nisakiman

My apologies, I posted a table, but the system here on TV didn't accept it. I'll try another way perhaps.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

• Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.³
  
• In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).¹
  
• On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.⁴
  

The WHO lists the following as the top 10 causes of death:

1. Ischaemic heart disease
   
2. Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases
   
3. Lower respiratory infections
   
4. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
   
5. Diarrhoeal diseases
   
6. HIV/AIDS
   
7. Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers
   
8. Tuberculosis
   
9. Diabetes mellitus
   
10. Road traffic accidents
    

Of these causes, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, some lower respiratory infections, COPD, trachea, bronchus and lung cancers are labeled as smoking related by the medical establishment. See: ^{[Claim1 3]} Smoking related disease Current Former Never Any smoking-related chronic disease 36.9% 26.0% 37.1% Lung 20.9% 61.2% 17.9% Other cancers 38.8% 33.2% 28.0% Coronary heart disease 29.3% 31.8% 38.9% Stroke 30.1% 23.0% 47.0% Emphysema 49.1% 28.6% 22.3% Chronic bronchitis 41.1% 20.0% 38.9% Other chronic disease 23.0% 23.5% 53.5% No chronic disease 19.3% 16.4% 64.3%

However, since there is no disease proper to smoking because they're all multi-factorial diseases, anyone – current, former or never smoker – can get a smoking related disease . As it pertains to smokers, despite the best anti-tobacco experts, including Sir Richard Doll, who testified in the Scottish landmark legal case MRS MARGARET McTEAR vs. IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED, it could not be proven that had it not been for an individual's cigarette smoking, he would not have contracted lung cancer. ^{[Claim1 4]} This applies to any of the diseases labeled as smoking related.

When one looks at how smoking related diseases are distributed within the USA population for example (see chart on the right), one can draw complete different conclusions from the sound-bite Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world. Indeed according to this chart based on real people with real diseases giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked risk factors as their base model, not one smoking related disease is more prevalent in current smokers than former and never smokers.

http://tctactics.org/index.php/Sound_Bites

My experience shows me that anyone who tries to defend smoking, has a schooling of grade 12 or less. People university educated who smoke, are just quiet about it, as they cannot quit this most dangerous drug, more addictive than cocaine.

The multiple authors of the Wiki style site tctactics.org are overwhelmingly university educated, up to doctorate level. As for the claim that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, that is obviously demonstrable tosh. The majority of successful quitters do so with no effort at all, which clearly wouldn't be the case if nicotine were as addictive as you suggest. The reason many fail to quit is because they don't actually want to quit, but are doing so under pressure from the propagandists and legislation. Those who have decided that they want to quit normally do so with no problems (and no NRT 'aids'} at all.

"Nicotine is almost universally believed to be the major factor that motivates smoking and impedes

cessation. Authorities such as the Surgeon General of the USA and the Royal College of Physicians in

the UK have declared that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. This book is a critique of the

nicotine addiction hypothesis, based on a critical review of the research literature that purports to prove

that nicotine is as addictive drug. The review is based on a re-examination of more than 700 articles and

books on this subject, including animal and human experimental studies, effects of `nicotine replacement

therapies', and many other relevant sources. This review concludes that on present evidence, there is

every reason to reject the generally accepted theory that nicotine has a major role in cigarette smoking.

A critical examination of the criteria for drug addiction demonstrates that none of these criteria is met by

nicotine, and that it is much more likely that nicotine in fact limits rather than facilitates smoking."

A Critique of Nicotine Addiction

by

Hanan Frenk

Dept. of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Reuven Dar

Dept. of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Andre, you must be a most unusual person: "So many people smokers die around me, of lung cancer"

Lung cancer is a very rare disease. I'm in my 60s, and not only have I never known anyone who died of lung cancer, but nor have any of my friends ever known anyone who died of lung cancer. From your statement, one might almost think that you yourself must be a contributory factor to the disease!

And to the person who brought up Roy Castle. he apparently liked to smoke cigars. That, however is unlikely to have been the sole cause of his cancer, as all cancers are multi-factorial, genetics being one major factor.

Ha! Second-hand yolk! I like it! Makes about as much sense as second-hand smoke!

Yes it is, but the amazing blaze makes up for the harm to the enviornment ! You can mix it with gasoline and make Napalm if you want more fun and damage to the enviornment !

I melted the cast iron log stand in my fireplace once burning the packaging from a computer box with it ..... it's not just toxic it burns REALLY hot.

Arf!

Never mind, you lost me at "drugs do not destroy lives...". And no, I don't want to debate it again, thanks. I also oppose the death penalty. Have a good day.

You've obviously been lost to the propagandists for a long time if you swallow all their guff uncritically.

Sysardman is actually on the nail. It's not drugs that destroy lives, it's the prohibition of drugs that destroys lives. Even some of the brain-dead western politicians and law-enforcers are starting to wake up to the fact, although they won't have the balls to do anything about it. Only Portugal has turned their back on the dogmatism surrounding prohibition, and by doing so they've halved the number of addicts (and the attendant crime) in the last ten years.

The only thing that perpetuates the vicious cycle of crime and addiction is people with a mindset like yours.

Take a step back. Divest youself of all the rubbish you've been brainwashed with. Engage your brain for a few minutes. Think on the mayhem that ensued during prohibition in the USA, and the paralells with the "war on drugs" policy.

And remember:

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. It never has, and it never will.

Not that difficult to have buses running every hour.

This is the obvious transit solution, and the cheapest and easiest. Some improvements to the road system between the two airports and a regular shuttle bus service would make it a relatively painless process to move from one airport to the other.

But of course, the most important question is - will the German microbrewery re-open at DM?

I think my avatar is the best of the "dog" avatars.

Nah...Your dog can't walk backwards and talk through its fundamental orifice.

As much as I dislike the bloody things, they are supposed to be better for evacuation of the bowels.

I seem to remember reading some years ago that in those countries where squatters are the norm, there is a much lower incidence of bowel cancer, since it is the natural position for complete bowel evacuation.

I don't actually have a problem with them per se, it's just the fact that all my loose change disappears down the pipe that annoys me. They're fine if you're wearing traditional Asian garb, but they weren't designed with trousers (with pockets) in mind. Or vice versa. (Trousers and squatters, I mean).

a local outfit can design and install a suitable tiled arrangement with 'under counter' storage compartments, double stainless sinks and etc, I've got one at home and it didn't cost much...

just make sure that yer waist measurement from the floor is considered or then you will get an asian waist high counter arrangement...it plays hell with yer back when chopping onions and garlic and etc...

Standard worktop height in Europe is 90 cm, Wall cupboards from 140/150 cm (bottom of unit, most commonly 140) to 210 cm (top of unit) if it's standard. I know because I design, build and install bespoke kitchens here in Greece. Hadn't realised that Thai base units were lower - never noticed it in mum-in-law's house. Mind you, I don't get to do any cooking when I'm there!

Qatar Airways will provide a room for long layover passengers, ring the reservation office and ask them to book you.

http://www1.qatarair.../stop-over.html

They don't give u a room if u booked cheapest class

I don't know if it would work with Qatar, but a couple of times flying BKK - ATH via Bahrain with Gulf I had a long stopover (12 hours overnight). Cheapest economy ticket. When I got to Bahrain, I went to the Gulf desk in the airport, showed them my ticket and was given a hotel voucher, no questions asked, which included evening meal and breakfast. Transport provided. The last time, the wife and I got a massive suite with a bed the size of a football pitch!

I seem to have poked a stick into a lot of 'progressive' cages this morning.

The evidence is clear; if you make drugs cheap and available, more people will abuse them.

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

It's the so-called "progressives" that want to legislate every aspect of our lives. I think you meant to say "common sense" cages.

What evidence, pray, is clear that if drugs are cheap and available more people will abuse them? Please show us this "evidence". Experience points to the fact that when the "forbidden fruit" aspect is removed from something, and it becomes merely humdrum, then for many (particularly the young) it loses its desirability. This is basic human nature.

Combine legalisation with education (stripped of the hyperbole) about the potential dangers involved with taking certain drugs, and usage would taper off as people lost interest.

Alcohol is an addictive drug, and is readily available. Are we beset by ravening hordes of alcoholics threatening our very existence? No, of course we're not. A small minority have a problem with it, and the vast majority have no problem regulating their intake to a level which doesn't interfere with their daily lives.

I don't think you are "an ultra right-wing nut job". Far from it. I just think you've swallowed the received orthodoxy on drugs hook, line and sinker without really considering its implications. Your comparisons with stealing cars, necrophilia etc are just silly, and I suspect you know that. You aren't comparing like with like, you are comparing apples with pears.

The "War On Drugs" has caused untold misery in the world. It has absolutely nothing to recommend it.

I think you're being a bit of an a**hole. You're not with her (I hope) because of her race. It should have no bearing on the matter. If other people have a problem with it, <deleted> 'em. Support her. Tell her it doesn't matter. Tell her that anyone who finds it a problem isn't worth knowing anyway.

I live on a Greek island, and when I brought my wife here five years ago, she felt quite paranoid about the way people looked at us. I just said to her "<deleted> 'em. Why should we care if they look. Double <deleted> 'em."

She doesn't worry about it now, and people don't even look anymore.

And as for being worried about the reaction of your work colleagues, that's really an insult to Thai women. And to your intelligence. If introduced to a Frenchman, do you automatically assume he should have a string of onions round his neck, a glass of Pernod in his hand and a Galouise hanging out of his mouth? Of course not, despite that being the popular stereotype.

Seatbelts and helmets are incidental if there is a lack of roadcraft.

I remenber someone saying a few years back that instead of airbags in the steering wheel, car manufacturers should fit a lethal spike in the centre. That would then focus the driver's mind on what he was doing, instead of lulling him into a sense of false security because he had all these safety devices around him.

It's the Volvo effect.

Personally, I never wear a seatbelt. I find them uncomfortable and distracting, and I'm not altogether convinced of their efficacy. And before the holier-than-thou start berating me for a mindless fool, I would say that I have driven more miles than most, having been a professional driver (class 1) for many years of my life. I know and understand where seatbelts can be a lifesaver, and I also know when they can be lethal.

(I might add here that I now live in a country where seatbelt and helmet laws are not enforced very strongly, so I actually have a choice.)

But without the relevant driving skills, it's all academic anyway. Two seatbelts aren't going to help much in a pickup with ten people in the back and a lunatic driver.

I also never wear a helmet when I'm out on my bike in the summer. Again, they are uncomfortable, and there is such a sheer joy feeling the wind through your hair (not that I have much of that anymore ) which is entirely lost with a helmet. It's the feeling of freedom. I'll wear one on the rare occaisions I ride my bike in the winter months, but only for warmth.

I'm a free agent. I don't like others telling me how to live my life. I have my own moral compass that has served me well for many years. I am wiser than most of those who would presume to tell me how I should live. I have lived on the edge for most of my life, so every day I wake up is a bonus. And I'm not risk-averse, which most people have been conditioned into being now. Life is risk. That's what makes it exciting, and worth living. Guaranteed immortality would be guaranteed boredom.

So I live how I choose, not how others choose for me.

And part of that is ignoring seatbelt / helmet laws.

Flame on!

Yawn...

I detect a reality disconnect here somewhere...

I guess, if you just cool down your hatred for us liberals for a second and start using whatever is between your ears, you might come up with even more advantages!

Yes, like no more HIV infections from shared needles, to name just one. There are plenty more, but I'm on the run, so don't have time now.

it would cost money but the savings on drug enforcement and drug related crime (ie people stealing due to not being able to afford a fix) would easily match it imo.

It would not equal it nurofiend. It would outstrip it by a huge factor.

Stop wasting billions on a hoplessly unwinnable "war on drugs".

Save billions on incarceration costs,

Save billions on the drop in drug related burglary.

Make billions in tax.

Spend a few million taking care of the junkies.

Win win.

It is just a beginning and I personally don't see munch coming out of it ....

Dream on. This is the thin end of the wedge. As I said in my post above, they have already decided to use the tobacco control template for alcohol. It's a gradual process of de-normalisation accompanied by ever more restrictions. They learned the lessons from the 1920s, and realised that it has to be a step by step approach, accompanied by lots of propaganda using "the children" as a blackmail tool. It's very effective. The Nazis used it with great success.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

(Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; 1943)

Governments are happy to bankroll the prohibitionists because in the process they get more control over the masses.

I for one am appalled at the way people are bending over and allowing the government to stick it up them. But then most people seem to think that if a newspaper quotes figures from "experts", then those figures must be true.

Not so.

If you spend a little time researching on the internet, you will see just how much you are being lied to by these "experts". Manipulation of figures is what they are "experts" at.

How many times have you seen things in the news like "drinking twice the recommended limit (itself a figure plucked out of the air) will quadruple your risk of mouth cancer" or somesuch? What they don't tell you is that the risk is so miniscule in the first place, that quadrupling that risk still leaves you with an insignificant risk factor. Four times zero is still zero. But the people are taken in by it, and so join the ranks of 'useful idiots' that the prohibitionists need to push their agenda.

"Those of us who believe in freedom must believe also in the freedom of individuals to make their own mistakes. If a man knowingly prefers to live for today, to use his resources for current enjoyment, deliberately choosing a penurious old age, by what right do we prevent him from doing so? We may argue with him, seek to persuade him that he is wrong, but are we entitled to use coercion to prevent him from doing what he chooses to do? Is there not always the possibility that he is right and we are wrong? Humility is the distinguishing characteristic of the believer in freedom, arrogance of the paternalist."

Milton Friedman.

Those were the rules of the game, it was there to deter. Now that she played and lost, who is to question.

Extreme circumstances in needing cash does not justify the offense. I too need money, can I go robbing the banks tomorrow?

extreme laws do not justify the hanging of a woman for such an offense.

you don't think you should question a law... because it's... a law.

scary.

what do you think about stoning women to death in iran for adultery?

i guess your answer is

Those were the rules of the game, it was there to deter. Now that she played and lost, who is to question.

Yes, it's all about double standards.

"I personally think that drugs are a bad thing (because they said so in the tabloid press, so it must be true), so it's quite right that they should kill this young woman. The law must be upheld. She knew the consequences. But I personally don't think it's so terribly wrong for a woman to commit adultry (because in the tabloids I read etc etc...) so I don't think this young woman should die. Even though it's the law. Even though she knew the consequences."

But it's the law of the land, right?

So must be upheld, right?

Hypocrites, all.

Right, here we go again.

The Righteous, having acheived their aims of de-normalising tobacco with their lies and junk science have now turned their attention to alcohol.

Be prepared for appeals to "protect the cheeldren", and a blizzard of figures plucked out of thin air to "prove" that alcohol must be severely restricted for "people's own good".

The fake charity Alcohol Concern has already been having meetings with the fake charity ASH about how to adopt the tobacco control template for alcohol control. It won't be long now before you will start to see warning labels on booze. These will get larger and larger, and then it will be photoshopped porno pictures of diseased livers etc, then it will be plain packaging, and so it will go on.

The Neo-Puritans have the bit between their teeth, and they are going to try to curtail everything that doesn't agree with their own personal warped morality.

You have been warned.

Yet another illustration of what a monumental waste of money and effort the global "war on drugs" is. Do they really think they can make any more than a miniscule dent in the drugs trade? Are they planning on building another couple of hundred prisons to house all these drug offenders? Are they not aware of the fact that for every one they arrest, two more will spring up to replace him?

Prohibition does not work. It never has worked. It never will work.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

As some sage once said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

the posts in this thread makes for sad reading... these people with their draconian stances, it's pathetic and narrow minded.

it's people who think like this who halt any progress on the handling of societies drug issues - worldwide

i could elaborate greatly but i don't see the point in trying to debate it here

some people sound like they'd do the execution themselves...

Too true. Trouble is, most of the "hang 'em high" brigade get their information from the sensationalist gutter press, and have absolutely no idea or understanding of the issues they presume to adjudicate on.

The tabloids have a lot to answer for,

You don't know much about cocaine buddy. Very addictive, not many people can keep their use to "social" or "recreational", lots of people inject cocaine and cocaine does kill. Very nasty drug. Heroin is easier on your body than cocaine is.

Utter tosh.

The vast majority of people who use cocaine (and there are a lot) use it recreationally. The numbers that become dependent equates with the number of drinkers who become alcoholic - that is, not many. Yes it can be injected, but very few go down that road. Most people snort it.

Heroin may be easier on your body (as long as you have a dependable, clean supply), but it is more addictive, insofar as after a couple of weeks of regular use a significant physical need starts to be apparent. (This is not actually a problem as long as there is no interruption to the supply. A heroin addict can function completely normally, and live a long and productive life. But I digress.) With cocaine, the need is predominantly psychological, and stopping after a couple of weeks will leave you with the mother of all hangovers but not much more.

Hold on for a year or so. With all this global warming we're experiencing these days, it will probably be snowing in BKK soon.

There was a pathology research on ciggarrettes vs clove cigs nearly 30 years ago. The research showed the lungs of the two. Those that smoked had black lungs with enlarged areas that reduced the capacity for breathing. The lungs of those who smoked clove ciggarettes had actual holes some small but some as large as ping pong balls.

That sounds like utter tosh to me.

Links, please.

For starters, smokers lungs do not go black. Ask any honest pathologist if when he performs an autopsy he can tell you the differece between a smoker's lungs and a non-smoker's lungs, and he will tell you "no".

The "black lungs" myth comes from the fact that lung cancer turns the outside of the affected lungs black from dead tissue. I seem to remember reading (unverifiable, I'm afraid, as I can't remember where) that the picture of "diseased and black smoker's lungs" used in shock campaigns in the UK actually came from a non-smoker who died of LC.