Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Would you scabby buggers stop going on about smoking. Am trying to cut down !!!!!

Feck it!! Going for another fag.

Excellent! The subliminal message worked!

[bill cobbett]

Would you scabby buggers stop going on about smoking. Am trying to cut down !!!!!

Feck it!! Going for another fag.

Excellent! The subliminal message worked!

Am working on a subliminal message for CyProb to brain-wash some of our tissy friends into abandoning the Scabby Regime and to turn against the TA.

Good chance of working given how easily some of them have been brain-washed in the past?

[FragnaticDeath]

@Cyprusgrump those 2 lungs dont count in the picture for this debate?

Clearly you have never seen with your own eyes to understand the damage that tar causes to your lungs.

I have seen comparisons between 2 humans of smoking and non-smoking and TRUST ME theres a big difference.

Heres a short clip to make you understand what your takeing in your lungs and stick to your alveoli.




Clearly shows cyprusgrump you talk out of your mind without taking into consideration hard facts of proven experiments

[Get Real!]

Passive smoking: who cares about the facts?

In studies across Europe over the past decade, air quality experts at Covance Laboratories in England gave air monitors to thousands of people and measured their exposure to smoke. The startling results showed passive smokers are exposed to the equivalent of six cigarettes a year, an extra lung cancer risk of 2 per cent compared with non-smokers. The figure is 10 times lower than the BMJ studies claimed.

So small a risk is, however, in line with last week's negative findings. It also explains an awkward fact rarely mentioned by anti-smoking campaigners: more than 80 per cent of all studies of passive smoking have failed to find a statistically significant link to lung cancer. Only by subjecting them to abstruse statistical techniques can they deliver the goods.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 37934.html

[skyvet]

Whatever happened to freedom of choice? I am a smoker, and heve been for many years, and I actually enjoy a cigarette, especially at times such as when having a beer. The taxes generated by smokers have made substantial contributions to the economy, and would be sorely missed if all smokers quit overnight.
There are many things I object to in life, far too many to list here, but I tolerate them as I believe everyone has the freedom of choice, and whilst I might dislike other people's "habits" I subscribe to the policy that it is their right to do it!
Like myself, the majority of responsible smokers are aware of the fact that our "vice" is unwelcome in certain situations, and act accordingly, such as in a restaurant - after a meal if I want a cigarette, then I'd go outside to have it in consideration for those still eating.
There will always be exceptions to this rule in all walks of life, but that is human nature, and there's nothing much we can do to change that. Both smokers and non-smokers need to be more tolerant and considerate of each other. As Winston Churchill once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the end your right to say it"!
(Gets down from soap-box!)

[Gasman]

So if you smoke 380 cigs in the space of 3-4 hours, the inside of your lungs will look like the contents of the flask in the YouTube video?

[cyprusgrump]

@Cyprusgrump those 2 lungs dont count in the picture for this debate?

Clearly you have never seen with your own eyes to understand the damage that tar causes to your lungs.

I have seen comparisons between 2 humans of smoking and non-smoking and TRUST ME theres a big difference.

Heres a short clip to make you understand what your takeing in your lungs and stick to your alveoli.




Clearly shows cyprusgrump you talk out of your mind without taking into consideration hard facts of proven experiments

I think you've missed the point!

Consider this...

If both lungs were taken from people of the same age...?

And if all other environmental factors are equal (i.e. one didn't work in a coal mine while the other breathed clear mountain air)...?

Then the lungs are actually an argument FOR smoking. Given that they are both dead at the same age, why not smoke?

But to get back to the main point, this is all about personal liberties and freedom to choose.

Smokers know that smoking does not enhance your health, but it is their right and freedom to choose to do it.

All they are asking for is smoking and non-smoking establishments. Or properly segregated smoking areas in 'normal' establishments. That right has been unfairly taken away from them.

OK?

[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.

I read it...

It's not an epidemiological study and it contains no new information. It is just one of many reviews to estimate deaths from passive smoking.

Interestingly, it's co-written by P. Boffetta who did the WHO's IARC study which found no statistical association between SHS and lung cancer. So he really should no better than to assume there is a risk of 1.3.

OK?

You are still mising the point.

[Tim Drayton]

Passive smoking: who cares about the facts?

In studies across Europe over the past decade, air quality experts at Covance Laboratories in England gave air monitors to thousands of people and measured their exposure to smoke. The startling results showed passive smokers are exposed to the equivalent of six cigarettes a year, an extra lung cancer risk of 2 per cent compared with non-smokers. The figure is 10 times lower than the BMJ studies claimed.

So small a risk is, however, in line with last week's negative findings. It also explains an awkward fact rarely mentioned by anti-smoking campaigners: more than 80 per cent of all studies of passive smoking have failed to find a statistically significant link to lung cancer. Only by subjecting them to abstruse statistical techniques can they deliver the goods.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 37934.html

I am a non-smoker. It is my right to chose to be a non-smoker, just as much as it is the right of others to smoke. I do not wish to smoke six cigarettes a year, thank you very much. It is too many for me. I do not consider a 2% extra risk to be small. Smoking - yes. Passive smoking - no.

[Tim Drayton]

This is the stuff we are talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3235820.stm

What's in the smoke?

Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases.
The particulate phase includes tar, nicotine, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene.
The gas phase includes carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein.
It has been estimated that tobacco smoke contains as many as 60 substances which cause - or are suspected of causing - cancer.
And many irritate the tissues of the respiratory system.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A carcinogen - ranking it alongside asbestos and arsenic.

Do people have the right, despite being fully aware of the risks, to inhale this stuff of their own free will? Absolutely.

Do these same people have the right to force others, who of their own free will chose to have healthy life styles and not to smoke tobacco, to inhale this filth? Absolutely not.