I'm with you on this one. I remember my first cig. I can tell you and most people can, it wasn't pleasant. The research on youth smoking and how the brain gets rewired is among the oldest research known in the substance abuse field. One has to get beyond the toxic effects of the smoke before they can realize the "beneficial" effects. I think 100 cigs does the trick.
So now what...the addicted flat earthers will come on (with your encouragement) and say...prove or show me the studies that state that nicotine is addictive. I'll state it again, just go to the tobacco industry's own documents. Whether it's one cig or five packs, the issue is the same, tobacco use today is a pediatric disease...very few adults come home from a bad day at the office and say, I think I'm going to start smoking today.
ROFLMAO! This posting has brought back rather embarrassing memories of skeletons in my family closet!
My grandmother was a well-intentioned Women's Christian Temperance Union executive member who, like many other puritannical fanatics, likewise paved the road to Hell, by contributing to campaigns of terror and punishment targetting those considered "morally inferior"... I still vividly remember their documented claims that "One drink can lead to alcohol addiction". Interestingly enough, her husband was a heavy cigarette smoker 
Gee, I wonder why he worked on the boats with the Merchant Marines and only came home (and produced another baby) for one or two days a year? LOL!
I remember the family stories about how upset my grandmother was when she caught one of her 6 sons trying his first ciggie out back. Panic overcame her, but my grandfather more wisely took positive action, during his next brief visit home, and forced the young adolescent lad to smoke numerous cigarettes in uninterrupted sequence (ie: chain smoke) and inhale deeply (might as well do it properly). This young lad (my uncle, not my father, btw ) became very sick to his stomach and turned rather typically "green in the gills" in short order. He never tried smoking again and is an 86 year old "explosives engineer" war vet with advanced alzheimers today...gee, maybe he should have smoked?! Apparently, his brothers' witnessing of his vomiting and temporary illness "worked" for them as well, since none of his siblings wanted to be granted similar smoking "privileges" by their smoking father.
One can but imagine the quite different outcome had grandma's incessant nagging and moralizing been the method utilized to deal with adolescent attempts at smoking and discouragement of smoking
I doubt my grandma would have approved of my grandfather's "alternate" way of curbing teenage alcohol consumption, either ... as far as I and my family peers could find out, she never caught wind of THAT "lesson" given another of her sons All but one (absolute abstaining for life and the rather sickly for life also) son remained non-alcoholic social drinkers during their entire adult lifetimes and none died before the age of 80 due to any cause... 3 of the six were married to smoking wives, so must have been immune to the lethal dangers of ETS.
Anticipate teen smoking rates in "civilized" countries to continue rising as the nouveau prohibitionists (ie: anti-humanistic tyrants) advance their campaigns of terror.
geo says: "I'm with you on this one.", trying to lead the reader to believe that the article, as written, agrees with this preposterous claim, when in fact the article states exactly the opposite.
1 cigarette will not "addict" anyone to it, and if it's nicotine addiction that is the culprit, I sincerely hope you have never fed these "children" any tomatoes, potatoes, or a variety of other foods(including tater tot hotdish), as they also contain nicotine, and therefore must be responsible for everyones "addiction" to tobacco.
As for your reference to the tobacco industry's own documents, yes, they have admitted that nicotine can be addictive, so can caffiene, alcohol, driving to work instead of walking, and a host of just about everything mankind does. Still boils down to the brown shirts stating that you must only be addicted to our brand of nicotine, which is offered tax free, and under much higher profit margins than tobacco, by guess who?
As far as "addiction", this definition was changed drastically, just for the sole purpose of including tobacco. Go to any rehab, see what a true addiction does do the person experienvcing the withdrawel symptoms, and then go look at smokers who have quit, ask them what incapacitating effects their "withdrawel" symptoms had. Since we're back to the "addiction" kick, why are alcoholics, drug users, and other types of "addictions" classified as diseases, and treated with the humanity one would expect for a sufferer of a disease, yet using a legal product is being targeted for the scorn of the earth by such flat earthers as geo, who can't find a single shred of evidence that my smoking has done any true damage to anyone, including myself?
"the authors did also suggest that perhaps a neurobiological change might be caused by smoking a single cigarette that lasts for years and that this could explain a "dormant effect" of smoking a single cigarette"
There might be a much more logical explanation. What if the neurobiological condition existied before the first cigarette and if the person experienced smoking as a rather positive experience, due to this neurobiological condition?
"Studies suggested that up to half of individuals with persistent ADHD symptoms develop a substance abuse problem, including alcoholism, smoking, drug abuse, or combinations. In one study, for example, by age 11 nearly 20% of children with ADHD had tried smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or both. There is some evidence that neurologic factors associated with ADHD may make these individuals susceptible. Notably, deficiencies in the brain chemical dopamine may create a more intense need for "reward" seeking. Substance abuse, then, is a way of self-medicating. Nicotine, in particular, may act as a medication that improves ADHD symptoms."
"Although ADHD is primarily thought of as a childhood disorder, diagnoses of attention-deficit disorder in adults are definitely on the rise. The disorder seems to be distributed equally between women and men in adulthood, although women have twice the reported incidence in young adulthood. It was estimated that Ritalin would be prescribed in nearly 800,000 adults in the US in 1997, nearly three times the number in 1992."
Are those all potential smokers who, to escape the nagging by their family members or by the ATI, have resorted to prescription drugs instead of smoking?
Nicotine May Help Calm ADHD Storm:
http://www.uvm.edu/~psych/news/ a...er_nicotine.pdf
And on a more provocative note (but maybe spot on?):
"There's a cheap, common, and mostly safe drug, in daily use for centuries by hundreds of millions of people, that only lately has been investigated for its therapeutic potential for a long list of common ills. The list includes Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, depression and anxiety, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and even pain and obesity. Why has interest in this potential cure-all been slow to develop? One reason: in its current forms the drug offers pharmaceutical companies no possibility of substantial profit. Another, perhaps more important: the drug is reviled as the world's most addictive. The drug, of course, is nicotine."
http://biology.plosjournals.org/ ...al.pbio.0020404
Here is the link again, non truncated:
Nicotine as therapy
http://biology.plosjournals.org/
...al.pbio.0020404
In digging a little further into the article cited above, we find astonishing information. They could well explain why in the short term can have beneficial, effects and be a rather pleasant experience.
Isn't that how our ancestors, millions of years ago, determined what was good and what was bad for them, without being able to scientifically analyze the 4000 substances contained in a green leaf they found for toxic substances?
... evidence that nicotine-induced enhancement of parietal cortex activation is associated with improved attention.
---
Nicotine may be the most effective drug around for weight control.
---
Nicotine's salutary effects in patients with neurodegenerative and mental disorders have been studied a lot and are fairly well known.
---
“As far as I know this is the first clinical study to use nicotine for analgesia, and it was much more successful than I ever would have imagined.”
---
People with depressive-spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, and adult ADHD tend to smoke heavily, which suggested to researchers that nicotine may soothe their symptoms. Common to all these disorders is a failure of attention, an inability to concentrate on particular stimuli and screen out the rest. Nicotine helps.
And another opportunity lost because of the relentless bashing of tobacco without discrimination:
Until recently, nicotine research has been driven primarily by nicotine's unparalleled power to keep people smoking, rather than its potential therapeutic uses.
Correction in the first paragraph. Should read:
"They could well explain why smoking, in the short term, can have beneficial effects and can be a rather pleasant experience."
Geo, you can harp all he wants to about the addictive properties of nicotine.
The problem is, if it's true that the only motive for smoking is nicotine dependence, then why is nicotine replacement therapy not a 100% effective regimen for smoking cessation?
With your perjorative references to smokers as "addicted flat earthers" it sounds to me like your projecting some of your own personal and/or self esteem issues onto others. Or maybe there is a little "dog in the manger" resentment and latent jealousy going on here. Hard to say.
Tell us your quit smoking story, Geo, so I can "ed psycho analyze" you.
Is it an act of revenge or pennance for a dead loved one? Is it some twisted self-loathing of oneself as being dependent on something? Did you just decide not to smoke anymore? Or did people like Bill Godshall make you feel like a villain and pariah?
Did you attend behaviour therapy? Did you slap on the patch? Or did you just put the cigarettes down and not smoke them anymore?
And as an aside, I know a *lot* of folks who come home from a bad day at the office - who are NOT daily or regular smokers - and say "I will smoke a cigarette or two at the bar this evening," and won't smoke for days or weeks after that. My assistant at work is in this exact category.
Too bad, it seems he doesn't fit into your pet theory.
People with depressive-spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, and adult ADHD tend to smoke heavily, which suggested to researchers that nicotine may soothe their symptoms. Common to all these disorders is a failure of attention, an inability to concentrate on particular stimuli and screen out the rest. Nicotine helps.
Not that I wish to hijack this thread, but benpal is touching on a pet peeve of mine here. Banning smoking in mental health facilities. I have observed firt hand how cruel and detrimental this policy has been. Patients are avoiding treatment to avoid "going in" because they can't smoke anymore. Those that get "pink slipped" suffer intense anxiety over and beyond their illness, they don't want a patch - they want a cigarette.
One cigarette will hook you? What a barrell of BS that is. As I said elsewhere, ANYTHING can have that effect.............if you try something and like it, chances are you WILL continue to partake in it; if you don't like it you won't. It's human nature.
We all tried a cigarette at least once in our lives, or at least most did, and some took to it, some didn't. I took to it, my sister who also tried it, didn't.
There is no magical substance anywhere. You either like eggs or you don't, you like beer or you don't (which I don't actually). Some folks like chocolate, some don't. Some enjoy sky diving, others don't; some enjoy reading, others don't. Take your pick, doesn't matter what it is, you either like it and do/consume it, or you don't.
This is just more propoganda to try to instill fear into parents and kids. Pretty pathetic stooping to such low levels just to get your own way, if you ask me.
Now to the OP.
What galls me is that this 'research' is what my tobacco taxes is funding. I could have saved them a ton of time and money and tell them what they would find before they ever bagan this endeavor. It's people who try cigarettes that eventually start using them!!! Wow - stop the presses! This is BIG NEWS! NOT!
Geo are you honestly suggesting that kids come home from kindergarten and say i want some fags because i'm going to start smoking today ?I think you may be correct about us smokers as being flatearthers,we haven't fell off nor do we continue to spin round and round and threaten to disappear up one's own butt.Congrats are also in order for the pathetic cheap jibe at Dr Siegel for encouraging the flatearthers......AT LEAST HE KNOWS THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO THE EQUATION.Are you in competion with skarlooey to see who the biggest plank is between you two ?
geo writes:
tobacco use today is a pediatric disease...
Please, sir, may I have some more emotional pre-packaged sound bites? What number is that on your copy of the talking points list the antis hand out?
Then:
...very few adults come home from a bad day at the office and say, I think I'm going to start smoking today.
Actually, a good number of adults who don't smoke but hate the anti-smoking crusade have written that it's enough to make them want to pick up a cigarette and smoke in protest of its infringement on personal freedoms.
Geezus, it's when we're young we start picking and choosing most of what we like and don't like. As we grow older tastes in food and clothing and such can change but our great pleasures and interests are generally decided upon in youth. It's in our youth we decide that we like to play a particular musical instrument or sport. What are the ages of many who make the Olympics?
That's it. Music and sports is a pediatric disease. No one comes home from a bad day at work and says they're going to take up figure-skating.
Siegel: "[E]xperimentation with cigarettes is a risk factor for becoming a regular smoker (which we have known for years and pretty much has to be the case)."
Whoop! Experimentation is almost always a predecessor to any behavior. It's possible that someone initiates a behavior all at once, but usually there's a period of trial (& error). Many years ago Howard Becker published research on 'becoming a marijuana user.' In it he noted that often the psychotropic effects are either unnoticeable or relatively unpleasant. Consequently, a potential consumer will learn to detect & appreciate the effect of THC. Nicotine isn't any different. However, there are so many effects that it has that a potential consumer may adopt the drug for one or more of several reasons.
Almost an eternity ago researchers discovered that many regular marijuana users had a tendency to outgrow their consumption. With cigarettes, it seems likely that the large number who've quit on their own may have also outgrown the habit.
Is nicotine addictive? Obviously, for some users it seems very much so. For others, tobacco products seem to be a habit [at least in part] or linked to a routine. That's the dirty secret of NRT & other drug treatments: it seems to work well for some consumers, WITH additional therapy. How many consumers NEED NRT or another drug with additonal therapy? Probably not all that many, given the dismal record of most pharmaceutical interventions!
Now that's [some of] the rest of the story...
Note: people who've successfully used NRT or another drug with additional therapy swear [unscientifically] of its efficacy. Similarly, others who've not gotten the desired results, swear [unscientifically] that it's of no use.
In the 1994 IOM volume "Growing Up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youths" http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309...90/html/
30.html there is a splendid explanation of the 'The Daily Nicotine Addiction Cycle':
Given the pharmacologic properties of nicotine, a daily cycle of addiction can be described as follows. The first cigarette of the day produces substantial pharmacologic effects (pleasure, arousal, enhanced performance), but simultaneously the brain's chemistry changes and tolerance begins to develop. With subsequent cigarettes, nicotine accumulates in the body and is associated with the development of a greater level of tolerance. Withdrawal symptoms become more pronounced between successive cigarettes. The tolerance that develops over the day may be partially overcome by the transiently high brain levels of nicotine that occur immediately after the smoking of individual cigarettes, but the primary pleasurable effects of individual cigarettes tend to lessen throughout the day. As the day progresses, people tend to smoke more to relieve the symptoms of abstinence. Overnight abstinence allows considerable resensitization to the actions of nicotine, and the cycle begins again the next day.
Now it is well established that the nicotine receptors are 'hot' for perhaps a year or longer after quitting [hence, the ease of relapse -- & the factor that habits associated with cigarette smoking are difficult to break!] It is also well known that withdrawl induces a 'sick' period that lasts longer than a day EVEN THOUGH the nicotine cycle is daily. Fagerstrom tests of addiction?? Obviously, someone who gets up during the sleep cycle to have one or more cigarettes & someone who feels the 'need' to have that first cigarette of the day very close to waking may be described as HOOKED!
In closing, there's a huge amount of bioavailable nicotine in a large premium cigar. Nevertheless, how many premium cigar smokers are addicted by the criteria of the Fagerstrom scale???
NCI finally issued a STCP monograph on cigars. One will note that the was a paucity of research & that the 'typical' cigar smoker researched pretty much smoked cheaper cigars, often inhaling as cigarette smokers do & was an older male.
And the world keeps on turning....
While I'm raging -- & the topic concerns cigarette addiction uptake, the federal Synar Amendment was the most egregious unscientific policy implementation in recent tobacco control history. For goodness sakes, what does penalizing the states who fail to [1] have law setting a minimum access age of 18 for tobacco products & [2] enforce that law have BY REDUCING FEDERAL DRUG PREVENTION & TREATMENT FUNDS have to do with common sense? Furthermore, how interested would SAMSHA, the federal regulatory agent, be in efficiency??
Now here's the rub. Way back in recent tobacco control history, the federal Education Department IG published a report saying that youth access was a problem. Underage people were easily able to BUY tobacco products. Of course, a scientific approach would have considered [a] that underage people managed to get tobacco products without buying them [sharing, parents providing & shoplifting] & [b] snuffing [I love puns] out illegal sales might be offset by those other means [or even lead to an increase in illegal sales]. But the policy was implemented solely on the fact that tobacco products had been readilly illegally sold!
Given the anti-s almost pathological hatred of tobacco product retailers, even the logical approach of better training retailers to check ages & soliciting their cooperation was not the initial action in most states. Instead, law enforcement, including 'stings,' was the first step. Now there's nothing illogical about doing compliance checks to MEASURE illegal behavior EXCEPT [cart before the horse fashion] a SCIENTIFIC approach would have done compliance checks as a measure of need/efficacy BEFORE policy implementation. Of course, there was no money for such research [& there was no additional funding to the states for enforcement], so the issue would have remained moot.
Obviously, the Synar amendment should have encouraged more states to license tobacco merchants [if for no more reason than to define the universe for sampling in order to do relatively 'scientific' compliance checks.
However, there is/was an alternative to enumerating retailers in order to draw a sample. Although it would not be inexpensive, a combination of 'snowballing/stratified random digit dialing may have been less expensive [& more accurate for measuring underage behavior] than the present methods. First, using random digit dialing, a sample frame of households with appropriately aged youth could be assembled. Subsequently, a sample could be taken with whatever statiscal criteria & respondents queried regarding known tobacco retailers within some appropriate radius/geographical area. [Yes, there is a problem with using 'known' outlets, but if the respondents were youth, that knowledge should be a relevant factor. Researchers would then have information regarding outlets known to youth [including the type of business]. Finally, a sample of outlets to be monitored could be drawn, either ALL within the range of stratified randomly selected youth or outlets [one might oversample certain business types theorized or previously identified types likely to be problematic].
Now that's some more of the rest of the story....
I'd say this article was "amazing nonsense" except for the fact that virtually EVERYthing the Antis put out is nonsensical so there's really very little "amazing" about it.
"Good kids" who don't try smoking are less likely to become smokers than the "bad kids" who do try smoking.
I wonder how much money was paid to these researchers to conduct that study.
Dr. Siegel, as a veteran researcher yourself, and one that most of us on here have a fair amount of trust in, perhaps you could share from your own general experience just what folks like these researchers get paid for this stuff. It would also be interesting to know how much folks like Bill Godshall or others who offer testimony and advice in trials and lawsuits and such get paid for their "humanitarian efforts."
Of course the monetary pay is only a small part of the story. As I pointed out in Dissecting, the greed isn't measured in gold alone: academics rise in rank and prestige through the acquisition and spending of huge amounts of grant money... and then of course receive MORE grant money which leads to.... ad infinitum.
I wonder how many of them would be willing to take the same risks with their future careers and incomes that you have.
:/
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Dr. Siegel ponders:
"Why did the media get this story so wrong? I don't know. The study itself certainly did not conclude...
Dr. Siegel, you yourself MUST know that it is not what the media "digs up" but what is fed to them. In other words, are you suggesting that the media found this study all on its own (looking through science journals perhaps?) and decided to report on what they read in the study? (and that one article was the fire that fed the other news outlets' articles?)
If that's what you're suggesting... HAH! These people did NOT read the study as you suggest: "Perhaps it was this statement or something similar stated in an interview that led the media down this path."
Do you really think they went to the study and looked at it at all?!
The only way reporters know about these studies is through PRESS RELEASE for pete's sake. They venture as far as that and maybe a follow-up call to the researchers or other "expert" who simply repeats the alleged primary "finding."
In other words, yes, the media is to blame -- but only for being PARROTS. The blame lies directly at the feet of the issuers of the press release. And who might that be, hmmmmmmm?
Compulsion to Smoke After One Cigarette Can Lie Dormant More Than Three Years
Newswise Press Release
http://www.newswise.com/articles...es/view/520787/
Source: British Medical Journal
Released: Tue 23-May-2006, 21:00 ET
Embargo expired: Wed 24-May-2006, 19:05 ET
Contact Information:
Available for logged-in reporters only
Description:
The compulsion to smoke after having tried just one cigarette can lie dormant for more than three years, indicating a “sleeper effect,” reveals a study of teenage smoking habits.
[Vulnerability to smoking after trying a single cigarette can lie dormant for three years or more Tobacco Control 2006; 15: 205-9]
The compulsion to smoke after having tried just one cigarette can lie dormant for more than three years, indicating a “sleeper effect,” reveals a study of teenage smoking habits, published in Tobacco Control.
Young teens who smoked just one cigarette at the age of 11 were twice as likely to take up smoking within the next few years as their peers who resisted the urge, the study shows. This was despite not having smoked in the intervening period.
In 2004, 14% of 11 year olds and 62% of 15 year olds in England said they had experimented with cigarettes.
The researchers base their findings on annual surveys of almost 6000 eleven to 16 year olds attending 36 representative schools across South London, and measurements of salivary cotinine, a biochemical indicator of nicotine intake.
Full information for each of the five years was available for just over a third of the entire sample.
By the age of 14, pupils who had given smoking a go just once at the age of 11 were twice as likely to have become regular smokers as their peers who had not tried out smoking. This was the case even after a gap of three years or more.
These findings held true irrespective of gender, ethnicity, and deprivation, all factors known to influence the likelihood of taking up smoking.
Other influential factors, such as whether the parents smoked. or whether the pupil was a bit of a rebel, also had no bearing on the results.
The researchers say that their findings provide the first clear evidence of a “sleeper effect” or period of “dormant vulnerability,” for teenagers who experiment with smoking just the once.
Just one cigarette could change the reward pathway in the brain, which might then be activated by triggers, such as stress, depression, or the school environment, suggest the authors.
Alternatively, trying out a cigarette might simply break down the social barriers that prevent teens from smoking, such as fear of displeasing adults or insecurities around how to smoke, they say.
Click here to view the paper in full: http://press.psprings.co.uk/tc/
j...205_tc14894.pdf
Now you tell me if you think any reporter took advantage of that link? And then tell me WHO it was that issued the release and what it said and DIDN'T say. Then ask your question again: "Why did the media get this story so wrong?"
Very good point. It certainly looks like the British Medical Journal press release was trying to play up the interpretation of the article that was picked up by the media. So yes - the media are not necessarily to blame here. It appears that there was a conscious attempt to disseminate a message that was absurd. But this is the anti-smoking movement. We don't need to worry about how accurate we are. We're trying to save the children.
"WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE THE CHILDREN" from being utilised as pawns in a senseless game of abject manipulation.If i were "one of the children" my sentiments would be **** OFF AND STOP DEMEANING MY EXISTENCE.Followed by a quick visit to a local store to pick up a pack of fags to see what all the hooha was about.It is so condescending to the youth of America,but perhaps there are logical reasons for the difference in "the youth of Europe" or the rest of the world.I personally don't see it BUT...
Dr Siegel wrote:
"For example, parental smoking is strongly associated with trying cigarettes for the first time. And strong parental disapproval of smoking is associated with progression from experimentation to regular smoking."
LOL. Aside from "poor parents; damned if they do and damned if they don't," you might factor in the "strong societal disapproval" as drummed into dear little ears through anti-smoking "education" that begins in the First Grade.
Some other random thoughts:
So geo tried it, obviously didn't like it and became --not only a non-smoker-- but , something else in his makeup also made him an anti-smoker ( tho perhaps the urge to the latter remained dormant for many years. ) I, on the other hand tried it, quite instantly liked it, and therefore tried it again. End of report. ; no extravagant "study" needed.
The fact is that nicotine boosts concentration,-- period. You don't have to start with impaired concentraton (ADHD) to have it do that. Similarly, all of its positive effects apply across the board--to the perfectly well-functioning as well as to the less-so.
Finally, the organism is always under stress, both physical and existential, and almost everyone "uses" something . Add up the the number of Americans who drink (alcohol/ caffeine), smoke (tobacco,/ grass) use prescription / street-corner drugs, become hooked on their own endorphins (joggers and gym hounds) or simply do it with food and you've encompassed most of the nation.. (Others, of course, sublimate by fiinding a militant Cause.)
This link takes you to a study/report done by a Swiss geezer who reckons your PUP laws dont stop kids from smoking.
http://www.hbns.org/
getDocument....documentID=1284
Who could have known?
Colin wrote: " This link takes you to a study/report done by a Swiss geezer who reckons your PUP laws dont stop kids from smoking. Who could have known?"
LOL Colin as my first thought when I saw this piece was "and someone actually needed to do a study for this?" Hell, anyone with half an ounce of common sense AND any recollection of being a kid themselves could have told them that the minute you forbid something the more desirable it is to kids, if for no other reason than to rebel. I was basically a good kid growing up and a book worm also, and I still had to know why I was forbidden to do something.
What I found interesting in this article was this statement: “As long as cigarettes are a legal, over-the-counter product, keeping kids from smoking will require a large, multi-strategy effort." What makes them think that its the legality of the product that makes it appealing, and accessible to kids? I mean given the number of kids on illegal drugs, I don't see that legality/otc accessability plays a role in this at all. Growing up, many of my friends tried and continued to use, illegal drugs. That is the one thing I had no desire to even try, mostly because I saw the lack of control they had when using, and that was something I couldn't do for myself, so I never even experimented with those. Smoking is the only vice I ever picked up (thankfully). As I said elsewhere, if you try it and like it, you will more than likely continue to consume or engage in whatever it is.
Not an anti-smoker...just don't like what the smoke does. Anti-smoke is more like it. The flat earth comment is for folks who believe that the smoke is clean, that it isn't a risk factor for several diseases, and doesn't addict kids...and kill family pets. Flat earthers keep asking for proof that man landed on the moon. There are literally thousands of studies on just what the smoke does, my comment on tobacco industry documents is that even the sellers agree. Asbestos is the primary risk factor for Mesothelioma (although folks who use it will deny that also)as tobacco smoke is for lung cancer. Asbestos has been removed from ordinary use because of this risk. For instance many schools were required to remove it at great expense to protect the "kids". It too has some great properties. You could say that some people died in fires that probably wouldn't have if asbestos was used in pipe linings. You'd be correct. The primary difference between asbestos and cigsmoke is that asbestos isn't addictive. They pretty much have the same abilities to cause cancer. While tobacco smoke is more of a heart disease accelerant.
The one cig argument...
"There are literally thousands of studies on just what the smoke does, my comment on tobacco industry documents is that even the sellers agree."
Literally thousands of studies ... but what do they prove?
Even the sellers agree? They try to play "good citiziens", because lawyers and legislation are twisting their arms. So don't count on that being genuine statements.
"The primary difference between asbestos and cigsmoke is that asbestos isn't addictive." Wow, science is flying high!
What's the difference between a barbecue fire and a cigarette? The dose ...
You got it benpal. The barbe fire causes a charcoal effect on meats which may cause cancer in people with genetic susceptability, thankfully at a far lower rate than tobacco smoke (I like people who barbe too, I do marinade the meat which is suppose to help, so you could call me an anti anti marinader). It is dose times frequency. That's what the studies demonstrate, low dose + high frequency + increased time can cause health problems, heart disease/emphysema and a few others in similar manner as high dose + lower frequency (agent orange). Pretty much the same with cigs. Chippers have a lower risk than folks who gotta have regular dose. People who are not exposed to second hand smoke have a lower risk than people regularly exposed. (Yes I believe the smoke risk is small, but large enough and easy enough to remove)
The death certificate argument isn't good logic...risk factors are almost never mentioned on a death certificate. A drunk driver drives off a cliff, alcohol is not listed. Cause of death is an injury/accident. A brake mechanic who works with asbestos and dies from Meso, the cause of death never says asbestos.
A Doc does an autopsy on a smoker and sees the damage knows what caused it. Very few will list cause of death other than the actual disease.
And if you choose to ignore the tobacco companies, you could talk to an actuarial...life insurance policies for people who choose to smoke are a lot higher. Social Security also depends on early deaths. Yes, both my parents only got a VERY few bucks back after they retired. Yes, i dislike the smoke very much.
Now can one cig lead to regular use down the road...
[you could talk to an actuarial...
Now can one cig lead to regular use down the road...]
geo | 06.02.06 - 11:34 am
Pleased that you opened the door on actuarial sciences.
Could you now explain why they dont put a loading on life policies for people regularly exposed to SHS/ETS? These people, dont forget, find risks where normal humans cannot.
Here's a hint: there is no risk, ergo, no loading. Dont believe me? Call your insurance company and ask.
Out of interest, I asked some of my non smoking friends about their formative experiences with cigarettes, 4 out of the 6 I asked had tried a cigarette behind the bike sheds at school. They (the 4 that tried 'em) never smoked again. They are the same age as me-mid forties.
An incorrect study. Go figure!
"I do marinade the meat which is suppose to help, so you could call me an anti anti marinader)"
Is supposed to ...
You forget the SHS of your BQ, the fact that you don't know anything about it doesn't mean it is harmless:
http://www.webcom.com/~bi/health...th-
effects.html
I agree with you about dose and exposure time. Look at the dose of the substances in SHS and calculate the time and number of cigarettes required. Do the maths yourself:
http://www.geocities.com/
madmaxm...cToxicology.htm
I think JustTheFacts quoted...
-Young teens who smoked just one cigarette at the age of 11 were twice as likely to take up smoking within the next few years as their peers who resisted the urge, the study shows.-
What urge was that then?
To resist an urge you need an urge,
is there an inbuilt urge to smoke?
Does the same apply to alcohol, one drink at age 11 means there is an 80.2% chance that you resume drinking as an adult. A hangover effect?
just a thought...
(I made the stat up)
There's one I haven't heard in a while, now besides being murderer's, Geo accuses us of petricide?
Hmmm... Addicts, Murderers, Child abusers, idiots, pet killers, yes I can see that we are only being "paranoid" about what the Anti's agenda truly is, they care so much for us, they are willing to deny us the right to work, obtain housing, raise children, own and care for pets, I'm surprised we haven't been accused of bullying school children, or the elderly, oh, wait, I forgot, thats for programs like D.A.R.E., and nursing homes, and insurance companies, etc, etc., for our own good of course, as we couldn't possibly decide whats best for ourselves, what risks we like to take,how many bodies are on Mt. Everrest? How many health nuts loudly proclaim all the benefits of mountain climbing as excercise, and how many bodies can be shown to prove the actual dangers there, as opposed to, oh, say SHS?
Jerry there is one positive from the bodies of mountaineers who failed and ended up as frozen yeti food-dear old Bill COULD PROVIDE A RISK ASSESSMENT SINCE THERE ARE BODIES TO PROVE THE RISK EXISTS.
Wonder how much Bill and Erik's friends got paid for this "study" ?
Probably about $100,000 or so.
Give me $100,000 and I'll come up with a very similar result dealing with sex. My study will show that kids who've had sex just once by age 14 will be MORE than twice as likely to have become regularly sexually active by the time they're 16.
Is it because the condom manufacturers are adding secret addictive ingredients to their products' lubricating oils? Could it perhaps be an evil plot by the manufacturers of TAG or whatever your fave sex spray is?
Or do you think, just possibly, just being "wild and crazy" here, that MAYBE a kid who has sex once will have now crossed the barrier of "gee, I never tried that..."and go on to do it again without it having ANYthing to do with addiction?
This was just another typical Antismoker study: rig a study to guarantee lots of money in a grant, find a correlation between smoking and the hairs on a mosquito's butt, and declare it to be causal and dangerous.
Voila! An Erik Omelette!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com
MJMcF wrote: "Or do you think, just possibly, just being "wild and crazy" here, that MAYBE a kid who has sex once will have now crossed the barrier of "gee, I never tried that..."and go on to do it again without it having ANYthing to do with addiction?"
Gee, do you really believe that? Surely MY study is more accurate in that it proves beyond a doubt that if you try sex and like it (which 99.8% of the population do) you WILL go on doing it, and that it IS an addiction, therefore a threat to health. And I only charge $99,000 for that study...ROFLMAO
Actually, what with all the STDs out there today (and since condoms have never been promoted as an effective method of preventing pregnancy I fail to see how they can be promoted as an effective way to protect against STDs), I'd say that sex is more of a health risk than anything else. So where's all the anti-sex people? OH that's right, they are called bible thumpers and are already on THAT crusade..........hehehehehe
Thanks for the laugh Michael.......it would be funnier if it weren't so close to the truth, unfortunately.
Lynda, I've always found it interesting and a reflection on how political correctness has worked to think about the way condoms are hailed as "safe sex."
Since somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 1,000 or so condoms break during sexual acts (I would imagine the rates tend to be higher for anal sex and lower for vaginal though I've never seen actual figures for either.) they certainly couldn't be considered "safe" by antismoking standards.
Let's play a little statistics juggling here. My figures on the sex part are not researched and my results will have an outrageously large margin of error, but let's see what happens...
Say you're out at a party and you meet someone you like and decide to go home and have sex with them. There's probably somewhere between one chance in ten and one in a hundred that that person has AIDS. Let's also guess that having unprotected sex with someone with AIDS gives you between one in ten and one in a hundred chance of contracting AIDS yourself (again, anal vs. vaginal might have a huge impact here, and figures for males/females would differ widely as well)
So having one episode of unprotected sex with such a "pick-up" probably gives you between (multiplying probabilities) one in a hundred and one in ten thousand chance of getting AIDS.
Using a condom with a 1% breakage rate would change that to between one in a ten thousand and one in a million.
Of course my figures above could be made considerably tighter by someone who actually knew the odds, but I'm probably not TOO far off.
Now this is considered "safe sex" and is considered to be fine for most folks over 16 or so with equal age partners.
Now, let's compare it with secondary smoke exposure.
If instead of going to a smoke-free party and then having "safe sex" how dangerous would it be to go to a smoking party without the sex?
According to the EPA figures of a roughly 20% increase in lifetime lung cancer for 40 years daily exposure to 20 cigarettes a day, and assuming the base lung cancer rate among nonexposed nonsmokers to be about 1 in 200, we're talking about a lifetime increase of 1 in 1,000. That smokey party might expose a nonsmoker to a full half day's worth of secondary smoke under EPA conditions, so the risk of getting lung cancer from that party would be (1/1000) / 40 x 2 x 365 or 1 in 29,200,000 ... one in 29 million.
Sooooo.... once again assuming both that my sex figures are in the ball park AND that the EPA estimate is actually meaningful (which I would ordinarily strongly dispute but am granting the Antismokers' craziness some validity here for the moment.) how would you feel about your 18 year old going off to party some evening?
If they go to a smokey party the EPA says they have one chance in 29 million of dying 30 to 50 years later from it. Most Antismokers would find such risk almost terrifying!
If they go to a smoke-free party and had "safe sex" with a cute pick-up their chances of getting AIDS and dying within 10 years or so are between 1/10,000 and 1/1,000,000.
The sexually active partier would be exposed to a risk between 29 times and 2,900 times the risk of the smokey party goer... and with a time frame of 10 years as opposed to 40.
Anyone with more knowledge of actual figures is welcome to refine this model (and anyone with more than a third grade education can double check my sloppy/quick math). A variable that should also be considered is that anyone going to a party and having sex with a stranger that night is probably FAR more likely to have AIDS than the average to begin with! Still, such an encounter would normally be called "safe sex."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Michael - I have studied the AIDS numbers. Trust me, if you ever felt inclined to really have a go with the above argument and tried to find 'valid' ones to make your point you would rue the day. I spent months bogged down in a quagmire at cdc.gov trying to make sense of the data. It's totally incomprehensible. The CDC/WHO AIDS folks make the SHS anti folks look like rookies in comparison when it comes to hyperbole.
benpal said:
"There might be a much more logical explanation. What if the neurobiological condition existied before the first cigarette and if the person experienced smoking as a rather positive experience, due to this neurobiological condition?"
To which I say - BINGO!
Child Traumatologists such as Bruce Perry have observed and described precisely the kind of pre-existing neurobiological condition that would predispose certain persons to find the effects of inhaled nicotine on the brain's stress-response systems a powerfully POSITIVE one.
http://www.childtrauma.org/
ctama...oarcheology.asp
It is very, very revealing that the Tobacco Control community generally utterly refuse to acknowledge this.
I am reasonably certain that we are addicted to fear. This addiction is actively encouraged by all in government, and to a greater extent, by health groups, including, in this case, tobacco control.
Fear is one of the most effective control tools. People kept in a state of fear will do as they are told, and happily pay taxes to those in control. Take away the fear and control is lost, leaving the masses room to question and investigate other avenues. In this case, PM10 belching vehicles, perhaps. While the masses are allowed to think, they must be taught to think in a certain way, as directed by the controllers. This isnt "conspiracy time", ask anyone with a sociology degree. This is standard practise.
Generally speaking, in my opinion, there are four main groups:
Type A-Fear Distributors. The government. This is of course the most powerful group.
Type B-Fear Acceptors. The great unwashed. This of course is the largest group.
Type C-Fear Deconstructors. The people that doubt, question, debate, publicise and criticise. This of course is the smallest and most troublesome group.
Type D-Fear Accelerators. The groups that have an agenda. The agenda is rarely what they espouse. The real agenda is money greed and power. Take away the funding and these groups just disappear.
Type D's are the worst because they have the most to gain and the most to lose. On closer examination they are more like cults than public organisations. Tunnel vision is a pre-requisite for entry to these cults. The ability to appear respectable and trustworthy is a bonus, and the ability to twist the truth to ensure a never-ending supply of funding is also an absolute must.
Many things confuse me about these cults. One is that they are working themselves out of a job by insisting on smoke free policies and the eradication of smoking. The second is that they are quite content to take tobacco money to further their agendas, but should a pro-choice group elect to take funds from the same source, the money suddenly becomes tainted.
Perhaps one of the more cerebral among them could explain that to me?
McFadden wrote:
"Now this is considered "safe sex" and is considered to be fine for most folks over 16 or so with equal age partners.
Now, let's compare it with secondary smoke exposure."
It is absurd to compare the risks of engaging in consensual sex with the risks of involuntary exposures to tobacco smoke pollution.
But it would be appropriate to compare the risks of involuntary sex (i.e., rape) with the risks of involunary exposures to tobacco smoke pollution.
Just as the vast majority of society considers rape (with or without a condom) unacceptable social behavior, they/we also consider involuntarily exposing other people to tobacco smoke pollution unacceptable behavior.
Bill wrote:
"It is absurd to compare the risks of engaging in consensual sex with the risks of involuntary exposures to tobacco smoke pollution."
Bill, it's absurd to call it involunary exposure when I want to be exposed to it. And it is you and your gang who won't allow me to. You all deserve the label of neo-fascist or whatever anybody wants to call you.
"But it would be appropriate to compare the risks of involuntary sex (i.e., rape) with the risks of involunary exposures to tobacco smoke pollution."
You already took what Michael M. was saying out of context. You might as well throw in your rape, fornicating, masurbating, little speech.
BTW, rape anyone yet with your car exhaust pipe today?
Hypocrite.
Bill was hijacked by a group of militant, deranged and malevolent smokers and forced to frequent tobacco bars against his will, while he preached his sermon of repentance and the virtues of giving up a three pack a day habit.
Every time you compare tobacco smoke exposure with physical or sexual assualt makes, it makes you look more and more like a completely insensitive ass.
Sign up to be a foster parent if you want to learn the effects of physical and sexaul assault, Bill.
Then come back after a few months and tell us how much tobacco smoke exposure is like being raped or beaten up.
Your continued comparisons trivialize real forms of abuse and are patently offensive.
psycho wrote:
"Every time you compare tobacco smoke exposure with physical or sexual assualt makes, it makes you look more and more like a completely insensitive ass."
Perhaps psycho can explain how forcing something into someone's vagina or butt is abuse, but forcing something into someone's eyes, nose, mouth and lungs isn't abuse.
And perhaps psycho can explain how damaging someone's bones or skin is abuse, but damaging someone's lungs and respiratory system isn't abuse.
BILL YOUR COMPARISON BETWEEN RAPE AND SHS IS ALMOST THE LOWEST COMMENT YOU HAVE EVER MADE.PROVE SHS OR SHUT UP.AS FOR THE RAPE ANGLE DOES YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER/ANY CLOSE FEMALE FRIEND ENDORSE YOUR COMMENT ?WHAT NEXT BILL SHS AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ?HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU DRAW A COMPARISON ON WHICH YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE NOR COULD YOU.YOU DENIGRATE ALL WOMEN IN YOUR SEXIST COMMENT.IS THIS THE LEVEL THE RABIDS ARE PREPARED TO GO TO WIN AT ALL COSTS ?
I AM NOT GOING TO DEMEAN MYSELF BY EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE IN YOUR LAST POST.YOUR COMMENTS ARE DEGRADING AND SHOW MALE CHAUVENISM AT THEIR WORST.I DO NOT WISH TO FURTHER EXTEND THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL THE CONTENT CHANGES.
"but forcing something into someone's eyes, nose, mouth and lungs isn't abuse. --- Bill"
Bill you are being ridiculous. Would you also say that you are forcing your breath, car exhausts, air conditioning outlet, after shave, deodorant into somebody's nose?
We are talking about trace substances. You have posted the article from Dr. Whelan on your web site, but apparently you didn't read completely it except for the smokeless tobacco.
Bill has raped me. He forced his opinion on me against my will.
Mr Bill.
Stop trying to bullshit us. If this was about separating smoke from non smokers, than accomodation of smokers would be advocated. You guys showed your true colors when YOU DIDN'T STOP WHEN YOU ACHIEVED YOUR GOAL.
Smoke-free zones are now the norm, you won the good fight. When you and your ilk went above and beyond that your real goals became pretty damned obvious. It's not about protecting non-smokers, it's about eradicating smokers altogether.
Care to disprove me?
I think Margaret is quite accurate here. What tipped me off was when I saw groups like ASH not willing to stop at achieving smoke-free workplaces and moving on to try to ban smoking everywhere outdoors. But then, that apparently is not even enough. They want to ban smoking in private homes and cars. I feel like I'm running a race and have crossed the finish line and stopped, but everyone around me is continuing racing on ahead and I'm like "where is everyone going?" I thought this was the finish line.
Bill, as a rape victim, let me tell you right now, you are one sick f***.
Sorry for the language folks, but my blood is boiling right now.
As disgusted as I am to repeat it, Bill wrote: "Perhaps psycho can explain how forcing something into someone's vagina or butt is abuse, but forcing something into someone's eyes, nose, mouth and lungs isn't abuse."
Bill demonstrates his own psychotic inability to distinguish between BEING HELD DOWN and forcibly violated and the complete freedom to walk away from cigarette smoke.
Anti-smoking is a mental disorder. Looking past the only reason for some that is explicable -- money -- there is no other rational explanation for such a desire to control and hate.
As has been eloquently pointed out, no one is "forcing" smoke on anyone-- and certainly not in a smokers-only bar or private club, or any bar or club with a sign on the door that says "Smoking within." "Force" would entail physical restraints and active assault.
I fear for a country that's producing Mr. Bills. How could it defend itself from actual dangers-- foreign or domestic, terrorists or punks-- if its manhood confuses smoking with violence, a Bic with a bomb, a Kent with a Colt, and picks up its skirts and runs screaming from both. Faugh!
Bill I'm deeply concerned about your stability and the stability of the tobacco control movement......I think you've just confirmed what we've all known for quite some time.
Again, your remarks are downright offensive, Bill. The difference is quite clearly one of degree of harm, and of assumption of risk.
But if it's still not clear to you, I'm sure the folks at the Pennsylvania Colaition Against Domestic Violence in Harrisburg, and the folks at the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape in Enola, can explain the difference to you a lot better than I can.
PA Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Website: www.pacdv.org
Voice: 800-932-4632
Fax: 717-671-8149
PA Coalition Against Rape
Website: www.pcar.org
Voice: 717-728-9740
Fax: 717-728-9781
Since I would love for you to get your answer, I'd be happy on Monday to fax your questions to them. I'm sure they'll want to know how anti smoking activists such as yourself are trivializing the horrors of sexual and physical abuse by equating these heinous acts with the "harm" from "forced" tobacco smoke exposure.
The ball's in your court, Bill.
How badly do you want that answer?
Commenting by HaloScan
