What People
Who Don't Smoke
Look Like
Who Don't Smoke
Look Like
Posted on 06/18/2009 7:02:20 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The jobs are risky, but very lucrative for those willing to take the risks, and require no previous experience or special training. Almost anyone with a driver's license (or at least the ability to drive) can do this job.
How did Obama do it?
|
|
|
What People
Who Don't Smoke Look Like |
This is very important legislation. It is obvious that tobacco is something a lot of people want to use (which is what the government is counting on), and will continue to use no matter what regulations are put in place, which the government knows perfectly well, but will now be able to increase taxes on and control the distribution of this almost endless revenue producing product.
And it will create two whole new classes of jobs: 1) the army of regulators that will be needed to control tobacco production, distribution, and sales, and 2) the army of tobacco smugglers that this much more profitable version of tobacco (like alcohol during prohibition) will create. Definitely a win-win proposition for employment.
Almost as Good as Global Warming
For the government, the Smoking lies have been almost as good as the Global Warming lies, just not as big. Of all the so-called science proving all the terrible things smoking does, there is no hard-science at all. It is all exactly the same kind of junk-science (surveys and statistics) used to put over the Global Warming scam.
Almost everyone buys it. It's why fools like American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown can say things like, "The Senate vote is a significant victory for all Americans as we try to reduce the devastating toll tobacco use has inflicted on our communities." When you are driving around your community, keep a sharp eye out for all those heaps of dead bodies and collapsed buildings tobacco is inflicting on your town.
The truth does not matter to these people, especially if they can use their junk science to keep people terrified — don't smoke or you'll die from cancer or heart disease; don't go out in the sun or you'll get skin cancer and die; don't drive without a seat-belt or you'll have an accident and die. Does no one think that perhaps it is not too good for you to be terrified of every blessed thing that exists?
The Smoking Truth
The primary truth is, it would not matter if smoking a cigarette would kill you without fail before nightfall, it is wrong for any government to prevent the production, sale, and use of anything that all individuals involved freely choose to do. There is ultimately only one reason cigarettes (and most other substances) are regulated at all and that is the belief that some people have a right to force other people to do what they think is best for them; and they cannot bear that some people might actually be enjoying their lives without their interference.
|
The truth is that hard science, that is real science, does not identify a single confirmed health issue with tobacco, but does find huge numbers of medical benefits. You will not find that in any MSM sources, because they have become an arm of government terrorism force. In fact, however, all the excuses for regulating tobacco are lies. Tobacco is used because people enjoy it. They would not use it if they didn't, and doing something you enjoy is good for you. But there are even greater benefits of smoking—benefits the government and its well-controlled media are intentionally hiding. Among those benefits are the following:
|
|
Therapeutic Effects of Smoking and Nicotine
More resources:
OH, and while you enjoy that smoke, be sure to have a nice glass of red wine. "The breadth of [its] benefits is remarkable—cancer prevention, protection of the heart and brain from damage, reducing age-related diseases such as inflammation, reversing diabetes and obesity, and many more."
Smoke, drink, and be merry. You'll be happier and you'll live longer.
I think the fact that it is true is what makes it funny.
Well, yes, but subtleties are beyond most people.
Hank
Good smackdown. Loved it.
I finally quit too. Didn’t need anything to do it, I’m lucky that way. Always been able to shrug stuff off. I’ve went on and off for years. I’ll tell you, what was hardest about quitting for me though...... I felt like these communist freedom hating bastards had beaten me. I felt like they had won.
But, in the end, the fact that I am depriving them of revenue won out. Fu#ks like this always eat their own in the end, and I look forward to watching it happen.
Well said, my friend.
Bookmark bump
Some very intense , interesting information here.
[[Do all your patients who smoke have lung cancer? Do all your patients who smoke have emphysema. Do most of them have those things? If smoking causes them, why not?]]
I wonder if she’ll tell her non smoking patients that have cancer. lung diseases etc if they are bad people because they didn’t smoke? Comfort htem by tellign htem they lived a terrible life? Soothe hteir fears of dying because they were predisposed to gettign cancer anyways?
It appears that a smoker’s chance of getting cancer isn’t statistically much higher than a non smokers.
Those who aren’t predisposed to cancer talkign DOWN to those who were and got cancer- Swell! Just what they dying need to hear- self-righteous people who enjoyed good health all their lives due to their constitutional makeup of good health, needling those who weren’t as genetically lucky! It’s always fun to gwet kicked in the teeth by selfrightous bystanders while you’re lying on the ground bleeding already.
Anecdote is not data, but this was from a scientist who had studied the phenomena. Also, there are forms of emphysema that are hereditary and unrelated to a smoking history. More anecdote: I know someone who had congenital asthma from adrenal insufficiency as a child who smokes not only marijuana, but the immature, male and other leaves of the marijuana plant. He does not smoke cigarettes, but grew up with smoking parents and grandparents. At age 45, his asthma has long ago disappeared, he no longer takes medication or uses an inhaler and he is convinced the marijuana leaves (not the flowers) are what have helped him.
[[Anecdote is not data,]]
This is where we gotta be careful- too many times, people look at anectdotal evidfences, and make claims based on these events- but the reality is that in each case, something else might have contributed to ‘well being’ (assuming wer’e looking into anecdotal evidences of somethign like vitimins, where people ‘swear by such and such’ a vitimin as it ‘cured them of... fill in hte blank”) Chganges in their lifestyle most likely had greater impact o ntheir heralth than anyhtign else, or even a move from a city to country could have helped, or food changes or even just their bodies naturally creating antibodies to problems that helped them feel better etc.
Vitimin makers and herb makers etc are the worst offenders- making claims based on anectdotal evidences, and people waste billions of dollars every year on crap that doesn’t work- A balanced diet, one that works well for your own particular body chemistry, is probably the best advice- for some it might be more meat, less acidic foods, some need acidic foods etc, on and on-
people do outgrow asthma on their own for no apparent reason (although, again, there are probably underlying reasons that the person isn’t aware of, but they contribute their ‘cure’ to.... fil in the blank, when in reality, it was somethign compeltely different that helped them- Adrenal insufficiency could have corrected itself once the person got older, and hteir hormone levels changed- or even a pitutitary tumor could have caused an overproduction of cortisol (amazingly, one in 4 people have a pitutiary tumor, and don’t even ralize it- the great majority of tumors are benign, but do cause hormonal changes in a number of cases)
Anyways- we need to be careful about claims- As one poster said
Gave up drinking
gave up smoking
ate right
Died anyways
I like the author’s ideology, bur apparently smoking doesn’t prevent cranial rectalitis, because when it comes to science he has one of the biggest cases I’ve ever seen.
It should be noted that the few non-smokers who get emphysema get it from exposure to airborne toxic chemicals.
I've seen this too, eXe. And pretty close to home at that.
I can't tell you how sick I am of being bombarded with pharmaceutical commercials — though some of them are pretty funny in a macabre sort of way. They tick off the potential side-effects, which for certain drugs include "increased risk of stroke, or even death." Jeepers. Looks to me like the treatment could be worse than the disease....
I suspect many sheeple who are frenzied about their health are simply not reconciled to the fact of their own personal mortality. It's my sense that people of religious faith generally do not obsess as much about this matter as people of no faith. Less anxiety, better health....
The present administration is orchestrating this widespread anxiety in support of its single-payor healthcare plan. There seems no doubt about that. We are now told we have a "civil right" to healthcare. The sheeple just lap that up. What they don't realize is the single-payor system is guaranteed to lead to rationing of healthcare services, and people in the age 70 and older cohort have good reason to worry about that. The typical person wants low-cost or even "free" healthcare so they can extend their lifespans. But if the rationing board tells you, "Sorry, you're 72, so we can't approve your kidney dialysis because it would be a waste of resources [so go home and start dying]," obviously they are far less concerned than you are about extending your lifespan. To put it mildly.
It's always unwise to bargain with the devil. He seduces with pleasing words, the very words one most wants to hear — and then jams a knife in your back....
Wake up sheeple!
eXe, thank you so much for your excellent observations!
Not me... I quit, see. And I've never felt better. In general, combustion byproducts are a bad thing to ingest; whatever 'good' is in there is far outweighed by the dangerous. The periodontist asked me to quit, so I did. Even though I really really liked smoking I also liked my teeth and chose to keep them. Small cell lung cancer is the type generally related to smoking, it also is the most difficult to treat. My mother had it for seven months, after a lifetime of Chesterfields. I've watched people die of this cancer, I know their histories. Smokers all. Still, if you whipped out a pack of My Brand, I'd have to think about it...mmmm. But I wouldn't say a word. The safety nazis apply moral values to stuff they don't like. Motorcycles, firearms, tobacco, etc. Regulate, prohibit, hector people until they give up in shame. I want no part of that scene. I'll ride, shoot, smoke if I please. But I also laugh at bullshit from either side. Mainly because it's so unnecessary. Ya makes yer choice, ya pays the piper. Rule number one of adulthood in a reasonably Free Country.
War does not cause death, it merely hastens it.
And medical treatments do not save lives, they merely delay the inevitable.
Christians understand this. The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, loyalty and self-control (paraphrasing Gal 5:22).
They are not anxious and therefore, live better and usually, longer.
My personal opinion is that most of the reason for longevity vs short life span or health vs many conditions is genetic.
Of course, today, most infection is usually treatable, we have excellent trauma care, treatments for many chronic conditions, treatments for genetic defects, etc, etc. Surviving is a result of luck, genetics and our modern medical technology.
That could be why people can be manipulated over their fear of illness or death. It used to be common to know people who died from various causes at various ages. Today, it is less common. In the 50s, people over 60 looked old, acted old and were considered elderly. Now, mostly that is reserved for those nearing 80.
Another anecdote: in the 90s, a family moved to my rural area from Telluride. In a local newspaper interview, the wife stated that one of their reasons for choosing a poor, rural county was so that her children could see old people. Evidently, Telluride was populated only by vigorous folks who either were young or were kept young by modern medicine and a high income. Needless to say, the locals here were insulted.
Good example.
If you can’t really answer someone, call them names.
Hank
Thank you, at least I’m serving as a good example for somebody. I’m sure my grandfather would be proud, had he not died of emphysema in 1993. Of course, now I’m sure I’ll hear a rousing chorus about how I’m letting persoanl feelings get in the way, blah, blah blah. Sorry, not buying today. And I’m sure you’re going to declare victory and tell me that I’m admitting you’re correct when I don’t engage in a long debate with you over your interpretations of study data, but the real reason I’m not going to is that it’s like debating the length of the boat Washington crossed the Delaware in when the question at hand is “Does the United States exist?” In other words, it would be a waste of my time.
Eric, you dilute the argument when you encourage this “smoking is healthy” crapola whether it’s real or not. Who gives a crap if smoking is healthy or not? The state has no right to interfere with its use if it is or if it isn’t.
Well, I agree with you that the debate about the virtue (or lack thereof) of tobacco is not important, because my only issue is that it is pseudoscience that is being used to condemn the use of tobacco, and it is the same junk science being use to promote the global warming scam and that any government’s use of such outright lies needs to be exposed. Though ultimately, the populace has been so dumbed-down, that probably does not matter either.
Your response to Eric, is absolutely correct, “The state has no right to interfere with its use if it is or if it isn’t [healthy]”.
It is the state’s use of outright lies to impose their unjust and immoral oppression that is my point.
Hank
I think you have me confused with somebody else Mr. S. I never claimed that lighting a leaf on fire and ingesting thousands of chemicals into your lungs was the equivalent of health food. It's not. I'm not exactly coming down off the mountain with the tablets with that little tidbit. I don't think we needed a Gubmint department and billions of dollars in grants to "researchers" to tell us that.
My only contention is that the risks are very much overblown as we all know people who have smoked and lived into their 80's and beyond, they are prima facie evidence that tobacco is not cyanide.
Coercing people to change their legal behavior is not a legitimate government function.
I wonder if the FDA will not only try to regulate tobacco products, but actually try to make them GOOD for you. I don’t mean helping the occasional case of asthma, but actually making them non-addictive, non-cancer-causing, with no harm to the mouth and lungs. It’ll be damned funny imagining what kind of things they will do to the poor old tobacco leaf to try and make it GOOD for you.
After all, they can’t just BAN it, because they’d lose the revenue...
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.
