Bloomberg is A Waste Of Oxygen Now He Wants To Hide Cigarettes

reply to post by Theimp


anti-flag!

reply to post by kykweer


Kykweer

So now your crocodile tears are for all the "little children" is it?

That is the very weakest argument of all!

Baby Boomers were born to parents that smoked and in turn became smokers in adulthood. They became the healthiest longest lived generation in the history of the world!

Starting in the 1960s and continuing to today, there has been an 800 % increase in the incidence of childhood asthma that has only gotten worse with decreasing exposure to second hand smoke!

How many children do you see in bars anyway?

Tired of Control Freaks.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

Kykweer

So now your crocodile tears are for all the "little children" is it?

That is the very weakest argument of all!

Baby Boomers were born to parents that smoked and in turn became smokers in adulthood. They became the healthiest longest lived generation in the history of the world!

Starting in the 1960s and continuing to today, there has been an 800 % increase in the incidence of childhood asthma that has only gotten worse with decreasing exposure to second hand smoke!

How many children do you see in bars anyway?

Tired of Control Freaks.

Let's not forget to add for decades the Japanese had some of the world's highest rate of smokers per capita, and also enjoyed the longest human lifespans....

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Ok... so I will now formulate this debate by quoting what I have already said, at least it will make saying the same thing over and over again seem more productive.

Originally posted by kykweer


For years people were smoking in the company of children and people who don't want smoke around them. Sure it is a case where a few spoilt it for everyone. And rules had to be put in place.

edit on 19-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by kykweer


But you cant just chill out in the aisle and smoke between people who don't want you to smoke! I could only maybe justify smoking on a plane on a specially made compartment etc, but it's just not practical or economical, then also there is some safety concerns that would just make us go into a whole new debate. An airline company that cordons off about 20%of the capacity of the airplane to smokers sometimes would likely go out of business quite quick, and smokers would cry and moan if an airline has a plane for smokers because the demand would be quite high and ticket prices would be extremely high and unreasonable.

So suck it up it's only a short journey.

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

And how many people in your area has lost their lives through smoking?

More importantly, how many people in your areas life has been influenced by people smoking around them? The number is likely going down. Wonder why?

Kykweer

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

You are still getting confused, you've listed a few things that may cause cancer... but they are still left to each person with their own choice.

The point is, when YOU smoke around me like you want to, you affect my health hence its not my preferred choice to be inhaling second hand smoke.

If i wanted to drink 5l of coke a day, that's my choice even if it's stupid, but if you smoke around me it's not my choice.

Smokers have been alienating their children, family and friends for hundreds of years.

Get it?

Kykweer

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

Bar's on the other hand probably goes hand in hand with smoking, still sucks waking up and smelling like crap, but you have a choice to go.

edit on 21-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by kykweer


So it still has an impact? Slightly more sever for children? Like I said, I really couldn't care less who smokes, but people used to smoke in the company of children for years. So that's why im fine with a general ban, just because SOME people were irresponsible, not ALL smokers.

So it's bad luck, but that could go for possibly every law ever made. It's not because everyone breaks them, but as a system we need to say, well if these people just won't listen, then EVERYONE isn't allowed to do it.

So you can clearly see, I dont care if you smoke, or have private clubs for that matter, that's cool and alright and should be okay, but the truth is these laws are in place because some people just are idiots and spiteful.

I don't understand what you saying about smoking, it improves health in children? couldn't it just be the improvement in medicine, and maybe just understanding Astma better etc?

You also state that children who's parents smoked likely become smokers? see a link there?

kykweer

reply to post by kykweer


Kykweer

Here is a study of asthma and asthma attacks in children with all the appropriate links

daveatherton.wordpress.com...

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.

Atopy is the medical word for allergies.

Not only does this study show significant decreases in disease. Real scientists working in real laboratories found the biological pathway by which exposure to tobacco smoke decreases asthma and allergies

“To ascertain the effects of nicotine on allergy/asthma, Brown Norway rats were treated with nicotine and sensitized and challenged with allergens. The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE.”

And there is little doubt in the real world with real people, that with the decrease in smoking came an 800 % increase in childhood asthma and life-threatening allergies.

So how many children have DIED and how many have suffered a life long disability because anti-smokers had good intentions?

Tired of Control Freaks

Would everyone look at this article



www.telegram.com.../20130318/NEWS/103189900/1116/mobile&TEMPLATE=MOBILE

Mass. bill would ban smoking in apartments
By Elaine Thompson TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF


So here we have a 77 year old lawyer who would like to sell his house and move into an apartment. However he can't because the poor poor man is deathly ALLERGIC to cigarette smoke.

Poor poor victim - its not his fault. Its not like he just doesn't like the smell or that he wants to pick on smokers. Its not his fault at all that he is ALLERGIC.

Doesn't your heart just bleed for this man???

Except for anything to be an allergen, it has to contain a protein to stimulate the allergic response and smoke has NO proteins.

www.sharecare.com...

Further, look in your local paper for apartment listings and see just how many apartment buildings and condos are now non-smoking.

This poor man is so deathly allergic to cigarette smoke that not only must his apartment be non-smoking. His allergy requires that ALL apartments be non-smoking.

He is asking the government to step in and take away choice from everyone in the whole city to protect him from dying of an allergy that doesn't exist.

Now go ahead - explain to me how this man is anything but an extreme anti-smoker who is trying to impose his brand of control on every person in an entire state!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by kykweer


kykweer

Your statement and concern that children of parents who smoke become smokers!

Children don't become smokers. It is illegal to sell cigarettes to children. That law already exists!

Children grow up and become adults. Then they choose to smoke.

You are not concerned about children. You are concerned about controlling the actions of adults!!!!! WOW - what kind of control freak are you that you must concern yourself with adults smoking????

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I'm sure we could find hundreds if not thousands of studies on the effects of smoking, you will get both sides, and the studies that support smoking will probably be paid for by tobacco companies.

It's easy to point out a certain ingredient, and I'm sure there will probably be good ingridients in Coke.

A smiple google search on "effects of smoking" will yield the following results.

en.wikipedia.org...

"In the 1930s German scientists showed that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer.[32]:15 In 1938 a study by a Johns Hopkins University scientist suggested a strongly negative correlation between smoking and lifespan. In 1950 five studies were published in which "smoking was powerfully implicated in the causation of lung cancer".[33] These included the now classic paper "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" which appeared in the British Medical Journal. This paper reported that "heavy smokers were fifty times as likely as non-smokers to contract lung cancer".[28][33]
In 1953, scientists at the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York City demonstrated that cigarette tar painted on the skin of mice caused fatal cancers.[32] This work attracted much media attention; the New York Times and Life both covered the issue. The Reader's Digest published an article entitled "Cancer by the Carton".[32]:14
A team of British scientists headed by Richard Doll carried out a longitudinal study of 34,439 medical specialists from 1951 to 2001, generally called the "British Doctors Study."[34] The study demonstrated that about half of the persistent cigarette smokers born in 1900–1909 were eventually killed by their addiction (calculated from the logarithms of the probabilities of surviving from 35–70, 70–80, and 80–90) and about two thirds of the persistent cigarette smokers born in the 1920s would eventually be killed by their addiction. After a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places was introduced in Scotland in March 2006, there was a 17 percent reduction in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome. 67% of the decrease occurred in non-smokers.[35]"

32 -^ a b c Oreskes N Conway EM (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. San Francisco, CA: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 1-59691-610-9.
33 -^ a b Michaels, David (2008). Doubt is their product: how industry's assault on science threatens your health. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 4–5. ISBN 0-19-530067-X.

34 -^ a b c Doll, R.; Peto, R.; Boreham, J.; Sutherland, I. (2004). "Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors". BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 328 (7455): 1519. doi:10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE. PMC 437139. PMID 15213107. edit

35 -^ Pell JP, Haw S, Cobbe S, Newby DE, Pell AC, Fischbacher C, McConnachie A, Pringle S, Murdoch D, Dunn F, Oldroyd K, Macintyre P, O'Rourke B, Borland W (2008). "Smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome". The New England Journal of Medicine 359 (5): 482–491. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0706740. PMID 18669427. edit

We could post all day about studies pro and against smoking.

In the end the studies against smoking will outweigh the studies pro smoking almost embarrassingly.

Tobacco companies can only deny the truth so much...

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

kykweer

Your statement and concern that children of parents who smoke become smokers!

Children don't become smokers. It is illegal to sell cigarettes to children. That law already exists!

Children grow up and become adults. Then they choose to smoke.

You are not concerned about children. You are concerned about controlling the actions of adults!!!!! WOW - what kind of control freak are you that you must concern yourself with adults smoking????

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

Kykweer

So now your crocodile tears are for all the "little children" is it?

That is the very weakest argument of all!

Baby Boomers were born to parents that smoked and in turn became smokers in adulthood. They became the healthiest longest lived generation in the history of the world!

...

Tired of Control Freaks.

I'm confused, did I say it or did you?

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

You are not concerned about children. You are concerned about controlling the actions of adults!!!!! WOW - what kind of control freak are you that you must concern yourself with adults smoking????

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by kykweer


So you can clearly see, I dont care if you smoke, or have private clubs for that matter, that's cool and alright and should be okay, but the truth is these laws are in place because some people just are idiots and spiteful.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Here is a peer-reviewed study on children exposed to cigarette smoke and allergies

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Exposed children were not more likely to be serologically sensitive to any of the allergens tested. We conclude that children passively exposed to cigarette smoke do not produce more IgE to common allergens nor are they more likely to produce IgE to any particular allergen.

And yes - I am saying that children exposed to smoke ARE more healthy than children not exposed to smoke. Just like children exposed to bacteria are more likely to be more healthy than children who are kept too clean.

Man has burned organic material for millenia to heat their homes and cook their food. Homes were always wreathed in smoke from the fireplace. Our respiratory systems are designed to filter out particulate matter and children who are exposed to smoke develop healthy and strong respiratory systems because the smoke challenges them during development.

Now I don't seriously think that the loss of exposure to tobacco smoke is what is causing the 800 % increase in childhood asthma. I think its more the loss of wood and oil burning to heat homes that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s but smoking a cigarette in your home doesn't pose enough smoke to challenge anyone!

As for whether or not the increase in asthma and allergies is "real" or not

respiratory-research.com...

Incidence is defined as the number of new cases of asthma that occur in a given period of time [3]. The incidence of asthma attacks or episodes in patients seen by general practitioners in the UK has increased considerably since 1976 (Fig. 1). This increase has occurred in all age groups, with a very large increase in children, particularly preschool children. The incidence in preschool children (0–4 years old) peaked in 1993 at 11 times higher than in 1976. Since 1993, however, the incidence of new episodes of asthma has declined [3,6]. This pattern of an increase followed by a decline was observed in all age groups [6].

Its very very real and represents an increase so large that some scientists are wondering if it is some kind of evolutionary shift.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by kykweer


NO kykweer

Your statement that you don't care if people smoke in bars doesn't convince me AT ALL. that you are not an anti-smoker and a control freak.

You keep trying to shift the blame to smokers and claim that they are selfish, idiotic, rude etc etc.

But the facts are dispute your theory. Smokers have been pushed around for decades and have always complied. Smoking has been banned in all places where the public have to choice but to go (public buildings etc, transportation etc). It is only since 1995 in california that anti-smokers have insisted on the right to ban smoking in privately owned buildings.

Places where non-smokers could choose NOT TO GO!

It is anti-smokers who want to deny choice to everyone. They are the selfish ones who demand that every building park beach sidewalk where they might choose to go someday be non-smoking.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by kykweer


So now you want to determine truth by the number of studies.

Science Sir - is NOT determined by concensus.

First epidimiologists conduct observational studies to identify trends and associations that could possibly be significant.

Then real scientists move in and so hard studies to determine and try to identify the biological pathways so that it can be determined if the association is real or just a bunch of statistics.

So far - ALL the evidence stating that smoking CAUSES this disease or that disease are ALL provided by epidimiologists. NONE of it has be proven by scientific study.

The study I provided you about asthma and allergies in children exposed to tobacco smoke started with epidimiology but was then proven by scientists who found the biological pathway.

There are lies, then there are damned lies, then there are statistics.

For someone who mentions children so frequently as an excuse for controlling and nanny state behavior, you seem strangely unmoved by the notion that children should be exposed to tobacco smoke in order to reduce the incidence of childhood asthmas and atopy.

Don't you care about the children anymore? You were so concerned about them before?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

NO kykweer

Your statement that you don't care if people smoke in bars doesn't convince me AT ALL. that you are not an anti-smoker and a control freak.

You keep trying to shift the blame to smokers and claim that they are selfish, idiotic, rude etc etc.

But the facts are dispute your theory. Smokers have been pushed around for decades and have always complied. Smoking has been banned in all places where the public have to choice but to go (public buildings etc, transportation etc). It is only since 1995 in california that anti-smokers have insisted on the right to ban smoking in privately owned buildings.

Places where non-smokers could choose NOT TO GO!

It is anti-smokers who want to deny choice to everyone. They are the selfish ones who demand that every building park beach sidewalk where they might choose to go someday be non-smoking.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by kykweer


For years people were smoking in the company of children and people who don't want smoke around them. Sure it is a case where a few spoilt it for everyone. And rules had to be put in place.

edit on 19-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

Bar's on the other hand probably goes hand in hand with smoking, still sucks waking up and smelling like crap, but you have a choice to go.

edit on 21-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

Smokers have been alienating their children, family and friends for hundreds of years.

Kykweer

Originally posted by kykweer


For years people were smoking in the company of children and people who don't want smoke around them. Sure it is a case where a few spoilt it for everyone. And rules had to be put in place.

edit on 19-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

So now you want to determine truth by the number of studies.

Science Sir - is NOT determined by concensus.

First epidimiologists conduct observational studies to identify trends and associations that could possibly be significant.

Then real scientists move in and so hard studies to determine and try to identify the biological pathways so that it can be determined if the association is real or just a bunch of statistics.

So far - ALL the evidence stating that smoking CAUSES this disease or that disease are ALL provided by epidimiologists. NONE of it has be proven by scientific study.

The study I provided you about asthma and allergies in children exposed to tobacco smoke started with epidimiology but was then proven by scientists who found the biological pathway.

There are lies, then there are damned lies, then there are statistics.

For someone who mentions children so frequently as an excuse for controlling and nanny state behavior, you seem strangely unmoved by the notion that children should be exposed to tobacco smoke in order to reduce the incidence of childhood asthmas and atopy.

Don't you care about the children anymore? You were so concerned about them before?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

I'm sure we could find hundreds if not thousands of studies on the effects of smoking, you will get both sides, and the studies that support smoking will probably be paid for by tobacco companies.

It's easy to point out a certain ingredient, and I'm sure there will probably be good ingredients in Coke.

Drink coke for asthma attacks apparently...

voices.yahoo.com...

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks



Kykweer

I was looking at your post of studies. I saw the one by Doll and Peto

That was very very interesting.

There was a very interesting court case in Scotland where the widow of man who died of lung cancer sued JTI tobacco. The judge was Nimmo Smith. The case occurred in the early 2000s

Doll was one of three experts brought to court to testify on behalf of the widow. He is, after all considered to be a leading expert on the association between smoking and lung cancer.

The widow lost the case but what makes this case so interesting was that in the Justice's opinion the three experts so completely failed to provide any kind of proof that smoking CAUSED lung cancer. His opinion of Doll was particularly damning. In his opinion, Doll's evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer was so pathetic that it came down to "Smoking causes lung cancer because we say it does".

Please google Nimmo Smith and McTeer vs JTI to find a transcript of the trial and the judges final opinions and remarks about Doll. You will also be able to read the testimoney of the 3 experts who testified on behalf of JTI. You will find that the current evidence does not even come close to proving that smoking causes lung cancer.

Doll did his study on smoking doctors in the 1950s in England. This was at a time when the UK was exporting all of its clean coal and using its dirty coal for domestic use. This was the time of the famous 'LONDON SMOG" where over a period of a week, the air was so dirty that over 4,000 people died in a week.

What most people don't know about the Doll study is that it showed that smoking doctors who didn't inhale the tobacco smoke were the ones who died of lung cancer. The ones who did inhale didn't get lung cancer at any rate higher than the doctors who never smoked.

To ensure the proper result, only the first survey included the question about whether doctors inhaled the smoke or not. That question was dropped on all subsequent surveys.

Like I say - there are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics.

Someone else already posted. The countries with the most longevity are the countries where the incidence of smoking is the highest (greece and japan)

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by kykweer

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by kykweer

 

So now you want to determine truth by the number of studies.

Science Sir - is NOT determined by concensus.

First epidimiologists conduct observational studies to identify trends and associations that could possibly be significant.

Then real scientists move in and so hard studies to determine and try to identify the biological pathways so that it can be determined if the association is real or just a bunch of statistics.

So far - ALL the evidence stating that smoking CAUSES this disease or that disease are ALL provided by epidimiologists. NONE of it has be proven by scientific study.

The study I provided you about asthma and allergies in children exposed to tobacco smoke started with epidimiology but was then proven by scientists who found the biological pathway.

There are lies, then there are damned lies, then there are statistics.

For someone who mentions children so frequently as an excuse for controlling and nanny state behavior, you seem strangely unmoved by the notion that children should be exposed to tobacco smoke in order to reduce the incidence of childhood asthmas and atopy.

Don't you care about the children anymore? You were so concerned about them before?

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

I'm sure we could find hundreds if not thousands of studies on the effects of smoking, you will get both sides, and the studies that support smoking will probably be paid for by tobacco companies.

It's easy to point out a certain ingredient, and I'm sure there will probably be good ingredients in Coke.

edit on 22-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

Drink coke for asthma attacks apparently...

voices.yahoo.com...

edit on 22-3-2013 by kykweer because: (no reason given)

I have provided studies showing that children of smokers do NOT develop asthma and atopy and then the science that found the pathway which proved the studies to be true by identifying the biological pathway.

And your response is this silly thing about coke (actually about caffeine) as a home remedy to calm an asthma attack.

You're kidding me, aren't you?

Tired of Control Freaks

Kykweer

Here is another study you quoted, the one from Pell linking smoking bans and decreased coronary events.

here is a scientific discussion of those "heart attach miracles"

www.jpands.org...

Publicly led research on public health effects of smoking bans has overstated benefits by overreaching on conclusions, excluding studies that contradict predetermined conclusions, and relying on studies subject to biases outlined above. This pattern is lamentable for a number of reasons. One is that efforts claiming to improve public health appear to be driven more by social agendas than by science. The IOM released, and various media outlets promulgated overstated claims on the public benefits of smoking bans, apparently without even considering whether they met the simplest tests of believability.

In short, Jill Pell of Scotland, is a bought and paid for shill for the anti-smoker campaigners.

Tired of Control Freak

reply to post by kykweer


There are no girls on the internet! It's a Rule

I agree most business owners wouldn't want to limit their client-base, but if someone wants to they should be allowed.

I had to read one of your comments a few times. You seriously think some things should be banned because a few people screw up? With respect, that attitude sucks! Why do we have to let a few people mess it up for everyone? Why do they have to ban or severely restrict electric bikes because a few college kids act stupid? One example off the top of my head. There are SO MANY laws and restrictions based on the actions of a few. Why can't THOSE people be punished instead of blanket restrictions on all of our freedoms? It's not right!

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Woooah. Talk about challenging preconceived ideas! I'll have to look at those links later, but very interesting and thank you for sharing. It would be nice if law-makers, government organizations like FDA, and health officials would base decisions on facts/science. Anti-smoking nazis are apparently all for health, but then ignore science and mislead the public. So sick. Literally, tobacco or nicotine could be found to CURE or prevent some disease, and these scumbags would rally against it. I think that's the biggest problem. If public health is the agenda, they should be unbiased and open to new information.