What's the point of smoking?

[gela]

So then why do smokers also get cancer? Well it goes like this. If a farmer ads something to make his crop grow better or faster, it also makes the unwanted weeds grow stronger and faster. therefore the damaged cells get the same "food fuel" as all the healthy cells. So smoking is helping all the cells get stronger and healthy, without discrimination.

You said smoking feeds cancer.

HAHA I win.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela You said smoking feeds cancer. HAHA I win.

Acturally I did not say it but was quoting a webpage - which I provided a link too. His opinon might be a wrong as your opinon. But you requested I provide links that might show that smoking has healthy effects also, so I posted a few (out of many). He said that the vitamin in smoke helps all cells to grow without discrimination, that is much different then saying that smoking caused cancer.

I never said that smokers do not get cancer, they are human just like anyone else and can get cancer just like non-smokers can get cancer.

Ha Ha , you lost again.

You often state that they have 600 to one million studies that link cancer or some other disease to smoking tobacco. The reason they have so many studies is logically because they never did prove their case with much satifaction. Why would people spend money for 500 studies if they already had 100 studies? I will answer that question - because the scientists conducting the latter 500 studies did not believe that the first 100 studies were good enough to prove it. The very fact they still scrabble to conduct more studies is clear evidence that scientists are not satisfied that all former studies did a good job of proving anything.

[gela]

Ha Ha , you lost again.

This amuses me, because you have failed to convice 1 person on this thread that smoking is healthy. So I fail to understand the 'again'. Especialy because your argument is plain unscientific and unlogical. All you are doing is screaming 'conspiracy theory'. I have no evidence on this entire thread that states otherwise..

btw. It was a joke. No need to get catty about it.

He said that the vitamin in smoke helps all cells to grow without discrimination, that is much different then saying that smoking caused cancer.

The path is irrevelent - it said that smokers are more likely to die from cancer.
That makes the epidemiology right.

Why would people spend money for 500 studies if they already had 100 studies?

Actualy, this is why I can't link you to a conclusive study.. or any study on lung cancer.

Because it was proven years ago.

I think you will find that all the studies I posted were on other diseases.. new diseases.. because thats actualy news.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela This amuses me, because you have failed to convice 1 person on this thread that smoking is healthy. So I fail to understand the 'again'. Especialy because your argument is plain unscientific and unlogical. All you are doing is screaming 'conspiracy theory'. I have no evidence on this entire thread that states otherwise.. btw. It was a joke. No need to get catty about it. The path is irrevelent - it said that smokers are more likely to die from cancer. That makes the epidemiology right. "it said", allow me to remind you that "it" is not me. Did I say I agree with that webpage? The so-called science of epidemiology is concidered non-trustworthy because such a study can contain random errors, systimatic errors, and could be bias. (even if they attempt to eliminate those factors). Everyone can confirm the evidence of millions of ads on TV every day with an anti-smoking message, along with the same message being aired by the news media, that is not a conspiracy theory, that is a for real conspiracy. How can you deny the factual evidence of that? Actualy, this is why I can't link you to a conclusive study.. or any study on lung cancer. Because it was proven years ago. I think you will find that all the studies I posted were on other diseases.. new diseases.. because thats actualy news.

I never made a claim that smoking can make you healthy.

[Technosoul]

Fact #1.

The so-called science of epidemiology is not totally trustworthy as a factual source because such studies can contain random errors, systimatic erros, and can be bias, even when they attempt to reduce those factors.

Such a study does not provide proof it only provides some stats to have faith in based on belief, moving it into a more religious kind of mentality.

Fact two. I never put forth a conspiracy theory, a theory is not the same thing as what you can observe in reality. Anyone can turn on TV and see millions of anti-smoking ads, and news media comments that smoking is unhealthy, that is a real conspiracy and not just a theory.

Glad you admitted you were just joking about winning this debate. Such truthfulness is refreshing.

[Technosoul]

This whole thing in the larger perspective is not just about me, the loner here at Volconvo. It has to do with all you taxpayers because the government is handing our millions in grants to these epidemilology businesses ( as well as other poll takers ) which monies could be used for some better kinds of real research for cures, or for stem cell research, or a decent health care system and to up upgrade the Vet hospitals. Of course the universities and private businesses love to get all that money to prove that smoking is linked to a disease that is most likely caused by fosil fuels. but it is a big waste of money, then they spend all that money for anti-smoking and anti-drug advertisments to "educate the public" via TV (public airways).

Why don't they budget cut that instead of our schools, and other social programs that are more important?

Look how any people are killed, injured, or become mentally ill because of a purposless war. If they are so concerned about health why not budget cut the war in Iraq?

Why don't they have a war on pot holes instead of pot smokers?

But no... our budget goes for attacking what someone thinks is evil instead fixing things that would realistically make America a better place to live in.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Techno Fact two. I never put forth a conspiracy theory, a theory is not the same thing as what you can observe in reality. Anyone can turn on TV and see millions of anti-smoking ads, and news media comments that smoking is unhealthy, that is a real conspiracy and not just a theory.

Sorry Techno, but without any remote proof that all these people are planning together to tell people that smoking is bad for your health, it's a theory, not a fact. It won't stand up in a court of law, it's not proven, you are making imaginary links. Tailor-made to the phrase 'conspiracy theory'.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W Sorry Techno, but without any remote proof that all these people are planning together to tell people that smoking is bad for your health, it's a theory, not a fact. It won't stand up in a court of law, it's not proven, you are making imaginary links. Tailor-made to the phrase 'conspiracy theory'.

You might be correct in the sense that they did not all get together ahead of time an agree to stereotype cigarette smoke as an threat.

But even if they jump on the bandwagon just because it is a popular trend does not mean that they are not apart of the conspiracy, as in Germany not everyone was in on the orginating the master plan to stereotype Jews, but the fact that they started goose stepping along with repeated promos still made them a part of the fullfillment of that conspiracy, perhaps in a kind of hynotic and uncousious way.

The link is they read the same or simular materials. Perhaps?

But I am not asking anyone to believe in a theory because it has links, not asking anyone believe it because I said so. My point is that you all have two eye balls and can look at the TV to prove it for yourself.

PS - Peace pipe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kizzume]

Technosoul: Do you want paint companies to start putting lead in the paint again because there hasn't been enough proof that it's bad?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul You might be correct in the sense that they did not all get together ahead of time an agree to stereotype cigarette smoke as an threat. But even if they jump on the bandwagon just because it is a popular trend does not mean that they are not apart of the conspiracy, as in Germany not everyone was in on the orginating the master plan to stereotype Jews, but the fact that they started goose stepping along with repeated promos still made them a part of the fullfillment of that conspiracy, perhaps in a kind of hynotic and uncousious way. The link is they read the same or simular materials. Perhaps? But I am not asking anyone to believe in a theory because it has links, not asking anyone believe it because I said so. My point is that you all have two eye balls and can look at the TV to prove it for yourself. PS - Peace pipe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What kind of study would prove to you that smoking causes cancer and heart disease? Life expectanxy shortens when you smoke and increases when you don't. Sure there are a gazillion variables in everyone's life, but the smoking was a constant.

Types of studies:

http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/doyle.html

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe What kind of study would prove to you that smoking causes cancer and heart disease? Life expectanxy shortens when you smoke and increases when you don't. Sure there are a gazillion variables in everyone's life, but the smoking was a constant. Types of studies: How Medical Facts Are Developed

All kinds of studies are useful.

The link you provided was a little bias because it spent most of it's page space promoting one one kind of "science" used for medical research.

The labortory test can show us how one chemical can inter-react another chemical and what the outcome would be. Which is like testing to see if a hot stove will burn your finger. The evidence is pretty clear.
That is the only research that can produce factural data about something.

However, the human body is like an eco-system, a lot of activity is going on. And so non-chemical causes could effect the operaton of that system, called the human mind/body.

The human body (also animals) has a built-in system for self-testing and for self-healing, which involves the immune system. With a built in alarm system (pain). But the self-testing / self-healing system that operates internally can get messed up when we are over stemulated by un-natural amounts of emotional stress. And sometimes if we subsitute medical drugs for what our immune system would produce for us.

The next method is observation. If you observed that 5 people drank water out of a pond and 3 of them got very sick, then we naturally would fear drinking from that pond of water. That kind of fear-based prevention is useful even if you conducted no test to prove that the water was unsafe. But you are not doing so based on facts or proof, unless you tested the water in a lab to find out what (if anything) is in the water.

Early primates ( that is, human beings ) became nomadic and as we moved from one place to another we had to test new kinds of foods to eat. They would run a test on their self, they would eat a tiny bit and wait to see what would happen, watching their body with keen awareness. Then they might sample a larger amount (dose) and via awarness they would watch to see what effect that had. Thus we were able to select what is good to eat and what is not good, the evil fruit from the good fruit. Through that process we also found cures or treatments for illnesses, and even what things would get us high.

Cooking food together, a task women were mostly involved in, was the beginning of all our modern science. She became the tribe's "mid-wife".
AKA - witchdoctor. That early kitchen science was greatly improved upon as we moved into our modern age.

The idea that chicken soup is good for a cold is still a popular opinon in spite of all our modern drugs. Of course they clean chicken with food grade Hydrogen Peroxide solution, which helps to cure the cold.

Modern science has replaced some of that self-testing by testing animals. A less trustworthy way of finding proof but safer for us humans, and they cannot get sued for legal reasons.

1 - lab testing of chemicals by someone with knowledge of biology.

2 - our internal and automatic system that involves our immune system.

3 - Physical observations that might include maintaining stats or logical deductions.

4 - A combination of #1 and #3.

5- A more primitive version called Witchcraft.

The testing process listed as #4 is broken down into what is called

(A) a short term study, and (B) a long term study.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul All kinds of studies are useful. The link you provided was a little bias because it spent most of it's page space promoting one one kind of "science" used for medical research

I looked up the how's on medical research because smoking leads to medical problems for a lot of people.

Well what I saw is if they had a controlled study of 10 smokers, and 9 died before age 60 you might presume that the smoking had something to do with it, if 10 non-smokers were also tested and they lived past age 60, then not smoking probably led to the longer life span. Sure there might be one or two who had fantastic genes and they lived even after smoking, but still if 8 of them died before age 60 you'd assume most people will die early from smoking. But it's not like they did a couple studies here and there, they've done literally thousands of studies on this health issue. The conclusions are always the same. Smoking tobacco shortens the lifespan.

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul All kinds of studies are useful. The link you provided was a little bias because it spent most of it's page space promoting one one kind of "science" used for medical research. The labortory test can show us how one chemical can inter-react another chemical and what the outcome would be. Which is like testing to see if a hot stove will burn your finger. The evidence is pretty clear. That is the only research that can produce factural data about something.

So in other words, you only listen to science that agrees with what you think. Gotcha.

However, the human body is like an eco-system, a lot of activity is going on. And so non-chemical causes could effect the operaton of that system, called the human mind/body. The human body (also animals) has a built-in system for self-testing and for self-healing, which involves the immune system. With a built in alarm system (pain). But the self-testing / self-healing system that operates internally can get messed up when we are over stemulated by un-natural amounts of emotional stress. And sometimes if we subsitute medical drugs for what our immune system would produce for us.

What exactly are you trying to prove here? Your immune system has no bearing on what you inhale into your lungs. It cant filter out tar or other toxins. Your immune system is only useful against organisms, not chemicals.

The next method is observation. If you observed that 5 people drank water out of a pond and 3 of them got very sick, then we naturally would fear drinking from that pond of water. That kind of fear-based prevention is useful even if you conducted no test to prove that the water was unsafe. But you are not doing so based on facts or proof, unless you tested the water in a lab to find out what (if anything) is in the water.

I see that you are yet another person that seems to think that lab testing is infallible and easy. Just put the water in a machine and let the machine tell you if theres anything wrong with it right? I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but lab testing is just as fallible as observation. Cross contamination, equipment malfunction, mis-measured amounts of testing chemicals, there are plenty of things that can corrupt data. Also, its that logical fear instinct that has preserved the human race for the past few thousand years. The people who tossed this fear aside because they couldn't see the things in the water that harm them with their own eyes ended up sick or dead.

Early primates ( that is, human beings ) became nomadic and as we moved from one place to another we had to test new kinds of foods to eat. They would run a test on their self, they would eat a tiny bit and wait to see what would happen, watching their body with keen awareness. Then they might sample a larger amount (dose) and via awarness they would watch to see what effect that had. Thus we were able to select what is good to eat and what is not good, the evil fruit from the good fruit. Through that process we also found cures or treatments for illnesses, and even what things would get us high.

You are once again, wrong. They did what we do now even today: used a guinea pig. Penguins: they will crowd against each other until one falls into potentially sea-lion or killer whale infested water. If the test subject doesn't become someones dinner in the first few seconds, they assume that its safe and jump in. Much safer than using yourself yes?

Cooking food together, a task women were mostly involved in, was the beginning of all our modern science. She became the tribe's "mid-wife". AKA - witchdoctor. That early kitchen science was greatly improved upon as we moved into our modern age.

So you are suggesting we take the opinions of witch-doctors and shamans over that of scientists?

The idea that chicken soup is good for a cold is still a popular opinon in spite of all our modern drugs. Of course they clean chicken with food grade Hydrogen Peroxide solution, which helps to cure the cold.

Once again, wrong. Chicken soup has naturally occurring vitamins that help to boost your immune system, and also goes down easy and is less likely to come back up. Hydrogen Peroxide is only effective on external wounds, since it effectively cauterizes the wound. But I forgot, you know everything. Why don't you try drinking some Hydrogen Peroxide the next time you have a cold. I'm sure it will make you scream-er-be a scream.

Modern science has replaced some of that self-testing by testing animals. A less trustworthy way of finding proof but safer for us humans, and they cannot get sued for legal reasons.

So I guess we should have a lottery hmm?

1 - lab testing of chemicals by someone with knowledge of biology. 2 - our internal and automatic system that involves our immune system. 3 - Physical observations that might include maintaining stats or logical deductions. 4 - A combination of #1 and #3. 5- A more primitive version called Witchcraft. The testing process listed as #4 is broken down into what is called (A) a short term study, and (B) a long term study.

Well, since you discard A and B consists of immune system, which has zero influence on chemical contamination of your body, then I guess we should go look up Cooks With Big Spoon for a cure to our emphysema.
Brilliant job, top show.

[Madeline]

There is no point in smoking. It's nasty, it smells, and it bothers other people.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Madeline There is no point in smoking. It's nasty, it smells, and it bothers other people.

Yeah, and Jesus loves you too.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I looked up the how's on medical research because smoking leads to medical problems for a lot of people. Well what I saw is if they had a controlled study of 10 smokers, and 9 died before age 60 you might presume that the smoking had something to do with it, if 10 non-smokers were also tested and they lived past age 60, then not smoking probably led to the longer life span. Sure there might be one or two who had fantastic genes and they lived even after smoking, but still if 8 of them died before age 60 you'd assume most people will die early from smoking. But it's not like they did a couple studies here and there, they've done literally thousands of studies on this health issue. The conclusions are always the same. Smoking tobacco shortens the lifespan.

"Fantastic Genes" - that was on some scientific report?

I have debated that opinion already.

Can you show us the notes on that study so we can see if it was conducted properly? Or is this another "have faith" claim. Anyway I am over the age of 60 and so that study does not apply to me. Hmm? why don't they study my fantastic genes so they can find out how to fix everyone else up so they won't die before the age of 50. Here I am, what made me so fantanstic, my body must hold the key for the cure. I will let them test me for one million bucks.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume Technosoul: Do you want paint companies to start putting lead in the paint again because there hasn't been enough proof that it's bad?

They have proof because sound science (in the lab) proved it. Eating lead is not good for an infant.

[Technosoul]

I have a right to bear cigarettes to defend my self from control freaks who would not want to come around me anymore. It also works on blood sucking insects.

[Matt W]

Techno, out of curiousity, have you considered researching studies about being in denial?

[Flip Jackson]

Techno, I think I have to agree with Matt here. Usually you have really well thought out and reasonable debates, but in this thread, you`ve been oddly defensive and your arguments don`t hold much water.

You have every right to smoke, but you can`t keep imagining that it doesn`t hurt you and other people. I`ve sen the effects in my life. My mom`s dad died at about the age of 40. Why? Because he smoke and drank. My best friend couldn`t run a mile without stopping to walk. He was about 19 or 20 and trying to get into the army. He was mostly healthy, except for one thing. He smoked.

You have to keep in mind to that every person who is close to you when you smoke is inhaling second hand smoke, which has all kinds of negative effects, including death.

Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You wanna smoke. Be my guest. But you gotta realize it`s nothing good. Just a habit or addiction.