Nanny Targeting E-Cigarettes...

[ka4dpo]

Grow your own tobacco.

No, don't grow it. Get a big bag of Tobacco seed and call the US Department of Agriculture. Tell them you are going to plant a bunch of tobacco and they will pay you not to. You can use the money to buy smokes on the black market just like tce politicians in Washington do.

[n2ize]

AND I've had two, direct, personally witnessed/experienced incidents that suggest very strongly that the "stastical connection", not from second-hand smoke, but actually smoking itself is very much exaggerated by those with an agenda AND that the statistics are very skewed -- whether by lazy or agendized coroners, or by larger design.

I'd list those, but it'd be a waste of BW. Anti-smoking zealots will never believe them anyway, and tobacco aficionados already know that.

Yea, sure, "they" can say that smoking is a statistical risk factor. But they cannot say why I don't have lung cancer (fact is, my cancer has no strong connection with smoking -- that's direct from my oncologist -- up close and personal -- eye to eye) but Andy Kaufman (who never smoked anything) did. Not to mention others who never smoked. They DO NOT KNOW the mechanism by which smoke mutates normal cells into cancer cells. But...it's been shoved up our asses so strongly that all of a sudden the general public forgets that fact. Just like they thought w as good for the working person. Any lie repeated often and strongly enough becomes "Truth."

But...this subject is hardly ever discussed rationally. Way, way, WAY too much emotion, opinion, morals involved. And when you factor it Nicotine Deprivation Syndrome -- Boy, howdy! May as well be a communist party/nazi rally.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some exaggeration or scare mongering with respect to first hand smoke however. For instance ASH would like you to believe that exposure to even the tiniest whiff of tobacco smoke is a certain death sentence. However, I also tend to think is is nowhere near the level of exaggeration we see regarding second or third hand smoke. Numerous studies have been done at the micro level and it is pretty well established that components of first hand cigarette smoke do indeed cause mutations and the mechanism of those mutations has also been observed and is becoming better understood. In addition, at the macro level, decades upon decades of research have established an extremely strong probabilistic/statistical correlation between first hand smoke and cancers. Of course, on the individual level the risk is going to vary from individual to individual. It is going to vary depending on the person themselves, predisposition, other causative factors, how much they smoked, how long they smoked, their environment, etc. But once you start to increase your sample size the risk factor does become quite evident and significant. In addition we need to also consider the other, non-cancer risks that arise from cigarette smoking such as decreased lung capacity, coronary disease, emphysema, etc. The risks are indeed there.

Secondhand smoke on the other hand (and third hand) smoke has been overplayed to the hilt. I am not saying that non-smokers should have to breath in smoke and I understand and appreciate the feelings of the non-smoker. Heck, I suffered with asthma in my mid-late 20's and 30's and there were moments where I didn't always appreciate cigarette smoke either. But I never supported outright bans. I feel that real compromises and real solutions can be more effective than the kinds of draconian bans that groups like ASH are calling for. ASH has effectively gotten smoking banned outdoors in open air, in cars, and in peoples own homes/apartments. According to ASH if you can catch even the faintest whiff of tobacco smoke you are a dead man. Even many non-smokers are opposed to these bans. And ironically ASH is also against non-smoking forms of tobacco. For example in Europe they lobbied for bans of smokeless Swedish SNU's in Europe despite the fact that the Swede's have not had any issues with SNU's and cancers despite heavy use in some parts of Sweden. And many smokers used SNU's to break the cigarette habit. Nonetheless, the EU sided with ASH and banned SNU's. Sweden is the only country exempt from the ban. And, ironically the smoke hating ASH bunch is also against e-gigs and would love to get them totally banned from sale or use.

As a side note, there are many non-smokers that are opposed to these kinds of bans as well. Too many of the anti-tobacco groups have become control freaks, hell bent on dictating how everyone else should live. Much like the zealots of the prohibition era and the anti marijuana/anti drug zealots of today.

I would recommend reading the Joe Jackson essay that I linked to earlier in this post. I admit, it is not science. However, he does discuss some of the absurdity of groups like ASH and the lawmakers that follow them and the kind of mindset that is involved. It iis a surprisingly well written essay. Far better than most essays I have read that were written outside of non-academic circles.

[W1GUH]

So why do find it so necessary to call people names? What is it about your personality that you simply must rag on even dead people? What is the venom? What is the angst? Do you actually think that calling people names does any good at all besides paint a not-too-flattering picture of yourself?

What looks weak and ineffectual is your constant harping on a topic that doesn't exist. I don't give a rat's ass what you think about my delivery. You have proven yourself to be full of shit on more than one occasion. I'm not going to be lectured by some two bit pissant who doesn't think critically and doesn't know his ass from hole in the ground. You don't discuss anything. You throw out stupid, vague anecdotes that prove nothing. Not only that, you fly completely off the handle if anyone disagrees with you. Look inward station. Pay attention to yourself instead of demonizing others.

Your attempt at being condescending is falling completely flat. You whine about attacks, but just what the hell are you doing here? Say whatever you want, I don't care. You look more and more like an idiot which each post.

You've done something is which is pretty hard to do, station. You've made my permanent stupid list, right up there with KWW and that thing from San Diego. I'm done communicating with you. You are completely without portfolio, period. You have no standing to lecture ANYONE about ANYTHING.

Take your phony dime store psychology and shove it. As far as I'm concerned, this topic is closed, so continue with your juvenile head shrinking, I won't respond.

[W1GUH]

Re: skewing of numbers

The other piece of evidence is this...

My mother died in 2002 when she was 86 of asthma. She suffered with it for years and was on oxygen and doing breathing exercises for many years before her lungs just shut down. Her passing was peaceful.

She had quit smoking in the 70's.

My sister mentioned that the doctor told her that Mom's lungs were just shutting down. He added that they "saw a spot" on her lung, but at that stage they weren't going to do anything about it. In other words, she was never diagnosed with cancer while she was alive.


The funeral director said that, since Mom died on a Saturday, she would be embalmed until she was cremated on Monday. No mention of any autopsy.

So....I get the death certificate. The cause of death stated Lung Cancer.

I'm going to ask my sister for more detail, but this sure looks bogus. If she has nothing to add I'll write to the County Clerk and the funeral director to inquire about this.

Wonder how widespread this practice is?

[w3bny]

Dunno. Most folks that they may do that practice to aint talking much.

[n2ize]

My sister mentioned that the doctor told her that Mom's lungs were just shutting down. He added that they "saw a spot" on her lung, but at that stage they weren't going to do anything about it. In other words, she was never diagnosed with cancer while she was alive.

Sad story and I express my condolences. But, as the doctor said and as you know based on what the doctor said,, she (unfortunately) likely did have cancer on top of the other problems. And even if it wasn't cancer, first hand smoke causes a lot of other serious lung disease then cancer.

And even if this were an issue there are enough (decades of) statistics based on cancer diagnoses to establish a very strong cause/effect relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, not to mention coronary disease, emphysema, and reduced lung capacity. Not to mention studies that have been done at the micro level that show significant changes on the cellular level including DNA mutations and the early formation of cancer cells. This is not the 1950's, this is the 21st century. Science has well established the strong and definite links between first hand smoke and cancer,lung, and heart disease.

Second, or third hand smoke ? Well there I question how significant the risks are. But the risks of first hand smoke are too solid to ignore at this stage of the game.

[ka4dpo]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some exaggeration or scare mongering with respect to first hand smoke however. For instance ASH would like you to believe that exposure to even the tiniest whiff of tobacco smoke is a certain death sentence. However, I also tend to think is is nowhere near the level of exaggeration we see regarding second or third hand smoke. Numerous studies have been done at the micro level and it is pretty well established that components of first hand cigarette smoke do indeed cause mutations and the mechanism of those mutations has also been observed and is becoming better understood. In addition, at the macro level, decades upon decades of research have established an extremely strong probabilistic/statistical correlation between first hand smoke and cancers. Of course, on the individual level the risk is going to vary from individual to individual. It is going to vary depending on the person themselves, predisposition, other causative factors, how much they smoked, how long they smoked, their environment, etc. But once you start to increase your sample size the risk factor does become quite evident and significant. In addition we need to also consider the other, non-cancer risks that arise from cigarette smoking such as decreased lung capacity, coronary disease, emphysema, etc. The risks are indeed there.

Secondhand smoke on the other hand (and third hand) smoke has been overplayed to the hilt. I am not saying that non-smokers should have to breath in smoke and I understand and appreciate the feelings of the non-smoker. Heck, I suffered with asthma in my mid-late 20's and 30's and there were moments where I didn't always appreciate cigarette smoke either. But I never supported outright bans. I feel that real compromises and real solutions can be more effective than the kinds of draconian bans that groups like ASH are calling for. ASH has effectively gotten smoking banned outdoors in open air, in cars, and in peoples own homes/apartments. According to ASH if you can catch even the faintest whiff of tobacco smoke you are a dead man. Even many non-smokers are opposed to these bans. And ironically ASH is also against non-smoking forms of tobacco. For example in Europe they lobbied for bans of smokeless Swedish SNU's in Europe despite the fact that the Swede's have not had any issues with SNU's and cancers despite heavy use in some parts of Sweden. And many smokers used SNU's to break the cigarette habit. Nonetheless, the EU sided with ASH and banned SNU's. Sweden is the only country exempt from the ban. And, ironically the smoke hating ASH bunch is also against e-gigs and would love to get them totally banned from sale or use.

As a side note, there are many non-smokers that are opposed to these kinds of bans as well. Too many of the anti-tobacco groups have become control freaks, hell bent on dictating how everyone else should live. Much like the zealots of the prohibition era and the anti marijuana/anti drug zealots of today.

I would recommend reading the Joe Jackson essay that I linked to earlier in this post. I admit, it is not science. However, he does discuss some of the absurdity of groups like ASH and the lawmakers that follow them and the kind of mindset that is involved. It iis a surprisingly well written essay. Far better than most essays I have read that were written outside of non-academic circles.

Here is some anecdotal data.

My grandmother never smoked but grew up in a house full of smokers. Her dad and five of her seven brothers smoked (there were 14 kids). My granfather also smoked but it did him in, he had a stroke at 89 probably cause by smoking.

Anyway, my grandmother was heavily exposed to second hand smoke all of her life and lived to be 100 years old. She died in her sleep and the official cause of death was extreme old age.

[w3bny]

So following your "anecdotal data" its cool to sit in a kids nursery and fire up an Arturo Fuentes Canones and the rest of the family huff on a hookah and some Paul Malls...not gonna hurt the infant right since second hand smoke is "bullshit" made up by the Gestapo NIH.

[KC2UGV]

So following your "anecdotal data" its cool to sit in a kids nursery and fire up an Arturo Fuentes Canones and the rest of the family huff on a hookah and some Paul Malls...not gonna hurt the infant right since second hand smoke is "bullshit" made up by the Gestapo NIH.

Can't be much worse than sitting around a camp fire...

[w3bny]

Can't be much worse than sitting around a camp fire...

Last I checked, a camp fire doesn't have a surgeon generals warning saying you can get fooking cancer or emphysema...just saying.