Smokers are people too!

Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by jfj123
What if you keep your smoke away from your loved ones as I'm sure most sane smokers do, what's your point then?

If smoking is so benign and non-injurious as is claimed, why would there be a need to, "keep your smoke away from your loved ones?. You consider it sane to do so which means that you must be protecting your loved ones from something. What would that be? Nicotine stains???

[edit on 6-3-2008 by jfj123]

More links supporting no cancer/SHS

www.smokingaloud.com...
www.smokingaloud.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
kuneman.smokersclub.com...

I will stop there, so you can tell me this is all tobacco propaganda.

Originally posted by adigregorio
More links supporting no cancer/SHS

www.smokingaloud.com...
www.smokingaloud.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
kuneman.smokersclub.com...

I will stop there, so you can tell me this is all tobacco propaganda.

Obviously this is pointless. I could show you THOUSANDS of scientific studies showing a link between smoking and disease and you will refuse to believe them. Your perception of reality does not change reality.

Originally posted by Apsaroke
As a smoker, myself, I truly get enjoyment out of the anti-smoking crowd.

Nice job on this post! very good points! you get a star!

I love that, the whole star thing, it brings out the preschooler in all of us... You get all warm and fuzzy when we get stars!!! lol

No really though! I loved reading that, it was powerful! and true! they will have to cover the taxes right now we willing are paying for them! just to enjoy our choice of pleasure! Plus as a parent even I am annoyed by those other parents that USE their kids to do less work! Yeah... kids come first, but hey... if you don't do well at work and you don't have a job... guess who is goona suffer... YOUR KIDS! That's a whole nother thread though... I think I just might put one together for that!!! Come check it out!

Originally posted by intrepid
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:

"Sparky," is it? That seems a bit harsh. But not an atypical addict's response, I suppose. The sad thing is, you're right. Smokers know what's going on. The dangers have been clearly stated and verified. Almost every smoker (cigarette or something more exotic) I've ever met has tried to quit at least once. Why? Because deep down, they know it's not good. But why the continued arguments in favor of it? The addiction. The feeling of lower self-esteem (frequently masked as bravado) for having tried and failed to quit. It's a chemical hijacking of the brain.

As for having our lives run for us, it happens all the time. How much of our lives do we really control, anyway? Why can't I drive on whatever side of the street I feel like? Why do I have to pay money for gas and food? Why do I have to wear pants at the supermarket? Why can't I gamble online? Or marry somebody 12 years old? On and on. The argument isn't about rights or control. Those things are all variable.

The issue is addiction. And there's just no point in arguing with addicts.

"Sparky." Nice work, Super Moderator.

reply to post by jfj123


Those links talk about those "studies" perhaps you should READ them. The one from the WASHINGTON POST is higher up on the list

reply to post by adigregorio


Obviously your addiction has allowed you to convince yourself that smoking just isn't bad for you in any way. I wish you good luck.

Originally posted by Nohup
As for having our lives run for us, it happens all the time. How much of our lives do we really control, anyway? Why can't I drive on whatever side of the street I feel like? Why do I have to pay money for gas and food? Why do I have to wear pants at the supermarket? Why can't I gamble online? Or marry somebody 12 years old? On and on. The argument isn't about rights or control. Those things are all variable.

Actually I agree all of this. As I have said before no one is better/or worse than another so what gives people the gumption to tell me how I should live? (Take smoking out of the picture for a minute, I am)

I am all for what you have posted in that paragraph, except the money for gas/food. That is part of the barter system. Person A has something I want, and I have something Person A wants, so we trade. Of course you could "steal" it which is unacceptable by certain standards, not mine (PS I don't steal, don't like the consequences)

It is about control, all (minus the bartering) of what you put in that paragraph is. "Subject A" is wrong, we can't let people do that! Let's control them so they don't do that.

reply to post by jfj123


No, I know it is unhealthy FOR ME. I am saying that SECOND HAND SMOKE is not as "nasty" as the faulty reports say it is.

For gods sake, I am inhaling a CONCENTRATED plethora of chemicals. Of course it is no worse than going outside on an ultra smoggy day. But, of course, we can't stop the smog as easily as the minuscule amount of smokers.

side note--deja vu stacked 3 times (not a snide remark, actual deja vu)

[edit] thought I misspelled something, I was incorrect

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by jfj123

 

No, I know it is unhealthy FOR ME. I am saying that SECOND HAND SMOKE is not as "nasty" as the faulty reports say it is.

For gods sake, I am inhaling a CONCENTRATED plethora of chemicals. Of course it is no worse than going outside on an ultra smoggy day. But, of course, we can't stop the smog as easily as the minuscule amount of smokers.

So since you know it's hurting your health, why do you think it's acceptable to hurt other peoples health?

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by sparda4355

 

I did read, you are great, I get that.
You seem to imply that your greatness is due to smoking. Maybe you don't see it that way, as you are too busy thumping your own chest.

Again, you be any less "Great" if you didn't smoke?

As you yourself said Smoking has nothing to do with your Greatness. Not smoking around nonsmokers wouldn't affect that, would it? Would you not close a sale in a nonsmoking restaurant for example?

No... you are wrong...

You indicated that because I smoke, you do more work or are more effective than me... I am more effective than you regardless of whether or not I smoke! That is my point! Nothing to do with smoking besides the fact that I smoke and am still awesome makes your point go out the window!!!

Now... try reading, and not twisting the words that you read... I never implied my over all greatness had anything to do with the fact that I smoke... Simply that the fact that I smoke did not hinder my ability to be great!!!

Let me break it down for you

I am a fantastic sales associate and I smoke
I would still be fantastic if I did not smoke
but you said you are more effective because you don't smoke
and even though I smoke I can still be more effective than you...
I made your point, your whole arguement, invalid!

reply to post by jfj123


IT IS NOT HURTING OTHER PEOPLE!!!

When I take a drag it is concentrated, when you smell it in the air it is NOT!

(Nice try, I knew you were gonna go this angle)

Read the reports before you make anymore comments like this, it has been shown that it does not hurt others, and in some cases it has help to prevent cancer.

I'm going to start quoting them, since it is obvious you don't want to do the research involved. I am going to have to "puff" the evidence out like smoke.

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by jfj123

 

IT IS NOT HURTING OTHER PEOPLE!!!

When I take a drag it is concentrated, when you smell it in the air it is NOT!

(Nice try, I knew you were gonna go this angle)

Read the reports before you make anymore comments like this, it has been shown that it does not hurt others, and in some cases it has help to prevent cancer.

I'm going to start quoting them, since it is obvious you don't want to do the research involved. I am going to have to "puff" the evidence out like smoke.

If it's hurting you when concentrated-YOUR STATEMENT.
Then its hurting other people LESS because it less concentrated. Your own point proves that it does indeed hurt people, it just hurts you MORE as it is more concentrated around you.

I've read literally THOUSANDS of scientific studies over the years. I know and understand the facts.

Writing in the National Post (Mar 25, 2000) Steven J. Milloy said,

"There is no controversy over whether second-hand smoke can be a nuisance. But scientific studies purporting to link second-hand smoke with health effects are invariably controversial. The Health Canada study is no different. . . The statistical associations in the Health Canada study are weak. And it has other shortcomings. Smoking itself is not an established risk factor for breast cancer. . . In the financial world, legal remedies exist for data omission and other fraudulent hijinks. Sadly, no system of accountability disciplines rogue government agencies and their scientists who put political agendas -- such as the anti-tobacco jihad -- ahead of sound science."

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is hundreds or thousands of times as dilute as mainstream smoke. Casual exposure to ETS (say a couple of hours per week in a bar) exposes the non-smoker to perhaps one ten-thousandth of what a smoker gets. Although the amount that gets into the bloodstream might be measurable in a laboratory, the effect on the exposee would be difficult or impossible to detect. Other factors such as the drinks our poor non-smoker consumed while in the bar will potentially have far worse effects than the second-hand smoke they inhaled.

The popular socialist plea today is, "for the children," and the anti-smoking propagandists have played this card to the hilt. They tell you, for example, that the incidence of children with asthma is going up because of smoking.

If the increased incidence of children with asthma is going up because of smoking, why is it that when fewer people smoke according to their statistics, then more children develop asthma? Duh?? Their arguments may sound good ("for the children"), but they are total nonsense.

Second hand smoke does not cause Asthma. There are no allergens, protein or protein-carbohydrate complexes, present in tobacco smoke to cause attacks either. But, asthma attacks can be psychosomatic. And, thanks to the anti-smoking group and the media, a child who has been told that tobacco smoke triggers an asthma attack possibly will have an attack if tobacco smoke is visible. (Numerous clinical trials have shown that no attacks occur if children do not know that they are in the presence of tobacco smoke.)

In studies conducted by the World Health Organization, statistically significant evidence was found that childhood exposure to cigarette smoke cuts the risk of lung cancer by 22 per cent. But, because WHO was so "focused" on finding "proof" of an extra cancer risk in statistically non-significant evidence, it was blind to seeing anything at all in significant evidence for a lower cancer risk. As a result, these results were ignored by WHO and not reported in the news media.

In truth, there here is no association between lung cancer and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), regardless of whether the source is spousal smoking or workplace ETS.

In a report titled, "Cigarette Taxes to Fund Health Care Reform: An Economic Analysis," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the EPA study made subjective judgements, failed to account for factors that could bias results, and relaxed scientific standards to achieve the desired pre-determined results.

What they did was to ignore any data that did not conform to their publicly stated conclusions, conclusions made even before the research was begun! Hardly scientific!

The EPA report was a meta-analysis which combined the findings of 11 US studies. None of the 11 studies found a statistically significant risk because the low end of their CI was less than 1. A possible reason for 'false negative' findings is too small a number of subjects causing a wide CI range. Statisticians call this 'low power'. In order to increase power the EPA combined the studies. The result was still not statistically significant because the low end of the CI range was less than 1.0.

To achieve the results that their theory demanded (that secondhand smoke causes cancer) they simply altered the statistical methods used. They lowered the confidence level to 90% in violation of their own published standard: "Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (51 FR 3392)."

Source

There is a ton more, with fun links too! One down, 7 more to go...

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by adigregorio
More links supporting no cancer/SHS

www.smokingaloud.com...
www.smokingaloud.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
kuneman.smokersclub.com...

I will stop there, so you can tell me this is all tobacco propaganda.

Obviously this is pointless. I could show you THOUSANDS of scientific studies showing a link between smoking and disease and you will refuse to believe them. Your perception of reality does not change reality.

You only believe those statistics to be true because you are told to believe them... I am a smoker so if I believe the facts that show this is far less risk... according to you it is only because I want to believe that...

Same goes for you... Unless you are doing the tests yourself... it could all be propaganda! The fact is you can alter facts to make resluts show exactly what you want them to... The gov. obviously wants everybody attacking smokers right now, why... so we don't pay attention to other problems they can't bully away... Tabacco companies obviously want to sell cigarettes, so they can ater the facts to show what they want... The fact is, cigarettes are most likely not good for you, in fact they are bad for you... But as long as you continue to chew sugar free gum, eat french fryes, and consume MSG you are doing the same thing a smoker does... You choose to enjoy the product and not worry about the side effects... You only live once, if you enjoy smoking... then smoke, if you enjoy cheese frys, then eat them! I won't tell you not to enjoy your pleasure, you don't tell me not to enjoy mine! If you don't want to inhale my pleasure, I will go outside, but I am doing you a favor so do me a favor and give me a comfortable place to smoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Corrupt science has two salient characteristics. First, instead of starting with a hypothesis and data and deriving from that a conclusion, it does just the opposite: starting with a desired conclusion, it then selects data in order to support the hypothesis. Second, it stifles dissent by excluding dissenters from the process of review and by using ad hominem arguments to question their character and motives. The EPA is guilty on both counts.

Of the 30 studies on spousal smoking referred to in the EPA report, only 6 found any statistically significant association between ETS and cancer in nonsmokers married to smokers, and none found a strong relative risk. The studies actually used by the EPA were limited to 11 studies done in the United States. Using the EPA's own Guidelines for Carcenogenic Risk Assessment, none of these showed a statistically significant risk. These guidelines call for a 95% Confidence Interval. By lowering it to 90%, only one of the 11 studies showed a statistically significant risk. More importantly, the two largest and most recent studies, one of which was partially funded by the National Cancer Institute, were omitted from consideration altogether. Had these two been included, no statistically significant risk would have been found even after lowering the Confidence Interval to 90%. Even after violating its own guidelines, in other words, the EPA could still show no statistically significant risk without selecting data to fit its hypothesis. This cooked data is the EPA's only basis for declaring ETS to be a "Group A" carcinogen. ("Group A", incidentally, does not mean "extra deadly". It simply means "human".)

The EPA's studies on ETS operate under a "zero threshold" hypothesis, or the assumption that if huge quantities of something are dangerous, then microscopic quantities are dangerous also. The data they used, however, fails to bear this out: virtually all of the studies used either found no risk at all or a risk so weak that it would not be considered significant if applied to other subjects.

One of the largest and most recent studies of ETS is the Brownson study, partially funded by the National Cancer Institute. This study found odds ratios varying from .7 in non-smoking spouses of smokers exposed for fewer than 40 years, to 1.3 in those exposed for over 40 years. .7 is a negative correlation, meaning that those exposed to ETS for less than 40 years experienced fewer cancers than the control group. Since the implication that ETS actually protected those subjects from cancer is biologically implausible, the only other conclusion that can be drawn is that the study's margin of error, caused by random variation, is .3 or higher. This means that the 1.3 figure is equally suspect. The total risk for all groups averages out to exactly 1, or no risk at all.

The Brownson study was available to the EPA, but was not used in its report. Had it been included, the conclusions would have had to have been revised downwards to show no risk.

Corrupt scientists have always been eager to ride the bandwagon of popular opinion. Early in this century, Russian scientists drew diagrams purporting to show that the skulls of Jews were smaller than average, reflecting a smaller brain and therefore a lowered intelligence and moral sense. This "justified" the pogroms. In our own country, studies claiming a lower IQ among African Americans (referred to in the studies as "Negroes") "justified" segregation. The damage done by these studies took decades to undo, while millions suffered. Both conclusions share an insidious and horrifying circularity: if the subject of the slur has the temerity to question the evidence, the response is "You can't believe him, he's stupid. Look: my charts prove it!" And that is exactly what is being repeated today. Using corrupt science, the EPA has manufactured a conclusion which states, in effect, that smokers and the tobacco companies are killing 3,000 Americans each year and are by implication morally corrupt. When anyone disagrees, the anti-smokers have the perfect counter argument: "You can't believe them, they're morally corrupt. Look: the EPA report proves it!"

Source

Well, can anyone say corrupt? That would be 2 down, and 6 to go. And I find it odd you have seen over a thousand reports, when it doesn't seem that, that many have been made.

reply to post by sparda4355


Like I've said a dozen plus times. Smoke yourself silly, just don't do it around me. I won't try and limit your rights if you don't try and limit mine.

Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location.

In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured.

Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.

In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.

Source

Wow, asking a 70 year old person to "recall"? That seems a bit futile. Of course we all know memory gets "better" with age right?

3 down, 5 to go

Originally posted by Nohup
Arguing with smokers is just pointless. It's exactly the same thing as arguing with a crackhead about giving up crack.

really, are people complaining about second-hand crack smoke now too?

Currently the claim is secondhand smoke kills about 65,000 persons/ year, but recent studies of nicotine in nonsmokers have claimed to show a 90% reduction in secondhand smoke exposure relative to the past.

If all this is true, then secondhand smoke must have been killing about ten time as many persons, or about 650,000 persons / year in the 1970s. In 1970, for example, there were 1,921,000 total deaths reported in the USA, from all causes. This means secondhand smoke must have been responsible for about 35% of all deaths in 1970. However, since about 40% of us smoked, then those 670,000 deaths must have occurred among the 60% of us who did not smoke. This is a very rough calculation, but this means approximately, if 60% of those 1,921,000 deaths were nonsmokers, then approximately 1,152,000 total nonsmokers died from all causes, and 650,000 of those were caused by secondhand smoke. This is more than one out of two deaths among nonsmokers. This is of course, patently ridiculous, and it would have been impossible for our public health authorities to not notice. It is also mathematically impossible if you audit the death tables, subtracting all the deaths due to causes not possibly related to smoke exposure,( accidents for example) and tallying the number of reported deaths that could have been caused by smoke among nonsmokers. Also, if the current claim that first-hand smoking kills 450,000 persons/year is true, then first-hand smoking must have been killing 900,000 persons/year in 1970. Totaling this with the 650,000 gives 1.5 million deaths due to smoking and secondhand smoking, or 75% of all deaths in 1970.

However, toxicologists generally find the risk of disease rises with the square of the exposure to a substance. If secondhand smoke claims are true, then secondhand smoke was killing 6.7 million nonsmokers/year in the 1970s. But, with only 1.9 million recorded deaths from all causes/ year, this possibility does not exist.

Today, many studies have been conducted which claim secondhand smoke causes disease, but many more have been conducted which find secondhand smoke does not cause disease. My own review of these studies has found that those that claim the risks are real neglect to take into account the other evidence which "Cancer Epidemiology" teaches us must also be considered before concluding a statistical relationship is real.

For example, Enstrom and Kabat in the UCLA study which I previously presented to the Justice and Health Committee, measured population time trends with respect to exposure to smoke and heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers, in addition to nonsmokers' risk from spousal smoking. They found smoke does not cause cancer or heart disease in nonsmokers. In contrast, the EPA report which did not measure time trends found that smoke does cause lung cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers.

Biological plausibility has been claimed to exist because one can hypothesize smokers risks would just be scaled down in nonsmokers exposed to smoke. For example the EPA did do this, but recently an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute proved biological plausibility does not exist.

These findings "support the hypothesis that at least two distinct molecular pathways are involved in the pathogenesis of lung adenocarcinomas, one involving EGFR TK domain mutations and the other involving KRAS gene mutations," the authors write. These results also "suggest that exposure to carcinogens in environmental tobacco smoke may not be the major pathogenic factor involved in the origin of lung cancers in never smokers but that an as-yet-unidentified carcinogen(s) plays an important role."

Strength of the Association....... Generally, antismoking activists claim smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers 20%, and heart disease 30%. The American Cancer Society's guidelines are that any risk under a 100% excess cannot be considered evidence that the hypothesis is true.

Specificity of the Association: Indeed secondhand smoke is blamed for practically all diseases. This idea is ridiculous. Particularly since tobacco smoke is composed of the same substances that wood smoke is composed of, and we've been breathing that for over 50,000 years without all these diseases being associated with it. Again, teenage obesity???? There is a mountain of evidence smokers have a lower percentage of body fat on average than nonsmokers. How could smoke affect one group one way, and another group in the opposite way?

Dose-response relationship: Lawrence Garfinkle who was vice president of epidemiology of the American Cancer Society published in 1980 that nonsmoking spouses of two-pack-a-day smokers were less likely to get lung cancer than spouses of lighter smokers. For that reason, and after correcting for urban residency, he concluded smoke does not cause lung cancer in nonsmokers. Overall, dose response data are mixed. Some studies find a direct relationship, others an opposite relationship. The only ones the antismoking activists tell you about are the ones which find a direct relationship.

Source

I like this one alot! Shows how the "scientists" twisted some of their data. (I'm still waiting on those "thousands" of reports)

4 down 4 to go