American Cancer Institute: No link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
Well. After all the restrictions on smoking - can't smoke in a public building, can't smoke in a bar, can't smoke near a child, can't smoke in your own home, because you are endangering the health and life of other people - they have finally determined that smoking in someone else's presence doesn't affect their health or life at all. Your smoking may affect YOUR health. But it won't affect theirs.

Not even a little bit.

It was all a lie.

"Well, I don't like your smoking! I don't like the smell!"

Hmmm. Tell me, if I don't like homosexuality - I don't like to SEE two men kissing - is that sufficient grounds for me to forbid them from kissing in other people's presence?

No, it is not sufficient grounds.

So, is your not liking smoking, sufficient grounds for banning all smoking in other people's presence?

When do we intend to get rid of all these restrictions on where people can smoke? Now that we know it is NOT a health risk to other people, but merely something that some people don't like?

Report from the American Cancer Institute:
No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer

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

Passive smoking ? another of the Nanny State's big lies ? Telegraph Blogs

Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State's big lies

By James Delingpole
Environment
Last updated: December 18th, 2013

Passive smoking doesn't give you lung cancer. So says a new report publicised by the American Cancer Institute which will come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone with a shred of integrity who has looked into the origins of the great "environmental tobacco smoke" meme.

It was, after all, a decade ago that the British Medical Journal, published the results of a massive, long-term survey into the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Between 1959 and 1989 two American researchers named James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat surveyed no few than 118,094 Californians. Fierce anti-smoking campaigners themselves, they began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a pernicious, socially damaging habit smoking was. Their research was initiated by the American Cancer Society and supported by the anti-smoking Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.

At least it was at first. But then something rather embarrassing happened. Much to their surprise, Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.

Similar conclusions were reached by the World Health Organisation which concluded in 1998 after a seven-year study that the correlation between "passive smoking" and lung cancer was not "statistically significant." A 2002 report by the Greater London Assembly agreed. So too did an investigation by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.
 
Last edited:

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
144,651
Reaction score
14,936
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
We all knew that, those that wanted the clean air acts and smoke free parks do to.
 

Vox

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2013
Messages
10,937
Reaction score
867
Points
138
except the SURVEY is basically useless as a method in MEDICAL research :D
 

aaronleland

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
32,143
Reaction score
8,869
Points
1,360
I have always believed the effects of second-hand smoke have been overstated. I choose not to smoke around non-smokers out of respect, not because I am worried about their health.
 

zeke

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
8,272
Reaction score
1,113
Points
190
From 1959 to 1989. Now how many administrations does that time from encompass? You will have all sorts of fun blaming all sorts of government for this one. Hell they started their study before there were warnings on cig packs. Amazing. Who ya gonna call?
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Smoking isn't as unhealthy as the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe. Pleanty of smokers live far beyond the avg life expectency proving not every smoker develops illnesses because of it. My stepdad died earlier this year in his 80s despite being a chain smoker. Who does or doesn't develop a cancer may be effected by smoking, but it's not a sure thing. It's all genetic. If your genes give you a predisposition towards developing cancer nothing you do or don't do is gonna change that.

More to fear from crap diets than smoking. A bad diet will have immediate negative health effects. Smoking may never manifest as an illness, or if it does not for decades.

(lights his favorite pipe and enjoys a long gentle pull of the sweet aromatic tobacco.)
 

zeke

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
8,272
Reaction score
1,113
Points
190
Next thing you know, they will find that asthma sufferers are actually better off if exposed to cigarette smoke. Especially kids.

Might find smoking don't cause lung cancer. But I doubt that. Damn that government for wanting to keep people healthy, especially kids.

Nothing I like better that to see Mom and Dad tooling down the road with all the little ones in the back.
And all the windows up and mom and dad puffing cigs like a freight train. Gotta get'em while they're young.

Makes me think back fondly to my childhood.
 

Vox

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2013
Messages
10,937
Reaction score
867
Points
138
except the SURVEY is basically useless as a method in MEDICAL research :D
No reply except this simple lie?

Sad.
it is your sensation which is a LIE.

survey and observation is the least of the valid research methods in medicine.

and even those did not prove that there is no link. It proved that different variations of exposure have different results.

second hand smoke in the same hous with a smoker does cause lung cancer - which you study results also provided.

but you conveniently "forgotr" about it.

Or you did not read the study, did you?
 

Vox

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2013
Messages
10,937
Reaction score
867
Points
138
Next thing you know, they will find that asthma sufferers are actually better off if exposed to cigarette smoke. Especially kids.

Might find smoking don't cause lung cancer. But I doubt that. Damn that government for wanting to keep people healthy, especially kids.

Nothing I like better that to see Mom and Dad tooling down the road with all the little ones in the back.
And all the windows up and mom and dad puffing cigs like a freight train. Gotta get'em while they're young.

Makes me think back fondly to my childhood.
READ THE ACTUAL STUDY not a news report and sensationalized articles.

there is a statistical correlation and causation
 

zeke

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
8,272
Reaction score
1,113
Points
190
Smoking isn't as unhealthy as the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe. Pleanty of smokers live far beyond the avg life expectency proving not every smoker develops illnesses because of it. My stepdad died earlier this year in his 80s despite being a chain smoker. Who does or doesn't develop a cancer may be effected by smoking, but it's not a sure thing. It's all genetic. If your genes give you a predisposition towards developing cancer nothing you do or don't do is gonna change that.

More to fear from crap diets than smoking. A bad diet will have immediate negative health effects. Smoking may never manifest as an illness, or if it does not for decades.

(lights his favorite pipe and enjoys a long gentle pull of the sweet aromatic tobacco.)
You must be young and invulnerable. Keep smoking and active ( where you need to use lung capacity a lot) and when you hit 50, let us know if smoking ain't hurting you.

Either your step dad was extremely active his entire life and was able to mitigate the effects of smoking. Or he sat around and did nothing but smoke. Cause that was the most important thing in his miserable life.

Either way, his bank account would have been a lot fatter.

But most addictions are not good for you or those that love you. Smoking is an addiction.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Many things we use every day DO cause cancer. But since th government allows those they have to deflect attention to something more obvious and overt like smoking. Blame that and they don't have to talk about the chemicals in everything in everyone's home that do cause cancers and other things. Great documentary on think HBO about fire retardants in furniture that causes cancer. "Toxic Hot Seat" it's called. Worth watching, especially if you have kids.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Smoking isn't as unhealthy as the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe. Pleanty of smokers live far beyond the avg life expectency proving not every smoker develops illnesses because of it. My stepdad died earlier this year in his 80s despite being a chain smoker. Who does or doesn't develop a cancer may be effected by smoking, but it's not a sure thing. It's all genetic. If your genes give you a predisposition towards developing cancer nothing you do or don't do is gonna change that.

More to fear from crap diets than smoking. A bad diet will have immediate negative health effects. Smoking may never manifest as an illness, or if it does not for decades.

(lights his favorite pipe and enjoys a long gentle pull of the sweet aromatic tobacco.)
You must be young and invulnerable. Keep smoking and active ( where you need to use lung capacity a lot) and when you hit 50, let us know if smoking ain't hurting you.

Either your step dad was extremely active his entire life and was able to mitigate the effects of smoking. Or he sat around and did nothing but smoke. Cause that was the most important thing in his miserable life.

Either way, his bank account would have been a lot fatter.

But most addictions are not good for you or those that love you. Smoking is an addiction.
Can become psychologically addicted to a glass of water. Yes, nicotine is physically addictive and smoking itself psychologically addicting. So? No one proposing we ban fast food, yet that kills a helluva lot more than smoking.

I'm 42.
 

zeke

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
8,272
Reaction score
1,113
Points
190
Next thing you know, they will find that asthma sufferers are actually better off if exposed to cigarette smoke. Especially kids.

Might find smoking don't cause lung cancer. But I doubt that. Damn that government for wanting to keep people healthy, especially kids.

Nothing I like better that to see Mom and Dad tooling down the road with all the little ones in the back.
And all the windows up and mom and dad puffing cigs like a freight train. Gotta get'em while they're young.

Makes me think back fondly to my childhood.
READ THE ACTUAL STUDY not a news report and sensationalized articles.

there is a statistical correlation and causation

Are you for second hand smoke or against second hand smoke? I can't tell.
 

zeke

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
8,272
Reaction score
1,113
Points
190
Smoking isn't as unhealthy as the anti-smoking lobby would have you believe. Pleanty of smokers live far beyond the avg life expectency proving not every smoker develops illnesses because of it. My stepdad died earlier this year in his 80s despite being a chain smoker. Who does or doesn't develop a cancer may be effected by smoking, but it's not a sure thing. It's all genetic. If your genes give you a predisposition towards developing cancer nothing you do or don't do is gonna change that.

More to fear from crap diets than smoking. A bad diet will have immediate negative health effects. Smoking may never manifest as an illness, or if it does not for decades.

(lights his favorite pipe and enjoys a long gentle pull of the sweet aromatic tobacco.)
You must be young and invulnerable. Keep smoking and active ( where you need to use lung capacity a lot) and when you hit 50, let us know if smoking ain't hurting you.

Either your step dad was extremely active his entire life and was able to mitigate the effects of smoking. Or he sat around and did nothing but smoke. Cause that was the most important thing in his miserable life.

Either way, his bank account would have been a lot fatter.

But most addictions are not good for you or those that love you. Smoking is an addiction.
Can become psychologically addicted to a glass of water. Yes, nicotine is physically addictive and smoking itself psychologically addicting. So? No one proposing we ban fast food, yet that kills a helluva lot more than smoking.

I'm 42.
If you are that old and not feeling the negative effects of smoking kicking in, then either you aren't doing it right or enough.

You are not like Bill Clinton are you? Do you inhale? Or are you a pipe smoker? That is somewhat different. Throat and mouth cancers are your concern. Maybe.

Hey dude. I was addicted to nicotine for a long time. I'm 60.

And was that study about food to?
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Living longer and well is about reducing risk factors. Not eliminating a few of the more publicized ones like smoking. Not gonna live longer if you don't smoke but weigh 300 pounds because you eat crap every day.

As a life-long smoker I've seen smoking rights restricted and lost. But because it's about not forcing non-smokers to breathe smokey air I don't object to such restrictions. As a pipe smoker I can't stand being downwind of a cigarette smoker because it stinks. But denying individuals the right to make a choice isn't American, nor democratic. Outdoors, should be able to smoke anywhere, indoors, only in traditional spots liek bars and other places people probably aren't terribly concerned about their health anyway. Like fast food restaurants.

As a smoker I don't need laws to tell me where I can and can't smoke. Common sense and good manners taught by my Mom take care of that. I don't smoke around kids, and if forced to be around people I'll ask if they mind if I smoke. Maybe mine is the exception, but banning something is removing our right to choose for ourselves. I'm not crusading against fast food retaurants though I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if someone did, I simply don't buy their junk. I exercise a choice.

If people don't wanna be around smoekrs I don't blame ya. Ask them to step outside, move downwind, or something else reasonable. But banning it because you personally don't like it is better done in North Korea or some other totalitarian state.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top