Bad science; global warming, smoking and animal rights

[Worker 11811]

That'd be Artie Johnson...

 

>> Artie Johnson - Verry Interresting <<

[Guest]

Hi Touchofsable,

 

I'm not sure I can see where you're coming from. It took me two seconds to find this...

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C00E6DD1031F93BA25753C1A960958260

 

There are many diseases smoking prevents.

 

Which diseases and where is the evidence?

 

Far from being conclusive proof this is desperate; and no doubt funded by a lobby group or governemnt in order to provide such "conclusive proof". BILLIONS of dollars have been pumped into science trying to establish that and its a gravy train.

That chemical , and this is what they dont tell you....will not be exclusively found in cigarette smoke but in many household products food and the genral environment. That is why they don't actually say what the chemical is. Its dumbed down journalism for proles.

 

There are many diseases smoking helps prevent. I am not getting into this as it will go on and on. I have dozens of pieces of research that formally prove this but its not the place. Try this from wikipedia as a summary instead:

 

Several types of "Smoker

[Worker 11811]

You forgot one, ToS: Attention Defecit Disorder.

 

Nicotine is a Centeral Nervous System Stimulant. CNS stimulants are used to treat people with ADD. Since it is a CNS stimulant, nicotine can be used to treat mild cases of ADD.

 

In fact, it is believed that many people with ADD who smoke are actually self-medicating their condition without even knowing it.

 

But, to be honest with you, that isn't enough for me to take up smoking again. Tar and other combustion byproducts ARE bad for you. The benefits of nicotine aren't strong enough to make the detrimental effects worth it. Furthermore, the addictive nature of tobacco smoking creates a tendancy for people to overuse it.

 

IF it was possible to determine that an intake of two cigarettes per day was enough to medicate a person with ADD, it would be virtually impossible to KEEP him smoking only two cigs every day. Before you know it, he is likely to be smoking three, four or a whole pack of cigarettes every day. The negative effects of tobacco smoke would then far outweigh the threaputic effects.

 

Again, smoking is OK if you really want to do it. Just don't claim that ALL smoking is good because a it is beneficial in a few isolated cases.

 

It would be far better to distill the nicotine out of the tobacco and administer it in pill or liquid form. If your arguement held water, then every time we got a headache we would all just chew on a piece of the bark from a willow tree instead of taking an tablet of aspirin.

[Guest]

I didn't claim all smoking is good. merly that the billions of dollars spent trying to prove it SO bad have come up with very little solid evidence; a great deal of circumstantial which takes no notice of other factors. How come for example that people who smoke in highere social groups do not suffer as greatly from these diseases? While we do have solid evidence that nicotine is very beneficial.

[Worker 11811]

It probably has to do with many factors.

 

I don't think OCCASIONAL smoking is any more harmful than any of the other things we do to our bodies. But human nature dictates that a person will want more and more of a good thing until he consumes so much of it he starts harming himself.

 

A dog will drink antifreze until its stomach can't hold any more. Dogs think it tastes good but it is also a deadly poison which has no antidote. And, so do people have the tendancy to overconsume.

 

Remember, we already determined that smoking a cigarette is about as harmful as standing in a garage full of engine exhaust fumes. The difference is that we don't go inhaling lungs full of exhaust every ten seconds for an entire day. By the same token, we shouldn't be smoking 50 cigarettes per day.

 

Social smoking isn't the problem. Chronic smoking IS a problem and it *WILL* shorten your life if you smoke too much!

 

Where is the line between theraputic or social smoking and detrimental, chronic smoking? It's probably impossible to know for sure. Each individual has different tolerances and secondary risk factors. While it's possible to imagine a person could be harmed by smoking even ONE cigarette it is EQUALLY likely that there is a person who could smoke three packs a day for life and see no disease effects at all.

 

So, YES, nicotine has theraputic benefits. But you can't say the same about smoking tobacco. You can't apply a specific case to the general case.

[Guest]

Long enough not saying what I've said before way back in Melody.

 

There is Tobacco from the farm fields. 100% tobacco.

 

Then there is tobacco in the typical cigarette. Maybe 80% tobacco.

 

The rest is:

 

A chaulk filler for 'body'.

 

An accelerant (?) to keep the cig 'lit'. A 100% tobacco smoke will go out if you don't keep sucking on it. Why quality cigars have to be relit all the time.

 

Silicone binder to hold together the stem dust that gives the flavor kick to a filter cig.

 

Flavor 'enhancers'. The most notorious is Menthol. A know addictive substance in itself when burnt and inhaled. COOL HUH!! Just what are those 'flavor' enhancers? They won't tell us.

 

There are a few French. Russian, Italian and Turkish cigarettes that are 100%. They are not the most popular however. It's the American and American cloned (most European and canadian) cigs that are the most popular. Even the Chinese rip off the US smokes formulas and are the most popular there as well.

 

Since cigarettes constitute the vast majority of smoking it stands to reason this is the most toxic form and health hazard.

 

So if you think smoking chaulk and silicone high temperature char and the refractants from the other substances as promoting good health ... well ... smoke,smoke, smoke yourself to death.

 

Just stay away from me.

 

OFF

[Guest]

That doesn't answer why certain groups who do smoke do not suffer from smoking related diseases as highly as some groups of non smokers.

 

While science continues to accuse the wrong suspect, or "fit him up" with all the blame to clean up the case, then other suspects go free to commit more crime.

 

And that applies to almost all science at the moment where there are vested interests involved.

 

Hence fur gets the blame for being cruel while habitat destruction walks free.

 

Anyway I said I wouldn't get to heavily involved in such discussions but of course I respect your right to be smoke free OFF.

Oh and those chemicals you mention? They are often found in much higher doses in foodstuffs.

[Worker 11811]

Oh and those chemicals you mention? They are often found in much higher doses in foodstuffs.

 

Aah! But they are artificially introduced into the tobacco by their manufacturers in the EXACT combinations to produce the greatest addictive effect!

 

Menthol found in candy, chewing gum and cold remedies, etc. won't produce the same effect when ingested versus inhaling the fumes. Remember: Inhalation is the second most efficient method of introducing a drug into the body, second only to intravenous injection.

 

Silicone, chalk and saltpeter are not often found in other foodstuffs in quantities to have an effect. (Except for the saltpeter in anti-sensitivity toothpaste.)

 

And, neither are those chemicals DELIBERATELY PLACED there.

 

But, in cigarettes, all these chemicals and, God knows, how many others are there, simply to produce a certain effect in the smoker's body WITHOUT REGARD to long-term health effects.

 

The ONLY reason they are there is to produce short-term profits for the company!

 

If you really want to smoke, go buy Dunhills or Sherman's. They aren't full of all that crap!

 

Like I said above, you can't link a certain health effect from a specific case to a general case. It's easy to find a segment of the population and say that they smoke but don't get cancer and emphysema but it's not possible to say that ALL people who smoke don't get cancer because of it.

 

Maybe American Indians, et. al. have an anti-cancer gene in their DNA? Maybe there's something in their diet that counteracts the effects of tobacco? Who knows...

[Guest]

Its actually believed to be connected with adaptation worker. So like the proverbial surviving cockroach who learns to eat ash, they have adpted. I don't suppose the firts few generations of cockroaches flet very well lol!Third generation smokers are less susceptible to lung diseases; indicating that actually smoking may eventually improve genes.

Likewise the "cotton wool" kids nowadays are far more likely to suffer with allergies etc. but also with lack of exposure to bacteria etc they can suffer badly with diseases later. The irony of the heathy master race is that they sow the seeds of their own destruction...and very quickly.

 

But as a nod in the direction that maybe pipe tobacco is better: (COPY AND PASTE...fur there!)

 

http://www.southern-charms3.com/nicoletta/ni165x011.jpg

http://www.southern-charms3.com/nicoletta/ni165x006.jpg

http://www.southern-charms3.com/nicoletta/ni165x012.jpg

http://www.southern-charms3.com/nicoletta/ni165x003.jpg

 

Edited March 19, 2007 by Guest

[Worker 11811]

Adaptation.

 

It's easy to imagine how animals forced to live in polluted habitats would develop genetic traits that allow them to resist the toxins in their environment. The laws of evolution say that those animals with better resistance to toxins live longer and pass on their DNA to future generations while those who are killed by toxins die and don't pass on their genes.

 

Tobacco smoke IS a toxin.

 

So, then, is it logical to say that all humans should be encouraged to smoke more so that resistance to environmental toxins is promoted in future generations of the human species?

[Guest]

What is that Worker?

 

Oh yeah.

 

A specious argument

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

A modest proposal, as Mr. Swift would say...

 

You catch on quickly!

[Guest]

cow's milk is a toxin to humans

any burnt meat or toast is.

The "chemicals" in smoke are usually things like simple sugars and salts. Sur burning them makes toxins but we eat them nevertheless; not to mention inhale them in massively mor concentrated form in restaurants wher the cooking is done in front of you or you burn the toast at home. A piece of burnt toast fumes can actually kill you.

Alcohol is a toxin.

I could go on but that enough from me.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Guest

[Worker 11811]

So is dihodrogen monoxide!

 

http://www.dhmo.org/