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.
Try smoking in an outdoors California state park, or near a NYC playground, or on many beaches and see what happens. Just moving smokers outdoors wasn't good enough for the smoke-Nazi's. Now, they want smoking allowed in only certain outdoor areas which, naturally, is those which they frequent.
I don't think any laws passed that ban smoking in CA state parks or beaches. From a practical stand point I can see the appeal though...we have these beautiful, unspoiled, natural areas to enjoy then want to put them in danger with unnecessary fire hazards and bring out man made pollution in that keeps the fresh air from being too fresh and all. Not to mention leaving butts all over playgrounds for kids to "play" with.
Really, I want to support smokers but this is the absolute worst example you can make to get it.
The real issue, and why folks get mad, is because of their addiction. Being asked to not smoke hurts them physically, and that isn't my problem.
Boy, there is a sh*t load of posters on this forum who are in serious denial of the consequences of tobacco smoke. Just like my neighbor who smoked for 40+ years, was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer in 2005 (which got him to quit really fast), received prophylactic cranial radiation (PCR) to ward off brain cancer, and now experiences the consequences of the PCR. He can't walk properly, has balance and memory problems, and, at 65, looks, sounds and acts like a man a decade older. Ask him if he believes that smoking was dangerous to his health and you will get a resounding Yes!
So, go right ahead and believe what you like. Various laws keep your cigarette smoke away from me and that's all I care about.
If he were struck by a beer truck and killed while smoking a cigarette, would that be alcohol or tobacco related death?
The point is, if you have lungs, you have the opportunity to acquire lung cancer .... I'm sure he did other things besides smoke ... did he work construction or have some other occupation that exposed him to asbestos? Was he a faithful flu shot recipient (vaccines are rife with cancer viruses). Have you tested the radon levels at his home? The fact is, you just don't have the information or evidence to make a declaration such that you make.
The trouble here is that you AUTOMATICALLY accept that his lung cancer was caused by smoking ... but there are more non-smokers that develop lung cancer .. and many who are from non-smoking environments, not subject to secondhand smoke. So that means that OTHER things cause lung cancer ... it's just a fact. So how can you say that you know what caused it?
Moreover, we've not seen the dramatic drop in lung cancer rates that one might expect given the dramatic decreases in the number of smokers .. but let's not allow such inconvenient facts color your views. The fact is, lung cancer has not experienced the same decline as other cancers ... of course, the CDC claims these increasing instances of lung cancer are coming from the 18 states that have not adopted severe enough ant-smoking campaigns. Ha!
This is kinda like the global warming thing ... you know ... it causes warming and cooling too? The old "heads I win, tails you loose", game!
The bottom line is that you don't know what caused that person's cancer anymore than his doctor does. You make the association to his smoking based on what has been drummed into your head, over and over, and nothing more than that.
And that's fine. You can believe what you want to. You can believe that everyone with a cigarette in their hands is actually holding a loaded gun, pointed directly at you. But it's irrational .. and it's without factual foundation .. just agenda driven propaganda.
And the agenda is, an attack on tobacco users. What is the motive? I have no idea. But I am certainly under no delusions that it is because the government cares about my well being .... you'll never convince a sane person of that ridiculously false nonsense.
Tobacco is one of the strongest cancer-causing agents. Tobacco use is associated with a number of different cancers, including lung cancer, as well as with chronic lung diseases and cardiovascular diseases.
Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing an estimated 438,000 deaths - or about 1 out of every 5 - each year.
In the United States, approximately 38,000 deaths each year are caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States, with 90 percent of lung cancer deaths among men and approximately 80 percent of lung cancer deaths among women attributed to smoking.
Smoking also increases the risk of many other types of cancer, including cancers of the throat, mouth, pancreas, kidney, bladder, and cervix.
People who smoke are up to six times more likely to suffer a heart attack than nonsmokers, and the risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked. Smoking also causes most cases of chronic obstructive lung disease, which includes bronchitis and emphysema.
Yeah--and if they were to say smoking DIDN'T cause cancer, who would pay them for that information? They get the answer they're looking for, obviously. The one that benefits them most. That why so many things supposedly cause cancer these days--they want to stay in business.
Yeah--and if they were to say smoking DIDN'T cause cancer, who would pay them for that information? They get the answer they're looking for, obviously. The one that benefits them most. That why so many things supposedly cause cancer these days--they want to stay in business.
Aaaah, I get it. It's a huge conspiracy - isn't it always...
If someone bans smoking because of it's health risks then with that mentality they should ban all the fast food chains as well. You'd still be paying for someones medical costs, just instead of lung cancer, it's going to be diabetes, and heart problems.
I agree with you on that one.
The difference is, however, cigarettes serve no nutritional purpose (or any purpose, period) and fast food, while not ideal for chronic consumption, still does have some nutritional value.
The bottom line is that you don't know what caused that person's cancer anymore than his doctor does. You make the association to his smoking based on what has been drummed into your head, over and over, and nothing more than that.
You can probably use that ridiculous line of reasoning for cancer, but you can't with COPD. That's is straight up smoking related.
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.
