Cigarettes - do you buy into all the hype?

ROTFLMAO. Some people were just born dumb. Others have suffered irreperable brain damage (say, from smoking two packs a day for 20 years). Still others played football in high school.

What's your excuse?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You fail to see the difference?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course, cigarrettes didn't kill my father. No, it was blood poisoning.

Of course he died of blood poisoning because his tissues were dying because of blood circulation problems.

So cigarettes didn't kill him i guess.

Also he had to cough when he wasn't smoking. So cigarettes cured him of a cough. Cigarettes are medicin. Everybody should take them with a cough.

Oh yes, the circulation problem wasn't actually the result of smoking. But it was a genetic predisposition that was made worse by smoking. He could have lived at least a decade longer if he had stopped. He also would have died with legs, and not without.

yes, cigarettes do not kill...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, can you prove that assertion? If not, then you're just exactly what this thread is all about ...that you've been brainwashed into thinking that cigarette smoking is the killer or a major factor.

Baron Max

 

The Specialists in question have seen many cases and based upon their experience they have noticed that quitting smoking eleviates the symptons to a high degree.

As a biologist I have done many experiments. If the outcome of a particular experiment is consistent in a statistical manner we call that proof.

There is no difference here.

 

So might/would moving to a better climate with less or no air pollution.

And so we're right back to where we started ....it's only what "the specialists" say and we beleive it. And worse, for every one of them that says one thing, there are just as many who say otherwise. Proof? Nah, just brainwashing bullshit.

Baron Max

 

Interestingly it seems to be you who is brainwashed into thinking cigarettes are harmless.

(because all you can say is that people who disagree are brainwashed)

 

The specialists base what they say on observation and statistics. Find a specialit- or even many nonspecialist doctors- who says that smpoking does not cause or induce earlier attacks of a great many illnesses.
The UK statistics come from the entire population: deaths among smokers happen earlier than among nonsmokers everywhere in the UK. Unless you can find some unique factor which affects smokers and not nonsmokers it is a very reasonable general inference that smoking is a direct cause of earlier death. Other factors can cause earlier deaths: that does not alter the effect of smoking.
The claim that governments have an interest in peole not smoking is absurd: the Uk government makes an enormous amount from taxes on tobacco and- given that smokers tend to die after or near the ends of their working lives- smokers receive much less in pensions than nonsmokers.

 

Alright, folks, I cannot (nor can anyone) prove a negative.....I cannot 'prove' that smoking does not cause cancer, heart disease or herpes....So, the burden of proof falls to others to prive, imperically, that smoking does cause something in particular. Let's take cancer - it seems to be the most associated disease with smoking.

Here are some figures for you to chew on while trying to prove that smoking causes cancer. Here are your 'statistics' that prove how much cancer is caused by smoking.....

The Oxford Atlas of the World, ISBN 0-19-520955-9, published in 1992, gives figures for cigarette consumption in different countries during the time period 1986-1988. The figures are in annual consumption of cigarettes per capita.

Country: Consumption:
Hungary 2515
Japan 2510
USA 2020
South Africa 1950
UK 1700
France 1690
USSR 1650
Brazil 1200
Philipines 1150
Venezuela 950
Zaire 150
India 100

So, based on this, if smoking causes lung cancer, it should be easy enough to expect that lung cancer death rates, by country, should follow rather closely the same exact same list, right? SPMONKEY, as a biologist, you would say that the proof would be there, right? I mean surely, if all your assertations about smoking and cancer are true then it must follow suit!

the World Bank puts out a book which gives statistics for a number of countries which give disease statistics in a form known as "45Q15". The "45Q15" number represents the percentage risk of someone who is 15 years old dying from a particular disease by the time he or she is 60. Figures are not available for all countries; such important ones as the former USSR and India either don't report at all or don't break down deaths from cancer into different types of cancer. Never-the-less, we do have LCDR's for some of the countries for which we have smoking consumption figures. All of the following statistics are in 45Q15 format, which means they are risk figures in percentages.

In the United States, the male LCDR is 1.4%, the female risk is 0.7%. Hungary, with the highest rate of cigarette consumption of any country, has a male LCDR of 2.4; female 0.5%. Hungary shares the highest rates with its neighbor, Czechoslovakia, where the male rate is 2.4% and the female rate is 0.3%. Prima facie, these figures indicate that a high smoking rate is associated with a high LCDR. Or do they?

Let's look at Japan. As we have seen, Japan is practically tied with Hungary for the highest rate of cigarette consumption in the world. It turns out, however, that the male LCDR in Japan is 0.5%. That's approximately one-fifth the rate in Hungary; approximately one-third the U.S. rate. The LCDR for females in Japan is also astonishingly low, 0.2%.

Furthermore, although they have the highest smoking rate of any major nation, the Japanese are remarkably healthy! At birth, a Japanese male has a whopping life expectancy of 75 years (as opposed to 72 in the U.S.A.). Japanese girls, at birth, have a life expectancy of 80 years. Those are the highest life expectancies in the entire world.

Another heavy smoking nation is China. The authors of the World Bank book tell us so, and a recent PBS special concentrated on the "alarming" rate of smoking in China. In fact, in China, the government grows tobacco and receives much of its revenue from cigarette sales. In China, however, the LCDR is about the same as in Japan: 0.56% for men; 0.39% for women, in 1988, the last year for which we have World Bank information.

Interestingly, some nations in the tropical and sub-tropical belts have very low LCDR's, notwithstanding evidence suggesting that smoking is widespread in these countries. In Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean where tobacco is an important crop, the LCDR for males is only 0.4; for females it is 0.1. In Barbados, the male LCDR is 0.5; the female rate is zero. In the Seychelles, an island paradise in the Indian Ocean, the male LCDR is 0.4; the female LCDR is 1.0, making that nation the only one in the entire world, where the female rate exceeds the male rate.

At least one researcher has suggested that the low LCDR's in the tropical and sub-tropical countries are attributable to the exposure of the residents to sunshine, which raises vitamin D levels. That theory, however, fails to explain the very low LCDR's in China and Japan which are not tropical or sub-tropical countries.

So, how can you ever prove that smoking causes lung cancer?????

 

getts, a word from the 'wise', GIVE OVER...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Huh???

 

why do some people smoke cigarettes? does it taste good?

 

They first buy into the hype and then get hooked to the nicotine.

 

There is no hype....I LOVE cigarettes!! They are enjoyable and they taste great. What is the 'hype' that you speak of?? I see you chose not to reply to the statistics...interesting.

 

I have never seen anyone lick out an ashtray. I have seen people lick out icecream bowls.

 

And your point is??? I also love to take a shit.....that doesn't mean I want to lick my asshole!?!?!? Why do you have to lick something to like it??

 

You are making the mistake you criticised others for making, Getts: you are assuming that smoking is the only factor that affects death rates. You are making the even bigger error of assuming that countries with high death rates from lung cancer should correlate with high rates of cigarette consumption: quite possibly some such countries are better at treating lung cancer so fewer people die of it; equally what people die of is not always the actual cause of their death. People die of massive overdoses of painkillers but are said to die of the cancers that would have kiled them a few hours later; people die of pneumonia as a side-effect of the cancer they have. The cancer specialist puts down pneumonia as cause of death because it makes his record look better.There are too many umknown variables.
Comparing raw data across a variety of countries just isn't reliable. Comparing death rates for smokers and nonsmokers within the same country is the best way to check and they persistently show that nonsmokers live longer. If you enjoy smoking and are happy to take the risk, do so, but don't pretend that it isn't a risk.

 

If there is a risk, it is so miniscule that it does not bear repeating.....the facts just don't back up the fiction.

I am not making the same mistake.....I am simply saying that if you can quote statistics that only account for smoking, then you shoulod do it on these.....what you are saying is that you want to only look at smoking when it helps the case against tobacco, but want to include all sorts of other things when it hurts your defense.....

 

So you are just pretending that cigarettes are harmless so you can sleep at night and don't have to worry that you might have to go around with a oxygen tank everywhere you go in 30 years.

Oh yeah..alcohol also doesn't do damage to the liver.

 

haha, nnnnniiiiiiiiiiiicccccccceeeeeee,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m: