thats just it though....they're not toxic fumes, they're burning leaves!
Now, the huge ammount of DEADLY fumes that comes out of the exhaust pipe of your car......well....thats another story
As for "overwhelming evidence".....see post 42.
Smoking
- Thread starter billofengland
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
thats just it though....they're not toxic fumes, they're burning leaves!
Now, the huge ammount of DEADLY fumes that comes out of the exhaust pipe of your car......well....thats another story
As for "overwhelming evidence".....see post 42.
thats just it though....they're not toxic fumes, they're burning leaves!
Now, the huge ammount of DEADLY fumes that comes out of the exhaust pipe of your car......well....thats another story
The harmful toxins and chemical substances found in cigarettes and cigarette smoke.
The combustion of tobacco produces a type of smoke that contains more than 4000 substances and chemicals, which are made up of particles and gases that can be inhaled and absorbed into the body.
Many of these chemicals are extremely dangerous, not only for the smoker but also for those people nearby.
The International Cancer Investigation Agency has identified over 50 carcinogenic substances in tobacco smoke. 11 of the substances are proven to cause cancer in humans, 7 probably cause cancer in humans and 49 of the substances cause cancer in animals but have not yet been proven to in humans.
Other substances found in environmental tobacco smoke are certainly poisonous and most definitely none are beneficial to a person's health.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a Group A carcinogen. This means that there is more than enough evidence to prove that tobacco smoke, whether it is inhaled by the smoker or the non-smoker, can cause cancer in humans.
Mainstream and sidestream smoke both contain a huge number of toxic, poisonous and carcinogenic substances.
.............................................................................................................................................................
This is a sample of what your "burning leaves" consist of mate! However, I do agree with you regarding car fumes, and that is why I use a bicycle as much as possible...The quicker we ban fuel guzzling cars from being on the roads the better!
Ooooh '73, that was cutting.No, I'm one of the smoking mates who won't be there. To hell with it.
So you'd be hiding from yourself then?
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and STATISTICS.......Disraeli.
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts,
they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." - Dr. Who
Davros
Was it not you who quoted one piece of research to try to back up your futile claims that cigarettes are not harmful to health!
As I stated earlier; you do not have to be a scientist to realise that breathing smoke into your lungs will eventually kill you...
The one thing that I have noticed about some smokers is that they seem afraid to face that very fact!
I for one have seen friends and family members die horrible deaths which I know were down to smoking..Long-term smokers almost always develop chest complaints and look older than their years, and you don't need to be a scientist to know that this is true..
Was it not you who quoted one piece of research to try to back up your futile claims that cigarettes are not harmful to health!
As I stated earlier; you do not have to be a scientist to realise that breathing smoke into your lungs will eventually kill you...
The one thing that I have noticed about some smokers is that they seem afraid to face that very fact!
I for one have seen friends and family members die horrible deaths which I know were down to smoking..Long-term smokers almost always develop chest complaints and look older than their years, and you don't need to be a scientist to know that this is true..
i blame all the tension on this thread on billofengland! he started this thread during what was probably the most boring week ever on not 606. he knew this would happen. it was inevitable.
forget a ban on smoking, i say we ban billo for one week! like cigarettes, i think chemicals have been added to bill as well. time for him to take a time out.
now, who would do a straight swap henderson for welbeck???
forget a ban on smoking, i say we ban billo for one week! like cigarettes, i think chemicals have been added to bill as well. time for him to take a time out.
now, who would do a straight swap henderson for welbeck???
If people do not want to smoke, or be around people who smoke, fair enough. Is it also not fair for those of us who WANT to be able to have a pint AND a ***, IN A PUB, to be able to??
If approx. 30% of the population smoke, then how about having 30% of pubs as smoking pubs - the other 70% can remain non-smoking?
Better still leave it up to the publicans who own/run the premises to decide, as I'm sure they will weigh carefully the desires of THEIR own clientele. On the other hand we could leave it to the thought Nazi's and health fascists to tell 30% of the people how they WILL live their lives.
A novel and innovative approach....it's called freedom of choice. I've got relatives buried in graves (or at the bottom of the sea) who died defending this concept in this country.
If approx. 30% of the population smoke, then how about having 30% of pubs as smoking pubs - the other 70% can remain non-smoking?
Better still leave it up to the publicans who own/run the premises to decide, as I'm sure they will weigh carefully the desires of THEIR own clientele. On the other hand we could leave it to the thought Nazi's and health fascists to tell 30% of the people how they WILL live their lives.
A novel and innovative approach....it's called freedom of choice. I've got relatives buried in graves (or at the bottom of the sea) who died defending this concept in this country.
Davros FTM
Sorry mate your arguments full of holes.
"SCIENTISTS CANNOT OFFER ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS. THIS IS FACT!!!"
Yes they can and they have. The World Health Organisation is an agency of the United Nations and they are full of scientisits FACT. Their research is more up to date than Enstroms.
AND HERE'S TWO BIG FACTS.......
1. Enstrom was fired from his post at University of California and Los Angeles last year.
2. This study you identified was funded by Philip Morris Int a rather large american tobacco company.
Alarm bells ringing yet?
I'm afraid you've contradicted yourself on these quotes also!
"thats just it though....they're not toxic fumes, they're burning leaves!"
"Smoking is a killer.....passive smoking isn't."
You say smoking is a killer in one sentence but then also state its just burning leaves! So which is it?
Also if you accept smoking is a killer do you believe that the person inhaling that smoke somehow purifies it in their lungs before exhaling thus rendering it inert and harmless?
Look I can see you love smoking and are passionate about defending your pleasures (and i support your right to smoke) but you need to look at the bigger picture and not just cling onto one study that supports your own beliefs.
James Enstrom may well be "fiercely anti-smoking", I'm fiercely anti-Newcastle but give me ã100'000 and i'll go and sit in the gallowgate end for a season! Cheering would be out of the question though!!
Last word....I dont like to argue with a fellow mackem but please understand when my knowledge and beliefs are questioned i will stand up for myself, much like yourself.
Sorry mate your arguments full of holes.
"SCIENTISTS CANNOT OFFER ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS. THIS IS FACT!!!"
Yes they can and they have. The World Health Organisation is an agency of the United Nations and they are full of scientisits FACT. Their research is more up to date than Enstroms.
AND HERE'S TWO BIG FACTS.......
1. Enstrom was fired from his post at University of California and Los Angeles last year.
2. This study you identified was funded by Philip Morris Int a rather large american tobacco company.
Alarm bells ringing yet?
I'm afraid you've contradicted yourself on these quotes also!
"thats just it though....they're not toxic fumes, they're burning leaves!"
"Smoking is a killer.....passive smoking isn't."
You say smoking is a killer in one sentence but then also state its just burning leaves! So which is it?
Also if you accept smoking is a killer do you believe that the person inhaling that smoke somehow purifies it in their lungs before exhaling thus rendering it inert and harmless?
Look I can see you love smoking and are passionate about defending your pleasures (and i support your right to smoke) but you need to look at the bigger picture and not just cling onto one study that supports your own beliefs.
James Enstrom may well be "fiercely anti-smoking", I'm fiercely anti-Newcastle but give me ã100'000 and i'll go and sit in the gallowgate end for a season! Cheering would be out of the question though!!
Last word....I dont like to argue with a fellow mackem but please understand when my knowledge and beliefs are questioned i will stand up for myself, much like yourself.
Not once have I said that smoking cigarettes are not harmful to health. On the contrary, I stated earlier that cigarettes are a killer!
So called "PASSIVE SMOKING" is what I have been debating, which evidence shows is a complete lie....{see post 42}
I, too, have known people die from smoking cigarettes....this is not in question.
I don't know of a single person who has died from inhaling second hand smoke.......and neither do you.
I was a heavy smoker, 60 + a day then I gave up around 12 years ago, best thing I ever did. My lady however is a smoker, smokes in the house, in the car and when we are out. I hear all the argument about passive smoking, bad for health and bad for your wealth but I would no more tell my lady she cant than I would tell her sho cant eat black pudding because I dont like it. Non smokers or reformed smokers seem to think smokers have lost a brain cell or two, they do understand that it can kill you!
Its sad how the pub is no longer a viable business, drink driving, smoking, cheap booze and finance have all combined to kill them off, then, when they do find a way of making money and filling the place Niall jumps in and wants them banned.
I agree with dring driving bans, I would have zero tollerance.
Smoking kills and I wish everyone would stop.
This financial problem is affecting everyone.
I wish we would fill the stadium every game.
Problem is that its easy to be very moral and good for me, I dont smoke, drink very little, am OK with cash and have a season ticket, do I really have the right to preach, dont think so.
Its sad how the pub is no longer a viable business, drink driving, smoking, cheap booze and finance have all combined to kill them off, then, when they do find a way of making money and filling the place Niall jumps in and wants them banned.
I agree with dring driving bans, I would have zero tollerance.
Smoking kills and I wish everyone would stop.
This financial problem is affecting everyone.
I wish we would fill the stadium every game.
Problem is that its easy to be very moral and good for me, I dont smoke, drink very little, am OK with cash and have a season ticket, do I really have the right to preach, dont think so.
Bill I know you only wanted a quite smoke mateââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â¦.. but look at what you've started
Think I need a ***
Davros
Put two people in a room and get one of them to smoke - which you've stated is harmful and kills. Now do you honestly believe that the smoke coming off the cigarette and exhaled from the smokers lungs will not be inhaled by the non smoker at some point????
Oh and do you know anybody who has died from ebola? No? Me neither but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
Put two people in a room and get one of them to smoke - which you've stated is harmful and kills. Now do you honestly believe that the smoke coming off the cigarette and exhaled from the smokers lungs will not be inhaled by the non smoker at some point????
Oh and do you know anybody who has died from ebola? No? Me neither but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
This is obviously a very emotive subject which is going to polarize opinions, but I can't for the life of me see how certain posters can argue that the smoke they are exhaling will not have detrimental consequences for others! It's like saying that cigarette butts that inevitably get thrown on the ground doesn't count as litter!
For the record, some of my best mates are smokers, and I have had many an argument with them over this subject, but it certainly doesn't mean I love them any less.
For the record, some of my best mates are smokers, and I have had many an argument with them over this subject, but it certainly doesn't mean I love them any less.
Good point.....and this is exactly what the biggest study into passive smoking entailed. Two prominent, anti-smoking scientists, being funded by the American Cancer Society, studied 118,094 couples for nearly 40 years.
Their "guinea pigs", were non-smokers living with smokers.
After 40 years of study, when asked for their results, they said....
"We can CONCLUSIVELY say that there is NO LINK WHATSOEVER between inhaling second hand smoke, and cancer or heart disease. The only statistic of note that we found, was that the non-smokers were widowed earlier than average"
So why are the results of the world's only large-scale, long-term survey in this field not more widely appreciated? Because these honest scientists have been ignored by governments and smeared by health campaigners as being in the pay of "Big Tobacco". Indeed this is partially true - but only because the anti-smoking organisations that originally supported their research (such as the American Cancer Society) dropped them like a hot potato the moment they realised they were failing to reach the "right" answer. Scientists need funds, so their work had to be completed with support from the tobacco industry.
"Passive smoking" in other words is a total lie, invented by health and safety agitators and connived in by the state in order to railroad through an iniquitous law by pretending it's about the "public interest".
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...d-for-you-but-is-it-really-so-bad-454412.html
W
Wherewereyou
Guest
I'm not going to get involved in the fight, but have to mention that when my ex-wife once went to the GP, on looking down her throat he asked her how many a day she smoked. She'd never had one in her life, but at the time I was on 40 a day. Mind you, she never stopped ****ing gassing, so that might have had something to do with it.
Trying to get through to Davros is akin to
As has been stated over and over again those scientists sold their souls to the tabacco companies who paid them good money for that conclusion...Almost every research before or since has came up with a totally different conclusion.
I think that me and you are never going to compromise our opinions on this one Davros...
As has been stated over and over again those scientists sold their souls to the tabacco companies who paid them good money for that conclusion...Almost every research before or since has came up with a totally different conclusion.
I think that me and you are never going to compromise our opinions on this one Davros...