False morality and non-smokers

[Foreigner]

Yes, you did. And so did I. It isn't 'bluster' if it's fact.

But you neglected to mention that the benefit - according to your link - would be only for those with "neurodegenerative disease" and not the rest of Americans.

And you seem to miss the point that the very link you provided suggested getting the nicotine through a patch, and not by smoking.

Why? Because the rest of the ingredients in cigarettes KILL TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
An additional tens of thousands are hospitalized.

For the tens of millions of American smokers who do not have this disease, Nicotine is nothing more than the addictive ingredient that forces people to continue to put cigarette to mouth and poison to lungs.

Some benefit...



.

 

[biggandyy]

You are so full of hot air I am surprised your head doesn't float away...

 

[Foreigner]

So, pointing out what the link you posted says is "hot air." Priceless...

Well, at least I never tried to trumpet the "benefits of smoking"

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Even though I am a cigarette smoker myself I feel it is unhealthy , it is expensive , and it stinks. I would agree that a person would be much better off if they never smoked at all

My motive is to point out the propaganda and false use of statistics against cigarette smoking. "Propaganda" is a big fancy word that means "telling a lie to brainwash people"

I am in favor of public education against smoking ..... or for that matter if the medical and media professionals want to bash the smoker , that's fine ..... but what bothers me is they never attack the marihuana smoker , the cocaine user , or those who attract diseases such as AIDS in the same manner.

It is almost criminal to bash the unhealthy lifestyle that spreads AIDS ..... but bashing the cigarette smoker is fair game ..... you have to think about that for a minute .... talk about discrimination.

Another false sense of security comes from the propaganda that makes the non-smoker feel he has very little to worry about as far as lung cancer ...... but like I said earlier ..... lung cancers today are in 51 year old women who have never smoked. Why dont we ever hear about that ?

An absolutely unbiased and careful clinical study was done in Europe as to the effects of second hand smoke . They used workers in smoky pubs and compared them to workers in clean air environments .

To their surprise they found that the people exposed to second hand smoke actually lived slightly longer

They kept a lid on the findings because it opposed the established propaganda about second hand smoke.

Like I said earlier ...... out of 13 heavy life-long smokers one will die of lung cancer because they smoked
But remember that out of the 13 ..... 12 will not get lung cancer .

Smoking is definitely unhealthy and for sure it will shorten a persons life by a couple of years ..... but it is not always the monster we think it is.

About 28% of North Americans smoke and when they die all of the deaths will be recorded as Tobacco related .... simply because they were smokers. That is how they falsify the statistics.

The reality is that only 2% of the deaths were tobacco related.
The other 26% would have died anyway .... even if they were not smokers

Don't smoke if possible ..... but if you must ..... get the "American Spirit" brand ..... they have no chemicals added during the processing ...... they only use natural tobacco ingredients.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Foreigner, The problem with your argument is that you believe the CDC gives out factual information. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The CDC is just the health police of the democratic liberals who want to control the way you live, eat and breathe. All this threat of second-hand smoke affecting anyone is just sheer nonsense. I'm talking long term not a person who has an immediate allergic reaction. I googled the benefits of smoking a couple of years ago and the results may surprise you. The main thing one needs to remember is we're all going to die and how we go doesn't really matter. Here are some facts the CDC won't tell you and will even lie about to further their agenda.

1. Children of smokers are less likely to develop any kind of allergy.
2. There is zero clarification as to whether second-hand smoke causes any kind of cancer.
3. Physicians have been trained to immediately blame smoking as a cause for one's health issues instead of searching deeper for the truth.
4. 60% of all lung cancer deaths are non-tobacco related.



For Aspen 2 - Smoking is not a sin against our body. That belief is taken from 1 Co. 3:17 which has been misquoted for decades. The "body" being spoken of within the context is NOT our physical bodies, it's the "local body of believers"! Paul continues in Cp. 6:18 by saying that the ONLY sin against one's physical body is fornication (in other versions, sexual immorality)

 

[Foreigner]

"All this threat of second-hand smoke affecting anyone is just sheer nonsense" - Trekson
-- Not according to the CDC, the American Medical Association, The Journal of American Medicine, The American Heart Association, The American Lung Association, and the National Cancer Institute (which addresses all cancers) so it has no advantage in falsely blaming smoking).

Perhaps if you were to provide some reason why you are qualified to call "baloney" on actual medical professionals and their findings.
I'm listening.....

1. Children of smokers are less likely to develop any kind of allergy. -- This is justification for risking your health if not your very life by continuing to smoke?
2. There is zero clarification as to whether second-hand smoke causes any kind of cancer. -- The CDC, the AMA and the American Lung Association would beg to differ.
3. Physicians have been trained to immediately blame smoking as a cause for one's health issues instead of searching deeper for the truth. -- Really? Says who? Specifically
4. 60% of all lung cancer deaths are non-tobacco related. -- You left out the part where a large number of non-smokers who get it had actually been former smokers.

And besides lung cancer there is also smoking-related cancer of the esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, liver, kidney, pancreas, stomach and cervix.
This is in addition to smoking-related heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysm, COPD, asthma and other airway infections, increased chance of SIDS in pregnant women, etc.
Or.....are we not supposed to talk about these?

If you could please tell me how the benefits you or others claiming come from smoking trump these ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ concerns, I am all ears.



"An absolutely unbiased and careful clinical study was done in Europe as to the effects of second hand smoke .
They used workers in smoky pubs and compared them to workers in clean air environments .
To their surprise they found that the people exposed to second hand smoke actually lived slightly longer
They kept a lid on the findings because it opposed the established propaganda about second hand smoke." - Arnie Manitoba

-- AWESOME....and of course you have a link to this "absolutely unbiased" study so we all can learn and celebrate..........right?
Because I am betting that American tobacco companies would have already touted this study if it actually existed. Call me crazy.

Arnie, if I said I saw a "totally unbiased" European study that showed that cigarettes are even more dangerous than we are being taught in the U.S., you'd demand proof too, no?



"It is almost criminal to bash the unhealthy lifestyle that spreads AIDS ..... but bashing the cigarette smoker is fair game .....
you have to think about that for a minute .... talk about discrimination." - Arnie Manitoba

-- This complaint would only be legitimate if and only if the people who gets AIDS are complaining because they can't perform the acts that could give them AIDS in restaurants, bars, in the park, riding a subway, etc. etc. etc.

Also, someone practicing the behavior that causes AIDS is not going to fill a restaurant with the aroma of AIDS, cause me to leave the restaurant smelling of AIDS, or possibly end up giving me AIDS because I was in close proximity over a long enough period of time.

Honestly Arnie...



.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Up to a point the human body can tolerate smoke just fine .... at one time the medical profession felt that under 15 cigarettes a day would not overtax the body.

For thousands of years (and even today) mankind lived in smoky caves , tents , and so on ...... a lot of cooking was (and still is) done over smokey smouldering cattle dung fires ..... unabated prairie grass fires and forest fires used to keep the atmosphere full of smoke during the dry seasons.

 

[I am Second]

How bad can smoke be? In the OT where there was God there was smoke.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

How bad can smoke be? In the OT where there was God there was smoke.

Cool ...... not only that ... God always indicated His pleasure with the aroma coming off the burnt offerings.

 

[Foreigner]

Cool ...... not only that ... God always indicated His pleasure with the aroma coming off the burnt offerings.

-- Ah, so now cigarettes are 'burnt offerings.'
At least you have a sense of humor.

Up to a point the human body can tolerate smoke just fine .... at one time the medical profession felt that under 15 cigarettes a day would not overtax the body.

Poor Arnie, if tobacco was the only ingredient in cigarettes, you might be on to something.

However, there is the little matter of:

- Ammonia: Household cleaner.
- Arsenic: Used in rat poisons.
- Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber.
- Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid.
- Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas.
- Cadmium: Used in batteries.
- Cyanide: Lethal poison.
- DDT: A banned insecticide.
- Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals.
- Lead: Poisonous in high doses.
- Formaldehyde: Used to preserve dead specimens.
- Methoprene: Insecticide.
- Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics.
- Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs.
- Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India, in 1984.
- Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element.

For the whole list of 599 additives used in cigarettes, see the BBC Worldservice page What’s in a Cigarette.



Now, about that "totally unbiased" European study you mentioned......




.

 

[Rach1370]

As to the OP topic....do non smokers have a false sense of morality? Well....it's a bit hard to speak for everyone. But I can speak for me...

I am a non smoker. I think smoking smells bad. I think that being addicted to something is perhaps questionable....but then, it's all subjective, isn't it? Smoking is seen, in general, as a "bad thing" to be addicted to, while caffeine, is okay dokey! If someone tried to take caffeine away from me, I'd come at them with a blunt kitchen knife!

So really....I don't think I judge. I think it smells, is expensive, and is a little stupid health wise...but then again, a lot of my habits are the same....maybe without the smell! I like chocolate a little too much...that can't be great for my health, and I'd probably be better off without caffeine! Really...when it comes down to it, I just don't think I have the right to be self righteous about a person's obvious 'weakness' (not calling it a sin), when I have plenty of my own...different maybe, perhaps less obvious, but there none the less.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

-- Ah, so now cigarettes are 'burnt offerings.'
At least you have a sense of humor.



Poor Arnie, if tobacco was the only ingredient in cigarettes, you might be on to something.

However, there is the little matter of:

- Ammonia: Household cleaner.
- Arsenic: Used in rat poisons.
- Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber.
- Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid.
- Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas.
- Cadmium: Used in batteries.
- Cyanide: Lethal poison.
- DDT: A banned insecticide.
- Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals.
- Lead: Poisonous in high doses.
- Formaldehyde: Used to preserve dead specimens.
- Methoprene: Insecticide.
- Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics.
- Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs.
- Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India, in 1984.
- Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element.

For the whole list of 599 additives used in cigarettes, see the BBC Worldservice page What’s in a Cigarette.



Now, about that "totally unbiased" European study you mentioned......




.

Foreigner ..... I do not smoke those cigarettes with the additives ..... only natural tobacco ..... I never said smoking was a burnt offering .... I never said it was a good idea to smoke ....

The European study is on my other computer ..... you could easily find it yourself if you wanted to .... I am not here to hold your hand or convince you of anything.

Analyze the smoke from your campfire or barbecue and you will get most of the same volatiles as found in cigarette smoke.

Mercury was used for years in all the vaccines pumped into your arm.

Inhale the steam from convenience microwave popcorn and it will kill you quicker than smoking.

Lots of poisons used in food preservation

Lots of poisons in the world including cigarette smoking

More people are killed by doctor and hospital errors than cigarette smoking

driving an automobile is a deadly undertaking ..... safer cars has improved that a lot

we all die anyway

the most important thing is to attain eternal life

 

[aspen]

Hate to say it, but drawing in any larger paticles found in all forms of smoke is dangerous the lungs. cigerettes, pot, incense, even candles.

 

[I am Second]

- Ammonia: Household cleaner.
- Arsenic: Used in rat poisons.
- Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber.
- Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid.
- Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas.
- Cadmium: Used in batteries.
- Cyanide: Lethal poison.
- DDT: A banned insecticide.
- Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals.
- Lead: Poisonous in high doses.
- Formaldehyde: Used to preserve dead specimens.
- Methoprene: Insecticide.
- Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics.
- Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs.
- Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India, in 1984.
- Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element.

For the whole list of 599 additives used in cigarettes, see the BBC Worldservice page What’s in a Cigarette.

For pete sakes! Don't you realize some people smoke additive free cigarettes? There is such a thing you know and for the roll your own (RYO) group it's a bag of shredded tobacco leaves period. Get informed before you rant.


And, if you check the OT, where there was God there was smoke and I'm not talking about burnt offerings.

 

[Foreigner]

The European study is on my other computer ..... you could easily find it yourself if you wanted to .... I am not here to hold your hand or convince you of anything.

-- Uh huh. That is the same sad claim of every person in every chat room and comment board on the Internet when make a claim that isn't....shall we say....'actually factually correct." It's okay. I forgive you.

Analyze the smoke from your campfire or barbecue and you will get most of the same volatiles as found in cigarette smoke.

-- But that only matters if you breath the smoke from a campfire or a barbecue into your lungs ten or more times a day, 365 days a year like a smoker with his cigarettes.

Mercury was used for years in all the vaccines pumped into your arm.

-- And if I got injections in my arm 10 or more times a day, 365 days a year, you'd be onto something. However....

Inhale the steam from convenience microwave popcorn and it will kill you quicker than smoking.

-- Sorry, but people don't normally breath in microwave popcorn 10 or more times a day, 365 days a year.

Lots of poisons used in food preservation

-- We have to eat. And we can pick and choose the foods we eat. Are you really arguing that because there are poisons in food, that justifies adding even more poisons to your body 10 or more times per day, 365 days a year?

Lots of poisons in the world including cigarette smoking

-- Yes. But poisoning yourself via cigarettes is voluntary....every single solitary time.

More people are killed by doctor and hospital errors than cigarette smoking

-- So.....why not smoke? Is that what your argument has been reduced to? :lol:
Did you miss the part where if you don't smoke you will reduce the need to go to the doctor and thus lessen the chance you will be killed by a doctor or hospital error? LOL

driving an automobile is a deadly undertaking ..... safer cars has improved that a lot

-- Again, so this justifies smoking? That's the best you can come up with? Really?

we all die anyway

the most important thing is to attain eternal life

-- Great idea. Smoking can cause you to die earlier so you can begin your eternal life sooner, right?
Because that's the kind of thing God truly smiles on, huh?

For pete sakes! Don't you realize some people smoke additive free cigarettes? There is such a thing you know and for the roll your own (RYO) group it's a bag of shredded tobacco leaves period. Get informed before you rant.

Funny you should mention that:
Additive-Free Cigarettes May Pack A More Toxic Tobacco Punch

Dec. 3, 2002 — Despite perceptions that additive-free cigarettes and the hand-rolled cigarettes from India called bidis may provide a less-toxic smoke than conventional cigarettes, new research suggests the opposite may be true.

Study results published in the December issue of Nicotine & Tobacco Research examine several physiological and subjective factors among regular smokers who were asked to smoke both bidis and additive-free American Spirit cigarettes in a controlled test.

"Recently, there has been an increase in the use of alternative cigarettes such as bidis, cloves and additive-free cigarettes by adolescents," said lead researcher Wallace Pickworth of the National Institute of Drug Abuse. "In the Boston area, for example, 40 percent of teenagers had smoked bidis at least once in their lifetime and 16 percent were current bidi smokers. About 13 percent of the sample thought bidis were safer than conventional cigarettes."
Aside from perceptions that they are a lesser health risk than conventional cigarettes, bidis may also be popular with adolescents because they are manufactured in a variety of flavors, such as chocolate or root beer. Bidis are also generally less expensive than cigarettes and easier for youths to purchase, Pickworth said.
For the study, Pickworth and his team asked 10 research volunteers -- 24.5 years old on average and considered "healthy smokers" -- to smoke an unfiltered, additive-free American Spirit cigarette, a strawberry-flavored bidi, a non-flavored bidi and one of the participants' own preferred brands of conventional cigarette.
During each session, the researchers measured participants' plasma nicotine and exhaled carbon monoxide. Researchers also recorded the length of time participants took to smoke a cigarette or bidi, and the number of puffs. After smoking, participants completed questionnaires about each product.
Results showed that two minutes after smoking the unfiltered, additive-free American Spirit cigarette or either type of bidi, participants' plasma nicotine levels were significantly higher than when they smoked their own cigarettes. The high nicotine levels lasted longest with the American Spirit cigarette.
Measured levels of exhaled carbon monoxide were less consistent. Researchers measured these levels 15 minutes after participants finished smoking each sample. Exhaled carbon monoxide levels dropped below those of the participants' own cigarette brands 15 minutes after smoking the American Spirit cigarette and the unflavored bidi. The strawberry-flavored bidi, however, left participants exhaling higher amounts of carbon monoxide than with their preferred brands.
"Data from this study were collected in a single exposure to alternative cigarettes in a laboratory environment," Pickworth granted. "The sample size was small, predominantly male and restricted to those over 18 years of age, and included only occasional bidi smokers. These characteristics may have influenced smoking patterns and subjective estimates and may limit the generalizability of the results.
"Nevertheless," he adds, "the results indicate that, contrary to the belief of many consumers, bidi and additive-free cigarettes deliver substantial amounts of nicotine and other toxic components of tobacco smoke."
This research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

And unlike Arnie, I provide proof: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021203074357.htm
It's easy to do when actual proof of what you claim exists...

And, if you check the OT, where there was God there was smoke and I'm not talking about burnt offerings.

-- But never once in the OT did God direct the Isrealites to draw that smoke into their lungs, let alone 10 or more times a day, 365 days a year.
Try again.




.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Foreigner

I am not going to keep arguing with you
I use a different solution in situations like this

You have accused me of not backing up my statement about the European study which showed that people who were exposed to long term cigarette smoke lived slightly longer

I will bet you $1000 that I can produce the facts and evidence ... Are you willing ?

If not .... your opinions have no merit whatsoever.

Put your money where your mouth .

I stand behind what I said.

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner


I stand behind what I said.

-- No you haven't. Not even once.

You have made an empty, unsupported claim about a non-existant study, but if you actually "stood behind" it, you would simply produce it.
If you did you would have the integrity to back up your claim instead of criticizing me for not trusting a stranger on a computer.
A stranger to whom I have provided documentatn and proof for every claim I have made.

Silly me.
Apparently all I would have had to say is, "There is a study...." and that would be that.
If you wanted proof all I would have to say is, "do your own leg work."
If you said you looked an can't find it so it doesn't exist, I would just have to say, "Yes it does" and blame your inability to navigate Google.
If you still couldn't find it and were wise enough to not believe me, I would just say that I have a copy of it on my computer but I don't have to show it to you.

I love it

If you had integrity you would post it now and let everyone see that I owe you an apology. But since it obviously doesn't exist...

Now you are using the second most common dodge used on the Internet: Bet of a large amount of money, and if they won't take the bet then you win.

Honesty, you're not even original.

I use links to back up every claim about smoking that I have made. Every...single...solitary...one.

You make unsupported claims you say are definitive, but you provide ZERO proof.

Then you claim that it isn't your job to back up your claim. (I certainly hope you don't witness this way)

I can right now produce half a dozen articles showing that studies done in Europe prove that smoking is not only bad for you but can kill you.

I will be glad to produce them for you the second you post your "study." If you promised to post your study afterwards I will gladly post all six right now.

TRANSLATION: I will end up doing six times the work you do and you can still claim victory because you actually proved yourself.

I am pretty sure I won't have to, though. You don't have it. End of story.

(Pssst. This is where you say that you "don't have to prove anything to anybody." The third most common dodge for those busted for telling a tall tale.)

It comes down to this:
If you won't produce the study then you wouldn't produce the $1000.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

-- No you haven't. Not even once.

You have made an empty, unsupported claim about a non-existant study, but if you actually "stood behind" it, you would simply produce it.
If you did you would have the integrity to back up your claim instead of criticizing me for not trusting a stranger on a computer.
A stranger to whom I have provided documentatn and proof for every claim I have made.

Nice try Foreigner

The study is on my other computer , it is a huge PDF document , it is available by subscription only and the link cannot be transferred , It is the size of a small book . It was produced by , and for the medical profession , I have a doctor in my family , thus I have access.

However here is a related screen shot as published by the United States Library of Medicine. (jpeg picture at the very bottom of this post)

You might be able to access the American version without subscription.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another one from open media ..... this study was also kept
hidden because they didnt like the results ...... so thet did another
one fudging the stats to fit the way they wanted

The World Health Organization's first study on SHS is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results. They responded by doing a second one, a meta-analysis, that allowed them to extract the results they wanted. This is an analysis of their first study.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------
Normally I do not go to general media for factual information ..... nevertheless here are a few articles discussing the claims about second hand smoke

One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/passive-smoking-is-there-convincing-evidence-that-its-harmful-476472.html
------------------------------------------------------

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Propaganda Trumps Science
The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/scientific-evidence-shows-secondhand-smoke-no-danger


------------------------------------------------------------
Director Simon Clark said: "To put passive smoking in perspective, the average annual risk of non-smokers getting lung cancer is 10 per 100,000 people.
"The team from Warwick University say the risk is probably half that. In other words, one or two non-smokers in every 100,000 may be at risk from passive smoking, and only if they are repeatedly exposed to tobacco smoke over many, many years."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/637758.stm
-----------------------------------------------------------

Passive smoking is less dangerous than claimed, say researchers.
A study by U.S. scientists concluded that living with a smoker does not significantly raise the risk of death from heart disease or lung cancer.

Most authoritative reports on passive smoking - including one from the World Health Organisation - estimate the risk of dying from heart disease rises by about 30 per cent among non-smokers living with smokers.

It also increases the risk of lung cancer by between 20 and 30 per cent, according to a Government backed report four years ago. But the latest study, published in the British Medical Journal, casts doubt on those statistics. It says: 'Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30 per cent increase in risk of coronary heart disease.'

The researchers looked at a Californian study of 118,094 people covering almost four decades. James Enstrom, of the University of California, and Professor Geoffrey Kabat, found being married to a smoker was not significantly linked with death from heart disease or lung cancer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-181039/Passive-smoking-doesnt-kill.html#axzz2KTsAQnLC

 

[Foreigner]

LOL Now you're just getting silly.

First off, it was wise to remove the screen shot from the double super secret "study" that you had posted yesterday.

Why? Because instead of showing it did actual medical research it stated that all they did was "interview" some patients and test subjects.
-No actual medical testing.
-No comparisons of the impact on them over time.
-No list of the actuall questions asked of them.
-No explanation of the cross-section of the people that were interviewed
-No explanation as to how they came to their conclusion from the answers to the questions.
Translation: Propoganda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then there is the link that you posted yesterday that is still there today: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

It leads me to ask just one question: Is this a joke?

The link - and I encourage you and others to go look at it right now - lists what it calls the findings of the World Health Organization.

UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, IF YOU ACTUALLY GO TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION'S WEB SITES, THEY SAY JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Here, let me educate you....



http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/tobacco_facts/en/index.html <------- Actual World Health Organization Web Site

Tobacco use is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced.

• Tobacco use kills 5.4 million people a year - an average of one person every six seconds - and accounts for one in 10 adult deaths worldwide.
• Tobacco kills up to half of all users.

Because there is a lag of several years between when people start using tobacco and when their health suffers, the epidemic of disease and death has just begun.

• 100 million deaths were caused by tobacco in the 20th century. If current trends continue, there will be up to one billion deaths in the 21st century.
• Unchecked, tobacco-related deaths will increase to more than eight million a year by 2030, and 80% of those deaths will occur in the developing world.

Or this one:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/index.html <------- Another actual World Health Organization web site

Second-hand smoke kills
Second-hand smoke is the smoke that fills restaurants, offices or other enclosed spaces when people burn tobacco products such as cigarettes, bidis and water pipes. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
Every person should be able to breathe smoke-free air. Smoke-free laws protect the health of non-smokers, are popular, do not harm business and encourage smokers to quit.1

• Second-hand smoke causes more than 600 000 premature deaths per year.
• In 2004, children accounted for 31% of the deaths attributable to second-hand smoke.
• There are more than 4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, of which at least 250 are known to be harmful and more than 50 are known to cause cancer.
• In adults, second-hand smoke causes serious cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including coronary heart disease and lung cancer. In infants, it causes sudden death. In pregnant women, it causes low birth weight.

I have at least four more actual WHO web sites that I will be glad to include in my next post. Just say the word....


So what it comes down to Arnie is this,
The only way you can defend your position is to try to refute the organization that you sited yesterday as being accurate and reputable.

You are going to have to wait until the paint dries before you will be able to get out of that corner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the other links you provided, some refer to data from as far back as 1992. You can't be serious.

And much of the information in your links has beeen refuted by:
- The Center for Disease Control
- The American Medical Association
- The Journal of American Medicine
- The American Heart Association
- The American Lung Association
- Doctors Without Borders
And the very group you first listed: The World Health Organization

You can claim them to be hacks or whatever you wish, but I can do the same for your far less reputable or verifiable sources.

Dude, you have been reduced to using NEWSPAPER ARTICLES from the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, etc. etc. etc.

Yet you seem ignorant to the fact that news publications have political and personal slants, as well.

They pick and chose the information from within individual studies, etc. that support whatever the newspaper's slant is. LOL


Face it Arnie, you are wrong. END,,,OF...STORY



Look, you want to smoke? Fine. Have at it.
As long as you're not doing it around me or my family, knock yourself out.

But don't try to paint a unicorns and rainbow picture of that activity. It is just so much garbabge.


But since every reputable medical and health agency says people die in high numbers from smoking and it is usually after a long drawn out illness requiring hosptial stays, medical procedures, multiple doctor visits and large amounts of medications, I think smokers should have to pay a much higher insurance premium.

I shouldn't have to pay higher health premiums for your self-destructive practices.




.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Now you are being a complete jerk foreigner

Nothing was remove from my post ... the screen shot is at the very bottom
The screen shot is not the actual study .... it is a commentary about it from the US National Library of Medicine National Institute of health

Like I said I have the whole study on another computer and it is the size of a small book and is a paid subscription site for Doctors and researchers.

You also show your lack of understanding about the word "interview" as used by the medical profession.

It is not like an "interview" done by your local newspaper about what Lady Gaga is wearing today.

When you visit your doctor he "interviews you" to understand your symptoms .

When hundreds of people are involved in a case study they are "interviewed" continually.