Is lung cancer from smoking legit, or is it another Jewish lie?
there are 100 year old ladies smoking in cuba without access to the white mans cancer sticks
the issue isnt smoke or nicotine for that matter its the 500 chemicals that are added to increase addiction
>>74020126
So smoke Natural American Spirit and you'll be fine?
>>74020126
Yep becuase inhaling super heated air and plant material into your lungs is A ok.
>>74020126
>thinks people INHALE cigar smoke
are you 12?
>>74019354
correlation =/= causation :^)
>>74020701
The spirit of his post is still right though. Tobacco companies do add ingredients to their already unhealthy products to increase addiction.
>>74020804
I knew an old school IRA guy that did that. He died of like 3 types of cancer.
>>74019354
tabacoo is not the main problem. It´s stuff like Tar they put into them. My grandpa used to get his cigarettes out of czech with some other guys from the Villagepub. Everyone of them got lung cancer and died early. But that´s just a personal experience
>>74019354
Yes, all the negative effects of smoking are lies. You should smoke a lot and around kids, it's not bad. In fact, you should let your kids smoke from very early, it's good for them.
>>74019354
The jews are demonizing the tobacco industry because they're historically anti jewish
>>74020424
Nope all cigs have additives in them, or they would go out when you stop puffing on them like cigars do. They also have chemicals to numb your throat so you won't gag like you do if you inhale a cigar.
Smoke cigars, they use pure tobaccos. Or pipes, pipe tobacco uses additives but they are food grade (vinegar to balance the pH, and food type flavorings) and harmless. Don't inhale either unless you like throwing up, they don't include anasthetics like cigarettes.
>>74019354
Well...it's definitely not a lie. But the chances of getting lung cancer from smoking exclusively are pretty severely exaggerated, or greatly misunderstood depending how you look at it. Doesn't make smoking any healthier for you though.
Those images are though. They're pure shock material. Smoking doesn't completely black out your lungs. Or even stain them for that matter. Unless someone has pretty severe COPD (which isn't exclusively caused by smoking either) a smoker's lung doesn't really appear unhealthy to the naked eye.
>>74020126
>thinks people INHALE cigar smoke
I'm one of the people who inhale cigar smoke. It's not for the feint of heart. But MAN do you get a buzz from it.
Please keep smoking goy... guys! It's very good for my medical pract... I mean It's very good for you! Don't believe the media's lies!
>>74020126
They're not necessarily added just "created" when the tobacco, paper, etc... is burned.
>>74021426
Please don't tell me they used an asshole to shop that
>>74019354
well even a pure organic cigarillo has health effects, but ti's not even in the same league as cigarettes. interesting enough during the 50s and 60s maybe up till the 70s cigarettes had all sorts of additives that are now banned, and were unfiltered, later it was determined that the original filters for cigarettes had fucking asbestos.
now there's all sorts of nasty shit in darts, those new menthol squeeze packs wtf
inhaling heated plant matter will cause a free radicals and minor tissue damage on it's own to an extend, add pesticides, rat poison, bleached paper, artificial flavouring agents, etc.
notwithstanding the addictive properties.
>>74021426
I've heard that you actually shit yourself when you inhale too much.
>>74020804
Please educate those of us who aren't degenerate enough to smoke then, anon
>>74020424
i can smoke a whole pack of spirits and cough less than if i smoke 3-4 marbs.
>>74019354
Smoking is bad but governments try to use the anti-smoking campaign for their own purposes. Check out Jacob Sullum's book For Your Own Good. The concept of public health was founded as a way of quietly establishing totalitarianism (you can see parallels with environmentalism). Compare the sincere Nazi campaign against vivisection.
>>74022127
>well even a pure organic cigarillo has health effects, but ti's not even in the same league as cigarettes
True (higher chance for tongue and nose cancer) but it doesn't affect your lungs which is the biggest plus (next to superior taste)
You are retarded.
Seriously, consider it.
How would you know yourself, how could you notice when you are an imbecile?
A core problem with being stupid is being unable to recognize it - you are so stupid you fail and lose again and again, and then you seek scapegoats other than you to rationalize that you are unfairly suppressed by Jews etc.
Sorry guys, you are human filth.
The best thing you have going for you is that you are White, and that is nothing that you achieved yourself. Your most valuable trait, the best thing about you, is something you have just been born with.
But being retarded is something you are responsible for yourself.
You are mighty idiots, and yet you think of yourself as being somebody better than that.
>>74022568
the higher rate of mouth and nose cancer is because of tha way you smoke, generally you don't inhale, it lingers on the palate.
in any case Cuba has that vaccine now, it's a work in progress but its effective even in those with lung cancer. but fuck i'd rather not get that shit to begin with.
>>74021290
Bitch is ugly
And thats saying alot, given ftv's high quality women
>>74022725
You're right, but you're just as bad for acting all high & mighty and calling people with different opinions "imbeciles".
>>74021699
k i no tell u
slep tite bb grl
>>74022725
as much as i love the post, here's a rebuttal;
Anything you do I can do better, you suck, lol you're on /pol/ loser.
*ahem* yes... yes....
>>74021397
>Those images are though. They're pure shock material. Smoking doesn't completely black out your lungs. Or even stain them for that matter. Unless someone has pretty severe COPD (which isn't exclusively caused by smoking either) a smoker's lung doesn't really appear unhealthy to the naked eye.
I have a hard time believing that. Just look at a filter after the cigarette has been smoked - and realize that the filters don't really do shit anyway. Tens to hundreds of thousands of cigarettes smoked over a lifetime will definitely leave some nasty shit.
Fuck I havent had a cig in over a year. That shit stinks bad, makes your clothes smell. See retards smoking and think to myself how stupid they look. And they dont think they are drug addicts.
Just because it takes 20 years to kill you doesnt make it less dangerous then heroin
>>74020126
I heard cigars were even more unhealthy than cigarettes.
>>74022868
>but fuck i'd rather not get that shit to begin with
True. I started smoking cigarillos on a daily basis 4 years ago and it is an addiction but due to the ritualistic approach cigar smokers have (me included) the addiction is bundled with the situation.
I'm not longing the cigar but rather the moment (sitting in my room alone with music and an open window).
>>74022310
Dude, I'll be honest, after two hours of cigars, I have an insane need to take a shit.
Daily reminder the NatSoc German regime began the anti smoking campaign. Reminder smoking is a Jewish toll to keep the white man's lungs weak.
Reminder that smoking the nicotine Jew kills you.
>>74023227
Your body also completely refreshes every single cell in it within a few years.
It doesn't matter if it's smoke from tobacco, weed, a cotton shirt, or burning marshmallows. Human lungs aren't designed for smoke.
>but weed is good! E-cigs are healthy!
Smoke kills.
>>74022405
Interesting, with me it's the opposite
>>74024536
E-cigs isn't smoke, though. That's the whole point.
>>74021426
>>74020804
Is
Is this why cigarettes fuck me up so bad?
Because I smoke them like I smoke pot?
>>74023059
kek fuck india
>>74025279
No, you're just a pussy faggot. You're supposed to inhale cigarettes and cigars, that's how you get the smoke inside you
https://youtu.be/D8M8I2SYEiA
Just say no
>>74019354
Smoking is part of the equation but it is only one part. Japanese people smoke more than any other industrialized nation and have very low rates for lung cancer.
>>74021101
Tar is not put into cigarettes it is a byproduct of burning tobacco.
>>74024269
That must be why nobody ever has scars last more than a few years.
>>74019354
> Smoking is addicting
> Profit
Do you even know how Jews work?
>>74019354
Nonsmoker here. It's a complete farce. Tons of studies have shown that smoking has relatively zero health risks and the idea of a 'smoking related illness' is also false. Secondhand smoke is an even worse charade.
It's just people trying to restrict lifestyle from what I understand.
>>74020126
>tfw just picked up some cigars and all of a sudden no longer have any desire to touch cigarettes ever again
YESSSSSS GOYIM
keep smoking! of course lung cancer is just another jewish hoax!
>>74028365
the pinnacle of /pol/ shitposting
>>74028365
>Tons of studies have shown that smoking has relatively zero health risk
No, they haven't.
>Secondhand smoke is an even worse charade
A child forced to live with someone who smokes will have health problems from it.
Stop lying, you bastard.
>smokers should be gassed!
They're gassing themselves
>>74019354
Living has a 100% chance of killing you.
>>74028501
So many people are willing to dismiss vaccines causing autism or cellphones causing brain cancer but goddamn all of you have bought into the smoking is bad for you meme. It's actually
>air pollution
>diet (cholesterol etc.)
>genetics
>vitamin deficiencies
And a slew of other shit. The amount of truth out there is just buried by the CDC and other big interest groups. How can /pol/ not realize this? I mean I know people here are irrational racists but I'm talking about the critical side of /pol/.
>>74019354
Quit before the age of 35 and you will be unaffected.
>>74027844
Why do Japs have such low cancer then
>>74019354
>>74021290
hitler and nazi germany were the first ones to have an anti-smoking campaign
hitler hated tobacco and alcohol
its not a fucking jewish conspiracy
>>74028782
Oh calm the fuck down dude.
http://www.smokescreens.org/does-smoking-harm-health/
http://www.smokescreens.org/arm-yourself-with-facts/
http://www.smokescreens.org/secondhand-smoke-firsthand-lies/
Here are the actual facts involved. Maybe you'll learn something.
>>74019354
my grandmother smoked for 70 years, she's 93 now and doing fine....
>>74029088
Hitler was an inside job
>>74020424
in modern farming its common/necessary to pump the soil with nutrients using phosphate fertilizers which tend to be radioactive as for nicotice which we're told is bad you should look up "nicotinic acid" which is nothing more than vitamin B. there was a video on youtube but account was suspended. back to radiation pic related shows measurement of radioactivity:
>>74028782
If anything you're the one lying dude.
>>74029022
I don't know.
>>74019354
Nope, it's true. More likely is you'll get COPD first though; might as well be dead at that point.
>>74029494
Smoking isn't that bad for you. Every other country/continent on the planet with smoking on it sees it as relatively harmless. The U.S. has this problem because of other factors that are making people unhealthy, but the government blamed smoking.
>>74029454
Nice info but I am certain it is (K) potash which is radioactive
>>74029704
That's about as wrong as is possible -- either shill, ignorant, or 15.
>>74023429
Cigars are much healthier than cigarettes because the smoke isn't going to your lungs
>>74029704
You know they can isolate smoking reasonably well in relative risk calculations right? Meaning they can ignore the other factors in their calculations. If something makes you 100x more likely to develop lung cancer, probably don't do it.
>>74029790
All I'm hearing is "it's wrong" but I have links that prove otherwise. You have nothing and if you did have something it'd be faulty scientific statistics at best.
>>74029891
So people don't even read links anymore? I have to actually take quotes from said links now and post them so people can figure out the truth?
>The problem with risk factors is that the researchers decide which ones to assess, and which to include in the final report. Further, it cannot be overstated that correlation does not mean causation – after all, 100% of lung cancer victims inhale air, and 100% of heart disease victims eat food, but everyone knows we cannot link breathing to lung cancer and all food to heart disease. Moreover, how can researchers be sure that a particular risk factor was responsible for the heart attack? The only way to deduce a risk factor is by isolating it as the one variable to which anomalous results can be attributed. As such, risk factors are automatically and without fail biased by the researchers’ opinions, as they choose which to include, exclude, study, and, ultimately, whether to reveal their raw data or to alter it to match their hypothesis or premise.
>>74029100
>some dumbass pro-smoking website
Yeah, I'm sure those are some serious facts there.
>>74029704
>Smoking isn't that bad for you
Yes, it is.
Goddamn, where are these retarded pro-smoking threads coming from?
>>74019354
It's a lie, OP. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
>>74029945
Go look yourself. It's old, proven, and done countless times. You think tobacco handed over $50 billion for fun. Fucking idiots itt, may as well say gravity isn't real.
>>74029100
>http://www.smokescreens.org/does-smoking-harm-health/
Don't forget tobacco is one of the best natural plants in regards to lowering estrogen in your body. The constant attacks on tobacco, coupled with the extreme use of xenoestrogens in virtually everything, kinda makes you think.
>>74030160
>>74029945
>>74029704
>>74029466
>>74029100
>>74028925
>>74028365
>tobacco filter
>>74030206
You cannot discredit the source because of some flimsy position on your part, only the facts in the source, which you haven't done. Sorry but thats the way it is.
>>74030249
>gravity isn't real
False analogy. The lies about smoking being as deadly as suggested is well known.
>>74030301
Nicotine is also a very effective commercial pesticide.
>>74030160
>after all, 100% of lung cancer victims inhale air, and 100% of heart disease victims eat food
What kind of a retard would seriously write this? Is this from that website you linked? Is that your website?
>>74030417
>The lies about smoking being as deadly as suggested is well known.
Yeah, except that isn't true.
>>74029100
I'm actually surprised to say that just about everything I read there is true. I mean, the stats that are supposed to convince you not to smoke because they're scary are often misleading. That said, people who smoke do have much statistically significantly higher rates of lung cancer, emphysema, COPD, etc. than non-smokers. This indicates causation because every conceivable confounding factor has been ruled out.
Oh, and yeah, secondhand smoke is total horse shit.
>>74029103
I see what you're saying, but anecdotal evidence doesn't establish any kind of larger pattern or trend.
>>74030341
Amazing response, are you a scientist who works for the WHO by any chance?
>>74030417
There is no analogy needed. You are either really fucking stupid or a troll. Go debate the moon landings with the rest of the tinfoil idiots.
>>74025787
There is a difference in inhaling and breathing it out and dragging it down in your lungs and letting almost nothing come out.
>>74030624
The "retard" has made a compelling case for why smoking is really just attacked by special interest groups. Many scientists have been discredited by the anti-smoking authority because they don't tow the party line, like James Enstrom.
It will greatly increase the chance of you getting lung cancer, but an average persons risk of getting that is already pretty low. Plus, cancer is looking like a genetic thing every day. If your family has a history of cancer, smoking is a terrible idea.
As for everyone else, a heart attack is gonna be far far far more likely.
>>74030641
>indicates causation because every conceivable confounding factor has been ruled out.
How do we absolutely know this, though? There are many factors involved, like the air we breathe being filled with car pollution, nonsmokers developing lung cancer, emphysema, etc.
>>74030685
You have no argument. You basically have nothing but insults, typical anti-smoker who shouldn't be taken seriously.
>>74031045
we absolutely don't know anything with this logic you fucking dimwit
>>74030960
Some cancers are genetic but the last I heard was that cancer is really just bad luck in most cases. Because it's a cellular mutation that isn't suppressed by the human body it's probabilistic in most cases.
>>74031161
So you're gonna completely deny that the people carrying out these studies did not consider other factors at play?
>>74031045
I said it indicates, not that we know. Even when controlling location (even specific cities so you can control for specific levels of pollution, which are actually carcinogens on their own), other habits, etc. smokers have higher rates of these lung illnesses. Because non-smokers still develop these illnesses it is impossible at this point to say that any one person who has cancer, COPD, etc. got it from smoking. However, we do know that smoking does increase the rates of these diseases in populations, so we can say that smoking does increase your probability of developing these diseases. Another factor is the amount you smoke. Obviously smoking three packs a day will be a lot harder on your lungs than smoking 1-3 cigs per day. People in the lowest smoking bracket have rates of these diseases comparable to non-smokers.
>>74031668
Cool, thanks anon.
>>74019354
Actually Nazis were the first to be anti-smoking.
They discovered the cancer links and discouraged Aryan women from smoking because it hurt child bearing stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
>>74033077
>Nazis being incorrect
Well I guess I'm not surprised.
>>74019354
No goy everything is a lie - when you feel brain fog and have no energy after attempting to multitak it's not because your brain is a chemical machine and it got depleted of resources - mainly glucose and got filled with stress hormone cortisol - it's just a coincidence, nothing science have to say is right - why would God tolerate humans studying the laws He placed into creation? Why would God and science go hand in hand?
Just ignore everything - smoke, drink do w/e you're young and free -remember to buy Jewish products.
On a serious note - you have to take into consideration all information you get about your body - if you received the proper education of how to select good information and put the bad one away you'll be able to pick right scientific studies to shape your own opinion about the world around you - that's it's based as much as it can on reality.
For example they took squirrels and removed their olfactive center in brain - even without the capacity to smell squirrels still found their hidden nuts ... why? Because the hippocampus was left intact and the squirel remembered the spatial position of nuts.
Just go with bioethics if you want useful tldr I think orthodox church of Greece ha an bioethics research center - buy their books.
>>74025960
Jesus, that got dark
I used to love that show tho
>>74019354
How would they profit from selling kess cigs?
all natural cigars do not exist, ALL TOBACCO is HEAVILY treated during the drying process with hundreds of chemicals. Nigggers in Nicaragua, yo.
>>74033361
Tobacco Industry Defence Force please go
>>74033848
Australians never fail at shitposting. Go lie about smoking somewhere else.
>>74019354
Why would plp lie about smoking being bad for you. To wreck the tobacco industry? Is it really worth wrecking?
>>74019354
idk is science even real fa m? consult ur local priest
Like with AIDS, they teach it as if a single exposure means instant death. Mainly because they know people can't understand probability and don't want them rolling the dice.
You have about a 1% chance per fuck of picking up HIV from an infected straight partner. It seems small, but having sex with an infected person 70 times would increase your odds to 50%, so it adds up. If you were to tell a normalfag these statistics, their "it can't happen to me" mindset would be worsened.
Lung cancer from smoking is similar. Your odds are small, but they're large enough that you shouldn't be taking the gamble, and it does add up over a lifetime of chain smoking.
>>74034033
To make millions off of the tobacco industry, find an excuse to tax smokers, and denormalize smoking. There's even a quote from a scientist who says they want to denormalize it.
>>74034173
But why? What's the point of denormalizing smoking?
>>74034385
>marijuana is much safer than tobacco so why is the latter legal while the former is illegal? ;^)
All the anecdotal evidence says it doesn't cause cancer
My Nana smoked a pack a day and lived to be 90
>>74034448
I... don't see your point. I don't smoke though, so i guess i'm a bit of an outsider on this issue.
>>74034385
To extend government influence? I don't know but that doesn't stop the fact that a scientist leading a smoking study said they wanted to denormalize it and that was a primary goal.
It's also an easy way for pharma to sell nicotine patches.
>>74020424
I once read a study that said Spirits were the most addictive cigarette.
>>74029454
The American Spirit Yellows are light cigs anyway.
I want to see one with the blue or dark blue ones, those are more comparable to a Marlboro Red.
>>74034933
I'm pretty sure they want to denormalize it b/c they're convinced that it's bad for the public.
>>74035280
It's not though, so they've bought into another lie.
>>74035342
That seems like a lot of effort for something with an unclear return though. I know cigarettes contain carcinogens.
What do the Jews(or anyone) actually gain from convincing people smoking is bad, can anyone tell me that?
>>74034527
Just because X person smoked and didn't get cancer doesn't mean that smoking doesn't greatly increase the risk of cancer. As others have said genetics are a factor at play too, but I doubt most people could chain smoke their whole lives and be fine.
>>74019354
You should try to limit inhaling any smoke into your lungs if you can help it.
>>74035569
Nope
>>74035512
Regardless that isn't a clear reason as to why they're bad, as the links in >>74029100 can prove otherwise.
>>74019354
yeah goyim keep smoking
>>74034173
Smoking shouldn'tbe normal. It's bad. Fuck off.
>>74034933
>It's also an easy way for pharma to sell nicotine patches
Wouldn't cigs be more profitable to sell?
>>74030160
I know this is bait, I'll just add my 2cents for those who you may have "confounded"
Risk factors are determined by comparative studies with control groups, which means they follow two healthy populations which are similar in every aspect (age, sex, socioeconomics, both groups inhale the same air) except their exposition to the studied risk factor, to isolate it : one is exposed and the other is not. At the end of the study they assess the rates of new cases of disease in each group. The bigger the difference between the two groups, the stronger and more specific is the association/correlation between the risk factor and the disease.
These studies can even assess the extent to which the risk factor contributed to the appearance of the disease (like the fact that lung cancer is 80% tobacco)
We call this prospective cohort studies
Once this correlation is established, the causation is then further assessed by other criteria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria
And we know for fact, thanks to these rigorous scientific methods, that tobacco causes 30% of deaths from cancer (pancreas, oesophagus, bladder, larynx, mouth, not just lungs)
http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2016/
Also, goyim, you're buying jewish lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovBRPVQJ9EI
>>74036556
>shouldn't be normal
So you support social engineering? You want big brother watching people?
>>74034014
>Calling a kiwi australian
Truly a new level of retardation, expected from a man that claim that putting polonium in your lungs will not have any carcinogenic effect.
>>74035237
There is a few videos on youtube comparing the rads of different brands but they were long 10min+ vids I didn't want to search thru them all but Im sure what youre looking for is out there. Its just too much for me to go thru atm.
>>74019354
>using jewish lollipops
good goy
>>74021387
>he gags when he inhales a cigar
Look at this faggot
The thing you can say about both those lungs is that both people are dead....
>>74020804
Inhaling cigars is the only right way to do it.
I don't care "you're not supposed to", it's better.
>>74038789
agreed, the feeling is negligible if you do not inhale. it is powerful if you do.
>>74038789
Agree the same who came up with the smoking is dangerous propaganda are same people who said you don't inhale cigars
>>74036756
This all unfortunately strikes me as a misunderstanding of risk factors.
There are quite a few links on critical thinking that would disagree with this. Like this:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/greatest-myth-of-health-risk-factors.html?m=1
I don't necessarily agree with everything on this link but I think it bears importance too
http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS1.htm
>>74019354
Smoke additive-free cigarettes if you're going to smoke anything. Say no to rat poison.
>>74038486
I don't pay much attention these days. New Zealanders shitpost a lot too.
You may or may not get cancer from it. My grandfather smoked like a chimney for the majority of his adult life and didn't get lung cancer. What did him in, though, was end stage lung disease.
Like it or not, smoking ruins your lungs. When you're older, your lungs will be so weak that they can't naturally fight off infections (coughing).
>He doesn't chill out by quitting smoking and listening to Adam of the Hall
>kek
>>74040579
From my experience people who smoke most of their lives and then quit late in their lives are the ones who often get cancer.
>>74041240
That's a shit correlation though. They could've just gotten cancer anyway due to being old, not from smoking.
>>74020701
Don't forget the polonium tobacco plants preferentially absorb from the soil.
I actually know a woman who, believe it or not, is not trailer trash, and has smoked during two of her pregnancies, now smoking during her third one. Her two children are currently 16 and 18 and are perfectly healthy non-smokers. Not making up any of this.
Explain this shit!
>>74042147
>Not making up any of this.
>Explain this shit!
You are making it up.
And this new baby is going to be more fucked up since her mother is not only a smoking whore but also now old.
>>74024269
True, but what does your body do with foreign matter it cannot deal with through lymph system or similar, like diesel exhaust particulates in the (is it 25 microns? 5 microns?) micro range? Or tattoo ink?
So, some stuff does stay in the body, even though the cells around them, in them or containing them, die and are replaced. We did not evolve to cope with the by-products of smoking - anything? - over decades.
>>74038686
fidel also doesn't inhale...
>>74042301
>can't refute the fact that smoking is harmless
>y-you're just making it up?
Fuck off dude. I know people who smoked while pregnant and their kids turned out perfectly fine too.
>>74021117
>>74021117
I can sense sarcasm, you probably are mad because your grandmother died of lung cancer and you blame smoking or something.
It's too bad that people don't want to be redpilled on the biggest health scam in the U.S. Because they don't like the smell.
>>74042301
>>74042497
I wasn't saying or even implying that smoking is harmless. Was just sharing a most curious experience.
>>74019354
Smokers have a 33% chance of dying from a smoking related disease.
You don't know beforehand if you are in the 33% or the 66%, so the safest course of action is to not start smoking at all.
>>74042720
This actually explains it
https://www.sott.net/article/268159-The-myth-of-smoking-during-pregnancy-being-harmful
>>74042792
This but if you must smoke stick with cigars and moderate use
>>74042720
>I wasn't... implying that smoking is harmless
You weren't? Because it looked like that's what you were trying to say.
>>74042700
>biggest health scam in the U.S
Yeah, smoking has no negative health effects, it's all a bunch of lies, [someone] wants to stop for [reasons].
Pipe smoking is better.
>>74042874
In before But but it's the government conspiracy conspiracy!!!
>>74043106
Considering how you've ignored every compelling link itt and are basically going after people like a rabid dog accusing them of supporting smoking, I'd say you don't have an argument and merely have insults.
>>74043249
>pulls some government fact sheet without refuting the statistical evidence
Do ou work for the CDC?
>>74042874
>sott.net
>Anonymous author
>no citations
>I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology
Wow, that was sure informative.
>>74043316
> every compelling link
Where? You haven't provided any
>>74043400
>statistical evidence
Where? That article that threw out some numbers and didn't say where they came from?
>>74029022
They have high rates of stomach and breast cancers.
>>74043452
These
>>74040077
>>74029100
And I have more but I doubt you'll give a shit. I can predict your arguments pretty well.
>they're all shill websites!
>I don't need to use critical thinking!
>SHILL SHILL SHILL SHILL!
>>74021699
>>74019354
I read that cancer is typically rare in life-long smokers. Most life-long smokers die from other things that may or may not be worsened by smoking. Can't provide sources though, just something I read somewhere.
>>74043522
It was a study, that study showed no difference between smoking and nonsmoking pregnant women.
Most scientific studies showing no significant or relevant smoking risk will get someone fired or discredited these days, from what I can tell. This study got one of the authors penalized because he didn't find the results the cancer society that funded him wanted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom
>There are people in this thread that find no problem inhaling free radicals
>There are people who find no problem burning money on a habit that detracts from them spending time with family and work
>There are people who smoke and don't notice the decrease in lung function because they are too fat to exercise anyway
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
What does anyone in this thread make of this article?
"In 1968 fourteen hundred British civil servants, all smokers, were divided into two similar groups. Half were encouraged and counselled to quit smoking. These formed the test group. The others, the control group, were left to their own devices. For ten years both groups were monitored with respect to their health and smoking status."
"So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group."
>>74044130
>free radicals
That's not nearly that big of a deal
http://www.smokescreens.org/does-cigarette-smoke-contain-free-radicals/
>>74041296
I've worked in a cadaver lab and the amount damage a smoker's lung have compared to a non-smoker's lungs is unmistakable. You can actually see what it does to the lungs. About 30 to 40 cadavers was enough to make swear off smoking for good.
>>74044515
And you're capable of ruling out car pollution (which is prevalent in the air and unavoidable) and genetics? Are you even sure that the difference is even a life threatening issue or detriment to the quality of life? How many packs did they smoke a day?
>>74044747
Yes, it's pretty much smoker or non-smoker. The difference is staggering and obvious. Especially with the availability of the person's health record prior to being opened up. All those factors mean jack shit when the one common factor is they all smoked.
>>74029100
>no sources on the site
>just shilling his book
>>74044747
It starts to become a thing where you can identify a smoker by the state of his lungs, even lifelong smokers who didn't seem to suffer had characteristic damage to their lungs. If a doc had x-ray vision he could tell if a patient is lying about being a smoker if they could see their lungs.
>>74044985
But, you don't understand. It exposes the conspiracy against smoking and shows how smoking is actually good for you.
>>74044747
I hate to go on but the point is I've worked enough to have a better understanding then the average individual and it's enough to say you're a misinformation shill.
Biology is clear cut in alot of things. Men have larger brains then women, whites and Asians have a higher IQ on average then Black's, and you're full of shit.
>>74019354
How retarded are you?
You can literally do home science tests to get the poisonous chemicals out of them. Smoking = taking in large particles into your lungs for pleasure, of course it courses problems.
Also smoking without filters is retarded as well, the particles are even larger there.
Go vape instead.
>>74043249
That definitely supports the pro-smoking argument. So many fucking people used to smoke and there aint that many club footers hobblin around.
>>74044442
>states anecdotes
>dodges the question
>Hollywood actors with more money than average Americans
>strawmans shit-tier health websites that list incorrect facts much like his website
Nah nigga I'm glad you found your circlejerk but I hope you'll think back to today when your getting chemo for the death sticks.
Huh, that shill for big tobacco don't got much else to say when with knowledge and experience calls him out. Imagine that.
>>74044286
Thoughts?
>>74038686
first part of the cigar can be inhaled a little, but after that its just puffing into you mouth. You are still inhaling some smoke second hand too.
>>74046176
My thoughts are that there's a lot of smokers who don't really inhale the smoke, and just need to have something in their mouth and/or they "smoke" to socialize.
>>74045341
The site doesn't say it's good for you, it says it has benefits and small downsides that are overblown. Read. The fucking. Links.
>>74044985
If you actually read the site you'd know damn well he's raising good arguments against government corruption. Fuck I thought o was on /pol/ but I guess I'm actually on /dem/.
Also, Penn Jillete supports smoking and drug legalization despite doing neither. Bad choice of image.
>>74019354
Posts like these are the reason you britbongs are dying out
>>74021387
american spirits DO go out when you put them down
>>74045570
Exactly. It's like people don't understand the nature of risk or something. Of course they listen to the CDCwhich is a government based group.
>>74045607
Dude he's not dodging anything AND he wrote an entire book on this material that preaches scientific integrity over twisting and overblowing facts for personal pet agendas such as the anti-smoking crowd. Look at the fucking links or do I need to just do a greentext dump of them?
>>74046558
Too bad that doesn't improve the actual study in question. You're merely making an assumption in the face of hard, solid results.
>>74047182
Just because you're full of shit doesn't mean everyone is a fucking liberal. You can smoke all day if you wanted, I don't care. But you're actively lying, sowing misinformation. I've seen firsthand what smoking does to a human body and for you to say it does no harm to a is evil as fuck. If smoking wasn't your crusade you'd be saying shit like "1 in 4 women blah blah." You're not going to find support here, trying to trick the more low information among us to think "smoking ain't so bad" and spend half their money on a bad habit.
I've also noticed you haven't addressed jack shit of what I've said. Avoid the person calling you out is what ideologues and liars do.
>>74047351
What does a general practice doctor gain from dissuading a patient from smoking? He is not an oncologist therefore he is not skilled enough nor has ready access to chemotherapeutic drugs. So why do doctors who don't at all have a conflicting interest when it comes to the area of lungs say that it is a bad habit and costly to your health? They gain nothing from telling you such information other than fulfilling their hippocratic oath.
Smoking is degenerate, costly and a detriment to your health and all who are around you when you smoke.
>>74047866
maybe he was taught that in school, like everyone else
>>74019354
>Hey guys I never took freshman biology
Stop sucking the smoke into your lungs you dumbshits, smoke them like you would a cigar and you are fine
>>74047182
>benefits
Smoking has no benefits, dumbass.
>small downsides that are overblown
They're not small. And it's only downsides, there's no positives.
>>74048070
Then what's even the point?
>>74048191
>Then what's even the point?
To look cool
>>74047993
Then explain how anti-smoking propaganda hasn't worked on non-smokers. If it is so effective that entire the medical field (schooled in medicine) is in agreement that the practice negatively affects health then surely there shouldn't be any people still smoking these days.
Oh wait that's right that isn't reality. Why? Because people are allowed to think for themselves and schooling does not account for 100% of their decisions. Stop trying to place the blame on external sources in order to rationalize your special snowflake agenda.
>>74048392
Damn too late. *hasn't worked on smokers.*
>>74020126
Its called a Normal distribution, some people won't get cancer.
>>74048320
>smoke cigarette incorrectly by not inhaling
>thinking you look cool
lmao at anyone who thinks inhaling smoke isn't bad for you. If you want nicotine just vaporize
tobacco is one of the most powerful jewish weapons
>>74047667
>harmless
I only mistakenly said it was harmless in one of my posts itt. If you actually read the other posts I've made in this very thread, I am careful to mention that it is actually mostly harmless. It has a few risks, particularly in those that smoke a shit ton and additionally have genetic issues, it also has benefits in some areas neurologically, due to nicotine.
What you're looking at is likely a small sample size considering a large percentage of people smoked back in the day and smaller percentage smoke today. You're just correlating something and assuring people that it is due to smoking, when the reality is that there is no absolute proof this is the case, it could be (and likely is) a combination of multiple factors instead of just one. It was also shown that the government embarrassingly attributed lung related problems o smoking and ruled out air pollution from both factories and motor vehicles or other pollutant creating modes of transportation, because they could do something about a lifestyle choice, but could do little to control other forms of pollution that are just as hazardous.
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pressoffice/press_releases/2002/smogpollution.html
>>74035145
They have a higher nicotine content than most brands.
>>74048937
>it is actually mostly harmless
No, it's not harmless with any sort of qualifier. It's generally harmful.
>it also has benefits in some areas neurologically, due to nicotine.
I'll keep saying it: smoking is a dumbass way to do drugs. You want stims there's better options than smoking.
>>74028058
They could be trying to put non-Jewish corporations out of business.
>>74049210
True. I would rather adderall than smoke. At least it generates a noticeable boost within people in proper doses. And the upside is that my decision to take the drug doesn't negatively affect anyone else's health. Not to mention the several other nootropics I would consider as well.
>>74049617
Smoking doesn't negatively affect anyone else's health either. That's a lie dude.
>>74048937
The reason we have a small sample size today is because we had a large sample size back then. Smoking causes harm no matter what, some people can tank it better. You're going to have a decreased quality of life if smoke. Mucous membranes eroded, the lining of your lungs damaged, and the overall buildup of chemicals in your body are all good reasons why smoking is harmful. Your immune system is damaged and the ability to take in oxygen, a source of energy if understand ATP, is affected. The amount of chemicals you can isolated with a basic understanding of chemistry is frightening and the thought they're added to cigarettes is even more so. Basic understanding of chemistry and biology will show this to you. And nicotine is shit when we have safer alternatives that are less addictive.
Ultimately it's this, we're exposed to many harmful chemicals in the parts-per-millions and some have different effects at certain doses. Theres fecal matter found in ppm in drinkable water for example but its harmless at thatnlevel. Many of the chemicals found in cigarettes and cigars are harmless at ppm but the amount of intake is at levels of parts per thousand or parts per hundreds. The damage is almost immediate and although are body is pretty sturdy and recover quickly it's just a matter of time before serious damage takes place.
If want to smoke grow your own tobacco and roll thee leaves yourself or smoke marijuana. It's still harmful but way safer then what's being pushed by Big Tobacco.
>>74048937
you should seriously consider reevaluating your life for encouraging people to smoke cigarettes or saying that they're harmless. millions of people have died from them, and there's shit tons of data to support that. what the fuck is wrong with you?
>>74049705
The shit you're peddling is a lie as well.
>Shill/Shitposting on a Saturday night
wew lad you got fucked this week with the worst schedule.
Probably a bit overplayed
If you were to follow people who drank a can of pop a day throughout their whole lives and compare it to those who don't and you'll find some surprising results I imagine
All about moderation
>>74049705
>Smoking doesn't negatively affect anyone else's health either.
no, that's the lie.
>>74050095
People who drink soda everyday get fat.
Source: Me
That's how I got fat, I lost weight shockingly fast when I cut that shit out.
>>74019354
That's actually a pretty tame picture of smokers' lungs, OP. I've seen ones that look like moon rocks.
>>74019354
P.S. The benefits of not smoking are pretty self-evident to anyone like me who has quit, beginning with not waking up every morning with an ashy taste in your mouth.
>>74049984
>millions have died
You mean millions of smokers have died from things that may or may not have been caused by smoking depending on genetic history, other lifestyle or environmental factors, etc.
>shit tons of data
Look more carefully. Quite a bit of that data fails at statistical analysis. Even some ex-tobacco control members can point this shit out.
There isn't anything wrong with trying to find the truth and wade through mounds of government funded dogmatist shit to actually have an accurate view of risk, especially when the main weapon against smoking isn't even the supposed death sentence carried down by smoking but instead secondhand smoke, which succeeds at being bigger bullshit by comparison. People had the same problem with Henry Alsinger when he crusaded against marijuana. There are personal agendas and monetary motives involved.
>>74049705
holy shit, I know Americans are naturally more likely to be dumb as fuck but you really take the cake. You are in the lower 5% of the stupidest people I've ever seen.
Second-hand smoking, have you heard of it?
This blogger, "kin_free", claims that the primary cause of lung cancer is asbestos. He correlates this map of asbestos-processing cities with this map of mid-20th-century lung cancer rates.
>>74019354
"After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer, Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
>>74050562
Please take a lower division physiology class or a biochemistry class. I rolled my eyes so hard I went blind because my optic nerves disconnected
>>74050562
>You mean millions of smokers have died from things that may or may not have been caused by smoking depending on genetic history, other lifestyle or environmental factors, etc.
Its far more likely the person who died of emphysema who smoked got it from smoking.
Lung cancer is heavily caused by smoking.
Denying science and study because you some how think of some red herring like "oh the smoker didn't get kidney cancer from smoking he COULD have gotten it to something else!" When an autopsy would reveal significant nicotine influence in the kidneys to withhold the excretion of urea
>>74050118
No, THAT is a lie. In assuming what you have is anecdotes, scare numbers that have no source or have deliberate agendas, or something else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12750205
One of the biggest studies showed no risk. All major government funded health groups that talk about secondhand smoke (WHO, EPA, etc) cherry pick data and fudge the numbers to get their results. This isn't shocking to anyone properly skeptical of the government.
>>74050704
Asbestos hasn't been widely used in years, people who get all those cancers today can't possibly be affiliated with something they had no exposure too.
>>74050704
>causation is the same as correlation
>>74050704
Exactly.
>>74050704
Also isn't asbestos caused cancer evident because of asbestos found in the lungs? It would certainly show damage specifically caused by asbestos
>>74050883
Yes, major world health organizations, thousands of scientists and doctors, and literally all of the world's leaders are wrong and you're right about something millions of Americans have seen the effects of with their own eyes, you fucking idiot.
>>74019354
>Jewish lie
the tabacco industry is the jew and not non-smoking, you fucking retard.
smoking is degenerate. period.
the jew uses radioactive fertilizer on the plants as well. the jew knows that nicotine makes people addicted inside their brain really easily. the jew wants you to die early and eradicate the white race. that's why smoking and cigs are a tool of the jew himself.
>>74050562
Smoking negatively affects the body's immune system by first damaging the mucous membrane which is the first line of defense against disease. It overtaxes your antibody production causing your body to become desensitized to harmful stomuli and overburdened producing a reduced response to antigens.
Smoking reduces your lungs' ability to take in oxygen which can inhibit chemical functions in your body that'll leave you malnourished overtime, interfere with regular sleep cycles, ruin your sense of smell and taste, and so on.
Smoking is not worth it, I'd recommend beating off to trap porn than smoking.
>>74051172
you really need to get your head out of the sand.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
>>74051489
>posting the geocities website of some tobacco industry shill
not even reading it
>>74051489
>davehitt.com
>>74051489
This "source" is as retarded as the people who link websites to "sources" on how Amygdalin supplements "cures" cancer and somehow doesn't give you cyanide poisoning.
>>74019354
>he doesn't vape
>>74051558
>shill gambit
>>74051631
>simply green texting the site name
>>74051682
>He's dumb because my irrelevant story about quack cures is just like him denying secondhand smoke
I'm guessing none of you read it. He's an ex smoker who think the tobacco companies are corrupt. He's not a shill.
>>74051489
kek
>>74051835
Your sources are shit, you are literally posting shit to a website with the biggest confirmation bias on the subject
a jewish lie. smoking is actually very healthy. don't believe those lying kikes. trust me, goy.
About 20% of posts in this thread is one man desperately trying to convince 112 other people he's not full of shit.
He's either a crazy fucking retard or a paid shill. Considering how much we've been hit with shills the past 6 months either trying to insert crazy bullshit ideas or make us look foolish as a whole I'm saying he's a shill.
I'm sorry tobacco shill, I know you'd thought you would have a easier time being anon but it's best you go somewhere else. /pol/ is too high info for you. We won't fall for Jewish tricks.
>>74052196
Oy VEY.
>>74019354
Oh it's fucking real m8y. Now cigars and pipes? that's something separate entirely. My great grandpa is 96. He sits outside and smokes a cigar every single fucking day. He's still kicking. Tobacco is alright. It's all the other shit that's *literally* fucking cancer
>>74052368
>He's either a crazy fucking retard or a paid shill.
probably the former. There are people on here who will relentlessly shill (not even paid) for their beliefs regardless of how wrong they are. There are retards who believe that fluoride in water causes health effects, vaccines cause autism, theres some shit in chemtrails and fuckery, vitamin b-17 cures cancer. And so many more of these absolutely wrong and false beliefs.
They have the biggest confirmation bias's, ignore everything that says contrary to their beliefs then vehemently post only things they agree with.
Its truly the only thing that makes me think "we need fascism"
>>74052463
>my anecdote is absolute therefore anything that says otherwise is false!
>>74051884
>confirmation bias
Explain how, exactly.
And there's this. Mostly similar information but I should warn that it's an outdated tripod website so I wasn't initially interested in posting it. Anyway even the courts ruled against the EPA, which also happens to be an incompetent govt. group.
http://smokers.tripod.com/lies.html
>>74052368
>shill
I don't work for any tobacco company nor do I get paid for anything. It's hard to believe but if someone has a different opinion than you, that doesn't automatically ale one a shill. That's the shill gambit fallacy.
>complete retard
I have links, studies, and have tried to post sources disputing the popular global warming tier myth that smoking is doom to your and others' health. Resorting to name calling won't get you or anyone else anywhere.
Also I'm not the only one in this thread or in the other smoking thread earlier that disputes this bullshit. This guy also provided good evidence >>74030641
>>74052913
>Explain how, exactly.
>I think I'm right
>because I think I'm right I'm gonna look up only things that support my clause, therefore proving my position even though I didn't actually research a topic, I just cherry picked my specific references that support my clause
>anything that disagrees with me I'll just twist into supporting my position even if that means blatantly and blindly disregarding it as propaganda.
>theres this
>another website that goes so far as to use anecdotes and other garbage to push a point.
>>74052700
Then tell me, what's so harmful about tobacco? It isn't addicting, it doesn't have any added chemicals...
Only thing I can think of is that it could potentially cause bad dental hygiene? This is a non issue if you smoke like only once a week or less.
Sure it may be anecdotal but at least I have evidence. Provide some evidence otherwise.
>>74050883
We reached a whole new level of autism.
>>74052913
>I have links, studies
a small handful of websites that sniff their own farts and disregard any contrary evidence
>global warming tier myth that smoking contributes
I'm sure it contributes but I've never ever heard of this ever.
your sources are highly erroneous and none of them are empirical.
>>74053165
Burning of most of any substance leads to the generation of carcinogens via combustion reactions. The same carcinogens that are found in marijuana deposits are similar for tobacco. These carcinogens are obviously bad for heatlh because they're fucking carcinogens. Generally its never healthy to inhale excessive amounts of smoke of any kind.
>its anecdotal but at least I have evidence
no thats not evidence, anecdotes are never evidence, its fringe at best "I knew a guy who didn't die of smoking therefore the risks are highly overstated"
>>74019354
Very legit. To legit to quit.
>>74052913
Its not my opinion, it's my area of expertise. I deal with facts on levels bordering autism. I'm the guy who cuts open cadavers, there's no room for emotions or opinions when I have the evidence presented before me. I've worked in other labs and explained what smoking does to you. My training in biology is not one of medicine but of biochemistry, comparative anatomy, toxicology, and histology. My true calling is animals but I have enough knowledge and experience to understand what smoking does to you. I don't care if people want to do something harmful to themselves, what I care about is the truth. And the truth is smoking is harmful to you. There's no way around it. I could sperg out and drop about 250 studies from the BIO-one database about the effects of smoking but I'm typing this shit on my phone and I think people have made it pretty clear that you're not a reliable source of info.
>>74053336
That may be true but you're not actually inhaling the smoke. Tobacco smoke doesn't enter your lungs in great quantities....so maybe there's a slight risk of mouth cancer? Probably still inconsequential, even less than the risk of cancer found in marijuana. Honestly I still think you're speaking from a point of ignorance. Cigars are nothing like cigarettes. Cigarettes are a complete utter bastardization of what smoking used to be.
>>74053087
Funny you mention that I'm only reading sites supporting my argument.
I used to dislike smoking not because of the smell but because of the implied health effects. Then I looked into the opposing side and now wholeheartedly feel that smoking has been used as a smokescreen for other more important things to discuss regarding health and wellness. I've read both sides. The side in currently agreeing with tends to use better arguments and is much better at debunking what I initially believed on many levels.
>another website that pushes anecdotes and garbage to prove a point
It points out the flaws in anti-smoking activists and important meta studies and data, the fact that you refuse to address this is pretty amusing.
>>74053668
>Oh I'm not bias because I'm not paid off, I used to be a smoker therefore I'm qualified to speak on the subject
>I posted some highly erroneous websites that have no empirical findings let alone peer reviewed foundations. I assure you they're true even though the confirmation bias stinks like wet dog.
>I genuinely looked into the opposing arguments and regardless of their information I disregarded what I didn't like, cherry picked what I really didn't like and used it to twist into my own support, but I swear I don't have a confirmation bias.
>it points out flaws in anti-smoking activists and important meta studies and data
More like it cherry picks the data its referencing, ignores the references called, then pushes itself with "I don't understand this, therefore it doesn't make sense because I can't understand it, therefore its a flaw"
Its a classic case of "I don't understand it therefore its not true" bullshit like retards try to implicate about things like Biological Evolution and the like.
I don't have to debunk shit sources, they speak for themselves as shit and any claim that has no evidence can be disregarded with no evidence. What you're suggesting is "prove me wrong" despite there being tons of references in this thread let alone in places like The Lancet where you could easily find all sorts of information about it. But no, you blindly reject them and use your own botched "evidence" because you agree with it, not because its right.
>>74053336
Highly erroneous? They point out studies that the EPA and WHO used, and mention that they cherry pick data and lower the necessary risk ratio in order to actually come to their desired conclusion. Did you miss that or disregard it? The earlier links point out no causation between smoking and a risk of heart attacks.
I also provided a study done that showed that people with spouses who were smokers for decades showed no significant increase in a risk for any illnesses. Did you skip that too?
>>74053668
>The side in currently agreeing with tends to use better arguments and is much better at debunking what I initially believed on many levels.
The fact you admit to being swayed like that is unnerving. What other mainstream accepted science do you question? Legit curious, I want to know how deept his rabbit hole goes.
>>74054030
>I also provided a study done that showed that people with spouses who were smokers for decades showed no significant increase in a risk for any illnesses.
The study is inconclusive and has no peer review or empirical affinity to it. Its using fringe anecdotes as "evidence" with fringe shit like "it didn't happen to these people therefore its not true!"
Also the "they evaluated cherry picked data the EPA used" was based on complete shit because all that study did was cherry pick sections of the EPA study it referenced, effectively strawmanning it into oblivion.
You're literally citing people with a confirmation bias out the ass
>>74019354
the nazis were the first ones to find out smoking caused cancer
>>74019354
i was cleaning my brother in law's computer about a year ago
he smokes every day
this isn't his computer but this is about what it looked like
>>74028988
I quit at 31, and good lord was it fucking hard.
I heard that if I quit at 35, by the time I'm 50, it'll be almost as if I never smoked. I smoked a lot, so I figured the extra 4 years would help cover my excess.
If you smoke, fucking quit. We need all the white males we can get for the race war.
>>74054034
I don't question anything aside from anthropogenic climate change and most health related science. That's it. I believe vaccines and fluoride are harmless. I don't have any other issues with most mainstream ideas. There's no corporate agenda on my end either.
There have been previous threads on /pol/ on smoking (after looking at the archives) and it's pretty clear that whenever people post credible studies or sources debunking the common misconceptions about smoking people just blow it off.
