Smoking General

sooo the government and surgeons just demanded it for the fuck of it ? they approve nicotine and thousands of other shit that turns your lungs black ?
Are you even trying ?

Are you high? Nothing I said suggested that. I'm talking about the earliest smoking studies carried out in Britain being bullshit.

members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

sci.med.diseases.cancer.narkive.com/6qNYNZIZ/the-dishonesty-of-antismoking

wsws.org/en/articles/2007/01/doll-j09.html?view=article_mobile

It has been asserted that Richard Doll shifted the blame from their culprits to the act of smoking.

Japan is a smokers paradise and they have significantly smaller rates of every disease associated with smoking but high stomach cancer rates.

Additionally the ungodly amount of pollution is a much higher health risk in China than their smoking. See what's going on? It's another source of ill health being the actual driving force of disease and increased risk.

Then how does one fix it? If they even tried any of this propaganda in France Greece and Japan they'd get a huge pushback.

>smoking isn't bad for your health
these b8 threads aren't even that great anymore...

Purge the liberal establishment from politicized science, I don't mean to single out a side, but this sort of superstitious pearl clutching is their hallmark.

the right is unfortunately too stupid to do science.

it's a real problem, we try to get them into programs to increase their numbers but affirmative action just isn't working.

I really don't get what is he traing to achieve when labels on the smokes itself say smoking causes cancer, arthritis, vein clotting and lots of other nasty shit.

Look at you. You're the bigot now.

Get the tracking chips out of your head. The government's cherry picked and manipulated studies are the reasons for Those labels, along with other science from the UK that was manipulated to the advantage of a man trying to use smoking as a scapegoat.

They control the science though. You can't just pull them out. Smoking being a health risk has always been a liberal standpoint (and in the few times it's not, a religious abstinence standpoint).

They can remain if politicizing is curbed. Create a climate open to more than consensus? T-bh I think if the righties appropriated anti-smoking their contrarianism will do the rest.

>Create a climate open to more than consensus?

That's never going to work. All of the popular scientists and skeptics and everything else is all about the consensus. It's the same thing with global warming. Some of the smartest and most influential minds give in to consensus and don't give a shit if their data is capable of being disputed.

For example, if anyone looked at the countries with the highest smoking rates they'd see a huge difference in mortality and illness. People only seem to focus on the U.S. and their numbers though.

See this is why giving them free helicopter rides is always my goto

hey man, whats stopping you then? go ahead and smoke 2 packs a week. let me know how you're doing in 20 years.

>smoke at a statistically insignificant level see what happens
Its nothing

well whats it gonna be, pussy? do you want to smoke or not?

It's a waste of money due to the taxes, and I'd lose my sense of smell.

Granted, if I did smoke that much for 20 years, nothing of importance would happen to me. How about you try it and find out that smoking feels good and isn't a big health problem like the government wants you to believe

Most people who smoke that much for twenty years can pretty much bounce back to completely normalcy after they quit.

>Five/six cigarettes a day
>he actually thinks it's a big deal

That's nothing. Japanese guys can smoke up to three packs and nothing happens to them. How do you explain that? Wait, you can't.

>charcoal filters
>other hazard reducing effects
>resistant heredity influence
>being an otherwise fit and healthy population

>charcoal filters
>other hazard reducing effects

If that's true, then great. Why doesn't America or the UK use these hazard reducing effects then? I'm curious.

>resistant heredity influence

The genetics argument doesn't always work one hundred percent. Japanese Americans who smoke still get pretty sick.

fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2009/06/japanese-smoking-paradox.html?m=1

>being an otherwise fit and healthy population

This is the right answer, and it proves smoking isn't bad, having a bad lifestyle and diet is the real problem. Why doesn't the science in America teach this, instead of taking a negative view of smoking?

You can't exactly introduce safe cigarettes after trashing the notion for a generation. They don't want to eat crow over preventable harm do-gooders were responsible for.

How effective are the hazard reducing effects/charcoal filters? How different are they from western cigs?

/thread

More evidence, I guess.

islaslab.blogspot.com/2011/05/safer-cigarette.html?m=1

Sounds like cancer is not a risk for smoking in Japan. I wonder if all of the alleged other risks in the U.S don't apply as well (stroke, heart disease*, pneumonia, emphysema)

*I'm guessing due to their diet heart disease isn't much of a factor.

>posting government propaganda

You may as well post An Inconvinient Truth as scientific proof, kid.

> government propaganda.
It's a health regulation you desperate cancerbag. They need to let people know that they're selling cancers and tumors and lung-related diseases to people

So why don't you get garish about sugar, booze,etc and only malign smoking?

More like they need to let people know that they can blame smoking for all their problems instead of cracking down on the real problem or, like Japan, creating a healthier cigarette or enforcing a better diet so people can smoke.

They somehow magically make smoking not cancerous ? Your dumb OP post said smoking is not linked to cancer, lung diseases and many other shit that they print on the labels, and when you're cornered you cry about some other irrelevant shit.

You're grasping at straws here. Please just smoke 5 packs a day and kill yourself cancerbag.

Any explanation is frankly better than the corrupt science we're currently getting.

Frankly the difference in lifestyle explains Japan and Greece compared to the U.S.

Another reason is that the "data" isn't all that it seems.

smokingaloud.com/death.html

So do you think it's a massive conspiracy that every doctor out there is against smoking and tells you that its bad for your lungs along with causing long term illnesses ?

I wanted to thank you for this, OP.

I'm on my second day without a cigarette, which is always the hardest day for me when I'm trying to quit.

Seeing you shilling for tobacco companies reminded me why I hate them. You're a soulless shit stain of a human that will let people die horrible deaths if it means you get a couple bucks, and I appreciate you reminding me of that.

Slightly off topic, but I think the problems associated with quitting are under played dishonestly.

I smoked 2 packs per day for about 5 years. When I quit, I went into depression for 6 months, with an icing of total emotional instability and agoraphobia. It started nearly a month after my last cigarette, and after the temptation was basically gone.

If you research it, these symptoms come up as risks, but are down played as rare. If you actually talk to doctors who personally work with ex-smokers, they will tell you it is very common.

I didn't go back to smoking because of pride and arrogance, but it was probably the worst 6 months of my life.

Veeky Forums: never question our beliefs or we will insult you like little bitches.

My mom died a year ago from respiratory insufficiency when she was 45. Our family doctor said she was fine other than her smoking habit where she could have lived for atleast 20 more years.
I'm glad I never smoked and I don't ever intend to.

I'm sorry to hear of your loss. I'm the only on of five siblings that smokes, and I'm the only one of five siblings that has had strokes. I almost died of one on my 40th birthday.

I know smoking will kill me but it's amazing how hard it is to quit and stay quit.

Indeed. It's better not to start at all but I hope you get rid of that habit. It's such an unnerving thing to lose loved ones over this poison.

>it's amazing how hard it is to quit and stay quit.
Nicotine gum, 4mg to 2mg to chewing gum. Take it slow so your addiction and habits transfer from lighting cigarettes to chewing gum. For me, it was 3 boxes of Nicorette.

The conspiracy is well documented if you read the links that have been posted on this thread. The main motive is to create more jurisdiction and power in the government so they make more money.

I wanted to thank you for reminding me of how there are over emotional non and ex-smokers who get all righteous because a habit personally affected them, even though it hardly affects many others to the extent the government wants people to think. you're just being irrational with your comments, particularly the idea that I somehow make money. I make no money off tobacco and do this in my spare time. You have no basis to make this claim and I'm frankly insulted that you would. I have heroes who are smokers who didn't quit and bitch about it, they either still do it, or died at a ripe old age.

I'm just trying to show people that it's a complex, multi layered issue that like global warming has been muddled by complete bullshit like secondhand smoke and smoking kills styles of propaganda. This is a science board, science is about facts, not emotion.

Your links are not academic links, nor well cited respectable papers. I'm not even looking for peer-review at this point.

I don't think theres anything left to discuss when you confirmed that all the doctors in the world are somehow in a conspiracy which has nothing to do with how people who smoke get black repressed lungs and massively documented illnesses directly related to that.

Many of the links mention studies that reached conclusions about smoking that are not in line with the mainstream blowhard opinion.

I do have links proving that secondhand smoke is bullshit, though. Secondhand smoke is bollocks and is the main building block for why smoking is banned indoors.

>Boffetta, et al: Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October 7, 1998: "public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."
>Enstrom, JE and Kabat, GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 BMJ 2003; 326:1057. This study found "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease."
>In addition a large prospective study (76,000 women) showed that while there is a strong association between smoking and lung cancer no such link has been demonstrated with second hand smoke. The direct quote is "the fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers].” (Peres, J, "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer,"J Natl Cancer Inst, 2013.)

I will see if I can find some old links about smoking not being a health risk but a negligible habit of varying quality.

Hey smoke fags. How does it feel that you are stuck to the phallic stage? You might as well suck a dick!

Everything kills in abuse, but is unjustified take antismokin posture and ignore the pollution is a major healt problem and i suspect is responsible of the passive smokers increment, is not the fist time, remember the lead in fuel?

>this whole thread
Lmao are you seriously trying to justify smoking and saying it isn't bad for you? The fact that it ruins your lung capacity and makes you smell like an old man should make you quit that shit, it's fucking disgusting

Junior high? Just learned about Freud? How cute, just wait until you learn something true.
Your lack of English writing skills is abuse.

I'm sorry this happened to you, but what people need to keep in mind is that other factors are at play, not just smoking. Genetics/hereditary conditions, diet, air pollution, radon gas (biggest health risk by far) are all huge factors and I think it's disingenuous how people lump the blame on smoking like its definitively linked to these kinds of disease.

The sheer number of intelligent and open minded people who use it justifies its use. Most anti-smokers are close minded.

Forgot pic

>I don't understand the difference between absolute and relative risk

That's understandable, most brainlets have trouble with numbers ('cos math is hard, amirite). The point is your absolute risk of developing cancer is pretty low, but take a smoker and a non-smoker and the smoker will have a higher likelihood of developing cancer than the non-smoker, even though that liklihood is still pretty small.

>unrelated diseases and conditions

What makes you think that they're unrelated? What gives you the authority to assert that?

No, It was smoking, the doctor came outright and said it. I knew her lungs were already in bad condition because she started smoking around 17.
Unlike me she never eat red meat or anything with carcinogens much and we live in the outerskirts of the town where you can't even hear the traffic. That was one of the most shocking things for me because I never expected her to die off of health problems since we live in a nice healthy environment.

Is there any family history of lung cancer or large amounts of asbestos or radon gas in the area? Sorry, just curious. Radon in particular is what people say causes lung cancer in nonsmokers. If one rejects the idea that smoking is a cause for cancer, then one could draw the conclusion that it can cause cancer and disease in smokers as well.

> look guise i smoke im so k00l n edgy xDDD

you guys are pathetic lol

>>unrelated diseases and conditions
>What makes you think that they're unrelated? What gives you the authority to assert that?

Multille things. Faulty research, counter studies proving otherwise, the Japanese paradox, where smokers don't even get the diseases associated with smoking at nearly the same level as people in the west do.

I thought it was the polonium from the phosphate fertilizer mines which then get into the plant that contributed. I understand Balkan tobacco does not use this.the companies themselves for whatever reason know and do not replace it, maybe anerica is using smoking as eugenics unlike other places.
nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html?_r=0

Because they can.

If you want to smoke so bad, just do it, and stop complaining.

>Because they can

Cuck who passively lets bad science run things detected.

You may accept them spreading this information about smoking, but don't for a second think it's acceptable to ban smoking indoors due to the secondhand smoke meme, which is the only reason they got rid of it. Creating faulty science to ban another human being's habit from being allowed is a violation of rights.

Hey, go ahead and stop consuming the media or pop culture of anyone who smokes. You will be faced with a small list of likewise rather boring people.

Also, I realize this is an anectdote, but I knew someone who had a smoking father who died of lung cancer, and she ended up getting cancer despite being a nonsmoker.

Sounds a lot like cancer, including lung cancer, is a genetic issue, not a smoking issue.

You don't have any right to fill the room other people live in with with toxic gas retard. Go smoke your tobacco jew outside.

>muh safe space
nanny statist pls go

If businesses and institutions want to ban smoking, that's their right. Deal with it.

I could give a rat if it's bad for you or not, it smells terrible and is obnoxious to breath.

It's not a safe space, it's a closed and public space and you can't treat it like your own cesspool.

Go smoke your fucking cancer in your own filth retard. Nobody has to endure your gas just because you're retarded.

passive smoking is bollocks, it doesn't reduce cancer rates in fact they've stayed level since non-smokers keep fucking it up by getting lung cancer.

Nice try ignoring the point retardo.

It's a closed and public space and you can't treat it like your own cesspool. End of story.

If you wanna smoke, fuck off and do it where you don't disturb people.

fine but I aint walking no 10 feet that is a baseless ostracizing tactic
it should be up to private organizations to decide themselves,

>If businesses and institutions want to ban smoking, that's their right. Deal with it.

True, but you know what? They usually do it on the incorrect belief that it's bad for people. If that wasn't the case I doubt most people would care.

And regardless, smoking bans are a state problem, not a business problem. Usually states try to enact statewide bans.

>I could give a rat if it's bad for you or not, it smells terrible and is obnoxious to breath.

You can't get rid of something because you don't like it you tool.

You don't get to decide what happens in public, no one should.

>if you wanna smoke, fuck off and do it where you don't disturb people.

If you don't want to be near smoke just go somewhere else, or are your legs broken?

Is it too hard to smoke 10 feet away from the door ? Do you press your face against door glass and smoke right near the entrance ?

it does nothing but shame smokers when you fucks aren't around to cough passive aggressively, there is a specific ring in hell for those folk.

Yeah, they should get in line to get exposed to your cancerous garbage.

Just fuck off already. The regulations are there for a reason. Nobody has to endure being suffocated by your smoke.

It is not harmful you're just being a priss and want to curb others behavior like a petty authoritarian.

>he actually thinks smoking or even secondhand smoke can cause health problems
>this is what the new age millennial actually believes

Fuck off already retard

They actually get transplanted to no less effect than normal ones. Bugger off with your scare tactics and cherrypicking
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140227091247.htm

>posts a pic of a lung used by a coal miner as proof

Top KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKE

so much failure.

Posting a meme image of what you think a smoker's lung looks like makes you look like a retard. Proof has shown that there little to no difference between smoking and nonsmoking.

Government men images of what they want a smoker's lung to look like is just like a using picture of a polar bear stranded on a sheet of ice in the water to show global warming.

It's not what I think it is, it's what the smoke companies print no cigarette boxes.
> b-b-but muh global conspiracy

Go spread your cancer elsewhere dumbfuck. Who do you think you're fooling ?

L-O-L

I don't give a shit about smoking. I do not feel an urge to try. I do not feel an urge to spend money. I am not concerned with the health effects because it will never affect me aside from the second hand smoke I may get on occasion from a passerby. I am not interested in rediscovering the answer to this question of yours because, like roughly 70% of the threads posted on Veeky Forums, it is a dumb one.

You, on the other hand, are making a claim against medical professionals and against a (except for you) universally accepted idea that smoking is not good for you. If you are so damn critical of it, why not start smoking yourself? It feels good right? You bounce back quick, right? Most people are resistant, right?Again, what's stopping you? I'm not.

>why don't you go smoke for twenty years then realize how good it feels and how little damage it does to you?

Does Camel pay you by your post count or how many people view the thread?

Yeah, the Feds force them to post that garbage even though it's not how a smoker's lung looks. it's a huge exaggeration and if one stopped smoking the lungs would go back to normal.

Go be a virtue signaling twat somewhere else. Smoking below a pack a day isn't going to be a debilitating as it is memed out to be

>the lungs will go back to normal

I don't even know if I want to hear your explanation of how that happens.

> m-m-m-uh conspiracy
point at this cancerous retard and laugh

Why do you insist on telling me this? I'm not buying your fucking cigarettes. Leave me alone.

That's a common fact you imbecile.

They go back to normal after a week.

Get over it.

>nothing but meme images

I forgot it was summer and all the freshman from high school have come to play, fresh from their TheTruth.org rally.

>would rather be ignorant the rest of his life

Lel

>thinking health warnings are propaganda

Please go drink bleach and ignore the danger label.

I say the same for alcohol or excessive meat/high-caloric food consumption, but it wouldn't make those endeavors--which I personally enjoy--any healthier. I never understood cigarettes, but I enjoy cigars. All the reading I've done hasn't managed to demonstrate the occasional (once a month if I have the time/occasion) cigar has long-term negative health affects aside a slightly increased chance of mouth diseases (which is understandable). Yet, when I visit a doctor and mention--as you're encouraged, be honest with the doctor--that I have the occasional cigar, they go bananas and try to say that I'm a full-on smoker who needs to quit.
I mentioned I've had shrooms, smoked weed, drink anywhere from 2-7 drinks a week, but god damn that monthly cigar's what's gonna kill you.

Cigarettes on the other hand seem to have no benefit. I love the taste of cigars, pairs great with a nice whiskey (from bourbon to irish to scotch or what have you), and the combo has a nice buzz. Cigarettes taste like shit, burn your lungs/throat, ruin your sense of smell, and lead to severe addictions. While I disagree with the tactic of slight brainwashing, it seems to me they're trying to keep kids from getting hooked on these useless things. No purpose, only negative health effects, extra costs, highly addictive. To me, that was reason enough to not get involved.

>thinking health warnings based on cherry picking studies and government control is NOT propaganda

*checks calendar*

Oh.

It's 1984.

1.) Never learn something from tabloids, magazines, newspapers, blogs, youtube videos, howcast, or non-academic sites.

2.) Only learn from academic sources.

3.) Smoking is always harmful; but it doesn't always cause cancer. No one can smoke without it damaging their lungs.

You're really trying to rope in some customers today, huh? I get it, it's a job and you gotta do it. But between you and me, I'm not interested.