billvon 2,990 #51 February 11, 2008 >There are laws (at least in the U.S.) against providing alcohol to minors >and despite what you may have been told, vodka does contain alcohol. Right. But no connection has ever been made between alcohol and intoxication or alcoholism! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #52 February 11, 2008 QuoteI had 2 cousins, die from throat cancer....1 uncle died from throat cancer and three others, from lung cancer. My ex-mother-in-law died from lung cancer and my half-sister's mother, died from lung cancer....none of the above, ever smoked. One uncle who died from throat cancer, smoked cigars....for the non-gullible, the math just doesn't work out. I've known a handful of people who have died from lung cancer, and every one of them was a heavy cigarette smoker. But that small of a number is not enough to prove anything. The studies linking smoking to lung cancer are looking at (at least) thousands of people, and there is a pretty strong consensus about the results. QuoteIf smoking truly caused cancer, I'd have had it a long time ago. No one is saying that if you smoke you WILL get lung cancer. They are only saying that smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer (and many other diseases). But it is apparently not the only factor involved in whether you will end up getting cancer or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #53 February 12, 2008 Quote No one is saying that if you smoke you WILL get lung cancer. They are only saying that smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer (and many other diseases). But it is apparently not the only factor involved in whether you will end up getting cancer or not. Unfortunately, all "studies", gov't propaganda and claims from the so-called experts that I've ever seen or heard, seem to allude to the "fact" (if not directly stated) that smoking and ONLY smoking, is the cause (not just a contributor or aggravator) of lung and most other cancers. It's this blatant spewing of misinformation, that I have a problem with. I agree, smoking may aggravate....possibly even contribute, under certain circumstances, to cancer and more likely, emphysema. The absurdity of some of my comments*, were simply to illustrate the absurdity of the methods used by the gov't and other medical "experts", to achieve their statistics. or so-called "proof". Anyone can average-out a "cause" for something....it isn't science, it's gambling. * Comments about my x-rays and those who died from cancer. were all true."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #54 February 12, 2008 QuoteQuote No one is saying that if you smoke you WILL get lung cancer. They are only saying that smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer (and many other diseases). But it is apparently not the only factor involved in whether you will end up getting cancer or not. Unfortunately, all "studies", gov't propaganda and claims from the so-called experts that I've ever seen or heard, seem to allude to the "fact" (if not directly stated) that smoking and ONLY smoking, is the cause (not just a contributor or aggravator) of lung and most other cancers. It's this blatant spewing of misinformation, that I have a problem with. I agree, smoking may aggravate....possibly even contribute, under certain circumstances, to cancer and more likely, emphysema. The absurdity of some of my comments*, were simply to illustrate the absurdity of the methods used by the gov't and other medical "experts", to achieve their statistics. or so-called "proof". Anyone can average-out a "cause" for something....it isn't science, it's gambling. * Comments about my x-rays and those who died from cancer. were all true. Ummmm did you even go to www.pubmed.com? DO THAT. LOOK at those articles that you claim to know so much about. ONce you look at those . . . . then come back here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #55 February 12, 2008 [reply But no connection has ever been made between alcohol and intoxication or alcoholism! Well, there ya' go...there's a gov't grant out there, just waitin' for ya'!! YOU could be the one to make the connection....just like they've been doing with asprin and wine, for so many years. I saw an "expose'" thing on tv about grants, a few years ago...it's quite a racket and for most, easy money."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #56 February 12, 2008 QuoteUnfortunately, all "studies", gov't propaganda and claims from the so-called experts that I've ever seen or heard, seem to allude to the "fact" (if not directly stated) that smoking and ONLY smoking, is the cause (not just a contributor or aggravator) of lung and most other cancers. Most studies I've seen include genetic disposition and other environmental factors (in addition to smoking) as possible causes/risk factors for getting lung cancer. Just curious, but if you think this is all propaganda, then who do you think stands to gain what from disseminating this "false" information? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #57 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote But no connection has ever been made between alcohol and intoxication or alcoholism! Well, there ya' go...there's a gov't grant out there, just waitin' for ya'!! YOU could be the one to make the connection....just like they've been doing with asprin and wine, for so many years. Wow, so aspirin has now been linked to intoxication and alcoholism? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #58 February 12, 2008 Quote Ummmm did you even go to www.pubmed.com? DO THAT. LOOK at those articles that you claim to know so much about. ONce you look at those . . . . then come back here. Ya' shoulda' left that one alone. I went there and searched for "cancer causes"...came up with lots of stuff but in a random sampling, I'm seeing the words "odds" and "ratios" used quite often and in almost ALL of them. Still sounds like Vegas. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #59 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote Ummmm did you even go to www.pubmed.com? DO THAT. LOOK at those articles that you claim to know so much about. ONce you look at those . . . . then come back here. Ya' shoulda' left that one alone. I went there and searched for "cancer causes"...came up with lots of stuff but in a random sampling, I'm seeing the words "odds" and "ratios" used quite often and in almost ALL of them. Still sounds like Vegas. You're the one claiming that medicine is a religion and states absolutes. I'm just trying to show you TRUTH. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #60 February 12, 2008 Quote Wow, so aspirin has now been linked to intoxication and alcoholism? It's been a few hours, since I've heard anything new so yeah, that's likely to be the next "fact"....they've pretty much worn out the repeated yearly alternations, between good-for-you and bad-for-you. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #61 February 12, 2008 Quote You're the one claiming that medicine is a religion and states absolutes. I'm just trying to show you TRUTH. I appreciate that, I really do. Still, those aren't the types of things you'll see in the "public ads", like from the gov't tv ads or from the Cancer Society. Look at the previous posts in here and on any other forum, that has a thread like this....the vast majority of people have been convinced through these ads, that "smoking causes cancer". The claims are misleading, to say the least."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #62 February 12, 2008 Quote Most studies I've seen include genetic disposition and other environmental factors (in addition to smoking) as possible causes/risk factors for getting lung cancer. Quote Is that "in addition to", as in "in combination with"...or is that an admission of other, singular causes...independant of smoking? Quote Just curious, but if you think this is all propaganda, then who do you think stands to gain what from disseminating this "false" information? Seems to me, that based on "fact" that smoking is purely responsible for all the nation's health problems....nearly every state in the Union, has collected windfalls of BILLIONS of dollars in bogus tobacco lawsuit profits. If that ain't incentive, I dunno' what is! "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #63 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote Most studies I've seen include genetic disposition and other environmental factors (in addition to smoking) as possible causes/risk factors for getting lung cancer. Is that "in addition to", as in "in combination with"...or is that an admission of other, singular causes...independant of smoking? Other causes. There are people who have never smoked who get lung cancer, so I'm pretty sure no one would claim that smoking is the only cause. Working around coal dust or exposure to asbestos are other things that have been linked to lung cancer. Quote Seems to me, that based on "fact" that smoking is purely responsible for all the nation's health problems....nearly every state in the Union, has collected windfalls of BILLIONS of dollars in bogus tobacco lawsuit profits. If that ain't incentive, I dunno' what is! Well, that's an interesting take on it, though I can't say I agree with you. But I understand being skeptical when there are new studies every day, and one day something is good for you but the next day it's not, and oftentimes powerful industries or corporations stand to gain a lot from the research pointing one direction or the other. However, with this particular topic, there seems (to me) to be a pretty clear correlation between smoking cigarettes and increased risk of lung cancer. Though I smoked despite the fact that I believed in the risk. I quit because I just got sick of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #64 February 12, 2008 I'll have to concede, I don't doubt there's a connection. Like I said, I was being somewhat facetious and I suppose, playing the Devil's advocate here but really...I don't put a lot of stock in the second-hand smoke thing. As far as the smoking bans, it's clearly all about the money. Once the U.S. sued the tobacco industry, for fun and huuuuuge profits, almost every other country followed suit (no pun intended). I suspect these smoking bans are somehow a prerequisite or CYA move, for the lawsuits."T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WFFC 1 #65 February 12, 2008 QuoteThey banned smoking in public places in Denver about two years ago, and it's been a relief! Not sure if you remember, but I was over in (Aberdeen) Scotland when the smoking ban went into effect there. Its honestly made every other place that's put a ban in place look like a picnic. The Scots like their pubs and their smokes.----- ~~~Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #66 February 12, 2008 read my post lt, the Bent prop IS SMOKE FREE You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #67 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote Ummmm did you even go to www.pubmed.com? DO THAT. LOOK at those articles that you claim to know so much about. ONce you look at those . . . . then come back here. Ya' shoulda' left that one alone. I went there and searched for "cancer causes"...came up with lots of stuff but in a random sampling, I'm seeing the words "odds" and "ratios" used quite often and in almost ALL of them. Still sounds like Vegas. The difference being that the house is limited to 51% in Vegas. What's the word on long-time smokers?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #68 February 12, 2008 Quote The difference being that the house is limited to 51% in Vegas. What's the word on long-time smokers? Last I heard, 10% of smokers get cancer. Speaking of "studies"....CNN reported that Stanford University, recently conducted a study about "why men like video games". They "studied" 11 men and 11 women.....out of this sampling, they now "know" that all the billions of men in the world, like video games.....and why! Man, that's gotta' be accurate as hell! This was the same "stink tank", that spent millions a few years ago, doing a study on how to grow larger rats. Maybe I can get a gov't grant to do a study to prove that the color red, when used on parachute gear....induces malfunctions. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #69 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote The difference being that the house is limited to 51% in Vegas. What's the word on long-time smokers? Last I heard, 10% of smokers get cancer. Speaking of "studies"....CNN reported that Stanford University, recently conducted a study about "why men like video games". They "studied" 11 men and 11 women.....out of this sampling, they now "know" that all the billions of men in the world, like video games.....and why! Man, that's gotta' be accurate as hell! This was the same "stink tank", that spent millions a few years ago, doing a study on how to grow larger rats. Maybe I can get a gov't grant to do a study to prove that the color red, when used on parachute gear....induces malfunctions. First, I think you're trolling about this whole thing, but it's entertaining so please continue. Anyway, I did a quick search on mortality rate and here's what the big bad Surgeon General has reported: "the data regarding smoking to date focuses primarily on cigarette smoking, which increases mortality rates by 40% in those who smoke They reflect that it's different between different physiologies and the sooner you quit the more chance body has to recover. Furthermore any partially burnt organic matter, not just tobacco, is a carcinogen. Anyway, it's been a good discussion. I hope you don't just see this as an acceptable gamble but a brother can do what he wants to do."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeJD 0 #70 February 12, 2008 I really don't know how dangerous to health 'passive' smoking is. But for me, regardless of any health issues, it's the smell . Here in the UK we went smoke-free last year, and it's still a miracle to me that I can wake up after spending the whole evening in a bar and put on last night's coat without that terrible stink. I'd never try to ban people from smoking altogether. Most of us do things we know are bad for us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #71 February 12, 2008 Trolling........!? I wouldn't say that. It's just an easy subject to get folks riled and talking about, since any way you look at it, it's a precedent to permit the revoking of all freedoms of personal choice. Some don't care about things like that, some of us do....some of us served, to protect those freedoms. To allow a ban on anything, without absolute proof, just opens the door to unchecked gov't oppression. Also....these "studies", when not fully legitimate, can kill....take the first generation airbags as a perfect example. Studies were done and it was determined that airbags should be mandatory, because their studies showed that they save lives. Apparently they didn't study hard enough, almost a full 400 people were murdered by these life-savers, in just the first year. Seat belts are also proving to be a viable means of population control. The studies only show the number of incidents where they worked, not the number of fatalities that can be attributed to them. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #72 February 12, 2008 Quote . . . any way you look at it, it's a precedent to permit the revoking of all freedoms of personal choice. Yep, next thing you know, I'll no longer be able to go shoot up heroin down at the local playground. Oh wait, that freedom has already been revoked. Freakin' Nazis... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #73 February 12, 2008 Quote Quote . . . any way you look at it, it's a precedent to permit the revoking of all freedoms of personal choice. Yep, next thing you know, I'll no longer be able to go shoot up heroin down at the local playground. Oh wait, that freedom has already been revoked. Freakin' Nazis... Very true. Just the other day, the Manager at Wendy's called the police when I tried to take a shit on the salad bar...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #74 February 12, 2008 Quote Yep, next thing you know, I'll no longer be able to go shoot up heroin down at the local playground. Oh wait, that freedom has already been revoked. Freakin' Nazis... I don't think it was the Nazis but if you claim you're gonna' do a study on it, you could use the grant money to buy the good stuff....just like the guys at Stanford! "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #75 February 12, 2008 Quote Very true. Just the other day, the Manager at Wendy's called the police when I tried to take a shit on the salad bar... Good thing! If your a*s had touched the lettuce, you coulda' died! That stuff'll kill ya'!"T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
