How much do cigarettes cost???

[Bill V]

Bill-E, Caymen--If I wanted to claim that the earth was flat, I could. And then whenever someone provides a report or some evidence to the contrary, all I would need to do is claim that they're not an objective source; that they had an agenda to show that the earth was round. And then when someone else provided evidence that showed both that the earth was round, and that the previous source was objective, all I would need to do is claim that they're not an objective source either, and say that someone needs to provide an objective source before I'd believe it. I'd say that you shouldn't believe what you read, and that you should instead do some real research and find the study (which, of course, ignores the fact that doing that research would involve doing some reading, which I'd have just said you shouldn't believe.) And then when some plowed-off-his-a$$ drunk claimed that the earth was flat, all I'd need to do is claim that he's objective, and that not only haven't any of the round-earthers proved their point, but that I had just proven mine.



And I'd be using just as stable of logic as those who claim that second-hand smoke is harmless.

 

[Bill Ellis]

Bill V, send me a link to an unbiased scientific study that definitely indicates that second hand smoke is dangerous. I have not been able to find such a thing. It's very easy to find scientific studies that show it is not a danger. The link I posted about references several of those; some of which were conducted by those who were hoping to prove just the opposite.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

If you guys (on either side) are looking for PROOF, you will NEVER find it. The best you can find to further your case is an "increased liklihood" (or lackthereof) between smoking and 2nd-hand smoke and certain illnesses.



Is it PROOF? No. Is it compelling? Yes. I give merit to studies that show "increased liklihood" of ailments.



TJR

 

[Bill Ellis]

That's what I'm asking for. Studies that indicate increased likelyhood of disease due to second hand smoke. We know that smoking increases risk; note, I did not say "cause", of various diseases and conditions. Of that there is no question. Yet, the most detailed studies of second hand smoke that involved thousands of non-smoking spouses of smokes; those who would seem to get a high level of exposer, did not reveal any increased risk for the smoking related ailments. So other than "Public Health officials report.....", where's the evidence?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I didn't read it all, but there has to be something in the link below...



I found this:

Studies Completed Since Release of the EPA Report



Critics claim that had EPA not excluded" the recent Brownson study, the Agency could not have concluded that secondhand smoke causes cancer. In fact, four new lung cancer epidemiology studies, including the Brownson study, have been published since the literature review cutoff date for the 1993 EPA report, and all support EPA's conclusions. Three of these are large U.S. studies funded, at least in part, by the National Cancer Institute. A 1992 study of Florida women by Stockwell et al. found a 60% overall increased risk of lung cancer from exposure to their husband's smoke, with significant results for both the highest exposure group and the exposure-response trend. The 1992 study of Missouri women by Brownson et al. found no overall increased risk, but did demonstrate a significant increase in risk in the highest spousal smoking exposure group and a positive exposure-response trend.



The 1994 study by Fontham et al. of women in two California and three Southern cities is the largest case-control study on the subject ever conducted and is considered by EPA to be the best designed study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer conducted to date. This study found significantly increased risks for overall exposure and in the highest exposure group and a strong positive exposure-response relationship. These findings were significant not only for exposure from spouses, but also for exposure in the workplace and in social situations.

 

[Bill V]

Bill E, like I said, it's pointless for me to post them here--anything that I find, you will label as being "biased" and dismiss it, simply because that is your means of rationalizing away anthing that happens to disagree with your pre-determined conclusions.

 

[Deleted deleted]

Thanks Bill V... I have came to that same conclusion with Bill E.

 

[Gavin Allan]

I don't know about "proof", but I feel that smoking around folks who don't smoke is plain rude. Maybe I am over sensitive, but that is how I feel.



The evidence strongly suggests that cigarettes are not beneficial to health; many folks consider cigarettes to be dirty; and that most folks agree that smoking is rather expensive. There doesn't seem to be much compelling evidence to smoke.