Smokers are people too!

reply to post by sparda4355


Not to belabor this, but I never implied I do more work or I am more effective. I don't need to prove that nor do I desire to do so. I don't know what you do and vice versa, which makes your whole arguement of you being superior to me rather suspect IMO. Such is anyomous life on the Internet. You believe what you want though.

You seem to think that it was valid for you to bring up your work ethic and success alongside your smoking. That leads one to believe you link the them otherwise why would you mention it.

I have a question, can you work while smoking at your work? Or do you have to stop working in order to work?

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

Source

For all you anti-smoker slackers, this one is a small report and easy to read. I know it is hard to do your own research, hence why I am posting the excerpts for you.

5 down 3 to go

PS it is time for a smoke, I do not smoke inside so I will be slacking myself on the next research post. (Least I have an excuse )

Originally posted by jfj123
If smoking is so benign and non-injurious as is claimed, why would there be a need to, "keep your smoke away from your loved ones?. You consider it sane to do so which means that you must be protecting your loved ones from something. What would that be? Nicotine stains???

[edit on 6-3-2008 by jfj123]

Dude, are you arguing just for the sake of it? I never said that there weren't detrimental effects of smoke, I just said back off, let us lead our lives the way we want if we're not harming anyone. But NOOOOO the I-just-have-to-badger-others-around-because-I-have-so-little-control-in-my-life-anti-smokers will still have an issue with us.

reply to post by adigregorio


First, posting literally thousands of full studies is not possible. I'd get banned for putting that much info up.

second, what's the point. You will refuse to believe anything but what you've decided to believe. Your addiction has blinded you to reality.

You yourself have said cigarette smoke is bad for you !!!
And if it's bad for your concentrated but filtered, why wouldn't it be bad for people around you in a less concentrated but unfiltered form?

I feel bad that your addiction is causing you to act like this and blinding you from reality

reply to post by jfj123


Are you not reading what I have been posting? I do the research for you and still no luck.

Seems to me your Anti-smoke attitude is blinding you to the possibility that what you have been hand fed by the Governess is false.

I said smoking was bad for ME And yes I am addicted to it, but it is not clouding my judgment. What a foolish concept! (I am not saying you are a fool, just that the concept is foolish)

Read my posts on how your "studies" were made.

[edit]eye shur cannt spel gooed

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

Originally posted by Nohup
"Sparky," is it? That seems a bit harsh. But not an atypical addict's response, I suppose.

He's another aspect of non-smokers. The moral superiority that they feel. "You're an adict, I am not." Does that get you through the day?

The addiction. The feeling of lower self-esteem (frequently masked as bravado) for having tried and failed to quit. It's a chemical hijacking of the brain.

I don't know what book you are reading by I'm feel fine about who I am.

As for having our lives run for us, it happens all the time. How much of our lives do we really control, anyway? Why can't I drive on whatever side of the street I feel like? Why do I have to pay money for gas and food? Why do I have to wear pants at the supermarket? Why can't I gamble online? Or marry somebody 12 years old?

Yup, so why should we tke anymore from self-righteous anti-smokers?

The argument isn't about rights or control.

Then why all the effort put into your argument then?

The issue is addiction. And there's just no point in arguing with addicts.

See my point above. Moral superiority. Can't argue with someone like that either. Probably couldn't hear us up in those ivory towers.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by intrepid]

JFJ123

Thank you for the reply . Just so you know I respect the anti smoking position they deserve to have a choice, just like smokers had at one time. The soot in the snow is very- very relevant. There is no choice there and it seems you dont care about it because you cant pick a position and pick on a smoker. To much of a good thing can be a little bad but Crack, heroin, cocain give me a break a little harsh on the example. I think alchohal would have worked, even though it is ok to sell some one legaly enough alcohal to kill themselves with, but they are expected to be able to handle them selves with it with out the government or some square telling them what to do and not to do. When you eat or drink it doesnt effect other people sure , beat the dead horse and beat the dead horse and beat the dead horse over and over. It health matters so much why is it ok to eat bad drink stuff that is bad for your self because it doesnt hurt other people nut not ok to smoke. If you really think you are going to get cancer from me standing next to you smoking I have a bridge for sale in New York, good deal too.

But breathing secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer. At least there's no proof of it.

That's not the politically incorrect propaganda of the smokers' lobby. It's the conclusion of a major study by the World Health Organization, a smoking foe. And it has the data to back it up -data that California bar and nightclub owners would no doubt like to get their hands on.

After all, the WHO study casts doubt on the Environmental Protection Agency's ''meta-analysis'' that called passive smoke a carcinogen and led to personal injury lawsuits. In effect, WHO found that nonsmokers breathing in a smoke-filled room are at no greater risk of developing lung cancer than they are breathing in a clear room.

This means that ''there's a good chance that there's no association whatsoever'' between passive smoke and lung cancer, said Michael Gough, a senior associate and program manager at Congress' now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which advised committees on scientific policy.

Gough, now director of risk and science studies at the free-market Cato Institute, can hardly be accused of being a tool of the tobacco industry. He directed OTA's landmark '81 study, which found that direct smoking was behind 30% of U.S. cancer cases.

''It's very clear that smoking is bad,'' Gough said. But passive smoke is a different matter, he adds.

''The bottom line on all the evidence on secondhand smoke and lung cancer is that it doesn't prove anything,'' Sullum said.

The link hasn't held up in court either.

Last month a Muncie, Ind., jury found that cigarette makers were not liable in the '91 lung cancer death of nonsmoker Mildred Wiley.

Lawyers for her husband, who brought the injury suit, claimed that Wiley contracted lung cancer through exposure to passive smoke at a veterans' hospital, where she worked as a nurse. She died at 56.

Upon hearing the verdict, ''I was just shocked,'' said Joseph Young, one of the plaintiff's lawyers. ''I thought that we were going to win. We've been working on this for six years.''

Young, who is considering an appeal, thought the case would be easier to win than direct smoking cases. How so? Wiley was a victim who did not assume the risk of other people's smoking, he explained.

But defense attorney William Ohlemeyer hammered away at the lack of scientific proof.

Source

Another gem! Please note the last line in the last excerpt. LACK OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

That is 6 down 2 to go, of course it seems the anti-smokers are ignoring it.

Kinda funny since WHO is not a tool for tobacco

[edit1] bad bb code, bad we do that outside!
[edit2]forgot to add source linkage

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

New research by the World Health Organization (WHO) has failed to find any connection between exposure to second-hand smoke and lung cancer. News of the research has created a furor in Europe, where a brief summary of the study's findings appeared in the biennial report of the international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of WHO.

The full IARC report on second-hand smoke will not be available until May, but it will be hard to ignore the conclusions. The relative risk of lung cancer for a spouse exposed to second-hand smoke was 1.16, with a 95-per-cent confidence interval ranging from -0.93 to 1.44. The confidence interval is such that exposure to second-hand smoke may even lower lung cancer risk. Exposure to second-hand smoke at work produced a relative risk of 1.17, with a confidence interval of 0.94 to 1.45. In either case, the risk ratios are not statistically significant. Therefore, no evidence.

One of the British tobacco companies offered a comparison. A recent survey of lung cancer risks found research that identified statistically significant relative risks of 3.18 for high consumption of rice pudding, 2.72 for whole milk, and 1.54 for fried meat. Health activists and lifestyle fascists have not yet proposed a ban on rice pudding and steak, in part because pudding and steak are not -- yet -- considered "addictive." On the other hand, sex and certain forms of sexual behaviour are now being labelled "addictive." Before the sex police arrive at the door, maybe it's time to ban health activists.

For many, however, freedom takes a back seat to the fact that smoking is also the smell of money. For governments collecting new taxes, for activists mounting campaigns, for agencies receiving state funding, for the U.S. lawyers collecting billions in contingency fees, tobacco has turned into a river of gold paid for by taxes on smokers.

Source

SO much hate, so much ignorance. It's nice to know that I am paying for you to be activists though! (Your welcome)

7 down 1 to go

[edit] bb code, I shot my eye out again!

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

For the past 15 years the anti-smoking lobby has pushed the view that cigarette smoking is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For having failed to persuade committed smokers to save themselves, finding proof that passive smoking harmed non-smoking wives, children or workmates meant smoking could be criminalized. Last week the science fell off the campaign wagon when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all.

But don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. smoking, like fox hunting, is something that certain factions want to ban simply because they don't like it. It has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one...

However, it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit.

Thousands of reports, I doubt it...

Before the IARC study, no other reliable study on ETS was available. For the effect of the modestly increased risk of ETS to be detected, the number of cases in the study must be very high in order to distinguish the effect from other background noise. Acting in the most unscientific manner, the U.S. EPA decided to pool results of 11 studies, 10 of which were individually non- significant, to arrive at a risk ratio of 1.19. As is always a problem with this kind of meta-analysis, the studies were all different from each other in various ways so that they were not measuring the same thing.

Source

Well all my quoting is done, for now. I have given 8 reports for my side of the argument. I have seen none from the anti side. Seems to me they are just spouting what they have heard, instead of researched. Of course now that I have said that it will be time to "put me in my place". Since no one would comment on my original "quote" until I called them on the carpet.

With this research I have the right to say that second hand smoke, nay ETS, DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER! So quit treating us like we are sub-human.

What would happen if I wanted a law passed saying that college students must go outside when not in a class? After all it is their CHOICE to go to college. (And no saying because it doesn't hurt others, I have shown that smoking doesn't hurt others)

Taking bets on that not mattering!

*sits and waits for the "proof" from the other side*

adigregorio

I think you are doing to good of a job of making to much sense. You are making people leave the thread. It is making it less fun not hearing them try to justify why smoking is the devil.

reply to post by goblue


Just doing what I can to clear my/our names. We are treated like worthless bags of air sucking water. I do not judge anyone, and I expect the same courtesy. Unfortunately, anti-smokers tend to not afford me that. Doesn't make them "bad" just causes me annoyance. But I suppose it is all fair, considering my smoke annoys them.

But don't be fooled, they will be back with "science" to prove their side as well. We just have to be ready to show that their "science" is skewed. (assuming that it is, I have not seen their "science" yet)

reply to post by adigregorio


Dude... I think you actually prevented them (assuming they know how to read) from even attempting to carry on an intelligent debate! lol

Props!

Now I think we can use our collected data to prove that despite their continued insults to our intelligence for choosing to smoke a cigarette much like they choose to eat french fries, drive cars, and stand under the sun... Smokers are actually smarter than non-smokers!

reply to post by adigregorio


Just so I am clear the risk ratios make it sound as if home second hand smoke is 16% more risky than no smoke in the house and Office second hand smoke is 17% more risky than no smoke in the office.

So if my spouse smokes at home and I work at a smoking locale I have a 33% more risk due to second hand smoke?

16% greater risk is big enough for me.







[edit on 6-3-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 6-3-2008 by pavil]

reply to post by pavil


That is not what it says, read the full source as well as paragraph and it will explain how they fabricated those numbers. If you still can't find/figure it out I will elaborate for you.

[edit]

This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit.

[edit on 3/6/2008 by adigregorio]

reply to post by adigregorio


Please do. Explain how much more risky in percent is smoking in the house as opposed to not smoking in the house.

reply to post by sparda4355


I am not jumping the ban-wagon just yet. I have a feeling they are scouring for "proof" right now. Which just goes to show you that they did not do the research they claimed to have done. Or it would have been simple to retrace their steps.

reply to post by pavil


Look at the post above yours, and then read each of the links I provided and you will see what I am talking about. There are 8 different sources quoted throughout the last few pages, as well as a compilation of the sources before the quotes.

I used to be a smoker and know how hard it is to quit. It is extremely detrimental to your health and leads to cancer and heart problems.

That said. I am against government bans of smoking. I do not think they should regulate who can smoke and who can't or where.

A private business however should have every right to decide if it's patrons or employees should or should not be allowed to smoke just like I have the right to decide whether I allow someone to smoke in my house or not.

Let's review: City, county, state, or federal bans are bad. Private property bans whether business or home is good.

[edit on 6-3-2008 by kevp777]

reply to post by kevp777


I agree with you 100% it is up to the businesses not the government. About the health factors, well we have different points of view but at least you said leads and not causes