What's the point of smoking?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite The cancer doesn't come from the nicotine, it comes from the tar, and the ammonia, or any of the other crap thats in cigarette smoke.

Or from car fumes, medical x-ray machines, and perhaps millions of chemicals and products use in the work place and at home.

In other words, they cannot honestly pin point what causes cancer.

My sister died of cancer and never smoked, worked in a smoke free environment, and lived in a smoke free house, and her social life was at chruches and so forth. So 2nd hand smoke would not have been a factor ether.

Even if cigarettes were banned we would still have peope getting cancer in the same numbers as now.

Because they are doing the wrong kind of medical or scientific research. The "link" is that people get cancer by how they react to stress. The link is because people who encounter stress are more likely to smoke also, giving the impression that smoking caused the cancers because so many cancer victims smoked to counter act stress, but the stress still activated the processes that caused the cancer, and would do so if they smoked or did not smoke.

But the dummy scientists have yet to discover that "link" that I just provided. Because they are motivated by the government to focus on cigarettes only. Because they do not want people to sue a big company for work-related stress that caused them to have cancer.

We only have one fact, an overdose of x rays can cause damage to the inside cells and cause cancer. Most of the other so-called facts are just guesses and speculations.

Needless to say I cannot prove my claim because the dummy scientists have not directed their reseach in that direction yet, and perhaps that is why they found no good answers to prevent cancer. They started the research back in the 1950s and still have made no worthwhile breakthough to save people. No wonder, they were directed to look in the wrong place.

[Tycoon]

I'm sorry, but... IT CAUSES LUNG CANCER.

Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer may also be the most tragic cancer because in most cases, it might have been prevented -- 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. Cigarette smoke contains more than 4,000 different chemicals, many of which are proven cancer-causing substances, or carcinogens. Smoking cigars or pipes also increases the risk of lung cancer.

Facts About Lung Cancer - American Lung Association site

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela There is mountains of evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart problems. You would have to be blind not to see the scietific evidence that smoking is a major health hazard

I have gone to all the important webpages recomended by the American Medical Industry. I have read all they had to say.

They made a lot of statements and listed a bunch of stats. But presented no real evidence or proof based on real science. They never explain in depth how they came up with that mountain of evidence and the reason why is because it is all wild speculation or facts where they leave out the whole truth. For example a cigarette might contain something that is known to be unhealthy if inhaled, but then they forget to tell you that the cigarette contains such a tiny amout of that chemial that it would really have no affect on you. But they make it sound like it would.

Example: If you were inside a burning house and got an overdose of smoke you could die. that does not mean you would die because you inhaled smoke from a cigarette. Or a mega dose of a chemical could cause a major health problem for you, but a teenie weenie (less then a drop) of that same chemical can be consumed without doing a thing to change your health. But they fail to mention that the amount of that bad chemical is in a nearly un-noticable amount in the product under question here.

evidence my foot! You must not confuse scare tactics with sound factural evidence of solid proof. We could say worse things about 90 percent of the prescription drugs those medical experts are selling the population. And I do not hear you crying about that.

Fact is, they made a mountian of evidence out of a mole hill, and that mole hill was made out of really poor science. I would compare it with the mountain of evidence they had that proved that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction. Now we know it was all phoney evidence.
The big mountain is just a lot of repeated brainwashing over the media.

Cigarettes are not weapons of mass murder.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon I'm sorry, but... IT CAUSES LUNG CANCER. Facts About Lung Cancer - American Lung Association site

That is a good example of a bunch of statements and stats that are not backed up with any real proof that we can look it to confirm that the statements are correct.

87 percent are caused by smoking ... now honestly they are really saying that 87 percent of the people were also smokers who ended up with lung cancer. So what? 98 percent of them watched TV for more then 3 hours a day, so how come that is not the cause?

See how silly those facts are. Not REAL science.

What they did not study in their research is that the same amount of people suffered stress in their life and reacted to stress in like manner. So they did not note that as a potential cause.

They stated that cigarettes contain 4000 bad chemicals in them. Okay, what chemicals, and are they present in a large enough amount to have any affect? Oops, they forgot to mention that those chemicals are in such small trace amounts that they are not problematic for smokers. Or that you can buy organic cigarettes that do not contain some of the added chemicals they are concerned about, or that they could simply order the cigarette company to not add those extra chemicals. Dang it, they just based a warning on a half-truth. Oh well, the idea is to scare people so they do not blame those other industries, like them guys who make gasoline for your car. Or those airplanes for the military. Or blame those who tested A-bombs out in the open back in the 1940s and 1950s when the cancer illnesses first became a major concern.

You see, you showed me no real science, just made claims and expect me to take their word for it, like we did when they said Saddam had WMDs and bio-chemicals in his backyard.

Question authority.

[Tycoon]

My God, do they have to spell it out for you?

If you want statistics you can't deny then I am sure there is a statistic saying how the rate of lung cancer increases in smokers rather than the rate of smokers increases with lung cancer.

[Tycoon]

Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%. Among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in non-smokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women.

So non-smokers get lung cancer less often then smokers??

Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%. Among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in non-smokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women.

Now in case you didn't know, carcinogens cause cell mutations. Cell mutations SUCH AS CANCER.
Lung cancer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This argument is over. If there was no rule about personal attacks or unnecessary use of swear words you'd be reading what I really think of somebody so stupid that they think they can argue against years and years of medical research.

[Halofan48]

Smoking causes the lungs and trachea to be coated in Tar and other chemicals. These reduces the amount of oxygen carried by the blood and mutations of cells in the respiratory system. These mutations can be malignant tumors in the respiratory system.

A lot of people are very selective when it comes to medical documents, perhaps we're all guilty of doing this at one time or another. They might take they one study out of a thousand that supports their point and dismiss all the others.

[gela]

The real answer is "no one knows for sure".

Yes we do know. It is fact. Prepare for some statistics:

Smoking kills more Victorians every year than road accidents, alcohol and other drugs combined. Deaths due to tobacco use account for 82 per cent of all drug-caused deaths, and around 15 per cent of deaths from all causes. Quitting before middle age reduces the risk of lung cancer by 90 per cent. After 15 years of being a non-smoker, the risk of stroke is reduced to that of a person who has never smoked. After one year of being a non-smoker, the increased risk of death from heart attack is halved.

Source

I have known 90 year old people who smoked for years and can get up and dance a jig around the teenagers. If people develope some kinds of illnesses from another cause then cigarettes might not be good for them. They are only for healthy people and not people who are physically weak already, or who become that way.

Yes, there are 90 year olds who arn't affected by cigaretts at all. There are also 40 year olds who die because of cigaretts.
My grandfather died of lung cancer at age 57. He has a cigaret in his mouth in every picture I have of him. (Im not looking for sympathy, I never knew him to begin with, he died when I was about 3 - Im just countering your 'I know someone' argument)

However your question is somewhat pointless. Because you know that I cannot provide a single webpage link to a scientific study that prooves that cigaretter smoking does not cause a health risk. I doubt if anyone has ever published such a thing as that and if they did it was a long time ago and you would be hard pressed to find it in todays society of control freaks.

Society is also against cannabis, yet you can find several pages supporting it.

Basicly, I don't care if you smoke. My friends smoke. Im not here to argue that no one can smoke.
Im here to say that it is unhealthy. If you know that its unhealthy and still choose to smoke, then good for you. But at least your making an educated decision. Its up to you to weigh up how good it makes you feel, and the possible effects it will have on you in twenty years. Its your life, therefore your choice.
However, doing it under the impression that it won't harm you is stupid. It most likely will. If you decide its not worth the risk then you shouldn't do it.

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul That is a good example of a bunch of statements and stats that are not backed up with any real proof that we can look it to confirm that the statements are correct. 87 percent are caused by smoking ... now honestly they are really saying that 87 percent of the people were also smokers who ended up with lung cancer. So what? 98 percent of them watched TV for more then 3 hours a day, so how come that is not the cause? See how silly those facts are. Not REAL science. What they did not study in their research is that the same amount of people suffered stress in their life and reacted to stress in like manner. So they did not note that as a potential cause. They stated that cigarettes contain 4000 bad chemicals in them. Okay, what chemicals, and are they present in a large enough amount to have any affect? Oops, they forgot to mention that those chemicals are in such small trace amounts that they are not problematic for smokers. Or that you can buy organic cigarettes that do not contain some of the added chemicals they are concerned about, or that they could simply order the cigarette company to not add those extra chemicals. Dang it, they just based a warning on a half-truth. Oh well, the idea is to scare people so they do not blame those other industries, like them guys who make gasoline for your car. Or those airplanes for the military. Or blame those who tested A-bombs out in the open back in the 1940s and 1950s when the cancer illnesses first became a major concern. You see, you showed me no real science, just made claims and expect me to take their word for it, like we did when they said Saddam had WMDs and bio-chemicals in his backyard. Question authority.

Real science huh? How about the wondrous effects of radiation on my fathers body? Or, perhaps all the heavy metals that were injected into his bloodstream? Better yet, how about the lovely effects of all the opiates he was forced to take that turned him into a drugged out zombie for the last 2 months of his life? He was allowed the joy of having 2 bouts of pneumonia and a cardiac event prior to the discovery of a baseball size tumor in his lungs, which slowly spread to his leg bones and his spinal cord. And what a surprise! The large tumor that started this lovely chain of events was determined to be caused by his smoking habit of 40 years, which was strange because we all thought it was because he watched 4 hours of TV every day instead of the recommended 3. In fact, he started watching even more TV after he was bedridden, which is probably why he died, not because of the advanced lung cancer.

Inhaling smoke of ANY kind is BAD. Your lungs are designed to inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. If you breathe in anything other than air, it is BAD FOR YOU. You have seen the commercials that show a normal persons lung, a healthy looking pink blob of cuteness, and the lung of a smoker, which looks like a raisin that has been left out in the rain and stepped on a few times.

If you want to be in denial that your smoking habit is bad for you, thats fine. However, don't try to tell anyone, least of all me, that smoking isn't linked to lung cancer, because as both you and I know, thats bullshit.

[Marilyn Monroe]

I think people start smoking to look cool, and it is very sexy. I know it has very bad effects on health, but this is why I started smoking. I've quit, but it was tough for me to quit, very tough, sometimes I still wish I could go back and smoke like a chimney again, but it's not going to happen.

[Derach]

people start smoking to rebel and look cool to peers. They continue because it's an addictive behavior. Maybe it defies logic, but so does the proliferation of fast food joints.

You could eat better and cheaper, but so many people insist on a value meal 3 times a week that McD's is the largest food chain in America.

not really much better for you than a pack a day.

[Chris]

Smoking is a serious risk to health (all smoking) and anyone who fails to realize this - is a damage to their own health. Its a crying shame. Anyway, if not for the health reasons, look at it this way. Why would you fork over so much cash to put in to the pockets of greedy fat pig rich mofos at the tobacco companies, who get a product from the poorest of the poor in the south - the tobacco farmers - who dont get any fair trade in the deal The cost - as with coffee, the farmers dont get a fraction of a fraction of the profit these scumbag tobacco companies' get.

So look at how much money you will save - which can be spent on something else, for a smoker, it may be health care. (and how ridiculously expensive it is here in America (another debate)

[Jack]

I smoke and have for around 40 years.
I started because I admired the kind of people I saw smoking, the same reason a lot of people get tattoos and piercings. Image.
I smoke pure tobacco cigarettes in recognition of the danger additives introduce in other mass market cigarettes.
Currently I smoke out of habit. Addiction isn't as strong a factor with pure tobacco.
If the price of a pack gets any higher I'll try to quit again. I quit once for two years and went back to it due to stupidity. I've already lived much longer than I expected, so quitting will be motivated by finances, not the desire to prolong my life.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon My God, do they have to spell it out for you? If you want statistics you can't deny then I am sure there is a statistic saying how the rate of lung cancer increases in smokers rather than the rate of smokers increases with lung cancer.

They way they did it ( I asked my own Doctor that question ) is by having people with Lung Cancer fill out a survey, they asked them about certain habits, and then based on what they marked off on that list they determine if there is a link.

They might ask if you ever smoked cigarettes.
Did you ever smoke a pipe.
Did you spend a lot of time outdoors or in your garden.
Do you have lots of dust in your house.
Do you have a pet cat.
Do you work at a chemical plant.

(and so forth) and then when they find out that 80 percent of them smoked a cigarette and only 10 percent ever smoke a pipe they use that evidence to claim that cirgarettes are a high risk and pipe smoking is a low risk. Etc. They might have a hundred things or activites on the list to mark yes or no for.

That is not real science nor real evidence. One reason is that back in the late 1950s when they conducted that fact finding survery nearly 80 percent of the population had smoked cigarettes. If they would have asked them if they watch TV then the evidence would prove that watching TV causes cancer of the lungs. (they did not ask). However they can say, using that survery evidence, that a there is a possible link between smoking and lung cancer, according to the stats.

So first off, before you go reading those claims, you need to know the difference between real science and those fact finding surveys. Because the survey does not give you any absolute or confirmed proof, it only provides a way to make a "educated guess". But if the survey did not ask the right questions, then it would be totally miss-leading. (simular to some of the polls created for this debate forum - such as the one for this particular thread ).

I checked out the survey and I do not think they included all the right questions that they should have asked. Nor am I sure if all those polled answered it honestly.

[Tycoon]

They way they did it ( I ask my own Doctor that question ) is by having people with Lung Cancer fill out a survey, they asked them about certain habits, and then based on what they marked off on that list they determine if there is a link. They might ask if you ever smoked cigarettes. Did you ever smoke a pipe. Did you spend a lot of time outdoors or in your garden. Do you have lots of dust in your house. Do you have a pet cat. Do you work at a chemical plant. (and so forth) and then when they find out that 80 percent of them smoked a cigarette and only 10 percent ever smoke a pipe they use that evidence to claim that cirgarettes are a high risk and pipe smoking is a low risk. Etc. They might have a hundred things or activites on the list to mark yes or no for. That is not real science nor real evidence. One reason is that back in the late 1950s when they conducted that fact finding survery nearly 80 percent of the population had smoked cigarettes. If they would have asked them if they watch TV then the evidence would prove that watching TV causes cancer of the lungs. (they did not ask). However they can say, using that survery evidence, that a there is a possible link between smoking and lung cancer, according to the stats. So first off, before you go reading those claims, you need to know the difference between real science and those fact finding surveys. Because the survey does not give you any absolute or confirmed proof, it only provides a way to make a "good guess". But if the survey did not ask the right questions, then it would be totally miss-leading. (simular to some of the polls created for this debate forum - such as the one for this particular thread ). I checked out the survey and I do not think they included all the right questions that they should have asked. Nor am I sure if all those polled answered it honestly.

You keep it up and you're going on my ignore list for being a damned fool!

Science has proven that smoking causes lung cancer! Cigarettes are stuffed full of carcinogens that guess what, this is the easiest science question ever, CAUSE CANCER.

You can't argue against years and years of medical research. Just forget it. I can't believe somebody can be so ridiculousy stupid.

[Tycoon]

In most people, lung cancer is related to cigarette smoking. Although some people who have never smoked get lung cancer, smoking causes 9 out of 10 cases.Lung cancer risks and causes

Guess what, I doubt they would have come up with that statistic if those nine people weren't smokers!!

[Derach]

Anything that hinders your ability to breathe is torturous. Inhaling anything besides clean air aggrevates your lungs and compromises your ability to breathe. I wouldn't wish any respiratory dysfunctions on anybody ... even athsma. My mother is on oxygen with emphasyma ... none of her siblings are ... she is the only one that smoked. Coincidence? ... maybe ... but I choose not to gamble and am careful what I inhale (and tobacco in the form of processed cigarettes is certainly off my list).

Never ceases to amaze me the zeal with which people will deny obvious evidence though ... fake moon landings, creationism and the health benefits of smoking are all peas of the same pod to me. Intentionally, blissfully ignorant.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Yes we do know. It is fact. Prepare for some statistics: Source Yes, there are 90 year olds who arn't affected by cigaretts at all. There are also 40 year olds who die because of cigaretts. My grandfather died of lung cancer at age 57. He has a cigaret in his mouth in every picture I have of him. (Im not looking for sympathy, I never knew him to begin with, he died when I was about 3 - Im just countering your 'I know someone' argument) Society is also against cannabis, yet you can find several pages supporting it. Basicly, I don't care if you smoke. My friends smoke. Im not here to argue that no one can smoke. Im here to say that it is unhealthy. If you know that its unhealthy and still choose to smoke, then good for you. But at least your making an educated decision. Its up to you to weigh up how good it makes you feel, and the possible effects it will have on you in twenty years. Its your life, therefore your choice. However, doing it under the impression that it won't harm you is stupid. It most likely will. If you decide its not worth the risk then you shouldn't do it.

I am not sure if looking at photos in a scrapbook is a sceintific way to determine why he died of cancer. But I can see how that would give you such an impression when you were also told (via hundreds of anti-smoking ads on TV) that cigarettes might cause cancer. The "power of suggestion" works in voodooism and it can work via those TV and other ads used to brainwash the population with. But what if in every photo he was wear a baseball cap, then would you have made that same determination, that baseball hats might cause cancer? I doubt you can answer yes to that question.

You can find webpages that "shoot down" the theories proposed by the anti-smoking crowd. I never said that you cannot. We even have a link here doing that debate that someone posted a year or so ago. What I said is that the medical industry has not provided one with evidence that smoking is not unhealthy - and the pro-smoking webpages are not viewed as being an "authorized authority" on the topic.

Now I know by your remarks that you do not mind if other people smoke, but you are a "rare individual" to do that if you also fear that smoking causes cancer. They are going to rope you in someday by telling you that 2nd hand smoke is a health hazard and then you will fear your friends and will bug them to stop smoking in your presense.

Meanwhile I must deal with stupid "sin taxes" which keep going up and with not being able to work at many kinds of jobs, and I cannot go out to eat some food and light one up after dinner. Unless I go stand out in the rain. Ever try to light one up in the rain? Forcing people to stand outside in the snow, rain, fog, is unhealthy for those people. They should make a law to prevent that kind of policy making.

Stess is the number one killer (but often recorded as a natural death).

Prescription drugs would be the number one preventable cause of death, not cigarettes, as so announced by the medical industry. They say it is because of errors in how the prescription was filled or because the person did not follow directions or warnings on the product.

[Tycoon]

The "power of suggestion" works in voodooism and it can work via those TV and other ads used to brainwash the population with. But what if in every photo he was wear a baseball cap, then would you have made that same determination, that baseball hats might cause cancer? I doubt you can answer yes to that question.

Baseball hats have not been scientifically proven to cause cancer, have they?

You can find webpages that "shoot down" the theories proposed by the anti-smoking crowd. I never said that you cannot.

No, you cannot. Link one so that I can make fun of it. Please.

Now I know by your remarks that you do not mind if other people smoke, but you are a "rare individual" to do that if you also fear that smoking causes cancer.

She can smoke and still know that it causes cancer. Most smokers do know that it causes cancer, but they choose to smoke anyways because they think that it will not happen to them.

Unless I go stand out in the rain. Ever try to light one up in the rain? Forcing people to stand outside in the snow, rain, fog, is unhealthy for those people. They should make a law to prevent that kind of policy making.

Have you ever been to Wisconsin? I have. Smoking is legal in all public places, and let me tell you it is terrible. Every time you walk into a room a wall of smoke hits you and makes your eyes water.

Stess is the number one killer (but often recorded as a natural death).

Then don't become dependant upon cigarettes to relieve your stress.

[Muser]

Quote by: Technosoul Oh well, the idea is to scare people so they do not blame those other industries, like them guys who make gasoline for your car. Or those airplanes for the military. Or blame those who tested A-bombs out in the open back in the 1940s and 1950s when the cancer illnesses first became a major concern. You see, you showed me no real science, just made claims and expect me to take their word for it, like we did when they said Saddam had WMDs and bio-chemicals in his backyard. Question authority.

Quite right. I'm not saying smoking doesn't have detrimental effects - of course it does. The problem, however, is that cigarettes have become the catchall-beall-endall with respect to cancer-causing substances, while completely ignoring all others (as Technosoul indicates).

Put a person in an enclosed garage with 50 people smoking, and put another person in an enclosed garage with a car running - who's going to die first? From the result, what conclusion could one draw about the toxicity of the substances involved?

Car exhaust, pesticides, industrial plants and their pollution, chemically and genetically engineered foodstuffs, unclean water, flouride, etc., and their cancer-causing substances all get ignored because hey, we've found the one and only cause of cancer, right? Does anyone really believe that if cigarettes were abolished and no one smoked, that cancer would be eliminated from the face of the planet?

As long as we continue to make cigarettes the scapegoat and ignore all other cancer-causing entities, we'll continue to delay finding the *real* causes of cancer in order to affect a cure. 'course, it requires an extreme leap of human faith to believe our US government actually *wants* to cure cancer in order to have a healthier population - plenty of evidence to suggest they prefer a diseased-ridden, medicine-dependent society - it's FAAAARRRR more profitable.