Effects of secondhand smoke

One out of every six non-smokers is dying!

link

So, as someone who doesn't smoke, I’ve realized there's a pretty high statistical chance my friends, acquaintances, or even total strangers might just finish me off.
Today is Quit Day... how are your smoking habits holding up?

I’m against smoking! But there's more to it...

I started picking up a couple of cigarettes a day when I was just nine years old.
By 14, I was downing about ten a day.
Once I hit 18, I moved up to roughly 20.
Starting at 26, I was through two or three packs daily—somewhere between 40 and 60 cigarettes.
Between the ages of 45 and 57, I was burning through four to five packs, which means up to a hundred cigarettes a day.

Since 1991, I haven't touched a single cigarette. However, three days a week, I spend three or four hours playing pool in rooms where people smoke heavily.

So, what can I—a "youngster" who still feels and acts like one, despite being a full 66 years old—say about the opinions of all those doctors? (Many of whom inhale quite a bit of secondhand smoke themselves.)

Since doctors don't have a definitive answer as to why people develop cancer or asthma, someone has to be blamed.
But if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, who would take the fall? Cancer isn't going anywhere just because people quit.

Again, let me be clear: I am AGAINST smoking, but I am also against creating this kind of collective memory through things like warnings about secondhand smoke.

hiddenviper9 said:What if everyone just stopped smoking? Who would be the scapegoat then? Cancer and everything else isn't going anywhere regardless of what living beings do.

Look, that’s technically true. But a disease like a tumor requires an inducer to get things moving. There are countless substances out there that can act as triggers. When it comes to lung tumors, cigarettes provide more than enough induction material... essentially, if all the pieces are on the board and you have that trigger, you get cancer.

You can feel pretty smug about the fact that you aren't providing all the necessary components yourself, 🙂 but that doesn't change the fact that we need to protect other people—especially those who might be more "sensitive"—from secondhand smoke.

So, you're telling me that thousands of toxic chemical compounds in cigarette smoke are basically irrelevant just because some arbitrary "boxes" happen to check out? 😲

Douglas Phillips4 said:So, you actually think those thousands of toxic chemical compounds in cigarette smoke are basically irrelevant just because some vague "variables" might somehow balance out? 😲

No. If you have all the genetic predispositions for a tumor but never trigger them, then nothing happens. Or, if you trigger it "into a vacuum"—meaning you don't have the underlying predisposition (and I'm not just talking about tumor markers here, but spontaneous somatic mutations and all that other stuff)—then still, nothing happens...

The point is, having a predisposition is incredibly easy. That’s why inducing 😉
is just plain stupid and dangerous.

darkbison81 said:No. If you have all the genetic markers for a tumor but never trigger them, nothing happens. Or if you try to induce it "into a vacuum"—meaning you don't have the underlying predisposition (and I'm not just talking about biomarkers, but spontaneous somatic mutations and everything else)—then nothing happens either...

The point is that having a predisposition is far too easy. That makes inducing 😉 incredibly dangerous and pointless.

Isn't a predisposition just a collection of various indicators? Therefore, isn't it simply a matter of dosage before you hit cancer? That would be how you explain why some non-smokers get cancer, while some smokers get it sooner or later, and others never at all.

stormylnx14 said:Isn't predisposition basically just a collection of different risk factors? If that's the case, isn't it really just a matter of dosage before you end up with cancer? That would explain why some non-smokers get it, while some smokers get hit early and others manage to dodge it forever.

Sure, you could look at it that way 🙂 (not that I want to overcomplicate an already messy topic).

Let me be clear: I am AGAINST smoking!

My mother didn't die from cancer—but she spent her ENTIRE LIFE "dying from cancer."
She didn't smoke JUST because of what the radio, newspapers, and magazines were saying back then... they all pushed the exact same data you see in Douglas Phillips4's link.
Every little change in her body felt like a step toward a diagnosis.

That’s what I wanted to tell Douglas Phillips4 (and everyone else): Stop overthinking it. If you don't smoke, you might find that friends, acquaintances, or even total strangers who do smoke can actually take a toll on you through sheer anxiety.

Live your life with HEALTHY AND POSITIVE THINKING: I am healthy, and I will stay healthy—regardless of whatever negativity people try to throw my way.
That's how you train your Memory to signal your cells to stay healthy!

That is what keeps me feeling good.
Sure, I get sick sometimes—but I bounce back fast, and I plan on staying this way until I'm well over 100.

That is how you build a LIVING MEMORY!

hiddenviper9 said:Look, this is exactly what I was trying to get across to Douglas Phillips4 (and everyone else, really): you’ve gotta stop overthinking it. If you don't smoke, there's a huge chance your friends, acquaintances, or even just random strangers will basically steamroll you because they *do* smoke. It's wild, right?

Just live your life with a HEALTHY AND POSITIVE MINDSET: I am healthy and I’m staying healthy—regardless of whatever negativity people try to throw my way.
That’s how you train your Memory to signal your cells to stay healthy!

I mean, seriously, give me just one good reason why I should suffer for like 9 hours a day (sometimes even longer!) stuck in a room filled with smoke? Honestly, the mentality in this country is just totally backwards—everyone looks at us non-smokers like we're the ones being difficult or "ruining the vibe" just because we aren't joining in. Can you believe that? And all the stuff where my hair, my skin, and my clothes end up smelling like cigarettes... or when I wash my hair and the water turns brown... nobody cares about that. Think about how much toxin actually gets into my system. So why would I ever take that risk? Sure, maybe some people don't get cancer, but why on earth would I want to increase my own odds? 😲 😠
Why should I have to put up with some arrogant smoker?
If you wanna smoke so bad, just stay at your own house! 😠 😠 😠

Finally, some honest, straight-up thoughts 👍
and the truth 😉
If it weren't for rowdypilot96, I wouldn't have even bothered coming back to this thread I started in the first place. Not much else to say—some people will see how the pieces fit together, and others won't... but why should I, or anyone else, be the one to do the thinking for them? As for the rest of that garbage—the filth and the nastiness... just disgusting.

rowdypilot96 said:Why on earth should I have to put up with some arrogant smoker?

Is this happening at an office or somewhere else? Don't they have designated smoking areas? That's just gross...

Personally, if I’m stuck in a heavily smoke-filled room for any length of time, my nose, throat, and eyes start stinging immediately. So, even if we set aside the smell clinging to your clothes and hair, or the increased cancer risks and all that, there's still the simple reality that I wouldn't be able to function in that environment. I'd be coughing constantly, squinting through the haze, and I probably wouldn't be able to see my own finger held up in front of my face. 🙄

Douglas Phillips4 said:those "pieces of the puzzle" might fall into place for some people and not for others... but why on earth should I, or anyone else for that matter, be the one deciding how someone else's pieces land?

Fortunately for us, only Mother Nature or God (take your pick 😁 ) can influence how those "puzzle pieces" settle 🙂 but since none of us can actually predict how things will shake out, it’s probably best not to go forcing the issue. 🙂

Personally, I don't deal with smokers in my neck of the woods. They have their own designated spots (like a large, well-ventilated lobby) and they stay respectful in common areas... if someone wants to light up, they always ask first.

darkbison81 finally got honest🙂
Let me be blunt: some of these theories are just total nonsense. They seem clever on the surface, but they’re incredibly shallow once you actually dig in. Smoke is smoke—it’s irritating, it stinks, and it’s toxic. I’m forced to breathe it in passively, and frankly, I don't enjoy it. But if I dare to say anything, I get shut down immediately because, apparently, I'm "harassing" smokers. 🙄
Americans, who are generally polite and considerate neighbors, actually care about the people around them. 🙄

Wait, so the conclusion of that previous post is that passive smoking barely has any impact at all? You have got to be kidding me with these theories...

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that smoking merely accelerates the inevitable 😲

Douglas Phillips4 said:So, darkbison81 finally decided to get real with us...

Look, I’ll be completely honest here: some of these theories you guys are throwing out are just total nonsense. They might sound clever or logical on the surface, but once you actually dig an inch deep, they're incredibly shallow.

The smoke is getting in the way, and honestly, it smells like hell.

It’s toxic... I’m basically a passive smoker just by breathing the air around it, and honestly, I’m not enjoying a single second of it.

Every time I try to speak up, I get shut down immediately. It’s like I’m being punished just for pointing out how much people hate it when you call out smokers. 🙄
They’re pretty decent, actually—reasonable people who genuinely care about their community. 🙄

Wait, so the takeaway from that last post is basically that passive investing has almost zero impact? Are you kidding me with these theories?

What do you mean by "became"? I’m talking about everything I've laid out in every single one of my posts. I genuinely thought you were interested in a nuanced discussion about secondhand smoke, but after all this, it turns out you’re just looking for someone to yell at you about why smoking is bad. 😉

What kind of theories are we even talking about here? You mean tumor induction? Look, if you’re sitting there thinking the current science is flawed, the door is always open. Go get the right degree, spend the next fifty years buried in a lab doing the actual research, and come back to us with some better theories. I’m sure humanity would be thrilled to have them. 🙂

So, I’ve been thinking about this lately: non-smokers are definitely getting the short end of the stick here. As for smokers? Well, they probably aren't complaining too much, right?

I get it. Honestly, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes either.

I feel for you. My own neighbors are pretty laid back about this kind of thing, so I don't run into much friction, but you’re well within your rights to speak up. Isn't the law supposed to protect non-smokers? (To be honest, I don't know much about how our specific state laws work regarding this...)

Where on earth did you read that? 😕

darkbison81 said:1. What do you mean by "became"? I feel like I’ve laid everything out in my previous posts. I thought you were interested in secondhand smoke, but it turns out you're just interested in lecturing me about it. 😉

2. Which theories? Are we talking tumor induction? Look, if you don't like current theories, feel free to go get a PhD, spend fifty years in a lab, and present something better. I'm sure humanity would appreciate the effort. 🙂

3. For non-smokers, yes. For smokers, I suppose not...

4. I get it. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes either.

5. I'm sorry to hear that. My circle is very considerate, so I don't have issues, but you have every right to complain. Isn't the law supposed to protect non-smokers? (I actually don't know much about American law...)

6. Where on earth did you read that? 😕

1. Before, I was just presenting theories, not sharing my actual, heartfelt opinion. 😉 As for the preaching—about passive smoking specifically—I am against anything involving cigarettes. 😁 (Even if my avatar suggests otherwise, that isn't tobacco, 😉 and my mention of the Popovich family was purely metaphorical, but that's beside the point.)
2. It's not really that interesting to me...
3. You're right.
4. Thanks for understanding.
5. You're lucky you don't live here; around here, laws only exist on paper. Though, truth be told, even on paper, the laws regarding this aren't very substantial. 😢
6. I gathered that from your posts. You wrote that only God or Mother Nature (depending on your perspective) can put those "pieces" together, but that one shouldn't rush the process. Ultimately, it all comes down to that, doesn't it? Whether someone smoked or not, it's just a matter of time... I don't agree with that at all. Or perhaps I misunderstood you; there's always that possibility. 🙂

Douglas Phillips4 said:6. So, here’s my takeaway from your posts. You basically said that only God or Mother Nature (depending on your worldview, I guess) can make those "pieces of the puzzle" fall into place, but that we shouldn't try to rush the process. Ultimately, it all comes down to that, right? Whether someone smokes or not, it’s just a matter of time... I don't see it that way at all. Or maybe I missed your point, but there's always the possibility 🙂

Alright, let me try that again:
When I talk about the "pieces falling into place," I’m referring to the entire biological cocktail required for someone to develop cancer. We're talking genetic predispositions (if they carry a specific marker), spontaneous somatic mutations that accumulate over a lifetime, the sheer statistical chance that a mutation hits something critical like the p53 gene, and the probability that your immune system fails to catch a transformed cell... plus a whole host of other variables. Essentially, it's everything that falls outside of an individual's active control.

Furthermore, if a person lives long enough, anyone could theoretically develop a tumor. Given enough time, there's a window for every single one of those factors I mentioned to manifest.
For some people, the necessary conditions won't all align, so even if they smoke, they might never get lung cancer (a small minority). Conversely, someone who doesn't smoke might still end up sick.
To ensure all these factors pile up, you can essentially "help" the process along—for instance, by smoking. Smoking massively increases the odds that all those pieces will line up, because it literally induces some of those factors directly; cigarettes contain carcinogens that can transform a healthy cell into a tumor cell. That doesn't mean the person has cancer *yet*, but remember, you still have to account for all those other variables I listed...

Since secondhand smoke is a slightly milder version of being poisoned, it generally takes longer to work, but it's still a highly effective way to stack the deck in favor of all those factors aligning.

So, yeah. This is a very simplified version of what I mean. 🙂

Douglas Phillips4 said:You’re honestly lucky you don't live here. Out here, the laws are basically just suggestions written on paper. Even if they were, the actual legislation regarding this stuff is pretty damn vague to begin with. 😢

This whole thing is total garbage, 😢 and you're telling me there's absolutely nothing we can do to change it?

Interesting!
The very first post in this thread says:

( "From secondhand smoke" )

every sixth non-smoker dies!

here's the link

So, as a non-smoker, there's a pretty high chance my friends, acquaintances, or even total strangers could end me, right?

Later on, the discussion shifts to how cigarette smell sticks to nostrils or lingers on clothes and shoes...

Completely irrelevant!

hiddenviper9 said:Later on—the conversation shifts to the smell of cigarettes on clothing and how much noise people make with their shoes or socks...

That’s totally irrelevant.

Honestly, I agree that this thread is veering off track... which is exactly why I wrote my previous post. 🙂 If we are strictly discussing secondhand smoke as a health risk factor, then bringing up aesthetic issues or how things smell is just nonsensical. 🙂 That doesn't mean those things aren't annoying or that they don't exist, but they aren't valid arguments here. In THIS specific context, they're just side notes...

Oops, getting philosophical again. My bad. 🙂