You ever ate at McDonalds?

We live in a rather polluted environment. I watched a segment of a Dr. Oz show where he showed diseased (cancerous) lung tissue and 'healthy' lung tissue. The healthy lungs were streaked with black. When asked what the black was, the good Dr. stated that that was a result of airborne pollutants such as came from auto exhaust and other elements that comprise smog. Also, long term exposure to wood smoke or any smoke for that matter, can damage lung tissue. As can asbestos. My grandmother never smoked a day in her life and she had emphysema.

I was going to reply directly on the "Lung Cancer Alliance" post, but didn't want to show that much respect...

Cigarette smoking, as the sole contributor and to exclusion of all other factors, doesn't cause lung cancer. Except in rats and only if you give them exposure to the equivelent of smoking 75 packs a day. And surely second hand smoke doesn't either. Genetics, other environmental factors--air pollution, exposure to other gases mentioned, diet, etc.--all play a role. There are people who smoked their entire lives and lived to a very old age that didn't eventually die of lung cancer. My great-grandfather not only smoked cigarettes, and a pipe, but chewed tobacco as well and lived to be 87 years old. He didn't die of cancer, just of being old. another one, also smoked his whole life, lived to 90. There are examples like those 2 for every story of the 45 year old non-smoker that dies from lung cancer.

Denis Leary was Right-- There will Never be a Cure for Cancer--everyone gets locked into a single causation and research revolves around that one thing. The American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society need to stop propogating this single causation fallacy and wake up--automobile exhaust from One gallon of gasoline is 10 times more carcinogenic than a pack of cigarettes. Period.

res ipsa locquitor...

I work at a university and most of the buildings have asbestos issues. Most of the time they have just put a paste over it when it is on pipes and it decays over time or wasn't applied thoroughly to begin with. I know I have lung issues and can't look forward to working there long term because of it, I must make a change. Old buildings are murder, historical landmarks my ass

there will never be a cure for cancer? we already use the cure, and have been for thousands of years...

Studies assessing the anticancer properties of cannabinoids have shown that they inhibit the proliferation of a wide range of cancers, including brain cancer, prostate cancer, oral cancers, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, biliary tract cancers, lymphoma, and breast cancer.

The dual effects of delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol on cholangiocarcinoma (biliary tract cancer) cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration.

The anticancer effect of Delta (9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal active component of cannabinoids has been demonstrated in various kinds of cancers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793

Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

Anti-proliferative and apoptotic effects of anandamide in human prostatic cancer cell lines: implication of epidermal growth factor receptor down-regulation and ceramide production.

RESULTS: ANA induced a decrease of EGFR levels on LNCaP, DU145, and PC3 prostatic cancer cells by acting through cannabinoid CB(1) receptor subtype and this leaded to an inhibition of the EGF-stimulated growth of these cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract

Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition

Results

Our results show that both Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol, the most abundant and potent cannabinoid in marijuana, and JWH-133, a non-psychotropic CB₂ receptor-selective agonist, reduce tumor growth, tumor number, and the amount/severity of lung metastases in MMTV-neu mice. Histological analyses of the tumors revealed that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis, and impair tumor angiogenesis. Cannabinoid antitumoral action relies, at least partially, on the inhibition of the pro-tumorigenic Akt pathway. We also found that 91% of ErbB2-positive tumors express the non-psychotropic cannabinoid receptor CB₂.

http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196

Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16116/version/1

Δ⁹-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html

Cannabinoid Receptor-Mediated Apoptosis Induced by R(+)-Methanandamide and Win55,212-2 Is Associated with Ceramide Accumulation and p38 Activation in Mantle Cell Lymphoma

We have recently shown that cannabinoids induce growth inhibition and apoptosis in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), a malignant B-cell lymphoma that expresses high levels of cannabinoid receptor types 1 and 2 (CB₁ and CB₂).

http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.abstract

Cannabinoids as potential new therapy for the treatment of gliomas (brain cancer)

http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14737175.8.1.37

Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells via Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress–Related Genes

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract

Pot Compound Protects Against Alcohol-Induced Brain Damage

Researchers hypothesized that CBD is neuroprotective because it possesses anti-oxidant properties. Anti-oxidants, such as vitamin C and vitamin E, are believed to help the body protect against the deleterious effects of free radicals (unstable atoms that can damage cells and may accelerate the progression of cancer and age-related diseases).

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/314/2/780.abstract?sid=4498b396-f35c-49c8-9709-900ffa17e299

Whatever you're smokin', bro', tell me where I can get some!

There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana users are any longer-lived, any healthier than the general population. Their cancer rates are no lower statistically and the price they pay in COPD (emphysema) and brain dysfunction would not be worth it even if cancer rates were a tiny bit less.

I'm a libertarian, and as such I've got no problem with people toking it up...but here is just a short list of things I wouldn't want those same people doing for a living

flying planes, driving school buses, doing my taxes, teaching our kids, driving taxis, defending our Nation, cooking my burger, answering calls for my business, opening pickle jars, washing dishes at my favorite restaurant, treating our illnesses or mixing our meds, building my house, working beside me doing almost anything, working for me or me for them...

please...recreational users are fully functional and capable of doing everything mentioned...

Neurophysiological and cognitive effects of smoked marijuana in frequent users.

RESULTS:

Overall performance accuracy was not significantly altered by marijuana...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20600251 (our own beloved federal government's site)

Marijuana’s Impact On Brain Function “Minimal,” New Study Says

Authors wrote, “We reviewed literature reporting neuroimaging studies of chronic or acute cannabis use published up until January 2009. … Sixty-six studies were identified, of which 41 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three were functional (SPECT/PET/fMRI) and eight structural (volumetric/DTI) imaging studies. … Only three of the structural imaging studies found differences between users and controls.”

Investigators concluded, “Minimal evidence of major effects of cannabis on brain structure has been reported,” noting that marijuana users and controls perform similarly on cognitive tasks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19627647 (another goodie from the feds...)

besides that, we know better than to go to work stoned...most of us who are responsible won't even risk rocking the boat, for christ's sake, you ain't the only ones with a @!$%#ing family, einsteins...

When I was a much younger man, I smoked pot (two or three times)...and it was 3 days before I could tie my shoes by myself, without someone there to point to my left foot...and there are people right now, in every business sector mentioned above getting stoned on their coffee break...I've been around stoners for most of my life, and any research paper that even begins that regular marijuana use, doesn't lead to profound and permanent mental and physical debilitation, was written by someone who was high when they wrote it...

Ok, they are a few pot smokers, who use responsibly...and I'll absolutely agree it should be available to anyone who has a medical need...just let me know when I'm relying on the vast majority of pot smokers so I can make other arrangements...and just so you can get the lawsuits ready in advance, If I am ever in a position to hire someone for almost any position I can imagine...it will not be a pot smoker

you already rely on a vast majority of pot smokers...they're just not as obvious as the pot smokers you think you know. and if it took you three days to figure out how to tie your shoes after smoking it up, i gotta question your intelligence in the first place...

And if you can't admit the cognitive, physical coordination, and functional reasoning effect of smoking pot, that every objective test has shown again and again, then it is your integrity that I would question

every test has shown? where? show it to me...put your money where your mouth is. it's true that it affects people, but not to the extent that you're implying. to the newcomer, they'll be stoned as hell and won't be able to handle it as well as regular recreational users...but with those who are recreational users, the effects are negligible...

I wouldn't want to waste my time, you can google as well as anyone, and read studies of short and long term effects of Marijuana but I get the feeling, if it isn't research carried by or referenced in "High Times", you would probably consider it just one more example of the "Man" trying to hold you down...All I need is 1...why would 10's of millions of Americans and ~ billion people world wide risk their lives, freedom, and any hope of gainful employment... to grow, transport, deal and use the stuff...if the effects were "negligible"...Is it possible that I have known a few to many "Spicolys" in my life, sure...but in my day to day job, there are literally half a dozen ways to seriously injure or kill myself and co-workers, with simple / stupid mistakes (from fall from hights, to 15kv waiting behind a protective cover, to 6500 watts of Microwave RF emitted from a port left open)...I sure would not trust myself or my co-workers if I thought that they might be high (or drunk for that matter)...there are way too many jobs / professions were not being 100% can be fatal...

that's it? "google it. i get the feeling...you won't listen anyway..." ok, yeah, you won this round... /s

Joe is right - THC has indeed been found to be a tumor fighter. Another interesting thing medical science has found out lately is that chronic inflammation will make you more likely to get cancer and other diseases such as Alzheimer's and rheumatoid arthritis.

So if you don't believe Joe, you can still keep yourself healthy by staying away from foods that cause inflammation like refined sugar, trans fats, white breads and non whole grain pastas. I also got my doctor's approval to take an anti-inflammatory (like Tylenol, Motrin, etc) on a daily basis.

Mr, you have no idea what you're talking about. Before I had kids I smoked pot daily and quite frankly, it proved the archetypal pot smoker image to be false for me. I went outside and worked when i smoked. I dug a 50'x25' terrace out of my front yard with a mattock so I could have a flat spot for a vegetable garden and did all other related work to it...while stoned. The only thing it impaired was my "im tired and this is boring" instincts.

She worked hard for her money so you better treat her right"

Great memories going to miss her and when its your time everything else is irrelevant.

You got my vote Joe, without doubt, although Mr Phea has some valid points with regard to trades/workmanship.

But by the same token Mr Phea, I would not countenance a chronic boozer driving a school bus, for example.

Everything in moderation, that's the ticket...

When I was a much younger man, I smoked pot (two or three times)...and it was 3 days before I could tie my shoes by myself, without someone there to point to my left foot...

I call BS! Unless, of course, you couldn't tie your own shoes when you weren't high! It is just this kind of crap that led to those "unbiased" studies you mention later. You never smoked any pot!

EEngineer: LOL! Where were you when Slick Willie said he smoked but did not inhale! I can hear it now, "With all due respect Mr. President, You never smoked any pot!". I agree, they must have laced that pot with tobacco.

To the pot smokers -

If pots not doing anything to alter your perception, why in @!$%# are you smoking it???

Listen, I've smoked my share of pot and I think it should be legal but you don't do your side any good at all with ridiculous and obviously outlandish claims. Anybody who has smoked pot or been around stoners knows full well it totally alters your perceptions. You should videotape yourself really high and watch it. You might be surprised. It's a friggin hallucinogen for god's sakes. We know. Ok. Some of my most intense and far out drug trips were only from pot. I found it to be far more mind bending than say, coke. We get that pot smokers want to get high. Fine. But please stop with the other idiocies. The rest of us are not stupid. We probably have first hand experience.

The idea that weed cures cancer is so @!$%#ing ludicrous. The amount of people smoking pot and the current cancer rates disprove that outright.

Cancer you have for lunch how's that?

My cousin died of lung cancer, never smoked, nor did she hang out in bars or smoky places. My grandfather smoked for all his life, died at 85 from an aneurysm.

There is only one guarantee, for every life there will be a death. The only unknown is when.

did you even READ THE ARTICLE tinlou? is it really that much to ask that people read the freakin' articles and comprehend them before coming here to comment? jeesh- the whole POINT of this story was that she didn't smoke, and that a surprising number of non smokers die from lung cancer!

The family denied that she was a smoker but there are hundreds of pictures of her smoking on the internet! Since Summer wanted to blame her cancer on 9/11 dust, her family is honoring her wish to keep the portrayal that it didn't have anything to do with her previous smoking habit. She may have quit before she died but that still doesn't make her a non-smoker!

Maybe you shouldn't criticize other people before becoming fully informed yourself.

It just goes to show that some people will stubbornly hold on to their bull-headed notions, regardless of what anyone else says. 10-15% of the people who develop lung cancer have never smoked. With lung cancer among non-smokers being not at all rare, it is quite plausible that people who have quit smoking can still get cancer that is in no way related to their past habit. When we asked the oncologist if my father's cancer was due to him having smoked (he had quit 10 years earlier), she said no; and that he had the number one type of cancer that non-smokers develop.

The reason for the lack of funding is, in essence, political. The research would pinpoint the various factors and elements causing the lung cancer - and hence - the companies producing/emitting the pollutants. Those companies know the score - and their lobbyists are hard at work.

Also, while your comments cover a good number of points - it needs to be noted that smokers with ANY respiratory problems are pretty much completely dismissed by the medical community. When the fire marshals of each state ramrodded the FSC (fire safe cigarette) legislation backed up with their emotional campaign of photos of children killed in fires - NOBODY questioned the additional chemicals - or their impact - added to the cigarette paper. The result has been all kinds of additional medical issues - which again - are dismissed by the medical community and health insurance industry.

No one deserves to die - whether they smoked or not.

So true Mark. Ms. Summer probably experienced a lot of second hand smoke in her career, as do many musicians. But there are also other problematic chemicals in our environment.

(#5) People are not being told the facts.

Right you are, …. Lung Cancer Alliance, …. because yesterday’s front page story was telling the people this, to wit:

DNA mutations

"We've known for many years now that all cancers are due to abnormalities of DNA...that occur in every single cell of the body over the course of a lifetime," said Stratton.

"But although we've known that, it's remarkable how rudimentary our knowledge is about what the processes are that cause these abnormalities, these mutations in our DNA."

"What we believe...is that sometimes in normal cells...this stops functioning properly and over-functions. It causes too many mutations and the accumulation of those mutations pushes the cell along the line to become cancer."

Read more @ http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/17/study-unpicks-gene-changes-behind-breast-cancer/

If the actual, long time, cancer research specialists and experts don't know the actual cause of cancers ..... then no one else does either.

But the "No-Smoking Movement" has been such a great "cash cow" for extorting the public's money over the past 30 years that it is the "poster child" for the recent successes of the "Anti-CO2 causing AGW Polution Movement". Two (2) peas in a pod, they are.

I saw a segment about Donna Summer on the news that showed a video of her smoking, so at one time she did smoke. Who can say why she got lung cancer for sure. It doesn't matter, because she's gone. Sad. You never know when somebody won't be around to appreciate. As far as memories, it's not the same as the real presence of that human being.

sam,

smoking causes lung cancer. Come on...

does it do it at a 100% rate? No. Do non smokers get lung cancer? Yes, but usually not the same type of cancer smokers get (squamous cell)

People aren't computers or machines. You don't enter in a program and then get the same result every time

But if you think smoking doesn't cause cancer, youre plain ignorant of the facts

By the way--smoking causes errors in dna replication--ie, thats how it causes cancer...

I think the fuss is about the automatic assumption of many who think - "Lung cancer? They must have smoked."

pretty safe assumption...

As a general assumption, I would agree; although I don't think automatically assuming anything is the best way to approach things. The problem is with those who insist that that has to be the reason. If non-smokers get lung cancer for reasons other than smoking, it is only logical to assume that a certain percentage of smokers may also get cancer from things other than smoking. While smoking in addition to being exposed to other agents will most certainly up the chance of developing lung cancer; it is counterproductive to blame it all on cigarettes. As this story points out, it is that assumption which helps to hamper efforts to tackle the problem.

eric-2573068, I believe the NCI and others list eleven (11) different cancers, including lung cancer, that they claim "cigarette smoke" is the primary cause of.

eric, if that is gospel fact and truth, ..... then tell me, ....... why the hell is it that Trial Lawyers only sue tobacco companies for cases of lung cancer. Why none of the other ten (10) cigarette smoke causing cancers?

sam,

i wouldn't base any scientific conclusion about disease off of trial lawyer behavior. They also sue obgyns for cerebral palsy when many cases cannot be tied directly to birth trauma

The most likely answer to your question is that tobacco companies have the deepest pockets.

Gee SamC since our discussion was so rudely deleted as derailment, I guess we need to continue here. [more appropriate] 1st the whole truth cannot be told since it is not completely understood. However what is understood is that certain chemicals, UV, radiation, and other environmental factors can and do cause the mutations that cause cancer. The tars, nicotine, and other chemicals in cigarettes have been more than proven to be carcinogenic. The tobacco companies new this and lied about it, using so called doctors and experts on their payroll to back them up. OK so what, tobacco brings billions of dollars in revenue, for the growers, the rollers, the distributors, and in sin taxes. If we are to go against everything unhealthy then we need to go against the food industry, the beer, wine, and spirits industry, creating a whole new generation of Al Capone's.

I gave up smoking, cigars long ago, [Arturo Fuente being my favorites] but cigars are a big different since you don't completely inhale them, and it was only done outside during tail gate parties, picnics, BBQ's, the golf course, and other outdoor activities. Even now as a non smoker I do not mind other smokers [many of my friends are] as long as it is done outside, [which it is].

And as for the possible health risks, SO WHAT!! We are all going to die anyways, so these people are shortening their lives. Less money to be spent on pensions, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and geriatric care. Less old people in front of the lines giving poor minimum wage store clerks a hard time. Less slow driver-less land yacht couches on wheels on the highway.

Sam C -

Forget lung cancer. Smoking causes a whole host of other severe medical problems. It also significantly impacts ones quality of life prior to death for years, even decades.

The no-smoking lobby you are so derisively contemtuous of is doing the right thing for all people. We should all be working towards a smoke free world and encouraging people to quit and get healthy. The idea that it's some sort of "cash cow" is ludicrous. Can you explain how?? Smokers are infinitely more of a cash cow because of sin tax than the no-smoking lobby. If your contention was true, these evil government scientists who are perveting science to take your money would be promoting smoking.

(#5.11) The tars, nicotine, and other chemicals in cigarettes have been more than proven to be carcinogenic.

Viewer01, no they haven’t. Read any report or study and it will state “associated with, believed to be, correlated to, etc., etc.,” ….. but never state any actual, factual, repeatable scientific proofs or evidence. Like CO2 is claimed to be “a fact” simply because its increase is “associated” with their “fuzzy” math calculated temperature increases.

Viewer01, if you had stated “diesel exhaust” has been more than proven to be carcinogenic, I would have agreed with you, as well as it being highly detrimental to the overall health and the lungs of school children (33 studies), senior citizens, etc. But “nobody gives a schidt” and if you Google “diesel exhaust studies” you can read for yourself.

If smoke from burning plant biomass “kills” then the early Homo sapiens would never have survived their learning to use fire for cooking and warmth. But they did survive and it had to be their genes that “weeded out” the survivors sometime between 400K and 5 million years ago, …. that is, iffen any “weeding out” was done. If our early ancestors had been using diesel fuel for their fires then it wouldn’t be a problem now days.

(#5.12) Sam C -

Forget lung cancer. Smoking causes a whole host of other severe medical problems. It also significantly impacts ones quality of life prior to death for years, even decades.

Sammy John-75, there are a 1,000 things, such as latex, coal dust, peanut butter, asbestos diesel exhaust, etc., etc., … that will cause severe medical problems. Cigarette smoke might irritate and/or exacerbate the displeasing symptoms or conditions resulting from another “problem” but cigarette smoke is not the originating cause of said problem.

And Sammy John-75, I understand the reason behind your adamant belief in what you stated above because it was most probably nurtured as a result of “social mind control” that was initiated by the American Cancer Society in 1977 with their 1^st Great American Smokeout, to wit:

During the next 25 years the Smokeout was celebrated with rallies, parades, stunts, quitting information, and even "cold turkey" menu items in schools, workplaces, Main Streets, and legislative halls throughout the US.

The Great American Smokeout has helped to spotlight the dangers of tobacco use and the challenges of quitting, but more importantly, it has set the stage for the cultural revolution in tobacco control that has occurred over this period.

The ACS realized it was a "cash cow" when they heard about the first "smokeout" that had occurred in Randolph, MA in 1971.

Sam C-

Please man, anyone defending smoking is just exercising confirmation bias. That's it. In case you missed what I said, I'll repeat. Forget cancer. Smoking causes and/or exacerbates a myriad of health problems and causes a signifcant decrease in quality of life. How do I know? I quit smoking in my late 20's because my lungs rebelled. I was sick of feeling like @!$%#. Anywayw what is your point? That smoking is good for you? Benign? That we shouldn't be encouraging and working towards a smoke free society??

I'm not under some "social mind control". Do you believe yourself when you post such idiotic nonsense?? Honestly. How do you expect to debate someone when you toss out such egregious nonsense??

All I said was that we should be promoting a smoke free society and that the idea that there is more money in nonsmoking than smoking is idiotic. Besides, I am not even sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting that the ACA is falsifying information about smoking in order to get more money so they can work on that evil nefarious cure for cancer?? Like what are you talking aboutt??

Anyways, I should have never started this conversation. I am sorry. You are clearly a moron. Your insane ramblings on homosapiens and C02 just prove that.

Hey man know where to get some good diesel exhaust, real chronic.

If smoke from burning plant biomass “kills” then the early Homo sapiens would never have survived their learning to use fire for cooking and warmth.

Brilliant Sam no one can argue with that.

(#5.15) I'm not under some "social mind control".

You’re not, huh, Sammy John-75, then where did you come up with that “just exercising confirmation bias” crapolla?

(#5.15) All I said was that we should be promoting a smoke free society

What next will you “jump on the bandwagon” and be promoting? A corporation free society? A vehicle free society? A CO2 free society? An organized sports free society? Sammy John-75, isn’t it kinda idiotic for you to be demanding that I do what you have decided is best for me and claim you are “promoting a free society” by doing so?

(#5.15) and that the idea that there is more money in nonsmoking than smoking is idiotic.

Sammy John-75, again confirming that "social mind control" thingy, huh? Are you trying to tell me there is more money in a $1.76 “smoking” pack of cigarettes than there is an $8.45 “nonsmoking” pack of cigarettes? That a carton of cigs @ $17.60 is more money than is $84.50 per carton. And it was your lungs that were “rebelling”, right?

Sam C-

Nice bunch of false equivalencies. Promoting a corporation free society?? You're not even making sense. We're talking about a product with only negative attributes. They have zero redeeming qualities. I'm not talking about banning them. I'm talking about promoting a healthy lifestyle. Nobody's gonna stop you from being a total idiot and polluting your body. Go nuts.

You are exercising confirmation bias. As do I. We all do it to a certain degree. Being aware of it helps one to recognize it. I have no @!$%#ing clue what that has to do with your tinfoil hat social mind control comment. Really. I came up with confirmation bias by being an erudite literate fu c ker and noticing it's obvious presence in your comments.

Whatever. Enjoy COPD, impotence, and stinking like @!$%#.

(#5.18) You are exercising confirmation bias. As do I. We all do it to a certain degree

Sammy John-75, don’t be falsely accusing me of a similar act that you admit to be guilty of just to CYA for your learned deficiencies. I am only biased in/of what I eat, drink, have sex with and the things I do for personal enjoyment.

And a perfect example of your bias was this statement, to wit:

(#5.12) The idea that it's some sort of "cash cow" is ludicrous. Can you explain how?? Smokers are infinitely more of a cash cow because of sin tax than the no-smoking lobby.

Sammy John-75, your nurtured bias was responsible for your inability to consciously comprehend what I had actually stated in Post #5.3, the exact words which were: “But the "No-Smoking Movement" has been such a great "cash cow" for extorting the public's money ….”

Sammy John-75, you first claimed my statement was “ludicrous” and then you mentally “twisted” the context of my verbiage and then, per say, restated it in your biased verbiage to CYA and/or justify your claim of it being “ludicrous”.

Sammy John-75, you inferred that I claimed that the smokers WERE NOT the “cash cows”, which was a devious and disingenuous act on your part, … and secondly you inferred I made mention of the “no-smoking lobby” as being the “cash cow” in question which was also devious and disingenuous on your part because I made no mention whatsoever about said “lobby”.

So “DUH”, the real question is “Are you capable of understanding how?”

The smokers did not demand, lobby, file Law suites or petition the federal, state and city governments to levy those horrendous taxes on the tobacco products they purchase. Even the Learning Disabled would know that is a fact.

“DUH”, it was the anti-smokers or “no-smoking lobby/lobbyists” that was responsible for said taxes …. and thus their organized “No-Smoking Movement has been a great ‘cash cow’ for funding just bout anything and everything said lobbyists choose to spend that extorted money on or for .

Sammy John-75, an intelligent conversation is not possible whenever said claimed “confirmation bias” is substituted for the real, the actual and/or the factual.

In the above case call it what it was, ..... "out-of-context" nefarious rebuttal.

If you have smoked or continue to smoke, all of the things you mention after "But the exposure..." increase your risk of lung cancer even more. The smoking and exposure together are more risky than either one alone. The increase is sometimes exponential, like with smoking and exposure to asbestos or nickel. Also, if you quit smoking, your risk of heart disease begins to drop immediately but your risk of lung cancer drops very slowly and never reaches the risk level it would have been if you never smoked. Although smoking does cause the majority of lung cancers, only a relatively small percentage of smokers get lung cancer. Others have strokes, heart attacks, emphysema, bladder or renal cancers. Some people smoke their whole life with relative impunity.

Not to mention carcinomas of the tongue, tonsils, trachea, larynx and other head and neck cancers.

jack-1962499

They have reciently shown that exposure to polution from trucks and car pollution causes strokes and heart disease.

jack-1962499

A woman won a lawsuit because benzine in her teeth glue caused oral cancer and she never smoked a day in her life.

No arguments on either count.

Both the things you mentioned are known to increase your risk for cancer. Smoking increases the risk even more. Rationalization does not prevent cancer. To rationalize that it is the benzene/asbestos/other known carcinogens and not the smoking is naive. Benzene is a potent carcinogen. Smoking and being exposed to is would even make the risk worse. I frankly have never heard of benzene in teeth glue...unless it is a brand that come from China.

jack-1962499

I don't remember the exact brand and I have no desire to guess and become liable for a lawsuit but I can tell you that is not made anymore. If you would search on the net I am sure you could find the brand in question.

I smoke and have done so for 60 years. I haven't seen a doctor since 1968 and my only problems are associated with old age; so, take your self-important holier-than-thou attitude and ........

Brenda-251440

I have not smoked indoors for better than twenty years and I never smoke in front of a non smoker. You have just shown your ignorance by just making such a broad statement.

I only smoked because I was hooked.

So the cigarette companies also had you born addicted? You smoked for some reason before you were "hooked." Stop pointing the finger and take on the burden of responsibility.

Paul, smokers are rude. You have just proven that.

You're an ass. You have just proven that.

east coast

You do not have a clue the only thing you can say is not relevant.

east coast

Sorry mis-read your post.

Brenda, are you writing that post while you're jogging around the block? Working out at the gym?

No? Maybe before you eat that next twinkie you should stop being so stereotypical?

See what I did there? I made some baseless assumption that you are a fat junk food eater, just like you made the assumption that all smokers are rude. It's not smoking that makes a person rude, it's rudeness that makes a person rude, and smoking has nothing to do with it.

By the way, were you rude for 31 years and then stopped being rude once you quit smoking?

By the way, Brenda, congratulations on quitting. Sorry to go off on your comments, but they kind of irritated me. I am happy for you that you quit smoking. Well done.

I hate apartment smokers. Some of you people have no clue

Yawn.

Oh, geez, another reformed smoker.

I don't smoke around non-smokers. If a non-smoker is in my car, I don't smoke. If the rule of the house is no smoking, I don't smoke. Quit being holier-than-thou. It's rude, too.

I've been reluctantly smoke free for almost five years after a 35 year smoking habit. I quit to keep my job and health benefits. I miss it every day. I resent that my employer can tell me what I can and can't do in my own home.

Not one in my family of many smokers ever died of any lung issues except the old men who worked in coal mines.

My mom will be 90 soon and still enjoys an occasional cigarette. We are shopping for a new doctor for her as she has outlived another one who lectured her to quit smoking for her health. He recently died of pancreatic cancer at 54. Life is funny that way.

amen maggieadela. I smoked fairly casually--a pack could last me 2 or 3 days--for probably 15 years. When my grandfather, who smoked all of his life, developed esophagial cancer (at 85) I quit cold turkey. Made a statement to myself, had 2 cigarettes left, gave one to a buddy and that was it. I can today light one up when I feel like it and not worry about "going back". I make that decision, not some "addiction". Anyone who says they can't control their own body is just weak and lazy. God bless your Mom, hope she went to her doctor's visitation...:)

I have actually seen a guy smoking while he was fueling his car at the gas pump. At my workplace, they smoke anywhere they damn well please, as long as it's outdoors. It doesn't seem to matter one bit that there are NO SMOKING signs posted. In general, I've found that smokers are rude people with an over-developed sense of entitlement.

How do smokers have any more of an over-developed sense of entitlement than non-smokers? Non-smokers seem to think they are entitled to make a smoker not smoke around them, even in an area where smoking is permitted. I've seen it many times.

You are right about smokers. They seem to have no clue how close they are to you and could care less about the smoke drifting in your eyes or lungs. I had a garage sale last week and some woman starts walking in with a lit cigarette in my garage with clothing and all kinds of other objects that could be burned and stunk up. I asked her to put it out before she was about to enter and she was really pissed. A normal caring person would say. Oops, sorry, no problem. A selfish person gets mad. People's selfishness and thoughtlessness amaze me. All these poor workers in restaurants and bars have been suffering for many years because of the doggone smokers that can't control themselves. What a waste of money and lives!

I like smoking simply because it advertises who the complete idiots are up front. It's like a neck tattoo or a tramp stamp. It says to everyone,

"I'm a moron with poor decision making skills."

Even a smoker shouldn't be defending it. It has absolutely no redeeming value, stinks, violates other peoples airspace, creates so much litter, and causes myriad health problems. Just all around disgusting. Filthy. Gross.

Smoking gives all the self-righteous, moral-judgment people somebody else to be better than and call a moron. I'm sure these people are perfect in every way.

Howard - There's no judgement, just proclamation of facts. Smoking is disgusting and inherently rude to other people. It also shows an appalling lack of critical thinking skills. Sorry but it's true.

Maybe calling them morons was harsh. They're addicted to nicotine, which is one of the most addictive substances on the planet. I have sympathy for that. Believe me I do.

There's still no excuse for defending smoking in any way. Smoke if you want but be honest about how disgusting it is. Do you really want to inflict smoking on future generations??? You obviously know first hand how addictive it is, expensive, and I'm sure if you were honest, how detrimental to your health (your lungs, your skin, your energy levels, sex life, quality of your teeth, etc).

Oh omnipotent one.

America!

Hey what about this nation of unadmitted "other smokers". Yeah, other smokers- the ones who hop in vehicles and pump out exhaust into everyone else's lungs- there are hundreds of millions of you in the US alone pumping that deadly crap at everyone but who do you go after? Cigarettte smokers alone- and they are made to be the very bane of everyone's existence. Vehicle exhaust poisons millions every day but its the guy with the cigarette outside causing the lung cancers- are you frigging idiots? Do any of you have the ability to think beyond the television ads of a high power interest group- a lobby? Nope. Its always the smokers or 2nd hand smoke causing the lung cancer and NEVER that crap you breath and force into everyone else's lungs so you can drive your dead asses 2 blocks to a frigging store! The one thing I laugh at every day is the sight of a line of cars on a road, each force feeding the occupants of the vehicle behind them exhaust fumes, knowing that they're making each other sick but just won't admit it to themselves mentally. They literally spend years, by the time they die, breathing deadly exhaust fumes but you all want to blame it on a cigarette that someone else is forced to smoke outside, or because you can smell tobacco on them you cry out "2nd hand smoke!". Its time to call "SHENANIGANS!!!".

If you want tobacco smokers to quit- then try dropping your own habits first. Park that mechanical poison generator behind your house and let it rust. If work (or other destination) is 2 miles or less away, then walk there (weather NOT being an excuse). Take that 2 by 4 out of your own eyes before you try to remove the sliver from mine.

If you can't tell, I'm rather fed up with the anti-tobacco smoker program, fed up with your 'sin taxes' ( I ain't in your church so leave me alone!), and your propaganda campaigns. Tax your own sins for once, why don't you? 5 dollar sin tax on every gallon of gas! $10,000 sin tax when buying a new vehicle- $6,000 if a used vehicle.... and get off our backs you self righteous pains in the a......!

I have a buddy who says that the smell of smoke makes him ill. Yet he drives 45 miles each way to work every day of the week - stacked up in traffic in his Ford Exploder. Ironically, he's one of those clean freaks who has a pantry full of cleaning chemicals that he uses in abundance. Still, he will bitch about somebody 100 feet away having a cigarette. It is amazing the lies we tell ourselves.

Personally, I've always felt that the second-hand smoke connection to lung cancer has been a case of "figure the numbers till the numbers figure" sort of situation. It seemed to me that before the advent of this connection, governments could not get popular support for levying heavy taxes on smokers. Non-smokers had a "If they want to kill themselves with cigarettes, let'em! No skin off my nose!".. Then they got the bright idea, "Hey... let's see if we can get non-smokers to believe it is a danger to them as well! ... We can blame second-hand smoke for cancer in ANYBODY who's even remotely been around second-hand smoke!"

Non-smokers, by and large, have never particularly liked second-hand smoke, but it was more or less an annoyance, so not worth voting a tax for it. "My husband smokes, so I'm not gonna vote for this tax, it'll come out of our budget!".. BUT, then when they started doing "studies" that were designed for the express purpose of proving a correlation between second-hand smoke and cancer in non-smokers, it added a new level of motivation to non-smokers to PUNISH the evil smokers, whether it be by exclusion from businesses, workplaces or ridiculously high taxes.

In creating the bogeyman of "evil murderous second-hand smoke", the government created an insanely successful cash cow.. Millions of hopelessly addicted people who will continue to shell out vast amounts of tax revenue week after week, month after month, year after year, supporting their addiction.

It was an easy thing to pull, as non-smokers never liked second-hand smoke to begin with, and with such an easy way to fudge numbers as drawing a correlation between second-hand smoke and non-smokers with lung cancer was, it's success was assured.

If smoking is so damn deadly to not just smokers, but also non-smokers, tell me then, why is it still legal at all? If it is so damn devastating to everyone smokers and non-smokers alike, you'd think that simply making it illegal would be paramount to the government's priorities, rather than just taxing the hell out of it to "punish" the smokers or "give them an incentive to quit".

WarBeast - Right On!!

The Whole second hand smoke Farce - started after the 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health, - where Antismoking activists were told that to eliminate smoking it would first be essential to "create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…"

- Huber. Consumers Research Magazine. 04/92

It's been a lie from it's inception - and because it displeases so-o-o many (have you noticed all the "Gross" and "disgusting" comments from the anti-smokers?) - It became a fairly eay lie to perpetuate - about 90% of all studes that show problems with SHS were funded and conducted by the anti-smoking movement - backed with billions of dollars of funding from (who else?) - the pharmaceutical companies that produce the "Stop smoking" products - - yet there are AT LEAST as many studies that show no problems asociated with SHS - But they never get mentioned because of political "incorrectness"

It has now become easy to blame smokers for most every evil thing that happens on this earth.

First - There have been NO studies to date that "Proves" smoking "CAUSES" ANY of the problems associated with it - AT MOST - it is another "Risk Factor" - Studies have shown that being obese (33% of all americans are) - is just as high a risk factor for Lung cancer as active smoking is! - There are literally HUNDREDS of risk factors for ALL cancers and diseases - Smoking has just become the most popular "Boggy man"

As this article states - THEY STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSES CANCER - NO Researcher - NO doctor - NO Anti-smoking org. - NO-ONE knows! - but in the past few years - as smoking rates have declined and Cancer rates keep rising - I have been seeing some "back stroking" in a lot of articles on cancer

I have seen others mention the sad and tired lie that smoking causes 87% of all Lung Cancers

Actual figures - in 2010 - of all Lung cancer cases in the US - Approx. 14% were active smokers - approx. 24% were NON SMOKERS - most of whom stating that they were never around SHS - The remaining 60 odd percent were people who had quit - most of them 20 years or more before being diagnosed - and as more and more people quit - more and more of the Lung cancer patients are in the NON Smoking group - because smoking rates are dropping but the cancer rates aren't

Eventually the truth will come to light - but until then they will keep pumping BILLIONS and billions into stop smoking measures - when this money could have been "wisely" spent on finding the causes and cures for Cancer.

Sad But True.

gudpackage

Did your friends ever have exposure to other toxins? I am sure the answer is yes.
When you have lung cancer they do not ask about the environment you worked or
lived in they just blame tobacco.

I think smoking stinks and does cause some lung cancer but the only reason I make
these post is I hope that it will educated others to the toxic environment we
live in and quit blaming tobacco for all diseases.

I have known people who never smoked or worked in a toxic environment that have
had all different types of cancer. As a matter of fact they were very health
oriented, they were outdoors people and runners.

Go back 40-50 years and some cities were nothing but a toxic brew, and some cities today are not
much better. They use to burn PCP’s that released Dioxins that were known carcinogens.
Not to mention all of the chemicals that is in your water, food and air.

When you're drooling down your chest and reliant on some minimum wage worker to feed and bath you, while your family goes bankrupt supporting your lifestyle, be proud.

cunical

Ignorance is bliss.

Don't be so sanctimonious. I watched almost my entire family as well as friends die or be carved up from various cancers (lung, prostate, breast, stomach, esophogeael) and not one of them smoked. They didn't drink or go to bars either so stop with the villification of smokers. I remember the Cancer Society saying in the '70s that if people didn't smoke, cancer would be wiped out. I call bu11$hit. While I do not believe smoking is good for you I also don't believe anything Governments or Health Lobbyists say on the matter. Something is going on with cancer but I truly believe it's from environmental issues. Of course self-righteous nonsmokers will still whine about smokers, but we should be trying a lot harder to root out the true cause of this deadly disease without villifying one aspect of society. Grow up and stop whining.

paul and lori,

stop and think for just a second. If what you are saying is true, that environmental causes, pollution, etc are the major causes of lung cancer, then everyone, smokers AND nonsmokers, should be getting cancer at equal rates

But we know this isn't true. Lung cancer occurs much, much, much more often in smokers than nonsmokers. No doubt that there are carcinogens in the air. But clearly either they are not the major risk factor for cancer, or their effect is synergystic with smoking

either way, there's absolutely no way to look at those numbers and tell me smoking isn't the major risk factor for lung cancer

In addition, there's no question that smoking also causes coronary disease

People like you with your narrow minded view of the world are the reason why we are not searching for other reasons for cancers. Apparently you didn't read what I wrote, you just read as far as you needed to make your views known. You also broadly state that coronary disease is a smoking disease. Do you have proof of that? Coronary disease does not happen to other groups? Also, saying much so much does not make it a fact.

lori,

first of all, settle down.

Secondly, I read your entire post. Anecdotal stories prove little. It really doesn't matter for the big picture what happened to your aunt's cousin's stepsister's neighbor.

Furthermore, your family may have a genetic predisposition to cancer. There are a few genes, BRCA among them, that are known to greatly increase the risk of certain types of cancer. That is neither here nor there when discussing the general population

For most people, including those whose families do not have an apparent genetic predisposition to cancer, the biggest risk of lung cancer is smoking. Period.

YOU did not address anything I said in MY POST. Please say something to contradict the population data which shows lung cancer occurs 20 fold more often in smokers than non smokers

ou also broadly state that coronary disease is a smoking disease. Do you have proof of that? Coronary disease does not happen to other groups?

So you fall into the common trap I see happen with many people. Yes, obesity is a risk factor for coronary disease. As is diabetes, high cholesterol, and being born a male. That doesn't mean smoking is not also a risk factor for coronary disease. Its not mutually exclusive with the above. why would it be? Why can't diseases have more than one risk factor or cause?

eric-2573068

stop and think for just a second. If what you are saying is true, that environmental causes, pollution, etc are the major causes of lung cancer, then everyone, smokers AND nonsmokers, should be getting cancer at equal rates

But we know this isn't true.

Eric - who is "WE" - the latest studies coming to light are showing more and more NON smokers are getting lung cancer - than smokers are!

in 2010 approx. 14% of Lung Cancer patients were smokers - while in 2010 approx 21% of the population smoked - doesn't even sound like a correlation to me!

Lets look at another big lie that so many want to believe - 440,000 deaths a year are caused by smoking

Are you aware that 440,000 is approx 18% of the total death rate ? (2001 - 2010) - yet approx 21% of the population smokes - - again looks like smokers are actually living longer than their non smoking counterparts

In addition, there's no question that smoking also causes coronary disease

Again - possibly in YOUR mind there is no question - but the reasearchers have been questioning it for years! - most research shows there is POSSIBLY a link - but it looks as though diet is more of a "Cause"

For most people, including those whose families do not have an apparent genetic predisposition to cancer, the biggest risk of lung cancer is smoking. Period.

Sorry again - the newest research is finding the HPV virus in as much as 80% of lung cancers - many researchers now believe it could be the largest factor in lung cancer - Most neck - throat - and oral cancers are now being blamed on HPV - through oral sex.

Smoking has always been a "risk" - Never has been a "cause" - IN ANYTHING!!

none of what you say is true.

Id like to see all this "research" you mention..

eric-2573068

none of what you say is true.

Id like to see all this "research" you mention..

Well eric, you said that to the wrong person this time - because I DO KNOW what I'm talking about!

Here are (Only a few) links to back up the first statement. (there are others - but you have to care to INFORM YOURSELF to find them all)

Over 60% of new cases are never smokers or former smokers, many of whom quit decades ago.

In 2010 only 14.7% of lung cancer patients were smokers

"1/3 of lung cancer patients have never smoked and have never been exposed to second-hand smoke."

Identifying the cause of these malignancies is now the focus of intense interest among investigators. "Is it viral? Is it something else? We still don't know," [Quote from Dr. David R. Gandara, MD, professor of medicine and associate director of clinical research, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine]

Worldwide, lung cancer in never smokers comprises an estimated 15 to 20 percent of cases in men and over 50 percent in women [11]. There are major geographic differences, particularly in Asia, where 60 to 80 percent of women with the disease are never smokers

The first question people always ask is, 'Do you smoke?' or they'd say, 'But you don't smoke,'" she said. Neither do 60 percent of new patients, experts said.

Read more: #ixzz1rECMLSB8

The second couple of statement are just simple math - you can find the US Smoking rates and yearly death rates anywhere on line (again - Inform yourself)

Because my studies have been mostly related to the smoking link to cancer - I don't have a lot of links for heart disease and smoking - I have run into many - but haven't saved many - here are a few to get you started to finding the truth.

heart disease was already decreasing befor tobacco control

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Here's an interesting one - The CDC clearly states that a larger percentage of never smokers get smoking related diseases than smokers do
- (See table 2 - see especially the coronary diseases)
So why are they called smoking related disease? - why not just diseases??

As far as the HPV link to Lung and oral cancers - Where have you been?? - these studies are ALL OVER THE PLACE

Oral Sex May Cause More Throat Cancer Than Smoking in Men, Researchers Say

Oral sex is ‘bigger cause of throat cancer than tobacco’
Read more: #ixzz1sXiEL4WW

in 2007 this study found:
After controlling for other risk factors for throat cancer, such as drinking and smoking, the analysis revealed that people who had prior infection with HPV were 32 times as likely to have this cancer as those with no evidence of ever having the virus. And those who tested positive for a particularly aggressive strain of the virus, called HPV-16, were 58 times more likely to have throat cancer.

By comparison, either smoking or drinking increases the risk of such cancer by about threefold.

After adjusting the effects of age, gender, and smoking status, a 6.5-fold greater risk of lung cancer was demonstrated for those subjects with HPV Type 16 positive (95% CI 3.7-11.3, P < 0.0001), a 9.2-fold for HPV Type 18 positive (95% CI 4.2-20.2, P < 0.0001), and a 75.7-fold greatest risk for those with both HPV Type 16 and 18 positive (95% CI 9.8-582.1, P < 0.0001)."

Meanwhile infection of high risk HPV types (16 and 18) had a significantly high OR of lung cancer incidence as 8.00 (95% CI 1.425-44.920; P=0.021) compared with 4.423 (95% CI 2.407-8.126; P0.0001) of smoking status."

Meanwhile infection of high risk HPV types (16 and 18) had a significantly high OR of lung cancer incidence as 8.00 (95% CI 1.425-44.920; P=0.021) compared with 4.423 (95% CI 2.407-8.126; P0.0001) of smoking status."

Adjusted by smoking status, the risk of lung squamous cell carcinomas was 17.4 times higher among people HPV-16 positive (odds ratio 17.4, 95% CI 3.9-77.5, p<0.0001) compared with HPV-16 negative people."

I have reasearch links for EVERYTHING I post to forums - most forms don't allow links (they take up too much space) - so I don't always post them - but believe me - it's ALL backed up with studies

Can you say the same????

well, It looks like this forum strips links out also - I have seen other links posted here - thought it would work - If anyone can let me know how to gt links past the "stripper" I will repost them

This post is a test to see if they will post this way

Meanwhile infection of high risk HPV types (16 and 18) had a significantly high OR of lung cancer incidence as 8.00 (95% CI 1.425-44.920; P=0.021) compared with 4.423 (95% CI 2.407-8.126; P0.0001) of smoking status."

Adjusted by smoking status, the risk of lung squamous cell carcinomas was 17.4 times higher among people HPV-16 positive (odds ratio 17.4, 95% CI 3.9-77.5, p<0.0001) compared with HPV-16 negative people."

Nope - they don't go in that way either

care to INFORM YOURSELF to find them all)

Well, I went to medical school, but youre right, that really doesn't compare to sitting on my ass googling things like you do...

60% of new cases are never smokers or former smokers, many of whom quit decades ago.

All this proves is the risk of smoking never completely goes away. Next.

In 2010 only 14.7% of lung cancer patients were smokers

Not true. Next

1/3 of lung cancer patients have never smoked and have never been exposed to second-hand smoke."

You know whats really funny? You are inconsistent even from one line to the very next. Just above this you wrote that 14% of lung cancer patients were smokers, and the VERY NEXT LINE you write that 33% of lung cancer patients have never smoked, meaning 66% have. So which is it? Hahaha.

dentifying the cause of these malignancies

what malignancies? What is he talking about here?

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation...

Hahaha...show me the STUDY! Not just the conclusions...that's what people who don't know how to read journals do. The rest of us INFORMED readers like to see how that conclusion was drawn to make sure no one is trying to pull the wool over our eyes...

Oral sex is ‘bigger cause of throat cancer than tobacco’

Maybe...again, show me the study. Either way, even schoolchildren know that the main danger of smoking is LUNG cancer, not throat cancer. Smoke is held in the alveoli, thus exposing them to higher doses of carcinogens than throat epithelium

By comparison, either smoking or drinking increases the risk of such cancer by about threefold.

hahaha...this is evidence AGAINST what you are saying and YOU POSTED IT!!!! Hahaha...do you even read your own posts???

I have reasearch links for EVERYTHING I post to forums...but believe me ...

I don't. Sorry.

Can you say the same????

Sure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405174/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1984876

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16575274

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v314/n6010/abs/314462a0.html

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/14/1194.full

See how I actually provided EVIDENCE and didn't try to use some BS excuse? And i didn't just post meaningless statistics that may have come from the bathroom stall for all I know?

Thats the way it is done, my friend

Smoking or quiting - has no effect on CHD in the elderly - smoking actually seems to help for elderly women
The data examined gave consistent results. For elderly men, there were no appreciable excess risks of CHD mortality or morbidity among cigarette smokers compared to ex-cigarette smokers and non-cigarette smokers. For elderly women, the CHD rates seemed lower in continuing cigarette smokers than in ex-cigarette smokers. These results obtained from cohort data are concordant with previous analyses of secular data. Among elderly people, the risk of CHD is essentially the same with persistence of cigarette smoking than with its cessation.



Obesity and CHD
After control for cigarette smoking, which is essential to assess the true effects of obesity, even mild-to-moderate overweight increased the risk of coronary disease in middle-aged women.

Smokers who have a high Fish intake have 1/2 the CHD problems that those who eat little fish do - Seems like diet has a BIG impact
CHD mortality rates showed no relation with cigarettes/day (3.7, 3.2, and 3.7 per 1000 person-years for the corresponding levels of smoking).In the high-smoking group, the risk factor-adjusted relative risk (RR) for CHD mortality among those with high fish intake was half that of those with low fish consumption (RR = 0.5, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.91).

Diet and heat disease in Japan
The incidence of coronary heart disease has increased among middle-aged men residing in the suburbs of Osaka. As for the associations between lifestyle and cardiovascular disease, higher sodium, lower calcium and lower animal protein content in the diet and for men higher alcohol consumption may account for the higher prevalence of hypertension and higher risk of stroke for Japanese than for western populations. On the other hand, lower saturated fat (meat) and higher n3 polyunsaturated fat (fish) in the Japanese diet may contribute to the lower prevalence of hypercholesterolemia and lower risk of coronary heart disease among Japanese.

well Eric obviously you are able to include links in your post - No matter what I try - they are stripped out of my posts - If you would kindly tell me how to get around the "stripper" - I will be happy to give you all the links you require and more.

If I cannot continue WITH Links - Then of course you will keep stating that I don't know what I'm talking about and it would be useless to try to inform you or anyone else

BTW all the statements made in earlier post were NOT MY WORDS but quote from the studies that I had linked to - so there is no reason to - so it was not any inconsistancy on my part that you were railng against - EVERY STUDY I HAVE EVER READ HAS BEEN INCONSISTANT WITH THE NEXT

you need to address my points or there is no further use in me spending time on this.

Please read the studies I posted, and then comment

Your "studies" show wildly inconsistent results--that should tell you a little something about the quality of those studies

Oh I have read the studies that you linked too - are you afraid to let me know how to post my links??????

2 of the studies were funded by the anti-smoking movement - so mean nothing

the second "Study" was by Stanton Glantz - the RABID anti-smoker - and a leader of the Anti-smoking crusade - so it means nothing

The third was only a few words - and I'm not about to pay $26 to read the rest of it - so it means nothing

the 4th link was not a study - it was a long and boring story - 1 man's attempt to explain why he thinks somoking may be causing cancer - most of the way through he admits conjecture, hypotheses, and maybe's - so it means nothing

After rereading your post and seeing the way you like to say "NEXT" after a rebuttle - I Know now who you are - you also like to troll the topix forum - and spread the same stupid "I'm right and if you disagree with me -I'll just call you some names" rubish there also

BTW - I believe the last time I we posted in disagreement (on Topix) - you stated that you were a Law Student - which one is it - law student or Med student??????????? - May be you have time for both?? - but wait you spend most of your time trolling forums - so maybe you are "Just a liar".

Either way, even schoolchildren know that the main danger of smoking is LUNG cancer, not throat cancer. Smoke is held in the alveoli, thus exposing them to higher doses of carcinogens than throat epithelium

If that's true - then why has the anti-smoking movent spent billions (subsidized by taxpayers Government dollars) - on TV Commercials trying to convince everyone that you will have to live with a "Stoma" if you continue to smoke - just more lies of the anti-smoking movement!

to post links you just post them--i did nothing but copy and paste the link

of the studies were funded by the anti-smoking movement

No, it wasn't. Show me where you see that

After rereading your post and seeing the way you like to say "NEXT" after a rebuttle - I Know now who you are - you also like to troll the topix forum - and spread the same stupid "I'm right and if you disagree with me -I'll just call you some names" rubish there also

BTW - I believe the last time I we posted in disagreement (on Topix) - you stated that you were a Law Student - which one is it - law student or Med student??????????? - May be you have time for both?? - but wait you spend most of your time trolling forums - so maybe you are "Just a liar".

that wasn't me. Not everyone who says "next" is the same guy. And im not a med student or a law student

I have found that the reason that I can't post links is because I am new to the forum - does't really say how log I have to wait before I can

So The best I can do now is post the title and author of the studies (info) - if you just Google this info - the studies will pop right up

Smoking and coronary heart disease in the elderly. SELTZER, CARL C.

The presence of human papillomavirus type 16/18 DNA in blood circulation may act as a risk marker of lung cancer in Taiwan.
Chiou HL, Wu MF, Liaw YC, Cheng YW, Wong RH, Chen CY, Lee H.

Relationship between lung cancer and human papillomavirus in north of Iran, Mazandaran province.
Nadji SA, Mokhtari-Azad T, Mahmoodi M, Yahyapour Y, Naghshvar F, Torabizadeh J, Ziaee AA, Nategh R.

Correlation of HPV-16/18 infection of human papillomavirus with lung squamous cell carcinomas in Western China.
Yu Y, Yang A, Hu S, Yan H.

Cancer spike, mainly in men, tied to HPV from oral sex By Brian Alexander

Many Lung Cancer Patients Stopped Smoking Years Before Diagnosis Norra MacReady

This next one is a VERY interesting piece of information put out by the CDC - Of course they start out stating that smoking is the greatest danger for everything - but if you go to Table 2 and look at the figures there you see an entirely different story - Just like the "Missing" Surgeon Generals report - they actually show that smokers (in most all categories) have LESS 'SMOKING RELATED" cronic diseases and problems than NON Smokers do - lOOK ESPECIALLY AT THE CORONARY DISEASES.

Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2006 CDC

The surgeon general found the same statistics in the mid 60's - but didn't want this report published -because it most definately disproved their agenda - hence it's name "the Missing report" - look at the Data in table A

find it here - Cigarette Smoking and Health Characteristics United States-July 1964 =June 1965

that wasn't me. Not everyone who says "next" is the same guy. And im not a med student or a law student

Kind of strange - your attitude and general disdain for anyone but yourself (or others that think as you do) - ARE EXACTLY THE SAME ALSO - Maybe a brother? or your 4 (or 7) year old nephew that you refer to??? - You DID state to me in an earlier post that you went to Med School - Get bounced because of that attitude?? - I hope to GOD you are not a Doctor????? - Not the way that YOU JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS!!

you need to address the studies I posted...i will not discuss anything further until these have been addressed..

You DID state to me in an earlier post that you went to Med School

I don't remember saying that but even if I did--that's WENT (as in past tense). I AM NOT a medical student currently.

Get bounced because of that attitude

Nope--i graduated. You might not be familiar with that term

hope to GOD you are not a Doctor?

Hahaha...too bad for you...

but one thing I couldn't help but to point out in your CDC report, table 2

Those numbers are not corrected for coexisting disease, age, or other risk factors.

In other words, who is more likely to get coronary disease--a 20 year old female smoker or a 75 year old diabetic hypertensive male who never smoked?

Of course the nonsmoker--this does in NO WAY prove smoking doesn't cause heart disease

You are an amateur at best, and are clearly in over your head. You need to take some statistics classes, and classes in evidence based medicine before talking to me further. You clearly do not understand that data you present

another thing--seltzer was a paid consultant for the tobacco industry, collecting more than 2 million dollars from them over his career

I didn't provide anything from anyone who recieved funds from any pro OR anti smoking lobby

Please avoid such blatantly biased articles. Thank you

Those numbers are not corrected for coexisting disease, age, or other risk factors.

No, it was -so to speak - a "Snapshot" of the real world - you know the one you and I live in????

In other words, who is more likely to get coronary disease--a 20 year old female smoker or a 75 year old diabetic hypertensive male who never smoked?

Of course the nonsmoker--this does in NO WAY prove smoking doesn't cause heart disease

Thank you - you've just proved my point - Smoking is NOT the cause - It is another "Risk Factor" just like hypertension, diabetes, obesity, age, family history, genetic makeup, pre-destination -or shear dumb luck! - and if you were a doctor - you would know this - I suppose on YOUR admission forms you don't ask about family history - or pre-existing conditions - Do you just jump to the same conclusions that you have shown here???? - EVERY doctors forms I have EVER filled out ask these questions - because they are EXTREMELY important for a correct diagnosis - Obviously you don't care about anything other than whether a person smokes or not - Admit it - you are just part of the ant-smoking lobby that makes it a habit to troll forums like this, in case some one may try to present another point of view

I didn't provide anything from anyone who recieved funds from any pro OR anti smoking lobby

You've just proved yourself a liar again!! - one of the studies you tried to prove your point with was by Stanton Glantz - one of the MAIN HEADS of the anti-smoking lobby ( wake up man!! - you don't seem to remember much AT ALL!!!) ---- "Please avoid such blatantly biased articles. Thank you

BTW - MANY MANY, very good studies by independant reaserchers, were funded by the tobacco companies - Only because the tobacco co.'s have money and have been willing to FUND studies (probably in the hope that it will turn out in their favor) - while the ACS, ALA, AHA, and most other health org's that are in the anti-smoking movement, HATE to part with their money - usually only for their own well indoctrinated researchers - and have been known in more than one study - to PULL their funding, before the study is done - if it doesn't look as though the results will fit the agenda Enstrom Kabot - being a prime example!

Also Richard Doll - was being funded by some of the Chemical companies when he did his "highly praised" (at least by you anti-smokers) study on smoking and lung cancer! - many speculate that it was to draw attention away from the chemical sprays being used rampantly - and their part in the lung cancer epidemic - "Lets just blame it on the smokers"

You clearly do not understand that data you present

I'll just leave it at that

BTW the figures in the CDC report WERE age adjusted

You clearly do not understand that data you present

Again, I'll leave it at that

No, it was -so to speak - a "Snapshot" of the real world - you know the one you and I live in????

Thats why we do studies...we can't draw conclusions from the real world...too many confounding variables

bTW the figures in the CDC report WERE age adjusted

true, but not for comorbidities

smoking is NOT the cause - It is another "Risk Factor"

agreed, kind of. all risk factors are causes...these terms are essentially synonymous in this setting

Stanton Glantz - one of the MAIN HEADS of the anti-smoking lobby

Show me where he recieved funds from this lobby. Also show me the study. Also comment on the four other studies I provided that he wasn't involved in

independant reaserchers, were funded by the tobacco companies

The terms "independent" and "funded by tobacco" are in conflict

now address the studies I posted in detail if you can...

Thats why we do studies...we can't draw conclusions from the real world...too many confounding variables

If you can show me JUST ONE study on smoking or SHS that accounts for ALL confounders - I will show you a unicorn!! - What an idiot!! - That is EXACTLY why statistics NEVER match the FACTS - I suppose you've never heard the saying "Statistics means never having to say your certain" - Statistitians are VERY familair with it!!

BTW Idiot - This WAS a Study!! ("CDC analyzed data from the 2006 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). This report summarizes the results of that analysis") - And probably JUST as good as about half of the studies on smoking - basically a meta analysis.

agreed, kind of. all risk factors are causes...these terms are essentially synonymous in this setting

ONLY in the setting of statistical analysis - to the general population (for whom this information in intended) - they are almost "polar opposites"

Show me where he recieved funds from this lobby.

He is one of the founders of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.. recieving Millions from RWJF - the "Benevelent" arm of Johnson and Johnson - who now control most ALL the "stop smoking " products. Gee, isn't THAT a sweet arrangement!!

He is also Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control - American Legacy Foundation With a total endowment of $1.45 billion, all of it from the MTS, - the American Legacy Foundation is by far the largest anti-tobacco advertiser in the country. They are brains behind the TRUTH campaign, whose controversial ads have been banned on major networks. - He has a few MILLION at his disposal. - but then you ALREADY know this - Don't you????

The terms "independent" and "funded by tobacco" are in conflict

No more so than "studies on smoking or SHS" and "ACS or ALA or AHA or Stanton Glantz or the EPA or the Surgeon General"

now address the studies I posted

WAKE UP AGAIN MAN! - I already addresed all of them - about 10 posts ago - You should have a smoke, and collect your thoughts!

Here are some studies done by Doll - you know - the beloved "father of Epidemiology" - the man who did the FIRST study on smoking and lung cancer - The one that started the WHOLE movement

Are these the studies that you refer to when you say "Thats why we do studies" - the studies you seem to think are more reliable than actual FIGURES that have been collected???

After Doll's death his papers, held at the Wellcome Foundation Library, showed that he had received a series of consultancy payments, including money from companies whose products he defended in court. These papers show payments of £50,000 to Green College from Turner and Newall, the asbestos company; a 30-year financial relationship between Turner and Newall and Doll; payments of between £12,000 and £15,000 to Doll from the Chemical Manufacturers’ Association; and from 1976 to 2002 (and possibly later) payments to Doll of $1,000 a day (increasing to $1,500 a day in 1986) from Monsanto [1].

The following are some of Doll’s interventions compiled by Dr. Samuel Epstein of the US Cancer Prevention Coalition [2]:

In 1981 Doll gave a speech to workers at Turner and Newell’s largest asbestos plant in Britain in response to a television documentary exposing the risks of cancer. The government had been forced to lower the occupational exposure limits as a result of the programme. Doll claimed that the new exposure limits meant that workers’ lifetime risk of dying from cancer was "a pretty outside chance" of one in 40. This level is actually very high and the incidence rate is now known to be higher still. Doll declined to testify against the asbestos companies as an expert witness on behalf of plaintiffs dying of cancer and their bereaved families. Instead, he gave a sworn statement in support of Turner and Newell to US courts.

In 1983 Doll claimed there was no correlation between lead in vehicle exhaust gases and increased lead levels in blood and learning disabilities in children. His research was funded by General Motors.

In 1985 Doll wrote to the judge of an Australian Royal Commission investigating claims made by military veterans that they had developed cancer after exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange in Vietnam. He stated that "TCDD (dioxin), which has been postulated to be a dangerous contaminant of the herbicide, is at the most, only weakly and inconsistently carcinogenic in animal experiments." Dioxin is in fact the most dangerous carcinogen known.

In 1987 it had been discovered that there was a 21 percent excess of lymphoid leukaemia in children and young adults living within 10 miles of one of 15 UK nuclear plants. Doll dismissed this evidence and suggested that "over clean" homes of the nuclear workers made their children susceptible to a supposed virus.

In 1988 Doll claimed that the excess mortality from leukaemia and multiple myeloma in servicemen who had been exposed to radiation from atom bomb tests was a "statistical quirk." The British National Radiation Protection Board was able to insist that there was no evidence that the Pacific Island tests carried out in the 1950s produced cancers and refused to accept the ex-servicemen’s claim despite the US, Australia and New Zealand governments all accepting responsibility for the risks involved.

In 1988 Doll carried out a review, on behalf of the US Chemical Manufacturer’s Association, that claimed there was no significant evidence relating occupational exposure to vinyl chloride and brain cancer. Swedish cancer expert Dr. Lennart Hardell said of the report, "Because his conclusions formed the basis for health and safety guidelines and legislation many people have died unnecessarily in my opinion."

Doll’s influence was not confined to using his reputation to assist industry and governments to avoid health and safety restrictions and compensation claims. He helped to shape the whole direction of cancer research. The work he published jointly in 1981 with co-worker Sir Richard Peto, now co-director of the British Medical Research Council Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, was extremely influential. Doll and Peto claimed a central estimate of 4 percent of cancer deaths being due to occupational factors and only 2 percent due to pollution.

Doll asserted that his opponents were hostile to science. He wrote a letter to a newspaper in 1992 telling the public they should ignore warnings by "the large and powerful anti-science mafia" of the risks from carcinogenic pesticides.

Their findings have since been challenged by a number of scientists. For example, Dr. Richard Clapp and his co-workers at Boston University have surveyed the evidence for occupational cancer [3]. They comment "it is difficult to estimate the impact of Doll and Peto’s views but their 1981 article had been cited in over 440 other scientific articles by 2004. More importantly, it has been cited repeatedly by commentators who argue that ‘cleaning up the environment’ is not going to make much difference in cancer rates."

The study refers to more recent papers criticising the methodology used by Doll and Peto. Epstein, for example, suggests that the real figure for occupational cancer mortality is more like 10 percent and much higher in certain occupations. In the conclusions of Clapp et al’s study it states that scientific literature "provides substantial evidence of environmental and occupational causes of cancer and fully justifies accelerated efforts to prevent carcinogenic exposures." Cancer became a widespread disease within a single generation. In the US it is now the second-leading cause of death overall and the first leading cause of death among Americans under the age of 85.

But yet - You just LOVE - to put an EXTREME blind faith in studies - That are s-o-o-o easily skewed by ignorance, error, personal bias, or greed. - what a fool!!

It wasn't many years ago - studies showed that eggs would kill us - if we ate more than a couple a month. - Then they learned more!

and it was only a few years ago that studies showed (Doll's included) - that if you quit - your chances of lung cancer decrease (in 10 - and then they changed it to 20 years) to those of a NON Smoker - - Gee - now they say NEVER.

How many of the current studies will still hold water in another 25 years?????

Give it up man! - Try to enjoy life while you are still here - quit obsessing about dying from someone's SHS

You need to address the studies I posted IN DETAIL before I will address anything else. Im not letting you off that easy.

That means reading them, and coming up with astute criticisms. Saying "it means nothing" is just plain ignorant, and does not constitute reading the study

here's more if you get bored:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9194026

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21918494

you probably won't understand this next one, but its a very good molecular biology article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21911369

here's another good one focusing on mechanisms of cancer triggered by smoking

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21801603

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16100660

this one even you could understand:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21768054

I have answers for everything you posted earlier, most centering on your misunderstanding and incompetent analysis of data, but I'd like to keep things focused on the evidence

Happy reading!

You need to address the studies I posted IN DETAIL

First of all - You seem to have a VERY bad habit (IN ALL YOUR POSTs - and I have read them all - even in other sections of the forum) - of telling people what they NEED to do - and HOW they NEED to live their lives! - I don't HAVE to do ANYTHING but "Pay taxes and Die"!! and since I'm 62 and been smoking for 45 years ( an average of 2 packs a day) - I guess it won't be long - will it?? - strangely - most people have a hard time believing I'm 62 (most people guess 10 years younger) - and the doc is constantly telling me "your lungs sound clear!", - but I don't have ANY guarantees of living past tonight - neither do YOU - or ANYONE ELSE!!! - My family does not have a history of lung cancer - so I don't worry about it! - but I don't think anyone in the family lived past 82 - so I don't expect anything more, because genes and family history probably hold more sway than ANYTHING else. - Interesting study here - Genes, Not Diet, Might Be The Answer To A Longer Life webmd

That means reading them, and coming up with astute criticisms

There you go again - telling me what I NEED to do! - - - well, you have made MANY criticisms of what I posted - but I don't think ANYONE could call ANY (well maybe 1) of them ASTUTE - so why am I supposed to do MORE for you?? - It would be a waste of time - all you would do is post more to show your point of view, and I would do the same - I have no doubt that we could match each other study for study - to show our point of view. what good would it accomplish?? - They ALL come down to "Best Estimates" - and many will use those exact same words, somewhere in the study - - - besides I have delt with MANY anti smokers - and their best trick (one that is ACTUALLY taught by various org's in the movement), is to get your opponent "caught up" in an arguement they can't win - so they have no time to say anything usefull. - Just literally "Wear them out"

but I'd like to keep things focused on the evidence

EVIDENCE???? - Come on man! don't you remember the saying that most statistitians love? "Statistcs means NEVER having to say you're certain"

Evidence - only comes from the ACTUAL figures:

in 2010 14.7% of all lung cancer cases in the US were current smokers - while almost 24% were NON/NEVER smokers

Less than 10% of smokers ever get lung cancer - they even quote that one on many anti-smoking sites (because it's an established fact - not statistics)

in 2010 almost the exact same ratio was for all COPD cases - approx 14% were smokers - a full 25% were NON/NEVER smokers

according to both the CDC and the Surgeon generals studies - NON smokers actually die of - and live with more MORE smoking related diseases - than smokers do! - so why are they called "Smoking related diseases"?? - it was a term "Coined" by the anti smoking movement - because it sounds scarier!!!!

the 144,000 that die yearly from smoking - actually represents about 18% of the total yearly death rate - yet currently over 21% of the population smokes - what really makes it interesting is when you realize that almost ALL of those deaths were people who had live through the time span when smoking ranged from 48% of the population down to 21% of the population - so the AVERAGE smoking rate is closer to 35% - revealing that smokers are way out living the competition!!

53000 Americans die every year from SHS ( this figure started out at 35000 - about 15 years ago) - yet there is NO DOCTOR in the US that has EVER signed a death certificate with SHS listed as the cause - - - that's a LOT of people! - where are they all!??! - If they INDEED died from SHS - the WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW THIS!!! - Don't you think Doc?????

I doubt that there has even been a SMOKERS death which lists "smoking" as the cause - contributing factor is about the farthest ANY doctor could TRUTHFULLY go. - because NO ONE CAN SAY FOR SURE! - ONLY GOD KNOWS WHY a person dies.

Even though tobacco use is the LOWEST it has been since about 1920 - - - according to the National Cancer Institutes (SEER) database - LUNG cancer rates (per 100,000) are STILL approx 25% higher than they were in 1975 - Most other cancers associated with smoking - are MUCH higher - and still rising!

Even though California enacted a state wide smoking ban almost 20 years ago - It STILL has a heart attack and heart disease rate that is higher than the national average!

Spend some time looking up the facts rather than spending all your time looking for all the pretty figures that the "Magic Mathematicians" produce.

figures mean nothing without data behind them

If you can show me JUST ONE study on smoking or SHS that accounts for ALL confounders - I will show you a unicorn!! - What an idiot!!

Doesn't mean one shouldn't try. Plus, we have basic science data from lab rats, and human cell culture

I suppose you've never heard the saying "Statistics means never having to say your certain" - Statistitians are VERY familair with it!!

If we don't use studies and statistics, then all we're left with is opinion and guesses, and we're back in the stone age

BTW Idiot - This WAS a Study!! ("CDC analyzed data from the 2006 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

You mustve forgot when you said this:

a "Snapshot" of the real world - you know the one you and I live in????

implying that conclusions can be drawn from uncontrolled situations with no parameters and no correction for confounding factors. I realize the data you presented was from a study--what you fail to realize is the study did NOT control for confounders.

{risk factors} to the general population (for whom this information in intended) - they are almost "polar opposites"

Give me one example where a risk factor is a "polar opposite" from a cause in the real world.

Your next post #12.32 is anecdotal and provides no real info

because genes and family history probably hold more sway than ANYTHING else. -

Not necessarily true. Ask any alcoholic cirrhosis patient without a family history of liver problems

in 2010 14.7% of all lung cancer cases in the US were current smokers - while almost 24% were NON/NEVER smoker

Not true--I already pointed out the contradiction in this figure and another you posted

Less than 10% of smokers ever get lung cancer - they even quote that one on many anti-smoking sites (because it's an established fact - not statistics)

No, its not true. Watch: 99% of smokers get lung cancer. See how easy it is to make up numbers?

2010 almost the exact same ratio was for all COPD cases - approx 14% were smokers - a full 25% were NON/NEVER smokers

Not true. Again, I can make up numbers too. You at least need to show a source or else it might just be a lie. Forgive me for not taking you at your word

NON smokers actually die of - and live with more MORE smoking related diseases - than smokers do!

Not true. Source please--and please don't cite that paper you should earlier that did not correct for other causes of smoking related diseases like heart disease

the 144,000 that die yearly from smoking - ...

this paragraph makes no sense, so i didn't bother quoting the whole thing. For example, did this figure correct for age? That kind of makes a difference...

NO DOCTOR in the US that has EVER signed a death certificate with SHS listed as the cause

Firstly, i don't think this is true. Secondly, from someone who has filled out death certificates, I wouldn't list SHS ever either. I'd list the most proximate cause (heart attack, lung cancer, COPD) the most common complications of SHS

I doubt that there has even been a SMOKERS death which lists "smoking" as the cause

see above

Even though tobacco use is the LOWEST it has been since about 1920 - - - according to the National Cancer Institutes (SEER) database - LUNG cancer rates (per 100,000) are STILL approx 25% higher than they were in 1975 - Most other cancers associated with smoking - are MUCH higher - and still rising!

because we are just now seeing the lung cancer from high smoking rates in the1960s and 70s. Luckily for you, it takes about 30 years for cancer to become clinically apparent.

In addition, the statistic you are quoting is a percentage of the population--in actual numbers, the number of smokers in the US is the same or higher than in the 20s

Even though California enacted a state wide smoking ban almost 20 years ago - It STILL has a heart attack and heart disease rate that is higher than the national average!

Could be due to a variety of factors. When you are interested in one risk factor, you must isolate it--otherwise other factors can confound the issue

Haven't heard from me for a couple of days - bet you were hoping I was dead huh? - no such luck

Plus, we have basic science data from lab rats, and human cell culture

MAN!!, for an intelligent sounding person - You are not very smart "doc"! - You harp on about not correcting for confounders - then you try to prove a point by talking about RATS and CELL CULTURES?!! - They don't even correct for sepecies - or - Human LIFE - what about the myriad of others??

Maybe you should read ACS's "Cancer Facts & Figures 2010" - it states - "It isn't possible to predict with certainty which substances will cause cancer in humans based on lab studies alone

Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people if they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses or if the route of exposure is different. And the bodies of lab animals and humans don't always process substances in the same way.

If we don't use studies and statistics, then all we're left with is opinion and guesses, and we're back in the stone age

WRONG AGAIN "DOC"! - for most of the diseases that we are talking about they have been keeping VERY detailed records for Many MANY years - the figures (Actual figures - not statistical data) are there - and it makes it VERY easy to see what is ACTUALLY going on - rather than what MIGHT POSSIBLY be going on
- I'm not saying that "legitimate" statistics aren't helpful - they can be useful in finding correlations that should be studied more closely - but the key word here is "LEGITIMATE" - as in: NOT skewed by personal bias, personal gain, protection of livelyhood, ignorance, human error, or just plain deception. I have posted MANY such studies in this forum

And I guess you must have 'FORGOTTEN" this rule - when you studied epidemiology: "Although epidemiological and other observations can accumulate to the point that a causal hypothesis is LIKELY, it is NOT POSSIBLE to EVER prove causality
Found in - Risk Analysis: A Guide to Principles and Methods for Analyzing Health and Emvironmental Risks

Give me one example where a risk factor is a "polar opposite" from a cause in the real world

Try this one: - ask 100 people which sounds worse: "smoking is associated with a risk for lung cancer or smoking causes lung cancer" - then ask which sounds more definitive - then, which would more likey cause them to quit smoking? - you'll get your answer!

Your next post #12.32 is anecdotal and provides no real info

Anecdotal???? - ALL of the info posted on Doll's "biased" studies were well researched - and absolute fact - IDIOT!

Not true--I already pointed out the contradiction in this figure and another you posted

The statement is ABSOLUTELY true - better go back and read it again idiot - YOU POINTED OUT NO CONTRADICTION TO THE STATEMENT I MADE! the ACTUAL numbers SHOW that in 2010 14.7% of lung cancer patients were current smokers!!! - while almost 24% WERE never/non smokers - admitting NO exposure to SHS.

No, its not true. Watch: 99% of smokers get lung cancer. See how easy it is to make up numbers?

AGAIN ABSOLUTELY TRUE! Watch: - Less than 10% of smokers get Lung Cancer - Article: Smoking's Many Myths Examined Christopher Wanjek (Google it)
Why Do Only 10% Of Smokers Get Lung Cancer? Genetic Biomarker May Provide The Answer (Google it)
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer By: James P. Siepmann, MD (Google it)
Only 10% of smokers will develop lung cancer in their lifetime and genetic testing to determine the population of smokers who are most predisposed to develop the disease is needed to help guide better evaluation for these people," explained Joanne B. Weidhaas, MD, PhD (Google it)
since only about 10% of cigarette smokers develop malignancies of the lung, other unknown factors appear operative.
Find it here - ROLE OF SMOKING IN PRIMARY PULMONARY MALIGNANCIES IN CENTRAL PUNJAB by Abdul Rahman Khawaja

Not true. Again, I can make up numbers too. You at least need to show a source or else it might just be a lie.

Well here's some source(s)
According to the current study, nonsmokers account for one fourth (24.9 ± 1.4%) of COPD cases in the United States. Similar proportions of nonsmokers have been reported among COPD cases in the United Kingdom and Spain (22.9% and 23.4%, respectively).
Can be found here - Mild and Moderate-to-Severe COPD in Nonsmokers* Distinct Demographic Profiles Carolyn E. Behrendt, Ph

COPD in Never Smokers Results From the Population-Based Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease Study
Bernd Lamprecht, MD, Mary Ann McBurnie, MD, William M. Vollmer, MD, Gunnar Gudmundsson, MD, FCCP, Tobias Welte, MD, Ewa Nizankowska-Mogilnicka, MD, FCCP, Michael Studnicka, MD, FCCP, Eric Bateman, MD, Josep M. Anto, MD, Peter Burney, MD, David M. Mannino, MD, FCCP, Sonia A. Buist, MD and for the BOLD Collaborative Research Group*

"it is now recognized that never smokers may account for between one-fourth and one-third of all COPD cases,"
Can be found Here - COPD underdiagnosed in nonsmokers By Mark Cowen

"An estimated 25-45% of patients with COPD have never smoked; the burden of non-smoking COPD is therefore much higher than previously believed"
Can be found here - Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in non-smokers Dr Sundeep S Salvi MD

Not true. Source please--and please don't cite that paper you should earlier that did not correct for other causes of smoking related diseases like heart disease

I have already shown you 2 studies, one by done by the CDC and one by the Surgeon General - if you don't want to believe them - that's your perogative - but quit stating that what I post is not true!!!!! - especially when you have already seen the evidence - and just don't like it!!

The statement: the 144,000 that die yearly from smoking - was a typo - should have read 440,000 - you know - the number claimed (by anti-smokers) to die each year from smoking related diseases - BTW - here's a quote from the original study that came up with those figures:
"The estimates of cause of death were computed by multiplying estimates of the cause-attributable fraction of preventable deaths with the total mortality data." Then they go on to say: "Main Outcome Measures Actual causes of death." - in other words they took "ESTIMATES" that were calculate by a computer program (SAMMEC II) specifically designed by the Anti-Smoking movement to calculate whatever figures are put into it (correct or not), by ANY OPERATOR (trained or not) to produce a report (legitimate or not) - then they multiplied these "ESTIMATES" by the TOTAL DEATH RATE - and this SUPPOSEDLY gives them "Actual causes of Death"???????? - yea right - if you read the study - you will find ALMOST NO confounders accounted for (and they admit this all the way through the report) - but then again - YOU seem to LOVE these types of figures - even more so than REAL figures.

In addition, the statistic you are quoting is a percentage of the population--in actual numbers, the number of smokers in the US is the same or higher than in the 20s

Read it again "Doc" - I said tobacco USE - meaning total tobacco consumption - not percentage of smokers. Hell of a big difference huh?
there is a REAL nice chart - published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1996 (they are the people who KNOW) - you can find it here: Cigarette Smoking Behavior in the United States David M. Burns, Lora Lee, Larry Z. Shen, Elizabeth Gilpin, H. Dennis Tolley, Jerry Vaughn, and Thomas G. Shanks

You will have to extrapolate the data past 1995 - you SHOULD know how to do that! - There just isn't a more current version.

Sorry but there is NO WAY that you are a doctor - Not as often as YOU misread items!! - but maybe you are just part of the medical field that is KILLING 3/4 to a MILLION people a year - -and don't tell me it's not true - find it here: 784,000 to 1,000,000 deaths caused by medicine
www,webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf (just replace the comma here)

Could be due to a variety of factors.

Thanks again - if nothing else - at least you are VERY good at proving my point for me! - SMOKING IS NOT THE CAUSE - IT IS ANOTHER RISK FACTOR!

ANYONE who wants to understand the ACTUAL risks of lung cancer involved with smoking should read this: PUTTING SOME PERSPECTIVE INTO THE DEBATE ON HEALTH RISKS OF TOBACCO SMOKE nosmoke-novote (just google it)

I honestly can't talk to you. Not because you are proving any points, but because you lack the basic knowledge needed to engage in this type of conversation. I can guarantee from your posts you have had no education in reading or critiquing these studies. Its like trying to discuss geometry with a 3rd grader--just frustrating. Here are some basic skills you need to learn before trying to talk to me:

1) Basic science data is CRUCIAL

2) It is always used in combination with epidemiological data (as I have)

3) a quoted percentage IS a statistic, derived using statistical tools (surveys, data mining while adjusting for risk factors using chi square tests, etc)

4) Correlation only applies to RETROSPECTIVE studies, not prospecitve studies

5) a risk factor, depending on the odds ratio/hazard ratio, cannot just be brushed under the rug. In addition, in prospective studies, is equivalent to a cause

These are all basic, elementary facts in statistics. I suggest you either take a class, or at least learn these basic elements on your own, and then I'll be happy to continue our discussion. But you are unarmed currently

These are all basic, elementary facts in statistics.

Well, Thanks for "educating me" - but You don't GET IT yet - The MOST that statistics can do is "Point a way", the evidence is in the actual, factual figures - and now that the ACTUAL facts are starting to come in on smoking and SHS, a different picture is becoming clear.

Call it what you Like Eric - the truth is: you know that I am not a fool - just parroting things that I have heard - Like the majority that you have delt with - I actually have ENOUGH facts backing me up - that you can NEVER come out a winner.

What makes me REALLY mad (and it should you too) is:

Every one of the anti-smoking orgs, recieve a major part of their funding from the pharmaceutical companies which produce the "stop smoking" products - you can find the proof on the internet

One of the largest of these companies is Pfizer - the maker of chantix a STOP SMOKING drug that has, in 6 years, killed approx 250 people, and seriously hospitalized, and permamently affected thousands of others. These are people who REALIZED that they had become second class citizens, and were constantly bombarded with false and exagerated reports about the 'HORRORS" of smoking, and were desperate to quit.
The constant anti-smoking bombardment, and comments from otherwise well meaning people - making them feel like they were "terrible people", share the blame (right along with Pfizer) for these deaths!!

nevertheless - My purpose was fulfilled - I got PLENTY of TRUTH posted where the public has a chance to see "The other side" - and will be able to make an intelligent dicision on whether smoking ACTUALLY kills or if indeed it is just rhetoric to advance the agenda of "A Smokeless Society".

BTW - Are you aware that the MAJORITY of the longevity record holders, listed in Guiness were smokers?

Does't prove anything - just a small "aside" : )

.What DOES prove something is that the American Lung Association (and most other Anti sites) states BOLDLY on their web sites - Smoking reduces one's normal life expectancy by an average of 13 to 15 years - thereby eliminating retirement years for MOST smokers. and MOST people have accepted this as absolute truth.

These studies, incidently, done by tobacco control people find:

Years of life lost among heavy smokers between 40 and 70 years of age were 1.4 years in women and 2.7 years in men, compared with never smokers.
it can be found here - Smoking and Deaths between 40 and 70 Years of Age in Women and Men Smoking reduces one's normal

www,ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1497003 (just replace the comma with a dot) - this study finds the same figures

So WHY THE OUTRIGHT LIES? - - Because they so selfishly feel that their goal of a "smokless society" is noble enough that LIES DON'T MATTER

And this is one of the most EYE opening studies I have ever run accross:

The number of years gained by a new-born child, with a 30 per cent reduction in major cardiovascular diseases would be 1.98 years, for malignant neoplasms 0.71 years, and for motor vehicle accidents 0.21 years. Application of the same reduction to the working ages, 15 to 70 years, results in a gain of 0.43, 0.26, and 0.14 years, respectively for the three leading causes of death. Even with a scientific break-through in combating these causes of death, it appears that future gains in life expectancies for the working ages will not be spectacular. The implication of the results in relation to the current debate on the national health care policy is noted.
www,ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/717606?dopt=Abstract (again replace the comma)

I guess the real moral of this story (study) is: Start living what life you have - and quit worrying constantly about what MIGHT kill you.

facts and figures are statistics, you blithering idiot

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statistic

definition #1

You can call me stupid, wrong, whatever. But the fact is I am much more educated in this subject than you. I took a year of undergrad statistics, a year of biostatistics in med school, attending numerous conferences regarding scientific trials, and read papers on a daily basis

So, despite your childish claims, I know more about this than you. And thats a FACT/Statistic

Your biggest problem is you consider any study I provide "statistical" (and therefore worthless) while your evidence is numerical, and therefore not subject to all the trickery of statistician

see, in your naieve mind you think that your number of 75% appears because someone counted to 4, and 3 out of 4 met the condition, thus the number is 75%

Hahaha...that you think its that simple is laughable and shows your complete ignorance of studies

Please post the methods section from any of the papers where your figures come from. I guarantee its more complicated than that

.
In fact, from now on, I will IGNORE any figure you post without a methods section to see how it was obtained purely so you can be educated that it is derived in the same manner as mine, and not simply "measured" as you seem to believe, because you never have been taught to read studies (or maybe read at all...?)

For example, the paper you posted does not measure a thing; instead it revolves around complicated STATISTICAL formulas that are gross estimates at best.

Not too mention that its from nearly 40 YEARS ago...hahaha, do you think life expectancy may have changed from better medical techniques during that time? Just maybe?

Dumbass...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9194026

explain/refute all the facts in this study. It directly refutes the study you posted but has a few advantages

1)it is more recent
2) It is based upon real numbers instead of formulas

Ok - mister "I've studies statistics - so I'm an expert"

first of all - I have to say - I must have struck a hard nerve with SOMETHING I said or posted - your last couple of posts sounds like you're ready to "Pop your Top" - Settle down - have a smoke and relax!

Now - I don't know HOW all your statistical "prowess" failed you - but I went back and googled the links I posted - and found the "methods" section on 2 of the last 3 studies VERY CLEARLY AVAILABLE for ANYONE to peruse! the 3rd study (the second one listed) was only the abstract (truncated to 400 words) - but if you are registered with PubMed ( surely you ARE - since you have obviously read 100's of studies) - you could read the entire study!

almost EVERY (epidemiological) study that I have posted, you can find the "methods" section - if you just do a little work and LOOK!

Where do you think I got this info from (in a study posted earlier) - "The estimates of cause of death were computed by multiplying estimates of the cause-attributable fraction of preventable deaths with the total mortality data." Then they go on to say: "Main Outcome Measures Actual causes of death."

You can call me stupid

First of all, let's get this straight - I have NEVER called you stupid - actually I think you are an intelligent person - that - all too often, acts in a very Unintelligent way - this is why I often refer to you as "idiot" (someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way - Wikipedia)

explain/refute all the facts in this study. It directly refutes the study you posted but has a few advantages

1)it is more recent
2) It is based upon real numbers instead of formulas

to answer #1 - one of the studies I posted was published in 1992 ( approx. the same time period as yours) and the other (of the 3) was published in 2006 - well 2006 trumps your 1997 - so I guess I WIN, huh? : )

and #2 - it's NOT based on real numbers - for the most part it's based on statistical data that the anti's ( ACS mostly)have calculated, many of which have already been proven wrong!

Normally I would just say - "the author is an Anti-smoker, working with the movement, and espousing the movements agenda -- but this time I will go into a little more "astute" detail

P.Boyle - In 1986, he returned to Europe and became Scientist and Group Head at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the WHO - whos' agenda is a World wide smokless society)

In 2003 he was elected the 4th Director of IARC , a position he held from 2004–2008

CEO Advisory Committee, American Cancer Society(2002–present) --- a truely corrupt organization - who spends approx 14% (of their tax free - hard working american DONATED money) on research - mostly on research for items that they have a "financial interest" in. the other 85+% is used to purchase and maintain properties - MILLION dollar plus, yearly salaries for the top half dozen or more officers ( 1/2 million+ for minor officers), and in the past 10 years BILLIONS in lobbying ( both Federal and State governments) - the most of it in the past few years to get "Smoking bans" passed!

Just google - American Cancer Society corruption - It'll boggle your mind!

Now let's go into a couple things he stated:

Among United Kingdom doctors followed for 40 years, overall death rates in middle age were about three times higher among doctors who smoked cigarettes as among doctors who had never smoked regularly. - This is from Doll's study - you know - the same guy that did all the BOGUS studies posted earlier - If you have ever read the study - you know that there were ALMOST NO confounders accounted for ( I KNOW how much you LOVE confounders accounted for). - add to that - He was on the Chemical co.'s payroll for 20 years - recieving over 1/2 Million in in just the FINAL year - again there are MANY speculations about "drawing attention AWAY" from the Chemical companies - and then there are his OWN words. -- Writing in the December, 2001, issue of the British Medical Journal, Doll explained that the study was "devised by Sir Austin Bradford Hill to achieve maximum publicity for the critical link between smoking and lung cancer". In short it was never intended as a serious scientific study to test the hypothesis that smoking may cause lung cancer. From the beginning, it was just propaganda.

Boyle then goes on to say -"The important information is that it is never too late to stop smoking: among United Kingdom doctors who stopped smoking, even in middle age, there was a substantial improvement in life expectancy -- This has ALREADY been proven wrong -- It's now common knowledge that former smokers (even those who quit 20-30 years ago) contract Lung cancer at about 4 times the rate current smokers do - about 2.5 times the rate NON smokers do - This time LOOK IT UP YOURSELF - I'm getting tired of "spoonfeeding" you.

Then he goes on to say - Recommendations, the European Cancer Experts Consensus Committee recognised that Tobacco Control depends on various parts of society and not only on the individual. -- In other words - let's make it a social issue - put enough pressure on them and they'll quit -- The VERY CORE of the anti-smoking movement.

somewhere in the report he says: ( and I have seen this in MANY anti-smoking studies) -- Half of these deaths will be in middle age (35-69) -- Since when is MIDDLE AGE 35 to 69??? - Life expectancy in 1997 was 76.5 years in the US (male/female combined) for men it was 73.6 years -- The reason so-o-o many like to call middle age 35 to 69 is because in fact - THERE ARE VERY VERY FEW DEATHS THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO SMOKING BEFORE AGE 60 -- So they have to EXTEND middle age to make the reports look good. -- the exact same way the EPA had to EXTEND the confidenc index to 90 (rather than the normal 95) to make THEIR study look good (so they could classify SHS as a class A Carcinogen) - are you beginning to see how it all works??? -- Studies can be manipulated to WHATEVER the author wants to "Find"

BTW -- did you catch the statement in your study where he admits "although smoking protects against several fatal and non-fatal conditions..."

This was probably the WRONG report to have me "Astutely criticise" - huh idiot? : )

Ironic - isn't it

I did look at the methods section---you must not have--thats my point

You dismiss my numbers from an ignorance of statistics, yet your numbers are gathered in that same fashion.

That seems to be your primary method of argument--my numbers are incorrect, while yours are, through this nonexistant difference you seem to believe exists

The study you quoted that showed only a small drop in mortality from cardiovascular causes if they were to be eliminated was dated in the 70s, NOT 90s. Check again

The rest of your posts is some guy's opinion I couldn't care less about

hummbird-3359530

Try a GOOD Electronic cigarette (Not the ones you get at the corner market - or wal-mart)

The quit rate on those are approx 70-80% (world wide) - and it's a permanent quit - most people that use them - don't even LIKE the taste of a cigarette anymore - and you're still getting the Nicotine - so the weight doesn't creep back on (BTW - Nicotine is about as dangerous as caffine - a little more addictive - but no more dangerous)

Shogun... Do you have any of those snappy plug-in air freshners in your house? Do you every use bleach - or clean with chemicals? Have you ever sprayed for insects inside or outside? Do you drive a car or truck?? Google "formaldehyde in building materials health consequences". Wear cologne or perfume??

On the larger stage - I doubt smokers add even 2% to the crap we all ready breathe.

constant exposure to cigarette smoke is devastating to having a pleasant life, particularly when you are not the one who has chosen to light and puff the stupid things

Thanks Mark for mentioning the cologne and perfume as well as the cleaning supplies. Those three things really get to me!

Shogun,

Then please don't ask smokers to support all of the needs that YOUR vehicle has for level roads, bridges, emergency crews to pry you out of wrecks, medical bills for treatment & rehab after wrecks- and BTW, reroute your vehicle exhaust back into the interior so you don't poison everyone else.

Also, I know you'll give up fireplaces (They create smoke from burnt vegetable matter too) and you'll eliminate campfires from any camping trip for the same reason.

Michael-

Then stop the "devastation" to your pleasant life by taking a few steps upwind of the smell of the tobacco being smoked. Tobacco smokers have purposefully been forced out into rain, sleet, snow & heatwave to accomodate your "pleasant life" and have had our own put at risk to do it (additional risk, if we are to believe your Special Interest Group). (Yeah, You're Welcome! And thanks for REALLY caring about our health enough to endanger us with the elements instead. Hypocrites...) . We have peaceably complied so as to not present any dangers to your delicate health indoors. At this point smokers have the right to tell you to use your head and get the hell away from them if they're outside, in their own homes, or in any area where smoking is permitted.

Shogun69

You should THANK you parents for what they have done for you - Quite a few studies - including one done by the World Health Organization - have shown that children brought up in a smoking household - actually have anywhere from 25 - 33% LESS chance of Lung cancer - than their non exposed counterparts have - Thats not what You have been taught to believe - and the reason you don't hear about this in the media is because the current agenda is a smokless society - but these studies can be found - if you really want to find them.

What a steamy pile of nonsense your statement is. Nothing in your car has vinyl chloride in/on it. Vinyl chloride is used to make PVC pipe. Where in the interior of your car is PVC pipe? Utter nonsense.

Car56--many interior vehicle parts are made of PVC and other plastics. Barbie (and other plastic) dolls are made of PVC, also--look it up. There are different additives to make the plastic rigid like pipe or dashboards, or soft and pliable, like dolls or fake leather. I'm not sure if all finished products from made from vinyl chloride are carcinogenic, vinyl's been around for quite some time now.

Car56 - "Steamy pile of nonsense?" Are you sure? Vinyl (Poly Vinyl Chloride) in Automotive Applications:

Automotive Applications

Among the uses for vinyl in automobiles are:

• Body side mouldings

• Windscreen system components

• Interior upholstery

• Under bonnet wiring

• Under car abrasion coatings

• Floor mats

• Adhesives and sealants

• Other components such as dashboards and arm rests

Source: The Vinyl Institute

Seems like an awful lot of PVC to me.

Except smoking is unenjoyable. It's amazing how when people quit THEN they admit how damaging and unpleasant it was. It has no redeeming qualities, stinks, causes tons of litter, and contributes to myriads of health problems.

But hey, live it up. Smoke. That's REALLY getting the most of life.

Exactly my point. I think diet plays a large role too. The top 10 countries with the highest cancer rates are mostly all western countries. Western countries that enjoy fast food, red meat, and sweets.

Urban Cowboy,

I'm with you. See my critical posting at 11.2. Any time the anti-smoking LOBBY/SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP try to push even more legislation that is little more than legalized harrassment of tobacco smokers, show up at the meeting and point the finger right back at them, accusing them of falseness and harrassment since they all arrived in their mechanical poison pumps. They get away with this sh/t many times simply because the smokers are too cowardly/intimidated to stand up and call "Bullsh/t!" on them- which is just how they want it. Let smokers know they had best stand up and speak or else they'll end up living in places where you can't even smoke outdoors- which has already started to happen in our "free" country. FIGHT BACK!

Merlin..The funny thing is that i am an ex-smoker but i do not want to be "that" guy. We have more serious issues to deal with, but as always...smokers and drinkers are the easiest to screw over. That has to stop. I am pretty sure that most lung cancer is either from ALL pollution and/or genetics. Let me see them shut down all power plants, ban all gas powered vehicles and tools as well.

Sorry to spoil your pity party, but as Michael deftly pointed out above. Lung cancer occurs at a rate TWENTY times higher than in nonsmokers. Sorry. Numbers are a bitch. If it truly were exclusively from pollutants EVERYONE is exposed to then rates would equal amongst nonsmokers and smokers. That's not the case.

Really, I am always dumbfounded by the people that support smoking. I wish smokers had the balls to just say,"You know what? It is disgusting but I am addicted to nicotine". That's the truth. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance. Not pretending that they should be allowed to foul up the air wherever they want. Is it that hard to do it in your car or home or outside in public?? Like really. Quit @!$%#ing whining.

By the way, the whole car argument is a false equivlancy. People have to drive. That's the way society has developed. People don't have to smoke.

Better do a little more study Sammy John - Micheal wasn't so "Deft" after all -----

Lung cancer rates ARE NOT TWENTY TIMES HIGHER IN SMOKERS THAN NON SMOKERS - the RISK rate has been calculated to be anywhere from 1 to 20 times higher!

But the actual figures have NEVER matched the "Risk rates" (They are just figures - created by Statisticians)

The "Risk rates" that you are referring to are based on a term called "Pack years" (calculated as a pack a day from age 18 to death ) and the "risk rate" is ONLY that high ( 20 times) for a person who has smoked a pack a day from age 18 to about 70 - the risk rate is a log curve that starts at 1 (same as a nonsmokers risk) and curves up to 20 at about 75 years of age.

BTW - People DO NOT HAVE TO DRIVE - any more than they have to smoke - driving just makes life a little easier to put up with - the same way smoking makes life a little easier to put up with for millions of people.

manofthepeople...that joke was superlong