|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
| Ban Cheese doodles |
| Yes! |
|
55% |
[ 21 ] |
| No! |
|
44% |
[ 17 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 38 |
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 14:37 Post subject: |
|
 |
I don't smoke and I think smokers smell like shit, so I agree with the prevention programs. I do however understand that smokers think the governments have started a vendetta against them. I also think it's hypocritical (why not ban smoking altogether if it's so evil?) since the government is fine with taking in huge amounts of tax money. Besides all that you have the "why not go hardcore on alcohol too?" question.
It's all a matter of opinion, but the numbers you mention do show a very siginificant relation between smoking and cancer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 15:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sin317 wrote: | | They proved now, that second hand smoke is basically a big hoax and it doesn't affect anyone on a health level. |
Did they now 
| chiv wrote: | | don't quote me on that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 15:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| cirithungol wrote: | | Sin317 wrote: | | They proved now, that second hand smoke is basically a big hoax and it doesn't affect anyone on a health level. |
Did they now |
hm yes they did.
| Quote: | Study Shows No Association Between Passive Smoke and Health Risks
May 15, 2003 -- A controversial new study that questions the health risks of being exposed to secondhand smoke -- a factor often said to contribute to some 50,000 American deaths each year -- has outraged some health officials.
The new study, to be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal, shows no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Many health agencies, including the U.S. Surgeon General's Office, have long said that secondhand smoke boosts the risk of heart disease by about 30% and lung cancer risk by 25% in nonsmokers.
"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."
For his finding, Enstrom used data from an American Cancer Society (ACS) study -- the Cancer Prevention Study that began in 1959 as one of the first major smoking studies. It involved some 1 million Americans across the country; Enstrom focused on some 36,000 nonsmoking Californians whose spouses had smoked, part of the 118,000 state residents in the trial. Although the study ended in 1972, Enstrom traced the cause of death of some 7,000 of those participants until 1998.
In fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems. In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease.
By Sid Kirchheimer
WebMD Medical News |
edit : oh and i forgot to add ...
BITCH.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 17:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies
On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris and other major cigarette manufacturers.[158] Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[4] In particular, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had:
conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking;
publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and
destroyed documents relevant to litigation.
The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants. The ruling also concluded that tobacco companies continue today to fraudulently deny the health effects of ETS exposure.[4]
On May 22, 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court's 2006 ruling.[159][160][161] |
POOP.
You can of course attempt to discredit this, but what would make your own source more reliable?
If anything, the only thing that is proven is that it's absolutely harmful ("scientific consensus" is the smart word they like to use). And you claim that consensus has been overriden based on that quote you supplied.
There is no accepted research that is deemed as "proof" that it's harmless.
You can use any other excuse to defend your position on banning smoking, but denying the ill-effects seems silly to me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 18:11 Post subject: |
|
|
So you "proved" there is no link by posting a single discredited, decade-old study, which coincidentally was found to have been funded by... you guessed it: the tobacco industry.
I'll refrain from calling you a bitch, since I am a civilised human being.
| chiv wrote: | | don't quote me on that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 18:37 Post subject: |
|
|
hey, say what you want, but the whole thing, imho, is totally taken out of proportion. With all the crap we eat and inhale today (besides smoke. I'm talking exhaust gases etc.)
Oh and yeah i used this thread instead of the other, because it already had an ongoing discussion anyway.
Oh and if you don't want smokers where you eat, good, go to a non smoking restaurant.
It's like the non smokers who complain all the time (those little bitches i'd like to smack on the head) are always standing next to a smoker JUST SO THEY CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM.
They're also acting like every single person in every single restaurant is a smoker and out to get them ...
pathetic little creatures, really.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 18:49 Post subject: |
|
|
so, you can't eat INSIDE the restaurant, where nobody smokes ?
Must be a really hard thing to do ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 31st Jul 2013 18:53 Post subject: |
|
|
May be I want to enjoy the fresh air and weather outside while I eat...
Also, I already answered that a few post above:
| Quote: | | One point that was raised was eating outside... where would I go if smokers are sitting all around me? Should I pack up my launch? Go back inside? If so, how's that any different from smokers being forced outside? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Aug 2013 19:47 Post subject: |
|
|
DON'T YOU DARE BAN MY PRECIOUS CHEESE DOODLES!
I eat atleast 2 bags a week when I work. I can't work without them!
I hate you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73383
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 2nd Aug 2013 21:10 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
easy enough i think.
