It is known that both active and passive smoking are harmful. We don't need to smoke neither active nor take passive smoking.

It is known that both active and passive smoking are harmful. We don't need to smoke neither active nor take passive smoking.

Active smoking is decided by the smoker. So the consequences for him can be predicted. But they are harmful a lot. Passive smoking is harmful, but because the smaller concentrations of toxines less harmful.

Dear Adel,

your voting is right. Your valuation of the impact for children, babies, ather passive smokers is important. They didn´t decide to smoke, they got "smoked". This impact is very condemnable.

Passive smoking, also referred to as secondhand smoking, occurs when someone who isn't smoking breathes in smoke from someone who is. It comes in the form of side stream smoke, which is emitted from the lit end of the cigarette, and mainstream smoke, smoke exhaled by the smoker. Passive smoking exposes nonsmokers to the chemicals and toxins found in tobacco smoke, increasing their risk of illnesses and diseases.

Dear Abdalla,

interesting and matching list with good analysis. Because the main stream smoke is more intense, I think the bilance is: passive smoking is less harmful than active smoking. But that´s really no reason to let non smokers smoke!

Passive smoking is not as harmful as active smoking for the smoker, but its overall health impact is large. The public health consequences of passive smoking are high due to the large numbers of people exposed who are around the smoker particularly children. It is estimated that passive smoking increases the risk of death from coronary heart disease by 50-60%. It increases the number of GP visits of children.

Science has shown that both are harmful, in different measures. But even passive smoking can suffer terrible consequences.

Dear Abdalla,

I will try it.

1. Have a look on the amount of smoke in the side stream. It´s more poisonous than the lung filtered output of the smoker.

2. This side stream smoke is distributed through the whole air volume in the chamber. If smoking within "fresh air" outside we don´t need a bilance.

3. The toxins are diluted in the room air volume, some m**3. In the lung you find some liters.

4. Now the smoker is diluting his "fresh air" from the room with the highly concentrated direct smoke. So he is concentrating the normal air waste.

4. The passive smoker just breathes the "fresh air".

Any questions?

Both are harmful

Of course, ETS is harmful. CDC factsheet: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

But blaming smokers is'nt good prevention. Necessary are effective tobacco control interventions, e.g. higher taxes on cigarettes, smoking bans in public places and so on.

Active is more harmful for real smokers but also passive smoking can lead a 'neutral person' to have the negative effects of smoking, without smoking. This applies for children, when parents are both smokers.

@Demetris, you are right, but Abdalla and me tried to construct a balance.

To repeat, passive smoking is harming and in no way to be accepted. I remember another question, where we had the sam debate.

Both are harmful, but active smokers have choose this. Furthermore passive smokers are usually not accustom to smoking, and so as virgin organisms may have more harmful consequences!

Both are harmful. Good answer Joseph Kuhn! The research is so helpful! Thank You!

Dear all, is so important for someone to continue smoking when they know it harm to other people too...? Here is some difference between active and passive smoking...

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-active-and-vs-passive-smoking/

Dear Ahed and all,

interesting discussion. I repeat my standpoint. Passive smoking is deeply unethical and must be prevented and if possible forbidden by law.

But I´ve problems to accept the hinted reasons in studies, that I don´t know. I don´t understand what a virgin tissue is and why toxic influences are so much more dangerous as in adult lung surfaces. I want to read arguments and facts.

Dear Ahed I don´t understand the argument, that passive smokers expose larger lung areas than active smokers.

Please deliver some papers and facts.

Hanno,

Let us imagine a shepherd, that lives in the mountains, with clear atmosphere etc. This is what I consider virgin organism. Let on the other hand take a person that lives in Athens. Since he is leaving in a polluted environment, he has develop defences against pollution. Now if you take the shepherd, into Athens for say 3-4 months , I am sure that the damage to him would be serious. For this argument I do not have scientific data, but it seems to me that it is obvious.

@ Costas, I agree with you. There is possibility of such change...

Dear Costas,

thanks for your response. I accept your point of view, but I don´t understand it. The reason is the supposed defence reaction. Should that be a local immuno reaction in the alveoles. Pollution which prevents you from healthy breathing possibly provokes a reaction of your whole body, your breathing rate is quicker, your blood pressure is increasing etc. But the tissue in your lungs does not get adopted. How?

I do not have the expertise to answer you question, Hanno, but I am sure that the human organism has the basic property to be adapted to various situations. For example if there is a lot of sum the skin becomes darker. This is a defence action. A fact that does not need any scientific explanation is that organisms interact with environment and of course each changes the other.

@ Ratan, I think the link below may be helpful to you. Please go through it...

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/94/4/596.full

I feel both are equally harmful for the health..

Its like whether you hit your self or some one hits you, ultimately you will get hurt..

I fully agree with Dhara. Both are very dangerous for your health, sooner or later you" ll feel their harmful effects in your body.

Dear all, as a summery to all your statement, both the mode of getting smoke is dangerous/ harmful for human specially for childern whoes body is not well developed. It is hard to conclude that which is more harmful untill we got more stronger evidence on it. And a big thanks to all of you for valuable contributions in this discussion...

Regards

The main point in the icussion here is that we all agree that smoking is dangarous to our health and those who smoke shoulg quit it quickly.

Regards.

The main point is, how to weight the harm for the suffering persons. The smoker, who smokes, is harming him/her self. But s/he is also harming the passive smokers like children. We have very bad feelings, if realizing this harming of innocents, so our feeling tells us, the passive smoking is worth. OK, but really more harming or only in our feeling?

3 day back I read in newspaper thtat one university has cancelled the admissions of around 20 stude as they were exposed to smoking either active or passive..!!