Let's do this step by step.
WyrdeOne, the 1982 Surgeon General's Report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality in the United States."
What part of this simplistic official report do you not understand? It is as true today as it was in 1982. And WyrdeOne, this statement is probably
already on the murderous death stick packs of ABSOLUTE FOOLISHNESS. Link:
I love this link. First two sentences (my emphasis):
The 1982 Surgeon General's Report stated that "Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality in the United States." This
statement is as true today as it was in 1982.
Heh. Read: not true at all.
Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It is a major cause of cancers of the lung, larynx (voice box), oral cavity, pharynx
(throat), esophagus, and bladder, and is a contributing cause in the development of cancers of the pancreas, cervix, kidney, stomach, and also some
This is nonsense. What's happening is every time a smoker dies from an illness, it's considered a smoking-related death. They don't test the
cancers, they don't analyze the environment, or even address other likely causes, they just pounce on the cigarettes and pat themselves on the
Smoking does cause cancer - that's not hard to believe when you look at the contents of the cigarettes and the physiological effects associated with
the inhalation of hot smoke.
However, this trend blaming cigarettes violates the most basic principles of the scientific method.
If you want to know what really caused a cancer, you have to to a thorough study on the person afflicted, their environment, diet, habits, and genetic
history - then you have to test the cancer and attempt to recreate it in a controlled environment.
Simply adding every dead smoker to the list is plain wrong.
And, of the almost 5 million deaths, 2.41 million were in developing countries and 2.43 million were in industrialized countries. Link:
Almost exactly the same amount in the big city type countries as the farm land like countries.
"Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined". (From your very own Surgeon
General guardian angel in the first link.)
People living in developing countries are much more likely to be exposed to carcinogens in mining and industry, and to inhale wood smoke from cooking
fires. Wood smoke is nasty stuff, from a cancer perspective.
Remember, it takes one errant particle to seed a cancer, and it could come from just about anywhere.
Smoking cigarettes increases your risk - there's no doubt about that, but it's only one of MANY factors. If you want me to take the medical
authorities seriously, they're going to have to say the three most difficult words in the English language, loud and clear 'We don't know.'
There's no shame in it.
Even better would be a research push to identify more carcinogens, and fix exposure levels without the aid of industry lobbyists. It's not
necessarily long-term exposure that cinches the deal and causes cancer. It can be one damaged section of DNA resulting from exposure to
that causes the runaway chain reaction, and leads to a cancerous growth.
I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist, but I read a lot, and as you can tell I have a very keen interest in the subject of smoking.
Any real information you can provide would be appreciated, but so far it's just been rhetoric from the other side of the fence.
The shameful thing is, the sources you quote are held to a higher standard than this, but people are so programmed with this spiel, they accept it as
One thing that drags down the level of reliability in these repetitous and poorly-understood studies is the constant reliance on statistical corrolary
in place of controlled, regimented experimentation to develop a picture of causality.
The sticking point, for me at least, the central issue, is that scientists assume that smokers who die from heart attacks, strokes, and cancer, would
not have died from those ailments if they had not smoked. That's just not true.
People die for no apparent reason, day in, day out. Smokers who die for no apparent reason get lumped in with those smokers who died of a disease
directly caused by their habit (directly caused, not statistically associated with - big difference).
How do you respond to this central point. If you've got a good answer, I desperately want to hear it. It's bugged me for years, the way every
smoker's disease is smoking-related. By comparison, is every non-smokers disease non-smoking related? Does that make sense? What about
water-related? We all drink water, right? What about oxygen-related? We all breathe...
And so on...
I'm looking forward to your response.
In the mean time, it looks like that monkey didn't survive long enough to contribute to its races evolution:
You're thinking of a different monkey - technically a chimpanzee. He was famous, he smoked cigarettes, it was spectacular, and he's dead now.
We'll miss him.
If I die, due to smoking, before reproducing - well, I will have learned my lesson then. I will have been punished for my decisions, not by you, or
the state, or the community, but by the simple elegance of consequence. I'm fine with that, better than fine, actually. That's my idea of divine
And if I outlive a million non-smokers and have many brilliant smoking children, that will be an even sweeter form of justice.