He's a Big Fat Liar. Literally. hehe!
Posted on 11/13/2002 9:23:09 AM PST by SheLion
UK Sunday Telegraph...
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998
The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
-------
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
-------
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."
-------
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
ROTFLMAO....... How did he become a professor of cardiology, with a degree in engineering.
There's relatively nothing you said that I can see most smokers disagreeing with.
I would venture to say you will get more grief for your position from the anti-smokers than from even the most militant of the smokers. The reason I say this is because in the world of the anti-smokers you have betrayed them - you are willing to work for a compromise, you are williing to live with the idea of allowing the owner to decide. In other words, according to the antis - you are one of THEM (meaning the smokers)
As to your instances of someone lighting up - in and elevator has been a no-no for as long as I can remember because of fire hazard; in an airplane has been been illegal for at least 15 years; as to a sporting event - if it is an out door event there should be accomadations so your scenario won't occur. The majority, if not all, indoor sports events, smoking is no longer permitted.
Using just your 3 examples - I think it is reasonable that a bar or restaurant owner should be able to say his/her establishment is smoking or non-smoking. why add them to the locales that already prohibit??????
I've got a top of the line, latest thing sound card - but anytime I use it - I shut down my computer. My system can not support the sound from the sound card. I hope to have that situation rectified shortly.
Fine thank you, have to share my puter with my granddaughter these days, hers is still at her home.
I wish you well and hope that you never have to see a loved one physically destroyed by cancer, enphysema, or any other disease commonly linked with cigarettes.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, thank you. I have battled cancer twice in my life, and I am a survivor. Thank God. If I get it again, I will fight it just like the last two times. Oh yes, both times, I had a team of Doctors. They ALL said each time, that my cancer was not caused by smoking. And not ONE of them advised me to quit! Ain't I lucky? :)
I disagree, here, my friend. When it comes to smoking (tobacco)it is politically correct to lie about the truth, in fact it is a prerequisite for getting a job with the anti-smokers.
I'm still roaring laughing about the Stan Glantz spiel in my local paper this morning - the dude has got no clue. I probably couldn't prove it but I do know that the tobacco companies DID NOT oppose the smoking ban legislation. I would love to know where Glantz got his information that he was willing to state unequivocally that they did oppose it.
As far as I know Glantz has not been in Delaware in the past 19 months - except for one night in July, I've been here every day for those 19 months.
Gee - who knows more about what is going on here????????
He's a Big Fat Liar. Literally. hehe!
He's taken some courses in it and he brings MAJOR bucks into UCSF because of his anti-smoker crap. He probably could be a professor even if he were a high school drop out if he brought in the kind of money that he is.
You said I was fine with the propagation of false information. That is a lie. As you posted, "I disagree with anyone that posts false information...". However, there are no "anti-smoker false info" in my in-box. Only your rantings and false characterizations.
Huh?
Well, that's what happens when ya have a 2 mb brain and a 2 gb life, I guess. Sorry I didn't remember you; you're a welcome addition anyway.
I can certainly understand those who push for regulations on smoking in public enclosed places. I also respect the right of property owners to allow or not allow smoking on their property.
I'd wager that a half dozen reasonable people on both sides of this issue, without government intervention and anti corruption, could settle this matter equitably and fairly for all in a few hours.
As for ETS, both the title of this thread ("Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official") and the claim that "Second-Hand Smoke Definitely Causes Cancer" are equally incorrect. The evidence is inconclusive. It seems there is sufficient research to show some correlation between long-term exposure to second-hand smoke and numerous health problems that any claim that second-hand smoke is completely harmless should be considered suspect. On the other hand, there are plenty of folks who smoke every day (or are exposed to SHS every day) and live to be 100 before they die of something completely unrelated to cigarettes; so cigarettes won't definitely kill you. Does that mean that your cigarette smoke has no adverse health effects on others that are forced by their proximity to you to breathe it?
I agree with most everything you've said in that 'graph, but that last sentence. Don't know about you, but there's not a situation or a person on earth who could force me into proximity to someone I didn't want to be near. At least not without some major hurt on both sides, or a loaded weapon. We've got to stop using the language of victimization and begin to re-empower people. You don't want to work in a smoky bar, don't apply for work there. You don't want to sit in a smoky bar, find one that has a better ventilation system or whose owner has set a nonsmoking policy. Can't find such a place? Open one. Or discuss it with the owner of your favorite place. If enough people bring it to his/her attention, a change will be made.
I don't want anyone telling you that you can't smoke if you want to. It's your right to light up and inhale the (probably toxic) smoke if you choose. At the same time, if we have to share space on an elevator, or in a plane, or at a sporting event because I happened to purchase a ticket for a seat next to yours, is it too much of an imposition on you that I be allowed to breathe air free of cigarette smoke?
No, it isn't too much to ask for air free of cigarette--or cigar or pipe or leaves or fireplace--smoke in places you MUST share like an elevator or government office. Places where people CHOOSE to go like sports arenas should have clearly defined and separate areas. Airlines should be permitted, as should restaurants, bars and other places, to choose whether it is to their benefit to cater to smokers, to nonsmokers, or both. We should demand more investigation into ventilation systems even though we'd have to fight through anti unwillingness to permit a standard stating a permissible level.
I note below that you wish SheLion well by hoping none of her loved ones ever suffer a "smoking-related" illness. I wish the same for you--remember, 85% of heart disease deaths and 75% of cancer deaths occur in nonsmokers even though they are considered "smoking-related" illnesses. Nearly 3 million people in the US die every year; 400,000 of those deaths are allegedly due to smoking. Completely disregarding the fact that the percentage of supposed smoking-related deaths coincides rather nicely with the percentage of smokers in the population, more than 2-1/2 million people die every year of something that cannot be blamed on smoking.
I guess I should read more then (of course there were over 300 posts). I agree.
I'm an active smoker. Being an active smoker, I recognise a number of things: First, I recognise that any level of smoking contains a certain element of risk (risk being defined as a potential reduction in my lifespan). However, even using the statistics of people who ardently oppose smoking, about 1/3 of smokers will die prematurely (whatever that means) from their smoking. So, 2/3 of smokers will die at the average rate.
Now, should I choose to assume this risk, all other things remaining equal, this shouldn't worry you. Afterall, I'm sure you're not terribly concerned about the added risk of early death that sky-divers or mountain climbers assume every day.
So, one thing you and other anti-smokers need to make clear is whether you oppose our choice to smoke, period, (and therefore think that smoking should be outlawed) or whether you oppose our right to smoke in the presence of other people.
There is, of course, one more position - we gain nothing from smoking and we're simply stupid addicts. You don't mind our right to smoke, so long as it isn't around you (but you think it's stupid, because we are all addicts and if we think we get anything out of smoking, we're kidding ourselves).
As regards the first question - ie. it doesn't affect you, but it affects me, so because I'm so stupid, you need to protect me against myself - only a hopeless democrat/socialist/communist could adopt this position, so I won't assume this is your point.
With respect to the second argument - you oppose our right to smoke in the presence of other (non-smoking) people. This would seem to be the crux of your argument. We say, "If it doesn't hurt you, why does it matter?"
You say, "It does hurt me and my children and, besides that, I don't like the smell - it interferes with the other things I want to smell in life."
We respond that there are certain things in life which are proven to cause sickness and death - arsenic, digitoxin, jumping from ten storey buildings, etc. There are some things which cause death and sickness in some people. For example, my young son is due to have his MMR (measles, mumps & rubella) shots in a few months. There is a small but significant risk of him developing autism from these shots. Such is life - he'll have the shots. (He'll be exposed to many more risks and indulge in far more risky behaviours as a toddler, child, adolescent and especially as a young adult.)
Being exposed to a bit of second-hand smoke (as I was, along with almost all children of my age) has never been on my list of high risk factors for my son.
In any event, you are not a child, yourself - even though I have no doubt you were exposed to the odd bit of smoke yourself as a youngster - as was virtually every adult alive today, given that over 50% of the population smoked until 20 years ago.
So, this is the second question: do you believe that you or any other non-smoker will be killed by our smoke?
Now, before you start posting, I already know the answer to that, of course you think some people will be. But, how much smoke? The amount you get in a bar? The amount you get in a restuarant? The amount you get in your home? Where do you draw the line? Or, do you think that, as a result of the amount of smoke you've inhaled to date in your life, you're already dead?
If truth be known, I think you don't really put too much credit in the second-hand-smoke-kills argument. I tend to think you've had close family who've smoked themselves to death, you don't like the smell, and that's turned you into a voracious anti-tobacco advocate.
That's alright - that seems to be the common theme running through most FReeping anti-smokers. It's a different mindset to the average democrat - they just oppose smoking on socialised public health grounds.
My question to you is, "What are you going to do about us?"
I know you don't understand us (the third point). You think we're just hopeless addicts who can't give it up for love or money (but, that doesn't explain the fact that there are as many ex-smokers as there are smokers). Smokers aren't idiots - we understand there is some level of risk (not much risk if you smoker 5-10 a day, lots of risk if you smoke 50-60 a day). However, we are prepared to accept that risk, because smoking provides us with just that little bit extra in our life experiences - be they enjoyable, stressful, thoughtful, philisophical, emotional, etc. - which you, as a non-smoker - could never hope to comprehend. In short, you can't even start to imagine how good a smokers life is. We have little rewards all the time. Your reward is living, on average, about 4 years more than us. Oh,....unless you're gay, have a congenital condition, drink too much, contract any number of long-term viruses, induldge in risky pursuits, such as sky-diving, mountain-climbing....you get my drift.
Why do we smoke? Well, wy did Einstein smoke? Not because we're hopelessly addicted, but because we get something from smoking that non-smokers will never understand.
People have their cup of coffee or their little chocolate treat a few times every day. Well, so do smokers. They might have it more often, but it's the same experience. Who are you to interfere?
It's different, I know, because coffee and chocolate don't smell "bad", like cigarettes.
And now we get to the secondary argument fron the anti-smokers - "Regardless of whether SHS is bad for you, it smells bad!"
I beg your pardon? It smells bad? How in the hell do you think your SUV's exhaust smells? How about the local seafood restaurant? I've got news for you - sometimes, certain things in life look bad, smell bad, sound bad, feel bad and act bad.....but most of the time, we don't ban them!!
Now, there's one final thing which should give you pause in your "jihad" against the smokers of this world. If you were a democrat, I wouldn't event bother arguing the point, but as you consider yourself to be a Republican, I'll give you the opportunity to suggest a solution - about 25% of your fellow citizens continue to smoke, regardless of your strident opposition to us.
What do you propose to do about us???
Do you think insulting us will make us go away? Do you think it will make us give up smoking? Do you think that banning smoking will allow you to live in an odour-free utopia?
What are you hoping to achieve by ostracising such a large part of your fellow citizenry?
There are billions of us around the world - we're not going away, regardless of what you might thing. So, you'd better learn to live with us, because we're here to stay!!!
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.