Second hand Smoke and PEts

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 18 Jun 2006 21:35

I recently read an article that states that Pets are at a high risk for lung cancer due to second hand smoke. Yet you don't hear about dogs dropping dead of Lung Cancer. Why do you think that is?

sen · Post by **sen** » 18 Jun 2006 21:37

People don't do autopsies on there pets? I dunno.

Troyson · Post by **Troyson** » 19 Jun 2006 08:27

shit thats really bad...i smoke my dog out all the time

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 19 Jun 2006 09:02

Most humans exposed to the carcinogens of cigarette smoke don't seem to develope Lung Cancer in a time span of under 1 decade. Most dogs don't seem to live beyond two decades. My guess is that most dogs simply don't live long enough to develope problems like that. Dogs that do live long enough to die from lung cancer, well, they are probably not exactly cut down in their prime as a result. That is to say, dogs that live long enough to develope lung cancer are probably nearing the end of their lives from one cause or another anyway. Not to be sound too unsympathetic, because I love dogs and believe that we should be kind to all animals, none-the-less, I simply refuse to place the same value on the life of a pet as I think people should place on the lives of other people. Some pet owners seem to treat some other people worse than they treat their pets, and I find that behavior offensive. Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to start ranting.

smokefree · Post by **smokefree** » 19 Jun 2006 09:15

Good theory outsider. But don't they have smaller lungs as well? I try to treat all animals and people well (until people piss me off) but if it came down to a life or death situation and i had a choice between saving my cat's life and a human's, though i love my cat, would have to choose the person.
PS: ive seen A LOT of people do that troyson, but ive never seen any harmful effects yet. Though, dont try it on smaller animals like baby kittens. Could be harmful.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Jun 2006 09:31

Outsider hit the nail on the head. But..

Some pet owners seem to treat some other people worse than they treat their pets, and I find that behavior offensive.

Why would you find that offensive? Honestly, why would you care how someone treated other people? I treat my pets a lot better than I'd probably treat you in real life. Why? I love my pets. You I don't know. You're a stranger to me. Why do you expect people to treat you respectfully? You shouldn't.

There are a lot of new studies coming out that totally disprove the whole second hand smoke myth. I'll concede that if your spouse or someone you're around a lot is constantly smoking around you, then it would definitely do damage. Otherwise, if you're around a little smoke every once in awhile, your body will heal itself. Pets, of course, are usually around in the house and probably are exposed to a lot of smoke if they live with smokers, but like Outsider said, it's probably just a life span thing.

As far as smoking out pets, I'm kind of against it. You can really do some easy damage to a dogs brain by smoking it out. Really, you shouldn't treat an animal to something that it isn't deciding to do, but that's just my opinion. It isn't a big deal, I just choose not to do it. I'm curious though Troyson, do you blow the smoke in your dogs ear or mouth?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 19 Jun 2006 11:53

BainbridgeShred said:

I treat my pets a lot better than I'd probably treat you in real life. Why? I love my pets. You I don't know. You're a stranger to me. Why do you expect people to treat you respectfully? You shouldn't.

Yeah, sorry, I should clarify. Its not about respect or being kind to your furry friends or anything quite so ordinary. I just mean that I get a little angry when I see stuff on television about luxury spas for pets and things like that. Some wealthy people pamper their pets to extremes and feed them food fit for a prince, have them professionally groomed to a ridiculous degree, and even have them tended to by massage therapists and the like. Meanwhile, in the very same cities these pet-pamperers live and work in there live mentally ill people who are just kicked to the curb, no home, no food, no clothes. These poor people are shown so little compassion by a society that has resources in such excess that it can afford luxury dog spas. It is upsetting to me. You don't have a special chef just to prepare gourmet meals for your pets, BainbridgeShred, do you? I hope not.

Hey, Dan, you can treat your pets as well as you wish, but if some stranger collapsed on the street in front of you, obviously suffering from some unknown and traumatic ailment, I hope you'd consider stopping and helping even if it meant your pets had to wait a little longer to be fed. Or would you hurry on home first, feed the kitty, AND THEN dial 911?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 19 Jun 2006 13:01

I understand what you're saying, but I'd still disagree. I'd feed my pet over a homeless person, or any person for that matter. It isn't an issue of whether humans and animals are on the same level, I don't believe that they are, it's that I would rather feed something I love than someone I don't know.

At the same time, if someone I didn't know came up to me and asked for food, I could not see myself not giving some to them, but I'm not gonna search them out. Meanwhile, I plan to keep feeding my dog the best food I can get, and treating them the same.

If celeberities treat their pets lavishly, why do you care? Stop worrying about other people and what they do with their money. Are you thumbing through the magazines at the grocery store isle looking at what Brad and Jen are doing with their pets? I could see you there now getting all into a big sore over it. They earned their money, and have ridiculous amounts of it to spend, and very little of it going into their pets (Basically a very small fraction). Sure it's wasteful, in a sense, but I don't understand why you'd care.

Your analogy is very poor by the way, Outsider. Feeding your pet isn't nearly as important as saving a person dying infront of you, because your pet isn't going to die from being fed late. Use better analogies or don't use any at all.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 19 Jun 2006 13:40

-the studies that come out saying that 2nd hand smoke isnt bad for you come from PR front groups created and funded by big tobacco companies.
"The coaliation for sound science" is one of the main ones, which was completely set up by Phillip Morris.

...Gordy! · Post by **...Gordy!** » 20 Jun 2006 07:30

i figure that smoke rises (ex. crawl during a fire, to escape smoke), so therefore a dog is lower to the ground reducing intake, so i doubt it.

Troyson · Post by **Troyson** » 20 Jun 2006 20:19

BainbridgeShred wrote: I'm curious though Troyson, do you blow the smoke in your dogs ear or mouth?

i always just take a hit and then blow it into my dogs face, she sometimes sneezes also.