Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When faced with arguments based on pure logic the air gets quiet from the peanut gallery doesn't it?
Yes, it did get strangely quiet all of a sudden and we haven't even started dissecting the "science" against smoking yet!
Quote:
FWIW I would like to see cigarettes made only from 100% tobacco with NO added chemicals of any kind just like pipe tobacco. That would limit their consumption due the fact that 100% tobacco is much stronger ,and a good bit harsher, than the doctored up product called the American cigarette. This stronger tobacco would also discourage inhaling the smoke by a factor of 100%.
Boy, I don't know about that. If you've been to Europe, Asia or the Middle East and smoked their brands, you've had a taste of more "pure" cigarettes. I have and didn't much like them. Some of them would gag a dead man.
You know, in many parts of the world people will almost trade their Mothers for an American cigarette. There's a reason for that.
To lay off all lung cancer on smoking is very narrow visioned caused by the constant propaganda that is the anti-tobacco war. Smoking may be a cause but it's by far is not the only cause.
I take it you are unaware that smoking is FAR AND AWAY THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF LUNG CANCER...I won't lay off all lung cancer on smoking, only 90% of it
The number 2 cause wouldn't even be close by the way....
ALmost 90% of ALL lung cancers are caused by smoking....
my grandmother never smoked nor was exposed to it. (age 72 died-lung cancer)
she did however stay shut up in her ceramics room with her kiln...............ceramic dust? no way!!.............way! Never read about those facts do ya?
Imagine that....you know one whole person that developed lung CA without smoking.....
Meanwhile, 90% of all lung cancers are directly attributable to smoking...
Guess what....that means 1 out of 10 people with lung CA will develop it without smoking ( ie your grandmother)
Alas, the other 9 out of 10 people that develop lung CA WILL have a positive smoking history...
Ever hear of THOSE facts??
Is this really being argued???
in 2009??
Guess what people...smoking causes lung cancer....no ifs ands or BUTTS about it....
I take it you are unaware that smoking is FAR AND AWAY THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF LUNG CANCER...I won't lay off all lung cancer on smoking, only 90% of it
The number 2 cause wouldn't even be close by the way....
ALmost 90% of ALL lung cancers are caused by smoking....
Put that in your pipe and smoke it....
No, it's far and away the number one PRESUMPTIVE cause of lung cancer. There is no direct, proven linkage between cigarette smoke and any specific, individual case of cancer. Why? Because too many other genetic and environmental factors come into play. It is ASSUMED to be the cause, but it is not proven.
And, what is an assumption or presumption other than an opinion? Yes, an opinion based upon likelihood, but an opinion none the less.
One more thing: Take the number of deaths attributed to smoking with a very large grain of salt. In the first place, the numbers are often extrapolated from incidental or circumstancial evidence, not raw science, and sometimes deaths are attributed to smoking based upon nothing more than the fact that the dead person smoked at one time. In fact, that's more common than you think and becomes more common the more people buy into the hysteria.
Case in point: My father in law died from complications after surgery for bladder cancer in his early 70's. Cause of death on his death certificate? Smoking. Why? Because he'd smoked all his life and it was ASSUMED that caused his bladder cancer. I'd like to see someone prove that definitively because he worked his whole life as a carpenter, exposed to all kinds of carcinogens from treated wood dust, paint, chemicals and asbestos.
Another case: My daughter in law's grandmother burned to death in a fire started by her smoking in bed. She did not die of asphyixsiation; she literally burned alive while crawling toward the door. Cause of death? Smoking, what else. Yes, a cigarette started the fire which killed her, but it was the fire itself which actually did her in.
If just my immediate family has two people on the death list from smoking under such circumstances, how many more are there?
so sorry. And to think I know so many people................too many who have youngs kids or grandkids and have cancer and guess what??? They don't smoke! Imagine that. People get cancer who do not smoke.Imagine that. We need to get the word out.
And my dear,departed FIL--he had cancer in the esophagus....it was very bad. Horrid even. He didn't smoke. He did however consume alcohol every day for over 30 years. He entered 2 rehab centers during that time but the alcohol addiction was just too strong. He died from that cancer.
One would think if so many smokers as well as nonsmokers are getting cancer, it might be wise not to try to tip the scales in cancer's favor no?
I take it you are unaware that smoking is FAR AND AWAY THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF LUNG CANCER...I won't lay off all lung cancer on smoking, only 90% of it
The number 2 cause wouldn't even be close by the way....
ALmost 90% of ALL lung cancers are caused by smoking....
Put that in your pipe and smoke it....
Please present your facts to account for that 90% figure if you can.
I doubt that the data will support your conjecture.
Imagine that....you know one whole person that developed lung CA without smoking.....
Meanwhile, 90% of all lung cancers are directly attributable to smoking...
Guess what....that means 1 out of 10 people with lung CA will develop it without smoking ( ie your grandmother)
Alas, the other 9 out of 10 people that develop lung CA WILL have a positive smoking history...
Ever hear of THOSE facts??
Is this really being argued???
in 2009??
Guess what people...smoking causes lung cancer....no ifs ands or BUTTS about it....
Just from "stillkit" post attached you can see that your point of view just won't hold up to the facts of the issue. In fact the point of view ,while commonly held, has become laughable it is so devoid of facts because it feeds on fear promoted by bad science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
No, it's far and away the number one PRESUMPTIVE cause of lung cancer. There is no direct, proven linkage between cigarette smoke and any specific, individual case of cancer. Why? Because too many other genetic and environmental factors come into play. It is ASSUMED to be the cause, but it is not proven.
And, what is an assumption or presumption other than an opinion? Yes, an opinion based upon likelihood, but an opinion none the less.
One more thing: Take the number of deaths attributed to smoking with a very large grain of salt. In the first place, the numbers are often extrapolated from incidental or circumstancial evidence, not raw science, and sometimes deaths are attributed to smoking based upon nothing more than the fact that the dead person smoked at one time. In fact, that's more common than you think and becomes more common the more people buy into the hysteria.
Case in point: My father in law died from complications after surgery for bladder cancer in his early 70's. Cause of death on his death certificate? Smoking. Why? Because he'd smoked all his life and it was ASSUMED that caused his bladder cancer. I'd like to see someone prove that definitively because he worked his whole life as a carpenter, exposed to all kinds of carcinogens from treated wood dust, paint, chemicals and asbestos.
Another case: My daughter in law's grandmother burned to death in a fire started by her smoking in bed. She did not die of asphyixsiation; she literally burned alive while crawling toward the door. Cause of death? Smoking, what else. Yes, a cigarette started the fire which killed her, but it was the fire itself which actually did her in.
If just my immediate family has two people on the death list from smoking under such circumstances, how many more are there?
Boy, I don't know about that. If you've been to Europe, Asia or the Middle East and smoked their brands, you've had a taste of more "pure" cigarettes. I have and didn't much like them. Some of them would gag a dead man.
You know, in many parts of the world people will almost trade their Mothers for an American cigarette. There's a reason for that.
Here I'm going to disagree with you as to the tobacco content in cigarettes......
I'm sure you know the motivation behind all those chemicals in American cigarettes is to A.) smooth out the harness in the stuff they call tobacco in cigarettes and B.) quickly addict the user to cause short cycle repeat hits of the enhanced nicotine content.
This is one point I'll give the anti tobacco crowd....The designed purpose of the american cigarette is to deliver an enhanced dose of nicotine on a short cycle basis. Whereas cigarettes made from 100% tobacco don't attract kids due the natural harness with nothing to boost addiction. A person must learn to use 100% tobacco in a slow mild way exactly like a cigar or pipe smoker do very much like one has to learn to enjoy good sipping whisky!
Big tobacco wants kids to smoke to feed the addiction pipe line to keep the money rolling in. 100% tobacco won't do that for them. So they engineer a nicotine delivery device called the american cigarette.
Here I'm going to disagree with you as to the tobacco content in cigarettes......
I'm sure you know the motivation behind all those chemicals in American cigarettes is to A.) smooth out the harness in the stuff they call tobacco in cigarettes and B.) quickly addict the user to cause short cycle repeat hits of the enhanced nicotine content.
This is one point I'll give the anti tobacco crowd....The designed purpose of the american cigarette is to deliver an enhanced dose of nicotine on a short cycle basis. Whereas cigarettes made from 100% tobacco don't attract kids due the natural harness with nothing to boost addiction. A person must learn to use 100% tobacco in a slow mild way exactly like a cigar or pipe smoker do very much like one has to learn to enjoy good sipping whisky!
Big tobacco wants kids to smoke to feed the addiction pipe line to keep the money rolling in. 100% tobacco won't do that for them. So they engineer a nicotine delivery device called the american cigarette.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
I smoke American brand cigarettes because I like them and have no interest in smoking something I don't like.
One would think if so many smokers as well as nonsmokers are getting cancer, it might be wise not to try to tip the scales in cancer's favor no?
With all the carcinogens and dangerous chemicals in our environment, I doubt the scales could be tipped too far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
