A very sobering post, erie. I wish you well and I hope you get through this, whatever the odds may be.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should cigarettes be banned?
- Thread starter acronym
- Start date
If it makes you feel any better, your posts don't encourage me much about human nature either.Quote from neophyte321:
I gotta tell you ... every one of your posts sends shivers down my spine ....
Thank you for that ..... You've put me back in Russia during Stalin's time, I now understand it better.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the majority fully understands you and YOUR MOVEMENT ....
Here's your movement:
Phase One: KILL ALL GODS....
Phase Two: REPLACE THOSE GODS WITH YOURSELVES
you see, you're doomed to failed... because ultimately you inspire NO ONE ..
Furthermore, I don't even know what that means. Inspiration? What are you talking about?! Does smoking into someone else's face inspire you? Please show me where I wrote that tobacco should be banned, if that is what concerns you.Quote from neophyte321:
...Here's your movement:
Phase One: KILL ALL GODS....
Phase Two: REPLACE THOSE GODS WITH YOURSELVES
you see, you're doomed to failed... because ultimately you inspire NO ONE ..
It seems to me that you selected the wrong boilerplate platitude off the shelf for this particular discussion. Your god and flag arguments have all the depth of a mud puddle.
P.S. As for trans fats, since it is to this post of mine to which you responded, are you aware that, unlike other dietary fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health? These fats are used by manufacturers without regard to the significant health hazard to the consumer because they are cheap. Now what was that about God?
The mammoth of all passive smoking studies, however, and probably the largest that will ever appear because of its enormous cost and effort, came from the labs of research professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Published in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003, this 39-year analysis of 35,561 Californians found no âcausal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality,â adding, however âa small effectâ canât be ruled out.
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 â when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges â the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. Thatâs not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?
http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 â when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges â the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. Thatâs not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?
http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html
Quote from nutmeg:
What are other causes of "lower lobe lung damage"? Just curious.
Nutmeg, no disrespect (really), but I will not be drawn into this debate because the principal study you refer to was funded in part by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which is an arm of Philip Morris and other tobacco companies. Michael Thun, MD, head of epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society, advised that "While this study is flawed, there are at least 50 very reputable studies that find a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer and at least 50 others that find an increased risk of heart disease."Quote from nutmeg:
The mammoth of all passive smoking studies, however, and probably the largest that will ever appear because of its enormous cost and effort, came from the labs of research professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Published in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003, this 39-year analysis of 35,561 Californians found no âcausal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality,â adding, however âa small effectâ canât be ruled out.
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 â when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges â the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. Thatâs not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?
http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondhand-smoke-study-raises-ire
Forgive me, but I place as much value on studies related to smoking that are funded by tobacco companies as I do on studies regarding climate change funded by oil companies.