What's the point of smoking?

[Tycoon]

I would also compare it with the deceptive advertising used by anit-smoking organizations.

If you think that they use deceptive advertising then look at the advertising used by cigarette companies.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rahauk All the people that beat up on smokers have me in rolling! I don't smoke, never cared for it, and I realize what it does to your body. That said, why should I infringe on another person's right to enjoy what they want? There is is a real problem in this country with responsibilty and common sense....they were both buried a long time ago. Live and let live I say. So, they smoke, stop looking at them like they just killed someone!

Thank you for making that point. I would expand that to include those who make tobacco products as well.

[Kite]

No one is saying that you shouldn't be able to smoke. The fact of the matter is, you are trying to say that smoking doesn't lead to death, even though there are mountains of scientific and medical data saying otherwise. To people that have lost loved ones, that is rather infuriating.

[Tycoon]

Thank you for making that point. I would expand that to include those who make tobacco products as well.

In case you didn't notice, rahuak also said that he/she recognizes the health problems it brings.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon If you think that they use deceptive advertising then look at the advertising used by cigarette companies.

On that point you have my full agreement. Both the cigarette companies and the anti-smoking organizations have used deceptive advertising.

But there is a difference.

Those who market cigarettes play upon someone's fantasy. That smoking that brand will make you look like a rugged cowboy, a man among tuff men. Or that "you have come a long ways baby" for women.
And so forth.

Nearly every advertising company comes up with a jingle or they play upon people's fantasy. Car marketeers, cosmetic marketeers, beer marketeers, and even the US Army and most religions do the same.
From shoes to hats, they are marketing concepts about self image, freedom, or being popular. etc. That is standard stuff for the advertising industry to do.

Where as the anti-smoking organizations try to make you think that if I smoke in my house the 2nd hand smoke will drift next door and kill the neighbors baby. Come one now. That is like telling people to shoot me in self defense. And such advertising is pretending to tell the truth when they are spreading a big fat lie. They even hired kids at some highschool to produce anti-smoking ads for TV. And they put out a lot of ads based on their imagination and not on factural reality.

None the less, they both are forms of brainwashing. Cigarettes will not make you a rugged cowboy, and cigarettes will not kill the baby next door.

[gela]

I am aware that other countries conduct studies to try to find out what causes different illnesses. The biggest concern in Australian research now is that the ozone hole over that area that results in skin cancer. Some of those other countries also develope treatments and cures that are ignored by our medical establishment here in the USA. No matter where the study is conducted there is a difference between junk science and sound science and so far you refuse to see that difference.

America's biggest concern is the war in iraq, I suppose they don't know much about anything else but war.

There is no difference. They are just different ways of research.
You fail to realise the depth that 'junk science' goes into, and the millions of studies that have been undertaken. Out of those millions of stuides, not 1 has even slightly disproved the fact that cigarettes are unhealthy.

You said that this person who smokes also watched tv? guess what, they ask how much tv you watch when they ask you about your life style.
They ask everything over a huge and diverse sample size.
The only common factor in these hugely diverse sample size is smoking.
90% is an impossible statistic to argue with. They also compare the health of a smoker with a non smoker.
They find that 3 times as many smokers have health problems then non smokers.

Japan imports a lot of cigarettes from USA companies.

wtf does this have to do with anything?

I fully agree that certain chemicals can cause health problems, perhaps even cancer (confirmed by tests on rats and other animals). And I agree that they can find tiny trace amounts of those chemicals in cigarette tobacco. As well as other plant foods we might cook and eat. What I am saying here is that you must be exposed to a large enough dose (amount of the chemical) for it to have an impact on your health. Example: I could introduce a teenie weenie trace amount of rattlesnake poison to your blood and you would never feel or have any bad side effects, and although that poison in a larger dose can kill you, a teenie weenie amount would do nothing to put your health status at risk. Same with all those chemicals you claim are found in cigarettes or cigarette smoke. My point is that the trace amount is too small to represent a health risk and they know it, but still use that finding to scare people.

Put a teeny weeny amount of rattle snake poision in my blood 40 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and 30 years and I would start to get worried.

Now science knows that if you add a trace amount of rattlesnake poison to your blood stream on a repeated bases that your immune system can build of better resistance to a actural snake bite in full dosage. Some people do that if they are in the snake business. If I used that fact as a backdrop I could speculate that a trace amont of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke could help be build up resistance to the tons of carbon monozide released everyday via car fumes. But nooooooooooo, they do not want to conduct as study like that, and I feel politics is behind it.

whats the difference between inhaling carbon monoxide from cars, and inhaling carbon monoxide from cigarettes?

Im glad to see that you have given up on the conspiracy theories. Looks like we are getting somewhere after all.

Now back to the link to that survey that I provided a link too. Interactive stress quiz for instant health risk results! The questions are like those used to determine if smoking is bad for you (in some of those studies about smoking and life styles ) but in this case they are researching stress as a health hazard. Do you feel the test is "scientific" or not? Will answering the questions give you a honest answer about your "health risk status"? I do not think the test is sound science for a number of reasons. Are you all smart enough to tell me why it is not "sound science"? Would everyone really answer all the qustions honestly?

If I were you, I would do some more research into the science you are critisising. Because that comment makes you look increadibly ignorant.

Your real problem seems to be peoples attitude to smokers, and the anti smoking campaign. That is a legitimate problem that I will support you in. However, with the way your going about it, no one is taking you seriously.

Incase you haven't realised, I competely ignored the voodoo joke. It is not worth my time.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela America's biggest concern is the war in iraq, I suppose they don't know much about anything else but war. There is no difference. They are just different ways of research. You fail to realise the depth that 'junk science' goes into, and the millions of studies that have been undertaken. Out of those millions of stuides, not 1 has even slightly disproved the fact that cigarettes are unhealthy. You said that this person who smokes also watched tv? guess what, they ask how much tv you watch when they ask you about your life style. They ask everything over a huge and diverse sample size. The only common factor in these hugely diverse sample size is smoking. 90% is an impossible statistic to argue with. They also compare the health of a smoker with a non smoker. They find that 3 times as many smokers have health problems then non smokers. wtf does this have to do with anything? Put a teeny weeny amount of rattle snake poision in my blood 40 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and 30 years and I would start to get worried. whats the difference between inhaling carbon monoxide from cars, and inhaling carbon monoxide from cigarettes? Im glad to see that you have given up on the conspiracy theories. Looks like we are getting somewhere after all. If I were you, I would do some more research into the science you are critisising. Because that comment makes you look increadibly ignorant. Your real problem seems to be peoples attitude to smokers, and the anti smoking campaign. That is a legitimate problem that I will support you in. However, with the way your going about it, no one is taking you seriously. Incase you haven't realised, I competely ignored the voodoo joke. It is not worth my time.

I am not sure if Iraq is the biggest concern. I think more people gripe about the smell of cigarettes then they do about the war in Iraq. But you would only know that if you were a smoker. Most of the people think that the smell of tobacco is a greater threat to their well bieng then those terrorists. Relative to my experience.

Millions of studies? How do I know that this statement is factural, what if they only conducted 900 studies? Got proof.

They did have studies that found no link between smoking and cancer, but the anti-smoking people told everyone that the tobacco industry was somehow funding those studies and so nowadays people view those studies and "incomplete" or as .... junk science. They even had one ad on TV about that to discredit studies that found no links between smoking and serious health problems. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember that? Do not kid your self. The tobacco company could in fact afford to hire scientists to conduct studies and to make claims that smoking is not harmful (and they in fact did that) just like the Bush people got scientists to disprove that global warming is caused by fosil fuels. With millions of dollars being donated to the anti-smoking research programs it is not wonder they get the results they do. Drug companes spend millions on TV to downplay the fact that aspirin can prevent health attacks just so they can sell their own expensive products. Money talks, and the fact is that oil companies, companies like Dow Chemical, IBM, and so froth collectively have more money then the tobacco industry to pay for those research programs.

I did not say that TV watching caused cancer. I used that as an example to discredit junk science. Please interpet what I posted correctly. And if they asked that question then show me the proof they asked it by posting a copy of those questions used by them during a actural study.
How can I comment on it if the question form is not in front of me to look at it? Why should I take your word of what you claim?

Okay. They took a survey (still being used by doctors who learn it at medical school) back in the late 1950s that showed that smokers had 3 times as many health problems as non-smokers. Here is the problem with that survey.

1) - In the 1950s 3 times as many smoked then did not smoke.

2) - Many more people start smoking later in life and the older you get the more likely you are of having health problems, non-smoking children are not as likely to have health problems and they are part of the over all population count. Age is a big factor. So, do we have more people over the age of 30 smoking then under the age of 30?

3) They conducted one study in Africa and found that the native women did not suffer a lot from lung cancer but they found a number of (non-smoking) Nuns (white people) who had cancer of the brest. Both the Nuns and the Natives lived in the same environment. That rasied the question as to why the white nuns had a high rate of cancer and not the native black women. They discovered that race played a role in what kinds of illnesses you are most likely to encounter in your life.

4) If smoking is the major cause of all those health problems then how come 25 percent of the unhealthy people are non-smokers? If they were isolated from "the cause" then they should not have been effected by the cause, and therefore would not be unhealthy. Logically speaking. That fact is evidence that smoking is not a major cause of such unhealthy condidtions. But if most of the population smoked and only 25 percent did not smoke, then that would account for why those stats appeared. But were not correctly interpreted.

Your math does not apply when it comes to being scientific about this, no matter how worried you become. You presume that you are adding more to the total amount of the chemical present without comprehending that the first trace amount would be long gone and so you are not creating a large dose. Like as if a put a drop of water in a bucket everyday, I would not fill the bucket up because the drops of water would evaperate faster then the water being added. Sorry to say you used your imagination instead of common sense to make that point. The trace amounts in the smoke from two pack of cigarettes would not even amount to a drop of water. You cannot overdose on those chemicals with cigarettes.

The difference is the amount inhaled. If you lived in a city where you had millions of cars and trucks filling the air with tons of toxic Carbon Monoxide you would be getting a gaint dose of the stuff. With no clean air left to delute the Monoxide with. Where as you get just a teenie weenie amount from cigarette smoke.

Test it out. You stand in a closed garage with a car pumping out fuel fumes and I will stand in a garage with 40 people smoking, and my self smoking, we will stay there one month. Guess who will come out in the best best health? Or guess who would die and who would not die? . Are you up to doing that real time test? Point made.

I agree with you on one point. I do not really care if they publish some report for a medical mag that smoking is linked to all those diseases or health problems. My only concern is that they want to prevent smokers from taking part in society, banning us from everything, and selecting us for "higher sales taxes" that other people do not pay for their products. and the constant verbal attacks. The "control freaks" are a big problem, and you are not really one of those kinds of people. But in order to control the control freaks from taking over I must debate their claim that smoking is not healthy and the studies they use to make that claim. Basically they are putting smokers in same class with criminals and murderers. And I do not believe that claim is based on sound science.

At least let people die by the vice of their own choice. I let people drive their cars, so final word - bug off and stop the anti-smoking conspriacy.

[Technosoul]

Now about the "voodoosim" remark I made.

I perhaps goofed in using that term because few people know anything about voodooism from a realistic standpoint.

What I was really talking about is the "power of suggestion" and how that can strongly effect one's belief system.

Which is a kind of hypnotic procedure commonly called brainwashing by us laymen.

Repeating the same thing over and over is how people learn things in school or so they can remember what they must learn. Like repeating the same name brand over and over in advertising so that it becomes something you have faith in as being the best product.

The power of suggestion. In the case of this debate, would be the suggestion that smoking makes you sick. But the actual research report is not even what I am talking about.

I am talking about what happens when the anti-smoking control freaks hire slick advertising firms to scare people into thinking that cigarette smoke is a hazard to everyones health.

Those people who's business it is to use the power of suggestion to minulate public opinion with a team of phychological experts. now they are much more advanced then the primitive witchdoctors of voodooism. But more or less mimic the same sort of methodolgy.

That part of my debate is also being debated in another thread here, and so I will not rant too much about how advertising works. But one thing about it is that they are not limited to just repeating facts. Advertising is not a news source, and they can sell an idea to your imagination as well as too your logical aspects of thinking. So, they cannot be trusted - nor any of the stats or other stuff they use to intimidate you with.

RE: see also thread in this forum called "keep consuming".

[Tycoon]

So you are suggesting that smokers only get lung cancer because they are told they will? Hah.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon So you are suggesting that smokers only get lung cancer because they are told they will? Hah.

Wrong. gee, you are having real trouble understanding things.

I am suggesting that the anti-smoking freaks believe that smoking causes cancer because they are told too. Not me.

However I also suggested that via the power of suggestion people could experience all the conditions of a sickness if they believed such a suggestion to the point of great panic and fear.

But I really do not have any webpage to put up at this moment (getting lazy) to back up that claim.

Just my personal observations. For example I noticed if the evening news had some doctor saying that a big flu season is going to happen so get your flu shot, the next morning lots of people call in sick because they think they got the flu.

Or course, if you never observed that then you would disagree.

If a medical report said that green beans were recalled lots of people would not eat beans for months to come, even if the beans on the shelf at the store were not from the company with the contaminated product.
People fear such warning if they come from what they think is a "higher authority". Such as a doctor or a witchdoctor.

When I was just a child and got bored at school I could imagine (self program my self with suggestions) until I got sick and pale looking, the school nurse would allow me to go home. Two blocks away from school a miricle seemed to happen - I started to feel great and no longer looked pale. Now if I can do it to my self then I figured that it could be done to others as well. Programing people with the power of suggestion.

But the bottom line of that is that medical science does not know what causes cancer, as they have many clues about different potential causes, but no one single cause to blame. That is a fact.

They know more about heart attacks and how a blood vain gets blocked. Yet they know more about how then why it happens. But that fact is that quiting smoking will not prevent a heart attack but other changes in your lifestyle can.

[Tycoon]

A voodoo witchdoctor can tell someone they will get sick and die, and if they believe it, it can happen to them.

Seems like that's what you were saying to me.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon Seems like that's what you were saying to me.

Well, the fact is the population is running out of people to bash. Gaybashing is no longer poltically correct and so they created smokerbashing. How about that? You should be glad you are not a smoker being subjected to such discrimination. But I guess that smoker-bashing is going to be the new target, now that blacks, women, fundamentalists, all got their "rights", and gays are close to getting their rights. That just leaves little ol' me to beat off the mad dogs.

But at least my cigarette smoke will keep them at a distance. It also works on blood sucking insects.

[Tycoon]

Well, the fact is the population is running out of people to bash. Gaybashing is no longer poltically correct and so they created smokerbashing. How about that? You should be glad you are not a smoker being subjected to such discrimination. But I guess that smoker-bashing is going to be the new target, now that blacks, women, fundamentalists, all got their "rights", and gays are close to getting their rights. That just leaves little ol' me to beat off the mad dogs. But at least my cigarette smoke will keep them at a distance. It also works on blood sucking insects.

Smoking is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is not. Being black, and being a woman is not a lifestyle choice.

Smoking is a lifestyle choice and a stupid one at that.

[gela]

1) - In the 1950s 3 times as many smoked then did not smoke.

Thats nice, but the research is ongoing.

2) - Many more people start smoking later in life and the older you get the more likely you are of having health problems, non-smoking children are not as likely to have health problems and they are part of the over all population count. Age is a big factor. So, do we have more people over the age of 30 smoking then under the age of 30?

age is taken into account, and so is when you started smoking.

3) They conducted one study in Africa and found that the native women did not suffer a lot from lung cancer but they found a number of (non-smoking) Nuns (white people) who had cancer of the brest. Both the Nuns and the Natives lived in the same environment. That rasied the question as to why the white nuns had a high rate of cancer and not the native black women. They discovered that race played a role in what kinds of illnesses you are most likely to encounter in your life.

No one is hear to deny that there are many factors that contribute to cancers. We are arguing that smoking is a big factor that contributes to lung cancer.

[/quote]
4) If smoking is the major cause of all those health problems then how come 25 percent of the unhealthy people are non-smokers? If they were isolated from "the cause" then they should not have been effected by the cause, and therefore would not be unhealthy. Logically speaking. That fact is evidence that smoking is not a major cause of such unhealthy condidtions. But if most of the population smoked and only 25 percent did not smoke, then that would account for why those stats appeared. But were not correctly interpreted. [/quote]

Again, smoking isn't the only factor that contributes to lung cancer, its just a large contributer.
Some people are geneticaly predisposed to it, and live in the city. Some people work with diesel.
Some people smoke.

They did have studies that found no link between smoking and cancer, but the anti-smoking people told everyone that the tobacco industry was somehow funding those studies and so nowadays people view those studies and "incomplete" or as .... junk science. They even had one ad on TV about that to discredit studies that found no links between smoking and serious health problems. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember that? Do not kid your self. The tobacco company could in fact afford to hire scientists to conduct studies and to make claims that smoking is not harmful (and they in fact did that)

Got proof?
Perhaps theres a reason that they have been discredited.

Drug companes spend millions on TV to downplay the fact that aspirin can prevent health attacks just so they can sell their own expensive products.

Irrevelent. But its funny how you take they scientists word on the asprin but not on the lung cancer.
Wheres the proof that asprin causes lung cancer?

The difference is the amount inhaled. If you lived in a city where you had millions of cars and trucks filling the air with tons of toxic Carbon Monoxide you would be getting a gaint dose of the stuff. With no clean air left to delute the Monoxide with. Where as you get just a teenie weenie amount from cigarette smoke. Test it out. You stand in a closed garage with a car pumping out fuel fumes and I will stand in a garage with 40 people smoking, and my self smoking, we will stay there one month. Guess who will come out in the best best health? Or guess who would die and who would not die? . Are you up to doing that real time test? Point made.

Im sure we would both come out with some health problems.. depending on our genetic predisposition.

No ones denying that car fumes are also dangerous. But in the surveys, they would obvioulsy take into consideration everything that is inhaled - they would compartivly study people from country towns and people from cities.
I have heard that living in a city makes you more prone to lung cancer. But guess what- smoking still contributes to lung cancer. Your point isn't proving anything.
Again, funny how you believe the scientists about carbon monoxide. Mabe thats one big conspiracy aswel.

At least let people die by the vice of their own choice. I let people drive their cars, so final word - bug off and stop the anti-smoking conspriacy.

Look at that, a legitimate point. The anti smoking campaign isn't wrong, but mabe they are also exagerating things a whole lot.
In Australia, they have a good reason to - we have health care, so any terrible sickness you get, the public has to pay for with taxes.

[gela]

However I also suggested that via the power of suggestion people could experience all the conditions of a sickness if they believed such a suggestion to the point of great panic and fear.

Think about what you are saying.

If someone was paniced and scared that they would get lung cancer from smoking, then they just wouldn't stop.
Thats the reason people keep smoking. "it won't happen to me"

Mabe your observation does hold some merit for the flu. But I worriying you will get lung cancer, will not give you lung cancer.
Your talking as if 'the secret' is true. Now that is a real manipulative rip-off.

[gela]

But the bottom line of that is that medical science does not know what causes cancer, as they have many clues about different potential causes, but no one single cause to blame. That is a fact.

Wrong. We have several causes to blame. That is a fact.
Different causes contribute to different degrees.
We are never going to find a single cause, only several things that might help cause it - and make it more sevear.

[Tycoon]

We are never going to find a single cause, only several things that might help cause it - and make it more sevear.

We have found several causes that do make it severe. Don't give Techno the illusion that there is any "might" in this medical study.

[gela]

I met might help you as an individual develop it. It Doesn't help all individuals develop it because not all smoking individuals develop it.

However, it definitly does cause it in many many people.

[lsbskins1]

I smoke so that I do not kill people. When I do not have cigarettes, after about 2 hours, the homicidal urges kick in and I am faced with a choice - get some smokes or someone dies. Being the good citizen, I go and get a pack and save the life of some innocent bystander.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kite No one is saying that you shouldn't be able to smoke. The fact of the matter is, you are trying to say that smoking doesn't lead to death, even though there are mountains of scientific and medical data saying otherwise. To people that have lost loved ones, that is rather infuriating.

That is balooney, lots of people are trying to tell me I should not be able to smoke. TV advertising is, laws that ban smokers from society, where have you been for the past 20 years not to know that?