Jump to content

Here we go again! Smokers: the #1 public enemy of our society!


Recommended Posts

Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Separate smoking sections don't cut it: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke, says a long-awaited surgeon general's report.

What are we do to with this out of control government of ours. I like how the media always use the most visually disgusting images of smokers and not only that have you noticed it's always cigarette smokers and not cigar smokers that are portrayed in this manner.

quote:

"There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," he said. The report "eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace."

Again, that is all bs. They can kick and scream their message all they want, there is no way in hell they can definitively prove this about second hand smoke or even first hand smoke without isolating other enviornmental exposures.

There is and has been a public service campaign here in NY about smoking. The latest ones I've been seeing is about kids and second smoke. Towards the end it states that second hand smoke can aggrivate asthma nothing about causing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that second-hand smoke is harmful. It just makes sense. Therefore, entering a "smoking allowed" building may involve some risk ...

... as does driving a car, flying on an airplane, crossing the street, swimming, cliff-climbing, bungie-jumping, skydiving, etc, etc, etc.

I do disagree with you, however:

quote:


there is no way in hell they can definitively prove this about second hand smoke or even first hand smoke without isolating other enviornmental exposures.

Yes there is. Whenever you try to find a disease's cause, you look for commonalities in the people who get it. If, for say, smokers have a 700% greater chance of lung cancer than non-smokers, its safe to say that smoking causes lung cancer.

That being said, I feel the government should let US choose what risks we want to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless they do a study where people are kept in a constantly controlled environment full of cigarette smoke, thier findings don't hold water.

There are way too many variables to consider it anywhere near accurate.

I agree Mike, It's my body and I'll smoke if I want to.

Q: If the government is so hell bent on saving people from smoking, why don't they stop the sale of tobacco products?

A: Because they gather in alot of revenue from it and would be foolish to give it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

1: I believe that second-hand smoke is harmful. It just makes sense. Therefore, entering a "smoking allowed" building may involve some risk ...

... as does driving a car, flying on an airplane, crossing the street, swimming, cliff-climbing, bungie-jumping, skydiving, etc, etc, etc.

2: I do disagree with you, however:
quote:

there is no way in hell they can definitively prove this about second hand smoke or even first hand smoke without isolating other enviornmental exposures.

Yes there is. Whenever you try to find a disease's cause, you look for commonalities in the people who get it. If, for say, smokers have a 700% greater chance of lung cancer than non-smokers, its safe to say that smoking causes lung cancer.

That being said, I feel the government should let US choose what risks we want to take.


1: A belief in something is no proof tjat it exists. Hmmm, sounds like an argument on another issue. But lets not stray down the belief path.

2: There is no way that they can isolate non smokers exposed to second hand to determine if they would have come down with cancer anyway. Funny, NY had advert on a bus stating that lung cancer and asthma was on the rise (non smokers) but smoking was on the decrease. Meanwhile, just this past sunday they were crying about that 100 million dollars in taxes are lost from cigarettes sales due to online buying. Well what is it? Do you want people to stop smoking completely and then what will happen to that wind fall tax. Don't let them blow smoke in your face about what this really all about. It's all about control and taxes. Nothing more and nothing less.

Anyway, from what I understand and read that greece, which had/has a heavy smoking population before they followed the nannies, had the lowest cancer rate of any european country or the U.S. I'll try to find it again but I think by now it's probably been buried and hidden. Even the WHO knew this fact before they jumped on the nannie bandwagon.

With that being said, I wonder what the politicians in washington are going to do with their smoking rooms after this surgeon general's report. I'll give you one good example, Bloomberg is an ex smoker and there is nothing worse than an ex smoker. He had some big event in a hotel. Guess what? People were smoking cigars. It made the local news here and there was an uproar. Of course, Bloomnberg the politician, lies and claims he didn't notice anyone smoking. Yup, he played dumb for his pals. This whole thing is basically "do as I say not as I do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


1: A belief in something is no proof tjat it exists. Hmmm, sounds like an argument on another issue. But lets not stray down the belief path.

Umm, we're talking about SCIENCE - not religion. We KNOW that cigarettes contain carcinogens, we KNOW lung function decreases, we KNOW that instances of lung cancer are ASTRONOMICALLY higher in smokers than non-smokers.

Besides, I agreed with what I THOUGHT you were saying (nanny-government), it's just that I'm not going to ignore ALL SCIENTIFIC DATA because I don't WANT to believe smoking is hazardous.

Seriously, you can ignore all the science you want to but you'll only destroy your own credibility when making an argument. The FACT is, smoking is hazardous. The FACT is, government shouldn't be babysitting all of the hazardous activities we engage in. There's no worldwide conspiracy to ignore the scientific process and dupe humanity into thinking smoking is bad when it really isn't.

quote:


2: There is no way that they can isolate non smokers exposed to second hand to determine if they would have come down with cancer anyway.

Umm, not on an individual basis, but as a group ... if instances of cancer are SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER in groups of people who are exposed regularly to second-hand smoke than others, than you found a LINK. That is science. On an individual basis, no, you can't say Joe Blow definately wouldn't have gotten cancer if he wasn't exposed to smoke, but you CAN statistically say that he would have had a 90% (for example) better chance of NOT getting cancer if not exposed.

In closing, the FACT is that my belief is in the FACTS. You're belief is in that you don't WANT TO BELIEVE the FACTS.

Bottom line, though ... we're probably on the same side of the discussion. The difference is that I won't ignore what is KNOWN to be true to make a point I can intellectually make without trying to convince others that sound science is wrong.

quote:


Anyway, from what I understand and read that greece, which had/has a heavy smoking population before they followed the nannies, had the lowest cancer rate of any european country or the U.S. I'll try to find it again but I think by now it's probably been buried and hidden. Even the WHO knew this fact before they jumped on the nannie bandwagon.

That's completely false. Here are the links to statistics for both Greece and the US on smoking:

http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/Greece.pdf

http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/USA.pdf

If you analyze the reports, Greek smoking-related deaths account for approximately 1/3 of all deaths ages 35 to 69. In the US, it's a bit less ... roughly 1/4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aramike, yes we are on the same page with this dicussion but I take a different slant on all the stastical information you talk about it. I have no faith in it at all. Organiazations and professionals have slanted and lied on public releases about the facts to suit their agenda. They've lie to everyone once and everything else after we shouldn't believe.

If you haven't done so, I suggest you hunt down an episode of Penn&Teller's Bullshit: Second Hand Smoke. You'll see what I mean. Here's a very small preview: Second Hand Smoke Penn and Teller. I have the full clip floating around here somewhere and when I find it I'll convert it into a flash movie (I looked on youtube and this episode is not there) and I'll make it available.

As for the WHO. Don't make me laugh. In that Penn and Teller episode you will find that an in house memo about the findings on second hand found no statistical evidence. However, in their public release flyer they said there was a connection. I'll have to track down that information about greece but I won't hold my breath that I'll find it.

Funny though, this issue just won't go away. I was channel hopping last night and came across a pbs show Tavis Smiley. I've watched it before, from time to time, when I've seen something that was interesting to listen to. The guest last night was Joseph Califano (Former Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano discusses Medicare and Medicaid.) Here's the link to it: Tavis Smiley. Most of his conversation was good but towards the end he I was cringing and wanted to slap him. To bad we don't have interactive TV yet . Anyway his comment was about the woes of our society specifically mentioned by Mr. Joseph Califano. He started by saying Addiction is main woe of our country. Drugs and the violence it brings. He even said, "and even tobaco". What? throwing Toaco in with drugs and violent crime!? This is the sort of crap I'm fighting against. The wording. He even stated, with a straight face mind you, that if we can can cure people of their addictions they can go along their merry way and live a long and healthy live.

I still say Mark Twain said it the best:

quote:

I don't want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question.

You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can't save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?

It won't do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income.

Now you know all these things yourself, don't you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don't you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous "moral statistics"?

Now, I don't approve of dissipation, and I don't indulge in it either; but I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices. And so I don't want to hear from you any more. I think you are the very same man who read me a long lecture last week about the degrading vice of smoking cigars, and then came back, in my absence, with your reprehensible fire-proof gloves on, and carried off my beautiful parlor stove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the present time I feel more likely to die from lead poisoning. (hollowpoint lead poisoning)

It won't matter to me how I go or even when. For now, I don't subject anyone to my secondhand smoke. Nor do I encourage anyone to take up the habit. The nanny do gooders can buzz off and mind thier own bees wax as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

1: Who's talking about belief now?

2: Anyway, my only real qualm with what you said was that FIRST HAND smoke hasn't been proven dangerous. That is manifestly false.

3: As for second-hand smoke, need more data.

4: Please show evidence of this.

5: You're the one the brought up the WHO. As for the stats, I tracked them down and linked them for you. They show you to be wrong with regards to Greece.

6: I agree: tabacco isn't on the same level as mind-altering drugs and some people need to lay off the scare tactics.

7: Mark Twain lived in an era when dying of smoking-related illnesses was called "natural causes". Sure, some people smoked well into their 80s and 90s - they're from the deep end of the gene pool. Hell, even Ebola isn't 100% fatal. But, we know now that many people who then died in their late 30s, or 40s, or 50s of "natural causes" were actually victims of lung cancer, coronary diseases, emphysema, etc.

It would be absurd to believe that medically and scientifically we haven't at all advanced our knowledge of the human body over the last 65-70 years.

1: Yeah, I threw that word in there deliberately.

2: Okay, hmm, I mean't to keep this on a stricktly second hand smoke slant. Anyway, I'll elaborate on the first hand smoke dangers which depends on the individual. It all comes down to genetics. How else would you explain the untold numbers of people that have smoked all their life and not a lick of cancer. Much like your skydiving analogy. There's no telling who's chute is going to open up or not. That's the chance you take like everything else in life. But for them categorically sit there and say everyone will get cancer from tobacco, that's just plain wrong and misleading. Ah, I just noticed you covered the gene business in the mark twain response.

3: Indeed, there needs to be more research and by numerous multiple sources too so we can all compare the findings ourselves.

4: I already gave you one. The WHO. As for others, don't worry I'm working on it and gathering all the stuff I need. Oh yeah and also the EPA in the Penn and Teller episode. That makes two.

5: Yes I did indeed bring up the WHO only to show the two faced side of this organization. However, I didn't mean I laugh that you mentioned them but that you gave links to the so called dubious information. I say dubious because they've lied once they'd lie again. Refer to my previous statements about that. Unless we can get inside information that is leaked, like the second hand smoke memo that was leaked previously, I'm calling them out. But I'm pretty sure they've sealed off any future leak sources.

6: I still say it applies to today as well. Even though genetics was not widely known in those days, he did hit the nail on the head with statistics and how they are used and or interpreted. As for the cancer deaths of that period, you'd have to demostrate to me what occupation these people worked, where they resided what other contaminates they could have come in contact with and show other opposing case histories for other occupants of the same area. You'd also have to find out did these people live in that location or did they move there ect... Well you get my point. Again, to sit there and categoricaly state that these people should now be listed as smoking related deaths is wrong. We just don't know. In fact, the nannies are doing that to this day. Even if you lived well into your 90's and smoked and passed away of natural causes, they have taken it upon themselves to list these deaths as smoking related to help bolster their stats.

You know, I gotta do a search of my old threads on this. I'm sure I had links in them to support my comments. Yeah, this isn't the first time I've gone through this.

But I think we can agree on a few points, that the government shouldn't be in the business of vilifying a segment of the population or trying to control them based on very dubious scientific studies. Trust me, I'd be the first one to agree with everyone on this issue if there was fool proof evidence. However, all the government has done is fear monger (as usual) based on garbage as I far as I see it and using said garbage to discriminate and charge extortion taxes. Oh yeah, and to those that sued the tobacco industry for their ills and won should all be overturned and the money given back. I was going to say, should be taken out and shot. But we don't want violence do we .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WHO and a few other organizations have done NON governmental studies, and recieved NO funding from the tobacco companies either, and those COMPREHENSIVE studies of over 35,000 people over a 35 year period saw NO statistical proof that 2nd hand smoke was harmful, as a matter of fact, they found out that children that were exposed to 2nd hand smoke were about 10% LESS likely to get Asthma, or cancer.

THis is a propaganda campaign, nothing more, just like the junk science of global warming is caused by man.

2nd hand smoke kills, is a bunch of BS, and MEDICAL studies have PROVEN it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I find 2nd hand smoke repulsive, I have read the same non-government sponsored studies that Jag has, and he is exactly right.

The funny thing is, I'm an ex-smoker, and my sensitivity to 2nd hand smoke is 50 times greater now than it ever was before I smoked. It stinks, but it can't hurt you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

The funny thing is, I'm an ex-smoker, and my sensitivity to 2nd hand smoke is 50 times greater now than it ever was before I smoked. It stinks, but it can't hurt you.

I have stated that ex smokers are the worse. Probably seeing people smoking when they use to as well and not to mention the aroma of it. The temptation to break down and light one up must be great. I've seem a few ex smokers get crazed when another smoker gets near them. I say those are the ones behind all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Prez:

Dude! How many times did you hit "Add Reply" anyway?


Holy crap. Fixed. You know how sometimes your net connection just doesn't seem to be responding? That was one of those times. Except this board is supposed to have flood protection (I know this for a fact; I helped configure this forum) and it apparently didn't work.

Heh, what I was saying was so important that it needed to be repeated. Again. And again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

The funny thing is, I'm an ex-smoker, and my sensitivity to 2nd hand smoke is 50 times greater now than it ever was before I smoked. It stinks, but it can't hurt you.


I have stated that ex smokers are the worse. Probably seeing people smoking when they use to as well and not to mention the aroma of it. The temptation to break down and light one up must be great. I've seem a few ex smokers get crazed when another smoker gets near them. I say those are the ones behind all this.


Actually, I don't mind at all being around smoke. I spend a lot of time in casinos playing poker, and it's never gotten to me. My position is based upon facts and my belief in small government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Actually, I don't mind at all being around smoke. I spend a lot of time in casinos playing poker, and it's never gotten to me. My position is based upon facts and my belief in small government.

I've only been smoking five years now. Long story. Before that, same thing, I've never had a problem with smokers or smoke being around me. I miss the smoke filled bar days now. It's to antiseptic. I also don't smoke just anywhere. Not because the goverment said so but because I find it socially respectful to do so and don't need the government telling me what to do in my private life. I live alone but I only smoke in my bathroom (not it's not a reliving some high school days I didn't smoke then either ) and whenever I'm was out at a restaurant or someones house, I always went outside long before NYC passed their complete and total no smoking in restaurants crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

THis is a propaganda campaign, nothing more, just like the junk science of global warming is caused by man.

Not to throw this thread off kilter but I bet you've some choice words over that Al Gore global warming movie. I know I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Actually, I don't mind at all being around smoke. I spend a lot of time in casinos playing poker, and it's never gotten to me. My position is based upon facts and my belief in small government.


I've only been smoking five years now. Long story. Before that, same thing, I've never had a problem with smokers or smoke being around me. I miss the smoke filled bar days now. It's to antiseptic. I also don't smoke just anywhere. Not because the goverment said so but because I find it socially respectful to do so and don't need the government telling me what to do in my private life. I live alone but I only smoke in my bathroom (not it's not a reliving some high school days I didn't smoke then either ) and whenever I'm was out at a restaurant or someones house, I always went outside long before NYC passed their complete and total no smoking in restaurants crap.


Heck, I didn't even notice you were in New York until now... That sucks.

AT least you're polite about it. I always was pretty good about it, but I had my moments. The thing is, everyone kept telling me how much of a pain I would become when I quit ... but I haven't, at all.

See, we both think the same thing: let people choose what they want. The only difference is, I have to use what I know to be true to argue it. I have faith in that logic and it usually wins (Republican government, right?).

Do me a favor: spend an hour or two researching the data developed about smoking and second-hand smoke, and do it wiht a completely neutral and open mind. You may find a different "truth". Even if you do, though, don't back down from the basis of what you believe, because you're right: let the people decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

[

Do me a favor: spend an hour or two researching the data developed about smoking and second-hand smoke, and do it wiht a completely neutral and open mind. You may find a different "truth". Even if you do, though, don't back down from the basis of what you believe, because you're right: let the people decide.

Trust me I do. I'm not just attacking this because I'm a smoker. I do this with everything I argue. I try to take the middle road from all the extremists.

BTW: About NYC. Tell me about it. But I refuse to let anyone chase me from the city I grew up in and love no matter how tempted I am to pack it in and move to some back water canadian tundra where no one will bother me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

[

Do me a favor: spend an hour or two researching the data developed about smoking and second-hand smoke, and do it wiht a completely neutral and open mind. You may find a different "truth". Even if you do, though, don't back down from the basis of what you believe, because you're right: let the people decide.


Trust me I do. I'm not just attacking this because I'm a smoker. I do this with everything I argue. I try to take the middle road from all the extremists.

BTW: About NYC. Tell me about it. But I refuse to let anyone chase me from the city I grew up in and love no matter how tempted I am to pack it in and move to some back water canadian tundra where no one will bother me.


I don't get it, then. I mean, the data on smoking is VERY conclusive. I agree that second-hand smoke is still not proven one way or the other (although, practically-speaking I know its not GOOD for you...), but I don't know HOW someone could think that smoking does NOT cause illnesses such as cancer. I think I've made such research clear in my earlier post.

As for leaving the city, good thing you don't. Perhaps you can talk some sense into the politicians there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

I don't get it, then. I mean, the data on smoking is VERY conclusive. I agree that second-hand smoke is still not proven one way or the other (although, practically-speaking I know its not GOOD for you...), but I don't know HOW someone could think that smoking does NOT cause illnesses such as cancer. I think I've made such research clear in my earlier post.

As for leaving the city, good thing you don't. Perhaps you can talk some sense into the politicians there.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous. What I'm arguing is that it isn't dangerous to everyone. The government is going around saying and or insinuating that anyone who smokes is going to get cancer. Well, the public adverts here in NY are doing that. Poppycock! It's their wording and insinuations I'm fighting.

Let me give you an example on another issue: Like fatty foods. I eat a lot of junk as well as good meals. My cholesterol is fine, my heart is in excellent medical condition and so is my blood pressure and I still weigh between 165 and 175 since it fluctuates. Now, the lovely fries I like to eat are being downsized and given different oil (changing the flavor) because some people get fat. Why should I be made to suffer because of these other people.

As for the politicians. I've tried believe me but it's a losing cause. These politicians are brain dead literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

I don't get it, then. I mean, the data on smoking is VERY conclusive. I agree that second-hand smoke is still not proven one way or the other (although, practically-speaking I know its not GOOD for you...), but I don't know HOW someone could think that smoking does NOT cause illnesses such as cancer. I think I've made such research clear in my earlier post.

As for leaving the city, good thing you don't. Perhaps you can talk some sense into the politicians there.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous. What I'm arguing is that it isn't dangerous to everyone. The government is going around saying and or insinuating that anyone who smokes is going to get cancer. Well, the public adverts here in NY are doing that. Poppycock! It's their wording and insinuations I'm fighting.

Let me give you an example on another issue: Like fatty foods. I eat a lot of junk as well as good meals. My cholesterol is fine, my heart is in excellent medical condition and so is my blood pressure and I still weigh between 165 and 175 since it fluctuates. Now, the lovely fries I like to eat are being downsized and given different oil (changing the flavor) because some people get fat. Why should I be made to suffer because of these other people.

As for the politicians. I've tried believe me but it's a losing cause. These politicians are brain dead literally.


Smoking IS dangerous to everyone. The word "danger" doesn't mean that harm will necessarily come from it; it just means that harm is more likely. I've done dangerous things and have come away fine. Just because I came away alright didn't mean those activities weren't dangerous.

That's besides the point, though. The fact is that no one is saying that EVERYONE will die if they smoke. Maybe you think some entities are insinuating that, and maybe that's true, but that's where the BS-o-meter is supposed to kick in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...