The subject of the thread is do cigs cause cancer!! Of course it's not the only thing that causes cancer, you can get cancer from many other things or nothing at all. But to insinuate that just because George burns or that mythological grandma smoked and did not get cancer means that smoking is a risk free habit with no negative health repercusions at all is just plain stupid!! And no I don't give too fucks if someone wants to fire smoking employees, and no you can't compare you're "right" to smoke to the constitution right to keep and bear arms!!! I for the life of me can't figure out why such a useless pastime is even legal!! At least with pot you get the side effect of getting high for christ's sake!! Of all the people I know the smokers have WAAAYYYY more health problems than the non-smokers.

The point is, cancer is caused by many things, smoking causes health problems including but not limited to cancer, you don't just die, you linger, suffer, and drive up everyone elses insurance premiums, AND YOU STINK!!!

JESUS FUCK, IS EVERYONE THAT GODDAMN STUPID AROUND HERE!!! FUCK!!! DOES IT TAKE A FUCKING EINSTEIN TO FIGURE OUT THAT IF YOU PUT SMOKE IN YOUR LUNGS EVERY DAY FOR YEARS ON END IT'S BAD!!!

FUCK ME UP THE ASS!!!!

Quoted: The subject of the thread is do cigs cause cancer!! Of course it's not the only thing that causes cancer, you can get cancer from many other things or nothing at all. But to insinuate that just because George burns or that mythological grandma smoked and did not get cancer means that smoking is a risk free habit with no negative health repercusions at all is just plain stupid!! And no I don't give too fucks if someone wants to fire smoking employees, and no you can't compare you're "right" to smoke to the constitution right to keep and bear arms!!! I for the life of me can't figure out why such a useless pastime is even legal!! At least with pot you get the side effect of getting high for christ's sake!! Of all the people I know the smokers have WAAAYYYY more health problems than the non-smokers. The point is, cancer is caused by many things, smoking causes health problems including but not limited to cancer, you don't just die, you linger, suffer, and drive up everyone elses insurance premiums, AND YOU STINK!!! JESUS FUCK, IS EVERYONE THAT GODDAMN STUPID AROUND HERE!!! FUCK!!! DOES IT TAKE A FUCKING EINSTEIN TO FIGURE OUT THAT IF YOU PUT SMOKE IN YOUR LUNGS EVERY DAY FOR YEARS ON END IT'S BAD!!! FUCK ME UP THE ASS!!!!

Your rabid ranting is just another symptom of a society sinking faster and faster into authoritarianism!! HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES! AND IN CAPS TOO!! personally i never defended smoking per se, but to me that's not the issue. To me the issue is basically, Well what's the alternative?? a war on tobacco???? Oh great now gangsters can shoot children over Marlboros instead of crack!! How about we do manditory drug testing for everyone to see if they smoke? Some great society were got here. Anything thats "vice"? ban it and send the man after those who refuse to conform. I think the same way about guns. And like i said before this seems to be a US only phenomina like Prohibition in the 20's so how hard will it be to smuggle in tobacco from Mexico or cuba or where ever. Also the plain fact is telling lies "in the name of goodness" like saying second hand smoke causes cancer shows these people are dishonest and dangerous. They are not fully thinking through the consequenses of their agenda. Is smoking bad? probably. But the solution of some of the "social engineers" could be a whole lot worse!  

How in Gods name can people make the leap between prohibiting smoking and gun control!!! Why prohibit anything, just make everything legal for Christs sake!! People are going to do what they are going to do so why not just do away with all laws!!!

I swear, it's a good thing IQ is not a prerequisite for gun ownership.

"if god loves us so damn much then why does he threaten to send us to hell?"

He doesn't need to threaten.  He tells you you ARE going to hell and then leaves it up to you to do something about it if you want to.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish but have everlasting life."  

It's pretty simple- if we go to hell we sent ourselves there.

Quoted: How in Gods name can people make the leap between prohibiting smoking and gun control!!! Why prohibit anything, just make everything legal for Christs sake!! People are going to do what they are going to do so why not just do away with all laws!!! I swear, it's a good thing IQ is not a prerequisite for gun ownership.

Yes, because otherwise you'd be taking a sharp stick and some rocks to the range.....

Quoted: Tagged, just want to see how many morally superior assholes that want to tell other people how to live their lives by limiting freedom there are on ARFCOM.

[commie puke] But, I think it's ICKY-POO POO! You better stop or I'm gonna whine on you![/commie puke]

I mean really, what's wrong with a little social engineering? It'd be double plus good if the world were full of rainbows, everyone ate a bowl of Orwellco Corn Flakes first thing in the morning, and everyone adhered to the double plus good ideals of those who know best for us...
The above is satire. As far as I'm concerned anyhow, but someone will be along shortly to scream about pooping on food or farting in someone's face....

IMHO genetics is the determining factor. If your DNA is predisposed to cancer then you're going to get cancer no matter where you live or how you live your life.
If your genetic make-up is not predisposed to cancer, it's unlikely you will ever get cancer no matter how much you smoke.

Quoted: Please cite one source that says you are guaranteed to get cancer if you smoke.

Please cite one source that says you are guaranteed to die if you shoot yourself in the head.


The point is that nearly ALL disease is a combination of factors.

Not everone exposed to tuberculosis gets ill with TB.
Not everyone exposed to UV rays gets melanoma.
Not everyone who ingests alcohol gets equally intoxicated.

Cancer is a multi-factorial disease. The idea is that it takes multiple "hits" for cancer to develop. Smoking increases the exposure to some of those "hits" that for many people are enough to trigger tumor formation.

Quoted: Quoted: Please cite one source that says you are guaranteed to get cancer if you smoke.   Please cite one source that says you are guaranteed to die if you shoot yourself in the head.

You're not. It's probably not a good idea, but people have survived it....

Quoted: No, not everyone that smokes gets cancer, some get heart disease, some get high blood pressure, most get chronic broncitis, it takes longer for surgeries to heal, connective tissue diseases are a lot more common . . . It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out smoking is bad for you, all you have to do is observe people that have smoked for many years. I don't see people like george in real life, that's called the exeption and not the rule. It's funny though, every hacking coughing spitting smoker will tell you a story about how his grandma smoked till she was 90 and was in perfect health. I swear the collective IQ of this site gets lower and lower every day.

damn post whores
Always gotta get their opinion in.

txl

Quoted: Physiological differences, reactions to certain chemicals, and basically, pure luck.

Yep

Quoted: IMHO genetics is the determining factor. If your DNA is predisposed to cancer then you're going to get cancer no matter where you live or how you live your life. If your genetic make-up is not predisposed to cancer, it's unlikely you will ever get cancer no matter how much you smoke.

There's nearly undeniable evidence that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer.  You can split the population of the US into two groups - those that have lung cancer and those who don't.  A person who is in the lung cancer group is much more likely to be a smoker.  

If genetics were the determining factor, then you'd have to argue that people who are prone to lung cancer are also somehow more genetically prone to smoking, which clearly isn't true.

That being said, the fact that something is bad for you doesn't mean that the government should be involved.  I have no problem with people engaging in risky behaviors, as long as they don't expect me to pay for the results.


To the original poster, being a smoker increases the chances of your getting cancer by between 500% and 2000% depending on which studies you choose to believe.  However, your chances of getting lung cancer as a non-smoker living in an area with clean air is relatively small.  Becoming a smoker might increase your chances of getting lung cancer from 1% to 20% (a 2000% increase), but it still doesn't mean that even a majority of smokers will die of cancer.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Please cite one source that says you are guaranteed to get cancer if you smoke.   Please cite one source that says you are guaranteed to die if you shoot yourself in the head. You're not. It's probably not a good idea, but people have survived it....

Yep.

Just like long-term smoking.

Although not quite as dramatic.

Quoted: ...So what's the best round for three-headed babies?...

5.56 mm in an M16A2.  Use the three-round burst setting and sweep 'em.

Oh so now the critisism of smoking is somehow limiting peoples freedom to own guns, seek employment, marry, purchase homes, and basically better themselves in ways that those freedom hating socialist countries do now allow. And who takes care of these people when they run to the doctor with the many well known and common sense side effects from that wonderous freedom we call smoking. Come to think of it I don't think the gun grabbing countries have banned smoking and vices, I think they have much laxer drug laws than we do here.

Actually I used to be unsupportive of anti-smoking laws, I thought it to be an assault on "freedom" myself. That was before I had to listen to the reasoning from the smokers claiming that smoking wasn't harmful, and George burns smoked therefore smoking is not bad for you, or my dads favorite, "it's not the tobacco, it's the paper, that's why I smoke cigars" Or "you gotta die of something". I really get a kick out of the 2 pack a day smoker that goes from doctor to doctor because for some reason non of the quacks can treat his "allergies".

I work in a hospital and have seen firsthand the differance between a smoker with knee replacement surgery and a non-smoker with knee replacement surgery. I have to walk past the er to get to the employee parking lot, for some reason the smokers conglomerate outside the er door. The ground is littered with cigarette butts and the outside of the building actually smells like smoke! This, in spite of the fact there is a smoking area not even 50 yards away. I guess it's hard to walk when you can't breathe.

My friends aunt has emphesema and congestive heart failure, she has to perform regular breathing treatments and carry around oxygen. Do you think it stops her from smoking!!! Hell no!! She's been unable to work for the past decade and has pretty much lost everything, so at least the goverment picks up the tab. Ya gotta die of something though right, she's been dying the past 10 years. Get's medicaid, food stamps, and other charity handouts, still manages to scrape up enough change for some smokes, I mean, you gotta die of something right.

I think it's funny that the smokers use the same arguments homosexuals do to justify their lifestyle yet look at how many "freedom hating" homophobes are on the site.

touche'

I think it's funny that the smokers use the same arguments homosexuals do to justify their lifestyle yet look at how many "freedom hating" homophobes are on the site.

you truly are incorrigable. So what are you saying that you are against Homosexuals? Should their lifestyle be banned for "the children"? Yeah lets be more like Egypt and The saudi's! Lock up all the fags and put a triangle on them. I personally dont like gays behavior but i dont thing it should be illegal to have buttsex with another man! How Taliban is that? You mention they use "the same arguements", what are these? I dont see any connection. The plain fact is an outright ban on cigarettes would fail just like Prohibition did. And on the way a lot of people will get killed, jailed, have their lives ruined, and the Gov't would make laws to take away our freedoms and WE'd never get them back! So would it be worth it to try your "noble experiment"?? I say no. A perfect example is Prohibition, It's off the books now but many laws curtailing gun rights were enacted during that period to combat "alcohol lawlessness". Once things got back to normal did the Gov't repael those laws along with prohibition? No. The Gov't keeps taking and taking but they rarely ever give back.

Quoted: Tagged, just want to see how many morally superior assholes that want to tell other people how to live their lives by limiting freedom there are on ARFCOM.

+1. I'm gonna start writing their names down, lest I forget.

Enemy within...

Quoted: lets start putting heavy taxes on those who live in smoggy areas in order to discourage them from living in places that will likely harm their health. and then put the tax money towards annoying "smoggy dwellers education" commercials

NO

Bad TRH.  If you do that, they might move where I live!

Quoted: I think it's funny that the smokers use the same arguments homosexuals do to justify their lifestyle yet look at how many "freedom hating" homophobes are on the site. you truly are incorrigable. So what are you saying that you are against Homosexuals? Should their lifestyle be banned for "the children"? Yeah lets be more like Egypt and The saudi's! Lock up all the fags and put a triangle on them. I personally dont like gays behavior but i dont thing it should be illegal to have buttsex with another man! How Taliban is that? You mention they use "the same arguements", what are these? I dont see any connection. The plain fact is an outright ban on cigarettes would fail just like Prohibition did. And on the way a lot of people will get killed, jailed, have their lives ruined, and the Gov't would make laws to take away our freedoms and WE'd never get them back! So would it be worth it to try your "noble experiment"?? I say no. A perfect example is Prohibition, It's off the books now but many laws curtailing gun rights were enacted during that period to combat "alcohol lawlessness". Once things got back to normal did the Gov't repael those laws along with prohibition? No. The Gov't keeps taking and taking but they rarely ever give back.

No dumbass, I AM a homosexual, I was just making an observation about the hypocracy people use when trying to defend a point of view. Somehow some people have made the leap between curtailing public smoking to gun control. The same lines of logic are used by people to defend "homosexual rights" yet I've been coming here a long time and I think most of the posters here could give two shits about homosexual rights. Or take abortion, how many here wail about the immorality of abortion, yet in another thread advise someone to screw the crazy chick before dumping her. Abortion advocates use the same "freedom" argument when defending their point of view as well. When all else fails claim that criticism of a topic or behaviour will result in a loss of freedom and civil rights.

But back to the main topic, smoking isn't a right guarenteed in the constitution, it has no redemming qualities whatsoever. Gun ownership is guarenteed in the constitution. Firearms have many practical uses, mainly self defense. It wouldn't be that big of a deal if everyone didn't think health care was a "right". The last time I checked that wasn't in the constitution either. The country is becoming more and more populated with wheezing fat slobs that think the world is supposed to subsidize their health care while they are absolved of all and any responsibility on their part. Cancer doesn't even begin to touch all the health risks involved in smoking. But more importantly, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS!!!  Name one postive contribution smoking gives to society. At least other vices have a few postive benifits, even junk food is still food! Hypothetically speaking, lets just say tobacco was not commercially sold anymore, how in the hell does that translate into lives being lost!!! Let people grow their own tobacco!

The doom and gloom of prohibition has been grossly overstated anyway, the fighting was between mobs, and mobs and cops, it wasn't until they got sloppy and started killing civilians that the public turned on the mob, they actually had a lot of public support until then. I lived in a dry county in ALA at one time and lives weren't being lost, on the contrary it was a nice place to live. Crime was practically unheard of, litter was almost non-existant, and so was loitering drunks. Contrary to popular opinion, the hiways weren't littered with the wrecked cars of drunks driving to the next county to get their booze. Every now and then the "bad" crowd would go to the next county to get some beer but it was such a pain in the ass most of the time we just didn't bother. People weren't jailed or ruined, it was practically a utopia, the quality of life there was way above Ft Lauderdale Fla where we had come from.

So you can take your silly doom and gloom arguments somewhere else, they don't really stack up in the real world.

To address the question:

Researchers are looking at the genome to try to discover a "smoking" gene, or a correlation between genetics and those that seem to be able to smoke without health complications.  Seems like this will lead to interesting findings.

My grandparents drank and smoked and lived into their 90's, no pulmonary problems, no heart concerns.

So while there is no certainty that smoking will always cause cancer, it seems that some people are genetically predisposed to developing it, and the smoking may be the catalyst for the early onset of the disease.

"Smoke 'em if you got 'em!"

Quoted: Please cite one source that says you are guaranteed to get cancer if you smoke.

As you know, there are none that offer such guarantees. There have been numerous independent studies that offer sufficient proof to anyone with reasonable cognitive function that cigarette smoking dramatically increases ones chances of getting lung cancer, oral cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and a host of other ailments.
I'm not one of those anti-smoking nazis. I smoked for 17 years and quit almost 20 years ago so I understand the attraction and the addiction. If someone wants to smoke, it's their business. Freedom comes in many forms and the freedom to be foolish is just one of them.