Cigarettes make you dumb / Dumb people smoke cigarettes

[AceChilla]

That is a pretty irrational response. You know very well that there is difference between smoking and the rest of that which you have offered forth.

No I don't.

It's certain risk you accept because you just like doing something. Some people like to smoke, some people like climbing mountains. The death rate climbing mountains is much higher than smoking I think.

 

[tR1cKy]

I would not be surprised if a link exists via the dumb people smoke ciagrettes angle...

I would be far less surprised to find a link between dumbness and anti-smoking zealotry.

Apart from that, i partially agree with you. It is a known fact that many nonsmokers find the smell of burning tobacco unpleasant or even disgusting. Although the supposed damage of the second-hand smoke (an expression invented by Adolf Hitler btw) are a gigantic fraud, it is right to have smoking banned in some public areas, although it is also right to provide smokers some places in which they can enjoy their "filthy habit" without bothering nonsmokers and without being bothered by them.

Too bad the antis don't understand that respect goes always both ways. They pretend respect for their nonsmoking status, but in most cases don't want to pay to smokers a iota of that very same respect.

As you correctly point out, no one is forced to enter a smoky pub. And the very same idea of deciding what legal activity can a private owner allow in its pub should put some serious concern on the intelligent people.

You can't allow your customer to smoke, and if they flee to overstate smoker-friendly establishments, or stay at home instead of spending money in your smoker-unfriendly place, well, we couldn't care less. You can go broke. It's just a collateral damage.

Tolerance and respect, we've heard of it.

 

[JohnRM]

No I don't.

It's certain risk you accept because you just like doing something. Some people like to smoke, some people like climbing mountains. The death rate climbing mountains is much higher than smoking I think.

Ask, at random, ten smokers, if they like smoking. See what kind of answer you get.

 

[tR1cKy]

It would seem to me that being dumb is a pre-existing condition for those that choose to smoke cigarettes.

Here's a classical example of a brainwashed person.

 

[cgannon64]

Before I get hanged for having "upper class arrogance", I think my cigar comment was pretty clearly a joke - as is this entire thread...

 

[wit>trope]

I didn't know mainstream people used the word "antis" -- I've only seen it at a pro-white forum.

What you could do is limit the number of cigarette purchases to one cigarrette per customer per store just like often game console purchases and other stuff is limited like that. That would allow people to smoke as they wish but control the amount they smoke.

There's something good about climbing mountains (it's fun). Smoking isn't fun.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Banning cigarettes will deprive the government of needed tax revenue and will drive the business to the black market. Addicted people will find a way to get their fix. "Sin" taxes are a good thing.

 

[Irish Caesar]

What you could do is limit the number of cigarette purchases to one cigarrette per customer per store just like often game console purchases and other stuff is limited like that. That would allow people to smoke as they wish but control the amount they smoke.

No need to regulate smoking. Just another thing for the government to make more of a mess of than it already has. I hated it when my town decided that smoking wouldn't be allowed in bars and restaurants; I was fine with sitting in the non-smoking section. Besides, as has been already pointed out, banning smoking in private establishments is absurd.

Although I'm not a smoker, this would be treading on me. And that makes my friend the rattlesnake angry.

 

[Sophie 378]

tR1cKy - misunderstandings like ours might be reduced if you didn't sound so condescending. Annoyed people aren't likely to wholeheartedly agree with everything you say even if they'd normally agree. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=131220

 

[Mr. Blonde]

It is an addiction and addicted people will always make irrational excuses and justifications concerning their addiction.

I would say that many smokers are arrogant. It didn´t occur to me ONCE in my lifetime that a smoker asked me if I mind him smoking a cigarrette next to me. The thing is that also non-smokers are hurt and smokers just don´t care.

originally posted by Irish Cesar
No need to regulate smoking. Just another thing for the government to make more of a mess of than it already has. I hated it when my town decided that smoking wouldn't be allowed in bars and restaurants; I was fine with sitting in the non-smoking section. Besides, as has been already pointed out, banning smoking in private establishments is absurd.

The government has every right to regulate a habit that hurts innocent people. It is illegal to punch people randomly in their faces, why should it be legal to enhance the risk for cancer of random people?

 

[tR1cKy]

Well, Sophie, you put in my mouth things i never said, and replied to objections that i never made. That's not very honest if you do it on purpose, or shows some lack of the due attention to the poster being objected if you do it unwillingly. You probably are well aware that such an attitude is quite likely to upset someone.

It wasn't my intention to be offensive, and if i have been i'm sorry. But it's difficult to find the right tone to counteract those off-mark objections without being either too condiscendent or too something else, expecially for someone that doesn't master perfectly the language.

 

[tR1cKy]

Here's another fine example of someone that has been brainwashed by the anti's propaganda:

It is an addiction and addicted people will always make irrational excuses and justifications concerning their addiction.

This is nothing more than a slogan. Slogans are a cheap way to say something: you don't actually have to think it, just repeat a sequence of words, heard by someone else, that has emotionally hit you.

Nicotine is addictive, but it doesn't prevent many smokers (even the heavy ones) to quit abruptly and without any sort of help if sufficiently motivated to do so. Just as an example, my dad was a 30+ cigs a day smoker, and quitted immediately after an heart attack. And although some smokers do offer futile justifications for their habit, the culprit is not the nicotine, but it's the inherent immaturity of the person involved, a trait found equally in nonsmokers, expecially when they try to justify their intolerance against the "vicious" smokers with sorry excuses of rational motivations.

I would say that many smokers are arrogant. It didn´t occur to me ONCE in my lifetime that a smoker asked me if I mind him smoking a cigarrette next to me. The thing is that also non-smokers are hurt and smokers just don't care.

Pure BS. Some do care, some others don't. Once again the problem is not if you're a smoker or not, it's if you're a respectful person or not. Respect (or lack of) is something equally found in both the parties.

The government has every right to regulate a habit that hurts innocent people. It is illegal to punch people randomly in their faces, why should it be legal to enhance the risk for cancer of random people?

The passive smoke thing is a gigantic fraud. What the anti's don't tell you is that the passive smoke was invented by adolf hitler (a fervent antismoker) to justify its campaign against smoke in public places, and the tactic they use to attack smoking (and smokers) today are essentially the same used by the nazi regime from 1937 until its finally demise. Lies and propaganda used to support the hatred and intolerance for the fuhrer against tobacco.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

The passive smoke thing is a gigantic fraud. What the anti's don't tell you is that the passive smoke was invented by adolf hitler (a fervent antismoker) to justify its campaign against smoke in public places, and the tactic they use to attack smoking (and smokers) today are essentially the same used by the nazi regime from 1937 until its finally demise. Lies and propaganda used to support the hatred and intolerance for the fuhrer against tobacco.

Now this is tolerance to call someone with opposed opinion brainwashed. So let´s look at the facts.

Passive smoke invented by Hitler, of course. I guess before that cigarettes were smoke free

I have actually made measurements in the field of air pollutants myself, visited lectures on pathology and toxicology and guess: cigarette smoke contains cancerogenous chemicals (PAHs, derivatives of PAHs and so on).
The tabacco industry now pays horrendous amounts of money because it was proven that smoking is addictive and increases the chance to get cancer. I guess there are alot of Nazis in the scientific community, the medical community, and in lawcourts.

Of course, there maybe a lack of respect from both sides, but the lack of respect from smokers increases my chance to get cancer, makes my eyes burn and my food taste like ash.

 

[tR1cKy]

Now this is tolerance to call someone with opposed opinion brainwashed. So let´s look at the facts.

If you don't like to be called brainwashed, then i'll correct my statement. You are a terribly disinformed person, that also play dirty little tricks in the (vain) effort to belittle my objections.

Let's check at the facts:

Passive smoke invented by Hitler, of course. I guess before that cigarettes were smoke free

I cannot believe someone posing seriously this objection. You are obviously misinterpreting my words for your convenience (the dirty trick that i was talking about a few rows above ) But for clarity, it was Adolph Hitler to invent the "passive smoke" expression. The reasons have been already explained in my previous post.

I have actually made measurements in the field of air pollutants myself, visited lectures on pathology and toxicology and guess: cigarette smoke contains cancerogenous chemicals (PAHs, derivatives of PAHs and so on).

And this proves nothing. Tobacco smoke, as every smoke made of combustion of vegetable organic materials, contains about 4000 different toxic compounds. But as i already stated above, this info is useless unless we toss in the numbers.

The tabacco industry now pays horrendous amounts of money because it was proven that smoking is addictive and increases the chance to get cancer.

Totally wrong. The MSA that has been signed between the biggest tobacco companies and 46 attorney generals of the US states has, as justification, the need to refund the states for the past medical costs of treating sick smokers. And the companies themselves aren't actually paying a single cent: all they had to do was to raise the price of cigarettes in order to recover the cost. It's the smoker community itself that, year after year, pays the MSA bill.

EDIT: corrected after a more careful read. Passive smoke isn't mentioned. But the 'proof' has never ben brought. It was an extra-court agreement between the attorneys and big tobacc.

I guess there are alot of Nazis in the scientific community, the medical community, and in lawcourts.

Although they can't be called nazis in strict sense, their mindset has surely a lot of similarities with the nazi ideology.

Of course, there maybe a lack of respect from both sides, but the lack of respect from smokers increases my chance to get cancer, makes my eyes burn and my food taste like ash.

About the supposed danger of passive smoke, if you insist in stating that the passive smoke increase the risk of cancer in exposed nonsmokers, please bring references to peer-reviewed scientific data supporting your statement. Now, if you want to avoid the time to dig for them, i can tell you that there are some 170 different studies on the matter, and none of them shows a statistically significant increase of risk due to exposure to passive smoke.

 

[JohnRM]

Here's a classical example of a brainwashed person.

Well, that is a good argument. I'm convinced!

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I found plenty of reviews on this issue on the WHO homepage. Just type in "passive smoking" and you get a lot of hits. The first study made and published was:

Hirayama T. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher
risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan. British Medical Journal,
1981, 282: 183–185.

Similar and as conclusive results were obtained in many other studies and could never be refuted. It seems to be you that is misinformed (or deliberately misinforming).

Tobacco companies pay because they want the facts not to be brought up in court, or do you think they do it out of generosity?

Even if it would not increase the risk of cancer (which it does), the other side effects like smelling clothes, burning eyes, food tasting like ash are bad enough to call any smoker not asking beforehand rude and without respect.

Fact: Smoking emmits a lot of different cancerogenous substances (as even admitted by you)

Fact: Intake of cancerogenous substances increases the chance to get cancer

Admitted even by tobacco companies: smoking causes cancer. Shown and proven in numerous medical reviews: passive smoking causes cancer. You can read this information up in any teaching book on toxicology or medicine with lots and lots of references to primary literature.

The only thing you have on your side is the claim hat Hitker invented the word "passive smoking", which can in no way prove or disprove anything.

 

[tR1cKy]

I found plenty of reviews on this issue on the WHO homepage. Just type in "passive smoking" and you get a lot of hits.

Contrary to popular belief, the main source of funding of WHO are not sovereign states. WHO is mostly financed by the biggest pharmaceutical industries, expecially Glaxo and Johnson & Johnson. Since Big Pharma has a huge economical interest in 'proving' that smoking, both passive and active, causes cancer, this causes a clear conflict of interest, that makes all the sources provided by the WHO at least suspicious.

Let's suppose a study that 'shows' that regular assumption of Coca-Cola causes a decrease in risk of cancer. You dig through it and find that it has been financed by an independent organization. You dig further and find that this 'independent organization' is primarly funded by the Coca-Cola Company. Would you seriously believe in that study?

The first study made and published was:

Hirayama T. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher
risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan. British Medical Journal,
1981, 282: 183–185.

If we're referring to the same Hirayama study, then the exact title of the study is "Cancer mortality in nonsmoking women with smoking husbands based on a large-scale cohort study in Japan". The average risk increase is 1.45, that in multifactiorial epidemiology is considered statistically insignificant. The risk for wives exposed to heavy smoking is higher (1.92) but still within the limits of statistical uncertainity.

Here's a link to the study:
http://www.data-yard.net/ets_database/ets_lung/hirayama84.pdf

Similar and as conclusive results were obtained in many other studies and could never be refuted. It seems to be you that is misinformed (or deliberately misinforming).

Then please bring some studies (and next time if you provide the link it would be better) that show statistically significant increases in risks, then we can start to debate seriously about the issue. Such an example would be far from conclusive, since i can post various links to studies that have shown no increase at all (RR near to 1) or even a slight decrease.

Tobacco companies pay because they want the facts not to be brought up in court, or do you think they do it out of generosity?

Tobacco companies agreed to pay the MSA because they found it convenient. Simple as that. They got a huge advantage in paying the MSA bill, without actually shelling out a single cent.

the other side effects like smelling clothes, burning eyes, food tasting like ash are bad enough to call any smoker not asking beforehand rude and without respect.

This is another prove of your vicious intolerance.

Fact: Smoking emmits a lot of different cancerogenous substances (as even admitted by you)

And for the 3rd time: it's irrelevant without the numbers.

Fact: Intake of cancerogenous substances increases the chance to get cancer

And for the 4th time: it's irrelevant without the numbers.

Admitted even by tobacco companies: smoking causes cancer.

And this proves nothing.

Shown and proven in numerous medical reviews: passive smoking causes cancer. You can read this information up in any teaching book on toxicology or medicine with lots and lots of references to primary literature.

And for the 3rd time, please bring the links.

The only thing you have on your side is the claim hat Hitker invented the word "passive smoking", which can in no way prove or disprove anything.

Excuse me while i

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Please state then an independent source of epidemological studies, you seem to have more knowledge on this topic than all these scientists working in the field.

PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU

The World Health Organization (WHO) has been publicly accused of suppressing information. Its opponents say that WHO has withheld from publication its own report that was aimed at but supposedly failed to scientifically prove that there is an association between passive smoking, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and a number of diseases, lung cancer in particular. Both statements are untrue.

The study in question is a case-control study on the effects of ETS on lung cancer risk in European populations, which has been carried out over the last seven years by 12 research centres in 7 European countries under the leadership of WHO's cancer research branch -- the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure.

In February 1998, according to usual scientific practice, a paper reporting the main study results was sent to a reputable scientific journal for consideration and peer review. That is why the full report is not yet publicly available. Under the circumstances, however, the authors of the study have agreed to make an abstract of the report available to the media.

"It is extremely important to note that the results of this study are consistent with the results of major scientific reviews of this question published during 1997 by the government of Australia, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California", said Neil Collishaw, Acting Chief of WHO's Tobacco or Health Unit in Geneva. "A major meta-analysis of passive smoking and lung cancer was also published in the British Medical Journal in 1997. From these and other previous reviews of the scientific evidence emerges a clear global scientific consensus — passive smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases", he concluded.

"IARC is proud of the careful scientific work done by the European scientific team responsible for this study", commented Dr Paul Kleihues, the Agency's director. "We are very concerned about the false and misleading statements recently published in the mass media. It is no coincidence that this misinformation originally appeared in the British press just before the No-Tobacco Day in the United Kingdom and the scheduled publication of the report of the British Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health".

Further information on the health effects of passive smoking is available in WHO's Advisory Kit for World No-Tobacco Day 1998 on the World Wide Web at www.who.ch/ntday, as well as from WHO's Tobacco or Health Unit, Programme on Substance Abuse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further information, journalists can contact Igor Rozov, Health Communications and Public Relations WHO, Geneva. Telephone (41 22) 791 2532. Fax (41 22) 791 4858. E-mail rozovi@who.ch or Dr Rodolfo Saracci, IARC, Lyon, France, e-mail saracci@iarc.fr

All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features as well as other information on this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.ch/

found here
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

Where are your "independend" sources on this matter?

Smoke aerosol contains typically 0.x ppm PAHs. Many substances don´t have thresholds for their cancerogenous effect.

And it´s the smokers disregarding the passive-smokers opinion on a matter that clearly affects the non-smoker.
Would you tolerate someone punching your face? Gimme a break.

 

[nonconformist]

I think that there are a number of issues; I'm not sure how factual these are, but these are tidbits that I've come across:

1. It's not smoking per se that causes the lung to be clogged, but that combined witht he effect of smoke. The smoke paralyses the cylla in the nose and trachea, allowing particles of dust and other dirt to enter the lungs

2. The carcinogenicity of cigarettes is due to amounts of Radon in the cigarettes, released as a gas, when lit.

 

[tR1cKy]

Please state then an independent source of epidemological studies, you seem to have more knowledge on this topic than all these scientists working in the field.

Studies not financed by the pharmaceutical industry perhaps?

It's fun. You seem to haven't read the very same article you quote:

The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure.

From these and other previous reviews of the scientific evidence emerges a clear global scientific consensus — passive smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases

Am i becoming blind or the article contradict itself?

However you seem to ignore the basic principles of multifactorial epidemiology. An increase of 16% is irrelevant anyway, being the sample small or not. The general consensus is that a 200%-300% increase in risk is necessary to consider the result statistically significant.

Smoke aerosol contains typically 0.x ppm PAHs. Many substances don´t have thresholds for their cancerogenous effect.

This is misleading. Every toxic substance (even plutonium!) has a treshold level. It's just that they're still unknown. This is quite different to say that "there's no safe level", a physical impossibility.

And it´s the smokers disregarding the passive-smokers opinion on a matter that clearly affects the non-smoker.
Would you tolerate someone punching your face? Gimme a break.

You insist with those silly statements. They aren't even worth debating. Am i talking with an intelligent person or not?