Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 22nd, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default 'second-hand smoke'

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 2:00am BST 02/07/2007

All done with passive smoke and mirrors

Anti-smoking activists can celebrate today one of the most remarkable lobbying campaigns in modern politics. The statutory no-smoking signs outside every "enclosed public space", including churches, synagogues, mosques and Buckingham Palace, will always remind us how they find the smell of other people's smoke offensive. One thing they cannot claim, though, is that protecting people from others' smoke will save thousands of lives.

The scientific evidence to support their belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist. In the course of writing a book on "scares", I recently trawled through all the scientific literature on the health risks of tobacco, ever since Richard Doll's seminal paper in 1950 alerted the world to the link between smoking and lung cancer (when 82 per cent of British men were smokers). Over the next 30 years, the realisation that smokers risked serious damage to their health led to a 50 per cent drop in the habit. But this divided people into three groups: more or less addicted smokers, generally tolerant non-smokers and fiercely intolerant anti-smokers.
advertisement

At the end of the Seventies, the anti-smokers first seriously turned their attention to what they called "passive smoking". Over the next decade, it is fascinating to follow how, try as they might, they could not come up with the evidence they wanted to prove that "environmental tobacco smoke" was directly harming non-smokers' health. They became greatly excited by a series of studies which purported to show a link between smoking and cot deaths. But these somehow managed to ignore the fact that, in the very years when cot deaths were rising by 500 per cent, the incidence of smoking had halved.

A further series of studies in the Nineties, mainly in the US, claimed to have found that passive smoking was causing thousands of deaths a year. But however much the researchers tried to manipulate the evidence, none could come up with an increased risk of cancer that, by the strict rules of epidemiology, was "statistically significant".

In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".

In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco cancer charity).

In the early years of this decade, the anti-smokers had become so carried away by the rightness of their cause that they no longer worried about finding disciplined evidence for their statistical claims. One notorious but widely-quoted study commissioned by 33 councils campaigning for a "smoke-free London" came up with the wonderfully precise claim that 617 Britons die each year from passive smoking in the workplace. No longer was there any pretence at serious debate. This was a propaganda war, in which statistics could be manufactured at will. (The European Commission's 2006 figure for annual deaths from passive smoking in the UK was around 12,000, some 20 times higher than the figure quoted by the British Government itself.)

By the time the Commons pushed through the smoking ban in February 2006, a kind of collective hysteria had taken over. MPs fell over themselves in boasting how many lives they were about to save. One Department of Health official was quoted as equating its significance to the Act setting up the National Health Service in 1948.

As clouds of self-righteousness billow out over England this weekend, the anti-smokers may be entitled to give us their view that smoking is a thoroughly noxious and nasty habit, even that it can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma or bronchitis arising from other causes. They can even claim that the ban will save lives by persuading smokers to give up. But the one thing they cannot claim is any reliable evidence for their belief that passive smoking is responsible for killing people. Sir Richard Doll was right. It is merely a sanctimonious act of faith.

Justice prevails, but a little too late

Last Thursday, seven years almost to the day since officials of Sunderland city council strode up to Steve Thoburn's market stall to seize his scales and accuse him of the criminal offence of selling a pound of bananas, the same council passed a remarkable motion. It welcomed "the new ruling of the European Commission to allow the continued use indefinitely of imperial measures alongside metric measures", and "the statement of intent to allow the sole use of imperial measures by traders who wish to do so".

The council expressed "sincere regret" for the "premature death" of Mr Thoburn, who died of a stress-induced heart attack in 2004 at the age of 39. For four years he had been at the centre of the campaign led by his friend Neil Herron on behalf of Britain's "metric martyrs". Finally, the councillors resolved that they had no objection to the people of Sunderland petitioning for Mr Thoburn's Royal Pardon, along with thousands of people from all over the world.

For Mr Herron, watching from the public gallery, it was a landmark. On the day it all started, he promised Mr Thoburn that he would one day get his scales back. (It finally happened two days after his friend's death, when Mr Herron marched into city hall to have them handed over.) "Now all we have left is to get that pardon," says Herron, "and the job is done."

Rainfall and shortfall

As thousands were forced to flee their homes in Britain's June monsoon, there came the sound of a particular chicken flapping home to roost. When Margaret Beckett made such a shambles of handing out EU subsidies to farmers, Brussels responded by withholding up to £350 million of its payments, leaving a massive hole in the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Before being rewarded for her incompetence by promotion to foreign secretary, Mrs Beckett slashed the budgets of various of the more useful parts of Defra's empire, including a cut of £15 million in the allocation for flood defences.

As a big global warming fan, her Defra successor David Miliband refused to reinstate this cut, presumably because a drought-plagued Britain would no longer need defences against inundation. Cue, naturally, for the wettest June since records were kept. How apt that Mr Miliband should now be rewarded in turn with promotion to Foreign Secretary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/nbook101.xml
 
Old March 22nd, 2008 #2
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default For the sake of argument...

My father farmed tobacco in the South with mules and left the farm to go to college because he didn't want to earn his living growing tobacco. Using it since his teens, chewing it and eventually smoking, convinced him that it was not a good thing-- highly addictive even before modern additives and generally nasty.

My father also died of what was called galloping consumption in my dad's youth-- in tobacco country-- lung cancer. He was diagnosed with a grapefruit-sized, fast-growing tumor, that was already occluding blood vessels leading to his heart. His physicians assured him was inoperable due to the tangled mass of blood vessels and nerves involved. His prognosis was that he might live six months. He died in six weeks, 30 years after quitting smoking.

My earliest memories are of being held by my parents, both of whom smoked, and trying to avoid acrid "side stream smoke" curling up from cigarettes they held in their hands at the same time. Like an infant's skin, their noses and probably their lungs are more sensitive and irritable.

By about age eight, my parents took me to an allergist, thinking there was something seriously wrong with my upper respiratory system-- nose & sinuses-- and they were told it was simply the heavy smoking in the household and he sees it all the time. RAST tests were new in those days but my parents insisted on confirmation and, along with cat dander, ragweed and goldenrod pollen, which everyone knew from experience and common sense were a problem, the testing had a "strong" positive indication for tobacco smoke byproducts-- probably tar.

Being believers in the new god of the 50's-- science-- the both stopped smoking. Apparently my general health improved-- primarily weight gain, my respiratory problems went away instantly, and I can recall everything in our home did not smell bad when I came in from outside. That smell is a vivid memory from childhood that never ceases to repulse me when I go into a home or smell the clothing, skin, or breath of a smoker.

Frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a damn whether the evidence is empirically-verifiable (etymologically-related to an archaic term for medical quackery-- "empiric treatment") or purely theoretical, subjective, or however a smoker might choose to dismiss it-- and I find smoker's thinking among the most tortured of anyone with whom I've ever wasted time believing I could debate. I rely on my own experience to develop my own survival strategy and prejudices, thank you very much. That works for me.

Assaults on perhaps the most tender interface between a human and their environment are cumulative. Ask anyone suffering from a syndrome of multiple lung ailments. Then read about PM-10 and PM-2.5, toxic mold, etc., and ask yourself if you want to add cigarette smoke to those unavoidable assaults.

30+ years ago, I worked one fall as a firefighter in the Northwest. Much of the time was spent putting new handles on hand tools, sharpening them, washing and drying hose, etc., you know, maintenance. But much was also spent inside doing project work like painting and in classes and meetings. Invariably most of these character smoked and I objected when it was right next to me. One jackass, the crew boss-- in a meeting, said-- and I'll never forget it, "You signed-on fight fire, man, and smoke bothers you?" Two of the only young men I worked with in those days are dead from lung cancer.

You want to search for something scientific, here's something I read years ago and my observations bear-out: The incubation period for lung cancer is very long and I recall seeing the figure 30 years somewhere. Yes, cardiovascular changes associated with smoking reverse rather quickly when one stops smoking but lung changes apparently do not.

Much advertising is simply slightly adulterated bullshit. The current foolishness about peripheral artery disease (PAD). Treadmill walking quickly doubles the capillaries in the calf-- something that can be uncomfortably demonstrated in the physiology lab by amateurs. Those suffering from PAD ("The risk is real," the Jew doctor on the TV commercial intones as he looks you in the eye) is because sufferers sit on their ass too much. Period. Drugs treat the symptoms.

Much of public television is propaganda. Much of it isn't. Much as I despise the politics perpetuated by EXXON MOBILE, I like Masterpiece Theater. I enjoy Nature and Nova. Of mainstream television news, which I watch, as did William Pierce, Ph.D. (Quantum mechanics, by the way, are the first to admit that most all of what they believe about how the world works is what they call theory, as in the "general theory of relativity"). However, those who cannot think critically, which is most everyone anymore, have no business with a television in their environment.

And I'll add one more comment guaranteed to piss-off smokers and sympathizers. In my experience, which is considerable, there is something wrong with people who smoke on a fundamental level that interferes with how they value themselves and therefore other people and that makes them hard to get-along-with. I can honestly say that, as an adult, I never had a satisfactory relationship-- business or personal-- with anyone who smokes. Thankfully I can spot many of them by the finely wrinkled skin: A former secretary of a board on which I serve recently approached me offering her assistance and I declined immediately simply because her face had the cracked, crazed look for someone who had sat at a desk chain smoking much of her career and within a week it turned-out I was right to avoid her.

Some behaviors belie a syndrome of other problems. Queers are more apt to put piss in the coffee urn at work, for example. I figure there is something fundamentally wrong with someone who puts "his" pecker alternately in black buttered goat custard dispensers and their "lover's" mouths-- plural. When I find out that someone is "gay," I avoid them in all situations like the plague that they are publicly and privately worldwide. I would gladly genocidally eradicate tobacco from the face of the earth, too.

Ask young, attractive women, with whom you'd like to mate-- those that aren't addicted to the many addictive alkaloids in tobacco burned at high temperature-- how they feel about smoker's breath, a yellow-brown mustache and yellow teeth, stinking skin, clothes, and home furnishings-- yours and hers. I think you'll end up discovering that you are handicapping yourself unnecessarily toward simply having a better life with an intelligent woman and having more intelligent offspring if you eschew smoking, chewing, snuff, what have you, Marlboro man propaganda notwithstanding because its brought to you by the same people who brought you Brokeback Mountain men.

Last edited by -JC; March 22nd, 2008 at 06:31 AM.
 
Old March 22nd, 2008 #3
-JC
Doesn't suffer fools well
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,740
-JC
Default You'd have to see this video to believe it...

Search for a Safe Cigarette
Series: NOVA
Grade level: Grade 7+
Closed captioned: Yes
List $19.95
But, seeing it is believing it. Turn the sound "off" and it is still compelling.

Special DVD features include: scene selections; access to the Search for a Safe Cigarette Web site.
On one DVD5 disc. Region coding: All regions. Audio: Dolby stereo. Screen format: Letterboxed.
Item # WG35659
ISBN # 1-578078-75-X
UPC # 783421 35 6597

2001

Is the tobacco industry really trying to reduce health risks? Where there’s smoke, there’s controversy. Every year 420,000 Americans die from the effects of cigarette smoke. But the tobacco industry’s efforts to confront its toxic products and create less deadly cigarettes have resulted in turmoil, failure, as well as an Academy Award-nominated film (The Insider).

In Search for a Safe Cigarette, NOVA gains unprecedented access to tobacco research and manufacturing facilities and asks the question: Can science help create a safer cigarette?

Journey inside a lit cigarette and see how superheated tobacco creates over 45 known carcinogens. Trace the little-known history of "reduced risk" cigarettes, and discover why safer cigarettes developed in the 1960s were discontinued. See how tobacco-specific nitrosomines damage human DNA.

Explore America’s love affair with cigarettes, including tobacco’s role in US history, shrewd cigarette marketing, and the impact of the Surgeon General’s warning. Then look into the future of "safer" tobacco products, like Accord, a new smoking system that features an external battery-powered tobacco lighter.

Last edited by -JC; March 22nd, 2008 at 08:07 AM.
 
Old March 24th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

You're conflating different things. Smoking has risks, and benefits, but in any case it has nothing do with the claims put out by the 'second-hand' propagandists.

BTW, your obervation about smokers being nasty personally is the opposite of what I've seen. The teetotaling mentality is a much greater threat to our living the good life than the smoker's mentality. Those who crusade against the flesh, whether drink, prostitution, smoking, or porn, are 99% of the time unpleasant and hypocritical people, and usually devotees of this or that crap religion like Baptism.
 
Old March 24th, 2008 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,352
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

By the way, the effects you describe from being exposed to smoke - as a child I had exactly the same problem, but never from smoking, which I rather liked the smell of, but from nature's green plants. Every time I came to Missouri as a child I would get nasty sick within 24 hours, purely due to pollen and the rest of the invisibles plants shit into the air around the clock.
 
Old April 21st, 2008 #6
Leshrac
Mad Science
 
Leshrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,686
Leshrac
Default

Quote:
From totse


Quote:
You know how people list out all the chemicals in cigarettes and say stuff like "cigarettes have toilet bowl cleaner in them".

They then tell you how bad they are for you...


But they seem to forget basic chemistry:

Given that:

Sodium- Reactive metal
Chlorine- Toxic substance

BUT

Sodium+Chlorine= Table Salt

How do we know chemical reactions in cigarettes don't change to something less than harmful, maybe even good...


I just loved that post so much
__________________
Thinking... Please wait.
 
Old April 22nd, 2008 #7
Drew
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 433
Default

The real question is, why kikes and their useless leftist and yuppie idiots are pushing so hard to outlaw smoking, discourage it as much as possible in TV's and movies yet the media encourage marijuana use at every oppurtunity. Encouraging it to young people with nigger faggot punks like Snoop Dogg, and every other teen movie, yet banning it in all dorms and putting it in smoke detectors. They have been encouraging it since the 60's.

There are states that have outlawed smoking in all the bars, yet cops have stated in sort on cities in those states will not arrest someone for having less than an ounce of marijuana. This is true in the shithole of Denver which is probably second only to Kalifornia for bad political trends likely to come.

And this is the case in California of course, where smoking has been banned in all public places and bars, but marijuana has been decriminalized in sort on cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decrimi..._United_States

While not being as physically addictive, one joint on average is worse for you, than 5 cigarettes combined.

The 2 things have to be connected. Some conservatives will argue that attorneys push these things since they make so much off of suing the tobacco companies. Yes, this is a bonus, and many of these attorneys are of course kikes. But why the push to encourage weed use as much as possible? The jews in media clearly do not care about your health. I think they would just love nothing more than a nation full of weedheads, as if you've ever spoken to one. They are the biggest dipshits you will ever meet. Talk about the further "Mexicanization" and dumbing down of society.

The best thing to do, when smoking pot if you want any kind of mental stimulus where you don't feel you have to do it again from the "buzz kill" is smoke it ALONE, or at least with a girl.

I think they also encourage it, because it is that much more bad for you than cigarettes...and of course it makes you stupid and causes brain damage.

I suppose the kikes discovered cigarettes just don't have the "benifits" of Marijuana. Anything the jews are advocating cannot be good for your health.
 
Old April 22nd, 2008 #8
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Good question, I have also wondered why the kikes are so anti-smoking, one possibility is the tobacco industry is largely gentile run (?). Can't have any ultra-wealthy Whites who might cause trouble now can we?

Perhaps it's one of those industries that the Jew hasn't completely taken over yet.
 
Old July 19th, 2008 #9
amywendland
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5
amywendland
Thumbs down

DUH. Smoking is bad. It has been scientifically proven. If you smoke an entire cigarette without inhaling it, the inside of your mouth will burn. If you smoke for a long time, you are a lot more likely to get lung cancer. Cigarettes are HARMFUL. Do you know what that means? It means bad for you.
It's a good thing most of the world already dislikes you and is educated enough to ignore all the vile crap you spew out.
One more time. DUH.
 
Old July 19th, 2008 #10
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #11
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default The Truth is more important than your opinions, guys...

Quote:
The scientific evidence to support their belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist.
You know, I've bit my tongue on the numerous CT rants that you guys love so much and swear as gospel, but sometime in your lives you've got to put away your egos and respect the truth a bit more... leastwise if you want other people to take you seriously about the things that you ARE correct on.

You talk big about "getting the TRUTH out there"... well, take it to heart then.

The deleterious effects of second-hand smoke have indeed been proven... irrefutably.

And if anyone starts in with a rant about how the Mayo Clinic and the American Heart/Lung Associations, The Center For Disease Control and Prevention, et. al., have an "agenda" (beyond trying to keep y'all asses healthy), all I can say is I feel sorry for his/her delusions.

Here... get educated, and quit propagating disinformation about how the dangers of second-hand smoke are "unproven":

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand_smoke/index.htm

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39858

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=19930

http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4521

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Quote:
Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.
http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_t3sbeqzx.htm

From Philip Morris's website:
Quote:
We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/cm...e/default.aspx

And for the hardcore doubters, as if more evidence were needed, here's the straight skinny from R. J. Reynolds' own website:
http://www.rjrt.com/smoking/summaryCover.asp
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #12
Charlie-Horse
Elusive Pimpernel
 
Charlie-Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Incognito
Posts: 5,170
Charlie-Horse
Default

99% of these anti-smoking crusaders drive cars and will not under any cicumstances use the bus. We smokers who do not drive and are pedestrians or users of the buses must inhale the heavily toxic emissions from the excessive amount of their cars on the roads. I wish the hypocritical bastards who complain about me lighting up a cigarette would put that in their pipes and smoke it and then perhaps get the damn bus for once!
__________________
The ugly Hun.
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #13
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
BTW, your obervation about smokers being nasty personally is the opposite of what I've seen. The teetotaling mentality is a much greater threat to our living the good life than the smoker's mentality. Those who crusade against the flesh, whether drink, prostitution, smoking, or porn, are 99% of the time unpleasant and hypocritical people, and usually devotees of this or that crap religion like Baptism.
yeah, add homosex to that list, fucking hypocrites.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #14
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
jewsign

Quote:
And if anyone starts in with a rant about how the Mayo Clinic and the American Heart/Lung Associations, The Center For Disease Control and Prevention, et. al., have an "agenda" (beyond trying to keep y'all asses healthy), all I can say is I feel sorry for his/her delusions.
That should be The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federally financed amalgamation of a number of quasi private research facilities. And yes they do indeed have an agenda and that is to hoover out of congress all the ZOGbux they possibly can all the while churning out 'official' reports that political whores can use to further their own agendas!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #15
Randolf Facto
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 115
Randolf Facto
Default A VERY important point, that...

Quote:
That should be The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federally financed amalgamation of a number of quasi private research facilities. And yes they do indeed have an agenda and that is to hoover out of congress all the ZOGbux they possibly can all the while churning out 'official' reports that political whores can use to further their own agendas!
Yes, that 's' on the end of Centers is an extremely salient point... thanks for bringing that to my attention.

As I said, I feel sorry for those of such cynical delusions. How are you able to sleep at night, with all these bogeymen behind every door and under every bed?
 
Old July 24th, 2008 #16
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
Yes, that 's' on the end of Centers is an extremely salient point... thanks for bringing that to my attention.

As I said, I feel sorry for those of such cynical delusions. How are you able to sleep at night, with all these bogeymen behind every door and under every bed?
Like an innocent babe!
You?
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 25th, 2008 #17
odin
Nuthin' But Luv, Baby
 
odin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,987
odin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Smoking has risks, and benefits
What are the benefits of smoking?
 
Old July 25th, 2008 #18
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odin View Post
What are the benefits of smoking?
It gives the perpetually peeved something to gripe about!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 25th, 2008 #19
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolf Facto View Post
You know, I've bit my tongue on the numerous CT rants that you guys love so much and swear as gospel, but sometime in your lives you've got to put away your egos and respect the truth a bit more... leastwise if you want other people to take you seriously about the things that you ARE correct on.

You talk big about "getting the TRUTH out there"... well, take it to heart then.

The deleterious effects of second-hand smoke have indeed been proven... irrefutably.

And if anyone starts in with a rant about how the Mayo Clinic and the American Heart/Lung Associations, The Center For Disease Control and Prevention, et. al., have an "agenda" (beyond trying to keep y'all asses healthy), all I can say is I feel sorry for his/her delusions.
Let me ask you a question.
Who would you rather have on your side a virulent anti-semite who smokes, such as my self, OR a zealous anti-smoking JEW who works at a high level within the ZOG bureaucracy?
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 25th, 2008 #20
John in Woodbridge
Senior Member
 
John in Woodbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,749
John in Woodbridge
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amywendland View Post
DUH. Smoking is bad. It has been scientifically proven. If you smoke an entire cigarette without inhaling it, the inside of your mouth will burn. If you smoke for a long time, you are a lot more likely to get lung cancer. Cigarettes are HARMFUL. Do you know what that means? It means bad for you.
People make cost/benefit decisions on a whole host of things. I might eat that apple pie even though it will raise my cholesterol. Some people enjoy smoking and for them it's worth the health risks.
__________________
It’s time to stop being Americans. It’s time to start being White Men again. - Gregory Hood
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 AM.
Page generated in 0.15405 seconds.