Does smoking shorten lifespan? Mmm no it doesn't.

[rightwinger]

Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.

Smoking accounts for 87% of lung cancers....what percent is due to radon exposure?

How many of those 87% had every home they lived in tested for radon? Of course that number is close to zero.

Without that critical information, mine would be only a guess, but also, without that information, so is the 87% number

Every one of them has been tested for both radon and termites

 

[rightwinger]

Radon and Cancer

Cigarette smoking is the most common cause of lung cancer. Radon represents a far smaller risk for this disease, but it is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Scientists estimate that 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States each year are related to radon.
Exposure to the combination of radon gas and cigarette smoke creates a greater risk of lung cancer than exposure to either factor alone. The majority of radon-related cancer deaths occur among smokers. However, it is estimated that more than 10 percent of radon-related cancer deaths occur among nonsmokers.

 

[Pop23]

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.

Smoking accounts for 87% of lung cancers....what percent is due to radon exposure?

How many of those 87% had every home they lived in tested for radon? Of course that number is close to zero.

Without that critical information, mine would be only a guess, but also, without that information, so is the 87% number

Every one of them has been tested for both radon and termites

Why test termites for lung cancer?

 

[rightwinger]

If you have lung cancer, there is close to a 90% chance you are a smoker

Not good odds

 

[Camp]

Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.

Lung cancer is not the only cause of early death linked to smoking.

So is smoking while driving. Ban all distracted driving?

The longevity brought up by the OP includes all types of death. Explain how these people lived so long.

You keep talking about banning. The only bans on smoking are in regards to smoking where it can have a health hazard or risk to others. You do not have a right to do things in public or to do that things that expose the public to health hazards just because you have a weakness that addicts you to an unhealthy habit or addiction. You do not have a constitutional right to subject little children with little lungs to the garbage you like to put into yours, or, older people with age weakened lungs to that same garbage. If you are to stupid to understand that putting smoke into your lungs is unhealthy that is your problem and one society will be forced to deal with eventually when you are in need of medical care and or burial at the end of your life. It is not one you can force us to deal with while you are healthy enough to inflict your weakness and disease directly onto us and our loved ones.

 

[Pop23]

If you have lung cancer, there is close to a 90% chance you are a smoker

Not good odds

Deceptive stats are deceptive.

 

[rightwinger]

If you have lung cancer, there is close to a 90% chance you are a smoker

Not good odds

Deceptive stats are deceptive.

Dead is dead

 

[Pop23]

If you have lung cancer, there is close to a 90% chance you are a smoker

Not good odds

Deceptive stats are deceptive.

Dead is dead

And long life is long life, can you address the OP with an answer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I would love to do a comparison of life spans between smokers and non smokers in my retirement community. However, that is impossible, because most of the smokers are dead. There are 3 left out of 80 in my bridge club. One died last week of lung and brain cancer. Two of those who are left are convinced they will live forever, because they only "vap".

 

[rightwinger]

If you have lung cancer, there is close to a 90% chance you are a smoker

Not good odds

Deceptive stats are deceptive.

Dead is dead

And long life is long life, can you address the OP with an answer.

Already did

Namely, he's full of shit...as are you Captain Radon

 

[rightwinger]

I would love to do a comparison of life spans between smokers and non smokers in my retirement community. However, that is impossible, because most of the smokers are dead. There are 3 left out of 80 in my bridge club. One died last week of lung and brain cancer. Two of those who are left are convinced they will live forever, because they only "vap".

It is not just that they die younger, but they age faster
Their quality of life deteriorates at a younger age. They can't walk, can't breathe, can't do much but wait to die

 

[NLT]

Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift

Where in the US is a work enviorment that a worker is exposed to ciggerette smoke for 8 hrs?
If you say a bar....well if you work in a bar where there are people smoking...go to a bar that bans smoking? not hard to find at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift

Where in the US is a work enviorment that a worker is exposed to ciggerette smoke for 8 hrs?
If you say a bar....well if you work in a bar where there are people smoking...go to a bar that bans smoking? not hard to find at all.

Before the smoking ban......bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, barber shops and just about any office in America

If you were a bartender, sucking in smoking filth was part of the job

Barring smoking in EVERY bar was the answer

 

[NLT]

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift

Where in the US is a work enviorment that a worker is exposed to ciggerette smoke for 8 hrs?
If you say a bar....well if you work in a bar where there are people smoking...go to a bar that bans smoking? not hard to find at all.

Before the smoking ban......bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, barber shops and just about any office in America

If you were a bartender, sucking in smoking filth was part of the job

Barring smoking in EVERY bar was the answer

You did not clairify "before the Ban" in your post.
You posted "
A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift" you posted in the present tense not the past tense.

 

[rightwinger]

The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift

Where in the US is a work enviorment that a worker is exposed to ciggerette smoke for 8 hrs?
If you say a bar....well if you work in a bar where there are people smoking...go to a bar that bans smoking? not hard to find at all.

Before the smoking ban......bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, barber shops and just about any office in America

If you were a bartender, sucking in smoking filth was part of the job

Barring smoking in EVERY bar was the answer

You did not clairify "before the Ban" in your post.
You posted "
A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift" you posted in the present tense not the past tense.

After the ban is kind of irrelevant isn't it?

I was responding to a claim about second hand smoking from the OP

 

[NLT]

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift

Where in the US is a work enviorment that a worker is exposed to ciggerette smoke for 8 hrs?
If you say a bar....well if you work in a bar where there are people smoking...go to a bar that bans smoking? not hard to find at all.

Before the smoking ban......bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, barber shops and just about any office in America

If you were a bartender, sucking in smoking filth was part of the job

Barring smoking in EVERY bar was the answer

You did not clairify "before the Ban" in your post.
You posted "
A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift" you posted in the present tense not the past tense.

After the ban is kind of irrelevant isn't it?

not when you post like you are talking about something that is happening today.

 

[rightwinger]

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift

Where in the US is a work enviorment that a worker is exposed to ciggerette smoke for 8 hrs?
If you say a bar....well if you work in a bar where there are people smoking...go to a bar that bans smoking? not hard to find at all.

Before the smoking ban......bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, barber shops and just about any office in America

If you were a bartender, sucking in smoking filth was part of the job

Barring smoking in EVERY bar was the answer

You did not clairify "before the Ban" in your post.
You posted "
A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift" you posted in the present tense not the past tense.

After the ban is kind of irrelevant isn't it?

not when you post like you are talking about something that is happening today.

I do believe there are still states that allow smoking in restaurants and workplaces. There are also other countries that allow it

So the threat of second hand smoke is still valid

 

[Muhammed]

Well, I haven't researched the longevity of smokers much, but I've known smokers that obviously lost a lot of quality of life even if they had a relatively long life. Coughing up thick phlegm for half the day.

Is that how you want to live?

 

[NLT]

Where in the US is a work enviorment that a worker is exposed to ciggerette smoke for 8 hrs?
If you say a bar....well if you work in a bar where there are people smoking...go to a bar that bans smoking? not hard to find at all.

Before the smoking ban......bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, barber shops and just about any office in America

If you were a bartender, sucking in smoking filth was part of the job

Barring smoking in EVERY bar was the answer

You did not clairify "before the Ban" in your post.
You posted "
A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift" you posted in the present tense not the past tense.

After the ban is kind of irrelevant isn't it?

not when you post like you are talking about something that is happening today.

I do believe there are still states that allow smoking in restaurants and workplaces. There are also other countries that allow it

So the threat of second hand smoke is still valid

never said it was not valid. You posted like that it is the norm for a worker to have to endure a 8 hour shift breathing in second hand smoke today, in america, and I called bfs. Nobody said anything about what happens in other countries, nice deflection.

 

[rightwinger]

Before the smoking ban......bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, barber shops and just about any office in America

If you were a bartender, sucking in smoking filth was part of the job

Barring smoking in EVERY bar was the answer

You did not clairify "before the Ban" in your post.
You posted "
A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift" you posted in the present tense not the past tense.

After the ban is kind of irrelevant isn't it?

not when you post like you are talking about something that is happening today.

I do believe there are still states that allow smoking in restaurants and workplaces. There are also other countries that allow it

So the threat of second hand smoke is still valid

never said it was not valid. You posted like that it is the norm for a worker to have to endure a 8 hour shift breathing in second hand smoke today, in america, and I called bfs. Nobody said anything about what happens in other countries, nice deflection.

It is still a threat to workers health and still in place in some states

The OP saying that cigarette smoking is not dangerous and second hand smoke is no threat is full of shit

Why don't you attack him instead of challenging my accurate statements?