Posted on 10/17/2006 1:09:34 PM PDT by trumandogz
You're a nasty piece of work - I hope you're proud opf yourself.
You're God-damn right I am. So... how's your cancer-pushing going?
During the 25 years, there were 2,900 deaths in the study group. Of those deaths, 109 were directly attributable to COPD, and nearly all those deaths were in people who were active smokers at the start of the study. Only two non-smokers died of COPD.
So, out of 8000 people, 107 smokers and 2 non-smokers died DIRECTLY of COPD, over a period of 25 years.
That's one in every 800 that died directly of COPD. Not bad. One-eighth of one percent. I wonder if that's even statistically significant?
You're right. Smoking is worse than they say it is. Until you've seen someone you love flop-around as they die from terminal lung cancer with their spine attached to a mechanical morphine drip, you've never seen pain. Bizarrely, they don't show that in Marlboro ads or even anti-smoking public serice announcements.
Considering how often pigs lungs that are injected with tar and other things are used, and stated they are human lungs, I seriously doubt what you examined was a smoker's lung.
Smoking is not good for anyone.
I've never met a person who says it is. Have you?
Buy yourself a calculator. That's not 1/800, that's 1/80 who died, in the period of the study, from COPD. That doesn't include many others who died of breast, lung, throat, testicular and mouth cancers, emphysema, heart disease, stroke or other smoking-related ailments. Nor does it factor in the fact that a quarter of the subjects developed COPD -- resulting in debilitation and a huge decrease in quality of life, but not death.
Among women, 90 percent of non-smokers still had healthy lungs at the end of 25 years, compared to 70 percent of smokers.
Okay, so that means 30 percent of smokers didn't have healthy lungs, and 10 percent of non-smokers didn't have healthy lungs, at the end of 25 years. I'd like to see a breakdown of causes. How many had TB? Did they select out for other causes of lung disease? Is anyone even aware that there are other causes of lung disease than smoking? How many of them had asthma? How many had lung damage from pneumonia? I'd just like to know, before drawing any conclusions.
In the interests of full disclosure, I smoke between 5 and 15 cigarettes a day.
If there were not such extreme hatred for smelling even a molecule of smoke among the anti-smokers, there might be a possibility of a dialogue. Like how nicotine patches help some Alzheimer's patients, like how smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's. Why can't we talk about this? Because the antis are so rabid. When someone attacks me, I become defensive. When they attack me for a LEGAL habit that I enjoy, I get angry as well. When they start with the name-calling, I quit listening.
Copenhagen? The country of legalized drugs? Non-filter marijuana joints? What the hell do they care about the effects of smoking??????
...Uh, not exactly. What was the multi-billion dollar tobacco settlement all about? What has been the purpose of all the exhorbitant taxes being placed on cigarettes by all the states?
To answer the above questions, to pay for our own misdeeds..........
Stop your whining, you ain't paying for it, us smokers are. At least thats what your nanny government is telling us.........
Oh wahhh.
How do they blame lung cancer on somebody who quit smoking 25 years before they got it?
I agree with metesky.........and if you call me, him or any of the rest of us on the Puff lists addicts again I WILL hit the abuse button on you.
Okay, one in 80, my mistake. One in 80 does not impress me either.
I didn't post to you, and I don't care to hear your overly emotional screeching, so leave me alone.
I'm a retired nurse. Everyone dies of something. There are worse things than lung cancer.
Glad someone on one of these threads has a relationship with truth.
I hope you have your hazmat suit on, BTW.
I'm still boggled that so many folks find
ANY
serious risk of dying such a horrible death
wonderfully acceptable in exchange for their "right" to engage in a dirty, offensive, smelly, dangerous-to-others; selfish-to-loved-ones habit.
BTW, I may or may not respond to shrill smokers' responses. Been there, done that.
I've never observed that babes who were attracted to smokers were anything close to what I'd label the pick of the litter.
There are a few things worse than lung cancer, but not many.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Please don't interupt the denial and jokes here with a dose of reality.
I smoked for 30 years and thank God that I quit 7 years ago. I feel like a new man.
It's not an on-off switch. Having smoked at all dramatically increases your chance of getting lung cancer. The more and the longer you smoke, the greater that chance increases. Quitting helps limit the increase in risk, but it doesn't eliminate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.