What's the point of smoking?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela 1. There are very few, if any, pages about studies that link lung cancer to smoking nowdays. It was proven years ago. It isn't news anymore. 2. Despite this, I have found scientific results to scientific studies of previous pages. They don't have the method, because they never do. In most debates, when we link to a study; we check their qualifications, we check for bias, and we check if someone else got similar results just to make sure. Smoking and lung cancer passes this test. Thousands of times over. Im sorry, but your not a scientist. You have no qualifications to 'inspect what is behind the claim'. Thats why we have scientists. The claims have been inspected, guess what. They passed. Thousands and thousands of times over. 3. Since you are the one who is claiming that a generaly accepted fact is untrue; then you are the one who has to come up with the goods to prove it. Everyone else here believes that the fact that smoking = lung cancer is a fact. You need some kind of proof if you want to say that it isn't proof. Its not up to me to prove what everyone else, except you, already believes is true. If you want to say that it is unproven, then you need something to back that up. Everyone else is happy with the results. If you want to say those results are false, then you some reason for them to be untrue. 4. If it realy was a mass conspiracy, a method would be useless anyway. They would just change the numbers that they gathered. Giving you a journal is useless because your mind is already made up. That is called bias. 5. Your reasons for ignoring most of the studies that I posted were irrevelent. I debunked every argument you made against them. 6. If every study gets the same results, they are either right, or they all contain the exact same error. It is impossible for all of these studies to have the same error - unless it is a mass conspiracy 7. No matter how many studies you 'disprove'(I use that term very losely). There are still hundreds out there that prove that smoking causes lung cancer. That is why it is useless to debate this from a scientific angle. Mass conspiracy is the only possible argument you can make. 8. To believe that Lung cancer isn't caused by smoking, then you must also believe that skin cancer isn't caused by increased sun exposure.

1. (thanks for numbering you response - good idea). You do not have to be a scientist to check out a study done via epidemiology, if you can count numbers, and read the questions asked the study group. Etc. then you can review it.

In order to repeat a study you must use the same number of people who were living in the same place, and subjected to the same influences. You presented one study done in Japan that overturned another study done in the USA, so how come repeating the study did not get the same results. You posted that link. Repeating a epidemiology study is not the same are repeating as study done in a lab under controled conditions. Because you cannot control the all the factors that people might be subjected too at different times, places, and situations.

It matters not if someone is qualified by a collage to do epidemiology studies, epidemiology science it's self is not qualified as sound science. Simular but not as bad as paranormal research "science".

3. I came up with the "goods" and links to prove my side of this debate in many above postings, you are in denial of that evidence and fact finding. I cannot prove a study generated untrue facts if I cannot look at the study, which you are still unable to provide even one such study avalible to the public on the internet. Only claims. (starting to sound like a broken record - if people still remember what a photograph record is).
How can I disprove something that is non-exsistant to me to see? At least you agree that they no longer exsist - re: #1.

4. My main reason for calling it a conspiracy is the self-evident fact that we are being bombared with TV ads and "news spots" about all those so-called studies. It is clear the organizations and governmental departments are behind this because it amounts to intended mass brainwashing. Why is so much money poured into that one project. That alone makes the crusade suspect of being bias.

5. Your rebuke did of my links did not really offer much to defeat what I said. Now you are getting into "personal opinons" only. I rebuked all your rebukes. So there!

6. You repeated your self, my response was already made. If they repeat a falsehood over and over that does not make it a truth, because the phoney truth is the product of brainwashing methodologies.

7. According to your mind-set the Sun is blowing 2nd hand smoke on people at the beach and that caused the skin cancer...ha!

The study used to determine the effects of overexposure to the sun was based on sound science and not based on the a epidemiology study. A problem that can become more abundant due to the ozone layer being depleted because of fosil fuel useage. And because people started wearing clothing instead of remaining naked like real natives, and so they lost some ability to become immune to sunlight.

Now I have some news for you. Due to the pressure to stop smoking tobacco many young people are switching to new designer ciragettes made out of herbs and other plants. Check it out.

Smoking Herbs and Herbal Cigarettes at New Moon

Whatcha' think about these new "tobacco free" smokies?

[Evangelina]

Techno brought up a great point awhile back about shamans and other cultures smoking ritually etc. It's a part of many cultures.

Basically, in my opinion, it comes down to moderation.

I am a non-smoker because I am allergic to plant smoke (weed, tabacco, etc).

[Technosoul]

Now about the current anti-smoking conspiracy, if you have any doubts that our government and medical research industry would not conspire to produce mass advertising based on untruths, to fight a harmless smoke then I challenge you to watch

"Grass" a documentary film now showing on the Sundance channel, and "on demand".

It shows the complete history of the governments war on pot smoking, which preceded the current war on cigarette smoking.

It is not a boring film and you will learn a lot about how our government operates. The film covers that war from the 1930s clear up to when Bush Sr. was president. (which was not all that long ago).

Educate your self, be informed, watch "GRASS" on the Sundance channel. Then you will comprehend what I was talkiing about, and how it relates to this topic.

[gela]

1. (thanks for numbering you response - good idea). You do not have to be a scientist to check out a study done via epidemiology, if you can count numbers, and read the questions asked the study group. Etc. then you can review it.

They can ask pages of questions; and they ask thousands of people. People don't feel the need to put the questions on the internet. Sorry.

In order to repeat a study you must use the same number of people who were living in the same place, and subjected to the same influences. You presented one study done in Japan that overturned another study done in the USA, so how come repeating the study did not get the same results. You posted that link. Repeating a epidemiology study is not the same are repeating as study done in a lab under controled conditions. Because you cannot control the all the factors that people might be subjected too at different times, places, and situations.

Yes, one study contradicted another study. Wasn't it about lung cancer in Asians?
Both studies still found that lung cancer is caused by smoking - one just found that it affects Asians less then westerners.
One study found that, and then one study disagreed with it. Therefore its still up for debate.
Thousands of studies agree that smoking causes lung cancer. No reputable source disagrees with it.

It matters not if someone is qualified by a collage to do epidemiology studies, epidemiology science it's self is not qualified as sound science. Simular but not as bad as paranormal research "science".

Well yeah it does. They are qualified to ask the revelent questions. What do you think they do when they do the coarse? sit around and eat cookies?

3. I came up with the "goods" and links to prove my side of this debate in many above postings, you are in denial of that evidence and fact finding. I cannot prove a study generated untrue facts if I cannot look at the study, which you are still unable to provide even one such study avalible to the public on the internet. Only claims. (starting to sound like a broken record - if people still remember what a photograph record is). How can I disprove something that is non-exsistant to me to see? At least you agree that they no longer exsist - re: #1.

Actually, not one of your links denied that smoking causes lung cancer. They denied that smoking causes breast cancer, and they denied that second hand smoke causes lung cancer. They were all irrevelent.
I've already explained why its pointless to give you a study anyway. Re-read my post.

4. My main reason for calling it a conspiracy is the self-evident fact that we are being bombared with TV ads and "news spots" about all those so-called studies. It is clear the organizations and governmental departments are behind this because it amounts to intended mass brainwashing. Why is so much money poured into that one project. That alone makes the crusade suspect of being bias.

Except for the fact that the crusade came after the studies. It can't have made something bias before it existed.

5. Your rebuke did of my links did not really offer much to defeat what I said. Now you are getting into "personal opinons" only. I rebuked all your rebukes. So there!

They didn't need much of a rebuke. They weren't even about lung cancer and direct smoking.

6. You repeated your self, my response was already made. If they repeat a falsehood over and over that does not make it a truth, because the phoney truth is the product of brainwashing methodologies.

You are saying that universities.. smart smart people; and government research centers around the world are being brainwashed? No, I don't think so. My point remains. The only logical explanation is a mass conspiracy.

7. According to your mind-set the Sun is blowing 2nd hand smoke on people at the beach and that caused the skin cancer...ha!

No.. I never said anything about smoking and skin cancer.. nor have I argued any point about second hand smoke.
Answer the question.

The study used to determine the effects of overexposure to the sun was based on sound science and not based on the a epidemiology study. A problem that can become more abundant due to the ozone layer being depleted because of fosil fuel useage. And because people started wearing clothing instead of remaining naked like real natives, and so they lost some ability to become immune to sunlight.

"problem became more abundant"
That my friend, was found with epidemiology. Therefore, its untrustworthy. Its exactly the same as the study in Finland that found that lung cancer decreased when smoking did.
Everything after that isn't proven. Theres only trace amounts of radiation in sunlight. Who said it causes skin cancer?

Now I have some news for you. Due to the pressure to stop smoking tobacco many young people are switching to new designer ciragettes made out of herbs and other plants. Check it out. Smoking Herbs and Herbal Cigarettes at New Moon Whatcha' think about these new "tobacco free" smokies?

I have no opinion.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela They can ask pages of questions; and they ask thousands of people. People don't feel the need to put the questions on the internet. Sorry. (1) - And it is a good thing for you they do not show and tell, because if they did I would show everyone all the faults in those studies. Yes, one study contradicted another study. Wasn't it about lung cancer in Asians? Both studies still found that lung cancer is caused by smoking - one just found that it affects Asians less then westerners. One study found that, and then one study disagreed with it. Therefore its still up for debate. Thousands of studies agree that smoking causes lung cancer. No reputable source disagrees with it. (2) wrong - they presented stats that a percentage of Asians who have cancer also smoked, they did not prove the smoking caused cancer. You are confusing stats with actural proof. You said "no reputable source disagrees with it".... such a claim is how they con America because everyone wants to hang onto their reputable status and so out of fear of loosing respect they will not dissagree, that is called peer pressure. If you object no one will respect anymore intimidation. The oldest con trick up their sleeve. I am so tired of these mind games. Well yeah it does. They are qualified to ask the revelent questions. What do you think they do when they do the coarse? sit around and eat cookies? 3- Not cookies - kookie ideas. Actually, not one of your links denied that smoking causes lung cancer. They denied that smoking causes breast cancer, and they denied that second hand smoke causes lung cancer. They were all irrevelent. I've already explained why its pointless to give you a study anyway. Re-read my post. 4 - I am not bias, nor would it be pointless. I have debated this topic for a number of years and no one can provide any proof other then that claims were made. Except for the fact that the crusade came after the studies. It can't have made something bias before it existed. 5 - Wrong, the crusade started before enough money was gathered to pay off study groups were funded. For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute Exposed: Anti-smoking cursade uses false data. Child's ploy. (motivation behind anti-smoking crusade) want more links? They didn't need much of a rebuke. They weren't even about lung cancer and direct smoking. You are saying that universities.. smart smart people; and government research centers around the world are being brainwashed? No, I don't think so. My point remains. The only logical explanation is a mass conspiracy. 6 - Why not? Rocket scientists were brainwashed in Germany, remember when? Our whole nation, even the smart ones, were brainwashed by our government that "mexican" pot will cause insanity. That it cause people to become violent and sex crazed. etc. That it will cause brain damage and memory loss. All lies. No.. I never said anything about smoking and skin cancer.. nor have I argued any point about second hand smoke. Answer the question. 7 - I answered. "problem became more abundant" That my friend, was found with epidemiology. Therefore, its untrustworthy. Its exactly the same as the study in Finland that found that lung cancer decreased when smoking did. Everything after that isn't proven. Theres only trace amounts of radiation in sunlight. Who said it causes skin cancer? 8 - Acturally, it might be a gene and UV rays might be a trigger, no one knows for sure what causes skin cancer as yet. Cancer is still one of the most mysterious diseases that humans are confronted with. I have no opinion.

My remarks are posted next to numbers.

Best Week Ever » Blog Archive » The 10 Funniest Anti-Drug Commercials In Advertising History

Anti-pot propaganda

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

and the anti wars go on.... and on.....and on......

[gela]

(2) wrong - they presented stats that a percentage of Asians who have cancer also smoked, they did not prove the smoking caused cancer. You are confusing stats with actural proof. You said "no reputable source disagrees with it".... such a claim is how they con America because everyone wants to hang onto their reputable status and so out of fear of loosing respect they will not dissagree, that is called peer pressure. If you object no one will respect anymore intimidation. The oldest con trick up their sleeve. I am so tired of these mind games.

It isnt peer pressure. Someone did a study that linked smoking to lung cancer. It was up for debate. More studies were done - the large majority of them found that there is indeed a link between smoking and lung cancer.
Because the ones that disagreed were largely outnumbered - it was assumed that they were faulty.

This is scientific practice. I do it in chemistry all the time. You re do an experiment several times. All your results are similar, but if 1 or 2 are grossly different to everything else, then they are written off as contaminated, or faulty.

(1) - And it is a good thing for you they do not show and tell, because if they did I would show everyone all the faults in those studies. 3- Not cookies - kookie ideas. 4 - I am not bias, nor would it be pointless. I have debated this topic for a number of years and no one can provide any proof other then that claims were made.

Basicly, what this comes down to is you thinking that you know more then scientists do.

There is no way for me to debate against that, except for me to say: No you don't. You do not know as much as the scientists do.

You think that you will find holes in the studies that they could not. You think that they are mindless sheep who can't think up their own theories - they all have to lean back on smoking.

You think your ideas about air pollution and car fumes are new, and they haven't been taken into account.

You think that they can't carry out a study.

You think that scientists are stupid, and that you are smart.

There isn't realy much for me to say about that, except that Im sorry, but they are the experts. Not you.

Stick to the conspiracy theories.

btw. What does marijuana have to do with anything? marijuana is still up for debate - some experts say it is harmful, while others say it isn't. It isn't a proven fact like smoking is.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela It isnt peer pressure. Someone did a study that linked smoking to lung cancer. It was up for debate. More studies were done - the large majority of them found that there is indeed a link between smoking and lung cancer. Because the ones that disagreed were largely outnumbered - it was assumed that they were faulty. This is scientific practice. I do it in chemistry all the time. You re do an experiment several times. All your results are similar, but if 1 or 2 are grossly different to everything else, then they are written off as contaminated, or faulty. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Okay. allow me to re-explain this once more. There is a hugh difference between testing the effects of a chemical on a metal surface and finding a link using stats only. A hugh difference in th science of bilology and the science of epidemilogy. That is what you refuse to grasp. I totally agree that using epidemiology methods, that they can find a link between smoking and difference diseases or medical conditions. The stats presented do demonstrate a link as you said. I do not disagree with that claim. But here is what you do not wish to comprehend. I (or rather, anyone who has the rescources to do such a study) can use that method of gathering stats to prove that day dreaming is linked to cancer as a potential canidate cause. And repeated studies would continue to support that claim. Simply because the stats would show that most of the people who have cancer also day dream a lot. Thus, a "link" between those two activities could be established relative to stats and percentages. I cannot see why someone cannot grasp that elaberation. Anyone with only a limited amount of logic can comprehend that, you do not have to be smarter then a scientist to know that. Plus, I provided web links to show that scientists also are critical of epidemiology for that reason. And so it is not (just) my feeble minded conclusion. I do not stand alone in making that observation other then here in this particular debate which has in-put from only a teenie number of people. The scientists involved also know that which is why they report a " possible link " instead of using a the term "absolute link". But those who grab hold of those studies with an agenda often overlook the word "possible" and present it as a "actural link". By dropping the word "possible" and then then reporting that science found a link, instead of a possible link. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Basicly, what this comes down to is you thinking that you know more then scientists do. There is no way for me to debate against that, except for me to say: No you don't. You do not know as much as the scientists do. You think that you will find holes in the studies that they could not. You think that they are mindless sheep who can't think up their own theories - they all have to lean back on smoking. You think your ideas about air pollution and car fumes are new, and they haven't been taken into account. You think that they can't carry out a study. You think that scientists are stupid, and that you are smart. There isn't realy much for me to say about that, except that Im sorry, but they are the experts. Not you. Stick to the conspiracy theories. btw. What does marijuana have to do with anything? marijuana is still up for debate - some experts say it is harmful, while others say it isn't. It isn't a proven fact like smoking is.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Non tobacco polution was not taken into account. It was a study designed to show links between smoking and a disease, not a study to show the link between non-tobacco polution and a disease. A simular study would in fact show a possbile link between cancer and fossil fuel exposure if that was the objective. Or if the study was done to show all the possible links to a disease. The satistics would then show a wide assortment of potential canidates that "might" cause cancer.

And not just physical links to outside factors, but also genetic links and phychological links.

The study involving smoking only proved that people who have cancer, for the most part, also smoked or were around someone who smoked.
The same as they were around low-level stress, car polution, and a lot of other things, in the majority of cases. Focused studies have produced a multitude of potential links, which were peer reviewed and published, and reported on the news. How can you claim that such is not the case?

Somehow when you read my postings you seem to skip over the factural and common sense explanations that I elaborated on. And of course, you then claim that I am doing the same thing. This has resulted in a stalemate relative to this debate and not a checkmate. (chess anology).

Again, smoking as a cause is not a proven fact relative to science, and is in fact debatable just like it is possible to debate about pot being harmful. The difference is that not a lot of people smoke pot and so a large study (using stats) would not show a strong link relative to the over-all population. Just like working in a coal mine is not something that most people do, but if you did a study just on people who mine coal then you would find that many of them have health problems. However if you did a large study of everyone then breathing coal dust would not be concidered as a major link, via statistics.

However the reason I compared pot smoking to cigarette smoking is to demonstate and to make a point that the anti-tobacco movement has a lot in common with the anti- pot movement. To prove that historical evidence supports my theory about brainwashing the poblic, meaning that the the conspiracy I spoke about is not a theory, but a fact. One worth sticking too.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

end of two part repley.

[gela]

Non tobacco polution was not taken into account. It was a study designed to show links between smoking and a disease, not a study to show the link between non-tobacco polution and a disease. A simular study would in fact show a possbile link between cancer and fossil fuel exposure if that was the objective. Or if the study was done to show all the possible links to a disease. The satistics would then show a wide assortment of potential canidates that "might" cause cancer. And not just physical links to outside factors, but also genetic links and phychological links.

These things have been studied. Thats why when you look up lung cancer, it will say there are several causes - but smoking is the main one.

It has all been done before. Your not the first person to come up with these ideas.
It was decided that smoking is the main cause. After investigating all of the causes.

Again, smoking as a cause is not a proven fact relative to science, and is in fact debatable just like it is possible to debate about pot being harmful.

All health proffesionals have agreed that smoking is bad. It is not debated amongst any scientists. It is accepted as fact.
Pot is still debated amongst health proffesionals.
That is the difference.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: Technosoul $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Non tobacco polution was not taken into account. It was a study designed to show links between smoking and a disease, not a study to show the link between non-tobacco polution and a disease. A simular study would in fact show a possbile link between cancer and fossil fuel exposure if that was the objective. Or if the study was done to show all the possible links to a disease. The satistics would then show a wide assortment of potential canidates that "might" cause cancer. And not just physical links to outside factors, but also genetic links and phychological links. The study involving smoking only proved that people who have cancer, for the most part, also smoked or were around someone who smoked. The same as they were around low-level stress, car polution, and a lot of other things, in the majority of cases. Focused studies have produced a multitude of potential links, which were peer reviewed and published, and reported on the news. How can you claim that such is not the case? Somehow when you read my postings you seem to skip over the factural and common sense explanations that I elaborated on. And of course, you then claim that I am doing the same thing. This has resulted in a stalemate relative to this debate and not a checkmate. (chess anology). Again, smoking as a cause is not a proven fact relative to science, and is in fact debatable just like it is possible to debate about pot being harmful. The difference is that not a lot of people smoke pot and so a large study (using stats) would not show a strong link relative to the over-all population. Just like working in a coal mine is not something that most people do, but if you did a study just on people who mine coal then you would find that many of them have health problems. However if you did a large study of everyone then breathing coal dust would not be concidered as a major link, via statistics. However the reason I compared pot smoking to cigarette smoking is to demonstate and to make a point that the anti-tobacco movement has a lot in common with the anti- pot movement. To prove that historical evidence supports my theory about brainwashing the poblic, meaning that the the conspiracy I spoke about is not a theory, but a fact. One worth sticking too. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ end of two part repley.

What would be proof for you? What form would the proof have to be in for you to believe it? This seems like trying to prove the existence of God to a die-hard atheist, it's seeming that you're needing proof that is impossible to give.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela These things have been studied. Thats why when you look up lung cancer, it will say there are several causes - but smoking is the main one. It has all been done before. Your not the first person to come up with these ideas. It was decided that smoking is the main cause. After investigating all of the causes. All health proffesionals have agreed that smoking is bad. It is not debated amongst any scientists. It is accepted as fact. Pot is still debated amongst health proffesionals. That is the difference.

The whole purpose of the conspiracy was to create that impression in the public mind.

In the 1970s everyone knew that smog was the main cause, resulting in an advertising blizits to change public opinon, so people would not protest agenst industry ( Oil and fuel companies, Dow chemicals, computer chip companies, auto and military products). It worked, now you and most of the public believe that tobacco is the main cause. Now people protest tobacco. Which is what you to do and why they manipulated public opinion.

This has already been gone over a few times through-out this thread, you do not agree with those facts.

You are helping them create that opinon by repeating the same claim over and over.

All health porffesionals are involved in repeating the claim, they are not involved in any research and will repeat what they are told to repeat. A doctor can bill medicare or an insurance company for spending time to tell you to stop smoking, they are paid to tell you that. (but they will not show you, or provide for you, the notes taken about how the so-called studies were conducted or funded).

Why are you just repeating the claim and not debating the facts I have presented to counter educate you?

If smoking is the main cause why are we still donating money for cancer research?
Why are people who are not exposed to cigarette smoke still dieing from cancer?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul The whole purpose of the conspiracy was to create that impression in the public mind. In the 1970s everyone knew that smog was the main cause, resulting in an advertising blizits to change public opinon, so people would not protest agenst industry ( Oil and fuel companies, Dow chemicals, computer chip companies, auto and military products). It worked, now you and most of the public believe that tobacco is the main cause. Now people protest tobacco. Which is what you to do and why they manipulated public opinion. This has already been gone over a few times through-out this thread, you do not agree with those facts. You are helping them create that opinon by repeating the same claim over and over. All health porffesionals are involved in repeating the claim, they are not involved in any research and will repeat what they are told to repeat. A doctor can bill medicare or an insurance company for spending time to tell you to stop smoking, they are paid to tell you that. (but they will not show you, or provide for you, the notes taken about how the so-called studies were conducted or funded). Why are you just repeating the claim and not debating the facts I have presented to counter educate you? If smoking is the main cause why are we still donating money for cancer research? Why are people who are not exposed to cigarette smoke still dieing from cancer?

What would be the reason for the conspiracy? The government gets a lot of revenue from cigarettes, so if it was harmless seems like they'd want everybody TO smoke.The more smoker's the more tax dollars.

There are lots of cancer causing agents out there, but cigarette smoke is quite concentrated and it would really get in those lungs and body parts more voraciously than the other agents unless you were also in close contact with say asbestos, but asbestos and lung cancer vary in how they damage, and usually it can be differentiated when asbestos has caused the damage. Many times people who have lung cancer come down with a certain type of pneumonia and this is usually what speeds the diagnosis of lung cancer. This has been my experience.
Fact is people who smoke get more diseases and are sick more than non-smokers, and overall we all come into contact with car fumes, and other potentially hazardous materials on a daily basis, but take the non-smokers and the smokers and separate who gets the lung cancer, heart disease, and all the rest, and it's the smoker's who get the diseases more frequently and die younger overall. Sorry, but it's a fact. Don't need a scientist on that one.

I think the point of smoking is it starts out as a fad, something to do, it looks cool, it's now a defiance of death, and then after a couple packs you can't stop. If you have the will-power it can be done, but it's a tough road, and you need a plan. I think you should really try to quit, and then when you do you will feel all-powerful. This was my experience. I don't feel all safe or anything cause I smoked a very long time, but I still like the extra cash in my pocket.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume What would be proof for you? What form would the proof have to be in for you to believe it? This seems like trying to prove the existence of God to a die-hard atheist, it's seeming that you're needing proof that is impossible to give.

That was my point - they make a claim and expect you to believe it based on your faith in the "saints of science".

What I am requesting as proof is to see the footnotes and the methods used that the claim is based on. Just saying "we did a study" is not enough proof. I want to see the actural study as it was outlined, the questons they asked of their study group, what potentals were concidered or not concidered, how they interpreted the stats collected, etc.

If you ask science why they like the theroy of the Big Bang they can show you all the physics and other facts used to reach that claim, if you ask religion the same question about Creationism they cannot produce their facts to support their claim. If epidemiology wants me to accept their claim then show me the "nuts and bolts" upon which that claim is resting.

Why would you have a problem understanding that simple request?

If you believe in UFOs then show me one that I can physically examine.
Don't just make claims.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe What would be the reason for the conspiracy? The government gets a lot of revenue from cigarettes, so if it was harmless seems like they'd want everybody TO smoke.The more smoker's the more tax dollars. There are lots of cancer causing agents out there, but cigarette smoke is quite concentrated and it would really get in those lungs and body parts more voraciously than the other agents unless you were also in close contact with say asbestos, but asbestos and lung cancer vary in how they damage, and usually it can be differentiated when asbestos has caused the damage. Many times people who have lung cancer come down with a certain type of pneumonia and this is usually what speeds the diagnosis of lung cancer. This has been my experience. Fact is people who smoke get more diseases and are sick more than non-smokers, and overall we all come into contact with car fumes, and other potentially hazardous materials on a daily basis, but take the non-smokers and the smokers and separate who gets the lung cancer, heart disease, and all the rest, and it's the smoker's who get the diseases more frequently and die younger overall. Sorry, but it's a fact. Don't need a scientist on that one. I think the point of smoking is it starts out as a fad, something to do, it looks cool, it's now a defiance of death, and then after a couple packs you can't stop. If you have the will-power it can be done, but it's a tough road, and you need a plan. I think you should really try to quit, and then when you do you will feel all-powerful. This was my experience. I don't feel all safe or anything cause I smoked a very long time, but I still like the extra cash in my pocket.

Good question: Because....

1. - They can collect more taxes from cigarettes by adding a sin tax to make up for that they lost from those who quit smoking.

2 - The money collected from just the tobacco sales is far less then the money collected from industries that polute - re: oil, auto, military, chemical, computer, logging, housing construction, coal and nuclear energy, and so forth combined. All of which bring pressure on the elected people to stop environmentalists from seeking vast regulations and controls over such industries. The anti-smoking movement is really an anti-environmentalist movement. (as I already went into great detail about in one of my postings in this thread ). By shifting the blame on smokers instead of on all those other industries. RE: speculated estimation as an example - 20 big time lobby groups agenst just 1 lobby group.

Your 2nd point is well taken. Anyone who is thinking about starting smoking or thinking about quiting smoking should give your reasoning points great concideration.

1 - Cigarette smoke seems more concentrated. That is because you can see it, smell it, and so forth. Where as you cannot see the fumes caused by traffic, etc. ( except when smog limits how far you can see into the distance). None the less if you live in a city you are in fact breathing in mass amounts of toxic fallout even if you do not notice it floating in the air. And those toxic fumes are carried by winds into less populated areas - globally.

2 - Do you really know just what the amounts of toxic chemicals are contained in cigarette smoke? Do you really know if those teenie weenie trace amounts are enough to represent a theat worth being worried about? What acturally are the concentrated amounts that those trace amounts represent in cigarette smoke? How quickly can the body flush out those tennie weenie trace amounts? Can those trace amounts really stay in the body to build up into a massive dose, such as radeoactive particles do, or will they be processed out of the body like many other things we consume? Have you really been educated about such details? Or, are you allowing your imagination to influence your reasoning things out?

3 - Now here is my comment on your very best "fact". Let us say we did a study of 100 people who all live in a city and are effected by smog and industrial polution. You would use 50 people who do not smoke, and 50 people who do smoke. Let's say that you kept track of those people (each person must be the same age... let's say 30 years old) for the rest of their life to find out who got sicker and who died first. But wait, we must also insure that each person in the group also had a family history of cancer, in order to rule out genetics as the main cause. Plus, you must insure that they all eat the same foods because some foods could effect the outcome of the results. Insure they are all in the same healthy condition relative to blood pressure, weight, and so forth. Also, you must insure that each person in the study group is responding to low-level stress in the same manner ( calm or over-reactive ).

Now let's say you were able to put together that perfectly matched group of 100 people to do your study. And you made sure that they all did not have any big changes in their environment or occupations that might alter that match-up for the rest of their lives, and that none of them encounted any situation that might be viewed as a major stress in their lives. Having done all of that you then do your collection of stats. If the satistics then show that smokers are more apt to get sick or to die sooner then non-smokers, you would have pretty dependable proof to support a claim that smoking is bad for people. I would be hard-fit to say that you do not have a good reason for the "claim" made or deducted from that satistical study. But did the epidemiology researchers really do all those things to insure their study contains no random errors? Well, show me the footnotes about how they conducted the research and then I can know. Then I can mark off each requirement on my check list and say "yes" you have got reasonable proof for the claim made. So I do not just have to take their word for it.
The claim is still suspect until such is provided. I do not think I am being unreasonable to demand that "show and tell" proof for the pudding.

Right or wrong?

Overcoming an addiction can give you a sense of empowerment and it shows you can take charge of your life. I agree. If one wants that feeling or that sense of self-confidence then I would say " go for it, and may god's speed by with you". The less you need the more you have.
Making life more simplistic for your self is not a bad idea at all. I do not have any objection to people doing that. Freedom is a self-created manifestation of will power. If a person gives up watching TV they have more time to spend on more productive things, or more time for their family, if we give up that super-sized meal and eat a more reasonable amount of food (in moderation) we might feel better and have more cash in our pocket to jingle around. (don't spend the extra money of gasoline for a joy ride however). Those are very idealistic things to do. But it has nothing to do with the topic about the health threats of tobacco.

The extra cash idea however is being forced into the limelight by raising the cost of cigarettes via sin taxes. It would be possible to buy a pack of cigarettes for $1.50 instead of $4.00 (name brands) if it were not for all those "super-sized" taxes. Why not just "overcome" those taxes so that people would have more money in their pockets? Also, having more money in your pocket because you quit wasteing it on tobacco is pointless if you wasted the extra money on something else instead. That would boil down to you selecting what you choose to waste money on, and nothing more. Sure, you might feel better about buying a new TV set instead of cigarettes for a year, and that is your right to pick what turns you on the most, what vice you prefer. I do not object to a person's right to be selective.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: Technosoul That was my point - they make a claim and expect you to believe it based on your faith in the "saints of science". What I am requesting as proof is to see the footnotes and the methods used that the claim is based on. Just saying "we did a study" is not enough proof. I want to see the actural study as it was outlined, the questons they asked of their study group, what potentals were concidered or not concidered, how they interpreted the stats collected, etc. If you ask science why they like the theroy of the Big Bang they can show you all the physics and other facts used to reach that claim, if you ask religion the same question about Creationism they cannot produce their facts to support their claim. If epidemiology wants me to accept their claim then show me the "nuts and bolts" upon which that claim is resting. Why would you have a problem understanding that simple request? If you believe in UFOs then show me one that I can physically examine. Don't just make claims.

Um, people HAVE given you these studies over and over again, so I guess I just don't understand what exactly you're looking for. Do you expect scientists to do autopsies on people that are still alive?

[Matt W]

How about this?

Emerging Themes in Epidemiology | Full text | Two Surgeon General's reports on smoking and cancer: a historical investigation of the practice of causal inference

Or some of these?

BioMed Central | Search results

Or these?

BioMed Central | Search results smoking in title