LOL. Good evening Gary. I can't disagree with you there.
In the UK, "stats" crowed about how smoking'd dropped right down after banning it in public places and keeping cigarette packets out of sight, behind cupboard doors, but I've spoken to managers of large supermarkets, and their sales've hardly changed at all, PLUS, more youngsters're now having a go at vaping (just as poisonous to their systems, but not so frowned on by the "anti-smoking" brigade).
I was telling someone today how I had a huge urge to puff on a cigarette after dinner today. I haven't been near a cigarette for 7 months, but just occasionally, I still get massive pangs. I know that I could have one, and then not touch one for months, but I was told that smoking could've contributed to the removal of some fluid build-up around my heart. The operation was so ghastly, that I truly fear having to go through such a procedure again. It was horrible Gary, and I'm not mardy where health issues're concerned. My take on it is, that if you have something wrong with you, you go and get it treated - end of - but that one op was the worst thing I've ever had to go through.
I still have no arguments with cigarette smokers. It's supposed to be a free world, and governments should leave people alone. I've known smokers reach a really good old age and then die; nothing to do with them developing pneumonia, lung cancer or whatever, and I've also known non-smokers who've died of diseases which you'd normally associate with smoking, so although we know it's NOT a good habit to have, there's no guarantee either way.
Just because smokers're treated as pariahs by the "goody goody" lot who got their own way, doesn't mean that we should wish the same fate on coffee drinkers though. Lots of things're addictive, from natural things to the trillions of antidepressants and sleeping tablets which doctors prescribe every day,and I know which're the worse. I'd rather be a smoker, than someone who has to reply on chemically-induced happiness or vitality.
Something From Nothing
Re: Something From Nothing
In 1976, my aunt and uncle were not only the oldest living couple in our county, they were also the longest married.
We had a bicentennial celebration where they were crowned king and queen.
Both climbed up to their seats on the parade float without assistance.
They both were heavy smokers their entire lives.
My doctor who used to harp at me to quit smoking finally changed his tune also.
As you mentioned, I don't have to take a strong of medicine to keep the fluid from building up around my heart as do non-smokers. What I smoked also played a huge difference in my lung capacity. When I got away from store bought cigs and began making my own from organic tobacco with no chemical additives, my lung capacity went from 55 up to 75 in the first month, and is now holding around 77 to 81 on their meters ever since.
It's not that I'm totally against coffee Icey. I use coffee as a comparison mainly because it is more addictive than marijuana, yet uncontrolled as an addictive drug. Coffee is similar to the drug called Speed, but at a much smaller dosage of course.
My point in the government not picking on coffee and choosing cigarettes was a Control and Taxing issue touted as a health issue. This flies right in the face of and totally opposite of what the FDA claims.
I'm not claiming smoking is good for anyone, but then neither are a lot of other things.
Most people smoke manufactured cigarettes, which the FDA has approved over 599 chemicals as SAFE for use in cigarettes and food. We know 43 of these are carcinogens, and another 60+ are suspected carcinogens.
If you ever worked in a lab, or have seen lab reports of tests conducted on a substance, they ALWAYS and without fail, test only the purest substance they can to obtain an accurate reading of the substance.
In many cases, they have to isolate each substance in an item in order to do proper testing and obtain accurate results.
The reason I say the US government who places all the hype and bans in place have NEVER tested Tobacco is simple.
They have NEVER tested the affects of smoking Tobacco! They never distinguished between the different varieties of tobacco either.
OK, so what did they tests?
They tested for the Chemicals already approved by the FDA as SAFE, which were added to manufactured cigarettes, in order to determine smoking was bad for us. They ONLY TESTED PURPOSELY CONTAMINATED SAMPLES, in order to obtain the results they wanted to obtain.
If you took a perfectly clean and pure water, such as that produced from a Barnstead Triple Distillation Still, it contains nothing, so technically you cannot even test the pH of water this pure.
However, if you ADD the FDA approved SAFE Chemicals to this pure water, and then tested how bad the water was for our health, it would fail for the exact same reason a chemically laced cigarette failed.
The only thing the government did prove with their testing of cigarettes is that adding chemicals to the cigarettes made them more harmful, even though the FDA already claimed those chemicals were Safe.
In other words, every law, ban, and tax added to cigarettes was based solely on false propaganda and improper testing.
Now, if they can get by with this fiasco to increase taxes and add more controls to the citizens, along with fines and other malarkey. WHY DID THE COFFEE DRINKERS fall prey to the propaganda and not fight against same?
Because they did not see through the government hoax, and many who often used to make favorable comments about tobacco, suddenly changed their attitude, based solely on false propaganda.
This Icey, is WHY I would like to see the government attack Coffee with the same vigor as they have Cigarettes.
I do not think Coffee Drinkers will be as docile as smokers and allow the government to ban their favorite addiction.
We all have our Vices, none of which are good for us. But WHY falsely single out ONE and not go after one which is just as bad if not worse.
Only about 25% of the US population were smokers, and this has dropped to around 17%. Not because of government intervention. The downhill rate remained unchanged, and even had an upswing when the bans came into place.
Compare this to the high number of Coffee Drinkers, which holds fairly steady at 64% of the US population.
Although they claim the rates of cancer are decreasing, they usually only make this claim over the span of a few years, not overall. Also, the actual cause of death is now more specific than in previous years.
In any case, the mortality tables listing cancer showed deaths from all cancers at only 1.2% in the 60's and it continued to rise steadily up through the '90s to 6.7%, when they divided deaths by either type of cancer or what organ failed causing the death.
Medical technology has also helped to extend the lives of cancer patients which helps to reduce the number of deaths.
It used to be if you made it five years after diagnosis, you were considered cured, this figure has been reduced to only three years for a cure to be considered a success, even if the patient died in the following two years.
Now that they changed the names of many of the cancers to something more palatable this affected the percentage as well, which is now shown as 5.2% of deaths as the result of cancer.
But did the death rate really go down as claimed, or are more people dying of cancer and the rate still going up?
If smoking was truly the cause of cancer deaths, and the number of smokers decreased by close to 10%, shouldn't the death index show a decline in cancer deaths instead of an increase?
My 2-bits for today!
We had a bicentennial celebration where they were crowned king and queen.
Both climbed up to their seats on the parade float without assistance.
They both were heavy smokers their entire lives.
My doctor who used to harp at me to quit smoking finally changed his tune also.
As you mentioned, I don't have to take a strong of medicine to keep the fluid from building up around my heart as do non-smokers. What I smoked also played a huge difference in my lung capacity. When I got away from store bought cigs and began making my own from organic tobacco with no chemical additives, my lung capacity went from 55 up to 75 in the first month, and is now holding around 77 to 81 on their meters ever since.
It's not that I'm totally against coffee Icey. I use coffee as a comparison mainly because it is more addictive than marijuana, yet uncontrolled as an addictive drug. Coffee is similar to the drug called Speed, but at a much smaller dosage of course.
My point in the government not picking on coffee and choosing cigarettes was a Control and Taxing issue touted as a health issue. This flies right in the face of and totally opposite of what the FDA claims.
I'm not claiming smoking is good for anyone, but then neither are a lot of other things.
Most people smoke manufactured cigarettes, which the FDA has approved over 599 chemicals as SAFE for use in cigarettes and food. We know 43 of these are carcinogens, and another 60+ are suspected carcinogens.
If you ever worked in a lab, or have seen lab reports of tests conducted on a substance, they ALWAYS and without fail, test only the purest substance they can to obtain an accurate reading of the substance.
In many cases, they have to isolate each substance in an item in order to do proper testing and obtain accurate results.
The reason I say the US government who places all the hype and bans in place have NEVER tested Tobacco is simple.
They have NEVER tested the affects of smoking Tobacco! They never distinguished between the different varieties of tobacco either.
OK, so what did they tests?
They tested for the Chemicals already approved by the FDA as SAFE, which were added to manufactured cigarettes, in order to determine smoking was bad for us. They ONLY TESTED PURPOSELY CONTAMINATED SAMPLES, in order to obtain the results they wanted to obtain.
If you took a perfectly clean and pure water, such as that produced from a Barnstead Triple Distillation Still, it contains nothing, so technically you cannot even test the pH of water this pure.
However, if you ADD the FDA approved SAFE Chemicals to this pure water, and then tested how bad the water was for our health, it would fail for the exact same reason a chemically laced cigarette failed.
The only thing the government did prove with their testing of cigarettes is that adding chemicals to the cigarettes made them more harmful, even though the FDA already claimed those chemicals were Safe.
In other words, every law, ban, and tax added to cigarettes was based solely on false propaganda and improper testing.
Now, if they can get by with this fiasco to increase taxes and add more controls to the citizens, along with fines and other malarkey. WHY DID THE COFFEE DRINKERS fall prey to the propaganda and not fight against same?
Because they did not see through the government hoax, and many who often used to make favorable comments about tobacco, suddenly changed their attitude, based solely on false propaganda.
This Icey, is WHY I would like to see the government attack Coffee with the same vigor as they have Cigarettes.
I do not think Coffee Drinkers will be as docile as smokers and allow the government to ban their favorite addiction.
We all have our Vices, none of which are good for us. But WHY falsely single out ONE and not go after one which is just as bad if not worse.
Only about 25% of the US population were smokers, and this has dropped to around 17%. Not because of government intervention. The downhill rate remained unchanged, and even had an upswing when the bans came into place.
Compare this to the high number of Coffee Drinkers, which holds fairly steady at 64% of the US population.
Although they claim the rates of cancer are decreasing, they usually only make this claim over the span of a few years, not overall. Also, the actual cause of death is now more specific than in previous years.
In any case, the mortality tables listing cancer showed deaths from all cancers at only 1.2% in the 60's and it continued to rise steadily up through the '90s to 6.7%, when they divided deaths by either type of cancer or what organ failed causing the death.
Medical technology has also helped to extend the lives of cancer patients which helps to reduce the number of deaths.
It used to be if you made it five years after diagnosis, you were considered cured, this figure has been reduced to only three years for a cure to be considered a success, even if the patient died in the following two years.
Now that they changed the names of many of the cancers to something more palatable this affected the percentage as well, which is now shown as 5.2% of deaths as the result of cancer.
But did the death rate really go down as claimed, or are more people dying of cancer and the rate still going up?
If smoking was truly the cause of cancer deaths, and the number of smokers decreased by close to 10%, shouldn't the death index show a decline in cancer deaths instead of an increase?
My 2-bits for today!
-
Icey
Re: Something From Nothing
Good evening Gary.
Yes, I know what you're saying, and you're right that there're all sorts of addictions, but the governments pick on the smokers more than drinkers or anyone else. Strange, really, considering that over here, if everyone gave up smoking, the loss in revenue'd be colossal. Cigarettes over here cost much more than over in the States.
When I smoked, so to speak, I bought Marlboro Gold. Today, a pack of 200 (10 x packets of 20), would set me back $119. 28. A single packet of 20'd cost a minimum of $12. 26. Now I'm sure that cigarettes come cheaper than that over there? To make matters more annoying, our government takes the equivalent of $9. 06 in tax from every packet of 20 cigarettes sold, so considering that thousands and thousands of people still smoke every day, you get an idea of how much money's going into the coffers.
Blackpool's considered as our "smoking capital, with 1 in 4 adults having the habit. It's also the worst for drinking. Between 21.1% and 24% of our population still smoke. Much of it's dropped down, due to Councils implementing "No Smoking" bans everywhere - even out in the open, such as town centres and public parks. They're considering banning it in prisons, which'll probably cause riots, and it's banned not only in just about every workplace, but anywhere on their grounds. I think it's ridiculous, and even if the habit DEFINITELY causes cancer, what with all the poisons they add to the tobacco, it may sound silly, but surely it's up to the individual if they want to take the risk? It's all to do with money of course. The NHS don't want to be paying for patients with smoke-related diseases, and yet, doctors're in one of the professions with the highest rate of smokers and drinkers!
If you think this thread's gone way off topic - not necessarily! Smokers think there's nothing to worry about, but the Powers That Be think that we're all going to get something from that "nothing". : )
Yes, I know what you're saying, and you're right that there're all sorts of addictions, but the governments pick on the smokers more than drinkers or anyone else. Strange, really, considering that over here, if everyone gave up smoking, the loss in revenue'd be colossal. Cigarettes over here cost much more than over in the States.
When I smoked, so to speak, I bought Marlboro Gold. Today, a pack of 200 (10 x packets of 20), would set me back $119. 28. A single packet of 20'd cost a minimum of $12. 26. Now I'm sure that cigarettes come cheaper than that over there? To make matters more annoying, our government takes the equivalent of $9. 06 in tax from every packet of 20 cigarettes sold, so considering that thousands and thousands of people still smoke every day, you get an idea of how much money's going into the coffers.
Blackpool's considered as our "smoking capital, with 1 in 4 adults having the habit. It's also the worst for drinking. Between 21.1% and 24% of our population still smoke. Much of it's dropped down, due to Councils implementing "No Smoking" bans everywhere - even out in the open, such as town centres and public parks. They're considering banning it in prisons, which'll probably cause riots, and it's banned not only in just about every workplace, but anywhere on their grounds. I think it's ridiculous, and even if the habit DEFINITELY causes cancer, what with all the poisons they add to the tobacco, it may sound silly, but surely it's up to the individual if they want to take the risk? It's all to do with money of course. The NHS don't want to be paying for patients with smoke-related diseases, and yet, doctors're in one of the professions with the highest rate of smokers and drinkers!
If you think this thread's gone way off topic - not necessarily! Smokers think there's nothing to worry about, but the Powers That Be think that we're all going to get something from that "nothing". : )
Last edited by Icey on 20 Jul 2016, 20:23, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Something From Nothing
As far as someone contracting cancer of any type. I think it takes several triggers, which must happen in conjunction with each other. If any one of those triggers are missing, the odds of contracting cancer drops exponentially if not completely.
Look at all the centenarians who smoked their whole lives, and many of them were never sick a day in their lives.
Then look at those who never smoked, never worked outside the home, and did not allow smoking in their home. In other words, they were rarely if ever even around anyone who smoked. Yet they died at a fairly young age from cancer blamed on cigarette smoke.
I had a fiancee who never smoked, was little Suzie homemaker, rarely left her house, nor visited places where there were a lot of smokers. She died from Black Lung Disease, although no one in her entire family every worked in a mine.
Where, when, and how did she contract that disease? Normally the disease requires years of accumulation, and was most prevalent among long-term mine workers.
The only answer is she was susceptible to several diseases, and did catch most of them at one time or another.
Her doctors told her on every visit, she must quit smoking, even though she never smoked a day in her life. Seems doctors have a way of blaming smoking for every single thing they don't understand, which gives smoking a bad rap.
FWIW: You can find just as many benefits from smoking, as those who find benefits in drinking coffee, wine, or booze.
Only the government can find something from nothing in order to create more controls and add taxes!
Even when they are actually causing the exact opposite affect of what they want you to believe, which I've proved in other comments on these forums several times.
Look at all the centenarians who smoked their whole lives, and many of them were never sick a day in their lives.
Then look at those who never smoked, never worked outside the home, and did not allow smoking in their home. In other words, they were rarely if ever even around anyone who smoked. Yet they died at a fairly young age from cancer blamed on cigarette smoke.
I had a fiancee who never smoked, was little Suzie homemaker, rarely left her house, nor visited places where there were a lot of smokers. She died from Black Lung Disease, although no one in her entire family every worked in a mine.
Where, when, and how did she contract that disease? Normally the disease requires years of accumulation, and was most prevalent among long-term mine workers.
The only answer is she was susceptible to several diseases, and did catch most of them at one time or another.
Her doctors told her on every visit, she must quit smoking, even though she never smoked a day in her life. Seems doctors have a way of blaming smoking for every single thing they don't understand, which gives smoking a bad rap.
FWIW: You can find just as many benefits from smoking, as those who find benefits in drinking coffee, wine, or booze.
Only the government can find something from nothing in order to create more controls and add taxes!
Even when they are actually causing the exact opposite affect of what they want you to believe, which I've proved in other comments on these forums several times.