Posted on 12/16/2005 10:57:51 AM PST by kingattax
But most lung cancers are.
The cigarette nazis need to understand that their little wants and desires are unimportant. If you don't like smoke, don't go to places that allow smoking. Is that so difficult? Why do you feel the need to make everyone in the universe change their behavior to accomodate YOUR petty little wants?
That is absolutely not true. In fact it is intuitively ridiculous. Of all the cancers... lung cancer is pretty cheap. There is no practical treatment. Other cancers are orders of magnitude more expensive, mainly because they ~are~ treatable. Same with other sorts of organ failure. There are far more expensive ways to spend time as an older person without the relative cheap things supposedly endemic to smokers.
Good Point. Although I do remember reading some type of article about a year or so ago that stated Chinese women are experiencing an alarming rate of lung cancer from working all day in smoky kitchens and around smoky stoves. The article failed to point out that smoking among chinese women has increase something like 10-fold in the last 20 years.
Statistics can and are manipulated on a daily basis to fit any and all agenda.
Increased relative risks (RR) in epidemiology below 200% are considered statistically insignificant, and quite possibly just due to chance within the studies. Using an increased risk for lung cancer (since we are discussing smoking) would you be more inclined to worry about a 65% increased RR or a 19% RR from the ingestion and/or exposure of 2 different substances?
Smokers generally pay higher premiums than non-smokers .
I've smoked cigars for the last ten and while I notice the effects of a fat Cuban I can still do what I need to at the gym. Makes it harder though I will say.
I saw post 45 and appreciate (most of) the sentiment (we still have to work on your definition of public places ;))
Merry Christmas.
Grandmother on my Mother's side died of lung cancer at the age of 62. Smoked like a fiend. Her daughter, my Aunt, is in her 50's and has all sorts of health problems from her own smoking. Growth in her lungs, etc..
Your point is?
See my post #70, Mike.
I did NOT inject another issue - you spoke of increasing costs and I explained where the increases are coming from, because you are looking in the wrong direction.
We don't feed her bacon, no sips of wine, we keep the sugar reasonable, we make her sit in a car seat, etc..
Well, Skippy, there are literally millions of us who grew up among adult smokers of legal substances who, without question, had a lot more of a native intellectual charge than you seem to, based on your classic scholarly response.
Lung cancer is just one of the few cancers and illnesses by smoking.
"Coronary heart disease
Atherosclerosis - fatty deposits in the arteries which can lead to strokes, peripheral vascular disease, gangrene, and aneurisms
Buerger's disease, which can lead to gangrene.
Cancers Lung
Mouth, nose and throat
Larynx
Oesophagus
Pancreas
Bladder
Stomach
Myeloid leukaemia
Kidney.
Respiratory Chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other lung diseases
Recurrent infections in the airways
Damage and loss of efficiency in the lungs.
Other disorders Peptic ulcers (ulcers in the stomach and duodenum) - increase both in incidence and the time they take to heal
Tobacco amblyopia (defective vision) and other eye diseases such as cataract
Reduced fertility. "
Anyone smoking in the presence of others is contributing the other person's discomfort and health consequences and this is true especially for children who have no say in what is forced upon them.
But being a smoker, as opposed to just being occassionally around smoke are 2 entirely different issues and that is the problem with many on this thread. It is mixing apples and oranges.
Does smoking increase a person's risk of certain illnesses? I don't know anyone who would deny it. However, the same can not be said about non-smokers being exposed to the smoke of others.
I did NOT inject another issue
Having the inability to separate fact from opinion, I suspect, will forever limit you to whatever existence you presetly enjoy with such a sterling grasp of the scientific method.
You are aware, I must assume, of what the scientific method is, and that the largest scientific studies made in regards to SHS all conclude that there is no provable harm that can be found?
Actually I seriously have doubts the ACLU is worried about smokers.......in fact there is plenty of documentation where the ACLU has refused to even look at the issue of any such thing as "smokers' rights."
Because they are supporting worker's rights to privacy outside the workplace they are caught between a rock and a hard place in this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.