MHF

Lie #1; 80 - 90% of smokers get lung cancer (Not even close)

Only 70 out of 100,000 people get lung cancer which is seriously less than the smoking rate.

%0.005 of US population affected by lung cancer or (1 in 1904)

-- Of the few who do get Lung Cancer

60% of lung cancers diagnosed are never smokers or quit smoking

40% are currently smokers

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/f/...

lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US

According to WHO/CDC Data

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-...

In Japan Non-Smokers have a HIGHER risk of lung cancer than smokers do

"Lung cancer mortality of our Japanese sample was lower among current smokers and higher among non-smokers regardless of age and sex."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15723657?ordina...

Lie #2 - Secondhand smoke is harmful (Only if you'd call dust a serious harm also)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292799...

“Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk”(p. 5)

“Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (***from non-tobacco

sources***) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.” (p. 7)

“ETS exposure was not found to significantly increase risk among never smokers in this study”(p.7)

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

Lie #3 - Anyone who says otherwise works for the tobacco company (Dare to dream)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC217389...

"These stories suggest a willingness of influential anti-tobacco activists, including academics, to hurt legitimate scientists and turn epidemiology into junk science in order to further their agendas. "

Why are some people so set on being ignorant about the truth?

So this is just one true fact of probably many circumstances:

In my parents direct family line (which is very old) I have had 3 - Uncles get lung cancer. They passed on at ages 72, 78, and 87. Of the three only one was a smoker, he was the only one to live to 87 but people just keep talking like how if the smoking uncle had quit he would've lived forever. They don't notice that the other two uncles never smoked and got lung cancer and passed away even sooner.

Actually it seems quite apparent to me that most people do this. Never and non-smokers get terminal illnesses all the time and well its, "Just too bad" but when someone who smokes gets one of these its, "because they smoked". Is the world biased about smoking?

**Just to throw even more into the mix**

Below are stats from government health officials. (Sticking to the facts not the “statistically believed”)

- 158,683 people died from lung cancer

- AT LEAST (probably more than) 60% of lung cancers diagnosed today occur in those who either have never smoked or quit smoking in the past.

%0.005 of US population affected by lung cancer or (1 in 1904)

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2007/20...

(07 population) http://lungcancer.about.com/od/whatislungcancer/f/...

The national cancer institute study says:

"the lung cancer death rate for black males was more than 36% than for white males"....."even though the peak prevalence of smoking among black males in that cohort never achieved that of white males"..."The reason for this disparity in lung cancer death rates is not clear. Differences in smoking behavior other than prevalence may play a role, such as the type of cigarette smoked".(pg 95)

Graphs on pg 99 show increases in lung cancer rates with a large decrease in smoking rates among black & white males. "As smoking rates converged for white & black females in later cohorts, lung cancer deaths rates remained the approximately equivalent"..."despite lower smoking rates among black females, may AGAIN suggest a lung cancer risk that is NOT attributable to smoking."(pg 108).

Yet on public media they claim the science is clear?

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/1/...

There is ONLY ONE oldest living person in the world - Isn't it odd that that person was a smoker?

The oldest living person ever recorded – smoked from 21 to 117 yrs old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

Question #1 - When you find charcoal on your steak do you

1) Spew judgmental statements at the cook for putting the steak on the frying pan that was too hot causing carbon residues that might be UN-healthy.

2) Call your local politician demanding the restaurant allow you the choice to have boiled stake?

3) Start a movement to just ban fried steak from all restaurants.

4) Just eat the steak you've been served and accept that tiny risks are just a part of life (and enjoyment of life) and part of being an adult is dealing with life's circumstances that might not always be what you find perfectly healthy?

Question #2 - When someone smokes in your vicinity do you

1) Spew judgmental statements at the smoker for putting secondhand smoke in the air.

2) Call your local politician demanding all restaurants have separated smoking / non-smoking areas.

3) Start a movement to just ban smokers from all public venues.

4) Just deal with it because accepting tiny inconveniences are just part of life and part of being an adult is dealing with life's circumstances and respecting others ability to do something you might believe is not find perfectly healthy?

Question #3 - If you could pick your neighbors would you pick

1) Neighbors who are compulsively judgmental

2) Neighbors who demand you reserve half of your driveway for them to park in

3) Neighbors who build a movement to dictate who your friends and visitors are by legal intervention.

4) Neighbors who accept that the world doesn't revolve around them and that part of being an adult is dealing with neighbors in a tolerant, friendly and accepting manner even though they might believe your cooking stinks?

Final Question - Out of 1,2,3,4 what kind of world do you want to encourage?

Are Christians, Catholics, Jewish or atheists peoples lifestyles right or wrong? What's the best lifestyle? The right lifestyle? What is bad and what is good? Who's going to suffer the damages of hell and who are going to heaven in perfect health?

Doesn't political health today sounds just like political religion? Maybe the government shouldn't be addressing personal health (like a religion). What are your thoughts?

1) My Uncle died of lung cancer at 52.

2) My Grandpa died of heart disease at 76.

3) My Sister had a serious case of asthma and died at 42.

4) My other Uncle died of a heart attack at 90.

5) My Aunt had a heart attack at 92; but she was a smoker so smoking causes heart attacks.

6) My other Aunt died of lung cancer at 55; but she was a smoker so smoking causes lung cancer.

The first 4 were never smokers or around smokers.

Seriously; Is it not true that college smoking bans are discouraging people from continuing their education.

Seriously; Is it not true that city councils are discouraging people from being socially co-operative by passing discriminating laws against a population with a desire/habit on a purchased private property.

Seriously; Didn't the fraudulent claims about secondhand smoke already get busted open in a court case?

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html

“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

Seriously; When someone goes into a country bar, what gives them the right to legislate that bar into rock bar because they might not appreciate country music? If someone is playing there country music and one can hear it; is it too much to ask of them to deal with it because they ARE NOT A CHILD?

3/4 of your taxes went to state and 1/4 of your taxes went to federal.

What if gay-marriage, health reform, gun rights, and border control was handled at the state level?

Would there be 50 variations of politics one could choose from?

It really bothers me that so many are so happy to steal away other peoples freedoms as long is its not their own. Mandatory health insurance, pointless building inspections, smoking bans, soda bans, Trans fat bans, gun bans, licensing dirt bikes.... Punish the real crime fine; but why as time goes by do so many people want to take away personal freedom from everyone but themselves and why do we allow this after fighting all the wars in the past that threatened our right to be free from dictatorship - where's all the warriors now???

Just think how much money could be made if cigarettes were a prescription drug at $80/hit..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC201438...

"there is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that smoking protects against ulcerative colitis"

http://www.naturalnews.com/034608_nicotine_brain_f...

“natural therapy for various ailments from colds to tuberculosis.”

“nicotine can boost the growth of new blood vessels and might lead to novel treatments for poor circulation in diabetics”

“nicotine patches could help depression “

“it shows nicotine from tobacco seems to do what countless, expensive Big Pharma pills have failed at -- it improves mild memory loss in older adults.”

http://www.schizophrenia.com/nicotine.benefits.htm

“Scientists are testing nicotine and related compounds as treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and other conditions”

“increasing alertness while providing a sense of relaxation and calm “

I've heard it said multiple times that smoking stimulates the brain. Could that be the reason why the fragile minds of Anti-Smokers are so easily persuaded into a theory so ridiculous as saying a little smoke in the air is some kind of make-believe health hazard deemed threatening enough to be regulated? Have Anti-smokers lost the logical functioning of their brain to the point that they can no longer make the obvious connection that more makes more impact and less makes less impact (thought that was simple common sense). Being that smokers tend to live as long as non-smokers; the assumption that their million times more exposure is somehow exempt from the laws of science and common sense in general seems completely retarded. Will the world get dumber as more people stop smoking?

Smoke is smoke... The only difference is one exposes 100x more smoke to children.. Where's smoke police at scout camp?? Why can't people get over themselves and just let smoke exist in the world like has for decades without any issues until some people make up some far-fetched excuses to try and ban it??

1) Swine flue needing quarantined only to find it was extremely rare later?

2) Global warming - only to find out later it was just university cycle.

3) Secondhand smoke - still going on, but deception is found at every corner.

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC216493...

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html

“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

A long time ago, everyone knew the REAL danger to smoking. It went like, "possibly taking a few years short of a full life, small chance of emphysema or cancer at an old age.". The results are the same today; most smoker WILL live past 70yrs old and we all know it! Most won't suffer some sort of 10yr disease either. A few? Well yes, but what about the few that aren't smokers that go through the same diseases????

Somewhere along the line a lot of people got REALLY STUPID about it. Making up the dumbest things like if one smells secondhand smoke they are gonna have health issues or babies can't be raised by smoking parents or they'll die. It seems to have gotten stupider and stupider as time goes by. When did common-sense go out the window and STUPID set in?

The biggest argument from anti-smokers is that smokers have no right to cause them to inhale anything they find UN-acceptable. I find this thinking a bit self-centered and self-entitling that one would say no-one else has a right to do something because it affects what one smells or finds irritating.

How many anti-smokers smell of perfume, body odor, dump massive amounts of car exhaust, go camping and smoke up the air, have smelly feet, emit paint fumes, drive diesel trucks (for no apparent reason) and etc... The list could go on endlessly. Do Anti-smokers only consider the ME-Sided-Rights and others (IE. smokers) have none? When did Anti-Smokers get rights to all air, even the air within someone else s property. (IE. pubs/bars/restraunts.)

I'm sorry there has been so many that have been mis-informed and manipulated so easily by the media. It's still just smoke and no matter how much one tries to dramatizes it and tries so hard to call it names like secondhand smoke and labeling it as major health concern - it still doesn't break the laws of science; The only death that could ever occur from smoke is in massive concentrated amounts like being inside a house on fire.

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717o%E2%80%A6

“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

So those that like to discriminate others based on their personal habits have found an EXCUSE that seems to be enough in many political rings to allow politicians to join the discrimination band wagon.

I find it appalling how many are so eager to discriminate others on personal habits. I thought legal discrimination had been done away with years ago. What will be next? Banning pregnant women from being outside because sun causes cancer - and her baby has rights too? Banning gum chewing because germs can spread? Regulating finger-nail lengths since they can carry UN-healthy and spreadable diseases? Any one of these personal habits could be dramatized and pegged by the media and health officials and be the blame for x-number of deaths every year. We hear this nut-job mentality everyday.

What is the best way to stop this discrimination and bullying? How do you get politicians to be reasonable about the FACT that no matter how many lies and drama-queen statements have been made about smoke, it's still just 1/4"s of dried weeds emitting smoke; just like camp fires, weed burning, and vehicle exhaust. Its discriminating that they target the least pollutant of all the other combustible items we deal with.

At the root of the debate on smoking bans. Anti-Smokers are claiming the ownership of all Air rights. Even air within someone else s property (IE. bar/pubs/restaurants). Do they have rights to claim ownership of the air in someone else s building? Seems extremely twisted. Does that mean when political trends switch smokers can claim rights to air within Anti-Smokers households and pursue rights to smoke in their homes? What about open air that so many factories, vehicles, and nature itself pollutes all the time - who owns that air? If it's shared air and managed by the government with taxes that wouldn't it be true that smokers own more air than Anti-smokers since they pay so much more in taxes? If your house catches on fire or you burn weeds do you have to pay ownership fees on the air you pollute?

Exhaust fumes from a vehicle contain 100x more toxins than secondhand smoke does (don't believe it; go sit in the garage with the car running). Riding bicycles is a proven healthy practice. If publicly funded Universities and Colleges are so concerned about every students health that they have to ban behavior then wouldn't it make more sense to ban all vehicles from a campus?

I ride a bicycle to class so there's no reason I should have to smell stinky un-healthy car exhaust on my way to class just because there are those that have chosen to not practice the healthy lifestyle of bicycle riding. Does that make it harder to be to class on-time; well hows that any different than forcing smokers off a 3-mile wide campus to grab a smoke between classes? Worried about not having shelter and catching pneumonia? Hows that any different for those that smoke? The campus is too far away to get there without a car? Hows that any different than the ultimatum set in place for smokers at a smoke free campus; to either stop smoking or be burdened with finding a place clear off campus (IE. Find a place to park your car off campus or don't bring it at all.)

You tell me; Should vehicles be banned from all colleges and universities? Or should everyone just chill out and learn to be nice and accepting of each other?

The secondhand smoke scare tactic was already reviewed by a court system of which it failed so miserably the EPA was accused of flat out frauding their data analysis, yet for some reason million of people and organization just keep lying about it. Why can't they just accept they were wrong?

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html

“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear, or worry; by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety; or by a combination of such obsessions and compulsions.