Doc, - "I think it's a mistake to make a moral issue out of this."
You're too late.
"Do the religious leaders not know..."
You're missing the point.
You don't seriously think these groups came to this epiphany on their own do you?
How many of these people are also involved in one or more of TC's "grass roots" organizations?
religious leaders and now even conservative republicans...God help us all
*************************
End of the Line, Huckabee
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 8:51 AM
'I was willing to entertain the thought of you as a refreshing, charming, surprising second-tier candidate whose eloquence and wit would serve the party well (although trashing the Club for Growth was really pushing it).
But a national smoking ban? You're not running a health spa; it's a country, and you will never win friends in North Carolina talking like that. These big-time pound-shedders cum health nuts. You applaud them as they get healthy, but be careful putting them in power-- they'll take your food and other vices away from you quick as look at you. Because they know what's best for you now and don't care that they got to choose the time and place and manner of their own health reformation.
I'd like to have seen Gov. Huckabee's reaction had someone supported a ban on trans fats back when they were clearly his bread and butter, if you know what I mean. This is typical government overreach and liberal condescension and I don't like it one bit. '
*************************
I miss my peanut M&M's in the hospital vending machines...
So the 'church religious' join the anti-religious and Gloriosky, what a bandwagon they have!!
Pardon me while I get ill.
.
The church people have no idea just exactly what they are doing past their own sensitivities.
Essentially they have now set in motion their own persecution----they should be very thrilled with themselves.
I'm still ill.
.
How will the bill significantly increase the number of smokers who quit?
Again, what makes you and yours think you have some inalienable right to FORCE us to quit smoking? Seriously Doc, what if you were kosher and I felt that kosher was BAD for you and those around you. Would you really appreciate me going on a campaign to BAN KOSHER foods? It would be for your own good after all and also for the good of “the children”. Tell me, how would THAT sit with you?
It doesn't increase the tobacco tax. It doesn't fund an anti-smoking media campaign?
What? We aren’t paying enough extortion now? You feel we should pay more? Because your tax increases ONLY hurt the poor. They don’t discourage anyone from smoking, least of all kids. And anti-smoking media campaign doesn’t need any more funding…………TC gets enough damned money from us………..pay for your own damned advertising, I’m sick of you stealing my money to harass me.
Besides, the bill is for FDA regulation……….it is NOT the FDA’s job to increase taxes, control advertising (only certain content of it).
It doesn't restrict cigarette advertising to adults? It doesn't limit the availability of cigarettes.
In case you’ve been on another planet for that past 20+ years………….cigarette advertising HAS been restricted to adults only (isn’t this a form of censorship too since they cannot advertise in movies or on TV?)
Limit the availability of cigarettes? You kick us out to the curb, extort money from us via excessive taxes, and now you want to make it more difficult to us to buy A LEGAL PRODUCT? Are you on drugs?
Why NOT just prohibit it altogether. You know damned well THAT is the real goal here. Just do it. This torture you are putting us through however is killing me.
It doesn't change social norms with regards to smoking.
It doesn’t have to, you have already done that. I haven’t felt this violated since I was raped when I was 19.
Move over Sunz, make room, I need to join you getting ill.
I think it's a mistake to make a moral issue out of this.
You want to talk ethics - what about the ethics of religious leaders standing together to back the attempt of the nation's largest cigarette company to pull the wool over the eyes of the public?
What???
Would you like to think about that one Michael, and rephrase it?
When has this ever Public Health thing represented anything but a moralist campaign. all we are missing are the tambourines and I would hazard to guess even they have been employed at some point, or will be soon.
Social marketing and Denormalization are about retraining moral values. Any of that sound familiar or did the brainwashing remove the original "advocacy in joining with stakeholders to speak as one", pep rally speeches?
How about the happy spiritual jingles from the book of alms? "there is no safe level" or the ever popular "there are 4000 deadly chemicals".
All ad agency spin to sell the moral "right headed" reality as passed down from the mountain of WHO indignation.
Have we seen any science beyond estimates and theoretic projections? I certainly don't remember seeing any of that.
Have we seen broad discussions and community based decisions? not so far.
Ideology is all TC is about little else would fit what we have witnessed to date.
Certainly those who speak in self righteous tongues, talking down their noses about smokers, have little claim to a community good or scientific resolve. A new morality is being promoted in the parroting of words they can't even track back to source outside of the sacred play book, gospel in line with the way they live, blissfully ignorant of all others who they believe are the damned.
Now even Religion has a new Religion.
They are also embracing the man-made global warming rhetoric to their flocks.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...pread-word-
gore
It's not for the Children
It's for the Moneychangers.
This was yet another event orchestrated by CTFK to benefit Philip Morris.
Of course the comment by AHA's Chuck Womack is blatantly false.
Before becoming a CTFK apologist and national coordinator of Faith United Against Tobacco, Vinnie DeMarco was a lobbyist in Maryland who worked for various healthcare organizations.
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention testified at the Senate HELP Committee hearing on S. 625 because he was invited by Ted Kennedy (which was likely suggested by Land's handlers at CTFK to make it look like God supported the bill). He provided zero analysis of the legislation, but congratulated himself, the Southern Baptists and Faith United Against Tobacco while repeating simplistic rhetoric that tobacco is bad and FDA regulation is good.
BTW, Didn't the Southern Baptists also insist that slavery was moral about 150 years ago, and don't the Southern Baptists now claim that homosexuality is immoral?
What a bunch of wackos who seek to use their religious position for political purposes.I bet they are happy to send soldiers off to war in Iraq,to die,purely to ensure the gas supply continues.Bible bashing hypocrites,but those who pander to them are even worse.If they really want to stick their beaks into politics,perhaps a change of employment would be a better alternative.
Si, I just watched the 3 night special on CNN with Christiane Amanpour on "God's Warriors". Of the three she hightlighted (Jews, Muslims, Christians) I found the Christians the most frightening.
OT, sort of, but given the ridiculousness of TC……………..not really. All bolded emphasis are original as in the article.
Absurd vaccine marketing calls for cervical cancer vaccinations for young boys!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 by: Mike Adams
The headline for this story is not a typo. The push to sell more vaccines and pharmaceuticals has now reached a level of absurdity that should astonish any intelligent person. The mainstream media is now reporting -- and I'm not kidding -- that young boys should be vaccinated with Gardasil (the drug now being pushed onto teenage girls to supposedly prevent cervical cancer) based on the idea that if they have oral sex with girls who carry HPV, they might get throat cancer!
This is an incredible stretch of scientific credibility, and it's such a preposterous marketing campaign that only Big Pharma could have come up with it. It's obviously nothing more than a massive scare campaign to try to dream up some way to market this high-profit vaccine to a whole new group of customers who don't need it: teenage boys!
Even the idea of mandatory vaccinations for teenage girls is little more than desperate disease mongering designed to sell vaccines.
And it is in this way that Big Pharma has now managed to turn oral sex into a disease requiring chemical treatment. Regardless of whether there's any actual sex taking place, there's one thing for certain: Consumers are getting royally screwed.
http://www.newstarget.com/021999.html
"Of the three she hightlighted (Jews, Muslims, Christians) I found the Christians the most frightening." There's a lot to be said for LIONS.
"And it is in this way that Big Pharma has now managed to turn oral sex into a disease requiring chemical treatment. Regardless of whether there's any actual sex taking place, there's one thing for certain: Consumers are getting royally screwed." I'm waiting for the Pharma industry to try to promote the need for a pill to protect against AURAL SEX.
Elitists socialist nannys + religion + government. That is one dangerous chemical cocktail. With none of them very good at history. The results will no doubt be the same as in the past. Someone needs to do an RR of the damage and death done to humans from the use of this brew through history.
Bill-- "BTW, Didn't the Southern Baptists also insist that slavery was moral about 150 years ago, and don't the Southern Baptists now claim that homosexuality is immoral?"
Yeah, and didn't the guy who was instrumental in ending slavery once say that a house divided against itself cannot stand? Same priniciple at work here, really. The lot of you have become just too grasping, greedy, power-hungry and radicalized over the years and now one side is going down. For good. Once this legislation passes (and I do believe it will) I guess you'll finally have to kiss all your dreams of tobacco prohibition good-bye forever and go out and get yourself a real job for once.
Glister-- "It's not for the Children
It's for the Moneychangers."
Where can I buy the T-shirt?
Let us make no make about it. TC is a religion. Does anyone believe that Bill G., Cathy, can be reasonable. Watch Richard Darkins' "The Root of All Evil: Part 1" here:
http://video.google.com/
videopla...284641446868316
and part 2 here:
http://video.google.com/
videopla...242120502502207
These are long 47 min each. But if you are interested in how religion is the root of all evil. Substitute the word 'faith' with 'TC' and you will understand who you are dealing with.
This seemed appropriate so i thought I would pass it along;
Thomas Jefferson's Maxim;
"The civility of a civilization can be judged by how the majority treats the minority"
Someone needs to do an RR of the damage and death done to humans from the use of this brew through history.
The damage and death done to humans by religions alone, mostly chrisianity is just so great it can't even be counted.
What is really amazing is these tactics have failed before.
What's that saying about the definition of crazy? "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the height of insanity" or something like that.
"The civility of a civilization can be judged by how the majority treats the minority"
Isn't that the truth though. Just another lesson the world never learned. Mind boggling indeed.
"Name one change in cigarette design, ingredients, components, etc. that you assert will make the nation's cigarettes safer to smoke."
That really isn't necessary anymore.
The Lord has already weighed in on this and He has clearly indicated that He wants us to smoke FDA-approved cigarettes.
The debate is over.
Judy - "Name one change in cigarette design, ingredients, components, etc. that you assert will make the nation's cigarettes safer to smoke."
That really isn't necessary anymore.
The Lord has already weighed in on this and He has clearly indicated that He wants us to smoke FDA-approved cigarettes. The debate is over.
.....
Judy,
Which God? Christian, Judaic or Islamic?
This is an important question. We get into matters of Kosher" for Jews and the very similar "Halal " for Muslims.
Also, will male circumcision, almost 100% mandatory for Jews and Muslims, be defined as child abuse? In addition, many Islamic sects believe female circumcision is required and/or approved as being more righteous.
Then there is fasting...isn't that starvation of children, regardless of religious beliefs?
Part of what we fail to recognize here lately is the US is becoming a socialist country. Someone mentioned Hillary Clinton the other day, and the fact that she could get elected at all is worrisome, not because she's a democrat, but because she's a socialist. We grow closer and closer to socialism, and the tobacco fight is only a symptom of the whole problem. A portion of our country is demanding our bodies belong to them, due to health insurance costs, hospital costs, etc. The religious jump on this because this is what they have always wanted. They want to be in charge, and next thing you know we will be fighting a war as each brand of christianity fights to make sure theirs is the leading brand. So that we will find ourselves owned by the state and worshiping the state approved religion. It's no wonder they are jumping on this, this is exactly what they've been wanting and they've now found the cause that will get them there.
I'd say it doesn't matter what religion it is, but that would be a lie. Islam and christianity (in various forms) have always made it clear that THEY are the chosen ones and you WILL become a member. I'm sorry, there are some nice christians (and islamics) out there, but one does have to admit that christianity is the most vocal, and the most involved in our political processes. One should not be surprised as it aligns itself with the way the world is leaning now. We are becoming a socialist country and the religious now see a doorway for them to enter. As we force everyone to live according to the demands of those that supposedly know what's best for us, does one not see how it would be deemed "best for us" to follow their personal god?
Hi Rod, I want to make clear that this quote I used...
"Name one change in cigarette design, ingredients, components, etc. that you assert will make the nation's cigarettes safer to smoke."
...was picked up out of Dr. Siegel's essay. The rest was just me being facetious. I was Joking, 
!
Judy - Hi Rod, I want to make clear that this quote I used...
....
Judy,
Oh, I knew that. It's a matter of taking this whole "piece of wang" to its logical conclusion: Where does this fanaticism take us to?
Religious frenzy/ecstasy partners very nicely with the PUS (Progress Under Socialism) movement: Faith = Belief Without Proof.
Any lie or atrocity foisted or inflicted on the dissidents is condoned by the doctrine of "God Wills It," and/or "the end justifies the means."
When government and religion are indistinguishable, police power and "solutions" lead to acres of ovens and pits for the unbelievers, the infidels.
It has happened many times in the past, and we are headed down the same road, despite the "Do-Gooders" prostestations to the contrary.
Reference the above post:
I forgot, and this is for Americans: "Keep your powder dry!"
I say Americans because we are the only country whose citizens have retained the right to own firearms.
"Name one change in cigarette design, ingredients, components, etc. that you assert will make the nation's cigarettes safer to smoke."
A multitude of studies have shown PAH and Nitrates can be reduced by the manufacturers and they actually do when forced to by regulation.
PAH levels are reduced by flue curring and nitrates by soil and fertilizers selected. The use of lighter blends and avoiding roots and stems is also entirely beneficial in reducing the carcinogens most referenced in declaring the cancer risks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
site...l=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
site..._RVAbstractPlus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
site..._RVAbstractPlus
I guess that in addition to being FDA-approved, cigarettes will also be approved by God himself. I'm sure that will be a great consolation to those who continue to die from smoking-related diseases. At least they can die knowing that the cigarettes they smoked were approved by the FDA and by the nation's leading religious organizations.
BTW, Didn't the Southern Baptists also insist that slavery was moral about 150 years ago, and don't the Southern Baptists now claim that homosexuality is immoral?
Bill Godshall | 08.29.07 - 5:28 pm | #
This, coming from a man who continuously points to the (strong)arm of government -- the courts -- as the last word and end of any debate on a subject. When it comes to tobacco, Bill puffs out his chest and says "The court ruled..." Well Bill, if that is your litmus test then, as I've pointed out many times before, you would have had to be on the side of the court -- Supreme Court at that -- when they upheld slavery.
Bill, you don't get to claim this ground. Your inconsistency leaves you with no credibility.
The way things are going I would not be suprised if the TC zealots get the religious zealots to somehow declare that tobacco was the forbidden fruit from the Garden of Eden. I am sure someone from the TC/ religious alliance could find a way to interpert the writngs from the Old Testemant that Adam and Eve were really dupt by Satan with the evil weed. Maybe they will just declare that tobacco is the Anti-Christ and Big Tobacco are its servants. Maybe its time that the Pope blessed cigarettes to protect all the Catholics. Or Kosher cigarettes anyone? If Camel #9s threw them into a tizzy. Could you imagine what Kosher 666s would do?
cigarettes will also be approved by God himself
Since the belief is that God created all...............then cigarettes are already approved by God as HE put the plant here.
Nexxxxxxxttttt.
Doctor---"Perhaps the religious leaders have not actually read the bill. Perhaps they have merely bought all the rhetoric put out by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids."
Not read what came FROM them? I doubt it.
This religious aspect was put together by CTFK:
http://tobaccofreekids.org/campa...campaign/faith/
As early as July 2005 they have been active:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....co-
rallies.html
.
I guess that in addition to being FDA-approved, cigarettes will also be approved by God himself. I'm sure that will be a great consolation to those who continue to die from smoking-related diseases. At least they can die knowing that the cigarettes they smoked were approved by the FDA and by the nation's leading religious organizations.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 11:33 pm | #
What a vile statement. I don't care that it was meant sarcastically (at least I hope it was meant sarcastically), it is still vile and I expected better from you Dr. Siegel.
Conversation 20 years from now:
"Mommy, do you think Grandpa is in heaven now?"
"I don't know, junior. He smoked, and smoking is bad for your body AND your spirit. For instance parents that smoke in their cars with kids are child abusers. We know that now."
"But it's not fair. He didn't know cigarettes send you to hell."
"Well we already knew cigarettes were pretty bad even then. And God works in mysterious ways, little Joey." ... "Hey! Stop crying and shut up!"
"B...but mommy, one more thing. Since we breathe in second hand smoke is there a risk we're going to hell?"
"Well if you never start and never hang around smokers you won't have to worry."
"Also mommy what if someone only has a few cigarettes or they only quit a year before they die?"
"Well that's just one more reason never to start. Now shut up and go pray or something."
Gabz-
What is vile about it? (I mean that sincerely). I certainly don't intend to offend anyone, but I don't really see what is offensive. Perhaps there is an unintended message that I was sending. Let me know.
Other than the fact that there's no such thing as a smoking related disease? Unless of course you claim that no one will ever have heart disease if smoking ceased to exist. If you can prove that, I would accept it's a smoking related disease. Other than that, I'd really have to say a lot of other factors appear to weigh in on that conclusion...
Amazing how many of these smoking related diseases happen even when not exposed to smoke....
Jalestra wrote: "Other than the fact that there's no such thing as a smoking related disease?"
Not true. The diseases for which smoking is a risk factor are considered smoking related. The fact that you can get them due to other risk factors does not change that. Where the problem lies is that science cannot tell whether a particular disease was caused by smoking or not. What TC does is count all who die of smoking related disease as having died to exposure due to smoking or SHS. Those same people could be counted as obesity related. That way they can inflate the numbers. As I already stated, in a perfect world, where no one smoked, people would still die from smoking related diseases, albeit a few years later.
I can't consider it a smoking related disease if it's also related to other factors. I can agree on risk factors, but to call it a smoking disease suggests that smoking is the cause or the only factor. It's not, there are other factors. The very fact that science cannot tell you if smoking related to this particular instance of the disease only reinforces my own feelings. If you can narrow down and say "ok, this instance is scientifically proven to have come from NO other factor than smoking", then I'd say that you COULD have instances of smoking related heart disease. A time when smoking was definitely the cause of the illness. However, we don't have that ability. So there is no smoking related disease any more than there's a junk food related disease. They increase risk factors, but we cannot KNOW which caused the disease. When we can narrow it down, then I would be more than willing to attribute each case of heart disease to it's source "smoking related" "stress related" "kissing related" whatever.
I say more evidence is needed.
I have to agree with Jalestra on this one. If you have a coal miner who smoked and died from lung cancer, is it really "smoke related"? Or is it from the coal dust?
Unless you can prove that a particular thing actually caused the disease, then you can't label it "smoking related".
Just because something is a risk factor, doesn't mean that was the cause of the disease. A non-smoker living in a major city, like NYC for instance, could also get lung cancer, and the primary cause of the onset of the cancer could very well be all the car exhuast they've inhaled into their lungs all their life........and more than likely that is the real cause, yet it will be labeled a "smoking related" death, simply because smoking is a risk factor, and the good Doctor here has an agenda.
Until it can be proven, irrefutably, I cannot call it "smoking related".
Jalestra asks "If you can narrow down and say "ok, this instance is scientifically proven to have come from NO other factor than smoking", then I'd say that you COULD have instances of smoking related heart disease."
The science of Epidemiology is used to determine a statistical correlation and it is the science behind smoking bans. The simple truth is that the science cannot proof cause. Thus there is no way of proving whether a smoker who died of a stroke is was actually due to his smoking. The best one can say is that it may have been a factor. It cannot even be said that it was the only factor. One could say there is evidence that smoking was a related cause especially if it is the most significant risk factor. No proof can be offered. Thus asking for bodies makes no sense none will ever be found. Currently there is no question the smoking is a leading risk factor for disease. There is evidence that SHS is a weak link to those same smoking related diseases. What is important is to show that the risks for SHS are for example no more then eating at Mc Donald’s. Not worth worrying about. What TC groups do is use scary words to exaggerate the science. It is important to understand the difference between a scientist and a TC advocate. People like Dr. Glantz write scientific peer reviewed papers with all the assumptions and caveats, but then make public claims not supported by their papers. Dr. Siegel is guilty as well. The best advice is to read the actual papers and judge them on there merit. I have not have the time to do so myself. Others here bring up boxing, nascar, etc but these are just straw man arguments. If people are serious about winning the fight against the religion of TC, you MUST use scientific arguments otherwise you will be seen as disgruntled smokers, no different then religious TC advocate Cathy, who does not know what she is talking about other then TC is her religion.
I disagree Dan,it doesn't matter WHAT "scientific" evidence you use, they will still consider you "as disgruntled smokers". I know, we all kniw, we HAVE tried.
Jerry Thomas said "I disagree Dan,it doesn't matter WHAT "scientific" evidence you use, they will still consider you "as disgruntled smokers". I know, we all kniw, we HAVE tried."
Perhaps, but I am on the federal payroll as a government scientist/researcher and I am also a private business owner. It would be hard to count me as a tobacco shrill or on the tobacco payroll. If the fact that I am a smoker mutes my argument then help us all. I have never been political active before this issue of making a mountain out of a mole hill due to SHS. As someone whose ancestry is German, both my parents grew up in Nazi Germany and knew war where I have never experienced it; I am well aware where things can lead if people do not speak out. My father was born in the US before the war but grew up in Nazi Germany and was even part of the Nazi Youth (no choice). Because he was born in the US he had citizenship and came to the US after the war at age 19. He became a soldier and fought for freedom in the Korean War and then twice in the Vietnam War. So when I was still a kid he was largely away. He is still alive today and has quit his 3 pack a day smoking habit in his 40s (he has already reached the average life expectancy in the US of 76). But to have people who so easily give up freedom for security is inconceivable to me. The reason the so many died at the hands of the Nazis was that they were afraid to speak out.
Speaking if Houses Divided-- just because a couple of pastors are waxing weird-- we're posting anti-religious posts?? I say this as an agnostic with no dog in the race, but categorical bigotry is categorical bigotry, and as people who've been the butts of it, we ought to take care. [Dismounting the High Horse.]
And now the point at hand. Siegel poses rhetorically:
Do the religious leaders not recognize the harm that is done by not allowing the FDA to remove nicotine completely from cigarettes? Do they not recognize the harm that is done by not allowing the FDA to make cigarettes available on a prescription-only basis? Do they not recognize the harm that is done by tying the FDA's hands in increasing the legal age of purchase of cigarettes? Do they not recognize the harm done by not allowing the FDA to regulate where tobacco is sold, even at youth community centers?
And then adds editorially:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that the FDA should do these things right now.
Q: But you think they should do them a little later?
:
Walt----'Q: But you think they should do them a little later?'
Seems that's exactly where this is going. We all just need to 'adapt slowly'----you know us trouble makers.
I understand the science can't prove cause, and to me that's the thing. If science can't prove cause, then you really can't attribute an instance of a disease to a particular object. You can say what you THINK, what SEEMS right, but it's not right. Not yet, not without more science, more proof. There can be no "smoking related heart disease" because we don't know what factor contributed to it. It's easy to say smoking contributed to it and write it off, but that's not true. Food, stress, genetics... you could just as easily call it anything. It's easy to call it smoking related if the victim was a smoker, because no one can prove you wrong.
Also, if you listen to Rotham and Greenland, "one cause = one effect" is over simplifying the effect anyhow. According to them, a disease or death can stem from many different factors. Thus, you STILL wouldn't have a smoking related disease..only that smoking was a factor. If stress was also a factor, what makes one decide it's smoking related as opposed to stress? It could be mainly a stress related problem...saying it's smoking related only suggests that the definitive cause is smoking. No doubt about it. To be truly honest, you could NOT call it a smoking related disease, only put forth the idea that smoking might have played a factor. Not every smoker catches these so called "smoking related" diseases, so I'm willing to bet, in at least some cases, that some of these have NOTHING to do with the fact they smoked at all.
Jalestra - If stress was also a factor, what makes one decide it's smoking related as opposed to stress?
Simple really...... count it twice.
Thats why there are more projected deaths than actual.
GreatScot
Good point, GS. I should have thought of that.
Jalestra wrote: "I understand the science can't prove cause, and to me that's the thing. If science can't prove cause, then you really can't attribute an instance of a disease to a particular object."
For a single death NO. But if people who do a certain thingd (smoking) get an instance of a disease early or in greater numbers then yes science can tell you it is harmfull and provide a link. Smoking is known to be a strong risk factor for certain diseases. But do no ask for bodies to prove it. If I am wrong I ask Dr. Siegel to provide the evidense. If he can I will admit that I am wrong. This is how science works. Can't say the same for religion.
Yeah, but at the moment I see a lot of leaving things out. We know that the majority of smokers are blue collar type workers. Many smokers are poor people. I don't see a whole lot of evidence showing that substandard medical care, more dangerous jobs (welding, coal mining), substandard housing, stress from lack of financial stability, etc are much of a factor to scientists. Are there instances of ruling out such things in studies claiming that smokers have more risks than non-smokers? Has anyone done a study of well off smokers with better housing, jobs,medical care vs poor smokers with substandard? Or perhaps a non-smoker in an equally bad situation vs a smoker?
It's not that I'm unwilling to accept smoking has increased risks. It's just, I want complete information. I want to know that all things have been taken into consideration and yes, this IS a problem. From what I've seen so far, these things have not been factors. If you know of some though, let me know. I can't believe inhaling SMOKE for 50 years continually is good for you, but after looking around at all the smokers I know...I can't believe it's any worse for you than stress.
Dan, I don't think we completely disagree here. I'm willing to accept smoking as a factor, but without more proof, I will not believe in smoking related disease any more so than I believe in stress related heart disease. Until we can nail down which or how many are related in each death, heart disease is heart disease. I can accept "his heart disease was most likely a result of stress, smoking, etc". I cannot accept "smoking related heart disease". I hope I"m not confusing you, that I am getting the point across well, if not, let me know.
"I can't believe inhaling SMOKE for 50 years continually is good for you"
I don't know it Jalestra -- but I could easily accept that it good be good for you, or it could be bad for you. Why not? Is eating meat for 50 years good for you? Enjoying sunlight? (I don't know about these either -- but I don't automatically assume they're bad).
Just not clear why inhaling smoke, by definition, HAS to be bad for you.
"But if people who do a certain thingd (smoking) get an instance of a disease early or in greater numbers then yes science can tell you it is harmfull and provide a link."
And Dan -- that's not quite true either. I.E., people who use inhalers are more likely to have asthma -- but inhalers aren't BAD for you. They don;t CAUSE astham (to the best of my knowledge) They simply are associated with asthma. Confounders, confounders...
GDF, I guess I can believe it's bad for you because inhaling smoke has always been bad. I admit, the only thing I have on my side is logic LOL But it's been proven that people die of smoke inhalation. If you inhale smoke every day, all the time, seems logical to me it'd have some negative impact eventually, even if only a slight one.
But Jalestra -- (and I'm in no way suggesting what you should believe)
People die of water intoxication too. But I drink water every day. Maybe.. just maybe... inhaling smoke daily is good for you? or at least for some people?
Just trying to say that sometimes we jump to these ideas (without really examining where they come from - or if they are really true).
Again, I'm not trying to change your mind -- just giving lurkers something to think about.
Bah, I don't mind you questioning my ideas...like I said, I have nothing backing me up but logic and with the water example you've proved even that can be shaky.
Water intoxication? This is the first I've ever heard of that...think I'll go look it up.
Water intoxication? This is the first I've ever heard of that...think I'll go look it up.
Jalestra
Yep, it's true. Apparently sometime in the last year (I don't remember when) there was a woman who died from drinking too much water (binge drinking or hot dog eating contests, it if you will allow the comparison). It seems some radio show did contests like this and this particular one was for the most water in the shortest time (or something like that).
I saw it on CNN and they asked a few "experts" and apparently it can happen.
Gabz-
What is vile about it? (I mean that sincerely). I certainly don't intend to offend anyone, but I don't really see what is offensive. Perhaps there is an unintended message that I was sending. Let me know.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 3:43 pm | #
I'm not an overly religious person, Dr. Siegel, but your comment did bother me. I did go overboard in using the word "vile" and I do sincerely apologize.
It is one thing for one's spirtual "advisor," be it priest, rabbi, minister, imam, shaman or whathaveyou, to speak with his/her congregation about what "God" does or does not approve within a service or one on one. I am not in favor of such "spiritual guidance" being used in the public arena. That CTFK is actively pursuing religious leaders to further their political agenda absolutely disgusts me.
Each and everyone of us will eventually face a type of judgement day, regardless of our religious bent or lack of. That CTFK has such delusions of grandeur that it believes it can use the power of the pulpit to propagate their lies is so off the chart to me as to be scary.
Lynda F wrote:
"Yep, it's true. Apparently sometime in the last year (I don't remember when) there was a woman who died from drinking too much water...It seems some radio show did contests..."
Another example, which fits in very well here, was a runner in a marathon died from this. Whoever is in charge with marathons discussed handing out less water during marathons to stop this happening again.
I guess they never heard of dehydration before. Or heat exhaustion or heat stroke.
Doc, since this is a dead thread and nobody else will read this except you, let me explain something just between me, you and the lamp post:
1. The "religious right" and the "looney social engineering left" are both pimples on the ass of freedom.
2. In places like Alabama and NC, your partners in social engineering at TC use the religious right like puppets because they can't find enough secular progressive left wing Socialists to accomplish their agenda.
You have to give them credit. They will use you, their mother, their Priest, their dog...anything to accomplish their agenda of ridding the world of cigarettes and taking down the Big Tobacco companies.
TAKE THE NICOTINE OUT OF CIGARETTES COMPLETELY?!!!!!!! What are you talking about?!! That is what the mentally ill, who are big users of tabacco, NEED DESPERTELY1 It corrects our neurotransmitters and receptors, and words such as dopamine and acetycholine. We need it to function. WE NEED IT TO TOLORATE! Nobody talks of it; it's a big secret. BUt the facks are there. Schizophrenics smoke 90%, Bipolars 70%, Major Depressives 60% Panic Disorder 56% and PTSD 60% Nicotine is helpful also to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Tourette Syndrome, as well as sepsis and ulcerative colitis. Nicotine is very harmless astully. It is the tar that is harmful, but if they reduced that there would be less flavor. The cigarette companies are ready with their new fruit flavors, but the FDA won't approve. I don't want the patch or gum for my nicotine delivery system. Cigarettes deliver it to me exactly when I need it within 8-10 seconds. And, I enjoy the ritual as much as the smoke.
And as for religions, Archbishop Cooke blessed the Philip Morris Company executives around 1987 I believe. Funny tho, a Pope, I'm not sure which one, requested the Jesuits to stop smoking. Maybe the Pope didn't want it to add up that the Jesuits were mentally ill or something, because the connection with smoking and mental illness was being discovered.
P.S. It's not a death habit. Who says we "die early" anyway. I'm a believer of when your time comes, it comes. And it
is needed by the mentally ill to live longer naturally; and we die of natural causes in the end. We didn't blow our heads off. We need our smokes to tolerate and that is all.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
