5 ms·

I think you missed the entire point of the article: living is as much of a gamble as smoking, statistically speaking. You inhale carcinogens daily. Your mind is

by tdavis 17y ago

I think you missed the entire point of the article: living is as much of a gamble as smoking, statistically speaking. You inhale carcinogens daily. Your mind is slowly decaying, along with all your other organs. You could die tomorrow crossing the street or next year from a random cancer, a blood clot in your brain, or the common flu. A friend's mother died while in the hospital recovering from a routine procedure, due to a drug allergy nobody knew about and no Doctor could diagnose quickly enough. If all it takes for you to "feel lucky" is not smoking, you live a naive life indeed.

axod 17y ago
Smoking is anti social though. It's disgusting. It's like force feeding everyone around you asparagus, just because you love asparagus. Please stop smoking everyone.
- tdavis 17y ago
  Driving a car is like force feeding me toxic exhaust when all I want to do is walk down the sidewalk. It's disgusting. Please stop driving everyone. I don't need to drive, why do you? I am within walking distance of everything I need; you should be too. This is my city and I want to walk in it without your dirty car offending my delicate nasal passages.
  - tentonova 17y ago
    Yes, people should drive cars that don't produce such a large amount of noxious fumes, they should drive less -- cars are the number one accidental killer at 40k deaths/year in the US. Both of these things would naturally occur if drivers were not free externalize the significant costs of their personal choices.
    - JulianMorrison 17y ago
      To heck with driving less. Drive electric.
      - tentonova 17y ago
        That's fine, but doesn't solve point 2, and doesn't take into account the "social" costs of car-dedicated community infrastructure. Of course, these costs are really not "social" at all, as easily observed by reviewing the impact on surrounding neighborhood small businesses and property values in areas where inner-city freeways were erected in the 50s-70s, and then torn down again in the 90s or 00s. If you're interested in the pure social costs, there's always the increase of crime, in-cohesive communities, etc. Cars aren't going anywhere, but that doesn't mean we should always optimize for them above all other concerns, though I agree that we should use more efficient (and less polluting) vehicles. This is a bit off-topic on a discussion regarding second hand smoke -- my apologies.
    - ahoyhere 17y ago
      It's not about those wasteful car drivers "externalizing the costs of their personal choices." Please! Most people have no choice, because of how the entire country has chosen to invest in infrastructure. Which is to say, it has chosen not to. American physical geography and sociopolitical geography forces car driving.
      - tentonova 17y ago
        We live in a representative democracy. If the costs were not externalized, market and political forces would dictate changes in both personal choices and infrastructure investment. I don't see the rational for abdicating responsibility for the choices in where we both live and work, as disclaiming responsibility for the externalities incurred by these choices ensures that a more optimum "sociopolitical geography" will not be reached.
  - axod 17y ago
    Car smoke is 1% as offensive as 'smoke' smoke IMHO. Modern cars fitted with catalytic convertors etc aren't the ones causing the trouble. It's big diesel busses and lorries or very old cars.
- w00pla 17y ago
  Smoking isn't antisocial at all. Smokers are usually the most friendly people I know. Some of the best social things I have done is smoking a cigarette on a train station in a 3rd world country - it brings people together. If someone offers you a cigarette you would be an uppity idiot to decline. You can walk up to a strange smoker and ask him for a light. Taking a smokebreak outside while there is a complete smoker outside turns strangers into friends. Not anti-social at all - having a stick up your ass because you dislike smoking is.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - axod 17y ago
    >> "in a 3rd world country" There's the difference. We're in more developed nations where smoking is far less common now. You'd expect 3rd world countries to still be smoking. And yes, I concede, it does bring people together. But drinking is a far better way to do that. I don't have a stick up my ass because I absolutely hate the feeling of choking in disgusting smelly smoke. Again - I don't dislike it for some wooly reason like I think it's "bad". I dislike it because it tastes horrible. It smells absolutely disgusting. It makes your clothes smell. Your kids cough. Choking isn't fun. (And this is just second hand smoke. I've never smoked personally).
    - jpv 17y ago
      The "3rd world country" line wasn't the point - I think you missed it altogether. Smoking has a bit of a culture - when you're smoking somewhere, and someone else is smoking, that's something you can physically talk to them about. You can saunter up to them and say "Virginia blend, eh? Never tried that" and you immediately have a conversation, provided they're not an asshole. It can be something that brings a group together: "Hey lets stop watching this movie and go outside and smoke." And it is very social: it's tough to NOT talk if you're just sitting around with some guys smoking. It can also just be something to do with your hands - for me, at least, it gets rid of the anxious foot-tapping or knuckle cracking and lets me just sit back and smoke and enjoy someone else's company. Basically what I'm trying to say is that today we are caught up by "interactive distractions" rather than actual human interaction. Smoking socially changes that. </rant>
JulianMorrison 17y ago
Suppose you are forced by circumstance to play Russian roulette. Do you or do you not load extra bullets?
rdouble 17y ago
The point of the article is not about smoking at all, it's about bad science. The last paragraph: "It may be argued that this is news about an old and settled subject. And who cares about smoking anyway. But smoking is really a secondary issue. The primary issue is the integrity of science. This has no use-by date. When the processes of science are misused, even if for what seems a good reason, science and its practitioners are alike degraded."

by tdavis 17y ago

axod 17y ago

Smoking is anti social though. It's disgusting. It's like force feeding everyone around you asparagus, just because you love asparagus. Please stop smoking everyone.

tdavis 17y ago
Driving a car is like force feeding me toxic exhaust when all I want to do is walk down the sidewalk. It's disgusting. Please stop driving everyone. I don't need to drive, why do you? I am within walking distance of everything I need; you should be too. This is my city and I want to walk in it without your dirty car offending my delicate nasal passages.
- tentonova 17y ago
  Yes, people should drive cars that don't produce such a large amount of noxious fumes, they should drive less -- cars are the number one accidental killer at 40k deaths/year in the US. Both of these things would naturally occur if drivers were not free externalize the significant costs of their personal choices.
  - JulianMorrison 17y ago
    To heck with driving less. Drive electric.
    - tentonova 17y ago
      That's fine, but doesn't solve point 2, and doesn't take into account the "social" costs of car-dedicated community infrastructure. Of course, these costs are really not "social" at all, as easily observed by reviewing the impact on surrounding neighborhood small businesses and property values in areas where inner-city freeways were erected in the 50s-70s, and then torn down again in the 90s or 00s. If you're interested in the pure social costs, there's always the increase of crime, in-cohesive communities, etc. Cars aren't going anywhere, but that doesn't mean we should always optimize for them above all other concerns, though I agree that we should use more efficient (and less polluting) vehicles. This is a bit off-topic on a discussion regarding second hand smoke -- my apologies.
  - ahoyhere 17y ago
    It's not about those wasteful car drivers "externalizing the costs of their personal choices." Please! Most people have no choice, because of how the entire country has chosen to invest in infrastructure. Which is to say, it has chosen not to. American physical geography and sociopolitical geography forces car driving.
    - tentonova 17y ago
      We live in a representative democracy. If the costs were not externalized, market and political forces would dictate changes in both personal choices and infrastructure investment. I don't see the rational for abdicating responsibility for the choices in where we both live and work, as disclaiming responsibility for the externalities incurred by these choices ensures that a more optimum "sociopolitical geography" will not be reached.
- axod 17y ago
  Car smoke is 1% as offensive as 'smoke' smoke IMHO. Modern cars fitted with catalytic convertors etc aren't the ones causing the trouble. It's big diesel busses and lorries or very old cars.
w00pla 17y ago
Smoking isn't antisocial at all. Smokers are usually the most friendly people I know. Some of the best social things I have done is smoking a cigarette on a train station in a 3rd world country - it brings people together. If someone offers you a cigarette you would be an uppity idiot to decline. You can walk up to a strange smoker and ask him for a light. Taking a smokebreak outside while there is a complete smoker outside turns strangers into friends. Not anti-social at all - having a stick up your ass because you dislike smoking is.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- axod 17y ago
  >> "in a 3rd world country" There's the difference. We're in more developed nations where smoking is far less common now. You'd expect 3rd world countries to still be smoking. And yes, I concede, it does bring people together. But drinking is a far better way to do that. I don't have a stick up my ass because I absolutely hate the feeling of choking in disgusting smelly smoke. Again - I don't dislike it for some wooly reason like I think it's "bad". I dislike it because it tastes horrible. It smells absolutely disgusting. It makes your clothes smell. Your kids cough. Choking isn't fun. (And this is just second hand smoke. I've never smoked personally).
  - jpv 17y ago
    The "3rd world country" line wasn't the point - I think you missed it altogether. Smoking has a bit of a culture - when you're smoking somewhere, and someone else is smoking, that's something you can physically talk to them about. You can saunter up to them and say "Virginia blend, eh? Never tried that" and you immediately have a conversation, provided they're not an asshole. It can be something that brings a group together: "Hey lets stop watching this movie and go outside and smoke." And it is very social: it's tough to NOT talk if you're just sitting around with some guys smoking. It can also just be something to do with your hands - for me, at least, it gets rid of the anxious foot-tapping or knuckle cracking and lets me just sit back and smoke and enjoy someone else's company. Basically what I'm trying to say is that today we are caught up by "interactive distractions" rather than actual human interaction. Smoking socially changes that. </rant>

JulianMorrison 17y ago

Suppose you are forced by circumstance to play Russian roulette. Do you or do you not load extra bullets?

rdouble 17y ago

The point of the article is not about smoking at all, it's about bad science. The last paragraph: "It may be argued that this is news about an old and settled subject. And who cares about smoking anyway. But smoking is really a secondary issue. The primary issue is the integrity of science. This has no use-by date. When the processes of science are misused, even if for what seems a good reason, science and its practitioners are alike degraded."