Smoking

[juststumps]

Imagine the reaction of the American people if I were to propose introducing a new product that would kill hundreds of thousands of people per year. We would demand that it be outlawed and I would be run out of town on a rail. :bang:

how about THOMAS EDISON and GEORGE WESTINGHOUSE ???? a lot of people get fried....i don't see the lights out!!!!!!

 

[juststumps]

Imagine the reaction of the American people if I were to propose introducing a new product that would kill hundreds of thousands of people per year. We would demand that it be outlawed and I would be run out of town on a rail. :bang:

didn't jeep discontinue the CJ series???? becuase they are dangerous??????yet you still drive one????? HMMMMMMMMMMM.......

 

[juststumps]

People who have bad eating habits. Are they cramming food down smokers throats?

no, becuase they eat it all....

 

[rebelman]

I eat second hand food all the time

 

[Chucky]

Yeah, I saw that, Dan, and I also saw Jim Lehrer sit there, with this most amazing look of incredulity look on his face the entire length of the 10-minute interview he had with the surgeon general as he made the wildest, most fantastical claims and assertions anyone could ever imagine from a supposed man of science and medicine.

It was so obvious from listening to the surgeon general’s responses to Lehrer’s questions that he’s nothing but a shill for the agenda-driven anti-tobacco crusaders. The only thing worse than an anti-tobacco crusader is a government-sponsored anti-tobacco crusader.

This guy actually said that secondhand smoke will kill you. He didn’t say that prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke will probably increase the risk of smoking-related diseases, which is much closer to the truth. He just came out with all these bold, unsubstantiated assertions that secondhand smoke kills. That’s pure, alarmist, propagandist codswallop.

And what scientific studies did he cite to back his outlandish claims? None. We’re just supposed to trust him because we’re just a bunch of sheep in the flock. Well, there are in fact many studies that both do and do not show a statistically significant correlation between secondhand smoke and smoking-related diseases. And there are also a number of meta-analyses (compilations of several studies) that do not significantly show a correlation at all.

Sorry, but it’s well known that the government, when it wants to take a position on something it doesn’t like -- oh, and I think the EPA is part of the government, ain’t it? – it has a habit of cherry picking studies to support its spurious claims. “Science,” when steeped in ideology and politics ain’t science at all – it’s propaganda.

So, what’s next for the alarmist nannies after tobacco is banned? Alcohol, I suppose. Then junk food. Hmmm, come to think of it, sex is risky too.

 

[spacemule]

So, what’s next for the alarmist nannies after tobacco is banned? Alcohol, I suppose. Then junk food. Hmmm, come to think of it, sex is risky too.

Red herring and strawman.

 

[Chucky]

Red herring and strawman.

Well, Rex, I've no doubt they'll ban red herrings due to the mercury contamination. Heavy metals - very, very unhealthful.

And the surgeon general told Jim Lehrer he'd prefer to have smoking outside buildings banned. Due to "drifting smoke."

Strawmen? Yeah, they'll get down to banning them eventually. Due to the "straw" component. Turns out straw is subject to pesticide and herbicide drift from adjacent crop applications.

We can't take any chances, people can be "killed" from pesticides.

 

[buff]

What I have said before is that I believe that everyone has the right to smoke a hole in their lung. What I do not like is when they ask medicare and medicade to plug it up. I just have never met a smoker who could pay his freight.

 

[buff]

What I have said before is that I believe everyone has the right to smoke a hole in their lung. What I do not like are smokers who look for medicare and medicaid to plug it up. I have just never met a smoker who could pay his freight.

 

[Chucky]

Well, OK, Buff, what about the 183 million Americans who are overweight or obese setting themselves up for heart disease? Should they pay their medical bills out-of-pocket?

 

[Ekka]

Are you smokers still carrying on?

My new bloke smokes, lots of blokes in this job smoke, lots of losers in this job too.

Statistically it's the lower socio economic demographic that smoke (less brains)!

 

[Vman]

Statistically it's the lower socio economic demographic that smoke (less brains)!

than i assume you are a smoker and poor....i derive that conclusion from your comment of "less brains".
your statement is such a lie and so un-true..."statistically" the majority of smokers began smoking before the mid-1980's.
LIVE IN A BIO-DOME!!

not for nothing, but if non-smokers stopped all the anti-smoking-naziness, smokers would most likely be more considerate of non-smokers. i believe i am a very considerate/responsible smoker (my posts to this thread are back in the beginning of the thread).....however, after reading all the BS on this thread, i am seriously thinking i am too considerate and maybe i should smoke anywhere where i am legally allowed to smoke and not give a hoot about being polite to non-smokers. my family will be my only exception. so keep all your BS comments up, u have just turned a considerate/responsible smoker into a smoker that will no longer have respect for non-smokers.

 

[spacemule]

than i assume you are a smoker and poor....i derive that conclusion from your comment of "less brains".
your statement is such a lie and so un-true..."statistically" the majority of smokers began smoking before the mid-1980's.
LIVE IN A BIO-DOME!!

not for nothing, but if non-smokers stopped all the anti-smoking-naziness, smokers would most likely be more considerate of non-smokers. i believe i am a very considerate/responsible smoker (my posts to this thread are back in the beginning of the thread).....however, after reading all the BS on this thread, i am seriously thinking i am too considerate and maybe i should smoke anywhere where i am legally allowed to smoke and not give a hoot about being polite to non-smokers. my family will be my only exception. so keep all your BS comments up, u have just turned a considerate/responsible smoker into a smoker that will no longer have respect for non-smokers.

That's a very mature attitude, Vman.

 

[buff]

If smokers have no respect for nonsmokers they should have some respect for themselves.

 

[Ekka]

Well that one worked a treat :hmm3grin2orange:

 

[Jumper]

So, what’s next for the alarmist nannies after tobacco is banned? Alcohol, I suppose. Then junk food. Hmmm, come to think of it, sex is risky too.

Tobacco won't be banned, the government here will just make it so expensive, inconvenient to obtain and use,and uncool to be associated with that most people won't want to take it up. Eventually all the smokers will die off prematurely. Prohibition for alcohol did not work, they can not regulate the use of dope so why would it work for tobacco? There are no public places left here where you can smoke, except in the open ie the street.

 

[b1rdman]

Yeah, I saw that, Dan, and I also saw Jim Lehrer sit there, with this most amazing look of incredulity look on his face the entire length of the 10-minute interview he had with the surgeon general as he made the wildest, most fantastical claims and assertions anyone could ever imagine from a supposed man of science and medicine.

It was so obvious from listening to the surgeon general’s responses to Lehrer’s questions that he’s nothing but a shill for the agenda-driven anti-tobacco crusaders. The only thing worse than an anti-tobacco crusader is a government-sponsored anti-tobacco crusader.

This guy actually said that secondhand smoke will kill you. He didn’t say that prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke will probably increase the risk of smoking-related diseases, which is much closer to the truth. He just came out with all these bold, unsubstantiated assertions that secondhand smoke kills. That’s pure, alarmist, propagandist codswallop.

And what scientific studies did he cite to back his outlandish claims? None. We’re just supposed to trust him because we’re just a bunch of sheep in the flock. Well, there are in fact many studies that both do and do not show a statistically significant correlation between secondhand smoke and smoking-related diseases. And there are also a number of meta-analyses (compilations of several studies) that do not significantly show a correlation at all.

Sorry, but it’s well known that the government, when it wants to take a position on something it doesn’t like -- oh, and I think the EPA is part of the government, ain’t it? – it has a habit of cherry picking studies to support its spurious claims. “Science,” when steeped in ideology and politics ain’t science at all – it’s propaganda.

So, what’s next for the alarmist nannies after tobacco is banned? Alcohol, I suppose. Then junk food. Hmmm, come to think of it, sex is risky too.

Yesterday after I saw that post I looked for an article I read a few months back. Unfortunately I couldn't find it because I knew a post like this would come up sooner or later.

It was an independent study on the alleged risks of second hand tobacco smoke. There was one interesting twist. This study did not research second hand smoke but instead researched the findings of countless other studies.

I did not find it surprising, though some may, that there was a night and day difference between the studies commissioned by the tobacco industry and ALL other studies, commissioned or not. I wish I had the numbers because they were remarkable.

 

[buff]

For those smokers who are worried about the government making it hard on you. Do you really need the government to tell you to stop? Another thing. Will you be passing the right to smoke on to your children?

 

[Vman]

That's a very mature attitude, Vman.

absolutley, as compared to some of the non-smokers views!!

 

[Vman]

If smokers have no respect for nonsmokers they should have some respect for themselves.

"Respect" is a two-way street