Tobacco and the Health Fascists

reply to post by NotAnAspie


NotanAspie

Respectfully, I don't think you understand the role of macrophages very well. The role of macrophages is to eat dead tissue. Now it may be a bit disturbing to think about it but the cells of the human body DO NOT last decades. They die and must be replaced. The dead cells must be removed from your body or they would decompose inside of you. The process of macrophages eating dead cells is a healthy normal response.

Macrophages don't eat lung tissue. They eat and clean up debris in the lungs.

As for comparing cigars and cigarettes, remember that cigarettes have a filter tip that trap much of the particulate. Cigars don't. The reason you don't inhale cigars is because the pH of the smoke is such that nicotine is absorbed in the mouth and cheeks.

Cigarette tobacco is treated with ammonium to alter the pH and make it possible to inhale the smoke into the lungs. Most of the nicotine is absorbed in the lungs.

In the 1960s, cigarettes contained about 12 mg of nicotine in each cigarette. Smokers did not need to smoke as many cigarette to raise the blood level of nicotine (I do not think of this as addictive but rather that each smoke senses what the therapeutic dose of nicotine is for each individual)

The anti-smokers, backed by the government, requested that tobacco companies decrease the amount nicotine in each cigarette to its current less than 2 mg. Now each smoker must smoke more to maintain the same blood levels of nicotine.

Tired of Control freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

NotanAspie

Respectfully, I don't think you understand the role of macrophages very well. The role of macrophages is to eat dead tissue. Now it may be a bit disturbing to think about it but the cells of the human body DO NOT last decades. They die and must be replaced. The dead cells must be removed from your body or they would decompose inside of you. The process of macrophages eating dead cells is a healthy normal response.

Macrophages don't eat lung tissue. They eat and clean up debris in the lungs.

As for comparing cigars and cigarettes, remember that cigarettes have a filter tip that trap much of the particulate. Cigars don't. The reason you don't inhale cigars is because the pH of the smoke is such that nicotine is absorbed in the mouth and cheeks.

Cigarette tobacco is treated with ammonium to alter the pH and make it possible to inhale the smoke into the lungs. Most of the nicotine is absorbed in the lungs.

In the 1960s, cigarettes contained about 12 mg of nicotine in each cigarette. Smokers did not need to smoke as many cigarette to raise the blood level of nicotine (I do not think of this as addictive but rather that each smoke senses what the therapeutic dose of nicotine is for each individual)

The anti-smokers, backed by the government, requested that tobacco companies decrease the amount nicotine in each cigarette to its current less than 2 mg. Now each smoker must smoke more to maintain the same blood levels of nicotine.

Tired of Control freaks

First, filtered cigars absolutely do have filters so you might want to check that statement. Yes, I have smoked both kinds and I'm aware what a filter does.

Secondly, why in the world would you tell me I don't understand what Macrophages do and then repeat what I JUST said about their role in eating dead tissue. It clearly states in the definition for them that they are present in all living tissues, which includes the lungs and they eat dead cells.

You shouldn't even have to look up the fact that lung cells die because you just put it in your post that the body's cells die. So what are the lungs made of, plastic? No, they are made of cells and they DIE... if they didn't, everyone would have lung cancer. This process of cell renewal will only go so far... or we would live forever... and we don't (you may need a reminder of that) Since cell renewal is not an infinite process, why would you accelerate cell death, which is evident by the higher number of macrophages and the obvious lung destruction of smokers... and call that a normal body function?

Sorry, but any sane person is not going to believe this.

I don't think you should be lecturing anyone on Macrophages if you don't understand the simple fact that smoking destroys lung tissue... and that would clearly explain why someone with damaged lungs would have HIGHER numbers of Macrophages in their lungs than a non smoker according to the medical study, or did you just fail to read that part of my post? The number raises in response to rapid cell death. How much more of an explanation does anyone need?

I don't care... don't bothering answering. I must be honest, it is clear where you are going with this.

Ammonium bromide is, indeed, added to cigarettes among many other things.

And guess what one of it's uses is. That's right anti-inflammatory.

I guess you've heard the saying "poison was the cure"

Umm...no, it isn't. It causes cancer and destroys lung tissue and contains chemicals to mask the effects of that very damage.

Just like I said in my other posts and just like we all know is true.

Who the hell are you trying to fool?

My point was not only to show that people get addicted to smoking in an endless loop of self medicating themselves and to show that big tobacco and the chemicals they add to cigarettes only makes it that much worse. You keep sticking up for them all you want.

I rhetorically ask because there was no doubt in my mind that I would get some deluded fantastical response.

Thanks for the laugh and have fun smoking your allergies away.

And now I'm going to quote an artist I never want to hear again after his massive hypocritical sell out but what can I say? It fits.

YOUR WORLD IS AN ASHTRAY.

Have fun being a cigarette company slave. Best buds, you and the rich tobacco CEOs.
I'm sure they call you all the time to see how your lungs are doing.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


Well Gee NotanApsie, its all so clear to me now! Boy you really straightened me out!

For the last 50 years, I have been bombarded by anti-smoking propaganda! All this time, I thought it was just a misprint!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by NotAnAspie

Who the hell are you trying to fool?

And who the hell are you trying to fool?

The same old, same old mantras of the Temperance movement and the prohibitionist - but now instead of alcohol it's tobacco and they use a combination or real science, junk science and prejudicial opinions to achieve an objective and advocate a position whose end result is 'designed' to reach a conclusion - and if original science shows they are wrong,such as in the case of second hand smoke, they will do it over, twist the data until they get it their way.

Now let us go back a hundred years and listen to them ranting and raving about the evils of alcohol - the vicious
cycle of getting drunk and sobering up - the destruction of the body, mind and soul of the person driven by that
evil alcohol and its corresponding ability to produce disease - sound familiar? Right it's just like the anti-tobacco
mantra of today - the vicious cycle all over again. Yes. you are right, there is a vicious cycle but its not to
drinking or smoking - the real vicious cycle is human egotism and myopic vision which causes the advocates
of 'control freaks' to take a problem out of context and turn it into a social cause.

And before you go any further with smoking and the tobacco industry, after all you do not have to smoke, why don't you look at food, you do have to eat. Do you read the labels of what is in your food? And you thought tobacco was bad but if you don't watch what your eating they will pump you with additives of all sorts and attempt to addict you to their product and while you and the anti-tobacco fanatics are at it 'they' [the food industry] will have you addicted to junk food, fast food and any and all kinds of poor eating to fatten their wallets and your stomach. And you know what? They used to say smoking was the leading cause of preventable death and now they say it is obesity!
Some things never change!

And to repeat, statistics show light to moderate drinkers are usually healthier and live longer than non-drinkers.
And if you said that 100 years ago when the temperance anti-alcohol fad was taking hold they would say you
were insane and probably drunk - I too am 'tired of control freaks'

reply to post by AlienView


AlienView


They can't explain why the burden of asthma is increasing while the smoking rate decreases.

(well, smoking causes fetal DNA methylation, don't you know!)

They STILL can't explain why the burden of asthma is increasing while the smoking rate decreases.

(well, smokers have more macrophages in their lungs than non-smokers, don't you know!)

They STILL can't explain why the burden of asthma is increasing while smoking rate decreases.

(well, they did a study and found out that asthma occurs more frequently in smokers and their children, don't you know!)

They STILL can't explain why the burden of asthma is increasing while smoking rate decreases.


I know - the burden of asthma is INCREASING! We need to collect more taxes from smokers to pay for it and collect more donations from the public for the purposes of funding MORE ways of harassing smokers.

but, THE BURDEN OF ASTHMA IS STILL INCREASING!

Tired of Control Freaks

They can't explain

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


How do you work out that we agree that smoking doesn't cause asthma when both of us have said it does in utero?
Are you reading or typing too fast for yourself?

You're producing lots of straw-man arguments here plus lots of suppositions of how the research both in a clinical and hospital environment are carried out.

"How do we know the mothers are smokers?"....erm because it's been asked of the mothers whether or not they did and has then been recorded. Pretty basic stuff.


Smoke is a mild and short term brochodilator and an irritant.
Beta-2 receptor agonists like salbutamol are short to mid-term moderate brochodilators with little or no irritant effect.
Corticosteroids are a moderate mid to long-term which prevent bronchospasm with little or no irritant effect.
So how does a medicinal brochodilator differ from smoke.
No irritants, they are longer lasting and more effective.
Therefore they have less of an effect on the overall lability of the bronchi over a period of time (if taken properly). So that's why they don't end up in hospital after every cigarette as it has a cumulative effect.
The lability of an asthmatic's bronchi is directly related to the severity of their asthma attacks and smoking with asthma will have a negative effect on that lability.

The link from Patient.UK you posted shows, very clearly, that a major risk factor for asthmatic death is smoking or passive smoking.
Did you miss that bit? Or did you just ignore it?
Seems like you're cherry-picking here.
I fully aware of the biochemical mechanisms of asthma thanks but one part you are constantly ignoring is the effect smoke has on the lability of bronchi and the relationship with severe asthma (there, I've said it again).

I like the way you glibly say "Now the sudden onset type can be dealt with very very quickly". Really?
Maybe in theory that's correct but once again I invite you to spend some time in your local hospital and actually see one happening in real time. You won't be so glib then.


You have the typical response of a fanatical zealot when confronted with the "risk-factor" argument too.
You are also still trying to make out that I'm suggesting smoking is the only cause of asthma which I've never stated once.
What I've said is take away the risk factors if possible. Smoking's easy to address. So is "burning wood". So are "candles and incense".
If there are socio-economic reasons why an asthmatics house is unsuitable this can be addressed by social services in some cases (in the UK anyway). The genetic side of things is a little harder to sort out as are any environmental issues. But if as many rick factors as possible can be addressed so much the better.

But no, no, no! Stop picking on smoking (I'm not, but this is what the thread's about).

As for your stats, you say "only occurs in 22 % of people who smoke or unexposed (sic) to second smoke.
Only 22%???
That's a fifth (not far off a quarter).
That's a lot of people.
And your "obvious conclusion" that smoke has some sort of protective effect is fuzzy logic if I'm being really kind.
Obvious only to you.
You've certainly made your point to me however I would guess that the point I'm taking isn't the one you intended for me to take.

Another thing, not once have I said smoking should be banned (collapses another theory of yours doesn't it?).
I don't believe smoking should be banned but at the same time (being an ex-smoker and living with my wife who IS a smoker) people have to be more responsible about it.
Unfortunately, if left up to the majority of individuals, this tends not to happen so therefore blanket bans come into force.

So I suggest that instead of carrying on with your obvious victim mentality start trying to educate fellow smokers to act more responsibly about smoking.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


You only see what you want to see don't you?

For the very last time, the cause of asthma can have many factors.

We can address them individually if possible.

We can address smoking.

We can to an extent address hygiene.

Environmental factors are difficult to address.

Genetic factors are difficult to address.



Not once in this thread has anyone stated that the only cause for asthma is smoking.
Reducing smoking is good for asthma.
However if other factors do not change or become more prevalent then obviously the overall rate will not go down.

When I see people smoking out side I often wonder about the diesel fumes that they are breathing in. As well as all the other exhaust fumes. Not to mention all the other polution spewed out by big companys. Yet they demonise smokers. No mention of any other poisions, which we are being bombarded with on a daily basis.

reply to post by illuminnaughty


I agree illuminnaughty - attacking about a quarter of the population for fun and profit is just so much more fun than scientific research.

I also posted a thread on about oral-pharangeal cancer. They are announcing the 70 % of all OP cancers are caused by HPV. They try to pretend that there is a difference between between HPV tumors and Non-HPV tumors but the real difference is most likely that they haven't identified all the strains of HPV that cause cancer.

We now know that HPV is the cause of cervical cancer, penile, vaginal, and anal cancers - all diseases that they previously blamed on smoking.

We can already see that COPD is not decreasing either and it won't decrease because asthma is part of COPD

So anti-smoking marches on and the disease burden DOESN'T decrease. They can't explain it but they all still KNOW that its tobacco. The BIG LIE continues.

Tired of Control Freaks

Bump.

Excellent thread.

thedeadtruth
As a mortician, I will tell you smoking will kill you. And it will not be pleasant and in your sleep.. But it is a free world so I have personally no issue with how you die.

But....

I do object strongly to anyone lighting up around me without asking. It is just plain rude..And I hate the fact smokers think it is cool to litter with their butts.

This kind of self entitlement is disgusting.

Think about this, ...If a majority of smokers did not act like the above. No laws would be needed and anti-smokers would have little ammo .


Note: What I find funny is. If you ask a smoker if they are one of the above. They all say no. So the only logical conclusion is ...

(a) We have a bunch of time / space traveling serial smokers, who change appearance at random.

(b) 99% of smokers are dishonest.

Gee thanks for your nonsense.

Painterz
I'm afraid I think my rights not to be poisoned by your deadly smoke mixture of carcinogens and chemicals trumps your right to kill yourself in public.

Im afraid you are wrong.

thedeadtruth
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

"he's right you know, you're speaking of greed and an over blown sense of entitlement when you as well exhibit this behavior"

How exactly is expecting someone to at least ask before lighting up around a non-smoker all of that ? You sure you know the difference. ..

I can honestly say I don't care and usually say yes. Tear gas does not even effect me thanks to my exposure to mortuary fluids .I am so much more likely going to die from exposure to those than his piss weak second hand smoke.

My point is he has no basic manners, and I suspect due to his display of arrogance he also deliberately litters the ground with his butts " just because I can"

What a legend.

Nobody has to ask you anything..LOL. Im an adult I will do what I want, and yes I will do it to piss you off if I want to. If you are being a jerk, Im not asking. So stop trying to be a control freak.

Mikeyy
I can't stand smoking at all, I've lost quite a bit of friends and family to it. I stood there and watched my Uncle drown to death from COPD. Thats right, you frikken drown in your hospital bed, there was nothing peaceful about it. He was 65. Guy smoked like a chimney, even after they had to put him on oxygen for the last year of his life.

My dads friend from highschool, died at 45, FORTY FIVE, from lung cancer, from smoking. If that isnt a reality check then I don't know what is, that # can kill you faster then you think, and OP with your attitude I know you chain smoke, so that will be you, 45, count the days buddy.

On the topic of smoking in public, it is rude as hell, the last week I was at the race track, and this guy and his buddy were smoking cherry cigars, the smell was making me sick the whole time, completely ruined my experience, and I wen't home with a headache and nausia. that asshole chainsmoked them, I sit there every week, and have never seen him before, yet his first time showing up, he ruins my experience.

I believe in your right to smoke, but I think it should be a private thing, the fact that you guys are soo addicted that you must have a cigarette every 10 minutes is a problem.

I agree that smoking in close prox to someone who doesnt is a dick move. Thats their problem, and because you have a problem with it doesnt mean they need to get treatment. You dont like it, they do. Deal with it.

theMediator

Originally posted by amkia
I don’t consume alcoholic beverages and a person who does make me puke… shall fill some files against alcohols and their users..?

Smoking has bad or good effects only on ME; if this is an issue then let it be my choice.

Playing the devil's advocate here but...
Alcool bottles are recyclable but your cigarettes are not.

So no, it doesn't affect only you, the cigarettes and the smoke doesn't just dissapear "poof".
If you we're the only smoker in the world, it wouldn't be a big deal obviously but the billions of burnt cigarettes do in fact have an impact.

You are right they do have an impact. They give us smokers some entertainment watching your self righteous a$$ pick them up and complain about them. Cry baby.

Wow. I read this thread thinking it would be a true exposing of the anti-tobacco zealots and their ongoing campaign to demonize the smoker of tobacco. Instead I find that it is nothing but a catfight between the I-can-do-what-I-want anywhere-I-like-and-you-can't-stop-me zealots and the anti-everything-do-what-WE-say-is-good-for-you zealots, with a bit of reason thrown in now and then.

but I'll throw my two bits in, for what its worth, not from the hard-core smoker angle, nor the anti-tobacco angle...but the smoker-turned-vaper perspective. Actually it may be a bit more than two bits, but still pocket change.

1) Smoking is bad, mmmmk? It does damage, and can kill. But so does many things any person is free to choose to do.

2) But...in all things, there can be found benefits, for example, nicotine...is not bad in small doses, is found in a lot of foods, and the benefits include increased alertness combined with calm (one of the only stimulants that paradoxically calm at the same time); helps control appetite, and may help slow or stop the onset of Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and dementia. Yes, there's more to the smoking that is attractive than that nasty smell and dirty ash. Not that I would EVER go back, I found my new path to get my nicotine, and zealots can scream all day long about it but thats my freedom.

3) And believe it or NOT (most anti-everything zealots WON'T), nicotine BY ITSELF is not addicting like you have been brainwashed for so many years. It is the nicotine combined with the synergistic chemicals present in tobacco that makes it addictive, and the chemicals that tobacco companies put in it to make it even MORE so...from personal exp. this last 6 months, as a 'nicotine user' but not a 'smoker', I find myself forgetting all about my e-cig for hours on end, and even going to take breaks with the intention of vaping, and forget to...I would NEVER go that long and NEVER forget about smoking a tobacco cig. Hell that one amazed me. But its true.

4) Many or the anti-tobacco zealots have turned their rage upon the new e-cig, with the arguments that it 'looks like smoking' and 'may tempt the kids with their fancy flavors'.

5) While these anti-tobacco zealots try to seize the moment with their new target, they will remove another free choice from millions of new ex-smokers-turned-vapors with their attempts to make this new product illegal to 'save the kids', resulting in many of them returning to a product that they claim is so dangerous no one should use it, but take no action to make IT illegal.

Seems zealots always have to have something to fight about. Yesterday it was tobacco, today its everything that LOOKS like tobacco, and tomorrow it will be your big fat bowl of ice cream after your big fat meal.

Gotta go order more of my e-cig juice and some atomizers before the FDA tries to make it all illegal next month.

So if you don't care for my two bits, give it back, I need the money.

reply to post by lakesidepark




I grow my own now. When you buy the E-cigs, those doses of nicotine are processed somewhere.

I smoke my own. Just plain growing it yourself is wonderful. It's definitely worth it. You get to reap the benefits of your progress and then sew. It's very fulfilling.

thedeadtruth
I do object strongly to anyone lighting up around me without asking.

Why is that?

Because you think you get cancer because a smoker lights up in your vicinity? How often does this happen, say, per month? 1x? 5x? 10x?

You think you get cancer...even if we assume that someone would light up close to you...say, 10x each and every month?


(Do you also complain to bypassing cars about the fumes? Or shake your fists towards a passing plane? Or make treating calls to the factory in your neighborhood since you see smoke coming out the chimney every day? Again...what do you think are the REAL odds that YOU get cancer from *occasionally* being exposed to one or the other whiff of someone's smoke? You think the chances for "getting sick" from it are so high that you get angry any time you see someone lighting up near you? REALLY?)