Posted on 06/02/2004 4:43:14 AM PDT by Colosis
If it is not the issue why do you try to discount the health effects when they are posted?
Not all, just one on this thread that lives in Florida. Keep trying to twist words tho', it is a typical liberal talant.
"It has been shown that smokers have higher occurrences of those diseases."
Still waiting for proof of this baseless claim.
You're getting offensive. Now, you don't want smokers around you, because that's offensive...you'd better watch your behavior, it's offending ME, and your posts hang around a lot longer than smoke, here on the forum.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol83/01-smoking.html
Cervical cancer
An association of invasive cervical squamous-cell carcinoma with smoking has been observed in the large number of studies reviewed. The most recent studies have controlled for infection with human papillomavirus, a known cause of cervical cancer. The effect of smoking was not diminished by the adjustment for human papillomavirus infection, or analysis restricted to cases and controls both positive for human papillomavirus (as ascertained by human papillomavirus DNA or human papillomavirus serological methods). There is now sufficient evidence to establish a causal association of squamous-cell cervical carcinoma with smoking. In the small number of studies available for adeno- and adeno-squamous-cell carcinoma, no consistent association was observed.
No proof, that's why. Statistics are NOT proof. And the general air of superiority that goes along with the use of statistics as proof, that too.
Why would you enter a thread that you find offensive. If you find it offensive, you have the right to not enter and be exposed to the hazard of the truth.
I don't. The negative impact smoking has on the body is not exactly a new discovery. The first modern scientific study linking smoking with cancer was (the year eludes me) the late twemtoes pr early thirties and the term 'cancer stick' originates about the same time. At the risk of sounding repeditive, I do not discount the health effects, it is just that there are larger issues at stake.
The lung photos posted were not statistics. The people that died from smoking became statistics.
Statistics are NOT evidence. If there is a causal connection, then why don't all female heavy smokers have it? And if you're going to use statistics, why don't ALL smokers get lung cancer? Only ten percent do...so the smokenazis have to come up with other diseases "related" by statistics to smoking.
Statistics lie. Statistics are NOT evidence. The fact that people who claim to be scientists use statistics as proof of anything simply means that they don't have the inclination to do real science.
Below is your post. It was an attack on Vietnam Service. Notice that it directly refers to the medal and not to me.
BTW, a Naval Vietnam Service Medal.......I heard even JFnK has one of those and he wasn't all that committed to freedom either.
It isn't TRUTH I find offensive, it's you. Just as you find our smoke offensive, I find your excessive reliance on statistics as proof offensive. It does conveniently allow you to make all sorts of outrageous claims...along with your pet government scientists...
By the way, how about that governor who wants to use higher cigarette and liquor taxes to suppor the increases in the state school budgets? Do you think SHE wants people to quit smoking, or not? You never have answered that question, and you did stay off that thread, I noticed, although you're on every other smoking thread....
Snake bites cause death. Why don't all people that get snake-bit die?
What governor? I have no idea what you are talking about. You keep mentioning 'this governor' but have made no specific reference to who she is or where she is from or other.
Do you know the percentage of non-smokers from non-smoking households who got lung cancer?
Do you know the percentage of smokers who ever get lung cancer?
Why would a REAL scientist rely on statistics, instead of doing REAL science?
Why does one governor want to raise taxes on smoking to help her state's school budget?
Where do you get off regulating private legal behavior and taxing it to the skies? Why don't you try to have it banned, if it's such a health problem? Why aren't you going after the fast-food joints as well? The number of people dying from obesity is now equal to the number of people dying from so-called smoke related illnesses, and will soon surpass them. Why aren't you going after fatties, with their increased levels of heart disease, diabetes, joint disease, circulatory illnesses, BREATHING DIFFICULTIES, etc? Those are clear evidentiary links!
Why do you think that these are health issues and not think that the smoking related problems are health issues?
You know, that's interesting...why don't we tax snake bites, and use the money to help the state school funds?
That's a REALLY lame analogy. Now that you're getting foolish, I consider my work here done.
By the way, there are a number of questions here you haven't answered....not just from me, from others. So we'll just have to conclude you aren't really interested in a constructive argument, just in condemning a legal activity. You've not weighed in on the tax thingie, yet...how do you feel about raising cigarette taxes? And then using the money to help the state school budgets? That okay with you?
I don't. That's putting words in my mouth. I asked you why you weren't concerned with obesity...I never see you on the obesity threads...you hang around the smoking threads, in case you hadn't noticed.
"Why would you enter a thread that you find offensive. If you find it offensive, you have the right to not enter and be exposed to the hazard of the truth."
So, it's good enough for Judith on FR, but it isn't good enough for you in real life?
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.