Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 176
view profile
History
smoking bansPage 8 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Maybe you would feel differently if one of measly deaths was your mother father brother sister wife child or friend , in the USA 4 to 5 hundred thousand die each year from lung cancer, 80% or more of those deaths can be attributed to smoking,


Your rabid hatred of tobacco is clouding your very own ability to quote unbiased facts. Here it is straight from the governments' site. This is the site where agendists groups cherry-pick certain statistics & spin them into the oft-repeated mantra scare chants to further their agendas.


No agendist anti-smoking crusader influence present in these unmolested, unspun goverment research stats found here:



It is estimated that 1,529,560 men and women (789,620 men and 739,940 women) will be diagnosed with and 569,490 men and women will die of cancer of all sites in 2010


(http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/ 1975_2007/results_single/ sect_01_table.01.pdf).
Table I-1


Your half-million figure is ALL CANCERS of ALL PEOPLE. It has absolutely nothing to do with smoking singularily, nor lung cancer singularily. It is all cancers, smoker or non-smoker.

I will throw you a bone: I will grant your desire for purposes of arguement that ALL lung cancer is caused by smoking(which we know it is NOT).

Even iof it was, according to the wealth of unbiased stats on this neutral site, lung cancer is responsible for .5% of ALL deaths at age 79.

That is 5/10ths of 1 PERCENT!


Again, what on earth are the other 99.5%, or 99,500 people(out of that statistical 100,000) dying from?? That would concern me more.



 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 177
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 12:30:36 PM
This is what I get when I do a goggle and a Yahoo search of the URL you supplied ?

Your search - Search HomeAbout SEER Cancer Statistics Datasets & SoftwarePublicationsInformation ... - did not match any documents.


<div class="quote"> http://www.suite101.com/content/us-cancer-rates-on-steady-decline-a270303

Lung Cancer and Smoking Prevalence
The report found that rates of newly diagnosed cases of lung cancer (per 100,000 population) ranged from 37.8 in men and 23.0 in women in Utah to 133.1 in men and 76.9 in women in Kentucky. This variation reflects the large and continuing differences in smoking prevalence among states, the report pointed out. Utah ranks lowest in adult smoking prevalence and Kentucky highest.
Although the rate of new cancer cases has been decreasing overall, lung cancer in women has increased slightly. According to the report, this reflects historical differences in cigarette smoking between men and women; cigarette smoking in women peaked approximately 20 years later than in men.

Lets say just for arguments sake that the numbers above work out to 100,000 deaths each year due to lung cancer attributal to smoking. I guess that number is okay with you so I will say it again when one of those deaths is your brother, sister, father, mother, son, daughter or friend maybe then it will have a more positive effect on you.

Mean time keep on sucking that smoke down into your lungs I would not waste my time hating you or any other addict or for that fact anyone.

BTW not wishing you or yours any bad luck but if someone you know and care for is diagnosed with lung cancer tell them it's not so bad we all have to die of some thing some day
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 178
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 1:08:55 PM
But I do not smoke. I puff on an occasional cigar, but then I suppose that makes me an evil smoker who will surely die of lung cancer, according to the brainwash hysteria of the duped masses.

I simply am keenly aware of agendists who spin stats in order to further their own agenda. The anti-smoking crusade is a fine jewel of an example of this.

Here is the link again to the home page . I may have pasted it incorrectly. This site has all the info & links to all known stats concerning this.


http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html


You are fairly close with your 100,000. 150,000 deaths occur from lung cancer, SMOKER OR NON-SMOKER. Smokers & second-hand smoke stats account for about 60-65% of that number, which is around 90,000.

PEOPLE: LOOK AT THE RAW DATA & DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

2.4 million deaths per year US, all deaths.

569,000 cancer deaths per year ALL TYPE = 23% of all deaths

150,000 lung cancer deaths per year = 27% of all cancer deaths

90,000 smoking-related lung cancer deaths per year = 65% of all lung cancer deaths, but ONLY 16% of all cancer deaths


So in conclusion, 20-25%% of the population smokes, yet their supposed lung cancer "epidemic" account for 16% of all cancers, and LESS THAN .5%(1/2 of 1 percent) of all deaths.

Again, what on earth are the other 99.5%, or 99,500 people(out of that statistical 100,000) dying from?? That would concern me more.



 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 179
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 2:27:45 PM

Again, what on earth are the other 99.5%, or 99,500 people(out of that statistical 100,000) dying from?? That would concern me more.


Let me try to help you


http://www.howtolivealongerlife.com/2009/07/leading-causes-of-death-in-us.html

Top 10 Leading Causes of Death in America - 2007 (2010)
Heart Disease 616,067 (25.4%)
Cancer 562,875 (23.2%)
Stroke 135,952 (5.6%)
Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases (Lung Diseases) 127,924 (5.3%)
Accidents 123,706 (5.1%)
Alzheimer's Disease 74,632 (3.1%)
Diabetes 71,382 (2.9%)
Influenza and Pneumonia 52,717 (2.2%)
Kidney Disease 46,448 (1.9 percent)
Septicemia (infection of the blood) 34,828 (1.4 percent)


Lets see I am trying to decide which one the illnesses listed above is inconsequential to the families and friends of the those that are suffering and or dying, darn I can’t see one of them I would like to have a family member or friend die from? Can You?

Now let’s see how many of the diseases above can be contributed to by smoking

Heart Disease? Yes
Cancer? Yes
Stroke? Yes
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease? Yes
Accidents? Yes
Alzheimer’s Disease? Yes
Diabetes? Yes
Influenza and Pneumonia? Yes
Kidney Disease?
Septicemia?



Cigarette smoking causes about 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States each year. It is the main preventable cause of death and illness in the United States.

www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/smo/smo_how.html -


If smoking contributes to 1 in 5 deaths that means that smoking contributes to 480,000 deaths per year in the USA but who cares? Most of those people are probably old any ways and we all have to die from some thing

So continue sucking on your occasional cigar you probably won’t die before your in your 70s
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 180
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:44:04 PM
<
Now let’s see how many of the diseases above can be contributed to by smoking

Heart Disease? Yes
Cancer? Yes
Stroke? Yes
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease? Yes
Accidents? Yes
Alzheimer’s Disease? Yes
Diabetes? Yes
Influenza and Pneumonia? Yes
Kidney Disease?
Septicemia?




C'mon Baby!!! Let's do the Statistics Twist!!

Hmm....only 20% of the population smokes, yet the majority of the NON SMOKING population are afflicted with most of these disorders! How does that happen????I suppose smokers are infecting everyone else. What a scourge they are.


If smoking contributes to 1 in 5 deaths that means that smoking contributes to 480,000 deaths per year in the USA but who cares? Most of those people are probably old any ways and we all have to die from some thing


This is another smoke-and-mirrors scare statistic that sound frightening when twisted to fit an agenda. I am astonished at the deceit shown by those who skew numbers, and the gullibility and stupidity of those who are duped by them.

OK, DO THE MATH
20-25% of the population smoke

= about 70-75 million smokers

US death rate = 8.3/1000

= about 2.5 million/year.

20-25% of them smoked.

= 480,000, = about 20% of all deaths....DUH..

20% of the population smoke, and they account for 20% of the deaths.
If that is the case, then...

NEWS FLASH:
20% OF DEATHS ARE THE 20% WHO SMOKE
80% OF DEATHS ARE THE 80% WHO DONT SMOKE


DUH. Using this logic, more people die from NOT smoking. LOL
If nobody smoked, then 0% of deaths would be caused by smoking,
and 100% of deaths would be caused by.....DEATH perhaps??

 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 181
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:56:52 PM
That's typical of the soft logic around smoking.

Again, this isn't an argument that smoking is good for you. But if 20% of the population smokes, then 20% of the deaths could be attributed to smoking only if none of those smokers ever died in a car accident, committed suicide, was shot, drowned, died in an industrial accident or any of the myriad other ways people die.

I'll go back to the diabetes link, just cause I'm ornery. More poor and poorly educated people smoke. More poor and poorly educated people get Type 2 diabetes. I could use the same stats and show that watching Nascar is a risk factor for acquiring diabetes. A correlation is not the same as a causal relation.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 182
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:23:40 PM

Cigarette smoking causes about 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States each year. It is the main preventable cause of death and illness in the United States.

www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/smo/smo_how.html -


2,423,712 americans died in 2007, 1 in 5 would equal 20% can you work that out let me make it simple for you so that you can understand it, 10% of 2.423,712 would be
242,371 if you multiply that by 2 it comes out to approxiamately 484,712. Now I did not make up the stats.

Because you and I have a difference of opinion does not give you the right to refer to me in a less then respectful manner, so try just try real hard to be civil,make believe we are standing face to face and looking at one another.

Mean time smoke on and good luck to you.
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 183
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:53:24 PM
This reminds me of the death of Dana Reeves from lung cancer. She NEVER smoked, nor was exposed to 2nd hand smoke.

Impossible!! How could this could have happened?? According to the one-sided media saturation from American Cancer Society/American Lung Association/ STAND, they have everybody brainwashed into thinking you can only get lung cancer from smoking. These types of lung cancer deaths usually get swept under the rug, but in this case since she was a celebrity, they couldnt do that, so unfortunately they just played down its signifigance in the news reports.

I wonder what caused her lung cancer?? Sadly we will never know. They are all eerily silent about this. They should have spun this statistic into something they could hijack & use for their gain. They should have said that she once spent 2 hours in a smokey restaurant or some silly thing like that in order to save face.

Unfortunalety, there are a hundred causes of lung cancer. Heres one of those hundred, or perhaps thousands, finally updated, which was ignored for decades.

Please read because it concerns ME and my exposure to this from working in a steel mill for 25 years: (With deep respect to my Canadien friends, I must use U.S. stats)





OSHA Issues New Workplace Rule on Chromium

Feb 27, 6:31 PM (ET)


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Labor Department reduced the acceptable levels of workplace exposure Monday to a cancer-causing metal, hexavalent chromium, but critics said the new standard still leaves thousands of workers at risk.

The new rule limits worker exposure to the carcinogenic metal to no more than 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air, a large reduction from the old standard, but also a level five times higher than what had been proposed by the agency two years ago.

The old standard, issued in 1971, was 52 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Hexavalent chromium is used in chrome plating, stainless steel welding and the production of chromate pigments and dyes. An estimated 558,000 workers, from welders and steelworkers to jewelers, are exposed to its airborne particles that have been linked to lung cancer.





Well, now here is yet ANOTHER one of the countless causes of lung cancer that continue to surface despite the best efforts of the American Lung Association/American Cancer Society/STAND to make smoking/2nd hand smoke the #1 cause.

I worked in a steel mill for over 25 years & was exposed to this stuff the whole time, along with everyone else, including rabid anti-smoking crusaders. We were all exposed to a hundred other cancer causing agents.

BUT....I also smoked a cigar...remember? So my question is...

If I develop lung cancer, which statistic will I be???


I know the answer to that one....SMOKING. I will become an unwilling statistic in their #1 crusade against tobacco. They will hijack the statistic & use it to further their agenda at the expense of these other legitimate & very real health threats.

You can breathe a lifetime of 2nd hand smoke. It will never equal what I breathed for 1 month in my work enviroment. The sad irony is that nobody involved cares about anything except cigarettes and their smokers.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 184
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:58:14 PM

That's typical of the soft logic around smoking.


Let me try again because it is obvious that you are confused

305,689,000 population of the USA 2007
43,000,000 were smokers in 2007
2.5 million Americans died in 2007
1 out of every 5 died from smoking related causes
20% of 2.5 is around 500,000

I don't make up the stats, I don't twist them or manipulate them, they are what they are, believe them or not I could care less.

If you want to fight for smokers rights have at it, If you want to smoke have it, I could care less

I help people who WANT to quit smoking, I do not make a living at it.

If you want to believe that smoking is a healthy pass time, believe it, I could care less

I have seen the health results of smoking, I hear my daughter gasp for breath because she grew up in a house were both of her parents smoked, I got to visit her in the children’s hospital for the first 3 months of her life because she was born weighing 3.2 lbs, because her mom smoked throughout her pregnancy

I watched two of my younger brothers die before their 48th birthdays from cancers that smoking contributed to, I watched as one of my Toronto lady friends died before the age of 47 from cancer that smoking contributed to.

So smoke if you want to, pick up a picket sign and picket for smokers rights if you want to.

Don't worry about the tobacco companies and the manufacturers of tobacco products, neither of our countries will make smoking illegal and lose the revenues created by smoking
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 185
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 6:16:19 AM

1 out of every 5 died from smoking related causes


And again, 1 in 5 people smoke. So every one of five who touches tobacco to ther lips dies from it, according to this type of cherry picked propaganda. Everybody who smokes dies from it. That is the only assumption one can draw from this. We all know this isnt true.

Again, 4 in 5 people DO NOT smoke. Using the logic from the above paragraph, every four of five who does NOT touch tobacco to their lips also dies, but supposedly not from tobacco. They die from NOT touching tobacco to their lips. Somehow this is the preferred way to die.

This is what I mean when an agendist group cherry picks a statistical catch phrase in order to further their agenda.

Let me show you how this absurd statistic works:

I puffed on a cigar in my youth. When I applied for employment when I was 18, I was asked if I smoked, and I said yes to my employer. I am now branded a smoker for the rest of my life, any affliction I incur will be tobacco-related, my medical history shows that I smoked, no matter how brief it was...that is no matter.

My insurance rates are different than that of a "non smoker"...which I am. The important thing is that I touched tobaccoto my lips. Organised medicine & anti-tobacco lobby organisations will never pardon that charge. They will sit with baited breath waiting for me to die from something that they can pin on tobacco in order to support their statistics. That is the timeless firebrand that is my albatross, and at the same time is your statistical treasure trove .

No matter that I spent 25+ years in a filthy steel mill, if I die of lung cancer, it will be due to touching tobacco to my lips. Nothing else I was ever exposed to matters; Whether I like it or not, I will become one of those 440,000 "smoking causation" deaths. That is not my choice - that is your's and the CDCs and the EPA's choice.

Heart disease runs rampant in my NON SMOKING family. I, so far at 50, have outlived a paternal uncle, maternal great grandfather, and am soon to overtake a paternal grandfather and my own father, all non smokers, all who died from heart disease prematurely. There is also male lung cancer and female breast cancer death & non-death diabetes in other parts of my NON SMOKING family. I seem to be the healthiest one at this stage of the game.

Why are they not smoking statistics, but I am destined to be?? Whatever I die from, it will be twisted into a smoking statistic. Extrapolate that into every smoker, and THAT is how you , or the CDC, can come up with the 440,000. If you have ever touched a cigarette to your lips, you are automatically a smoking statistic. That is the only way. Correct me NOW if I am wrong, and show me how it is wrong, because I know of no other magical mathematical equation to show otherwise.

It is a blatant abuse of statistical power in order to further an agenda, at the expense of a myriad of other deadly afflictions that get little or no attention, due to this media feeding frenzy & subsequent brainwashing.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 186
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 10:01:07 AM
See, I know the arguments against the tobacco companies. One of them is that 1 in 3 smokers will die from smoking. That is shockingly high and a strong argument against smoking.

But, if 20% of the people smoke, and only a third of them will die from smoking related causes....you just can't get to 1 in 5 deaths caused by smoking.

You, personally, are not making up the numbers. But the numbers are being conjured out of thin air.

There are plenty of very good anti-tobacco arguments to be made. It is nonetheless incumbent on all of us to call, "Bullshit" when we hear it. I'm far more interested in process than results in general when it comes to politics. And widespread misinformation corrupts the political process. I hear the same made up nonsense whenever drugs are discussed - I have no interest in using drugs, but I hate hearing bullshit unchallenged.

There are plenty of solid arguments to be made against smoking tobacco and crack - nobody needs to make stuff up just because it will go unchallenged.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 187
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 1:22:27 PM
305,689,000 population of the USA 2007
43,000,000 were smokers in 2007
2.5 million Americans died in 2007
1 out of every 5 died from smoking related causes
20% of 2.5 is around 500,000



Cigarette smoking causes about 1 in every 5 deaths in the United States each year. It is the main preventable cause of death and illness in the United States.

www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/smo/smo_how.html -


I don’t think I can help you because you can’t seem to or do not want to grasp the facts, since you both seem to be intelligent people your refusal to work out the numbers leads me to the following possible conclusions if I am wrong please accept my apology and please supply me with an independent research source that supports your position

1- You are smoking right activist’s trained by tobacco lobbyist to try to discourage anyone who does not agree with the tobacco companies stance on the health effects of smoking

2- You are cigarette company trolls paid to try to manipulate facts and discourage people from supporting the smoking bans and accepting the fact that smoking and second hand or side steam smoke contributes to illnesses and diseases



http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cancer


You can’t possibly believe that lighting up a weed that has over 400 additives in it a number of which are known carcinogens can be good for your health.

You can’t possibly know what happens to your body when you inhale toxic smoke, if you did then it is inconceivable that you could not know how smoking contributes to illnesses and diseases.

I don’t use the wording “causes illnesses and diseases” I use the wording “contributes to illnesses and diseases“ , I do have a layman’s understanding of what happens to the human body that is exposed to at least one of the chemicals that come from smoking or from being exposed to second hand or side stream smoke, I am not going to try to explain
the workings of the human body to people who have a death ear to the facts

There are many different things that contribute to diseases and illnesses including heredity and it may or may not take exposure to more then one just as examples chromium, smoking, drinking, drug use, obesity, diet, environmental air and water pollution, work place exposure to different chemicals, asbestos, ect ect ect

I have no idea of where you got 1 in 3 from I used the 1 in 5 deaths numbers I found, but since I supplied you with the numbers and the source that they came from and you refuse to acknowledge the source or the numbers as being accurate my trying to explain the math to you would be like trying to walk through a cow pasture blindfolded and not expect to step in cow s--t.

Again, I don't make up the stats, I don't twist them or manipulate them, they are what they are, believe them or not I could care less.

If you want to fight for smokers rights have at it, If you want to smoke have it, I could care less, I do write my elected reps and ask them to support any new laws or regulations that will make it harder for the tobacco companies to stay in business, I do support an organization that makes it harder for the tobacco companies to market their products to minors

I am not a rabid anti smoking activist as you described me, I help people who WANT to quit smoking, I do not make a living at it. I do not go out and bring them in to brain wash them they come to me looking for help to quit, I can proudly say that over the last ten years I have tried to help close to 5000 people now including some from all around the world including Ontario and BC to meet and talk with people who were trying to quit

I have tried to stay within the rules for debating as stated which are



For the Time being, there is ZERO Tolerance for Trolls posting Flamebait,
Insults, or peddling Agendas. Automatic 28 Day minimum Vacation Package.


I only want to be treated with the respect that you would show me if we were actually standing face to face, if you can’t extend that courtesy to me I see no further reason to debate either of you
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 188
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 1:55:13 PM

1. I am not a rabid anti smoking activist as you described me, I help people who WANT to quit smoking,

2. I do write my elected reps and ask them to support any new laws or regulations that will make it harder for the tobacco companies to stay in business, I do support an organization that makes it harder for the tobacco companies to market their products to minors


These 2 statements profoundly conflict with eachother. You cannot have it both ways.



There are many different things that contribute to diseases and illnesses including heredity and it may or may not take exposure to more then one just as examples chromium, smoking, drinking, drug use, obesity, diet, environmental air and water pollution, work place exposure to different chemicals, asbestos, ect ect ect




I am most sure that you are the MINORITY of non smokers who realise other environmental hazards beyond tobacco smoke. Good for you.

Yes, I am concerned, since Ive been exposed to a myriad of cancer causing agents in my lifetime. So have large percentages of the population. Even anti-smokers. But, see...the result of the action being taken by anti-smokers is making sure that these other factors dont exist. Tobacco is the only enemy.They dont realise the tremendous disservice they are doing to themselves & others by drowning out & silencing 9 out of 10 other risks that ALL OF US are exposed to. 2nd hand smoke pales in comparison for many, as it does for me.


My complaint is that, whilst your view may be more comprehensive, you are squarely allying yourself with those who are truly hypocritical.

I/we/you see it daily - this hell-bent paranoia -induced crusade against tobacco by those who gleefully indulge themselves and subject their own children to far more unhealthy behaviours and environments. While Ms. Smith fries her child a baloney sandwich in her flat, she rails against across-the-hall neighbour Mr. Jones who is smoking a cigarette in his own flat 20 metres away.

That is the vast majority of anti-smoking crusaders you are allying yourself with therefore that is how I judge you, much the same way an anti-smoker judges me, even though I dont smoke cigarettes. That is why they do not come to your defence. That is why they do not rebut my arguement, because they see themselves in what I am trying to point out, and it is not pretty.

Unfortunately, I must lump you in the hypocritical category also, because you, like them, seem guilty of a part of all this by NOT EQUALLY advocating these other myriad of health concerns that you seem to be aware of. That is another facet of my arguement - You are basically doing the same as those I take issue with.

You are doing nothing to rectify this. Actually by pinning your tail on the anti smoking crusade donkey, you only fuel this philosophy and strengthen them, at the cost of what you say otherwise.


Yes, like you, I am concerned, but since Ive been exposed to a myriad of hazardous and cancer causing agents in my lifetime, along with large percentages of the population, my priorities are more realistic.

~I do not smoke cigarettes.
~I am not concerned about anyone else who smokes cigarettes.
~I am concerned about the hundreds of other health threats that are ignored because of anti smoking crusaders insistance on tobacco being front and centre .



The apathetic tunnel vision and lop-sided priorities they practice result in NO action being taken by anti-smokers of these other deadlyfactors.Their crusade is making sure that these other factors dont exist. Tobacco is the only enemy.They dont realise the tremendous disservice they are doing to themselves & others by drowning out & silencing 9 out of 10 other risks that ALL OF US are exposed to. Smoking, or 2nd hand smoke pales in comparison for many, as it does for me.

Anti-smokers should graciously bow out of the way & let the Dana Reeves of the world know the other causes of lung cancer, for example . But with some recent posts I realise that isnt going to happen..

The reason tobacco continues to take front & center stage is because of anti smokers jumping on the bandwagon & keeping it in the forefront in order to further their self interest of the fact they basically dont like the smell of tobacco smoke. Period. It has nothing to do with anybody else's health or well being...only their own agenda. They use the tobacco health issue as a hijacked vehicle to impose their intolerance on others.

The problem with that is... the Dana Reeves of the world who dont smoke nor are exposed to 2nd hand smoke, dont get the vitally important life saving message. The other lung cancer causes are not being preached or taught because of the monopoly the anti smokers have created. Perhaps if she knew the other equally dangerous, or DEADLIER causes , she might be alive today.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 189
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 2:44:27 PM
EarlzP, I don't think you are getting the point others are trying to make here...

The point being made is... that the anti-smoking lobby tries to paint EVERY death, from ANY disease which MAY be exacerbated by smoking as a "smoking related death" if the victim EVER smoked... Whether the smoking ACTUALLY contributed to the death or not (something which is notoriously difficult to ascertain with certainty in a great many cases)...

Allow me to give you an example...

Let's assume that I have Crohn's Disease and am notoriously bad at maintaining a "Crohn's friendly diet"... heavy smoking has been linked to the exacerbation of the SYMPTOMS of Crohn's Disease, but has NO established relationship as causative factor for Crohn's in the first place (in other words, it makes the symptoms more intense, but does not cause the disease itself)... If I were to die from peritonitis because my Crohn's led to a perforated bowel (an ulcer eats through my colon and everything leaks into my abdomen), the anti-smoking lobby would lump my death in with all the others as a "smoking related death" even though the smoking itself didn't cause my death... They would "claim" that my smoking MUST be the reason my Crohn's led to death, even if there were no direct evidence to support it and despite the more relevant contribution of my poor diet, simply because there is a relationship between heavy smoking and the severity of the symptoms of Crohn's...

THIS is the statistical manipulation that is being referred to... That ANY death from a disease that MAY be exacerbated by smoking MUST be a "smoking related death"... DESPITE the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of those deaths CANNOT be directly linked to the smoking itself...

And contrary to your repeated assertion, none have stated, or implied, that smoking is healthy... All have acknowledged that smoking is not healthy and can cause disease... just not the anti-smoking mantra that ANY death from disease to which smoking MAY contribute in even the smallest way MUST be a "smoking related death"...

The mantra being spread is that "MAY" has to be seen as meaning the same as "MUST", that "CONTRIBUTE" has to be seen as meaning the same as "CAUSE"...

and let's not forget the implied statement, "if you don't smoke you won't die from these 'smoking related' diseases"...

And, I have to say, your repeatedly falling back on the "If one of your loved ones... then you would think differently" canard is beneath you... It is a blantant appeal to emotionalism that only detracts from your argument...
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 190
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 4:24:29 PM
Yes I fully support smoking bans and think we need to enact much tougher laws to discourage teens and preteens from smoking

You can sell your story and try to minimize the impact of smoking on health all you want to, I am involved in a number of activities that in my opinion will make life better, safer and healthier for all Americans . Supporting anti smoking laws is just one of them. I talk the talk and walk the walk

Smoking as you can see by this Harvard study is the most preventable cause of death in the country, if you have a study or a source that disputes this Harvard Study please bring it to my attention.

In my opinion the FDA is in the hands of the tobacco companies and I have written to my reps expressing my concern for the FDA’s failure to reduce the additives put in tobacco. I really think and suggest to my reps that since cigarette fit the description of a drug that smokers should be required to obtain a doctors prescription to purchase tobacco

Like you I was a smoker at one time, unlike you I no longer smoke, I quit over ten years ago, you have said you smoke a cigar every now and then you say that you are not a smoker, as you told me at some point you can’t have it both ways, if you smoke now and then you are a smoker, if you never smoked you are not a smoker if you smoked and quit like I did you are an ex-smoker

How about you, do you just complain about the environmental conditions in your work place, do you do any thing to help have tougher work place safety laws enacted? What have you done to help your fellow employees?

I read your blog about being exposed to hexavalent chromium in the steel plant where you worked and that you think the permissible limits of exposure are still to high, so tell me what if any thing did you do about it? How many workers have health problems that can be attributed to because of the exposure, You know you have this venue that you could use to bring attention to the problem, here’s your chance to do some thing positive for all of those who are working with hexavalent chromium, I look forward to seeing your thread on the boards

For me just me I think one needless death is to many so show me a source that addresses the health problems associated with hexavalent chromium and the number of people that are suffering due to that exposure, maybe you have a source showing me what is being done to protect the steel workers and the others that work with hexavalent chromium.

BTW did you know that chromium is one of the harmful chemicals identified in tobacco? So you worked in it and then smoked it, add a couple of more risk factors in like drinking and drug use and you may have some cause for concern, Did you know that the early detection of cancer gives people the best chance of recovery?

I hope that you took note that no where in this thread did I call you a hypercrit nor did I use any other derogatory terms to describe what I think would be an accurate description of you. When you debate it is probably a good idea to stick to the issue[s] at hand. This thread is about smoking bans, you are not in favor of them I am and again I do more then just come to this forum to attack and denigrate the actions of other people. So again what are you doing to improve work place safety for you and those who work with you?








http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2009-releases/smoking-high-blood-pressure-overweight-preventable-causes-death-us.html

Press Releases
2009 Releases
Smoking, High Blood Pressure and Being Overweight Top Three Preventable Causes of Death in the U.S.

New Study Finds Hundreds of Thousands of Deaths Each Year Due to Dietary, Lifestyle and Metabolic Risk Factors
For immediate release: Monday, April 27, 2009
Boston, MA - Smoking, high blood pressure and being overweight are the leading preventable risk factors for premature mortality in the United States, according to a new study led by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), with collaborators from the University of Toronto and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. The researchers found that smoking is responsible for 467,000 premature deaths each year, high blood pressure for 395,000, and being overweight for 216,000. The effects of smoking work out to be about one in five deaths in American adults, while high blood pressure is responsible for one in six deaths.
It is the most comprehensive study yet to look at how diet, lifestyle and metabolic risk factors for chronic disease contribute to mortality in the U.S. The study appears in the April 28, 2009 edition of the open-access journal PLoS Medicine.
"The large magnitude of the numbers for many of these risks made us pause," said Goodarz Danaei, a doctoral student at HSPH and the lead author of the study. "To have hundreds of thousands of premature deaths caused by these modifiable risk factors is shocking and should motivate a serious look at whether our public health system has sufficient capacity to implement interventions and whether it is currently focusing on the right set of interventions." Majid Ezzati, associate professor of international health at HSPH, is the study's senior author.
The researchers also found large effects from a series of other preventable dietary and lifestyle risk factors. Below are the numbers of deaths in the U.S. due annually to each of the individual risk factors examined:

Smoking: 467,000
High blood pressure: 395,000
Overweight-obesity: 216,000
Inadequate physical activity and inactivity: 191,000
High blood sugar: 190,000
High LDL cholesterol: 113,000
High dietary salt: 102,000
Low dietary omega-3 fatty acids (seafood): 84,000
High dietary trans fatty acids: 82,000
Alcohol use: 64,000 (alcohol use averted a balance of 26,000 deaths from heart disease, stroke and diabetes, because moderate drinking reduces risk of these diseases. But these deaths were outweighed by 90,000 alcohol-related deaths from traffic and other injuries, violence, cancers and a range of other diseases).
Low intake of fruits and vegetables: 58,000
Low dietary poly-unsaturated fatty acids: 15,000

All of the deaths calculated in the study were considered premature or preventable in that the victims would not have died when they did if they had not been subject to the behaviors or activities linked to their deaths. All of these risk factors are modifiable through a range of public health and health system interventions.
While earlier studies had quantified deaths linked to a few factors, like smoking and alcohol, this is the first to look at a wide range of risk factors, including those linked to diet, lifestyle and metabolic factors, and the first to do so for the whole U.S. population. This is also the first to use methods that allowed a true comparison of a diverse set of risks in terms of how many deaths each of the risk factors is responsible for. The researchers analyzed data from a number of public sources, including from the National Center for Health Statistics and numerous published epidemiological studies and clinical trials.
The researchers also found differences between the preventable causes of death among men and women. High blood pressure was the leading cause of death in adult women, killing nearly 230,000 American women each year, 19 percent of all female deaths. By comparison, that is more than five times the 42,000 number of annual deaths in women from breast cancer.
Smoking was the leading cause of death in men, killing an estimated 248,000 annually, or 21 percent of all adult male deaths.
The mortality effects of many other risk factors were about equal in men and women, with alcohol use being a major exception. Seventy percent of all deaths caused by alcohol were among men and represented 45,000 deaths, a result the researchers said was because men consumed more alcohol and engaged in more binge drinking.
"The findings should be a reminder that although we have been effective in partially reducing smoking and high blood pressure, we have not yet completed the task and have a great deal more to do on these major preventable factors," said senior author Ezzati. "The government should also use regulatory, pricing, and health information mechanisms to substantially reduce salt and trans fats in prepared and packaged foods and to support research that can find effective strategies for modifying the other dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors that cause large numbers of premature deaths in the U.S."
"The Preventable Causes of Death in the United States: Comparative Risk Assessment of Dietary, Lifestyle, and Metabolic Risk Factors," Goodarz Danaei, Eric L. Ding, Dariush Mozaffarian, Ben Taylor, Jurgen Rehm, Christopher J.L. Murray, Majid Ezzati, PLoS Medicine, April 28, 2009, Volume 6, Issue 4.
This research was supported by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Association of Schools of Public Health.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 191
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 6:53:56 PM
I have seen two of you blotting on other subjects, subjects that you knew some thing about. It’s apparent here that not one of the three of you have/had enough knowledge about the health risks associated with smoking to denigrate my attention and interest in supporting laws and bans that will make it harder for the tobacco companies to stay in business. I believe the health risks associated with smoking have been understated and that if smoking was eliminated that many of the illnesses and deaths that smoking is a risk factor for would never develop.

I believe that smoking is the primary cause for many of the illnesses and diseases that smokers develop

The deaths, illnesses and suffering of those who I loved helped to motivate me to try to help others avoid the same life style choices that contributed to their deaths, You can think any thing you want to of my motivation, your opinion of me means nothing to me. And does not alter my opinion that the smoking bans should not only be enforced but expanded to reduce the public areas where smoking is allowed, parents who smoke in a car where a child is present should be subjected to large fines

Now if you gentlemen want to get involved in other areas of health or any thing else more power and good luck to you, and if you want to spend your time trying to convince others that to much time is spent talking about the health dangers of smoking
please have it


http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/smoking/

Crohn's Disease
Crohn's disease causes swelling deep in the lining of the intestine. The disease, which causes pain and diarrhea, most often affects the small intestine, but it can occur anywhere in the digestive tract. Research shows that current and former smokers have a higher risk of developing Crohn's disease than nonsmokers. Among people with Crohn’s disease, smoking is linked with a higher rate of relapse, repeat surgery, and the need for drug therapy. Women have a higher risk of relapsing and needing surgery and treatment than men whether they are current or former smokers. Why smoking increases the risk of Crohn's disease is unknown, but some researchers believe that smoking might lower the intestines defenses, decrease blood flow to the intestines, or cause immune system changes that result in inflammation.




http://www.uptodate.com/contents/patient-information-crohns-disease

Other lifestyle recommendations include the following:
Regular exercise is a good idea for everyone, including people with Crohn's disease
Smoking can worsen Crohn's disease and increases the risk of needing surgery. People with Crohn's disease should not smoke. (See "Patient information: Quitting smoking".)
Avoid taking nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (such as ibuprofen (sold as Motrin® and Advil®) and naprosyn (sold as Aleve®)) since they can worsen the disease.




http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/crohns-disease/DS00104/DSECTION=risk-factors

Cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking is the most important controllable risk factor for developing Crohn's disease. Smoking also leads to more severe disease and a greater risk of surgery. If you smoke, stop. Discuss this with your doctor and get help. There are many smoking-cessation programs available if you are unable to quit on your own.


The Mayo Clinic seems to disagree with your opinion as to whether or not smoking can be a controllable risk factor for developing Crohn's disease
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 192
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 9:23:33 PM
Hmm...

I hope that you took note that no where in this thread did I call you a hypercrit nor did I use any other derogatory terms to describe what I think would be an accurate description of you.

No, you didn't use any derogatory terms to describe me:

1- You are smoking right activist’s trained by tobacco lobbyist to try to discourage anyone who does not agree with the tobacco companies stance on the health effects of smoking

2- You are cigarette company trolls paid to try to manipulate facts and discourage people from supporting the smoking bans and accepting the fact that smoking and second hand or side steam smoke contributes to illnesses and diseases

I couldn't possibly be motivated by what I state baldly is my motivation: that I really hate bullshit muddying the waters in political discourse. Let's use your own words here:

in the USA 4 to 5 hundred thousand die each year from lung cancer, 80% or more of those deaths can be attributed to smoking,

and:

1 out of every 5 died from smoking related causes
20% of 2.5 is around 500,000

So, according to your posts 500,000 people die from smoking every year - 80% of them from lung cancer. That's not true. I know that way more smokers die from heart disease caused by smoking than lung cancer. I know you're completely anti-smoking; there's nothing wrong with that. But don't assume that everyone who doesn't fall in line is a smoker and hasn't been personally touched by the smoking related death of a loved one. This may be hard for you to understand, but some us just like a foundation of facts on which public policy decisions are made.

I do know the facts of tobacco harm. A friend of mine put together the scientific arguments for suing the tobacco companies - that's where I got the 1 in 3 figure from, by the way; I was at my stepmother's side when she died from smoking. I know the personal costs of smoking. But, logically, every person who dies from a smoking related cause would die from something else. The cost to society is smaller if someone dies of a heart attack, stroke, or lung cancer than if they get Type 2 diabetes and spend decades putting a burden on the health system. Logically, if you want to reduce the cost to society, you would tax the Hell out of high fructose and high fat products and reduce the taxes on tobacco.
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 193
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2011 10:15:31 PM

Like you I was a smoker at one time, unlike you I no longer smoke, I quit over ten years ago, you have said you smoke a cigar every now and then you say that you are not a smoker, as you told me at some point you can’t have it both ways, if you smoke now and then you are a smoker, if you never smoked you are not a smoker if you smoked and quit like I did you are an ex-smoker


You tell me. ...although I already know the answer. Since I touched tobacco to my lips, no matter how briefly, no matter whether I inhaled or not, whether I puff a cigar occasionally, or smoke 2 packs of cigarettes per day, I am branded by you and the crusade as a smoker and am condemned to be a smoking stat. Nothing else I was ever exposed to matters; Whether I like it or not, I will become one of those 440,000 "smoking causation" deaths. That is not my choice - that is the will of the crusade.


How about you, do you just complain about the environmental conditions in your work place, do you do any thing to help have tougher work place safety laws enacted?


I stopped working there in 2004. I didnt find out about hexavalent chromium exposure until 2008. That is only 1 of possibly hundreds of cancer causing agents I was exposed to. I may never find out what all I was exposed to, so excuse me if I do not share your rabid enthusiasm about tobacco. It pales in comparision to what I breathed/ingested/absorbed for 27 years in that toxic environment.

This is where I blame you and your crusade for hijacking the health hazard spotlight at the expense of someone like me. We number well into the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, yet tobacco will be the primary blame for any illness or affliction we suffer.


What have you done to help your fellow employees?


My fellow employees had no idea about any of this. The only thing they seemed concerned about was 2nd hand smoke from other employees who smoked. They were completely oblivious to any other hazard, due to the anti smoking crusade's fixation & media blitz spotlight on tobacco smoke as a hazardous carcinogen. Your crusade made sure that these other factors were invisible and didnt exist. Tobacco smoke was the only hazard they seemed aware of. Here is an example of the mindset:

In that steel mill we had a long lunch room where we all gathered. at one end was an exhaust fan for the few smokers. They would smoke in that end of the lunchroom & the smoke would be sucked out of the smokers' end of the room, whilst at the same time fresh air was being drawn in at the non-smokers end. The non smokers at the other end would occasionally get a whisp of a smoke odor - NOT 2nd hand smoke mind you, just something like 2-3 parts per million of cigarette smoke - enough for the nose to detect - & they would go absolutely haywire. They caused so much trouble over this that enemies were made out of long time friends. They complained to the Medical Dept. etc. This was their one and only health concern. How sad.

What was ironic was those same men who complained looked like they just emerged from an underground coal mine.They were filthy & had just spent the morning climbing around on an overhead crane breathing tons of graphite, iron oxide dust, deisel fumes, chromium, and a hundred other yet-unknown carcinogens all day - every day . I could smell THEM when they walked into the lunchroom. They NEVER smoked, but I bet their lungs were black.

If any of them would develop ANY respiratory illness, you could bet your sweet A$$ that it would be attributed to 2nd hand smoke from that lunchroom THAT is all they were aware of. I have learned that this horse-blinders behaviour is typical of agendist crusaders. THAT is the hypocritical double standard that I'm sick of.




I read your blog about being exposed to hexavalent chromium in the steel plant where you worked and that you think the permissible limits of exposure are still to high, so tell me what if any thing did you do about it?


Again, it doesn't matter now. Whatever affliction I end up contracting, it will be attributed to touching tobacco to my lips, no matter how briefly, no matter whether I inhaled or not, I am branded by you and the crusade as a smoker and am condemned to be a smoking stat. Nothing else I was ever exposed to matters; Whether I like it or not, I will become one of those 440,000 "smoking causation" deaths. That is not my choice - that is the will of the crusade.


How many workers have health problems that can be attributed to because of the exposure?


We will never know, because the crusade has successfully hijacked the whole entity of carcinogenic exposure and tied all of it to tobacco smoke in some way, shape, or form. None of what I was exposed to can stand alone as a unique hazard to the crusade - smoking is going to be a deciding factor in any or all diagnoses that I will inevitably incur in my lifetime.....because I touched tobacco to my lips at some time in my life.


You know you have this venue that you could use to bring attention to the problem, here’s your chance to do some thing positive for all of those who are working with hexavalent chromium, I look forward to seeing your thread on the boards


That is not my job. These things should be known, and I should have known about them WHEN I was exposed to them, but the crusade didnt deem them important enough... tobacco was and still is the only evil to them. All others are to be silenced or ignored due to stealing the thunder that they deem is rightfully theirs. There is no room for any other distraction from the limelight.


Anti-smoking crusaders may just have well said this to me:


Hello, Mr. Steelworker. I wasnt aware that you were continually exposed to dozens of carcinogenic, cancer causing toxins in contact with your body, and in the air of your work environment for decades! Thats a shame. With effort, foresight, determination, & creativity, it may be possible to rid your workplace of these dangerous substances.

But, unfortunately, its just not "easy" or "convenient" to do. It would require much too much effort, & frankly, we feel you're not worth it. Since Im not exposed to it nor will ever be, I really dont care about it very much. You chose to work there - I suppose you will have to put up with it. Sorry!!

On the other hand, I will do everything in my power to help a fellow anti smoker in his/her crusade to rid the one(1) possibly carcinogenic cancer causing toxin from the air in THEIR workplace. See...even though the air in your work environment is far worse, the bottom line is, I dont like cigarette smoke, so therefore its something thats dear to my heart & Im willing to do all I can to make this happen at whatever cost. Its obvious that I feel their workplace is far more important than yours, so preferential treatment is in order.

In the spirit of hypocritical double standards, I say to you...Good luck in your workplace. Here...here's a respirator. Wear it in good health.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 194
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2011 6:10:38 AM

So, according to your posts 500,000 people die from smoking every year - 80% of them from lung cancer. That's not true. I know that way more smokers die from heart disease caused by smoking than lung cancer. I know you're completely anti-smoking; there's nothing wrong with that. But don't assume that everyone who doesn't fall in line is a smoker and hasn't been personally touched by the smoking related death of a loved one. This may be hard for you to understand, but some us just like a foundation of facts on which public policy decisions are made.


I have presented plenty of facts and sources that verify the facts, you and others have presented your personal opinions and nothing to support your assertions that anti smoking activities and activist takes away attention from other ares. As you can see from the sources I have provided below that they also know and make people suffering from disease and illnesses aware of the health risks associated with smoking.


http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545

AHA Scientific Position
Cigarette smoking is the most important preventable cause of premature death in the United States. It accounts for more than 440,000 of the more than 2.4 million annual deaths. Cigarette smokers have a higher risk of developing several chronic disorders. These include fatty buildups in arteries, several types of cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung problems). Atherosclerosis (buildup of fatty substances in the arteries) is a chief contributor to the high number of deaths from smoking. Many studies detail the evidence that cigarette smoking is a major cause of coronary heart disease, which leads to heart attack.




http://www.lungusa.org/stop-smoking/

Every year in the U.S. over 392,000 people die from tobacco-caused disease, making it the leading cause of preventable death. Another 50,000 people die from exposure to secondhand smoke. Tragically, each day thousands of kids still pick up a cigarette for the first time. The cycle of addiction, illness and death continues. What can be done to stop smoking? The American Lung Association is working to strengthen laws and policies that protect everyone from secondhand smoke and prevent young people from starting. We are also committed to helping smokers quit with our smoking cessation programs




I don’t know which disease and illness the attention to smoking is taking away from but from my experience many of the different associations working to find cures point out that smoking is a major risk factor

I maintain a web site “I won’t identify it here” that helps people who WANT to quit smoking, We don’t go out into the street and march on picket lines, there are no membership fees, I do not have any sponsors nor does the government provide any financial help. I have had to from time to time deal with internet trolls who think that my web site is in some way infringing on their right to smoke. I have people who are suffering the effects of smoking related diseases that come to the web site looking for support. We have no preconceived conditions for membership, we don’t gather to march in front of any establishment

I belong to one other anti smoking web site that deals with preventing and protecting minors from smoking

I support laws that I feel will help to reduce smoking , I support banning smoking from public places.

The tobacco companies are large companies with lots of money that they throw around in Washington lobbying to buy votes that would kill bills being introduced that would hurt their bottom line, John Boehner speaker of the house handed out lobbying money on the house floor

financial help. I have had to from time to time deal with internet trolls who think that my web site is in some way infringing on their right to smoke. I have people who are suffering the effects of smoking related diseases that come to the web site looking for support. We have no preconceived conditions for membership, we don’t gather to march in front of any establishment

I belong to one other anti smoking web site that deals with preventing and protecting minors from smoking

I support laws that I feel will help to reduce smoking , I support banning smoking from public places.

The tobacco companies are large companies with lots of money that they throw around in Washington lobbying to but votes that would kill bills being introduced that would hurt their bottom line, John Boehner speaker of the house handed out lobbying money on the house floor

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/boehner-western-union/

Boehner: Big Tobacco’s Personal Western Union

Many of the representatives that we elect take money from the tobacco companies

There may be but I am not aware of any major organizations or organized efforts to block efforts being made by the AMA or the AHA or any other organizations to increase public awareness to the suffering that people are enduring due to other illnesses.

Your arguments that the attention giving to anti smoking is diverting attention away from other areas is not supported by any sources that you have presented. So I am just going to assume that you do not support laws that prohibit smoking in public places or that you just don’t approve of government interference , I would ask if you apply the same efforts when the government tells you that you must wear a seat belt or enforces speeding laws or laws against drunk driving or laws that make child car seats mandatory.

We are a society and as such laws are made to protect the people and prevent injuries, illnesses and diseases. I don’t like wearing a seat belt but it’s the law, I don’t like not being able to talk on my cell phone while driving but it’s the law. In America we have the right to challenge laws that we feel infringe on our rights, we also have the right to support and lobby for laws that prevent others from performing actions that will cause injury or expose us or our loved ones to diseases and illnesses.

I will continue to support bans that protect the public from side stream smoke, I will write to my elected officials and ask them to support bans and laws that will make it harder and more expensive for the tobacco companies to market their high risk products . I will support political candidates who support my view points on tobacco and other initiatives that I think are good for the general population

I always try to keep an open mind to the idea’s of other people and try to treat them with the same respect and dignity that they treat me, that does not mean that I will be walked on either here on the internet or in real life.
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 195
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2011 8:02:53 AM
All you have to do is answer this question:

I briefly touched tobacco to my lips at some point in my life. Knowing of my long-term exposure to pollutants in my industrial-based living environment, and the long-term exposure to a multitude of toxic substances and now-banned carcinogens in my workplace, if I contract, or die from ANY disease that is linked to tobacco(which is nowadays most any affliction shared by smokers and non-smokers alike), would you choose that I should become:

(A) a smoking statistic, or
(B)a non-smoking statistic?


If you answer (A), then my arguement stands that the mechanism in which data, numbers and statistics you parrot as truist dogma are skewed in favour of an agenda by those who continually trumpet these stats. My rebuttal, as living proof to the questionable mechanisms involving these stats are in the past posts here.

If you answer (B), then double-standard hypocracy is in order, because that answer is diametrically opposite of the agendas and organisations you support, aid, and comfort. The proof is in the past posts here.

You, as a 40-year chronic cigarette smoker, and me as a 27 year steelworker living my entire life in an industrially polluted river valley share the same carcinogenic damage to our bodies. The difference is that I am quite sure I have suffered more residiual damage than you, butI will never be able to prove that due to the fact that it is on official record that I briefly touched tobacco to my lips at some point in my life. That in itself is both a tradegy and travesty. For every smoker's life you think you save, you lose one like me, but still reap the statistical rewards from my death..
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 196
smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2011 8:54:14 AM

Your arguments that the attention giving to anti smoking is diverting attention away from other areas is not supported by any sources that you have presented. So I am just going to assume that you do not support laws that prohibit smoking in public places or that you just don’t approve of government interference , I would ask if you apply the same efforts when the government tells you that you must wear a seat belt or enforces speeding laws or laws against drunk driving or laws that make child car seats mandatory.

I've never made an argument that anti-smoking is diverting attention away from anything.

As far as trying to curb smoking by minors - you can't buy tobacco products or even rolling papers here without proof that one has reached the age of majority.

You keep presenting stuff that doesn't stand up to even the slightest sceptical appraisal. It's not only not true, it's not even logical. In this way you are much like the Birthers - so committed to a cause that truth and logic are secondary. One of my fave political philosophers is Bernard Crick - he has a line I love: "When man is reborn, he is seldom reborn free." True believers are an anathema to the political process.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 197
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2011 9:12:30 AM

You, as a 40-year chronic cigarette smoker, and me as a 27 year steelworker living my entire life in an industrially polluted river valley share the same carcinogenic damage to our bodies. The difference is that I am quite sure I have suffered more residiual damage than you, butI will never be able to prove that due to the fact that I briefly touched tobacco to my lips at some point in my life. That in itself is both a tradegy and travestry. For every smoker's life you think you save, you lose one like me.


According to the study below it does not matter whether I choose A or B, but they can determine your levels of Hexavalent chromium which would help to determine your cause of death. Hair sample analysis is relatively cheap if you find high levels in your hair sample then you could get in contact with the Steel Workers Union and maybe save someone else from the same condition.

BTW could you supply me with a source that verifies your assertions that no matter what causes your death tobacco use will be on your death certificate? If it’s not on your death certificate then maybe you could supply me with a source that identifies you as a smoker. Just wondering if you walk in front of a truck and are killed will tobacco use be the cause? If you die in an airplane accident will tobacco use be the cause?

No one forced you to live in that polluted river valley and no one forced you to work in that steel mill you made those choices for your self, if you feel that someone with held that information from you then maybe you should channel some of your energies towards exposing that person.

Years ago as a smoker I would go into a restaurant take a seat in the smoking section and light up, occasionally I would hear some one coughing after lit up I would continue to smoke. Today that will not happen no one will be put in a situation of where they have to get up and leave or confront the smoker. I am really happy that I have had the opportunity to have some positive input that helped to protect others from people like me who were either to ignorant or arrogant to care what their smoking was doing to other people

Now if I was out today and smoking was still allowed in restaurants I would have at least 3 choices

A- I could get up and leave
B- I could politely ask the person smoking to put it out
C- I could take it away and put it out myself

I don’t find A,B or C to be particular inviting but on any given day depending on the mood I was in I might choose A, B or C.

But unfortunately unless you are hit by a truck or die from some other cause it looks as if you will end up a smoking statistic, I have not recently researched it but I do believe that genetically damaged genes can be passed on from generation to generation, that means according to the study below that both of us engaged in a life style that could cause our children, grand children and future generations to suffer from cancer and other illnesses and diseases contributed to by our choice to be smokers.



– Sat Jan 15, 9:17 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Those first few puffs on a cigarette can within minutes cause genetic damage linked to cancer, US scientists said in a study released.
In fact, researchers said the "effect is so fast that it's equivalent to injecting the substance directly into the bloodstream," in findings described as a "stark warning" to those who smoke.
The study is the first on humans to track how substances in tobacco cause DNA damage, and appears in the peer-reviewed journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, issued by the American Chemical Society.
Using 12 volunteer smokers, scientists tracked pollutants called PAHs, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that are carried in tobacco smoke and can also be found in coal-burning plants and in charred barbecue food.
They followed one particular type -- phenanthrene, which is found in cigarette smoke -- through the blood and saw it form a toxic substance that is known to "trash DNA, causing mutations that can cause cancer," the study said.
"The smokers developed maximum levels of the substance in a time frame that surprised even the researchers: just 15-30 minutes after the volunteers finished smoking," the study said.
"These results are significant because PAH diol epoxides react readily with DNA, induce mutations, and are considered to be ultimate carcinogens of multiple PAH in cigarette smoke," the study said.
Lead scientist Stephen Hecht said the study is unique because it examines the effects of inhaling cigarette smoke, without interference from other sources of harm such as pollution or a poor diet.
"The results reported here should serve as a stark warning to those who are considering starting to smoke cigarettes," Hecht said.
Lung cancer kills about 3,000 people around the world each day, and 90 percent of those deaths are attributable to cigarette smoking.
The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute.
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 198
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2011 9:53:57 AM

But unfortunately unless you are hit by a truck or die from some other cause it looks as if you will end up a smoking statistic,


Thank you for answer (A). Very enlightening.


Sat Jan 15, 9:17 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Those first few puffs on a cigarette can within minutes cause genetic damage linked to cancer, US scientists said in a study released.

Using 12 volunteer smokers, scientists tracked pollutants called PAHs, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that are carried in tobacco smoke and can also be found in coal-burning plants and in charred barbecue food.


Thank you for this bit of info. Very enlightening.

Even tho I puffed on a cigar but did not inhale a cigarette, I am suffering from exposure to specific toxins found in tobacco smoke, even tho I worked for 27 years in the primary steelmaking area of an integreted steel mill, sandwiched between coal fired coke batteries, 4 coke-fired blast furnaces, and a coal-fired boiler complex.

I rest my case.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 199
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2011 11:11:15 AM

I've never made an argument that anti-smoking is diverting attention away from anything.


Your right I apologise but I do not lie, I might be mistaken but that is a little difference then lying


As far as trying to curb smoking by minors - you can't buy tobacco products or even rolling papers here without proof that one has reached the age of majority.


Your right but apparently the age limit to purchase tobacco is not enough, so more needs to be done, I think prescription only tobacco would be a good start and if that does not do the trick maybe the parents of children caught smoking should incur some type of fine that would be increased each time the child was seen smoking


You keep presenting stuff that doesn't stand up to even the slightest sceptical appraisal. It's not only not true, it's not even logical. In this way you are much like the Birthers - so committed to a cause that truth and logic are secondary. One of my fave political philosophers is Bernard Crick - he has a line I love: "When man is reborn, he is seldom reborn free." True believers are an anathema to the political process.


So far to my knowledge you have not presented one source to support your position, and quite truthfully I am not even sure of what your position is or if you have one? Maybe and I am just guessing that you don't support the smoking bans because you think it would be cheaper on society to just let smokers die of cancer and studies that I have seen would confirm that as a fact. But i have not seen any cost projections other then your assurances that cancer is less expensive to treat then many other diseases . Do you have a source? Please correct me if I am wrong, I am sure that some where in this thread you took a position on smoking bans and explained why.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 200
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2011 11:25:18 AM
To my knowledge you have only supplied one source. You can rest your case but you stil have not answered my question, what process do they use to determine the cause of death, without that your assertion that because you touched tobacco to your lips that you will be a smoking statistic means nothing, I know for a fact that your wrong that there is a process used to determine what someone died of.

I still support smoking bans and now I will put more effort into trying to see the bans become more extensive for instance I don't think that minor children should be forced to inhale second hand smoke, tobacco after all is a drug and whether the smoke is first or second hand it's still smoke. A good place to start would be with parents driving their children in a car and smoking there definitely should be a law preventing children from being exposed to this type of abuse
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans