0

> Smoking is bad for you.
Smoking is good for you, just like chocolate and wine. And just like chocolate and wine, smoking in excess is bad for you.

that's the best comment i've ever heard in my life... omg... seriously...

0

> Smoking is bad for you.
Smoking is good for you, just like chocolate and wine. And just like chocolate and wine, smoking in excess is bad for you.

Hmm... that's interesting since I have never heard anyone in the medical field proclaim that smoking is good for you. Neither have I read any health book stating this ridiculous idea. Smoking regularly has the same effect as smoking excessively... the only difference is how fast it progresses.

0

>Hmm... that's interesting since I have never heard anyone in the medical
>field proclaim that smoking is good for you. Neither have I read any
>health book stating this ridiculous idea.
Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean you're right. Try looking for studies that link moderate amounts of nicotine to the prevention and treatment of mental disorders. Or studies that have shown nicotine to help ulcerative colitis, increase libido, and improve memory. I remember a study that linked smoking to preventing breast cancer. And of course, due to the effects of smoking we can count stress relief as yet another benefit.

I'm not saying that these benefits outweigh the negative aspects, but I'm also not doing what you are: the text equivalent of putting my fingers in my ears and saying "lalalalala!".

0

yeah but thats the case with everything

next peoplem will say that a little heroin is good, but too much....

you get my drift.

0

>>the text equivalent of putting my fingers in my ears and saying "lalalalala!".

lol... i actually laughed when i read that... because it is actually true...

0

>yeah but thats the case with everything
>next peoplem will say that a little heroin is good, but too much....
Okay, then you have to go to the extreme for everything. Not just smoking. Otherwise it will make you a hypocrite who picks and chooses what's good and bad based not on research, but personal bias.

>you get my drift.
No, I don't. If it's the case with everything, why is claiming health benefits to smoking "ridiculous", to quote christina.

1

Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean you're right.

Ignorant? I'm a nurse. My whole life is based around studying medicine, conditions, diseases, and treatments. And yes, I am right.

Try looking for studies that link moderate amounts of nicotine to the prevention and treatment of mental disorders. Or studies that have shown nicotine to help ulcerative colitis, increase libido, and improve memory. I remember a study that linked smoking to preventing breast cancer. And of course, due to the effects of smoking we can count stress relief as yet another benefit.

I've seen these studies, and doctors use all kinds of drugs, even illegal drugs for the benefit of the patient. But does this mean that people on the streets should be using and abusing them? NO.

I'm not saying that these benefits outweigh the negative aspects, but I'm also not doing what you are: the text equivalent of putting my fingers in my ears and saying "lalalalala!".

You're not even making any kind of sense. I have studied the effects of smoking. I know how it can be a positive effect on the human body and how it can become a death stick.

Votes + Comments
Dang right.
0

yeah but thats the case with everything

next peoplem will say that a little heroin is good, but too much....

you get my drift.

Perhaps a little heroin is good. I don't know that studies have shown that it is not. Obviously though, given the extremely addictive nature of heroin, most are not going to use it in moderation and the excess may kill them.

0

Okay, perhaps you guys are taking this a little bit out of context. A little bit of anything is good. Ever heard of vaccines? Injecting a little bit of a virus into a human is enough to enable the human to build a sufficient immune response. If we look at things at such a microscopic level then just about EVERYTHING is good for you.

0

Okay, perhaps you guys are taking this a little bit out of context. A little bit of anything is good. Ever heard of vaccines? Injecting a little bit of a virus into a human is enough to enable the human to build a sufficient immune response. If we look at things at such a microscopic level then just about EVERYTHING is good for you.

Finally.
Thank God for common sense.

0

>I'm a nurse.
A 17 year old nurse? Even if you're telling the truth, that doesn't suggest that you have a wealth of experience to pull from. Being a nurse also doesn't suddenly make you an expert on the effects of smoking. My mother is also a nurse, so I have some idea of how weak your claim is for supporting your argument.

>And yes, I am right.
No, you're not. You're making claims based on incomplete research. You're applying one or two long-term and overwhelming health problems to your entire argument and completely ignoring any other effects. All you have to do is agree that there are positive effects as well as negative effects and I'll leave you alone. Until then, you're wrong.

>But does this mean that people on the streets should be using and abusing them?
Bzzzt! Nice try Miss Logical Fallacy, but whether people abuse something or not isn't an argument for that thing being bad or good. If you want to go that route, I'll rip you apart with a "food is bad for you because people are fat" counter argument.

>I know how it can be a positive effect on the human body and how it can become a death stick.
Then why are you arguing if you agree with me?

1

Originally Posted by joshSCH http://www.daniweb.com/forums/myimages/buttons/viewpost.gif
Okay, perhaps you guys are taking this a little bit out of context. A little bit of anything is good. Ever heard of vaccines? Injecting a little bit of a virus into a human is enough to enable the human to build a sufficient immune response. If we look at things at such a microscopic level then just about EVERYTHING is good for you.

Finally.
Thank God for common sense.

Well of course not. It's a virus.

umm ....

0

>I'm a nurse.
A 17 year old nurse? Even if you're telling the truth, that doesn't suggest that you have a wealth of experience to pull from. Being a nurse also doesn't suddenly make you an expert on the effects of smoking. My mother is also a nurse, so I have some idea of how weak your claim is for supporting your argument.

Uh yes a 17 year old nurse. And why in the world would I lie about that?
I'm no expert, but that doesn't mean I haven't studied. Get that in your head.

>And yes, I am right.
No, you're not. You're making claims based on incomplete research. You're applying one or two long-term and overwhelming health problems to your entire argument and completely ignoring any other effects. All you have to do is agree that there are positive effects as well as negative effects and I'll leave you alone. Until then, you're wrong.

You can't read can you?

>But does this mean that people on the streets should be using and abusing them?
Bzzzt! Nice try Miss Logical Fallacy, but whether people abuse something or not isn't an argument for that thing being bad or good. If you want to go that route, I'll rip you apart with a "food is bad for you because people are fat" counter argument.

Now I know you really can't read.

>I know how it can be a positive effect on the human body and how it can become a death stick.
Then why are you arguing if you agree with me?

Because you're wrong. You think that smoking regularly is good for the human body and I do not. Have you been following?

0

Okay, perhaps you guys are taking this a little bit out of context. A little bit of anything is good. Ever heard of vaccines? Injecting a little bit of a virus into a human is enough to enable the human to build a sufficient immune response. If we look at things at such a microscopic level then just about EVERYTHING is good for you.

The term is Hormesis. It's a commonly observed trait, mostly among chemical substances although there is some evidence that it occurs with radiation as well. The basic idea is this:
The generally held, so-called 'no threshold' theory behind toxicity is incorrect. 'No threshold' means that there's no such thing as a 'safe' dose; the slightest bit could prove to be deadly. Instead, according to the hormesis theory, very low doses of a substance may have beneficial effects, even when higher doses of it prove to be dangerous. The key is in the dosage size, which is why it stands directly against the 'no threshold' theory. The main problem is that the effects of hormesis have been observed experimentally in multiple cases, but the 'no threshold' idea is the one that gets politico-sciency backing (meaning government funding or 'official' recognition from various well-known scientific research bodies).

Again, the problem lies in dose size. Would you (yes, you, the person reading this message) be able to properly measure out a drug dosage within the admittedly small dosage range where hormesis occurs? Or are you likely to go over the limit, and gain the problems associated with the drug instead of the benefits?

0

>Uh yes a 17 year old nurse. And why in the world would I lie about that?
Because the minimum age for a licensed nurse is 18 and the shortest licensing program is LPN, which takes one year. You do the math.

>You think that smoking regularly is good for the human body
Please quote where I said that. Let's see which of us can't read. :)

0

>Uh yes a 17 year old nurse. And why in the world would I lie about that?
Because the minimum age for a licensed nurse is 18 and the shortest licensing program is LPN, which takes one year. You do the math.

Hmm. I'm sorry, but I don't think this involves math.
Have you ever heard of a CNA? Of course not. Because if you did, you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement.

The CNA program is offered to Juniors and Seniors in high school or to adults. It is a 2 year, 4 semester program which involves medical terminology, health concepts, and clinical work. I am right below an LPN.

>You think that smoking regularly is good for the human body
Please quote where I said that. Let's see which of us can't read. :)

Sure.

"Smoking is good for you, just like chocolate and wine. And just like chocolate and wine, smoking in excess is bad for you."

1

The term is Hormesis. It's a commonly observed trait, mostly among chemical substances although there is some evidence that it occurs with radiation as well. The basic idea is this:
The generally held, so-called 'no threshold' theory behind toxicity is incorrect. 'No threshold' means that there's no such thing as a 'safe' dose; the slightest bit could prove to be deadly. Instead, according to the hormesis theory, very low doses of a substance may have beneficial effects, even when higher doses of it prove to be dangerous. The key is in the dosage size, which is why it stands directly against the 'no threshold' theory. The main problem is that the effects of hormesis have been observed experimentally in multiple cases, but the 'no threshold' idea is the one that gets politico-sciency backing (meaning government funding or 'official' recognition from various well-known scientific research bodies).

Again, the problem lies in dose size. Would you (yes, you, the person reading this message) be able to properly measure out a drug dosage within the admittedly small dosage range where hormesis occurs? Or are you likely to go over the limit, and gain the problems associated with the drug instead of the benefits?

I was obviously trying to prove a point. All scientific terms aside, there are many substances that can be beneficial when taken in small doses, and which are very potent at higher doses. So, simply saying smoking a little bit isn't enough. You must define exactly what you mean by a 'little bit'.

Votes + Comments
I can't define 'little bit'; I haven't seen the statistics on low-dose smoking.
1

>Have you ever heard of a CNA?
Yes, and you're right that the minimum age is 16 for becoming a CNA. However, that's not a nurse. That's an orderly. You can't claim to be a nurse just yet, kiddo, so get off your soap box and come back to reality.

>Sure.
Sorry, I missed where that quote says or suggests "smoking regularly". This is a case of you reading between the lines and being wrong.

Votes + Comments
Man.. She is dumb as she looks lol!!
0

>Have you ever heard of a CNA?
Yes, and you're right that the minimum age is 16 for becoming a CNA. However, that's not a nurse. That's an orderly. You can't claim to be a nurse just yet, kiddo, so get off your soap box and come back to reality.

An orderly? Wow, orderlies clean equipment and transport patients. CNAs are considered nurses here. They clean, bathe, feed, and clothe patients. They do all the things that LPNs and RNs don't want to do. CNAs are above orderlies. Orderlies cannot work as a CNA in a nursing home because they don't have the training. Orderlies do not = CNAs. That's why they have different titles... ?
CNAs are also known as Home Health Aides, Personal Care Assistants, Nurse's Aides, or Patient Care Technicians.

>Sure.
Sorry, I missed where that quote says or suggests "smoking regularly". This is a case of you reading between the lines and being wrong.

I guess.

0

>CNAs are considered nurses here.
"It works for me", huh? That's not an excuse in the software development forums and it's not an excuse here. But you go ahead and keep believing it if it makes you feel superior to us mere patients. I'll just sit here and laugh at you like I always do.

Cheers, "nurse". :D

p.s. I'd probably trust you to take my blood, but being a CNA still doesn't make you an authority on the effects of smoking.

Votes + Comments
That isn't nice Rash. Ah hell, this is Narue's post, not Rash's. My Bad :D
don't worry about that bitch
cheers. ignorance is bliss. even for you. =/
0

Carbon monoxide replaces the oxygen in your bloodstream, your blood pressure raises and your heart rate increases.
You may have nausea, shortness of breath, dizziness, headaches and coughing. Your risk of heart attack can increase by 3 times by smoking as few as 1 cigarette a day. Are just a few cigarettes worth it?

http://www.healthecommunities.org/stqpFAQS.asp

0

>hah.. yall like to fight..
It's not often that I get to play with someone as uptight as christina. You should try it, it's a blast. :)

>And I like to prove her wrong.
A lot of people like to prove me wrong. Why? Because it happens so very rarely. And you're not among those who are capable of doing it.

0

>hah.. yall like to fight..
It's not often that I get to play with someone as uptight as christina. You should try it, it's a blast. :)

Ditto.

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.