Rant!

[davrosFTM]

Asthma cases have risen in line with the number of vehicles on the roads, so you're surely not trying to say that smoking prevents asthma are you?

In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156

These results suggest that nicotine modulates allergy/asthma primarily by suppressing eosinophil trafficking and suppressing Th2 cytokine/chemokine responses without reducing goblet cell metaplasia or mucous production and may explain the lower risk of allergic diseases in smokers. http://www.jimmunol.org/content/180/11/7655.abstract

Conclusion
Personal and parental smoking is associated with a reduced risk of allergic sensitization in people with a family history of atopy.
http://www.jacionline.org/article/PIIS0091674907019549/abstract

It's not me saying it MrRaW....it's the scientists.

 

[MackemsRule]

In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156

These results suggest that nicotine modulates allergy/asthma primarily by suppressing eosinophil trafficking and suppressing Th2 cytokine/chemokine responses without reducing goblet cell metaplasia or mucous production and may explain the lower risk of allergic diseases in smokers. http://www.jimmunol.org/content/180/11/7655.abstract

Conclusion
Personal and parental smoking is associated with a reduced risk of allergic sensitization in people with a family history of atopy.
http://www.jacionline.org/article/PIIS0091674907019549/abstract

It's not me saying it MrRaW....it's the scientists.

I think we may be wearing out our keyboards for nothing mate.
Some people will always base their views on SUN headlines and not on facts.
It's the same with the Global Warming **** and you can't pose an opposite view using actual facts as people believe the headlines.
The World Health Organisational has been proved liars in this and are the body most quoted by the Anti's.

 

[davrosFTM]

I think we may be wearing out our keyboards for nothing mate.
Some people will always base their views on SUN headlines and not on facts.
It's the same with the Global Warming **** and you can't pose an opposite view using actual facts as people believe the headlines.
The World Health Organisational has been proved liars in this and are the body most quoted by the Anti's.

I think you're right MR....Penn and Teller may be more to their liking!

Second Hand Smoke Bullshit
[video=youtube;l6WITuzkS_g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WITuzkS_g[/video]

 

[MackemsRule]

I think you're right MR....Penn and Teller may be more to their liking!

Second Hand Smoke Bullshit
[video=youtube;l6WITuzkS_g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WITuzkS_g[/video]

Never seen that before, they are saying a lot of what Joe Jackson was.
They missed an important one in the good ole USofA they remove funding from anyone who doesn't toe the anti smoking line. hahaha

I knew about the that report they threw out of court as having no basis in fact.
Yet they still use it as the proof for anti smoking laws.

 

[davrosFTM]

Don't know if you're interested MR, but there's a few 'Smokers Rights' groups on facebook.

Friends of Forest http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/forest.smoking/
FORCES International http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/37311799794/
Anti smoking exposed - Tobacco Control Out of Control - Fighting Back http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/122064207817330/
Action on Smoking Bans http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/270247819677754/

 

[MackemsRule]

Oh my God just seen this advert on Dave while watching QI.
Where the **** do they get this **** from?

[video=youtube;klO-17ECC0E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klO-17ECC0E[/video]

 

[MackemsRule]

Don't know if you're interested MR, but there's a few 'Smokers Rights' groups on facebook.

Friends of Forest http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/forest.smoking/
FORCES International http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/37311799794/
Anti smoking exposed - Tobacco Control Out of Control - Fighting Back http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/122064207817330/
Action on Smoking Bans http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/270247819677754/

Don't do facebook or twitter mate.
Sadly methinks with the likes of the World Health Organisation being involved in the anti smoking debate using lies and misinformation, it will be like pissing against the wind.
The WHO was started to help in developing countries and to wipe out disease by the United Nations.
It is now just another political organisation that spends more on it's political agendas than it does on actually helping starving and dying children.

 

[MackemsRule]

There are also many contradictory statistics out there for those who care to look.
Native Americans have half the rate of lung cancer of white Americans even though they smoke much more.
Very few Chinese women smoke and yet they have one of the highest lung cancer rates in the world.
Lung cancer rates practically everywhere have been rising since about 1930 and in
some cases (e.g. American women) have not peaked yet, despite the fact that smoking rates have gone steadily down.
Japan, one of the world’s heaviest-smoking nations, is also in the top two or
three in life expectancy. Japanese rates of lung cancer and heart disease have nevertheless been rising for the last 3 decades - at the same time as their smoking rate has gone down.
Perhaps this is because their diet and lifestyle have become increasingly Americanised. I really don’t know.
All I’m saying is that ‘inconvenient’ facts should be investigated, rather than swept under the carpet.

 

[monkmaster]

Sorry if your offended but trust me, if you smoke, you do smell......you just can.t smell it because you smoke.

WTF!
I wouldn't want to SOCIALIZE with a bigotted uneducated sod like you anyway.
Point me to one of these people who have been killed whilst socializing!
There isn't one death certificate in the world with KILLED BY SECOND HAND SMOKE on!
As for smelling rancid you seem to have a personal problem of being a smell magnet.
I can assure you I don't smell rancid.

I shall state again I want choice I don't want to force that choice on others, that is DEMOCRACY!

 

[MackemsRule]

Sorry if your offended but trust me, if you smoke, you do smell......you just can.t smell it because you smoke.

You also accused me of murder!

 

[brb]

Just thought I would join you on your rant...

The reason you can not have your pubs for smokers is because successive governments in this country have tried to do their utmost to destroy anything that was ever associated with the working classes. Taxing our traditional watering holes into extinction and then after realising that same taxation was failing to prevent us smoking, decided to ban it instead. Only after brain washing most of the population into being perfume smelling, health conscious, wannabe's. Yet while allowing the fast food outlets strangely to expand over the last 2-3 decades at an alarming rate (the power of McDonalds), we are not allowed the simple extractors that would clear the air indoors to allow non smokers and smokers to breath freely together, instead they would rather have us all gathering under some shelter, to suck in an even higher level of smoke content than they were ever protecting us from, while the few pubs left remain empty inside. Do not worry though the government continue to have our well being at heart (excuse the pun), now they are going to ensure their is a minimum price on alcohol. Tie this in with all the legislation already in football stadiums, no standing, no smoking, no drinking alcohol in view of the pitch and a camera watching your every behaviour you eventually realise the nanny state has already taken over. Anyway at least we will all happily live much longer, enabling us to work longer and pay more taxes and instead of passing on our inheritance, we will be able to pass it on to our private care homes that are nursing us while we all die gracefully peeing our pants.

I am voting brb!

The harsh reality of all this is regardless of which side of the fence you fall in regards to the debate and whatever your views, you are still going to die. The question I would ask, is how do you hope you will die but then look at your lifestyle and putting aside smoking, what part of that lifestyle do you think might be a potential health risk and possibly kill you before your so called time and are you prepared to change that course of events NOW?

I will give you an example, let us take recent media news in regards to the dreaded cancer, where 'new figures suggest that by 2027, 50 men out of every 100 are likely to be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime.' - 'The cancers set to increase most in the next 15 years include prostate' http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tv-campaign-mens-cancer-risk-hits-50-105407999.html#sul0c1u

So does that mean the government are going to start banning soda drinks in the same way as smoking, where a 15-year study just one fizzy drink a day might raise your chances of developing aggressive prostate cancer. 'Prostate cancer is among the most common cancers in men.'

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/yet-another-reason-to-avoid-soda-prostate-cancer.html#ixzz2GO8a2DN0

Now those linked reports could be utter rubbish but I am just using them to highlight, believe the government or the power of the media to suit your cause, I wonder if we will see adverts of a tumour growing on the outside of a can of coke next or obesity adverts condemning the fast food chains, with an obese person printed on every burger carton?

Instead of when a NON smoker goes to the doctors with a cough or cold and being asked if they smoke, the men will be asked how many cans of soda drink they have a day or do the Burger Giants and Soda Brands have more world dominance and power than the likes of Marlboro and Benson & Hedges, for governments to even think about scaring the public in the same way as cigarettes.

 

[MrRAWhite]

In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156

These results suggest that nicotine modulates allergy/asthma primarily by suppressing eosinophil trafficking and suppressing Th2 cytokine/chemokine responses without reducing goblet cell metaplasia or mucous production and may explain the lower risk of allergic diseases in smokers. http://www.jimmunol.org/content/180/11/7655.abstract

Conclusion
Personal and parental smoking is associated with a reduced risk of allergic sensitization in people with a family history of atopy.
http://www.jacionline.org/article/PIIS0091674907019549/abstract

It's not me saying it MrRaW....it's the scientists.

I've just checked through the sources of these findings and virtually every claim comes from research paid for by the tabacco industry...No surprise there though eh...

 

[MackemsRule]

I've just checked through the sources of these findings and virtually every claim comes from research paid for by the tabacco industry...No surprise there though eh...

So where the funding comes from makes the science invalid?
I notice you didn't say ALL !
Plus they would be extra careful to get their facts RIGHT and back them up unlike the lies spouted by the anti smoking zealots.
But they will be wrong as people like the WHO the Surgeon General and the British Health minister don't lie do they?
Sorry Reg you were saying the same about the Global Warming science.
The scientists head where the money is and come up with the answers that keep them in jobs.
In Global Warming they change from getting colder and harsher winters to getting hotter and milder winters as the money is now in Global Warming being fact.

Lets ignore the fact that the Earth is in continual climate cycles though, as there's no money in that.
Lets ignore the fact people get smoking related cancers, who have never been beside a smoker in their life.

Lets keep statistics though, just avoid using ones that contradict our stance.
Oh and lets manipulate those statistics to terrify people.

 

[MrRAWhite]

So where the funding comes from makes the science invalid?
I notice you didn't say ALL !
Plus they would be extra careful to get their facts RIGHT and back them up unlike the lies spouted by the anti smoking zealots.
But they will be wrong as people like the WHO the Surgeon General and the British Health minister don't lie do they?
Sorry Reg you were saying the same about the Global Warming science.
The scientists head where the money is and come up with the answers that keep them in jobs.
In Global Warming they change from getting colder and harsher winters to getting hotter and milder winters as the money is now in Global Warming being fact.

Lets ignore the fact that the Earth is in continual climate cycles though, as there's no money in that.
Lets ignore the fact people get smoking related cancers, who have never been beside a smoker in their life.

Lets keep statistics though, just avoid using ones that contradict our stance.
Oh and lets manipulate those statistics to terrify people.

Not according to an investigation carried out by a team of journalists from The Independent newspaper, who concluded that their published results was almost universally unverified and very weak to say the least.

 

[davrosFTM]

I've just checked through the sources of these findings and virtually every claim comes from research paid for by the tabacco industry...No surprise there though eh...

The Immunology Program, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque.

Centre for Epidemiology, National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden.

The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit, New Zealand

These are the three organisations who conducted the studies into asthma and smoking. You make a better detective than me MrRaW if you can link these to the tobacco industry. Can you post some links please to back up your claims? I'm sorry for being so suspicious, but I've actually read the tobacco control training manual. As you can see, you come straight in at number 2 on their list....

1.Accuse the Dissenter of Supporting the Tobacco Industry
2.Accuse the Dissenter of Being Paid Off by the Tobacco Industry
3.Accuse the Dissenter of Helping to Kill People
4.Implore All Anti-Smoking Groups and Advocates to Ignore the Dissenter
5.Censor the Dissenter by Removing Him from All Tobacco Control Internet and Email Listserves and Discussion Forums

 

[davrosFTM]

Oh my God just seen this advert on Dave while watching QI.
Where the **** do they get this **** from?

[video=youtube;klO-17ECC0E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klO-17ECC0E[/video]

This latest anti-smoking campaign has cost £2.7 million, paid for by us, the tax-payers. Wouldn't this money be better spent looking for a cancer cure? After all, now, in 2012, 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer are NON-SMOKERS. Wouldn't this money be better spent targeting the majority. rather than the minority?