http://www.rampant-antismoking.com http://www.spiked-online.

>time cube style website
>news articles
>anecdotes

Post actual science or GTFO pop sci retard

>>7781565
what an absolute camel shagging wife beating gypsy peasant you are

shut the fuck up and stuff that ciggy up your arsehole

>>7781565
what the fuck is wrong with you idiots coming into /sci/ daily with this "smoking isn't bad" shit? fuck off and die from cancer already

It is an insidious experiment in social control. Smoker Paradoxes rustle so many jimmies.

>>7781581
How was the spiked link an anecdote? Jesus Chriat, if ou actually looked at the link the guy points out the flaws in one of the many studies trying to link smoking bans with a drop in health problems for nonsmokers. Did you even look at the link that was posted?

File: nNRWwrz.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>>7781565
Fuck off Joe Camel.

>>7781590
I'm not saying it isn't bad, I'm saying it's not nearly as deadly or fatal as people suggest, it feels like if anyone that's a smoker gets any type of cancer or health problem it's inaccurately linked to smoking when correlation doesn't always imply causation. It's seen as one of the absolute worst things you can do for yourself when it's clear that this line of thinking is probably more reactionary than based on hard numbers.

Honestly I'm more concerned with the secondhand smoke claims. Since no one actually wants to read that link regarding Snowdon's look at dubious health claims I'll sum it up.

>the eight percent drop in heart problems in nonsmokers was an already falling trend prior to the ban actually happening
>since the ban there has been a rise in heart problems according to the data collected in hospitals, making the effectiveness in banning smoking questionable
>the study did not consider random fluctuations in data


I also find it bizarre that there's an active weed and drug thread going on right now while you're all shitting on the possibility that smoking and secondhand smoke's harms may have been greatly overstated by self interested lobbyists or people who have a lot to gain from being part of an anti-smoking campaign without considering objective science. There are anti-smoking groups and organizations like the EPA who use epidemiology based on estimates instead of genuine studies. There are groups saying being near a lit cigarette for thirty minutes greatly increases stroke or heart attack risk. It honestly smells like bullshit.

>>7781565
my uncle with iq 165 smoked until his grandson was born
shit will kill you, no question
irradiates your lungs m8

There's a huge fucking bias supporting weed now though for some reason. Weed people can make the same arguments tobacco smokers make and nobody questions them.

>>7781727
>until his grandson was born

So he lived for a long time and was still fine, I'm guessing?

Is the law of gravity just popsci? Absolutely.

My mother died because of this shit. Stop being a shithead

>>7782120
yeah hes in his 60s now. but my dads grandpa was a smoker and he died when my dad was 10 from lung cancer.
smokings bad mmkay

>>7781960

Yeah but Marijuana itself does not cause cancer, it's the smoking part that does. If you consume Marijuana brownies or use a vaporizer, it's pretty safe for your health.

People who criticize tobacco as being unhealthy are generally referring specifically to cigarettes, not e-cigs or nicotine patches.

>>7782383
I've heard quite a few marijuana smokers say they've done it for several decades can on a daily basis with zero ill effects. Nobody calls them out on using anecdotes or their own personal experience to justify it. I only see that sort of calling out with tobacco smokers.

>>7782392
Tobacco harbors radiation, cannabis does not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/smokers-lungs-used-in-half-of-transplants-9101647.html

>there's no documented difference between people who get transplants from smoker's lungs and non smokers lungs. In some cases non smokers lungs do worse than smokers lungs over time.

And people still want this stuff banned everywhere for some reason.

https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/firsthand-smoking/

Before people try shit on these quotes: the date of when these quotes were taken shouldn't really matter. Even decades ago people thought the surgeon general's report on smoking had statistical errors in it.

http://pubget.com/articles/elasticsearch_show/1947248
>Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period

Oh no, less than one cigarette over a one year period. How awful.

Anyway, I'm done here. Epidemiological guessing games about risk and ignoring the actual evidence on active and passive smoking is apparently the norm now. There's no point in even posting if people are going to just listen unquestionably to what scientific or political authority tells them to.

>>7782520
To begin, I will say I am a long time smoker (who recently switched to a vaporizer)

If you absolutely need nicotine, or just that habit of smoking, get a vaporizer.
No tar, no radioactive shit, hardly any carcinogens, it's basically considerably less harmful.
So long as you source the liquid from a reputable place, and don't mind the possibility of (very low trace amounts of) metals in your lungs/blood.

Lastly, I have a presentation about the general toxicity in comparison to cigarettes, well compiled from many sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/

In short, smoking isn't /as bad/ as everyone says, though it is quite bad.
If you really need to, or can't stop, or (like me) understand the benefits nicotine can provide, use a vaporizer.

>>7781715
>I'm not saying it isn't bad, I'm saying it's not nearly as deadly or fatal as people suggest
>as people
It's as bad as what the consensus of scientists and doctors suggest. That's all that matters. So your entire argument is moot.

And yes it is quite bad. The reason the antismoking sentiment is so widespread is because smoking is the leading preventable cause of death, causing about 18% of deaths in the US. There is nothing else so easy to prevent yet so common as a cause of death.

>I also find it bizarre that there's an active weed and drug thread going on right now while you're all shitting on the possibility that smoking and secondhand smoke's harms may have been greatly overstated by self interested lobbyists or people who have a lot to gain from being part of an anti-smoking campaign without considering objective science.
I find it bizarre that you are bringing up other threads as if /sci/ is a homogenous group and as if the replies to all threads reflect the same viewpoints. It seems like you are trying to distract from the issue you yourself brought up. Have you considered the possibility, nay, the fact that the risks have been largely understated by what is clearly the largest special interest group in this issue, the tobacco industry? The objective science is the only reason the anti-smoking position exists in the first place. What exactly is to be gained from this position? How naive are you?

>There are anti-smoking groups and organizations like the EPA who use epidemiology based on estimates instead of genuine studies.
Estimates based on genuine studies, that is how all epidemiology works.

>>7783230
>pulling the consensus argument and not looking at the number of anti-smoking studies that are questionable in their conclusions

>leading preventable cause of death

I find it hard to believe that causing 18% if all deaths makes it leading. In guessing eventually sugar or eating carcinogenic meats would be a far more widespread problem if that's the case.

>Have you considered the possibility, nay, the fact that the risks have been largely understated by what is clearly the largest special interest group in this issue, the tobacco industry?

That has been suggested over and over again but i find some of the claims against the tobacco industry to be laughable. One person claimed that a leaked document revealed that secondhand smoke is four times worse than firsthand smoke. Just because they say these things happened inside the industry doesn't mean everything is believable. I'm sure most people would agree that the finding is crap, yet it's used constantly to poke at the industry.

>estimates based on genuine studies

Still estimates, not studies carried out to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking or being around smokers is shown to cause these problems. I don't think any study has been carried out that wasn't greatly exagerrated to overplay the risks. Additionally several anti-tobacco researchers have admitted to being dishonest.

>>7781590
It's pretty obvious someone's got these guys on the payroll.

Please don't tell me /pol/ will start defending smoking just for the sake of being different and contrarian

>>7783610
>everyone who disagrees with me is a shill :^)

>>7783613
I'm not /pol/ and I don't appreciate being called a shill simply because I disagree with the scientific consensus on something.

>>7781565
smokers stink.
I don't care about your health, it's your shitty life.
But fuck you guys reek.

Not to mention kissing smokers is a horrible experience.
You're like in a good mood wanting to fuck each other until you kiss her and then you're like "nah I'm fine thanks, I'll go back to shitposting".

File: stoner-boy[1].jpg (390KB, 757x412px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 757x412px

>>7783613
Yeah, coz pol is all about acting different and smoking
...oh wait, it's you sjwtards

Tobacco isn't that bad, smoke is bad.


Cigarettes aren't that bad, the shit they add to them are bad.

Nicotine isn't that bad. It's about as addictive as caffeine.

Nicotine has been shown to have some therapeutic value, aids creativity, and is a great work drug. If you're going to use it, avoid commercial brand cigarettes and only use natural tobacco with no additives. Vaping is of course healthier, as long as the juice you're purchasing is free of additives like sweeteners, colors, etc. Most juice brands these days are diacetyl free.

>>7783661
You stink

>>7783597
>pulling the consensus argument and not looking at the number of anti-smoking studies that are questionable in their conclusions
Go ahead and question them then.

>I find it hard to believe that causing 18% if all deaths makes it leading.
No one cares what you find hard to believe.

>Still estimates, not studies carried out to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that smoking or being around smokers is shown to cause these problems.
These studies have proven that smoking is harmful beyond a reasonable doubt.

File: Vaper.jpg (48KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 612x612px

>>7781599
I didn't but it's an easy target, easier than addressing the fat people who can't wipe their own bum properly problem, or the lack of basic nutrition in the modern diet problem, or the lack of exercise problem and 1000 other problems that obese teatsuckers in the federal health departments shrink away from. With the world running down, red herrings are going to become increasingly popular.

Truth be told, exhaling a colored exhaust from your lungs scares religious people, it's a vestigial witch hunt thing I think.

>>7783692
You just said smoke is bad, so cigarettes, smoke vehicles, are then bad. Despite the chemicals.

>>7782383
>Yeah but Marijuana itself does not cause cancer,

Marijuana suppresses the immune system which is your 1st and last line of defense against cancerous cells

>>7784102
I think he's saying pure tobacco isn't bad unless it has additives, not that I think there's a difference. I see young and old people smoking cigarettes outside buildings all the time, they seem fine.

>>7784029
>Go ahead and question them then.

Fine, almost every study I've seen pulls out bogus fears based on what they think happens to smokers or people around smokers, when in reality the fears are over exaggerated greatly. Additionally, no one has flat out proven that passive smoking has ever specifically killed, harmed, or impacted the health of someone who didn't already have a preexisting condition or had asthma.

>No one cares what you find hard to believe.

So being skeptical and questioning findings has no place in science then?

>These studies have proven that smoking is harmful beyond a reasonable doubt.

No they don't, they prove that over time and when smokers overindulge in smoking heavily they have the *potential* to develop diseases like COPD and cancer, and only some people ultimately do develop these diseases but they are not the majority. One of the last Marlboro men died at 86 with no noticeable health problems.

File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>7784251
>Fine, almost every study I've seen pulls out bogus fears based on what they think happens to smokers or people around smokers, when in reality the fears are over exaggerated greatly.
Bogus??? Well you've sure convinced me with that brilliant criticism!

>Additionally, no one has flat out proven that passive smoking has ever specifically killed, harmed, or impacted the health of someone who didn't already have a preexisting condition or had asthma.
This must be a troll. Are you going to actually respond to the science or are you just going to argue "you can't know nuffin 100% durrrr"

Yeah, it's just a huge coincidence that smoking is so heavily correlated with heart disease and lung cancer. It's just a huge coincidence that quitting smoking is heavily correlated with reduced risk of heart disease and lung cancer. Obviously smokers are just trying to alleviate their naturally scareed cancerous lungs! Hahahahahaha. All the carcinogens in cigarette smoke have nothing to do with anything. hahahahahahaha.

Yes, truly you've shown me the light. I now know how to argue with any scientific consensus I don't like. Just point out that nothing is 100% certain and boom, I win. Fossil and genetic evidence for evolution? Coincidence. Carbon dioxide and global warming? Coincidence. Things accelrating towards the ground and gravity? Coincidence. I don't even need to respond to the actual evidence nor engage in rational argument! Brilliant!

>>7784251
>So being skeptical and questioning findings has no place in science then?
Real skeptics confront the evidence and use counter-evidence. You are using pseudoskepticism to support your preconcieved conclusion that smoking is not harmful. No different from creationists or flat earthers.

>No they don't, they prove that over time and when smokers overindulge in smoking heavily they have the *potential* to develop diseases like COPD and cancer, and only some people ultimately do develop these diseases but they are not the majority.
This is just a sugar-coated way of phrasing the fact that smoking habitually, which is what people addicted to cigarettes do, carries significant risks of diseases which lead to death. In other words, smoking is harmful beyond a reasonable doubt.

>>7784366
You ignored the part where I said they aren't the majority of people who smoke. Most smokers don't get really sick until they're in their sixties or seventies and quite a few of them smoke with zero ill effect until they're ninety.

And how is this pseudo skepticism? I'm looking at the major arguments made in favor of smoking and they do not seem to be based in scientific studies that don't commit to usual errors (i.e. random fluctuations in data that take place before and after a study, bias control, sample size, considering other factors, etc.). The most important anti-smoking related documents used language like "will probably cause x" and didn't consider whether or not it actually would.

http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.PDF

This article cited major studies and pointed out several of the problems with these kinds of conclusions.

Also, it's hard to not want smoking around while you're having a hard time saving yourself from everything else that's in the air.

http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/RestaurantAir.html

Before you write this off, forget the actual source or agenda of the website for at least once. They make good points. The link would be worth a read.

>>7784351
>Are you going to actually respond to the science

I did, with links refuting some of the more popular findings. For some reason that's not good enough apparently.

>>7786090
The first is a crank site that simply quotes a conference on smoking.

The second and third are about the effects of public smoking bans.

So no, you have presented zero refutations of any scientific evidence that smoking is harmful.

>>7783658
You also disagree with the scientific consensus on the moon landing, the holocaust, and climate change. You're 100% /pol/.

>>7784448
>You ignored the part where I said they aren't the majority of people who smoke.
No I didn't. Do you understand how risk works? What scientific body has said anything to the contrary?

>Most smokers don't get really sick until they're in their sixties or seventies and quite a few of them smoke with zero ill effect until they're ninety.
So you admit smoking causes people to get sick. Thank you for playing.

>This article cited major studies and pointed out several of the problems with these kinds of conclusions.
The article misrepresents these studies. This is just more of the pseudoskeptical argument that because X can't be proved with absolute certainty, X is false. Science does not deal in absolutes, it deals in sufficient evidence. There is more than enough sufficient evidence for us to draw the conclusion that smoking causes cancer, cardiovascular disease, and significantly reduces lifespan. The article starts off by characterizing the conclusion of the Surgeon General as "maybe" simply because he used the words "can" and "expected". Apparently a study only concludes that smoking is harmful when it shows that smoking always causes cancer in every smoker. Oh and if you try to explain why you expected these effects of smoking then obviously this is all hypothetical and we can just ignore the data. This isn't refuting the study, it's lying about it.

>>7786139
I actually agree with the consensus on all of those things except for the idea that climate change is primarily caused by human activity, but thank you for turning this into a political discussion instead of a scientific one.

>>7786115
>harmful

I don't think I've said anywhere that it isn't harmful, so you're misrepresenting what's being said to suit your argument. I'm pointing out the fact that the health effects are over exaggerated, and that there's no proof secondhand smoke has legitimately harmed people in public or in the home.

File: RB4549.fig1.jpg (18KB, 300x341px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x341px

Yes, smoking is bad, but it's ill effects only present after long-term use and not till later in life. You know what's WAAAAAY worse? Being overweight. And I'm not talking morbidly obese, I'm talking just a bit overweight. Heres the RAND study:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549.html

A few years ago I was sharing a cig with a friend outside a show- neither of us were habitual smokers, and a lady who must have had a BMI of 38-40, chastised us for smoking. My friend was pre-med and we both laughed our fucking asses off.

>>7786577
correlation isn't causation ;)

>>7786578
Of course not, it only is if people want to specifically link smoking with disease ;).

>>7786583
It's called randomization. Politicizing science leads to pseudosciences

>>7786614
>politicizing science leads to pseudosciences

Which is why health nuts have ruined it by claiming that all of these lifestyle choices are way worse than they actually are.

>>7786498
I feel like we've already been over this
>It's as bad as what the consensus of scientists and doctors suggest. That's all that matters. So your entire argument is moot.

>>7786577
Too bad you can't ban being fat

>>7786628
Except in the case of homosexual risks where they must be understated for sensitivity.
But they've always been superstitious and chauvinistic about theirs

>>7786628
no. look at the largest causes of death in the US:
heart disease
stroke
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
diabetes

these are results of bad lifestyle choices

>>7786641
Fuck it man, tax calories. Funnel that $ back into treating all this diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, hypertension, strokes, sleep apnea, etc. I don't give a fuck if you say "but that unfairly taxes the poor". So do cig taxes. 46% of people with only a GED/HS diploma smoke. Only ~6% of people with a Masters degree or higher smoke. Let that stat sink in. We're fine with taxing the shit out of cigs, but won't do anything about obesity because of "muh poverty" and "muh fat shaming". Sorry, there's no such thing as "healthy fat". No, big is not beautiful. It will kill you and cost all of us a shit ton on $$ in the process. Obesity is a huge drain on the healthcare system, which directly and indirectly effects us all.

>>7786636
>I feel like we've already been over this
Time, and time again.

>>7786665
Plus smoking is a stimulant and can solve that expense with a lesser extent

>>7781565
Cardiovascular health is vastly improved when you don't smoke. What in the actual fuck do you mean not so bad? How many smokers do you think run marathons?

>>7786677
I'm smoker and actually ran the new york and amsterdam marathon. I was not fast but I completed both

>>7786193
>So you admit smoking causes people to get sick. Thank you for playing.

Of course I do, I admit that it has the potential to do this to people. It doesn't happen to everyone who smokes though, either because they die due to something not linked to heavy smoking (like pancreatic cancer) or they live on well into their old age despite heavy smoking with maybe a few lung and heart problems. Or they can be perfectly fine. These things have happened.

>There is more than enough sufficient evidence for us to draw the conclusion that smoking causes cancer, cardiovascular disease, and significantly reduces lifespan.

All of those things are true but they do not happen to every smoker. Only fifteen percent of smokers get lung cancer, for example. When such a small percentage is thrown around the idea of it being *as* harmful as so many people say is questionable. You've got people saying its a worse radiation risk than other environmental pollutants or radiation sources. If that were the case I would suspect far greater reported or documented incidents of various health problems in young or middle aged smokers.

>>7786193
>The article starts off by characterizing the conclusion of the Surgeon General as "maybe" simply because he used the words "can" and "expected".

The article also looks at people in the medical and scientific industry that refute the idea that secondhand smoke is harmful. Even people in the anti-smoking crowd are skeptical. The article explains how several people in science and medicine are shunned for their studies and findings.

>Apparently a study only concludes that smoking is harmful when it shows that smoking always causes cancer in every smoker.

It only concludes smoking is harmful when there's a successful correlation that doesn't consider multiple health related factors like poverty, diet, genetics, etc. we already know obesity or being overweight alone is harmful. What happens to an average, moderately healthy individual with no health problems after a decade of smoking? This guy, for example, seems fine >>7786697
(If you're not actually fine then I apologize, but you did run a marathon).

>Oh and if you try to explain why you expected these effects of smoking then obviously this is all hypothetical and we can just ignore the data. This isn't refuting the study, it's lying about it.

I'm not ignoring the data. Anti-smoking studies have been heavily criticized while many studies not finding any significant links never get any attention. Stanford university found that there's no link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Studies have shown transplanting a decades long, pack a day smoker's lungs into a nonsmoker is perfectly fine.

What about FSC cigarettes?
It's required by law in all 50 states all manufactured cigarettes must be "fire safe"
Ethylene-vinyl acetate similar to carpenter glue is put on the paper to make it burn slower and smother it if not puffed on putting out.
A number of studies popped up showing that increases health risks and ironically fires caused by smokes went up in some areas.

>>7786721
Statistically speaking smoking on average 1 pack of marlboros a day from the age of 14-30 will little to no effect beyond the short term things such as the smokers cough, many other issues are related to FSC.

An interesting point is that tobacco is simply considered cigarettes.
Marlboros are different than my smokes, my are all natural, paper, filters, and tobacco is grown on my property.
We wouldn't consider a big mac to be the same as a burger off the grill at home.
So many factors with smoking that's not included in any studies.

>>7786734
no, smoking 1+ packs a day results in a 50% larger exposure to radiation than the annual limit for radiation workers

>>7786734
So if the flame retardants are the bigger problem then there are flame retardants in a ton of shit like car upholstery and couches. Doesn't sound too good for people with furniture.

>>7786750
Tell that to all of the people past the age of sixty not sick due to the radiation from marlboros. Hell tell that to the people in their twenties, thirties, or forties who smoke and are fine. I've seen honestly far worse problems in overweight people of any age.

>>7786777
it is dose dependent,at low level smoking is statistically insignificant but once you get to packdays, it becomes exponential

>>7786777
i dont think you really get how cancer works
>Tell that to all of the people past the age of sixty not sick due to the radiation from marlboros
it increases you risk for cancer. it is directly linked not only to higher cancer risk but directly related to higher cancer deaths seen in smokers vs nonsmokers. it doesnt mean everyone who smokes will get cancer
>Hell tell that to the people in their twenties, thirties, or forties who smoke and are fine
there is a window, typically 5-10 years before cancer develops after prolonged exposure, so obviously younger people have smoking induced cancer at lower rates

File: 1396752230906.jpg (20KB, 243x240px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 243x240px

>>7786750
>implying all manufacturers use radiated fertilizer
Radiation in tobacco is borderline nonexistent to begin with

>>7786811
false
its because of the uranium decay chain. radon gas decays and its products fall on the leaves, which eventually decays to Po-210, which is deadly in microgram doses. it doesnt take much to be dangerous. the average smoker get 8000 mRem annually vs the 300 mRem that nonsmokers typcially get from background radiation

>>7786577
being over weight reduces all cause mortality
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137

>>7781565
Some of the smartest people I have ever met smoke their asses off. I'm talking people with Ph.D's who are liberal as hell doing huge multi-million dollar research to cure diseases, etc.

>>7786821
Po-210 isn't actively harmful for very long, after a few months it turns into nothing or atleast nothing that will affect you.
Tobacco used for cigarettes is typically aged for 2-3 months, and goes through processing, packaging and shipping then proceeds to sit on a shelf.
Most cigarettes you pick up in a shop are nearly a year old which would be past the life expectancy of Po-210.

>>7786721
>The article also looks at people in the medical and scientific industry that refute the idea that secondhand smoke is harmful.
Again
>It's as bad as what the consensus of scientists and doctors suggest. That's all that matters. So your entire argument is moot.

>It only concludes smoking is harmful when there's a successful correlation that doesn't consider multiple health related factors like poverty, diet, genetics, etc. we already know obesity or being overweight alone is harmful. What happens to an average, moderately healthy individual with no health problems after a decade of smoking? This guy, for example, seems fine >>7786697
That's a complete lie. Any epidemiological study will correct for such factors by comparing apples to apples. When you read that someone who smokes is 30 times more likely to develop lung cancer, what that means is that someone who smokes and has the same background as someone who doesn't smoke is 30 times more likely to develop lung cancer. You can't blame a 3000% increase on some mysterious factor. Not to mention that you are ignoring all the studies that compare people who stopped smoking to people who still smoke which show huge reductions in disease and mortality. Are you going to argue that being more prone to cancer also keeps you from quitting? This is pure delusional thinking.

And then you have the nerve to bring up a single piece of anecdotal evidence which isn't even relevant since NO ONE has ever argued that every smoker will get cancer.

Now it seems the only thing you have left is to argue that secondhand smoke isn't harmful, BUT AGAIN, if that is the scientific consensus than there is nothing to discuss. This is a science board, not a politics board, not a media board.

>>7786855
12% of smokers will develop a health issue, not necessarily die but have some sort of health issue.

>>7786849
>Po-210 isn't actively harmful for very long, after a few months it turns into nothing or atleast nothing that will affect you.
since when did internal contamination with alpha emitters become non-threatening? that statement is asinine. and the "life expectancy" of a radioactive material is typically considered to be around 10 half lives, which in the case of Po-210 is close to 4 years

>>7786717
>All of those things are true but they do not happen to every smoker. Only fifteen percent of smokers get lung cancer, for example. When such a small percentage is thrown around the idea of it being *as* harmful as so many people say is questionable.
Are you retarded? Imagine for a second that your favorite snack had a 15% chance of giving you cancer. If this came to light the companies producing it would immediately go bankrupt from the lawsuits and drop in stock price. It would be banned as a harmful substance. And yet you are whining about the bad publicity that cigarettes get for being a carcinogenic toxin while it's still being produced and sold.

>You've got people saying its a worse radiation risk than other environmental pollutants or radiation sources. If that were the case I would suspect far greater reported or documented incidents of various health problems in young or middle aged smokers.
Yup, don't listen to those dumb scientists and their evidence, just go with what you think sounds right. It's clearly working for you.

>>7786876
go be a statist somewhere else, i bet you have abdominal fat.

>>7781565
Ahh the "I like to do x, so I'll find a reasoning to justify my actions". Sure anon, it is not -that- bad. go on.

>>7786864
Out of curiosity where did you get that number? Can't seem to find that percentage with Google but it's interesting.

>>7786890
why do you care if anon wants to contribute to cancer research in a more relevant way than fun runs?

>>7786864
Nonsense, that statistic is probably referring solely to lung cancer. Most smoking deaths are from vascular disease. Half of all smokers die from smoking related causes. A quarter die from smoking related causes before they reach 50. On average, smokers live 14 years less than non-smokers.

Nearly all long time smokers have some health issue caused by smoking, such as weakened eyesight or yellow teeth.

>>7786882
>>>/pol/

>>7786896
Because this research is important so people don't get the wrong idea? Hell there's a guy up thread disproving the "danger" of radiation in tobacco smoke.

>>7786938
The extent is disproportionate to the hysteria it receives. It isn't rational.

>>7786942
Well you have non smokers switching goalposts all the time, when "it's the chemicals in tobacco" fails them they switch to "it's the radiation that's so bad" and when that doesn't work they don't have much left.

>>7786956
i dont think you understand switching of goal posts. both the chemicals and radioactive contamination in tobacco/cigarette smoke are bad for health

>>7786870
kid you can google that shit.

File: shit.jpg (2KB, 218x23px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 218x23px

>>7786970
i don't need to, everything i've said is factually correct

>>7786959
Relative to what?
>>7786890
I need to go through some papers and see if I can find it, I took the number of people that smoke in the US, how much they smoked, and how many dealt with health issues and averaged it out.

File: 1324592750903.jpg (7KB, 236x252px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 236x252px

>>7786975

>>7786979
>Relative to what?
relative to not smoking

>>7786986
lel what specifically do you take issue with you mongoloid retard? or are you just upset someone called you on your shit habit that will likely kill you?

File: image.jpg (61KB, 432x360px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 432x360px

>>7786994
True colors revealed.

>>7787006
you havnt made a valid argument yet..

>>7786986
>>7787006
>stop making fun of me!

proof smoking kills your brain

>>7786975
>engineering

File: you should be able to solve these its only engineering.png (4MB, 2840x2628px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2840x2628px

>>7787183
found the high schooler

>>7782392
>>7782451

weed and tobacco smoke have near identical health effects.
the different outcomes in weed smokers versus tobacco smokers are a result of different quantities of consumed smoke - a heavy tobacco smoker will easily go through 20+ cigarettes every single day, while even seasoned weed smokers will rarely exceed 1 or 2 joins a day.

less amount of smoke inhaled = less damage to lungs. it's that simple.

>>7788045
ive heard of a few weed smokers who go through at least a few tokes a day for decades with zero health effects. I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting sick from weed unless they get too high from doing too much at once.