The War On Tobacco

[Darth Servo]

Get over it. What causes more harm to the air? Burning tobacco or internal combustion engines?

So because we have a bunch of polution going into our atmosphere, we should add even MORE???

[Durandal]

Get over it. What causes more harm to the air? Burning tobacco or internal combustion engines?

So because we have a bunch of polution going into our atmosphere, we should add even MORE???

Cigarette smoke contributes an infinitesimally small portion to overall pollution of the atmosphere compared to cars and heavy industry. Try again.

[Darth Servo]

Cigarette smoke contributes an infinitesimally small portion to overall pollution of the atmosphere compared to cars and heavy industry. Try again.

That doesn't change the fact that adding more (even an infinitesimally small amount) is a bad idea. And FYI, the government DOES regulate factory, automobile, etc emmissions. Some corporations use legal trickery, bribes, etc to get away with it, but there ARE LAWS trying to cut down those polutants.
As Mr. Bean has already pointed out--take away all our industry and you destroy our society. Take away tobacco and a couple states will need to find a new cash crop. I personally can't imagine other industries not leaping at the opportunity to expand to take advantage of the hole left by the tobacco industry.

[Zoink]

I personally can't imagine other industries not leaping at the opportunity to expand to take advantage of the hole left by the tobacco industry.

How about the talking Captain Janeway doll industry? Would that fill the gap? They are both equally appealing; both would lead you to your eventual doom.

[gingle]Nothing takes away the craving like a Janeway-ism.[/gingle]

[Durandal]

That doesn't change the fact that adding more (even an infinitesimally small amount) is a bad idea. And FYI, the government DOES regulate factory, automobile, etc emmissions. Some corporations use legal trickery, bribes, etc to get away with it, but there ARE LAWS trying to cut down those polutants.

Irrelevant. Cigarette smoke contributes virtually nothing to air pollution next to heavy industry and cars. Complaining about cigarette smoke on those grounds is grasping at straws. Every time you let a fart off, you release methane into the air, which is hardly a healthy gas. Get over it. If you don't like cigarettes, fine. Don't smoke them.

As Mr. Bean has already pointed out--take away all our industry and you destroy our society. Take away tobacco and a couple states will need to find a new cash crop. I personally can't imagine other industries not leaping at the opportunity to expand to take advantage of the hole left by the tobacco industry.

Again, completely irrelevant. Cigarette smoke doesn't pollute the air enough to justify using its polluting characteristics as grounds to bitch about them. I can understand if smokers, for some reason, go out their way to blow smoke in your face, but otherwise you're just finding whatever reason you can to whine, complain and join the ridiculous anti-smoking jihad that seems to have sprung up in this thread.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I have no problem with "take no shit" attitude." I DO have HUGE issues with breathing all the shit from you smokers. Your little "fun" CAUSES HARM TO EVERYONE AROUND YOU. Unless you want to live in a plastic bubble...

Get over it. What causes more harm to the air? Burning tobacco or internal combustion engines?

Yeah, but what does more good? Easy transportation of goods, people etc. or someone smoking?

[Darth Servo]

How about the talking Captain Janeway doll industry? Would that fill the gap? They are both equally appealing; both would lead you to your eventual doom.

[gingle]Nothing takes away the craving like a Janeway-ism.[/gingle]

Of course she probably supports the tobacco industry. Come on, don't tell me you don't think she doesn't light up as soon as she hits the turbo lift.

[Darth Servo]

Irrelevant. Cigarette smoke contributes virtually nothing to air pollution next to heavy industry and cars.

Cigarette smoking also CONTRIBUTES NOTHING to society. Its just a flithy habit that people COULD EASILY do without. Those who can't only prove the point that it is addictive and destructive and therefore, should be discouraged any way we can (within reason of course).

Complaining about cigarette smoke on those grounds is grasping at straws. Every time you let a fart off, you release methane into the air, which is hardly a healthy gas.

A fart is a natural waste disposal process. Smoking is not. Your analogy is pathetic.

Get over it. If you don't like cigarettes, fine. Don't smoke them.

Everytime I want to eat out I'm forced to smoke them second hand. Often just by walking out of my apartment I get a nice cloud of toxins from some of my neighhbors.

Cigarette smoke doesn't pollute the air enough to justify using its polluting characteristics as grounds to bitch about them.

Except thats NOT my only complaint against them.

I can understand if smokers, for some reason, go out their way to blow smoke in your face, but otherwise you're just finding whatever reason you can to whine, complain and join the ridiculous anti-smoking jihad that seems to have sprung up in this thread.

Why is it ridiculous to want people to have better health?
Why is it a jihad to want to discourage people form destroying themselves?
Why is it whining to want to complain about people DELIBRATELY polluting the IMMEDIATE air around me--not just by blowing it in my face but just smoking in close proximity (like 10 feet)?
The real whiners are the smokers who complian that their rights are being infringed upon. News flash: one person's rights end when they interfere with the rights of another.

[His Divine Shadow]

So, whats your opinion on pot?
Just wondering cause I've seen marijuana discussions with less vehemence than this.

[Darth Servo]

So, whats your opinion on pot?
Just wondering cause I've seen marijuana discussions with less vehemence than this.

If pot smokers were as common as cig smokers I'd probably be just as offended. Since its currently illegal, most pot smokers do what they can to hide it and so I don't have any direct experience with it.
On health issues though, you're still inhaling smoke into your lungs although I haven't seen any numbers on its harmful effects yet. If anyone knows of any studies on it then by all means, present them to the board.

[Mr Bean]

Just wondering cause I've seen marijuana discussions with less vehemence than this.

Because Smoking Provides Zero Benfits, Its nothing but a collection of over 100 Toxins in easy to induce form, while Marijuana has show some promise in Cancer and Pain studies, espcilly as an alternative to Morphine which can be addicting and some people are alergic, Also Marijuana leads itself to easy transformation into Pill/Patch and Injested Form

[His Divine Shadow]

Just wondering cause I've seen marijuana discussions with less vehemence than this.

Because Smoking Provides Zero Benfits, Its nothing but a collection of over 100 Toxins in easy to induce form, while Marijuana has show some promise in Cancer and Pain studies, espcilly as an alternative to Morphine which can be addicting and some people are alergic, Also Marijuana leads itself to easy transformation into Pill/Patch and Injested Form

Actually as I have pointed out, nicotine improves the performance of synapses in the brain(while it's there).
So same argment can be said for nicotine

[Durandal]

Cigarette smoking also CONTRIBUTES NOTHING to society. Its just a flithy habit that people COULD EASILY do without. Those who can't only prove the point that it is addictive and destructive and therefore, should be discouraged any way we can (within reason of course).

Scrathing your ass contributes nothing to society and is a filthy habit as well. I still don't see your point. By the way, nicotine inhalation also results in temporarily increased awareness and a nice feeling.

A fart is a natural waste disposal process. Smoking is not. Your analogy is pathetic.

Yet it contributes pollution to the air, just like smoking. Do you complain about people farting in elevators, as well? It's equally disgusting. Your entire argument against smoking is pathetic because it centers around relatively minuscule effects, which is what I'm trying to illustrate.

Everytime I want to eat out I'm forced to smoke them second hand. Often just by walking out of my apartment I get a nice cloud of toxins from some of my neighhbors.

Then complain to the restaurant owners or your neighbor. I've said before that I am fully in support of walled-off smoking sections and respect for non-smokers.

Except thats NOT my only complaint against them.

Until this post, it was the only complaint I noticed.

Why is it ridiculous to want people to have better health?

It's ridiculous that the people in this thread want to go to such extreme measures to prevent smoking, like preposterously heavy taxation or turning a cigarette into a stick of dynamite.

Why is it a jihad to want to discourage people form destroying themselves?
Why is it whining to want to complain about people DELIBRATELY polluting the IMMEDIATE air around me--not just by blowing it in my face but just smoking in close proximity (like 10 feet)?

There you go with this pollution nonsense again. I'll reiterate: smoking contributes virtually nothing to current air pollution.

The real whiners are the smokers who complian that their rights are being infringed upon. News flash: one person's rights end when they interfere with the rights of another.

I agree. When did I say that smokers should be free to smoke wherever they want?

My whole beef with this thread is the assholes that want the government to go out of its way to either terrorize smokers or tax the fuck out of them. Leave smokers the fuck alone.

[Mr Bean]

Scrathing your ass contributes nothing to society and is a filthy habit as well. I still don't see your point. By the way, nicotine inhalation also results in temporarily increased awareness and a nice feeling.

Sratching your Ass? Now your seriously going out on a limb here, Might as well said kite flying contributes nothing either so that should be banned, The Diffrence is no matter how much ass you sratch or kites you fly, it won't get you cancer, Durendal kindly stop with the bullshit comparsions

Yet it contributes pollution to the air, just like smoking. Do you complain about people farting in elevators, as well? It's equally disgusting. Your entire argument against smoking is pathetic because it centers around relatively minuscule effects, which is what I'm trying to illustrate.

You using irrelvent comparsions, Shiting is also a disgusting bodly function but like farting its quite nessary least you die within the week from blood posioning, That is not comparable to Smoking your baseing your aurgment on completly irrelvent comaprsions

Then complain to the restaurant owners or your neighbor. I've said before that I am fully in support of walled-off smoking sections and respect for non-smokers.

Which add extra cost to you meal agian the fact we have to segerate resteruants just cause you want to spread the joys of Cancer is not a good thing here

Until this post, it was the only complaint I noticed.

He's not the only one posting here, look around more than one problem has been brought up about Smoking

It's ridiculous that the people in this thread want to go to such extreme measures to prevent smoking, like preposterously heavy taxation or turning a cigarette into a stick of dynamite.

Rediculious? Realy? Most of these people as you notice said they where joking, The Taxation is to provided for Heath-Care incured from all those years of Smoking and spreading the joy, Thats not Preposterouse its just simple Econmics, If you break my legs because you where not looking when you backed your car out and waped me standing on the sidewalk, prepare to pay for my medical bills

There you go with this pollution nonsense again. I'll reiterate: smoking contributes virtually nothing to current air pollution.

With no studies to back this up? No facts? The problem is, virtually nothing, alot or a little, its still some

Actually as I have pointed out, nicotine improves the performance of synapses in the brain(while it's there).
So same argment can be said for nicotine

Are you refering to the Columbia study in 82? I know the 99 Study by Duke University found no telling evidance for Nicotine to help brain performance over the placbo along with the follow-up study in 01, which are you refering to?

Oh and if your smoking to get the Nicotine, why smoke at all? Patchs Provided all the benfits of smoking, twice the Nicotine and none of the disavatages

[Darth Wong]

Scrathing your ass contributes nothing to society and is a filthy habit as well.

There is no such thing as second-hand ass-scratching.

I agree. When did I say that smokers should be free to smoke wherever they want?

Most people don't say that anymore. However, there's this big black hole when it comes to the protection of smokers' children. The "people have the right to do self-destructive things" argument only carries so far; do people have the right to arbitrarily risk the health of their children too?

[MKSheppard]

There is no such thing as second-hand ass-scratching.

Are you so sure? What about when people scratch their ass and
then wipe their filthy hands all over the place?

Most people don't say that anymore. However, there's this big black hole when it comes to the protection of smokers' children. The "people have the right to do self-destructive things" argument only carries so far; do people have the right to arbitrarily risk the health of their children too?

Then why am I not insanely fucked up? Hell, I live with two smokers,
and I'm fine.

[Darth Wong]

Then why am I not insanely fucked up? Hell, I live with two smokers, and I'm fine.

You really are too stupid to understand what's wrong with the use of anecdotal evidence to disprove probabilistic claims, aren't you?

PS. Your claim that you're "fine" despite your upbringing may be subject to debate.

[Joe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788186/posts

Check this out (ignore the fact that it's from a conservative website, it was originally taken from a UK paper).

[Darth Wong]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788186/posts

Check this out (ignore the fact that it's from a conservative website, it was originally taken from a UK paper).

Second-hand smoke has been chemically analyzed under laboratory conditions and found to carry at least 42 different toxins, many of which are strongly carcinogenic. There is no question that it is harmful; this study merely casts doubt on the quantities being inhaled by a passive party.

In general, epidemiological studies based solely on statistics (such as the one cited in that article) are of highly questionable value. Studies of that sort tend to gloss over monstrously important control factors; two people can live with a smoker and receive vastly different levels of second-hand smoke depending on the circumstances. So when statistics are gathered solely on the basis of "people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers," you are basically wasting your time.

For example, you can work with a smoker and not receive any second-hand smoke at all. Similarly, you can grow up with a smoker but not receive much second-hand smoke due to his particular habits (eg- he smokes outside, or he's not a heavy smoker). Any study which glosses over this, the most important of variables, is quite obviously junk science.

The website implies that there is some sort of cover-up. I find that doubtful; it seems more likely to me that the study was performed in a pseudoscientific manner and they were surprised when it returned the "wrong" meaningless results. In other words, it was not a cover-up so much as a worthless study in the first place.

[MKSheppard]

Then why am I not insanely fucked up? Hell, I live with two smokers, and I'm fine.

You really are too stupid to understand what's wrong with the use of anecdotal evidence to disprove probabilistic claims, aren't you?

Well, fuck you wong, you like to talk about how smoking is bad bad bad,
etc etc, yet I'm not coughing into a fucking respirator because of that
evil secondhand smoke....which is supposedly even more EVIL than
the actual smoke that smokers inhale....

[MKSheppard]

Second-hand smoke has been chemically analyzed under laboratory conditions and found to carry at least 42 different toxins, many of which are strongly carcinogenic. There is no question that it is harmful; this study merely casts doubt on the quantities being inhaled by a passive party.

Yeah, I'm drinking rat poison right now this moment. And I'm not dead yet...

Fuck it, everything causes cancer, even water.

[Darth Wong]

You really are too stupid to understand what's wrong with the use of anecdotal evidence to disprove probabilistic claims, aren't you?

Well, fuck you wong, you like to talk about how smoking is bad bad bad,
etc etc, yet I'm not coughing into a fucking respirator because of that
evil secondhand smoke....which is supposedly even more EVIL than
the actual smoke that smokers inhale....

Wall of Ignorance. See previous rebuttal. This time, try to grow a brain and figure out what it means.

[MKSheppard]

Wall of Ignorance. See previous rebuttal. This time, try to grow a brain and figure out what it means.

Ok Mike, can you please explain why I see a friend of mine fighting
for his life against lung cancer, even though he's never smoked a
day in his life, while my grandmother and mother puff away, with
nary a fucking care in good health.

Don't stonewall me with YOUR own wall of ignorance, where you stick your
fingers in your ears and cry LA-LA-LA-LA when presented with evidence, unless the person giving the evidence is a scientist exposing lab
rats to insane amounts of tobacco.

I mean shit, these guys in their insane zeal to ruin everything for
everyone jack those poor lab rats up to levels of shit we would
never encounter in our everyday life..

[Darth Wong]

Wall of Ignorance. See previous rebuttal. This time, try to grow a brain and figure out what it means.

Ok Mike, can you please explain why I see a friend of mine fighting
for his life against lung cancer, even though he's never smoked a
day in his life, while my grandmother and mother puff away, with
nary a fucking care in good health.

Shep, you are a fucking idiot. Do you go into a crime-ridden ghetto and say that media claims of elevated murder risk are bullshit if you can find someone who wasn't murdered? Don't you understand the fallacy in your reasoning?

Don't stonewall me with YOUR own wall of ignorance, where you stick your fingers in your ears and cry LA-LA-LA-LA when presented with evidence, unless the person giving the evidence is a scientist exposing lab
rats to insane amounts of tobacco.

Strawman. Frankly, you're just embarrassing yourself now. You cannot disprove an elevated risk by simply proving that it's not 100%, and that's all you prove when you bring up an example of a tobacco survivor. Similarly, you can't disprove a lowered risk by simply proving that it's not 0%, and that's all you prove when you bring up the example of a non-tobacco victim. I am not ignoring evidence as you claim (and as everyone but you can easily see); I am simply pointing out that it does not prove what you think it proves.

For the umpteenth time, you cannot disprove these kinds of connections through anecdotal evidence. You seem to think that "anecdotal" means "false"; that is not what it means. Anecdotal evidence can be true, but it still doesn't prove what you think it proves. Think about that before you make yourself look like even more of an idiot.

[Durandal]

Shep, smoking is irrevocably linked to lung cancer. No one knows what specific component of cigarette smoke causes lung cancer, but the link is well-established. While smoking increases your chances for lung cancer, it does not guarantee it. Your grandma simply beat the odds. If you'd like, I'm sure we can arrange for a medal ceremony or something.

Most people don't say that anymore. However, there's this big black hole when it comes to the protection of smokers' children. The "people have the right to do self-destructive things" argument only carries so far; do people have the right to arbitrarily risk the health of their children too?

That's a valid point. It's the same reason my mother quit smoking when she got pregnant. As I've said before, I'm all for restrictions on smoking that are reasonable. I'm a light (very light) smoker, so it doesn't really bother me.