Smoking Kills

CNN.com ^

[CyberCowboy777]

Not if money is to be made by lawyers.

[William Terrell]

Your idea that God only gives us limited choices is also nowhere to be found. Do you have anything in scripture that would support this?

I'm standing on the top of a tall building. I want to get to the top of another building. I choose to fly across. There is much of God that is not addressed by scripture.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Sure. But the main parts are covered either directly or indirectly.

Let's look at Mark 10:17-22

17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
18So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
19You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery,' "Do not murder,' "Do not steal,' "Do not bear false witness,' "Do not defraud,' "Honor your father and your mother."'[3]
20And he answered and said to Him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth."
21Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."
22But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Why would Jesus tell him what to do if there was no choice involved? If everything was pre-ordained in that exchange and there is no true free will then it was all just a cruel game. And yet it says that Jesus loved him.

Do you do things like that to people you love?

It would completely contradict the way God is described in Matthew 10:7-10

7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
9Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
10Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

[Publius6961]

Smoking bans are about government control of private property.

Actually it isn't that at all.
It is more accurately small people, in every sense of the word, hijacking the power of government to control the lives of others, based on clearly fraudulent "statistics", to wit:

The other day a truck driver strung out on speed crossed the median and hit a 95 year old man going the opposite direction in a Yugo head on. The Yugo burst into flames and the driver had to be identified by dental records. The foil from a pack of Marlboros was found inside the burned out car. Cause of death: smoking.

Clearly, dishonesty and neuroses masquerading as compassion.

[Liberal Classic]

It's always something!

[cinFLA]

The only way smoke can kill you is, like in a house fire, you become asphyxiated, which is not going to happen smoking a cigarette.

Cigarette smoke contains enough CO to set off a CO monitor. The smoker lives because he takes in fresh breaths between puffs.

[cinFLA]

Cigarette smoke contains an amazing array of gaseous and particulate compounds. This includes (in approximate order by mass): carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (mostly tar), nicotine, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, formaldehyde, phenol and dozens of other well known toxic compounds. Some of these components are present in extremely high concentrations.

For example cigarette smoke contains much higher concentrations of carbon monoxide (0.5-5% v/v) than the auto exhaust from a well maintained vehicle. This concentration of CO would be lethal if inhaled continuously for ~30 minutes.

[Just another Joe]

Cigarette smoke contains enough CO to set off a CO monitor. The smoker lives because he takes in fresh breaths between puffs.

To continue to use my anology, if I could take fresh breaths while in a smoky house fire I wouldn't be asphyxiated either.

And?????

[Just another Joe]

I'll bet all these are bad for you also. Depending on the dose.

Acetone, Isoprene, Acetonitrile, pTolualdehyde, Toluene, P,SDimethylhexane, Ethyl Alcohol, Acetaldehyde, Dichloronitromethane, 2,2,4-Trimethyl-l-pentanol, n-Propyl acetate, 2,2-Dimethyl-l-pentanol, Cyclohexane, Hexane, Thiolacetic acid, I-Heptanol, Cyclohexyl alcohol, Benzene, 2-Ethyl-l-hexanone, 2,3,5 Trimethylhexane, Ethyl Imercaptopropionate, Cycloheptatriene, p-Xylene, n-Butyl alcohol, 3,4 Dimethylhexane, Limonene, Isooctyl alcohol, Methyl-n-propyl sulfide, Ethyl-4-methyl-1-pentanol, Neopentyl acetate, Trans4nonenal, n-Heptane, Ethylbenzene, 5-Methyl4heptanone, Dimethylsulfide, P-Methyl-l-pentanol, pl)ichlorobenzene, Trans-3-hexen-l-ol, Capryl alcohol, Mesitylene, n-Hexylmercaptan, 3,4-Dimethylheptane, 2,3,3,4-Tetramethylpentane, 1Chlorohexane, Dichloroacetylene, 2,P-Dimethyl-l-octanol, 2,2,3,3 - Tetramethylhexane, o-Xylene, 2,3,3 - Trimethylhexane, Isopropylalcohol, 2,2-Dimethyl-l-hexanol, 5-Ethyl-l-butanol, Z,P-Dimethylheptane, Furan, Naphthalene, Thiocyclopentane, Cyclopentylalcohol, n-l\lonane, Ethyl phenyl acetate, n-Amyl alcohol, Z,CDimethylheptane, 5-Nitropropane, 2,6 - Di-tert-butyl-4-methyl-phenol, Methyl-tert-butyl-ketone, Di-Tert-butyldisulfide, 2,2-Dimethyl-Shexanone, 1,2-Diethylbenzene, 2,5-Dimethylheptane, 2-Methyl-3-heptanone, Isobutyl alcohol, m-Xylene, 2,2,5,5Tetramethylhexane, n-Decanal, SMethyl-2-butanol, Propiophenone, Ethylacetate, n-Decane, Isopropylbenzene, IEthylpentane, Di-n-Butylamine, N-Dodecane, o-Dichlorobenzene, Allylacetate, S,SDiethylpentane, n-Butyl acetoacetate, Benzylamine, Indene, Methylnaphthalene, 'L-Methyl-Spentanone, Coumarin, Phenylacetic acid, Ethyl valerate, 5-Methyl-3-heptanone, n-Octane, Cumic alcohol, Methanol, 2,4-Dimethyl-Shexanone, Octylacetate, Cycloheptadiene, 2-Methyl-1-octene, Ethyl Lmethylvalerate, o-Nitrotoluene

Too bad they are all part of the normal human exhalation.

[cinFLA]

And?????

And now you know that smoking cigarettes elevates you CO level. That means a smoker has a head start toward death if his furnace or hot water heater leaks CO.

[cinFLA]

Too bad they are all part of the normal human exhalation.

Actually, the body continuously tries to eliminate toxic chemicals. What I don't understand is why one would continuously force the body to inhale toxic chemicals?

[cinFLA]

Everyone one is going to die of something sometime.

I would rather go later than sooner.

[Sunshine Sister]

Sorry! That is not under your control. When your time is up, it's up. It doesn't matter what your health is, your age is, or how you lived your life.

[cinFLA]

Sorry! That is not under your control. When your time is up, it's up. It doesn't matter what your health is, your age is, or how you lived your life.

A lot of it is under my control. If I were to take a loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger, I would not expect to live very much longer. If I were a heavy smoker, I would not expect to live as long as if I were not a heavy smoker.

[William Terrell]

I would rather go later than sooner.

Smoking, or not, will have little to do with it, if you believe in numbers.

Smoking Studies

Result: Positive Risk, Negative Risk or Insignificant Statistically.
Relative Risk and Confidence Interval.*

YR	Name	Result	Rel.Risk	Conf.Int	Locale	Type	Sex	Link	Comments
99	Mitchell / Milerad	I			Eur	SIDS	M&F	Link at WHO
98	Enstrom / Kabat	I			USA/ CA	SHS	M&F Spouses	Link at BMJ	SHS Harmless. BMJ letters. Editor Comment. Fumento. SHS Frauds.
98	Boffetta (WHO)	I	1.16	0.93-1.44	Eur	Spouse	M&F
98	Boffetta (WHO)	I	1.17	0.94-1.45	Eur	Work	F&M
98	Boffetta (WHO)	N	0.78 *	0.64-0.96	Eur	Childhd	F&M	Link at WHO
98	Boffetta (WHO)	I	1.03	0.82-1.29	Eur	Social	M&F		Judge Osteen Ruling
97	Cardenas ^	I	1.2	0.80-1.60	US	Spouse	F	Link at NCBI	Chapman at BMJ
97	Cardenas ^	I	1.1	0.60-1.80	US	Spouse	M
97	Jockel-BIPS	I	1.58	0.74-3.38	Ger	Spouse	F
97	Jockel-BIPS	I	1.58	0.52-4.81	Ger	Spouse	M
97	Jockel-GSF	N	0.93 *	0.66-1.31	Ger	Spouse	F
97	Jockel-GSF	N	0.93 *	0.52-1.67	Ger	Spouse	M
97	Ko ^	I	1.3	0.70-2.50	Tai	Spouse	F
97	Nyberg	I	1.2	0.74-1.94	Swed	Spouse	F
97	Nyberg	I	1.2	0.57-2.55	Swed	Spouse	M
97	Jockel-BIPS	P	2.37	1.02-5.48	Ger	Work	F&M
97	Jockel-GSF	I	1.51	0.95-2.40	Ger	Work	F&M
97	Ko ^	I	1.1	0.40-3.00	Tai	Work	F
97	Nyberg	I	1.6	0.90-2.90	Swed	Work	F&M
97	Jockel-BIPS	I	1.05	0.50-2.22	Ger	Childhd	F&M
97	Jockel-GSF	N	0.95 *	0.64-1.40	Ger	Childhd	F&M
97	Ko ^	N	0.80 *	0.40-1.60	Tai	Childhd	F
96	Schwartz ^	I	1.1	0.72-1.68	US	Spouse	F
96	Schwartz ^	I	1.1	0.60-2.03	US	Spouse	M
96	Sun	I	1.16	0.80-1.69	Chin	Spouse	F
96	Want S-Y	P	2.53	1.26-5.10	Chin	Spouse	F
96	Wang T-J	I	1.11	0.67-1.84	Chin	Spouse	F
96	Schwartz ^	I	1.5	1.00-2.20	US	Work	F&M
96	Sun	I	1.38	0.94-2.04	Chin	Work	F
96	Wang T-J	N	0.89 *	0.46-1.73	Chin	Work	F
96	Sun	P	2.29	1.56-3.37	Chin	Childhd	F
96	Wang T-J	N	0.91 *	0.56-1.48	Chin	Childhd	F
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.08	0.60-1.94	US	Spouse	F
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.6	0.67-3.82	US	Spouse	M
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.15	0.62-2.13	US	Work	F
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.02	0.50-2.09	US	Work	M
95	Kabat 2 ^	N	0.90 *	0.43-1.89	US	Childhd	M
95	Kabat 2 ^	I	1.55	0.95-2.79	US	Childhd	F
95	Kabat 2 (^)	I	1.22	0.69-2.15	US	Social	F
95	Kabat 2 (^)	I	1.39	0.67-2.86	US	Social	M
94	Fontham ^	I	1.29	1.04-1.60	US	Spouse	F
94	Layard	N	0.58 *	0.30-1.13	US	Spouse	F
94	Layard	I	1.47	0.55-3.94	US	Spouse	M
94	Zaridze	I	1.66	1.12-2.46	Russia	Spouse	F
94	Fontham ^	I	1.39	1.11-1.74	US	Work	F
94	Zaridze	I	1.23	0.74-2.06	Russia	Work	F
94	Fontham ^	N	0.89 *	0.72-1.10	US	Childhd	F
94	Zaridze	N	0.98 *	0.66-1.45	Russia	Childhd	F
94	Fontham	I	1.5	1.19-1.89	US	Social	F
93	Liu Q ^	I	1.66	0.73-3.78	Chin	Spouse	F
93	Wu	I	1.09	0.64-1.85	Chin	Spouse	F
92	EPA/600/6-90/006F				US			Link at EPA "An estimate of the unknown, but believed to be true."	Frauds
92	Brownson 2 ^	I	NS *	0.80-1.20	US	Spouse	F
92	Stockwell ^	I	1.6	0.80-3.00	US	Spouse	F
92	Brownson 2	N	0.79 *	0.61-1.03	US	Work	F
92	Stockwell ^	I	NS *	NS	US	Work	F
92	Brownson 2 ^	N	0.80 *	0.60-1.10	US	Childhd	F
92	Stockwell ^	I	1.1	0.50-2.60	US	Childhd	F
92	Stockwell	I	NS *	NS *	US	Social	F
91	Liu Z	N	0.77 *	0.30-1.96	Chin	Spouse	F
90	Janerick	N	0.93 *	0.55-1.57	US	Spouse	M&F
90	Kalandidi	P	2.11	1.09-4.08	Grk	Spouse	F
90	Sobue	I	1.13	0.78-1.63	Jap	Spouse	F
90	Wu-Williams	N	0.70 *	0.60-0.90	Chin	Spouse	F
90	Janerich ^	N	0.91 *	0.80-1.04	US	Work	F&M
90	Kalandidi ^!	I	1.39	0.80-2.50	Grk	Work	F
90	Wu-Williams ^	I	1.2	0.90-1.60	Chin	Work	F
90	Janerich ^	I	1.09	0.68-1.73	US	Childhd	F&M
90	Sobue (^)	I	1.28	0.71-2.31	Jap	Childhd	F
90	Wu-Will(^)!	I	NS  *	NS	Chin	Childhd	F
90	Janerich	N	0.59 *	0.43-0.81	US	Social	F&M
89	Choi	I	1.63	0.92-2.87	Kor	Spouse	F
89	Choi	P	2.73	0.49-15.21	Kor	Spouse	M
89	Hole	I	1.89	0.22-16.12	Scot	Spouse	F
89	Hole	I	3.52	0.32-38.65	Scot	Spouse	M
89	Svensson	I	1.26	0.57-2.81	Swed	Spouse	F
89	Svensson ^	P	3.3	0.50-18.80	Swed	Childhd	F
88	Butler	P	2.2	0.48-8.56	US	Spouse	F
88	Geng	P	2.16	1.08-4.29	Chin	Spouse	F
88	Inoue	P	2.25	0.80-8.80	Jap	Spouse	F
88	Shimizu	I	1.08	0.64-1.82	Jap	Spouse	F
88	Shimizu ^	I	1.18	0.70-2.01	Jap	Work	F
87	Bownson 1	I	1.68	0.39-6.90	US	Spouse	F
87	Gao	I	1.19	0.82-1.73	Chin	Spouse	F
87	Humble	P	2.2	0.80-6.60	US	Spouse	F
87	Humble	P	4.82	0.63-36.56	US	Spouse	M
87	Koo	I	1.64	0.87-3.09	HK	Spouse	F
87	Lam T	I	1.65	1.16-2.35	HK	Spouse	F
87	Pershagen(+)	I	1.2	0.70-2.10	Swed	Spouse	F
87	Koo ^	N	0.91 *	0.15-5.37	HK	Work	F
87	Gao ^	I	1.1	0.70-1.70	Chin	Childhd	F
87	Koo ^!	I	1.73	0.60-6.40	HK	Childhd	F
87	Pershagen ^	I	NS *	0.40-2.30	Swed	Childhd	F
86	Akiba(+)	I	1.5	0.90-2.80	Jap	Spouse	F
86	Akiba(+)	I	1.8	0.40-7.00	Jap	Spouse	M
86	Lee(+)	I	NS *	0.37-2.71	UK	Spouse	F
86	Lee(+)	I	1.3	0.38-4.39	UK	Spouse	M
86	Lee ^	N	0.63*	0.17-2.33	UK	Work	F
86	Lee ^	I	1.61	0.39-6.60	UK	Work	M
86	Akiba +	I	NS *	NS	Jap	Childhd	F&M
86	Lee	N	0.61 *	0.29-1.28	UK	Social	F
86	Lee	I	1.55	0.40-6.02	UK	Social	M
85	Garfinkel 2(+)	I	1.23	0.81-1.87	US	Spouse	F
85	Lam W	P	2.01	1.09-3.72	HK	Spouse	F
85	Wu(+!)	I	1.4	0.40-4.20	US	Spouse	F
85	Garfinkel 2 ^	N	0.93 *	0.70-1.20	US	Work	F
85	Wu ^	I	1.3	0.50-3.30	US	Work	F
85	Garfinkel 2 +	N	0.91 *	0.74-1.12	US	Childhd	F
85	Wu (+)	N	0.60 *	0.20-1.70	US	Childhd	F
85	Garfinkel 2	I	1.42	0.75-2.70	US	Social	F
84	Buffler	N	0.80 *	.34-1.90	US	Spouse	F
84	Buffler	N	0.51 *	.14-1.79	US	Spouse	M
84	Hirayama (+)!	I	1.6	1.00-2.40	Jap	Spouse	F
84	Hirayama +	P	2.24	1.19-4.22	Jap	Spouse	M
84	Kabat 1(+)	N	0.79 *	.25-2.45	US	Spouse	F
84	Kabat 1(+)		NS *	0.20-5.07	US	Spouse	M
84	Kabat 1 ^	N	0.70 *	0.30-1.50	US	Work	F
84	Kabat 1 ^	P	3.3	1.10-10.40	US	Work	M
84	Kabat & Wyn ^	N	0.92 *	0.40-2.08	US	Childhd	F
84	Kabat & Wyn ^	I	1.26	0.33-4.83	US	Childhd	M
83	Correa(+!)	P	2.07	.81-5.25	US	Spouse	F
83	Correa(+!)	I	1.97	.38-10.32	US	Spouse	M
83	Trichopouls(+!)	P	2.08	1.20-3.59	Grk	Spouse	F
83	Correa +	I	NS *	NS	US	Childhd	F
82	Chan +	N	0.80 *	.43-1.30	HK	Spouse	F
81	Garfinkel 1 (+)	I	1.18	.90-1.54	US	Spouse	F	Link at UCSF

*Epidemiology studies risk factors, and determines Relative Risk (RR). A Relative risk of 1.0 indicates no effect. A RR of 1.25 means the risk is increased by 25%; a RR of .75 means the risk is decreased by 25%, and indicates a protective effect.

Epidemology deals with probabilities, and is an imprecise science. The Confidence Interval (CI) can be thought of as the margin of error – the real RR could be anywhere within the CI. For example, in the WHO Boffetta study (# 98 on this chart) spouses were assigned an RR of 1.16, with a CI of .93-1.44. That means the real RR could be anywhere between .93 (a 7% decrease in risk) or 1.44, (a 44% increase). It could even be 1.0 – no effect at all. When the CI straddles 1.0, as it does in this case, the RR is not statistically significant. Note that in nearly all SHS studies the RR is not statistically significant.

Studies of behavior are difficult because people's habits and lifestyles vary so greatly. These variations are called confounders, and must be considered when analyzing the numbers. In studies of SHS, confounders include age, gender, allergies, nationality, race, medications, compliance with medications, education, gas heating and cooking, gender, socioeconomic status, exposure to other chemicals, occupation, use of alcohol, use of marijuana, consumption of saturated fat and other dietary considerations, family history of cancer and domestic radon exposure, to name a few.

Because it is easy to overlook an important confounder, the rule of thumb is that an RR of less than 2.0 is suspect, even if it is statistically significant, and an RR of 3.0 or more is preferred. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine says, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” Even further, The National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.”

For more information on how to interpret these numbers, visit Epidemology 101 and Epidemology 102 at The Facts.
-------------

Smoking Studies list from Forces Nederland.

-------------

Mad Max's Studies List

-------------

Cato Institute: Tobacco Studies

-------------

WHO

-------------

Smokes and Mirrors
By Aaron North. Looking at an issue, particularly one as seemingly cut and dry as tobacco, from multiple angles is a must to ensure our outlooks on public policy and the popular voice are not forfeited to the smoke being blown around us.
Almost 255,000 of the 440,000 smoking-related deaths reported by the CDC — nearly 60 percent of the total — occurred at age 70 or above.
More than 192,000 deaths — nearly 45 percent of the total — occurred at age 75 or higher.
And roughly 72,000 deaths — almost 17 percent of the total — occurred at age 85 or above.

[cinFLA]

"Among male cigarette smokers, the risk of lung cancer is more than 2,000 percent higher than among male nonsmokers; for women, the risks were approximately 1,200 percent greater. Lung cancer is the single largest cause of cancer mortality among both men and women and accounts for more than one in every four cancer deaths nationally in the U.S."

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/risks67.html

[cinFLA]

Smoking Studies list from Forces Nederland.

Isn't "Forces" that pro-smoking agenda organization?

[Sunshine Sister]

Yeah, but do you have control over the drunk driver coming at you?

How about the truck driver who loses control of his rig because he fell asleep at the wheel?

What about the guy who has a heart attack at the wheel?

It doesn't matter how you lived your life. If any of this stuff happens you will be just as dead.

[cinFLA]

Wow! A lot of studies supporting that SHS is dangerous. Statistically, VERY CONCLUSIVE!