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.

 

The Benefits of Smoking

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The economy tanked at the end of 2007... But in any case, you got any data to back these claims you are making up?

The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Laws on Restaurants and Bars in 9 States


Conclusion
Results suggest that smoke-free laws did not have an adverse economic impact on restaurants or bars in any of the states studied; they provided a small economic benefit in 1 state. On the basis of these findings, we would not expect a statewide smoke-free law in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, or West Virginia to have an adverse economic impact on restaurants or bars in those states.


Oh look. You were wrong.
edit on 19-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I never once said anything about forcing others to be exposed to second hand smoke.

There were non-smoking hospitality venues prior to the bans. There was never anything stopping anyone from banning smoking on their own private property if they wanted to.

It is anti-smokers that insisted on intruding onto private property and forced the bans on private hospitality venues.

In your own words - going to a bar or restaurant is NOT a necessity. Why do anti-smoker insist on forcing their views on the private property of others?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Going to a bar is a decision yes, but inhaling another patron's cigarette smoke doesn't come with that deal. Way to rationalize being intolerant of others' feelings with your decision.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Yeah, go ahead and tell that to my greatgrandmother that suffered years on oxygen and nebulizers because of her emphysema from smoking that killed her in the end... Or my grandfather that lied in a hopsital bed on a respirator with failing lungs and leukemia before his untimely and painful death... Oh wait, you can't.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Myomistress

Since never-smokers also get emphysema and leukemia - go ahead and prove to smoking CAUSED either of those two diseases - Oh look - you can't!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Allowing smoking or not on your own property is also a decision and not one that should be forced on the hospitality venue owner.

Can you honestly give me one reason why there should not be bars and restaurants that allow smoking AND bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking to accomodate everyone????

Tired of control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


I'd say just using logic that for the case of my great grandmother at least, it was the smoking. She'd smoked like a chimney earlier in life and it caught up with her. There were no other airborne reasons for her to produce emphysema. There was no radon in her basement or other toxins. I'd assume this because her daughter still lives in that house and has for almost seventy years and has not shown any problems with her lungs thus far at all. If it were another environmental factor within the house, then she would have problems with her lungs as well. Smoking is also the most common cause for COPD so I'm just going to have to go with occam's razor on this one.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Because a restaurant/bar that doesn't allow smoking DOES accomodate everyone.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: peck420

oh wow - yes, yes I really do. The medical community is involved in anti-smoking in a very big way. They are doing much worse things than showing ugly pictures to smokers.

Here is one example that I know of.

People are often sent to get allergy testing. The technologist divides the area of the back and arms and scratches each patch of skin with a substance that is known to be allergenic.

The technologist always uses the sap from tobacco plants. When the person develops a welt, the person is told that they are highly "allergic" to tobacco smoke.

Please notice that they use the sap of the tobacco plant to do the test, not the smoke.

In fact, it is impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke of any kind.

health.howstuffworks.com...




Cigarettes can't actually cause an allergic reaction, since they lack any allergenic proteins that would trigger your immune system. However, that's not to say that cigarettes can't cause allergy-like symptoms. In fact, the irritants in cigarettes and cigarette smoke can cause symptoms that appear very similar to those of allergic rhinitis. If you're sensitive, you may end up with a runny nose, watery eyes, coughing, sneezing and trouble breathing, much as you would if you were allergic to dust and breathed it in. People can suffer allergic reactions to tobacco leaves and plants themselves, but these allergies are rare. When you burn tobacco in a cigarette, the chances of such an allergy affecting you are pretty much zero.


When these people see the welt, they believe the technologist and they believe that they have to avoid tobacco smoke.


The facts are the facts here - nobody is transplanting "tar-encrusted" lungs into patients and further nobody can actually breathe if their lungs were encrusted with tar. it would prevent the transportation of oxygen into the lungs and carbon dioxide away from the lungs.

You were scammed, my friend, you were treated like a 5 year old and scared straight by some ugly pictures.
Tired of Control Freaks


Might I suggest at this point - that you smoke more (with those that don't mind) - it may help with the paranoia.

So - all allergy testing is bogus.

All rules protecting the rights of other are bogus.

Anyone who disagrees with you is - well bogus.

And anyone who you don't think is a scientist is bogus as well.

Any scienticfic study or studies that don't agree with your Personal Agenda is bogus.

And you are afraid of dying in the cold jonesing for a smoke because the people who live with you don't want to put up with your personal pollution.


Time for a graphic:



No, clearly, your life is about me.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

OP you are either paid by smoking companies, or you have a serous emotional injury from someone who didn't like smokers.
ether way the pro smoking posts and threads 'aint normal.....



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes


Yeah. I know I don't want to go into a restaurant or bar smelling all of the smoke all evening knowing what I'm inhaling. I think there should be places where smokers can still go though and non smokers are not welcome (or go at their own risk) though. Places like that would be okay, but family restaurants and locations such as that should have absolutely no cigarettes allowed.

I remember back whenever Pizza Hut had the smoking non smoking wall... As if that kept the smokers' smoke out of my lungs magically. -.-



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

of course I have that data - its public information!

LCBO stands for Liquor Control Board. In Ontario, you can only legally buy alcohol at the government run store.

These links are for the Ontario Ministry of Finance always look for the table marked as REVENUE
www.fin.gov.on.ca...
www.fin.gov.on.ca...
www.fin.gov.on.ca...
www.fin.gov.on.ca... (2004 to 2007-

2001 - 887 million
2003 - 904 million
2003 - 939 million
2004 - 1,147million
2005 - 1,197 million (increase of about 50 million from 2004)
2006 - 1,307 million (increase of about 110 million from 2005 but reflects only half year of smoking ban)
2007 - 1,374 million (increase of 177 million from 2005)

I don't want to include the 2008 and further because we both know the economy tanked in 2008 in Ontario. The government redid the entire budge halfway through the year.

But you can clearly see the jump that occurred because of the ban - I included the prior data to demonstrate what the increases were from year to year.

The LCBO now brings in about 1,700 something million

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Yes - the entire anti-smoker movement has had a field day for 6o years and have seriously harmed smokers.

I have found my voice and I am speaking up. What you think a dozen posts talking from the pro-smoking side over the last 6 years are too much?

I think what smokers have been flooded with are too much. And I do believe, since I see pro-smoking groups springing up all over the place that other smokers have found their voice as well.

Unless you can come up with a good reason why smokers should not have 4 walls and a roof and why smokers should not be allowed separate venues from non-smokers, I suggest that it the smokers turn to talk.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Myomistress

Are you aware that emphysema is also a genetic disease with an abnormal enzyme that is produced by the liver.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...




Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency occurs worldwide, but its prevalence varies by population. This disorder affects about 1 in 1,500 to 3,500 individuals with European ancestry. It is uncommon in people of Asian descent. Many individuals with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency are likely undiagnosed, particularly people with a lung condition called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD can be caused by alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency; however, the alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency is often never diagnosed. Some people with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency are misdiagnosed with asthma.


Occam's razor is a very good test but only when ALL the facts are known

When smoking was blamed for emphysema, scientists had not yet discovered Alpha-1 antitrypsis deficiency.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I am sorry for the loss of your loved one. Leukemia is not one of the diseases associated with smoking. And you clearly don't know what caused your grandmothers emphysema.

Its not fair to make smokers personally responsible for the loss of loved ones unless you have definitive proof of that. To date - although anti-smokers have used epidimiology (statistics) to associate smoking with lots of diseases - science has not been able to confirm that smoking is the cause of anything.

There is a long list of diseases that were said to be "caused" by smoking that, later, in fact were found to be caused by something else.

epidimiology is a soft science of statistics. It can find associations but correlation is not causation.

There is not one single disease that smokers get that non-smokers don't get as well.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Some of these posts, if true, would suggest that smoking actually prevents disease, and I don't think clinical studies support that.

However, I most certainly agree that it's trendy to blame everything these days on smokers, and it's preposterous. Most of it is downright ludicrous. Ah, but when in Rome...........



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Actually ladyinwaiting - Epidimiologists were the ones who found the correlation that smokers had less neurological diseases like Alzeimer's, parkinsons and multiple sclerosis

But as I frequently say correlation is not the same as causation

In the original post - scientists have now discovered the direct biological pathway that shows that smoking DOES have a protective effect on neurological disease.

Now - that is science (not epidimiology) and it is proof.

Tired of control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Could you possibly be any more repugnant? In the last thread I clearly showed how there are more healthy alternatives that provide that same protective effects. You kept mentioning smoking, then saying it wasn't about smoking. Now a couple weeks later here you are conflating the positive effects of low dose nicotine with smoking cigarettes. They're not the same. This is a highly illogical stance. The positive effect is with nicotine, and with the correct dose. It has nothing to do with smoking.

Now, you can keep to your bizarre justifications of something that is painfully obvious to be seen as a net loss, in the red, and without any health benefits in and of itself. Smoking does nobody any good. You're filling your lungs with smoke, then making retarded reasoning to try and back it up. It's just so disgusting to witness!

You want neuroprotective benefits? Choose one of the dozen other stimulants out there which help. Drink some freakin tea! It has more than one mechanism involved. Don't shove smoke into your lungs, then use poor reasoning filled with fallacies, and make thread after thread arguing the same points from slightly different angles. Now are you going to try and lie to me again and say this thread isn't about smoking?

Sheesh!
edit on 19-2-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

I don't care if there are altnatives to smoking to get the benefits (and no - I don't agree) They have been trying clinical studies to treat alziemers with the patch, pills etc.

people said there were alternative to cannabis as well and finally had to admit that Big Pharma does not have all the answers.

Of course this thread is about smoking. The protective benefits to neurological diseases comes from SMOKING tobacco.

But it is a different aspect of smoking

Anti-smokers had the field for 60 years. Now its smokers turn

Suck it up. This is ATS and I am allowed to discuss anything I want.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
2001 - 887 million
2003 - 904 million
2003 - 939 million
2004 - 1,147million
2005 - 1,197 million (increase of about 50 million from 2004)
2006 - 1,307 million (increase of about 110 million from 2005 but reflects only half year of smoking ban)
2007 - 1,374 million (increase of 177 million from 2005)
What is this data supposed to be proving again?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join