70% of U.S. smokers want to quit! Let's just kill this airbourne disease & outlaw smoking for good.

Secondary smoke not a health risk?!?
Where have you been?
In a cave?
It seemed like I just posted the weblinks about the prooven results from professional studies even a small child could click on to just hours ago.

Seeing smokers try and explain their right to kill other people with cancer is like a drunk person at a bar explaining why he or she can drive.

realanswers

Studies show that smoking and secondhand smoke cause the same genetic mutations!

Smoking causes genetic mutations.
Secondhand smoke(criminal assault) causes the same destruction!

Here is information on this evil and sickening effect on the poor babies:
www.webmd.com...

I look at that study and I see that mothers who smoke have babies that display the same mutation rate (or nearly the same) as babies who were exposed to secondhand smoke. Where's the control though? It seems to me that the background rate has increased dramatically, and it has nothing to do with smoking.

Breathing oxygen will induce mutation, as will sunlight, and a number of other things.

Also consider that mutation is our ticket to psychic powers in a few thousand generations.

But seriously, if you think that a study of that sort is conclusive evidence, you don't understand the reality we're dealing with here. Studying one variable is a bit like trying to track an epidemic based on one vector - without considering other factors you're stacking the deck in favor of the answer you're looking to obtain.

When studies like this are released, they pass off statistics as facts. Corrolary does not equate to causality. If you blow smoke in the faces of a hundred or a thousand rats, and compare their cancer rate to the nonsmoking rats, there won't be any difference (assuming the rats are from genetically identical stock, and are exposed to the exact same set of environmental risk factors).

But if you go out into the world, which is a sea of carcinogens to varying degrees, and select your subjects without any control over the other factors, your research is all but meaningless.

Physical damage on health continues:
www.intelihealth.com...

Interesting link, but it doesn't exactly wow me with its references. Still, I am inclined to believe at least some of the claims even without additional evidence, but wait, I'm not willing to quit just yet. Why is that?

Is it because I've weighed the risks vs. the rewards and have made the conscious decision to keep smoking?

You can't believe it, can you? You'll blame addiction, advertising, stupidity, anything under the sun to discount my judgement.

Let me offer you some advice...

Never get in between a man's free will and his decisions...

Nearly 5 MILLION people have died prematurely due to the foolish smoking in the year 2000!:
health.msn.com...

Utter nonsense.

This is from your link.

Ezzati and his colleague, Alan Lopez from the School of Population Health at the University of Queensland, Australia, used deaths from lung cancer as a measure of smoking deaths. The researchers attributed the use of coal for cooking and heating in poorly ventilated housing to explain most lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers.

So only non-smokers can get lunug cancer from coal, heating, and other assorted sources, like wood smoke from small fires and forest fires alike?

Fascinating...

If you don't understand the point I'm making here, just say so, and I'd be happy to go into more detail.

Sufficed to say that doctors will blame every smoker's cancer on smoking, when in fact the cancer could have been caused by anything from Canadian forest fires to the volatile chemicals leeching out of your dashboard during the summer.

What do you have to say about that?

Do you even care that the scientific community at large has abandoned its most important principles in this crusade against the humble cigarette, in their orgiastic frenzy of self-righteousness?

WyrdeOne, the 1982 Surgeon General's Report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality in the United States." What part of this simplistic official report do you not understand? It is as true today as it was in 1982. And WyrdeOne, this statement is probably already on the murderous death stick packs of ABSOLUTE FOOLISHNESS. Link:
www.cancer.org...

And, of the almost 5 million deaths, 2.41 million were in developing countries and 2.43 million were in industrialized countries. Link:
health.msn.com...
Almost exactly the same amount in the big city type countries as the farm land like countries.
"Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined". (From your very own Surgeon General guardian angel in the first link.)

I plan to live long, stay young, and get women like these:
www.adrants.com...

In the mean time, it looks like that monkey didn't survive long enough to contribute to its races evolution:
www.newsletter.net.ru...










[edit on 1-12-2006 by realanswers]

[edit on 1-12-2006 by realanswers]

You didn't address my point. Nice.

I'll get to your latest post in a while, probably when I get back from work. In the meantime, why don't you attempt to address the point I raised earlier.

4/5th's of the world's population want more than 14% of the goods on the market. Let's outlaw unfair IMF practices and grow and export weed instead.
Everyone will buy that vice.

Let's do this step by step.

WyrdeOne, the 1982 Surgeon General's Report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality in the United States." What part of this simplistic official report do you not understand? It is as true today as it was in 1982. And WyrdeOne, this statement is probably already on the murderous death stick packs of ABSOLUTE FOOLISHNESS. Link:
www.cancer.org...

I love this link. First two sentences (my emphasis):

The 1982 Surgeon General's Report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality in the United States." This statement is as true today as it was in 1982.

Heh. Read: not true at all.

Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It is a major cause of cancers of the lung, larynx (voice box), oral cavity, pharynx (throat), esophagus, and bladder, and is a contributing cause in the development of cancers of the pancreas, cervix, kidney, stomach, and also some leukemias.

This is nonsense. What's happening is every time a smoker dies from an illness, it's considered a smoking-related death. They don't test the cancers, they don't analyze the environment, or even address other likely causes, they just pounce on the cigarettes and pat themselves on the back.

:shk:

Smoking does cause cancer - that's not hard to believe when you look at the contents of the cigarettes and the physiological effects associated with the inhalation of hot smoke.

However, this trend blaming cigarettes violates the most basic principles of the scientific method.

If you want to know what really caused a cancer, you have to to a thorough study on the person afflicted, their environment, diet, habits, and genetic history - then you have to test the cancer and attempt to recreate it in a controlled environment.

Simply adding every dead smoker to the list is plain wrong.

And, of the almost 5 million deaths, 2.41 million were in developing countries and 2.43 million were in industrialized countries. Link:
health.msn.com...
Almost exactly the same amount in the big city type countries as the farm land like countries.
"Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined". (From your very own Surgeon General guardian angel in the first link.)

People living in developing countries are much more likely to be exposed to carcinogens in mining and industry, and to inhale wood smoke from cooking fires. Wood smoke is nasty stuff, from a cancer perspective.

Remember, it takes one errant particle to seed a cancer, and it could come from just about anywhere.

Smoking cigarettes increases your risk - there's no doubt about that, but it's only one of MANY factors. If you want me to take the medical authorities seriously, they're going to have to say the three most difficult words in the English language, loud and clear 'We don't know.'

There's no shame in it.

Even better would be a research push to identify more carcinogens, and fix exposure levels without the aid of industry lobbyists. It's not necessarily long-term exposure that cinches the deal and causes cancer. It can be one damaged section of DNA resulting from exposure to whatever that causes the runaway chain reaction, and leads to a cancerous growth.

I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist, but I read a lot, and as you can tell I have a very keen interest in the subject of smoking.

Any real information you can provide would be appreciated, but so far it's just been rhetoric from the other side of the fence.

The shameful thing is, the sources you quote are held to a higher standard than this, but people are so programmed with this spiel, they accept it as gospel.

One thing that drags down the level of reliability in these repetitous and poorly-understood studies is the constant reliance on statistical corrolary in place of controlled, regimented experimentation to develop a picture of causality.

The sticking point, for me at least, the central issue, is that scientists assume that smokers who die from heart attacks, strokes, and cancer, would not have died from those ailments if they had not smoked. That's just not true.

People die for no apparent reason, day in, day out. Smokers who die for no apparent reason get lumped in with those smokers who died of a disease directly caused by their habit (directly caused, not statistically associated with - big difference).

How do you respond to this central point. If you've got a good answer, I desperately want to hear it. It's bugged me for years, the way every smoker's disease is smoking-related. By comparison, is every non-smokers disease non-smoking related? Does that make sense? What about water-related? We all drink water, right? What about oxygen-related? We all breathe...

And so on...

I'm looking forward to your response.

In the mean time, it looks like that monkey didn't survive long enough to contribute to its races evolution:
www.newsletter.net.ru...

You're thinking of a different monkey - technically a chimpanzee. He was famous, he smoked cigarettes, it was spectacular, and he's dead now. We'll miss him.

If I die, due to smoking, before reproducing - well, I will have learned my lesson then. I will have been punished for my decisions, not by you, or the state, or the community, but by the simple elegance of consequence. I'm fine with that, better than fine, actually. That's my idea of divine justice.

And if I outlive a million non-smokers and have many brilliant smoking children, that will be an even sweeter form of justice.

I plan to live long, stay young, and get women like these:
www.adrants.com...

WTF does that have to do with your argument. My mate is more beautiful than that(you can see her on the members photo thread) and we both smoke. Please stick to the topic and not try to distract with so called eye candy.

And you skipped right over the fact that my great grandfather lived to 101, smoking 86 of those years nonfiltered and self rolled and didnt die from smoking. As WyrdeOne pointed out, the findings of the so called reports and testing have too many variables not taken into account.

Here are a few gems easily overlooked by people eager to jump to conclusions. I'm not saying cigarettes are good for you, but there are benefits associated with them, and the risks are not as severe as some would like us to believe.

Smoking by mothers may protect children from asthma

Nicotine may slow or halt Tuberculosis

Smoking appears to stave off Parksinson's Disease

...and Alzheimer's

Smoking safer than common exposure to medical radiation

Benefits of proper diet for smokers and non-smokers alike in preventing heart disease

I could keep going, but I doubt seriously if most non-smokers would even bother to read one or two of those links, nevermind all of them or still more.

The more information they have, the more able they are to make good decisions. If some of them still fail to do so, fine, no biggie - you can't save people who aren't willing to put in some effort towards saving themselves.

But people who truly care about getting good information and making good decisions shouldn't have to wade through a mountain of crap and lies to get some helpful facts.

What about salt intake? My god, does anyone realize how much salt we eat in this country, and how little Potassium, and the relationship that's been established between that imbalance and heart disease?

I could go on and on like this for AGES...

:shk:

Finally, as a last act of defiance, I'm going to post something I just re-read that might be of interest. It would be hilarious if it weren't true.

Smoking doesn't cause heart attacks, children do

"Previous studies have shown that secondhand smoke, like active smoking, can kill by causing more acute but reversible problems, such as thickening of the blood," the AP told us. Except that the real cause of such "thickening of the blood" could very well be HP, CP, or other infection (IY Bova et al. Acute infection as a risk factor for ischemic stroke. Stroke 1996;27:2204-2206). And until studies properly evaluate this risk, they should desist from all such pronouncements about both secondhand smoke and active smoking.

The American Heart Association resorted to the most despicable demagoguery of all, by exploiting children: "This study provides more evidence that in order to protect the health of all non-smokers, particularly children, smoking must be banned in all public places, including restaurants" (AHA press release).

In fact, the main vectors of CP infection are children, especially ages 7-13. CP infection is particularly common in them, probably due to exposure to each others' hygiene in school. They bring the infection home to their families. This indicates that, rather than smokers causing heart disease in children, children cause heart disease in adults. And the most important public measures would be getting them to wash their hands and keep their fingers out of their noses. But the AHA couldn't care less when there are smokers to attack.

Footnote #1: (Smoking does probably cause heart attacks, at least some, the title of the above link was intended to be humorous more than anything else.)

Footnote #2: (If this thread doesn't die a horrible non-cigarette-related death in the wake of that informational carpet bombing, I will proceed to show, using behavioral studies, what's motivating these scientists to ignore the evidence, and jump on the bandwagon with their back-slapping kindred. In doing that, I'll also show where all these petulant non-smokers get their seemingly endless reserves of spite, contempt, self-righteousness, and fanatical devotion to a false paradigm - hint: it's very similar to the process that acts as a catalyst for the transmutation of orphans and abused children into suicide bombers and axe murderers.)

I know, it's sort of off-topic, nut if you were'nt a mod WyrdeOne,
you owuld definately get my WATS vote.


To many people just assume something is bad for you because this
and that group say it is.

It's mah body and I can do what I want to, do what I want to, do what I want to, and I don't care if it doesn't please you~


verse2:

I can die if I want to, Dieeee if I waaaaant to. If you don't like don't stand so close to me~

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Lysergic]

I quit smoking 8 1/2 months ago...but I am WAY WAY against the idea of making smoking against the law......have we NOT allready LOST enough freedoms? this is a PERSONAL CHOICE for whomever wants to partake....and if 70% of people TRULY WANT to quit then they should do as they WANT and quit and stop blaming the habit on the fact that they are available.
It is a CHOICE.


I am ALL for having choices and the more laws made to take away ones RIGHT TO CHOOSE I think is a VERY BAD IDEA.........

I stand for FREEDOM and CHOICES!

I say NO FRIGGEN WAY to some new 'law' taking away yet MORE personal choices.

it has been proven that spending 10 minutes in any built up area exposes you to diesel fumes equivalent to 1 cigarette.

Going to ban driving?

I don't drive. I find you drivers offensive, making me breath in your smoke. I don't even have the benefit of non-fumey routes to work, or non-fumey town centres. At least your exposure is minimal, if not non-existant. I have to breath car and truck fumes every day of my life and I have no choice whatsoever in it.

Tell you what, if your still going to sanctamonious about it, if you shut up about the smoking, I will shut up about the vehicle fumes?

Mmmmkay?

Thought not...

It's time for some healthy dating areas. What do say?
Rock and roll!

www.powragainsttobacco.org...

I say, it's time for everyone to start smoking so we didn't have to deal with this issue

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
It is a persons right to smoke if they so choose, and to make any legislation against this right is a gross abuse of power on the government's part. If I choose to smoke than thats my business, not yours.

couldnt say it better myself, but I shall still chime in. Yes, smoking is bad, but its my decision, not a bunch of overpaid lawmakers.

This is the same reason marijuana should be legalized. You may not smoke it, but I should be able to in my own home.

Also, think of the organized crime that will come as a result of outlawing another drug. The drug war has failed is failing, and will continue to fail. outlawing smoking is just as retarted as outlawing marijuana. just retarted.

thanks

Oh please how pathetic. "It's my life, I can do what I want with it!" Save the drama. I hope the government abolishes the tobacco companys in a swift action, where everyone on them will be sentenced to rehab or jail for temporary confinement. Those who smoke should not get the right, its like stabing yourself with a needle and gambling with your life in your hands every day. It's rediculous. This is the new world order people. We do what they tell us. Quit your complaining and quit before your forced to.

Adultry kids.

7A

[edit on 4-12-2006 by 7Ayreon]

You're right, we should all put your opinion over someone who smokes.

You're much better than those who smoke.

How's it feel to be better than me?

How's it feel to be better than us?

Pretty damn sad I must say! I wish I could go back in time and make it never of been invented or cause some stir-up before it was released. Or I could download alien language into my mind somewhere and go back in time to mind control people to not even think about taking a death stix. Now thats good alien efficiency there!

7A

Originally posted by 7Ayreon

How's it feel to be better than us?

Pretty damn sad I must say! I wish I could go back in time and make it never of been invented or cause some stir-up before it was released. Or I could download alien language into my mind somewhere and go back in time to mind control people to not even think about taking a death stix. Now thats good alien efficiency there!

7A

Is smoking the only thing you are this passionate about, or do you hold the same standards to the things you do which could be deemed "questionable"?

Pretty damn sad I must say! I wish I could go back in time and make it never of been invented or cause some stir-up before it was released. Or I could download alien language into my mind somewhere and go back in time to mind control people to not even think about taking a death stix. Now thats good alien efficiency there!

What is sad is that you feel that you are better than someone because they smoke. Do you also feel that you're better than drinkers, the obese, lower class citizens?

The rest of this quote is just absolutely rediculous. Last time I checked, tabacco was not created by man. It grows.

Remember kids, the aliens are going to assist in the ridding of cigarettes.