Posted in the Smoking Forum
Comments (Page 24)
No, the only one braying that you are not an addict is you. My comment was that I was not saying you WERE, but only that your content SUGGESTS that you are. Please note that you continue to validate my assertion that you need remedial reading/reasoning training. |
|
In your fantasy world, then, the fact that the tobacco industry's OWN scientists arrived at virtually IDENTICAL conclusions but were muzzled by that industry doesn't suggest that just MAYBE the science isn't so flawed after all? In your fantasy world, the fact that the tobacco companies in the US have been convicted of DECADES of "colossal fraud"--to the detriment of the American people and at the cost of millions of American lives--is immaterial? In your fantasy world, the FACT that the career of the German scientist who wrote definitively on the link between SHS and lung cancer--and called for a ban on smoking--in the 1920s could get no traction under Hitler because he REFUSED to join the Nazi party has no relevance to your claim that the anti-smoking movement was all Hitler's idea? In your fantasy world, you actually have a case? |
|
|
Judged:
1
1
1 "Legally speaking"? "Two managers at an Italian bank have been found guilty and convicted of criminal manslaughter after the death of a female employee through exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace." http://www.tobacco.org/news/98362.html There are other sources of information on the case, but this is the most accessible for me at the moment. |
|
It is only scientific opinion that being shot through the heart can cause death. Who knows that some day science will find a conflicting hypothesis that fits the observations better? You argue for law based on the assertion that smoking regulations are forcing children onto bread lines and you think medical science is too uncertain a basis? Back up and consider that you say laws are to be based on "the will of the people". So, the will of the people is somehow more reliable than medical science? Sort of trying to cover all bases and hoping one of your fallacies gets by, eh? Well, at lest you went one post or so without screaming that you aren't addicted to nicotine. That's progress of a sort. |
|
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Reading comprehension skills--if they exist at all in your "neck" of the woods--are not limited to that geographic location. Your geographic pedigree does not provide you any special credibility regarding what is said in a public document--which is all that was covered in the post you chose to "reply" to. Of course, your ability to call me names might...but I don't think so. |
|
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Actually, given that lung cancer in smokers has been found to differ from lung cancer in nonsmokers, it is quite likely that people dying of the one variant WILL be listed as having died of smoking. As research continues, it is likely that more diseases and deaths will be found to be unique to smokers. I wouldn't quit your day job (if you have one) for a career as a precog. Smoking is the cause of a huge number of burning deaths. It is, in fact, the #1 cause of fire fatalities in apartment buildings in the US year after year. It undoubtedly appears in line #2 on many death certificates. |
|
|
London, Canada |
All this proves is that some people willingly, and knowingly, will work at a job of extreme risk to their well being as if there is no place in the world that fits the circumstances for an allergy, especially the deadly type. The word compromise comes into play big time in this one with just too many to list. Can you be sure that some one with a peanut butter allergy working in a peanut butter facillity would be indicated on line # 2 of a death certicate that Jass states as cause of death? |
OOPS. Should have read "Who knows but what some day science will..." |
|
| |
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Your reasoning is based on the assumption that the secondhand smoke made the bank teller's position a "job of extreme risk". That is not much of an argument for saying that secondhand smoke is safe. If the word "compromise" had come into play, the bank managers would never have been on and they would have had a live employee. All they needed to do was to grant her request to be moved to a job in one of the smoke-free areas of the bank. If you looked into that situation at all, you will know that the bank was being SUBSIDIZED for providing employment to her because of her condition. By the way, too many what to list? That was a nonsense sentence as you posted it. When did I say that a death certificate was a cause of death? |
|
Ah, yes. You're right, of course. Laws should be based on public opinion. It never wavers or changes. |
|
|
London, Canada |
In other words Laws are subsidized by big Pharma not second hand smoke itself and smokeless BQ's.
|
|
“Censorship: A liberal tool” Since: Aug 09
South-West Philly |
Here's the extent of the "evidence" to be had after following your link: "Monica C suffered from a condition known as pliallergic asthma, which her employers were aware of and despite her asking to be relocated to another smoke-free office, her requests were ignored." "The victim's husband told the media: "She would tell me that the office was full of cigarette smoke. "She was getting worse every day that passed." This is your response to John Watson's contention that, "Legally speaking no one has ever died from second hand smoke either so what is your point?". That's the best you could come up with? What does that tell you Hugh Jassbandit? You have an opportunity to silence John while at the same time scoring some serious points for The Anti-Smoking Movement, and the best you can do is link to a story on a a notoriously anti-smoking website that refers to some obscure case from a foreign country?! You mention in passing that "There are other sources of information on the case". Well do yourself and your cause a favor Hugh, post links to some of those "other sources",'cause right now a lot of people are thinking that maybe you're just a little full of shit! On a side note, this article illustrates something about the Anti-Smokers that has always irked me: This poor woman Monica C. was so concerned about the obvious risk to her life posed by the presence of her "pliallergic asthma" combined with "an office full of cigarette smoke" that she "asked to be relocated to another office". Yet she continued to show up for work. SHE KEPT WORKING THERE! Despite the fact that she was going to die from the second-hand smoke combined with her "bullshitspliallergic asthma"! Most people who have some condition that makes the environment in certain locations deadly, will AVOID spending time in those locations. People with deadly seafood allergies DON'T work at Red Lobster. Food for thought. |
|
“Censorship: A liberal tool” Since: Aug 09
South-West Philly |
Judged:
1
1
1 No stupid, Even if a new variety of lung cancer unique to smokers is discovered and they call this new cancer "smoker specific lung cancer", smoking STILL won't be listed as the cause of death. The COD will be noted as "smoker specific lung cancer". What makes this simple concept so hard for you to grasp? Coal worker's pneumoconiosis is a disease found almost exclusively among coal miners yet "coal mining" has never been listed as a cause of death--"Coal worker's pneumoconiosis" yes..."coal mining" no. Get it? I doubt it. I didn't even know precog. WAS a legitimate occupation. Except in The Minority Report of course. No stupid. By definition, BURNING is the cause of every single solitary "burning death" ever recorded. That's what makes them "burning deaths". Just like smoke inhalation is the cause of every "smoke inhalation death". Now it's true smoking USED to be a significant cause of home fires RESULTING in burning deaths. But that was before FSC's put an end to the dangers posed by unattended cigarettes. And no stupid. Smoke inhalation is the number one cause of fatalities in apartment fires, followed closely by burning to death. Smoking doesn't even make the list. Although careless smoking IS a top ten cause of the fires that lead to those deaths. Are you at least STARTING to get this? |
|
“Censorship: A liberal tool” Since: Aug 09
South-West Philly |
Judged:
1
1
1 The fact that Alexandria is my home town is what provides my "special credibility". The public document in question affects me directly and you not at all. So if you're gonna continue offering your less-than-credible insights, you might wanna go ahead and "parse" the two documents you've linked to as there are quite a few differences beyond format. |
|
“Censorship: A liberal tool” Since: Aug 09
South-West Philly |
Judged:
1
1
1 It's not often you'll find a scientific opinion stating that something "can" cause something. Any real scientist will agree the following statement is absolutely true: "Talking loudly CAN cause the moon's orbit to suddenly shift leading to catastrophic tidal disruptions." The problem is the word "can", which in this usage means "may". To positively conclude the statement is false, one would have to prove that talking loudly can NOT cause this to happen. And as we all know, it's not easy to prove a negative. Until it's proven that talking loudly can NOT shift the moon's orbit, it must be accepted that talking loudly CAN shift the moon's orbit. That's why real scientists say things like "80% of the time, such and such DOES cause" or "HAS BEEN SHOWN to cause"--not CAN cause. The conflicting hypothesis to "being shot through the heart can(may) cause death" is "being shot through the heart can(may) NOT cause death". Both of those hypotheses can be shown to be true. I hate to pick nits, but I figured someone of your obvious intellect would appreciate a little constructive criticism. Dummy. |
Sorry, Bubba. The challenging sneer involved the words "legally speaking". I provided a case where the LAW said it was the SHS. QED The presence or lack of details in an English-language write-up that refers to the case is irrelevant. |
|
|
London, Canada |
Alexandria is all about social engineering and nothing but. Do you see them table a BAN on all Health officials, plus legistators, from accepting expense accounts used for polluting travel. The stupity shown on this board by non- smokers is their outlet and support in their 2 faced world.
|
|
Judged:
1
1
1 There's a thread on the forum linked to a write-up on a study showing they are distinctly different. Smokers' advocates were all over that one, claiming that it meant SHS couldn't possibly be causing the lung cancer in nonsmokers. However, aside from the difference in temperature of the smoke impacting the lung tissue of smokers and nonsmokers (and temperature makes a HUGE difference in chemical reactions) there is the difference in the ratios among the different chemicals involved. Some of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke are an order of magnitude more concentrated in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke, for instance, though smokers inhale a more concentrated stream of smoke in general. The fact of differences between lung cancers in active versus passive smokers does not mean that tobacco smoke could not be causing both. I chased down the Topix thread, but there was nothing useful at the other end of the accompanying link and only a bunch of the typical dispute, with someone proclaiming SHS to be harmless etc. I dug a little elsewhere, and here is a link to a google page with results that might be useful if you want to delve into it. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=... |
|
|
“Censorship: A liberal tool” Since: Aug 09
South-West Philly |
No need to feel sorry for ME Hugh Jdiklikker. I'm sure all the sane people who waste the time necessary to follow the link you provided and read the oh so in-depth legal brief on the other end will arrive at the same conclusion I did: Hugh Jerkoff dug really deep this time attempting to support another one of his unsupportable claims. Unless you've got something more, the jury is gonna have to go ahead and find against you on this one--legally speaking, as well as plainly speaking for that matter, NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM SECOND-HAND SMOKE/ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE/PASSIVE SMOKING or any other name you invent for this imaginary lethal pollutant. At least confine your research to case law from your own continent. |
|
Judged:
1
1
1 Excuse me, but the jury rendered its verdict a long time ago. The bankers were found guilty of criminal manslaughter. The act that brought about that conviction was requiring the deceased to work in SHS. THEREFORE, in the eyes of the court--which means "LEGALLY SPEAKING"--exposure to SHS caused the death. Go fish. |
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated: |
|
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
10
Users are viewing the
Smoking Forum
right now
Search the Smoking Forum:
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constituti...
|
1 min | azmac | 423 |
|
As You See It, Election 2012: June 3, 2012: Pro...
|
47 min | DBS | 1 |
| Cuban Cigars for sale (Nov '11) | 3 hr | Pangaea | 2 |
|
Report: State Tobacco Prevention Funding Lacking
|
7 hr | Ronald | 37 |
| smoke smell (May '06) | 8 hr | Need A Mint | 438 |
|
Anti-smoking advocates celebrate in Indianapoli...
|
9 hr | Hugh Jass | 15 |
|
Complaints few since smoking ban
(Aug '10)
|
9 hr | Hugh Jass | 7,170 |
CancerYou're feeling positive and full of sunshine today, and determined to make the best of any situation you find yourself in. The planets are in are fortunate aspect, so everything is looking bright. A fortunate encounter with someone who'll do you a good turn, or brighten up your life in some way, is definitely on the cards.
Copyright ©2012 Topix LLC
