It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


I dont think smoking is as bad as they say

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:26 PM
I don't advocate for people to smoke I'm just against the way the world has turned the smoker into someone who is a person who is now a second class citizen. We cant get jobs and the people who do smoke have to go outside to do it. Looks to me that the smoking lobby have shot themselves in the foot as some smokers are more intelligent than their bosses. If the people who smoke are outcast in the community the result will be non smokers ruling the world, thats got to be bad.

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Wheres your proof?

US population = 290,809,777
US smokers = 50,000,000
New cases of Lung cancer per year = 173,700
Number of the new lung cancer patients who smoke = 100,000
Lung Cancer deaths per year = 160,440

If you look anything like your Avatar I'm glad I'm a smoker

That's the beauty of being online.....I can be as hot as I say I am.

You have no proof

I believe the statistics given should cover the "proof".

nobody knows what causes cancer , cigs are just a scapegoat


Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer may also be the most tragic cancer because in most cases, it might have been prevented -- 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. Cigarette smoke contains more than 4,000 different chemicals, many of which are proven cancer-causing substances, or carcinogens. Smoking cigars or pipes also increases the risk of lung cancer.

Medical ignorance is a fact, if they don't know whats wrong with you they always blame smoking or drinking, Do you believe that to stop these two things will solve people getting cancer

Look at the Stats again.....quiting smoking greatly reduces your chances of getting cancer.

They haven't a clue about making life last longer,

I don't think it's about making life last longer. I think it's more about not cutting life short.

you might as well ask me , I'm still fit after 40 years of smoking and drinking

OK, Now that I quit I'm more fit than I was 2 months ago when I did smoke.....
What are you, a one man survey? I can believe that....but you are one person. You do not account for a thousands that do get cancer from smoking.


Chronic cough
Coughing up blood
Weight loss & loss of appetite
Shortness of breath
Fever without a known reason
Repeated bouts of bronchitis or pneumonia
Chest pain

Hmm, most people who have these symptoms are smokers!
Could it be a coincidence? Or maybe even a conspiracy??


[edit on 7/6/2005 by SportyMB]

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:04 AM
I Have no problem with smokers, so long as they do it a couple hundred feet away from me, or at least so long as I Cannot inhale it.

Waiting for a bus I've been known to "Persuade" people into putting out their cigarettes. Its just I find the smell so repulsive and offensive, that I’d rather intimidate someone(unless their physically smaller, then I’ll ask them politely) than just put up with it. People are usually happy to humour me

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Azza
I Have no problem with smokers, so long as they do it a couple hundred feet away from me, or at least so long as I Cannot inhale it.

What about people with liquor on their breath? I find that offensive yet I don't ask them to leave the area.

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:06 PM
You can make statistics show anything , its whats Governments do best to prove that they are right.Whats happening now is that they are telling people that smoking kills you , thats true in some people, but they never mention the multitude of other things that give you cancer.How many people have died from radiation caused by Governments in testing nuclear bombs, what about depleted Uranium being used in weapons , or even the overuse of x-rays. I'm sure someone on here can make a case for cancer with just a few of the things Ive mentioned.There are chemicals that we use everyday that give you cancer , but are not headlined like cigs.Making smoking the major cause of cancer , to me is a farce that most people now believe.

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:13 AM
Helpful pie chart of stuff that kills you, attached to a very informative article adressing the other common denominator that sufferers share - environment. The smoking link is there, but NOWHERE near as 'conclusive' or all encompassing as the masses have been led to believe.

Forest fires...

How many deaths mistakenly attributed to smoking cigarettes were actually due to forest fires, in Canada mostly? The amount of fine particulate released from a modest forest fire is probably equivalent to every cigarette smoked since the dawn of human interest in tobacco. In one fire season, enough material gets burned to kill all of mankind several times over through inhalation, it wafts around and falls hundreds and even thousands of miles away. Are you lucky enough to catch one of those particles in your next breath?

What about radiation? Should we talk about atomic testing that lofted billions upon billions of highly radioactive dust and sand particles into the aptmosphere? Should we talk about rain containing radioactive particles, forests containing radioactive particles, oceans, animals?

Let's talk about the good things smoking does. It coats your lungs in thick mucous, which prevents particulate from lodging in the soft tissue beneath. When you cough, you expectorate the particulate, removing it from your lungs.

I advise all new car salesmen to smoke cigarettes, because every time they get in a new vehicle they are exposed to carcinogens. That new car smell is positively deadly, no kidding. If you smoke cigarettes, you have a good chance

Smoking does however affect a change in breathing habits, which can have bad long term conotations. If you live in a nuclear fallout zone, or plan to do so soon, I would advise you smoke cigarettes. It could very well save your life. Of course, all the weapons tests done in our history pretty much guarantee the entire earth is a fallout zone now.

The composition of most lung cancers changed signifigantly after the first nuclear test. This could be a sign.

What we need is a proper diagnosis of what causes an individuals cancer. If a guy smokes, and gets cancer of the lung or throat, it's automatically a smoking related cancer. There's no investigation to find what particle caused the cancer, what other factors might have had a hand in the development.

A Broad Overview of Some Likely Culprits

As far as the government is concerned, smoking has to be caused by cigarettes exclusively, because if it were caused by the shadow of nuclear testing it might force a class action lawsuit, The People of America Vs. The Government of America. That would be the trial of the century.

So you see, we have an alternative possibility, several actually, for every lung cancer case ever diagnosed in America, indeed around the world. The question is, were these considered, or was smoking the automatic bad guy, because doctors learn in school that smoking causes cancer?

Some people claim 80+% of lung cancer cases are caused by cigarettes. What they should say, if they want to be honest, is that 80% of people who get lung cancer smoked cigarettes. That's really fantastic, but when you think about it, it's just one statistical corrolary. It doesn't EVEN pass for proof in my book. Show me the experiment where smoking rats got cancer. Show me those results. You might be surprised at the results. Here's an article that talks about the smoking beagles, all smokers should worship these brave dogs.

I think it's mostly the latter. There was a good discussion on this going, but it's been too long, I can't retrieve it easily. A search of ATS should find it, there were some interesting points made there if you're interested.

Recent studies have shown that for a certain subset of people, they are better off smoking than not. These are people whose blood pressure, stress, etc are improved with smoking. You are right that many smokers do have certain common characteristics such as you describe.

You are absolutely right that no controlled double-blind study can ever be done, so the true role of smoking in the development of lung cancer will never be accurately delineated. Just as recent studies have shown that alcohol used in moderation (1-3 drinks per day) may lengthen one's lifespan, there may be a benefit to moderate smoking (< 1 ppd) as it may decrease stress and improve resistance to certain respiratory infections (an unpublished WHO study).

Grandiose statements such as "smoking causes lung cancer" are patently false and prevent true intellectual debate and study. Though I personally dislike cigarettes, I dislike even more the intellectual dishonesty that is occurring among the scientific and medical communities.

Dr. Siepmann

Taken from: for what its worth.

That's all for now. In parting I want to say I agree wholeheartedly with the good doctor, and I bid you goodnight.

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:54 AM
Yep, smoking is the big scapegoat of the century, it's being put down on every cancer death certificate going in the UK, even if the deseased never smoked a ciggie in their live's!
In my opinion, the government dosn't want people's brain's relaxing enough to avoid Parkinson's disease, and stress related cancer, and by conditioning society into thinking that smoking is bad, we'll all end up of dying from brain drain disease's, and cancer's while waiting on a none existant waiting list for treatment! And that's how an Establishment get's rid of undesirable's who won't conform to conditioning, because of having a Free Will to put into their bodies whatever they like, even if it's Babylonish from Raliegh!

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:24 PM
WhyeredOne, i think your post was Excellent, someone who thinks that cigs are not the cause for every cancer .The Medical Authorities in most countries don't want to listen about other alternatives as to why people get cancer, stuck in their saying , do you smoke. Have people investigated how microwaves affect human tissue? What about inhaling diesel fumes?
I don't encourage people to smoke but get a bit fed up with them blaming it for every type of illness. Just wondering what they will find next thats bad
Making a second class citizen out of a smoker is going to rebound someday when someone says its not the only cause.

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Have people investigated how microwaves affect human tissue? What about inhaling diesel fumes?

Yes Bulldog52, microwaves from cell phones! These things have quantifiable effects that can measured. Well guess what...microwaves do damage human tissues as well as DNA damage. Think cell phone users will become the next socially unacceptable crowd?

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:07 PM
Smoking is a slower type of suicide.

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:13 PM
I wish the Docs would examine me and find out why i have not got Cancer , Ive smoked and drinked all my life, there must be something i have that can help people with cancer, i abuse my body and innocent people die , its wrong.Whats protecting me should be found out so that Cancer can be eradicated.

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 06:37 AM
Smoking is MUCH WORSE then "they" say it is.

There is not ONE THING that a smoking person can do for their health that will benifit them more then quitting smoking.

Hey... I have an idea for you. If smoking is so harmless, then why not quit for a bit and see how you would have felt...

.. how your life would have been ..

... had you not done that to yourself.

Then get back to us and tell us how 'harmless' it is.

Now .. let me get back to my waterpipe. BTW... there is no cooler way to hang out online then with a $60 (cheep) stainless steel waterpipe gurggling away while the insanely cool smoke washes through you. Its crazy how relaxing this thing is... I almost don't have to put any other substance in to the bowl... almost. Ciggarrettes are a silly waste concidering you are still at a desk usually when online... and I find just make you more nervous then you were before you had the smoke. Get a waterpipe.. cooler, smoother smoke... low nicoteen, and saves your lungs to a degree. Tastes better, smells better... and you arn't giving your money to some evil american mega corp.

[edit on 11/6/2005 by Vis Mega]

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 07:06 PM
What I'm saying Vis Mega is that some people like me can smoke and drink and still feel fit and normal, There must be something in the genetics that makes this happen, if the medics can discover what protects people who should be dead by there reckoning , this has got to be a positive move.Smoking is no problem to some people, find out why?

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:11 PM
I've been a heavy smoker for 35 years and I'd be lying if I said it doesn't affect me because I know it does, but......I choose to smoke because I want to.

I don't complain about my neighbours bonfires and BBQ's gushing smoke my way.

I don't complain to the drivers when they leave their engines running whilst parked and pump all sorts of invisible poisons into the air.

I don't complain at the vast amounts of fossil fuels people burn in order to generate hot water for their central heating.

But, if I light a cigarette in a huge, air-conditioned and ventilated Shopping Centre then I'm suddenly surrounded by security personnel and treated like a criminal. Am I really putting anyone's life at risk by my infinitesimal addition to the already polluted atmosphere? I don't think so!

Smokers are treated as nothing more than the modern day lepers of society, and that's what I think is wrong. If we want to smoke then we should be free to do so without being made to feel any guilt.

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 08:08 PM
I agree with you, you have a life , you want to smoke, but you cannot because of unproven links to bad health. The real reason you cant smoke is that they are afraid of lawsuits by non smokers who claim they have been damaged by a whiff of smoke.
What you are seeing is the right for anyone who smokes is made into a futile campaign against them. Maybe we should sue the Government for allowing them to contaminate the Earth with Nuclear residue from their bombs or sue the bus service for the diesel fumes they kick out.
This is a campaign against the smoker they disregard everything else.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:57 AM
I'd like to commend Bulldog on the topic and WyrdOne on his wonderfull post.

I have spent much time pondering the same question as Bulldog, mostly in response to what appears to be a fairly expensive ad campaign by an unknown entity named The Truth. As have many I've seen the long lists of carcinogens and harmfull chemicles included in a cigarette and was at first shocked. However, upon further consideration I began to wonder how many harmfull chemicles exist in seemingly friendly products. The first name to come to mind was McDonald's as I had recently seen the documentary Supersize Me.

For those of you who havn't seen the movie here's a quick rundown. A vegetarian decides to eat nothing but McDonalds for thirty days straight and almost dies. 30 days of big macs and fries was all it took for him to pickle his liver. just thirty days.

I'm a smoker and I've smoked off and on since I was 13. I'll be the first to admit I'm addicted to them. My grandfather smoked pack after pack every day and died peacefully at age 82. My great uncle smoked like a locomotive and made it to his 90s.

Smoking is seen as tantamount to going for a swim in Chernobyl's coolant tank, but if that were true then why would I sooner die of happy meal poisoning then smoking?

It is my opinion that there are a few root causes for the mass furor over tobacco. One stems from people's incessant need to feel better than their fellow man and their habit of immediatly latching on to anything that allows them to do so.

Take this with a grain of salt, but after much deliberation I've decided that there must me some motivating force behind this anti smoking crusade. Someone or some group stands to gain from this by the book brain washing. Skewed statistics and one sided reports are portrayed as the gospel truth with the fact always in mind that if you wear a suit and use words people can't understand, they will believe you.

I live in New York City, the capital of the crusade. We aren't allowed to smoke in bars anymore. A bar, an establishment that sells over priced watered down poison won't let you smoke because it "can be harmfull to your health". Hell, you can't even smoke in a cigar shop. Beyond the multiple infringements on my rights I also have to deal with paying between 6 and 8 dollars for a pack of cigarettes.

Here's the secret though. The actual price of a pack of cigarettes is still 3 or 4 dollars but once they hit the wonderful state of NY they become little boxes of gold. As it turns out the massive increase per pack of smokes is due to the nearly 100% percent taxation collected by the state of NY. For every pack of cigarettes you buy here, the state gets about 3 or 4 dollars.

It's all starting to come together now isn't it. Well for those of you with short attention spans we'll spell it out real simple like.

1. There have always been special interest groups and gaggles of lawyers seeking to fight "Big tobacco" (always a cash cow)

2. 9/11 happens, leaving a state government already in massive debt in desperate need of new revenue.

3. Governments make money through taxes

4. Tax hikes are about as popular as spiked anal probes

5. The government sponsers old and new special interest groups to fight the tobacco menace ( gotta spend money to make money)

6. Being the sheep they generally are, people absorb skewed statistics, medical jargon, and aboslute nonsense like it's going out of style (note: that whole EPA report on second hand smoke causing cancer was thrown out as baseless bad science)

7. Smokers become the new racists, lambasted and insulted by everyone. Made to feel guilty when they've committed no crime. Telling a fat person how they're killing htemselves is insensitive, but please feel free to piss off the smokers.

8. Now we're in business, people hate smokers like an inquisiter hates the devil. The government may now pass their new unconstitutionally high tax with little more than a few dis-infranchised smokers to complain.

9. The money is rolling in but now they must secure themselves as the sole supplier. Surprise, now you can't order smokes from reservations, websites, etc

10. In an effort to appease the, by now half interested, voters they pass another law stating that you can't smoke anywhere. This helps direct attention away from the new taxation and gives the sheep a sense of accomplishment

On a side note I'd like to point out that Mayor of NYC Mike Bloomberg celebrated this whole plan with a million dollar cigar party, in a public hotel, where you're not allowed to smoke.

So yes, smoking tobacco is harmfull to you. But so is breathing, driving, having sex, eating ANYTHING, working in a steel mill, high anxiety, swimming, crossing the street, looking at the sun too long, shaving, riding roller coasters, and even sitting too close to the computer screen.

The fact of the matter is that everyone has their own agenda, some are better at hiding it than others. No movement or group is without these faults. Instead of blindly believing anything a man in a lab coat tells you, I'd suggest checking the facts, reading the fine print, and above all think for yourself and leave us poor smokers alone

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Shadowflux]

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 01:32 PM
You may have a point there my grandma died of old age (85years) and was NEVER without a cigarette in her hand, i am talking 70 cigarettes a day minimum. and my mum is dying of cancer at this moment in time aged 59 years and she never smoked or drank alcohol. BUT i have also seen a lot of statisticts to say that smoking is very harmful to humans.

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:06 PM

I dont think smoking is as bad as they say

Ive been smoking for 40 years and im fine , no coughs or anything, perhaps the anti smoking brigade are wrong.

That is the single dumbest thing I ever read on ATS. All you have to do is take FACTS into consideration, stop viewing them from your biased standpoint, and any average-intelligenced person can understand the obvious TRUTH. The TRUTH that smoking cigarettes exposes you to KNOWN carcinogens, as does second-hand smoke. Guess what boys and girls!!! Carcinogens cause.... CANCER. Not to mention the obvious links to an array of other health problems smoking causes and increases.

Your ignorance is no excuse for your deteriorative behavior, your simply choosing to ignore FACT.

Smoking is for idiots, or people who don't respect their health, for if you did, you wouldn't be smoking.

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Kalibur

I dont think smoking is as bad as they say

Ive been smoking for 40 years and im fine , no coughs or anything, perhaps the anti smoking brigade are wrong.

That is the single dumbest thing I ever read on ATS.

No I think this is.
Mercury Is Good For Your Children

I have added this link as to someone saying how the governement feeds us bs.

This is a prime example to the nice BS they like to give us.
"Mecury is actually good for your child." So next time you give your gets those autism shots, remember its good for them.

I myself am a smoker. I figure it like this, if you are going to die... screw it do what you want for sooner or later you will not be around to do anything else.

I also want to say, not everything is what its cracked up to be. I know a whole lot of old people over the age of 70+ who have smoked and who are or have lived past say 85 or something.

I also dont think Smoking is the sole contributor of lung problems, there has to be more to it than that, altho our bodys are proven to have something like 80,000 diffrent chemicals in it from everything we use.. What are we going to do now, stop using soap cause it has stuff in it to kill you. Or stop drinking water cause it has fluoride in it. So as you see not everything is truefully stated to us.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I don't advocate for people to smoke I'm just against the way the world has turned the smoker into someone who is a person who is now a second class citizen. We cant get jobs and the people who do smoke have to go outside to do it. Looks to me that the smoking lobby have shot themselves in the foot as some smokers are more intelligent than their bosses. If the people who smoke are outcast in the community the result will be non smokers ruling the world, thats got to be bad.

i'm glad it's that way. i smoked for about 10 years and i quit cold turkey about 2 years ago. i'm glad that they are banning smoking in public places as i feel it should be that way. you may not get cancer but it is harmful to your health, just google it and you'll see. you say you are healthy but how do you know? have you been to the doc and had a once over? lungs and heart checked. just cause you are not dying does not mean you're healthy.
now about the smoking in public. i am so happy that restaurants and such are banning smoking. smoker should be free to smoke up all they want outside and on their property but not in public places. it's simply not fair to others around you. people don't ask to breathe that filth in while they are eating dinner. it has been proven many times that second hand smoke is harmful and i should not be forced to breathe in your second hand smoke cause you want to drag on one while you eat dinner.
i hate when i go to a restaurant and the ask me what section and i say non smoking and they sit me down at a booth or table and it is 5 feet away from the smoking section. it's not right that non smokers should have to smell that or breathe that in. people say they should be able to do whatever they want and so and and thats true as long as it does not effect others around them and smoking directly effects them.
i will be very glad when the day comes that all public places are smoke free and the day is coming soon.

about not getting hired cause you smoke well that i'm not so sure i agree with. i mean just cause you snoke don't mean you should not be able to ge tthe job providing you can do that job as well as the next. if you are applying for a job that requires endurance or something to that effect i can see not hiring a smoker. if you are trying to get a job answering a phone it shouldn't matter.

now on to the subject of breaks. i'm not saying you do this but some smokers do. lets say this job gives a 1 half hour lunch and 2, 10 minute breaks for a 10 hour shift. some smokers will take off for 4, 10 minute breaks so they can smoke. don't say thats not true cause i've worked in places where it has happened. that is not fair either. i'd be working and out breaks are over and the smoker would say, watch my so and so for me while i grab a snoke. shouldn't be allowed and the fact is that some, not all but some smokers do that and thats another reason why jobs are refusing to hire.

sorry but thats just the way it is. i guess if you don't like it quit smoking

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in