|
[ Smoking Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I'm a 19 year old college male, and I believe I might be allergic to cigarettes. I'm not a smoker, but my roommate is, and since I let him smoke cigarettes in the room, a lot of my friends here do as well. When people smoke, my face becomes very oily and I get very irritated. Also, the skin on my fingertips was very thin and dry before coming to school, which stopped for a while, and came back once I began letting my roommate smoke in my room. Is this just something in my head? or does cigarette smoking actually have something to do with this?
In Reply to: Allergic to cigarettes? posted by Marko on December 15, 2002 at 21:47:09:
tell your room-mate to smoke outside of your room - outside completely if possible so as not to susept others to his smoke.
In Reply to: Allergic or not, second hand smoke is more deadly than first hand..msg posted by Rachel on December 16, 2002 at 10:29:49:
Hi Rachel,
I am an ex-smoker of eight months now. My husband still smokes - in the house. I had read before that second hand smoke was much worse than actual smoking. I don't understand how this can be. All the non-smokers that I know who have lived for years with smokers have never had smoke-related illnesses, nor anything more serious than the flu or cold.
Smoking is not good, of course, but there is also a lot of hype (political-media control of the public) about its effects. The public gets bombed with many invalid or even fraudulent studies just to see how it can be controlled for whatever reason. Focusing on the negative effects of anything, like the media/powers-that-be-do to scare people, often brings on the actual illness we're scared to death of getting. That is the main reason I quit. But, in all honesty, I fail to see the truth about second smoke (and I don't mean having it blown directly in one's face all the time. I just mean being in the vicinity thereof).
Or---could it be that smokers' immunity systems are more alert than those who don't smoke? There also many studies done on the benefits of nicotine---as a medicine. It's my understanding that it's not nicotine, but the smoke that is so damaging.
Just wondering. Merlynn
In Reply to: Re: Allergic or not, second hand smoke is more deadly than first hand..msg posted by Merlynn Starr on December 16, 2002 at 15:52:52:
You sound like someone still addicted. Next you'll be touting the benefits of wheat gluten. The truth hurts, but is the truth
nevertheless. It's the smoking. How about you produce some of those studies where nicotine is a "beneficial medicine?"
I got a couple of links to get your head out of the smoke...
THINK SPIT TOBACCO WON'T HARM YOU? CHEW ON THIS…
Nicotine Is More Addictive Than Heroin
Nicotine patches can do more harm than good
Report by British physicians on nicotine addiction
In Reply to: Allergic or not, second hand smoke is more deadly than first hand..msg posted by Rachel on December 16, 2002 at 10:29:49:
Tell your roomie to try these cigs!
In Reply to: Re: Allergic or not, second hand smoke is more deadly than first hand..msg posted by Merlynn Starr on December 16, 2002 at 15:52:52:
Hi, Merlyn.
More than 30 years ago it was proven that the non smoker in the room has 5/6ths as much nicotine in their urine as the smoker. That means that the non smoker gets 5 cigarettes for every 6 cigarettes smoked by the smoker.
It is yet to be proven that this amount is MORE damaging to the non-smoker than actually smoking the 5 cigarettes.
Walt
In Reply to: Allergic or not, second hand smoke is more deadly than first hand..msg posted by Rachel on December 16, 2002 at 10:29:49:
Why would your school allow smoking even in dorms? Cigarette smoke is a carcogene. Second hand smoke was also proven to cause cancer. Why not put the smokers in as roommates on a separate floor if possible. Or even a smokers dorm. That way they can expose themselves only.
In Reply to: The smoke is moot - Nicotine is far from benign posted by Gregory on December 16, 2002 at 17:59:35:
Hello Gregory,
I don't disagree with what you said, it's HOW you said it. You appear to be addicted to having a condenscending attitude. It must be nice to be a saint while still in the 3rd dimension.
And no, I'm not going to talk about wheat gluten. I'm not allergic to it, nor do I know anything about it. And I certainly wouldn't talk about things I don't know anything about until I did my homework......
Which, speaking of, I did read several articles by medically affiliated persons re the uses of nicotine. I will have to find them again as I didn't keep the web addresses. I was NOT glorifying smoking in the least. I can only tell you what I read and about those people of various ages that I've known having been around smokers their entire lives.
Yes, I am still addicted to (the idea of) smoking and may be for a long time to come. (At least I can admit my short coming. Can you about yours?). It's a psychological thing by now as it has been 8 months and 5 days that I haven't smoked a cigarette. Just like an alcoholic......he/she must ever be on guard to never take that one drink. My concern and reason for my original post on this matter is because my husband still smokes. Yes, that bothers me. Short of a divorce after 38 years of marriage isn't what I'm looking for, hence my question about second-hand smoke from a group that is allegedly not connected to the elite-powers' programming. (And who's to say they're not smokers, drug users, and wheat gluten eaters themselves??)!!!!!!!!!!
So, I ask this question of you----yes, even you, Gregory, and anyone else who cares to respond: Since I am in a second-hand smoke situation, is it a physical/medical possibility that my immunity system could build up a resistance to the smoke/nicotine? I had read several articles in which children exposed to animals during the first year of their lives would build up a resistance to being allergic to them.
Thank you.
Merlynn
In Reply to: Allergic to cigarettes? posted by Marko on December 15, 2002 at 21:47:09:
Take their cigarettes out of their mouths and shove them up their assholes. Then they can blow their smoke out of their sphincters.
In Reply to: Re: The smoke is moot - Nicotine is far from benign--to Gregory posted by Merlynn Starr on December 17, 2002 at 13:42:44:
I'm not addicted to having a condenscending attitude. I'm addicted to being bullshitted. The BS alarms went off when
I read your post. Yours should have went when you wrote it.
Reams of data and tons of information have been written about the addictiveness of cigarettes, which I assume you are
familiar with. Generally speaking, those addicted and formerly
addicted have and will subvert normal thought processes
to support the addiction. Despite knowledge and evidence to the contrary, it seems like you would like nicotine to have
"benefits" as to justify (and support) your former addiction
and your husband's current addiction.
The other part of my "attitude" has come from watching family members smoke and die. I heard plenty of "justification" but
of course no one put a gun to their head and told them to start smoking. Frankly, you just strike me as stupid for
smoking in the first place which may have a lot to do with my attitude as well.
I'm not a saint, but I don't deliberately and knowingly harm my body. As for you situation, you WILL have to make a
decision about which is more important -your marriage or your health. I am sure you know all about co-dependency, so if you
choose to keep your marriage you will enable your husband to continue smoking. It isn't really your problem at all. It's
his. He the one who has to want to stop. Maybe you could find a *compelling* reason for him to want to.
In Reply to: Re: The smoke is moot - Nicotine is far from benign--to Gregory posted by Gregory on December 17, 2002 at 14:24:09:
that should be "addicted to NOT being bullshitted.
In Reply to: Re: The smoke is moot - Nicotine is far from benign--to Gregory posted by Merlynn Starr on December 17, 2002 at 13:42:44:
From my perspective the smoke part is far from moot. That is akin to saying that living with air pollution is somehow imune enhancing or benign. There was a recent study that found wood dust linked to cancer. I also know people who have moved from the desert because of the dust. I kind of think that most foreign stuff floating through the air is not a +. As for nicotine, think they need to study that one some more. It is however moot for me, becuase I will avoid cigarette smoke as much as possible, regardless. So to sum up, I think you may notice less reaction for awhile as your body gets used to dealing with 2nd hand smoke but longer term, not good.
Be well,
Sounder
In Reply to: Re: The smoke is moot - Nicotine is far from benign--to merlynn posted by Sounder aka anyone else on December 17, 2002 at 23:46:13:
Thank you, Sounder, for making sense AND for your caring attitude.
Merlynn
In Reply to: Allergic to cigarettes? posted by Marko on December 15, 2002 at 21:47:09:
I once saw a movie where some dude stuck a lit cigarette in his butthole and "smoked" it.
In Reply to: Allergic to cigarettes? posted by Marko on December 15, 2002 at 21:47:09:
All smokers should be shot.
|
[ Smoking Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |