Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

Exhibit 1. A non-smoker's lung:



Exhibit 2. A smoker's lung:



I want to have the top one, so I do not wish any tobacco smoke, whether first-hand or second-hand, in my lungs thank you. Apart from that people are at liberty to do and believe as they please.

The old non-smokers lung picture...

Both the lung owners are dead Tim, had you thought of that?

I have no wish to see any of my internal organs thanks. Stupid comparison pictures like that prove nothing and have no place in serious debate...

To be valid you'd also have to include lungs from people that had wood fires at home, regularly BBQd, spent lots of time in traffic, etc. Many of the passive smoking studies found a much higher correlation between cooking fumes than smoking in relation to cancer.

As I mentioned, there is no scientific evidence that second-hand smoke affects your health. End of.

Sod it! Am going for a fag.

[miltiades]

My late sister , passed away 4 years ago , she did not smoke , my brother in law did and all through her life was a passive smoker .
My late wife passed away 3 months ago , she did not smoke , I did for 38 years she was a passive smoker.
I wonder if my brother in laws smoking and mine might have been contributory factors ...

I sympathise with you and feel you carry a terrible burden.

However, scientific studies consistently show no link between passive smoking and cancer.

It is difficult to see why passive smoking killed your wife while you, a regular smoker for 38 years have escaped death from it...

nonsense , scientific research points to the increased risk of getting cancer through either smoking or being a passive smoker .
Why do you have the need to defend such a dated habit , a filthy smelly habit at that . In the third world every one smokes thats because they know no better. The Cypriots on the other hand are a progressive sort who must surely know the harm that they are inflicting upon themselves and their families.
Smoke if you must , thats plural , but dont even think about tormenting my lungs with your fumes.
You go on about scientific studies , would these studies be those sponsored by the tobacco giants ??
SMOKING CAUSES CANCER !!

[cyprusgrump]

As I mentioned, there is no scientific evidence that second-hand smoke affects your health.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to show this - Miltiades has provided a link to one such study. You are in denial. Keep your flithy, disgusting, gut-wrenching, foul, toxic, cancerogenic cigarette smoke away from me and I am happy. Do and believe as you wish.

There isn't tho...

If you actually study the scientific evidence and not the propaganda put out by the anti smoking lobby (and faithfully reproduced in the media) you will see there is no evidence...

Follow this link. It provides a list of all of the passive smoking studies along with the results.

I'm not in denial - I don't even smoke!

If I may say so, you're getting a bit hysterical about it all...

However, nobody is trying to deny you the right to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. All smokers want is the same democratic right applied to them...

[Gasman]

What is it about Cypriots, tobacco and suicide souvla?
Jump to full article: Cyprus Mail (cy), 2009-08-23
Author: [item undated] Hermes Solomon

Intro:

Giorgios was done 12 years ago by Panicos, a distant relation of mine and heart specialist at the Apollonion Hospital. Giorgios reckons he was lucky to survive and has reduced his smoking to a cigar every evening, just like President Sarkozy. Cutting out cigarettes has more than covered the cost of the operation. . . .

Manolis stubbornly chose to go out with a bang - he would get through half a bottle of whisky and 10 cigarettes with his souvla. After the fourth stent, he miraculously came to his senses and reduced from five packs a day (one every ten minutes) to just one, no whisky or souvla. He is now a slim shadow of his former self - inactive, laconic and sad.

What is it about Cypriots, tobacco and suicide souvla? Do we compete to see who can smoke and eat the most, abusing our bodies in search of Zen and the Art of Merc Maintenance? What's the alternative - antidepressants? Outwardly, we seem such a happy people...

I smoke a pipe like a baby sucks its dummy - unloved as a child I suppose. . . .

No longer are these old souls left outside to die when too aged to be useful. Nowadays they watch the box in centrally heated wood cabins, smoke, go shopping on snow scooters, eat McDonalds and suffer heart attacks. Thought for food, n'est-ce pas?

You are what you eat, said Nietzsche. It is rumoured that the great German thinker committed suicide. He must have been of Cypriot extraction and never said so...

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/country/cyprus/

CY comes in 2nd in the EU League for highest number of smokers. Greece holds the no.1 spot.

I've been reading CY has very high number of under age smokers too and that hardly any of them, even those aged 13 and under, are ever refused in the shops.

[cyprusgrump]

My late sister , passed away 4 years ago , she did not smoke , my brother in law did and all through her life was a passive smoker .
My late wife passed away 3 months ago , she did not smoke , I did for 38 years she was a passive smoker.
I wonder if my brother in laws smoking and mine might have been contributory factors ...

I sympathise with you and feel you carry a terrible burden.

However, scientific studies consistently show no link between passive smoking and cancer.

It is difficult to see why passive smoking killed your wife while you, a regular smoker for 38 years have escaped death from it...

nonsense , scientific research points to the increased risk of getting cancer through either smoking or being a passive smoker .
Why do you have the need to defend such a dated habit , a filthy smelly habit at that . In the third world every one smokes thats because they know no better. The Cypriots on the other hand are a progressive sort who must surely know the harm that they are inflicting upon themselves and their families.
Smoke if you must , thats plural , but dont even think about tormenting my lungs with your fumes.
You go on about scientific studies , would these studies be those sponsored by the tobacco giants ??
SMOKING CAUSES CANCER !!

No, you're wrong.

Smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer. Nobody denies that but nobody really understands the link either.

There is no evidence that passive smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer.

Look atthe link I just provided Tim. A link to the results of all of the studies, an not those carried out by tobacco companies.

And the reason that I defend the rights of smokers (I am a non-smoker remember) is that this 'mob rule' has forced governments into a decision which nobody has voted for and which is undemocratic.

I fear the same pressure is being applied in other areas of our lives..

I want the freedom to choose.

Anti-smoking activists are invariably puritans. The want smoking banned completely but when you ask them what they would do if they achieved that goal they invariably say "move onto something else".

These are the people that want to control your smoking, your eating, your drinking - even what perfume or deodorant you wear! You think that sounds ridiculous but it has actually happened in Nova Scotia.

Smoking
Drinking
Obesity
Perfume
Gambling

You name it, these people what to ban or control it.

I don't want that...

[Tim Drayton]

[...]
[Follow this link. It provides a list of allof the passive smoking studies along with the results.
[...]
...

These are all of the studies mate, are they?

Funny, here's at least one they seem to have missed:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/5/939.pdf

Non-Smoker Lung Cancer Deaths Attributable to Exposure to Spouse’s Environmental Tobacco Smoke

Jean Trédaniel, Paolo Boffetts, Radolf Saracci and Albert Hirsch

International Journal of Epidemology

It couldn't just be that you have provided a link to a pro-smoking web site which has cherry picked the studies they present. Surely you would,t stoop so low.

On your final point, I agree with you. I do not want to stop people who wish to do so from smoking. However, cigarette smoke is a proven carcinogen and I as a non-smoker strongly object to having to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. That is my red line. I feel very strongly about this. If you chose to label this hysteria, so be it.

[cyprusgrump]

[...]
[Follow this link. It provides a list of allof the passive smoking studies along with the results.
[...]
...

These are all of the studies mate, are they?

Funny, here's at least one they seem to have missed:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/5/939.pdf

Non-Smoker Lung Cancer Deaths Attributable to Exposure to Spouse’s Environmental Tobacco Smoke

Jean Trédaniel, Paolo Boffetts, Radolf Saracci and Albert Hirsch

International Journal of Epidemology

It couldn't just be that you have provided a link to a pro-smoking web site which has cherry picked the studies they present. Surely you would,t stoop so low.

On your final point, I agree with you. I do not want to stop people who wish to do so from smoking. However, cigarette smoke is a proven carcinogen and I as a non-smoker strongly object to having to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. That is my red line. I feel very strongly about this. If you chose to label this hysteria, so be it.

Excellent, I will read your link and reply...

I haven't 'stooped so low' as to cherry pick studies - I gave you a link to studies which found positive and negative associations... overall when you take all studies into account there is no risk.

I appreciate your research tho, far better than quoting hysterical newspaper headlines.

I'll read it later...

[cyprusgrump]

Just reading the first page tho...

This isn't a scientific study at all...

It is an estimate of the number of deaths from second-hand smoke based on an acceptance that it is actually harmful...

It seems to be an application of a formula to generate numbers...?

I'll read the whole thing...

[miltiades]

As I mentioned, there is no scientific evidence that second-hand smoke affects your health.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to show this - Miltiades has provided a link to one such study. You are in denial. Keep your flithy, disgusting, gut-wrenching, foul, toxic, cancerogenic cigarette smoke away from me and I am happy. Do and believe as you wish.

There isn't tho...

If you actually study the scientific evidence and not the propaganda put out by the anti smoking lobby (and faithfully reproduced in the media) you will see there is no evidence...

Follow this link. It provides a list of all of the passive smoking studies along with the results.

I'm not in denial - I don't even smoke!

If I may say so, you're getting a bit hysterical about it all...

However, nobody is trying to deny you the right to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. All smokers want is the same democratic right applied to them...

SO YOU THINK THE ANTI SMOKING LOBBY SPENDS MONEY IN PROPAGANDA !!!
Why , people or organizations and governments spend money in order to promote an idea that is of interest to them , what exactly do you think the anti smoking lobby will gain ?

[Tim Drayton]

Just reading the first page tho...

This isn't a scientific study at all...

It is an estimate of the number of deaths from second-hand smoke based on an acceptance that it is actually harmful...

It seems to be an application of a formula to generate numbers...?

I'll read the whole thing...

Missing the point, I am afraid. You said that your link showed all the studies. I posted details of that one particular study to simply scotch that bold claim.

Either cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, or it isn't. If it is, then it is irrelevant whether it is first or second hand. It is harmful and I don't want to inhale it.

I want to find a solution that balances the rights of non-smokers like myself not to inhale this toxic substance with the right of other people to smoke. I do not see what is so unreasonable about this position.