Smokers are people too!

reply to post by jfj123


I am calling this a LIE...

8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.

source

Arguing with smokers is just pointless. It's exactly the same thing as arguing with a crackhead about giving up crack. It's an addiction. Smokers will always rationalize and try to justify their actions. That's what addiction is. It affects your thinking.

It's not that bad.
It's even good for you.
It's my right to do what I want with my body.
I'm not really hurting anybody.
Why should I have to be the one making sacrifices?
If people don't like it they can choose not to be around it.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Addict talk.

Smokers should just be thankful that tobacco companies make so much money and have so much traditional lobbying power that it hasn't been made as illegal as crack. Enjoy your addiction while it's still legal.

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by jfj123

 

[jfj123's signature
Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both.

My right to smoke=Liberty

You scared of disease=Security

So lets see you want me to give up my liberty so you can have security, looks to me like someone needs to update their signature. And be prepared to lose both your faux security and your liberties.

(Also funny how no anti-smoker has even once quoted my "numbers" they just seem to avoid it like it is a smoker!)

My right NOT to be forced to smoke=Liberty
Your need to force me to endure your bad habit=stupidity
I can't believe you actually don't get that ?????????

reply to post by jfj123


So I am forcing you to smoke now?

Good god, these anti-smokers say anything to make a "point"

And My original post still stands, you are giving up liberties for security.

-----

As for it being an addiction, yes. But that is not why I am fighting for my rights. I know the Federal Governess all to well, and she won't stop with just one right.

It's pointless to argue with anti-smokers, cause it is their way or the highway (be careful on that highway tons of SMOKE!)

reply to post by Nohup


Wrong again Sparky. Smokers know what's going on, we're just tired the rabid non-smokers that would run our lives for us if they could and do partially. Arguing with a rabid non-smoker? :bnghd:

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by jfj123

 

I am calling this a LIE...

8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.

source

yes of course this one silly report invalidates 1000's of studies. And who sponsoring this report? Maybe the tobacco industry?

10,000 people tell you the earth is round and scientifically explain why and one person tells you it's flat... I guess some people will believe just about anything to justify their drug addiction

reply to post by jfj123


I'm not meaning to rude at all, I'm just curious. How old are you? That's not an insult.

reply to post by jfj123


If you had gone to the actual report you would have seen that it pulls data from a plethora of sources. So try to be a good researcher and research!

My father, a rabid NON-smoker. Is in 100% agreement with me on this subject.

For those of you who don't know the distinction


NON-smoker- Someone who does not smoke

ANTI-smoker- Someone who does not smoke, and hates people who do

He won't be around me when I smoke, not because he thinks he is going to get some disease, but because he doesn't like the smell. (the real reason people hate smokers)

He is just more honest than most.

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by jfj123

 

So I am forcing you to smoke now?

Good god, these anti-smokers say anything to make a "point"

And smokers will do anything to avoid reality.
When someone such as yourself sits down next to me in a resturaunt and lights up, I am either forced to leave (loss of personal liberty) or forced to smoke (loss of personal liberty). Get it?????

And My original post still stands, you are giving up liberties for security.

NO
I am not in favor of banning smoking. Smoke yourself crazy, just not around people who don't want to be subjected to it.

As for it being an addiction, yes. But that is not why I am fighting for my rights. I know the Federal Governess all to well, and she won't stop with just one right.

Hey, spin it anyway you want.

It's pointless to argue with anti-smokers, cause it is their way or the highway (be careful on that highway tons of SMOKE!)

Man you're just not getting it. I am NOT in favor of banning smoking. I am in favor of not being forced to smoke myself.

Have you thought that since smokers refuse to act in a considerate manner, you have forced the government to step in say tell you how to act? I hate government interference but you're enabling it.

If smokers acted in a considerate manner, the public would not care about backing an anti-smoking bill.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by jfj123

 

I'm not meaning to rude at all, I'm just curious. How old are you? That's not an insult.

38. I have 3 degrees. One in health and physiology. And yourself?

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by jfj123

 

If you had gone to the actual report you would have seen that it pulls data from a plethora of sources. So try to be a good researcher and research!

My bad, I didn't read the whole thing.

So I should assume the a plethora is more then thousands of scientifically researched studies. OK.

Originally posted by jfj123
38. I have 3 degrees. One in health and physiology. And yourself?

46 and I've almost got 38 years of smoking in and I feel fine.

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by jfj123

 

No it does not CAUSE lung cancer.

And 90% of 3% is not that much.

Yes it does.
It is if someone you love is one of those 90% of 3%. Unless you care for and love no one.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
38. I have 3 degrees. One in health and physiology. And yourself?

46 and I've almost got 38 years of smoking in and I feel fine.

Good luck with that

reply to post by jfj123


Other links supporting no cancer/SHS

www.forces.org...
www.junkscience.com...
www.forces.org...
www.junkscience.com...

More to come as I run across them, have to dig through tons o' propaganda.

[edit] You are correct I do not "love" anyone, considering "love" is just an electrical/chemical reaction in the brain.

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

reply to post by jfj123

Although I understand your point, when someone drinks a chemical jungle juice, you don't end up with the CJJ in your body when you're standing next to them. If you sit down next to someone eating greasy french fries, YOU don't get high cholesterol or obese.

My point was more along the lines of anti-smokers being reactionary to MSM and "popular opinion" rather than actually and honestly being concerned over their health. If they were TRULY concerned about their health and rising health care costs, there are areas to address that would bring about a much larger impact to correcting health care costs as well as people being healthier overall. Hand-in-hand with this is the "overwhemling concern" that anti-smoking parents show for the health of the children, yet regularly swing by that nearby McDonald's or KFC (who by the way has so much MSG in their food that they're not allowed to even open restuarants in some countries) to feed thier family with the justification that they don't have time to go home and put in 30 minutes worth of effort to feed their family correctly. I'd just be happy if they'd drop the hypocrisy and focus on the larger dangers to their health that isn't sitting next to them in a bar, but rather resides in their very own pantries and fast-food take-out bags.

And don't forget little johnny and sally are walking germ factories thus their parents bring their petry dishes to work with them, getting you sick much more often.

Agreed.. and then they want to talk about higher health care costs? I'd love for the parents to reimburse me all of the co-pays I've had to dish out becuase of them.

Very good point. The only thing I would mention is that although those children may annoy you in a grocery store, they can't give you cancer, copd, etc.

I have had to get up and leave restuarants due to screaming children as the parents were to rude to do anything about it. I've had to change my order off of the buffet to a menu item after seeing little Johnny rub the snot off of his nose and then touch every finger-food item on the buffet, etc... And then we can discuss what happens when the little darlin's turn into teenagers......vandalism, etc.

As an inconvenience, I understand your point. The main difference I see is health related. 2nd hand smoke is not benign so when it bleeds into someone else' personal space, it can permanently damage their health.

Agreed. That's why I sgguest they don't journey into smoking environments.

The issue imo, is whether or not ALL public environments should be enforced to be non-smoking. I disagree that they should be. Anti-smokers can choose to not patron an establishment becuase of smokers and I applaud their decision to live by that. This is supposed to be a free market place. If a public business wishes to cater to smokers and non-smokers alike, it should have the freedom to do so. Then let the power of a free-market decide whether or not that public business stays open.

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes it does.
It is if someone you love is one of those 90% of 3%. Unless you care for and love no one.

That's not the point. He has show the minimal impact of smoking and cancer. What if you keep your smoke away from your loved ones as I'm sure most sane smokers do, what's your point then?

I am no longer a smoker, after many years of trying to quit chantix finally did the job.

BUT

I still strongly believe the government has no right to be controlling private property. It should be the right of every property owner whether they will run a smoking or non smoking establishment.

It is sad that we have become a society that would rather be controlled and manipulated by the government in order to have a desired comfort level.
You may say it doesn't effect you, but the more control given to the government
to mandate your freedoms, the more effected other freedoms down the line will be.

Funny Little fact:

"The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under direct orders from Adolf Hitler himself. "

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes it does.
It is if someone you love is one of those 90% of 3%. Unless you care for and love no one.

That's not the point. He has show the minimal impact of smoking and cancer. What if you keep your smoke away from your loved ones as I'm sure most sane smokers do, what's your point then?

You absolutely should have the right to smoke yourself crazy. I am not in favor of banning smoking. If a smoker doesn't bring their smoke around anyone that doesn't want it, I'm fine with that.