Cigarette scientist say smoking is safe. Government scientist say climate change

a reply to: MysterX

Are those real doctors or do they just play one on TV. Do you not think that there might be a little difference between science and marketing.

Of course, though, just as an aside, second hand smoke was used in the treatment of asthma in the 50s or so. And now that the smoking rate has gone down by about 50 %, the rate of asthma as gone up by 800 %.

Funny how those little kiddies didn't all of a sudden get healthy when all those smoking bans and anti-smoking campaigns came into play.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Also funny how everyone says that smoking CAUSES 85 % of lung cancers and now that the smoking rate is down about 50 % and all those anti-smoking campaigns started, the rate of lung cancer has not significantly fallen since 1975 (about 10 % in men) and the fastest growing set of lung cancer victims are woman who NEVER SMOKED.

www.stopcancerfund.org...

www.medscape.com...

DENVER — Lung cancer rates are increasing in people who have never smoked, according to two new studies presented here at the 16th World Conference on Lung Cancer. In fact, at one institution, the incidence of never-smokers diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) jumped from 13% to 28% during a 6-year period, Eric Lim, MD, from the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust in London, United Kingdom, and colleagues report in their study. And many of these patients initially presented with advanced-stage disease. The second study demonstrated that the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers is increasing in the United States. This was observed in three facilities, most significantly for NSCLC. At one institution, for example, the rate of never-smokers climbed from 8.9% in 1990–1995 to 19.5% in 2011–2013. "When we think of lung cancer, we think of smoking," Dr Lim noted. But antismoking strategies implemented in the early 1980s have led to a decrease in smoking-related lung cancer. Instead, "what we are seeing is an increase in the incidence of nonsmoking-related lung cancer," he explained during a press briefing. "We have seen more than double the amount of patients coming to us."

Go ahead - tell me the TRUTH about smoking again. I love good fairy tales

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: thinline

Its not just the Clinton's through, its politics and politicians in general.

The fact that people actually entertain the notion that there vote counts, and that we live in a supposed democratic society is complete and utter bull crap.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Don't you get tiredof being called out on your BS over and over again?

I'm just embarrassed that some of irrational rants get so many stars. However it is obvious most on here don't buy into the bad information you routinely bring to the discussion.

a reply to: jrod

I am really starting to bug you aren't I?

Again, please please do feel free to ignore me. My feelings won't be hurt in the slightest!

Say - I just had a thought. If smoking causes lung cancer AND you spend billions on smoking bans and anti-smoking campaigns and the incidence of lung cancer DOESN'T decrease, do you think that maybe smoking didn't cause cancer in the first place? That maybe it was something like a virus, like oh, just off the top of my head....HPV????

And if the TRUTH about smoking is wrong....could it be that the TRUTH about AGW is also wrong????


Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: MysterX

Are those real doctors or do they just play one on TV. Do you not think that there might be a little difference between science and marketing.

Of course, though, just as an aside, second hand smoke was used in the treatment of asthma in the 50s or so. And now that the smoking rate has gone down by about 50 %, the rate of asthma as gone up by 800 %.

Funny how those little kiddies didn't all of a sudden get healthy when all those smoking bans and anti-smoking campaigns came into play.

Tired of Control Freaks

Yes, there is a difference between science and marketing, but clearly the tobacco firms were using psudo-science and outright lies using a science angle to market their tobacco.

You seem to be making a strange error in your views on smoking tobacco.

You're saying that lung cancer rates are increasing, while smoking rates are dropping...somehow using this as some kind of proof that smoking did not cause lung cancer...!

Smoking did and does cause lung cancer, but is NOT the only cause of lung cancer. Environmental pollutants, food additives, farming additives and pesticides / herbisides, industrial accidents, commercial air travel and a whole pleothra of other causes and factors ALSO cause lung cancer, or at least, have the capacity to do so.

Tobacco smoking is but ONE cause of lung cancer among many others, to claim that it is otherwise because people develop lung cancer by other means, is simply nonsense.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Do you really think a rational person is going to take you serious?

Clearly habitually inhaling smoke is bad for one's health, I don't even think you will try to deny that.

I am skeptical of the American healthcare system because profits are a priority not one's health. Long term treatments are much more profitable than a one time cure....

So tell me why the governments ain't doing anything meaningful to combat our co2 increase?

Our survival is at stake, the human species and most other live forms in the near future!
Yet the co2 amount each year is going up, in fact we are basically right now at a point where you can't fix it anymore.. so even when we would have a zero co2 increase next year it won't matter that much, it would slow it down but you can't stop it's consequences..

So you believe climate scientists have some hidden agenda and just work for the government, following their goal so they can just tax people more as an excuse?

I understand that, sure-- not much to believe from the government, so when climate scientists says such things and back it even up with data.. even then it's hard to believe I understand.. Still--- this is about our kids / the survival of the human species and most other life forms, not to be taken lightly!

But rest assure, nothing meaningful is being done to combat this, so sleep well!

And smoking, they again like tax money frrom it... nothing great happening form out governments to stop smoking, just more taxes..
Oh wait our government main concern is money/the economy -- nothing else matters.. oh wait that's what we only care about as well really.. our wallets..

a reply to: MysterX

OK! but from what I understand - lung cancer incidence is CAUSED by 85 or 90 % smoking. and all those other CAUSES that you mention only account for 10 or 15 %.

The link I gave you was from a conference of doctors who TREAT lung cancer and they say that the rate of lung cancer is increasing in never smoking people.

I guess I shouldn't believe them. After all the real-word facts don't match the TRUTH that my government gave me!

But methinks I smell a rat.......I don't think that TRUTH about smoking is quit what the government wants me to believe.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: jrod

Smoking is like all things in this world. It has risks - it has benefits.

It is normally considered the decision of the individual to decide what risks are worth what benefits.

People go skiing all the time. It has benefits - its fun, its social, its exercise. But people sometimes die from skiing. They ski off a cliff, they fall and hit their heads, its hard on the knee joints, they sometimes hit trees.

Should we ostracise people who ski because in our collective opinion its a "stupid" decision that is bad for their health.

People drink alcohol, drink soda, eat chips and fast food. They ride motorcycles and climb mountains. They jaywalk. They live sedentary lifestyles.

There are many many things in this world that are bad for our health but people do them anyway. Its called living. And anyone who believes that they should avoid risks and rely on the government to make decisions about how they want to live is no more free then a dog on a leash.

They may live longer but they are sure missing out on a lot of fun in order to compete in the marathon of who can deliver the most well preserved and underutilized body to the undertaker.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Pluginn

No I don't believe that climate scientists have some hidden agenda. At least, I don't believe it started that way. A few scientists started to do research that connected climate to the emission of CO2. That is what scientists do. Research. And I do seriously believe that they thought they had something. So they published some papers and brought their theory to the attention of the public and government.

But the government saw a way to charge taxes out of the whole thing. And it all took off.

So now scientists, if they want to continue to do research, must do research whose results support climate change. And if they don't, they don't get funding and they can't pay their mortgages and feed their kids.

So they are now married to the AGW theory and they don't dare do anything that interferes with the governments tax base.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I think we should be able to smoke and buy quality tobacco and other smokable plants legally.

What I don't like about cigarettes, is the filter. This world is literally littered with cigarettes butts.

a reply to: jrod

Gee - we could solve that little litter problem. Its easy. Give smokers a table and an ashtray. its that simple. If smokers had a comfortable place to smoke, with ashtrays - the litter problem would decrease!

Its kind of like how they combat other types of litter. They give people trash cans at convenient locations.

Smokers need an ashtray.

BTW - just in case you didn't know - smokers throw their butts on the ground as a sign of rebellion and disrespect for the way we are treated. Its ain't going to end any time soon.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Ash trays wont solve the problem....just like trash cans do not prevent many from littering.

It is a general lack of respect for the world and each other, including one's self. I prefer not to live a destructive life.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So you think the climate scientists are honest about their research, but you say the government(s) just see it as a nice excuse for more taxes.

Sure I could believe that, and yes from what I see nothing that much meaningful is being done by our governments to combat this problem.

I said a long time ago, when Al gore came in the picture since he's a political figure, people won't believe how serious this problem is.. so in fact he did BIG DAMAGE for trying to fix climate change in the hearths of people, even though it's a concern he has most likely.. (but sure he would still drive cars, fly planes, eating meat most most likely..., no doubt about that!)

It's known for a long time, way before AL Gore.. but somehow he became the boogeyman/spokesman of climate change and as a result less believable this a serious problem we face for many..

No-- we rather support some useless war in the ME fighting terrorism (example) which cost countless of dollars/tax money... and the result!? more terrorism/chaos...

Yep we are doomed, sorry.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

But why don't you believe it?

What is the angle then?

To cover wide ranging environmental pollution causing rapid growth in incidence of lung cancer?

We already know pollution cause lung diseases and so on, so it's not as though that information can be simply buried by blaming it on smoking..perhaps some was blamed on smoking, as smoking is a known carcinogen and so of course was a very convenient thing to blame rising lung diseases on...especially to blame passive smoking related lung diseases involving children.

However, if some of the harmful effects of indutrial pollution was diverted towards the bogeyman of tobacco smoking, this could only have ever been a successful diversion IF and only IF smoking was and is a viable and reasonable target to pin the blame on to...IOW, it causes lung diseases and cancers.

But using smoking to cover up environmental causes of lung disease (because industry is profitable and expensive to clean up) does not in any way mean that smoking is not harmful inand of itself, for the reasons above.

Tobacco tax revenue (in addition to the jobs created and preserved) in the UK is around 15 - 20 BILLION pounds sterling per annum...why would the government lie about tobacco being harmful and ring the neck of the golden goose if it were not actually harmful?

a reply to: MysterX

MysterX

You have some of the motives right but you have failed to consider all the motives.

Prohibitionists (and make no mistake, this is a prohibitionist campagn) have been with us for hundreds of years. Some people just think that they know how other people should live. They do for the feelings of superiority. They do it because they see it as God's work. They are also greedy for fame.

They have been saying the smoking causes diseases for over 400 years. But today they pretend that it comes from brand new research.

It is little talked about now but that last round of tobacco prohibition occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s and was headed by a woman by the name of Lucille Gaston Page when she founded the anti-cigarette leage. She died broke and of throat cancer. In her case, I believe it was christian fervor that drove her.

In more recent times, we have Stanton Glantz, a lowly mechanical engineer but he was given an honoray degree in cardiology because of the 400 million dollars he brought to the University of California from the James Woods Foundation. Now the James Woods Foundation is actually funded by Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals and they had just invented the nicotene patch and needed a market. The anti-smoking campaign was actually a marketing tool. Of course Johnson and Johnson were trying to increase their profits but I do believe that Stanton Glantz was in it because he honestly hated tobacco companies and he enjoyed the fame.

Then there is John H Banzhaf III. He was a law professor at Washington University. Up until the character got involved, tobacco companies were winning all the tobacco cases because of a simple principle in law. The principle that you have to prove that a product has caused the disease. It simply could not be proved! Smokers get exactly the same diseases as non-smokers. You can't look at a case of lung cancer or heart disease and find shreds of tobacco embedded in the tissue.

Now John H. Banzhaf hit on the idea of changing hundreds of years of civil law by stating that statistical evidence (correlation) was sufficient to prove causation. Once the law was changed, it was wide open season.

I believe that Banzhaf got involved because he is ego driven and wanted to prove that he was smarter than everyone else.

As to the government "wringing the neck of the golden goose" - please do a search on tobacco company profits. They have remained unaffected. and government tax intake from tobacco has risen 10 fold.

So this prohibition will proceed exactly as all rounds of prohibition have proceeded. Criminal gangs will jump into the market. BTW - criminal gangs by their tobacco from tobacco companies. They are the ones growing it. Violence will rise as criminal gangs try to defend their profits.

Government will try to defend their taxes. They will enforce the bans.

The justice system will become corrupt.

The population will continue to do what it has always done. Buy a desired product at a reasonable price. People will rebel against draconian control. Cigarettes will become a sign of rebellion among teens and the smoking rate will rise again

www.nber.org...

Smoking among youths in the United States rose precipitously starting in 1992 after declining for the previous 15 years. By 1997, the proportion of teenage smokers had risen by one-third from its1991 trough. This trend is particularly striking in light of the continuing steady decline in smoking by adult Americans. "Today we are in the alarming position of having a youth smoking rate that is roughly 50 percent greater than the smoking rate of adults," note NBER Research Associate Jonathan Gruber and Jonathan Zinman in Youth Smoking in the U.S.:Evidence and Implications (NBER Working Paper No. 7780).

And in the end, prohibition will fail.

Of course tobacco prohibition will fail far far faster than drug prohibition because it affects a greater percentage of the population.

Once the criminals are taking more of the profit then the government .....prohibition will fail and the anti-smoking crowd will jump onto more lucrative campaigns (Banshaf has already jumped to the obesity campaign and hopes to sue fast food using the same tactics he used on the tobacco companies).

It will all melt away like ice cream in the rain until about 70 or so years from now when the cycle will start again.

Tired of Control Freaks

If you knew what I do from the inside of the Surgeon General's office in the 70s you too would question EVERYTHING you are told by so called scientists (government controlled and ran science) . Everything from smoking , to climate change , to vaccines and additives for shelf life. Everything. Now it is e-cigs. The science behind them PROVES they are safe.
Why does this happen ? What is the key word? REGULATION
Regulation = Revenue = Taxing= Stealing money from the people in the name of science by politicians. What do they do with the money ? Pocket it of course.