Pictures of dead babies

[zz1000zz]

xXx kitsy xXx

zz1000zz

GilAskan

A large amount of the anti-smoker stigma comes from reports (and in come cases, rumors) about second hand smoke.

No matter how much food from McDonalds you eat around me, I'll never get fat. If you smoke enough cigarettes around me, there's a decent chance I'll get respiratory problems.

Actually, there is no legitimate statistical evidence showing any harm in second hand smoke. The few actual studies done on the subject were either inconclusive, or so obviously butchered bias does not begin to describe it.

The most important study on the topic, the 93 EPA Report (actually released in 92), was highly criticized by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for both its methods and conclusions. Just a couple facts:

Quote:

Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. They analyzed 31. The EPA excluded two thirds of the data.

And from Joel Osteen, a federal judge who vacated the report:

Joel Osteen

In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen.

There exists no language strong enough to criticize the myth of dangerous second hand smoke.

i give not a damn to that. my mom and i are pretty much living proof that secondhand smoke gives you respiratory problems. both her husbands (both ex, my father and stepfather) smoked, and she has developed asthma. i have developed chronic bronchitis. which, is usually something smokers have. so, no, it's not a myth. i take it you are a smoker?

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Your argument could be easily countered by pointing to people who were exposed the same way you were and did not develop respiratory problems.

As for whether or not i smoke, that is completely irrelevant. Indeed, your question is rather distasteful as it is meant to discredit me through an ad hominem attack.

To reiterate, there are no facts which show second hand smoke is dangerous.  

[Rellik San]

zz1000zz

xXx kitsy xXx

zz1000zz

GilAskan

A large amount of the anti-smoker stigma comes from reports (and in come cases, rumors) about second hand smoke.

No matter how much food from McDonalds you eat around me, I'll never get fat. If you smoke enough cigarettes around me, there's a decent chance I'll get respiratory problems.

Actually, there is no legitimate statistical evidence showing any harm in second hand smoke. The few actual studies done on the subject were either inconclusive, or so obviously butchered bias does not begin to describe it.

The most important study on the topic, the 93 EPA Report (actually released in 92), was highly criticized by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for both its methods and conclusions. Just a couple facts:

Quote:

Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. They analyzed 31. The EPA excluded two thirds of the data.

And from Joel Osteen, a federal judge who vacated the report:

Joel Osteen

In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen.

There exists no language strong enough to criticize the myth of dangerous second hand smoke.

i give not a damn to that. my mom and i are pretty much living proof that secondhand smoke gives you respiratory problems. both her husbands (both ex, my father and stepfather) smoked, and she has developed asthma. i have developed chronic bronchitis. which, is usually something smokers have. so, no, it's not a myth. i take it you are a smoker?

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Your argument could be easily countered by pointing to people who were exposed the same way you were and did not develop respiratory problems.

As for whether or not i smoke, that is completely irrelevant. Indeed, your question is rather distasteful as it is meant to discredit me through an ad hominem attack.

To reiterate, there are no facts which show second hand smoke is dangerous.

Well I'm a non-smoker, both my parents smoked, my sister smokes, my girlfriend smokes and I've spent a lot of time around smokers and I've never developed respitory problems. Infact according to all research because both parents smoked, I should be a smoker. The whole anti-smoking thing is just an effort from reactionary right wing groups to impede on one of the few comforts working class people can afford, yet more proof of the uppercrust dictating to the rest of the world what they believe is best for everyone.  

[Devils_lilboy]

XXX Zombie Porn

and black lungs etc are going to be put on cigarette packets and the age is getting put up to 18 in the UK.

If they put pictures on cigarettes why not put pictures of morbidly obese people on fast food such as McDonalds? Obesity can kill by encouraging heart disease and much as smoking encourages cancer.
Problem is, it's hardly shocking I've seen it all before. So the shock factor kinda fails.

Fact: There is more fat in a McDonalds Ceaser salad than a large donner kebab.

As a smoker sometimes I feel I don't get as much respect as non smokers and treated differently.
Even though even I can smoke inside I usually will insist on going outside if I'm say at a friend's house, relatives etc.

On the smoking ban: I don't mind it at all. I actually have proper conversations with new people outside and can hear what they say as there's no loud music.
With the exception of The Hotel California as they have bands on outside :]

Overall I think there are more important things in the world going on for people to be worrying about someones choice to smoke :]

I don't smoke anymore, but from time to time I get high  

[ieatyourtclol]

GilAskan

A large amount of the anti-smoker stigma comes from reports (and in come cases, rumors) about second hand smoke.

No matter how much food from McDonalds you eat around me, I'll never get fat. If you smoke enough cigarettes around me, there's a decent chance I'll get respiratory problems.

Agrees.

In addition, you don't receive respect for making retarded choices no matter how much you go out of your way to diminsh the effects thereof. If the reverse was true, alot of the people on youtube would be amoungst the most highly respected individuals.

I mean: "Dude, you, like, jumped your bike over a house and broke all the bones in your face .... like, props man - respect." That person is know as a retard and would never be respected in a civilized society.

Reason(s) why?

1. That person will now need hospitalization. And in Canada, healthcare is FREE. Who pays for the medical bill? Tax payers!

Essentially, even though you take your smoking elsewhere, which is ... um ... kind of an obvious move, you're doing something that retards common sense. And that earns you no respect.  

[zz1000zz]

Deific Requiem

GilAskan

A large amount of the anti-smoker stigma comes from reports (and in come cases, rumors) about second hand smoke.

No matter how much food from McDonalds you eat around me, I'll never get fat. If you smoke enough cigarettes around me, there's a decent chance I'll get respiratory problems.

Agrees.

In addition, you don't receive respect for making retarded choices no matter how much you go out of your way to diminsh the effects thereof. If the reverse was true, alot of the people on youtube would be amoungst the most highly respected individuals.

I mean: "Dude, you, like, jumped your bike over a house and broke all the bones in your face .... like, props man - respect." That person is know as a retard and would never be respected in a civilized society.

Reason(s) why?

1. That person will now need hospitalization. And in Canada, healthcare is FREE. Who pays for the medical bill? Tax payers!

Essentially, even though you take your smoking elsewhere, which is ... um ... kind of an obvious move, you're doing something that retards common sense. And that earns you no respect.

zz1000zz

Actually, there is no legitimate statistical evidence showing any harm in second hand smoke. The few actual studies done on the subject were either inconclusive, or so obviously butchered bias does not begin to describe it.

I see no reason a smoker should need to move away from people as a general practice. I certainly do not see a reason why it would be "an obvious move" or "common sense." Of course, i am one of those crazy people who only believes factual information on topics like this.

As for the harm one does to oneself, i have no problem with that. In a country like the United States, i suspect smokers contribute far more than they cost society, though i have yet to see any study to prove one way or the other. (The extra taxes added to the increased casualties decreasing the burden on social security seem to more than compensate for increased health care.)

As for Canada, i again have no problem with a smoker. So long as he only harms himself, the only complaint becomes monetary. I find the health care system of Canada to be such that one could easily justify the costs. Considering the freedoms such a system removes, one can easily justify the position, "I pay for it, i should be able to use it."

P.S. I find your comparison to people in videos on YouTube quite odd. After the analogy you said, "That person is know as a retard and would never be respected in a civilized society." This perplexes me, as entire generations grew up idolizing actors who smoked, and any number of well respected people smoke to this day. I am not sure what your intention was, but what you said is horribly inaccurate and quite distasteful.  

[Rellik San]

Deific Requiem

In addition, you don't receive respect for making retarded choices no matter how much you go out of your way to diminsh the effects thereof. If the reverse was true, alot of the people on youtube would be amoungst the most highly respected individuals.

I mean: "Dude, you, like, jumped your bike over a house and broke all the bones in your face .... like, props man - respect." That person is know as a retard and would never be respected in a civilized society.

Reason(s) why?

1. That person will now need hospitalization. And in Canada, healthcare is FREE. Who pays for the medical bill? Tax payers!

Essentially, even though you take your smoking elsewhere, which is ... um ... kind of an obvious move, you're doing something that retards common sense. And that earns you no respect.

OI! Watch it.

My mother is a smoker and among the social circles, not just her, but myself and friends and their friends, is one of the most respected and loved people I know. Essentially, you've turned around and said my own mother, would never be accepted in polite society.

Within your post, you insulted my mother, you insulted all smokers that hold positions in society, then you accuse them of being a drain on resources, heres a news flash for you, that you may not realise, 70% of working class folks, engineers, technicians, bus drivers, laborers, builders, workmen, all smoke, the people that make the world smoke.

Effectively, you want to take one of the luxuries those people can actually afford away from them, for what, some inconclusive evidence and the desire to drown in the smell of stale beer and body odor when you go out for a drink.

No choice is a retarded choice, just because you don't agree with that choice, doesn't make it any less valid, its the kind of thinking you've just demonstrated that leads to a society in the style of 1982 or V for Vendetta "The government knows whats best for you, blind obedience is all we ask."  

[Jarc_The_Mighty]

Everytime I hear an argument over smoking I laugh. It's not because I hate smokers and think they'll never win, but the exact oppisite. Sure, I can understand laws that say take it outside for the whole asthma sufferers and second hand smoke, but everything else is ridiculous! The main reason I laugh is because of South Park. The whole joke that the anti-smoking people are evil. It's funny because it's true.

Like that one dude on all the "WTH Is Up With 'I'm A Retard'" commercials. The guy with the glasses and afro. Next time you see that commercial, don't just ignore it. Look into his eyes whenever he looks into the camera. If you know what you're looking for when you look into his eyes, then you'll vouch for me. THE GUY'S FREAKING EVIL!!!  

[Jarc_The_Mighty]

Rellik San

Deific Requiem

In addition, you don't receive respect for making retarded choices no matter how much you go out of your way to diminsh the effects thereof. If the reverse was true, alot of the people on youtube would be amoungst the most highly respected individuals.

I mean: "Dude, you, like, jumped your bike over a house and broke all the bones in your face .... like, props man - respect." That person is know as a retard and would never be respected in a civilized society.

Reason(s) why?

1. That person will now need hospitalization. And in Canada, healthcare is FREE. Who pays for the medical bill? Tax payers!

Essentially, even though you take your smoking elsewhere, which is ... um ... kind of an obvious move, you're doing something that retards common sense. And that earns you no respect.

OI! Watch it.

My mother is a smoker and among the social circles, not just her, but myself and friends and their friends, is one of the most respected and loved people I know. Essentially, you've turned around and said my own mother, would never be accepted in polite society.

Within your post, you insulted my mother, you insulted all smokers that hold positions in society, then you accuse them of being a drain on resources, heres a news flash for you, that you may not realise, 70% of working class folks, engineers, technicians, bus drivers, laborers, builders, workmen, all smoke, the people that make the world smoke.

Effectively, you want to take one of the luxuries those people can actually afford away from them, for what, some inconclusive evidence and the desire to drown in the smell of stale beer and body odor when you go out for a drink.

No choice is a retarded choice, just because you don't agree with that choice, doesn't make it any less valid, its the kind of thinking you've just demonstrated that leads to a society in the style of 1982 or V for Vendetta "The government knows whats best for you, blind obedience is all we ask."

I just wanted to add that the guy before this was very wrong about the youtube thing. Yes, the people that he used are idiots. What I'm talking about are the people just goofing off and putting it on youtube. I also have proof to back me up on this claim.

My friends and I dressed as the four horsemen of the apocalypse for "Dress as your favorite Bible character" day at school last year. We paraded through the halls, everyone loved it, and we were put on youtube. The friend who came up with the idea of the horsemen also went into a mall with a snorkle and a goggle on and walked through the food court, waving his arms as though swimming. We have yet to put that on youtube, but are trying.

My point? My friend that did both of these is one of the most intelligent members of our class. Not only this, but he is also THE MOST POPULAR kid in the ENTIRE school, and one of the most respected! Although he may have some mental issues (hence the vids) people still love him, and it is hard not to enjoy his company.

And when I say popular, I don't mean, "Dude, that kid smokes and drinks every night, and has sex on a daily basis!" I mean he's loved by everyone, what popularity used to be.  

[ieatyourtclol]

@ zz: /lets you resume your wikipedia reading/google searches/and amateur lobbyist studies.  

[zz1000zz]

Deific Requiem

@ zz: /lets you resume your wikipedia reading/google searches/and amateur lobbyist studies.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but it certainly sounds offensive.

I really hope you did not just insult me for disagreeing with you, rather than provide an actual response. Because that would just make me sad.  

[Rellik San]

zz1000zz

Deific Requiem

@ zz: /lets you resume your wikipedia reading/google searches/and amateur lobbyist studies.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but it certainly sounds offensive.

I really hope you did not just insult me for disagreeing with you, rather than provide an actual response. Because that would just make me sad.

Oh he's just accusing you of being an ill informed far right winger.  

[lyssiah]

Actually, I could agree with the smoking ban because I am allergic and don't want to feel like dying everytime I go somewhere or do something. Not that I am one of those lobbyists. If people want to smoke thats cool and I have no problem if they do it where I don't have to suffer.  

[zz1000zz]

Rellik San

zz1000zz

Deific Requiem

@ zz: /lets you resume your wikipedia reading/google searches/and amateur lobbyist studies.

I have no idea what you mean by this, but it certainly sounds offensive.

I really hope you did not just insult me for disagreeing with you, rather than provide an actual response. Because that would just make me sad.

Oh he's just accusing you of being an ill informed far right winger.

That was the best interpretation i could make of it, but i was hoping it was wrong. I mean, i would hope my use of factual information and logical reasoning would prevent people from resorting to ad hominem attacks...

Oh wait, it is probably that i use factual information and logical reasoning that makes them resort to ad hominem attacks.

*sighs*  

[Spooky Wasabi Princess]

Blackrose Kaire

spooky_sez

Calantha Josephine

Oh those pics look yummy. Somehow i dont think they are going to be used in the US though. And if they are.. then well /shrug, whatever you can always just ignore them

You're not meant to ignore them blaugh

I actually laughed at the foot and "Got amputation"thing. sweatdrop

HAHAHA! Aw. heart  

[Spooky Wasabi Princess]

XXX Zombie Porn

That picture hasn't even made me think about stopping smoking.
In the slightest, this is what I mean by they won't work.

Nah, nah, nah. It's not just that one thing. It's the whole campaign. They get to you sometimes.