What's the point of smoking?

[gela]

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?

If it bothers you, then don't smoke.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon 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.

her use of the word "might" was correct, as those claimed sources for cancer might not cause a person to get cancer, also. Many smokers never get cancer. Many people who live in a city do not get cancer. Many people who watch TV do not get cancer. Not everyone with a history of cancer in thier family tree will get cancer. They might or they might not. With exception of exposure to nuclear radiation, their is no doubt they will get cancer if they live long enough for the diease to develope.

The fact is that anyone anyplace might get cancer no matter what their life style is or what conditions they live in. It can happen to anyone.

I am not saying that if you have a pre-exsisting lung problem that smoking will not make things worse, I am only saying that there is no absolute proof that smoking caused that condition.

Just look at all the potential causes that those studies have blamed for cancer.

Exposure to radiation.
Genes that were passed down to you form/through your parents.
Cigarette and pipe Smoking.
Wrong reactions to stress.
Watching TV.
Electric Power Lines.
Chemicals in computer chips.
Lead paint.
Smog or inhailing fosil fuel fumes.
Getting too many medical x-rays.
Sleeping in electric blankets.
A number of household items used for cleaning and so forth.
Bug spray used on crops.
Industrial polution.
Dust from the world trade center when it fell down - 9-11.
Airplane fuel that is dumped over populations when they land.
Pot smoking.
Chewing tobacco.
Rays coming through the ozone hole.
Sunbathing too much in the sun.
Some 4000 or so chemicals found in a number of things.
Special coating used on military airplanes.
Plastic.
Coal dust in mines.
Some candy made in Mexico.
Bio-chemical weapons.
Constuction materals.

Just to name a few findings from a number of studies.


Sounds like everything and it's uncle is responsible for cancer.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke Smoking is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is not.

Actually, the two are pretty much analogous. Being attracted to the same sex is indeed not a lifestyle choice, but then neither is being attracted to cigarettes. Acting on either of these desires is a choice, it’s a choice which affects no one else, and it’s a choice which you have no grounds to judge people for.

Quote by: Tyke Smoking is a lifestyle choice and a stupid one at that.

From your point of view perhaps. If, however, the smoker is question considers the enjoyment of smoking to be more important than a few extra years of life, it’s a perfectly valid choice. You shouldn’t be so judgemental of other lifestyles.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: The OP Spending [lots of] money to die slowly?

Absolutely everyone alive is either dying slowly or dying quickly.

Smokers think it's a fair trade to give a portion of their lives to enjoy a habit throughout the segment they have left.

[Technosoul]

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

Read my postings here on "the power of suggestion" and then you can better comprehend that quote.

You anti-smoking people are trying to make a religion out of science. You come here and tell me that millions of studies have found stats and percentages to proove that cigarette smoking causes life threatening diseases. And you come here and tell me that a lot of studies have found harmful strace amounts of chemicals in tobacco smoke.

But you cannot post the study, or how it was conducted, or even tell me what trace amounts were discovered. You want me to believe and have faith that your unseen data is true, that I should bow down to it as if it were a god or some sort of divine truth. You are trying to create a faith based society where we believe in it without being able to see it.

Hell, they found trace amounts of dangerous presciption drugs in our drinking water everywhere across our nation (where they recycle water).
Is that proof that I should stop drinking anything with water in it?

When you speak of a trace amount the fact is that we have at least a trace amount of some sort of polution in everything we eat, drink, breathe, and smoke. You cannot escape it unless you live in some remote place, which I doubt you can even find such a place nowadays with so much global polution.

In spite of all our polution and vices people are living longer. That is a stat you forgot to preach about.

Unless you are a board certified researcher and can show me the details about your study, and not just the claim made, then you are preaching and not educating anyone about anything. As you demand that I believe by faith and faith alone in you as if you were the Pope of some medical gosple.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Actually, the two are pretty much analogous. Being attracted to the same sex is indeed not a lifestyle choice, but then neither is being attracted to cigarettes. Acting on either of these desires is a choice, it’s a choice which affects no one else, and it’s a choice which you have no grounds to judge people for. From your point of view perhaps. If, however, the smoker is question considers the enjoyment of smoking to be more important than a few extra years of life, it’s a perfectly valid choice. You shouldn’t be so judgemental of other lifestyles.

A lot of people change to being gay for reasons that are not caused by some gay gene. A lot of people also change and take up smoking instead of being non-smokers. Whatever. the point still stands that gay bashing and smoker bashing is the same thing. Hmm, and those folks might have a "bashing gene" for all I know.

I might have a shaman gene, as far back as I remember I was drawn to nature and even as a child I rooted for the Indians during those old cowboy and indian movies. It was more then a choice, it was how I evolved as an individual.

All my life I was attracted to the Native American religion and life style, in spite of the fact I am a white guy. We hold tobacco smoke as being sacred. And use it in our religions, as medicene, and for cultural purposes. From where I stand your attacks on tobacco is like an attack on God to a Christian person.

This is our belief

Native American Peace Pipe

You totally ignore our so-called Consitutional right to do our religious thing. Smoker bashing is unconsitutional, and so are your laws to ban smoking.

Am I telling Christians they cannot use wine when they worship, even when your studies say that wine can distroy the liver and cause death?

[Chancellor]

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.

Life is a terminal illness that is 100 percent fatal.

People do not die as a result of smoking. They die as the result of other things to which smoking very likely contributed.

[gela]

I agree with you (for a change) that epidemology might actually come to the right conclusion. None the less, when I ask for proof that the study was done the right way to avoid such random errors, or bias, you cannot provide me personally with the data needed to confirm that. Only the claims made by the study group. Now if Gallo or someone wanted to debate me about evolution or the theory of the Big Bang they could also provide me a link to the evidence and why the conclusions were made. Fosil evidence or the actural physics used _ etc. The anti-smoking people that you represent here never do that. They just make claims and then say "believe it or not". They expect us to take thier word for it on faith. They only use science so they can sound like they got expert knowledge backing them up..... to scare people. But where is that knowledge so I can look at how they conducted the study and so I can look at the data used or collected. Why keep it a secret from the public? The fact still remains that the epidemiology used to show that smoking is a health hazard can contain errors or bias. The general public has no way via a internet link to know if the studies you refer too did or did not. You got no proof to present.

Here you go, proof that the studies arn't biased:
Smoke and Mirrors: The Canadian ... - Google Book Search

You don't have to read the whole thing, I sure as hell didn't.
But If you read the first two pages, you will find that the person who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking, was a smoker himself.
Making it impossible for him to have a biased against smoking.
Just note that this is a canadian publication aswell.

Secondly:
Antismoking Laws Curb Smoking and Lung Cancer - News

when smoking decreased, so did the rate of lung cancer and respiratory diseases.

This was a study done in Finland. I want you to find a reason for them to be biased about this.

Queensland Health Tobacco Laws - Passive smoking

Passive smoking is a proven health hazard. Over 600 medical reports have been published linking passive smoking to diseases.

600 medical reports.. all agreeing with eachother.. yep, a pretty conclusive result. Oh, and this is Australian.

Largest Ever Asian Smoking Study Reveals Cardiovascular Health Risks
Heres a study done on Asians, by an international health Institute.
About The George Institute Home
Heres a little page about them. Seems that they are legally independent, and non-profit. Again, no reason for bias.

Scotland smoking ban bolstered by new research - International Herald Tribune

Heres some reseach done in Scotland, by a University.

Ok, Now please, tell me how all this reseach is biased. You've admitted that Epidemiology is a valid form of science. Now prove that all these studies are equaly biased against smoking, despite the fact that they are all from different institutions, and from different countries.

[Technosoul]

Thanks for posting so many links as I know it is time consuming work.

The first link is not a scientific study, it is a book written by Rod Cunningham who is a famous anti-smoking advocate, his book is bias, he makes a wealthy living writing books and making speeches. He has come under fire a few times for making up his own so-called facts.

The next link (anti-smoking laws) was much better and more supportive of your side of the debate.

It made a claim that cases of cancer in men dropped after bans caused men to stop smoking. They did not say how they knew how many men stopped smoking due to the anti-smoking ban in public places. We must take their word for that on faith.

We do not know if any other changes took place during that time span, did they also effect laws to reduce auto polution? Did people become more health consious during that time span and started to eat more healthy foods?

Also was the study conducted for the whole population or just with people who signed up to become the study group used. As that could make a difference in the outcome of the study.

Without all the other data not included in the study it would be subject to potental "random errors".
As the study concentrated on just one area and overlook other reasons why cancer might have dropped.

That is unacceptable. Not sound science as presented.

I will return later to review the other links you provided as "proof".

[gela]

The next link (anti-smoking laws) was much better and more supportive of your side of the debate. It made a claim that cases of cancer in men dropped after bans caused men to stop smoking. They did not say how they knew how many men stopped smoking due to the anti-smoking ban in public places. We must take their word for that on faith. We do not know if any other changes took place during that time span, did they also effect laws to reduce auto polution? Did people become more health consious during that time span and started to eat more healthy foods? Also was the study conducted for the whole population or just with people who signed up to become the study group used. As that could make a difference in the outcome of the study. Without all the other data not included in the study it would be subject to potental "random errors". As the study concentrated on just one area and overlook other reasons why cancer might have dropped.

You will find it very hard to find any studies on the internet that have the entire method published.
They tend to only publish the results. We have to take all studies on faith that the scientists are doing their job properly. However - repition is the key. When several different scientists, with several different strengths and weaknesses, all get the same results. That is when we have faith in their results. That is common sense.
Critisise each singular study all you like - put them all together and they paint a very clear picture.
Now that I've posted some proof, I'd like you to post any study - with the method or without - that shows results of smoking being harmless.

2nd. The Finnish Institute of Occupational Heath seems to be qualified enough. Im sure they have qualifed scientists undertaking the studies.
They would be smart enough to investigate other sources of lung cancer.

3rd. Random errors are irrevelent when your surveying an entire population. Yes, it is the entire population. Amount of cigarettes being smoked can be monitered by Cigarette sales; and Lung Cancer instances can be monitered as they are recorded in hospitales. This isn't just a survey.

4th. Yes, it is just an area, but the point of my post is that they get the same results everywhere. If you read it you would notice that I highlighted the fact that all of my sources are from different corners of the globe.

[Chief Matt]

I don't smoke, I'm only 14 years old. The Australian government has done the right thing - They tell Australian schools on what smoking does to you, we've got taught on what it does/ what it causes during health lessons. After what the teacher said / After what is in the smokes / After what it causes, you could die. There is no way that I'm going too smoke or even try to smoke a cigarette. That is something I'm not going too try.

[Kite]

Quote by: Chancellor Life is a terminal illness that is 100 percent fatal. People do not die as a result of smoking. They die as the result of other things to which smoking very likely contributed.

Honest to god, are you pre-programmed to disagree with me?
Yes, there are plenty of contributing factors. My point was, that you can lead a potentially longer life by cutting out an unhealthy habit such as smoking. There is always the possibility that you could contract some equally horrible disease, or the day that you quit you get hit by a bus. I'm trying to make the point that smoking IS unhealthy, a fact that some ignorant people are disagreeing with.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kite Honest to god, are you pre-programmed to disagree with me?

Only when you make inaccurate statements.

Yes, there are plenty of contributing factors. My point was, that you can lead a potentially longer life by cutting out an unhealthy habit such as smoking. There is always the possibility that you could contract some equally horrible disease, or the day that you quit you get hit by a bus. I'm trying to make the point that smoking IS unhealthy, a fact that some ignorant people are disagreeing with.

It isn't the smoking that leads to death, it's the diseases to which smoking may have contributed that lead to death. I'm trying to push you toward more accurate statements.

Smoking may be unhealthy - particularly when you consider all the additional chemicals and other things tobacco companies add to cigarettes (here are links to the list: The List of Additives in Cigarettes and What's In a Cigarette, 599 Ingredients in a Cigarette). However, a whole lot of other things are also unhealthy.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Chief Matt I don't smoke, I'm only 14 years old. The Australian government has done the right thing - They tell Australian schools on what smoking does to you, we've got taught on what it does/ what it causes during health lessons. After what the teacher said / After what is in the smokes / After what it causes, you could die. There is no way that I'm going too smoke or even try to smoke a cigarette. That is something I'm not going too try.

I would agree with your choice. For one thing no one should smoke, drink, do drugs, or have sex until the reach the age of conscent. There is a good reason for that standard.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela You will find it very hard to find any studies on the internet that have the entire method published. They tend to only publish the results. We have to take all studies on faith that the scientists are doing their job properly. However - repition is the key. When several different scientists, with several different strengths and weaknesses, all get the same results. That is when we have faith in their results. That is common sense. Critisise each singular study all you like - put them all together and they paint a very clear picture. Now that I've posted some proof, I'd like you to post any study - with the method or without - that shows results of smoking being harmless. 2nd. The Finnish Institute of Occupational Heath seems to be qualified enough. Im sure they have qualifed scientists undertaking the studies. They would be smart enough to investigate other sources of lung cancer. 3rd. Random errors are irrevelent when your surveying an entire population. Yes, it is the entire population. Amount of cigarettes being smoked can be monitered by Cigarette sales; and Lung Cancer instances can be monitered as they are recorded in hospitales. This isn't just a survey. 4th. Yes, it is just an area, but the point of my post is that they get the same results everywhere. If you read it you would notice that I highlighted the fact that all of my sources are from different corners of the globe.

We have thousands of chruches of different denominations that are located in many countries and they have all claim and teach that the Bible is the Word of God. Is that evidence that I should beleive them?
All the preachers are qualified experts on the Bible.

I will not play the Hitler card. But have noted that "brainwashing" the public is also a science.

If the reports only makes claims and nothing to back up the claim with then it is simply a religion and a cursade to attack "the devil" or "the evil" and nothing more. Not sound science.

It is a known fact that those studies, called epidemiology, are not trustworthy methods to finding absolute truths. The whole methodogy being in employed rasies doubts about each of the studies individually done.

Epidemiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They can be influenced by bias.
They can contain Random Errors.
They can contain systematic errors.

Such errors would result in the wrong conclusion of the evidence.

[Technosoul]

Any, or a number of, studies can claim that cigarette smoking might be linked to an illness.

The same kind of evidence also claims that smoking might not be linked to that illness.

Because the key word used is "might". Or "potentially".

Which is like saying that they do not know for sure yet and are still working to try to prove it.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Technosoul Any, or a number of, studies can claim that cigarette smoking might be linked to an illness. The same kind of evidence also claims that smoking might not be linked to that illness. Because the key word used is "might". Or "potentially". Which is like saying that they do not know for sure yet and are still working to try to prove it.

It has been explained, either on this thread or another, why scientists use these terms. You are willfully ignoring it. Again. The facts are that cigarettes are bad for you, and indeed, is being backed up in court. Deal with it.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W It has been explained, either on this thread or another, why scientists use these terms. You are willfully ignoring it. Again. The facts are that cigarettes are bad for you, and indeed, is being backed up in court. Deal with it.

Lets calm down, this is just a debate and nothing more then that.

Science always takes the position that they do not advocate absolutes, which I assume is what you mean when they say "might" be linked. science is an on-going process of more discovery and not in the business of claiming some absolute truth. Which is the point that I was relating to people who said that science has proven something in an absolute sense.

The court cases evolved around the fact that tobacco companies did not put warning notices on their products to inform the public about the "potential" health risks of smoking. And that they promoted smoking with the intent to be deceptive about those suspected risks. In those legal debates they even coined the term "junk science".

Due to strong politcal influence, the Surgeon General, who is appointed by the President, made a number of statements about the potential hazards of smoking. And made "determenations" which became the government's stand about the medical aspects of smoking. Because of that governmental stand the judges had little choice other then to accept that determination by the Surgeon General as a bases for making their rulings. People who started smoking in the 1950s or 1960s were not warned they said, because the cigarette packs were not so labeled with such warnings concerning that product. The lawyers showed memos where the tobacco company knew about some of the first studies done that might link smoking to cancer, but attempted to create a different impression via advertising. I recall one ad where they advertised "low tar" in their brand. And they promoted filters - etc.
It was the "lack of labeling their products" that nailed them and resulted in them loosing their court case and paying out fines. Not because of debates over the health hazards.

I can deal with that fine. It is mostly the bans, the sin taxes, and all those stupid TV ads put out by the anti-smoking people (mostly with false information) that I do not want to deal with, but forced to deal with.

Not to mention the control freaks.

[gela]

We have thousands of chruches of different denominations that are located in many countries and they have all claim and teach that the Bible is the Word of God. Is that evidence that I should beleive them? All the preachers are qualified experts on the Bible. I will not play the Hitler card. But have noted that "brainwashing" the public is also a science. If the reports only makes claims and nothing to back up the claim with then it is simply a religion and a cursade to attack "the devil" or "the evil" and nothing more. Not sound science. It is a known fact that those studies, called epidemiology, are not trustworthy methods to finding absolute truths. The whole methodogy being in employed rasies doubts about each of the studies individually done. Epidemiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They can be influenced by bias. They can contain Random Errors. They can contain systematic errors. Such errors would result in the wrong conclusion of the evidence.

How odd.. You have continued to ignor half my sources..

Can't say Im suprised really.. I expected it as soon as I read your post.

You also seem to be contradicting your earlier statement that epidemiology is sound science.
If you doubt the scientists who study epidemiology, then you must equaly doubt any other scientist - because they all do the same thing. Release their results.

You haven't personaly seen fossils of past life forms, slowly progressing. Therefore, evolution is not to be taken seriously.

You haven't personaly done or seen the proof for pythagoras therom - therefore it also can't be trusted.

You haven't personaly done or seen the maths behind E = MC squared. therefore, also a sham.

DNA? You haven't seen it yourself. You haven't seen the detailed science behind finding the structure of DNA. Therefore, Unproven.

trigonometry? How do we know that is true? Mabe our calculators are all programmed to give us a false answeres.

Forget the fact that scientists, and the public in general accept these things as fact. You haven't seen the method behind them, or the proof yourself.
Therefore, they are all one big international attempt at brainwashing the public into thinking things that arn't true.
Theres no logic behind the fact that all the scientists of the world want us to think that adjacent squared, plus opposite squared equals hypotenuse squared. No reason for them to want us to think it. But you havent seen the proof.



The comparison to Church is irrevelent. All the Churchs come from the same source - the bible. That is obviously why they all preach roughly the same thing.

Scientists do seperate studies, in seperate contexts, in seperate countries - all over the world they get the same results.

That is so obvious.. that argument was worthless.



You are also ignoring my plea for you to find any study that claims to find no link between smoking and lung cancer or heart disease or any other disease in the huge list.
How convienient for you to just ignore all of my points, and yell conspiracy.

Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
Finland, America, Australia, Canada, Scottland, and an International, non legally binding, non profit organisation are all equaly corrupt, and they are all trying to brain wash you into thinking that smoking is bad for you.

I can deal with that fine. It is mostly the bans, the sin taxes, and all those stupid TV ads put out by the anti-smoking people (mostly with false information) that I do not want to deal with, but forced to deal with.

Again, it all comes back to you hating everyones attitude to smoking. Why? because you smoke.

The funny thing is, your the one complaining about bias and lack of 'real' science; while your the most biased and unscientific debator here.

[Kizzume]

Man, I was hoping that it wasn't going to be 7 pages of someone speaking against over 50 years of scientific study of the effects of cigarettes--when I see someone that represents the guy from "Thank You For Smoking", it just really baffles my mind.

Anyway--to me, the main reason why people CONTINUE to smoke is to take care of their nicotine fits. They just HAVE to have their cigarettes. As to why people start--I really don't understand it. Peer pressure maybe?