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.


"Thanks, Tobacco: You Killed My Mom"

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:12 AM
That is sad, that he lost his mother, but she chose to smoke. That is like blaming the maker of paint becuase somebody sniffed it and died. People need to take responsablilty for their own actions. I smoke and it will be MY FAULT if I get lung cancer or anything else. If I chose correctly I will quite, but who knows. The same thing with drug addicts, if somebody chooses to sniff a bag of dope and it is too much for their body to handle and they die, then it is THEIR FAULT becuase they bought it and did it. Nobody put a gun to her head and made her smoke right?

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by foremanator

Bull.....Any report that claims nicotine is more addictive than an opiate if a fairy tail funded by some organization with a hair across their azz over cigs.

I smoked 3 packs a day for 10 years. Quit, cold turkey. The actual motion of my fingers going up to my face was the hardest part to quit. But I quit. And NO WITHDRAWEL. And I know MANY who have kicked cigs and not suffered withdrawal.

Now, I was also addicted to opiates. After 10 days of ACTUAL HELL ON EARTH and another 3 months of psychological anguish, its slowly came back to normal. 100% of people kicking opiates suffer MASSIVE physical and psychological withdrawal. This is DEFINATELY not true with nicotine, so please. I beg you ....STOP, for the love of God stop with this PC junk science. Can we suffer through the "science" of global warming first? After that get debunked (like overpopulation problem etc) we can look at this, but not now.

So stop. Stop with this fairy tale about how addictive nicotine is. Those studies are BS.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
You seem to think I don't know what I'm talking about, so let me fill you in. First, you don't like the fact that your smoking increases my insurance costs, my medical cost, and the cost of goods and services because of the time off. I'll refer you to the CDC, the Surgeon General, and the AMA.

Your right, I dont give a hoot about YOUR expenses you bring upon yourself. Perhaps you should shop for cheaper rates, cheaper prices on these alledged products that MY smoking makes them more costly to YOU.

Ive been smoking for decades and have been working for decades and I see more people who dont smoke take time off for piddly belly aches and pains than us smokers do. And you wonder why your medical insurance costs so much...its becasue of the whine babies and their weakness, cant handle a little bit of a sniffle or nose cold and dump tons of brainwashing pills into your body which in the long run causes your health problems and makes you have to go visit your doctor which drives up your deductables.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Want to know why my insurance goes up? Because I have group insurance. The people who smoke have more respiratory infections, and therefore use their insurance for doctor visit, and to cover medications. Sooner or later that gets passed on to me in the form of higher premiums and higher co-pays. Those same people take more time off because of respiratory illness.

I bet you all work in an enlosed office building with vents that have not been cleaned out in years. Call a vent cleaning service and have them show you how much soot and germ filled lint they pull out from those vents. I will guarantee that is where all your co-worker's respiratory problems are stemming from. Not to mention the fact that your CDC clearly states that indoor air is 10 times worse than outdoor air, at home and in the workplace. Look it up yourself.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
The means I have to find another nurse or aid to take their place. So, not only do I have to pay sick pay, I am probably going to end up paying overtime, which is going to sooner or later get past on to the consumer.

If your that concerned about having so much expense in group insurance, then you should not offer group insurance or partake in group insurance. Again find less expensive ways instead of jumping on the lemming bandwagon and putting blame on others when it was your bad choices to choose the most expensive means to have insurance just because others around you follow the lead lemming.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Want to about vents? You've smoked all your life, now have end stage COPD and can't breathe. The doctor shoves a tube down your throat, we connect you to a ventalator, sedate you and try to get your blood gases back to a point where you can breathe on your own for awhile. Guess what? Sometimes it doesn't work, and we can't even wake you up from the sedation. Possibly you had a stroke, or heart attack while you were on the vent. It's difficult to diagnose those things when someone is sedated to keep them from pulling the tube out that's keeping them alive.
Now all this time, I've been turning you, running a tube down the tube, trying to remove the secretions that build up in your lungs, giving you baths, and cleaning your butt. At the same time, I am dealing with you family. Your wife and children are asking me if your going to be alright. They are alternatly crying their eyes out, and angry at me because I don't fix you. I just try to reassure them that we are doing the best we can and we'll try to wean you off. (The doctor loves to dump this stuff on the nurses.)
Finally the day comes when we've tried three or four times to get you off, and we can't do it. The doctor has to approach your family and asked them to make a decision. You can't continue on the vent forever. But we can't stop the vent until someone, usually the wife, makes a decision.
I have stood by many families, and offered my condolences, and no I didn't say, "If only he hadn't smoked."

Hypothetical situations are not reality. Your basically creating a worse case scenario to fit your little rant. Here is a someone who will listen to it. (RFB hangs up on the sales pitch call)

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
George Burns, your grandmother, and my grandfather are anomalies. And your theory that lung cancer is caused by additives and allergies is hogwash. It has been proven time and time again in peer reviewed studies that the LEADING (not the only)cause of lung cancer is smoking.

By all means, post just a few of these peer reviewed studies that prove smoking causes cancer...oh dont leave out the previous health studies of those test subjects before they started smoking know, like any family history of cancer or lung problems.

My grandmother was no anomaly dude. She was a living, breathing human being who obviously had no problem with smoking, nor did her mother, or her daughter who is my dad's mother, my dad, my mother, my brother, me, my sister, my dad's brother and sister, their kids, and their kids' kids, all who have choosen to light up, and all who are living extremely healthy lives at this time. None of them are having any of these made up scenarios you are throwing out here.

And before you go assuming those kids are kids, they all are above 21 btw. My dad is over 90. His dad lived to be 103. His mom lived to be 106. Our family has a history of living very long lives on both sides. All of which smoked. Teehee!!

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Now from a strictly selfish point of view, smoke on brother, Because all you doing is giving me even greater job security.

I'm a 300lb bald guy with a beard, and when I need it, attitude.
But my patients and my familes love me.

Thank the other millions of smokers too. At least we now know the reason for the gerth. Heh! Lets come back here in about 20 years and see exactly who's health is better..beings I actually do physical things to keep my body in shape, and healthy. And give it the dose of nicotine it deserves.

Ohh an attitude. Im so scared! Gonna have to do FAR more than this to intimidate me fella. Doctor or not, your not the authorative conclusive deciding factor for the rest of the population..especially those who..and I, repeat with big bold letters,...CHOOSE to light up.

If that just bothers you to no end...oh well.

Oh 1 more thing...if your so content on us smokers giving you job security, then perhaps you should sit down and clam it and let us smokers continue to provide you with job security..otherwise, go right ahead and join the band wagon of those who want to ban smoking..which in yourself would be banning your job security.

Like a row of dominoes that life depends want to be the one who knocks over that first domino...go right ahead. It wont bother me one bit..because I will continue to light up and hold it up high like the lantern of freedom found on a statue in the NY harbor.


(lights up another and exhales in the appropriate direction)

[edit on 28-1-2009 by RFBurns]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:08 AM
When I read posts like this I wonder, What are you supposed to die from? What does it matter if you die from smoking, car wreck, just being old. Why do we waste so much time on how you are going to die? Does it make you mad that you didn't get to pick your exit? If you smoke and eventually die, then that is how it was supposed to be.

Tobacco companies are defeinetly scum of the earth. In the US we once issued cigarettes as rations to soldiers, they know that we are weak and if you get 100 people started 75 wont quit. Plus if you want to quit you buy the gum, the patch, even that drug that might cause suicide. With that last one, your quitting one way or another.

My wife quit cold turkey after 25 years, but she has health issues from it, I have issues from drinking to much. Somewhere in there I realized I will still die and I have no malice toward any company, these were decisions I made at various times in my life. My social scene in the USAF was one of hard work and lots of drinking, keeping the sheeple safe.

I say if you have Philip Morris in your 401K give back all the profits you have made off them killing people.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:18 AM
It is amazing how fast some people are ready to blame tobacco for their own "screw-up". I smoke for 42 years and my lungs are in decent shape.
Instead blaming tobacco - look at [SNIP] where you will see of "who to blame". Tobacco it is addictive and do have a harmful affects on a human body, but tobacco it is not directly responsible for a death.

Mod Edit: Removed 'free advertising'.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Gemwolf]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

While all of this is extremely touching and very very emotional, I defy one person on ATS to provide proof that smoking was the "cause" of this woman's lung cancer.

Fact: Lung Cancer is lung cancer, there is no way of determining the cause. It might be smoking, it might be exposure to vehicle exhaust, it might be radon exposure or it might be just caused by genetics. No pathologist or biopsy can show the difference in lung cancer by cause.

FACT: In Canada, the largest group currently suffering from lung cancer are woman who never smoked

FACT: The statistic that smoking causes 80 or 90 % of all lung cancers is generally misinterpreted. Given the fact that there is no way of determining what the cause was of any particular case of lung cancer and the fact that smoker in this particular statistic is defined as anyone who ever smoked more than 100 cigarettes during their whole life and the fact that this generally includes are very large proportion of the population, the statistic itself is generally meaningless. It is simply unbelievable to any thinking reasonable person that you smoked a few cigarettes in your teens and that caused lung cancer in your 60's and 70's!

FACT: During a trial in the UK where someone was suing a tobacco company for having caused lung cancer, evidence was presented by 3 famous scientists including Sir Richard Doll, the grandfather of the anti-tobacco movement for the prosecution and 3 scientists presented opposing evidence for the defense. During this trial, it was learned that scientists have been unable to induce any kind of cancer with fresh whole cigarette smoke despite trying to do so for at least the last 40 years. The trial judge was gobsmacked to learn that the whole of the evidence to support the theory that smoking CAUSES lung cancer consisted solely of "Because we say it does!"

FACT: Smoking prevelence in the US and Canada has decreased by 50 % in the last 35 years. Lung cancer incidence continues to rise in woman and is really just staying the same for men. It is noted that in the last 35 years, there has been a change in woman's lifestyle in that woman are no longer "in the hone" but driving to work everyday. The slight decrease in the incidence of lung cancer in men is more likely to be explained by worker safety measures that have been implemented in the last 30 years or so.

FACT: In the 1970's breast cancer was almost a death sentence for woman with only 15 % survival rates after 5 years. Since that time, the public has poured approximately $24,000 per case of breast cancer into research and early diagnosis. The current survival rate after 5 years for breast cancer is now approximately 75 %!

In comparison to lung cancer, where only about $1,700 per case of lung cancer is put into research and early diagnosis, the survival rate for lung cancer remains at about 15 %. By contrast, the billions of dollars put into anti-tobacco (and it is billions) to cut smoking and "prevent" lung cancer has not resulted in the decrease of the lung cancer incidence at all. The statistic that lung cancer is the greatest cause of death than all other lung cancer is based solely on this fact. Anti-tobacco has been an enormous waste of time and money.

By continuing to mount campaigns of hate and intolerence against smokers - you only condemn yourselves to the death you so strongly fear.

FACT: The reason public health is so involved in setting laws against smoking in public is because the labour officials refused to do so. The concentrations of carcinogens in tobacco smoke are ALL below occupational health and safety standards.


posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:25 AM
I have quit arguing about this topic because it is a rather pointless debate. Smokers always say the same things over and over - they smoke and they like it and everybody else is just trying to curtail their rights to do fun things.

As I said before reserach says that people with lower educations and lower incomes are more likely to smoke. They are also more likely to be aggressive.

The bottomline though if you wish to keep smoking make it your private event, non-smokers choose not to smoke so don't force them to "enjoy" your smoking habit.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Mynaeris]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by Mynaeris

Most smokers do. The ones in this thread is a pretty good representation.
You get the inconsiderate minority in all things.

Rise above it and look around. With the millions of smokers how often would an "incident" happen. Mountains out of molehills when it's put in perspective.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:45 AM
I'm not a smoker, tried once when I was young and hated it.

But I personally don't care if others want to smoke -- what they do to themselves is their own business and most of all, their own right.

What I do care about though, is when some (not all) smokers have this erroneous belief that it's ok to smoke next to me in an open area, arguing it's outside so it's ok, or I shuld just move. Now, if I'm the one who walked up to them while they were smoking and I complained -- I'm an idiot for putting myself in that situation. Poo-poo on me.

But if I'm loitering about, waiting for a mate to show up and a smoker stops next to me and lights up, I'll tell him, politely, to push off and smoke a few meters away and I'd expect them to show smoe form of respect and move. Poo-poo on them.

I used to have a gf that smoked like a tyre fire. Yep, my own decision to be with her (at the time). But her arguments went along the lines of, "You inhale car exhausts, why not ban them?"

But I'm not for banning cigarettes. I'm not for banning ***any*** of those things. Hell, I say legalise the whole lot : cannabis, coc aine, heroin, etc. If people want to use those substances, then so be it! At least if it's govt controlled it's clean, cheap and taxable. Hmm.. I'm ranting off topic tho

Anyhow, I go with the majority of the sentiments here : it was the person's decision to smoke. They know/knew the risks and decided to smoke anyway. Now they paid the price. Job done.

Oh, and don't try the, "it wasn't so bad in the 50's, no one knew the risks" routine. Absolute bollocks they didn't!! Wrap your lips around a car exhaust and inhale. Or take a deep breath of the smoke from an open leaf fire. You hack and cough. That's a *small* indication your body isn't down with it... Why would smoking a cigarette be any better? Morons..

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Mynaeris

You are the light and lantern for the people without a voice! May you dramatically lead your armies to the forefront and prove once and for all WHO and WHAT is right! Your voice alone rings above the rest! Your infallible sense of good and right is undeniable in the face of that which is wrong! May there be rose pedals spread before your feet with every step that you take! May the people be saved by your wisdom, and love you for it!


Smokers are not forcing anyone to enjoy their personal habit!

Non smokers. BACK OFF. We don't smoke around you. Its not even allowed in most places.

It is interesting to see these people who fight for less government in most other threads here on ATS but are all about government regulation when it comes to something they agree with.

Gentlemen, it seems we have a bunch of hypocrites on our hands.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid

Why is it that you keep coming online and claim dominion over everybody and insult us. I find it difficult to find a post of yours that is respectful.

But in order not to do what you do. I will give examples of how my rights are infringed upon by smokers. On occasion I am standing in a long line to buy tickets - no problem for the person one or two away from me to light up. Is that respectful?

Or I am spending time on the beach - next thing the guy in the chair next to me is lighting up. Why do I have to move away? Surely I am not interfering with his or her enjoyment of the beach?

Your cause is weak as are your manners.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Yeah, she killed herself. Maybe a smoker can admit a total lack of anything remotely resembling a backbone and blame it on something as petty as "peer pressure" but you cant blame it on tobacco companies with any sort success unless you go out of your way to prove you are a complete idiot who lives his life at the whim of advertisers.

For the record McDonalds didnt make anyone fat either.

What the hell happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?

I'm sorry but this is about people taking responsibility of their actions.

The only argument I hear from smokers is that it is their decision to do so. So whenever I hear that, I do not want such a person to complain not one time at what someone else does that can affect or hurt them. Someone robbed your house? To bad. Your son killed himself? To bad.

Nicotine is a drug. Like many drugs, whoever is abusing it will say its fine and their choice and that is the response I will get. PEOPLE ARE ADDICTED. Simple as that.

Yes I will hear the same argument that everyone has their habits.

The problem with smoking though is that in the end, more than likely, you will be in a hospital bed suffering with all of your loved ones at your side. Dying of old age and cancer because of smoke are two different things. In the end, while of those people will ALWAYS love you, you have made them suffer from your decisions.

In the end, you could have caused harm to those around you.

In the end, you have blown your money.

In the end, you could have lived another 10 years at a healthy rate.

In the end, you will be suffering and your loved ones will have to watch.

Nicotine is a drug. It is a cause of stress. Once you are addicted, you need nicotine to get rid of that stress.

My grandfather just died from the same exact thing in the video.
My family are in a mild slump money wise.
Both my parents still smoke.

A year, my parents spend a combined amount of about 4,000 dollars in smoking. Why not use that money on some food when theres nothing in our house for a day?

The results of smoking are these.

Family having to deal with it.
Lack of pocket money.
Earlier death.
Increased stress.
Smells horrible.
Worsening health.

You wanna know why the mother in the video wants kids to quit smoking? Because it is an addiction. She knows it and everyone here knows it. I know it. I smoked for two years and stopping ASAP was one of the best decisions in my life.

I am usually for personal choice and if someone wants to continue smoking I can not do anything about it.

If you do not quit smoking for yourself, do it for the ones that love you. While you may not care one bit about your health or attitude, many others do. I have seen chain smokers, quitters, the aftermath, everything. I do not need a scientific research table to tell me that it is bad. I do not need this video to tell me it is bad. I know it is and I have to experience the environment of it all the time. They do not care though.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid

Why is it that you keep coming online and claim dominion over everybody and insult us. I find it difficult to find a post of yours that is respectful.

But in order not to do what you do. I will give examples of how my rights are infringed upon by smokers. On occasion I am standing in a long line to buy tickets - no problem for the person one or two away from me to light up. Is that respectful?

Or I am spending time on the beach - next thing the guy in the chair next to me is lighting up. Why do I have to move away? Surely I am not interfering with his or her enjoyment of the beach?

Your cause is weak as are your manners.

Is this for real? I come online and 'claim dominion over everyone'? That is absurd. It really is.

As for my posts not being up to your standards of respect, which judging by how much you think your opinion should rule over others lives are very skewed standards, I am having a hard time seeing a post of mine that has ever been anywhere near as insulting as the post that you are replying to. Sometimes I like to meet force with like force, and perhaps that was not the best move. I apologize.

As for your selfish standards, believe me- I can understand. I hate it when everything is not my way also.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:55 AM
I am a big proponent of "Everything in moderation."

It is true. If you smoke too much eventually you will affect how well you can breath. If you eat too many sandwiches you will get really fat. Too much water and you will drown. That kind of thing. Yes, too much is too much. I could understand being upset at a smoker who is outright rude, but some of the standards of what is rude here are a little whacked. Going outside to smoke is polite. I personally have never gone and stood right next to someone who is not smoking, unless they are a friend talking to me. I don't even stand that close to people who are smoking just for personal space reasons.

Again, a lot of of you are getting really over-exaggerated and I think you all know it.

Do you want to use all of that pent up, righteous energy? Fight crime. Go get murderers and rapists off the street. Maybe at the end of a day of doing that, a cigarette will look somewhat appealing.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by GreyFoxSolid]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by BlesUTP

And is it my choice and I have to breathe in your smoke when you walk past me?

and you force your car fumes on everyone

so what makes you so high and mighty now?

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:01 AM
WOW...10 pages discussing and debating a poor choice made by this woman and how her son actually has the nerve to blame someone else for her choice.

Gotta love people...I guess when METH or HEROIN kill we shouldn't blame the person who CHOSE to take drugs...we should blame the maker. TAKE SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONCE...dang!

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by GreyFoxSolid

I agree.
It's all being blown way out of proportion with millions of people smoking each day and only an "occasional" incident per non-smoker , it only proves that MOST smokers are polite.

Instead of taking a long sweep at Smokers in general why not just put it down to the RUDENESS of the PERSON INVOLVED.
The personality type who blows smoke over people standing in line is probably the same personality type who doesn't care about cutting in in traffic and almost causing pileups and doing lots of any annoying things.

Blame the individual. Don't project the "occasional" smokers rudeness onto ALL SMOKERS.

But I guess it 's too much to ask to see the logic in that.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Flighty]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by Flighty

Well Flighty, if these people were smart enough to realize that most smokers, like most people, are polite then we wouldn't be having this conversation and people like use wouldnt be having so much fun realizing how self centered some people are!

There is a bright side to everything.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 11:40 AM
The insurance being higher because of smokers argument is laughable and perfectly logical at the same time. As a smoker I would ask anyone who agrees to try and look at the grander scheme of things. If smoking was banned for higher health insurance (and taxes), it is only fair everyone should be rationed: you get your 2 glasses of alcohol per day but no more, you may only eat a certain amount of preselected foods (one "junk food" a month) and so on. Technically it is possible to register a persons daily activities, give or take a decade of work to realize it (barring any possible civil wars that might erupt if such measures were taken). Think of tv-shows with actual charts pointing out those who didn't follow rules and regulations (and have their careers ruined because of it) and those who get rewarded (thus getting ahead in society).

Furthermore all high risk sports should be banned; traffic should be altered to prevent as much accidents as possible (meaning lower max speeds, maybe even "digital drivers" - losing control of your car). I don't have a car myself because I don't really need it for what I do (not to mention I'd rather spend the money to travel once in a while) that's my personal choice. But other people who choose different and own cars also cause a lot of accidents for which I have to pay too. Not to mention all the industrial waste which future generations are going to have to pay for.

The same for people doing high risk sports, they may get a kick out of it but when they fall, I have to pay for them to recover also. People who don't exercise at all should get less rations, unless they meet their daily quota of exercise. And while we're at it; let's introduce a kind of burka, or any clothing against the sun at certain areas and times of year to prevent skin cancer (bye bye hot pants).

I also believe the entire psychiatric system should get an overhaul if smoking is banned. It should be a basic system of "shut up and work" and only those posing a threat to themselves or society should get medication, no more things like cosmetical procedures or viagra (people should learn to accept (and still be happy) old age, being fat or ugly). The entire pharmaceutical sector has billions and I´m simply not sure whether that money is well spend (seen any bad financial news about that sector lately?). Basically if you're unhappy you should solve your problems yourself instead of getting anything from insurance at all.

Lastly people should get exams and all kinds of government approvals before being able to have children. This costs society so much dollars it's unbelievable not much seems to be done about it.

Given human nature all of the above doesn't work obviously and the smokers issue is just one of many results of our own greed and selfishness.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Dragonfly79]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:08 PM
I quit the ciggies 5 months ago, i smoked for over 40 years and quit many many times, this time i hope for good, we all say the same thing, we smoke because we ENJOY it ,its not until you try to quit,you realise how STRONG YOU ARE (or not),
I quit because i did not like being controlled anymore,it is still difficult at times but i,m persevering. an addict whether its legal or illegal ,IS being controlled, and i applaud all who try to quit and succeed .

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in