I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

a reply to: neutronflux

quit dancing like a girl around the maypole

Answer the question: Do you believe that second hand smoke is more lethal than sarin gas?

a reply to: neutronflux

Also, corporations will always do their best to protect themselves... this is not just about demonising tobacco companies, this is more broadly about personal freedoms and discrimination against an activity (in moderation) that is no more harmful than many other activities we all do on a daily basis.

There are more false and misleading statements from the anti-smoking lobby than the smokers these days.

Do you believe in the right of personal freedoms... or should we allow government to nanny state everything we do?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

“There are more false and misleading statements from the anti-smoking lobby than the smokers these days. ”

Care to cite an example.

Easy to say after almost endless litigation and medical proof finally forced big tobacco to come clean over blatant deception.

So, you are saying the medical studies that prove the dangers of smoking are blatantly fraudulent? Please cite proof. And why? On the same level as big tobacco fraudulently claiming tobacco is safe?

So sad that you would defend a industry that purposely manipulate its products to be more addictive, and conspired to hide its dangers.

Quote where I said smokers should not be free to smoke. False argument by you.

a reply to: neutronflux

"Over 400,000 premature deaths are caused by smoking in the USA every year"... is a blatant falsehood... for just one of the anti smoking lies. That lie is indicative of the whole anti-smoking strategy, which is to pepper a bunch of unverified statistics with just a smattering of truth to make it seem like good science, and futher their particular agenda.
www.sott.net...

Here's also an interesting resource outlining the many frauds surrounding anti-smoking.
www.smokershistory.com...

No-one is saying that tobacco is completely "safe" these days, merely that it is not as dangerous as many other day-to-day activities we undertake, and the harms of smoking have been grossly misrepresented to support the anti-smoking lobby cash cow. The fact is a couple of cigarettes a day are no worse than a glass of wine a day, or a couple of cups of coffee a day, or cooking at high heats with vegetable oil every day, or sitting down all day... etc. etc.

I never said that you said smokers should not be free to smoke. I asked do you think every potentially harmful activity should be demonised and regulated by government to the extent that smoking is? (Which you deflected and never answered).

Where did I ever say that is should be regulated.

I really don’t care about your biased propaganda that is based off an industry that is proven to produce false advertising, has targeted children, conspired to cover up the dangers of smoking, and manipulated its products to make them more addictive.

There are 30 million smokers in the USA, and the average smoker spends 2,000 a year.....

That is a $60000000000 year industry. I think people have conspired, lied, produced propaganda, and murdered for less.....

I am sure the politicians and big tobacco don’t mind the money that rolls in.

Why is there a reason to falsify medical studies on tobacco.

Is it false tobacco contains radiation that exposes lungs to alpha radiation. Is all the proven and documented science that outlines the damage caused by internal radiation false propaganda too.

Are the studies solely researching the effects of low oxygen in the blood false. Smoking causes low oxygen in the blood.

Are the studies solely on carbon monoxide poisoning false. Smoking exposes a person to carbon monoxide.

www.fda.gov...

Chemicals in Every Puff of Cigarette Smoke
How many harmful and potentially harmful chemicals are in a cigarette? Is there more than nicotine and tar?
Fact: There are more than 7,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke.2 More than 70 of those chemicals are linked to cancer.4,5,6,7 Watch the video on cigarette smoke to learn more about what happen

You don’t even have to prove smoking is dangers. It is already well know the chemicals a person is exposed to from smoking are harmful without studying smoking. Is that a false statement.

a reply to: neutronflux

lol... you don't care about my biased propaganda, yet you believe whole-heartedly the propaganda of the anti smoking industry. You asked for a citation, which I delivered, then when it proves my point you claim it as propaganda. Priceless!... and typical.

Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

Here's the link again... it is not propaganda, or pro-smoking.
www.sott.net...

Again, you are ascribing quotes to me I didn't say, and you diverted and didn't answer my question again.

I asked do you think every potentially harmful activity should be demonised and regulated by government to the extent that smoking is?

You are completely misinformed about the topic, as is the majority of people around the world, due to a concerted campaign to de-normalise smoking since the 60's... which is a social engineering tool that is being used for control of the masses.

As to the chemicals in cigarette smoke, here is another boldfaced lie... here is a study about the toxicology of Second Hand Smoke: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#!po=2.69122

Table 2.1 (Levels of carcinogens in sidestream and secondhand cigarette smoke)

Here is the reality of that table:
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

So many of the statistics from the anti-smoking industry are complete bollocks.

a reply to: neutronflux

Also, you have not acknowledged that I never said smoking wasn't in some way harmful... my point is that almost everything you do on a daily basis is at least as harmful as smoking, if not worse. Though smoking is apparently the cause of all the deaths in the world, and is demonised disproportionately.

Did you know there are no deaths or diseases directly attributable to smoking?... it's always "smoking related" because causality has never been proven for any disease with smoking.

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

There isn't much point in debating anything with someone whose common sense is so deficit, they actually believe that second hand smoke is more toxic than Sarin Gas.

Such a person is unable to think for themselves and can only bow to the majority.

Tobacco

Polonium-210 in tobacco contributes to many of the cases of lung cancer worldwide. Most of this polonium is derived from lead-210 deposited on tobacco leaves from the atmosphere; the lead-210 is a product of radon-222 gas, much of which appears to originate from the decay of radium-226 from fertilizers applied to the tobacco soils.[47][108][109][110][111]

The presence of polonium in tobacco smoke has been known since the early 1960s.[112][113] Some of the world's biggest tobacco firms researched ways to remove the substance—to no avail—over a 40-year period. The results were never published.[47]

Link

Disclosure: I am a smoker for some 35 years now. Can't quit. The above is shocking but if you knew the process (they call it saucing in Dutch) they use to produce most commercial tobaccos I doubt many here would say it is an unadulterated and natural product. (I smoke unadulterated hand-rolling tobacco. It's not perfect but has no chemicals added to it. American Spirit, for the record.)

Here's an inetersting quote:

.....JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004.

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

I've lost 3 people to lung cancer in the last year alone, all my age (50 or under) and all were smokers. Please stop with the lies with regards to the health aspects of smoking modern tobacco. It's been adulterated for many years now and the dangers are known and acknowledged. TIA!

Tobacco laws now stipulate that a warning must be printed on all products. In the old days the warnings were there but more subtly worded. Now (in the Netherlands at least, where I live) the warning reads:

"Tobacco contains more than 70 substances that cause cancer."

I'm smoking right now....

See my post above this one too. Tobacco is not the same as nicotine. Not any more anyway.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

Thousands of people die every year of cancer. some of them have brown hair. Should we assume the brown hair causes lung cancer?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I was talking specifically about lung cancer. The major cause of lung cancer is smoking, believe it or not. YMMV.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

I've also had people in my life die from Lung Cancer (4 to be exact), only one of them was a smoker. Anecdotal experiences are not proof.

Smoking definitely appears to be a contributor, but as of yet an experiment or method has not been devised that irrevocably links the two... there are too many other factors involved to lay the blame completely at the feet of smoking. Best we can say is it seems to be a contributor, but we don't exactly know what it is in smoke that is contributing.

"Tobacco contains more than 70 substances that cause cancer."

That is a lie... best we can say is that those 70 substances may contribute to cancer.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Believe what you want and smoke what you want. The warning I stated is what is currently on my tobacco, as to it's veracity, I' have no idea but there is probably some truth in it. The deaths I reported were anything but anecdotal but feel free to believe what you want. Carry on!

ETA I am not interested in a pissing contest which is what this seems to have turned into.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

But there is absolutely no proof that tobacco is the main contributor to lung cancer.

Japan has higher smoking incidence, lower lung cancer rate and longer life expectancy.

HPV is definitively a causitive factor

Why has men's lung cancer only decreased by 10 % and lung cancer has almost doubled for never smoking woman.

Tobacco is said to cause 80 % of lung cancer. Smoking has decreased by more about 70 % in the last 60 years. If smoking was truly the cause of lung cancer, then why hasn't lung cancer been almost eradicated.

As for what caused cancer and what doesn't, you should do some research in the IARC scandal

IARC is the branch of the WHO that decides if a chemical or substance may cause cancer

/www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10/23/iarcs-glyphosate-gate-scandal/#184cad851abd

In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, issued a report labeling the weed killer glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.” This ruling caused consternation in the scientific and agricultural communities. Glyphosate, which is manufactured by Monsanto and is the active ingredient in the company’s popular Roundup, is one of the most widely-used herbicides worldwide. It is cheap, effective, and has low toxicity. IARC’s ruling goes against the assessment of every other agency that has evaluated the compound, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and the World Health Organization, of which IARC is a part.

I am afraid the rabbit hole is long and deep and there is a lot of stuff we just don't know

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

Not trying to be in a pissing match either...

Just trying to highlight the disproportionate response to smoking that our world has embarked upon... which highly disturbs me as it comes down to a matter of critical thinking that seems lacking in most anti-smoking rhetoric. Rather it is a convenient "non-desirable" activity that has been used to slowly erode our individual rights across the board.

I believed all the rhetoric too, until I started to research the available evidence. Only after an enormous amount of reading and searching have I come to my very unpopular opinions, that there seems to be a concerted global push to demonise smokers in an attempt to exert social engineering forces beyond the activity of smoking, which while harmful when abused, when taken in moderation is no more harmful than most other daily activities we all do.

Just finished pedaling 5 miles, ate a pork chop, now I am having a smoke and sipping whiskey.
Quality versus quantity.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

You didn’t answer the question.

There is extensive research into various chemicals and their dangers to the human body. Research that has nothing to do with smoking. But individuals are exposed to medically proven dangerous chemicals when smoking.

So your argument that studies are a anti-smoking thing is false.

originally posted by: skunkape23
Just finished pedaling 5 miles, ate a pork chop, now I am having a smoke and sipping whiskey.
Quality versus quantity.

Instant pleasure has nothing to with qualify of life. I would have you ask mom, but she passed from brain, lung, and stomach cancer from smoking.