What is happening to this country?

[bmc]

FYI......The media doesn't sit around a table and decide on public opinion and public policy. They report on it. Get over it.

The media didn't tell Ottawa to tax the shit out of cigarettes, did they?

Give your alleged head a shake.

[GilletteNorth]

BMC, I disagree about your comment that the media only reports on public opinion. Newspapers are notorious for being biased toward one political party, or a certain veiwpoint. They DO sway public opinion as well as 'report' on it.

General comments regarding the smoking debate: There SHOULD be smoking sections in restaurants. Why can't restaurant owners make their own decision as to what type of clientel they wish to serve? Smoking was allowed until the non-smokers whined and complained about smoking being a danger to their health, despite the fact they could also have choosen not to go to the restaurant. It was really a matter of whether they had somewhere to go that was smokefree and have fun or not. What about the smoker's choice to go to the restaurant and smoke as part of their fun? It may be unhealthy for them, but who are non-smokers to deny them the opportunity to enjoy themselves? Fast food is unhealthy, base-jumping is highly dangerous, drinking tap water is almost downright suicide these days but people still partake of all of them. Humanity puts up with toxic effluents being dumped into rivers by factories, garbage dumps are being filled to over-flowing, strip mining releasing green-house gases into the air, and the list goes on. And the thing society jumps on is trying to stop people smoking cigarettes? Not everyone gets cancer from smoking, it's just increased risk. Since that is true, how is that so different from increased risk of heart attack caused by eating fast food, or high risk of sudden death from a parachuting accident (especially since like smoking, sport parachuting is something that no one needs to be doing at all, ever).

I think the real reason non-smokers wanted the smokers to stop smoking around them wasn't because they were so worried about their health. It was because they didn't like the smell of cigarette smoke and they couldn't stand not being with the fun people and had to complain.

If non-smokers want to grab a moral high ground and 'fix' the planet, stop attacking smokers and get onto fixing the destruction of the environment. You'll help a helluva lot more people and won't be as irritating. Another thing, if you enter a restaurant and smell cigarette smoke... simply walk out. If the restaurant owner determines he's losing more business catering to smokers than non-smokers, you won't need any legislation, he'll change the rules on his own. You want a lift from a friend but he likes to smoke in his car and you don't like it, simple, grab a cab you cheap... oh, and if you don't like the cabbie being a smoker, ask for a non-smoking cab driver, is that too hard?

I'm an ex-smoker btw. If anyone had ever told me to stop smoking in my car while I was giving them a ride they definitely would have been walking.

Any debate on this is like winning in the special olympics...

[Topspin]

I actually disagree, I think smoking should be banned inside, I think it is gross when tobacco smoke starts to take over the air. The exception to this being the closet sized smoking room in bars, if 50 smokers want to pack themselves in there then fine, good on us, happy coughing, doesn't hurt anybody else.

The original topic wasn't the smoking debate, or automobile exhaust however.
Put this in perspective. One unsuccessful terrorist attack and no longer can we bring a Gatorade on board a plane. Millions of dollars are spent to pay people to take away other peoples drinks and generally hassle them. The likelihood of the average air passenger to be a victim of a scheme such as this has to be a minuscule amount of a percent, security or no security.
However, millions must be spent and thousands must be inconvenienced so that a small portion of the population that is afraid of every single possible hazard to life can feel "safe".

My opinion, what is the point. Yes we need security, but to this degree????
Think about it literally, about how many aspects of your everyday life the government applies this to, it's ridiculous. Let's not jump back on the cigarette band wagon, that wasn't the point, just an example.

[bmc]

Topspin...to your point, if 2-3 B747's crashed in one week, the fleet would be grounded because 1,200 people died. There would be mass panic.

30,000 people die annually in car accidents. Are we freaking out?

[Topspin]

That is my point, we just haven't gotten there yet. It doesn't have to be something so violent as car accidents either, and people panic and we get new stupid regulations that generally just piss everybody off.

[Rockie]

That is my point, we just haven't gotten there yet. It doesn't have to be something so violent as car accidents either, and people panic and we get new stupid regulations that generally just piss everybody off.

Re: smoking...hardly. Most people don't smoke and couldn't be less interested in smoker's rights.

[canwhitewolf]

What benefit do cigarettes provide? Overcrowded hospitals? Litter? Spit?

Sorry but smoking sucks and should be banned.

*********************************************************************

smoking may suck but when all the nuclear testing took place back in the 50's they realized they had to come up with a reason for everyone getting cancer,

they hired the best professionals to do an analysis of smoking and its effects for the sole purpose of having someone to blame for cancer, but in the final analysis of that the advanced medical profesion could not prove cancer is caused by smoking and indeed found the opposite - that smokers get less cancer than non smokers! because it lines the lungs a bit and reduced the lungs ability to absorb radiation. youre certainly entitled to your opinion of smokers but we pay our way medically due to the high taxes and costs and we also pay a lot towards medical expenses those who dont smoke as well in their care.

its all BS and the government is a total hypocrit on this, its as bad as tellin the lie that cars should be shut down at coffee shops(idling police) to stop pollution when in actual fact shutting down and starting up causes things to be worse,

what we have is a bunch of control freaks running things in government without science, and dictatorial tactics made valid by inaccurate statistics

lies damn lies and statistics all pretty much the same thing

mark twain

[Guido]

What benefit do cigarettes provide? Overcrowded hospitals? Litter? Spit?

Sorry but smoking sucks and should be banned.

*********************************************************************

smoking may suck but when all the nuclear testing took place back in the 50's they realized they had to come up with a reason for everyone getting cancer,

they hired the best professionals to do an analysis of smoking and its effects for the sole purpose of having someone to blame for cancer, but in the final analysis of that the advanced medical profesion could not prove cancer is caused by smoking and indeed found the opposite - that smokers get less cancer than non smokers! because it lines the lungs a bit and reduced the lungs ability to absorb radiation. youre certainly entitled to your opinion of smokers but we pay our way medically due to the high taxes and costs and we also pay a lot towards medical expenses those who dont smoke as well in their care.

its all BS and the government is a total hypocrit on this, its as bad as tellin the lie that cars should be shut down at coffee shops(idling police) to stop pollution when in actual fact shutting down and starting up causes things to be worse,

what we have is a bunch of control freaks running things in government without science, and dictatorial tactics made valid by inaccurate statistics

lies damn lies and statistics all pretty much the same thing

mark twain

That's either the best troll I've read in months, or you must wear a very thick tinfoil hat...

[Topspin]

What benefit do cigarettes provide? Overcrowded hospitals? Litter? Spit?

Sorry but smoking sucks and should be banned.

*********************************************************************

smoking may suck but when all the nuclear testing took place back in the 50's they realized they had to come up with a reason for everyone getting cancer,

they hired the best professionals to do an analysis of smoking and its effects for the sole purpose of having someone to blame for cancer, but in the final analysis of that the advanced medical profesion could not prove cancer is caused by smoking and indeed found the opposite - that smokers get less cancer than non smokers! because it lines the lungs a bit and reduced the lungs ability to absorb radiation. youre certainly entitled to your opinion of smokers but we pay our way medically due to the high taxes and costs and we also pay a lot towards medical expenses those who dont smoke as well in their care.

its all BS and the government is a total hypocrit on this, its as bad as tellin the lie that cars should be shut down at coffee shops(idling police) to stop pollution when in actual fact shutting down and starting up causes things to be worse,

what we have is a bunch of control freaks running things in government without science, and dictatorial tactics made valid by inaccurate statistics

lies damn lies and statistics all pretty much the same thing

mark twain

That's either the best troll I've read in months, or you must wear a very thick tinfoil hat...

Tobbaco smoke may or may not be carcogenic, this reminds me of the history text books in 1900 when they were convinced that they new everything there was to know about modern science. However tobbaco smoke is definitley bad for you, how bad is left to be determined.

I smoke 5-8 cigarettes a day, ride a bicycle for transportation, and eat reasonably well and I know that my lungs are healthier than a lot of non smokers I know.

What really baffles me is how many times I write "lets stop going back to the cigarettes, thats not what this thread was about." We continue to miss the big picture here.

[bmc]

What benefit do cigarettes provide? Overcrowded hospitals? Litter? Spit?

Sorry but smoking sucks and should be banned.

*********************************************************************

smoking may suck but when all the nuclear testing took place back in the 50's they realized they had to come up with a reason for everyone getting cancer,

they hired the best professionals to do an analysis of smoking and its effects for the sole purpose of having someone to blame for cancer, but in the final analysis of that the advanced medical profesion could not prove cancer is caused by smoking and indeed found the opposite - that smokers get less cancer than non smokers! because it lines the lungs a bit and reduced the lungs ability to absorb radiation. youre certainly entitled to your opinion of smokers but we pay our way medically due to the high taxes and costs and we also pay a lot towards medical expenses those who dont smoke as well in their care.

its all BS and the government is a total hypocrit on this, its as bad as tellin the lie that cars should be shut down at coffee shops(idling police) to stop pollution when in actual fact shutting down and starting up causes things to be worse,

what we have is a bunch of control freaks running things in government without science, and dictatorial tactics made valid by inaccurate statistics

lies damn lies and statistics all pretty much the same thing

mark twain

That's just dumb. Try again.

[GilletteNorth]

Topspin:

The exception to this being the closet sized smoking room in bars, if 50 smokers want to pack themselves in there then fine, good on us, happy coughing, doesn't hurt anybody else.

How would you feel if someone had stated the reverse? "... the closet sized (non-)smoking room in bars, if 50 (non-)smokers want to pack themselves in there then fine, good on us, happy (breathing), doesn't hurt anybody else". I bet you'd be appalled at anyone else wanting to enforce unnecessary discomfort on a pack of rabid non-smokers.

It'd be fairly easy to have a comfortable, spacious and ventilated room set aside for smokers in hospitals, restaurants, bus-stops and wherever else but all the consideration they get is "the closet sized smoking room". Shows the same inconsiderate attitude non-smokers claim smokers show them. BTW Top, I thought you are a smoker, what are you doing taking 'the enemies' side?

Sorry if you don't want the topic to wander off about smoking but it's a can of worms.

People say they want consideration from smokers but when it comes to showing that same consideration in return it's "let em freeze their asses in the cold, serves em right". What BS.

Funny how alot of non-smokers will tell you they don't smoke but love the smell of a good cigar.

[canwhitewolf]

What benefit do cigarettes provide? Overcrowded hospitals? Litter? Spit?

Sorry but smoking sucks and should be banned.

*********************************************************************

smoking may suck but when all the nuclear testing took place back in the 50's they realized they had to come up with a reason for everyone getting cancer,

they hired the best professionals to do an analysis of smoking and its effects for the sole purpose of having someone to blame for cancer, but in the final analysis of that the advanced medical profesion could not prove cancer is caused by smoking and indeed found the opposite - that smokers get less cancer than non smokers! because it lines the lungs a bit and reduced the lungs ability to absorb radiation. youre certainly entitled to your opinion of smokers but we pay our way medically due to the high taxes and costs and we also pay a lot towards medical expenses those who dont smoke as well in their care.

its all BS and the government is a total hypocrit on this, its as bad as tellin the lie that cars should be shut down at coffee shops(idling police) to stop pollution when in actual fact shutting down and starting up causes things to be worse,

what we have is a bunch of control freaks running things in government without science, and dictatorial tactics made valid by inaccurate statistics

lies damn lies and statistics all pretty much the same thing

mark twain

That's just dumb. Try again.

***************************************************************

yea it would look dumb to someone who is dumb enough to post that remark without doing the research that it could be true

try again

[canwhitewolf]

What benefit do cigarettes provide? Overcrowded hospitals? Litter? Spit?

Sorry but smoking sucks and should be banned.

*********************************************************************

smoking may suck but when all the nuclear testing took place back in the 50's they realized they had to come up with a reason for everyone getting cancer,

they hired the best professionals to do an analysis of smoking and its effects for the sole purpose of having someone to blame for cancer, but in the final analysis of that the advanced medical profesion could not prove cancer is caused by smoking and indeed found the opposite - that smokers get less cancer than non smokers! because it lines the lungs a bit and reduced the lungs ability to absorb radiation. youre certainly entitled to your opinion of smokers but we pay our way medically due to the high taxes and costs and we also pay a lot towards medical expenses those who dont smoke as well in their care.

its all BS and the government is a total hypocrit on this, its as bad as tellin the lie that cars should be shut down at coffee shops(idling police) to stop pollution when in actual fact shutting down and starting up causes things to be worse,

what we have is a bunch of control freaks running things in government without science, and dictatorial tactics made valid by inaccurate statistics

lies damn lies and statistics all pretty much the same thing

mark twain

That's either the best troll I've read in months, or you must wear a very thick tinfoil hat...

********************************************************************

ive switched from tinfoil hat now to reverse polarity magnetism hat and it works really well, see im not even upset at your comment it works so well

do the research

[bmc]

yea it would look dumb to someone who is dumb enough to post that remark without doing the research that it could be true

try again

I just did my research.

It's not true.

[canwhitewolf]

yea it would look dumb to someone who is dumb enough to post that remark without doing the research that it could be true

try again

I just did my research.

It's not true.

*******************************************************************


well try again Icarus

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.htmla 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.
How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.


http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

[bmc]

Ok. If you're going to use Joe Vials as your credible source on this subject, I'm not going to engage any longer.

Happy thread folks.

[Rockie]

"they hired the best professionals to do an analysis of smoking and its effects for the sole purpose of having someone to blame for cancer, but in the final analysis of that the advanced medical profesion could not prove cancer is caused by smoking and indeed found the opposite - that smokers get less cancer than non smokers! because it lines the lungs a bit and reduced the lungs ability to absorb radiation."

Great discovery. So how come astronauts and nuclear power plant workers don't just smear nicotine all over themselves for protection from radiation? Way cheaper than all the other precautions.

[canwhitewolf]

Ok. If you're going to use Joe Vials as your credible source on this subject, I'm not going to engage any longer.

Happy thread folks.

********************************************************************

Ok. If you're going to use the CMA, who by their own admission were responsible for many deaths from drug interactions and misdiagnosis,( in fact over 750000 deaths in north america were due to doctors mistakes)
so if you engage and would like to quote them and the government as your credible source on this subject, I'm not going to engage any longer either.



so there, im taking my baseball and glove and goin home

[JBL]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/65676.stm


Incriminating evidence against tobacco company

Lung cancer victims are suing the tobacco companies

There is new evidence that a British cigarette manufacturer understood the link between smoking and lung cancer as long ago as 1970.

An internal memo from Gallaher Limited, who makes the Benson and Hedges and Silk Cut brands, says research on dogs proved beyond reasonable doubt that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer.

The disclosure has been welcomed by lawyers acting for lung cancer victims, who have begun legal action against the company.

The confidential memorandum from Gallaher's research department to the company's managing director was written in April 1970. It was disclosed by order of an American court during litigation against tobacco companies in the United States.

The document assesses research done during the 1960s on beagles. The dogs were forced to inhale cigarette smoke and almost all of them then became ill.

Gallaher's research directors said the tests proved beyond reasonable doubt that fresh whole cigarette smoke is carcenogenic to dog lungs, and therefore it is highly likely that it is carcenogenic to human lungs.

Lawyers acting for lung cancer victims will use this evidence in the case they are bringing against Gallaher and another company, Imperial Tobacco.

They say it is highly signficant that 28 years ago, before there were even health warnings on cigarette packets, the company's research department accepted that lung cancer was caused by cigarette smoke.

......................

[xsbank]

I like the peeing-in-the-pool-section, or the fart-in-the-elevator scenario. Exactly the same as smoking in public. Face it, as a smoker, you are a dinosaur, and an unpopular one too.

The more crowded we get, the more crammed in we get, the more we are thrust into each other's faces, the more important it is that we exercise extraordinary care to not be rude to each other. To me, smoking is the same thing as cutting someone off in traffic, parking in the handicap spot (stupidity is not considered a good enough reason to be given a handicap sticker), parking in the fire lane at the mall so Marge can run in and exchange her shoes or "just parking in the bus stop for a second while I run in for my coffee."

All incredibly rude and lower the collective level of civilization to nearly CID's level (oops).

[Rockie]

Great post xs, too bad about the last line though. You had some credibility going there.

[CID]

I like the peeing-in-the-pool-section, or the fart-in-the-elevator scenario. Exactly the same as smoking in public. Face it, as a smoker, you are a dinosaur, and an unpopular one too.

So tell us. What kind of cancer can you get from smelling farts?

[Widow]

No evidence that smelling farts causes cancer, although even human farts are thought to make a small contribution to global warming. Maybe there is hope though ...

Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroos' flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007 ... 111509.htm

[CID]

Someone needs to invent some sort of reactive converter like the catalytic converter in your car. It could scrub the methane out of our farts and make them mimic all sorts of fragrances. Wouldn't it be neet to have such a product that would not only help the environment but where we'd be able to personalize the smell of our farts?

I would pick something like lilac. I wonder what fragrances would best suit other AvCanada posters?

[CID]

After a quick internet search, I found this:



Man, you can find anything on the internet! (And it's ALL true!)