It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

page: 25
33
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well I have been saying that tobacco prohibition is coming to an end and I predicted that some political "hero" would stand for office and promise to overturn the bans

Here it is folks. Read it and weep! Its not quite over yet but the handwriting is on the wall

www.dailymail.co.uk... election.html




Ukip is planning to overturn the ban on smoking in pubs and introduce a 35p tax rate as part of its 100 election promises in advance of May's poll. The party will release a new promise each day until the the date of the general election on May 7. As well as reintroducing smoking in pubs, Ukip claims it would overturn any legislation introducing plain packaging on tobacco. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... election.html#ixzz3Q9j93cYs Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
The B3 argument is ridiculous.

You can get all the B3 you need from commonplace foods.

I'm starting to suspect trolling as well and feeling a little foolish.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

ok SceptScot - I have been providing links a mile a minute and particularly for you

So - if I am wrong - show me the hard science that proves that smoking CAUSES lung cancer.

No pro-smoking sound bites. No epidimiology Just of the biological pathway by which smoking causes lung cancer.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Well I have been saying that tobacco prohibition is coming to an end



There has never been tobacco prohibition.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
And since you like brainfacts as a source why not use the search function on it to research smoking? Or do you only approve of the articles on it that you think agree with you?



You have to remember it was Nixon who started the anti smoking ball rolling. He got a load of scientist to do a study. He didn't like the conclusions then shelved it. Then he got another bunch that came up with exactly what he was thinking.

The first report concluded that smoking didn't actually cause lung cancer, it helped prevent it, as the mucous caused the strontium particles to be coughed up.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Yes there is! Raising the price of a product beyond what people can afford and what the product is worth is prohibition.
Decreasing the places where people can smoke right down to people's private homes IS prohibition.

Prohibition fast as has been done or prohibition slow as with the anti-smoker campaigns - its all prohibition and the effects are all the same.

A return of popularity of the prohibited object, a rebellion against those who want to control and manipulate other, corrution of the justice system and the police, requirement for increasing enforcement and the criminalization of ordinary law-abiding systems, the rise of the black-market and increase in criminal activity.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The second is from the daily mail which is infamous for its medical reporting but even aside from that the obvious question seems to be how many smokers lungs are rejected for use in transplant.

You can see the study (or at least part of it) here.

One of the things it says:

However, it is important to realize that the qualitative and quantitative effects of cigarette smoke might depend on the duration of smoking, as well as on the sex and ethnicity of the subjects who are studied. Smoking-related lung injury is
quite variable and the extent of changes documented varies significantly between studies. Some persons can have pronounced lung damage leading to obstructive lung disease, whereas others can have preserved lung parenchyma and function despite several years of smoking.


As I said before, things are not black and white, because some people can live without problems while being smokers (or heavy smokers) it doesn't mean that smoking doesn't affect negatively their body.

And yes, the lungs from some smokers and heavy smokers were good enough to be used in transplants, but why was the main cause of death of the donors (intracranial haemorrhage) higher in the smokers (69.1%) and in the heavy smokers (80.5%) than on the non smokers (60.2%)? Also, the smoker donors died younger than the non-smokers or the heavy smokers; does that mean that heavy smokers are healthier than regular smokers, but that regular smokers are less healthy than non-smokers?

So many questions, so little time.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ok ScepticScot

I am tired of playing this game with you. I earlier posted a link to a courtcase that occurred in Scotland.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

There were 3 witnesses for the plaintiff - one of them is Sir Richard Doll who was the first to proclaim that smoking causes lung cancer.

There were 3 witness for the defense - actual hard scientists who can speak knowledgably of the status of lung cancer research.

Try reading it. If its too long and you are too lazy - tough beans!!! Its all on you to educate yourself now.

BTW = I have been researching this subject from almost every aspect - health money social conspiracy for the last 12 years. Both sides - all the way.

The lies of the anti-smokers will be revealed as prohibition is lifted.

Tired of Control freaks



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
And I have pointed out the links don't say what you suggest.
Cause of cancer m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yeah - except they have spent 80 years trying to find the exact chemical in tobacco smoke that CAUSES lung cancer and have been unable to do so

There is no doubt that there are a few chemicals in tobacco smoker that are carcinogen but unfortunately they exist in quantities far below the toxic level required to induce lung cancer

They even tried to prove that it was radiation and couldn't!

The link you provided was written in 1999. This proves exactly what I have been saying to you. Anti-smoker campaigns started in the 1960 and really took off in the 1970s.

If the anti-smokers were telling the truth and the proof that smoking CAUSES lung cancer was indisputable - why are they still looking in 1999?

Read the testimoney in the court case and the judges opinion.

Tired of Control Freaks

they are interesting avenues of research and definitely should be explored



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

BTW - this link is to a review of existing science - you will find the same review in the testimoney of the court case.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
The court case had a judge decide that you couldn't proof from studies that smoking had caused this individuals death. How does this refute the massive amount of evidence showing the connection?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
The B3 argument is ridiculous.

You can get all the B3 you need from commonplace foods.

I'm starting to suspect trolling as well and feeling a little foolish.

In beginning to think it's trolling too.

Krazyshot has done an amazing job shooting down point after point the OP has made with fact based links to back them up.

I'm all for people doing what they want, when they want when it doesn't interfere with others. But smokers don't only poison themselves, they poison all around them. I used to be a smoker.

And the niacin argument? Hilarious! You would prefer to smoke to get your niacin over having a healthy diet or I simple supplement?


On a side note, ever notice how old people who have smoked for many years look?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: ScepticScot

BTW - this link is to a review of existing science - you will find the same review in the testimoney of the court case.

Tired of Control Freaks


Look I am going to stick my neck out here, with regards to the horrendous school shootings that have been occurring over the past few years. We know that the lack of B3 causes a mental impairment similar to schizophrenia. Of all the offenders I cant seem to find one that was a smoker. Without getting to emotive, have these idiots meddled with a right of choice that in the end has caused the death of many innocents?...I wouldn't be surprised.

Not only that but the amount of children getting diagnosed with ADH. Has been going ballistic along with the drop in smoking. I wonder if the connection is valid.
edit on 28-1-2015 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: Iwinder
One last note.

There are honest, hard working people out there, barely making it by for themselves and their families. These people pay taxes. Many very well off people are smokers, alcoholics and more. When their addictions cause health issues in Canada, EVERYONE pays for their medical care, even the most downtrodden.

It sickens me poor, honest people would have to pay for cancer treatments to some shmuck sitting on millions simply because he decided to smoke.



Good points and I understand your position, but the fact of the matter is Canada has universal health care and nobody is allowed to play god. Well actually our own government does in fact play god in many ways and nobody seems to notice it.

A few examples .....send the boys to Afghanistan with leased German tanks and fly them over on leased American transport planes. The boys get shot up and messed up in the head, bring them home and then ignore them because of the costs.

World famous heart surgeon tells me I need a new heart back in 93, the "Gods" that decide these things said I was not sick enough. He fought like hell for me but to no avail. Now that I am sick enough they say I am too sick LOL

Order up Billions and Billions of dollars worth of the new F35 fighters (22 of them) I do believe, and the same week announce that health care is getting a major hair cut. The war complex wins and the public loses.




It sickens me poor, honest people would have to pay for cancer treatments to some shmuck sitting on millions simply because he decided to smoke.


But that is how it works, you see I don't happen to be sitting on millions and very few people do for that matter.
I worked from 10 years old up until 1993 and I worked hard and so did my wife for the record. Paid a ton of taxes and then some with few gripes because we were reassured that at least our health care will be provided at no charge. Then the government delays the qualifications for an old age pension by a few years because they cannot afford it. :-)

I hold no grudge against anyone whom does not work and is on Welfare and has never paid taxes in their life. I have spent more time in Hospitals than the average person but I never judge the guy in the next bed no matter what.
And from personal experience neither do the doctors or nurses, you are there because you are sick and they are there to heal you as best as possible.

My condition would have ruined us if we lived in the States or any other country without a Social health care system. We are all one here in Canada with the same heavy taxes.

I guess the folks that don't wear seat belts should be refused medical treatment by your standards?

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It doesn't! It proves exactly what I have been saying all along. Epidimiology can pinpoint an association but it cannot prove CAUSATION

When you say that smoking CAUSES lung cancer - you have overstated and exaggerated the findings of epidimiology.

There is absolutely no hard scientific proof that smoking CAUSES lung cancer - there is only an association

There was an association between smoking and cervical cancer but the CAUSATION of cervical cancer turned out, after decades of anti-smokers saying it was smoking, HPV.

the idea that a virus could cause cancer is very new. It was proved as a general principal until 1975. It is now being feverishly explored. At least 130 different strains of HPV have been identified and no on knows which ones cause cancer and which ones don't.

So when anti-smokers stand up and say that only a fool would deny that smoking CAUSES lung cancer, they are flat out lying. The CAUSE of most lung cancers is unknown (asbestos is one identified cause).

The only real knowledge that exists is that there is an association between smoking and lung cancer. That is ALL anyone can say.

When anti-smoker stand up and say that 90 % of all lung cancers are CAUSED by smoking - what they mean to say is that 90 % of lung cancers occur in smokes. The lie is seen in the definition of the word "smoker". When they say "smoker" people think that they really mean people who are currently smoking and have smoked all their lives. The definition of the word "smoker" as far as they are concerned is any one who EVER smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their entire life.

So if you were a kid out behind the wood shed with an occassional cigarette until your dad found out and whipped the tar out of you and you never touched a cigarette for the next 65 years in your life, if you get lung cancer - that is just another case of smoking CAUSING lung cancer!

I am pretty sure that just about 80 or 90 % of the poplulation from the 1950s and onwards would meet that very tight definition of "smoker" so its just a trick of the numbers.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr

That the best you got to bring to an honest debate - something sounds ridiculous to YOU!

Well if I have only know that all every scientist ever had to do was to suggest a theory and then see if it "sounds ridiculous" to you. Think of the billions that could have been saved in research!

I have discussed the blood and brain barrier. Niacin has to get to the nicotene recepters in the brain. If you swallow and digest it, that is not necessarily crossing the barrier now it!

but oh well - if it sound ridicuous to YOU, it must be so

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: Iwinder
One last note.

There are honest, hard working people out there, barely making it by for themselves and their families. These people pay taxes. Many very well off people are smokers, alcoholics and more. When their addictions cause health issues in Canada, EVERYONE pays for their medical care, even the most downtrodden.

It sickens me poor, honest people would have to pay for cancer treatments to some shmuck sitting on millions simply because he decided to smoke.



Good points and I understand your position, but the fact of the matter is Canada has universal health care and nobody is allowed to play god. Well actually our own government does in fact play god in many ways and nobody seems to notice it.

A few examples .....send the boys to Afghanistan with leased German tanks and fly them over on leased American transport planes. The boys get shot up and messed up in the head, bring them home and then ignore them because of the costs.

World famous heart surgeon tells me I need a new heart back in 93, the "Gods" that decide these things said I was not sick enough. He fought like hell for me but to no avail. Now that I am sick enough they say I am too sick LOL

Order up Billions and Billions of dollars worth of the new F35 fighters (22 of them) I do believe, and the same week announce that health care is getting a major hair cut. The war complex wins and the public loses.




It sickens me poor, honest people would have to pay for cancer treatments to some shmuck sitting on millions simply because he decided to smoke.


But that is how it works, you see I don't happen to be sitting on millions and very few people do for that matter.
I worked from 10 years old up until 1993 and I worked hard and so did my wife for the record. Paid a ton of taxes and then some with few gripes because we were reassured that at least our health care will be provided at no charge. Then the government delays the qualifications for an old age pension by a few years because they cannot afford it. :-)

I hold no grudge against anyone whom does not work and is on Welfare and has never paid taxes in their life. I have spent more time in Hospitals than the average person but I never judge the guy in the next bed no matter what.
And from personal experience neither do the doctors or nurses, you are there because you are sick and they are there to heal you as best as possible.

My condition would have ruined us if we lived in the States or any other country without a Social health care system. We are all one here in Canada with the same heavy taxes.

I guess the folks that don't wear seat belts should be refused medical treatment by your standards?

Regards, Iwinder




Sorry to hear but have a look at this, nutritionstudies.org... ask yourself what your present diet is and is it aiding your present condition. Then supplement with moderate amounts of Cayenne pepper, in capsule if you cant take it naturally. You will find that this actually works by opening up capillaries and takes the strain off the heart. So the system gets oxygen.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
I wouldn't be surprised.

I would, if that was the reason why aren't all non-smokers doing the same?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: anonentity
I wouldn't be surprised.

I would, if that was the reason why aren't all non-smokers doing the same?


Because all non smokers don't do the same diet, or can process b3 more efficiently from scant sources. In The southern states at the turn of the last century, Pellagra or vitamin b3 deficiency killed many. It was noticed that smokers didn't get it. Nor did people that eat brown rice, or wholegrain bread. Now, again the processed foods are low in this vital substance. You can also get numerous ailments if vitamin C levels are low, wounds don't heal, old wounds open up etc. You don't have to have full blown scurvy. But B3 deficiency does not happen in smokers which is a fact.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join