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.


people v tobacco companies

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:24 PM
Nah, Its a great thing

Youth smoking has dramaticly dropped thanks to Truth.

Unfortunatly the American Legacy Foundation is running out of money

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:42 PM
Don't blame the Tobacco companies , i like their products, i know the risks and i am willing to take them. What i don't like is the people in Government taking away my freedom to do things i want. Do you want to live in a Big Brother state that controls every aspect of your life?

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Don't blame the Tobacco companies , i like their products, i know the risks and i am willing to take them. What i don't like is the people in Government taking away my freedom to do things i want. Do you want to live in a Big Brother state that controls every aspect of your life?

I've noticed a few of your posts in similar threads Bulldog, I've gathered that you're a very resilient smoker who seems to defy the odds - "a true smoker" so to speak - I have a very close friend that's very much the same....And there's nothing wrong with that....

It sucks for me though, b/c I can't be in his company for more than 15 minutes before he has to light up again.....Now that he can't smoke inside restaurants anymore, he has to excuse himself from the bar or the table - often times dragging me with him.....And he never goes to movies anymore - He can't keep his focus on the movie long enough to stop thinking about his next cig....

A lot of people, like myself, who are against Big Tobacco aren't saying that we hate smokers or we don't think that people who smoke by their own choice shouldn't be allowed to smoke......We just want to make sure that future generations don't get sucked into the same deadly habits that modern science and common sense has taught us to avoid....

Nobodies perfect.....I still smoke at least one or two cigars every month - I love 'em.....And I take my chances at getting cancer of the mouth to have a chilled out time puffing away on my back porch.....

But those things add up for some....Take for example the friend I mentioned above, who is always smoking......He was doing some work out at my house one day, and was out of cigs.....So he asked me if I had a cigar - I figured he just wanted to puff on one to get a little rush or something.....

He sucked the whole damn thing down in about 30 minutes - and I'm talking a decent ringsize 50 Cohbia (Not a Cuban....I wish I had some of those
)....And it's not like he just puffed - Deeeep inhalations........I've never seen # like that before....Not a single cough the whole time....

You think that's natural for your body? It's something cigarettes will train your lungs for though....At a cost…..And that’s what these people are fighting…..

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:34 PM
I look at it this way. If heroin was legal. Then the companies selling it would be guilty of murder because they are purposely selling a product they know that kills. Unfortunately Scots Law doesnt agree with me.

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:41 PM
Not only do both heroin and kill but both are addictive.

Tobacco companies are selling a product that addicts and kill sits customers. That business relies on new smokers (young people) to take the place of it's customers that they are killing. I think it's fine If an adult wants to smoke provided it's not hurting anyone else.

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:45 PM
but there is so much inconsistent data on wether passive smoking harms. SO we dont know if it harms others or not.

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by soapydodger
but there is so much inconsistent data on wether passive smoking harms. SO we dont know if it harms others or not.

Can you provide a link to that claim? I've just never heard of that before...

But I mean....Think about it.....When a smoker exhales what they've just sucked into their lungs, they're releasing large amounts of benzene, formaldehyde and carbon monoxide into the air that other non-smokers will have to inhale....

Can you honestly prove that those carcinogenic substances offer a benefit to the people breathing them in? Can you say that you've never seen a child who's grown up in a smoking family not have severe health problems?

If I'm around someone who's smoking, my eyes begin to water get irritated, and I begin sneezing.....That's an instantaneous reply from body letting me know - Hey this air is no good....

I fail to see how the obvious data....that which flies in the face of anyone willing to see inconsistent....

I'm not flaming ya man - I'm just posing some questions.....

[edit on 7/12/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:09 PM
What inconsistent data? Study after study shows the harmful effects of second hand smoke.

Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow.

Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry. This equates to about one-fifth of all deaths from secondhand smoke in the general population and up to half of such deaths among employees in the hospitality trades.

A series of studies have now shown that non-smoking wives are at increased risk of lung cancer from prolonged exposure to the smoke produced from the cigarettes of their husbands, if the husbands smoke. The greatest risk, approximately twice the normal low risk in non-smokers, comes from the exposure to husbands who smoke 20 or more cigarettes a day at home.

The July 1, 2005 HealthDay News reports on a recent study which found that exposure to secondhand smoke in the womb or during childhood substantially increases the risk of developing asthma and respiratory symptoms during adulthood.

What studys dispute these things?

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link ge.html

Just some links rubbishing the dangers of passive smoking amongst a load of links that say passive smoking is dangerous. Who do you believe?

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:44 PM

Dr Enstrom and Professor Kabat declared they had received funding from the tobacco industry in recent years. They also acknowledged that their study had support from the dismantled Center for Indoor Air Research.

Last December an article in the British Medical Journal showed how the CIAR was used as cover for studies funded by tobacco companies aimed at rebutting claims hat passive smoking is harmful.

But whatever the criticism, the study is given scientific credibility by its publication in one of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed journals, whose editor Richard Smith quit a professorship after Nottingham University accepted £3.8m of funding from British American Tobacco.

Proof to me that no matter how distinguished and elaborate and organization or journal is, they can still bend under heavily corrupt funding....

Let me use an analogy for my opinion on these findings…..

Dr Atkins tells people in his books how to loose weight with his low-carb diet.....People who enjoy eating foods high in fat, and who don't do their homework or read the book thoroughly see this as a way to effectively cheat their way into getting slim by eating tons of bacon, cheese, fried foods, etc....They get fatter and think its Dr Atkins fault....

These "scientific" claims are basically the same as Dr Atkins releasing a new book, posthumously of course, letting everyone know that its okay to keep eating those fatty foods - Don't worry about that induction phase - Give it a little longer and you'll see those pounds fly off.....

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:47 PM
All of those links go to one source, the Kabat and Enstron study.

The 'study' that James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat wrote was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research. An organisation that was put together by several tobacco companies.

It is straight up disinformation.

Several of the world's top scientists meeting for a conference in Miami, including a former U.S. Surgeon General, slammed what they called a tobacco industry-funded study that flies in the face of repeated research that documents the dangers of secondhand smoke.

"We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems it literally failed to get a government grant,"

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 06:56 PM
I think to blame the tobacco companies for people getting ill health is unreasonable as the product is legal to buy , unlike hard drugs. I think this Witchhunt started after somebody made a claim against their employer , that smoke had made them ill and won the case for damages. Source . This turned the tide against smokers as employers did not want lawsuits, its not health they worry about , just getting sued.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in