I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Cigarettes are so disgusting and unhealthy. I just hate them. I can't stand it when I see it in people's avatars, images on the net, or characters smoking on TV shows and movies. More people die from cigarette cancers than terrorism by huge amounts. Yet people are puffing away all worried about the A-rabs coming here to commit acts of terrorism. Cigarettes are so bad. Just gross.

Wow...just wow.

a reply to: 3n19m470

yeah - really really pathetic isn't it???

Some people drink as much kool-aid as they can lay their hands on.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You realize every cigarette damages your lungs, and inhibits your ability of blood to absorb oxygen.

Tobacco contains radioactive isotopes that exposes lungs to gamma and alpha radiation. The lungs do not have a layer of dead skin to protect them, so the alpha radiation is very harmful.

These items are not propaganda, it’s fact.

Why are you using false arguments to defend corporations that are profiting at the expense of individuals health with a product that is Scientifically harmful?

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Ah the militant douche baggery and smug preaching / projecting of their belief in their moral intellectual and just plain overall superiority of a recent convert... (Can't forget the insane inane and totally narcissistic belief that anyone wants to hear about much less cares about their anecdotes, because everyone knows a good smug and down talking moralistic harangue needs anecdotes!)

Whether it's smoking, converting to atheism or the newest fad diets there's always the people that do exactly what you're doing here, and it's ALWAYS coming from an insufferably smug, narcissistic, and ugly place in the psyche. (especially you with your wanting to hurt people)

P.s."innoculous" isn't a word... You INOCULATE people or animals against communicable diseases, and you innocuously take pleasurable puffs off a cigarette

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Bob Marley would like a word...

Oh wait, you can't talk to him because he's DEAD FROM CANCER

idiot

a reply to: neutronflux

The stuff about radiation is bull#. Yes there is radiation in the fertilizer that is used on the tobacco plant and is absorbed by the plant.

It was thoroughly investigated as a cause of lung cancer and cleared. Did you know that there is polonium 210 and lead 210 in the general environment and therefore inhaled by everyone?

If polonium210 and lead210 caused any disease, I can guantee you that the tobacco companies would have started growing tobacco with a different kind of fertilizer decades ago.

Do you beleive everything you are told.

Please provide proof of your assertion that every cigarette damages your lung and inhibits your bloods ability to care blood.

Are you talking about that fact that non-smokers generally have a carbon monxide concentration of their blood of 7 % and smokers generally have 9 %.

That fact has also been grossly exaggerated by anti-smokers. There is no significant difference in the amount of oxygen carried by smokers and those by non-smokers. This evidenced by atheletes who smoke to increase carbon monoxide in their blood and increase endurance.

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

Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, increase lung volume and stimulate weight loss — characteristics all known to enhance performance in endurance sports. This paper will discuss the potential benefits of cigarette smoking to endurance performance and make recommendations as to how individuals and national bodies could effectively integrate this practice into high-performance training programs.

Apparently, you do believe absolutely every single thing you are told, without question and with no further research on your part.

Your belief system is wholly based on the axiom "everyone knows"

Tell me do you defend the pharmaceutical companies for selling products that are profiting at the expense of the individuals health with a product that is scientifically harmful?

a reply to: roguetechie

just to be clear - never smokers die of cancer as well as smokers

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I only smoke AFTER sex now.

My wife kept complaining about the ashes falling in her face.

There's always doggy style.

The ashtray kept sliding off her butt.

That's some funny chit right there.

a reply to: dfnj2015

quick facts for you.

smoking accounts for 80% of lung cancer.

less than 10% of smokers get cancer.

just saying.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

while the radiation bit is a little bs, the damage isnt.

nicotine in low doses isnt bad, its the tar from smoking that is. look at a cigarette butt, that brown stuff on the filter sticks in your lungs, so one cigarette, and every cigarette, is bad for your lungs.

its the tar thats bad. it just lingers and sticks for a long time, causing damage.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You?

“The stuff about radiation is bull#. Yes there is radiation in the fertilizer that is used on the tobacco plant and is absorbed by the plant. ”

Can you be any more intellectually dishonest?

Tobacco Companies Hid Evidence of Radiation in Cigarettes
By CARRIE GANN, ABC News Medical Unit
Sept. 29, 2011
abcnews.go.com...

Radioactive polonium in cigarette smoke
scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org...

Tobacco’s natural radiation dose higher than after Chernoby
www.newscientist.com...


The real propaganda and conspiracy is cigarette companies have conspiracied to coverup how bad smoking is for you.

Do you mean lung volume increases? Does not mean increased lung efficiency.

You body has to try to compensate for the damage in efficiency that smoking causes. The body is trying to compensate for ways to increase oxygen levels in your blood smoking depletes.

Why do you purposely and religiously defend an industry that pushes a habit the kills people? And a government that taxes people over a deadly habit.

Smoking incorporates all aspects of conspiracy and government greed. Hiding for years how bad mass grown and industrial processes tobacco is to generate millions in revenue.

If you want to grow and smoke your own tobacco, that whould be freedom. Can you do that?

Find it odd that people fork over millions for a habit that kills them, while food banks struggle to help feed poorer districts that smoking is a real health problem? Where it’s seems tobacco and alcohol sales are not a problem.

Why is there always money for cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs? Yet a struggle for children to get proper nourishment?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: roguetechie

just to be clear - never smokers die of cancer as well as smokers

Are you Bill Hicks?

a reply to: neutronflux

Can you dredge up more propaganda?

en.wikipedia.org...

Polonium is a very rare element in nature because of the short half-life of all its isotopes. 210Po, 214Po, and 218Po appear in the decay chain of 238U; thus polonium can be found in uranium ores at about 0.1 mg per metric ton (1 part in 1010),[43][44] which is approximately 0.2% of the abundance of radium. The amounts in the Earth's crust are not harmful. Polonium has been found in tobacco smoke from tobacco leaves grown with phosphate fertilizers.[45][46][47]

Can you allow other people the freedom to live their lives and manage their money WITHOUT your high horse sentiments?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

No but I would like to be!

There has got to be something to say about the hypocrisy of financially raping smokers while proclaiming that tobacco causes half a million deaths (statistically created deaths, of course) per year.

Notice the doors that have been opened by anti-tobacco. We now have advertisements on tv that pretend that soda pop is the same bad habit as smoking and governments that can't wait to tax yet another bad behavior.

I can't wait to the adultery tax and the missed church on sunday tax along with obligatory stoning by people like neuronflex (OH won't somebody think of the children!!! their starving because their children smoke!

a reply to: neutronflux

Researchers very well knew about Polonium 210 back in the 1950s and 1960s. If the tobacco companies were hiding it, they didn't do a very good job of it.

UCLA is the home of Stanton Glanz. Glanz is the father of the anti-smoking movement. He is a mechanical engineer who was granted an honorary PHD in cardiology because he brought 4 million dollars in government grants to UCLA by setting up a library of all the paper that tobacco companies produced for court cases.

Glanz lies - he lies alot. He is an international joke with his "studies".

The Great Polonium Smoke Out

www.washingtoncitypaper.com...

Generally the cancer risk due to polonium-210 inhalation is believed to be quite small. Doctors writing to the New England Journal of Medicine in 1982 compared the radiation exposure from smoking a pack and a half daily to getting 300 chest X-rays in a year, but (a) that’s really not so much radiation and (b) they still couldn’t assess the resulting cancer threat. The alleged claim by C. Everett Koop that radioactivity causes 90 percent of tobacco-related cancer has so far resisted the tracking skills of my research team (it’s all over the Web, typically attributed to a Koop appearance “on national television”), but if he said it, it’s way off from what everyone else says—including surgeon generals’ reports from before, during, and after his tenure. The U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Management estimates that if you’ve smoked for 50 years, polonium-210 accounts for 1 percent of your overall lung cancer risk. According to data from Argonne National Laboratories, the chances of polonium causing fatal cancer in a two-pack-a-day smoker after 25 years may be less than one in 1,000; by contrast, World Health Organization figures suggest that cigarettes kill about half of all smokers, with half of those deaths coming in middle age. So sure, maybe you can improve your odds a bit by going organic, but basically a smoker demanding a polonium-free cigarette is like a suicide insisting on using a polonium-free bullet.

Maybe you could try doing a little tiny bit of research that isn't written for money to support an anti-smoking campaign and get the government mucho dollars?

a reply to: neutronflux

For example of UCLA lies

Here is a copy of study pulished in Nature in 1965 discussing Polonium 210 in tobacco products

www.nature.com...

Look at the bottom - it references another study done in 1960. and published in 1960 by the Lancet

www.thelancet.com...(60)91087-4/abstract

Man those tobacco companies did not try very hard to hide that radiation in tobacco products thing.

Smoking is a choice. Last time I checked no one makes a choice to be blown up by 'A-rabs' as you put it.

a reply to: stormson

You know, if you fall from a building that is 10 stories up, the chances that you are going to die are almost 100 % (there always seems to be 1 or 2 or survive by whatever miracle).

So in general, it can be said that falling from a 10 story building CAUSED the death.

But what if only 8 % (only 8 % of smokers get lung cancer) of those falls resulted in death, we would not be saying that falling from a 10 story building CAUSED the death. We would just say that someone fell 10 stories and by bad luck they died. We might even conclude that falling from that height was risky business and that activity should be avoided.

But we would not be in a panic about it.

a reply to: stormson

I can provide many many studies that have been done trying to determine exactly how tobacco causes lung cancer.

The truth that no one wants to tell you is that - after 80 years of research (starting with anti-smoking hitler) - no one knows what component of smoking causes lung cancer.

If tar caused lung cancer, then we should have seen an enormous decrease in the incidence of lung cancer back in the 1960s when everyone started smoking filtered cigarettes. We didn't see it.

In fact, if smoking caused lung cancer, we should see a double hump of incidence in lung cancer. We should see one hump of incidence increase at say age 50 or 60 when smokers develop the disease and another smaller hump of incidence at say age 70 when never smokers get the disease.

Guess what - that just doesn't happen. Both smokers and non-smokers tend to get lung cancer at the same age (heaviest concentration in the 70s). In fact, when lung cancer happens in younger people (and it does), it tends to happen to never-smokers.

Ahhh... another victim of the enormous, lucrative, global anti-smoking lobbyist propaganda.

They have been very successful in demonising an age-old activity, which has yet to be proven to be as harmful as media suggests. Causality of smoking has never been proven for most diseases (including lung cancer), and in moderation, the positive effects of nicotine (which have hardly been studied) are similar to caffeine... at the very least the endorphins offer a positive.

As with everything, it is abuse of substances that leads to negative effects, rarely moderate use (which has also never been studied).

Did you know?:
Stomach ulcers were attributed to smoking in a concerted campaign from the anti-smoking lobby... then it was discovered the "cause" of ulcers, which was a bacteria (someone got a Nobel Prize for that one). The anti-smoking lobby was never held to account for their lies.