What's the point of smoking?

[Tycoon]

Well, let me compile a list of ridiculous things said by Technosoul.

First of all we have no proof based on real science that smoking is a major health hazard.

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

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

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?

So trust me, he isn't taking exactly the same position as you are Muser.



At least you acknowledge

I'm not saying smoking doesn't have detrimental effects - of course it does.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon Well, let me compile a list of ridiculous things said by Technosoul. So trust me, he isn't taking exactly the same position as you are Muser. At least you acknowledge

So you made a nice list. But you forgot to show proof for your claim that those things I wrote are ridiculous, what kind of a debate is that? Am I supposed to just take your word of it and bow out?

[Tycoon]

So you made a nice list. But you forgot to show proof for your claim that those things I wrote are ridiculous, what kind of a debate is that? Am I supposed to just take your word of it and bow out?

No, you're supposed to take the word of years and years of medical research done by scientists that are smarter than you are.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: 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.

The purpose of the lungs is just that, to filter out tar (whatever) so it cannot get into the rest of the body. However you are also talking about a poor diet problem. Science has shown that if you eat at least one cup of dark green veggies each day (check health webpages to find out which veggies are best) that this will clean out your lungs and counter what you said concerning cigarette smoking.

Nearly everyone is not getting the proper dose of oxygen (due in part to our modern reduction in tropical forests), especially if they live in a city prone to smog, such as L.A. California. It is wise to eat foods that can supply more oxygen, or absorb it through your skin pores by not wearing so much clothing. You can find other alternatives for adding more oxygen to your blood, such as taking a bath in deluted "food grade" hydrogen Peroxide (which product is compose of water and extra oxygen). Take the responsabilty for your own health and do the research on the internet, lots of webpages for that purpose.

The point however is that we have lungs for the purpose of filtering out what we inhale, what it filters out collects there, and the older you get the more you have collected. The lungs also have a system for moving that crap out so it can be removed, by exhaling or even coughing. But you need to eat your dark green veggies to keep that system operating correctly in later years.

Elementals Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) Directory

Another study showed that people who consume a least a shot glass or more of olive oil each day in their foods do not get heart attacks, the study group used had smokers, people under stress, and overweight people in the group. Again, diet is the key and getting informed will give you the keys you need. Olive oil, green tea, a cup of spinish, and you are pretty much set to go.... a little oatmeal is also not a bad idea. Even tree sap in the form of an asprin is useful in keeping the blood thin.

It is pointless to just quit smoking when you live in a toxic envronment of car fumes. You need to work with government to clean up our air and water supplies. Smoking would not be a big problem if we had lots of oxygen in our air rather then the polution we are now subjected too.

Some people like to pick on only tobacco smoke and dismiss the bigger causes of polution, which is like going to Iraq to fight the terrorists who are based in Afganistan.

So now Mr Tar expert. Please tell us what trace amounts of tar are contained in the smoke from a pack of filter cigarettes. If you are so well informed that would be an important fact to relate. I know about that report (as so informed by my Doctor) cerning the tar and that our blood system is not getting enough oxygen. That is real science and people should not dismiss that one report. (best one they got). But quiting smoking is not the only option, you can treat that side effect with that veggie diet I mentioned, or in other ways. And you can do it with stuff form your local store in the produce department, without expensive drugs.

[Matt W]

Tycoon, how about you drop the personal comments.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[gela]

Technosoul:

There is scientific evidence, directly linking cigaret smoking to lung cancer, emphasema, and a long list of other illenesses.
This science is called epidemiology.

Alot of time, and money, and effort is spent, by scientists, comparing peoples life styles to their health problems.
These scientists have found, indesputably, that smoking causes lung cancer.
Go ahead and argue with your logic, unfortunatly, you are not a scientist, and you do not have the data that these scientests have, and have used to prove the risks of smoking.
Everyone in the city has an equal chance of getting lung cancer because of the pollution? Wrong. These studies have found that if you smoke, you have a higher chance of dying. Its just that simple. It is science.

The purpose of the lungs is just that, to filter out tar (whatever) so it cannot get into the rest of the body.

Wrong. The purpose of our lungs is to provide a surface for cellular respiration.
They are not, in any way, designed to filter out harmful chemicals. That is why the harmful chemicals stay in our lungs, and slowly destroy the alveoli - causing emphesema.

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.

Yes, the scietists don't know anything, and you know everything.
Apparently every government in the world are focused on cigarettes, because these results arn't only found in America. Also, it is against the governments interests to reduce smoking - they get a shit load of tax off it, and its more consumarism to help the economy.
I have studied how emipidematology works in biology, they look at everything, they have huge huge sample sizes, they found that smoking kills. You have a hunch, and you have the fact that you don't want smoking to be bad for you because it feels good.

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.

A trace amount of a harmful chemical.
Right, so you smoke two packs a day? I've never smoked, so I don't know how many cigarettes are in a pack, but im going to take a guess at 12.
So, multiply that trace amount by 24, then multiply the result by 356, then multiply that number by how ever many years you have been smoking.
Our lungs are not designed as a filter, they have no method of removing chemicals once they are in there. Unless you count wheezing and coughing, which arn't all that effective. My proof? I've ever heard of anyone that could cough up tar.

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.

Or I could just sit up wind from them..
Im not stupid enough to believe that occaisionaly inhaling a small amount of smoke will kill me. My friends always smoke out side, and they arn't heavy smokers. If I was going to ask them to stop, it would be because I hate the smell, not because of health risks.

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.

Cigarette smoke gets into the carpet and the funiture and makes it smell. People don't like the immediate smell, and It sets off some asthma reactions. Its perfectly reasonable for businesses to ban smoking on their premises. Unfortunatly, you are a minority - no ones going to be inconvienienced by a minority.

[Tycoon]

To back up Gela's information...

Non-smoker's lung:
http://quits.org/image1.jpg

Smoker's lung:
http://quits.org/image2.jpg

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Technosoul: There is scientific evidence, directly linking cigaret smoking to lung cancer, emphasema, and a long list of other illenesses. This science is called epidemiology. Alot of time, and money, and effort is spent, by scientists, comparing peoples life styles to their health problems. These scientists have found, indesputably, that smoking causes lung cancer. Go ahead and argue with your logic, unfortunatly, you are not a scientist, and you do not have the data that these scientests have, and have used to prove the risks of smoking. Everyone in the city has an equal chance of getting lung cancer because of the pollution? Wrong. These studies have found that if you smoke, you have a higher chance of dying. Its just that simple. It is science. Wrong. The purpose of our lungs is to provide a surface for cellular respiration. They are not, in any way, designed to filter out harmful chemicals. That is why the harmful chemicals stay in our lungs, and slowly destroy the alveoli - causing emphesema. Yes, the scietists don't know anything, and you know everything. Apparently every government in the world are focused on cigarettes, because these results arn't only found in America. Also, it is against the governments interests to reduce smoking - they get a shit load of tax off it, and its more consumarism to help the economy. I have studied how emipidematology works in biology, they look at everything, they have huge huge sample sizes, they found that smoking kills. You have a hunch, and you have the fact that you don't want smoking to be bad for you because it feels good. A trace amount of a harmful chemical. Right, so you smoke two packs a day? I've never smoked, so I don't know how many cigarettes are in a pack, but im going to take a guess at 12. So, multiply that trace amount by 24, then multiply the result by 356, then multiply that number by how ever many years you have been smoking. Our lungs are not designed as a filter, they have no method of removing chemicals once they are in there. Unless you count wheezing and coughing, which arn't all that effective. My proof? I've ever heard of anyone that could cough up tar. Or I could just sit up wind from them.. Im not stupid enough to believe that occaisionaly inhaling a small amount of smoke will kill me. My friends always smoke out side, and they arn't heavy smokers. If I was going to ask them to stop, it would be because I hate the smell, not because of health risks. Cigarette smoke gets into the carpet and the funiture and makes it smell. People don't like the immediate smell, and It sets off some asthma reactions. Its perfectly reasonable for businesses to ban smoking on their premises. Unfortunatly, you are a minority - no ones going to be inconvienienced by a minority.

You keep saying you have this mountain of evidence. But that mountian is only as good as the foundation it was built upon - deceptions

Here is a link about a court case were a person lost in an attempt to sue the tobacco industry, the reason he lost as that his lawyers could not bring into court any good evidence based on real science. Now I keep talking about real science but it should be noted that other kinds of science does exist, but they cannot be accepted as representives of absolute factural turths.

FORCES International -  Cigarettes don't cause cancer

Comparing a person's life style to their health problems is science but not what is termed as "real" science. It provides some stats for making an speuclative guess, but it is not proof. That is partly because the study can be slanted to get the results you have on your agenda, and because they could leave out a lot of possibles when they conduct that study group. I have debated this, any real scientist would agree with me, and yet you deny it.

Just go down to the science and technology forum and ask those who debate there that have lots of knowledge about science and they can explain the difference between real science and stat collecting.

I am not a scientist, but the only reason I do not have the data your scientists have is because they got no proof to give to me. Only those statements of potential deception. At least none is being shared via internet resources. Not even my own doctor could supply me with such data. Repeating a statement over and over does not make it true, would you believe Hitler's government if they did that?

What is your point about people living in a city and being exposed to high doses of carbon monoxide from car fumes? Why is that anymore wrong then your claims?

they have 20 cigarettes per pack. But it is what is contained in the smoke and not what is in the cigarette that matters. What trace amount of tar is in the smoke from a pack containing 20 cigs? We cannot do the math if we do not know what the trance amount is. Because you are representing that data you should know what the trace amount is. If you wish to make it simple just tell us the trace amount in smoke form one cigarette.

If the lungs did not act like a filter how come the tar did not continue into the blood instead of remaining in the lungs? By the way, the illness you discribe is passed down via the genes (dna) and not "caused" in the manner you discribe. According to other science sources. Why do you think doctors ask about your family tree history? Why do they ask if anyone in your family, such as your mother or grandmother, ever had cancer - etc. Because they have evidence by another study that it is a genetic illness. Which is a different cause then cigarette smoke.

You are simply saying that I have no right to question your authority because if is back by their authority. The scientific research community that tells us eggs cause cancer one week and then the next week they do not but are healthy. The authorites who reported the electric blankets cause cancer, until another study reversed that claim. The same authorities who go on TV and say they just found a cure but must study it for 10 more years, so they need donations, then the cure is never ever marketed and everyone fogets the about the phoney claim. Hell, if they marketed a cure they would loose their jobs researching for a cure, now that makes sence.

Now if they put rat poison in beef the government would demand a recall, because we know for a fact that rat poison can make you ill or cause death. Why no recall on cigarettes for the same reason? Answer: lack of proof.

But you have got me defending cigarette smoking relative to claims made by the anti-tobacco group. But you have avoided all the reasons why I smoke in my first posting, and have not debated those reasons.
Which is the purpose of this thread, to talk about the reasons why people smoke, not the evidence pro and con about para-scientific research. We should get back on the right track.

[Tycoon]

Techno, this is my final post regarding what you have been saying. You can continue to deny years of medical and scientific research all you like, and you can continue to do it by yourself. Nobody is going to waste their time arguing on this.

Now if they put rat poison in beef the government would demand a recall, because we know for a fact that rat poison can make you ill or cause death. Why no recall on cigarettes for the same reason? Answer: lack of proof.

As previously mentioned cigarettes are an important part of the economy, which would be one reason they are not recalled. Also, your example is completely irrelevant. People want the meat, what they do not want is the rat poison. In the case of cigarettes people are aware of the danger and choose to ignore it.

AS FOR SCIENTIFIC PROOF, CIGARETTES CONTAIN MANY KNOWN CARCINOGENS, A FACT YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE (Caps so you won't ignore it this time). These carcinogens have been proven to cause cancer. These carcinogens cause the mutations that are cancer.

You continue to spew statements about deception and lies, but you have no proof backing up anything you say. I'm sorry, but I choose the side of the scientists and doctors that have researched this for years and years.

[Halofan48]

If you wonder why they aren't banned, i have a few ideas.

1) lobbyists, since candidates will try to please those that supported them

2) People will complain that it is their right to smoke, since it's their body

3) It's been in society for a long time, and these discoveries are relatively new, so it will take a bit of time to sink in

Who knows, maybe in the next 100 years, it may be banned to some degree. We are already seeing the start of it. Restaurants with smoking tables, hotels with smoke-less rooms, it's slowly starting. Lets see where it goes.

[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul The purpose of the lungs is just that, to filter out tar (whatever) so it cannot get into the rest of the body. However you are also talking about a poor diet problem. Science has shown that if you eat at least one cup of dark green veggies each day (check health webpages to find out which veggies are best) that this will clean out your lungs and counter what you said concerning cigarette smoking.

How about you go and try to clean out your air filter with some soap and water, maybe you'll save money on car parts. Filters aren't designed to be cleaned out. They are designed to absorb as much crap as they can to separate the good stuff from the bad stuff. Your spleen, liver and kidneys are also filters in your body.

Your spleen can easily get infected, but that is not an essential part of the body and can be removed if need be. The other two, not so much. If you drink an enormous amount of liquor, your liver will become damaged. Theres no amount of green veggies in the world that will make your liver function again, and you will need a transplant or you will die. Similarly, if you drink some water with some nasty chemicals in it, your kidneys can get damaged, and you can get a transplant, or die. Transplants are essentially changing that old air filter.

Also, last I checked tonsils filter out all the bad shit that you breathe in, they're supposed to be the buffer between the lungs. The lungs are not the filter, they are the engine, and when you get a bunch of crap in your engine, it ceases to function correctly. The difference is that you can take the engine apart and clean it, the lung, not so much.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite How about you go and try to clean out your air filter with some soap and water, maybe you'll save money on car parts. Filters aren't designed to be cleaned out. They are designed to absorb as much crap as they can to separate the good stuff from the bad stuff. Your spleen, liver and kidneys are also filters in your body. Your spleen can easily get infected, but that is not an essential part of the body and can be removed if need be. The other two, not so much. If you drink an enormous amount of liquor, your liver will become damaged. Theres no amount of green veggies in the world that will make your liver function again, and you will need a transplant or you will die. Similarly, if you drink some water with some nasty chemicals in it, your kidneys can get damaged, and you can get a transplant, or die. Transplants are essentially changing that old air filter. Also, last I checked tonsils filter out all the bad shit that you breathe in, they're supposed to be the buffer between the lungs. The lungs are not the filter, they are the engine, and when you get a bunch of crap in your engine, it ceases to function correctly. The difference is that you can take the engine apart and clean it, the lung, not so much.

I never recomended green veggies for cleaning the liver or anything other then the lungs. Nor did I ever suggest that drinking too much cannot cause liver damage, that fact is based on real science. Nor did I compare human lungs with a oil filter in a car. They are not the built the same. But you can clean the filters in your air conditioning system of your house or office.

Tonsils are basically useless and can be removed at an early age.

The problem is that the stream of pure scientific knowledge is being cluttered up by all the junk science and we need to filter out that mountain of useless information.

You do not need to take the body apart to clean the lungs, but hey? You might be onto a good idea there for future doctors. Meanwhile clean them with green tea and other healthy foods.

Veggie Tames Secondhand Smoke - Prevention.com

Antioxidant-Rich Foods to Add to Your Diet - Prevention.com

My gosh, you can find food that prevents cancer cused by smoking, wonder why you do not hear that every half hour on TV like you do those anti smoking ads?

~ Mother Earthbeats ~ » Fruits and Veggies

Detox by Eating Veggies & Fruit, on MedicineNet.com

The above webpages have info about how to clean your lungs.

[gela]

Comparing a person's life style to their health problems is science but not what is termed as "real" science. It provides some stats for making an speuclative guess, but it is not proof. That is partly because the study can be slanted to get the results you have on your agenda, and because they could leave out a lot of possibles when they conduct that study group. I have debated this, any real scientist would agree with me, and yet you deny it. Just go down to the science and technology forum and ask those who debate there that have lots of knowledge about science and they can explain the difference between real science and stat collecting.

sci·ence (sī'əns) n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

The phenomena: Disease
The observation: Observing the life styles of people who suffer from a disease
The Identification: Recognising common patterns in these observations
Experimental Investigation: Looking into how the disease is caused by the pattern; and/or studying the health of other people who follow this pattern in life style.
Theoretical Explanation: Link the Life style Pattern to the Disease.

Yep.. seems like a science to me. Can't see any way or form that it isn't science. I also googled 'real science' to see if there was such a term, and I couldn't find any such thing.

I am not a scientist, but the only reason I do not have the data your scientists have is because they got no proof to give to me. Only those statements of potential deception. At least none is being shared via internet resources. Not even my own doctor could supply me with such data. Repeating a statement over and over does not make it true, would you believe Hitler's government if they did that?

There have been studies taken for years and years, all over the world, done in different cultures and under different governments. Yet there is no study, anywhere, that contradicts the fact that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer.
There is no more proof we can possible give. You are the one you has to disprove it now. If you want to say a widly accepted fact isn't true, then your the one who has to come up with the proof, not the rest of us, who have proved it countless times.

What is your point about people living in a city and being exposed to high doses of carbon monoxide from car fumes? Why is that anymore wrong then your claims?

My point was, that smokers and non smokers live in the city, and are exposed to car fumes. Yet it is still the smokers who are more likely to get lung cancer. Non smokers can also get lung cancer from the car fumes, but you are more likely to get it if you smoke.

If you wish to make it simple just tell us the trace amount in smoke form one cigarette.

In short. No. I've already wasted enough time on this thread; I have no doubt that I could go and do it, but it would be time consuming, and I don't care that much. Besides even if I did get the exact amount you would claim it is agenda driven.

If the lungs did not act like a filter how come the tar did not continue into the blood instead of remaining in the lungs? By the way, the illness you discribe is passed down via the genes (dna) and not "caused" in the manner you discribe. According to other science sources. Why do you think doctors ask about your family tree history? Why do they ask if anyone in your family, such as your mother or grandmother, ever had cancer - etc. Because they have evidence by another study that it is a genetic illness. Which is a different cause then cigarette smoke.

DNA makes you predisposed to cancer. Its a very simple concept. If your grandmother had lung cancer, then you are more likely to develop cancer if you smoke. However, if you don't smoke, and you eat the steamed vegetables, then you can also avoide the disease. Being geneticaly disposed to a disease is just another aspect to a disease to factor in. Correct me if im wrong, but doctors also ask wether or not you smoke.

Lungs do not act like a filter. Cellular respiration is the swiching of oxygen and carbon dioxide through a semi permiable membrane. The membrane is there so the blood doesn't spill into your lungs. Its semi perbiable so that cellular respiration can still occur - the CO2 can leave the blood and the Oxygen can enter the blood.
The filtering effect is coincidental, your lungs are not designed to be a filter - if they were, then they would have a method of releasing what they have filtered out.

And 'that disease' was Emphysema.
Emphysema - Risk Factors and Causes - pulmonologychannel

The primary risk factor for emphysema is cigarette smoking. More than 90% of cases occur in people who smoke or have smoked cigarettes (sometimes called "smokers emphysema"). The risk for emphysema increases with the number of cigarettes a person smokes each day and the longer a person smokes. Exposure to second-hand smoke also increases the risk. Chemicals in cigarette smoke can cause continuous low-grade inflammation in lung tissue. Inflammatory cells release enzymes (i.e., proteins that change the rate of chemical reactions), which break down substances in alveolar walls that maintain the structure and elasticity of the air sacs (e.g., collagen, elastin). Damage to the alveolar walls limits the ability of the air sacs to shrink during exhalation and increases the size of the alveoli. Eventually, it disrupts the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in lung tissue and increases the size of the lungs, which makes less room in the chest for them to expand during breathing Alpha–1 antitrypsin (AAT), also called alpha-1 protease inhibitor, is an enzyme (protein) that helps to protect lung tissue and allow the alveoli to function properly. People who have a genetic (hereditary) deficiency of alpha-1 antitrypsin are at increased risk for developing alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency emphysema or familial emphysema. In this condition, damage to the structure and elasticity of the air sacs occurs unchecked. It is important that people who have this deficiency never smoke. AAT is manufactured in the liver, and patients who have this deficiency also may experience liver damage (e.g., cirrhosis, hepatitis).

What was that? Theres a special name for emphasema thats caused by purley genetic reasons. Because they have a certain protein that doesn't work in there body.
However, emphysema caused by cigarette smoke, in perfectly healthy lungs make up 90% of cases.

You are simply saying that I have no right to question your authority because if is back by their authority. The scientific research community that tells us eggs cause cancer one week and then the next week they do not but are healthy. The authorites who reported the electric blankets cause cancer, until another study reversed that claim. The same authorities who go on TV and say they just found a cure but must study it for 10 more years, so they need donations, then the cure is never ever marketed and everyone fogets the about the phoney claim. Hell, if they marketed a cure they would loose their jobs researching for a cure, now that makes sence.

Theres a difference between questioning authority, and claiming that every single scientific study into the effects of smoking are wrong, and your hunch that cancer is caused by stress, is right.

Do not use the results of singular studies to prove a point about the millions of studies that have been done on smoking and its health risks.

I think the rewards and the fame and the glory of finding a cure to cancer would by far outweigh the wage of continued research. Think about what you are saying there.

But you have got me defending cigarette smoking relative to claims made by the anti-tobacco group. But you have avoided all the reasons why I smoke in my first posting, and have not debated those reasons. Which is the purpose of this thread, to talk about the reasons why people smoke, not the evidence pro and con about para-scientific research. We should get back on the right track.

Don't worry, this will probably be my last post on this thread. If thousands of pathological, and epidemilogical studies on smoking can't prove it to you, I doubt my debating will.

[another day]

smoking is cool.

[Chaossaber314]

To the "smoking isn't harmful debate", I've personally lost every relative on my Mother's side except my Mom herself to lung cancer caused by chain smoking. So yes, smoking is in fact detrimental to your health.

[Marilyn Monroe]

People usually start out smoking or used to, because it was cool and incredibly sexy, then it became a pleasure as well, so they stuck with it.

If they came up with a safe cigarette, you'd see a whole bunch of people go back. I probably would if it was a reasonable price, and didn't break the bank to light up.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Technosoul ~ Mother Earthbeats ~ » Fruits and Veggies Detox by Eating Veggies & Fruit, on MedicineNet.com The above webpages have info about how to clean your lungs.

I love the way you rubbish lab tests as 'junk science' and then quote the above websites.

How about this:

BBC News | BUSINESS | Tobacco chief admits smoking 'risk'

The head of Britain's largest cigarette company has told a newspaper that smoking is "not good for you". Martin Broughton, executive chairman of British American Tobacco (BAT), the second biggest cigarette maker in the world, said he had made a personal decision not to smoke.

This was 6 years ago. Just think how much more evidence has piled up in those 6 years?

[Kite]

Tech, the bottom line is, inhaling smoke of ANY kind, be it from a cigarette or a tire fire, is bad for your lungs. For some reason though, you seem to feel that cigarette smoke is somehow 'special'. Don't you think that if there was some kind of remedy that reverses the effects of smoking that everyone who smokes would practice it?

As someone once said, "Denial ain't just a river in egypt"