What the Real Reason for Anti-Smoking Could be

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Why shouldn't smoking be blamed? It is proven over and over again to be one of the leading causes of cancer.

I'd agree with you.. but my mother [RIP] never smoked.. neither did my auntie [by marriage] who's dieing of it now, nor my uncle who has it return every few years, or my cousin's best mate who died of a brain tumour, or my neighbour who had bowel cancer [as a child], or a friend's toddler who had testicular cancer, or my a close friend with cervlical cancer.. or the seven people, recently in the news, with brain tumours who worked on the top floor of RMIT university building in melb.. the one with mobile phone towers on the roof.

There seem to be an awful lot of non smokers getting cancer from passive smoking that are never actually around smokers. 'Co-incidence' can be so deadly..




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I'd agree with you.. but my mother [RIP] never smoked.. neither did my auntie [by marriage] who's dieing of it now, nor my uncle who has it return every few years, or my cousin's best mate who died of a brain tumour, or my neighbour who had bowel cancer [as a child], or a friend's toddler who had testicular cancer, or my a close friend with cervlical cancer.. or the seven people, recently in the news, with brain tumours who worked on the top floor of RMIT university building in melb.. the one with mobile phone towers on the roof.

There seem to be an awful lot of non smokers getting cancer from passive smoking that are never actually around smokers. 'Co-incidence' can be so deadly..


I'm awfully sorry for your losses, and hope the best for those who are still with you. Cancer is still very foggy in the scientific community, and scientists still do not know what the direct cause of cancer is. I agree that non-smokers can get cancer too, but the proportions of non-smokers to smokers getting cancer makes them look like a drop in a bucket.

Things that we know to cause cancer, such as radiation, ultra-violet sun rays, and exhuast fume pollution are unfortunately around us everyday. But cars, cellphones, and sunlight are all essential things that we may need to survive. In contrast, we really do not need cigarettes. There's really no need to smoke them. Besides, cigarettes cause so much more harm than all of the other causes for cancer combined (just read the statistics in my last post).



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
by the way, i need to use this account because my old account (TheBlueSoldier) is messed up or something.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
I'm awfully sorry for your losses, and hope the best for those who are still with you.

Thankyou.

Cancer is still very foggy in the scientific community, and scientists still do not know what the direct cause of cancer is. I agree that non-smokers can get cancer too, but the proportions of non-smokers to smokers getting cancer makes them look like a drop in a bucket.

Doubtful. Cancer is very that common in both groups so I would not assume that even smokers who get cancer get it from smoking [lung cancer is a different kettle of fish.. if you are suseptable to it smoking won't help] .

Things that we know to cause cancer, such as radiation, ultra-violet sun rays, and exhuast fume pollution are unfortunately around us everyday. But cars, cellphones, and sunlight are all essential things that we may need to survive.

Incorrect.. I do not need a car or a cell phone to survive. I use a landline and public transport. If you choose to use these things you are quite possibly one of the many giving ME cancer. Thanks in advance but blaming smokers for your possible contribution to cancer is taking the easy way out.

EDIT. I used to smoke.. [helped with an anxiety disorder] yet the only time I got asthma was when I went into the city centre [could see the smog]. The more damaging factor was definently pollution. I've done my bit.. maybe others should show the same consideration and catch the bus to work when they can.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by riley]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
the point is, we are being attacked everyday by a wide range of cancer causing chemicals particles.


Yes, I am well aware of the presence of carcinogens around us, and I am not happy with this state of affairs.

I hope it didn't seem like I was singling you out to argue with Dawnstar, as I didn't mean to, I was just saying that not all non-smokers are hypocritical a**eholes.

As to the media pointing the finger at smokers, are you in America? I'm in England, so I wouldn't know about over there, but there does not seem to be as much of that here.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong and stop me if you heard this before, but was it not part of the provisions of the settlement of those copious anti-tobacco lawsuits a few years back that the tobacco companies had to endorse anti-smoking campaigns and services to help people quite smoking? I find it funny that no one saw anything terribly wrong with somking until the very same tobacco companies started telling them it's bad. Granted, we've always known it was unhealthy but today it is demonized to an almost rediculous point. It's a well known fact that statistics can never be believed and are almost always distorted with a bias towards the presenter.

Sure, tobacco can cause cancer, my grandfather lived to be 82, smoked packs a day and never got cancer. My mom on the other hand drank herself to death over the course of 10 very dark years. Truth is there are carcinogens everywhere, in your food, in your water, in the materials you work with, hell even radiating from your monitor as you read this. You could move into the wilderness to get away from it all but the fact is there's even naturally formed carcinogens and cancer causing materials. Weldors can get cancer from just about everything they do, mechanics can get it from car fumes, nuclear plant employees can deffinitly get it, radiologists can get it, patients can get it from treatment, the list goes on.

I think this whole thing stems from the common persons misunderstanding of what cancer truly is. Cancer is an uncontrollable cellular mutation, possibly a remnant of the evolutionary coding that got us to this point. Apparently we all have within us the code to mutate our cells, it's when it gets out of control that we get cancer. Granted, cancerous mutation can be triggered by certain things, but it can also happen on it's own.

I also find it highly suspicious that the medical community refuses to research any possible alternatives to the painful radioactive treatments that have been proven unreliable. I'm no scientist but I have read of the effects of "Extract of Wormwood" on cancerous cells. Wormwood (the active ingredient in the fabled drink "Absinthe") works by attacking iron rich cells, since cancerous cells are high in iron much of the effects of the wormwood is focused on killing the cancerous cells.

In addition I do think it's disgusting the way people treat smokers, there is no other addiction to which people have such animosity. Are we going to start kicking overwheight people out of resturants? Should we fire workaholics? Should we begin to sue every company that makes somthing people get addicted to? No, of course not, because this America and we have a choice, if you make a poor decision it's no one's fault but you're own and it's rediculous to single out smokers as they are no different from anyone else except that they enjoy a cigarette every once in a while.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
When you smoke, you get cancer, and you die. Simple. Plus, you stink and annoy the hell out of people around you. There's no "hidden agenda" about it.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I've only read through page 1, so forgive me if someone said this already, but:

Someone mentioned that alcohol should be banned since it is more dangerous than cigarrets?
An 'average smoker' will smoke how much a day? 1-2 packs. where? anywhere they can!

An 'average drinker' will drink how much a day...wait, maybe I should use week: maybe 5 drinks?
and where? only in bars and in the comfort of a home.

Now I destest both smokers who breathe in my face and boozers who stagger the streets....but which is more common? It's against the law to drink on the street. People smoke anywhere they are aloud to (in theory).





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join