I’ve been noticing something lately. I can’t quite explain it. Why are people holding their phones in front of them and talking while driving? I mean I get it, drivers are not supposed to have a phone to their ear while driving but… come on. Are they fooling anyone with this holding the phone two inches in front of their face? How is that not just as dangerous? Sure, sure, it is the speaker phone so it is better but… hello, they’ve gone from holding it at their ear to waving it in front of their eyes. That seems pretty distracting to me.
Smoke Free Bars: Come hither. Madison is smoke free, Illinois is smoke free, and yet… Milwaukee is smokey. Now when it was just Madison I could see the conservative point of view that, hey that is Madison it is a liberal town. I didn’t complain too much because I can see there is a fundamental difference between there and here. But now ALL Illinois bars are smoke free. I’m not just talking the bars in the ‘burbs, kids. I’m talking about the ones in my hometown – Middle-of-Nowhere, USA, population: 11 (or 7,000. Don’t want to insult any hometowners who might stumble in from Facebook.)
What’s worse?!? IOWA is moving in that direction, too. IOWA!!! If Iowa goes smoke free first -nearly guaranteed- I’m going to be stupefied. July, 2008 for them and we are still mired in the lobbying stage somewhere.
I have friends, conservative, or more so than me, in my home town that are digging it. They have said the same thing all of my friends in Madison are saying. It’s nice not to have to come home and Febreeze their coats for three days.
Sigh. I’d go out more if it didn’t include the smoke-stung eyes and the next morning coat stench. I really would. Put that in your pipe.
~Forth
32 responses so far ↓
Joe Camel // 16 May 2008 at 8:57 am |
Referring to the smell of smoke as a “stench” shows where you’re coming from. You prefer that your clothes smell of sweat.
My wife,a nonsmoker, tells me that although you can smell smoke, it doesn’t smell bad. She has no reason to lie about that as you do.
Back // 16 May 2008 at 9:37 am |
Referring to the smell of smoke as a “stench” is naturally commonplace. Let’s think about how many times you’ve heard cigarette smoke referred to as a genuinely pleasing aroma. Last time I went to the store, I didn’t see any Marlboro scented candles, or Winston-flavored air freshener. Do college campuses require smokers to stand 25 feet from a building because people love to drink in the sweet scent? Google “removing cigarette smoke from upholstery” and you’ll get over 136,000 results. When Pennsylvania was considering going smoke free in 2007, 70% of people polled preferred non-smoking sections and smoke-free restaurants.
So before we start calling people liars, step out of that nicotine-induced cloud and look around. When given the obvious choice, I’d much rather Forth’s clothing be consumed by the stench of sweat from exercising a pair of healthy lungs.
Joe Camel // 16 May 2008 at 11:09 am |
Back:
According to Websters, the word “stench ” is a lingering unpleasant odor associated with death or decay. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
What else is new with Nazis and their despicable crusade? Most folks prefer the smell of smoke to the smell of sweat. And 70% of people have been suckered by the Fraud of the Century. It’s called mob rule.
So you can go out and I’ll stay home and put my money in the bank. No problem.
Back // 16 May 2008 at 12:55 pm |
If we’re going to go around using literal Webster-fed definitions for everything, then you’ve got a whole new crop of problems. To any normal person, Stench=Bad Smell. Absolutely nobody confines stench to decay. But if you’d like to go that route, as we Nazis will tell you, smoking eventually leads to death, and therein lies your precisely defined stench. Go ahead and put your money in the bank–that’ll be one less smoker to make my clothes smell like crap.
Forth // 16 May 2008 at 7:47 pm |
Wow, flamed on my own blog. I didn’t actually think anyone was listening. VALIDATION.
Joe, you’re in Florida so we don’t need to worry about your stench but let’s just say for the sake of argument that I care about your opinion (and vote). You’ve referred to two authorities on the subject: Websters, and Mrs. Camel (don’t call her that though.)
I’ll address them in reverse order.
Step One: You’ve claimed I’m a liar based on the Mrs.’s opinion. She says that smoke doesn’t smell bad so you believe her. Well, lets face it, if you’re married you’re likely to agree with her. You did marry her after all. She isn’t lying but then I’m not either. There is that possibility. Her opinion might be different than mine. Shocking I know. Now because I’m willing to admit people can differ in opinion I am clearly not a Nazi. In the end though, its still one women’s opinion.
Step two: Websters… Dude… Cliche. That is like the worst way to start an essay. Well, other than “I’m going to write about how smoking does not make shirts smell.” Unfortunately, you’ve gone a step further and brought the Nazis into the argument. Classic blunder. There is an old internet bylaw (check your EULA) known as Godwin’s Law that clearly states that as soon as the Nazi’s are brought up the argument is over and the person who used them has automatically lost.
I’ll humor you though. I’m arguing that smoking is infringing on my right to clean air. If the majority rules (not mob, majority, there are more syllables) and we elect state legislatures who vote on a law that frees our public enclosed places of health threatening cigarette smoke then that is democracy. Democracy will screw you every time, won’t it? I’m not saying smoking should be outlawed. I’m cool with you smoking up your apartment and car and yard and so on and so Forth. But when I have no choice but to inhale your choice then my rights are being infringed upon.
Hey though, I’m not naive. You’re going to flame me back and call me… I dunno Mussolini or maybe even the grand daddy of them all: Goebbels, claiming I want to raise the Forth Reich and march across this great land but then again… I own the chat channel so no one would ever know if I just deleted your opinion. I haven’t though. Another point in the non-Nazi column.
~Forth
t-dizzle // 16 May 2008 at 9:29 pm |
Wow! What a ridiculous f-ing post. Last time I checked there wasn’t treadmills at bars. How are we producing unfriendly smelling body odor when we’re out on the town? And calling someone a Nazi is just lame.
.
Forth // 16 May 2008 at 9:36 pm |
Well it wouldn’t be a commentable post if T-Dizzle wasn’t here.
And as a sports player, I’d so rather smell a bit of sweat as long as I know it was gained in a sporty way.
Anecdotally, at least twice this past lacrosse season, we had fans smoking at our games. Pissed me off. I’m out there sprinting up and down the field, I come off the field trying to catch my breath and it is all carcinogen… Thanks to that guy.
~Forth
Ointment Master // 17 May 2008 at 5:30 pm |
I think it’s funny that Joe Camel came in here to argue about his side by instead picking apart semantics rather than truly attempting to prove his side of the argument. YAY FOR ARGUING WITH FALLACIES!
Oh, and Forth totally blew your ass away and your lack of further comments is pure hilarity, and as I see it, admission of defeat (Godwin’d or not, it doesn’t matter). You lose.
Joe Camel // 18 May 2008 at 10:21 am |
OK, smart butts, let’s get this Nazi business out of the way first. I do not subscribe to any such absymal nonsense as Godwin’s law and neither does any other thinking person. In today’s vernacular ,”Nazi “does not refer to the long defunct Third Reich but to a creep who presumes to dictate the next man’s personal habits.
If you clowns prefer the smell of sweat or dog do to the smell of smoke that’s fine with me. Try to get a corrupt politician to outlaw smoking because you don’t like to smell it. They’ll laugh in your silly face. They’re committed to a phony health threat only.
Back in the fifties scientists gave animals heavy doses of smoke in an attempt to cause disease and failed every time. So you can take your health threat and stuff it as well.
You’re breathing two pounds a day of automotive and industrial pollution plus smoke too dilute to measure and demanding “clean air”. Blow it out your cloaca.
I would like to remind you halfwits that halfwits do not make tobacco policy. That’s the province of highly corruptible politicians and they do not care the least about your opinions.
And finally, Forth and other arrogant creeps, I will smoke anywhere it’s legal whether you’re around or not or whether you like to smell it or not. If you choose to take issue with me about that, you’d better pack some heat, OK?
Joe Camel // 18 May 2008 at 10:52 am |
OK, Forth, you deleted my post because it exposed your silliness. I’m flattered. Now tell me what you’ve accomplished, Nazi.
Joe Camel // 18 May 2008 at 12:03 pm |
Aw. shucks. This blog didn’t scroll properly and I thought my post had been deleted. I apologize for the 10:52 post unless and until that happens.
Viana_17 // 18 May 2008 at 2:30 pm |
Joe Camel,
Just how old are these health and science magazines that you are getting your facts from? Any 4th grader with one day of science class can tell you that second hand smoke damages lungs and kills innocent non-smokers as well as those stupid enough to pick up the habit. Maybe you should check your sources.
Joe Camel // 18 May 2008 at 5:36 pm |
Viana:
I already told you that smoking has been proven harmless and the tobacco war is a proven fraud . I got that information from common sense and from the Internet, most particularly fom a pro tobacco website called Forces International. Maybe you should check that out.
It’s been observed that a quirk of human nature makes low IQ people want to be deceived.You’re a good example.
t-dizzle // 18 May 2008 at 7:19 pm |
HOLY F&#K! Joe Camel’s common sense and the INTERNET have just yanked the wool from my ignorant and uneducated eyes. I just ordered a box of cartons of cigarettes on the web and am laughingly blowing massive amounts of smoke at the screen while I type this. Cheers!
Forth // 18 May 2008 at 9:25 pm |
For starters I take no responsibility for my crowd.
Back to the discussion at hand. Had you come at me with the cry of socialism or claimed that is is a choice to smoke and that further legislation is a direct assault on your quickly deteriorating civil liberties, I might have had some respect for the comment. You could claim to be a libertarian.
Instead, you came into my corner of the Internet and called me a liar (in an infantile way no less). In the next post you told me I was a Nazi. No one, even in this day and age, can pretend that the word Nazi doesn’t still carry lightning in its pocket. Socialism is the word you wanted to use because then it means I’m a big-gov’t jackass. The type that wants to tell others what to do, for the good of the state. Possibly, you even meant it in a non-political way and just that I am a control freak or puppet master.
On the whole corrupt politician front I’d like to know how Illinois, Iowa and I’m assuming other states have already banned smoking in bars and restaurants. If all the politicians are corrupt, how’d they let that one slip by. And while we’re on the subject, I don’t want to ban smoking. I said this earlier. Smoke at home, smoke on the street, smoke in the beer gardens. Smoke in well-ventilated locations. It isn’t the act of smoking I’m after.
On top of all of it you’re citing medical research done in the 50s?!? You know what else we believed in the 50s? Asbestos wasn’t bad. You know it causes cancer? The research being done in the 50s was starting to confirm it caused cancer but the asbestos companies -those would be the ones profiting from the selling of the product- squashed release of the studies. Follow the buck man. Once again, I’m not naive to think that this is convincing you but I am hoping that circulation will continue to go up as you and I go Back and Forth. See look to see who is profiting and you will see who is responsible. Of course, I’m not profiting yet, but it’d be nice. I’m sure Back would like it.
And just because I want to address all of your points, you’re right, I do probably breath in car pollution and tobacco is probably not going to kill me. But I’d like cars to not pollute -we’ll get that too, the car companies are already letting the legislatures legislate their environmental codes through the roof- and tobacco isn’t the only toxic substance in cigarettes.
You also mentioned us trying to stop you from smoking in legal places? I didn’t propose that either. I proposed making it illegal in the places that you want to go, or at least in the building.
Just so we’re clear, you told me to get a gun right?
If there is a doctor in the house can you tell Joe that cigarette smoke causes cancer. Anyone?
~Forth
Joe Camel // 19 May 2008 at 5:49 am |
Forth:
Comparing asbestos to smoke in a silly attempt to badmouth tobacco is off topic.
Can you tell me what causes cancer and flat feet among non smokers?
You don’t want to tell anybody what to do for the good of the state. You want to tell others what to do for the good of Big Pharma– using
the utterly phony excuse that smoke is deadly.
I say any politician who says that is a liar and belongs in jail.
You say you’re working on car pollution. Why don’t you work a little harder and leave tobacco for another day, Nazi?
The animal studies done in the fifties are unimpeachable. If you think you can give lab animals cancer with smoke, go ahead. You might get a good job with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Or are you already working for them?
My”packing heat” comment is not to be taken literally. But the day may come when it will be. If a wisp of smoke is deadly, smokers are potential murderers and you have the right to shoot us in self defense. If that reality materializes, I will be shooting back.
Viana_17 // 19 May 2008 at 2:26 pm |
Look up any dictionary definition for emphysema and it will tell you that it is a disease commonly caused by cigarette smoking. While I’m not a doctor, this does come from a medical dictionary (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/emphysema.html), but as you will surely point out, they probably report to the highly corruptible government. Have you seen a picture of a lung with emphysema? It appears that the lung is covered with tar. Do you know where tar comes from? It is the result of a simple alkane reaction called propogation, where carbon chains (methane, ethane, propane, butane, etc.) link together to form a black, viscous material commonly known as tar.
How’s that for low IQ?
FarmacyMan // 19 May 2008 at 5:31 pm |
So funny that someone should ask for a Dr there Forth. While I don’t claim to be an MD I do have my doctorate in a healthcare field (evidenced by my username). So like it or not, I’m here to put some things about smoking in the clear. (Yay, a pun!)
Joe Camel,
I’m afraid you are mistaken when you claim smoking does not increase your cancer or other disease risk. I have run a quick PubMed search to give you some peer-reviewed, medical journal articles since you seem to be citing some study from the 50’s (which I would love to read, by the way, because I’m interested in things such as the duration and time these animals were exposed to smoke [subquestion, was it second hand smoke from cigs or was just just....smoke a la from a wood fire?] and the duration. Since it’s fairly generally accepted that you need to smoke for years before such problems can manifest).
I’ve attempted to pull only articles with abstracts so you can read and get the gist of what they’re stating, as I don’t really expect anyone else to have access to the online journals.
Sorry I’m not sure if I can use HTML code in here and I don’t want to jumble up my comment here with code if it doesn’t work, so you’ll have to go to http://www.pubmed.gov and search for yourself should you want to read abstracts.
Here’s a nice one about the significant risk reduction in women who quit smoking in things such as respiratory disease (emphysema, chronic bronchitis, etc…), lung cancer, and what they refer to as “other smoking related deaths” which I would infer (but can’t positively confirm) would be things like heart disease etc.
Kenfield SA et al, “Smoking and smoking cessation in relation to mortality in women.” JAMA. 2008 May 7;299(17):2037-47.
Here’s a lovely one on men in the UK shows their risk of lung cancer significantly drops…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292933?dopt=Abstract
(URL was easier than slapping a full citation)
Here’s another lovely page showing the link between smoking and all kinds of cancer in men. There’s a load of citations and PubMed links at the bottom of the page with all kinds of delicious data for your consumption.
For smoking and heart disease, I’ll simply point you to the American Heart Association’s scientific position (al la based purely off scientific data and evidence out there) on smoking and heart disease:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545
So I can imagine we’re going to next is that you’ll say this is all about YOU, and this debate seems to center more around the risk to others from the 2nd hand smoke. For that, I provide you with this, a lovely little study done by the Journal of Epidemiology finding a significant increase in risk on those who don’t smoke, but are constantly exposed to second hand smoke (bartenders in those states that haven’t yet outlawed it come to mind as a risk group):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18062064?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
That study was well done and on people, which to me certainly trumps a study done on animals in the 50’s.
Joe Camel // 20 May 2008 at 6:15 am |
You’re saying the 50s animal studies are nonsense becaude humans aren’t animals.Well, pal, they most certainly are.
In the fifties there was no such thing as a Master Settlement Agreement or ASH or any other group paid exorbitant sums to lie about tobaccco.
These studies were done subject to strict scientific standards and are unimpeachable.
Maybe you will believe Tobacco Nazi James Repace’s finding that it takes a wind of 700 miles an hour to ventilate smoke. Maybe you’ll believe Tobacco Nazi John Banzhaf’s statement that if you can smell it it’s killing you.Maybe you’ll believe Tobacco Nazi Bloomberg when he says a bartender breathes a pack a day.
I was recently in a hospital for minor surgery
and they refused to put my cigarettes in the safe because they were considered to be poison.
There’s no stopping these clowns and their lackeys in the media but no thinking person will swallow such obvious claptrap.
But it doesn’t matter what anyone believes. These matters are governed by law, which is the province of highly corruptile politicians. They don’t care what anybody thinks. Big Pharma’s obscene wealth is sufficient to bribe every politician on the planet.
But let me say that I myself have been a heavy smoker for 55 years– thats over 600,000 cigarettes, unfiltered– and I ain’t dead yet. Lie all you want.
Joe Camel // 20 May 2008 at 6:17 am |
You’re saying the 50s animal studies are nonsense becaude humans aren’t animals.Well, pal, they most certainly are.
In the fifties there was no such thing as a Master Settlement Agreement or ASH or any other group paid exorbitant sums to lie about tobaccco.
These studies were done subject to strict scientific standards and are unimpeachable.
Maybe you will believe Tobacco Nazi James Repace’s finding that it takes a wind of 700 miles an hour to ventilate smoke. Maybe you’ll believe Tobacco Nazi John Banzhaf’s statement that if you can smell it it’s killing you.Maybe you’ll believe Tobacco Nazi Bloomberg when he says a bartender breathes a pack a day.
I was recently in a hospital for minor surgery
and they refused to put my cigarettes in the safe because they were considered to be poison.
There’s no stopping these clowns and their lackeys in the media but no thinking person will swallow such obvious claptrap.
But it doesn’t matter what anyone believes. These matters are governed by law, which is the province of highly corruptile politicians. They don’t care what anybody thinks. Big Pharma’s obscene wealth is sufficient to bribe every politician on the planet.
But let me say that I myself have been a heavy smoker for 55 years– thats over 600,000 cigarettes, unfiltered– and I ain’t dead yet. Lie all you want.
Joe Camel // 20 May 2008 at 9:00 am |
Viana:
Those rotten lungs you saw are as phony as an
undertaker’s tears. Smokers’ lungs are used for transplants.
Back // 20 May 2008 at 11:16 am |
Joe, you give denial a whole new meaning. In addition to believing that smoking is good for you, I’m just wondering if you also believe that we didn’t land on the moon, that Elvis is still alive, that it’s okay for kids to lick walls covered with lead paint, that aliens do in fact inhabit Area 51, and that the earth is actually flat. The government lies, and don’t forget your tinfoil hat before going outside.
Joe Camel // 20 May 2008 at 11:45 am |
Back:
Of all that fanciful nonsense you posted, the
only truth is that the government lies about tobacco.
You’ve been listening to paid liars, swallowed it wholesale and dynamite wouldn’t change it.
But it doesn’t matter what a numbskull like you believes. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly. these matters are governed by law and that’s the province of politicians who follow the biggest bribe.
Should our paths cross , its conceivable that you would squawk about my smoke killing you and making your clothes stink. I don’t care the least about that– I only answer to the law.
Maybe you’re the person to answer a question I’m having trouble getting an answer to: Why aren’t smokers killed by their own secondhand smoke? Let’s keep that answer factual and not made up, OK?
Back // 20 May 2008 at 1:57 pm |
What is factual is that a smoker cannot experience “their own secondhand smoke.” That phrase is an oxymoron. I’m fairly certain puffing away on a cigarette is about as firsthand as it gets. Anything secondhand is merely icing on the cake.
If you think the American government is the only one “lying” about the dangers of regularly inhaling hundreds of chemicals and carcinogens, then I’d love to know why smoking bans and warning labels on packs are an international trend. Tobacco is only one of over 600 additives in a normal pack of cigarettes, which as Joe Camel you should well know.
But seeing how convincing an aging smoker who puts his trust in studies that were conducted during a time where smoking ads also advertised that smoking would make you ten times cooler and that much more likely to get laid, that smoking is not unlike sucking on the exhaust pipe of a Greyhound Bus or swallowing rat poison, I’ll enjoy my pristine lungs, unwrinkled mouth, and unstained fingers that much more instead.
As for those tar-stained lungs, until you stand in a cadaver lab between the yellowed bodies of two dead men, one smoker and one not, and pluck their lungs out of their gaping chest cavities to carefully observe one pair versus the other, well….I’m sure you’d find that just as phony.
But congrats on being a living a smoker–I’m certain the 438,000 other ones who died last year wish they were as successful at poisoning themselves as you.
Smoke-Free // 20 May 2008 at 4:39 pm |
Joe Camel:
Wow, interesting blog…you may still be alive, but obviously your brain has a few holes in it.
Joe Camel // 20 May 2008 at 6:31 pm |
Back:
Are you trying to be funny? If you suck on the exhaust of a Greyhound bus you’ll be dead in five minutes. And what the hell are you doing in a cadaver lab plucking lungs?
Lungs have the ability to clean themselves of any contaminant. If they didn’t, your pristine lungs would be black from Greyhound exhaust.
I explained why the 50 year old studies are legitimate and today’s are not in a way that
if you dispute it you’re an ass. You don’t care. You’ve been irrevocably brainwashed and can’t process anything but antitobacco propaganda.
Thank goodness you don’t have any political power.
And Smoke-Free, that goes for you too, no brain.
Back // 20 May 2008 at 7:22 pm |
And such was my point. As for the cadaver lab, I was doing that in school. You know, where I got a modern education and learned biological facts from actual scientific minds.
Lungs cannot fully cleanse themselves. This is why the lungs of people who lived in the city are speckled with carbon deposits. If you can show me where the hell you pulled that from, go right ahead.
FarmacyMan // 20 May 2008 at 7:29 pm |
Dearest Joe,
Since there’s obviously no getting thru to you and you’ll continue to believe whatever nonsense you choose to believe, and frankly after reading your latest spewed shit I’m seriously doubting you’re even legit in what you claim to be and frankly believe you’re nothing but a troll. All your arguments are fallacious and you just blatantly claimed I said something I simply never said.
The medical community as a whole (especially most pharmacists) hates BigPharma with a passion. Yet never once have I considered that they are behind some conspiracy to make us all think smoking is bad for us. I present you with linked data to peer reviewed journal articles. You claim to have some study from the 50s that I specifically asked to see and you have yet to produce.
Finally, You say you’ve been smoking for 55 years. Assuming you started at 18, that’d make you…73 years old. I’m pretty impressed that someone who is 73 uses the internet so much (although I suppose you’re “retired” so you’ve got tons of free time on your hands). At best, I’d say you started smoking at 10, making you still 65, with the same comments as above.
You’re obviously not going to listen to reason so I have no reason to continue. But I finish with this. As can be inferred from my name, I am a Pharmacist. Since you seem to be such a fan of anecdotal evidence, I see tons of people each week suffering from one or both: chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Explain to me why 100% (and yes I am fucking serious when I say 100%) Did smoke, or currently smoke? Why do I see people who quit via the patch, gum, or Chantix have serious drops in blood pressure (which has been known as a cause of cardiovascular disease even back in the 50’s when you were in your prime). Yup I saw it so therefore it must be incontestably true. Sorry thats the end. No more arguing. It happens. Period.
Joe Camel // 21 May 2008 at 5:43 am |
Back:
Those carbon deposits in city dwellers lungs are harmless, but they show how much industrial pollution they’ve breathed, And coal miner’s lungs aren’t very pretty, either. But those rotten smokers’ lungs that are shown to school kids are phony, like the rest of Nazis’ claptrap.
It’s not possible for a surgeon to tell if a person is a smoker by looking. This information is on the Internet, but I’m not bothering to look it up for you to dispute.
FarmacyMan:
Before you sprain your brain any further, let me inform you I started smoking at 15 and am now 70. My health is good for my age although I don’t water ski any more. Blood pressure 118/70. Retired and active. Question: where do get your Internet time?
Without Big Pharma the medical community would be digging sprouts. Why do you hate the hand that feeds you?
You numbskull, I’m going to give you some
stuff to Google. Look up Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Look up Gro Harlem Brundtland.
You’ll find out the whole story on Tobacco Nazis and their plans for the human race.
Look up Animal studies/tobacco as well if you want to get smart, although you seem to be happy being an idiot.
The causes of cancer, emphysema and heart disease are unknown. Nonsmokers are afflicted as well. You’re perpetrating an exercise in pure fiction.
I’ve never claimed to be anything but a poster on this blog . More fiction.
I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you want to argue or not. I’ll argue that you should find something else to be fanatical about. My smoking is none of your goddam business.
The argument in the tobacco war is whether dilute secondhand smoke is a killer like the professional bullshitter Richard Carmona says.
You have to have a two digit IQ to believe it or repeat it.
Back // 21 May 2008 at 9:24 am |
Unfortunately you made smoking somebody else’s business when you called Forth a liar and started your tiring display of ignorance. Cancer, emphysema, and heart disease are caused by many things. Carcinogens cause cancer, and those are found in cigarettes. Smoking is the primary cause of emphysema whether your old stubborn mind wants to believe it or not, and nearly anything from genetics to smoking to being fat can cause heart disease. Funny but those public health organizations you directed us to say nothing of Nazis–not to mention you were already told that Nazi talk is the weakest form of argument, but then again nothing really sinks in with you, does it?
However, tobacco studies on animals conducted in 2004 DID cause tumors and you haven’t produced your little 60 year-old animal study simply because it doesn’t exist, having been wiped off the face of credible science loooong ago.
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/125/5_suppl/128S
As for calling out FarmacyMan (who certainly must have an IQ greater than the sum total of your blood pressure) and his co-workers “hating the hand that feeds,” you should think about that every time you receive your monthly Social Security check from this Nazi Government of ours. But clearly you will go on living in some archaic mindset of times past and continue failing to realize that there have actually been advancements in science and medicine, and there is no scary conspiracy out to get us all–I’m a liberal and as fed up with this country as the next person, but you are clearly paranoid.
Now if you’d please confine your foolish banter and childish intelligence-bashing to the rest of the nutcases in Florida, your comments will no longer be regarded here.
Forth // 21 May 2008 at 7:28 pm |
Just so we’re all clear, this discussion is over. Mr. Camel’s comments from here on out are being deleted. It is not because of the ridiculous drivel he is spouting or his consistant support of a fallacy that even the Phillip Morris has given up the ghost on.
The company’s website “stated that there is ‘overwhelming medical and scientific consensus’ that smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.” ~BBC, 1999
No his comments are being deleted because he has crossed a line of civility by using vulgarity that I won’t let people aim at my friends. Any civil reader of this website is welcome to continue posting as a friend. Mr. Camel is officially persona non grata.
If you would like to hear more from him I would advise finding his blog where ever it is. Forth and Back will no longer be supplying him with his own pulpit with which to rail at the storm.
~Forth
The Big 100 « Forth and Back // 1 October 2008 at 6:28 pm |
[...] had some fun on here, mostly due to the Smoking Ban and Natural Family Planning but mostly its been T-Dizzle, The Bearded Man, Farmacy, Dani, Viana17, [...]