| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 67623 | 2006-04-01 20:08:00 | Russel Crowe Smoking. | JJJJJ (528) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 442904 | 2006-04-02 03:02:00 | How? By placing them outside in the cold and the rain hoping that they suffer from pneuminia ro some other nasty attack to which their bodies immune systems are incapable of fighting off?As said before, i think there should be smokers bars, where people can kill themselves slowly and in comfort, without messing life up for those of us that choose to look after ourselves. I don't care what filthy habits people indulge in in the privacy of their own homes.. And if someone wishes to do something as anti social and destructive as deliberately filling their lungs and the air around them with smoke for the sake of it, then surely home where they may do it? No-one is making these or any other smokers indulge in such a perverse selfdestructive passtime. But yeah, when i was a smoker i thought i had the right to mess up everyone else's health and environment with my filthy habit too. It's only when i stopped that i realized what a selfish prick i was. |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 442905 | 2006-04-02 03:08:00 | Perhaps smoking might relax Russell Crowes facial muscles. At the moment he has only one expression, regardless of what part he is playing. Actually this applies to a lot of the present day"Actors & esses" PJ | Poppa John (284) | ||
| 442906 | 2006-04-02 03:27:00 | And on that note he can smoke all he likes so long as he doesn't throw a telephone into the audience, or try and get punchy with hecklers. Didn't his stage name used to be Russ Le Roq? | andrew93 (249) | ||
| 442907 | 2006-04-02 03:34:00 | Personthing: Why is smoking a dirty or filfthy habbit? Why do you assume smokers are killing themselves? I'm of the opinion that sport and jogging etc. cause just as many deaths as does smoking. And standing in a busy street causes even more. And passive smoking?? A phrase dreamed up by the ash crowd. It doesn't pay to believe half of what you read in the paper. Nor a quarter of what you hear on TV. It's only someone's opinion you are being inflicted with. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 442908 | 2006-04-02 03:36:00 | As for what you read on the Internet? :D | Graham L (2) | ||
| 442909 | 2006-04-02 03:42:00 | Personthing: Why is smoking a dirty or filfthy habbit?Because it stinks, lituraly. Why do you assume smokers are killing themselves?I think there's some pretty hard evidence that smoking reduced lifespan, and smokers continue to do it to themselves. I'm of the opinion that sport and jogging etc. cause just as many deaths as does smoking. Agreed, there are many sports that cause more injury and death than any positive aspects, however, the only person damaged is the person who chooses to partake |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 442910 | 2006-04-02 04:40:00 | Because it stinks, lituraly.I think there's some pretty hard evidence that smoking reduced lifespan, and smokers continue to do it to themselves.Agreed, there are many sports that cause more injury and death than any positive aspects, however, the only person damaged is the person who chooses to partake You think thats bad eh figgy? You should go take a look at China! The amount of spitting on the ground and smoking they do there is horrendous. NZ is a godsend compared to them. |
bob_doe_nz (92) | ||
| 442911 | 2006-04-02 05:38:00 | As for the lack of data on passive smoking, i find that astonishing! However, when my lungs were in particualy bad shape from my own stupidity, i did find highly smoky environments both unpleasant and irritating to the point that i would find myself coughing if i laughed or did anything else that inspired large breaths. That suggests that the smoky bar is not good! It suggests that as you already had a respiratory problem it aggravated it. Let me summarize various sources on the net: First, on second hand smoke, it boils down to this: What started the furor against second hand smoke was a 1993 study by the Environmental Protection Agency. The claim of the study was that second-hand smoke causes 3000 lung cancer deaths per year. However 1998, a federal court "lambasted" the EPA study, saying they had "cherry picked" their data, and that they had shown no link whatsoever between second-hand smoke and cancer. The court went on to say that the EPA had deliberately ignored data that contradicted their "preordained outcome." In short, the EPA lied for political reasons. A World Health Organization study is often also cited to support claims of anti-smokers; but this report, if one actually reads it, denies finding any links whatsoever between second-hand smoke and health problems. The WHO actually issued a press release that said, "Passive smoking does cause lung cancer," in spite of and in direct contradiction to the findings of their own study. The other major organizations that have stated that second-hand smoke causes lung-cancer in particular, or health problems in general, are: The American Lung Association, The American Cancer Society, The Surgeon General, and The American Heart Association. It turns out, that all of these organizations came to this conclusion based on the same report: the EPA study that was thrown out by a federal court. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 442912 | 2006-04-02 05:59:00 | Simple questrion for all the non-anti-smoking people. Are you OIK then with people smoking in your car and house. Do you have smoker freinds who come to visit and you greet them with an ashtray? |
mark c (247) | ||
| 442913 | 2006-04-02 06:01:00 | pctec, you are totally correct in assuming "already had a respiratory problem that aggravated it" The problem was caused by me smoking 100g of drum a week for some years. What a silly boy i was. I still refuse to believe that passive smoking is entirely safe, however i find your report is very interesting. As per usual governments just cant be trusted to be honest about drug information. It reminds me a bit of "refer madness", a film that is simply hilarious and made no consession to truth whatsoever while "informing" the public about the evils of marijuana. Oddly bad for the lungs was never an angle pushed by that film, but back then smoking tobacco was considered safe and normal (whatever that is). |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||