Smokers in pub and company door ways.

[Guest]

I think you are clutching at straws there,smoking DOES cause cancer end of.as to rising taxes well you smokers cost the NHS a fortune so probably balances out.

 

If you read my post properly, you will see that I was referring to "passive smoking" whilst you seem to be referring to "smoking" - lots of difference.

[Guest]

This is the headline that the anti-smoking lobby love to see -

 

Tobacco Smoke Helps Cancers Grow

22nd January 2010

 

Researchers at the San Diego School of Medicine have published the results of a study this week in the journal Cancer Cell, that shows lung cancers grow faster if you expose them to smoke.

 

All very interesting but, first and foremost the researchers conducted the experiment on mice THAT THEY HAD EXPOSED TO CARCINOGENS OR HAD GENETICALLY MODIFIED THEM TO GIVE THEM LUNG CANCER.

 

Why didn't they expose them to smoke to give them lung cancer? The reason is simple, that was tried for 20 years and smoke didn't give mice lung cancer.

 

 

Now the anti smoking movement got past this rather unfortunate hurdle by pointing out that MICE ARE NOT THE SAME AS HUMANS.

Why then is money now being spent on testing cancer growth rates on mice? Are our public health authorities trying to convince mice with lung cancer not to take up smoking?

 

We can only presume then that this is another example of - "any kind of of study that further attacks tobacco will do!"

The researchers even admit that they don't know whether this will be applicable to humans so why the world wide release with the obligatory and unquestionable anti smoking headline?

[steiner]

This is the headline that the anti-smoking lobby love to see -

 

Tobacco Smoke Helps Cancers Grow

22nd January 2010

 

Researchers at the San Diego School of Medicine have published the results of a study this week in the journal Cancer Cell, that shows lung cancers grow faster if you expose them to smoke.

 

All very interesting but, first and foremost the researchers conducted the experiment on mice THAT THEY HAD EXPOSED TO CARCINOGENS OR HAD GENETICALLY MODIFIED THEM TO GIVE THEM LUNG CANCER.

 

Why didn't they expose them to smoke to give them lung cancer? The reason is simple, that was tried for 20 years and smoke didn't give mice lung cancer.

 

 

Now the anti smoking movement got past this rather unfortunate hurdle by pointing out that MICE ARE NOT THE SAME AS HUMANS.

Why then is money now being spent on testing cancer growth rates on mice? Are our public health authorities trying to convince mice with lung cancer not to take up smoking?

 

We can only presume then that this is another example of - "any kind of of study that further attacks tobacco will do!"

The researchers even admit that they don't know whether this will be applicable to humans so why the world wide release with the obligatory and unquestionable anti smoking headline?

 

Like I said clutching at straws,besides this is off topic .

[Guest]

Like I said clutching at straws,besides this is off topic .

 

Clutching at TRUTH, which is why anti-smokers will dismiss it - they only like to deal in fairytales.

[Anna Glypta]

You stated "smoking" not passive smoking - I HAVE ALWAYS accepted that there are risks to smokers by smoking cigarettes and have said so on this forum.

 

I DO NOT accept that "passive smoking" is dangerous - the statistics are flawed, as some medical experts agree, and it has never been PROVED that a single case of cancer was, in fact, caused be passive smoking.

 

Specsavers are not needed therefore - if you wish to attribute quotes to someone, then make it clear whether you are referring to "smoking" or "passive smoking".

 

Like I said you should go to Specsavers. I quoted both passive and smoking references that you deny are on the thread.

 

Originally Posted by Mr_Squirrel ...

 

It is often professed that 'Smoking causes Cancer'... in actual fact, it does not.

 

If it isn't your ability to read maybe you are just incapable of understanding the English language.

[Guest]

I think you will actually find that smoking was banned from enclosed public places because of pressure from health professionals and not any pressure from non smokers.

Regarding 2nd hand and even 3rd hand smoke presenting a danger. Again it is the health professionals that are doing the studies and making the reports. I am not sure what your beef is with people posting links to those reports particularly when there are nutters on this forum who will deny any dangers whatsoever.

 

You said (as quoted above) nutters (plural) on this forum who will deny any dangers whatsoever.

 

I,m sure Mr squirrell is more than capable of defending himself but I'm still waiting to see who the others are, in view of the fact that I have stated that there are dangers to smoking cigarettes.

I will repeat, that I also said that I DON'T believe there are dangers in passive smoking.

You can quote as many WHO reports as you like but despite their conclusions regarding passive smoking, they themselves admit that they cannot prove it.

 

I will also repeat that I will only believe these dangers exist when the WHO can show proof or when the government ban smoking completely because of these dangers.

If having a view opposite to you makes me a nutter then I am most happy to be one because you don't know the difference between fact and fiction.

 

I'm quite sure that my understanding of the English language is more than proficient enough to argue with such a dreamer who accepts statements without proof simply because they come from the W.H.O.

They may believe it - THEY CAN'T PROVE IT.

[buck]

Actually Walter Raleigh was executed on the orders of Queen Elizabeth 1st.

He was executed in 1616 for high treason on the orders of Kimg James the first.

[buck]

I admire your lack of selfishness. It was the lack of self regulation that brought about the banning of smoking in public places, and in particular the total lack of compromise. I've recently been to Canada and the USA. In many cities it is not allowed for smokers to smoke in front of buildings, and they are now forced to smoke in alleyways alongside. It is also rigidly enforced, and you will be chased off by bar owners if you smoke in the wrong place. I just wonder if the UK will adopt a similar policy should self regulation not be seen to be working here.

Smoking laws in the United States are imposed by State governments, not by the Feds. Several States, particularly in the South where cigarette tobacco is grown. have no ban in bars or restaurants. A carton of cigarettes will cost over $80 in Connecticut, but less than $35 in North Carolina, where most tobacco is grown. Many Indian Reservations, unrestricted by Federal or State taxes, sell cigarettes to the general public tax free. In Canada, the tobacco taxes were so high that the Indians were shipping so many cigs out of the Thousand Islands into Ontario that the provincial police or RCMP were unable to stop the flow. So the Government reduced the tax. Most smokers seem to accept the laws without too much trouble. When Mayor Bloomberg of NYC banned smoking in the Pubs, There was expected that a lot of Irish Americans would riot and try to burn down City Hall, but it never happened.

[oldprune]

Oh dear. Minus 11 outside tonight. I'm glad our local has a nice open fire for those sensible enough to stop inside.

[Mr_Squirrel]

Like I said you should go to Specsavers. I quoted both passive and smoking references that you deny are on the thread.

 

Originally Posted by Mr_Squirrel ...

 

It is often professed that 'Smoking causes Cancer'... in actual fact, it does not.

 

If it isn't your ability to read maybe you are just incapable of understanding the English language.

 

Anna Glypta.

 

I must ask you not to reinterpret my words into something they were not presented in originally.

 

At NO POINT throughout this (or any other smoking thread) have i ever stated that Smoking is in any way 'healthy' or 'risk free' and i would thank you not to keep using my words in order to support your agenda for argument.

 

The above quote of mine that you have used has been deliberately taken out of context by omitting to include the whole quote.

 

It is often professed that 'Smoking causes Cancer'... in actual fact, it does not. It can (and often) 'facilitates' cancer but cancer itself has long been proven to be a gene deficiency (prevalent in most living organisms - but a gene deficiency nonetheless)

 

I suggest you read and then re-read this quote until you have understood every word... When you have, i assume you will see that at no point within the quote do i present smoking to be in any way 'harmless'.. in fact, i clearly state that smoking often 'facilitates' cancer(s) I will of course, expect your apology for your error... after all, If it isn't your ability to read maybe you are just incapable of understanding the English language.

But i reiterate, the real fact that Cancer is a Genome deficiency.