Smoking's bad for our health, but...

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
...It doesn't "cause cancer" or anything else. To substantiate that claim you'd have to demonstrate how every smoker develops those conditions. Obviously not every smoker does. Instead smoking elevates your CHANCE of developing those conditions.

"On average, smokers increase their risk of lung cancer between 5 and 10-fold and in developed countries, smoking is responsible for upwards of 80% of all lung cancers. Using American data, 24% of men who smoke can expect to developing cancer during their expected life time."
WHO | Cancer

24%...Hardly "it causes cancer." What's going on I think is everyone likes having justification to express their animal aggression. Some bash gays, other bash smokers, but it's all out of the same animal nature that needs to occasionally get expressed. Expressing such emotions is healthier for us than suppressing them. But pushing junk science and bogus claims is also bad for us and wrong information gets circulated and as seen with religion, can come to be accepted truth.
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,254
Reaction score
3,266
Points
360
Location
Pittsburgh
Not sure what your point is. Just because some people have the good fortune to die of something else before the cancer catches up with them is not a reason to downplay the dangers of smoking.

It's not just cancer, after all. There are all sorts of heart and lung diseases associated with smoking, as well as skin problems, digestive problems, and they make your teeth yellow.

In light of which, I fail to see your problem with the generally true assertion that smoking causes lung cancer. Just because all over-eaters are not fat doesn't mean that over-eating doesn't make you fat.
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
My point was there's multiple risk factors in play. Smoking doesn't cause those conditions 100% of the time. 24% according to WHO stats. Hardly a reason to propogate lies like "smoking causes cancer." So's drinking brown soda and eating marrichino cherries, or wearing fire-retardant clothes treated with carcinogenic chemicals. But you can't say with scientific certainty what risk factor ultimately causes some to get cancer or other conditions while most do not.

I'd rather provide people with good solid science and let them make a well-informed decision than discourage smoking via lies and junk science. I don't encourage anyone to smoke. But I'd rather go to heaven with a clear conscious than risk that judgement being just another politically motivated liar.
 
Last edited:

Vox

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2013
Messages
10,937
Reaction score
867
Points
138
My point was there's multiple risk factors in play. Smoking doesn't cause those conditions 100% of the time. 24% according to WHO stats. Hardly a reason to propogate lies like "smoking causes cancer." So's drinking brown soda and eating marrichino cherries, or wearing fire-retardant clothes treated with carcinogenic chemicals. But you can't say with scientific certainty what risk factor ultimately causes some to get cancer or other conditions while most do not.

I'd rather provide people with good solid science and let them make a well-informed decision than discourage smoking via lies and junk science. I don't encourage anyone to smoke. But I'd rather go to heaven with a clear conscious than risk that judgement being just another politically motivated liar.
Nope.
Adenocarcinoma of the lungs is caused almost 100% by smoking. Second hand as well.
Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking causes about 90% of lung cancers.
CDC - What Are the Risk Factors for Lung Cancer?
Deal with it.

Or quit.


I know it is very hard - some studies show that quitting to smoke is harder than quitting the heroin (!).
But it is not impossible.
Acupuncture is VERY helpful.
 
Last edited:

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,495
Reaction score
3,162
Points
280
My point was there's multiple risk factors in play. Smoking doesn't cause those conditions 100% of the time. 24% according to WHO stats. Hardly a reason to propogate lies like "smoking causes cancer." So's drinking brown soda and eating marrichino cherries, or wearing fire-retardant clothes treated with carcinogenic chemicals. But you can't say with scientific certainty what risk factor ultimately causes some to get cancer or other conditions while most do not.

I'd rather provide people with good solid science and let them make a well-informed decision than discourage smoking via lies and junk science. I don't encourage anyone to smoke. But I'd rather go to heaven with a clear conscious than risk that judgement being just another politically motivated liar.
What do you want, a gold star?
 

C_Hoffmeister

Rookie
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Connecticut
Mmhm those who claim that smoking doesnt kill are ignorant or something heh. Ofc it kills, wakey pakey
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,126
Reaction score
7,265
Points
280
Location
On a hill
I have been saying this about bullets.
How do we know that bullets REALLY kill someone.
They might have died of a heart attack seeing the guy point a gun at them - BEFORE - the bullet entered their body....something to think about....











:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
 

auditor0007

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
12,566
Reaction score
2,265
Points
255
Location
Toledo, OH
My point was there's multiple risk factors in play. Smoking doesn't cause those conditions 100% of the time. 24% according to WHO stats. Hardly a reason to propogate lies like "smoking causes cancer." So's drinking brown soda and eating marrichino cherries, or wearing fire-retardant clothes treated with carcinogenic chemicals. But you can't say with scientific certainty what risk factor ultimately causes some to get cancer or other conditions while most do not.

I'd rather provide people with good solid science and let them make a well-informed decision than discourage smoking via lies and junk science. I don't encourage anyone to smoke. But I'd rather go to heaven with a clear conscious than risk that judgement being just another politically motivated liar.
You are absolutely correct. Instead they should just tell the truth and state that smoking reduces your lifespan from five to eighteen years, and that there is a good chance you will spend the last five to ten years of your life carrying around and eight to ten pound oxygen tank just so you can breath.
 

auditor0007

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
12,566
Reaction score
2,265
Points
255
Location
Toledo, OH
My point was there's multiple risk factors in play. Smoking doesn't cause those conditions 100% of the time. 24% according to WHO stats. Hardly a reason to propogate lies like "smoking causes cancer." So's drinking brown soda and eating marrichino cherries, or wearing fire-retardant clothes treated with carcinogenic chemicals. But you can't say with scientific certainty what risk factor ultimately causes some to get cancer or other conditions while most do not.

I'd rather provide people with good solid science and let them make a well-informed decision than discourage smoking via lies and junk science. I don't encourage anyone to smoke. But I'd rather go to heaven with a clear conscious than risk that judgement being just another politically motivated liar.
Nope.
Adenocarcinoma of the lungs is caused almost 100% by smoking. Second hand as well.
Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking causes about 90% of lung cancers.
CDC - What Are the Risk Factors for Lung Cancer?
Deal with it.

Or quit.


I know it is very hard - some studies show that quitting to smoke is harder than quitting the heroin (!).
But it is not impossible.
Acupuncture is VERY helpful.
Quitting is difficult because those who try to quit are more concerned with what they are giving up than with what they are gaining. They concentrate on quitting which is all about what they have lost rather than with becoming a non-smoker for all the benefits and for everything that they are gaining. The real problem with this is that many do succeed in quitting, for a short period of time, but then they relapse because they are not taking advantage of all the good things that come with quitting.

I smoked for 30 years and quit cold turkey. I had tried a few times before but never stuck with it. When I quit for good, I decided that I would start working out, which wasn't a bad idea since I had been gaining some weight anyway and needed to lose a few pounds. Quitting still was a challenge but after making past the second week it got easier. Working out and starting to run gave me a very good reason not to start back up. After having quit for three months, I ran my first 5k and did okay, finishing in just under 27 minutes. Now I am running 5k's in about 22 minutes. I actually ran one in 21:47, and my goal for this year is to get under 21:30. 21 minutes is my real goal, but I am realistic. At 50, cutting my times much further is not going to be easy.

Anyway, my point is that by changing the person's lifestyle, it is much more likely they will succeed in quitting for good. People quit so they will have better health, so why not really work toward better health with a real workout program that will become part of their everyday life? BTW, I lost 17 pounds that first three months after quitting, which is the exact opposite of what happens to most people who quit. By exercising properly, those who quit should not gain any weight at all.
 

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,254
Reaction score
3,266
Points
360
Location
Pittsburgh
The facts about smoking are bad enough, but the most effective messages are given in sound bites.

If you advertise that, "Smoking dramatically increases your chances of contracting lung cancer," it doesn't really have the same effect as, "Smoking causes cancer!"

My personal gripe is with the lies that are published on second-hand smoke. Controlling for other factors, it is relatively harmless, but irritating.

Still it's nothing that affects me. I don't have to deal with any smokers in my normal daily activities.
 

auditor0007

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
12,566
Reaction score
2,265
Points
255
Location
Toledo, OH
The facts about smoking are bad enough, but the most effective messages are given in sound bites.

If you advertise that, "Smoking dramatically increases your chances of contracting lung cancer," it doesn't really have the same effect as, "Smoking causes cancer!"

My personal gripe is with the lies that are published on second-hand smoke. Controlling for other factors, it is relatively harmless, but irritating.

Still it's nothing that affects me. I don't have to deal with any smokers in my normal daily activities.
Passive second hand smoke, the kind that people may be exposed to occasionally, probably does no real harm to anyone. I still don't want to smell it though, because it smells awful. On the other hand, if you want to argue that children are not affected in any way by parents who smoke in their homes, then you definitely barking up the wrong tree.
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
More we tolerate the myth that "smoking causes cancers," the less likely we're to address the hundreds of other causes of cancers. It's a big contributing risk factor to be sure, but if you don't smoke, and ban smoking everywhere so ya never inhale any smoke, you might STILL get cancer when the other hundred or so causes are in your home and daily life.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top