Thread: I'm Glad I'm on the Downhill Side of This Life

Originally Posted by JMS

They can't outlaw it. they would lose too much revenue.

Same with alcohol. Don't get me wrong, I'm as fond of a drop as the next guy but the abuse of the stuff has caused more misery, death and disease than use of tobacco ever did. Speaking from personal observation and first hand experience.

Originally Posted by JMS

They can't outlaw it. they would lose too much revenue.

So governments choose revenue over lives. Than why have healthcare? Kind of a double standard if you ask me.

Originally Posted by livingontheedge

So governments choose revenue over lives. Than why have healthcare? Kind of a double standard if you ask me.

When the government does it it is usually about money and power and nothing more.

Originally Posted by livingontheedge

Does not the gov. allowing tobacco sales, insinuate to some that it is not a harmful product, the gov. is quick to ban many harmful products i.e lead paint, DDT and even certain types knives because they might cause harm, so why not tobacco? If it in fact causes death or even the shortening of ones life, than it should be outlawed, or am I missing something?

Yes, you are.

It would not work.

Lead paint, DDT and ever certain types of knives have alternatives, people did not seek out lead paint because it was better than the replacements or they felt it enriched their lives in some way. DDT was one of many pesticides and it became socially unacceptable to use it, those types of knives are used by a minority of people, tell the public they are used by criminals and whey they're socially unacceptable as well.

The absolute minimum you need to make banning something largely effective is wide spread public support. The people need to believe you're doing the right thing otherwise they will simply find ways around it.

Jimmy, I think there are plenty of widows and widowers who would disagree with you. In any case, it is not a competition about which is worse.

Originally Posted by livingontheedge

Does not the gov. allowing tobacco sales, insinuate to some that it is not a harmful product, the gov. is quick to ban many harmful products i.e lead paint, DDT and even certain types knives because they might cause harm, so why not tobacco? If it in fact causes death or even the shortening of ones life, than it should be outlawed, or am I missing something?

No your not missing anything.
I would like to know if smoking and second hand smoke is so deadly trimming years off life, then why do countries like JAPAN, ISRAEL, GREECE, CUBA, with smoking rates of 45% to 60% All have some of the highest life expectancies in the world,japan with 60% smoking rate coming in at number two. The rest also in the top ten.
How can it be then that countries like the U.S.A and Australia with smoking rates of23% can,t even make the top ten, The U.S.A being at number 16 behind France who have a 40% smoking rate.
There are obviously health issues in our countries but I don,t think smoking or second hand smoke is the number one problem,far from it.
As the director of WHO was told in 1975 " to futher denormalise smoking ,we must foster an atmosphere where it is percieved that they are not just harming themselves, but those around them. especially thier family and children"

I am not so nieave as to believe that primary smoking is totally harmless, but nothing in this world is. If anyone questions my smoking I ask If they drive a car.If the answer is yes, it is the end of the discussion.I just cannot abide someone who would have a go at me for having a smoke but for themselves it is OK to drive around spewing the same pollution as 15,000 cigarettes every hour out of their exhaust and they couldn,t give a damn who has to breath it.I can tolerate a lot of things but not hypocrits.

Your comparison isn't useful because it presumes that smoking is the overwhelmingly most significant cause of shortened life expectancy; outweighing all other causes combined. Without this presumption, you can't draw any conclusion from the data you present.

For instance, the number of homicides, the obesity rate and related illnesses, the number of fatalities in automobile accidents, and several dozen other causes of death are significant enough that they would need to be removed from your life expectancy calculation to get a truly representative sample. And at that point, I'm fairly certain the numbers would look a lot worse for the point you are making.

Originally Posted by IanS

And at that point, I'm fairly certain the numbers would look a lot worse for the point you are making.

Nice to be certain if only fairly certain.

Originally Posted by IanS

Your comparison isn't useful because it presumes that smoking is the overwhelmingly most significant cause of shortened life expectancy; outweighing all other causes combined. Without this presumption, you can't draw any conclusion from the data you present.

For instance, the number of homicides, the obesity rate and related illnesses, the number of fatalities in automobile accidents, and several dozen other causes of death are significant enough that they would need to be removed from your life expectancy calculation to get a truly representative sample. And at that point, I'm fairly certain the numbers would look a lot worse for the point you are making.

But is this not the point!Overall lifestyle.These countries have extremley high smoking rates and there living longer than us, so if smoking is so bad why isn,t their life span less.The anti smoking brigade, the government have been telling everyone that it is the most significant cause.So someones telling porky pies.So do you agree with me that there are more pressing issues that need to be looked at, diet obviously is the number one factor in health and life expectancy.Second hand smoke, and third hand smoke(now theres a joke if I ever heard one) have been made out to be the cause of every ones troubles.Smokers have been made the whipping boys in todays society and are fair game for anyone with an axe to grind.The scandal of this social engineering experiment will surely go down as the biggest con of the 20th century.
Can you please explain this

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

No your not missing anything.
I would like to know if smoking and second hand smoke is so deadly trimming years off life, then why do countries like JAPAN, ISRAEL, GREECE, CUBA, with smoking rates of 45% to 60% All have some of the highest life expectancies in the world,japan with 60% smoking rate coming in at number two. The rest also in the top ten.

How can it be then that countries like the U.S.A and Australia with smoking rates of23% can,t even make the top ten, The U.S.A being at number 16 behind France who have a 40% smoking rate.

I can answer for Japan... having smoked there. The cigarettes don't have the same kind of shite the manufacturers cram in cigarettes in the west. I have smoked in America, across Europe and in Japan. The Japanese cigarettes have the lowest level of additives in the lot. For fun, look into cigarette filler material...

The other reason why Japan might have a longer life expectancy is that their culture isn't based on "stuff your face until you pass out, then stuff it some more". Ever seen what is considered obesity in Japan?

Yet another reason why Japan might have longer life expectancy is that they have (or at least had when I was there) a pretty niffty healthcare system... if you don't mind being given painkillers in the form of suppositories or being told you need to shed a stone or two every time you meet a doctor.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

There are obviously health issues in our countries but I don,t think smoking or second hand smoke is the number one problem,far from it.
As the director of WHO was told in 1975 " to futher denormalise smoking ,we must foster an atmosphere where it is percieved that they are not just harming themselves, but those around them. especially thier family and children"

Question, how would you react if I was to pulverize the following non-exhaustive list of crap around you all day?

Acetone
Aluminum
Ammonia
Arsenic
Benzene
Butane
Cadmium
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Chloroform
Cyanide
DDT/Dieldrin
Ethanol
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen cyanide
Lead
Methanol
Nicotine
Tar
Vinyl Chloride

Why should it be OK if you do it by smoking?

Or as one of my ex customers used to say when I was still smoking:
You enjoy smoking, the byproduct of your smoking gets all over my clothes and inside my lungs.
I enjoy beer, would you be happy if I ****ed all over you and down your throat?

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

I am not so nieave as to believe that primary smoking is totally harmless, but nothing in this world is. If anyone questions my smoking I ask If they drive a car.If the answer is yes, it is the end of the discussion.I just cannot abide someone who would have a go at me for having a smoke but for themselves it is OK to drive around spewing the same pollution as 15,000 cigarettes every hour out of their exhaust and they couldn,t give a damn who has to breath it.I can tolerate a lot of things but not hypocrits.

Unlike the smoker, the driver has the decency to pollute in open spaces where there is usually proper ventilation. That still doesn't render his pollution inoffensive, but there has been a lot of progress on that subject over the last few years.

Originally Posted by MichaelP

I can answer for Japan... having smoked there. The cigarettes don't have the same kind of shite the manufacturers cram in cigarettes in the west. I have smoked in America, across Europe and in Japan. The Japanese cigarettes have the lowest level of additives in the lot. For fun, look into cigarette filler material

So can you tell me about the cigarettes from Greece,Cuba,Israel,Costa rica,Spain? Also do countries like CostaRica and Cuba have better health care than us?


Question, how would you react if I was to pulverize the following non-exhaustive list of crap around you all day?

Acetone
Aluminum
Ammonia
Arsenic
Benzene
Butane
Cadmium
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Chloroform
Cyanide
DDT/Dieldrin
Ethanol
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen cyanide
Lead
Methanol
Nicotine
Tar
Vinyl Chloride

Why should it be OK if you do it by smoking?

Most of that same crap as you call it is in the food you eat and the water you drink and in much higher concentrations.The rest you are inhaling as vapor from all the plastic that surrounds you in your house, office and car.The only thing you won,t be getting a dose of will be the nicotine.

Or as one of my ex customers used to say when I was still smoking:
You enjoy smoking, the byproduct of your smoking gets all over my clothes and inside my lungs.
I enjoy beer, would you be happy if I ****ed all over you and down your throat?

This comment is just ridiculous,if everyone went around handing out payback to people, for doing something they didn,t like it would be a sad world and a very violent one. I am not partial to cars but I wouldn,t stop you from owning one,I am not partial to alcohol but I wouldn,t stop you from having one, I am not partial to gun,s but I wouldn,t stop you from owning one.Instead of making with the smart arse comments why didn,t this customer politley ask if you would mind not smoking around him? instead of threatening to expose himself in public and urinating on you. A little courtesy goes a long way.

Unlike the smoker, the driver has the decency to pollute in open spaces where there is usually proper ventilation. That still doesn't render his pollution inoffensive, but there has been a lot of progress on that subject over the last few years.

Well I do not know where you live but the only place you can smoke where I live, is in the open spaces.As for progress on car pollution, in research yes but in reality on the roads virtually nothing.