Hilarious cigarette box warnings

0ph0rce0 · 18-08-2013 04:06PM

Mulumpy wrote: »

Theres a big difference in passing a smoker walking down Grafton street and being stuck beside one at a bus stop

Not really, they could be walking beside you in the same direction, and maybe no where to move because of so much foot traffic.

The same people want someone to move but wouldn't think of taking a step to the left and move themselves.

I'm at a bus stop and If i don't like smoke, i'll move a step to the right or left where it doesn't blow into my face. Simples. Whats the big deal. Not like i have to walk 5 mile down the road and miss my bus.

It's just people looking to moan about something.

And its the same people that over react and think they have Cancer all of a sudden just because they smelled some smoke for a millisecond.

Seachmall · 18-08-2013 04:12PM

Jamez735 wrote: »

And unfortunately no, the "dosage is not the poison" in this case, as there no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. So putting down the car windows or opening the back door inside won't make any difference.

That's the second time you've said that and it's a redundant statement.

There are no safe levels of exposure to anything that is inherently harmful. That is not the same as saying the risks are not related to exposure levels.

The odds of getting a smoking related disease because you were trapped in a car with a smoker are so low they're effectively nil.

Mulumpy · 18-08-2013 04:15PM

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Not really, they could be walking beside you in the same direction, and maybe no where to move because of so much foot traffic.

The same people want someone to move but wouldn't think of taking a step to the left and move themselves.

I'm at a bus stop and If i don't like smoke, i'll move a step to the right or left where it doesn't blow into my face. Simples. Whats the big deal. Not like i have to walk 5 mile down the road and miss my bus.

It's just people looking to moan about something.

And its the same people that over react and think they have Cancer all of a sudden just because they smelled some smoke for a millisecond.

Of course theres a difference if you're on the street u can get out of the way of the smoke but say your at a match and the prick behind you is blowing in your direction not much u can do then

0ph0rce0 · 18-08-2013 04:23PM

Mulumpy wrote: »

Of course theres a difference if you're on the street u can get out of the way of the smoke but say your at a match and the prick behind you is blowing in your direction not much u can do then

You cant smoke in places like that, if that were the case then i would agree, they are smoking illegally and should go to a designated area. But tbh it still wouldn't bother me cause i'll only smell it for a few minutes at most and most likely no harm is going to come from it at all to my health.

But somewhere like an open public place whether it be a bus stop, on a street or any where that's allowed, Like i said, non smokers call smokers selfish, well then its just as selfish for the non smoker to be telling someone to stop smoking or put it just because YOU don't like it, in a public place.

The One Who Knocks · 18-08-2013 04:25PM

Seachmall wrote: »

That's the second time you've said that and it's a redundant statement.

There are no safe levels of exposure to anything that is inherently harmful. That is not the same as saying the risks are not related to exposure levels.

The odds of getting a smoking related disease because you were trapped in a car with a smoker are so low they're effectively nil.

There's loads of things that are safe in small dosages, (chlorine for one), but when it comes to smoking it's not the case.

600,000 people die each year from passive smoke, that's a fact, and you can't ignore it. I don't mind if you smoke in a public place - but you shouldn't smoke around children indoors or in a car - period.

It's not about the likelyhood of "you" being affected, chances are it wont be you, but it will be someone, and that someone will leave behind a family.
Some of the responses here are really ignorant and offensive.

Say you smoke for 60 years. There's roughly a 1 in 36 chance that your passive smoke will kill someone during your lifetime.

As dojojoe said, "This thread is sad, trying to justify a habit that literally kills you slowly, and irritates most people around you.
Just because you don't see the same side effects that the majority of people see it doesn't mean they're not real." Now, I'm out.

0ph0rce0 · 18-08-2013 04:31PM

Jamez735 wrote: »

There's loads of things that are safe in small dosages, (chlorine for one), but when it comes to smoking it's not the case.

600,000 people die each year from passive smoke, that's a fact, and you can't ignore it. I don't mind if you smoke in a public place - but you shouldn't smoke around children indoors or in a car - period.

It's not about the likelyhood of "you" being affected, chances are it wont be you, but it will be someone, and that someone will leave behind a family.
Some of the responses here are really ignorant and offensive.

Say you smoke for 60 years. There's roughly a 1 in 36 chance that your passive smoke will kill someone during your lifetime.

As dojojoe said, "This thread is sad, trying to justify a habit that literally kills you slowly, and irritates most people around you.
Just because you don't see the same side effects that the majority of people see it doesn't mean they're not real." Now, I'm out.

No ones trying to justify its ok, most people saying it doesn't bother them. First world problems really.

Out of these 600,000 folk, how many die from inhaling a tiny bit of smoke from the bus stop in open air.

I'm guessing these folk that die are around people who smoke indoors on a daily basis, where they inhale it most hours of the day and then it sticks to everything in the house and they continue to breathe it in over years.

The One Who Knocks · 18-08-2013 04:49PM

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

No ones trying to justify its ok, most people saying it doesn't bother them. First world problems really.

Out of these 600,000 folk, how many die from inhaling a tiny bit of smoke from the bus stop in open air.

I'm guessing these folk that die are around people who smoke indoors on a daily basis, where they inhale it most hours of the day and then it sticks to everything in the house and they continue to breathe it in over years.

Fair enough, you're not trying to justify it, but there are people who are.

Now to answer your question, 186000 of the 600,000 people who die annually as a result of second hand smoke are children Yes, children.

It doesn't matter how long your around that second hand smoke, it only takes 1 cell mutation. Again, I must stress how it's not like I think second hand smoke is going to kill me. There's a 1 in 11,000 chance (annually) it will be me, I'm just saying it will be someone, and they haven't necessarily been around smokers all day every day for years.

If your a parent who thinks it's okay to smoke around your kids indoors, and in the car - you should be shot. Pure ignorance.

I don't blame people who smoke on the streets, the laws aren't in place so there's nothing i can do about it. I'm not pissed off at yous, just don't smoke around children in a house/car. That's all I'm saying...oh and that you've a 1 in 36 chance of killing someone during your lifetime if you smoke for 60 years. It won't be me, but it will be someone else.

This is worth a watch - 1 in 4 people who die from smoking have never smoked a single cigarette.

Sam Kade · 18-08-2013 04:58PM

When the smoking ban first came in and smokers had to go outside to smoke they believed that there was more fun and craic outside the pub. Smoking definitely makes people delusional :rolleyes:

Pawwed Rig · 18-08-2013 06:24PM

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

If anyone asked me to put out a smoke when i smoked years ago OUTSIDE, Unless it was blowing in their face or kids face or something which is fair enough, they would be told to fúck off, If that's selfish well then so is the cúnt telling me to put out a smoke.

Something like this would have happened. (VIEW THE TYPE OF DICKHEADS BELOW)

So it is ok to punch someone in the face if they get upset with smoke being blown in their face? That type of mentality is deeply troubling.

In a vain attempt to stay on topic I found this pic

Roger_007 · 18-08-2013 06:34PM

Jamez735 wrote: »

Fair enough, you're not trying to justify it, but there are people who are.

Now to answer your question, 186000 of the 600,000 people who die annually as a result of second hand smoke are children Yes, children.

It doesn't matter how long your around that second hand smoke, it only takes 1 cell mutation. Again, I must stress how it's not like I think second hand smoke is going to kill me. There's a 1 in 11,000 chance (annually) it will be me, I'm just saying it will be someone, and they haven't necessarily been around smokers all day every day for years.

If your a parent who thinks it's okay to smoke around your kids indoors, and in the car - you should be shot. Pure ignorance.

I don't blame people who smoke on the streets, the laws aren't in place so there's nothing i can do about it. I'm not pissed off at yous, just don't smoke around children in a house/car. That's all I'm saying...oh and that you've a 1 in 36 chance of killing someone during your lifetime if you smoke for 60 years. It won't be me, but it will be someone else.

This is worth a watch - 1 in 4 people who die from smoking have never smoked a single cigarette.

This is an example of the outlandish stuff that you get in this debate. I watched the video and noticed that there is no attribution as to who made it or where the 'statistics' came from. The statement that smokers die by the age of 50 is just so obviously untrue that it calls into question the truth or otherwise whether there is any truth in any of it. I used to smoke and as I lived on my own at the time in a sparsely populated area, I am wondering who are the 200 who inhaled my smoke. I would have had to travel miles to find them. It is curious as to why they choose India as an example of young people smoking, given that it is one of the most smoke-free countries in the world, (158th on the WHO list). India's smoking rate is 30 times less than the highest country, Serbia, (not Greece as stated in the video).
This kind of hyperbolic rubbish does nothing to encourage anyone to stop smoking. It just makes them more cynical about the whole anti-smoking campaign. Present the facts and only substantiated facts and maybe people will be more willing to believe them.

Mulumpy · 18-08-2013 06:46PM

People do far worse things to their health than smoking. I just hate the smell of it and the nuisance of work colleagues thinking they're entitled to fag breaks every five minutes.

The One Who Knocks · 18-08-2013 06:50PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

This is an example of the outlandish stuff that you get in this debate. I watched the video and noticed that there is no attribution as to who made it or where the 'statistics' came from. The statement that smokers die by the age of 50 is just so obviously untrue that it calls into question the truth or otherwise whether there is any truth in any of it. I used to smoke and as I lived on my own at the time in a sparsely populated area, I am wondering who are the 200 who inhaled my smoke. I would have had to travel miles to find them. It is curious as to why they choose India as an example of young people smoking, given that it is one of the most smoke-free countries in the world, (158th on the WHO list). India's smoking rate is 30 times less than the highest country, Serbia, (not Greece as stated in the video).
This kind of hyperbolic rubbish does nothing to encourage anyone to stop smoking. It just makes them more cynical about the whole anti-smoking campaign. Present the facts and only substantiated facts and maybe people will be more willing to believe them.

Most of the facts are based on a global average. Just because 1 person might live in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean there aren't loads who don't.
Also it was made in 2010, using the most recently available country statistics, so Greece used to be 1st on the list.

Also, just because you can provide an anecdote to state otherwise doesn't mean that something isn't true. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but on average smokers die younger. They are statistically more likely to get cancer/heart disease etc etc. Did you just skip the end of the video where it listed the effects of smoking on your body?

Forget the video if you want, but here's facts.

600,000 people die from second hand smoke annually
186,000 of those are children

As for references sure, take a look here.

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2012. Atlanta, Ga. 2012.

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. Atlanta, Ga. 2013.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs --- United States, 1995–1999. MMWR. 2002;51(14);300-303. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm on October 2, 2012.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cigarette-smoking attributable morbidity --- United States, 2000. MMWR. September 5, 2003 / 52(35);842-844. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5235a4.htm on October 2, 2012.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Current cigarette smoking among adults – United States, 2011. MMWR. 2012;61(44):889-894.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Current Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students – United States, 2011. MMWR. 2012;61(31):581-585. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6131a1.htm?s_cid=mm6131a1_w#tab on October 1, 2012.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm on October 1, 2012.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses, United States, 2000–2004. MMWR. 2008;57(45):1226-1228. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm on October 2, 2012.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance --- United States, 2011. MMWR. 2012;61(4):1-162. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6104.pdf on October 1, 2012.

De Stefani E, Oreggia F, Rivero S, et al. Hand-rolled cigarette smoking and risk of cancer of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx. Cancer. 1992;70:679-682.

Gades NM, Nehra A, Jacobson DJ, et al. Association between smoking and erectile dysfunction: a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161:346-351.

Gandhi KK, Foulds J, Steinberg MB, et al. Lower quit rates among African American and Latino menthol cigarette smokers at a tobacco treatment clinic. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63(3):360-367.

Hackshaw A, Rodeck C, Boniface S. Maternal smoking in pregnancy and birth defects: a systematic review based on 173 687 malformed cases and 11.7 million controls. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(5):589-604.

National Cancer Institute (NCI). Harms of Smoking and Health Benefits of Quitting, January 2011. Accessed at www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessation on October 2, 2012.

National Institute for Drug Abuse. NIDA Research Reports Series: Tobacco Addiction. Rev. July 2012. Accessed at www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/RRTobacco.pdf on September 27, 2012.

Okuyemi KS, Faseru B, Sanderson Cox L, et al. Relationship between menthol cigarettes and smoking cessation among African American light smokers. Addiction. 2007;102(12):1979-1986.

Pletcher MJ, Hulley BJ, Houston T, et al. Menthol cigarettes, smoking cessation, atherosclerosis, and pulmonary function: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1915-1922.

US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2004. Accessed at www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/smokingconsequences/ on October 2, 2012.

US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Cancer: A Report of the Surgeon General. 1982. Accessed at http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/D/W/ on October 2, 2012

US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon General. 1988. Accessed at http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/Z/D/on October 2, 2012.

US Food and Drug Administration. Menthol Report: Overview. Accessed at www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/ucm247605.htm on September 19, 2012.

US Food and Drug Administration. Timeline: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Accessed at www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm237052.htm on October 2, 2012.

US Food and Drug Administration. Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations. March 23, 2011. Accessed at www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM269697.pdf on September 19, 2012.

US Public Law 111–31—June 22, 2009. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Accessed at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ031.111.pdf on October 2, 2012.

Willigendael EM, Teijink JA, Bartelink ML, et al. Smoking and the patency of lower extremity bypass grafts: a meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42:67-74.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004 [accessed 2013 June 28].

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: What It Means to You. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010 [accessed 2013 June 28].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 2000–2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008;57(45):1226–8 [accessed 2013 June 28].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. QuickStats: Number of Deaths from 10 Leading Causes–National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2013:62(08);155. [accessed 2013 June 28].

Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual Causes of Death in the United States. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 2004;291(10):1238–45 [cited 2013 June 28].

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Exit Notification Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1989 [accessed 2013 June 28].

Ockene IS, Miller NH. Cigarette Smoking, Cardiovascular Disease, and Stroke: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association. Exit Notification Circulation 1997;96(9):3243–7 [accessed 2013 June 28].

Institute of Medicine. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence. Exit Notification [PDF–707 KB] Washington: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 2009 [accessed 2013 June 28].

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001 [accessed 2013 June 28].

Wibbs · 18-08-2013 07:02PM

Jamez735 wrote: »

Okay okay let's just ignore the the 130,000 people who die each year from lung cancer in the US alone as a direct result of smoking. That's 85 percent of total lung cancer deaths....oh and the 600,000 who die from second hand smoke every year too.

That 600,000 figure is estimated and wildly so. Show me a pic of a death cert that shows "passive smoking" as the cause of death.

52 people in Ireland will die from lung cancer this year as a result of second hand smoke, hundreds more will be affected.

Again nebulous numbers. Did you know the rates of lung cancers among never smokers is rising and such tumours show different pathologies to tumours in smokers(double the rate of DNA damage in non smokers for a start), so highly unlikely to be linked. These secondhand smoke figures would likely be poo pooed in another scientific discipline.

Interestingly looking at lung cancer rates in California since 1950, the rates of lung cancers has only started to show a drop in the last decade of so, even though the rates of smoking dropped like a stone in the 70's and after. When asbestos was legislated against the levels of asbestiosis dropped noticeably faster. The drop in lung cancer in Cal seems to have followed the widespread anti smog legislation more closely.

And unfortunately no, the "dosage is not the poison" in this case, as there no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke

Utter and complete nonsense. Dosage is clearly in play. Hell there's even a "safe" dose for cyanide. If you don't believe that may I suggest you never buy and use superglue cos that glue whiff you get is a cyanide. Do you honestly believe a half hour in a smokers car with the window down poses a risk to you? I give up.

A number of research studies have shown that primary smokers who give up before the age of 30(some suggested 40), show very little difference in life and disease expectancy to never smokers. These are primary smokers, inhaling first and second and third hand smoke by the lungful for on average 20 years. If secondhand smoke whiffed in passing at a bus stop was anything approaching a health risk, how do you explain those people? Superhuman in some way?

Jamez735 wrote: »

600,000 people die each year from passive smoke, that's a fact, and you can't ignore it.

Actually it's not a fact, it's an estimation. There are some other real zingers around this subject. Take asthma. You'll read smoking is implicated in asthma. Slight problem with that though. 30 years ago asthma was far less common. In my entire year at school I knew two kids with it, one low level, the other more severe, yet smoking was absolutely everywhere. In pubs and restaurants, cinemas, busses, planes, you name it. Hell you could even have a fag in a hospitals waiting rooms, ashtrays provided. Today asthma is far more prevalent. If I was to apply some of the "science" used by the anti smoking lobbies I'd be arguing that secondhand smoke had a protective effect on asthma. That would be daft. Some of these jokers seem to think correlation implies causation.

It's not about the likelyhood of "you" being affected, chances are it wont be you, but it will be someone, and that someone will leave behind a family.

Emotive nonsense.

Say you smoke for 60 years. There's roughly a 1 in 36 chance that your passive smoke will kill someone during your lifetime.

More emotive nonsense, coming to a ciggie pack near you soon no doubt. You do know there's a 1 in 9 chance of winning the lotto, so them's waaaay better odds. How many of us do that? PLus if you're chuffin the fags for 60 years you're likely 80 years of age. Pretty good innings there.

Is smoking dangerous? Of course it is. Very. It is highly likely to kill you sooner than a non smoker and you're paying big money to kill yourself doing it. Your granny who lived to be 95 on 40 a day is an outlier that doesn't count. Smoking is daft. However the level of un scientific nonsense associated with the more rabid anti smoking campaigns and their acolytes is equally daft, even if it's in pursuit of an otherwise noble goal. And don't get me started on the precious near religious fervoured whingbags that buy into it.

Wibbs · 18-08-2013 07:16PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

The statement that smokers die by the age of 50 is just so obviously untrue that it calls into question the truth or otherwise whether there is any truth in any of it.

Pretty much summed up the nonsense involved alright.

The One Who Knocks · 18-08-2013 07:23PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Is smoking dangerous? Of course it is. Very. It is highly likely to kill you sooner than a non smoker and you're paying big money to kill yourself doing it. Your granny who lived to be 95 on 40 a day is an outlier that doesn't count. Smoking is daft.

Let's just agree on that, I don't want to get thick arguing with flawed logic & anecdotal evidence.

Here's accurate, factual references for anyone interested.

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General

Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 2000–2004

Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence

Taken from the CDC & Institute of Medicine

Wibbs · 18-08-2013 08:12PM

OK let's look at one of the above as it seems we may have to agree on the meaning of the word "facts". Eeeny meeny... the last PDF. More than a couple of problems in stats, epidemiology and conclusions, that would be considered well dubious in other disciplines.

Data from cellular experiments and experiments in animals demonstrate that there are effects of secondhand smoke, its components, or both, on the cardiovascular system, such as inflammation and increased blood clots.

OK for a start in vitro experiments aren't a good start. Animal experiments? What were the doses, the levels of smoke exposure and how would they compare with real world scenarios? Given the doses(huge) they used to fire into animal models in research into primary smoking(and still didn't get tumour formation) I'll remain very dubious about those conclusions.

Oh wait, even they're not too sure;

However, none of the studies included information on how long or how often individuals were exposed to secondhand smoke before or after implementation of smoking bans. For example, it is not known whether individuals were exposed to high concentrations sporadically for short periods, to low concentrations more consistently, or both. Without this information, the committee could not determine whether acute exposures were triggering heart attacks, chronic exposures were causing chronic damage that eventually resulted in heart attacks, or both.

So basically they're pulling stats and reaching conclusions before the facts.

On that score;

Remarkably, all of the publications show a decrease in the rate of heart attacks after a smoking ban was implemented. Those decreases ranged from 6 percent to 47 percent, depending on the study and form of analysis.

From 6 to 47%? And they reckon this is solid data? That runs from very little to nigh on half. That is a huge spread in the numbers and stretches plausibility to use their term. EG no way would a drug trial be considered to have good data if the efficacy rates varied between 6 to 47%. The conclusion would be that something was amiss in the research.

In addition, secondhand smoke contains some of the same components as cigarette smoke and air pollution, such as particulate matter. Both smoking and air pollution have been associated with heart attacks. An association between secondhand-smoke exposure and heart attacks, therefore, is biologically plausible, providing further confidence that the effects seen in the observational studies are not just random effects.

No, that's extrapolation, not good science. Again where are the figures on exposure levels. Which components of either pollutant are we discussing and are the ones that are the same implicated in heart events?

n most of the smoking-ban studies, the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposures that occurred before a ban are not known.

But we reached solid conclusions anyway? Eh GTFO. That is bad science.

Let's have a brief sniff at the surgeon generals pitch;

Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are potentially higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.

I love this piece of utter nonsense oft repeated. Potentially higher is vague for a start. Anyway let's say it's true. So? For a start the smoke inhaled by smokers includes secondhand smoke. Reading that you'd swear non smokers are exposed to worse than primary smokers which is eye wateringly stupid. Unless there are smokers going around with heath robinson style devices that keep that evil away from them. We've already established that smokers who kick the habit even after 20 pack years directly inhaling primary, secondary(and if you want to go nuts) tertiary smoke show little overall difference in life expectancy compared to never smokers. So how does that work then?

Here are two studies into tobacco smoke. one a study looking into the aforementioned Californian stats from 1960-98. The conclusion?

Active cigarette smoking was confirmed as a strong, dose related risk factor for coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [However] In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure
These findings suggest that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed

The other a German study into cancer mortality in general among airline flight attendants;

We found a rather remarkably low SMR for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group.

LIke I said and have zero issue with, primary smoking is bad, mad, expensive and stupid, however the "evidence" for secondhand smoke is bloody dubious and more about a foregone conclusion sitting on the back of a strong cultural meme rather than good science or even common sense.

The One Who Knocks · 18-08-2013 08:35PM

Interesting you picked the last pdf, "making sense of the evidence" the only one by the Institute of medicine based on CDC findings.
Try the other two and come back to me.

wil · 18-08-2013 10:31PM

Wibbs wrote: »

That 600,000 figure is estimated and wildly so. Show me a pic of a death cert that shows "passive smoking" as the cause of death.

Again nebulous numbers. Did you know the rates of lung cancers among never smokers is rising and such tumours show different pathologies to tumours in smokers(double the rate of DNA damage in non smokers for a start), so highly unlikely to be linked. These secondhand smoke figures would likely be poo pooed in another scientific discipline.

Interestingly looking at lung cancer rates in California since 1950, the rates of lung cancers has only started to show a drop in the last decade of so, even though the rates of smoking dropped like a stone in the 70's and after. When asbestos was legislated against the levels of asbestiosis dropped noticeably faster. The drop in lung cancer in Cal seems to have followed the widespread anti smog legislation more closely.

Utter and complete nonsense. Dosage is clearly in play. Hell there's even a "safe" dose for cyanide. If you don't believe that may I suggest you never buy and use superglue cos that glue whiff you get is a cyanide. Do you honestly believe a half hour in a smokers car with the window down poses a risk to you? I give up.

A number of research studies have shown that primary smokers who give up before the age of 30(some suggested 40), show very little difference in life and disease expectancy to never smokers. These are primary smokers, inhaling first and second and third hand smoke by the lungful for on average 20 years. If secondhand smoke whiffed in passing at a bus stop was anything approaching a health risk, how do you explain those people? Superhuman in some way?

Actually it's not a fact, it's an estimation. There are some other real zingers around this subject. Take asthma. You'll read smoking is implicated in asthma. Slight problem with that though. 30 years ago asthma was far less common. In my entire year at school I knew two kids with it, one low level, the other more severe, yet smoking was absolutely everywhere. In pubs and restaurants, cinemas, busses, planes, you name it. Hell you could even have a fag in a hospitals waiting rooms, ashtrays provided. Today asthma is far more prevalent. If I was to apply some of the "science" used by the anti smoking lobbies I'd be arguing that secondhand smoke had a protective effect on asthma. That would be daft. Some of these jokers seem to think correlation implies causation.

Emotive nonsense.

More emotive nonsense, coming to a ciggie pack near you soon no doubt. You do know there's a 1 in 9 chance of winning the lotto, so them's waaaay better odds. How many of us do that? PLus if you're chuffin the fags for 60 years you're likely 80 years of age. Pretty good innings there.

Is smoking dangerous? Of course it is. Very. It is highly likely to kill you sooner than a non smoker and you're paying big money to kill yourself doing it. Your granny who lived to be 95 on 40 a day is an outlier that doesn't count. Smoking is daft. However the level of un scientific nonsense associated with the more rabid anti smoking campaigns and their acolytes is equally daft, even if it's in pursuit of an otherwise noble goal. And don't get me started on the precious near religious fervoured whingbags that buy into it.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's look at one of the above as it seems we may have to agree on the meaning of the word "facts". Eeeny meeny... the last PDF. More than a couple of problems in stats, epidemiology and conclusions, that would be considered well dubious in other disciplines.

Data from cellular experiments and experiments in animals demonstrate that there are effects of secondhand smoke, its components, or both, on the cardiovascular system, such as inflammation and increased blood clots.

OK for a start in vitro experiments aren't a good start. Animal experiments? What were the doses, the levels of smoke exposure and how would they compare with real world scenarios? Given the doses(huge) they used to fire into animal models in research into primary smoking(and still didn't get tumour formation) I'll remain very dubious about those conclusions.

Oh wait, even they're not too sure;

However, none of the studies included information on how long or how often individuals were exposed to secondhand smoke before or after implementation of smoking bans. For example, it is not known whether individuals were exposed to high concentrations sporadically for short periods, to low concentrations more consistently, or both. Without this information, the committee could not determine whether acute exposures were triggering heart attacks, chronic exposures were causing chronic damage that eventually resulted in heart attacks, or both.

So basically they're pulling stats and reaching conclusions before the facts.

On that score;

Remarkably, all of the publications show a decrease in the rate of heart attacks after a smoking ban was implemented. Those decreases ranged from 6 percent to 47 percent, depending on the study and form of analysis.

From 6 to 47%? And they reckon this is solid data? That runs from very little to nigh on half. That is a huge spread in the numbers and stretches plausibility to use their term. EG no way would a drug trial be considered to have good data if the efficacy rates varied between 6 to 47%. The conclusion would be that something was amiss in the research.

In addition, secondhand smoke contains some of the same components as cigarette smoke and air pollution, such as particulate matter. Both smoking and air pollution have been associated with heart attacks. An association between secondhand-smoke exposure and heart attacks, therefore, is biologically plausible, providing further confidence that the effects seen in the observational studies are not just random effects.

No, that's extrapolation, not good science. Again where are the figures on exposure levels. Which components of either pollutant are we discussing and are the ones that are the same implicated in heart events?

n most of the smoking-ban studies, the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposures that occurred before a ban are not known.

But we reached solid conclusions anyway? Eh GTFO. That is bad science.

Let's have a brief sniff at the surgeon generals pitch;

Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are potentially higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.

I love this piece of utter nonsense oft repeated. Potentially higher is vague for a start. Anyway let's say it's true. So? For a start the smoke inhaled by smokers includes secondhand smoke. Reading that you'd swear non smokers are exposed to worse than primary smokers which is eye wateringly stupid. Unless there are smokers going around with heath robinson style devices that keep that evil away from them. We've already established that smokers who kick the habit even after 20 pack years directly inhaling primary, secondary(and if you want to go nuts) tertiary smoke show little overall difference in life expectancy compared to never smokers. So how does that work then?

Here are two studies into tobacco smoke. one a study looking into the aforementioned Californian stats from 1960-98. The conclusion?

Active cigarette smoking was confirmed as a strong, dose related risk factor for coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [However] In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure
These findings suggest that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed

The other a German study into cancer mortality in general among airline flight attendants;

We found a rather remarkably low SMR for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group.

LIke I said and have zero issue with, primary smoking is bad, mad, expensive and stupid, however the "evidence" for secondhand smoke is bloody dubious and more about a foregone conclusion sitting on the back of a strong cultural meme rather than good science or even common sense.

^^^
Conclusively proving, it's time to quit.

When you start to justify the rights of a wrong to that extent, you already know how wrong is that right.
Good luck with step 2.

Wibbs · 18-08-2013 11:25PM

Jamez735 wrote: »

Interesting you picked the last pdf, "making sense of the evidence" the only one by the Institute of medicine based on CDC findings.
Try the other two and come back to me.

So rather than actually respond to the points about the dangers of secondhand smoke and the links/research I posted, you come back with that? Well done there Ted. The fact it's entitled "making sense of the evidence" says much. I'm simply questioning that evidence. BTW much of the findings of the CDC on secondhand smoke is equally bogus and unscientific. Doesn't quite fit your entrenched and emotive worldview so you reject it? Again, well done.

wil wrote: »

^^^
Conclusively proving, it's time to quit.

When you start to justify the rights of a wrong to that extent, you already know how wrong is that right.
Good luck with step 2.

More vague nonsense. At no point did I say smoking isn't a stupid idea and quitting or better yet not starting is by far the best policy. However I was focusing on the near mania among some of secondhand smoke as a killer, the black death for the modern world and the meme sensitive within it. Well I suppose both reckoned a foul miasma was at play, so as the French say plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose* when it comes to unfounded panic.

*yep I am that much of a pseud.

Cienciano · 18-08-2013 11:35PM

Promac wrote: »

Smokers are hilarious jokers.

It won't kill me today, so: yay! Keep smoking!.....

FYP

tommy2bad · 18-08-2013 11:59PM

Actually secondhand smoke was made up, even the ones who go on about it the most the tobacco control groups now admit that. They massaged the figures and make no apologies for doing so.
They might have been right, the evidence didn't justify the measures they wanted and to combat the lobying from the tobacco industry they fought fire with fire. They lied.
Third hand smoke and now fourth hand (yes there are idiots talking about fourth hand smoke) smoke were just an increased effort to gain ground in the loosing battle to reduce smoking prevalence.

BTW the actual effect of the hilarious pictures is 2% reduction in smoking so 98% of smokers don't even notice them anymore. Or 100% as 2% is statistical noise and could be from any number of causes other than the pictures.

wil · 19-08-2013 01:34AM

Wibbs wrote: »

...
More vague nonsense. At no point did I say smoking isn't a stupid idea and quitting or better yet not starting is by far the best policy. However I was focusing on the near mania among some of secondhand smoke as a killer, the black death for the modern world and the meme sensitive within it. Well I suppose both reckoned a foul miasma was at play, so as the French say plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose* when it comes to unfounded panic.
.

And at no point did I say you did.
and yes I actually noted your acknowledgement of the dangers....

However, methinks you are tending to overhype the "near mania" in order to ridicule the rhethoric of what you already know or suspect.
You know when something is not quite right, but you cant put your finger on it, I think the French have a saying for that too, just I'm not sure what.

....and then your self contradiction, that is what is bad for you is not bad for the... well anyone else really. At least someones convinced.
C'est la vie.

maguic24 · 19-08-2013 11:23AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's life we're all going die there's nothing you can do to prevent that. In this day and age smoking is prohibited in public indoor spaces, nobody gets irritated anymore unless they're little fuss arses who go out of their way to get offended.

Yes, we're all going to die, but it doesn't mean I'm going to run out in front of train because of that fact......

Oneiric 3 · 20-08-2013 04:03PM

1ZRed wrote: »

This is bullshit and only other smokers say it. They don't care for people around them as long as they get to smoke.

I was waiting for the bus a few weeks back and it was raining and I was standing at one end of the bus shelter some girl and her friend were right beside me, it was only the 3 of us there, she proceeded to light up and while taking to her friend had her cigarette aimed right at my face so I stank of smoke by the end of it. No consideration for anyone around her, she could've moved up to the other end and it would've been fine because she wouldn't have been blowing smoke my direction, but nope, was completely oblivious and inconsiderate to the people around her.

As you said, you don't 'give a flying f... about these people and their health, so why should they give a flying F...' about offending you with lightning up (which they have every right to do) in a public area. If it bothered you that much, you should have stood outside of the bus shelter

scamalert · 20-08-2013 04:23PM

Everyone can calm down smokes aren't going anywhere,id guess its biggest revenue earner in this country-so government loves every smoker

. As It only costs less then 1$ to make 100 smokes,which contain about only 20% of real tobacco leaf's if lucky rest is thousands of chemicals with 200 of them prone to cause cancer eventually. That said some can smoke for 50+ years and die from old age,where someone might get cancer even not smoking,it all depends on persons Genes. But to say oh im like a horse it doesn't cause any side effects is idiotic,maybe OP-should try to run 5 mile lap and see whats jiggling in his lungs then comeback here.

Rented Mule · 20-08-2013 05:03PM

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

1 out of 2 smokers won't get cancer.

Heart attacks !!

Much quicker than cancer !!

Means Of Escape · 21-08-2013 04:40PM

kneemos wrote: »

If one in two smokers will die from it then they will end up in hospital at some stage,also children of smokers are more likely to smoke,both of which make it a public health issue.

Pressure on world commodities reduced anyway

Hilarious cigarette box warnings

Comments