What's the point of smoking?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: 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.

Part of the momentum behind the anti-smoking bandwagon has to do with what you discribed. Someone dies or gets sick who is a close relative or friend and they also happen to smoke. People get very emotional about this sort of topic and I can understand that. I do not wish to rekindle such emotional grief and normally avoid debating such people as your self.

My sister ( a year younger then me ) also died of cancer a year ago. She did not smoke nor did anyone in her family or at her workplace smoke ( she has been married for a long time). He social life was all about chruch and they did not smoke there ether.

I asked the doctor "why did this happen to her when I am the one who should be dieing from cancer".

He (also her husband) said that no one really knows how or why people get cancer, it is one kind of disease which is still a big mystery.

Now a lot of the brave military men who won world war one and two were smokers, they gave them free Lucky Strikes (unfiltered). I do not see how that can prevent someone from getting through boot camp or fighting wars.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W Techno, out of curiousity, have you considered researching studies about being in denial?

I know all about that. That is part of the A.A. stuff they teach at their meetings.

Anytime anyone presents a argument they respond with that "denial" phychology theory. Oh, you are just making excuses.

Yes, I know about that. Lawyers use that same phychology when explaining cases involving whack-os who do horrible things.

If you had researched all my comments that I wrote in this thread you would know that I already gave my comments about the "denial" aspect that you are bringing up.

Anyone who seeks phychological help should have their head examined ( that was just some humor)

[Technosoul]

Now in my own "scientific study" I found out that 17 out of 20 people do not think that smoking should be banned.

See my poll in this forum. Based on those collected stats epidemiology would support the idea that most people do not think that smoke from cigarettes is a major threat to the health of our population.

So how can you say "everyone knows that cigarette smoke is harmful". My research would suggest otherwise. Are all those 17 people in denial and only 3 people know the truth. I do not think so.

So why don't you go publish my stats? Are you in denial of the info I discovered?

Reseach thy self.

[Technosoul]

The O.P. poll was totally bias.

But back to the question that we were requested to debate.

There is no real point to smoking, it is just something people do, like having a glass of wine, or like watching pigons in the park.

Not everything we do has a some goal or some end point to reach.

[gela]

Now in my own "scientific study" I found out that 17 out of 20 people do not think that smoking should be banned. See my poll in this forum. Based on those collected stats epidemiology would support the idea that most people do not think that smoke from cigarettes is a major threat to the health of our population. So how can you say "everyone knows that cigarette smoke is harmful". My research would suggest otherwise. Are all those 17 people in denial and only 3 people know the truth. I do not think so.

Eating chocolate is also harmfull.
How about we ban fast food aswell? Its harmfull.

Because people believe in freedom, that doesn't mean they are blind to the effects of smoking.

I dare you to make a poll on volconvo asking 'is smoking harmful?'


By the way; you don't seem to understand what I have said several times about epidemiology. And you continue to make ignorant comments like this about it as a science.
Im not going to say it again.

Part of the momentum behind the anti-smoking bandwagon has to do with what you discribed. Someone dies or gets sick who is a close relative or friend and they also happen to smoke.

How about you take an epidemiological poll on this.

How many people on volconvo knows someone who died of lung cancer who also smoked; and how many people knows someone who died of lung cancer who didn't smoke.
I haven't seen anyone mention a family member who has died of lung cancer and didn't smoke.

[gela]

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.

I have done science for the last 6 years of my life.
I did earth and environmental science last year, and this is one of the course outcomes:

discusses the validity and reliability of data gathered from first-hand investigations and secondary sources

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au...tg6_syl_03.pdf

This is how you asess the reliablility of a second hand source:

You check for bias.
You check the credentials of the scientists
Just in case, you check and see if some other reliable scientist got a similar result.

Here we have a situation where every scientific institution in the world agrees that smoking causes lung cancer.

There is no debate to be had.

There is no scientific way to deny that every scientist in the world is wrong.

Therefore, what you have is a conspiracy theory.

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.

All sciences have these errors.
All sciences have ways to combat these errors.

Read back through my posts. I've already argued this point.

I don't feel like typing it all out again, it was something about different scientists with different backgrounds and different strengths and weaknesses all getting the same or similar results.
Unless you want to claim that they all had identical systematic and random errors, then this argument is useless.

Apparently you didn't get the point last type I wrote this.

[gela]

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.

Government:
Hey scientists, I want you to find out what causes lung cancer - here have some money

Scientists:
Thanks government, we will now go off and study lung cancer.

later..

Scientists:
We found that smoking causes lung cancer

Government:
Smoking? no way. Here have some more money and prove it for me.

Scientists:
Ok.

later..

Scientists:
We still found that smoking causes lung cancer.. so did all these other countries. I supose it must be true.

Government:
Wow.. so smokings bad for you.. never would have guessed. Can you check and make sure it doesn't have any other harmful effects?
Meanwhile, we will make sure the population is aware of these results.



Seems like a logical, and reasonable way to go about things. Im very happy that the government spends money on diseases.

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.

To be able to cure something, you need to know what causes it.
That is what governments are doing when they fund smoking research.

Well.. the health care one doesn't apply so much for me.. we have a health care system, and our government is probably saving money with the adds. Less smoking = less smoking related health problems = more health care money for other things.

[Technosoul]

[quote=gela;488720]Eating chocolate is also harmfull.
How about we ban fast food aswell? Its harmfull.

Because people believe in freedom, that doesn't mean they are blind to the effects of smoking.

I dare you to make a poll on volconvo asking 'is smoking harmful?'


By the way; you don't seem to understand what I have said several times about epidemiology. And you continue to make ignorant comments like this about it as a science.
Im not going to say it again.

I did mentioned someone. Your epidemiology reports also mentioned a percentage of people who did not smoke who had come down with cancer. Did you ignore some of your facts and only look at the data that favors your belief? Why are you in denial of the very facts you advocated? (so-called facts).

Show me one report that stated that everyone with cancer also had a background of smoking.

[gela]

I did mentioned someone. Your epidemiology reports also mentioned a percentage of people who did not smoke who had come down with cancer. Did you ignore some of your facts and only look at the data that favors your belief? Why are you in denial of the very facts you advocated? (so-called facts). Show me one report that stated that everyone with cancer also had a background of smoking.

emphasis: lung cancer. Clarifying that would be nice.

I've already discussed this somewhere on the thread aswell. Wow this is getting repetitve.

Plenty of things cause lung cancer: Pollution, genes, passive smoking...

Smoking happens to be a large factor in lung cancer.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Government: Hey scientists, I want you to find out what causes lung cancer - here have some money Scientists: Thanks government, we will now go off and study lung cancer. later.. Scientists: We found that smoking causes lung cancer Government: Smoking? no way. Here have some more money and prove it for me. Scientists: Ok. later.. Scientists: We still found that smoking causes lung cancer.. so did all these other countries. I supose it must be true. Government: Wow.. so smokings bad for you.. never would have guessed. Can you check and make sure it doesn't have any other harmful effects? Meanwhile, we will make sure the population is aware of these results. Seems like a logical, and reasonable way to go about things. Im very happy that the government spends money on diseases. To be able to cure something, you need to know what causes it. That is what governments are doing when they fund smoking research. Well.. the health care one doesn't apply so much for me.. we have a health care system, and our government is probably saving money with the adds. Less smoking = less smoking related health problems = more health care money for other things.

Government.

Gee, Dow Chemical and the Oil Industry are worred about those environmentalists who want to regulate them, they are going to pull funding from our party if we do not stop. What can we do?

Advisers.

Distract them from protesting big oil with a switch and bate tactic. Just fund some research that shows a link between smoking and those illnesses that are caused by oil and chemical products.

Government.

But what about the funding we get from the tobacco industry?

Adviser.

Don't worry, people are addicted and will smoke anyway, so the tobacco industry will still make a tidy profit. You can even offer them grant money to grow something else.

Government.

Okay. but once we do that we will need a lot of advertising to brainwash people.

Adviser.

Give TV networks a tax break for airing those "educational" spots.

Government.

Sounds like a winner. Let's do it.

25 years later: Bush removes regulations on oil industry and lowers the standards for how much industrial polution can be in the air.

Oil Industry lobby and Government.

it worked, we sure pulled a fast one on those environmentalists.

[gela]

Government. Gee, Dow Chemical and the Oil Industry are worred about those environmentalists who want to regulate them, they are going to pull funding from our party if we do not stop. What can we do? Advisers. Distract them from protesting big oil with a switch and bate tactic. Just fund some research that shows a link between smoking and those illnesses that are caused by oil and chemical products. Government. But what about the funding we get from the tobacco industry? Adviser. Don't worry, people are addicted and will smoke anyway, so the tobacco industry will still make a tidy profit. You can even offer them grant money to grow something else. Government. Okay. but once we do that we will need a lot of advertising to brainwash people. Adviser. Give TV networks a tax break for airing those "educational" spots. Government. Sounds like a winner. Let's do it. 25 years later: Bush removes regulations on oil industry and lowers the standards for how much industrial polution can be in the air. Oil Industry lobby and Government. it worked, we sure pulled a fast one on those environmentalists.

I thought you gave up on this conspiracy theory after I pointed out that all countries have the same stance on smoking. Even the ones without big oil companies.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela I thought you gave up on this conspiracy theory after I pointed out that all countries have the same stance on smoking. Even the ones without big oil companies.

Once the anti-smoking policy got popular here then the snowball effect took over and it spread through out the world like a virus.

Just like when we started protesting here in the USA, Martin King then the hippies, people all over the world started doing it. Even way over in China. the snow ball effect.

The reason I cannot agree with you that it is a phoney conspiracy is because I was there, I saw the memos being sent around to the industrial gaints. I worked in an industry that was involved as a manager of the security/safty department. Part of my job was to file away those "company private" papers. But no point to mention that because I cannot prove that I saw anything.

The whole idea was to shift attention away from protesting industry by shifting attention to what each person can do their self. Recycle cans, plant a tree, seperate trash so that oil cans do not end up in the city dump, join a car pool, cut down on energy useage, make sure you use and store household products that are toxic in a correct way, give up smoking, and so forth. Thousands of things that "you can do to save the environment" so that you will be too busy to protest industry, and still feel good about "doing your part". All that was pre-planned by those industies that wanted to avoid being regulated. So they could claim that they are self-regulated and that they do things to help out nature or to co-exsist with nature.

The harmful industries were smart... they knew that if they could not defeat the environmentists that they should pretend to join them. That was the plot.

To join or subscribe to the organization it would cast a company about one million bucks. You get experts to make advertisements that would show our envirnomentally friendly your company is. Plus, IBM had a program to seach the internet so that if the name of your company popped up they could check it out, if someone was planning a protest they would let you know, so the company could be prepared with a nice sounding speech to give when the news cameras arrived to cover the protest. The fee also covered the lobby that would influence the government each time someone wanted to regulate your company or others in that group.

[gela]

What does all that have to do with smoking...?


Why would other countries want to protect the american oil companies..?


another illogical conspiracy theory...

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela What does all that have to do with smoking...? Why would other countries want to protect the american oil companies..? another illogical conspiracy theory...

I just answered that question and now your asked it again.

You need to come up with some new questions or counter my remarks so we do not go around and around in a pointless manner of debating.

Don't you comprehend what is meant by the "snow ball" effect?

Ever hear of "WHO" the "world health organization"? Ever trace the money trail to find out who is funding them and their anti-smoking movement?

[Technosoul]

Now lets look at the "anti-smoking conspiracy" angle in this debate.

Article Portal

The Arthur C. Upton Page

Background on an International Conspiracy Against Cigarette Smoking

CIVIL LIBERTIES, THE CONSTITUTION, AND CIGARS: ANTI-SMOKING CONSPIRACY LOGIC IN CIGAR AFICIONADO, 1992-2001 | Communication Studies | Find Articles at BNET.com

The Conspiracy Against Tobacco

Objective Conservative: The Anti-Smoking Law -- PJM

Vast "Nazi" conspiracy????

Gee, can all those people from different places be wrong?

[gela]

I just answered that question and now your asked it again. You need to come up with some new questions or counter my remarks so we do not go around and around in a pointless manner of debating.

Ok.. so the anti-smoking campaign is part of a "help the environment" distraction.. so environmentalists won't protest.. against, umm.. industry in general.

Even though environmentalists have nothing to do with smoking..(why I thought your post had nothing to do with smoking)

And governments are in on it as well...

And the non profit, international, non legally binding health institution was secretly set up by big business..

And that University from Scotland were also being payed out by big business.

Just want to confirm that this is what you agree with.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Ok.. so the anti-smoking campaign is part of a "help the environment" distraction.. so environmentalists won't protest.. against, umm.. industry in general. Even though environmentalists have nothing to do with smoking..(why I thought your post had nothing to do with smoking) And governments are in on it as well... And the non profit, international, non legally binding health institution was secretly set up by big business.. And that University from Scotland were also being payed out by big business. Just want to confirm that this is what you agree with.

No, I do not agree to that (or any attempt on your part to set a trap).

A Non-profit organization still can make a big profit but it is just not taxed. Not having to pay tax is another way to get a paycheck from the government because it saves them having to give money to the IRS.

I have no idea what those few people who work at the University of Scotland had on thier mind when conducting their tests. no way to know their motives or whatever. That would be the "missing data" which is needed in order for me to know if they are bias or not.

The World Health Organization is conducting tests on different things all over the world. Supported in large part by the prescription drug industry.
And were involved in a few CIA funded research projects.

The people who donate and take part in protests are guided and motivated by enviornmental groups. That support group was then re-directed to take part in the anti-smoking movement.

I said nothing about a heath insitution being secretly set up. Please re-read what I posted and next time try to pay attention to what I actually said. Bush was going to fund the WHO to offer help to fight AIDS in Africa but South Africa said no... they do not trust that organization and for good reasons. What do they know that you have ignored or have failed to discover?

[Matt W]

What do they know that you have ignored or have failed to discover?

Apply that question to your own rejection of the myriad of sources you have ignored, then come back to us.

As for South Africa & the WHO, you may recall that the majority of the S.African government is in denial about Aids, with the Health Minister recommending eating garlic & fresh fruit to ward it off.

[gela]

No, I do not agree to that (or any attempt on your part to set a trap). A Non-profit organization still can make a big profit but it is just not taxed. Not having to pay tax is another way to get a paycheck from the government because it saves them having to give money to the IRS. I have no idea what those few people who work at the University of Scotland had on thier mind when conducting their tests. no way to know their motives or whatever. That would be the "missing data" which is needed in order for me to know if they are bias or not. The World Health Organization is conducting tests on different things all over the world. Supported in large part by the prescription drug industry. And were involved in a few CIA funded research projects. The people who donate and take part in protests are guided and motivated by enviornmental groups. That support group was then re-directed to take part in the anti-smoking movement. I said nothing about a heath insitution being secretly set up. Please re-read what I posted and next time try to pay attention to what I actually said. Bush was going to fund the WHO to offer help to fight AIDS in Africa but South Africa said no... they do not trust that organization and for good reasons. What do they know that you have ignored or have failed to discover?

Lol. I was just trying to figure out who you were blaming for what.

So WHO is biased and funded by instutry?

And Industry created the anti smoking campaign to distract people from environmental problems?

I am willing to consider that the anti smoking campaign was exaggerated in order to distract people from bigger issues. But that Conspiracy theory isn't enough to disprove aall the studies done by Universities and Governments. I maintain that smoking contributes to lung cancer, and emphysema.

WHO isn't the only health institution out there.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Lol. I was just trying to figure out who you were blaming for what. So WHO is biased and funded by instutry? And Industry created the anti smoking campaign to distract people from environmental problems? I am willing to consider that the anti smoking campaign was exaggerated in order to distract people from bigger issues. But that Conspiracy theory isn't enough to disprove aall the studies done by Universities and Governments. I maintain that smoking contributes to lung cancer, and emphysema. WHO isn't the only health institution out there.

Cigarettes are a drug used to combat stress. As with everything some side effects can be noted, perhaps dieing can be linked to a very few rare cases. Be sure to tell your doctor if you are dead.

(just making funnies) Now on to the serious debate.

I would agree that you should not smoke if you believe it is unhealthy, and I would not advocate a law that everyone must smoke, or else.

Fact is that you do not care if it is harmful to other people (your own family excluded) but what you really are prejudice about is the smell and the smoke that other people generate when they smoke (near your self).

You know that the smell of tobacco smoke is not really harmful nor is it a health hazard, none the less you find it repulsive. Therefore the only way you can get rid of that smell is to claim that smoking causes a "long list of illnesses". That need makes you want to believe in those studies and claims, because it is a useful weapon for you in your "war on a smell that you dislike".

But the fact is that all those reports you site have nothing to do with what you really want to attack or eliminate from your life.... the smell.

You could care less if they ban cigarettes in Scotland or not. You are mainly concerned about stopping it where you live and sniff. Right?

The old "kissing an ashtray" kind of complaint.

Another poster here is at least centering his debate around the topic of smell. Claiming that it damages his property. But you are not really limiting your debate to the area that "point of reasoning".

Example: Eating some fat foods might be unhealthy but fast foods smell good, so few people spend hours trying to ban potatos cooked in greese, or Coca Cola. Except at schools and so Coca Cola came out with a new brand of cola with healthy vitimens added. They can add as much vitimen C as you get in orange juice. No one wants an all out ban on Coca Cola and those other brands of soft drinks.

Now I can do a lab experiment. Put some meat in a glass of beer and some meat in a glass of coca cola. The next morning the meat in the Cola would be ate away and the meat in the beer would be well preserved. Aha.. proof. So ban Coca Cola. But that is not happening on a large scale with thousands of people debating such a ban. Because Cola smells good?

Now I did not disprove that all the studies took place. They did take place. I did not prove that all those studies are linked to just one group of people who conspired all the studies.

What I did prove is that studies based on epidemiology cannot be trusted because of the potential for bias, ramdom errrors, and systimatic errors. The data can be minipulated easly with missguided interpretations. It is possible that "they" then conducted thousands of tests using that flawed science so that they can say "they all cannot be wrong". Because they know that a few tests can be shot down for the reasons I stated ( and provided links for ). Abundance does not = quality.

I also object that "we the people" cannot study how each study was conducted, to find out if those studies contained any of the faults common to that kind of science. They never show us that. So we must depend and have faith on those who peer review the study for publication, and the study is peer reviewed by other people who are in that same field of work, by others who make a living doing studies using the science of epidemidology. Not by a 3rd party who is not bias. Of course those doing the peer review would not find fault with their own branch of research and they would want it to be as trustworthy as Sound Science. Therefore the study passes the review and gets published in a medical journal.