2nd hand smoke = Bullshit
- Thread starter Harry Gypsna
- Start date
NYC Council Approves Ban On Indoor E-Cigarette Use
Because we know buying 20 rather than 5 means less smoking.
Because we know buying 20 rather than 5 means less smoking.
The OrigF/clred
Member
answer is in post #22 in this thread -
it becomes a case of puppy chasing it's tail - cig tobacco is taxed by feds $26.80 per lb of finished product. Cartons of cigs used to contain, on avg .76 lbs of tobacco per carton in the 1970s when the feds started seriously raising tobacco taxes.
That amounts to over $20 in fed excise tax per carton - to reduce that major cost, simply reduce the amount of tobacco. Today, the avg carton has .46 lb of tobacco. That's a 39.47% reduction in the amt of tobacco and the tax on it, so basically a savings in cost per carton of @ $8.00. But they couldn't or didn't want the cigs to shrink down in size, so they dicovered "puffing" or expand the tobacco using CO2 gas (think in terms of Rice Krispies, the breakfast cereal) - But in expanding the tobacco, it burnt hotter & faster which also changed the taste. So they added one chem to retard burn rate and another to restore the orig taste. There are a few other examples explained in post 22
I don't like smells of cigarette smokes. One time I am in a line for fotball game and this fellow, he could not have been any taller than 170cm lights up cigarette. I say that we are forced to be together in a line and he chould wait until we are through. He told me that it was completely legal to smoke it outsides and blow at this girl behind him in the line. I pick this man up to throw him out of the line and before I could throw him this girl and her husband start to beat this man. Instead of throwing him I just hold him up as those two beat on him. I throw him out eventually for his own safety. Only in Seattle
The US or any government trying to accuse the tobacco companies of anything is bogus as long as they too profit from it. There is a terrible mixed message in America because we are told how bad tobacco is and yet the government doesn't ban it. Yet marijuana which far less harmful is deemed so bad that the government can throw you in prison if they catch you with it. The US is well aware of how addictive and harmful tobacco is, that was common knowledge as far back as the 60's otherwise why has it always been illegal to smoke in an elevator? If the government wanted to, they could decide to make it illegal. They don't want to though because they depend too much on the sin tax revenue to make their bloated budgets work. So they compromise by declaring it bad for you and not stopping the tobacco companies from making it more addictive when the added taxes begin to deter people.
That actually wrong on the part of you and the couple, just because you don't like something someone is doing isn't legal grounds to lay your hands on another person to force them to do something or to inflict harm. Granted the guy was acting like a dick and brought it on himself but that still doesn't make it right. The only one who maybe had a right to react was the girl or her husband but it's a pretty big stretch to argue someone blowing smoke on you warrants self defense thru assault.
I say if the government is going to allow smoking then they have to allow reasonable areas of use and if people don't want to be exposed to it then they could choose a different option. Like in this case, maybe there could be a smoking line and a non smoking line and if the smoking line is somehow less convenient for a smoker or the non smoking line is some how less convenient for the non smoker then they'll each have to accept that such is the cost of compromise.
Actually Hemp intentionally blowing smoke at someone is an assault and battery, however the defense for that cannot be escalation (punching someone). You first have the obligation to use equal force...
Smack the cig out of his hand or mouth and grind it out.
NFL parking lots and entry lines are interesting places, rowdy fans carrying their last beer with them and making noise! I expect this is especially true in Seattle, home of the 12th Man. The guy was being a dick and found some shenanigans as he wanted. I'm just glad their were no pigs, security, or lawyers involved.
Smack the cig out of his hand or mouth and grind it out.
NFL parking lots and entry lines are interesting places, rowdy fans carrying their last beer with them and making noise! I expect this is especially true in Seattle, home of the 12th Man. The guy was being a dick and found some shenanigans as he wanted. I'm just glad their were no pigs, security, or lawyers involved.
That's why I said the girl or her husband on her behalf maybe had the right to react since he blew the smoke at her and she wasn't even involved in the dialog at the point. I was responding more to the poster who said he held the guy while two other people beat on him. I'm sorry but that's totally over the top reaction wise. A 3 on 1 smack down for a cloud of smoke that is less harmful then the air you breath standing by the road in a city like Seattle?
This analogy may come off as silly to some of you, but I find it to be somewhat valid. First off, I want to say that I am indeed a smoker. I've been smoking since 16-17, so I've been at it for quite some time, pack a day plus. But on the flipside, I do understand that it is a disgusting harmful habit, and the smell is indeed quite wretched. Without an air freshener, my car smells like absolute shit. People that smoke in their homes, make their homes smell like absolute shit. When I quit for about a 6 month period (twice), I too realized that even just standing in someone's vicinity while smoking, smelled like absolute shit. You get my point.
So on to the analogy.
I find that fast food, McDonalds particularly, but really anything of the like, smells probably -worse- to me than cigarette smoke ever has. Not to be too vulgar, but to me, the smell pretty much seems as though the food has already been processed through a human body, and has passed through one's intestines and exited their rectum - with a faint "burger" smell somewhere in the mix.
When someone comes over to my house with a bag of McD's, pulls out their BigMac/double cheeseburgers etc - it bothers me so much to the point I almost want to tell them to please not bring that crap inside my home. When I am out and about with a buddy and he wants to pass through a drive-through to pick up some of this disgusting excuse for food, I almost want to step outside of the car while he finishes his meal. So why do I not kick my friends out when they come over with their BigMacs, or ask them nicely if they would please step away from me for a moment while they finish their fart-smelling burger? Because that would make me come off as a prissy, snooty, stuck-up fucking dickhead.
I don't understand, why would somebody want to eat that crap regularly, and shave years off of their because they have no respect for their bodies? Well, probably the same reason that I smoke - I know it's bad, I know it's gross and not good for my body or my health, but I do it anyway.
I do understand that when a non-smoker actually breathes in cigarette smoke it may bother them to some degree, maybe even a large degree if they are asthmatic and extremely sensitive. But nowadays with the laws in 90% of states, it's a very rare occurrence that this situation would happen, where you've actually directly inhaled a significant amount of smoke to be a risk to your health, assuming you are asthmatic, or something of the like.
I'm kind of more so referring to non-smokers' complaints about the smell.
Sometimes when I'm standing in line at sports games, concert venues etc. I'll be the unlucky fellow whom ends up standing behind an overweight individual, who may or may not have showered in the last 72-96 hours, and is emitting the most horrific, putrid aroma of offensive body odor. What do I do? Well, I'll weigh my options. I will say to myself "Hmm, I could either tough this out, because I don't want to burn my spot in line, OR, I could just ask this gentlemen if he could please step to the back of the line, because his body odor has become increasingly overwhelming and is really bothering me to the point of feeling sick to my stomach." Or of course I always have the option to move to the back of the line myself.
I'm a very nice, generous, and respectful individual. Sometimes when people are doing things that I find disgusting, particularly foul smelling in this case, I just keep to myself - because I don't want to offend them. Or, if it bothers me that much, I consider myself simply unlucky and remove myself from the situation.
Now, to clarify, when I am standing in these lines, I make it a point to try to not offend people with my cigarette. If I crack, I'll hold it up in the air over my head and do my very best as to not aim smoke in any unsuspecting individual's direction. When I happen to be somewhere downtown and I'm walking down the street past a restaurant with an outdoor patio, I do realize that if I were to blow smoke in the direction of people having a meal, that would be a bit offensive, and refrain from doing so. However, if I am out in public somewhere, having a cigarette, and someone taps me on the shoulder and tells me to please step aside because the smell that I am creating is offensive, well, they have just as much ability to carry on themselves.
My point is, us smokers truly do understand the negative effects of smoking. Trust me. But sometimes when some of you complain, somewhat irrationally, simply about the smell of cigarettes, it tends to frustrate me a little bit - referring back to my analogies.
As for the actual harm of second hand smoke - well, I think we could agree that the media has surely exaggerated the level of harm of second hand smoke over the last couple decades, at some point. Do any of you remember commercials about second hand smoke being WORSE than first hand smoke? And that an individual is more likely to get cancer from breathing second hand smoke than in fact, a smoker? Anti-smoking advertisements/marketing is still around, but howcome we don't see claims like I mentioned in the previous sentence? Because it is obviously exaggerated and the claims were bogus to some degree. That's not to say that children being inside of a smokers home aren't at risk for damaging their developing lungs. Nor is it to say that a full grown adult wouldn't see some sort of adverse affect from being exposed to a smoke filled room for extended periods of time. I just think that some of us, smokers and non-smokers, can agree that the 2nd hand smoke propaganda has clearly gone over the line to the point of exaggeration at some point.
And some of you non-smokers go a little bit over the top when it comes to chastising us smokers. You don't have to like it, but you don't have to be downright offensive and rude like some of you are.
/endstonedrant
Peace, love and respect to all.
So on to the analogy.
I find that fast food, McDonalds particularly, but really anything of the like, smells probably -worse- to me than cigarette smoke ever has. Not to be too vulgar, but to me, the smell pretty much seems as though the food has already been processed through a human body, and has passed through one's intestines and exited their rectum - with a faint "burger" smell somewhere in the mix.
When someone comes over to my house with a bag of McD's, pulls out their BigMac/double cheeseburgers etc - it bothers me so much to the point I almost want to tell them to please not bring that crap inside my home. When I am out and about with a buddy and he wants to pass through a drive-through to pick up some of this disgusting excuse for food, I almost want to step outside of the car while he finishes his meal. So why do I not kick my friends out when they come over with their BigMacs, or ask them nicely if they would please step away from me for a moment while they finish their fart-smelling burger? Because that would make me come off as a prissy, snooty, stuck-up fucking dickhead.
I don't understand, why would somebody want to eat that crap regularly, and shave years off of their because they have no respect for their bodies? Well, probably the same reason that I smoke - I know it's bad, I know it's gross and not good for my body or my health, but I do it anyway.
I do understand that when a non-smoker actually breathes in cigarette smoke it may bother them to some degree, maybe even a large degree if they are asthmatic and extremely sensitive. But nowadays with the laws in 90% of states, it's a very rare occurrence that this situation would happen, where you've actually directly inhaled a significant amount of smoke to be a risk to your health, assuming you are asthmatic, or something of the like.
I'm kind of more so referring to non-smokers' complaints about the smell.
Sometimes when I'm standing in line at sports games, concert venues etc. I'll be the unlucky fellow whom ends up standing behind an overweight individual, who may or may not have showered in the last 72-96 hours, and is emitting the most horrific, putrid aroma of offensive body odor. What do I do? Well, I'll weigh my options. I will say to myself "Hmm, I could either tough this out, because I don't want to burn my spot in line, OR, I could just ask this gentlemen if he could please step to the back of the line, because his body odor has become increasingly overwhelming and is really bothering me to the point of feeling sick to my stomach." Or of course I always have the option to move to the back of the line myself.
I'm a very nice, generous, and respectful individual. Sometimes when people are doing things that I find disgusting, particularly foul smelling in this case, I just keep to myself - because I don't want to offend them. Or, if it bothers me that much, I consider myself simply unlucky and remove myself from the situation.
Now, to clarify, when I am standing in these lines, I make it a point to try to not offend people with my cigarette. If I crack, I'll hold it up in the air over my head and do my very best as to not aim smoke in any unsuspecting individual's direction. When I happen to be somewhere downtown and I'm walking down the street past a restaurant with an outdoor patio, I do realize that if I were to blow smoke in the direction of people having a meal, that would be a bit offensive, and refrain from doing so. However, if I am out in public somewhere, having a cigarette, and someone taps me on the shoulder and tells me to please step aside because the smell that I am creating is offensive, well, they have just as much ability to carry on themselves.
My point is, us smokers truly do understand the negative effects of smoking. Trust me. But sometimes when some of you complain, somewhat irrationally, simply about the smell of cigarettes, it tends to frustrate me a little bit - referring back to my analogies.
As for the actual harm of second hand smoke - well, I think we could agree that the media has surely exaggerated the level of harm of second hand smoke over the last couple decades, at some point. Do any of you remember commercials about second hand smoke being WORSE than first hand smoke? And that an individual is more likely to get cancer from breathing second hand smoke than in fact, a smoker? Anti-smoking advertisements/marketing is still around, but howcome we don't see claims like I mentioned in the previous sentence? Because it is obviously exaggerated and the claims were bogus to some degree. That's not to say that children being inside of a smokers home aren't at risk for damaging their developing lungs. Nor is it to say that a full grown adult wouldn't see some sort of adverse affect from being exposed to a smoke filled room for extended periods of time. I just think that some of us, smokers and non-smokers, can agree that the 2nd hand smoke propaganda has clearly gone over the line to the point of exaggeration at some point.
And some of you non-smokers go a little bit over the top when it comes to chastising us smokers. You don't have to like it, but you don't have to be downright offensive and rude like some of you are.
/endstonedrant
Peace, love and respect to all.
To quote bill hicks, I might give up smoking, If I didn't think I would turn into one of you people.
Did you know, that the highly scientific method which they use to "Prove" passive smoking, amounts to asking "never smoked" lung cancer sufferers, if they ever remember being in a smokey enviroment. Oh, yes, that's a slam dunk that is. No risk of recall/response bias at all there.....
and what if the answer would be "yes, I worked in a NYC bar 5-6 nights a week for 17 years."
are you suggesting somehow that question & answer has no merit? You're pretty cavalier about other peoples health concerns.
You can be sure that along w/the 'smokey environment' question that 'workplace environments/hazards' with airborne particulates would be another valid query.
Being indignant and uncaring about others feelings ain't ever gonna buy you an inch in an argument. However if we were born with a lit cig sticking out of our maws I think I might see your side of this debate.
dont forget asthma bronchitis and heart disease are also linked to second hand smoke
if second hand smoke was benign why wouldn't the tobacco companies challenge the courts by presenting the truth and having all the unjust smoking bans be lifted thus increasing market share?
they can't because it has serious heath ramifications
if second hand smoke was benign why wouldn't the tobacco companies challenge the courts by presenting the truth and having all the unjust smoking bans be lifted thus increasing market share?
they can't because it has serious heath ramifications
The OrigF/clred
Member
my only problem with non-smokers is that so many are so frigging hardcore and in your face, but they'd never tolerate the same treatment from others, no matter how right those "others" might be.
I was in a watch collectors' forum, a pretty congenial / relaxed atmosphere forum at that. One of the long time posters chimes up one day with a rant about smokers and how inconsiderate they are. What inpregnated this rant was someone smoking in the car ahead of him ON THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY and how the odor had made him want to wretch and made his throat close up at the same time.
That poster was or is a musician, and was always regaling folks with the blues musicians he'd gotten to meet, play with, warm up the crowd for, written songs for etc and of the famous old music halls he'd played in, landmark historic buildings - there was one he'd identified in San Francisco that he'd described playing in a number of time ( i can never remember the name of), but a pretty famous music hall that every big name in music had played in, from the Dead to Beethoven.
Anyway, as innocently as i could, i asked if his "smelling the smoke" from a car 300 yards ahead of him (his estimate) on the interstate wasn't possibly a subjective/emotional assessment, due to his seeing them smoking and his dislike of cig smoke.
Man, the strong emotional ugly response I got was way overboard but obviously he felt offended that i'd even questioned him. For the record, a bird dog could smell that smoke, but a human doesn't normally have the olfactory ability to discern cig smoke from hemp smoke, car exhaust, truck diesel exhaust , perfumes etc all mixed together at 70 mph - sorry, i'll never believe it. Think about the volume of exhaust gas being pumped by one car, much less the hundreds ahead of you on the interstate, compared to the volume of smoke from one smoker.
anyway, my response threw him into silence - i only questioned the possibility that it was a subjective assessment on his part, as the music halls he'd described must have smelled, to someone with as sensitive a nose as his, had to be like playing in a giant dirty ashtray, given the population of smokers in the music world in days past, whether musicians or the audiences, and with most of those buildings being wooden structures, it would seem like they'd have absorbed an awful lot of tobacco smoke - and i was just trying to reconcile his assessment with those stories of all the halls he'd played in, that he'd never once mentioned any reaction to the smell of smoke, no mention of any discomfort much less wanting to vomit and throat closing up at the same time.
The rabidly outspoken non-smokers are EMUs (emotion based logic individuals) - explaining cognitive logic to them is kind of like explaining a train schedule to a dog - he'll sit there and look like he understands, then go off in the corner to lick his ass. (i'm plagurizing that from someone, just can't remember who).
Somewhere earlier in this thread, a non-smoker, in voicing his disdain for smokers, described them as "yellow teeth" something (don't recall the phrase), like smokers are straight from the movie "Deliverance". I wondered if that individual realized what a hypocritical ass he was being. I also wonder how he's going to react when the next generation of sanitized EMUs describes and condemns him as a smelly, lice infested ole dope smoking hippy, which would be an analogous stereotype.
For the record, i'm not happy i smoke, but i do smoke and i enjoy it the same as a lot of folks enjoy smoking pot. And don't give me any BS that smoking weed doesn't cause cancer - it's not the tobacco or nicotine that cause cancer, it's the by-products of the combustion process that creates the smoke (tars, arsen etc), the same compounds i'll venture are present in pot smoke.
I started when i was 16 - hell, my childhood doctor was a chain smoker so that seemed to serve as an indication of it's relative safety back then (btw he died of a heart attack in his early 50s).
rant switch off
I was in a watch collectors' forum, a pretty congenial / relaxed atmosphere forum at that. One of the long time posters chimes up one day with a rant about smokers and how inconsiderate they are. What inpregnated this rant was someone smoking in the car ahead of him ON THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY and how the odor had made him want to wretch and made his throat close up at the same time.
That poster was or is a musician, and was always regaling folks with the blues musicians he'd gotten to meet, play with, warm up the crowd for, written songs for etc and of the famous old music halls he'd played in, landmark historic buildings - there was one he'd identified in San Francisco that he'd described playing in a number of time ( i can never remember the name of), but a pretty famous music hall that every big name in music had played in, from the Dead to Beethoven.
Anyway, as innocently as i could, i asked if his "smelling the smoke" from a car 300 yards ahead of him (his estimate) on the interstate wasn't possibly a subjective/emotional assessment, due to his seeing them smoking and his dislike of cig smoke.
Man, the strong emotional ugly response I got was way overboard but obviously he felt offended that i'd even questioned him. For the record, a bird dog could smell that smoke, but a human doesn't normally have the olfactory ability to discern cig smoke from hemp smoke, car exhaust, truck diesel exhaust , perfumes etc all mixed together at 70 mph - sorry, i'll never believe it. Think about the volume of exhaust gas being pumped by one car, much less the hundreds ahead of you on the interstate, compared to the volume of smoke from one smoker.
anyway, my response threw him into silence - i only questioned the possibility that it was a subjective assessment on his part, as the music halls he'd described must have smelled, to someone with as sensitive a nose as his, had to be like playing in a giant dirty ashtray, given the population of smokers in the music world in days past, whether musicians or the audiences, and with most of those buildings being wooden structures, it would seem like they'd have absorbed an awful lot of tobacco smoke - and i was just trying to reconcile his assessment with those stories of all the halls he'd played in, that he'd never once mentioned any reaction to the smell of smoke, no mention of any discomfort much less wanting to vomit and throat closing up at the same time.
The rabidly outspoken non-smokers are EMUs (emotion based logic individuals) - explaining cognitive logic to them is kind of like explaining a train schedule to a dog - he'll sit there and look like he understands, then go off in the corner to lick his ass. (i'm plagurizing that from someone, just can't remember who).
Somewhere earlier in this thread, a non-smoker, in voicing his disdain for smokers, described them as "yellow teeth" something (don't recall the phrase), like smokers are straight from the movie "Deliverance". I wondered if that individual realized what a hypocritical ass he was being. I also wonder how he's going to react when the next generation of sanitized EMUs describes and condemns him as a smelly, lice infested ole dope smoking hippy, which would be an analogous stereotype.
For the record, i'm not happy i smoke, but i do smoke and i enjoy it the same as a lot of folks enjoy smoking pot. And don't give me any BS that smoking weed doesn't cause cancer - it's not the tobacco or nicotine that cause cancer, it's the by-products of the combustion process that creates the smoke (tars, arsen etc), the same compounds i'll venture are present in pot smoke.
I started when i was 16 - hell, my childhood doctor was a chain smoker so that seemed to serve as an indication of it's relative safety back then (btw he died of a heart attack in his early 50s).
rant switch off
Are they?
Proven by what method? All these things a linked to smoking, but how have they proven a link to them and so called 2nd hand smoke? did they ask non smoking heart disease sufferers if they ever sat somewhere smokey--how scientific. How do they control for bacon and lard? Asthma, yes lots of things trigger it, but again I say, cars are not being ordered off the roads, and particulate from engines is the main cause of Asthma (here in the UK at least)
The latest study, which this thread was started about, is a cohort study, not just a case of asking people. It has followed 76,000 people for 10 years. The university is embarrassed by the results as, once again, it doesn't show what the prevailing view demands. Hence they mentioned "Borderline statistical significance" among those who had lived with a smoker for 30 plus years. In research, there is no such thing as borderline statistical significance, It is either statistically significant, or it is not.
If passive smoking is legit, why did the WHO bury their study?
Anyway, like I have said before, anybody who uses motorised transport, powered by an internal combustion engine, has nothing to say to me about pollution and emissions that are harmful to health. It is hilarious when an anti smoker starts pontificating, when his car throws out more in one second than I do in months.
I could just about get over the not being able to smoke in any pub, when they extend it to outdoor spaces they can get fucked. When outdoors you are breathing in much more shit from cars and industry, than you would if you lived your entire life in a smokey jazz club.
Regarding recall bias. Basically people want an explanation for what has happened to them, so if you suggest that something may have been the cause, they are more likely to remember being in such a situation. This is why asking lung cancer sufferers who have never smoked if they were ever somewhere smokey is worthless.
Also, what I said about fuck courtesy. I don't smoke in cars, because I myself don't like to hotbox. I would never dream of sparking up in a non smokers house, and I don't smoke around kids so as not to encourage them to take up this expensive addiction--to lovely lovely cigs.
I am just sick of being the scapegoat for non smokers cars.
EDIT This post has been edited. I mistakenly said that the Stanford study was over 30 years, when it is in fact over 10 years. I had 30 years in my head from the 30 year non smoker living with a smoker group. My apologies for the error.
Last edited:
Statistically speaking, eating mushrooms and wearing a bra have a higher cancer risk than passive smoking. So does drinking water.
Robert E Madden,
Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA .
“To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that second hand smoke causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda.”
Jyoti Patel MD of Northewestern uni school of medicine says "The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behaviour:to not live in a society where smoking is the norm" Social engineering!
Smoking bans are idological, not evidence based, just like drug prohibition.
In the study that the WHO tried to bury, results showed that children who lived in smokey houses, had a 22% LOWER chance of developing lung cancer, when compared with children who didn't grow up in smokey homes.
- There are no body bags filled with those who have developed tumors or heart disease as a result of second-hand smoke. The body bags are filled, however, with scientists and physicians who dare go against the anti-smoking lobby and state the obvious – the science isn’t there. Dr. Terry Simpson
- As a civil servant and dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held by my duty to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man. Dr. Philippe Even
- I compare many aspects of ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet Union during the period of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat "Lysenko pseudoscience." Dr. James Enstrom
- I was driven from my last academic position by a calculated concerted campaign of efforts to censor my THR research and make my life unpleasant – and that of my students (yes, they attacked my students) and supporters. Prof. Carl V. Phillips
- This is McCarthyism in action. Quelling debate. Stifling opposition. Expelling and blacklisting anyone who dares express dissent. No wonder the tobacco control movement has gone off the deep end in its fanaticism. Anyone who tries to stop it knows that they will be censored or expelled. You have no choice but to go along with the groupthink. Dr. Michael Siegel
- I am now retired, I feel free to say what I think.(...) I no longer have to worry about my reputation. But I would have probably not written this book if I had continued to practice. Dr. Jean Jacques Bourque
- It would be very inconvenient for the WHO, should it turn out that their warnings about the health risks of secondhand smoke were based on gross exaggerations. And so one may guess the means and resources they use to fight dissident opinion and critical inquiry. I got to know them all: Deception, concealment, falsification, control of the professional media (and thus of professional interactions), as well as intimidation which goes so far that I’ve ceased to wonder why in the professional world hardly anyone dares to object when it comes to the subject of passive smoke. Prof. Romano Grieshaber
- Anyone who takes the (passive smoking) science seriously and wants to assess its strengths and weaknesses is viewed as a threat to be neutralized. This situation has given rise to extraordinary attacks on the integrity of established scientists whose only documentable fault is to report findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Dr. Geoffrey Kabat
LOL, anonymous neggers with tiny penises.
Robert E Madden,
Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA .
“To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that second hand smoke causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda.”
Jyoti Patel MD of Northewestern uni school of medicine says "The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behaviour:to not live in a society where smoking is the norm" Social engineering!
Smoking bans are idological, not evidence based, just like drug prohibition.
In the study that the WHO tried to bury, results showed that children who lived in smokey houses, had a 22% LOWER chance of developing lung cancer, when compared with children who didn't grow up in smokey homes.
- There are no body bags filled with those who have developed tumors or heart disease as a result of second-hand smoke. The body bags are filled, however, with scientists and physicians who dare go against the anti-smoking lobby and state the obvious – the science isn’t there. Dr. Terry Simpson
- As a civil servant and dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held by my duty to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man. Dr. Philippe Even
- I compare many aspects of ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet Union during the period of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat "Lysenko pseudoscience." Dr. James Enstrom
- I was driven from my last academic position by a calculated concerted campaign of efforts to censor my THR research and make my life unpleasant – and that of my students (yes, they attacked my students) and supporters. Prof. Carl V. Phillips
- This is McCarthyism in action. Quelling debate. Stifling opposition. Expelling and blacklisting anyone who dares express dissent. No wonder the tobacco control movement has gone off the deep end in its fanaticism. Anyone who tries to stop it knows that they will be censored or expelled. You have no choice but to go along with the groupthink. Dr. Michael Siegel
- I am now retired, I feel free to say what I think.(...) I no longer have to worry about my reputation. But I would have probably not written this book if I had continued to practice. Dr. Jean Jacques Bourque
- It would be very inconvenient for the WHO, should it turn out that their warnings about the health risks of secondhand smoke were based on gross exaggerations. And so one may guess the means and resources they use to fight dissident opinion and critical inquiry. I got to know them all: Deception, concealment, falsification, control of the professional media (and thus of professional interactions), as well as intimidation which goes so far that I’ve ceased to wonder why in the professional world hardly anyone dares to object when it comes to the subject of passive smoke. Prof. Romano Grieshaber
- Anyone who takes the (passive smoking) science seriously and wants to assess its strengths and weaknesses is viewed as a threat to be neutralized. This situation has given rise to extraordinary attacks on the integrity of established scientists whose only documentable fault is to report findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Dr. Geoffrey Kabat
LOL, anonymous neggers with tiny penises.
Last edited:
the taxes on tobacco pay a lot of bills.with the decrease of smokers uncle sam needs a new source of tax money. expect mj to fiil that bill and become heavily taxed too
Okay - I do agree that hot boxing a restaurant, bowling alley etc with cigarette smoke, and throwing a non-smoker in there for 8 hours a day would quite likely have some sort of health ramification, that is common sense of course. A child living in a house with a smoker that smokes inside the home, would quite likely have some sort of ramifications with their developing lungs. No doubt.
But to say that a "2nd hand smoker" will have more health ramifications than an actual smoker is simply propaganda that used to be spread a decade ago, is an exaggeration with an obvious agenda.
I also think that people being so damn snooty and offended simply by the smell of cigarettes is something that people could probably keep to themselves 80% of the time.
I'm a respectful smoker around people. And people can also be respectful non-smokers. Smoke smokers are pretty cutthroat about it, I get it, but it's fueled by the non-smoker community treating us like we just pulled out a glass tube and smoked a crack rock right in public.
There's a happy medium somewhere.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
Love, peace, and respect to all
I'm out of this thread 
But to say that a "2nd hand smoker" will have more health ramifications than an actual smoker is simply propaganda that used to be spread a decade ago, is an exaggeration with an obvious agenda.
I also think that people being so damn snooty and offended simply by the smell of cigarettes is something that people could probably keep to themselves 80% of the time.
I'm a respectful smoker around people. And people can also be respectful non-smokers. Smoke smokers are pretty cutthroat about it, I get it, but it's fueled by the non-smoker community treating us like we just pulled out a glass tube and smoked a crack rock right in public.
There's a happy medium somewhere.
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
Love, peace, and respect to all
I'm out of this thread
^^^ this
The more they get in my face and make me out to be Charles Manson, for enjoying a ciggie, the more militant I get. Can't help it, I've always been that way. If I was dangling from a great height, and you told me to give you my hand, I would probably fall to my death rather than "Do as I am told".
