Big Tobacco, Obama, the FDA, and Collusion

Chemistry and Toxicology of Cigarette Smoke and Biomarkers of Exposure and Harm

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Buck

a reply to: flatbush71

Gosh Could you possibly provide a more biased source??????

Now do yourself a favor and exercise a little common sense. Compare the "chemistry of tobacco smoke" to the chemistry of wood smoke"

I would suggest that minus the beneficial additions of various forms of vitamin B, that the products of combustion are in both types of smoke. And please remember the difference - 19 g. of dried leaves compared to a log of wood.

Then remember that mankind has evolved...that is our lungs evolved.... in the ever present environment of heavy wood smoke.

You wonder why childhood asthma has increased by 800 % in lock-step with the public health compaign to reduce childhood exposure to cigarette smoke? Consider that asthma is a hyperactive response to normal environmental stimuli. Consider that most children today have lungs that have never been properly challenged by exposure to smoke. Just like children developing allergies because they are not sufficiently exposed to dirt, children's lungs must be properly challenged to develop normal response to environmental stimuli.

Until you can explain why asthma, never-smoker lung cancer, oral-pharageal cancers have ALL increased in the face of decreasing exposure to smoke.....all your scare tactics are nothing but propaganda and marketing.

Please explain how "Science" managed to blame tobacco as the CAUSE of cervical cancer....until a vaccine was discovered and the real CAUSE of cervical cancer is now known to be the HPV virus.

I am not concerned that SCIENCE did not know about the virus and that many cancers (including lung cancer and oral-pharangeal cancers are now proven to be CAUSED by the HPV virus). I am concerned that "SCIENCE" could be so wrong and still get quoted by those who THINK they have "Proof" and really have nothing at all but are still prepared to make the lives of others intolerable and interfere unnecessarily in the lives of law abiding citizens.

I grew up in a time when nobody had these problems.
Its Monsanto and dozens of other corps, as well as the mass unneeded inoculations.
The entire U.S. Medical community is now for profit only.( Keep'em sick and sell'em pills) And its a joke.
I have several practitioners in my family.

Everything we eat, drink, breath, wear, and touch is killing us.
The lives and health of U.S.citizens ( as well as their financial well-being ) are meaningless when it comes to Wall Street and Corporation profits.

You can think or say anything you like, but you know damned little of the world that you live in.

Buck

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: flatbush71

I am not concerned that SCIENCE did not know about the virus and that many cancers (including lung cancer and oral-pharangeal cancers are now proven to be CAUSED by the HPV virus). I am concerned that "SCIENCE" could be so wrong and still get quoted by those who THINK they have "Proof" and really have nothing at all but are still prepared to make the lives of others intolerable and interfere unnecessarily in the lives of law abiding citizens.

Do you want to provide me with an irrefutable scientific study to back up your claim that meets the significance of this one? Here is a 100% contradiction to your claim.

Methods
Archival tissue specimens from 223 patients (145 men, 78 women, median age 65 years, range 27–87 years), who presented with cancer in the lungs, were subjected to GP5+/6+ polymerase chain reaction and p16INK4Aimmunohistochemistry. The series included primary lung carcinomas of patients without a history of cancer (n = 175), primary lung carcinomas of patients with an unrelated cancer in the past (n = 36), and carcinomas with primary presentation in the lungs of which the origin (i.e., primary or metastasis) was equivocal at the time of diagnosis (n = 12). GP5+/6+ polymerase chain reaction/p16INK4A double-positive carcinomas were subjected to HPV genotyping, HPVE7 transcript analysis, loss of heterozygosity analysis, and array-comparative genomic hybridization.

Results
Whereas all primary lung carcinomas were hrHPV-negative (211 of 211, 100%), three hrHPV–positive equivocal carcinomas (3 of 12, 25%) were identified. These patients (1 male, 2 females) had a history of hrHPV-associated disease; one tonsillar and two cervical carcinomas. A clonal relationship between individual tumor pairs was supported by identical hrHPV genotype, pattern of p16INK4Aexpression, HPVE7 mRNA expression, and genomic aberrations.

Conclusions
hrHPV presence in a tumor with primary presentation in the lungs signifies pulmonary metastasis from a primary hrHPV–positive cancer elsewhere in the body. No support was found for an attribution of hrHPV infection to the development of primary LC.

www.jto.org...

The odds of faulty transcription is astronomically ridiculous. I have two words for you people:

Surface Area.

Cancer is caused from carcinogens and transcription errors from them, but the roll on these cancers is a game of Yahtzee, one no one can avoid, because of how many known carcinogens there are, and even the potential for spontaneous faulty transcription. You can fall down and get cancer from a bruise on 1 cell. The odds of this happening is a metaphorical equivalent to the birth of a galaxy, but this is how it works. The specific people that first got cancer this way, is what opened the human genome up to being more susceptible to cancer genetically all together.

The reason tobacco, and smoking in general(Marijuana INCLUDED) is controversial, is because other than damaging cells and forcing new transcription, there are two specific ways to make this worse, the first would be carcinogens. Carcinogens basically are making this transcription more likely to fault, and thus cancer. The second way however, is why smoking falls on it's face, compared to a substance like Coffee, that has similar amounts of potential carcinogens, and that is Surface Area.

Oxygen diffuses through the walls of the alveoli into the enveloping capillaries (small blood vessels). Estimates of the total surface area of lungs vary from 50 to 75 square metres (540 to 810 sq ft); roughly the same area as one side of a tennis court.

Whenever you:
1. Expose that many cells
2. with carcinogens,
3. And the cells are damaged

-You're at risk of cancer.

That's just how it works.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: flatbush71

There only 5 substances thought to be carinogenic in tobacco smoke. There 9 substances in your morning coffee that are also thought to be carcinogenic!! Give some careful common sense thought to that little known fact

Just 5 you say? Is that a fact you say? Common sense you tell me?

Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals, including over 70 known to cause cancer (carcinogens).

www.cancer.org...

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: flatbush71

Carcinogens are endemic to our environment, including Polonium 210 radiation!

And I already brought up the fact that Polonium-210 is present in cigarette smoke several posts prior to yours:

The alpha-particle-emitting radioactive element, Polonium-210, is present not only in cigarettes but smokeless tobacco. It was reported to be a constituent in tobacco smoke in 1964.

Lung cancers have been induced in 9 to 53 percent of hamsters given multiple intratracheal instillations of polonium-210 in amounts yielding lifetime exposures of 15 to 300 rads to the lungs. Cigarette smokers have previously been estimated to receive 20 rads to areas of the bronchial epithelium from deposited polonium-210. This finding thus supports the hypothesis that alpha radiation resulting from the polonium-210 or lead-210 present in cigarette smoke may be a significant causative factor in human lung cancer.

science.sciencemag.org...

Have you ever given any thought as to how the entire biosphere is impacted by the exposure of cigarette smoke that is continuously being introduced into the environment? And it is all done so by a product that has caused an addictive behavior in the individual via directly altering neurotransmitter functions, to induce said exposure. Since significant majority of all tobacco users are addicted to the tobacco containing product which he/she uses, this indicates that the regulatory system in the brain that is responsible for reward, the endocannabinoid system, has a deficiency. In other words, tobacco containing products (nicotine) directly alters the endocannabinoid system's signalling functions, and thus it can no long effectively regulate neurotransmitter signalling involved in the reward pathways (dopamenergic neurons). My common sense tells me only one of us actually is making sense.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

1) i literally linked to an article discussing a study addressing the effect on mortality rates relating to the inhalation of smoke in domestic environments. Stating that people *could* live to a ripe old age has no bearing on the fact that inhaling burnt matter over prolonged periods of time can very much harm/kill you.

2) i wasn't even taking about tobacco but seeing as you mention it, yes, doing so over a prolonged period of time can harm/kill you. To suggest otherwise is the height of absurdity.

a reply to: GetHyped

Absurdity you say??? And yet smokers live to be 100 years old and so did non-smokers who lived in small cottages with wood burning stoves. So how did and how does that absurdity happen?

a reply to: M4ngo

Can anyone be addicted to vitamin B or is it just smokers

Polonium 210 in the environment

www.sciencedirect.com...

Apparently, tobacco is not the only plant that absorbs Polonium 210 from the environment (where it is endemic) which means that trees and wood are also contaminated. You make it sound like tobacco is somehow special????

how are you unable to explain the increase in incidence of lung cancer, oral pharangeal cancers, asthma etc in the face of the decrease of smoking???? Oh yes that's right.... you haven't.

Smoking started decreasing the male population in about the 1960's. that is about 50 years ago. How is lung cancer in males doing.....it must be so low now that its almost disappeared right? Surprising, lung cancer in the male population has only decreased by about 10 %. Doesn't smoking cause 85 % of lung cancer? 50 years and it has only decreased by about 10 % (which could easily be attributed to increased environmental controls in industrial settings.

Smoking in the femail population decreased about 10 years later in 1975. That is 35 years ago. Female lung cancer increasing. Female lung cancer in never smokers has increased by 28 %.

Oral pharangeal cancer?''

oralcancerfoundation.org...

HPV is the leading cause of oropharyngeal cancers (the very back of the mouth and part of what in lay terms might be called a part of the throat), and a very small number of front of the mouth, oral cavity cancers. HPV16 is the version most responsible, and affects both males and females. In public messages for simplicity, OCF frequently speaks about oral cancers in general. Scientifically, this is really anatomically divided up into the oral cavity and the oropharynx. Each anatomical site has different statistics, etiologies which dominate that location, and outcomes from treatment. The fastest growing segment of the oral and oropharyngeal cancer population are otherwise healthy, non-smokers in the 25-50 age range. When you consider both anatomical sites, HPV is driving the growth in numbers of oral cancers. White, non-smoking males age 35 to 55 are most at risk, 4 to 1 over females. In the oral/oropharyngeal environment, HPV16 manifests itself primarily in the posterior regions (the oropharynx) such as the base of the tongue, the back of the throat, the tonsils, the tonsillar crypts, and tonsillar pillars.

Gee isn't it funny how you breed rats and hamsters to develop tumors so you can more easily study cancer AND then by god the little furry creatures develop cancer!!!!!!! I am so shocked and awed by your evidence.

Go ahead.....explain how with the decrease of smoking that the diseases most associated with smoking are increasing.

Provide links and texts and scientific studies until you are blue in the face but until you can answer the question on the facts of what is happening in the real world and not in some artificially manipulated environment like a lab, you have Nothing...bupkus....nada...zero.

How absurd is it that you can still the SCIENCE to be accurate and unbiased in the face of the increase of disease rates for those diseases most associated with smoking and tobacco.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


You skated around what I directly addressed from your post, and disproved you wrong. Why did you do that? This thread is specifically about tobacco, so that is why I referred to Polonium-210 being in tobacco products. To answer some of your other questions—


• Non-smokers can get lung cancer from:

Radon gas. The leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers is exposure to radon gas, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It accounts for about 21,000 deaths from lung cancer each year.

Secondhand smoke. Each year, an estimated 7,330 adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing secondhand smoke.

Cancer-causing agents at work. For some people, the workplace is a source of exposure to carcinogens like asbestos and diesel exhaust[/color[.

Air pollution. It’s long been known that both indoor and outdoor air pollution contribute to lung cancer. In 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified outdoor air pollution as a cancer causing agent (carcinogen).

Gene mutations. Researchers are learning more and more about what causes cells to become cancererous, and how lung cancer cells differ between non-smokers and smokers. For example, an article published in Clinical Cancer Research explains that a particular kind of gene mutation is much more common in lung cancer in non-smokers than smokers.

www.cancer.org...

• Regarding your oral pharyngeal cancer comment, please point out where I have mentioned tobacco products being a cause of it. That is actually just you blabbing about in your frustration.

• And what is happening in the real world exactly? The above addresses the sources for lung cancer in non-smokers. Are you going to claim they are lying?


• Anyways, regarding asthma and women—it has been well known and understood that grass polen contributes significantly to asthma, and regarding women and kids that develop asthma, we have this to consider as well:

Data from the USA show prevalence of smoking at any time during pregnancy was 8.4%, with 20.6% of women who smoked in the first or second trimesters quitting by the third trimester. Smoking during pregnancy was more prevalent for women aged 20–24 years (13.0%) and the highest rate was found for non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native women (18.0%) 17].

Despite the fact that smoking prevalence has decreased in smoking mothers in most western countries [18], approximately one-third of these women continue to smoke during early pregnancy [5].

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, there is a real world study just like you asked. As well as real world examples that contribute to lung cancer in non-smokers.

Cheers, m

a reply to: M4ngo

I asked you why the incidence of cancers was increasing.

What I didn't ask you for are computer generated statistics (see Sammec).

Why can't you answer a simple question? When you have a theory that the CAUSE of the disease is known, and you take away the CAUSE, and the incidence of disease does not decrease........what does that say about your theory.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Why have you not provided a source showing evidence that all cancers associated with smoking are increasing? When will you acknowledge the studies that disprove your claims? When will you provide a source backing your claims?

The most recent data on cancer is from 2013. The trend is declining. Any information you find on these things will be statistics, so apparently your assumtion is based on them, no?

National Cancer Institute 1975-2013

• Larynx Cancer has decreased

• Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has decreased

• Lung and Bronchus Cancer has decreased

• Oral Cavity and Pharynx has increased less than 1.5% per year

• Esophageal adenocarcinoma has increased leas than 1.5% per year

Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancers

• Estimated New Cases in 2016 
48,330
• % of All New Cancer Cases
 2.9%
• Estimated Deaths in 2016 9,570
• % of All Cancer Deaths
 1.6%

Lung and Bronchus Cancers

• Estimated New Cases in 2016
 224,390
• % of All New Cancer Cases
 13.3%
• Estimated Deaths in 2016
 158,080
• % of All Cancer Deaths. 
26.5%

And then of course we have oral tobacco products which can account for some cancers. Many males use smokeless tobacco. And I gave you the prevalence of pregnant mothers who smoke.

Sources:

progressreport.cancer.gov...

progressreport.cancer.gov...

seer.cancer.gov...

seer.cancer.gov...

a reply to: M4ngo

hey the question is a very very simple one. Don't throw bull# at me!

Where is the utopian world where when the rate of smoking dropped, the incidence rate of lung cancer would also drop???????

I know that what the incidence of lung cancer is in 2016 ......now check and see what it was in 2000.

www.medpagetoday.com...

www.aacr.org...

The proportion of lung cancer patients who never smoked more than doubled from 2008 to 2014, a British investigator reported here. Never-smokers accounted for 13% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases at the beginning of the study period and rose steadily to 28% by November 2014. Women accounted for two-thirds of the nonsmokers who developed NSCLC, which was associated with nonspecific symptoms or no symptoms in a majority of cases. Both the percentage and absolute number of NSCLC cases involving nonsmokers increased during the study period, supporting the view that the increase is real and not an artifact created by reductions in smoking prevalence, Eric Lim, MD, of the Royal Brompton Hospital in London, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. "As this group of patients do not have established risk factors, research into early detection -- ideally, by noninvasive or molecular screening -- is urgently required to identify early lung cancer in nonsmokers," Lim said.

oral-pharangeal cancers on the rise

www.aacr.org...

The rise in incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom from 2002 to 2011 was not solely attributable to a rise in incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive disease because the proportion of HPV-positive and -negative cases remained the same throughout that period, according to a study published in Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. Oropharyngeal cancer is a type of head and neck cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is the most common form of oropharyngeal cancer. It includes cancers arising in the tonsil, base of the tongue, soft palate, and the side and back walls of the throat.Terry M. Jones, MD “Incidence of OPSCC has been increasing throughout the developed world since the mid-to-late 1990s,” said Terry M. Jones, MD, professor of head and neck surgery in the Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine at the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom. “Several studies suggest that this rise was driven by increasing incidence of HPV-positive disease, but we wanted to determine whether this was the case across all four countries of the U.K.

this is from UK but it is the same in Canada, US and Europe

Where is the disease free utopia?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The sources you provided are crap, and hold zero credibility—like you. They also refer to statistics, which you made abundantly clear in your past post that statistical data is not acceptable. Furthermore, when you give me sources to back your claims that are not only significantly inferior to what I have provided you with, but are also ones that are biased and funded by pharmaceutical corporations, which have been known to conduct illegal activities, as is evidenced by prior lawsuits and settlements, and have been known to provide toxic and amyloidogenic medicines, then it becomes abundantly clear that you are trolling and have nothing to offer.

• I am sure you are aware that these companies ALSO make HPV vaccines. LOL! Good day to you!

Lim disclosed relevant relationships with Strategen, Abbott Molecular, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Covidien, Ethicon, Roche, Imidex, Eli Lilly, Medella, Boehringer Ingelheim, ScreenCell, Informative Genomics, and the BUPA Cromwell Lung Cancer Screening Programme.

The study had some limitations: Smoking history was self-reported but race-ethnicity was not.

Your MedPage Today Source

The study was supported by a research grant from GlaxoSmithKline and by sponsorship from the University of Liverpool and Aintree Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The Northern Ireland Biobank, which provided access to tissue samples, is funded by the Health and Social Research Development Division of the Public Health Agency. Jones has received research funding and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur. He has also been paid for developing and delivering educational presentations for Sanofi Pasteur.

Your American Association for Cancer Research Source

a reply to: [post=22071147]M4ngo[/post

You posted the incidence rate for 2016 for lung cancers. I assume that you know the lung cancer rates say in 2000 or in 1990. We have a disease here that is CAUSED, confirmed by solid research, absurd to think otherwise or question the data, but at least 85 % or even 90 % CAUSED by smoking. That is what you are saying.

So the smoking rate in the population dropped from the 1960s to 2016 by at least 45 or 50 %. Millions and millions of so-called addicted smokers scare straight.

Lung cancer must be near gone by now. At least a 25 % drop in the incidence rate.

Instead, examine the table (presented by you in this thread) Rates of New Cases of Lung and Bronchus Cancer, adjusted cancer incidence by sex, 1975 to 2013

Overall Cancer Rate 1975 (looks to be about 52/100,000 population)
Overall Cancer Rate 2013 (looks to be about 53 / 100,000 population)

So men (whose lives have changed drastically since 1975 with no lead in gasoline and much, much better environmental controls) experience a fall in lung cancer from 1975

And woman (whose live have also changed drastically since 1975 what with joining the workforce and all) experience an increase in lung cancer and the overall rate remains unchanged.

Females, who never did have the high smoking rate of men, have increased lung cancer rate that pretty much covers the fall by mean.

So instead of the drastic fall in cancer rates that should be expected if smoking is the cause of more than 2/3 of lung cancer incidence, we have a slight increase in overall lung cancer rate

You have already admitted that oral-pharangeal cancer rate is increased (1.5 %) or stayed the same. Why did that not fall and plummet like a rock?


Don't you think its time to stop throwing bull#?????? Did you think that smokers would be so grateful to be free of their addition that they would fail to notice that the disease rates have not dropped????

Anti-smokers have had 56 years to prove that smoking CAUSES lung and oral pharangeal cancers. Take away the CAUSE of the diseases that the incidence rates should fall like no-ones business. Instead, the disease rates reflect changing lifestyles (industrial exposure) and increase slightly.

Times up and it is time for you all to shut-up

If you are admitted to a hospital for almost any reason except an accident, one of the first questions they will ask you is if you smoke [tobacco] - And if you die in that hospital for almost any reason, and if it is at all possible to relate your death to tobacco smoking - they will do it - Incompetent medical care, mistakes, and the drugs they use - which often harm and even kill will be covered up if possible. Tobacco is, according to them, the leading cause of preventable death - And 'they' will do all in their power to make you fit the paradigm - If you die because someone made a mistake and you are a smoker, if possible, they attribute your death to tobacco smoking and not the misused drug they gave you by mistake.

And now that we are talking about the misuse of medical drugs, even when used as they are supposed to be used.......

"100,000 Americans Die Each Year from Prescription Drugs, While Pharma Companies Get Rich"

The study estimating that 100,000 Americans die each year from their prescriptions looked only at deaths from known side effects. That is, those deaths didn’t happen because the doctor made a mistake and prescribed the wrong drug, or the pharmacist made a mistake in filling the prescription, or the patient accidentally took too much. Unfortunately, thousands of patients die from such mistakes too, but this study looked only at deaths where our present medical system wouldn’t fault anyone. Tens of thousands of people are dying every year from drugs they took just as the doctor directed. This shows you how dangerous medications are.

Quote source:
www.alternet.org...

But that is not your problem - Say your problem is that you smoke tobacco and it is making you nervous
- Not to worry - There is a prescription drug that will help you quit

But really you should not smoke tobacco anyway - Why?
Because if you smoke tobacco in any form [they lump cigarettes, pipes, vapes, etc. all together to paint the picture of a tobacco smoker being a sick degenerate with a death wish [NOTE: Not the same with pot, as it becomes legal in more and more places - as stoned potheads are easier to manipulate than tobacco smokers, as tobacco often helps people think, and therefor you can see how dangerous it really is!]

If you continue to smoke you will pay much more for some health insurance policies, not be allowed to move into some private and all public housing and will be considered to be a public health hazarad as your second hand smoke kills hundreds of thousands of people per year.

So if you must continue to smoke maybe, if it is legal in your area, switch to cannabis. Stay happy and stoned
- "They' don't want thinkers who smoke - You see the real danger is not smoking - The real danger is thinking.


This post I dedicates to William C. Douglass, MD and medical maverick who wrote the book:
"The Health Benefits of Tobacco" - Douglass a cigar smoker who said he smoked several full size cigars a day, just died at 89.

Tragic isn't it? - for a smoker to die so young!


PS: As an afterthought to those who may be reading this and are tobacco smokers and like it - Don't smoke too much it can kill you and then you will no longer be abel to smoke - But so can eating too much [some statistics say obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death] - But then again drinking too much water can definitley be hazardous to your health - One thing is for sure life is dangerous and always ends in death.

originally posted by: AlienViewIf you die because someone made a mistake and you are a smoker, if possible, they attribute your death to tobacco smoking and not the misused drug they gave you by mistake.

I have never witnessed this before and I work in a hospital. Care to show a scientific study backing up your claim?

originally posted by: AlienViewAnd now that we are talking about the misuse of medical drugs, even when used as they are supposed to be used.......
"100,000 Americans Die Each Year from Prescription Drugs, While Pharma Companies Get Rich"

The study estimating that 100,000 Americans die each year from their prescriptions looked only at deaths from known side effects. That is, those deaths didn’t happen because the doctor made a mistake and prescribed the wrong drug, or the pharmacist made a mistake in filling the prescription, or the patient accidentally took too much. Unfortunately, thousands of patients die from such mistakes too, but this study looked only at deaths where our present medical system wouldn’t fault anyone. Tens of thousands of people are dying every year from drugs they took just as the doctor directed. This shows you how dangerous medications are.

Quote source:
www.alternet.org...

I agree. Prescription drugs are not what the thread is about though. I do agree with what you are saying here though.

originally posted by: AlienView[NOTE: Not the same with pot, as it becomes legal in more and more places - as stoned potheads are easier to manipulate than tobacco smokers, as tobacco often helps people think, and therefor you can see how dangerous it really is![/font]]

WTF?!

originally posted by: AlienViewIf you continue to smoke you will pay much more for some health insurance policies, not be allowed to move into some private and all public housing and will be considered to be a public health hazarad as your second hand smoke kills hundreds of thousands of people per year.

Exaggerate much?

Secondhand smoke. Each year, an estimated 7,330 adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing secondhand smoke.

Deaths per Year From Secondhand Smoke

originally posted by: AlienViewSo if you must continue to smoke maybe, if it is legal in your area, switch to cannabis. Stay happy and stoned - "They' don't want thinkers who smoke - You see the real danger is not smoking - The real danger is thinking.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or just trolling. Are you implying that using Cannabis causes one to not think, but the tobacco products sold by the public corporations do? Think—as in what context? There is a reason why you have an endocannabinoid system.
Do I think the tobacco plant has medicinal value? Sure. Do I think the tobacco containing products sold in stores today have medicinal value? No. You cannot speak of tobacco as being the same as a tobacco containing product sold by a public corporation with a worthless regulatory oversight.

originally posted by: AlienViewThis post I dedicates to William C. Douglass, MD and medical maverick who wrote the book:
"The Health Benefits of Tobacco"

Right. Not tobacco containing products, but tobacco. This thread is about collusion and Big Tobacco, however, and not your personal bias. You seem highly offended. Are you defending the tobacco containing product(s) you use perhaps? The companies that profit off of consumers by selling them products with hardly any oversight, no quality control, no CGMP, zero clinical trials, etc., while also profitting from their stock options and shareholders and investors.
The tobacco products you buy from from the major companies are not regulated in any form or fashion and noone is going out of his or her way to insure the product does not contain numerous toxic additives—which they do.

originally posted by: AlienViewTragic isn't it? - for a smoker to die so young!

Genetics. Question for you—why have the tobacco companies been paying millions ever year via the Master Tobacco Settlement? Why dkd they not go through the FDA regulatory process of phase 1 — phase 3 clinic trials and prove their medicinal value, efficacy, side effects, and safety if they are as harmless as you imply. If tobacco containing products are as great as you claim them to be, then this shouldn't be a hard task for them to accomplish.

If tobacco containing products sold by public corporations were no where near as harmful as the medical and scientific communities agree on, then they would defend their products and conduxt the necessary clinical trials. Until there is scientific data that proves the benefits outweight the risks, I will not change my mind about tobacco containing products.

a reply to: M4ngo

I will address your question in regards to the Master Settlement Agreement.

First of all, you must recognise what was done with the law in order to bring tobacco companies to the table.

digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu...

In order to be successful against the manufacturer of some product, it was normal to need to prove that a) the product caused the harm and b) the manufacturer sold a defective product that caused the harm.

Clearly, this is a legal problem when it comes to suing tobacco companies. Cigarettes can be manufactured perfectly but it is still felt that it harms the consumer. Statistical studies (epidimiology) is a soft science. It is supposed to be used solely for the purpose of identifying area of potential research. When it came to tobacco, epidimiology identified areas of research (link between smoking and lung cancer) but hard research failed to confirm the link.

Despite this failing, it was felt that it was socially desirable to denormalize smoking.

For this sole reason, the legal definition was changed to include cigarettes. This way, it was no longer necessary for the plaintiff to prove that smoking was the CAUSE of his lung cancer but rather it would be assumed that it was the CAUSE of the lung cancer.

On this basis, the tobacco companies could not win the lawsuit. The common law that has ruled in Britain, United States and Canada no longer prevailed. Common law was specifically changed to support successful prosecution of tobacco companies despite the fact that hard research had failed to support the findings of epidimiology.

So the tobacco companies negotiated the Master Settlement Agreement.

Now lest you think that this means the tobacco companies "lost", please be advised that settlement is no admission of guilt. The Master Settlment Agreement allowed the companies to protect their share of the market, even against tobacco companies that didn't exist yet. And monies could be withheld by the companies if any state failed to take action to protect their market share. This has already happened in a number of states.

The monies paid out by the tobacco companies did not come from companies. The companies simply raised the price of their product and it is individual smokers who pay the Master Settlement Agreement.

a reply to: M4ngo

Thanks for your response M4ngo and for correcting some errors in my statements - But when you are battling a fanaticism rivaling the Alcohol Prohibition of a hundred years ago you sometimes get carried away.


I apprecieate your [their] statistic of " Each year, an estimated 7,330 adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing secondhand smoke." - BUT this statistic is not sufficient for the true anti-tobacco fanatic - Try this one instead:
from the National Cancer Institute [NIH] -
"In the United States, secondhand smoke is thought to cause about 46,000 heart disease deaths each year"
Much better for a true fanatic - after all 7,000 deaths could be attributed to statistical error but 46,000 deaths and the smoker becomes a mass murderer - A mudh better statistic don't you think

But what of these statistics - do you trust them? - I don't - I think they lie deliberately for their misbegotten agenda of making the world safe by eliminating risk - The heart of the Socialist Agenda.

And are they making us healthier - I don't think so - In fact "THEY" make me sick.

Not that I'm saying health warnings shouldn't be put on packs of cigarettes as they are - There is no doubt that smoking is a risky form of behaviour - But should "THEY" have the right to declare "YOU'' a lesser Human being, a lower class of person because you smoke?

For example, recently, It was decided by the great powers of the federal government that 'no one' who is qualified to live in a federally subsidized apartment should have the right to smoke - You move in and sign a lease saying you will be evicted if you smoke in your own apartment

Makes sense doesn't it? - After all if you are a poor person you are subhuman anyway - So why should those great liberal
communist Socialists give you something without stealing something from you ? [In my opinion why Trump won over the Hillary - people are starting to lose trust in the so called liberals who say they represent them].

About 100 years ago this same fanaticism against alcohol led to prohibition, which led to very powerful crime mobs still with us today, now thriving on the drug trade - And responsible for the very powerfu gambling interests that own Nevada and have influence throughout the political spectrum. But I wll always be a gambler and have faith in Human stupidity, so don't you think it is time to outlaw tobacco and give a new generation of mobsters a chance to rise up ?1?1

a reply to: AlienView

I appreciate the response and I apologize this thread has ended up in the complete opposite direction and intention I originally had. Maybe re-read the OP and you will see this has absolutely nothing to do with "outlawing tobacco". It has to do with deliberate corruption and strategic planning and passing laws. Everything fits together nicely.

I am a smoker myself. That doesn't mean I think Big Tobacco is on my side lol. They are just as corrupt as BP. I'm actually pissed that I am addicted and what it does to people's health. I have been smoking for around 12-13 years and I have no problem investigating the people I give my hard earned money to daily.

To not question things would be ridiculous, IMO.