Graphic Cig Warnings unveiled

[skiny]

Once I was standing on a street corner waiting to cross, it's a busy city and there's a lot of traffic - lots of car exhaust and big diesel trucks going by stenching up the place. Some woman also waiting to cross glances over and sees I have a cigarette in my hand, and wouldn't you know it, she starts doing this fake hack hack ack urk ahem ahem sidling away and giving me this look out of the corner of her eye. The funny thing is that the cigarette wasn't lit. So just seeing a person with a cigarette is apparently enough to cause health problems in others I guess.

And here we find the extremists... The "anti" smokers. I understand that some people don't like cigarette smoke. I know lots of people that don't smoke. I wouldn't dream of lighting up in their car. My mother doesn't smoke. Not only do I not smoke at her house but when she visits I don't smoke while she's here. At least not inside. I have a balcony.

When I'm at work I stand outside and smoke. Sometimes non smokers come outside and chat with me while I do. Sometimes my mother stands out on the balcony or at the balcony door while I do. None of them pretend to be having a stroke because I'm smoking near them.

And now for some humour. Here's David Mitchel's take on the smoking ban. (And coffee just as a bonus.)

 

[Seventh777]

Supporting Facts? Or maybe opposing. I kinda went both ways and just made comments!

I love my smokes

1) True and false- Man has been smoking for tens of thousands of years. Just not Tobacco for most of history. (Romans were known to smoke Coltsfoot for medicinal use, and of course Weed has been smoked, or eaten far into pre-history.) Tobacco was only spread to the rest of the world with the discovery of the Americas.

2) There is no way to tell. However, since the earliest historical record of cancer was discovered originating from Ancient Egypt- its safe to make the assumption that the last 3000 years of human history are not the only times that Cancer existed. Its pretty safe to assume that Cancer has existed as long as biological tissue has existed.

HOWEVER! Lung Cancer was virtually unknown- and indeed not even classified as its own disease until 1761.

3) Walter Raleigh was executed- and while he was old, I'm pretty sure he didn't die of old age or Cancer in that case. But, you can't really guess what he /would/ have died from had he continued smoking. Given historical evidence, it would have not likely been lung-cancer.

4) Cancer is caused by any number of things- but some things add to your chances to develop specific forms of cancer. Smoking, or exposing yourself to smoke (Cigarette or otherwise) is one of the ways to help develop this horrible disease. As such, smokers and non-smokers in various situations can both develop lung cancer for various reasons- smoking included.

Of course, they could also just have the genetic predisposition for it.

5) Which Hardcore smokers? Like the ones who smoke ground up bits of wood and metal and bone? That's pretty hardcore. Almost as hardcore as playing Grenade-Tennis on Grizzly back (That's the most dangerous game.)

6) Any number of house-hold pollutants could cause such an effect in animals. As could any other cancer causing agent. Again, however, if you live with a cigarette smoker your chances of cancer are higher...

Even if you're a dog.

At the end of the day- its still a chance. And unless you were bathing in toxic waste its still going to be pretty random- A CHANCE you could develop something.

So, I suppose, its a question of where your rights end and the rights of others begin.

Although- you do make an excellent point there at the end, Seven! If Clean air is SO important- why are you only going after smokers?

I hear what you`re saying, so let`s assume lung cancers are solely the cause of breathing in contaminated air, where does a high percentage of this toxin enriched air originate from?, over the years I have lost 3 close family members to cancer including my mother, only one smoked, so, is it suffice to say 66.333333% of cancer victims are none smokers? if so, why are the governments (once again) being liberal with the facts?.

Footnote:- The taxes over here on fuel are so high that most garages selling petrol do so at a loss or at the very best break even, and only the garages that also run as mini super-markets are still managing to stay open, like I previously stated i`m fully aware that smoking can cause respiratory related diseases, but it`s the tip of the iceberg of a far bigger picture. As long as governments are making money then f*&k everyone else, a huge pointer here is WWII - No matter what way you look at this the 78 million plus people who died during this *Great Campaign* can be attributed down to 5-6 people, plain and simple, because, believe it or not they were acting on our best behalf's in doing so, and ofc risking lives in horrendous situations was by far the best way to treat your nations people that you love and cherish so much .

P.S.

If you want to see the profit making war machine in full affect do some research in to whom George Bush`s grandpa was selling arms to during WWII, or Bush sr during the run up to the Gulf war.

Sorry for the slight derail.

 

[skiny]

Once again I would like to reiterate that smoking cigarettes is most definitely bad for you as is second hand smoke but the anti-smoking extremists have this ridiculous idea that all respiratory illnesses are directly attributed to cigarette smoke. The reality is we have absolutely no idea how many respiratory illness have anything to do with cigarette smoke.

The recorded incidents of lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses have grown steadily for the last 200 years or so. From what I can tell the real incline begins around the start of the industrial era. In that time the amount of fossil fuels being burned has grown exponentially as has the population density as people moved from sparsely spread farms and small towns to major cities and metropolises.

Now 200 or more years later we have non smokers dying of lung cancer in their 30s and smokers living to their 90s and although smoking is a contributor to these illnesses it is obviously not the only factor. I'm not even convinced it is the major factor.

When one person can figure out how to separate the smokers who really died from smoking cigarettes and the smokers who just died from breathing in this toxic wasteland we call "fresh air" between cigarettes then the anti-smokers can start spouting statistics at me because until that happens we really just have no idea what killed who.

All they can say with 100% certainty is "smoking is not good for you" and all I can respond with is "Thank you captain obvious."

 

[klara1968]

DO NOT SMOKE

SMOKING IS BAD BAD BAD.DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMAZING IMAGES THAT CIG COMPANIES BRING...

 

[Seventh777]

Once again I would like to reiterate that smoking cigarettes is most definitely bad for you as is second hand smoke but the anti-smoking extremists have this ridiculous idea that all respiratory illnesses are directly attributed to cigarette smoke. The reality is we have absolutely no idea how many respiratory illness have anything to do with cigarette smoke.

The recorded incidents of lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses have grown steadily for the last 200 years or so. From what I can tell the real incline begins around the start of the industrial era. In that time the amount of fossil fuels being burned has grown exponentially as has the population density as people moved from sparsely spread farms and small towns to major cities and metropolises.

Now 200 or more years later we have non smokers dying of lung cancer in their 30s and smokers living to their 90s and although smoking is a contributor to these illnesses it is obviously not the only factor. I'm not even convinced it is the major factor.

When one person can figure out how to separate the smokers who really died from smoking cigarettes and the smokers who just died from breathing in this toxic wasteland we call "fresh air" between cigarettes then the anti-smokers can start spouting statistics at me because until that happens we really just have no idea what killed who.

All they can say with 100% certainty is "smoking is not good for you" and all I can respond with is "Thank you captain obvious."

Well put sir .

 

[Seventh777]

SMOKING IS BAD BAD BAD.DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMAZING IMAGES THAT CIG COMPANIES BRING...

No one has denied this hun, but, when the cause of what single-handedly brings about the cause of - mainly high rise buildings decay is brought to the forefront and rightly exposed, there is going to be a lot of disgruntled people who look outside of the box for answers.

Why are the same pictures showing bodily rot not plastered all over petrol pumps, with the added addition of the after-effects of acid rain thrown in for good measure also?.

 

[Seventh777]

They started that in Canada years ago. This is one of my favorites, I found this one online.

View attachment 27561

EDIT: Interestingly, cigarette cases in Canada have made a comeback.

Then why do all smokers light one up just after and are good to go a few minutes later, again , hell, when i`m finished even the neighbours spark one up - and they don`t even smoke .

 

[Jasminebed]

My city passed a non-smoking by-law before there was a province-wide ban, and it included patios. They are now planning on banning smoking in parks, stadiums, beaches, and within 3 metres of the entrance to any business. In our downtown core, that will mean somewhere in the middle of the road is acceptable I guess.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[skiny]

My city passed a non-smoking by-law before there was a province-wide ban, and it included patios. They are now planning on banning smoking in parks, stadiums, beaches, and within 3 metres of the entrance to any business. In our downtown core, that will mean somewhere in the middle of the road is acceptable I guess.

 

[jinnia]

FACT: Mammograms CAUSES breast cancer.
FACT: Gas stations became "self serve" due to the increase of attendants started being diagnosed with lung cancer FROM the DEISEL FUEL EXHAUST.
FACT: Smoking tobacco INCREASES (not cause) your chance of developing lung cancer due to the WATER used on the plants. The water has sodium fluoride, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead which is ADDED, the same water we drink.
FACT: The plants are IRRADIATED WITH NUCLEAR RADIATION, the most carcinogenic part of tobacco, so is the produce we eat.

Can anyone show me a REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY proving that smoking tobacco CAUSES cancer?

 

[dionysus]

lol, whether it causes cancer or not, it's irrefutable it's BAD for you; there's no upside

 

[jinnia]

Not saying there's an upside to smoking, nor am I saying smoking isn't bad for you (now), I'm just sick and tired of all this hype how smoking "causes" cancer, when it ONLY INCREASES your chance of developing it, just like city water, produce, auto exhaust, etc., all contributed to the HUMAN animal.

 

[skiny]

FACT: Mammograms CAUSES breast cancer.
FACT: Gas stations became "self serve" due to the increase of attendants started being diagnosed with lung cancer FROM the DEISEL FUEL EXHAUST.
FACT: Smoking tobacco INCREASES (not cause) your chance of developing lung cancer due to the WATER used on the plants. The water has sodium fluoride, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead which is ADDED, the same water we drink.
FACT: The plants are IRRADIATED WITH NUCLEAR RADIATION, the most carcinogenic part of tobacco, so is the produce we eat.

Can anyone show me a REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY proving that smoking tobacco CAUSES cancer?

Taken from the website of Canadian National Cancer Institute.

Radiation exposure―Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is low, but repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer. The benefits, however, nearly always outweigh the risk.

Taken from the website of the American Cancer Society.

A single chest x-ray exposes the patient to about 0.1 mSv, which is about the radiation dose people are exposed to naturally over the course of 10 days. A mammogram exposes a woman to 0.4 mSv, or about the amount of exposure a person would expect to get in about 7 weeks.

Because radiation exposure from all sources can add up over a lifetime, and radiation can, indeed, increase cancer risk, imaging tests that use radiation should only be done for a good reason. In many cases, other imaging tests such as ultrasound or MRI may be used. But if there is a reason to believe that an x-ray or CT scan is the best way to look for cancer or other diseases, the patient will most likely be helped more than the small dose of radiation can hurt.

Millions of women have survived breast cancer as a direct result of early detection and treatment. So don't start believing you will be doing yourself any good by not having a mammogram. You're not protecting yourself by avoiding it.

 

[Mousey]

Because radiation exposure from all sources can add up over a lifetime, and radiation can, indeed, increase cancer risk, imaging tests that use radiation should only be done for a good reason. In many cases, other imaging tests such as ultrasound or MRI may be used. But if there is a reason to believe that an x-ray or CT scan is the best way to look for cancer or other diseases, the patient will most likely be helped more than the small dose of radiation can hurt.

What worries me about this stat is in cases, like my hubby, who has already had cancer (totally unrelated to cigs) TWICE (two totally different types of cancer unrelated to the other) in the past 20 years. Why does that matter? For any who have had cancer, the number of scans, x-rays, PET scans, CT scans, radioactive Stress tests, etc. repeated over and over again throughout the years is mind boggling. We fully expect him to begin glowing in the dark. Will he stop getting the periodic testing? No. As there's no other way to spot his particular type of (most recent) cancer. He will have test again in May... then more extensive testing in July. The longer he is in remission, the longer he can go between scans/check ups. But that also leaves more time for the cancer to spread should it rear its ugly head between one of the annual test sessions.

Anyway... back to those horrible warning pics on cig boxes. Why does anyone in politics and the FDA think they'll do any good? A smoker will stop when they decide for themselves to stop. A nasty pic on a packet isn't going to make that much difference is it? I think this has recently been ruled as constitutional again... so who knows what will eventually come of it.

Our government has become consumed with regulating and governing the minutia in our lives. They can't even balance a budget, so they want to feel in control by telling me I can't smoke or spend $25 at an online casino.

 

[skiny]

I'm not talking about unusual cases where people require frequent tests. I'm talking about regular check ups.

 

[Mousey]

I'm not talking about unusual cases where people require frequent tests. I'm talking about regular check ups.

Understood, and I agree.

 

[jinnia]

I don't want to read what they "claim", I want to see the ACTUAL study(ies) and the results.

Elected/appointed officials in an office, organization, etc., lie thru their noses to brainwash 'we the people'!!

 

[Glunn11]

If something "increases your chance of getting" cancer, how exactly is that different from "may cause" cancer?

Also, if you're truly interested,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

is a fairly comprehensive report that is fairly easy to read and takes data from as early as the late 18th century to the 50s. You can find many more like it by going to Google Scholar and searching for what you are interested in.

EDIT: I just realized you might not have access to the link, but here is one of the handier tables in the study. The figures are cause of death, number of deaths recorded in the study, and the ratio of smokers to non-smokers who died of that cause. (10.8:1 for lung cancer deaths, for instance)

Cancer of lung 1833 10.8
Cancer of larynx 75 5.4
Cancer of mouth 152 4.1
Cancer of oesophagus 113 3.4
Cancer of bladder 216 1.9
Cancer of kidney 120 1.5
Bronchitis and emphysema 546 6.1
Coronary heart disease 11 177 1.7
Hypertensive heart disease 631 1.5
Other heart disease 868 1.7
Other circulatory disease 649 2.6
General arteriosclerosis 310 1.5
Peptic ulcer 294 2.8
Cirrhosis of liver 379 2.2

On the bright side, smokers are less likely to die from suicide.

 

[skiny]

Which flies directly in the face of "second hand smoke causes lung cancer" since according to these results 90% of the people who die of lung cancer ARE smokers. If lung cancer is caused by several different sources and only 10% of the people who developed it are non smokers, What percentage of non smokers developed lung cancer as a direct result of second hand smoke?

Also keep in mind that millions of people die of cancer every year. This is a poll of less than 2000.

That being said, smoking is definitely bad for you and will increase your chance of dying sooner than later. You just have to be really careful how you read statistics that's all. It really bugs me when they're contradictory.

You're also probably at a higher risk of getting cancer from not wearing sun block on a high UV day than you are from having a mammogram done every 1 or 2 years. If anyone thinks that small amount of risk isn't worth finding out that you do have breast cancer early enough to do something about it then by all means, don't bother with it.

 

[Glunn11]

Which flies directly in the face of "second hand smoke causes lung cancer" since according to these results 90% of the people who die of lung cancer ARE smokers. If lung cancer is caused by several different sources and only 10% of the people who developed it are non smokers, What percentage of non smokers developed lung cancer as a direct result of second hand smoke?

Also keep in mind that millions of people die of cancer every year. This is a poll of less than 2000.

That being said, smoking is definitely bad for you and will increase your chance of dying sooner than later. You just have to be really careful how you read statistics that's all. It really bugs me when they're contradictory.

You're also probably at a higher risk of getting cancer from not wearing sun block on a high UV day than you are from having a mammogram done every 1 or 2 years. If anyone thinks that small amount of risk isn't worth finding out that you do have breast cancer early enough to do something about it then by all means, don't bother with it.

While it's obviously true that regularly smoking puts you at a very significant risk of dying of lung cancer, that doesn't necessarily contradict that second-hand smoking can pose a risk as well. However, research certainly indicates it is to a much lesser effect.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(again not sure if you can link to it or not) only really suggests that the risk is posed if you begin exposure before age 25, and even then it's 1.29:1.

You certainly have to look into statistics, which is why it's important to use them. I get frustrated when people carry on debates and usually won't participate in them because nothing is ever cited and it just turns into a big cliche-filled ideology war where it just feels like everyone is in it to gain some kind of odd Internet adrenaline rush. I just like to learn things LOL. I probably won't spend much more time in here because it's only a matter of time before it turns into a politically-oriented bitchfest.

And I would almost certainly agree with you on the mammogram thing. The information it provides is very important and melanoma from sun exposure is not something to mess with.

 

[CasinoBeacon]

If smokers actually heeded the warnings and gave up en-masse, it would leave a HUGE hole in the nation's finances as no duty would be coming in.

Absolutely. I recently tried to make this very point to my brother (a doctor, no less) but he was having none of it. Pah.

 

[jinnia]

@Glunn11

If something "increases your chance of getting" cancer, how exactly is that different from "may cause" cancer?

There is no difference in those two ways of saying it, but to say, "smoking DOES CAUSE cancer" is different.

Has anyone have a link to a single peer-reviewed report of a REAL study proving that smoking tobacco causes cancer?
Is so, please post the link to the STUDY.

I agree that smoking is bad for you, now-a-day, due to what growers and manufacturers put on/add to the tobacco. So is the produce, etc. we eat and drink.

How about GMOs?? It's actually proven to CAUSE CANCER, illness, obesity, sterility, death, and NEW health disorders, but it's ALWAYS smoking that's been targeted.

It don't matter, we all are going to die one day, one way or another, now that's PROVEN every day!