Senate Passes Bill to Let FDA Regulate Tobacco

[DiveCon]

So what exactly that I said makes me not very bright? Feel free to quote me.

Don't have enough space in a thread for that many quotes.

Funny you skipped the part where I showed that it was 17% over a century instead of one year. Why don't you address that, hmmm?

um, dont you understand how percentages work?
if its 17% over 100 years, it is still 17% over any time frame

 

[KittenKoder]

Funny you skipped the part where I showed that it was 17% over a century instead of one year. Why don't you address that, hmmm?

You also failed to see that the anti-smoking ad is misleading, which is the same as lying, yes, you are dense. When you see the one aired on TV, which doesn't say all that, you will still defend forcing people to live your way and lying about it.

Misleading is NOT the same as lying. And the only one here who lied is YOU with your whole bullshit 17% of people die a year claims. You seem to have some weird axe to grind with the anti-smoking people, and your doing it by lying about their claims.

Misleading is exactly the same as lying. Also I do have an ax to grind with all liars. Every one of their stats has been a lie, then when they were finally told to tell the truth or lose their funding the "Truth" people started doing exactly what they accused tobacco companies of, mislead and "plead the fifth" ... well, it's not working anymore. The one aired on TV didn't say "century" and it didn't say "probable" either, misleading is lying, there are no such thing as "white lies", that was a lie as well.

You have nothing, no proof, no evidence either, nothing to support smoking bans at all. Here's a little lesser know FACT: Drunk drivers kill more people per year than anything else on the planet, the numbers even exceed the number of people who die at war time. Air pollution is the number one cause of asthma, and the biggest contributors to air pollution are cars and factories, cigarettes didn't even make the list. The most common cancer is skin cancer. More people die of colon and prostate cancer every year than lung cancer even. Those are fact, conveniently ignored and even twisted by the anti-smoking campaigns.

 

[Nik]

Don't have enough space in a thread for that many quotes.

Funny you skipped the part where I showed that it was 17% over a century instead of one year. Why don't you address that, hmmm?

um, dont you understand how percentages work?
if its 17% over 100 years, it is still 17% over any time frame

Try reading the link, dumbass. The number of people who would die over 100 years is 1 billion, which is 17% of the current US population. So, no, its not the same.

 

[KittenKoder]

Don't have enough space in a thread for that many quotes.

Funny you skipped the part where I showed that it was 17% over a century instead of one year. Why don't you address that, hmmm?

um, dont you understand how percentages work?
if its 17% over 100 years, it is still 17% over any time frame

Nik can't do math.

 

[Nik]

You also failed to see that the anti-smoking ad is misleading, which is the same as lying, yes, you are dense. When you see the one aired on TV, which doesn't say all that, you will still defend forcing people to live your way and lying about it.

Misleading is NOT the same as lying. And the only one here who lied is YOU with your whole bullshit 17% of people die a year claims. You seem to have some weird axe to grind with the anti-smoking people, and your doing it by lying about their claims.

Misleading is exactly the same as lying. Also I do have an ax to grind with all liars. Every one of their stats has been a lie, then when they were finally told to tell the truth or lose their funding the "Truth" people started doing exactly what they accused tobacco companies of, mislead and "plead the fifth" ... well, it's not working anymore. The one aired on TV didn't say "century" and it didn't say "probable" either, misleading is lying, there are no such thing as "white lies", that was a lie as well.

You have nothing, no proof, no evidence either, nothing to support smoking bans at all. Here's a little lesser know FACT: Drunk drivers kill more people per year than anything else on the planet, the numbers even exceed the number of people who die at war time. Air pollution is the number one cause of asthma, and the biggest contributors to air pollution are cars and factories, cigarettes didn't even make the list. The most common cancer is skin cancer. More people die of colon and prostate cancer every year than lung cancer even. Those are fact, conveniently ignored and even twisted by the anti-smoking campaigns.

Really? Thats a fact?

WHO | The top 10 causes of death

World Deaths in millions % of deaths
Coronary heart disease 7.20 12.2
Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases 5.71 9.7
Lower respiratory infections 4.18 7.1
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 3.02 5.1
Diarrhoeal diseases 2.16 3.7
HIV/AIDS 2.04 3.5
Tuberculosis 1.46 2.5
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 1.32 2.3
Road traffic accidents 1.27 2.2
Prematurity and low birth weight 1.18 2.0

Is that like the "fact" that the anti-smokers are saying 17% die per year? You don't know what the fuck you are talking about do you? You just make shit up as you go along.

 

[Nik]

Funny you skipped the part where I showed that it was 17% over a century instead of one year. Why don't you address that, hmmm?

um, dont you understand how percentages work?
if its 17% over 100 years, it is still 17% over any time frame

Nik can't do math.

No, that would be you, retard. I explained the math. Funny you still haven't responded to it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Misleading is NOT the same as lying. And the only one here who lied is YOU with your whole bullshit 17% of people die a year claims. You seem to have some weird axe to grind with the anti-smoking people, and your doing it by lying about their claims.

Misleading is exactly the same as lying. Also I do have an ax to grind with all liars. Every one of their stats has been a lie, then when they were finally told to tell the truth or lose their funding the "Truth" people started doing exactly what they accused tobacco companies of, mislead and "plead the fifth" ... well, it's not working anymore. The one aired on TV didn't say "century" and it didn't say "probable" either, misleading is lying, there are no such thing as "white lies", that was a lie as well.

You have nothing, no proof, no evidence either, nothing to support smoking bans at all. Here's a little lesser know FACT: Drunk drivers kill more people per year than anything else on the planet, the numbers even exceed the number of people who die at war time. Air pollution is the number one cause of asthma, and the biggest contributors to air pollution are cars and factories, cigarettes didn't even make the list. The most common cancer is skin cancer. More people die of colon and prostate cancer every year than lung cancer even. Those are fact, conveniently ignored and even twisted by the anti-smoking campaigns.

Really? Thats a fact?

WHO | The top 10 causes of death

World Deaths in millions % of deaths
Coronary heart disease 7.20 12.2
Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases 5.71 9.7
Lower respiratory infections 4.18 7.1
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 3.02 5.1
Diarrhoeal diseases 2.16 3.7
HIV/AIDS 2.04 3.5
Tuberculosis 1.46 2.5
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 1.32 2.3
Road traffic accidents 1.27 2.2
Prematurity and low birth weight 1.18 2.0

Is that like the "fact" that the anti-smokers are saying 17% die per year? You don't know what the fuck you are talking about do you? You just make shit up as you go along.

*eye roll* Here's the same logic your anti-smoking buddies use, they didn't factor in the places where people drive nor did they factor in demonstrate that the others were not drinking and driving at the time of their death see how statistics work?

... again though 17% per century is still 17% per year, as Dive pointed out.

 

[KittenKoder]

um, dont you understand how percentages work?
if its 17% over 100 years, it is still 17% over any time frame

Nik can't do math.

No, that would be you, retard. I explained the math. Funny you still haven't responded to it.

No, what's funny is that someone pointed out your inability to utilize math and your brain but you still avoid the simple fact: Anti-smoking groups lie and should be brought up on charges.

 

[DiveCon]

Nik can't do math.

No, that would be you, retard. I explained the math. Funny you still haven't responded to it.

No, what's funny is that someone pointed out your inability to utilize math and your brain but you still avoid the simple fact: Anti-smoking groups lie and should be ignored.

fixed

i dont think it should be a crime to lie so much as commiting perjury.
if they say it under oath, then it is a crime
but, otherwise, its buyer beware

 

[KittenKoder]

No, that would be you, retard. I explained the math. Funny you still haven't responded to it.

No, what's funny is that someone pointed out your inability to utilize math and your brain but you still avoid the simple fact: Anti-smoking groups lie and should be ignored.

fixed

i dont think it should be a crime to lie so much as commiting perjury.
if they say it under oath, then it is a crime
but, otherwise, its buyer beware

In their case though, they are getting tax dollars to promote the "truth", meaning we are paying them for that (by force which is bullshit to begin with). So it would be the same as any other government agency lying.

 

[Nik]

Misleading is exactly the same as lying. Also I do have an ax to grind with all liars. Every one of their stats has been a lie, then when they were finally told to tell the truth or lose their funding the "Truth" people started doing exactly what they accused tobacco companies of, mislead and "plead the fifth" ... well, it's not working anymore. The one aired on TV didn't say "century" and it didn't say "probable" either, misleading is lying, there are no such thing as "white lies", that was a lie as well.

You have nothing, no proof, no evidence either, nothing to support smoking bans at all. Here's a little lesser know FACT: Drunk drivers kill more people per year than anything else on the planet, the numbers even exceed the number of people who die at war time. Air pollution is the number one cause of asthma, and the biggest contributors to air pollution are cars and factories, cigarettes didn't even make the list. The most common cancer is skin cancer. More people die of colon and prostate cancer every year than lung cancer even. Those are fact, conveniently ignored and even twisted by the anti-smoking campaigns.

Really? Thats a fact?

World Deaths in millions % of deaths
Coronary heart disease 7.20 12.2
Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases 5.71 9.7
Lower respiratory infections 4.18 7.1
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 3.02 5.1
Diarrhoeal diseases 2.16 3.7
HIV/AIDS 2.04 3.5
Tuberculosis 1.46 2.5
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 1.32 2.3
Road traffic accidents 1.27 2.2
Prematurity and low birth weight 1.18 2.0

Is that like the "fact" that the anti-smokers are saying 17% die per year? You don't know what the fuck you are talking about do you? You just make shit up as you go along.

*eye roll* Here's the same logic your anti-smoking buddies use, they didn't factor in the places where people drive nor did they factor in demonstrate that the others were not drinking and driving at the time of their death see how statistics work?

It doesn't matter if someone is drinking and driving at the time of their death if its not the cause of their death. By the way, it doesn't matter if they factored in places where people drive. You said

Drunk drivers kill more people per year than anything else on the planet

More people than anything else. You didn't say a higher percentage, you didn't say a greater risk. You said more people. And that is, quite simply, a lie.

... again though 17% per century is still 17% per year, as Dive pointed out.

No, its not. They said that 1 billion people over the next century will die. Does that mean the same thing as 1 billion over the next year? No, it does not. Jesus Christ, you really are this fucking stupid aren't you?

 

[Nik]

Nik can't do math.

No, that would be you, retard. I explained the math. Funny you still haven't responded to it.

No, what's funny is that someone pointed out your inability to utilize math and your brain but you still avoid the simple fact: Anti-smoking groups lie and should be brought up on charges.

Oh? Charges of what exactly?

 

[KittenKoder]

Really? Thats a fact?





Is that like the "fact" that the anti-smokers are saying 17% die per year? You don't know what the fuck you are talking about do you? You just make shit up as you go along.

*eye roll* Here's the same logic your anti-smoking buddies use, they didn't factor in the places where people drive nor did they factor in demonstrate that the others were not drinking and driving at the time of their death see how statistics work?

It doesn't matter if someone is drinking and driving at the time of their death if its not the cause of their death. By the way, it doesn't matter if they factored in places where people drive. You said

Drunk drivers kill more people per year than anything else on the planet

More people than anything else. You didn't say a higher percentage, you didn't say a greater risk. You said more people. And that is, quite simply, a lie.

... again though 17% per century is still 17% per year, as Dive pointed out.

No, its not. They said that 1 billion people over the next century will die. Does that mean the same thing as 1 billion over the next year? No, it does not. Jesus Christ, you really are this fucking stupid aren't you?

Really, so then less than 10% of the people who die of cigarette's actually did, since at least 90% died of unrelated causes or circumstantial reasons. Thanks for admitting they lie.

 

[Nik]

*eye roll* Here's the same logic your anti-smoking buddies use, they didn't factor in the places where people drive nor did they factor in demonstrate that the others were not drinking and driving at the time of their death see how statistics work?

It doesn't matter if someone is drinking and driving at the time of their death if its not the cause of their death. By the way, it doesn't matter if they factored in places where people drive. You said



More people than anything else. You didn't say a higher percentage, you didn't say a greater risk. You said more people. And that is, quite simply, a lie.

... again though 17% per century is still 17% per year, as Dive pointed out.

No, its not. They said that 1 billion people over the next century will die. Does that mean the same thing as 1 billion over the next year? No, it does not. Jesus Christ, you really are this fucking stupid aren't you?

Really, so then less than 10% of the people who die of cigarette's actually did, since at least 90% died of unrelated causes or circumstantial reasons. Thanks for admitting they lie.

Wtf? Try again, this is incoherent.

 

[KittenKoder]

It doesn't matter if someone is drinking and driving at the time of their death if its not the cause of their death. By the way, it doesn't matter if they factored in places where people drive. You said



More people than anything else. You didn't say a higher percentage, you didn't say a greater risk. You said more people. And that is, quite simply, a lie.



No, its not. They said that 1 billion people over the next century will die. Does that mean the same thing as 1 billion over the next year? No, it does not. Jesus Christ, you really are this fucking stupid aren't you?

Really, so then less than 10% of the people who die of cigarette's actually did, since at least 90% died of unrelated causes or circumstantial reasons. Thanks for admitting they lie.

Wtf? Try again, this is incoherent.

You admitted that just because someone was doing something (drunk driving or smoking) when they die does not mean that it was the cause. The statistics the anti-smoking campaigns do just that, someone dies and just because they smoked at the time they attribute it to smoking. They do the same with obesity as well. It's called circumstantial, and it's the only way the anti-smoking campaigns can fool idiots like you.

 

[Nik]

Really, so then less than 10% of the people who die of cigarette's actually did, since at least 90% died of unrelated causes or circumstantial reasons. Thanks for admitting they lie.

Wtf? Try again, this is incoherent.

You admitted that just because someone was doing something (drunk driving or smoking) when they die does not mean that it was the cause. The statistics the anti-smoking campaigns do just that, someone dies and just because they smoked at the time they attribute it to smoking. They do the same with obesity as well. It's called circumstantial, and it's the only way the anti-smoking campaigns can fool idiots like you.

Oh god. Please tell me that you see the difference between drunk driving being related to to the cause of death and smoking being related to the cause of death. For the love of god...please.

But. Regardless, despite the very obvious difference between those two things, yes the arguments are circumstantial. Which is why, as I pointed out before, its a control group. If you have a group of people living in a town and 5,000 of the people who don't smoke get lung cancer and 50,000 of the people who smoke get lung cancer, you can conclude something about smoking. Its not about the individual cases. Given any particular individual case, you don't know what the exact cause was. But given the vast difference between people who smoke and people who don't, you can conclude something based off of that.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wtf? Try again, this is incoherent.

You admitted that just because someone was doing something (drunk driving or smoking) when they die does not mean that it was the cause. The statistics the anti-smoking campaigns do just that, someone dies and just because they smoked at the time they attribute it to smoking. They do the same with obesity as well. It's called circumstantial, and it's the only way the anti-smoking campaigns can fool idiots like you.

Oh god. Please tell me that you see the difference between drunk driving being related to to the cause of death and smoking being related to the cause of death. For the love of god...please.

But. Regardless, despite the very obvious difference between those two things, yes the arguments are circumstantial. Which is why, as I pointed out before, its a control group. If you have a group of people living in a town and 5,000 of the people who don't smoke get lung cancer and 50,000 of the people who smoke get lung cancer, you can conclude something about smoking. Its not about the individual cases. Given any particular individual case, you don't know what the exact cause was. But given the vast difference between people who smoke and people who don't, you can conclude something based off of that.

Nope, no difference ... none, zero, zilch, you are projecting a difference. Lung cancer, as I pointed out many many times, is caused by chemicals which are also in car, factory, and power plant exhaust, of which there are millions of tons put into the air every year. One car alone puts out a thousand times the amount as a chain smoker does, same chemicals that cause lung cancer. Lung cancer has many other variables as well, many people are genetically predisposed to cancer. The reason the connection was made was because they discovered that certain chemicals increase the chances of getting cancer, and that cigarettes contain these, but what they fail to mention is that other sources put out a LOT more (tons more) than cigarettes, because the US care manufacturers forced the anti-smoking groups to stop airing that fact. you are now running in circles, you can't prove your point so you are forcing people to repeat themselves in a failed attempt to wear us down. Well, I don't wear down. Relating all deaths to smoking like that is purely circumstantial, there are many many more common causes for lung cancer, moron.

 

[Nik]

You admitted that just because someone was doing something (drunk driving or smoking) when they die does not mean that it was the cause. The statistics the anti-smoking campaigns do just that, someone dies and just because they smoked at the time they attribute it to smoking. They do the same with obesity as well. It's called circumstantial, and it's the only way the anti-smoking campaigns can fool idiots like you.

Oh god. Please tell me that you see the difference between drunk driving being related to to the cause of death and smoking being related to the cause of death. For the love of god...please.

But. Regardless, despite the very obvious difference between those two things, yes the arguments are circumstantial. Which is why, as I pointed out before, its a control group. If you have a group of people living in a town and 5,000 of the people who don't smoke get lung cancer and 50,000 of the people who smoke get lung cancer, you can conclude something about smoking. Its not about the individual cases. Given any particular individual case, you don't know what the exact cause was. But given the vast difference between people who smoke and people who don't, you can conclude something based off of that.

Nope, no difference ... none, zero, zilch, you are projecting a difference. Lung cancer, as I pointed out many many times, is caused by chemicals which are also in car, factory, and power plant exhaust, of which there are millions of tons put into the air every year. One car alone puts out a thousand times the amount as a chain smoker does, same chemicals that cause lung cancer. Lung cancer has many other variables as well, many people are genetically predisposed to cancer. The reason the connection was made was because they discovered that certain chemicals increase the chances of getting cancer, and that cigarettes contain these, but what they fail to mention is that other sources put out a LOT more (tons more) than cigarettes, because the US care manufacturers forced the anti-smoking groups to stop airing that fact. you are now running in circles, you can't prove your point so you are forcing people to repeat themselves in a failed attempt to wear us down. Well, I don't wear down. Relating all deaths to smoking like that is purely circumstantial, there are many many more common causes for lung cancer, moron.

You are a fucking idiot. You can tell when someone dies of a DUI. Usually because, well, they get into a car crash while being drunk. Their heart condition is irrelevant to the fact that they ran into a pole. Less so with smoking.

This is elementary shit, kid. Get with it. Oh, and learn some basic math while your at it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh god. Please tell me that you see the difference between drunk driving being related to to the cause of death and smoking being related to the cause of death. For the love of god...please.

But. Regardless, despite the very obvious difference between those two things, yes the arguments are circumstantial. Which is why, as I pointed out before, its a control group. If you have a group of people living in a town and 5,000 of the people who don't smoke get lung cancer and 50,000 of the people who smoke get lung cancer, you can conclude something about smoking. Its not about the individual cases. Given any particular individual case, you don't know what the exact cause was. But given the vast difference between people who smoke and people who don't, you can conclude something based off of that.

Nope, no difference ... none, zero, zilch, you are projecting a difference. Lung cancer, as I pointed out many many times, is caused by chemicals which are also in car, factory, and power plant exhaust, of which there are millions of tons put into the air every year. One car alone puts out a thousand times the amount as a chain smoker does, same chemicals that cause lung cancer. Lung cancer has many other variables as well, many people are genetically predisposed to cancer. The reason the connection was made was because they discovered that certain chemicals increase the chances of getting cancer, and that cigarettes contain these, but what they fail to mention is that other sources put out a LOT more (tons more) than cigarettes, because the US care manufacturers forced the anti-smoking groups to stop airing that fact. you are now running in circles, you can't prove your point so you are forcing people to repeat themselves in a failed attempt to wear us down. Well, I don't wear down. Relating all deaths to smoking like that is purely circumstantial, there are many many more common causes for lung cancer, moron.

You are a fucking idiot. You can tell when someone dies of a DUI. Usually because, well, they get into a car crash while being drunk. Their heart condition is irrelevant to the fact that they ran into a pole. Less so with smoking.

This is elementary shit, kid. Get with it. Oh, and learn some basic math while your at it.

Actually, many times a person dies from accidents indirectly, the shock to the system triggers heart attacks on a regular basis, the most common reason an accident will kill is shock, unless they receive medical attention fast enough. Spinal and head injuries often do no show up immediately as well, so yeah, it's actually a more logical connection than "they smoked and got some illness, so cigarettes killed them" ... sorry, but you do not know much about the world. Also, usually the one that's drunk is not the one that dies, almost always it's anyone involved in the drunk driving collision that is not under the influence who dies, while the drunk people get minor injuries. With smoking, again, there are many causes for the conditions that they attribute to smoking, and will include even those who "pass a smoker" in their statistics, which is lying of course but you are too blind to see that. You have something against tobacco, well, it sucks to be you. We will never stop these problems as long as they keep blaming cigarettes, we cannot cure cancer with all the money being funneled into demonizing a very minor cause of it. There are so many factors you are ignoring, and you didn't even read my whole post or you would see quite a few of them. If you want to slow lung cancer, ban all cars, factories, and power plants, then you will see a dramatic decrease, until then, you are just looking for someone to attack legally.

 

[007]

The government has no authority to do this, and it's a counterproductive measure. Bigger warning labels are not going to stop anyone from smoking as it's common knowledge what the effects of smoking are. The government needs to realize that it can't legislate morality, and it's immoral to try and do so.

You're forgetting obowma is President, and in his world he has the authority to do whatever the hell he wants.