Smoking causes lung cancer or not?

[Trinity]

I found this on a news report and thought that was interesting they kinda contradicted themselves in this statement.



Lung cancer — which killed nearly 160,000 Americans last year — is the leading cancer killer, and cigarette smoke is by far its main cause. Yet only a fraction of smokers develop lung cancer, and there's no way to predict who will escape it and who will not.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Developing-Test-To-Warn-Smokers-Of-Cancer-Danger/KAk-wEtt-0iyL2JAuV-ZGA.cspx

[Monkeybone]

if it doesn't, then what it does it makes your lungs too mucked up and weak for them to do surgeries (usually) to take the cancer out.

[CSM]

It would be interesting to see the comparison of smokers vs. non-smokers that develop lung canceer. I mean the real statistics, not some made up crap.

[darin]

Nobody would be foolish enough to counter popular opinion. Nobody will show smoking doesn't CAUSE Cancer - although I'm sure nobody has proven it does; people are afraid to say it does not. Make sense?

[Gaffer]

follow the money

[CSM]

Nobody would be foolish enough to counter popular opinion. Nobody will show smoking doesn't CAUSE Cancer - although I'm sure nobody has proven it does; people are afraid to say it does not. Make sense?

Exactly. The "smoking causes lung cancer" science is as valid as "global warming" science. More about politics than medicine.

[Noir]

Exactly. The "smoking causes lung cancer" science is as valid as "global warming" science. More about politics than medicine.

Can I ask where the politics comes into it? I mean cigs are heavily taxed so the Gov does well from them, where's the political desire to try and stop people using them?

[namvet]

I knew some people who died from lung cancer and never smoked in their life. including a friend of mine who is battling it right now.

the misconception is if you give up smoking you give up the risk of cancer. not true. heart attack yes. but you run the risk of cancer the rest of your life. im a former smoker and i have a chest X-Ray once a year.

[CSM]

Can I ask where the politics comes into it? I mean cigs are heavily taxed so the Gov does well from them, where's the political desire to try and stop people using them?

It is about control, Noir; that and money. I am sure you do not remember but a lot of federal money was handed over to various states to "educate" if not eradicate smoking. Of course, there was/is a HUGE effort to tie smoking into health care (I am tempted to assert that, eventually, if you are a smoker, you will be denied government funded health care!) in an attempt to get more federal dollars (and control) to the special interests groups in the name of public health. Smokers are the "evildoers" of the medical/social world.

[Noir]

It is about control, Noir; that and money. I am sure you do not remember but a lot of federal money was handed over to various states to "educate" if not eradicate smoking. Of course, there was/is a HUGE effort to tie smoking into health care (I am tempted to assert that, eventually, if you are a smoker, you will be denied government funded health care!) in an attempt to get more federal dollars (and control) to the special interests groups in the name of public health. Smokers are the "evildoers" of the medical/social world.

I still don't get it. I mean if it's all about power and money then what good is saying that smoking is bad? I mean by definition that will reduce the number of smokers and thus taxable dollars. And if everyone stopes smoking, there would be no tax from it being sold, or from the companies that make it, and those companies would go under and cause massive unemployment in dozens of sectors...surly if a goverment wanted to maximize it's power&money from smoking it would encourage it?...

[Monkeybone]

naw... not evil CSM.. just stinky.


I will say though that it has irked me to have smokers come in and bitch about their messed up lungs and cancer and then want to go outside for a smoke break.

[CSM]

I still don't get it. I mean if it's all about power and money then what good is saying that smoking is bad? I mean by definition that will reduce the number of smokers and thus taxable dollars. And if everyone stopes smoking, there would be no tax from it being sold, or from the companies that make it, and those companies would go under and cause massive unemployment in dozens of sectors...surly if a goverment wanted to maximize it's power&money from smoking it would encourage it?...

Interesting you should say that because what you describe did not happen. Interstingly, federal dollars are still spent on tobacco production. The government wont say that publicly but its there! That way, the government has it both ways.

[CSM]

naw... not evil CSM.. just stinky.


I will say though that it has irked me to have smokers come in and bitch about their messed up lungs and cancer and then want to go outside for a smoke break.

And it irks the hell out of me to hear some 300 pound fat guy complaining about second hand smoke. That next donut is more likely to kill him than someone else's cigarette smoke.

[Monkeybone]

And it irks the hell out of me to hear some 300 pound fat guy complaining about second hand smoke. That next donut is more likely to kill him than someone else's cigarette smoke. how'd you know? are you spying on me?


from an earlier post, I think vices will be disqualifiers from certain care as well in the new Gov controled health care.

[Gaffer]

I still don't get it. I mean if it's all about power and money then what good is saying that smoking is bad? I mean by definition that will reduce the number of smokers and thus taxable dollars. And if everyone stopes smoking, there would be no tax from it being sold, or from the companies that make it, and those companies would go under and cause massive unemployment in dozens of sectors...surly if a goverment wanted to maximize it's power&money from smoking it would encourage it?...

The condemning of smoking allowed the lawyers to take things to court and win huge settlements for the government. The cig companies had to shell out billions. Then the government taxes the shit out of tobacco products. All in the name of health care. Smokers were made into the jews of the modern world. As for taxing it out of existence. They will do just that and squeeze it dry. Then turn to another source. Global warming for example, or fast food, doesn't matter, they will find something they can tax the shit out of and destroy and then move on. They are always looking for the next golden goose to slaughter.

[CSM]

how'd you know? are you spying on me?


from an earlier post, I think vices will be disqualifiers from certain care as well in the new Gov controled health care.

LOL...drugs, alcohol, sex, food, hazardous sports, and the list is unending

[Noir]

Interesting you should say that because what you describe did not happen. Interstingly, federal dollars are still spent on tobacco production. The government wont say that publicly but its there! That way, the government has it both ways.

I wouldn't be surprised if fed money was put into them, given the money they make die the fed. Still doesn't answer the question though of why it would be a good move for goverment campains to try and reduce the number of smokers. And in doing so, spending money to try and generate less tax

[Mr. P]

Anyone heard of the latest smoking monster, third hand smoke?

A freind heard about this and mentioned it to me. Third hand being smoke that is impregnated on a smokers furniture, carpet etc...Supposedly a major risk factor for non-smokers now. :laugh2:

[Noir]

The condemning of smoking allowed the lawyers to take things to court and win huge settlements for the government. The cig companies had to shell out billions. Then the government taxes the shit out of tobacco products. All in the name of health care. Smokers were made into the jews of the modern world. As for taxing it out of existence. They will do just that and squeeze it dry. Then turn to another source. Global warming for example, or fast food, doesn't matter, they will find something they can tax the shit out of and destroy and then move on. They are always looking for the next golden goose to slaughter.


Ah I see, can you link me to some big cases that the fed have won?

[Mr. P]

Google Philip Morris..

[Noir]

@Mr P

I've done a bit of hoaking about and I keep finding stories like this http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/02/19/cancer-victims-widow-awarded-8-mil-in-philip-morris-lawsuit/
But they are private indivduals suing, not the fed. Am I missing somthing??

[Mr. P]

I can't remember a speific case..try this link

http://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+government+vs+philip+morris&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[pete311]

yeah the majority are prolly second hand smokers

[Trigg]

Can I ask where the politics comes into it? I mean cigs are heavily taxed so the Gov does well from them, where's the political desire to try and stop people using them?

It makes the gov. look good, that is the political agenda for telling people to quit.

It isn't much different from the police telling people to stop speeding. If everyone stopped speeding police departments would go broke, but it looks good for them to say "stop speeding, it's for your own good". Get it???

The gov's been saying for years how they want people to use less gas and buy efficient cars. Last year when gas prices went over $4 a gallon people stopped driving so much. All of the sudden the gov. starts talking about having to raise the gas tax. See, they didn't REALLY want people to stop using so much gas, they'd loose to much in taxes. It sure looks to to lecture people about it though, makes them look good.