Smoking

[SonOfLilith]

Dear Loy

Fact 1
Impotancy / Changing DNA:
Smoking can deform damage its DNA which could cause misscarriage or birth defects.Some studies have found that men who smoke have a increased of fathering a child who contracts cancer smoking also diminishes sperm count and reduce the blood flow to the penis which can cause impotence. Infertility is more common among smokers.

reference: WHO 2004

Fact 2
Amputated limbs
Buergers disease also known thromboangitis obliterans is a inflammation of the ateries, veins, and nerves in the legs. Principally leading to restricted blood flow. Left untreated it can lead to gangrene and amputation of the affected area

reference: WHO 2004

Fact 3
Second hand smokers
In June 2002, a scientific working group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, Lyon, France, reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer, both active and involuntary. Its conclusions confirmed the cancer-causing effects of active smoking. It also concluded its evaluation of the carcinogenic risks associated with involuntary smoking and classified second-hand smoke as carcinogenic to humans.

There is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to SHS. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women and 30% in men who live with a smoker . Similarly, it has been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS in the workplace have a 16 to 19% increased risk of developing lung cancer . The risk of presenting lung cancer increases with the degree of exposure. The Californian Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) estimates that SHS causes 3000 deaths each year due to lung cancer in non-smokers.

It has also been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS have a 25 to 35% increased risk of suffering acute coronary diseases . Chronic respiratory conditions are also more frequent in non-smokers exposed to SHS (. There is evidence linking SHS to other adverse effects in adults including exacerbation of asthma and reduced lung function.


Small children whose parents smoke at home have an increased risk of suffering lower tract respiratory infections and otitis media . SHS has also been linked to an increase in the number and severity of asthma episodes in asthmatic children . There is also evidence that SHS increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)

reference: IARC France 2002

Fact 4
Researchers at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center are developing computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) methods to make that assessment easier. A computer program reads the same scans the radiologist views, and the combined judgment of the computer and radiologist helps detect more cancers, the researchers found.

In the study, researchers looked at 41 CT scans that showed nodules in the lungs. Current scans and previous scans were fed through a computer program specially designed by the U-M researchers to evaluate the size, texture, density and change over time of the nodules. Based on that information, the computer determines how likely the nodule is cancerous.

reference: University of Michigan Health System 2004


Do you know Iris Diagnosia?
The iris is like a map of the body - changes in certain organs are reflected in specific parts of the iris. The right iris shows the condition of the right side of the body, while the left iris reflects the left side. The exact relationship between iris and body parts can be seen from the iris chart below. Iris diagnosis is also known as iridology.

In health, the iris is composed of densely structured fine, straight lines, radiating from the pupil to the outer rim. A close grain, similar to that of hardwood, indicates a strong inherited vitality and good recuperative powers in the case of temporary illness. If the fibres are loosely spread, as in softwood, the basic health is weak.

In poor health (e.g. smokers) these lines become separated and distorted, forming various patterns, called markings. Very weak organs often show elliptically formed grey markings - so-called closed lesions resembling knots in wood. In poor health many of these closed lesions may be found in the iris, indicating areas in which the circulation is stagnating. If these lesions are not 'walled in', but open at one end or both, this indicates that despite a weakness the circulation in this area is good.

for more nice smoking diseases click here the first hit

[Loy]

SonnOfLilith-1.The incresed rates of cancer-attracting children in smokers? Or in people whose family have a history of smoking? Nice try in trying to confuse the two issues (since, in fact, they ARE separate issues).

See, it goes like this. People whose families have a history with cancer raise their chances by doing a number of activites. Sex, walking down the street, libing in the city, eating certain foods, and smoking, are all activities that can lead to cancer if your body is predisposed to it. So to say "smoking makes your kids cancer-bait" is just the same as saying "fucking makes your kids cancer bait". The "mutations" you speak of are already there.

After asking people at Fred Hutch here about this (Fred Hutch is one of a number of institutes working on the human genome project. You know, the mapping out of the human genes? Figured I should ask them before spouting off about geneology), this was the way it was broken down to me. And this is the way I'm breaking it down to you, so you have an easier understanding of it.

2.Are you aware that physical activity and cholesteral level (caused by how much crap one eats) are also factors in the development of Buergers disease? Oops, forgot to mention that little tidbit, didn't you?

3.Signifigant published works on the effects of second-hand smoke? As I pointed out, that means they looked at 2 studies. One that's scientifically fraudulent, the other that says that pollution is a MUCH worse problem than second-hand smoke ever was, could be, or will be.

As for the IARC-they've been shown to be just like tha American Cancer Association-in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. One might think this is good, right? Wrong. What this has done is push the emphasis away from researching cancer preventionb, and leaned towards cancer treatment. What's the big difference? Simple-prevention means "never getting it" and treatment means "getting it and trying to get rid of it". And strangely enough, which one do you you think makes pharmaceutical companies more money?

But they get all up in arms about smoking? Why's that? Follow the money-tobacco companies don't give these guys NEAR as much money as auto companies do. Thus, you never hear these organizations go after auto companies for the exhaust fumes that are causing cancer rates to sky rocket (see, unlike second hand smoke, auto fumes have been linked definitively to lung cancer, skin cancer, and numerous other fun health problems) even though pollution is a much worse problem than smoking ever was, is, and will be.

Let me put it to you another way-you using one scientifically fraudulent study (the EPA one) and misquote/mangling the information of another study to back up your claims (the World Health Organization one) invalidates ANY argument you can toss out on this subject, since you've proven yourself to be an unreliable source. Again, I see that facts and logic won't make you shut the fuck up.

4.Wow, a new machine to check out cancer. Nice toy

5.Iris Diagnosia? So you go from a scientifically fraudlent source to a charlatan scam job? Dude, Iris Diagnosia is the new phrenology (the belief that you can tell a person's psychology by the shape of their head), and it's believers are seen with about as much credulance as George Bush. You showed yourself to be a moron with your earlier posts. Now, by using charlatan techniques to back up your attitude (veyr badly, I might add), you've PROVEN yourself a moron. Just shut the fuck up, because if I'm not mistaken, that was your ass I just handed back to you child.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

I don't smoke. I think it's unhealthy and kills the ones around you. I think it's okay if there are bans around public places and such, especially when some are allergic. I am, and I can have really, really bad reactions. So I dunno, I think that bans of smoking are good. Maybe more people will quit.

[CptSternn]

Smoking is a drug addiction like herion. The only people who argue for it are users and dealers. Hey, I'm all for letting people kill themselves whichever way they may choose - just don't take out the people around you when you do it. Second hand smoke kills those around you. Slowly, but deadly none the less.

I say inject nicotine directly into yer veins and just get it over with. Get high, people complain less, and also keep from having to worry about silly smoking laws.

[rockandrose]

Unfortunately, I smoke as a habit, not just on a social basis. I admit its a disgusting habit, but I actually enjoy having a smoke and most of the time I would probably choose a cigarette over a tasty meal.

Smoking doesn't just put other people's health at risk, but it also affects my relationship with a number of significant people in my life. For instance, my parents are strongly against me smoking, even though my dad is practically a committed and a passionate smoker for most of his life, which is very hypocritical of him to try to restrict me from not smoking.

The day I make it smoke-free to the finish line would probably be the day before my dead bed arrives.

Anyways, I don't care much about pub, clubs or restaurants banning smoking. It just means smokers will begin to migrate their smoking ways else where.

[Loy]

Sternn-and you once again prove the complete and total ignorance of the anti-smoking fascistic fucktards

1."I don't care how people kill themselves, but smoking kills people around them"-maybe you need to re-read the part where I said "only two studies have ever been done on the effects of second hand smoke. One study was tossed out by various scientific organizations, and the other one actually puts second-hand smoke as the LEAST carcinogenic aspect of modern life." In other words, using false claims to back up your argument actually invalidates your argument.

Killing people around me? Nowehere near as much as your car does (car exhaust and pollution are the # 1 causant of lung cancer in the world.). So I tell you what, when you give up A-driving/taking a bus/cab/boat/airplane/etc, B-a diet that has any kind of meat in it, and also consists of locally grown organic products (as to make sure no more pollution is created, and also to make sure that there are no poisons from fertilizers or plant sprays), C-stop using anything with plastics in it, then we can talk about me not smoking in front of you. Until then, since all 3 things I pointed out have been EMPIRICALLY PROVEN ON A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL to be much more dangerous and much more causant towards cancer, you're anti-smoking arguments are quite hypocritical and moot.

As for non-smokers who hate the smell of smoke? Let me make a suggestion-don't go to places that allow smoking. Wow! Logic! Of course it's gonna seem confusing to you, but let me explain it a littl-see, humans are addictive creatures because it's in our nature. We get addicted to many, many things. Some of them are good, some of them bad. Either way, it's an addiction. Now, as history has shown over and over, some things that are addictive have been banned by governments, and the banning has always been ineffective. so the best way to deal with addictive chemicals (again, as shown by history) is to keep them legal and allow for designated places for their consumption. That way, addicts can get their fix, and those against said substances don't get their panties in a bunch by whining too much about how their "rights" are being violated.

2."the only people who argue for it are users and pushers"-argue for what? Using tobacco? Probably. Keeping it legal? Ummm, no. Those people are called "anti-prohibitionists" (see above comment if this position confuses you). That tobacco isn't as dangerous as it's been made out to be? Ummm, we can go with the World Health Organization (the guys who did one of the two studies....the one that wasn't invalidated), the united Nations, the American Scientific Association, the Human Genome project (weird until you realise thir research has been explaining more and more how cancer happens), the U.S. Circuit Courts (now they agree tobacco sucks, but they also agree that it's nowhere near as bad as chicken littles such as yourself are exclaiming)....of course that's just off the top of my head. I'll do a bit more research if you'd like.

The point is is that your hysterical rantings are a pointer for others to see you as the whining hypocritical bastard that you are. I'm just using logic and reason to help you see that for yourself. You don't like smoke? Good for you. Just don't push your agenda upon others and don't use the "but I'm doing it for the public good" routine, since this points out your hypocrisy (gee, that's the same excuse George Bush and his cronies use to push THEIR agendas. Weird how identical your language is to each others!).

In other words, shut the fuck up.

[CptSternn]

All I said was its addtictive and smoking is a drug addiction. Smokers are drug addicts, the same as heroin or crack addicts.

Are you saying this is not true?

Also, are you arguing smoking does NOT cause any second-hand health issues?

Ireland outlawed indoor smoking almost 3 years ago. A funny thing was the pubs noticed a few things.

First, many pubs have money on the walls behind the bar. Money from various nations as well as the first bill they got when the opened. Many of those same pubs today have a 'before/after' now on the wall - with monies from before the ban and after. The yellow/brown colouring of the monies is amazing. Something you don't notice until you see them next to each other.

That combined with the pubs who have had remodeling/painting done - using the same paint they used before to clean up wall patches and do trim work around bars - same thing - you can see a HUGE difference due to the smoke damage.

If smoke makes the walls and all items on the walls turn dark brown, and makes them sticky, then I'd hate to think what breathing that crap into your lungs 12-18 hours a day (what many barkeeps and other bar staff work).

As far as me giving up driving, I drive about once every 3-6 months. I take the train, bus if I need to go far, or carpool. In Ireland ownership of a car is not like in the states. Very few people here actually own cars in comparison to the states. The laws are very different.

First, until 2 years ago we didn't even have licenses. Anyone could buy a car and drive if they could afford it. However insurance here is insane. They base insurance on engine power. For your first car you have to get under a 2.0 litre engine. If you don't, you will pay over €5,000 a year in insurance (about $7,500 USD). Even if you get a 1.8 litre you still will pay between €1,200-€4,000.

And due to the small number of imports here, cars sell for about twice what they do in the states.

So as I said, I don't drive, most people here do not. We take the bus or train. Our pubic transportation system here is one of the best in the world. I can get a return ticket (round trip) via train to Dublin, the other side of the country, for under €50. Plus, out airlines (RyanAir and Aer Lingus) offer flights to anywhere in Europe for under €50.

Having a car is something people here don't do, and our public transportation system is geared towards green.

As far as eating organic products - most ALL of Irish products fit the organic standard. Our meat is labelled from which famr it comes from. It also expires in just a day or two after slaughter and it sold fresh at our markets. We also don't put half the crap in it that they do in the states - its banned by law. Our milk expires in 1/4 the time milk iun the states does as we don't treat it with chemicals like they do there.

So really, myself and others here are one step ahead of you.

But aside from all that, are you arguing that smoking is NOT an addiction like heroin? I mean, what makes addiction to one substance any difference than an addiction to another?

[Loy]

And again, you're weaseling out of giving a straight answer.

1.I NEVER argued that smoking isn't addictive. I just pointed out that making laws that ban addictive activities don't work. Strangely enough, I know of about 25 smoke-easies over in County Cork alone. God knows how many other ones exist out there.

2.I didn't really say "doesn't cause second-hand health issues". I just pointed out that said issues are nowhere NEAR as bad as fucktards like you make 'em out to be. But come to think of it, having a 1 out of 900,000 chance of possibly getting cancer? I guess that is fairly close to "not causing any health issues". And where's that number from? the World Health organizations study on the causality of outside influences upon cancer (the only valid study ever done on the effects of second hand smoke. strangely enough, people have a 1 in 14 chance of getting lung cancer from car fumes. Another odd thing-the report doesn't even get to the release of chemicals that cause damage to the ozone, thus causing skin-cancer rates to rise. In other words, cars are much more dangerous to our healths than smoking ever was, can be, or will be).

3.You're trying to use the "we're thinking of the health of the employees" argument, and the easiest way to deal with that is by asking the obvious question-How many bartenders/employees of bars do you know, and how many of them smoke? And even with the non-smokers who don't wanna be around smoke, I'll say the same thing I tell non-smokers who don't wanna go to a smoke-friendly bar-work in a non-smoking establishment.

4.You're trying to show off about being "ahead of the curve", but you just prove your ignorance to the point I was making.

A-no matter how little you drive/ride a train/bus/carpool, you're still using up petrol fuel, which the exhaust from a 10 mile drive contains about 9 billion times the carcinogenic chemicals than one thousand cartons of cigarettes do. In other words, you're trips are still much more dangerous to the health of those around you than smokers are.

B-as for the organic stuff...whilst I know that you guys ban the use of chemical injections to beef, you're still eating beef, which ALSO is a provoker for cancer cell activation (a small chance...about as much as second hand smoke though). You guys also don't ban the use of pesticides, which not only have a chance of provoking cancer, but also can screw with DNA sequences causing chance mutations to rise. And also there's the issue of transporting the food from the farm to the market. If you buy from a store rather than a farm, you're also paying for the transportation of the products, and unless they're from fairly closeby, you're paying for MORE exhaust expulsion, thus fucking with everybodys health again.

In the end, the only thing you've got is blowharded stubborness and an unwillingness to see the issue from all pertinant perspectives. Hey, didn't you leave the States because of the Republican's blowharded stubborness and unwillingness to see issues from all pertinant perspectives? You DID! Gee, I guess that makes you a whining hypocrite, now doesn't it?

Fuck you, and fuck your fascistic tendancies.

[Panther]

My parents were both smokers. The girlfriend my dad had for most of my life was a smoker. I don't seem to suffer from any terrible lung problems, but I do have a right to opt out of being around smoke.

It's not fair to me to have to cough and hack through my meal because of the chain smoker in the next booth. I don't mind people smoking in restaurants, but I don't see why my clothes and hair should be tainted with the smell of somone else's indulgence.

Smoking and non-smoking sections help, but since the seperation techniques are primitive at best, and usually not even present, it's in no way helping me enjoy my time out, which I get so seldom.

I don't like that there is a ban on smoking, but I do love the fact that I can now go to any restaurant I choose and not inhale the burning remains of a plant that's killing my father, even if it does do me a minimal amount of harm. I'm not saying it's right, but it's so much more pleasant to go out and be able to loiter aroud with my friends, one of whom is very allergic to smoke ( I can't burnm incense with my door open if she's in the house), and not worry about rushing out for air every so often.

[CptSternn]

Facist tendencies? Because I don't smoke? I left the states because of idiots like yourself.

Please smoke. When you die, many years before me, I can go visit your grave and do my best Nelson impression.

HAHA

</Nelson voice>

In the meantime, I can still run a 6 minute mile. I would love to see these 'healthy' smokers you continue on about try that. I mean, I have never seen a runner who smokes regularly, and likewise, I have never seen a non-smoker with a hole in their trachea they used to breath through.

[Loy]

Run a 6 minute mile? Wow, you're kind of slow.

And yes I called you out on your fascistic tendancies. When you try forcing the rest of society to conform to your ideals, it's called fascistic.

And I may die sooner than you. Big whoop. I'd rather have a shorter life that's fruitful, worthwhile, and helpful to the people around me than a longer one that's filled with stasis and bitterness.

See Sternn, the problem I've always had with you is that you say shit to make yourself seem important and better than everybody else, yet for every argument you make, you only can toss out insults when somebody else brings up facts to counteract any of your points. That's not just bad debate form, that also points towards a low sense of self. You define yourself by being against the "norm", and being "with it", without having any real ideological/philosophical reasoning behind it. This pose is ironic (see, by defining yourself by being "anti" something means that you're giving credence to the validity of whatever it is you're against), petulent (I've called you a chicken little, and you have yet to disuade me of that assesment), and just plain silly.

And before you go off about how you really ARE important because you know such-and-such, and you've done this and this, I want you to answer me this-what have YOU personally done to make the lives of those around you better that was totally and completely selfless? Because as far as I've seen, you're just another goth troll drama queen.

Next time, try to debate my points with facts. It makes you look less of an ass.

[CptSternn]

Facts? Your arguing FOR smoking and that it doesn't harm anyone any worse than a roast beef sandwich.

I'm crazy because I say smoking harms your health.

At the end of the day, I could care less. I don't smoke, and most people I know don't either.

You feel your not harming yerself, brilliant. You think the friends and familiy around you aren't being harmed, thats your perogative as well.

But, myself, I knowingly wouldn't even chance putting my close loved ones in harms way if I thought my behaviour would cause them harm.

So smoke away. Maybe you are right, and maybe those who live/work along side you won't be effected and lead health lives. Maybe they won't get some disease or cancer from your second hand smoke.

But then again, maybe they will.

I guess thats a risk your willing to take.

Tell me, when friends familiy members with babies call to your gaff, do you smoke in front of them, in the same room?

[CptSternn]

...and from the front page of various newspapers around the globe...

New Limits Set Over Marketing for Cigarettes

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/wa...syahoo&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A federal judge ordered strict new limitations on tobacco marketing on Thursday after finding that cigarette makers deserved to be punished for a decades-old conspiracy to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking.

The deception, Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said, resulted in “an immeasurable amount of human suffering.”

But in her ruling here in a racketeering suit brought by the Justice Department against the industry, Judge Kessler also had good news for the leading tobacco companies.

Judge Kessler ordered the companies to stop labeling cigarettes as “low tar” or “light” or “natural” or with other “deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.”

She rejected a government proposal that the industry be forced to underwrite a multibillion-dollar program to help smokers quit and to educate young people about the hazards of tobacco. Judge Kessler said that under a recent appeals court ruling she had no power to impose such large financial damages.

The judge said she regretted not being able to punish the companies further.

Her ruling said they were shown in a nine-month trial to have “marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”

Her 1,742-page decision amounted to a detailed history of the efforts of the industry — and, notably, its lawyers — over almost 50 years to confuse the public about a danger that was evident to the health professions.

Cigarette makers, the judge said, profit from “selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss and a profound burden our national health care system.”

Although the failure to impose tougher penalties disappointed antitobacco groups, the decision could force tobacco companies to overhaul some ways of doing business, especially in marketing and advertising cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Judge Kessler also ordered the companies to begin an advertising campaign in newspapers and on television networks on “the adverse health effects of smoking.”

*snip*

[Loy]

Would like to point out that a post of mine has dissapeared. So it's OK for Sternn to troll this place left and right, but not OK for me to point it out?

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Smoking's bad. It's bad for you and bad for the people around you. A lot of things are. There are other things in the world that can harm people yes, but still, there is no escaping the fact that smoking does hurt. But yes everyone else should remember that yes there are other things that they do on a daily basis that hurt themselves and others too.

[Jupetta]

Smoking is disgusting in my opinion, though it may be the fact that I gag whenever I'm around someone who's smoking, I hate it. It hurts you and the people around you, and it isn't even something that you need. It also shows a lack of self-control when you smoke constantly, this is one of the things that top the "Things That Disgust Me" list.