Jobs & Education0 min ago
Not another survey about smoking?
36 Answers
This week-end, there was a survey published that said smoking mothers can harm their children because of the deposits that smoke puts on the mothers' clothes.
All this hysteria about smoking is being perpetuated by anti-smoking groups and the government. AND IT'S ALL LIES!
How do I know? Look at your history. In the 1940's and 50's approx. 80% of the population were smokers. My mother was a heavy smoker, so was my dad. As a baby, a young child, a teenager and young adult, I constantly lived in a smoking environment. So did millions of others, so I'm not making myself out to be a special case. When I went visiting relatives, they were smokers. We travelled upstairs on the bus, so mum and dad could have a smoke.
Where is the legacy of this heavy smoking that millions of children like me were brought up with? Where is it?
The government say that we have an ageing population, and that people are living much longer than they used to.
But hang on! How can that be when we were brought up amongst smoking families? Where all the houses had coal fires that emitted masses of smog. Where, as children, our parents were under food rationing for 10 years after WW2. Surely we wouldn't be able to live amongst all this could we?
And yet here we are, living longer, no worse in health terms than anyone else.
You've all been had by the anti-smoking groups and the government, simply because they don't like the smell of it.
If the causes of it are as bad as they say, why have we got the 'Baby Boomer' generation going along very nicely? They, like me, came through the heyday of smoking, none the worse for it.
We are here. Doing very nicely thank you. Passive smoking my4rse!
All this hysteria about smoking is being perpetuated by anti-smoking groups and the government. AND IT'S ALL LIES!
How do I know? Look at your history. In the 1940's and 50's approx. 80% of the population were smokers. My mother was a heavy smoker, so was my dad. As a baby, a young child, a teenager and young adult, I constantly lived in a smoking environment. So did millions of others, so I'm not making myself out to be a special case. When I went visiting relatives, they were smokers. We travelled upstairs on the bus, so mum and dad could have a smoke.
Where is the legacy of this heavy smoking that millions of children like me were brought up with? Where is it?
The government say that we have an ageing population, and that people are living much longer than they used to.
But hang on! How can that be when we were brought up amongst smoking families? Where all the houses had coal fires that emitted masses of smog. Where, as children, our parents were under food rationing for 10 years after WW2. Surely we wouldn't be able to live amongst all this could we?
And yet here we are, living longer, no worse in health terms than anyone else.
You've all been had by the anti-smoking groups and the government, simply because they don't like the smell of it.
If the causes of it are as bad as they say, why have we got the 'Baby Boomer' generation going along very nicely? They, like me, came through the heyday of smoking, none the worse for it.
We are here. Doing very nicely thank you. Passive smoking my4rse!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well, I have quit smoking a few months ago. I was a passionate smoker but decided to give up because
a) I want to try my best to prevent myself from getting
nasty diseases - members of my family died from cancer
and they all have been brought up in a smoking
environment or were heavy smokers
b) Cigarettes do stink - you only know how badly they smell
once you have given up
I do not think it is hysteria but it is proven that smoking does harm you.
Give me one reason for scientist making up stories? The tobacco industry was such a powerful industry - if they could have proven scientist to be wrong I am sure they would have done.
a) I want to try my best to prevent myself from getting
nasty diseases - members of my family died from cancer
and they all have been brought up in a smoking
environment or were heavy smokers
b) Cigarettes do stink - you only know how badly they smell
once you have given up
I do not think it is hysteria but it is proven that smoking does harm you.
Give me one reason for scientist making up stories? The tobacco industry was such a powerful industry - if they could have proven scientist to be wrong I am sure they would have done.
-- answer removed --
You are saying loads Clarion, but unfortuntely you can't answer my question about the evidene the tobacco industry should give that smoking is harmless?? They can't give evidence...it's as simple as that.
Are you trying to tell me that the tobacco industry was defeated by a group of people who simply did not like the smell of cigarettes??
By the way... I am not having a go at the smokers, I have given up for personal reasons. That was my choice, other people have their choice and if they want to smoke that's fine with me.
I take it you have not seen people that were close to you that died slowly from a nasty disease? And, how do you know that smoking has not effected you?? Maybe you will come down with something in a few years?? You don't know that, do you.
People from the 50's and 60's also died from cancer. It was just not proven at the time, that smoking was a reason for their death as science was not that far as you will hopefully know!
Are you trying to tell me that the tobacco industry was defeated by a group of people who simply did not like the smell of cigarettes??
By the way... I am not having a go at the smokers, I have given up for personal reasons. That was my choice, other people have their choice and if they want to smoke that's fine with me.
I take it you have not seen people that were close to you that died slowly from a nasty disease? And, how do you know that smoking has not effected you?? Maybe you will come down with something in a few years?? You don't know that, do you.
People from the 50's and 60's also died from cancer. It was just not proven at the time, that smoking was a reason for their death as science was not that far as you will hopefully know!
-- answer removed --
how about a link to genuine research to back up your points and 'facts'?
then perhaps you will be taken seriously.
in the mean time, how about telling me one - just one - single thing, that is good about smoking....???
can you???
and why do you care if people are being fooled by hysteria?
wouldn't you rather people erred on the side of caution??
i am baffled by your apparent belief that becasue a few people are still alive means smoking is safe - rather pointless argument and rather simplistic don't you think?
also, as we all know, roy castle never smoked and died of lung cancer because of passive smoking
then perhaps you will be taken seriously.
in the mean time, how about telling me one - just one - single thing, that is good about smoking....???
can you???
and why do you care if people are being fooled by hysteria?
wouldn't you rather people erred on the side of caution??
i am baffled by your apparent belief that becasue a few people are still alive means smoking is safe - rather pointless argument and rather simplistic don't you think?
also, as we all know, roy castle never smoked and died of lung cancer because of passive smoking
Sorry Clarion, but if that is the case, then you really are deliberately turning a blind eye. Just hope that you won't have to suffer the consequence of your ignorance some day. Rupert is absolutely right. We are able to detect far more cancers today that we were in in the 50s and 60s and before that. The mole (which was in fact a melanoma) that was removed from my back when I was a child in the early 60s could not be confirmed as cancerous as the technology at that time wasn't available. It was removed by a surgeon who was involved in research that was trying to establish the link between moles and cancers. I was very lucky that he did remove both the mole and some of the surrounding tissue, as it stopped my cancer from continuing at that point. You say that nobody has made any valid points to convince you ... well maybe you have been so 'hysterical' about your own opinion that you haven't actually taken the time to read the answers people have entered? None of us appear to be hysterical about what we are saying ... with the exception of your good self! Nobody wants or indeed needs to force their opinions on you. You asked the question, we all answered and gave proven, truthful information that we may not even have found easy to share. We did this because we do care about our families and friends today as well as our environment and future generations.. If you refuse to accept what medical research is proving more and more each day then you are indeed a lost cause and that is really sad.
Clarion: Effects of smoking on the circulation are well documented in the medical field. A patient's smoking history will always be documented in their notes.
You may like to read this young man's story. If you choose to ignore it, or pour scorn upon it's contents, then that is your perogative.
www.smokinggotme.com
You may like to read this young man's story. If you choose to ignore it, or pour scorn upon it's contents, then that is your perogative.
www.smokinggotme.com
-- answer removed --
Clarion, I just think you've lost it and you are arguing for the sake of it. You have not said anything that made sense at all as far as I'm concerned. Your exaggeration about "propaganda" is pathetic.
AND who said we are turning a blind eye to alcohol?? The abuse of alcohol is as bad as smoking, but moderate consumption of alcohol will not make you ill. A glass of wine is fine, as it contains antioxidants which are good for prevention of cancer... but you could eat blueberries instead if you want to stay off the booze ;-))
AND who said we are turning a blind eye to alcohol?? The abuse of alcohol is as bad as smoking, but moderate consumption of alcohol will not make you ill. A glass of wine is fine, as it contains antioxidants which are good for prevention of cancer... but you could eat blueberries instead if you want to stay off the booze ;-))
Not sure if you could actually l be bothered to look at the site I referred to. The only causative agent of that man's disease is smoking: there is no other link between sufferers. This is either a phenomonal co-incidence or medical fact.
Alcohol abuse is certainly on the increase, and we are seeing more young people (in their twenties and thirties) dying from alcohol related illness. But to claim that 'alcohol is used by everybody' is to make the kind of sweeping statement that you pertain to be complaining about. I don't drink alcohol. I've nothing against it's use in small quantities, but I don't like the taste of it, so I won't waste my money on it. Cigarettes will not benefit your system in small quantities. If you're lucky, you'll get away with a chronic early morning cough. Chances are, it'll contribute to an early death.
Alcohol abuse is certainly on the increase, and we are seeing more young people (in their twenties and thirties) dying from alcohol related illness. But to claim that 'alcohol is used by everybody' is to make the kind of sweeping statement that you pertain to be complaining about. I don't drink alcohol. I've nothing against it's use in small quantities, but I don't like the taste of it, so I won't waste my money on it. Cigarettes will not benefit your system in small quantities. If you're lucky, you'll get away with a chronic early morning cough. Chances are, it'll contribute to an early death.
-- answer removed --
Smoking is a 'problem'.
Alcohol abuse is a 'problem'.
Smokers are in denial about the effect on their system.
ditto alcoholics.
Both are 'REAL' problems.
Neither group want the 'nanny state' to govern their 'right' to abuse themselves, but all will want the health care system to look after them, and the benefit system to cater for them when they are no longer able to work.
Alcohol abuse is a 'problem'.
Smokers are in denial about the effect on their system.
ditto alcoholics.
Both are 'REAL' problems.
Neither group want the 'nanny state' to govern their 'right' to abuse themselves, but all will want the health care system to look after them, and the benefit system to cater for them when they are no longer able to work.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News3 mins ago
Food & Drink22 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.