people of the merits of marijuana, I can tell you it has killed no one and is more safe than any other drug you will find that WORKS, but it wont matter the critics are brainwashed, it is as simple as that. I lied about where I live but you people are lying to yourselves if you think you're really above anyone because you cant pull your head out of you ass and be more tolerant of other's choices.

[iago]

Holy shit I really dont belong here after all, hide you bullshit and reveal it when it's safe I guess. I cant convince brainwashed people of the merits of marijuana, I can tell you it has killed no one and is more safe than any other drug you will find that WORKS, but it wont matter the critics are brainwashed, it is as simple as that. I lied about where I live but you people are lying to yourselves if you think you're really above anyone because you cant pull your head out of you ass and be more tolerant of other's choices.

No, you're brainwashed into thinking it's 100% harmless.  Read the rest of what I've said.  I'm not condemning it, I'm trying to take a neutral stance. 

[GameSnake]

You changed your mind really fast there iago since last night. I have too many good things going on in my life to let shit like this get me down, you guys can goto hell, as far as I'm concerned I have apologized and asked for forgiveness from a false source,  you'll realize one day you aren't always right.

[iago]

You changed your mind really fast there iago since last night. I have too many good things going on in my life to let shit like this get me down, you guys can goto hell, as far as I'm concerned I have apologized and asked for forgiveness from a false source, get off the computers and lose some weight and maybe you'll realize one day you aren't always right.

Wow, you get down from the idea that marijuana MIGHT not be healthy?  That's scary. 

Of couse I'm not always right.  But isn't it better to admit that you're wrong instead of people discovering it?  I can tell you that none of the leaders are mad at you for anything.  The members might be a different story. 

[Sidoh]

I know a cat who's covered in fur who developed skin cancer.  And it wasn't caused by the sun!  Not much is known about cancer, including the cause.  It could be genetic, it could be caused by living in cities that are filled with polutants, it could be just random bad luck.  Who knows?  They need to do a study to prove that people who are exposed to second hand smoke do indeed have a higher rate of lung cancer than people who aren't.  I have yet to see a study that shows that. 

I don't think cancer is elusive as you're taking it to be.  It's a simple mutation of a control structure in cells that causes mutated to divide rapidly.  In a normal cell, there is a sort of "check-sum" that verifies the integrity of the gene data stored in the cell.  I would go into more detail, but this was something that was covered in Biochemistry last year; it's been too long for me to remember the specific names of the mechanisms.  If that specific mechanism becomes subject to a mutation, then the cell is free to divide with any sort of mutation.  Seeing as environment can impact the probability of a mutation occurring in a cell (there's actually a small chance that one will occur for every tiny bit of gene data created.  Since there are so many genes in a strand of DNA/RNA, there are almost always a few mutations in cells.  These are generally corrected (or the cell "commits suicide" if they are too bad), but not if the mechanisms that check for these types of things are broken), exposing your body to deemed "toxic" or "dangerous" chemicals (such as the ones contained in cigarettes) can greatly increase the chances that you will contract cancer.  Once one cell has a mechanism disabled which is responsible for controlling the mutations in the cell, it reproduces rapidly and produces what we know as cancer.

The elusive thing about cancer is curing it.  The only real thing we know to do is to remove the infected area of tissue.  When that area of tissue is a large portion of a vital organ (IE Kidney, Liver, etc), it becomes hard to remove it in any sort of timely fashion.

I love my Biology teacher.

Holy shit I really dont belong here after all, hide you bullshit and reveal it when it's safe I guess. I cant convince brainwashed people of the merits of marijuana, I can tell you it has killed no one and is more safe than any other drug you will find that WORKS, but it wont matter the critics are brainwashed, it is as simple as that. I lied about where I live but you people are lying to yourselves if you think you're really above anyone because you cant pull your head out of you ass and be more tolerant of other's choices.

The critics are brainwashed?  Most of the critics of Marijuana are neural, respiratory and circulatory research scientists.  Seeing as most articles published against Marijuana are created by respected doctors and experienced professionals in the field of biological science, I'd trust them over the assuming teenagers and adults that find peace in smoking pot.

You changed your mind really fast there iago since last night. I have too many good things going on in my life to let shit like this get me down, you guys can goto hell, as far as I'm concerned I have apologized and asked for forgiveness from a false source, get off the computers and lose some weight and maybe you'll realize one day you aren't always right.

Yuck, that was a horrible thing to say.  I don't personally appreciate you downgrading any sort of person over such a silly argument.  Besides, where did he say he was always right?  He's defending his position in a perfectly legitimate way and you're trying to tear him down with personal insults.  Don't do that, it's stupid.

[iago]

I know a cat who's covered in fur who developed skin cancer.  And it wasn't caused by the sun!  Not much is known about cancer, including the cause.  It could be genetic, it could be caused by living in cities that are filled with polutants, it could be just random bad luck.  Who knows?  They need to do a study to prove that people who are exposed to second hand smoke do indeed have a higher rate of lung cancer than people who aren't.  I have yet to see a study that shows that. 

I don't think cancer is elusive as you're taking it to be.  It's a simple mutation of a control structure in cells that causes mutated to divide rapidly.  In a normal cell, there is a sort of "check-sum" that verifies the integrity of the gene data stored in the cell.  I would go into more detail, but this was something that was covered in Biochemistry last year; it's been too long for me to remember the specific names of the mechanisms.  If that specific mechanism becomes subject to a mutation, then the cell is free to divide with any sort of mutation.  Seeing as environment can impact the probability of a mutation occurring in a cell (there's actually a small chance that one will occur for every tiny bit of gene data created.  Since there are so many genes in a strand of DNA/RNA, there are almost always a few mutations in cells.  These are generally corrected (or the cell "commits suicide" if they are too bad), but not if the mechanisms that check for these types of things are broken), exposing your body to deemed "toxic" or "dangerous" chemicals (such as the ones contained in cigarettes) can greatly increase the chances that you will contract cancer.  Once one cell has a mechanism disabled which is responsible for controlling the mutations in the cell, it reproduces rapidly and produces what we know as cancer.

I love my Biology teacher.

It harmful chemicals can cause cancer, then why aren't we all terrified of car exhaust? Or the fumes given off by tar?  Or even factories?

I'm exposed to car exhast constantly. 

In hot weather, roads frequently smell of tar.  And, in the summer, when they pave roads, they have factories that make ashfault, which give off tons of fumes. 

There are plenty of factories which billow fumes into residential neighborhoods. 

Any of these could be the cause of lung cancer.  First hand smoke most likely DOES cause cancer.  But there is no evidence that second hand smoke does.  Second hand smoke is much less dense than first hand, so it's not like there's as many chemicals.  Second hand smoke is comparable to the exhuast you inhale walking down the street. 

I got sidetracked and forget what I was going to say, so screw it.

[Sidoh]

It harmful chemicals can cause cancer, then why aren't we all terrified of car exhaust? Or the fumes given off by tar?  Or even factories?

I'm exposed to car exhast constantly. 

In hot weather, roads frequently smell of tar.  And, in the summer, when they pave roads, they have factories that make ashfault, which give off tons of fumes. 

There are plenty of factories which billow fumes into residential neighborhoods. 

Any of these could be the cause of lung cancer.  First hand smoke most likely DOES cause cancer.  But there is no evidence that second hand smoke does.  Second hand smoke is much less dense than first hand, so it's not like there's as many chemicals.  Second hand smoke is comparable to the exhuast you inhale walking down the street. 

I got sidetracked and forget what I was going to say, so screw it.

Very true.

However, in this case, it's a matter of concentration.  We're breathing a lot more air than we're breathing car exhaust when we go outside.  Same with the factories, tar, etc.

When you smoke a cigarette, you're inhaling almost pure smoke.  When you go outside on a hot summer day, you may be able to smell the tar, but it's in much lower concentration than cigarette smoke is in.

[iago]

It harmful chemicals can cause cancer, then why aren't we all terrified of car exhaust? Or the fumes given off by tar?  Or even factories?

I'm exposed to car exhast constantly. 

In hot weather, roads frequently smell of tar.  And, in the summer, when they pave roads, they have factories that make ashfault, which give off tons of fumes. 

There are plenty of factories which billow fumes into residential neighborhoods. 

Any of these could be the cause of lung cancer.  First hand smoke most likely DOES cause cancer.  But there is no evidence that second hand smoke does.  Second hand smoke is much less dense than first hand, so it's not like there's as many chemicals.  Second hand smoke is comparable to the exhuast you inhale walking down the street. 

I got sidetracked and forget what I was going to say, so screw it.

Very true.

However, in this case, it's a matter of concentration.  We're breathing a lot more air than we're breathing car exhaust when we go outside.  Same with the factories, tar, etc.

When you smoke a cigarette, you're inhaling almost pure smoke.  When you go outside on a hot summer day, you may be able to smell the tar, but it's in much lower concentration than cigarette smoke is in.

Agreed.  And I'll agree that first hand smoke will almost certainly kill.  If not, it's certainly not good for you.

The issue at hand is Second-hand smoke.  It's also not good for you, but will it kill you?  I don't know. 

[Sidoh]

Agreed.  And I'll agree that first hand smoke will almost certainly kill.  If not, it's certainly not good for you.

The issue at hand is Second-hand smoke.  It's also not good for you, but will it kill you?  I don't know.

I'm pretty sure there is proven, documented evidence that second-hand smoke is an accepted cause of several respiratory diseases.

[iago]

Agreed.  And I'll agree that first hand smoke will almost certainly kill.  If not, it's certainly not good for you.

The issue at hand is Second-hand smoke.  It's also not good for you, but will it kill you?  I don't know.

I'm pretty sure there is proven, documented evidence that second-hand smoke is an accepted cause of several respiratory diseases.

I am aware of no such evidence.  In every document I've seen about second hand smoke being dangerous, references are either circular or non-existant.  I've never seen one that actually refers to a real study. 

[Sidoh]

I am aware of no such evidence.  In every document I've seen about second hand smoke being dangerous, references are either circular or non-existant.  I've never seen one that actually refers to a real study.

Seeing as second-hand smoke is smoke that's come out of the cigarette without going through the filter, I don't see how it could be any less harming than the smoke inhaled from the head of the cigarette.

Additionally, the correct plural of "iago" is "iagi".

[iago]

I am aware of no such evidence.  In every document I've seen about second hand smoke being dangerous, references are either circular or non-existant.  I've never seen one that actually refers to a real study.

Seeing as second-hand smoke is smoke that's come out of the cigarette without going through the filter, I don't see how it could be any less harming than the smoke inhaled from the head of the cigarette.

Additionally, the correct plural of "iago" is "iagi".

You said yourself:

it's a matter of concentration.  We're breathing a lot more air than we're breathing car exhaust when we go outside.  Same with the factories, tar, etc.

Second hand smoke is considerably less concentrated than first hand smoke.  Anybody who's smoked a cigarette can tell you it's a totally different feeling inhaling it directly than it is being near it.  Being near it just stinks, inhaling it is .. hard to describe.. maybe painful. 

[Sidoh]

Second hand smoke is considerably less concentrated than first hand smoke.  Anybody who's smoked a cigarette can tell you it's a totally different feeling inhaling it directly than it is being near it.  Being near it just stinks, inhaling it is .. hard to describe.. maybe painful. 

Haha, I knew you'd bring that up!

While this is true, it's still a lot more concentrated than the chemicals emitted by, say, the tar on a road or the exhaust from a car engine.  This is again relative to the size of the room and how often you're exposed to it.  If it's often (which is generally the only time someone will complain), I think they're going to be a lot worse off than someone who has just been outside and exposed to car exhaust for a while.

[GameSnake]

Who cares? Even if marijuana were on par with ciggerettes (show me more deaths by any drug in this modern era than ciggerrettes and i'll cry) than you guys should atleast think of it as such. We all have our quirks, I tolerate yours and if you tolerate mine it is a more peace full and at-one world.

[Krazed]

Who cares? Even if marijuana were on par with ciggerettes (show me more deaths by any drug in this modern era than ciggerrettes and i'll cry) than you guys should atleast think of it as such. We all have our quirks, I tolerate yours and if you tolerate mine it is a more peace full and at-one world.

Did you invent marijuana? Does your family make a living from marijuana? (Honesty, please.) Anyway, why is it that when their is a regular debate involving marijuana on these forums, you become irrational and defensive, without actually backing up your information.

[Sidoh]

Who cares? Even if marijuana were on par with ciggerettes (show me more deaths by any drug in this modern era than ciggerrettes and i'll cry) than you guys should atleast think of it as such. We all have our quirks, I tolerate yours and if you tolerate mine it is a more peace full and at-one world.

The reason cigarettes are such a prominent cause of death in the US is because they're misused in greater scales than Marijuana.  When someone finds something they want to apply their skills to (IE: College, a job, etc), they'll tend to try to drop their illegal habits, Marijuana included.  Because of this, Marijuana is rarely used for time periods nearly as extended as the ones people use cigarettes in.

[rabbit]

But seriously, smoking a single pack of cigarettes isn't good for you, but it's not going to kill you.

Actually, it would kill people allergic to nicotene (sp?) or any of the ingredients of cigarettes.  IE: me.

[iago]

Who cares? Even if marijuana were on par with ciggerettes (show me more deaths by any drug in this modern era than ciggerrettes and i'll cry) than you guys should atleast think of it as such. We all have our quirks, I tolerate yours and if you tolerate mine it is a more peace full and at-one world.

The reason cigarettes are such a prominent cause of death in the US is because they're misused in greater scales than Marijuana.  When someone finds something they want to apply their skills to (IE: College, a job, etc), they'll tend to try to drop their illegal habits, Marijuana included.  Because of this, Marijuana is rarely used for time periods nearly as extended as the ones people use cigarettes in.

I agree. 

But seriously, smoking a single pack of cigarettes isn't good for you, but it's not going to kill you.

Actually, it would kill people allergic to nicotene (sp?) or any of the ingredients of cigarettes.  IE: me.

That doesn't count