Senate Passes Bill to Let FDA Regulate Tobacco

[Nik]

This your brain on inane -->

Maybe if you pay really close attention you'll be able to comprehend the difference between what you claimed was an ad hom, and what I claimed was one.

Any questions?

Oy. I'm done with you. At one point you actually had some substance to you. Now? Just retarded statements that you think are clever.

 

[Nik]

Um ... let's see, the latest number from the anti-smoking liars is .... 17% of the countries population every year ... um ... yeah, and you believe their hype?

So how many people would you, in your infinite wisdom, estimate it kills each year?

17% isn't even an estimate, it's a lie, flat out, plain and simple. How can this be? I know, you are easily fooled, but it's simple, math ... explain how it is our world population increases by one every minute now, accounting for all the deaths, factoring all the millions killed by other causes (accidents, wars, alcohol and drugs, car accidents take out a huge chunk) then how can 17% die each year from just cigarettes ... it's impossible.

I'll ask the question again, since you seem to be slow.

So how many people would you, in your infinite wisdom, estimate it kills each year?

 

[KittenKoder]

So how many people would you, in your infinite wisdom, estimate it kills each year?

17% isn't even an estimate, it's a lie, flat out, plain and simple. How can this be? I know, you are easily fooled, but it's simple, math ... explain how it is our world population increases by one every minute now, accounting for all the deaths, factoring all the millions killed by other causes (accidents, wars, alcohol and drugs, car accidents take out a huge chunk) then how can 17% die each year from just cigarettes ... it's impossible.

I'll ask the question again, since you seem to be slow.

So how many people would you, in your infinite wisdom, estimate it kills each year?

A LOT less ... there is little evidence that those who died that smoked were because of smoking, almost all of it is circumstantial, considering this, and the attack-smoker groups were the ones who first made this connection, the cancer causing chemicals in cigarettes are also contained in car exhaust (the campaign was "might as well wrap your lips on a tailpipe") ... which was promptly ended because car makers didn't like what would result in people discovering that their product was actually more responsible for lung cancer. any further idiotic questions?

 

[Nik]

17% isn't even an estimate, it's a lie, flat out, plain and simple. How can this be? I know, you are easily fooled, but it's simple, math ... explain how it is our world population increases by one every minute now, accounting for all the deaths, factoring all the millions killed by other causes (accidents, wars, alcohol and drugs, car accidents take out a huge chunk) then how can 17% die each year from just cigarettes ... it's impossible.

I'll ask the question again, since you seem to be slow.

So how many people would you, in your infinite wisdom, estimate it kills each year?

A LOT less ... there is little evidence that those who died that smoked were because of smoking, almost all of it is circumstantial, considering this, and the attack-smoker groups were the ones who first made this connection, the cancer causing chemicals in cigarettes are also contained in car exhaust (the campaign was "might as well wrap your lips on a tailpipe") ... which was promptly ended because car makers didn't like what would result in people discovering that their product was actually more responsible for lung cancer. any further idiotic questions?

A lot less isn't a number. You going to provide me with a number, or you just going to keep blabbering on about how its not 17%?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Oy. I'm done with you.

Thanks for that, unfortunately for you I'll still continue to point out to the rest of the readership how silly your behavior is and how vapid your thinking is until you decide to change it ... and the really bad news is .... I suspect all the other reasonable people will follow the same road map, SO either become a civilized human being and have people take your ideas seriously or continue to act like a brainless chimp and have all us rational folk flame you into submission ... the choice is yours.

You can after all disagree without being a disagreeable PRICK but it takes a little effort on your part.

Peace out...

 

[Nik]

Oy. I'm done with you.

Thanks for that, unfortunately for you I'll still continue to point out to the rest of the readership how silly your behavior is and how vapid your thinking is until you decide to change it ... and the really bad news is .... I suspect all the other reasonable people will follow the same road map, SO either become a civilized human being and have people take your ideas seriously or continue to act like a brainless chimp and have all us rational folk flame you into submission ... the choice is yours.

You can after all disagree without being a disagreeable PRICK but it takes a little effort on your part.

Peace out...

Try it sometime, asswipe. And feel free to attempt to flame me into submission. I will laugh at your ass trying

 

[KittenKoder]

I'll ask the question again, since you seem to be slow.

So how many people would you, in your infinite wisdom, estimate it kills each year?

A LOT less ... there is little evidence that those who died that smoked were because of smoking, almost all of it is circumstantial, considering this, and the attack-smoker groups were the ones who first made this connection, the cancer causing chemicals in cigarettes are also contained in car exhaust (the campaign was "might as well wrap your lips on a tailpipe") ... which was promptly ended because car makers didn't like what would result in people discovering that their product was actually more responsible for lung cancer. any further idiotic questions?

A lot less isn't a number. You going to provide me with a number, or you just going to keep blabbering on about how its not 17%?

Okay, here's the real math, 20% of 6 billion (estimated population level) is 1.2 billion, 600 million people die per year from tobacco only, then you have to add in the 10% that die from various natural causes each year, that's another 600 million. Plus the roughly 5% that die from accidental death, that's another 300 million. The current number in the population that smokes is roughly 20% ... if 85% of the smokers died each year, there would be none of us left, not to mention that you are talking about 2 billion people dying each year total ... add up how long this would have lasted ... there is no way, adding in the chances of failed births because of cigarettes, that our population would have survived more than 5 years ... it's impossible. Not to mention that the smoking population may last 2 years at that rate. A real number, .17% would be believable. But even then, lung cancer and respiratory illnesses are caused by chemicals that are extremely common now, thanks to cars, factories, and other such pollutants, so there is no way to know which such deaths were from smoking and which were from air pollution. Then, now assuming you actually read all the posts you respond to, factor in the fact that there is no medical or scientific proof that simply being near a smoker while they are smoking will increase your risk for anything, it's all purely circumstantial evidence for second hand smoke. Now remember, the first anti-smoking ads contained the little fact that car exhaust contains the same cancer causing chemicals, but also remember that cars put out tons of this a year, even the most addicted chain smoker might put out one ton in a year, far less than a single care. Now, if you are still with me, remember that factories put out millions of tons of this same shit that supposedly causes lung cancer, that's a lot, not nearly as much as the total for automobiles, but it's a lot. The only way to avoid these chemicals is to remain in a completely filtered environment your entire life.

Now, with all the facts and science out of the way, it's simply impossible, period.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Try it sometime, asswipe. And feel free to attempt to flame me into submission. I will laugh at your ass trying

Been there , done that ... as have many other intelligent folks before me... how's it feel for you being basically a whore to the people on planet that actually "get" reality ? don't you feel just a bit "used", must especially sting since you don't get paid for it .. oh wait you think the rest of the society should compensate you for being violated which explains your "GIVE IT TO ME ITS MINE" mentality.. makes sense now.

 

[Nik]

A LOT less ... there is little evidence that those who died that smoked were because of smoking, almost all of it is circumstantial, considering this, and the attack-smoker groups were the ones who first made this connection, the cancer causing chemicals in cigarettes are also contained in car exhaust (the campaign was "might as well wrap your lips on a tailpipe") ... which was promptly ended because car makers didn't like what would result in people discovering that their product was actually more responsible for lung cancer. any further idiotic questions?

A lot less isn't a number. You going to provide me with a number, or you just going to keep blabbering on about how its not 17%?

Okay, here's the real math, 20% of 6 billion (estimated population level) is 1.2 billion, 600 million people die per year from tobacco only, then you have to add in the 10% that die from various natural causes each year, that's another 600 million. Plus the roughly 5% that die from accidental death, that's another 300 million. The current number in the population that smokes is roughly 20% ... if 85% of the smokers died each year, there would be none of us left, not to mention that you are talking about 2 billion people dying each year total ... add up how long this would have lasted ... there is no way, adding in the chances of failed births because of cigarettes, that our population would have survived more than 5 years ... it's impossible. Not to mention that the smoking population may last 2 years at that rate. A real number, .17% would be believable. But even then, lung cancer and respiratory illnesses are caused by chemicals that are extremely common now, thanks to cars, factories, and other such pollutants, so there is no way to know which such deaths were from smoking and which were from air pollution. Then, now assuming you actually read all the posts you respond to, factor in the fact that there is no medical or scientific proof that simply being near a smoker while they are smoking will increase your risk for anything, it's all purely circumstantial evidence for second hand smoke. Now remember, the first anti-smoking ads contained the little fact that car exhaust contains the same cancer causing chemicals, but also remember that cars put out tons of this a year, even the most addicted chain smoker might put out one ton in a year, far less than a single care. Now, if you are still with me, remember that factories put out millions of tons of this same shit that supposedly causes lung cancer, that's a lot, not nearly as much as the total for automobiles, but it's a lot. The only way to avoid these chemicals is to remain in a completely filtered environment your entire life.

Now, with all the facts and science out of the way, it's simply impossible, period.

Care to provide a link to the 17% number you keep citing?

 

[Nik]

Try it sometime, asswipe. And feel free to attempt to flame me into submission. I will laugh at your ass trying

Been there , done that ... as have many other intelligent folks before me... how's it feel for you being basically a whore to the people on planet that actually "get" reality ? don't you feel just a bit "used", must especially sting since you don't get paid for it .. oh wait you think the rest of the society should compensate you for being violated which explains your "GIVE IT TO ME ITS MINE" mentality.. makes sense now.

Yes...the give it to me its mine mentality...which makes me ok with being taxed

You? Get reality?

I get paid in the bountiful amounts of laughter I get reading you attempt to justify the complete and utter bullshit you constantly spout. Oh...poor baby, am I being too mean to you again?

 

[KittenKoder]

A lot less isn't a number. You going to provide me with a number, or you just going to keep blabbering on about how its not 17%?

Okay, here's the real math, 20% of 6 billion (estimated population level) is 1.2 billion, 600 million people die per year from tobacco only, then you have to add in the 10% that die from various natural causes each year, that's another 600 million. Plus the roughly 5% that die from accidental death, that's another 300 million. The current number in the population that smokes is roughly 20% ... if 85% of the smokers died each year, there would be none of us left, not to mention that you are talking about 2 billion people dying each year total ... add up how long this would have lasted ... there is no way, adding in the chances of failed births because of cigarettes, that our population would have survived more than 5 years ... it's impossible. Not to mention that the smoking population may last 2 years at that rate. A real number, .17% would be believable. But even then, lung cancer and respiratory illnesses are caused by chemicals that are extremely common now, thanks to cars, factories, and other such pollutants, so there is no way to know which such deaths were from smoking and which were from air pollution. Then, now assuming you actually read all the posts you respond to, factor in the fact that there is no medical or scientific proof that simply being near a smoker while they are smoking will increase your risk for anything, it's all purely circumstantial evidence for second hand smoke. Now remember, the first anti-smoking ads contained the little fact that car exhaust contains the same cancer causing chemicals, but also remember that cars put out tons of this a year, even the most addicted chain smoker might put out one ton in a year, far less than a single care. Now, if you are still with me, remember that factories put out millions of tons of this same shit that supposedly causes lung cancer, that's a lot, not nearly as much as the total for automobiles, but it's a lot. The only way to avoid these chemicals is to remain in a completely filtered environment your entire life.

Now, with all the facts and science out of the way, it's simply impossible, period.

Care to provide a link to the 17% number you keep citing?

*eye roll* Nice 180 there.

 

[KittenKoder]

Truth: An Anti-smoking Campaign - Adpunch
Here's the link to all the anti-smoking lies.

 

[DiveCon]

Truth: An Anti-smoking Campaign - Adpunch
Here's the link to all the anti-smoking lies.

this Nik is not very bright

 

[KittenKoder]

Truth: An Anti-smoking Campaign - Adpunch
Here's the link to all the anti-smoking lies.

this Nik is not very bright

Nope ... not even as bright as an energy efficient bulb.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

I get paid in the bountiful amounts of laughter

Interesting, then one would ask why you cheerlead so hard to steal from your fellow citizens ...

You're arguements always boil down to this

STATE POWER > INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

TAXES GOOD , ECONOMIC FREEDOM BAD

Sounds to me like you're a simple minded chimp aka middle ages serf .... whatever the gub'ment tells you, you not only believe but you REPEAT ! how do you look yourself in the mirror without saying "ROBOT" ? .... news flash I don't want ANYTHING from you and youre ilk, you're just cowardly thief hiding behind the "majority" to justify your regime of stealing ..... so again I AT YOU senior no morals....

 

[Vel]

I know. Its terrible that the food and drug administration would have power over something that has a ton of drugs in it...
...
...

Then let them ban it. How morally reprehensible to seize control of the industry under the guise of "public danger" and then continue to profit from the sales.

Yes...its under the guise of public danger. I mean its not as if cigs are dangerous at all.

How many people have they killed again?

By the way, what exactly is your rationality for saying they should ban it, but not regulate it? How does that make any sense?

Why bless your heart Nik, your bulb really doesn't shine that brightly does it? Let me see if I can illuminate this issue for you. Our federal government has just taken responsibility for selling a product to the population that by their own assessment, if PROPERLY used, will kill 15 -20 % of users. Tell me, is government regulation going to suddenly make this a safe product? No? Hmm.. Then our government will be complicit in selling this "deadly" ( by their own estimates ) product, in order to continue drawing tax revenue from it. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[driveby]

I'll ask the question again, since you seem to be slow.

So how many people would you, in your infinite wisdom, estimate it kills each year?

A LOT less ... there is little evidence that those who died that smoked were because of smoking, almost all of it is circumstantial, considering this, and the attack-smoker groups were the ones who first made this connection, the cancer causing chemicals in cigarettes are also contained in car exhaust (the campaign was "might as well wrap your lips on a tailpipe") ... which was promptly ended because car makers didn't like what would result in people discovering that their product was actually more responsible for lung cancer. any further idiotic questions?

A lot less isn't a number. You going to provide me with a number, or you just going to keep blabbering on about how its not 17%?

Sorry, i missed the part where you proved 17% was accurate ......

 

[Skull Pilot]

Truth: An Anti-smoking Campaign - Adpunch
Here's the link to all the anti-smoking lies.

The obvious problem with smoking related death statistics is that they will include the 90 year old who smoked and dies of heart disease as a "smoking related illness"

The only true way to measure smoking related deaths is to confine the data to those who smoke and die at a statistically significant time before the average lifespan to those who don't smoke.

 

[driveby]

Truth: An Anti-smoking Campaign - Adpunch
Here's the link to all the anti-smoking lies.

The obvious problem with smoking related death statistics is that they will include the 90 year old who smoked and dies of heart disease as a "smoking related illness"

The only true way to measure smoking related deaths is to confine the data to those who smoke and die at a statistically significant time before the average lifespan to those who don't smoke.

Shit, their numbers are so skewed that if a smoker drives off a cliff it's a "smoking related" death .....

 

[Navy1960]

No this may seem somewhat harsh, but this smoking issue has always been a personal responsibility issue to me and efforts to regulate smoking are nothing more than efforts to regulate personal responsibility. While second hand smoke causes everything from lung cancer to pimples these days, still the smoker is the person ultimatly responsible for taking that drag on the cancer stick. If smoking was such a burden on society and Congress really had any interests on the healh of the American people smoking would be banned period. So it comes down to a revenue source for funding programs for various different projects within congress. Again , what congress is doing here is nothing more thn taxing personal reponsibility. The bottom line here is that is up to the person taking that cigarette and smoking it to stop or the person next to them to move out of the way one of the two. Until such time as people stop looking to Govt. to solve every issue in their daily lives Govt. will use anything they can as a revenue source all in the guise of being bad for you.