Cigarettes - do you buy into all the hype?
- Thread starter getts
- Start date
Are you saying that the tobacco companies are saying "Cigs don't kill"?
No, I am saying that gov't says Cigs do kill, and have forced the tobacco companies to say that as well.
I say that there is no real scientific evidence to prove this....even less on ETS (2nd hand smoke)
I say that there is no correlation between smoking and heart diseasse nor between smoking and cancer.
I say that there is no real scientific evidence to prove this....even less on ETS (2nd hand smoke)
I say that there is no correlation between smoking and heart diseasse nor between smoking and cancer.
Last edited:
And that is based on what?
The fact that, according to the National Cancer Institute, 70% of all cancers occur in non-smokers. Aslo, if you know anything about heart disease, you know that Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the U.S.
Smokers represented nearly 50% of the adult male/female population for several decades in the United States according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking among adults decreased dramatically from 42% in 1965 to 26% in 1994. During this period, smoking among the adult male population declined from 52% to 28%; adult female smoking declined from 34% to 23%. In 1994, 48 million adults 18 years of age and older (25.3 million men, 22.7 million women) were current smokers in the United States.
If nearly 50% of the population smoked, you would expect at least nearly 50% of the people who die would be smokers, if smoke has nothing to do with dying. It stands to reason we should start suspecting smoke kills smokers only when over 50% of those who die in a given year are smokers. By their own statistics, only about 20% of the deaths are smokers.
At the end of World War II, about 90 per cent of the adult male population of Britain smoked. If lung cancer takes about 20-25 years to show, as some claim, then by 1965, or 1970 at the latest, we would have seen an epidemic of truly catastrophic proportions. One in every eleven British men would have been dying of lung cancer. This simply did not happen.
There hardly appears to be the profound danger anti-smoking advocates would have us believe. As a matter of fact, it would appear you have a greater chance of dying if you're a non-smoker!
In another look at the numbers, 38% of the people who smoke live beyond 80 years old, 50% live beyond 75, and 85% live beyond 65. This compares to 43% of non-smokers living beyond 80 years old, 50% of non-smokers live beyond 75, and 85% of non-smokers live beyond 65. The government and anti-smoking lobby can't explain this disparity, so they lie.
Smokers represented nearly 50% of the adult male/female population for several decades in the United States according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking among adults decreased dramatically from 42% in 1965 to 26% in 1994. During this period, smoking among the adult male population declined from 52% to 28%; adult female smoking declined from 34% to 23%. In 1994, 48 million adults 18 years of age and older (25.3 million men, 22.7 million women) were current smokers in the United States.
If nearly 50% of the population smoked, you would expect at least nearly 50% of the people who die would be smokers, if smoke has nothing to do with dying. It stands to reason we should start suspecting smoke kills smokers only when over 50% of those who die in a given year are smokers. By their own statistics, only about 20% of the deaths are smokers.
At the end of World War II, about 90 per cent of the adult male population of Britain smoked. If lung cancer takes about 20-25 years to show, as some claim, then by 1965, or 1970 at the latest, we would have seen an epidemic of truly catastrophic proportions. One in every eleven British men would have been dying of lung cancer. This simply did not happen.
There hardly appears to be the profound danger anti-smoking advocates would have us believe. As a matter of fact, it would appear you have a greater chance of dying if you're a non-smoker!
In another look at the numbers, 38% of the people who smoke live beyond 80 years old, 50% live beyond 75, and 85% live beyond 65. This compares to 43% of non-smokers living beyond 80 years old, 50% of non-smokers live beyond 75, and 85% of non-smokers live beyond 65. The government and anti-smoking lobby can't explain this disparity, so they lie.
Britain says that 100,000 people die every year from smoking related deseases, but there are like 13 million smokers there so as a percentage, 100k seems miniscule and makes you wonder what all the fuss is about :bugeye:
Some people feel the pleasure of a smoke is worth the consequences down the road? Who are we to argue with them?
I don't give a damn if a company sells rat poison to customers in the form of eye drops, at least as long people know what they are buying. Anyone who doesn't know that tobacco is bad for you has to be clinically retarded. Let them buy whatever the hell they want.
Just don't send me the bill when they get sick and die.
I don't give a damn if a company sells rat poison to customers in the form of eye drops, at least as long people know what they are buying. Anyone who doesn't know that tobacco is bad for you has to be clinically retarded. Let them buy whatever the hell they want.
Just don't send me the bill when they get sick and die.
Getts, you are a moron. Smoking quite clearly is not good for your health.
Leaving aside the research into the actual effects of tobacco, it's ingrediehtd and inhaling tobacco smoke:
Smokers die, on average, several years earlier than non-smokers. The more heavily people smoke and the stronger the tobacco they smoke, the younger they tend to be when they die. This is not proof that smoking kills people. It is very strong evidence however. Until someone finds another explanation it will be reasonable to think the two are very closely connected.
Smokers die, on average, several years earlier than non-smokers. The more heavily people smoke and the stronger the tobacco they smoke, the younger they tend to be when they die. This is not proof that smoking kills people. It is very strong evidence however. Until someone finds another explanation it will be reasonable to think the two are very closely connected.
Thersites said:
Did you even read what I wrote??? I will repost it....
In another look at the numbers, 38% of the people who smoke live beyond 80 years old, 50% live beyond 75, and 85% live beyond 65. This compares to 43% of non-smokers living beyond 80 years old, 50% of non-smokers live beyond 75, and 85% of non-smokers live beyond 65. The government and anti-smoking lobby can't explain this disparity, so they lie.
You must just listen to the drivel on the Communist Brodcast System and not do any actual research.
Sure what the media tells you lines right up with what the media tells you. It is the true facts that I was hoping to discuss.
I personaly think you'v been smoking to much :m: ,tell me what THE HOLY FUCK are you on,maybe i should smoke sum 2?? 
You made an assertion and gave figures, without giving any source, Getts. If you check just about any medically oriented site or journal you will find it confirms what I said- nonsmokers live a lot longer than smokers. Most of them give reasons for thinking tobacco is bad for the health too, but that is enough. Unless you can provide an authoritative source with a convincing explanation for the discrepancy and a convincing explanation why no-one else has found their explanation then most people will think smoking is bad for the health.
Thersites said:
I believe that you have done exactly what you accused me of.....
My source is the CDC cdc.gov website. Feel free to peruse their website to verify this data. Can you please give a reference for your statment?
You should also be able to see that most of these 'premature' deaths of smokers occur after age between 60 and 80 years of age. That does not really seem to indicate premature death. Expecially considering the projected lief expectany for folks born in the 60's was 69 years old....
Communist Hamster said:
Pure nonsense. What could be healthier than coating your lungs in tar? Did you know that we are born with critically low tar-levels in our lungs? Smoking helps correct this.
The blackening of gums, yellowing of teeth, and shortening of breath are all signs of excellent health. Don't even get me started on the benefits of nicotine, but do mull this one over, it's only when smokers don't get enough of it that they start to get the shakes!
Let's all have 3 hacking bloody coughs to man's best friend, the cigarette!
Mystech said:
So are you trying to say that there are no benefits to nicotine???
Your stupid-assness is begining to show!~!
Check with the CDC again!! Nicotine helps memory and reduces the effects of Alzhimers! I can go on and on about hte benefits of nicotine if neccesary.
getts said:
Not at all, sir! I'm trying to sing it's praises! Nothing beats that wild-eyed desperate stare or that sense of impending doom and urgent need that keeps you alert and active first thing in the morning!
Another quick fact: Cocaine is a great anti-depressant (if used regularly in the correct dosage), it makes you more confident, more social, and even more active outgoing and funny! It's also great at night, dilated pupils help you see in the dark - like a cat! And like a cat you'll be able to jump three times your own body length and claw out a police officer's eyes! Eer, I mean, defend yourself from rapists and degenerate druggies looking for a hit.
getts said:
Hehe, that's right, because you'd damn well remember where you put those cigarettes, otherwise you're gonna' throw something through the window and flee into the night in search of a convenience store, letting nothing and no one stand in your path.