Remove Advertisements

Attn: Smokers in the US

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Levantine » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:22 am

There's only one type of person I'll hold my breath for and that's preggers chicks. Because I had a friend who would literally vomit from the smell during one of her trimesters and I'd rather not make a person vomit... Well a person who's not an asshole. IDC if you're just going to make a show of vomiting because smoking is so disgusting. Have fun in the toilet.
User avatar
Levantine
 
Posts: 10817
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: NQ, Aus

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Cogglamp » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:39 am

I could care less if you want to take the active role in shortening your own life.

However, it's irritates me when people who decide to smoke just throw their butts down on ground and walk away. Try not to litter.
Cogglamp
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:04 am

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Shyrtandros » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:50 am

Cogglamp wrote:I could care less if you want to take the active role in shortening your own life.

However, it's irritates me when people who decide to smoke just throw their butts down on ground and walk away. Try not to litter.


I agree with this statement.. My work had allowed people to smoke outside by the street and for about 20 yards there was a very very THICK layer of nothing but cigarette butts by the street and it looked and smelled horrible.. Now employees have to leave the premises due to litter.. NOT because they smoke.. but because they can't keep their damn trash off the ground.

We've had 3 large strips of land destroyed due to fires from cigarette butts in this area.. My co-worker got a ticket for throwing a butt out the window and he was upset for it... there is a burn ban in effect right now because the area is SOO dry that we're not allowed to use open flame BBQ pits because a spark or coal can cause a rapid fire..


Back on topic of the actual warning labels however...

I think people are getting a little to "excited" about this..

Several other countries have these huge warning signs on their cigarettes and personally I believe that they should be there..

Most of us can agree that "General Populace" is full of a combination of idiots or people who are to careless to notice "possible" side-effects from not just cigarettes but alcohol, Rx Drugs, Over the counter drugs, or even food products..

At least with something like this "Most" people will not be able to say "Well I didn't know better!"
"Warning: AA posts may cause severe urges to buy or rent games you may not have been interested in, known about or would normally consider playing. If you experience sudden urges to purchase said games please consult your wallet, bank account or significant other to see if these games are right for you and your budget."
User avatar
Shyrtandros
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:54 am

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Candiru » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:07 am

If they stuck pictures of fat people on ice-cream tubs maybe there would be less of an obesity epidemic? I think everyone would get de-sensitised pretty quickly though.
Image
Candiru
 
Posts: 2479
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 12:21 pm

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Tev » Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 am

Or live in Wisconsin, you'll get desensitized to excessively obese people fairly quick, or go insane. I'm currently the later :lol: .

Seriously tho, the issue I have with cigarettes is typically the smokers themselves. It's one thing to light up in your car or your home when alone or with other smokers, but don't be a dick about it. Don't smoke around kids (or when your pregnant), or other people who aren't smoking. If your smoking and someone comes by you thats their choice, but don't light up and tell other people to move if they don't like it, have some common decency.

Interestingly for me, cigarettes will make my eyes burn and cough up a lung, but I don't have a problem being around real cigars or pipe smoke. I think it has to do with the chemical treatment process they use on cigarette tobacco.
Tev
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Shoju » Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:44 am

These pictures don't make me want a cigarette any less.


And I quit smoking 3 months ago.


I smoked Camel Menthol Wide "Lights' (green after they 'banned' the word light). I smoked because I liked the way they taste. I didn't smoke marlboro or newport, or any other crap menthol.

Camel.
Menthol.
Wide.
LIGHT.

They taste good. God. now I want one.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 6349
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Amirya » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:37 pm

Fivelives wrote:If I'm smoking a cigarette outside, the non-smoker can fucking move.

My only issue with this is, I've walked away from smokers because I don't need that in my body (especially now when I've been diagnosed with having cancer). But I've also had the idiots who will puff away while following me to talk to me about inconsequentials, and even blow their smoke in my face because it looks cool or something. I don't know.

Will you please punch every fuck in the face who does that? I promise I won't complain if you want to smoke outside.

(I can't even tell you how many times I refuse to go outside with one of my colleagues 'cause she smokes worse than a chimney, and even standing upwind doesn't help.)
Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Koatanga » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:22 pm

Fivelives wrote:Actually, cigarettes don't burn away happily on their own anymore, and haven't since the late 90s. There are "fire breaks" inside them that will extinguish the cigarette every 30-60 seconds if you're not actively smoking them.

And between drags they are smokeless. Gotcha. Owait, they're not. Maybe that's what I was talking about? If you smoke in your home, have a look at your curtains, your walls, your furniture. See any discolouration?

Fivelives wrote:If I'm smoking a cigarette outside, the non-smoker can fucking move. If you want to stand nuts to butts with a smoker, then bitch about the second hand smoke or just stand there passive aggressively coughing up a fucking lung then you deserve every single bit of cancer you get.

We can't smoke in public buildings, we can't smoke within 50 feet of entrances to public buildings, we can't even smoke in our own fucking homes or cars in some states and under certain conditions (e.g. the California smoking ban includes smoking in a private home or vehicle that children have access to)

This is a pretty good example of why warning labels don't work. The government comes out and says it's too dangerous to have your smoke in airplanes, then in offices, then in restaurants and bars, then even in private homes and vehicles and even outdoors, and STILL smokers deny that it's harmful.

If those aren't sufficient warning signs, some stupid sticker on a pack isn't going to make any difference.

Fivelives wrote:Also, you're completely ignoring everything that was posted on this subject in your zeal to demonize cigarettes as the root cause of all evil.

Strawman much?

I used to smoke. I smoked for over 15 years, at up to two packs per day. I don't anymore. It wasn't good for me. A couple of years after I quit, my father died of lung cancer. It wasn't good for him either.

So I am your worst nightmare in a smoking debate, because I know the feeling of being the poor oppressed smoker who can't light up where he wants to. I was playing bass in club bands in California when smoking was banned at bars. I hated not having a smoke handy on stage, particularly when drinking.

I also know smoking wasn't good for me, and I know how much the nicotine convinced me to deny the mounting evidence that it wasn't good for me.

I also know the feeling of failing to quit, and the guilt and defensiveness associated with it. You're ready to lash out at anyone who sees smoking as harmful because you feel helpless to quit doing something that you know isn't good for you. So you gather whatever you can get your hands on that debunks prevailing theory about the harmfullness of smoking in order to convince yourself that it's still OK, because failing to quit is more acceptable if it's not really bad for you. It also allows you to assume the classic crouching position and defend to the death your right to harm yourself because it's not harming yourself.

I quit when I went on a trip to France. I was in a rural town, so on my way back I knew I had around 36 hours of travel time (between actual travel and layovers) during which I would be in several palces where smoking wasn't permitted. I used the opportunity to break the physical addiction, and it worked. The psychological addiction took longer - I could barely have a drink without wanting a cigarette for several years.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Belloc » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:37 pm

Fivelives wrote:Actually, cigarettes don't burn away happily on their own anymore, and haven't since the late 90s. There are "fire breaks" inside them that will extinguish the cigarette every 30-60 seconds if you're not actively smoking them.
This may be true for some brands, but it is not universally true. I have seen, within the past year, friends leave cigarettes burning because they became distracted (by games). When they eventually realized that they were smoking, they found that the cigarette burned through all the tobacco and there is now an inch or so of ash just hanging on. I don't complain (because I choose to be in that room), but all of that smoke was released into the room, unfiltered by lungs.

If I'm smoking a cigarette outside, the non-smoker can fucking move. If you want to stand nuts to butts with a smoker, then bitch about the second hand smoke or just stand there passive aggressively coughing up a fucking lung then you deserve every single bit of cancer you get.
And, in most outdoor circumstances, I'm sure most would agree with you. However, I didn't see anyone here specifically mention second-hand smoke received while standing outside near smokers. Rather, the problem is for children/family members that don't have a choice when it comes to second-hand smoke. Yes, it is illegal to smoke in cars/indoors in some places, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

Also, you're completely ignoring everything that was posted on this subject in your zeal to demonize cigarettes as the root cause of all evil.
Everyone in this thread is ignoring something or other -- it's natural, We all have our own personal biases. You can point out that he's ignoring things, but you're certainly ignoring things that don't help your argument. You can point out studies that support your words, but others can point out studies that contradict those words. The fact of the matter is that smoking does contribute (and sometimes directly causes -- let's not have a shit fit over the word "cause") health problems.

So you want the cigarette taxes to pay for what they're already paying for? Good man. Now please go research the subject before making claims that have already been debunked, repeatedly.
The impression I got was that he wants the taxes to pay even more towards what they're already paying for.


Now, my piece:

I don't care if you smoke. I don't care if you smoke in your car, in your house, or in a designated smoking area. Hell, I don't care if you smoke in a public area, as long as you do so with respect to those around you. I think you should be allowed to smoke yourself to death, if you so desire.

What I do care about, however, is when your smoking starts affecting others that don't want to be affected by it. Sure, they can go fuck themselves if they're standing in a smoking area... but I don't think anyone here will disagree with that. In fact, I don't see why you would even bring it up.

Personally, I don't see the point in defending smoking. What good comes from smoking? I'm not aware of any positive health benefits related to smoking. Therefore, any defense someone might make for smoking is for selfish reasons. You're defending it because you like doing it. Why you might like doing it, I have no idea -- the buzz? But if I say that I wish smoking were illegal, it wouldn't be for selfish reasons. Hell, I think that alcohol should be illegal, but I still drink it. I'd never defend alcohol just because I enjoy drinking it. Smoking is a direct contributor to health issues and should be scrutinized.

Try not to take it personally when people attack smoking -- they have many, many good reasons to do so. Do not put all of your focus into studies that only support your beliefs.
User avatar
Belloc
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:56 pm
Location: Silent Earth

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Koatanga » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:23 pm

Smoking actually does cause a marginal benefit in awareness and increased speed of problem-solving. Nicotine is a stimulant, and does behave like one. It can keep people awake when driving, and basically do anything that a decent chunk of caffiene would do.

It wasn't until after I stopped smoking that my sleep apnea was properly diagnosed - I figured I just snored real loud. But when I stopped taking what basically amounts to stimulants, I had the chronic fatigue and nodding off associated with severe apnea.

Fortunately my apnea responded well to surgical correction, so I sleep well and wake up rested these days. FOr anyone that has it - explore the surgical option. It's life-changing.

But I digress. Smoking does have some proven benefits. IMO they are more than offset by the health risks.

I do have a bit of a problem with the idea that it's OK for smokers to kill themselves if that's what they want to do. I am not against elective suicide if people really want to go there, but I do wish they would do it in ways that the public doesn't have to clean up. If you jump from a building, someone has to wash off the mess at the bottom. If you smoke, the public has to pick up the tab for the long-term treatment of health problems (not just cancer - there's a laundry list of problems linked to or aggrivated by smoking).

Taxes on cigarettes pick up some of it, but nowhere near the true cost to which smoking contributes. If the taxes were sufficient to offset costs, cancer drugs (for example) would not cost $100 or more per tablet (like the ones my father took) - they would be fully subsidised by cigarette revenue.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Aubade » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:42 pm

Belloc wrote:
Fivelives wrote:Actually, cigarettes don't burn away happily on their own anymore, and haven't since the late 90s. There are "fire breaks" inside them that will extinguish the cigarette every 30-60 seconds if you're not actively smoking them.
This may be true for some brands, but it is not universally true. I have seen, within the past year, friends leave cigarettes burning because they became distracted (by games). When they eventually realized that they were smoking, they found that the cigarette burned through all the tobacco and there is now an inch or so of ash just hanging on. I don't complain (because I choose to be in that room), but all of that smoke was released into the room, unfiltered by lungs.

Actually, this is true for all Cigarettes in the U.S. (I don't know about other countries) It's the law. The only way to get around it is to smoke hand-made cigs? And even then, premade tubes will have the stop as well. (Not making an argument saying you were wrong, just that it's supposed to be there in every cig, at least in the U.S.)

I don't care if you smoke. I don't care if you smoke in your car, in your house, or in a designated smoking area. Hell, I don't care if you smoke in a public area, as long as you do so with respect to those around you. I think you should be allowed to smoke yourself to death, if you so desire.

What I do care about, however, is when your smoking starts affecting others that don't want to be affected by it. Sure, they can go fuck themselves if they're standing in a smoking area... but I don't think anyone here will disagree with that. In fact, I don't see why you would even bring it up.

Personally, I don't see the point in defending smoking. What good comes from smoking? I'm not aware of any positive health benefits related to smoking. Therefore, any defense someone might make for smoking is for selfish reasons. You're defending it because you like doing it. Why you might like doing it, I have no idea -- the buzz? But if I say that I wish smoking were illegal, it wouldn't be for selfish reasons. Hell, I think that alcohol should be illegal, but I still drink it. I'd never defend alcohol just because I enjoy drinking it. Smoking is a direct contributor to health issues and should be scrutinized.

Try not to take it personally when people attack smoking -- they have many, many good reasons to do so. Do not put all of your focus into studies that only support your beliefs.

The reason I'm defending smoking, and will continue to do so even after I eventually quit, is because it's a choice. A right. I have the choice to smoke, I have the choice not to smoke, and that's MY choice. Not someone else's, not the governments. So long as it's a choice I can make, I'm going to defend that choice.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Fivelives » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:43 pm

Sorry about being an asshole. Difficult work day yesterday and I lashed out somewhat.

That said.

Yes, I've read the studies on both sides of the issue - however, I find most studies that "prove" cigarettes are the worst thing for us since mustard gas are falling prey to obvious researcher bias and/or using flawed data*. I've found a few studies that are unbiased and use valid data, and most of them have concluded the same point I'm arguing: they found that cigarette smoking increases other risk factors for disease and illness, but that there is no causal link between cigarette smoking and disease/illness.

Basically, say you have a 10% chance to get cancer (from genetics). You managed to avoid getting any of the major oncoviruses, and haven't spent much time in the sun or a tanning bed, but you live near high tension lines in a major metropolitan area. All told, your genetic and environmental factors add up to an 18% chance of getting cancer - then add in that you're a smoker, and that chance goes up to 25%.

From a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, "42 percent of the risk
may be explained by heritable factors" (source: http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/356607961f.pdf ) - that's an awful big piece of the pie there.

A study in the September 2010 Journal of General Virology (full text: http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/91/9/2176.full ) suggests that the generally accepted "20% of all cancers are caused virally" is lowballing the figure by quite a lot. It's already known that the gammaherpesvirus (chicken pox) and epstein-barr viruses (something that's present in nearly everyone and has the nickname "the cancer virus") cause about 1/5th of all cancers, because they leave behind fragments of viral DNA/RNA that's replicated in cancer cells. This study shows that there can be viruses that cause cancer yet leave no trace behind after they've been eradicated by the body's immune system. At least read the abstract, it's an interesting study with solid methodology.

So those are the top two causes of cancer, and studies in respected non-biased publications that prove it. Remember, folks - the American <insert organ here> Society and American Cancer Society are lobbyist groups and they are NOT interested in the science, unless it proves what they already assume and they can use it as a talking point to convince people of the "rightness" of their crusades.

A crusade that obviously a lot of us here share.

Now.

And between drags they are smokeless. Gotcha. Owait, they're not. Maybe that's what I was talking about? If you smoke in your home, have a look at your curtains, your walls, your furniture. See any discolouration?


They aren't smokeless between drags, no. But they also don't put out enough smoke between drags to affect you. I've been living in my current apartment since January of this year, and there's no smoke smell in the apartment and no discoloration of the paint or my furniture (that actually came with me to begin with). Admittedly, my living room furniture is in shades of earth tones (browns, tans, etc) so it might not show it. But I'll trust my nonsmoking friends when they tell me it doesn't smell like smoke at all.

Also, even the EPA found that secondhand smoke isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be - it "causes cancer at the same rate as typical environmental levels". What that says to me? It says that it's not that bad. I have that in hardcopy from a release back in 1996. I'll scan it in if you really have to see it. There was also a pretty famous study done (again back in the 90s) where they put volunteer nonsmokers in small vehicles with a smoker, then tracked their cancer rates. They concluded that there was no causal link between secondhand smoke and increased instances of cancer. I can't find that study, because my google-fu is failing me; if memory serves it involved a volkswagen bug and was done in a country in Eastern Europe.

Yes, it is illegal to smoke in cars/indoors in some places, but that doesn't stop it from happening.


And that's because it's a fucking stupid law. It's just like the law in Mohave County, AZ, that makes it illegal to bathe more than once per week, or the one about eating peanuts in the bathtub. Or how it's illegal to eat ice cream on the sidewalk in one state (I think Maryland, if memory serves?). If I want to smoke in my own home or car, then it's stupid to think that any legislation is ever going to stop me - the law I was pointing out makes it a secondary offense, which means that police officers aren't allowed to stop you just because you're smoking in a car. They can stop you if you're not wearing a seatbelt or speeding or something, then if they're feeling really vindictive, they can ALSO cite you for smoking.

Which is stupid. And I was pointing it out more as a highlight of how prejudiced society is against smokers rather than commenting on whether or not it's a valid law. It's politically incorrect to discriminate based on race, creed, gender, orientation and political affiliation. However, it's been made politically correct to discriminate based on whether or not we smoke. If I choose to smoke, then I can (and will) be discriminated against with absolutely zero recourse to fight against it. However, if I choose to worship and proselytize for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's illegal to discriminate against me, and I would have legal recourses to follow. I don't see a difference between the two - they're both personal choices that affect others, and both are annoying as fuck.

... and STILL smokers deny that it's harmful.


Nobody here has been denying that it's not healthy. We haven't been preaching the health benefits of smoking. You are choosing to infer that from my statements that "it's not as bad as people claim". That in no way means it's not bad, and it ESPECIALLY doesn't mean that it's healthy.

Strawman much?


Ad hominem, actually. Here, let me make it a bit more clear: you're being an ass, and you're being a noisy ass that has absolutely no clue as to the issue you're crusading against. You're either purposefully misreading my statements in an attempt to get a rise out of me, or you're just too stubborn to reconcile your beliefs with statements that disagree with them.

So I am your worst nightmare in a smoking debate


Actually, no. You're not my worst nightmare in a smoking debate - if you were capable of forming your own opinion based on evidence and arguing it, then you might be a good debate. As it stands, it's like arguing with a parrot - all you can do is repeat what you've been told. As a debating tactic, that's essentially the same as a 5 year old that covers their ears and shouts "na na na CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of their lungs.

Try not to take it personally when people attack smoking -- they have many, many good reasons to do so.


I try not to take it personally, but it's hard when most people who are attacking the issue have absolutely no clue what they're talking about beyond "Well, I saw this commercial on TV".

Do not put all of your focus into studies that only support your beliefs.


I don't. There's a preponderance of evidence that it's not the healthy choice - my entire argument here has been "it's not as bad as people are making it out to be." To listen to the anti-smoking crusader brigade, you'd think that the tobacco companies broke into their house, stole their life savings, posted photoshopped pics of them sucking off a donkey while wearing a sombrero on their facebook wall, tagged their houses in the sex offender registry, then beat up their grandma and kicked their dog on the way out. It's impossible for anything to be as bad as the anti-smokers would have you believe.

Will you please punch every fuck in the face who does that? I promise I won't complain if you want to smoke outside.


BRB, facepunching fucks.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Torquemada » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:10 pm

I generally take a fairly libertarian stance on the cigs. If they are so dangerous that they kill and everyone should quit then they should be outlawed, not taxed. That's just hypocrasy. If they're not too dangerous to outlaw, then I'm frankly tired of hearing about it, leave people to poison themselves as they wish, while I go back to killing myself with alcohol.

A similar issue came up over here in Korea. We used to have free movies on based, subsidized by the amount of money soldiers were spending at slot machines on base. At the same time, the Army was putting out countless ads on TV and AFN radio talking about the dangers of gambling addiction, and people actually stopped gambling. Now we can't afford to have free movies and they started charging. I almost want them to air pro-gambling commercials now, as the movies are actually more expensive than it is to see them off base.

I see a similar parallel with smokers. Of course no one wants other people to destroy themselves, but the government would be up the creek without that tax revenue.
User avatar
Torquemada
 
Posts: 1678
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Virginia

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Koatanga » Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:05 pm

Fivelives wrote:you're being a noisy ass that has absolutely no clue as to the issue you're crusading against

Except that I used to smoke, and have a father that died from lung cancer, so I know a bit about smoking, the addiction, the rationalisations you go through to justify not quitting immediately, etc. And I am familiar with the human cost of the diseases associated with smoking including cancer, the treatments for cancer, the cost of cancer medication, and the likelihood that my father's cancer was caused by smoking.

It is perhaps relevant that I did not give up smoking because of my father's cancer - he was diagnosed after I quit. I determined smoking was harmful to me and quit on my own - which is of course the only way you can quit. If you don't want to, you won't.

And it's not even a crusade. I am happy to relate my experiences so that others might learn from them, or know what to expect in the process of quitting, which includes the realisation that your rationalisations for smoking are solely for your own benefit, to make you feel better about doing something that you know you shouldn't because it causes you harm (but is oh so satisfying).

No one who doesn't smoke will ever understand risking the possibility of an extremely manky disease. Saying the odds are not as big as was once thought will never fly as an excuse for anyone, because the link still exists, ragardless of magnitude. Saying other things are more dangerous also doesn't wash.

I just think it's wrong to go telling people it's not so bad, because that justification is for yourself, not for other people. You have decided it's not so bad. Great. Awesome. But don't go around providing fodder for other people to justify their own continued smoking - it's just not right, because smoking is in fact harmful, regardless to what extent you want to debate the degree of the harm. Cause harm to yourself and yourself only.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Attn: Smokers in the US

Postby Fivelives » Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:25 pm

Except that I used to smoke, and have a father that died from lung cancer, so I know a bit about smoking, the addiction, the rationalisations you go through to justify not quitting immediately, etc. And I am familiar with the human cost of the diseases associated with smoking including cancer, the treatments for cancer, the cost of cancer medication, and the likelihood that my father's cancer was caused by smoking.


I used to work on my car, and have a friend that wrecked a sports car once, so I would make a good Formula 1 race car driver. I am familiar with the tracks.

The likelihood is that your father's cancer was caused by a genetic predisposition for it combined with environmental factors. Just like everybody else's cancer. Am I saying cigarettes don't contribute to cancer? No. Am I saying that you're an idiot for believing the hype about them causing every single disease known to mankind? Absolutely.

Look, I'm sorry your dad died of cancer. Truly. It sucks. But the odds are, cigarettes didn't cause it.

Saying the odds are not as big as was once thought will never fly as an excuse for anyone, because the link still exists, regardless(sic) of magnitude.

Correlation does not imply causation. That's where people are going wrong. "Smokers get cancer, therefore cigarettes cause cancer" is a false statement.
Saying other things are more dangerous also doesn't wash.

I could understand that if I was saying, say, skydiving is more dangerous than smoking. But I'm talking about actual, honest-to-fucking-god verifiably scientifically proven CAUSES of cancer. How exactly does that not "wash"? There has never, not once, ever, been an experiment that proved cigarettes are a CAUSE of cancer. Know why that is? Because it's impossible to control all of the variables. There is almost nothing that we are exposed to on a daily basis that isn't chock fucking full of carcinogens. Do you have a car? Ohey, guess what! Every single time you get into one, you're exposing yourself to carcinogens that leak through the dashboard vents and underneath the dash. Do you eat fruits and vegetables? Guess what - those have carcinogens in them too! So does meat, so don't think you can get away with going on the fatkins diet! Drink water? Copper and lead piping not only lead to heavy metal poisoning, but have been linked to cancer as well! And don't get me started on the bisphenol A found in plastic water bottles.

Etc, etc. It's impossible to ever pinpoint a single non-viral cause for cancer, because EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING WE DO, EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY contributes to our risk of getting cancer. The only reason we can pinpoint viral causes of cancer is because of the viral DNA/RNA left in the mutated cancerous cells.

Oh wait - now that's not even a guarantee, since the study published last fall proved that there are some viruses that cause cancer and then vanish completely, without even leaving behind DNA/RNA evidence.

So tell me again just what causes cancer? And if you say "well duh, cigarettes cause it!!!1" I swear to Flying Spaghetti Monster I will fly to your house and kick you straight in the balls. Do some research, then come back with a valid argument.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest