Warum finden (die meisten) Eltern rauchen schlimmer als trinken?
Hi, ich habe mich schon immer gefragt warum Alkohol das eigentlich schlimmer da es zur Betrunkenheit führt wenn man zu viel Trinkt und dann nicht mehr bei sich ist. Von den meisten Eltern Tolleriert wird und Zigaretten ö.ä. nicht obwohl sie nicht diesen Starken Effekt haben wie Alkohol.
Warum ist das so?
I think it would be worse if my daughter was constantly drowning.
Smoking also damages the direct environment, do not drink. Apart from that, smoking is not (more) the social factor. Drinking also does not lead to a dependency as quickly as possible, which is naturally relative. Absolutely certain, on the other hand, is that you stink even after the first cigarette.
Oh, yeah. Yellow fingers, yellow teeth, smokers’ coughs, slimming, all the time you’re running cancer. It’s all disgusting. And not to forget, impotence.
As I said, drinking is not now acceptable the yellow of the egg, but in direct comparison in a certain frame.
It’s not. I think, however, that is most of the parents for the reasons mentioned, but still rather, because the young people usually do not smoke daily, but only on the WE.
Because cigarettes follow long-term, whereas the usual drinking at a party or so that doesn’t have it is clear you are drunk and may make bullshit but in the long term it is not necessarily really harmful.
Moderate drinking has a smaller influence on life expectancy than moderate smoking.
But if you drink a lot and smoke a lot, from a certain point smoking is the smaller problem.
Both are harmful, drinking is significantly more widespread, see weddings etc and is considered by adults as “normal”.
Hello,
I’m sorry.
Because the liver can regenerate to some extent. But not the lungs.
That’s not true
If I were a parent, that would be my only comfort. So it must be right, because there is certainly more than one who thinks so.
The lung can actually regenerate. Don’t get anything when you get throat cancer
?
But how fast it happens that smoking causes lung damage. It’s usually faster than smokers, isn’t it?
Yes you can smoke, but you can do no deprivation at the Alk
If smoking has not yet caused permanent damage, the lung recovers within one to two years. How fast it is in individual cases depends on how long and intense someone smoked and how severe the lungs were damaged.
They didn’t teach us that way. It was said that it was also damaged and glued during passive smoking. The tiny lung blisters die because they are no longer bleeding well enough. And they don’t grow.
So I assume that the lung damage is worse than liver damage, or then I guess the lung needs too long to regenerate. Maybe this is made more difficult by passive smoking, passive drinking is not possible.
The lung can also regenerate
Because alk has been very normalized in Germany and smoking is more than used as a search tool
I’d never have noticed.
Smoking and alcohol consumption are generally undesirable.
I don’t understand.
I wish my mother stopped drinking than smoking.
Smokers can lead a normal life. No alcoholic.
Smoking is more harmful as well as Akohol is deeply anchored and recognized in culture