Smoking General

why are you pro-smoking and making these dumb threads you cancerbag retard ? do you enjoy misinforming people ? did marlboro put you on payroll or something ?

>>8141189
>shill gambit

Come on, why stoop that low?

I think it's pretty clear there is far more to the "smoking is bad" story than what people are accepting as fact. Far too many times, other factors are involved. Far too many times the "science" is just shirty surveys like the ones in the 1950's that were manipulated to get the desired results of the researchers (and I'm pretty sure THAT is pseudoscience).

If there is a genetic reason, or another cause behind these supposed smoking-related problems altogether, then people have a right to know and understand all of the facts involved.

File: image09[1].png (244KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 700x466px

>>8141201
So they're printing these just for the fuck of it ?

>>8141189
>Marlboro

Christ, you kidding me? Marlboro is a brand. The company is Philip Morris and I'm not being paid a dime. I just think that the smoking hysteria is exclusive to the U.S. and much of the west. The east and most other countries don't give a shit.

>>8141201
Wait, are you suggesting that one of the symptoms of lung disease, cancer and cardiovascular disease is that
IT MAKES YOU GO BACK IN TIME AND START SMOKING?

fucking brilliant, man. I think you're on to something here.

>>8141209
No, because the government and surgeon general demanded it. If they had the opportunity they wouldn't post it and for good reason, seeing as how most smokers don't even get cancer.

>>8141218
>most smokers don't even get cancer.
that's funny right there.

If I have a taxi company that kills 1/3 of its customers and say "most people that use our company won't even die," would you ride?

File: 195cfdzzsjticjpg.jpg (68KB, 991x638px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 991x638px

>>8141215
Because China and India are so well known for their health care policies.

They can't unfuck all the borderline propaganda they have produced thus leaving them to only double down.

>>8141218
sooo the government and surgeons just demanded it for the fuck of it ? they approve nicotine and thousands of other shit that turns your lungs black ?
Are you even trying ?

>>8141216
Are you high? Nothing I said suggested that. I'm talking about the earliest smoking studies carried out in Britain being bullshit.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

http://sci.med.diseases.cancer.narkive.com/6qNYNZIZ/the-dishonesty-of-antismoking

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/01/doll-j09.html?view=article_mobile

It has been asserted that Richard Doll shifted the blame from their culprits to the act of smoking.

>>8141224
Japan is a smokers paradise and they have significantly smaller rates of every disease associated with smoking but high stomach cancer rates.

Additionally the ungodly amount of pollution is a much higher health risk in China than their smoking. See what's going on? It's another source of ill health being the actual driving force of disease and increased risk.

>>8141225
Then how does one fix it? If they even tried any of this propaganda in France Greece and Japan they'd get a huge pushback.

>>8141183
>smoking isn't bad for your health
these b8 threads aren't even that great anymore...

>>8141240
Purge the liberal establishment from politicized science, I don't mean to single out a side, but this sort of superstitious pearl clutching is their hallmark.

>>8141252
the right is unfortunately too stupid to do science.

it's a real problem, we try to get them into programs to increase their numbers but affirmative action just isn't working.

>>8141246
I really don't get what is he traing to achieve when labels on the smokes itself say smoking causes cancer, arthritis, vein clotting and lots of other nasty shit.

>>8141254
Look at you. You're the bigot now.

>>8141256
Get the tracking chips out of your head. The government's cherry picked and manipulated studies are the reasons for Those labels, along with other science from the UK that was manipulated to the advantage of a man trying to use smoking as a scapegoat.

>>8141252
They control the science though. You can't just pull them out. Smoking being a health risk has always been a liberal standpoint (and in the few times it's not, a religious abstinence standpoint).

>>8141270
They can remain if politicizing is curbed. Create a climate open to more than consensus? T-bh I think if the righties appropriated anti-smoking their contrarianism will do the rest.

>>8141280
>Create a climate open to more than consensus?

That's never going to work. All of the popular scientists and skeptics and everything else is all about the consensus. It's the same thing with global warming. Some of the smartest and most influential minds give in to consensus and don't give a shit if their data is capable of being disputed.

For example, if anyone looked at the countries with the highest smoking rates they'd see a huge difference in mortality and illness. People only seem to focus on the U.S. and their numbers though.

>>8141286
See this is why giving them free helicopter rides is always my goto

>>8141201
hey man, whats stopping you then? go ahead and smoke 2 packs a week. let me know how you're doing in 20 years.

>>8141291
>smoke at a statistically insignificant level see what happens
Its nothing

>>8141294
well whats it gonna be, pussy? do you want to smoke or not?

>>8141291
It's a waste of money due to the taxes, and I'd lose my sense of smell.

Granted, if I did smoke that much for 20 years, nothing of importance would happen to me. How about you try it and find out that smoking feels good and isn't a big health problem like the government wants you to believe

Most people who smoke that much for twenty years can pretty much bounce back to completely normalcy after they quit.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 407x428px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 407x428px

>>8141291
>Five/six cigarettes a day
>he actually thinks it's a big deal

>>8141291
That's nothing. Japanese guys can smoke up to three packs and nothing happens to them. How do you explain that? Wait, you can't.

>>8141343
>charcoal filters
>other hazard reducing effects
>resistant heredity influence
>being an otherwise fit and healthy population

>>8141351
>charcoal filters
>other hazard reducing effects

If that's true, then great. Why doesn't America or the UK use these hazard reducing effects then? I'm curious.

>resistant heredity influence

The genetics argument doesn't always work one hundred percent. Japanese Americans who smoke still get pretty sick.

http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2009/06/japanese-smoking-paradox.html?m=1

>being an otherwise fit and healthy population

This is the right answer, and it proves smoking isn't bad, having a bad lifestyle and diet is the real problem. Why doesn't the science in America teach this, instead of taking a negative view of smoking?

>>8141356
You can't exactly introduce safe cigarettes after trashing the notion for a generation. They don't want to eat crow over preventable harm do-gooders were responsible for.

>>8141371
How effective are the hazard reducing effects/charcoal filters? How different are they from western cigs?

File: Cigarette-Warning-GOR-15147H[1].jpg (305KB, 1000x630px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1000x630px

/thread

>>8141371
More evidence, I guess.

http://islaslab.blogspot.com/2011/05/safer-cigarette.html?m=1

Sounds like cancer is not a risk for smoking in Japan. I wonder if all of the alleged other risks in the U.S don't apply as well (stroke, heart disease*, pneumonia, emphysema)

*I'm guessing due to their diet heart disease isn't much of a factor.

>>8141387
>posting government propaganda

You may as well post An Inconvinient Truth as scientific proof, kid.

>>8141409
> government propaganda.
It's a health regulation you desperate cancerbag. They need to let people know that they're selling cancers and tumors and lung-related diseases to people

>>8141414
So why don't you get garish about sugar, booze,etc and only malign smoking?

>>8141414
More like they need to let people know that they can blame smoking for all their problems instead of cracking down on the real problem or, like Japan, creating a healthier cigarette or enforcing a better diet so people can smoke.

>>8141420
They somehow magically make smoking not cancerous ? Your dumb OP post said smoking is not linked to cancer, lung diseases and many other shit that they print on the labels, and when you're cornered you cry about some other irrelevant shit.

You're grasping at straws here. Please just smoke 5 packs a day and kill yourself cancerbag.

>>8141428
Any explanation is frankly better than the corrupt science we're currently getting.

Frankly the difference in lifestyle explains Japan and Greece compared to the U.S.

Another reason is that the "data" isn't all that it seems.

http://www.smokingaloud.com/death.html

>>8141438
So do you think it's a massive conspiracy that every doctor out there is against smoking and tells you that its bad for your lungs along with causing long term illnesses ?

>>8141183
I wanted to thank you for this, OP.

I'm on my second day without a cigarette, which is always the hardest day for me when I'm trying to quit.

Seeing you shilling for tobacco companies reminded me why I hate them. You're a soulless shit stain of a human that will let people die horrible deaths if it means you get a couple bucks, and I appreciate you reminding me of that.

>>8141183
Slightly off topic, but I think the problems associated with quitting are under played dishonestly.

I smoked 2 packs per day for about 5 years. When I quit, I went into depression for 6 months, with an icing of total emotional instability and agoraphobia. It started nearly a month after my last cigarette, and after the temptation was basically gone.

If you research it, these symptoms come up as risks, but are down played as rare. If you actually talk to doctors who personally work with ex-smokers, they will tell you it is very common.

I didn't go back to smoking because of pride and arrogance, but it was probably the worst 6 months of my life.

>>8141189
>>8141216
>>8141240
>>8141246
>>8141414
>>8141428
>>8141473
/sci/: never question our beliefs or we will insult you like little bitches.

>>8141473
My mom died a year ago from respiratory insufficiency when she was 45. Our family doctor said she was fine other than her smoking habit where she could have lived for atleast 20 more years.
I'm glad I never smoked and I don't ever intend to.

>>8141482
I'm sorry to hear of your loss. I'm the only on of five siblings that smokes, and I'm the only one of five siblings that has had strokes. I almost died of one on my 40th birthday.

I know smoking will kill me but it's amazing how hard it is to quit and stay quit.

>>8141485
Indeed. It's better not to start at all but I hope you get rid of that habit. It's such an unnerving thing to lose loved ones over this poison.

>>8141485
>it's amazing how hard it is to quit and stay quit.
Nicotine gum, 4mg to 2mg to chewing gum. Take it slow so your addiction and habits transfer from lighting cigarettes to chewing gum. For me, it was 3 boxes of Nicorette.

File: image.jpg (88KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 850x400px

>>8141454
The conspiracy is well documented if you read the links that have been posted on this thread. The main motive is to create more jurisdiction and power in the government so they make more money.

>>8141473
I wanted to thank you for reminding me of how there are over emotional non and ex-smokers who get all righteous because a habit personally affected them, even though it hardly affects many others to the extent the government wants people to think. you're just being irrational with your comments, particularly the idea that I somehow make money. I make no money off tobacco and do this in my spare time. You have no basis to make this claim and I'm frankly insulted that you would. I have heroes who are smokers who didn't quit and bitch about it, they either still do it, or died at a ripe old age.

I'm just trying to show people that it's a complex, multi layered issue that like global warming has been muddled by complete bullshit like secondhand smoke and smoking kills styles of propaganda. This is a science board, science is about facts, not emotion.

>>8141495
Your links are not academic links, nor well cited respectable papers. I'm not even looking for peer-review at this point.

I don't think theres anything left to discuss when you confirmed that all the doctors in the world are somehow in a conspiracy which has nothing to do with how people who smoke get black repressed lungs and massively documented illnesses directly related to that.

>>8141501
Many of the links mention studies that reached conclusions about smoking that are not in line with the mainstream blowhard opinion.

I do have links proving that secondhand smoke is bullshit, though. Secondhand smoke is bollocks and is the main building block for why smoking is banned indoors.

>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."
>Enstrom, JE and Kabat, GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 BMJ 2003; 326:1057. This study found "No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease."
>In addition a large prospective study (76,000 women) showed that while there is a strong association between smoking and lung cancer no such link has been demonstrated with second hand smoke. The direct quote is "the fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers].” (Peres, J, "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer,"J Natl Cancer Inst, 2013.)

I will see if I can find some old links about smoking not being a health risk but a negligible habit of varying quality.

>>8141183
Hey smoke fags. How does it feel that you are stuck to the phallic stage? You might as well suck a dick!

Everything kills in abuse, but is unjustified take antismokin posture and ignore the pollution is a major healt problem and i suspect is responsible of the passive smokers increment, is not the fist time, remember the lead in fuel?

>this whole thread
Lmao are you seriously trying to justify smoking and saying it isn't bad for you? The fact that it ruins your lung capacity and makes you smell like an old man should make you quit that shit, it's fucking disgusting

>>8141532
Junior high? Just learned about Freud? How cute, just wait until you learn something true.
>>8141536
Your lack of English writing skills is abuse.

>>8141489
>>8141485
>>8141482
I'm sorry this happened to you, but what people need to keep in mind is that other factors are at play, not just smoking. Genetics/hereditary conditions, diet, air pollution, radon gas (biggest health risk by far) are all huge factors and I think it's disingenuous how people lump the blame on smoking like its definitively linked to these kinds of disease.

>>8141547
The sheer number of intelligent and open minded people who use it justifies its use. Most anti-smokers are close minded.

File: image.jpg (20KB, 291x173px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 291x173px

>>8141552
Forgot pic

>I don't understand the difference between absolute and relative risk

That's understandable, most brainlets have trouble with numbers ('cos math is hard, amirite). The point is your absolute risk of developing cancer is pretty low, but take a smoker and a non-smoker and the smoker will have a higher likelihood of developing cancer than the non-smoker, even though that liklihood is still pretty small.

>>8141183
>unrelated diseases and conditions

What makes you think that they're unrelated? What gives you the authority to assert that?

>>8141550
No, It was smoking, the doctor came outright and said it. I knew her lungs were already in bad condition because she started smoking around 17.
Unlike me she never eat red meat or anything with carcinogens much and we live in the outerskirts of the town where you can't even hear the traffic. That was one of the most shocking things for me because I never expected her to die off of health problems since we live in a nice healthy environment.

>>8141578
Is there any family history of lung cancer or large amounts of asbestos or radon gas in the area? Sorry, just curious. Radon in particular is what people say causes lung cancer in nonsmokers. If one rejects the idea that smoking is a cause for cancer, then one could draw the conclusion that it can cause cancer and disease in smokers as well.

>>8141552
>>8141561
> look guise i smoke im so k00l n edgy xDDD

you guys are pathetic lol

>>8141564
>>unrelated diseases and conditions
>What makes you think that they're unrelated? What gives you the authority to assert that?

Multille things. Faulty research, counter studies proving otherwise, the Japanese paradox, where smokers don't even get the diseases associated with smoking at nearly the same level as people in the west do.

File: LITVINENKO_2582317c-large_trans++6f7LZ7seCW96zliyTYX6ViIMpBIiS72GQ3QPBtusw-s.jpg (20KB, 459x287px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 459x287px

>>8142007
I thought it was the polonium from the phosphate fertilizer mines which then get into the plant that contributed. I understand Balkan tobacco does not use this.the companies themselves for whatever reason know and do not replace it, maybe anerica is using smoking as eugenics unlike other places.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html?_r=0

>>8141183
Because they can.

If you want to smoke so bad, just do it, and stop complaining.

>>8142032
>Because they can

Cuck who passively lets bad science run things detected.

You may accept them spreading this information about smoking, but don't for a second think it's acceptable to ban smoking indoors due to the secondhand smoke meme, which is the only reason they got rid of it. Creating faulty science to ban another human being's habit from being allowed is a violation of rights.

>>8142009
Hey, go ahead and stop consuming the media or pop culture of anyone who smokes. You will be faced with a small list of likewise rather boring people.

>>8141578
>>8142007
Also, I realize this is an anectdote, but I knew someone who had a smoking father who died of lung cancer, and she ended up getting cancer despite being a nonsmoker.

Sounds a lot like cancer, including lung cancer, is a genetic issue, not a smoking issue.

>>8142049
You don't have any right to fill the room other people live in with with toxic gas retard. Go smoke your tobacco jew outside.

>>8142187
>muh safe space
nanny statist pls go

>>8142049
If businesses and institutions want to ban smoking, that's their right. Deal with it.

I could give a rat if it's bad for you or not, it smells terrible and is obnoxious to breath.

>>8142194
It's not a safe space, it's a closed and public space and you can't treat it like your own cesspool.

Go smoke your fucking cancer in your own filth retard. Nobody has to endure your gas just because you're retarded.

>>8142200
passive smoking is bollocks, it doesn't reduce cancer rates in fact they've stayed level since non-smokers keep fucking it up by getting lung cancer.

>>8142204
Nice try ignoring the point retardo.

It's a closed and public space and you can't treat it like your own cesspool. End of story.

If you wanna smoke, fuck off and do it where you don't disturb people.

>>8142212
fine but I aint walking no 10 feet that is a baseless ostracizing tactic
it should be up to private organizations to decide themselves,

>>8142199
>If businesses and institutions want to ban smoking, that's their right. Deal with it.

True, but you know what? They usually do it on the incorrect belief that it's bad for people. If that wasn't the case I doubt most people would care.

And regardless, smoking bans are a state problem, not a business problem. Usually states try to enact statewide bans.

>I could give a rat if it's bad for you or not, it smells terrible and is obnoxious to breath.

You can't get rid of something because you don't like it you tool.

>>8142212
You don't get to decide what happens in public, no one should.

>if you wanna smoke, fuck off and do it where you don't disturb people.

If you don't want to be near smoke just go somewhere else, or are your legs broken?

>>8142215
Is it too hard to smoke 10 feet away from the door ? Do you press your face against door glass and smoke right near the entrance ?

>>8142220
it does nothing but shame smokers when you fucks aren't around to cough passive aggressively, there is a specific ring in hell for those folk.

>>8142224
Yeah, they should get in line to get exposed to your cancerous garbage.

Just fuck off already. The regulations are there for a reason. Nobody has to endure being suffocated by your smoke.

>>8142237
It is not harmful you're just being a priss and want to curb others behavior like a petty authoritarian.

>>8142237
>he actually thinks smoking or even secondhand smoke can cause health problems
>this is what the new age millennial actually believes

File: SmokersLungs[1].jpg (73KB, 1000x479px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1000x479px

>>8142241
>>8142248
Fuck off already retard

>>8142252
They actually get transplanted to no less effect than normal ones. Bugger off with your scare tactics and cherrypicking
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140227091247.htm

>>8142252
>posts a pic of a lung used by a coal miner as proof

Top KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKE

File: smokers-lungs[1].png (73KB, 427x308px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 427x308px

>>8142266
>>8142267
so much failure.

>>8142294
Posting a meme image of what you think a smoker's lung looks like makes you look like a retard. Proof has shown that there little to no difference between smoking and nonsmoking.

Government men images of what they want a smoker's lung to look like is just like a using picture of a polar bear stranded on a sheet of ice in the water to show global warming.

File: healthy-versus-smoker-lungs[1].png (119KB, 450x200px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 450x200px

>>8142313
It's not what I think it is, it's what the smoke companies print no cigarette boxes.
> b-b-but muh global conspiracy

Go spread your cancer elsewhere dumbfuck. Who do you think you're fooling ?

>>8141320
L-O-L

I don't give a shit about smoking. I do not feel an urge to try. I do not feel an urge to spend money. I am not concerned with the health effects because it will never affect me aside from the second hand smoke I may get on occasion from a passerby. I am not interested in rediscovering the answer to this question of yours because, like roughly 70% of the threads posted on /sci/, it is a dumb one.

You, on the other hand, are making a claim against medical professionals and against a (except for you) universally accepted idea that smoking is not good for you. If you are so damn critical of it, why not start smoking yourself? It feels good right? You bounce back quick, right? Most people are resistant, right?Again, what's stopping you? I'm not.

>why don't you go smoke for twenty years then realize how good it feels and how little damage it does to you?

Does Camel pay you by your post count or how many people view the thread?

>>8142318
Yeah, the Feds force them to post that garbage even though it's not how a smoker's lung looks. it's a huge exaggeration and if one stopped smoking the lungs would go back to normal.

>>8142330
Go be a virtue signaling twat somewhere else. Smoking below a pack a day isn't going to be a debilitating as it is memed out to be

File: image.jpg (25KB, 318x345px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 318x345px

>the lungs will go back to normal

I don't even know if I want to hear your explanation of how that happens.

File: mad man.jpg (34KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 413x395px

>>8142335
> m-m-m-uh conspiracy
point at this cancerous retard and laugh

>>8142337
Why do you insist on telling me this? I'm not buying your fucking cigarettes. Leave me alone.

File: image.jpg (10KB, 236x138px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x138px

>>8142342
That's a common fact you imbecile.

They go back to normal after a week.

Get over it.

>>8142345
>nothing but meme images

I forgot it was summer and all the freshman from high school have come to play, fresh from their TheTruth.org rally.

>>8142348
>would rather be ignorant the rest of his life

Lel

>thinking health warnings are propaganda

Please go drink bleach and ignore the danger label.

>>8142069
I say the same for alcohol or excessive meat/high-caloric food consumption, but it wouldn't make those endeavors--which I personally enjoy--any healthier. I never understood cigarettes, but I enjoy cigars. All the reading I've done hasn't managed to demonstrate the occasional (once a month if I have the time/occasion) cigar has long-term negative health affects aside a slightly increased chance of mouth diseases (which is understandable). Yet, when I visit a doctor and mention--as you're encouraged, be honest with the doctor--that I have the occasional cigar, they go bananas and try to say that I'm a full-on smoker who needs to quit.
I mentioned I've had shrooms, smoked weed, drink anywhere from 2-7 drinks a week, but god damn that monthly cigar's what's gonna kill you.

Cigarettes on the other hand seem to have no benefit. I love the taste of cigars, pairs great with a nice whiskey (from bourbon to irish to scotch or what have you), and the combo has a nice buzz. Cigarettes taste like shit, burn your lungs/throat, ruin your sense of smell, and lead to severe addictions. While I disagree with the tactic of slight brainwashing, it seems to me they're trying to keep kids from getting hooked on these useless things. No purpose, only negative health effects, extra costs, highly addictive. To me, that was reason enough to not get involved.

>>8142359
>thinking health warnings based on cherry picking studies and government control is NOT propaganda

*checks calendar*

Oh.

It's 1984.

1.) Never learn something from tabloids, magazines, newspapers, blogs, youtube videos, howcast, or non-academic sites.

2.) Only learn from academic sources.

3.) Smoking is always harmful; but it doesn't always cause cancer. No one can smoke without it damaging their lungs.

>>8142352
You're really trying to rope in some customers today, huh? I get it, it's a job and you gotta do it. But between you and me, I'm not interested.

>>8142366
No, please, go and revive all the smokers who have died in the past of lung cancer. Go cure everyone who currently has it because they smoked for too long.

>>8141183
Can you cite the original studies instead of news articles?

Ones from Japan, Greece or France that deny the link between lung carcinoma and smoking?

>>8142369
>1.) Never learn something from tabloids, magazines, newspapers, blogs, youtube videos, howcast, or non-academic sites.

That's a fallacious argument based on dismissing information due to the source. What if those places analyze/deconstruct studies or talk about them?

>2.) Only learn from academic sources.

Good idea but not all academic sources are valid. You wouldn't simply trust something because it's an academic source, would you? Studies can and have been proven to be faulty.

>3.) Smoking is always harmful; but it doesn't always cause cancer. No one can smoke without it damaging their lungs.
>No one can smoke without it damaging their lungs.

Japan's, Greece's, and Italy's population of smoker's would all like to dispute this, along with some U.S smokers.

>>8142351
Can you prove to me that it's a fact with more than an image I could make in paint and saying "it's a fact"?

>>8142390
Here. This link also supports the idea of things going back to normal after smoking.

http://www.healthline.com/health-slideshow/quit-smoking-timeline

smoking being a health risk is government propaganda, while it could cause a few small problems it is being outlawed for reasons that lay in corruption and jurisdiction.

http://headrambles.com/smoking-out-the-truth/the-scientific-scandal-of-antismoking/#.V2CCdIpHbCR

Fucking learn the truth about smoking.

>>8142491
are you still here?

they must pay you a lot to sit here and lie all day.

>>8142494
>doesn't read links
>doesn't refute evidence
>pulls the shill gambit
>discredits opponent in an argument with no argument of their own, just insults

I fear for the future of scientific discussion. Stay corrupt kiddo.

>>8142497
scientific discussion takes place in scientific journals.

what you're doing is just shilling a product.

>>8142517
I'm not shilling shit, every link In this thread deconstructs and debunks the bullshit of the anti-smoking crusade by criticizing the flawed studies that have shaped policy for decades. Please try and keep up, I know it's summer where all of the school kids come out to 4chan but this is ridiculous. There no shilling of a product here. If there was, I'd be telling people to smoke. I'm telling people that smoking being bad is memescience, and it fucking is.

>>8142535
Cool, let your children smoke from a young age then.

>>8142517
They're not shilling; they're just so absorbed in using second option bias as a means of feeling smart that they won't ever accept reality.

>>8142551
I don't even smoke.
I get paid to push tobacco, I'm not dumb enough to use it.

>>8142559
I'm just passionate about the truth. All you pseudoscientist sheeple can't understand how advanced I am. I want to help you get on my level.

>>8141291
>2 packs a week
fucking pleb

>>8142551
That might not be a good idea considering the fact that their bodies are still developing, but Indonesian kids smoke quite often.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2523227/posts

Additionally pregnant women smoking while pregnant have no real health complications as the very first post in this thread demonstrates, why would it be bad for a kid then?

>>8142559
Care to explain what that's supposed to mean?

>>8142561
>>8142565
I think this dude is false flagging trying to make me look bad. Ignore him.

>>8142582
I know. That's like six cigarettes a day. I wonder how awkward one would feel between cigarettes...

>>8141215
>Marlboro is a brand. The company is Philip Morris
You would know, I'm sure.

>>8142707
> Not watching Thank You for Smoking
You should. It's pretty good movie.
Doesn't discount the health effects of smoking like this joker.

>>8141183
>correlation =/= causation
babby learned a new phrase

Let's say there is actually a conspiracy about the side affects of smoking. What possible reason would doctors and the government have for banning smoking and pretending it causes cancer?

>>8142707
>knowing basic things means I'm a shill

Hoo boy. Did medical experts say cigs killed one of your relatives?

>>8142708
Honestly, the book was slightly better, but both were obviously liberal exercises in bitterly attacking tobacco companies while also attacking anti-smoking groups on the side.

>>8142712
It's a valid phrase for this issue, especially when it's diet, air pollution, radiation, and radon gas that is the actual problem and not smoking.

>>8142714
>It's a valid phrase for this issue, especially when it's diet, air pollution, radiation, and radon gas that is the actual problem and not smoking.
??? Air pollution and smoking (a form of air pollution woo) cause lung tissue damage, which leads to scarring, which itself increases risk of cancer. Did you do any real research or did you look for a bunch of dailymail articles for and against?

>>8142714
The reason is many layered and not easy to explain, but here are the main reasons.

>government jurisdiction and power increases with more money made off of smoking, such as sin taxes, fines, etc.
>pharmaceutical companies get to create nicotine cessation products and replace some of smoking a benefits with their own medical products. Asthma, for example, could be treated with cigarettes. Not anymore
>other industries get to blame smoking for cancer and lung/heart problems when it was always diet, air pollution, radiation, genetics, and radon gas.

Why the fuck is the argument for smoking alway:
>those guys that are generally way healthier even when smoking don't get more cancer than non smoking Americans
which is a completely garbage comparison where variables are changed massively instead of just comparing smoking Americans to non smoking Americans or just looking at the direct effects of smoking and not going into statistics and interpretation when there is clear physical evidence of damage.

>>8142756
Air pollution does, particularly large amounts (walking down a street for half an hour or so is probably negligible). Smoking however does not. The links explain it and these ones do as well:

https://www.sott.net/article/229156-Lies-Damned-Lies-400000-Smoking-related-Deaths-Cooking-the-Data-in-the-Fascists-Anti-Smoking-Crusade

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

http://www.smokescreens.org/does-smoking-harm-health/

File: 2.png (235KB, 489x480px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 489x480px

>>8141183
I smoke and I also study medicine. You seen lungs with emphysema? Lungs of smokers look fucking disgusting. It's absolutely bad for you, but smoking is a choice, you're gonna die anyway.

>>8142763
>which is a completely garbage comparison where variables are changed massively instead of just comparing smoking Americans to non smoking Americans

People have tried to do that as well, read any of the links and it's clear that these "studies" reach a conclusion, and then work backwards. They even tried to manipulate a study after they found that most smokers didn't actually inhale.

>or just looking at the direct effects of smoking and not going into statistics and interpretation when there is clear physical evidence of damage.

The physical damage isn't usually actual damage, just an example of what happens when one smokes. It has been implied that emphysema and COPD can be stalled by smoking, not started.

The idea that it causes lung cancer is also the biggest bullshit of all time. Lung cancer is, like many cancers, far more genetic than lifestyle with a few exceptions.

File: lungs[1].jpg (63KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 650x650px

> smoking is good for you
> tobacco doesn't corrupt your lungs and the smoke actually doesn't make them harm, disregard you're inhaling toxins
> where's the proof ? I can't see my lungs so theres no proof
> Every doctor in the world is in a conspiracy
> Smoking companies are printing danger labels because they are forced
> Government is conspiring against people and smoking companies

Low energy misinformation.

>>8143117
> smoking is good for you

It certainly isn't bad for you, maybe unless you're genetically weak.

> tobacco doesn't corrupt your lungs and the smoke actually doesn't make them harm, disregard you're inhaling toxins

Toxin fallacy. You breath in a ton of shit that is toxic to your lungs. Oxygen is bad for your lungs. You're being irrational.

> where's the proof ? I can't see my lungs so theres no proof

I'm interested in seeing proof myself, seeing as how

> Every doctor in the world is in a conspiracy

The medical establishment is not known for scientific integrity or honesty, especially American doctors. It's basically "I say this to you because that's how it's been for years, so it's true."

> Smoking companies are printing danger labels because they are forced

They are.

> Government is conspiring against people and smoking companies

They always have. It's an excuse to extend power and make more money.

>Low energy misinformation.

Summer kiddy shitpost.

>>8143142
>You breath in a ton of shit that is toxic to your lungs. Oxygen is bad for your lungs.
Wow, concentrations are completely irrelevant, okay. You make yourself look incredibly foolish saying shit like that.

>>8143142
> Oxygen is bad for your lungs.
I know right ? It would be just great if you could stop breathing already.

File: cyanide-e1325722958682-1[1].jpg (39KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 300x400px

I like your thread OP
There's another misconception and general public myth. Which is Cyanide.

Cyanide is actually not harmful for human exposure or consumption. There's a huge government conspiracy to force chemical companies to print labels on cyanide because they want to establish dominance over the people. They put "poison" to scare people which creates a misconception about cyanide as if its harmful.

There is no proof that cyanide is dangerous at all. I mean unless you're a pussy and mommy told you not to drink cyanide then yeah sure you'll be scared of it. But keep in mind that it violates the human rights to enjoy cyanide indoors even thought its proven to be harmless.

>>8143146
I have a ton of other examples. Being near a factory, near car pollution, breathing flame retardants, breathing in radon gas, and breathing in household chemicals.

You know what? You'll have a hard time avoiding all of it.

>>8143155
Nice ironic shitpost. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the thread you may as well leave.

>>8143176
Wow, those are all wonderful examples of significantly lower concentrations than sucking on a lit cherry through a paper tube. I don't even have a strong opinion on this subject, you're just being a complete fucking dope with regards to this discussion and it's kind of sad. Use your fucking brain before you post. You sound equally naive to the idiots scared of the word "chemical".

>>8143176
Anti-cyanide shill detected. Stop misinforming people that cyanide is bad you idiot.
Cyanide is good for you and actually doesn't poison you. Don't buy into the government conspiracy people, wake up !!!

>>8141552
>The sheer number of intelligent and open minded people who use it justifies its use.

how so?

>>8143200
All these false flags
Stop trying to false flag me and make me look bad.

Cigarettes ARE good for you, they cure cancer and asthma.

>>8143203
Because intelligent people decide what is true, duh. That's what "brain power" means.

>>8143206
Thanks for enlightening the people brother. These people are oppressed by the government to be muted from the healing effects of the helpful toxins. Smoking even cures cancer and hepls with vein clotting. Ofcourse the government and all the doctors will tell you otherwise because they are all in a conspiracy.

>>8143209
No. Facts decide what is true.

>facts are discovered/made by intelligent people

Nope. They aren't facts until their propositions have been proven to be valid empirically.

Dude. OP. The carcinogens being inhaled cannot be good. Like you said, pollution is everywhere. It's not good. So how the fuck can harsh smoke be good for one's lungs. Ask any long time smoker how they feel physically. You obviously smoke which is why you're so passionate about it and that's fine . It's your life.

>>8143213
Amen! My uncle developed COPD from all the ozone holes in the air so he went back and started smoking 40 years earlier and that cured him!

If these sheeple only knew the truth they'd all be smoking Marlboros and only Marlboros as soon as possible.

OP is legitimately retarded. Even if the government were discouraging smoking- a highly taxed profitable item- for no good reason because muh conspiracies, it's still not good for you on an immediately noticeable level. The second you breathe it in it's hurting and stinging and you feel the need to cough, that's not good at all.

>>8143230
Stay strong brother. We must enlighten people to be free from the government oppression on smoking and their misinformation propaganda.
It's our duty to make sure every 11 year old is walking around with a cigarette in their hands.

>>8143259
We should train the little ones' lungs with catnip cigarettes before working them up to sweet tobacco. No pot though, that turns them gay.

>>8143270
I remember when my brother injected pot and was gay for almost 2 weeks. They should be putting labels on THAT shit.

>>8143197
I'm not the guy blatantly ignoring any counter evidence to refute the mainstream schlock that's pushed by today's leading policy makers and sellout scientists.

If you really wanted to do something other than contribute absolutely fucking nothing then you can start with refraining from using an argument from personal incredulity.

>>8143304
>I'm not the guy blatantly ignoring any counter evidence to refute the mainstream schlock
>not blatantly ignoring counter evidence
>dismisses the huge body of counter evidence as "mainstream schlock"

oh the ironing

>>8143206
>Cigarettes ARE good for you, they cure cancer and asthma.

They do actually relieve asthma symptoms. If you had asthma and smoked you'd know that.

It also does in fact protect against cancer as well.

>11. Smoking protects against cancers (reversal of values in cancer state and another common sleight of hand), Smoking vs Caloric Restrictions (and on fundamental wrong-headedness of C.R.) http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/?view=findpost&p=389609

>>8143309
I'm not ignoring it, I'm providing links disputing it.

File: image.jpg (19KB, 236x275px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x275px

>>8143218
>You obviously smoke which is why you're so passionate about it and that's fine

I don't, actually. I simply consume the media and scientific contributions of people who smoke or smoked while they were alive, and I recognize its importance and the futility of enacting fascist bans and control.

>>8143315
>I don't, actually.
smoking has tons of health benefits you don't want to try?

sounds legit.

>>8143304
>If you really wanted to do something other than contribute absolutely fucking nothing then you can start with refraining from using an argument from personal incredulity.
My entire point has been that personal incredulity is your contribution to this thread. "Oh chemicals are everywhere anyway that sounds comparable to me so I guess it's no different!"

I also made it clear already that I don't have a strong opinion on this, you are simply arguing like an uneducated child. If dropped the completely fucking stupid argument, I'd have left you alone earlier. My issue with you is that you sound like a inverse-homeopath, suggesting concentration is completely irrelevant, you're being exposed to things either way right!? Yeah, well every time you flush the toilet you're getting bombarded with shit particles, but it's still significantly safer than if you wipe your ass with your hand and get it deep under your fingernails before preparing someone's food. That isn't pop-sci, that's how the fucking world works.

>>8143315
this. We should also stop the fascist bans on Cyanide and their intentional scare tactics to label Cyanide as "poison".

We wanna be free people.

>>8143322
I just want to add my personal experience: I've been rubbing hydrogen cyanide on my lips to keep them a nice blue color for two months and have no side effects. The scare tactics on basic chemicals these days are absurd.

Smoking is obviously harmful. I am a smoker and have have smoking related diseases. I quit for 6 months last year and most of my symptoms disappeared.

>>8141481
When you say stupid shit everyday for a month do you expect to be rewarded with kind words and appreciation for your anti-intellectual persuasion ?

>>8143318
>costs too much money
>lose my sense of smell
>indoor bans mean I could only smoke in my house and not at work

See?

>>8143319
>suggesting concentration is completely irrelevant

It's interesting you mention that, since the concentration of air pollution, radon, and radiation particles needed to get someone sick is smaller than what people usually smoke.

All the arguments I've posed are primarily based on flaws in the studies and reports painting smoking as a health risk and using studies finding no link between passive smoking and illness. Of course the response I get is

>shill
>how much did Philip Morris pay you
>of course it's bad just look at this .gov link throwing out bullshit numbers like muh 480,000 people a year.
>of course it's bad I know an anectode about a sick smoker

>>8143246
That doesn't necessarily prove that it's bad for somebody.

>15. How to prove that 'Lifting weights is harmful for muscles' - pinhole vision sleight of hand of antismoking "science" illustrated http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38868&view=findpost&p=390233

>>8141578
not eating red meat is a pretty bad habit to have honestly

Okay so please describe to me how burning plant matter and inhaling said matter would not result in carcinogenic compounds. I have a degree in biochemistry and we had an entire lab on carcinogenic compound production which by the way is really easy.

>>8144448
The idea is that dose dependence is relevant and more often than not it relative and less absolute risk. Smoker lungs being transplanted would suggest it can expectorate provided opportunity.

>>8144448
Smoking is actually possibly anti-carcinogenic

>12. More on anti-carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and how to translate Orwellian antismoking "science" to real science http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-13#entry389717

And even if it somehow was, your lungs repair themselves easily, and organ donors who smoke do not have worse lungs than nonsmokers. This is not as serious a risk as people believe.

>>8144455
It's the CoQ-10, japs use it within cosmetics. Its also a powerful aromatase (estrogen suppressor) that if you have a tenable type of breast cancer you could use nicotine patches in a pinch.

>>8144459
Aromatase inhibitor*
Maybe the canard about lady smokers is true

I don't care what any of you have to say, but my father was a lifelong smoker and died just last year of lung cancer. The science is there. If you want to smoke, smoke. You're increasing your risk of dying earlier though.

>>8144474
>the emotional appeal anecdote is there

Fixed that for you.

>>8144459
>If you have a tenable type of breast cancer you could use nicotine patches in a pinch

Why the pharmaceutical nicotine patches? Why not just take up smoking if you want to stave off breast cancer?

File: trend.png (35KB, 677x368px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 677x368px

>>8144477
I'm just telling you that I've seen it with my own eyes, and if you're too stupid to see for yourself that habitual inhalation of heated plant matter containing particulate over decades can harm you, then you simply lack common sense.

>>8144479
It does work as well but let's get real smoking has been obsolete as you can jus vape nicotine. You shouldn't be so extortive and punitive about it.

File: image.jpg (49KB, 523x358px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 523x358px

>>8144485
I agree, we need to stop the sale of organic food sales or else a bunch of autists will flood /sci/.

Also funny that it's the men with the problem. Especially back in the day when asbestos installation, working in chemical factories with rubber or other awful shit, and lack of knowledge on radiation harms was far more common.

Fuck off dude.

>>8144487
So because something is obsolete it should be replaced with something less fun despite the health benefits of smoking? This kind of shit is what has has led to unjust smoking bans...

>>8144492
Go ahead and smoke. I just feel bad that you'll be genuinely shocked when your health begins to decline. Good luck anon.

>>8144495
I'm jot going to be hostile to smokers I made that clear but cigarettes are the most pleb way to intake tobacco, I don't mean to resemble classism it's just like my opinion man.

>>8144492
Same guy here. Also, you do realize that cigarette filters are just acetylated cellulose, right? Chemically inert. But they're nearly structurally identical to asbestos slivers that will get lodged in your lungs and will never be sequestered.

>>8144505
>But they're nearly structurally identical to asbestos slivers that will get lodged in your lungs and will never be sequestered.

Any proof this will happen to a smoker instead of you just saying it? All I can find on the web is that it's the same substance used in photography film. Doesn't guarantee it's unsafe.

http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigbuttfilters.htm

since we can post feels:

3/4 of my grandparents smoked. both of my parents smoked (mom stops on and off).
those 3/4 of my grandparents are dead. none from lung cancer though. one did die from cancer (not sure if it was lung, he was full of cancer when they opened him up). but in all honesty he was an electrical engineer for airplanes and around exhaust fumes a lot. my parents are both alive.
all of them started smoking before the age of 15, except my mom who started in her 20s.

hope this helps your research.

>>8144556
Sounds like your grandfather died from whatever fumes he breathed in as an electrical engineer seeing as how no ones else in your family died of alleged smoking related illnesses.

>>8144626
he worked as a mechanic in general. engineering was just his educational profession. was around airplanes and airports a lot. he had an alcohol problem as well. might have started as liver cancer.
the other two grandparents died in their 80s. grandma smoked 'till she died, grandpa quit 20 years before that.

>>8144448
>I have a degree in biochemistry

That means you know everything?
You do realize science is wrong some times?

The tobacco propaganda is part of a larger effort to pussify society, to make it more 'green' more left wing. It was and is a part of a campaign to subvert western culture and dilute it.

Another element of it is making people distrust 'the evil corporations, man' and have them become leftist liberals.

>>8144645
Well that pretty much settles it then, thanks for the info.

>>8144750
no problem. my mom was the first person who told me that tobacco causing cancer is a debatable topic.

>>8144754
Well it being bad for people in general is a debatable topic, not just cancer. Sounds like lung cancer is definitely caused by something else though.

>>8143345
don't let internalized smoking-shaming cloud your mind, surely there were some other external factors that contributed to your illnesses. The idea that smoking could harm you is nonsense, my friend. Why don't you light up a cigarette, I think you're stressed and not thinking straight.

>>8144661
This is completely wrong, why would the state or corporations make propaganda so people hate corporations?

>>8144783
>that obvious sarcasm

It's pathetic that all people can do on this board instead of actually debating the information and topics regarding smoking is just false flag like a bunch of idiots. I was really hoping /sci/ was immune to summersperm from clogging up the board.

>>8144792
God you're ignorant

>government jurisdiction
>pharmaceutical big bucks
>other toxic shit trying to pass the buck onto smoking because it's a modifiable lifestyle choice and not an environmental hazard like radiation or factory/car pollution

It's all about who has power and can throw their weight around.

>>8144800
Ok mate call me when you can make ask argument without green texting.

>>8144811
If you want to sit here and believe what you're told instead of thinking logically and thinking for yourself, then that's your problem.

http://www.smokingaloud.com/death.html

http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/?m=1

>>8144661
That isn't really the main reason but for the most part I agree with you.

They (they being the WHO) just revealed that coffee can actually protect against cancer, which is against the idea of it being carcinogenic 20 years previously. Eventually they'll realize cigarettes don't cause cancer or other disease either, we can only hope.

>>8144794
take it easy buddy, we're just laughing at the idiot.

you should laugh too, you're a funny motherfucker.

>>8144901
There isn't anything funny about unscientific bullshit. The people trying to downplay how overrated smoking is as a health risk should be ashamed.

Hell I'd go to /pol/ but given the amount of racist national socialists on that board I'd get the same reaction that is happening here. Besides, this is a SCIENCE board and all I'm seeing is people rejecting counter evidence to some dubious claims that are taken as fact.

>>8144937
>This is a SCIENCE board, that means people are supposed to agree with me.

>>8144941
>this is a SCIENCE board, which means people need to apply critical thinking when looking at complex issues instead of parroting bullshit

>>8144947
>This is a SCIENCE board, which means there is only one possible conclusion to come to.

>>8144949
Right, and the only possible conclusion people have been coming to for decades is that smoking causes lung cancer when that clearly isn't true. Genetic flaws cause cancer.

>>8144955
>Time to backpedal and change my argument:
>Was previously: people with differing views should be ashamed
>Is now: people who do not admit the possibility of different views should be ashamed
And just because you went extra-stupid for me:

>Genetic flaws cause cancer.
I don't think you even fucking know what cancer is.

>>8144962
>Was previously: people with differing views should be ashamed

If those views are wrong they damn well should be, as this entire thread has demonstrated in regards to basic anti-smoking rhetoric.

File: 1449251816123.jpg (28KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 512x384px

>>8144626
>you can't conclude anything from an anecdote brah, that ain't science
>yupp, I can conclusively say that your grandaddy clearly died from aeroplane fumes, trust me -- I'm a 'skeptic'

shove it up your ass

>>8144962
>I don't think you even fucking know what cancer is

From the sound of it, you're the one who doesn't.

>>8145048
>conclude

I said "sounds like" and the fact that only one person in his family out of all the smokers actually got cancer kind of says something, even if it is an anecdote.

Isn't that what people who demonized smoking do anyway? Take a person they knew who smoked and got cancer only to then draw a conclusion regarding a link that has barely been supported by anything concrete? Only fifteen percent of all smokers eventually develop lung cancer. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning.

File: 1450118774704.png (149KB, 480x354px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 480x354px

>>8145053
>only 15%
>better chance of being struck by lightning
wat

There is literally nothing wrong with eating thumb tacks guys. Show me the scientific study that says they're bad for your health, oh wait, YOU CAN'T.

>>8145057
Okay, I meant condom breaking, I misquoted

>Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers. In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking. http://www.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html#sthash.VsRiI2Cr.dpuf

>>8145171
>trying to say degenerate behavior is ok because other degenerate behavior is ok
If we really wanted to stop smoking, we would hand out selegiline and e-cigs. If you want to be really pissy, reduce the selegiline to 10mg/day and add a reversible MAO-A inhibitor. You have literally applied 100% of the chemical action of cigarettes with 95% or greater reduction in toxicity.

>>8145084
>all anti-smokers have is jokes instead of science
>Those who support smoking have posted valid scientific links.

Say you get into an accident someday. What if you need a lung transplant from a smoker? You going to discriminate?

Granted you'll be fine since there's no difference between smoker and nonsmoker lungs. If you knew ANYTHING at all you'd know that.

File: image.jpg (12KB, 170x135px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 170x135px

>>8145181
>Degenerate

Go seig heil somewhere else.

https://www.sott.net/article/264026-Adolph-Hitler-Vegetarian-teetotaler-anti-smoking-campaigner

>>8145182
>there's no difference between smoker and nonsmoker lungs.
Where is the shit coming form?

>>8145299
Read the thread >>8142266

>>8145307
That doesn't actually say that "there's no difference between smoker and nonsmoker lungs", that says that transplants involving the lungs of smokers had similar short-term outcomes. The two claims are very different.
There's plenty of studies that show a clear loss of function in the lungs of smokers. Here's one from 20s on Google:
http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm/146.5_Pt_1.1345#.V2JDve0vCHs

>>8145185
I knew /pol/ was behind the anti-smoking hysteria going on around this board.

The privation of oxygen can cause cataclysmic effects throughout the entire organism, dumbass.

>>8145316
>16. Oxidative stress, breast cancer, "randomizing non-randomized variables" sleight of hand -- more antismoking junk science claims turned upside-down by facts of hard science http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-16#entry390790

No, anon, you are the dumbass. Stop posting immediately.

>>8145315
It's actually probably just millenials raised on the smoking backlash of the late 00's/early 10's. They always tell me to go back to /pol/. They don't realize most people there who aren't Brits or Midwest Americans (the Japanese are oddly silent on the issue) are rabid anti-smokers.

>>8145314
>The researchers found that transplanting lungs from donors who smoked or were heavy smokers did not yield inferior early or mid-term outcomes compared with lungs from donors who never smoked.

>muh long term follow up is still needed

They'll be fine.

>>8141221
If it was as good as smoking, probably lol. Though I hate smokers who think it's not bad for you. Dude, it's killing you fuck it. I just don't care that it's killing me. A lot of geniuses alive today smoke. They're not idiots who don't know it's killing them. They just don't care. Because tobacco is gooooood shit.

>>8145358
I'm glad you at least embrace tobacco but isn't the evidence in this thread convincing enough that smoking and secondhand smoke not a big deal? These are major organizations trying to cast something in a profoundly negative light without realizing that the actual cause is likely something else entirely.

>>8145399
>the actual cause is likely something else entirely.
you need to posit what that "something else" is and then explain why it disproportionately affects smokers then.

some of these problems are hundreds or even thousands of times more common in smokers than non-smokers. Thus the problem.

I'll just wait here holding my breath while you dig up a likely explanation

>they aren't really more common, the government lies!
uh, sure buddy.

File: maxresdefault[5].jpg (30KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1280x720px

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDSS

Why are you letting this unscientific tobacco advertising thread going on ? It's nothing but a few retards spamming and telling people to smoke this cancer and nothing more.

End this cancerous thread already.

>>8141183
this poor fucking anon you guys
he is literally convinced that he is some crusader enlightening everyone that people may stretch the truth to try and stop others from smoking.
At least they have good intentions. Its not like smoking isn't harmful. I mean, if you truly believe inhaling smoke even a few times every day isn't bad for you you probably have autism.
Anon go read more dailymail articles so your autism latches on to something else and you'll leave us alone

>>8145411
He's getting paid, nothing more or less.

PM can't hire doctors to shill their poison anymore so we got this fool.

>>8145413
> hes getting paid.
> cites from express and dailymail

Either he's getting payed ridiculously low, or someone is paying him to make smokers look dumb. Anyone with a brainstem can figure out people who base their entire argument off of dailymail are braindead.

>>8145414
their target demographic is neither educated nor capable of critical thought.

it is young and trendy though. Maybe they think 4chan is young and trendy.

>>8145406
>you need to posit what that "something else" is and then explain why it disproportionately affects smokers then.
>some of these problems are hundreds or even thousands of times more common in smokers than non-smokers. Thus the problem.

More bullshit. These things are simply "more common" because many of these people simply happen to be smokers, and it's unite clear that they're actually less common or not even caused by smoking based on the links in this thread that not a single fucking person bothered to read.

>>8145411
>enlightening everyone that people may stretch the truth to try and stop others from smoking.
>At least they have good intentions.

Wow, so on science board it is okay to dxxagerate if you mean well? Well holy shit, I never.

>Its not like smoking isn't harmful. I mean, if you truly believe inhaling smoke even a few times every day isn't bad for you you probably have autism.

That is your govt approved preconceived notion, do you know any smokers at all or did they all die young, thereby convincing you it was bad?

>>8145413
I'm actually not getting paid.

>they can't hire doctors

They do however communicate with scientific or statistical/epistemological experts since the medical community is usually full of shit. And to suggest that working for big tobacco at all is some conflict of interest is fallacious reasoning.

https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=xklj0076

>>8145408
I'm not telling people to do anything. I'm informing people.

And people should be thankful it's only in one thread now. Now I can condense all tobacco discussion in one thread and not in other threads so people don't feel like I'm derailing things.

It's awfully unscientific of a board to suppress discussion in order to avoid counter viewpoints.

>>8146774
>It's awfully unscientific of a board to suppress discussion in order to avoid counter viewpoints.
Spamming conspiracy bullshit isn't "science discussion".

>>8142215
>it should be up to private organizations to decide themselves
I agree 100% with this. I smoked for about 17 years, tried to quit half a dozen times. Haven't had a cigarette since March now and I don't miss it one bit.

But the freedom to allow smoking on a premises FAR supercedes my freedom to be comfortable or relatively healthy on someone's property. I can go to a non-smoking bar/section or I can put up with the smoke. I can't tell the landlord whether to allow smoking in his establishment.

>>8147004
It's not conspiracy bullshit you tool. It's me pointing out the intense amount of scientific corruption in the landmark "discoveries" made about smoking decades ago.

>>8147026
well you smoked for 17 years and you're perfectly fine. Sure says nothing about how supposedly bad smoking is.

And while I agree with your overal sentiment, my guess is that based on the false information about secondhand smoke being spread to the public, most workplaces and indoor spaces would not allow smoking in this day and age, which is a huge problem.

>>8147144
>the intense amount of scientific corruption
you're on a science board engaging in the wholesale condemnation of science and scientists. You're an idiot.

>evolution isn't real, science is corrupt!
>climate change isn't real, science is corrupt!
>the dangers of smoking aren't real....

just kill yourself already.

>>8147144
> you smoked for 17 years and you're perfectly fine
I dunno about perfectly fine, I still occasionally cough up phlegm with brown clumps in it. I'm definitely healthier (and wealthier) than I was when I smoked. My senses of smell and taste are clearer, and my chest feels more relaxed and I don't wake up coughing like an old man. Smoking is definitely not good for you, I've seen both sides and it's a huge waste of money and physical wellbeing.

So I'm fine with it being banned in government office buildings. That's a workplace that doesn't benefit whatsoever from smoking and people have a right to work there without being bothered by smoke. You want a cigarette on public/company premises? Go outside. You're not owed a smoking area, and it's your decision to smoke, face the consequences.

But people should be allowed to run smoking establishments, bars and clubs where indoor smoking is allowed. Just pop a sign on the door declaring it a smoking zone. People working there can work somewhere else if the smoke bothers them, just like nightclub workers can leave if the loud music bothers them. There are harsher working conditions.

>>8147144
>well you smoked for 17 years and you're perfectly fine.
>i found a smoker who isn't dead, SCIENCE BTFO
do you even can into statistics brother

File: image.jpg (91KB, 520x388px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 520x388px

>>8147171
The scientific consensus can and has been wrong before. Coffe used to be a carcinogen, now it's not seen as such by the WHO. You're grasping at straws.

>evolution isn't real, science is corrupt!
>climate change isn't real, science is corrupt!
>he actually thinks climate change is a man made activity
>he probably has NASA graphs on his wall with teardrops all over them

Fuck I can tell what side you're on. Pic related.

Science is a dogma now, not a form of analysis.

>>8147184
>I dunno about perfectly fine, I still occasionally cough up phlegm with brown clumps in it. I'm definitely healthier (and wealthier) than I was when I smoked. My senses of smell and taste are clearer, and my chest feels more relaxed and I don't wake up coughing like an old man. Smoking is definitely not good for you, I've seen both sides and it's a huge waste of money and physical wellbeing.

Well, i understand how you could see smoking as a health problem with that experience, but are you sure this isn't a genetic reaction to smoking, or an incorrect assessment of it being harmful? The links ITT tell a different and more complex story regarding smoking.

>So I'm fine with it being banned in government office buildings. That's a workplace that doesn't benefit whatsoever from smoking and people have a right to work there without being bothered by smoke.

Well government office buildings don't include grocery stores, cubicle style offices, etc. (unless you meant to type government/office buildings). Since secondhand smoke isn't a health risk, why bother banning it? Tons of perfumes and other things can be seen as noxious but this is a habit that helps people get through the day and doesn't affect them as badly as people think. Why should people ban something in workplaces just so they can feel more comfortable? In Japan and Indonesia smoking regulations aren't seen, and nobody really complains or suffers because of it.

>You want a cigarette on public/company premises? Go outside. You're not owed a smoking area, and it's your decision to smoke, face the consequences.

Funny, I think smoking areas (even sometimes with expensive ventilation) were proposed before smoking bans became popular, but apparently non smokers found that unacceptable as well. Alternatively, why are smokers *not* owed a smoking area or workplace? It would get rid of smoke breaks, for one, and increase productivity.

>>8147326
Consiritards have their own board >>>/x/

>>8147326
>Everything I don't like is a conspiracy!
Yeah, this thread makes a lot more sense now.

>>8147374
It's not an issue of politics in case you weren't keeping attention. It's an issue of ideologically driven beliefs supported by corrupt science. Oh, and I believe in evolution.

>>8147408
No, things that are clearly shadowy and corrupt are valid for reexamination as a conspiracy. Or do you never think for yourself and only believe what is parroted to you by others? Does ANYONE think for themselves on this board or do they read a science article and just agree with it blindly?

I don't believe in most conspiracies, the moon landing is real. 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Vaccines aren't bad for people. School shootings aren't orchestrated by the government. I just believe "smoking kills" and global warming are both a meme and a hoax designed to socially engineer personal behavior while also giving the government an excuse to control certain businesses and possibly shift blame to specific scapegoats as well.

DDT also possibly could've been useful if people didn't ban it.

Besides, the conservatard quote proves this is a liberal biased board.

>>8147442
> Wake up sheeple!!
Science denialism and conspiracy theories go on >>>/x/

>>8147442
> Wake up sheeple!!!
Science denialists and conspiracy theorists belong on >>>/x/

>>8147442
>No, things that are clearly shadowy and corrupt are valid for reexamination as a conspiracy.
Please stop moving subjective into objective. Otherwise, carry on with your thing.

>>8147446
>>8147452
So pathetic you need to post your quote twice? I'm wondering many people study science here and how many come to post their popsci Facebook articles.

>>8147454
Are you saying the analysis of flawed scientific studies I've posted are SUBJECTIVE?

You clearly can't or refuse to read if you think that way. Everything I've posted clearly demonstrates the lying and wrong information of the anti-smoking science movement and yet no one here is fucking smart enough to refute what they have delusionally decided is wrong.

>Man, all these people on this board aren't buying my special brand of marketing bullshit! I thought being extremely combative and annoyingly replying to every post with links isn't working either. I guess it's time for me to go watch some fair and balanced Fox News and finish the day by fapping to trannies.
God bless you

smoking wont make you as smart as your favourite scientician

>>8147509
>shill gambit
>baseless accusations
>thinking le FOX news is biased meme when it has a good deal of insightful people like John Stossel.

>>8147528
Perhaps, but it will protect me from some neurological problems and it certainly won't kill me unless I'm really genetically weak.

As a side note, it's amusing that other pro smokers in this thread have been ignored for the most part.

>>8141238
In regards to Japan it's because they smoke much weaker cigarettes, exercise more and have better diets

>>8148856
Then the U.S./UK should tell people to exercise and eat a better diet instead of saying that smoking is a health problem.

The tobacco companies should also consider switching their cigarette formula so they use whatever make the Japanese cigs weaker if what you're saying really is the case (though I don't see how, american "deaths" attributed to tobacco are probably a bullshit number anyway so I doubt American/British cigs are that unhealthy either). That also doesn't account for secondhand smoke either, which only "hurts" people in America because the government says it does with zero proof. Meanwhile the Japanese don't have any kind of secondhand thing going on over there.

As for exercise, I'm not entirely sure if I'm convinced the Japanese care too much about constantly working out. Many mangaka and other salarymen smoke and that's a very sedentary job.

Guys please!!

Why do you feed the local tobacco company chemist?
Or at worst someone with the inherent interest to decept you into using valuable neurons to think about that?

The fact that smoking kills is maybe the best proven scientific fact of all in medicine.
Even in the 50 the scientist knew that tobacco kills, they were paid by tobacco companies to generate results which favor smoking

>>8148958
I'm pretty undecided on this issue because I know very little about it but in regards to Japan's "work out" status, I believe it's due to the fact that they walk everywhere and don't eat processed shit rather than routinely hitting the gym

>>8149017
Oh, well it still doesn't leave out a lot of professions with sedentary activities, and they do those pretty frequently too.

The processed shit is probably a bigger reason.

>>8148981
>Why do you feed the local tobacco company chemist?

Not a chemist.

>Or at worst someone with the inherent interest to decept you into using valuable neurons to think about that?

So making people think is bad now, especially since whenever an alternative opinion is presented with scientific or historical validity, people ignore it? A counter argument isn't me trying to be deceptive.

>The fact that smoking kills is maybe the best proven scientific fact of all in medicine.

Which is a huge problem seeing as how the "consensus" on the issue seems like an unquestionable religion at this point. What toure describing is pseudoscience. True science constantly changes and is open to review.

>Even in the 50 the scientist knew that tobacco kills, they were paid by tobacco companies to generate results which favor smoking

Even in the 50's, anti-smokers knew smoking wasn't a health risk, but were paid by special interest groups that made actual pollutants to shift the issues onto smoking and secondhand smoke, despite the answer being far more complex.

>>8148981

>Even in the 50 the scientist knew that tobacco kills, they were paid by tobacco companies to generate results which favor smoking

So in 50's scientists were paid to lie.

Suddenly, there comes the light, british decide it's time to tax cigs, and scientists are no more paid to lie..
.. euh, paid to not lie..
.. euh, paid, but not to tell the things which goes against tax, there it is.

File: Bj22pt3IAAAhPM_.jpg (112KB, 599x787px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 599x787px

>>8149808
>So in 50's scientists were paid to lie.

By whom, exactly?

>>8149987
Very likely by anti-smoking capmpaigns, but barring that:

>Asbestos Industry
>Radioactive Waste producers
>Agent Orange creators
>Motor Industry

This was all done to shift blame onto smoking.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/01/doll-j09.html?view=article_mobile

>>8149172
>Not a chemist.
So you admit that you're in the employ of the tobacco companies?

>>8149172

Fuck you Are good at baiting.
You have to absolvent a training before such baits. Where do you learn that? Or are they recruiting natural talents?

If you would be a chemist you would know exactly why there is no argument in favor of the tobacco industry standpoint.

Wow shit why is it legal for lobbiest to lie that hard? FML

Scientist are paid all the time for their research by industry. Some of those scientist, when confronted with evidence which goes against the interest of their sponsors will choose to skew their results in such a way to prove the interests of their sponsor.
Why do they do that? They must be the devil right?

Nope sorry, the world knows no devil, its just the same reason why people like you lie. You want to earn a living.

>>8150083
No, I admit that I'm well versed in this stuff without being a paid shill or a science expert. I've read up on this stuff long enough to know which side is actually corrupt but amusingly enough no one cares about unveiling corruption.

Every link in this thread likely went unread.

>>8150104
>Fuck you Are good at baiting. You have to absolvent a training before such baits. Where do you learn that? Or are they recruiting natural talents?

I'm guessing English isn't your first language. No, I'm not a shill for the industry. That's fallacious reasoning 101 to assume I am a shill.

>If you would be a chemist you would know exactly why there is no argument in favor of the tobacco industry standpoint.

Funny you say that because there are people well versed in chemistry who would disagree. http://www.smokescreens.org/chemistry.htm

>Scientist are paid all the time for their research by industry. Some of those scientist, when confronted with evidence which goes against the interest of their sponsors will choose to skew their results in such a way to prove the interests of their sponsor. Why do they do that? They must be the devil right?

This is true but it's far, far more applicable to a man like Richard Doll, who had financial ties to many industries, than tobacco companies. Do you think anti-smokers have no financial ties?

>Nope sorry, the world knows no devil, its just the same reason why people like you lie. You want to earn a living

No, I don't get money from this. I want the truth, sadly I'm wasting my time trying to spread it on a braindead Japanese image board.

>>8150115

You are not
>a scientist
>an expert
>a chemist

But you want to spread truth about smoking by citing unreliable sources.
Wow!

>English language
Nice argumentum ad hominem there fella

File: 1.jpg (194KB, 768x1280px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 768x1280px

>>8150127

>chemists who disagree

Nice source you have their
Pic related

>>8150135
The information in the source is what matters, perhaps you should read it and not dismiss it for no reason.

>>8150132
>unreliable sources

Tell me how they're unreliable

>ad hominem
No that's what YOU'VE been doing by calling me a shill. Ad hominem attacks the person's character. I was just commenting on your bad grammar.

File: 1.jpg (90KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x720px

>>8150145

I have read it actually. It's pretty biased and does not account for one ultimate factor:

Cigarette smoke, as every other smoke, contains free radicals which is pure cancer.

So every argument against the cancerous effect of smoke is bullshit. Smoke by nature is cancer inducing. So I cigarette smoke.
And in the special case of tobacco you not only have free radicals from insufficient burning you also have many chemicals and elements more who are cancerous

>>8150150

So I have read your source.
Now I please you to do the same

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke

File: tumblr_inline_nt0vm22PRG1spsojg_400[1].jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

> mfw people are actually replying to this troll thread.
This is the worst board ever.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 664x498px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 664x498px

>>8150288
>Wikipedia article on a scientific concept

>>8150307
>classic image.jpg

>>8150267
Smoking has been said to be anti-carcinogenic though. See >>8144455

Also

http://www.smokescreens.org/does-cigarette-smoke-contain-free-radicals/

If free radicals were as cancerous as you claim, every smoker would eventually get cancer. Cancer is mostly about genetics.

Also, how are the links biased? Because they are positive about smoking? You don't explain much.

>>8150320
>If free radicals were as cancerous as you claim, every smoker would eventually get cancer. Cancer is mostly about genetics.


Free radicals theory: damage DNA, ie., genetics.

shoot yourself in foot much?

>>8150342
Well, the evidence/data on the number of smokers in the world who get cancer implies that only a small amount of smokers get cancer.

>>8141485
>it's amazing how hard it is to quit and stay quit.
only if you're a weakling with no will power