I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

False arguments.

You deny that smoker's paradox exists.

Nicotine, by itself, is implicated with no disease. Tobacco is only implicated with disease because it is burned. It is the by products of the burning that is implicated with disease. It does not matter what tobacco is burned, the byproducts are the same.

Are you being foolish. Do you not think that it would have been easy for american tobacco companies to recreate japanese tobacco?

Of course, you are so steeped in propaganda, you actually buy someones' "though' that japanese tobacco is "different" as a fact.

I "think" you are foolish. According to your thought process, I must be right.

Quote were my beef is with nicotine. Quote were I said nicotine is harmful. Another false argument by you.

a reply to: neutronflux

You are arguing that if something reduces life expectency, then it must be bad and be controlled.

Many people die participating in various sports for example motorcycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing etc etc. Should we not ban these activities. Should people not be allowed to participate in any activity considered 'risky". Are you not afraid that someone will die prematurely?

Some people think that dangerous risky activies is what makes there life worth living. Who the hell are you to decide that they are wrong?

Is the purpose of living to participate in a race to deliver the best preserved body to the undertaker?

We all die. We all get diseases of one sort or another.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And quote a study that shows smoking among Japanese does not reduce life expectancy and does not increase chances of being more diseased.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

You are arguing that if something reduces life expectency, then it must be bad and be controlled.

Many people die participating in various sports for example motorcycle riding, mountain climbing, skiing etc etc. Should we not ban these activities. Should people not be allowed to participate in any activity considered 'risky". Are you not afraid that someone will die prematurely?

Some people think that dangerous risky activies is what makes there life worth living. Who the hell are you to decide that they are wrong?

Is the purpose of living to participate in a race to deliver the best preserved body to the undertaker?

We all die. We all get diseases of one sort or another.

Quote where I ever said cigarette sales should be controlled. Another false argument by you.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You are the one making excuses for the sale of an industrial product that causes disease and reduces quality of like.

a reply to: neutronflux

Man you really really don't know what you are talking about or debating. Nicotine is as harmful as caffiene. They are cousins

www.tobaccoharmreduction.org...

The effects of nicotine itself are similar to that other popular drug, caffeine. See our (nicotine reading list.) There is no evidence that nicotine causes any substantial risk for cancer, and the research shows that the risk for cardiovascular disease is minimal. The confusion about nicotine comes from anti-smoking activists talking about nicotine and smoking as if they were the same. While it is true that people smoke mostly because of nicotine; nicotine users die mostly because of the smoke. Neither nicotine nor coffee are completely benign (in particular, both cause a short-term increase in your blood pressure and pulse rate when you use them, which could affect your health). A lot of evidence shows that coffee drinking causes very little health risk. Studying nicotine is a bit harder, because most nicotine users smoke, and the smoking is quite bad for you. But there is some good evidence: If nicotine were very bad for you then smokeless tobacco, which provides nicotine, would be very bad for you. As we've shown elsewhere, that is not the case. Though nicotine is relatively safe for most individuals, it may have a negative effect on fetal development and as such should be avoided during pregnancy.

You are talking but you are not making sense

a reply to: neutronflux

Not at all - I slam pharmaceutal companies all the time

a reply to: neutronflux

why does any need to make an excuse for smoking. Are you or someone else a father that I must justify myself to?

This is exactly what I mean when I say the population is being infantilized.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

why does any need to make an excuse for smoking. Are you or someone else a father that I must justify myself to?

This is exactly what I mean when I say the population is being infantilized.

Smoking is a real threat to heath, and does make people more susceptible to diseases. And that does put a strain on healthcare resources. And the effects of smoking are very real and devastating. Is that false.

a reply to: neutronflux

So what?

If people can go ski doing on a lake, why can't I smoke. Are all smokers infants. Are we not allowed, as other adults, to decide what activities have benefits that are worth the risk?

I have no idea what the risks of smoking are. I know that so-called research has been biased in support of a political campaign. I have no idea what is real or not.

I know that smoking has been part of human culture for thousands of years and continues to be part of human culture today.

I have very very little fear of a substance that, if it kills or causes disease, its effects are mainly felt in old age and are indistingable from the death and disease rates of the general population. Its hard to fear an activity that i can do every day for 50, 60 or 70 years with no ill effects and die at the age of 103 of simple old age (although an anti-smoker would call death in their 80's as premature death).

Now skiing or motorcycle riding, now that is serious. I could end up dead at age 20.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

So what?

If people can go ski doing on a lake, why can't I smoke. Are all smokers infants. Are we not allowed, as other adults, to decide what activities have benefits that are worth the risk?

I have no idea what the risks of smoking are. I know that so-called research has been biased in support of a political campaign. I have no idea what is real or not.

I know that smoking has been part of human culture for thousands of years and continues to be part of human culture today.

I have very very little fear of a substance that, if it kills or causes disease, its effects are mainly felt in old age and are indistingable from the death and disease rates of the general population. Its hard to fear an activity that i can do every day for 50, 60 or 70 years with no ill effects and die at the age of 103 of simple old age (although an anti-smoker would call death in their 80's as premature death).

Now skiing or motorcycle riding, now that is serious. I could end up dead at age 20.

So you excuse for a habit is other people are stupid to?

But you are engaging in a industry that is known to have blatantly lied and manipulated their products to increase addiction. Is that a false statement.

a reply to: neutronflux

No I have the proof that smoking, if it causes death or disease, does not do so until old age.

I have no fear of a substance, that can be freely used and get all the benefits from, for 50, 60 or 70 years before it becomes harmful

Do you?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Just how dangerous or toxic can a substance be if you can use it daily for 50, 60 or 70 years (or your whole life) because causes a disease.

Why should anyone be scared it. Its about as toxic as water.

a reply to: neutronflux

I know that anti-smoking campaigners have smeared tobacco companies beyond all reason.

For instance that little blurb about making their products more addictive. What are you talking about? Are you talking about the addition of ammonia to control the pH of the tobacco smoke. That is not to make it more addictive. There are different types of tobacco. Burley tobacco is used for pipe or cigar tobacco. Nicotine from those products is typically absorbed by the mucous membranes of the mouth. People who use these products typically don't inhale. The pH of this type of tobacco is very high.

then there is gold leaf tobacco preferred for cigaretts. People who use this product do so because they like to inhale. The high ph of the burley tobacco would be too rough in the throat and lungs. Ammonia is added to the tabacco to make the inhalation smoother and more pleasureable.

Saying the tobacco companies add ammonia to make the tobacco more "addictive' is a propaganda lie from anti-smokers. Ammonia is added only to make the smoke more pleasurable to the smoker.

I have already discussed the definition of the word "addictive" with you. It has no meaning at all. Therefore the "addictive" soundbite created by anti-smokers absolutely meaningless.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Please feel free to discuss where you think the tobacco industry "lied'. I think that anti-smokers lied to the point of insanity.

a reply to: neutronflux

So now you believe you can read my mind?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Just how dangerous or toxic can a substance be if you can use it daily for 50, 60 or 70 years (or your whole life) because causes a disease.

Why should anyone be scared it. Its about as toxic as water.

Are you talking a couple cigarettes a day, or two packs a day.

And people do die early from diseases related to smoking. Is that a false statement.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Please feel free to discuss where you think the tobacco industry "lied'. I think that anti-smokers lied to the point of insanity.

It is well documented the cigarette industry has lied, used false advertising, has manipulated their products, targeted children, and conspired to hide the dangers of their products. I think you have lots of research to catch up on.

a reply to: neutronflux

Which was my whole point... cigarettes (or pretty much anything) are absolutely fine in moderation. It's the abuse that causes problems.

A glass of wine a day is apparently good for the heart (while a bottle a day is probably bad)... chances are a couple cigs a day is good for your brain (anecdotally, smokers have lower rates of dementia and other brain related diseases), but the activity has been demonised to the point that no study looking for positive effects or understanding "safe" daily dosages will ever be funded.

As for "smoking related" diseases... I'm pretty sure more people die or shorten their life from "sugar related" diseases... but we'll never know, because "smoking is worse than any other activity"... apparently... and the anti-smoking industry has become a giant cash cow that needs to keep sustaining itself by demonising a particular subset of society, which everyone seems fine with, despite the glaring intrusion into individual rights.

a reply to: neutronflux

Did you know that in Australia the penalties are worse for growing your own tobacco than for growing marijuana, because marijuana is just illegal, while growing your own tobacco is seen as tax evasion, so you essentially get done for fraud. The few cases that have happened were "made examples of" because, again, smoking is apparently so bad that it should be penalised more than other activities.