Get It Straight! - SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER!
Smoking DOES NOT cause cancer! I’m getting so tired of having to explain this to the brainless anti-smokers who write to me in anger. Another person wrote to me yesterday and said: “How can you defend a product that is known to cause cancer?” I’m getting very weary of having to explain this to people over and over again.
Smoking is one of many risk factors for cancer, but it does not cause cancer. If you are one of the people that are so certain that it does, then the fact that you are so sure is a perfect illustration of just how successfully the anti-smoking propaganda machine has been in brainwashing you, and the average person.
Think about it for a second. Employ a little critical thinking and use your brain: Would you think it a reasonable statement to say that automobiles cause drunk driving? Of course not! The notion that automobiles are the cause of drunk driving is patently ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that drunk people cause drunk driving, not automobiles, right? And, if I were to suggest any different, then you would likely think that I’m some kind of imbecile. After all, the majority of automobiles on the road will never see any intoxicated person sit behind the wheel and attempt to operate the vehicle. But, every time an intoxicated person does attempt to operate a vehicle, drunk driving is the result. So, why should I not think that you were some kind of imbecile if you were to say to me: “Smoking causes cancer!”???
Think about it: If your claim is that smoking does indeed cause cancer, you also, more than likely, agree that automobiles are not the cause of drunk driving. Yet, if we were to somehow eliminate every automobile from the face of the planet tomorrow, we would also completely eliminate drunk driving. Even though this is true, it is still absurd to think that automobiles cause drunk driving. However, if we were to somehow eliminate smoking tomorrow, there would still be an awful lot of cancer in the world! So, how could you then look at me with a straight face and say that smoking causes cancer, while at the same time agreeing that automobiles are not the cause of drunk driving, AND believe, even in the slightest way, that you haven’t been brainwashed by the propaganda?
The FACT of the matter is: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER! Smoking may, in some cases, improve the ability of the actual cause of cancer to take hold. But, it DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. There is a huge difference there! Certain health professionals, certain people who claim to be an authority on such matters, and members of the anti-smoking crusades are fond of throwing around the phrase “smoking causes cancer” because the phrase carries more weight than saying: “Smoking is one of many risk factors associated with the onset of cancer.” And, they feel that it is much easier for the average person to digest. But in all actuality, they are either liars, or grossly misinformed.
you are absolutely right in what you say. Look at this link and read the conclusion. You will be amazed.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
I have been stating this since 1963 (when the first official claim was made that smoking causes LC.) Actually, it is exactly the other way round: LC causes smoking. DOn’t laugh it is just a funny way of making my point, and I am a statistician. There is such a thing as a “smoking personality”, which in many cases coincides with “heart condition personality” (also called triple A). Apparently Ca is also very prevalent in such personalities (Monday something was at last published regarding genes of smokers and genes of Ca patients. So actually, if you are going to have LC (or, for that matter, other Ca’s) you have a much greater probability of being one of the many smokers.
I claim that for a smoker, the most dangerous thing he can do is QUIT SMOKING. That will surely cause all kinds of diseases, if not, ask their spouses!
Let me begin by stating that I am a smoker. I have been smoking for over 20 yrs and as yet I have no cancer.
I have long believed that the claim that smoking causes cancer is a misquote (at best) or an outright lie (at worst). Currently I am a college student in Florida.
I am currently writing a research paper on the subject and I am finding it extremely difficult to find reliable data on the subject. I am asking for assistance in backing my argument with reputable proof that a non smoker can accept. Can you help?
Lol. Smokers in denial.. HAHA idiots.
Lol. Look everyone! It’s Laura! Someone who doesn’t possess the intellectual apparatus to argue facts, and reasonably defend her position, so instead resorts to vacuous verbage. What’s it like to be stupid, Laura? Really, I’m curious. Tell me. What’s it like to not be very intelligent? And, since you’ve adequatley demonstrated your obvious intellectual inferiority, (and hypocrisy with your “idiots” comment, to boot) what makes you think that we’re wrong, and you’re right?
It’s painfully obvious, Laura, that you hold to a passionate belief, and have absolutely no idea WHY you believe it. So, please, tell me: What does that make you?
Please, just do everyone a favor and go away. Small minded, little people like you just don’t matter - you don’t count for anything - nobody cares about you, or your feeble-minded opinions - you’re too small and insignificant. You have no worth.
Derek - Laura is not stupid. She is brainwashed, has an inferiority complex, and an extremely limited vocabulary, those three things do not indicate diminished mental capacity. Just because someone communicates via a system of clicks and grunts, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a series of complex thoughts behind them.
That being said, I am grateful for this article and the references. We all need to put down our Ipod’s and double shot lattes, stop believing everything we are told, and think critically. The real cause of cancer is even being concealed by the medical establishments propaganda telling us that we will avoid disease by getting out and excercising. If you are out running around in circles like the opening scene from the Sound of Music, you won’t be reading and arming yourself with information that will effectively stop disease and the loss of your freedoms.
Laura - Your purpose is not in “Da Club” or on the dance floor… your purpose is to educate yourself to become powerful.
Later
Nah. I think Laura’s just stupid. Sure, I don’t think those three things you mention, on their own, necessarily indicate diminished mental capacity. But, making an effort to put forth a vacuous, useless, derogatory comment, in the absence of any attempt to justify it, is at least suggestive of such.
If a person was merely brainwashed with an inferiority complex, and limited vocabulary, but was still capable of “complex thought processes”, they would usually attempt to use those thought process to justify their opinion by putting forth an argument - no matter how false or misguided it might be. A failure to do this is suggestive of an inability to do this. And, an inability to do this is indicative of a lack of intellect.
I’ve had plenty of showdowns with otherwise intelligent, yet brainwashed anti-smokers - some with inferiority complexes, some with limited vocabularies, and some with both, I’m sure. They always attempt to argue their case. Only the stupid ones ever offer up singular comments like: “HA HA! You’re stupid! LOL! OMFG you’re so in denial and stuff! LOLZ!”
Of course, one can not accurately and with certainty judge intellect based on a single, poorly formed, three sentence comment. But, I think the smart money is betting on the probability that Laura has been consuming a steady and exclusive diet of moron-sandwiches for quite some time now.
Hi, so I am doing a speech on quitting smoking, and I stumbled on to this blog. I just wanted to make a comment saying that of course the automobiles do not cause drunk driving, and noone ever claimed that they have. It is the obvious culprit, which is the alcohol, that causes the drunk driving. I really do not see your argument with the fact that smoking has proven to cause cancer. You have not really stated an argument at all. Maybe it is the chemicals and all the other crap in the cigarettes that cause the cancer, even so….SMOKING that crap causes the cancer. By saying that “smoking may improve the availability of the actual cancer to take hold” Is a very contradictory statement….that just simply dances around the phrase that smoking is a very strong contributor to cancer related deaths. Now, I smoked for 10 years, and quit a year ago…I have never felt better. By saying that people who think that smoking causes cancer are brainwashed is ridiculous.
Dee: As far as our current best science tells us, smoking is as causative of cancer as automobiles are causative of drunk driving. There is a scientifically proven corollary link between smoking and cancer, there is NO causative link. If you think there is, then I dare you to find me one. I dare you to find me a peer reviewed medical paper demonstrating a positive causative link between smoking and cancer.
If you can’t do that, then I think the responsible thing to do would be to ask yourself why you believe so strongly that one exists. If there is no objective reason to believe such a thing, then the most likely explanation is that you are the victim of conditioned thinking - you have been told what to think, and you think it.
The fact of the matter is: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. To state otherwise is entirely disingenuous. Smoking is a risk factor. Smoking may increase one’s risk of contracting cancer. But, IT DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER. If you hear someone tell you that it does, they are either lying to you, they are grossly misinformed, or they are making an uneducated guess.
Ask any honest medical research scientist and they will tell you that before researchers even begin to SPECULATE about a causative link, they require a bare minimum of a 50% corollary link. That means that to even begin to suspect a possible causative link, half of every smoker would have to be seen contracting lung cancer. (The only type of cancer that has ever been shown to have even a corollary link to smoking.) According to the best available data, the current corollary link between tobacco smoke and cancer is less than 10%! We’re short about 40 percentage points before we should even begin SPECULATING about a causative link.
In fact, according to the W.H.O.’s own data, if you never smoke a single cigarette in your life, your chance of contracting lung cancer is about 1%. If you are a heavy smoker, your chance jumps to only 8%. That means that even if you are a heavy smoker throughout your entire life, you have a 92% chance of NEVER getting lung cancer. Please, tell me honestly: Does that sound like something that CAUSES cancer? Or, does that sound more like something that, while not causative, increases the risk of cancer occurring?
Let me ask you this: How do you know smoking causes cancer? If you can’t answer that question, then you are asserting opinion based entirely on ignorance. And, if such is the case, you can not dare to get upset if other people suspect that you might be “brainwashed.”
http://smintair.com/…/Siepmann.html
And, P.S. - Alcohol DOES NOT cause drunk driving. I drink on occasion, and I’ve never driven drunk. Almost everyone I know drinks on occasion, and almost no one I know has ever driven while drunk. It’s ludicrous to state that alcohol causes drunk driving.
When people become drunk, alcohol DOES NOT CAUSE them to go out and get behind the wheel of a car while in their drunken condition. Use your head a little! DRUNK DRIVERS cause drunk driving - NOT ALCOHOL!
And, P.P.S. - There was nothing contradictory about my statement. My statement was asserting the difference between a causative link, and a corollary one. By YOUR reasoning (that the words corollary and causative are interchangeable) birds cause cancer, sex causes cancer, lungs cause cancer, etc., etc. Your assertion is absurd. There is a difference between a corollary link and a causative one.
Hello….I found this site and thought I would add my thoughts. I have smoked for about 15 years (including +5 years with a 5 year smokeLess period between) and because I am not educated in the science of knowing whether smoking does or does not cause cancer, I like most people must rely on those that do have the knowledge in educating myself and the public with HONESTY and truth. In my 50 years I have also learned that the truth is not always what it appears to be and that whenever there is a “dont do that” attached there is usually another dollar in someone’s pocket. Although I still have my doubts that my smoking wont eventually harm me in some way, I still exercise an open mind to a reasonable arguement with facts to support. I know many ex-smokers say how great they feel after they quit and perhaps many do but in my 5 year smokeless period I suufered two very painfuL kidney stone episodes and one almost fatal ulcer bleed not to mention sinus problems and acid reflux, now perhaps these ailments happened without any regard to my non~smoking behavoir but in the last 15 years since I started back up I have not suffered anything other then a minor cold or flu (just being honest folks), but of course I might drop dead before you even read this. My biggest complaint in regards to our anti~smoking friends is their blatant disregard for humility towards smokers no matter what the occasion might be. They like to say smokers are stupid, in denial, etc.(and maybe we are) but i say SO WHAT??, people do stupid things all the time, it’s just what we do. I have bore witness to many friends and family members leave this earth (no smoke~related to date), sometimes dying is not a pretty thing nor is it always painless but we will all eventually experience it. You always hear the old “..if you ever have to see someone die from cancer (smoke related of course) then you might think different”…but let me tell you this…”when you watch your Mother slowing dying from alzheimers disease and who also never smoked a day in her life, then perhaps you wont think living to 90 is such a great thing afterall”… Some may feel I am endorsing or justifing smoking but in truth I am just being honest, I do however justify freedom to do as you choose as long as you dont infringe on your brother or sister or as my late Uncle Mack would say…”You can pass on my grass but keep your shit in your ass” Peace..
“I just wanted to make a comment saying that of course the automobiles do not cause drunk driving, and noone ever claimed that they have.”
I just wanted to comment on this comment even though it might be off subject, I agree with the fact automobiles do not cause drunk driving, but it just illustrates the hypocrisy of society becuase one might also agree that automobiles do not cause drunks from operating them but in the same right one may join the anti~gun gang with the idea that guns do kill so we should not own them when the same holds true with a automobile since a gun by itself cannot kill someone unless a murderer uses it.
Thank-you for your comments Mark. More people “just being honest” is exactly what this entire issue needs.
There is no reasonable doubt that smoking is a health risk. If you smoke, you are taking a health risk that you wouldn’t be taking if you didn’t smoke. That much is not debatable. And, while smoking does not cause cancer, it most definitely does raise a smoker’s chances of contracting the disease. So, I don’t want to paint any pictures that might suggest that smoking is an entirely benign activity. Because, it just isn’t.
However, the truth of the matter is that the popularly perceived nature and severity of the exact risk associated with tobacco smoke is much more a product of hysteria than of actual observable fact. The severity of the risks involved have been greatly exaggerated in the public psyche. The FACT of the matter is: if you smoke for your entire life, the odds are fairly heavily in your favor that you will never contract a smoking related illness. Of course, while that is true, the odds are more in your favor if you’ve never smoked.
So, the argument is not “Do you risk your health by smoking?” Of course you do. And, the brainless anti-smokers claim that this alone is enough to warrant their fascist assaults. But, to the reasonable person, the question then becomes: If a simple answer in the affirmative to the question “Does it carry a risk?” is enough of an argument, then when does the war against ice cream begin? When does the war against skiing begin? Automobiles? etc., etc.,
The anti-smoking crusaders have no reasonable, logical, or rational argument to stand on. They know this. And, this is why they resort to their relentless campaigns of promoting fear, hate and hysteria. They have nothing else.
And, for the record, I too have heard from countless ex-smokers about all of the greatness of well-being they found once they’d given up smoking. I once quit for just a little shy of a year. In that entire time, I noticed no change in my well-being whatsoever. I had no more or less energy. Food tasted no better or worse. I experienced no more or less sickness. My sleeping habits neither improved nor degraded, and on, and on.
Yes, smoking might kill me. It might even kill me while I’m still young. But, it most probably wont. I also might die in a car accident. I might even die in this car accident while I’m still young. But, I most probably wont.
Apparantly, Smoking Doesn’t Cause Cancer.
Welcome to the blog of Derek. Derek is a smoker. Derek doesn’t like people telling him not to smoke. Derek has also evidentally swallowed a thesaurus. Let’s take a quote from this well-documented analysis:
“If you are one of the people that are so certain that it does [cause cancer], then the fact that you are so sure is a perfect illustration of just how successfully the anti-smoking propaganda machine has been in brainwashing you, and the average person.”
When he essentially means is “I’m right, you’re wrong, no matter what science says”. He also comes up with a genius argument to support his theory that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. This is an actual genuine quote from him:
“Would you think it a reasonable statement to say that automobiles cause drunk driving? Of course not!”
No, but it’s a factor. The act is well described in the name “drunk driving”. You have to be drunk and then drive. This makes you a “drunk driver”. The phrase found on the sides of numerous cigarette packets state “Cigarettes will damage you health” and “Smoking causes and will aid cancer” are similar phrases where you have to read every word for it to take effect. His “drunk driving” argument is irrelevant and pathetic.
What gets me is how quick he and his friends are to jump down the throats of anyone who were to disagree with them. On the provided link are also comments to his oh-so-fabulous analogy. A girl called Laura is one to comment, “Lol. Smokers in denial.. HAHA idiots”. This is basically getting the point across because all Derek and his friends are just smokers in denial, not prepared to realise that what they are doing are detrimental to their health. Check out one of Derek’s supporters reply to Laura’s comment:
“[Laura is] someone who doesn’t possess the intellectual apparatus to argue facts, and reasonably defend her position, so instead resorts to vacuous verbage.”
Wow! Everyone! Look at the big words! How impressive! And alliteration too! This person must have at least one GCSE in English!
All I’m saying is that if somebody is definately wrong in an argument, all the four-syllable words in the world will never prevent them from being wrong.
Friz, do you actually have an argument? Or, is commenting on how certain people’s usage of language doesn’t meet with your particular tastes it?
“When he essentially means is “I’m right, you’re wrong, no matter what science says”.”
No. Actually what my argument is, if you’d care to inform yourself as to the nature of the opinions that you seem to wish to argue against, is that science doesn’t actually say that. Instead it says quite the opposite.
“He also comes up with a genius argument to support his theory that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. This is an actual genuine quote from him:”
That’s not the argument. It’s an illustration of the argument - a sort of thought experiment, intended to clarify meaning.
“No, but it’s a factor.”
uh.. yeah… which is exactly what I said. So, your argument is that you actually agree with my argument?!?!? Wow! Good argument!
“The act is well described in the name “drunk driving”. You have to be drunk and then drive. This makes you a “drunk driver”.”
But we’re not discussing factors, we’re discussing causation. Would you agree that lungs cause lung cancer? You must have lungs in order to contract lung cancer. Lungs are clearly a factor. You would agree that lungs are causative then?
“The phrase found on the sides of numerous cigarette packets state “Cigarettes will damage you health” and “Smoking causes and will aid cancer” are similar phrases where you have to read every word for it to take effect.
If a cigarette packet displays the phrase “smoking causes cancer” then it displays a lie. Show me a definitive causative link between smoking and cancer, and I’ll retract my statement. Until then, if you are in agreement with such warning labels on packaging, then the only rational conclusion is that you support lying to the public in order to further your own agenda.
“What gets me is how quick he and his friends are to jump down the throats of anyone who were to disagree with them. On the provided link are also comments to his oh-so-fabulous analogy. A girl called Laura is one to comment, “Lol. Smokers in denial.. HAHA idiots”. This is basically getting the point across because all Derek and his friends are just smokers in denial, not prepared to realise that what they are doing are detrimental to their health.”
You’re misinformed. I stated quite clearly that smoking is a health risk.
But, if Laura wanted to present a rational argument, she would have been treated differently. She didn’t present one because she doesn’t have one. She has swallowed what has been fed to her, she has accepted it as revealed truth, and she has no idea why she believes what she does. If you come on here and throw around ad hominem attacks without presenting any argument, you’re going to get exposed for what you are - deal with it.
“Check out one of Derek’s supporters reply to Laura’s comment:”
That wasn’t a supporter, that was me. Do you understand anything that’s going on here? Or, are you just hopelessly confused?
“Wow! Everyone! Look at the big words! How impressive! And alliteration too! This person must have at least one GCSE in English!”
I find it interesting that someone who uses the word “alliteration” in a sentence is criticizing others for being too wordy. What are you anyway, a fucking language cop? In the other post you criticize someone for poor use of English in one comment, then in your very next comment you criticize me for using words you don’t like. I’m sorry if you don’t like big words - I’m sorry if you’re confused by them - but you really need to get over this ridiculous obsession of yours.
“All I’m saying is that if somebody is definately wrong in an argument, all the four-syllable words in the world will never prevent them from being wrong.”
And, I’m saying that if you actually had any sort of argument yourself, you wouldn’t resort to pointing out how people’s usage of language doesn’t fit with your particular tastes. You attack the style of language because you simply are unable to attack the argument itself. That much is all too clear.
smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer.
now repeat with me: smoking cigarettes is not a cause of cancer
why?
does every smoker have cancer? if you have proof that smoking cigarettes is a cause of cancer, every single smoker out there should have cancer, or at least the beginnings of it.
why?
because your argument is that smoking cigarettes is definitely, 100% a cause of cancer. therefore, everyone who is a smoker has caused cancer to his body. no?
if there’s a SINGLE SMOKER out there in the whole world that smokes cigarettes for many years and does not have cancer, then this is PROOF that smoking cigarettes is not a CAUSE of cancer.
and i know that there is already a single smoker, heavy smoker out there who does not have any kind of cancer or disease, but i can’t prove it, not right now.
the claim that smoking cigarettes is a CAUSE of cancer, is similar to any other cause and effect claim.
gravity, is what we call that mysterious force that causes object to stick to the surface of the earth. gravity is a cause, attraction is an effect.
this means, that no matter how many times you try to throw a stone up in the air, it will always fall down. you can continue throwing the same rock up in the air for your whole life, it will always fall to the ground. that is a cause. there is no exception to it!
do you want to know the truth and only the truth, about how smoking increases the danger of cancer in an individual? get ready…
the subliminal messages on the packs. the media propaganda and the installment of such beliefs.
there you have it. if you believe you’ll probably get cancer before you even start smoking, you set yourself candidate to be a cancer patient.
placebo effect anyone?
to the skeptics… hey, you don’t have to believe what you just read. belief without question is what causes all the drama in our world, so don’t be a part of the drama because of what i wrote.
use your brain instead, clear all your preconceived ideas and whatever anyone has told you (make a warm reboot..) and see for yourself.
(i used to be an anti-smoker when i was a kid, quite passionate about it too, until i spotted the brainwashing. it’s hard to do, but believe me it’s worth it)
i will never suggest smoking to someone who would believe that it is bad for them. in fact, i would never suggest anything at all, when people believe that it would be harmful for them. big mistake.
observation/conclusion: fear causes cancer among millions of other diseases and illnesses.
If smoking really caused cancer then all smokers would die of it, my grandfather for example only smoked hard all his life and died at the age of 86, he started in his teens, and there are many other examples like that, my mom smokes for over 30 years still alive.My dad never smoked and died at the age of 62.
cool,anyone got a light?
SMOKING IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU - NOR IS OVEREATING, DIRTY HOUSES, NOT TAKING BATHS, …..I COULD GO ON AND ON.
ONE THING IS FOR SURE SMOKING DOES NOT HELP YOU MAINTAIN GOOD HEALTH. ALL MY FRIENDS THAT HAVE DIED FROM CANCER DID NOT SMOKE. MY GRANDFATHER LIVED TO BE 90 (HE QUIT SMOKING AT 89) GO FIGURE??? IT IS THE SIN TAX THAT KEEPS US ALL BRAINWASHED. I GREW UP WHERE EVERYONE SMOKED. MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE STILL ALIVE AND WELL. DOCTORS HAVE NO BUSINESS SCARING PEOPLE TO DEATH - WHEN THEY ARE STANDING THERE 50 LBS. OVER WEIGHT. I SAY SMOKERS DESERVE RIGHTS!!!!! I AM SO TIRED OF PEOPLE, ASKING ME, YOU SMOKE? YEAH, AND DO YOU HAVE SEX?
I am 24 years old and literally just started smoking a month ago. Nobody in my family smokes and I try my best to hide it from my family, but I LOVE it. I truly believe that what Derek has stated here is absolutely true. I once watched a segment on a morning news show (I think it was Ssturday’s The today show.) Anyway, they were showing this family of 5 siblings who happened to be the oldest siblings in america. The “baby” was 94 years old. The oldest sister (Not sibling) was 103 yrs old and when asked what her secrets to living so long were, she responded; “I eat crap, never exercise and I’ve smoked 3 packs a day since I was 14 years old.” She never had cancer. I agree, to say that Smoking causes cancer is completely false. To me, that saying means EVERYONE THAT SMOKES WILL GET CANCER. If you non-smokers do your reasearch (like I did) Derek is absolutely right. Less than 10% of HEAVY smokers get cancer of any kind. Meanwhile, 30% of non-smokers end up with cancer. Cancer is a mutation of dead cells. The reason they can’t cure cancer is because they cannot figure out why that mutation occurs. The ONLY reason that smoking increases your chances of developing cancer by 7% is because by smoking, you’re killing off more cells faster than a non-smoker. Whether those dead cells mutate or not has absolutely nothing to do with smoking. Look it up.
Hello everyone, I was just reading and some interesting things I heard. Wow, smoking is definitely a risk factor, but like you all said, if smoking itself caused cancer, than 100% of all smokers should get cancer, and that is notthe case.
I look at smoking like struggling with sweets, or coffee, or drinking too much.
It is definitely a bad habit, and not good for your health, but I am not sure that smoking is worse than a fast food burger. but I do want to quit everything that effects my health, but it has been taking time and effort.
Smoking may not be a direct cause of cancer, but smoking is not good for you. I don’t think you can really compare smoking to a greasy burger. If you indulge in greasy burgers, do you eat 10-20 burgers a day? Probably not. But if you are a smoker, you probably smoke anywhere from 10-20 cigarettes a day. As a recovering smoker, I understand the joy of lighting up a cigarette. But the truth of the matter is that it is not good for you. Smoking increases blood pressure, it causes fine lines around the mouth, it is bad for the skin, it is hard on the throat and esophogus. However, smokers know all of that. Smokers know that inhaling smoke full of harmful chemicals is not the act of a health conscious person. A smoker is intimately aware of all the negative effects smoking has on his/her body. That is the rebellion of a smoker. We smoke because we like it. We like it so much that we do not care what it does to our bodies. I know because I loved smoking. I could deal with the extra phlegm, the coughing, and the yearly bronchitis. What ultimately convinced me to stop? It costs to damn much. So, smoking is hard on your health and your wallet.
My Grandfather smoked a pack a day from the time he was in his teens until he quit for good on his 50th birthday. He was also an alcoholic and drank close to a 12 case of beer every day for most of his life - right up until the day he died. Most mornings he would eat a breakfast of bacon, fried eggs and sausage, and cover the entire meal in large amounts of corn syrup. And, no lie, he would wash down his morning breakfast each day with a large, cold glass of buttermilk. He did this for most of his life. His general eating habits regarding meals other than breakfast fell along the same lines. For at least the last 10 years of his life he was extremely sedentary. He suffered some health problems, and because of them, for the last few years of his life, he really didn’t do very much other than sit in a chair watching T.V. and drinking beer.
When he died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 67, his doctor told my grandmother that it was no doubt the cigarettes - a habit he had given up 17 years prior to his death - that had killed him.
The moral of the story - irrationality, false logic and hysteria reigns supreme - even within the medical profession - when dealing with the foul demon tobacco.
Quote from Derek:
“In fact, according to the W.H.O.’s own data, if you never smoke a single cigarette in your life, your chance of contracting lung cancer is about 1%. If you are a heavy smoker, your chance jumps to only 8%. That means that even if you are a heavy smoker throughout your entire life, you have a 92% chance of NEVER getting lung cancer. Please, tell me honestly: Does that sound like something that CAUSES cancer? Or, does that sound more like something that, while not causative, increases the risk of cancer occurring?”
Interesting. According to the WHO website:
http://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/en/index.html
“Tobacco is the single largest preventable cause of cancer in the world today. It causes 80-90% of all lung cancer deaths, and about 30% of all cancer deaths in developing countries, including deaths from cancer of the oral cavity, larynx, oesophagus and stomach. ”
So while it doesn’t talk about the ‘chance’ of getting cancer, it does say that tabacco (read it with me now…) “causes” cancer. In fact 80-90% of all lung cancer cases seem to be caused by tabacco use.
Now, granted, smoking (a tabacco product) is not the only cause of cancer, a lot of healthy people die of cancer too. A number of people have also smoked all their life and never contracted cancer. But this does not mean that smoking does not cause cancer. All it means is that there are other factors involved that we don’t know about which has helped those people fight the cancer. With over 3000 chemicals, and at least 40 of them being proven cancer causing agents, smoking does indeed cause cancer. For some reason a few people are seemingly immune to the effects, but it does not negate the fact that it does cause cancer.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/index.html
“WHAT CAUSES CANCER?
Cancer occurs because of changes of the genes responsible for cell growth and repair. These changes are the result of the interaction between genetic host factors and external agents which can be categorized as:
physical carcinogens such as ultraviolet (UV) and ionizing radiation
chemical carcinogens such a asbestos and tobacco smoke
biological carcinogens such as
infections by virus (Hepatitis B Virus and liver cancer, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and cervical cancer) and bacteria (Helicobater pylori and gastric cancer) and parasites (schistosomiasis and bladder cancer)
contamination of food by mycotoxins such as aflatoxins (products of Aspergillus fungi) causing liver cancer.
Tobacco use is the single most important risk factor for cancer and causes a large variety of cancer types such as lung, larynx, oesophagus, stomach, bladder, oral cavity and others . Although there are still some open questions, there is sufficient evidence that dietary factors also play an important role in causing cancer. This applies to obesity as a compound risk factor per se as well as to the composition of the diet such as lack of fruit and vegetables and high salt intake. Lack of physical activity has a distinct role as risk factor for cancer. There is solid evidence about alcohol causing several cancer types such as oesophagus, pharynx, larynx, liver, breast, and other cancer types.”
If you don’t believe, the WHO, who will you believe?
So… your argument is what? Proclamation??? It’s true because the WHO says it’s true? Excellent! Good argument! Funny how they cite no references in that article. They just make the claim that smoking CAUSES 80-90% of lung cancers, and some of us… *ahem*… just swallow it up without question - we’ve taken to our conditioning so well. Haven’t we?
In fact, the WHO (a band of proven liars: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5037/is_199803/ai_n18285281), funded in no small part by the pharmaceutical industry, (an industry with a gigantic financial interest in getting as many smokers as possible to attempt to quit) is about the last organization I’d trust. They have demonstrated, clearly and openly, an entirely irrational tobacco control agenda. In fact, when Brundtland stepped in as Director of the WHO in 1998, she loudly proclaimed tobacco awareness and control to be a top priority for the WHO… Wonderful! She didn’t say all that much about something like malaria, however - a disease which claims the lives of one child under the age of 15 every single minute of every single day worldwide. No! Her major concern was a product that people consume willingly, and claims most of its alleged victims sometime in their 70s.. you know… right around the age of normal life expectancy. Of course, malaria is a largely third-world disease, and most of those children dieing every minute can’t really afford to buy medicine from the pharmaceutical companies… so, no big whoop I guess. Keeping rich, fat westerners hysterical with fear so they’ll keep shelling out dollars for expensive patches, pills and gum is much more important.
Now, lets get around to the interesting subject of independent thought versus blindly swallowing any information that is fed to you by people in what seems to be positions of authority or expertise. If you’d care to attempt to incorporate just a little critical thinking, you should be able to see that your “causes 80-90% of lung cancers” statement is entirely meaningless.
It’s sort of akin to me saying “90% of widget makers who experience work related accidents die from their injuries.” ..well? So what? It tells us absolutely nothing about the dangers of widget making - it’s a meaningless statistic. It’s designed and used only to instill fear and promote irrationality and hysteria. You see, if there were only 100,000 people who have ever worked as widget makers, and only 10 of them ever experienced an accident, and 9 of them died from it, then widget making is a rather benign activity. Statistically speaking, you’d stand a chance of less than 1 in 10,000 of dieing if you were to take up widget making. On the other hand, if 95,000 of them experienced accidents at some point… well, you’d be an idiot if you thought about taking up that job offer down at the local widget factory. The 90% death figure holds true in both cases - but it doesn’t say anything about the dangers of widget making.
You follow? The percentage figure is a completely meaningless figure in the absence of more information. It works the same with smoking - Even if 90% of lung cancers were caused by smoking (and this number is demonstrably false) smoking is as safe as chocolate cake if only .00001% of smokers are contracting lung cancer. In fact, even if the 90% figure is true, tobacco would be THE GREATEST MIRACLE DRUG ON THE PLANET if 1% of smokers got lung cancer, while 50% of non-smokers got it. Smoking would be hell on wheels however if 99% of smokers are getting lung cancer. All of these different outcomes, and the 90% figure still holds true in each case. What does that tell you? IT’S MEANINGLESS!!! So, why then do anti-smokers bandy about a meaningless statistic so often? Because they are trying to disingenuously create fear and hysteria in the public psyche in order to further their own agenda. This is why the anti-tobacco movement is evil. They are puritanical liars, tyrants, and fear-mongers!
And, of course, the fact of the matter is, according to the WHO’s own data, approx. 92% of heavy smokers (that’s *heavy* smokers) will NEVER contract lung cancer. (There’s a list of references supporting this available here: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm) So, see the widget maker analogy above.
And, to throw a wrench in to some of your other mindlessly accepted and regurgitated “facts” and figures … there’s over 4,000 chemicals in the average American’s daily diet. Are you going to stop eating now? 4,000 chemicals??? Food must be bad for you! Right? Tap water has been found to contain upwards of 120 chemicals known to have adverse effects on health - including, in some instances, dioxin - the most carcinogenic substance known to man. (There’s no dioxin in cigarettes) Wow! Better start a world-wide crusade against water, huh?
Almost all of those same chemicals in tobacco smoke are also released into the atmosphere whenever you cook something - and at a much higher CFM than a room full of smokers. We’d better better start a global crusade on banning the cooking of food as well, huh?
Many of those 3,000 chemicals in cigarettes that you refer to are things like H2O (water), sodium chloride (salt), carbon, etc. Oh, and some of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are actually anti-carcinogens… but you never hear about those ones do you? That wouldn’t be conducive to creating an aura of hysteria, now would it?
Also, to help keep things in perspective a little, I should point out that at least one of the evil chemicals that you seem so worried about can be found in both tap water and cigarettes - arsenic! Arsenic is a deadly poison… and you can put as much of it in your system by drinking one, 8oz. glass of water as you can by smoking 165,000 cigarettes in a row. So, I guess smoking is healthier than drinking water then????
The moral of the story is: meaningless statements and statistics are nothing more than meaningless statements and statistics. Things need to be put into perspective. And, a little independent though and critical thinking goes a long way.
Wow.
Could you show me the peer reviewed data that states on 8 oz glass of tap water contains the same amount of arsenic as 165,000 cigarettes?
Also, isn’t it funny that when you quote the WHO to ‘prove’ your point, the data is set in stone, but when someone tries to do the same to show the other side, you critizise it as being meaningless?
Critical thinking should work both ways you know… I am in no way a scientist, chemical biologist, or anything else like that, so I turn to people who are and know a lot more than I do about these things. People like the scientists and researchers that work for the WHO (which I figure a number of them are probably free lance and have no ties to the WHO, or the WHO’s agenda). They have nothing to gain from this, they just tell it as the find it.
Where do you get all your information? You cited a few links. The first one tries to bash the credibility of the WHO, but it is almost 10 years old. I’m sure if they really were legitimately lying, there would be a lot more recent references to it.
The other article is basically just arguing semantics (similar to what you tried to do above before you got all cranky and defensive). Does smoking cause cancer? This is the actual question we are discussing. In all honesty, I cannot say yes or no definitively. And unless you are a scientist of some sort and a subject matter expert in this field, then you must also admit that in all honesty, you cannot say yes or no either. All of us could go back and forth citing references and links that support our view, but it still doesn’t actually prove anything. If you think as critically as you assume you do, you would understand this.
There was a reference to smoking being as bad for you as easting fast food in your second link. Yes, that is true; eating fast food is bad for you. But if you eat fast food, you are only hurting you. Not those around you. However, smoking is bad for you too, but when you smoke near me, it now becomes harmful to my health as well, and that is not right. If you want to hurt yourself my smoking, go ahead, I’ll be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger. If you promise to put your cigarette out before I walk past you on the side walk, then I will promise not to regurgitate my burger into your stomach….
Sounds kinda gross, but at least you have a choice to keep your mouth closed when I try to force feed you a burger. I can’t stop breathing while you smoke.
That is my agenda. I don’t care what you do to yourself, it is your choice. But when it affects others that choose not to smoke, then I have a problem with it….
PS:
The statement about tabacco causing 80-90% of all lung cancers is not meaningless. It does not say anything about the total number of smokers. It talks about the total number of cancer cases. So (using your widget analogy) there may be 100,000 smokers. 1,000 of them may contract lung cancer through their lives. What the statistics are saying is that of those 1,000 people, 8-9k will get cancer as a direct result from smoking. The other 1-2k that get cancer can be attributed to other environmental causes. The point is that in those 8-9k people, smoking CAUSED cancer. Why did the other 99,000 not get cancer at all? Who knows, maybe they ate more oranges…. but that is irrelevant to the point.
As I said before, I cannot say for certain as I am not a SME, but others who have collected the data and done the research seem to know.
“Wow.
Could you show me the peer reviewed data that states on 8 oz glass of tap water contains the same amount of arsenic as 165,000 cigarettes?”
First off, I did make one mistake - it should have been an 16oz. glass of water, not an 8oz. I was going by memory and slipped up here. With an 8oz glass of water, you’d only need to smoke just over 78,000 cigarettes (What the average smoker smokes over the course of about 11 years.) Here’s the data: You can see from the EPA’s own website that they have set the restrictions of safe arsenic levels in water at 10 parts per billion. ( http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/index.html ) If you do the math, you’ll find that this translates into 10 nanograms per gram - which also translates into about 2,500 nanograms for an 8oz. glass of water. The Massachusetts Benchmark Study - (Borgerding MF, Bodnar JA, Wingate DE. The 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study: the Final Report. Conducted for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Boston, MA Massachusetts Department of Public Health 2000 -can’t find a direct web-link to the study, sorry.) found that the average brand content of arsenic was 32 nanograms. (I.e. - You’d have to actually EAT 4 packs of cigarettes to exceed the EPA’s safe arsenic exposure level for 1 8oz. glass of water.) Given dilution principles in most moderately ventilated smoking situations, along with combustion waste rates, actual human exposure levels translates into roughly 1/1000th of the content level - or, about .032 nanograms per cigarette. Which, if you’ll do the math, you will see translates into about 78,000 cigarettes to 1 8 Oz. glass of water.
“Also, isn’t it funny that when you quote the WHO to ‘prove’ your point, the data is set in stone, but when someone tries to do the same to show the other side, you critizise it as being meaningless?”
You appear confused… who said the data is set in stone? My whole point is to show how the numbers are dubious. I’m using the anti-tobacco’s lobby’s own numbers to refute themselves - This does nothing but show that their data can’t be trusted, and their motives, tactics and conclusions are disingenuous.
“I turn to people who are and know a lot more than I do about these things.”
Read: I swallow what I’m fed, and base my opinions on assumption and blind faith in the establishment.
“Where do you get all your information? You cited a few links. The first one tries to bash the credibility of the WHO, but it is almost 10 years old.”
The first one doesn’t merely attempt to bash the credibility of the W.H.O. - it documents an abject lie carried out by the W.H.O. What difference does the age of the documentation make? If I tell you today that I’m the King of Spain, all I have to do is wait 10 years and magically it’s not a lie anymore???
“I turn to people who are and know a lot more than I do about these things…. which I figure a number of them are probably free lance and have no ties to the WHO, or the WHO’s agenda… I’m sure if they really were legitimately lying, there would be a lot more recent references to it.”
You repeatedly operate on assumption and reliance on authority. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy.
“The other article is basically just arguing semantics”
Huh??? The second article is from the Journal of Theoretics and is wholly based on crunching raw numbers - how in the hell can you argue semantics with math? Do you even know what the word means??? Or, did you not read the document? All of their sources are cited.
“But if you eat fast food, you are only hurting you. Not those around you. However, smoking is bad for you too, but when you smoke near me, it now becomes harmful to my health as well, and that is not right.”
Oh stop with the infantile “it hurts me too!” anti-smoking nonsense. Every day you do things that hurts others, but my guess is you don’t mind so much about those things, do you? No, it’s perfectly fine for anti-smokers to engage in all sorts of harmful activity that they don’t possess a visceral dislike for. Do you drive a car? Make use of public transportation? Wear or use any plastic products? Use electronic equipment of any type? Drink alcohol? Eat beef? Patronize public eating establishments? If you answered yes to any of those questions, then you’re a hypocrite.
“I’ll be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger”
Uhhh… you can’t “be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger” Unless you’re planning on bringing your hamburger pre-cooked from home, or enjoy the taste of raw hamburger.
“If you promise to put your cigarette out before I walk past you on the side walk, then I will promise not to regurgitate my burger into your stomach”
I’ll tell ya what - If you promise not to drive your car by me on the street, to discontinue the use of any and all electronic equipment that adds to the need for dirty electrical generation facilities, and radio-wave emanating power-lines, agree to discontinue using any plastic products that require manufacturing facilities that poison my water supply, and discontinue eating range reared animal meat that causes top-soil depletion and toxic waste run-off, then I’ll promise to put my cigarette out when you walk by me on the street. Deal?
“Sounds kinda gross, but at least you have a choice to keep your mouth closed when I try to force feed you a burger. I can’t stop breathing while you smoke.”
Uhhh… you could try not going to where people are already gathered and smoking. Ever think of that? Just like I don’t make a habit of frequenting places where people are engaged in activity that I have a dislike for. The difference is, because I’m not an anti-smoker, I don’t think that I have a birth-right to be able to go anywhere I please, and have every living human on the planet immediately alter their behavior in order to accommodate me and what I happen to find distasteful. As a non-anti-smoker, unfortunately, I wasn’t born the inalienable right to never have to endure any annoyance that might come my way.
“I don’t care what you do to yourself, it is your choice. But when it affects others that choose not to smoke, then I have a problem with it….”
And, why exactly is it smoking that you’ve picked to be concerned about? Why not any of the other myriad of activities that humans regularly engage in that affects others in a negative way?
And, can you explain exactly how my choice to smoke affects others that choose not to smoke? I mean, jeez! I can barely remember the last time I tied a non-smoker to a chair and forced him to inhale my cigarette smoke.
“The statement about tabacco causing 80-90% of all lung cancers is not meaningless.”
Uhhh, no… it is meaningless. I explain why in my previous comment, and your proclamation does nothing to refute that.
“It does not say anything about the total number of smokers. It talks about the total number of cancer cases. So (using your widget analogy) there may be 100,000 smokers. 1,000 of them may contract lung cancer through their lives. What the statistics are saying is that of those 1,000 people, 8-9k will get cancer as a direct result from smoking.”
You didn’t read what I wrote, did you?
Listen, read slowly, and try to understand:
90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking. We’ll take that, for the purposes of illustration, as being true.
Scenario #1 - 10,000,000 people smoke. 10 smokers get lung cancer. 9 of them (90%) got it from smoking. Chance of getting lung cancer from smoking = (roughly) 1 in a million.
Scenario #2 - 10,000,000 people smoke. 1,000,000 of them get lung cancer. 900,000 of them (90%) got it from smoking. Chance of getting lung cancer from smoking - (roughly) 1 in 10
In both cases the 90% figure holds true. So, on its own, what does the 90% figure tell us about the dangers of smoking in regards to contracting cancer? NOTHING! It’s MEANINGLESS! 100% MEANINGLESS!
Now, lets say that only 20% of lung cancer is caused by smoking:
Scenario #3 - 10,000,000 people smoke, 10,000,000 smokers get lung cancer. 2,000,000 of them (20%) got it from smoking. Chance of getting lung cancer from smoking = 1 in 5.
Now, for the sake of argument, lets say that only one of the the above scenarios could be true. As a smoker, should I be more worried if I found out that the 90% figure was true, or the 20% figure?
In fact, as a smoker, given the above scenario, I’d be at LESS RISK if 90% of lung cancers were caused by smoking than I would if only 20% were caused by smoking!!!
WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE 90% STATISTIC? IT’S A MEANINGLESS STATISTIC!!!!
It’s used by the anti-smoking lobby to manufacture a false sense of fear and hysteria in the public psyche. Because, they understand that most people are statistically illiterate, and in the minds of most people, when they are exposed to the information: “90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking” it translates in their brain to “If I smoke, there’s a 90% chance I’ll get lung cancer.” Which, of course, is entirely false.Ergo, the usage of such statistics is entirely, and purposefully misleading and disingenuous.
I love it when I hit a nerve
I’m not going to join you in the bantering back and forth as you and I both know it gets us no where.
But I will comment on a few points, just for fun.
““I’ll be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger”
Uhhh… you can’t “be in a smoke free restaurant eating a hamburger” Unless you’re planning on bringing your hamburger pre-cooked from home, or enjoy the taste of raw hamburger.
”
Okay, so you read through my entire post about cigarette smoke, and the only time I say smoke without the word cigarette in front of it, you think I mean grill smoke instead. I know you did that on purpose, but common, you knew what I meant. And besides, in some cultures steak tar tar (raw ground beef) is a delicacy,
I’m not forcing you to drink tap water. If you live in Michigan (where you quoted the information on the tap water) and the water really is still that bad (again, I’m sure after 7 or 8 years the city/state would work to clean up the water supplies. If they don’t write to congress because now you live in third world conditions) then you can always drink bottled water. If your manufacturing plants are polluting your water ways and your air and congress isn’t working to help cut down on all that, then move to a different state (if it really bothers you that much). I know where I live, the water sheds are not the cleanest in the world, and our filtration systems don’t catch all the contaminates, but by the time the water gets to my glass, it is within acceptable levels of contamination. And because my body is relatively healthy, it can remove these small levels of contaminates out before they do any harm. So for me, none of that is an issue, but you obviously see a problem with it. I just get a kick out of the fact you don’t believe what people say about the harmful effects of smoking (tobacco) but you jump right on the band wagon as soon as someone says the water is tainted, because this fits your world view. We are both hypocrites, as almost all humans are.
And I picked tobacco smoke as the thing I choose to fight because I know that if I were to inhale someone’s second hand smoke, it would be detrimental to my health. Car exhaust is not as bad as everyone thinks. There are just as many stats out there both for and against the harmful effects of carbon fuel pollution as there is regarding tobacco. And just as you keep saying, the stats are meaningless. The one I like the best is about carbon monoxide causing global warming which will cause the next ice age… did you get that… the ‘next’ ice age. There have already been several in Earth’s history, long before humans started generating CO2. What caused it the previous times? This means that humans only generate a one in 5 chance of causing an ice age. Personally, I think the next ice age would have happened with or without our help.
But all of this is completely useless and off topic. The real question is weather or not tobacco smoke causes cancer. I say that yes it does based on the information I have gathered and the personal experiences with it I have had. You say that no it doesn’t, for the exact same reasons. Is there any absolute truth in any of this? Well, yes, the only absolute truth is that we are all going to die. Statistically speaking, births have a 100% fatality rate. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236) Of those 100%, in today’s current demographic (in the US at least), cancer kills 0.002% of the population (approx. 558,600 people) each year. Source from: http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/statistics/bodgbddeathdalyestimates.xls
Of those, 194,400 die due to the types of cancers that are usually attributed to smoking/chewing tobacco. Now seeing as how most researchers seem to agree that smoking cigarettes causes 80-90% of all cancer deaths (according to the sources I searched) then that means that each year between 155,520 – 174,960 die due to using tobacco products. Even if you want to use your 8% value, that still equates to 15,520 people that die each year because they use tobacco. That is 15,000 mothers, fathers, grandparents, friends, aunts, uncles, children that die from something that is preventable. Yes, they will all die from some other cause at a later point, but if you can prolong your life for as long as possible, why would you not want to? By making one small change to your life you can easily live another 10-15 years. That is 15 more Christmases with family and friends. 15 more years loving your wife/husband. 15 more years watching your children grow. Why would you not want that? Why are you so against living as long as you can?
Take the whole cancer equation out of the picture for a minute. Smoking causes a whole slew of other health problems: Nervous twitching (you know, the shakes you get when you haven’t had a cigarette for a while, FYI: that’s not normal), the yellow stained finger tips, the dry, cracked, wrinkled skin long before your age dictates it should be like that, the dry cough, the constant need to remove phlegm, the fact it takes twice as long to recover from a cold as it should. All these things are caused by smoking cigarettes. You may not have all these symptoms, you may not even have any of them, but you will. And it will happen because you smoke.
Personally, I would not want any of my friends to have to suffer through this, so I don’t hang with smokers.
Oh, and one more reason why I am against smoking:
“Uhhh… you could try not going to where people are already gathered and smoking. Ever think of that? Just like I don’t make a habit of frequenting places where people are engaged in activity that I have a dislike for.”
Thats kind of hard when they all gather right out front of the door ways to places. I have to come and go into these places, and i have to hold my breath everytime. Then when I do finally get past them, my hair and clothes all reak of cigarette smoke. Tell me, where is my choice, and how is that fair? I don’t drink, dance or like loud music either, so I stay away from bars. But smokers are everywhere and I can’t avoid them in every situation.
Yes, I knew exactly what you meant - that was the point. You don’t mind restaurants that subject patrons to the kind of smoke that you enjoy, but the kind of smoke that you don’t enjoy is a no-no for everybody. Why is that? Grilling meat releases almost all of the same chemicals into the atmosphere as cigarette smoke and at a much, much higher volume. Why is that ok? Shouldn’t there be a ban on cooking food in restaurants? What if I’m a raw-foodist? Should I have to be subjected to your grill smoke? Why should you get to force your unhealthy habits on me? I mean, if you want to cook food in the privacy of your own home, that’s your business… but, when you FORCE me to inhale your toxic grill smoke, that’s where your rights end.
What are you talking about? Typical anti-smoker! You didn’t even read the argument that was presented to you. You think you can advocate stripping people of liberties on the basis of complete self-ignorance. The only study I cited that was “from” some place, was from Massachusetts, not Michigan, and it said nothing at all about drinking water! That study detailed arsenic levels in cigarettes. The information I cited on arsenic levels in drinking water was from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and it merely listed what the EPA has deemed safe levels of arsenic in drinking water. It said nothing about if those levels had been exceeded in any location!?!?!?
Oh, wonderful! You’re all for me moving to a different state to avoid my annoyance, but anti-smokers can’t even tolerate having to go to the smoke-free restaurant next-door, 20 feet away? Incredible!
I’ve just shown how the trace amounts of adverse chemicals in tobacco smoke are well below that of tap-water. But you claim that your body can deal perfectly fine with the chemicals in water, but not the ones in tobacco smoke??? Please explain to me what sort of magic takes place that makes the human body less able to cope with exposure to the exact same chemicals, in much smaller doses, in tobacco smoke, and more able to cope with the exact same chemicals at much higher doses in water!?!?! Can you explain that one to me? I’m amazed!
Who’s jumping on any bandwagons? What are you talking about? I didn’t say anything about how dangerous water is! You’re horribly confused! I don’t believe water is unduly harmful, and never claimed such at any time. I was merely putting things into perspective - if you think tobacco smoke is a horrible killer, then you must think water is too. Otherwise, you’re completely irrational. I happen to think that tobacco smoke is not nearly, by any stretch of the imagination, as horrible a killer as public consensus currently holds it to be… so, from that, you should be able to see how I feel about drinking water. YOU’RE THE ONE SAYING WATER IS DANGEROUS!! - by proxy of your smoking argument!
And, WHY do you know that? …oh, yeah… right… that’s what you’ve been told.
Are you for real??? You’ve just written pages arguing that tobacco smoke is wholly dangerous. Car exhaust puts out almost all of the same toxins as tobacco smoke, plus a bunch that aren’t in tobacco smoke, except that a single, idling car, puts them out at a much, much, much. much, higher rate of cubic feet per minute than does a room full of heavy smokers. How can car exhaust then be “not as bad as everyone thinks” while, at the same time, the inhalation of tobacco smoke is some sort of automatic death sentence?
You didn’t search any reliable sources apparently. Look at the numbers you’ve just provided: What’s 90% of 558,600? Answer: 502,740… HUH??? What happened to the other 308,340 people? They just disappeared!!! Like magic!!! I thought your “sources” said smoking causes “80%-90% of all cancer deaths”??? In fact, 194,400 is under 35% of 558,600… strange how it just doesn’t add up. Isn’t it?
So, we should all immediately cease any activity which carries with it a risk of death? That’s what you’re saying? So, I should never again drive a car, go skiing, take a bath, eat sweets, leave my house, etc., etc., etc.,… Death from all of those things is preventable. If you can prolong your life for as long as possible, why would you not want to?
Says who? The fact of the matter is the majority of smokers live to around the age of average life expectancy. Most life-long smokers live into their 70s, a sizable portion live into their 80s, some live into their 90s, and a few live past 100. By giving up smoking, you might, perhaps, maybe, extend your life span - perhaps even significantly. But the odds are greatly in your favour that whether you smoke or not, you’re probably going to die sometime around the age of 75, give or take a few years.
What an absurd question. I could just as easily ask you why you’re so against living a long life that’s not worth living? It’s absurd.
Yeah, I’ve yet to meet a single smoker that does that, unless they’re trying to quit and have gone days on end without a cigarette - and even then, physical twitching is rare and usually only occurs in smokers who had an excessive habit. I know people who suffer the same symptoms when they haven’t had caffeine in as long, sugar, or even video games. Stop with the regurgitated anti-smoking propaganda nonsense already.
I know of maybe two, maybe three smokers with yellow stained finger tips. All of them have poor hygiene habits.
I know as many non-smokers with such an affliction as I do smokers.
Personally I don’t have a persistent cough. I know a few smokers that do. Practically all of them smoke to excess.
See above.
I’ve never met a single smoker in otherwise good health to which the above applies.
Says who, and how do they know? Or, are you just talking out of your ass again?
That’s your prerogative.
You know, the shameless and unmitigated audacity of anti-smokers never ceases to amaze me! The reason smoker’s are all gathered around doorways IS BECAUSE YOU PUT THEM THERE!!!!!! There was the option for establishments and workplaces to provide smokers with separately ventilated smoking rooms, But that wasn’t good enough for the anti-smoking lobby! There HAD to be a total ban, with NO tolerance or accommodation whatsoever. Why? Because the anti-smoking movement isn’t a public health issue, it’s a fascist, forced behaviour modification movement.
So, you whined and cried and took away the option of separately ventilated smoking areas that would reasonably accommodate both smokers and non-smokers alike, and now you whine and cry that smokers are gathering in the places THAT YOU’VE RELEGATED THEM TO!!!
Pathetic.
I’m sorry if 4 seconds of exposure to ridiculously diluted trace levels of chemicals on the order of 1 part in several billion every time you walk through a doorway is too much for you to bear, but perhaps you should have thought about that when your ilk were whining like little babies until you got your way and forced all the smokers out into those doorways?
Listen to yourself! Your explanation is self-contradictory. It makes no sense - typical anti-smoker rubbish…. You’re saying the nerve endings become clogged with nicotine, not allowing signals to pass, and so twitching happens. Yet, when a smoker goes without a cigarette for an extended period time (nicotine levels in the body decrease) this is when the twitching occurs??? You further claim that increasing the levels of nicotine in the system alleviates the condition. Huh? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? If nicotine clogged nerve endings are the culprit, shouldn’t the symptoms become better as nicotine levels fall, and worse as they rise???
And, if you “don’t notice it”, then who cares? There’s nicotine in tomatoes and egg-plants, among other vegetables. Logically, the same symptoms must be occurring in people who eat such foods, even if they don’t notice it, but who cares? It’s obviously not occurring to such a degree to pose any serious detrimental health effects.
It is anti-smoking propaganda! It’s the ACSH FOR PETE’S SAKE! See: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/american_council_on_science_and_health.html
Notice who their top contributers are???
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/ACSH-Koop.htm
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q4/ashes.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/ACSH-Employee-View.htm
But you don’t even need to bother with all of that, you should be able to see for yourself:
Take a look at that site for God’s sake and open your eyes. It’s nothing but unsubstantiated proclamation. They cite no sources at all. And, they are clearly engaged in thinly veiled attempts at inciting undue fear and hysteria. Take a look at this page for instance: http://thescooponsmoking.org/xhtml/effects/shy-dragerSyndrome.php
Are you kidding me? It’s ONE damn sentence that is nothing but an empty proclamation. I could put a web page up that contains one sentence that says: “Orange juice will cause you to grow a third eye in the middle of your forehead.” Would that make it true?
Then they go on to talk about all of these exceedingly rare diseases, such as “reflex sympathetic dystrophy” that smoking effects in an adverse way. So what? A million different things effect a million different diseases adversely. Diabetics can’t eat sugar, and if you consume too much sugar as a non-diabetic, you increase your chances of developing adult onset diabetes. So, by the same logic, sugar is necessarily bad… except that… oh, yeah… you DIE if you completely cut sugar out of your diet. How many people have you ever heard of with “reflex sympathetic dystrophy”? How many have you ever heard of with diabetes? It’s fear mongering, nothing more. Even though about 20% of the population smokes (over 60 million people in the U.S.) I’ve never heard of a single person with reflex sympathetic dystrophy - I’m sure they’re out there - but I’ve never heard of one. I think it logical to conclude that the disorder is exceedingly rare. So, why should I be overly concerned with how smoking affects it? Answer: I shouldn’t.
And, stop with the attempted insertion of logical fallacies, your “conspiracy theorist” business is an attempt to inject a red herring. As a matter of fact, I do believe we landed on the moon. But, even if I didn’t, what would that have to do with the topic being discussed, or the validity of my opinions in relation to this topic?
There is a very, very slim chance that my spouse will ever end up on a hospital bed dying from lung cancer - an even slimmer chance that if such were to occur, it would be due to my smoking.
When did I point out a typo? Show me please… yeah, that’s what I thought. Failed geography lesson? Huh? I presented sources (that you specifically asked for by the way) and your error in mistaking Michigan for Massachusetts wasn’t a “failed geography lesson” it was a clear indication that you didn’t read the material provided upon your own request, thus neglecting to inform yourself of the argument being presented. If you’re going to misrepresent arguments, I’m going to call you on it - if you don’t like it, tough - stop arguing.
What? You think that you should just be able to present any information you feel like, no matter how valid, no matter how logical, no matter if it makes sense or not, or in how much error, and expect to win the argument - much less be taken seriously?
Doesn’t surprise me… it’s typical anti-smoker attitude.
Wow, you’re really some piece of work, you know that? The sheer audacity is staggering. I’m the ONLY person involved in this discussion that has so far provided ANY SOURCES AT ALL to back up my arguments.
As for the information regarding the effects of nicotine on the nervous system, I will try to explain it again. It is not contradictory.
Picture a nerve ending as a straw. The end is open and allows the electrical signal to pass freely in and out of the nerve. As you smoke, nicotine is carried by the blood system through all the nerves to the nerve ending and rests on the sides of the straw. As long as new nicotine is being carried to the nerve ending, everything is great. As soon as you put out that one cigarette, the nicotine that has been building up on the sides of the straw, collapses and covers the opening. Thus limiting the ability for the nerve ending to receive the signals from the nerve sensors. This causes the shaking. When you light up a second cigarette and start smoking it, the new influx of nicotine in the blood once again pushes open the collapsed nicotine at the end of the straw and adds more nicotine to it. After you stop smoking that cigarette, the nicotine again collapses and fills in the whole.
I did not say that increasing nicotine in the system alleviates the symptoms in the way that the problem is going away; I said that it alleviates the symptoms as long as you are still adding new levels of nicotine, because it temporarily re-opens the nerve ending. Once that cigarette is put out, the nicotine collapses and covers the ending again. I apologize if this still isn’t clear, but I don’t really know how else to explain it. If you stop smoking all together, say quit cold turkey, you will start to get the twitching as all the built up nicotine collapses and fills in the nerve ending. After a few days, weeks, months or what ever (depending on your overall health and your body’s ability to heal) the nicotine will be carried away from your nerve endings from the blood and get filtered out through your liver and kidneys and eventually your waste system will excrete it from your body. As this process takes place, the twitching will start to subside. Hopefully this helps explain it a bit more, but if not just let me know what part(s) you do not understand and I will try again.
As far as “if you don’t notice it, who cares?” question: You should care. Most of the time you cannot feel when something is wrong in your body until the damage has already been done. Just because you feel fine, doesn’t mean you aren’t sick. Take AIDS for example. This disease is very real, and can be very fatal, but you have no idea that you have it until the common cold almost kills you… Cancer works in much the same way. Depending on the type of cancer, you may feel a decrease in your energy levels, but other than that, you generally feel fine until the cancer cells start shutting down different organs.
The nicotine levels found in foods are normally digested by the stomach acids and not carried through the blood stream as direct nicotine. Your body uses what ever enzymes it needs from the nicotine (that the acids separated) and throws the rest away in the form of stool. Smoking cigarettes causes the pure nicotine to enter the blood stream and the body has no way of breaking it down at that point (as I said earlier though, it will remove it once the blood stream stops receiving new levels of nicotine)
Moving on…
Here is some information from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which is wholly funded by the US Federal Government (which, by the way, the Government makes more money from tobacco related taxes than any other source, so why would they be supportive of something that could affect their revenue? Seeing as how you like to discredit every single anti-smoking source based on who pays their bills)
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html
Sure the data is also over 10 years old, but hey, if you can use it, why can’t I? I really highly doubt that tobacco has become healthier in the last decade.
There is also some good info on the Center for Disease Control site:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm
But again, you will try to discredit their findings even though they are funded by the government too.
The reason why I said you sound like a conspiracy theorist is because, by definition:
Conspiracy theorist: someone who postulates on the existence of secret agreements between two or more people or government to perform unlawful acts.
Every site I quote you seem to think is out to get big tobacco because apparently all their money comes from people who have some big financial gain from getting people to quit, like drug companies. But wouldn’t a drug company make more money selling drugs to sick people than to healthy people? Why would these companies spend money to try to convince people to quit? Sure they make money by selling patches and other stop-smoking medications, but in the long run, they would make a lot more money by not funding these anti-smoking organizations in the first place and instead selling pain relievers and what not that can mask the symptoms. So it just doesn’t make logical sense for these companies to do this, hence the conspiracy theory.
Also, one of the funding partners for the ACSH was (is) the Anheuser-Busch Foundation. Doesn’t smoking and drinking kinda go hand in hand? Why would an alcohol company want people to quit smoking? It doesn’t make any sense. And what does Kraft have to gain from people quitting? And General Electric? I don’t know of any product they sell that would be affected either way by smoking (except maybe smoke detectors – but even then they would want people to smoke so that they could sell more detectors…) So what kind of secret agreement could these companies possibly have with the ACSH to get people to stop smoking? No one gains financially from it, and some may even be hurt by it.
You say that you are the only one providing links in this discussion to back up your arguments, but all your links are links that attempt to discredit the links I provided. Surely you must have some links to scientific journals or something of that nature that supports your idea that cigarettes do not cause cancer, which is the actual question in, um… question… You mentioned one near the beginning of this page, but it is a dead link now, so I have no idea what it was trying to say. Aside from the links you provided to try and shoot my sources down, you only showed: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm
Which talks a lot about weather smoking causes cancer or increases the risk of contracting cancer. (This is what I was referring to when I said it was arguing semantics earlier). Funny thing is that almost all the references this article has are references that state smoking does cause cancer.
Ex:
• Pisani P, Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Estimates of the worldwide mortality from 25 cancers in 1990, Int J Cancer 1999 Sep 24;83(1):18-29; “Tobacco smoking and chewing are almost certainly the major preventable causes of cancer today.”
• American Thoracic Society, Cigarette smoking and health.. , Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 153(2):861-5 1996; “Cigarette smoking remains the primary cause of preventable death and morbidity in the United States.”
• Nordlund LA, Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden, Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; “Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women.”
• Skurnik Y, Shoenfeld Y Health effects of cigarette smoking, Clin Dermatol 1998 Sep-Oct;16(5):545-56 “Cigarette smoking, the chief preventable cause of illness and death in the industrialized nations.”
(Emphasis theirs, not mine)
The link you provided regarding the arsenic levels in water simply talked about what the EPA had set as an acceptable drinking level, and that all US water systems must comply with that amount by January 2006. So chances are, water is now safe to drink in the US! YA!! You showed nothing about the average amount of arsenic in an average cigarette. So what links have you provided to back up your original claim about the relationship between smoking and cancer?
PS: These posts would look shorter (and better) if the page was formatted wider
Yadda, yadda, yadda… your contention is that more of a clogging agent causes less of a clog, and less of clogging agent causes more of a clog. This is highly counter-intuitive. Please provide a source that documents the mechanics of such an odd process. I can find nothing.
By the way, nicotine is non-ferrous, and such minuscule amounts should operate as a piss-poor insulator to be sure… So, I think you’re likely talking about chemical signals, and not electrical ones?
Yeah, and that’s my point. It’s self-contradictory. Your contention is that nicotine intake causes a clog which is responsible for the symptom. But, more of the clogging agent equals less of a clog, and an alleviation of the symptom, and vice versa. Unless you can back that up with a documented mechanism of how the nicotine is achieving such a bizarre act, then your explanation, on its face, is self-contradictory.
I understand it just fine. I just don’t think that you do. You appear to be retro-fitting your explanation as I find holes.
Hmmm… odd… since it’s been documented that dietary nicotine intake confounds nicotine level findings from tobacco inhalation in people. How do you figure that’s happening if the nicotine from vegetables isn’t entering the blood stream??? Also odd is the fact that dietary nicotine has been used as a natural remedy for depression for quite some time… again, odd if none of it is getting into the blood stream.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/6/437?
Perhaps you should give a rest to just making stuff up as you go along?
Here we go again! You antis never get tired of the same old canards do you?
The EPA findings that you post above were vacated in a federal U.S. court, and reprimanded by a congressional enquiry and the U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm
http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/EPA.html
It was allowed to stand on a technicality in appeals court by a judge who found the first court to have operated outside of its jurisdiction. But the appeals court DID NOT overturn the findings of the original court. I.e. - The original court said it was all a pack of lies and misrepresentions, the appeals court agreed with the federal court, but claimed that the federal court didn’t have the proper jurisdiction to make the finding.
I.e. - as far as the law is concerned, it’s all a pack of lies and misrepresentations, but because of a technicality, there’s not much they can do about it.
But, the anits just wont put it away. They keep bringin it out and bringing it out.
Its kind of pathetic that you didn’t try to discredit it yourself. Did you follow their sources? Their first citation is: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00021441.htm In the second paragraph they admit to basing the findings on SAMMEC data. Do you know what SAMMEC is? Probably not, because you’re an anti-smoker and don’t need to inform yourself as to the validity of the information you use to form your infallible opinions. SAMMEC is a computer program that GUESSES how many people die from certain things. SAMMEC data has been proven to be inherently flawed.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/sammec/newproof.htm
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/sammec.htm
http://www.nycclash.com/ArticlesFolder/SAMMEC.html
Wonderful. By that definition I would hope you also count yourself as a conspiracy theorist. Anyone who didn’t would have to be a complete moron.
Of course it makes sense. Big-pharma gains huge amounts of money selling tobacco cessation products, each of which are known to have very poor success rates. Big-Pharma doesn’t want smokers to quit… it wants them to try to quit… and keep trying. How does it do this? By keeping everyone terrified, and making available a myriad of products that fail more often than they work.
Example:
Joe Smoker sees all of the irrational propaganda, and is taken in by the mass induced hysteria. He thinks “Man, I gotta quit right now, or I’m going to die!” So, he tires to quit, but, finding it difficult, decides to give nicotine gum a shot at making the transition a little easier for him. Cha-ching! Money in the pocket of Big-Pharma. Of course, the chances are great that Joe Smoker, gum or no gum, isn’t going to be successful in his attempt. Pretty soon, he’s smoking again.
Some time passes, and Joe Smoker becomes fearful again and decides to give it another go. “Well, the gum didn’t work,” he thinks “maybe I’ll do better on the patch?” Cha-ching! More money in the pockets of Big-Pharma. Same story though - the patch doesn’t work, and after a while Joe is smoking again. Later on, Joe decides to give it another go. Of course, knowing that the gum and the patch were unsuccessful, Joe brings out the big guns and goes looking for a prescription for Zyban - CHA-CHING! and on it goes.
You’re not making sense here?!?! Uhhh, Anheuser-Busch might possibly find some benefit in a few ACSH studies that find health benefits in alcohol consumption perhaps? Same with Kraft and GE in regards to their products. Who knows?
I don’t get it… your contention is that in order for the ACSH to be reasonably suspected of bias, 100% of their funders must necessarily have an interest in showing tobacco in a bad light? Why?
That makes no sense.
It’s called operational bias, or incentive based bias. Having a dependency on any agent that has a financial stake in your findings automatically casts suspicion on those findings. The findings have to be thrown out as being useful in arriving at any solid conclusions - Especially in the field of epidemiology, which is extremely open and vulnerable to such biases.
If a researcher funded by a tobacco company released an epidemiological study that showed cigarettes to be a super-health supplement, you’d be right to view it with suspicion. (and you wouldn’t be a “conspiracy theorist” because of your suspicion) And, it works both ways. Pharma. companys have a huge financial stake in keeping people terrified of tobacco. The findings of any agency that is supported by the pharmaceutical industry must be viewed with the same suspicion.
Cancer failed to be induced in animal studies after exposing them to ridiculous amounts of mainstream smoke for extended periods:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=8616820&cmd=showdetailview
Low dose radiation is a necessary factor in cancer development (I.e-smoking only a co-factor which CAN NOT play a role in cancer development if radiation exposure is not present)