The Benefits of Smoking

1) This analysis is useless unless you take into account price increases. Did the LCBO not raise prices over this time period?

2) Even if there was an increase it doesn't mean it has anything to do with smoking bans. Isn't "correlation does not prove causation" your mantra, Control Freak?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Allowing smoking or not on your own property is also a decision and not one that should be forced on the hospitality venue owner.

Can you honestly give me one reason why there should not be bars and restaurants that allow smoking AND bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking to accomodate everyone????

Tired of control Freaks

Do you understand at all the distinction between Public and Private. A business may be privately owned but if it seeks trade from the public - it is a PUBLIC venue.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Myomistress

Are you aware that emphysema is also a genetic disease with an abnormal enzyme that is produced by the liver.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency occurs worldwide, but its prevalence varies by population. This disorder affects about 1 in 1,500 to 3,500 individuals with European ancestry. It is uncommon in people of Asian descent. Many individuals with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency are likely undiagnosed, particularly people with a lung condition called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD can be caused by alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency; however, the alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency is often never diagnosed. Some people with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency are misdiagnosed with asthma.

Occam's razor is a very good test but only when ALL the facts are known

When smoking was blamed for emphysema, scientists had not yet discovered Alpha-1 antitrypsis deficiency.

Tired of Control Freaks

...and environmental 'stressor' are a major cause of 'turning-on' specific genes.

And I await your claim that smoking is not an environmental stressor to smokers and non-smokers alike just like other forms of pollution.

Smoke is not just Smoke. Smoke is made of of particulates of the materials burning.

It's only common sense - ding, ding, ding, - that we evdeavor to minimize our exposure to smoke (and airasolized particles) of all types. You choice not to - great, go for it, have fun - but don't have a "CONTROL FREAK OUT" on people who don't share your choice, neither condone or wish to enable it, and want to point out your lack of considerable to the potential victums of your self-centered obsession.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Actually ladyinwaiting - Epidimiologists were the ones who found the correlation that smokers had less neurological diseases like Alzeimer's, parkinsons and multiple sclerosis

But as I frequently say correlation is not the same as causation

In the original post - scientists have now discovered the direct biological pathway that shows that smoking DOES have a protective effect on neurological disease.

Now - that is science (not epidimiology) and it is proof.

Tired of control Freaks

Why the anger at epideminolgy?

It's as much a science as anything you quote.

from:

www.nidcd.nih.gov...

Epidemiology is the branch of medical science that investigates all the factors that determine the presence or absence of diseases and disorders. Epidemiological research helps us to understand how many people have a disease or disorder, if those numbers are changing, and how the disorder affects our society and our economy.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Please do as I asked and use the program to extroplate a straight line using only the data prior to 2006 and then show everyone where the line ends up?

Tired of control Freaks

That's the problem isn't it. People just won't do what you want them do, or think as you want them to.

You should really get some help before you head explodes.

originally posted by: anonentity


But one with Occam's razor, might say, how come the Chinese smoke like their is no tomorrow and don't get the smoking related diseases. It wouldn't be anything to do with diet would it? They don't get high Blood pressure, They don't get Breast, or Prostate cancer , or Diabetes either. If anyone thinks that smoking is causing the disease spikes in the western world, then they are so dumb, they deserve all they get.

I smoke about twelve cigs a day, My blood pressure was 180/90, now its 117/78 I"m 67, and still smoke about twelve cigs a day. How? just cut out all the crap Dairy, that's the real killer like it always was.

Or perhaps the Chinese just don't 'count' smoking related disease.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

yes I know about standard deviation.

Then please explain it to us? In your own words, please.

I'm finding this 'thread' interesting in it's sociological implecations. We have a single "pro-smoking" david standing against the "many-voiced" group.

First - we have the pick on the guy on the ground effect. Our OP is easy pickings, why do we indulge his ravings rather then ignore them - what am I (and you) getting out of it. A feeling of superiority, self-rightishness?

Second - why does our OP not see how self-centered and limited his viewpoint is - it's a very Addict quality and is a clear indication of mental abnormalities and I refrain from mentioning possiblities.

I've never really understood how, presented with fact and reason, people could Ignore (root of ignorance) simple reality. And more so, go to such great lenghts to justify their actions, words and thoughts - even when exceedingly hypocritical.

This is fascinating.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

as an enthusiastic smoker I cant say I care, though I thank you for the ups..

As far as everyone telling us we will die because of it....next time you cross a busy street, hold your breath. What you are breathing in is far worse, and in greater doses.

Also, I like choosing how I die. I didnt know that was something others worried about, I am flattered...I didnt know others even had a right to criticize smokers openly and directed towards them directly...Thats like walking into a McDonalds and bothering people eating with "the dangers of eating junk food"

a reply to: DelMarvel

You are absolutely correct. You also have to take into consideration the effect of drinking and driving laws.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes I understand the distinction between public and private venues - do you?

A public venue is one where the government has chosen to invest tax dollars for the entertainment of all. If the venue should lose money in any given year, the taxpayer must pay the losses.

A private venue is one where a private person or a group of private people have chosen to invest their money into a business venue. Should the venue lose money, it is the loss to a private person and not the taxpayer.

An accounting office is open to the public and all may enter BUT it is a private business. The public may enter a bar but that doesn't mean the public owns it.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: FyreByrd

I could say that anti-smokers are equally self-centred and ego-centric. They demand that the entire world, including parks, be their oyster.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: FyreByrd

Can't stand it when a smoker speak out, can you?

As for smoke being an environmental "stressor" - life is an environmental stressor! When has man not been surrounded by smoke created by fire to heat our homes and cook our food, smoke created when automobiles are driven, when volcanos erupt, when you burn a candle or light a wood fire, when you spray chemical air fresheners, chemicals emitted into our homes from building materials and man made materials like plastic or rubber?

And as the OP proves - smoking has benefits.

Tired of Control Freaks

If the op wants to smoke, why is anyone bothered as long as he's not doing it in your home or personal space it's their problem.There maybe a few benefits you can get from smoking, but I'm pretty sure the negatives heavily outweigh them. It's just the talk of an addict trying to justify their addiction.I'm sure alcoholics and heroin addicts use similar things to justify their addictions too.
Addiction is a terrible thing. Being a slave to your vice creates all sorts of problems. Smokers do smell too, which is unattractive to many people, but again it's the ops life to live how they want, just don't fool yourself your doing it for any other reason than your heavily addicted and you won't give up until you can no longer smoke or you die, at least be a little honest.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: SLAYER69

So I should be like you and give my money to Big Pharma instead?

What a crappy ass reply...

You read so much of your own thoughts into my reply and made it a soap box for your own beliefs....


I'm a smoker as well, I was expressing my own thoughts on how I'm taxed way above most for something I semi enjoy doing. Most of the time I view my smoking habit as a burden.

Now, just how in the hell do you get all of that garbage you attributed to my reply of just two sentences of mine I'll never know but it's par for the course.

a reply to: FyreByrd

You are mistaken. Epidimiology has its place. It is an extremely useful tool in that by finding associations, valuable research dollars can be directed to the most promising area. Finding these correlations is difficult and the work must be carefully undertaken

Unfortunately, Epidimiology has been co-opted by activists to provide "proof" of causation. I hate activists who have co-opted a useful tool for directing scientific research into a tool for social engineering and those epidimiologists who have whored their science for grants.

The examples I have given of oral-pharangeal cancers, cervical cancer, emphysema are all case studies of where epidimiologists made associations of specific diseases with smoking and even lung cancer. In each case, the association was true but the correlation was not.

Do the epidimiologists now issue press releases indicating their errors - of course not! Do the anti-smokers admit their errors and retract some of their statements.

What is the end result?

Here is the effect:

www.lungcanceralliance.org...

Notice a couple of facts - 80 % of lung cancers are now occuring in people who DON'T smoke. Despite 50 years of anti-smoking campaigns and laws, the rate at which lung cancers are occurring has not decreased and in fact has increased since the 1960s.

Scientists are strongly suspecting that smoking may not be the sole or the greatest cause of lung cancer.

But why do so many people die of lung cancer? One of the biggest cause of why so many people continue to die of lung cancer is funding for scientific, not epidimiological, research. Why is funding so low? Well there are two reasons. The first is that research dollars were directed away from lung cancer to anti-smoker campaigns. It was believed that if you stopped people smoking, you could prevent lung cancer instead of trying to cure it. The other reason, is because of anti-smoker campaigns, it was believed that smokers "deserved" cancer and therefore lung cancer was undeserving of lung research dollars.

This, in the face of the billions upon billions of dollars that smokers have provided to the government in the form of taxes!

Now, unfortunately, lung cancer has become pre-dominately, a non-smokers disease.

Scientists, now know that HPV is 100 % responsible for cancers of organs lined with mucus membranes (cervix and oral-phanageal and they have identified HPV to be 25 % responsible for lung cancers. More research needs to be conducted into identifying all the strains of HPV (there are at least 130 strains) and what each strain does.

More real research is also needed to develop treatments for HPV cancers.

But anti-smokers are very much opposed to giving up lung cancer as the main reason to quit smoking and to fund continued anti-smoker campaigns. They shown how little they care for health and how much they care to power, control and money. Epidimiologists will have a lot to answer for someday!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Smoking is now known to increase focus, concentration and provide protection from neurological diseases. Smoking does not affect anybody's ability to think or speak.

By calling me an addict and claiming that it is my "addiction" talking, you are seeking to attack me personally and de-value my statements.

This is an ad hominum attack of no value what so ever. I have backed up all my statements with links to research and have intelligently defended my words. Do you think the readers of this thread are so stupid as to not recognise what you are doing and how insulting you are being?

Isn't it time that smokers had a voice?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: SLAYER69

I replied that way because anti-smokers believe that all of the benefits derived from smoking can be replaced by something provided by Big Pharma. That is the usual answer I get from anti-smokers and I thought that was the answer you were giving. I regret if I mis-interpreted your words.

I agree that the taxation on tobacco is WAY WAY WAY out of line and burdensome to smokers. They collect far more in taxes from smokers than can be justified by even the most inflated societal costs that anti-smokers have claimed.

Taxes paid by smokers do not go to benefit smokers and instead are used to benefit everyone. Tobacco taxes are used to fund children's education, golf courses for the rich to play on, road maintenance and on and on.

Smokers have no political voice. Over the last 70 or so years, smokers have been excessively polite and accomadating. We have complied with everything asked of us.

I agree with you. It is time that smokers had their own voice in politics. If I had my way, way more tobacco tax dollars would be used to fund research into early diagnosis and treatment of diseases that are currently believed to affect smokers pre-dominentley.

The tax burden would also be shared equally by all and the benefits shared equally by all.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Please do as I asked and use the program to extroplate a straight line using only the data prior to 2006 and then show everyone where the line ends up?

Tired of control Freaks

You clearly know nothing about statistical analysis and lines of best fit. Here's a point by point breakdown of your data. From 2001-2003 sales grew at a modest rate then from 2003-2004 there was a bit of a spike for some reason then the next year it leveled out again to the previous rate. Then the next year the rate of sales increased again and has stayed at the rate through 2007. Overall there isn't enough evidence to say that liquor sales were effected in anyway outside of normal public buying. 2003 appeared to be a surge year, but other than that, the rate has been constant.

Your data doesn't say what you think it says. The worst part is that you completely ignored the REAL scientific study that said that there was no economic impact from these bans and went with your loose correlation with the raw data you provided. Your confirmation bias is showing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Statistical analysis is not really my area of expertise and I will take your word for it.

The fact is though that the rate of sales at the LCBO did increase directly after the smoking ban and have not decreased since.

Now hospitality venues have a great many stresses. We have already identified drinking and driving laws (which were in place in 2006 and did not change again until about 2010), price of alcohol (which I know nothing about), regulatory burdens, increases in prices of utilities (in Ontario this is a big factor).

While I will not speculate the bans CAUSED all of the sales increase, it is clear that the bans did CAUSE some of the increase and were not favorable as predicted by the anti-smokers that promoted the bans. The non-smokers did not come out in droves to support the local hospitality venues.

We need to remember that sales of LCBO liquor increasing has a disproportionate affect on Hospitality venues. This is just napkin calculation to demonstrate this effect.

If a bottle of alcohol sells for $35.00 at LCBO but for roughly 85.00 at a bar/restaurant. Let us say that an increase of 1 million dollars in sales at the LCBO represents a loss to the industry of roughly $ 2,428,571. The loss directly after the ban was 110 milion and would represent a loss to the industry of $ 267,148,810. I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that a loss in business of 2.67 billion represents a "thriving" industry, happy with the smoking bans and how many "new" customers they have.

And the losses have been mounting in the industry ever since.

Tired of Control Freaks