Smoking!

Web

[SirLurkedalot]

That's what I figured. :)

[SheLion]

. So, instead of flaming about a subject you know very little about; how about you take the time to read. I'll even provide you the links, as you are not only too lazy to do a Google by yourself, you apparently consider the Phillip Morris Corporation the sole source of information on smoking. It's addictive, you know it, and you are too weak to quit. Yes, that's a personal choice, and you are weak. Ranting and flaming only prove the point.

"I" know very little about???!!!!  Heh! Ok!  (You don't know much about us in here do you?!)

Darlene Brennan - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - New England Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Maine Smokers Rights - http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/
mailto:darlene@maine.rr.com - Respect Freedom of Choice!

 

[wolicy_ponk]

[CSM]

"Taking the 'Right to Smoke' is a bogus statement, for I defy you to show me where you have the 'Right to Smoke' in the Consistution."

Do you believe that the constitution only points out the rights we have? Do you believe the government grants us rights?

"By claiming the 'Right' to smoke, you are claiming the right to demand that others tolerate the smell..."

Please name one scenario in which you are "forced" to tolerate the smell of tobacco smoke. How about giving an example of other offensive smells that you are forced to tolerate. Should we ban all offensive smells?

[CSM]

"So, there are a set of govermental publications backing my assertions."

First you used socialistic systems in place to make an argument, now you rely on governmental publications? Are you as conveniently a conservative with other personal liberties?

[CSM]

"But the bottom line is that given the number of smokers, and the number of cases of heart disease, lung disease, liver and kidney disease, lip, throat and mouth diseases; there is a link."

Really? Then riddle me this, batman, why does Japan have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease instance, yet they have the highest per capita smoking population?

How many cigarettes will one have to smoke to contract emphasyma, heart disease, lung cancer, etc? What is the dose of tobacco smoke that causes specific diseases?

Why has the lung cancer, heart disease and emphasyma rates continued to climb, while the smoking population has been cut by 50%? Why has cases of asthma and allergies in children skyrocketed while their exposure to SHS has been reduced to just about 0%?

Using your "there is a link" statement and the above FACTS, I would suggest your link is a negative link. Based on your logic, I think we better mandate smoking and exposure to SHS to get these diseases back to a managable level.

[wmichgrad]

Taking the 'Right to Smoke' is a bogus statement, for I defy you to show me where you have the 'Right to Smoke' in the Consistution.

Our rights are not granted to us by the Constitution. The Constitution may serve to protect our rights, but our rights are granted to us by the fact that we are human beings. The 9th Amendment of the Constitution recognizes this fact.

By claiming the 'Right' to smoke, you are claiming the right to demand that others tolerate the smell (see right to never bathe)

How does having a right to smoke demand that others tolerate the smell? Are you forced to go to the homes of people who smoke? Are you forced to patronize businesses that allow smoking? Are you forced to talk to smokers who may smell of cigarette smoke?

... and to fill in for the time you will miss from work (smokers have a statistically higher rate of sick days than non-smokers).... Thus, your 'RIGHT' not only denies me my rights (I do my job and yours too)....

While this may or may not be true, parents also spend more time away from work than those without children. Would you propose that people stop having children? The point is that we all make lifestyle choices that may or may not affect other people. Who is to say that the right to make one choice is less important than the right to make another?

I smoked a pack and a half a day, for 15 years. I quit, why can't you?

Congratulations! I'm sure your success is an inspiration to those who know you. What I don't understand is why you make yourself out to be a better person than those who chose to not quit or those who would like to quit, but cannot. Putting people down is not a good motivational technique and really diminishes your success.

[Mears]

Way to go,CSM. You always hit the nail right on the head,but your comments will fall on the gnatzi's deaf ears(Maybe non-smoking cuses deafness?)

[CSM]

I'm doubtfull that an answer will be forthcoming.

[mysto]

[Kalamity]

I haven't posted for over a year so none of you remember me. I couldn't resist on this subject.

I'm not encouraging smoking as I know it can cause medical problems BUT, should our government decide to totally stop the consumption of alcohol (in any form) by the year 2010, would we be hearing the same remarks against those who were upholding their right to tip a few. We all know that alcohol is also addictive and causes may medical problems, equal to smoking. Where's the outcry? I have lost more family, friends etc. from alcohol use than from smoking. Smoking is not mind altering but alcohol is. I've never heard of anyone beating another person after smoking regular cigarettes as I have from consuming alcohol. Imagine the public outcry against banning alcohol. The only reason the government hasn't been able to ban alcohol is too many congressmen as well as the common people are "tipping". Has anyone heard of a broken home from smoking??

[Hodar]

Then riddle me this, batman, why does Japan have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease instance, yet they have the highest per capita smoking population?

Sure, here's the answer to your riddle. Each culture has it's unique set of circumstances, climate, diet and lifestyles. Why do Blacks get Sikle Cell Anemia? Or, you could ask yourself why Japan has a 12x increase in Liver Cancer.
Link

It is no mystery that cigarettes contain far more than tobacco. Perhaps Japan has laws limiting the amount of toxic substances that the US Tobacco companies ADD to your cigarettes to make the Nicotine more addictive. This list is NOT found in natural tobacco; it is added to the cigarette intentionally, and contains the following:

Acetone - A flammable, colorless liquid used as a solvent. It's one of the active ingredients in nail polish remover. The tobacco industry refuses to say how acetone gets into cigarettes.
Ammonia - A colorless, pungent gas. The tobacco industry says that it adds flavor, but scientists have discovered that ammonia helps you absorb more nicotine - keeping you hooked on smoking.
Arsenic - A silvery-white very poisonous chemical element. This deadly poison is used to make insecticides, and it is also used to kill gophers and rats.
Benzene - A flammable liquid obtained from coal tar and used as a solvent. This cancer-causing chemical is used to make everything from pesticides to detergent to gasoline.
Benzoapyrene - A yellow crystalline carcinogenic hydrocarbon found in coal tar and cigarette smoke. It's one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals in the world.
Butane - A hydrocarbon used as a fuel. Highly flammable butane is one of the key ingredients in gasoline.
Cadmium - A metallic chemical element used in alloys. This toxic metal causes damage to the liver, kidneys, and the brain; and stays in your body for years.
Formaldehyde - A colorless pungent gas used in solution as a disinfectant and preservative. It causes cancer; damages your lungs, skin and digestive system. Embalmers use it to preserve dead bodies.
Lead - A heavy bluish-gray metallic chemical element. This toxic heavy metal causes lead poisoning, which stunts your growth, and damages your brain. It can easily kill you.
Propylene Glycol - A sweet hygroscopic viscous liquid used as antifreeze and as a solvent in brake fluid. The tobacco industry claims they add it to keep cheap "reconstituted tobacco" from drying out, but scientists say it aids in the delivery of nicotine (tobaccos active drug) to the brain.
Turpentine - A colorless volatile oil. Turpentine is very toxic and is commonly used as a paint thinner.

Link

These chemicals are added for one purpose and one purpose only. These chemicals are designed to convert the cigarette into a Nicotine Delivery unit. The amount of nicotine is regulated; however the intent is to make the nicotine highly REACTIVE, so you get a bigger buzz from a smaller amount of nicotine. Unfortunately, to do this they add some really nasty toxins to their product.

[CSM]

"Sure, here's the answer to your riddle. Each culture has it's unique set of circumstances, climate, diet and lifestyles."

Actually, the biggest factor in all of this is genetics. As you state above, exposure to tobacco smoke plays absolutely no role and first hand smoking creates a slightly higher risk.

With regards to your list of chemicals that you provided, they are encountered daily by everyone in doses far higher than the doses delivered by cigarettes. One example is Arsenic, it is contained in our water supply at higher doses than it is contained in cigarettes.

When the EPA was asked to set exposure limits to SHS, they found that they already had exposure limits set for the elements contained in SHS. These already established limits far exceeded the levels even possible to be reached in a closed room with many smokers constantly smoking cigarettes. When requested to lower the exposure limits to include SHS, they found that it would have made manufacturing impossible.

[Hodar]

With regards to your list of chemicals that you provided, they are encountered daily by everyone in doses far higher than the doses delivered by cigarettes. One example is Arsenic, it is contained in our water supply at higher doses than it is contained in cigarettes.

There is one MAJOR difference, and that is the method of delivery. When you ingest something, it is digested; and only selected components are pulled through the stomach and intestinal walls. Many impurities are thus screened out, this is the way our bodies work.

However, when you inhale, you bypass a great many of your body's defence mechanisms. I would argue that the amount of these chemicals that wind up in your bloodstream through smoking, is exponentially higher than an identical level brought in through consumption.

Also, you put words in my mouth. I have never stated this

"As you state above, exposure to tobacco smoke plays absolutely no role and first hand smoking creates a slightly higher risk.

This was unfair of you. I do not make assinie statements, and indicate that you posted the same, I would expect the same courtesy in return. I don't seriously believe that you think this is the truth. I doubt you will find ANY MD who would say that there is any truth in that statement. The link between smoking and lung cancer, heart disease, liver problems ect. has been demonstrated time and time again. One person challenged me to provide 'unbiased' links, then chastised me for using .gov and .edu as sources. I intentionally avoided the .com suffix; as these are commercial entities with a vested financial interest.

With regard to Japanese Lung cancer rates, there are 2 points of diverence. First of all, do Japanese cigarettes contain the same known carcinogens used by US cigarette companies? Secondly, smoking in Japan is only recently coming into vogue. To fully appreciate the consequences of smoking takes time. Smoking is an accumulative damage issue. You typically won't get lung cancer from 1 cigarette; but the odds of developing respiratory problems increase over time.

[Hodar]

Darlene Brennan - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - New England Regional Director The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com Maine Smokers Rights - http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/ mailto:darlene@maine.rr.com - Respect Freedom of Choice!

To know the medical problems of smoking, then to work to promote the death of other people is hardly something one would brag about. You are so overly concerned about your 'rights'; you are oblivious to the fact that you are killing yourself, and aiding in killing others. Now, I fancy myself a libertarian; or bluntly "I don't care what you do to yourself, you want Hashish - fine, Cocaine - fine, Cigarettes - fine". But, one would expect at a minimum one would not be in denial about what you are doing to yourself.

If your stance was "I know that cigarettes will increase my likelihood of developing lung cancer, emphysema, heart, liver and kidney disease, as well as a host of other problems; at least I could respect your decision". But simply denying these dangers exist either leads me to believe you are emotionally disturbed, or very naive'.

When the time comes when you do succumb to the effects of cigarettes; and the odds are high that you will, as you lay in the hospital saying goodbye to loved ones, just think of the scores of others you helped do the same. I'm sure you will be very proud of your accomplishements at that point in time.

[SheLion]

To know the medical problems of smoking, then to work to promote the death of other people is hardly something one would brag about. You are so overly concerned about your 'rights'; you are oblivious to the fact that you are killing yourself, and aiding in killing others.

I will overlook the fact that you are so obviously unaware of how many groups there are like mine across the United States fighting for the rights of the people to continue to use a "legal commodity."  Can you tell me why, if tobacco is such as killer as you state, that it is still sold on the market?  Can you tell me why it is still legal?  Can you tell me why meth is not being sold over the counter since it is a REALLY known killer?  Or are you just singling out people who enjoy smoking?

If your stance was "I know that cigarettes will increase my likelihood of developing lung cancer, emphysema, heart, liver and kidney disease, as well as a host of other problems; at least I could respect your decision". But simply denying these dangers exist either leads me to believe you are emotionally disturbed, or very naive'.

You don't know that and neither do I!  When our number is up it won't matter one iota if we ever smoked a cigarette or not.  Or do you have an inside link to God????  "I" am EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED?  You sure have a lot of damn nerve.  I was thinking the same thing about YOU after reading your post.  Why the hell do YOU care if people enjoy a legal commodity or not?  For one thing, it's none of your damn business. Get over it.

When the time comes when you do succumb to the effects of cigarettes; and the odds are high that you will, as you lay in the hospital saying goodbye to loved ones, just think of the scores of others you helped do the same. I'm sure you will be very proud of your accomplishements at that point in time.

I'm SO glad you have such an inside to my future death.  Must make you feel all fuzzy and warm inside.  And sweet pea! You know nothing of me and the accomplishments I have made in my life.  You have NO CLUE. But since you want to zero in on just my crusade of fighting for Freedom of Choice, that is all you think my life is all about.  Like I said:  You know NOTHING about me.  But just by your post, I now know plenty about you!

Can I say your an idiot?

[SheLion]

Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)

Per your tagline:  We enjoy the rights of a legal commodity and yes!  We take responsibility for our own actions!

[SheLion]

These chemicals are added for one purpose and one purpose only. These chemicals are designed to convert the cigarette into a Nicotine Delivery unit. The amount of nicotine is regulated; however the intent is to make the nicotine highly REACTIVE, so you get a bigger buzz from a smaller amount of nicotine. Unfortunately, to do this they add some really nasty toxins to their product.

 

The food we eat.....

Chemicals? Yes.

We live in an intensely chemical-phobic society, one where food labels and menus brag of being "all-natural" and "purely organic." Poultry sections offer fryers from "happy, free range chickens." "Chemical-free" cuisine is in.

So it may come as a shock to you that even an all-natu- ral holiday feast (and every other meal you consume throughout the year) comes replete with chemicals, including toxins (poisons) and carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals) - most of which average consumers would reject simply on the grounds that they can't pronounce the names.

Assume you start with an appetizer, then move on to a medley of crispy, natural vegetables, and proceed to a traditional stuffed bird with all the trimmings, washing it down with libations of the season, and topping it all off with some homemade pastries.

You will thus have consumed holiday helpings of various "carcinogens" (defined here as a substance that at high dose causes cancer in laboratory animals), including:

* hydrazines (mushroom soup);

* aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides and psoralens (your fresh vegetable salad),

* heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, dihydrazines, d-limonene, safrole and quercetin glycosides (roast turkey with stuffing);

* benzene and heterocyclic amines (prime rib of beef with parsley sauce);

* furfural, ethyl alcohol, allyl isothiocyanate (broccoli, potatoes, sweet potatoes);

* coumarin, methyl eugenol, acetaldehyde, estragole and safrole (apple and pumpkin pies);

* ethyl alcohol with ethyl carbamate (red and white wines).

Then sit back and relax with some benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, l,2,5,6,-dibenz(a)anthra- cene with 4-methylcatechol (coffee).

And those, all produced courtesy of Mother Nature, are only the carcinogens you just scarfed down. Your l00-percent natural holiday meal is also replete with toxins - popularly known as "poisons." These include the solanine, arsenic and chaconine in potatoes; the hydrogen cyanide in lima beans and the hallucinogenic compound myristicin found in nutmeg, black pepper and carrots.

Now here is the good news: these foods are safe.

Four observations are relevant here:

* When it comes to toxins, only the dose makes the poison. Some chemicals, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic, are potentially hazardous at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed at low doses like the trace amounts found in our foods.

* While you probably associate the word "carcinogen" with nasty-sounding synthetic chemicals like PCBs and dioxin, the reality is that the more we test naturally occurring chemicals, the more we find that they, too, cause cancer in lab animals.

* The increasing body of evidence documenting the carcinogenicity (in the lab) of common substances found in nature highlights the contradiction we Americans have created up to now in our regulatory approach to carcinogens: trying to purge our nation of synthetic carcinogens, while turning a blind eye to the omnipresence of natural "carcinogens."

* While animal testing is an essential part of biomedical research, so is commonsense. A rodent is not a little man. There is no scientific foundation to the assumption that if high-dose exposure to a chemical causes cancer in a rat or mouse, then a trace level of it must pose a human cancer risk.

If we took a precautionary approach with all chemicals and assumed that a rodent carcinogen might pose a human cancer risk ("so let's ban it just in case"), we'd have very little left to eat. (A radical solution to our nation's obesity problem!)

The reality is that these trace levels of natural or synthetic chemicals in food or the environment pose no known human health hazard at all - let alone a risk of cancer.

So the next time you hear a self-appointed "consumer advocate" fret about the man-made "carcinogen du jour" and demand the government step in and "protect" us - remember, you just ingested a meal full of natural carcinogens without a care in the world and with no risk to your health.

Pass the methyl eugenol! Bon Appetit!

Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health

Full Story:

 

Mike Dore, Secy.
Delaware United Smokers Association
http://www.deusa.org

[SheLion]

I smoked a pack and a half a day, for 15 years. I quit, why can't you?

He quit? Good for him.  But we all know there is nothing worse then a confirmed smoker.  They are so jealous and irate over the fact that the rest of us still enjoy smoking that they can't see straight. Well, I doesn't need to come into our threads and try to 'convert' us.  Now I know why he is spewing his dirty deeds!

[metesky]

When the time comes when you do succumb to the effects of cigarettes; and the odds are high that you will

What exactly does a professional busybody and altruist such as yourself say the odds are? And I guess you think you're gonna live forever.

Hodar has finally found a club that will accept him, the pecksniff, do-as-I-say club. Last picked in all those childhood ball games, wallflower at the school dances, building up resentment all these years, Hodar finally has someone to lash out at with impunity.

Nothing worse or more fanatic than a reformed whore.

Don't worry about him, SheLion, he's making an a$$ of himself on other topics and people are talking... :O)