Question:
Is first hand smoke worse than second hand smoke? The question is, are you killing yourself with second hand smoke?

Choices:
Yes
no
Don't care

 

Sorry, I am a little confused by the question.

First hand smoke is bad for the smoker, as is the second hand smoke the smoker breathes in.

The bad thing about second hand smoke is that it harms people who have not chosen to smoke. The innocent people around the smoker.

Yes, my hubby is killing me with second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is worse because the person is not blowing it back out.

There is no possible way that second hand smoke is more harmful than actually repeatedly breathing in hot smoke from a lit object... second hand smoke may be dangerous but it just isn't comparable.

Ami, first and second-hand smoke is very comparable. Second-hand smoke has at least twice the nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker. Regular exposure to second-hand smoke increases the chances of contracting lung disease by 25% and heart disease by 10%.
It also aggravates symptoms in people with allergies and asthma, and can cause eye, nose and throat irritations, headaches, dizziness, nausea, coughing and wheezing in otherwise healthy people.

Second hand smoke has not been filtered like first hand smoke and has been known to be more dammaging to people who have chosen not to smoke.

While I do understand that the second hand smoke itself may be more dangerous than the smoke that goes into a smoker's lungs through the filter; I do not believe that a smoker who smokes the cigarettes is getting less physical damage than the person in the room. The quantity of smoke inhaled is very much less. The smoke is diluted in air. The tar and nicotine in nonsmokers in a moderately smoky room is almost nothing. Now if you compare it to a nonsmoking person that doesn't get exposed to smoke at all then you have a point. I do not believe that any statistics show that a non-smoker who breathes second hand smoke is at greater risk for cancer or other problems than someone actually smoking. They are at risk when they don't deserve any risk at all, but to say that they are actually worse off than people smoking is a bit out of whack.

Second-hand smoke has at least twice the nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker, and I think that says it all.

Once I found out that 2nd hand smoke was so bad I realized that, without being able to escape it (my family are all smokers) I had no more inhibitions about smoking. So, I started, at age 12, and still do today, with very little ill effects (the typical shortness of breath and smoker's cough...no big deal).
Hey, we're all going to die of something. Smoking is so wonderful for the feeling it gives you, that it's worth all the alleged "damage". At the very least, don't you all think you should try it for, say, a year or two first before downplaying it?
Just my two cents.
Katey

quote:

Hey, we're all going to die of something. Smoking is so wonderful for the feeling it gives you, that it's worth all the alleged "damage". At the very least, don't you all think you should try it for, say, a year or two first before downplaying it?
Just my two cents.

Welcome to the pool, Katey. But, I regret to say, you are a little nuts. Obviously we all have to die of something, but that's a lame excuse for lacking the ability to kick the habit. As to trying it for a year or two, would you say the same thing about crack cocaine or any other addictive substance? I smoked for about thirty years, ending at three packs a day, and decided to kick the habit when chest X-rays started showing shadows on the lungs. I have been smoke free for about thirty-five years now, and the feeling is more "wonderful" than smoking. It's called self-satisfaction coupled with the concomitant longevity - not to mention economic advantages. Try it, you might like it!

Frank, as usual, brings up a good point. You can live a probably shorter life with less disposable income, or you can live a probably longer life with more disposable income.