Let smokers smoke.

Post Reply New Topic

We can smell you.

A lot of mechanics say that emission control devices are unnecessary for cars because they impede the cars performance.

They might have had a genetic pre-disposition. That does not mean they were destined to get it.......it means they where more likely to get it than someone without that genetic-predisposition. Also if the number one cause of lung cancer is smoking where are the studies that prove the majority of people with lung cancer are smokers? and for the second hand smoke how exactly do they determine it was specifically that and not other kinds of smoke or the carcinogens in the air?

I guess I'll look it up...and even if that is the case, how are they so sure there weren't other factors involved like the ones I mentioned in my last post?

I meant like how would I determine it? If someones not smoking a cigarette I cannot just assume they are a non-smoker especially around where I live....it would make more sense to assume they are a smoker.

Yeah and sometimes I smell like beer and marijuana to or sometimes just straight up BO......what of it?

Los Angeles generates a lot of smog.

Why is it that few people argue that an asbestos miner who gets mesothelioma got it from somewhere other than asbestos, whereas a smoker who gets lung cancer "was probably genetically predisposed, or other factors gave it?" I'll tell you why: Industry

Because a smoker has a subjective opinion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130635.htm

Last edited by ArrantPariah on 16 Apr 2012, 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When ever I smoke I always make sure to put body spray on that away they can't smell smoke on me problem solved.

I'll first address your citation: We can't know for sure what percentage of lung cancer cases is caused mainly or exclusively by smoking, since smokers tend to be less concerned about their health in general and are exposed to a number of risk factors. Most smokers don't eat enough fruit and vegetables, and therefore have a low antioxidant intake. Regular exercise is also not very popular with smokers, and many smokers drink alcohol and consume convenience food with carcinogenic preservatives. The cancer risk of atypical smokers who eat healthy and get sufficient exercise might be lower.

However, let's assume that this number is correct and smoking does indeed cause 90% of all lung cancers. I wrote that smoking increases the lung cancer risk by a factor of 10. A 10 times higher risk of lung cancer means that 9 out of 10 cancer victims will be smokers, which is exactly the same percentage. I can also support this number with some links from medical and anti-smoking campaign websites:


Source: http://www.stop-smoking-programs.org/lung-cancer.html


Source: http://www.beverlyfund.org/facts.html


Source: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/healthy-livi ... cancer.htm

Now for the 0.02%. Ironically, I found this number on the exact same Center for Disease Control website that you quoted:


Source: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/age.htm

So, my statement "the chance of a 30 year old person to develop lung cancer within the next 10 years is only 0.02%" was also correct, according to this CDC statistic. Multiply this percentage by 10, and you get the lung cancer risk of a 30 year old smoker over a decade, which is 0.2%.
Finally, the comparable risk of death that people are willing to take every time they enter a car or cross a road:


Source: http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/d ... terrorized

One in 6500 equals a chance of 0.015%. Over a decade, the chance increases to 0.15%. So if a 30 year old person stays at home and smokes ten cigarettes a day, he has only a very slightly higher chance of dying in the foreseeable future than a non-smoking health nut who drives to work every day (0.2 vs. 0.15% within 10 years).

As you can see, my numbers check out. We've even used the same source. I always do my research prior to posting any statistics, and I don't fall for misinformation by the tobacco industry. And, as I've previously posted here on WP, I'm not even a smoker. I gave up smoking years ago because it worsened my Crohn's symptoms. It appears that this statement...



...wasn't quite true Or at least it doesn't work reliably over the internet.

I notice a lot of long term smokers have short coughs they get when they haven't smoked for a while. I find their skin gets a subtle grayish tinge and is lined in a certain way. Usually it is just the smell though. Or if they have nicotine and tar stains on their teeth or fingers

I've got the orange fingers going on fer sure

Why is it that when a person who smokes ten cigarettes a day and eats at McDonald's five times a week is diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer, statisticians and medical experts automatically blame the cigarettes and not the addictive drugs with carcinogenic food additives that are sold at fast food temples?

I know that when I took up cigar smoking, I checked with my insurance company to see what if any affect it was going to have on my premium. According to them, my 3-5 cigars a week is negligible and they can't detect any health effects below a threshold of 2 cigars per day, which is a far greater rate of consumption than myself, or really any other cigar smoker I know. Considering the amount of pleasure I receive from say a Padilla Miami robusto, or a 601 La Bomba, the marginal risk is worth it to me, in much the same way that I'm willing to brave the risks of alcoholic beverages, dangerous sports, fast driving and exotic foods in order to enjoy them.

That would be a poor research method. Where has this happened, though? Blaming gastrointestinal cancer on smoking is pretty far fetched. I have read somewhere tobacco can be good for certain bowel disorders, strangely enough

Btw, in addition to all the other cancer risk factors that I posted a few days ago, there is one major risk that very few people are aware of:

Source: http://www.beverlyfund.org/facts.html

No matter how healthy your lifestyle is, your environment may kill you. Which is not all that bad I assume. Who wants to be a senile, bed-ridden 95-year-old who would love to call it quits, but the medical staff won't allow it? I live relatively healthy these days, but I wouldn't want to reach that age. I'm only 40, and I'm already bored to death and don't like what I see in the mirror anymore. If I live to see my 60th birthday, I think I'll have been around long enough and will likely be thoroughly fed up with living.