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?

(4 votes)
Loading...

Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
21 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Drea80
1 year ago

I think it would be worse if my daughter was constantly drowning.

DerKaterkatz
1 year ago

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.

Lisa95654
1 year ago
Reply to  DerKaterkatz

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.

DerKaterkatz
1 year ago
Reply to  Lisa95654

As I said, drinking is not now acceptable the yellow of the egg, but in direct comparison in a certain frame.

Lisa95654
1 year ago

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.

Osterkarnigel
1 year ago

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.

W00dp3ckr
1 year ago

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.

TCRhammerhai
1 year ago

Both are harmful, drinking is significantly more widespread, see weddings etc and is considered by adults as “normal”.

BitteDankeUSW
1 year ago

Hello,

I’m sorry.

Because the liver can regenerate to some extent. But not the lungs.

mth30hg
1 year ago
Reply to  BitteDankeUSW

That’s not true

BitteDankeUSW
1 year ago
Reply to  mth30hg

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.

Lisa95654
1 year ago
Reply to  BitteDankeUSW

The lung can actually regenerate. Don’t get anything when you get throat cancer

mth30hg
1 year ago

?

ddavid621
1 year ago

But how fast it happens that smoking causes lung damage. It’s usually faster than smokers, isn’t it?

mth30hg
1 year ago

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.

BitteDankeUSW
1 year ago

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.

mth30hg
1 year ago

The lung can also regenerate

Hmmmmmmmmmmqwq
1 year ago

Because alk has been very normalized in Germany and smoking is more than used as a search tool

verreisterNutzer
1 year ago

I’d never have noticed.

Smoking and alcohol consumption are generally undesirable.

TsukiWriter
1 year ago

I don’t understand.

I wish my mother stopped drinking than smoking.

Smokers can lead a normal life. No alcoholic.

Weizzo
1 year ago

Smoking is more harmful as well as Akohol is deeply anchored and recognized in culture