Smoking General: Secondhand Bullshit Edition

[Anonymous No.8163474]

I might not be able to convince people that smoking isn't really a health risk in and of itself, but I at least can call out those fuckers who believe in passive smoking/secondhand smoke.

No one can name a single person whose life was negatively impacted solely by secondhand smoke and not a combination of several things like being fat or genetically predisposed.

>Boffetta, et al: Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October 7, 1998: "public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure.
https://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.full.pdf

[Anonymous No.8163489]

Bump for interest.

[Anonymous No.8163497]

>>8163474
>No one can name a single person whose life was negatively impacted solely by secondhand smoke and not a combination of several things like being fat or genetically predisposed.
LOL, that's like saying that if one's life is negatively impacted by anything else (which it inevitably will be, since humans aren't perfect), then getting your head cut off can't be called a health risk. This is a very stupid way of phrasing the argument that only serves to signal to others that you are unwilling to discuss the issue fairly and rationally. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that secondhand smoke is a health risk. Your impotent attempt to reach the conclusion you want by setting ridiculous standards of proof doesn't change that.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-7.pdf

[Anonymous No.8163499]

>>8163497
>even though this dude is obese and didn't fuckjng take care of himself you can't blame his lifestyle maaaan
>you gotta blame someone else's oxidized and harmless smoke

/sci/ logic

[Anonymous No.8163505]

I don't understand how can one take anti-smoking as a movement seriously when it is clear that secondhand smoke is a lie and anybody discrediting the idea is accused of tobacco shilling? This is all clearly dogmatism. People lose their jobs like climate change realists lose their credibility. This is clearly an example of political correctness at work. Any study that comes out and decries passive smoking as not a health risk ends up being demonized by the establishment anyway.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/28/local/me-tobacco28

[Anonymous No.8163515]

This as well:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#649757e7623f

And the study they're referring to:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.full

[Anonymous No.8163520]

>>8163499
>if A then not B
>>no, A and B is possible
>are you stupid? you think A and not B is impossible?

Wow, you're dumb.

[Anonymous No.8163526]

>>8163520
You're the one trying to shit one someone else's lifestyle for allegedly affecting someone who is enough of a health wreck that it's blatantly clear they're causing their own problems by being old and fat. What kind of logic is that?

[Anonymous No.8163536]

>>8163526
And now you just assume I'm trying to do something, as if this is relevant to a debate about scientific facts. Then you appeal to logic, ironically. This is entertaining.

[Anonymous No.8163548]

>>8163536
Well you clearly haven't even tried to look at or disprove anything that's been posted so far. These studies have been around for almost a few decades yet are always ignored because they do not fit the narrative regarding government health organizations and their money making.

And whether or not you want to admit it, you are callously shifting blame from someone's own inner imperfections regarding health and genetics and blaming a completely harmless scapegoat, because that's what people have been constantly told regarding secondhand smoke for years now.

[Anonymous No.8163549]

>>8163505
>>8163515
You're projecting. If you look at all the data, and not just the studies that confirm your dogmatic belief that smoking is harmless, then you see that secondhand smoke is a significant carcinogen. This is simply a scientific fact you have to accept if you want to discuss things rationally and logically on a science board.

[Anonymous No.8163554]

>>8163474

> toxins don't harm your lungs
retard pls kill yourself already

[Anonymous No.8163555]

>>8163474
You might not wanna suggest that you don't believe smoking poses a health risk next time you want to convince anyone of anything. It makes you seem kind of batshit insane.

[Anonymous No.8163557]

>>8163548
>Well you clearly haven't even tried to look at or disprove anything that's been posted so far.
What is there to disprove? You don't seem to understand how science works. You don't need to "disprove" studies that fail to find a relationship. You look at all the studies and determine whether they indicate a relationship exists. This has already been done. This is the only reason I think that secondhand smoke is harmful, not because it's a "dogma" of mine. I really don't care either way. It's simply an empirical fact. Your denial of empirical facts, on the other hand, is indicative that you are the one following a dogma.

[Anonymous No.8163560]

I can name a single person, my mother. She is the only person diagnosed with Asthma on her entire side of the family going back past the 1900s.

My grandmother married my grandfather, who smoked a pack a day, when my mother was i think 9 or 10. They travelled quite a bit since he was wealthy and had a cushy 4 days a week job. She was stuck in the car on these long drives. At about age 12, she needed an inhaler for asthma. My uncle doesnt have asthma because he was born after my grandfather had quit smokimg due to harming his stepdaughter.

She also didnt get fat until well into her 30s.

[Anonymous No.8163565]

>>8163549
>scientific fact

More like scientific dogma. And there's no proof secondhand smoke is a carcinogen (or smoke in general, but since this is about SHS I'll leave it at that for now).

Secondhand smoke isn't fresh, that's why it's not bad for you. It's been out into the air and oxidized, and thus it's not as reactive as active smoke. Same with fire smoke. Haze smoke isn't nearly as damaging as fresh smoke, because it's cooled and reacted fully. It doesn't even inflame or damage lung tissue at all, in he slightest. Why would anyone think it's bad unless they were Pearl clutchers? Do you just blindly accept bullshit studies done by people with clearly no intelligence?

[Anonymous No.8163572]

>>8163555
These are two separate topics though. SHS and active smoking are not the same thing. Besides you sound like you're trying to discredit anything I say as opposed to simply tackling the current central argument being presented.

And while I think the secondhand smoke thing is bullshit, the idea that smoking is as harmful as people claim is more the problem, the idea of it being completely harmless is I guess debatable and I can understand how some people can be harmed by it. Additionally the abject denial of any kind of benefits bugs me. Kind of like how people used to ramp up propaganda for marijuana demonization.

[Anonymous No.8163574]

>>8163565
www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html

> Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia.

Kill yourself you misinforming lying shithead

[Anonymous No.8163577]

>>8163565
>And there's no proof secondhand smoke is a carcinogen (or smoke in general, but since this is about SHS I'll leave it at that for now).
I already posted a review which has a large list of studies with plenty of evidence. Here I'll post it again since you seem to have ignored it.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-7.pdf

Anyway, your arguments so far seem to be indistinguishable from bait. Secondhand smoke is diluted and therefore carries less risk than smoking, but it's still significantly carcinogenic. Your arguments so far lack basic logic and appear indistinguishable from bait. Improve them or I won't bother replying.

[Anonymous No.8163578]

>>8163565
I don't accept bullshit peer reviewed studies done by people with medical degrees. You know how they got those degrees? Elitist book learning. Now, anonymous posts on a malaysian mlp appreciation bulletin board on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.8163579]

>>8163560
So it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that this was smoking that caused it and not other forms of pollution or inherent genetic deficiencies, such as a vitamin deficiency?

I've heard of people whose asthma symptoms are heavily alievated by smoking, so this doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.8163581]

>>8163577
I will see what I can do to disprove or counter the information in that link.

[Anonymous No.8163583]

>>8163574
Funny, you never hear these kinds of problems in countries that can be called smokers paradises due to lack of regulation. I don't hear any bitching about those over in Japan or Greece...

[Anonymous No.8163584]

>>8163581
Don't bother with conspiracy logic.

[Anonymous No.8163586]

>>8163579
Oh shit yeah, more anecdotal evidence please, mmm that shit convinces me hard.

[Anonymous No.8163589]

>>8163583
Funny how you are unable to reply to documented evidence with bullshit connotations and dumb memes.

You have zero scientific input for your cancerous propaganda

Now take this autistic thread where it belongs.

>>>/trash/

>>>/trash/

>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.8163594]

>>8163586
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2596/want_to_cure_your_asthma_start_smoking

Fuck off

[Anonymous No.8163704]

>>8163579
>No one can name a single person whose life was negatively impacted solely by secondhand smoke and not a combination of several things like being fat or genetically predisposed.

You asked for this, fucktard.

Yes, she was diagnosed with asthma caused by exposure the secondhand smoke. Not genetic predisposed and not caused by obesity.

[Anonymous No.8163720]

>More junk science about the social costs of smoking then arrived on the scene, in the form of a 2006 report by the U.S. Surgeon General widely touted as proving "secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."

>But the seemingly impressive 727-page report on secondhand smoke released by the Surgeon General's office came up far short of the usual standards for sound science. Nearly all the studies cited in the Surgeon General's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show on human health are too small to be reliable.

>Most of the research cited in the Surgeon General's report was rejected by a federal judge in 1993 when EPA first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the findings of the most important studies, and failed to honor scientific standards. The Surgeon General's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/12/01/how-junk-science-used-raise-taxes

[Anonymous No.8163724]

feel u op, tried to convince those dumbasses about flat earth yelding no results

[Anonymous No.8163751]

>>8163720
Ah so if you truly believe that the courts determine what is good science you should be happy to accept that in 2006 a federal court determined that secondhand smoke IS harmful and that tobacco companies committed fraud by hiding this fact, in USA v. Philip Morris et al

>Conclusions about the causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and
adverse health effects are based on the extensive evidence derived from both epidemiological and
toxicological investigation of active smoking. Additionally, studies using biomarkers of exposure
and dose, such as the nicotine-specific metabolite cotinine, document the absorption of known
disease-causing components of secondhand smoke by exposed nonsmokers, confirming the observed
associations of secondhand smoke with adverse health effects.

http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/doj-final-opinion.pdf

But I'm sure you'll find a way to hypocritically go back on your argument simply because it disagrees with the conclusion you want.

[Anonymous No.8163784]

>>8163577
Wait, why does this report constantly mention RA Jenkins? He's an Rj Reynolds scientist and has actually taken part of studies showing no significant health problems in bars with passive smoke. If anything using him disproves your claim that secondhand smoke is harmful.

[Anonymous No.8163790]

Fuck 4chan. After four years of browsing, this place has turned into absolute shit.

Everything is dominated by /pol/ retards who were all dropped on their heads as children.

[Anonymous No.8163793]

>>8163790
*/pol/tards

[Anonymous No.8163807]

>>8163784
They also cite plenty of scientists whose studies show secondhand smoke is harmful. What is your point? Are you really incapable of thinking rationally or are you just pretending to be retarded?

[Anonymous No.8163814]

Is OP like one of those flat earthers that debate for fun and to get people to do their own research?

[Anonymous No.8163818]

>>8163577
>>8163784
>Jenkins, et al, found minuscule exposure to tobacco products to bartenders and waiters in smoking establishments resulting in levels of harm characterized as 'none' to 'improbable'. Jenkins, R. A., Palausky, A., Counts, R. W., Bayne, C. K., Dindal, A. B., and Guerin, M. R. Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Sixteen Cities in the United States as Determined by Personal Breathing Zone Air Sampling. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1996 Oct-Dec;6(4):473-502.

[Anonymous No.8163822]

>>8163790
This shit right here. The retards who abuse science to promote their retardedness can fuck off and die.

[Anonymous No.8163835]

>>8163790
I've been back for a month after spending 3 years here followed by about a 4 year break. You're absolutely right. "Containment boards" aint working. Shit's fucked. /sci/ seems to be one of the least moderated boards too, though I've never been in the super slow boards.

[Anonymous No.8163839]

>>8163548
Stop. You are embarassing yourself.
He is shitting on you because this theory of yours got you so emotionally unstable that you can't think straight.
Your head is heated, your thoughts are corrupted and your motives are prideful.
Learn what science means and maybe then your thoughts will be valued by others than monkeys who still believe that the argument is won by the one who shows more confidence.

[Anonymous No.8163857]

>>8163790
Then why are you here cancerbag SJWtard.

Fuck off back to >>>/r/eddit and smoke yourself to death you imbecile

[Anonymous No.8163880]

>>8163857
Case in point. /pol/ has destroyed 4chan.

Do you honestly think that everyone who disagrees with you is a social justice warrior?

[Anonymous No.8163886]

>>8163583
>I'm going to start a super duper official sciencey thread where I correct misconceptions logically
>funny how I haven't heard of any studies about X, Y, and Z!!

Second hand smoke is harmful. No one ever died from smoking just one cigarette, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged.

Fuck off. If second hand smoke is totally unharmful then you should had a cigarette constantly lit in your room for a few years and document the (non-)effects it has on you.

[Anonymous No.8163890]

>>8163880
> everyone who tells me to fuck off is pol
Everyone who derails the threads with pure sjw-tier cancerous shitposting and whinig is a sjwtard such as yourself.
fucking leave 4chan already mouthbreather

[Anonymous No.8163891]

>>8163880
>Do you honestly think that everyone who disagrees with you is a social justice warrior?
Brother they'll call you anything. You see, it's unimaginable that someone could disagree with you on the internet without being the embodiment of everything you hate. It's just too hard for a child to comprehend.

Someone declared to me my Myers-Briggs type today because I told them that they weren't superior for theirs.

[Anonymous No.8163896]

>>8163890
How long have you been on this site? My guess is about eight months.

[Anonymous No.8163897]

>>8163891
> my personal irrelevant retarded tantrums belong to a science boad.
> b-b-but im nto a sjwtard pls believe me

4chan is off limits to you braindead stinking SJWtards

[Anonymous No.8163900]

>>8163897
Two months?

[Anonymous No.8163902]

>>8163897
Well you sure are mad. How insecure can you be that completely sperg out when someone posts something that disagrees with you?

[Anonymous No.8163907]

>>8163902
im just posting what you look like when you voice your opinions. you don't need to project everything you're feeling sjwtard.

[Anonymous No.8163908]

>>8163897
>this whole post
topkek

[Anonymous No.8163911]

>>8163907
There, there. No need to be upset and call names.

How long have you been browsing 4chan? Or are you brand new like the rest of the people from /pol/?

[Anonymous No.8163913]

>>8163897

[Anonymous No.8163914]

>>8163911
thats quite racist and sexist senpai.

[Anonymous No.8163928]

>>8163886
Mate its called living in an urban an industrial environment. Even cars make whining about bad smell I. Your safe space a drop I. The bucket.

[Anonymous No.8163940]

>>8163499
>harmless smoke
I bet you don't have a very good understanding of the subject, or even a basic one.

[Anonymous No.8163951]

>>8163548
Hahahaha
The government is making money on discretiting tobacco?
You know, instead of spending money on studies and anti smoking campaigns, they could, oh I don't know, tax it.
You are a special kind of retarded.

[Anonymous No.8163961]

>>8163574
Why would it contain mire nicotine?
I would think that after being through someones lungs it would have less.
Or is the smoke "denser"?

[Anonymous No.8163967]

>>8163886
You've obviously made up your mind regarding this dogmatic issue of yours.

Thing is, the only counter argument with a link ITT is a WHO report on involuntary smoking that, among other things, cites a man named RA Jenkins who actually has done studies showing that SHS in indoor spaces like bars and restaurants is a negligible health risk. The amount of damage control being done by anti-smokers is amusing.

[Anonymous No.8163979]

>>8163474
>study funded by tobacco industry

[Anonymous No.8164008]

>>8163951
They already tax it you mong. They tax the shit out of cigarettes.

[Anonymous No.8164019]

>>8164008
His point is that taxing it would be even more profitable if they weren't simultaneously spending a shitload of money discrediting it, you fucking mong. They're practically funneling the "sin tax" into studies and anti-smoking campaigns.

[Anonymous No.8164025]

>>8164019
And that virtue signalling does nothing but parasite off of the mentally ill and addicted. They can't claim high ground.

[Anonymous No.8164033]

>>8164025
Did anyone claim it is the high ground? It's simply a counterargument to le government conspiracy bullshit that comes up every smoking thread.

[Sage goes in all fields No.8164036]

Do not reply to this thread, it's a troll thread started routinely by the same shill.

Hide this thread and go on with your day.

[Anonymous No.8164040]

>>8164036
I can't make sense of why mods allow this retards thread to go on about and get +300 replies.

[Anonymous No.8164045]

Ah, classic "can't see beyond your own nose" retardation.
>my rights are the only ones that matter

"Pls no expose me and my children to smoke"
"YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO IT'S HARMLESS ANYWAY STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON ME REEEEEEEE"

[Anonymous No.8164053]

LMAO
Why are you even trying OP ?

[Anonymous No.8164075]

>>8164045
Well, it is harmless, and for that reason it's pretty clear that anyone who has a problem with it is just a fucking absolute wimp.

There have been numerous links posted exposing the scientific scandal of anti-smoking and calling out people like Richard Doll, whilst providing numerous studies on how no one found any link between passive smoke and disease, and the only response is to double down and refuse the other side of the argument entirely. That isn't science, that's pseudoscience.

>>8163807
My point is that many anti-smoking people often use links or people who are actually not supporting their argument, if anything. The monograph link posted uses studies or people with ties to tobacco and who found no evidence of SHS being harmful. Just look up RA Jenkins and the six cities study he did, or the greentext a few posts up.

[Anonymous No.8164138]

>>8163474
>I might not be able to convince people
evidently not

[Anonymous No.8164145]

>>8163474
Nice try, shill.
4channers aren't as gullible as the kids and idiots you usually prey on.

[Anonymous No.8164168]

>>8163577
Not done yet with looking at the monograph link fully, but what's interesting, again, is how Jenkins is cited in that report. He has done studies showing that SHS isn't a risk to non smokers health.

In the meantime, this is how the anti-smokers manipulate the data to make it look like secondhand smoke is bad.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/01/19/smoking-ban-health-miracle-myth

Trying to get people to stop smoking in hospitals because they're a bunch of lying pussies.

[Anonymous No.8164170]

>>8163577
Not done yet with looking at the monograph link fully, but what's interesting, again, is how Jenkins is cited in that report. He has done studies showing that SHS isn't a risk to non smokers health.

In the meantime, this is how the anti-smokers manipulate the data to make it look like secondhand smoke is bad.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/01/19/smoking-ban-health-miracle-myth

Trying to get people to stop smoking around others because they're a bunch of lying pussies.

[Anonymous No.8164175]

>>8163897
>>8163907
Come back, we weren't finished mocking you and your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.8164176]

>>8164170
>please don't fart in my face.
>FUCK YOU IT'S HARMLESS I'LL FART IN YOUR FACE IF I WANT TO

[Anonymous No.8164182]

You:
>my bullshit claim is true
>here's the iffy science that proves it!

Everyone else:
>no and here's why

You:
>NUH UH THAT'S NOT REAL SCIENCE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO MY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS
wew

[Anonymous No.8164189]

>>8164176
Smoking is a way for people to stay focused and alert, and in some cases sane.

Regardless, that's the price you pay for going in public. The fact that the anti-smoking science is shitty also makes it far less justifiable.

[Anonymous No.8164208]

>>8163967
It also smells like shit and is generally unpleasant, so i don't care about your rights.

[Anonymous No.8164216]

>>8163474
the effects of second hand smoke really are overestimated in my opinion, considering how small the amounts of smoke are that are inhaled second hand
>i might not be able to convince people that smoking isnt really a health risk in and of itself
are you implying that it isnt? thats pretty damn retarded

[Anonymous No.8164221]

>>8164216
>considering how small the amounts of smoke are that are inhaled second hand
Keep in mind, when second-hand smoke became a big thing, some public buildings were filled with smokers. The concentrations were much higher. Was like being hotboxed. It is because of the laws that it now appears to be much less of an issue.

>are you implying that it isnt? thats pretty damn retarded
Yeah these fuckers have been keeping these threads here for months.

[Anonymous No.8164239]

>smoking and second hand smoke causes coughing
>coughing is the body's way of expelling unwanted matter from the lungs
>smoke is not something your body wants in it's lungs


Even marijuana smoke or e-cigarette smoke is bad for your lungs. Anything that stops oxygen intake is bad for you. But when instead of oxygen you're getting a shitload of other manufactured chemicals - many of which are known carcinogens, there's no reason to deny that smoke is harmful to any human who inhales it.

[Anonymous No.8164250]

>everybody calling the OP a shill

In this day and age, isn't there much more shekels to be made shilling AGAINST tobacco than FOR tobacco?

[Anonymous No.8164251]

>>8163548
[coginitive dissonance intensifies]

[Anonymous No.8164253]

>>8164250
No.

[Anonymous No.8164255]

>>8164250
The science speaks for itself. It's Big Tobacco that needs to compete if it wants to keep its economic hold.

[Anonymous No.8164262]

>>8164251
No, that literally is the opposite of what's happening.

[Anonymous No.8164264]

>>8164253
>>8164255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHZXf5NdYf8

You know shit like this ain't cheap. People are getting paid swimmingly to make and disseminate it.

[Anonymous No.8164265]

>>8164250
Yes. Anti-tobacco groups are able to make millions of dollars by creating myths about smoking. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the primary beneficiaries.

Additionally other polluting industries get to avoid blame by paying experts to shit on tobacco, like famous tobacco researcher Richard Doll and his ties to chemical, asbestos, and pollutant companies.

[Anonymous No.8164267]

Ya'll are solving Captchas on CaptchaChan that are being used by chinese hackers to DDOS america, and for what? To post "no u" "no u" "NO U" "NO FUCKING U"? What an intriguing debate. Sure is different than the last 50 threads. Sure is worth all of these human hours.

[Anonymous No.8164268]

>>8164075
>My point is that many anti-smoking people often use links or people who are actually not supporting their argument, if anything.
Yes, and what is the point of saying that? The WHO report discusses pretty much everything we know about secondhand smoke. If you think that citing someone's name in the discussion somehow invalidates the findings then you are simply delusional. You will apparently say anything as long as it leads to your preconceived conclusion, no matter how illogical.

>The monograph link posted uses studies or people with ties to tobacco and who found no evidence of SHS being harmful.
That's what metastudies do. Unlike you, scientists do not simply ignore all evidence and data that doesn't support their conclusion. They examine all the evidence and then make a conclusion from it. Pointing out that one particular guy or study didn't find a relationship between secondhand smoke completely misses the point.

[Anonymous No.8164276]

>>8164264
>Filthy Frank
Regardless, this is marketed towards children. Children aren't exactly known for their studious habits. So, someone is going to have to tell kids, because they sure as fuck aren't going to do it themselves. They're also pretty much forced to do this given how lucrative Big Tobacco is, and how much Big Tobacco is able to advertise. Without anti-smoking ads children would be bombarded with cigarette advertisements 24/7 which would produce more people like our poor, misinformed friend, OP.

[Anonymous No.8164294]

>>8164208
>I don't care about your rights

Wow, what a pussy thing to say.

[Anonymous No.8164301]

>>8164294
The funnier thing is
>what rights
I can't smoke pot in public. I don't complain. I wouldn't want to be surrounded by smokers of either kind anyway. Fuck off crybaby.

[Anonymous No.8164309]

>>8164276
>children would be bombarded with cigarette advertisements 24/7

The ones they banned from television and radio 45 years ago? Or litigated out of existence 19 years ago? When's the last time you saw a Marlboro ad on YouTube?

[Anonymous No.8164312]

Well, looking on the bright side, at least /pol/ will soon filter themselves from the gene pool by smoking.

[Anonymous No.8164317]

>>8164301
>what rights

https://www.heartland.org/ideas/smokers-rights

>crybaby

No, that'd be the anti-smokers who want protection from the cruel and unforgiving world that doesn't cater to their whims.

[Anonymous No.8164318]

>>8164312
Smokers on average live only slightly less than nonsmokers do, sometimes even older. All of the world's prominent centennials were smokers.

[Anonymous No.8164327]

>>8164309
Smoking ads are still permitted on radio and TV, though, only if FCC compliant. There's also a lot more to advertising than just radio and television. Not to mention that word of mouth is a powerful advertising medium, and that can't be regulated.

[Anonymous No.8164333]

>>8164327
Are you saying you WANT to regulate it you little bitch? Alcohol needs to be regulated then, cars and fast food advertisements need to be regulated then. Everything is bad for you in some way.

[Anonymous No.8164338]

>>8164317
>what rights do you have
>>here are the rights i want
????

>>8164333
>Alcohol needs to be regulated then, cars
Yes, drunk and stupid drivers are a much bigger cause of death than smoking.

>fast food advertisements
Fat people don't kill other people by eating themselves to death.

>Everything is bad for you in some way.
Tangential.

[Anonymous No.8164339]

>>8164333
No, you fucking nincompoop. I'm just stating facts. You need work on your English skills.

[Anonymous No.8164348]

>>8164338
>rights I want

No, they are rights that people have. The inherent ability to choose what to do with themselves. Something the EPA for example has tried to stop.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/zealots.htm

[Anonymous No.8164353]

>>8164338
I'm talking alcohol advertisements you dense anon, just like cigarette advertisements have been completely wiped off television.

And secondhand smoke never killed anybody. Your analogy is useless.

[Anonymous No.8164364]

>>8164318
>decades
>slightly
Just end it.

[Anonymous No.8164366]

>>8164364
>decades
>not a few years
>not the same or even longer because there's virtually no fucking difference since the average smoker lives to be in their late 60s/early to mid 70s anyway

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.8164368]

http://www.nycclash.com/CARBPressRelease.html

The RA Jenkins mentioned in the monograph link is also slamming the infamous EPA report for cherry picking and shit epidemiological data.

Still haven't finished the entire thing yet but it's damn sure amusing.

[Anonymous No.8164371]

>>8164366
>things I just made up
I'd tell you to kill yourself, but you're already slowly committing suicide by smoking.

[Anonymous No.8164381]

>>8164371
>made up

Bull fucking shit it was made up

>smoking

I'm a nonsmoker. Costs too much money.

[Anonymous No.8164383]

Why are people even arguing with this retard (OP)

[Anonymous No.8164395]

>>8164383
Because they're zealots who want their agenda regarding anti-smoking to succeed, that's pretty clear.

Common pattern in threads

>people post info exposing anti-smoking science as being shit
>other people ignore those links entirely or pull the shill gambit, and spout the same bollocks government WHO bullshit they've heard since childhood and school.

[Anonymous No.8164421]

>>8164381
>dying over a decade sooner
>the difference between having grandchildren and not
Jesus you're in denial.

[Anonymous No.8164431]

Smoking is good for you

[Anonymous No.8164491]

>>8164431
That's what I keep trying to tell people, but they won't listen.

[Anonymous No.8164507]

>>8164491
>>8164491
>dying 12 years early (according to your own goddamn chart) is a good thing

[Anonymous No.8164553]

>>8164507
Considering other factors that can affect non smokers (keep in mind many diseases found in smokers also can affect non smokers just as easily), I do not see how it is a really big deal. Average life expectancy is 74, dying at 62 isn't the worst thing in the world.

And secondhand smoke is still bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8164623]

>>8164553
I suggest you smoke even more than you already are so that we won't have to listen to your retardation for much longer.

[Anonymous No.8164642]

>>8164553
So is cyanide. They only put these labels because of the public pressure and not because its actually dangerous or something.

And second hand exposure to cyanide fumes is still bullshit. I do cyanide everyday and I'm still alive.

[Anonymous No.8164666]

>>8164642
I'm a horseshoe crab. I NEED cyanide.

[Anonymous No.8164669]

>>8164642
So does OP.

[Anonymous No.8164724]

>>8164333
They are, you literal meme.