Majority of smokers do not have lung disease?

If they'd simply allow people with terminal illnesses to euthanize themselves as painlessly as possible, it wouldn't matter as long as the person was informed of the dangers and was willing to take their chances.

wait... what's this thread about? (lights a cigarette and inhales)..
I think that at any moment anyone of us can perish. Live your life as you want. If that involves smoking, so be it.
(takes another drag)

Aliester Crowley
"Do what thou wilt"

S&F for the truth. If people would wise up and quit blaming tobacco use for cancer and spend their time researching what is really causing our cancers than we would be better off. If our Immune system is working right and we occasionally trigger it to fight cancer, cancer can't get ahold of us. Our energy levels are too low both because of being scared and eating too many foods that cause a dampening of our energy levels. I understand this is necessary in society so we get along, but come on now, they are going overboard with this.

reply to post by ZeroReady

I used to work at a school of public health. If you have certain genetics that give you enzymes you can escape most of the cancerous effects of smoking. About 80% of the population has those enzymes. However no one is not influenced by the coronary artery closing effects of smoking or the build up of tar in your lungs unless you quit for more than five years.

So when they tell you that the average person loses 7 years of their life to smoking that is a bit misleading. Actually, 2 in 3 people gain about 8 additional years of disability (e.g., emphysema or coronary artery disease) while 1 in 3 lose 21 years of their life as a result of cancer which tends to hit people in their 50s.

reply to post by atopsecret


Atopsecret

So you work in public health. The relative risk to smokers for heart issues is 1.67. This may be mathematically significant but is INSIGNIFICANT in terms or epidimiology where you need a 3 or 4 percent increase in relative risk before you can say that the theory that smoking causes cardiac issues is proven.

YOU should know this.

Also can you answer this question.

Never-smokers get lung cancer in their late 50s, during their 60s, peaks in their 70s and less risk in their 80s.

Smokers - exactly the same.

Can you explain why smokers don't get lung cancer at earlier ages than never-smokers? Common sense tells us that if smoking CAUSES lung cancer, then smokers should get lung cancer at an earlier age than never-smokers. But, in fact, the opposite is true. Lung cancers that occur before 55 years of age tend to occur in never-smokers.

Now how can that be?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by OperationIraqiFailure
reply to post by ZeroReady

 

Just switch to weed and you won't have to worry about anything except a urine test.

MODS: Cannabis is legal in Washington State. Thanks.

Lima-1, out.

edit on 31-1-2013 by OperationIraqiFailure because: (no reason given)

This, absolutely, Mods: it's legal here in Colorado too. Thanks

I was a long time cigarette smoker and my lungs sure felt it, now my lungs feel like brand new and I smoke the medicine instead.

It helps with asthma, emphysema/COPD and other respiratory ailments. Granny Storm Crow really know what's up with that and other ailments regarding the medicine, seek her out and see for yourself.