[shubi]

To start with I like the smoking policy as it now, no smoking in resturant, no smoking in closed public places, but buck must stop here. Got to know when to cut the slack first rule of smartness. But some anti smokers are going now 1 step further they want to save tax dollars now, smokers costing tax prayers too much money. To me plase give up one day of fat lunch or super whatever or dont drive a filthy car for 1 day a week you will save more tax dollars then you can imagine.
The story of smoking starts this way a teenager start to smoke at age of 13 14 usually some continue some discontinue, they smoke for in most cases for 55 to 60 years then scince community will tell us THEY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT get cancer . So tell me if a product after smoking for say 60 years may cause some damage is that BAD??????????????????????????????
To speak the truth lung cancer is not smokers fault its worlds scintific group, who we spend trillions and trillions dollard to train, not knowing how to do reasearch,
they must be panelaized for every time some body dies of lung cancer.
FOR ME HOPE MY ESTATE IF if I DIE OF LUNG CANCER SUES SCINTIFIC COMMUNITY OF THE PLANET EARTH FOR EVERYTHING THEY GOT.

[matmat]

i think i need a drink to parse and or understand that..

lemme see
you pick up a bad habbit that turns into an addiction
your eventual illness will cost society (not everywhere but certain places) lots of money to care for you and try to cure you. why should the people that don't smoke pay for your pleasure of smoking?

[Fluffy]

so what policy are you talking about? yo know the wolrd is quite big?

[hrothgar]

There is a statistically significant relationship between smoking and lung cancer / heart disease. This doesn't mean that everyone will develop lung cancer, but no one who understajnds these issues would claim that this holds true.

However, its important for us to remember that heart attacks and lung cancer tend to kill people at a relatively young age and it kills them in a fairly cheap manner. From the perspective of society, its probably better off to have folks puffing away and dying young, rather than having more and more unproductive geezers piling up.

From my perspective, the strongest arguments regarding regulating smoking have to do with the external effects. (Secondary smoke, infant birth weigh, stinking up the office etc). Your decision to smoke isn't just impacting yourself. You're making the folks arround you miserable.

[shubi]

well i just dont know about anti smokers tremendous crying wolf to save SMOKERS.
But i hope those same people has as much sympthy for world hungry poor sick etc.
gl devoting to special interset neglecting rest is a sin in MOTHER NATURE BOOK.

[matmat]

shubi, on Oct 2 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

well i just dont know about anti smokers tremendous crying wolf to save SMOKERS.
But i hope those same people has as much sympthy for world hungry poor sick etc.
gl devoting to special interset neglecting rest is a sin in MOTHER NATURE BOOK.

i may come across a little insensitive and tough-skinned here...

but the world's poor and hungry are not as direct a hazard to my health as the chimney standing next to me at a bus stop.

[han]

hrothgar, on Oct 2 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

There is a statistically significant relationship between smoking and lung cancer / heart disease. This doesn't mean that everyone will develop lung cancer, but no one who understajnds these issues would claim that this holds true.

However, its important for us to remember that heart attacks and lung cancer tend to kill people at a relatively young age and it kills them in a fairly cheap manner. From the perspective of society, its probably better off to have folks puffing away and dying young, rather than having more and more unproductive geezers piling up.

From my perspective, the strongest arguments regarding regulating smoking have to do with the external effects. (Secondary smoke, infant birth weigh, stinking up the office etc). Your decision to smoke isn't just impacting yourself. You're making the folks arround you miserable.

If you are suggesting that smoking is good for the economy then I think I have seen evidence that is the opposite. Unfortunately I don't remember the source.

I do agree with you that the main (heck, only!) argument for smoking regulations is the inconvenience or damage to other people.

[jocdelevat]

My aunt and uncle die because of lung cancer but they never smoke and allow smokers around them. Curios their brothers and systers long ting time smokers still alive and healthy at age around 80. I do not want to say that smoking is a good for healthy but I think that too much blame and advertise goes to cigarets as the devil of all when we talk about cancer. I think pesticide that farmers use, the preservatives from foods and the smoke from cars should get the blame too as much as cigarets gets.

[shubi]

actually my fight is with world scintist group, they can go to moon wasting worlds valuable resources which we can use for other good things, they can creat atomic and nuclear devices to wipe us out, but they canot eleminate our health probl;ems in many cases, they are supposed to be the brain of the world, we train them for years with our tax dollars, are they blind, selfish or fish head, get a day job.
SOLUTION.
find a chemical or creat one that is not harmfull to us if we intake
the chemicals must be able to dissolve tar stain, nicotin and softaen lungs artirary
creat a device that will vaporize these chemicals, we inhale it at frequient interval

thank you very much, there is no such thing as WE CANOT ACCOMPLISH.

[helene_t]

The evidence for the carcinogenic effects of smoking is extremely strong. No other environmental causes of cancer have been demonstrated to affect the general public to anywhere near the same extent.

Saying that food preservatives deserve as much blame as tobacco is a sign of ignorance. It is possible that some people have acquired cancer from nitrosamines derived nitrite added to meat, but nitrite probably has saved much more people from colon cancer by replacing salt, which is a much more dangerous preservative. And as for the more frequently used preservatives there is not much evidence of a relation to cancer.

And yes, my mother who never smoked died of lung cancer at the age of 55, while non of the many chain smokers in my family got the disease. But such anecdotal evidence is completely irrelevant.

[cherdano]

shubi, on Oct 2 2007, 04:19 PM, said:

actually my fight is with world scintist group, they can go to moon wasting worlds valuable resources which we can use for other good things, they can creat atomic and nuclear devices to wipe us out, but they canot eleminate our health probl;ems in many cases, they are supposed to be the brain of the world, we train them for years with our tax dollars, are they blind, selfish or fish head, get a day job.
SOLUTION.
find a chemical or creat one that is not harmfull to us if we intake
the chemicals must be able to dissolve tar stain, nicotin and softaen lungs artirary
creat a device that will vaporize these chemicals, we inhale it at frequient interval

thank you very much, there is no such thing as WE CANOT ACCOMPLISH.

Thank you for the order sir, we will get back to you in a week with the SOLUTION.

[Gerben42]

Quote

But some anti smokers are going now 1 step further they want to save tax dollars now, smokers costing tax prayers too much money.

They do. Tax them more. By the way, tax unhealthy food more too. Simply calculate the added cost for health care of one Krusty-burger with cheese or one cigar or whatever and get an advance payment from whoever wants one.

Quote

actually my fight is with world scintist group, they can go to moon wasting worlds valuable resources which we can use for other good things, they can creat atomic and nuclear devices to wipe us out, but they canot eleminate our health probl;ems in many cases, they are supposed to be the brain of the world, we train them for years with our tax dollars, are they blind, selfish or fish head, get a day job.
SOLUTION.
find a chemical or creat one that is not harmfull to us if we intake
the chemicals must be able to dissolve tar stain, nicotin and softaen lungs artirary
creat a device that will vaporize these chemicals, we inhale it at frequient interval

thank you very much, there is no such thing as WE CANOT ACCOMPLISH.

This post is really a punch below the belt. First you insult scientists who by doing fundamental research have made possible that you can write this post in the first place, then you mess up your lungs and those of the people around you and want those scientists to save you?

Sorry but if I had that "miracle medicine", which is simply not the way science works, you wouldn't get any with that attitude.

[Trumpace]

shubi, on Oct 2 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

actually my fight is with world scintist group, they can go to moon wasting worlds valuable resources which we can use for other good things, they can creat atomic and nuclear devices to wipe us out, but they canot eleminate our health probl;ems in many cases, they are supposed to be the brain of the world, we train them for years with our tax dollars, are they blind, selfish or fish head, get a day job.
SOLUTION.
find a chemical or creat one that is not harmfull to us if we intake
the chemicals must be able to dissolve tar stain, nicotin and softaen lungs artirary
creat a device that will vaporize these chemicals, we inhale it at frequient interval

thank you very much, there is no such thing as WE CANOT ACCOMPLISH.

What?

Really, claiming that space travel + atomic research is a waste of time is too ridiculous for words. On top of that you want scientists to work on a chemical, so that you can continue to have that disgusting habit of yours?

It is really sad that you are not the only one with such an attitude...

[Elianna]

Trumpace, on Oct 2 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

shubi, on Oct 2 2007, 05:19 PM, said:

actually my fight is with world scintist group, they can go to moon wasting worlds valuable resources which we can use for other good things, they can creat atomic and nuclear devices to wipe us out, but they canot eleminate our health probl;ems in many cases, they are supposed to be the brain of the world, we train them for years with our tax dollars, are they blind, selfish or fish head, get a day job.
SOLUTION.
find a chemical or creat one that is not harmfull to us if we intake
the chemicals must be able to dissolve tar stain, nicotin and softaen lungs artirary
creat a device that will vaporize these chemicals, we inhale it at frequient interval

thank you very much, there is no such thing as WE CANOT ACCOMPLISH.

What?

Really, claiming that space travel + atomic research is a waste of time is too ridiculous for words.

Plus, scientists were not the ones to dedicate the money to the space program/atomic research. If you're really upset about that, blame certain governments.

[pclayton]

My Mom died of lung cancer. No one smokes in my home. I think its a filthy habit and I feel sorry for anyone that took up smoking, especially at a young age, and has problems quitting.

Having said that, the societal cost of smoking is not that great. Everyone dies and if a smoker chooses to suck on a cancer stick for 50 years and shortens his life its his own business. If he doesn't have insurance at 62 when he dies of lung cancer, he probably isn't going to have insurance at 85 when he dies a non-smoking related death. As a result the costs to society are negligible.

[irdoz]

There are huge numbers of studies of the economic impacts of smoking and of smoking bans. I did a quick google and the link below shows the typical sort of data presented (this is for Indiana) where huge economic impacts are shown.

Critics of these studies say they don't factor in the cost of health care for non-smokers who live long lives in retirement (and of course if we did call 'living' a 'cost' then we'd encourage products that caused death at retirement age because they were cost-effective...(tongue in cheek)). However, when you compare the lifetime health costs of smokers to non-smokers it turns out that the costs are double for msokers despite their reduced life expectancy. That is because smoking realted diseases are expensive to treat and often chronic.

So I'm not sure the costs are 'negligible'.

(http://www.state.in....co/economic.htm)

[helene_t]

I have sometimes heared smokers saying that "so I expect to live ten years less but who cares, the last ten years of ones life are not that fun anyway". This is a misconception. Smoking takes away (on average) ten years of healthy life. Smoke-related deaths don't have to be quick and painless. Also, smoking causes non-lethal diseases as well. Paradontodis and asthma to name a couple. Then again smoking reduces the risk of Parkinson's disease.

In a society where it's the norm that people stop working at a certain age regardless of health, smoking could in theory be benificial for the economy, since a healthy 80 YO, although cheaper than a sick 80 YO, is more expensive than a dead 80 YO. IMHO this is a perveted succes criteria for the "economy". We might as well force people to save all their holidays for the last five years before they retire, and then kill them by then.

It's probably not so easy to calculate the net impact on the economy from smoking. Saying that they are "neglible"is a bold statement - there are huge amounts f money involved and would be a funny coincidence if it approximately evened out.

[Codo]

This is a typical discussion from people who believe in science and the guys who just believe their own experience:
The first part tells us: Smoking kills you and it is extreme expensive for the society.
They can proofe this with statistics, trials and documents from scientist and they believe that these scientist do not err.

The others know: my aunt smokes and is 80 and Dicky Miller died at the age of 25 on cancer without one cigarett ever. They ignore the science from others and tell us their personal believes

Your choice to decide whom you follow.

[irdoz]

One smoker living to 80 proves nothing.

Compare 100 randomly picked smokers to 100 randomly picked (but other wise matched for class and age etc.) non-smokers . 100% of the time the life expectancy of the non-smokers will be much higher than the smokers.

Those who believe in one anecdote as equivalent evidence to statistical evidence are practising something called denial and self-deceoption.

As a medical practitioner I get this 'one story' anecdote form fo denial all the time. A quick tour of the lung cancer ward to see a few other 'anecdotes' seems to work wonders.

[matmat]

Codo, on Oct 3 2007, 08:14 AM, said:

The others know: my aunt smokes and is 80 and Dicky Miller died at the age of 25 on cancer without one cigarett ever. They ignore the science from others and tell us their personal believes

that's fine and dandy
notice that science doesn't say "you will die when you're 70 if you smoke." science/statistics/whatnot say that if you smoke, your chance of living past 70 is smaller than if you do not smoke...

don't know much about this survey, but i just googled and found it:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-2...ables/t013a.htm

note the lines that list the 45-64 and 65- over age-groups.

the ratio of people in these age-groups is:

overall ratio -- 8.4:4 (~2.1)

smokers -- 1.8:0.4 (~ 4.25)

smoked, but stopped -- 4.0:2.1 (~1.9)

never smoked -- 2.4:1.4 ( ~1.7)

what does that mean?
means there are lots and lots and lots of lil' ol' grandmas puffing away at age 80... also means that there would be a lot more lil' ol' grandmas if they weren't chain smoking...