2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Most things they vaccinate for now (USA) are kind of rare to get, and easily treated now, vs when the vaccines were developed, and said disease was an issue.  Most are useless, IMHO but can't stop that money train.

Were vaccines the prime reason killer, maiming diseases are now less prevalent for us mere mortal humans.. ?  ????

On 5/28/2022 at 12:50 PM, Misterwhisper said:

This is laughable.

 

What about the systematic burning down and slashing of rainforests everywhere? If we go with Dr. Nievera's argumentation, the resulting mono-cultures of oil palms, sugar cane, maize, rice etc. etc. are therefore "bad for the planet", too, and should be eradicated. And I don't even want to begin mentioning the practice of burning fields post-harvest. If you live in Southeast Asia, you know exactly what I am talking about.

 

As per manufacturing: Have you actually seen the thick black fumes emanating from sugar factory and palm oil refinery smoke stacks? By contrast, there are NO noxious fumes wafting from tobacco manufacturing plants. 

 

Last but not least, if you're living in one of Asia's mega cities such as Bangkok, for example, I would dare claim that you are harming your health considerably more by simply breathing the toxic air on a daily basis than by occasionally getting exposed to "second-hand [tobacco] smoke. Is Dr. Nievera's solution that we therefore should just bulldoze down all large cities in the world because they're bad for peoples' health? 

 

In any case, the much touted and controversial "deadly second-hand smoking hazard" appears to be far from scientifically proven, with most studies standing on very shaky ground:  https://www.tobaccoasia.com/features/q-a-simon-clark-the-passive-smoking-myth/

 

I am not defending tobacco here. But what I am doing is pointing out that tobacco - once again - is demonized as some sort of a global scourge -- because it fits the political agenda.

 

God knows there are countless other agricultural products that collectively would fit that "bad for the planet" bill and in fact cause considerably MORE harm on multiple levels than tobacco ever will.

 

And if Thailand allegedly "loses" 350 billion baht per hear in healthcare expenses related to tobacco use, the expenditure for treating diseases and ailments caused by overconsumption of sugar, salt, MSG, unhygienic food in general and the exposure to polluted air and water, airborne dust, pesticides etc. etc. certainly must dwarf those supposed 350 billion.

 

Yet nobody constantly raps on about that for the simple reason that tobacco apparently has been selected as the sole devil that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

 

And while I DO advocate for and indeed welcome smoking bans in certain public places, I still opine that the operators of restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. should be accorded the CHOICE whether they want to designate their venue as "smoke-free" or "smoking permitted". And if you are a rabid anti-smoker... instead of complaining that everybody around you is trying to kill you, just DON'T frequent places where you KNOW that you're going to be exposed to smoke.  

      

   

"the expenditure for treating diseases and ailments caused by overconsumption of sugar, salt, MSG, unhygienic food in general and the exposure to polluted air and water, airborne dust, pesticides etc. etc."

 

Yes overconsumption of products is certainly not wise.

But then there is level of consumption of tobacco that makes it non-poisonous by its nature.

There would be no way to introduce as a novelty such a poison today, if powerful companies had not made it impossible through the years, when people did not know any better.

Sugar, salt, even MSG, there is a way to use it wisely. Even if this is not the case for sugar in Thailand.

 

Many people and friends around me, about my age, died from cancer caused by tobacco. Other causes of death will not invalidate that tobacco causes many deaths, avoidable deaths.

In Thailand, quite unfortunately, smoking has become a rite of passage. Very sad. No role model to follow here...

 

23 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Tobacco is utterly heinous, and one of the filthiest habits any person can pick up. It is unbelievably unpleasant for most non smokers to be around these highly addicted, weak willed individuals.

 

Absolutely!  Most non-smokers I know can not stand the smell, especially that of cigarette ash trays or the smell of old cigarette smoke on smoker's clothing.

 

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Non Smoker here, 

I believe you're wrong and the bad smell is due to you being sensitised by first being an addict and then quitting. I've never smoked tobacco, and don't find the smell particular offensive. It's a bit like those who get religion in later life become more pious than those who always believed.

Some people actually like the smell of Skunk.  Does that mean most people don't find it offensive?  I used to smoke a pipe as well as cigarettes, but don't find the smell of pipe tobacco offensive. In fact, I rather like it. But cigarettes produce an especially vile smell for many non-smokers. Obviously, not all of them. Has nothing to do with being sensitized to it. If it were a pleasant smell, something that people like, there would be cigarette incense, and cigarette perfume. Manufacturers wouldn't pass up the opportunity to make a profit.

 

 

Enjoying a fine tobacco product is one of life's greatest pleasures.  

 

You just have to learn how the different poisons are applied to different products and avoid them.

Just breathing the air in Thailand is like smoking one package of cigarettes a day. 

 

On 5/28/2022 at 4:45 AM, RafPinto said:

Imagine the first affair with a girl behind the bicycle shed.
Good that this has never stopped.
What would we do with our freetime?

We used to play chew the butt.  We had to share a cigarette and not let the Ash drop  who ever had the cigarette last and the Ash dropped off they had to eat the butt.   Great memories of being 11 years old in East London.  

Now they go around knifing each other.

 

 

 

 

On 5/28/2022 at 3:32 AM, kotsak said:

but.. but.. but..

Shows how unscrupulous companies can be in protecting their product. It continues to this day with many other products.

16 minutes ago, DaveE13 said:

We used to play chew the butt.  We had to share a cigarette and not let the Ash drop  who ever had the cigarette last and the Ash dropped off they had to eat the butt.   Great memories of being 11 years old in East London.  

Now they go around knifing each other.

 

 

 

 

so either you have never heard of the damage smoking can do or the Kray brothers?

20 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

so either you have never heard of the damage smoking can do or the Kray brothers?

 We was bloody idiots mate at that age. Never smoked in later life. It was a joke about knifing.  (A bad one at that and i apologise) And the krays weren't a problem to us at 11 in the 70s.   Im talking about canning  town . Limehouse etc. But I take your point.   I work at a lot of schools with local boxing club to get kids off the streets into to the clubs organise football matches get some of the lads onto the pads boxing.  My son teaches jujitsu  for the kids.  

I was an  idiot to say about the knifing.  If you knew Me I'm last person  that thinks alot of the gang crime can be stopped. Off topic I know so I apologise mate.

On 5/29/2022 at 9:21 AM, BritManToo said:

I blame food additives for rising cancer rates.

Or maybe vaccination ........ or pollutants in the water supply ......

 

There are lots of things beyond our control.

Lead pipes were responsible for a reduction in life expectancy of 10 years since Roman times, and that's only recently being fixed.

 

The chemicals in contraceptive pills, urinated into out water supplies, have massively reduced fertility in the western world.

Tobacco is one of the scapegoats used by those who operate under the facade of loving and caring for citizens health and well being. 

 

The commonly accepted smoking afflictions are also prevalent in the nonsmoking community according to life insurance underwriting data.  At a slightly lower rate.  How is this possible? It of course means another form of unknown hidden poison is at play. Your hypothesis unfortunately holds water and can easily be confirmed in an afternoon of reading. 

 

Or is it simpler to turn off your critical thinking abilities and just believe those imposters parading as experts with an ulterior motive of profit and control?

11 hours ago, Thunglom said:

so either you have never heard of the damage smoking can do or the Kray brothers?

When I was a kid near everyone smoked, no talk about it's bad for you, all the "it's bad for you" stuff came decades on.

Buses, can smoke upstairs, could smoke in the cinema, and on flights from the UK to the USA, I recall the back of the plane was the smoking area, oh, and a pub wasn't a pub unless you had a ciggy with your beer...

 

Near all my family smoked at one time or another, and still lived into their 80/90's....????

14 minutes ago, transam said:

When I was a kid near everyone smoked, no talk about it's bad for you, all the "it's bad for you" stuff came decades on.

Buses, can smoke upstairs, could smoke in the cinema, and on flights from the UK to the USA, I recall the back of the plane was the smoking area, oh, and a pub wasn't a pub unless you had a ciggy with your beer...

 

Near all my family smoked at one time or another, and still lived into their 80/90's....????

The first worries about smoking in Britain were expressed by James 1.

I was brought up in a family where the dangers of smoking were recognised in the late 1950s early 1960s - this would indicate you are over 80 years old or very ill-informed.

 

The "More Doctors Smoke Camels than Any Other Cigarette'. advert was from the late 1940s which shows that cigarette companies were already aware of the research and had begun a defensive campaign to protect their sales.

1 minute ago, Thunglom said:

The first worries about smoking in Britain were expressed by James 1.

I was brought up in a family where the dangers of smoking were recognised in the late 1950s early 1960s - this would indicate you are over 80 years old or very ill-informed.

King James I eh, no ciggies back then, just the pipe of peace..........????

 

Ciggies were still issued to combatants up until 1975, so no Vietnam for you then......?

The ciggy giving comfort, but some here would shout.."Put that out"...

Near everyone had a ciggy at one time or another.....????

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, transam said:

The ciggy giving comfort, but some here would shout.."Put that out"...

Near everyone had a ciggy at one time or another.....????

 

 

 

what. SILLY  thing to say.......... or re you suggesting that all wars were tobacco fuelled?

 

Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.

— James 1604[2]

 

54 minutes ago, transam said:

King James I eh, no ciggies back then, just the pipe of peace..........????

 

Ciggies were still issued to combatants up until 1975, so no Vietnam for you then......?

See above.......

23 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

what. SILLY  thing to say.......... or re you suggesting that all wars were tobacco fuelled?

 

Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.

— James 1604[2]

 

Think you are jumping to conclusions Reverend......????

For the chaps in my photo, it was the only comfort they had, a CIGARETTE....????

 

21 hours ago, transam said:

Think you are jumping to conclusions Reverend......????

For the chaps in my photo, it was the only comfort they had, a CIGARETTE....????

 

so any posts, so little understanding.

1 hour ago, Thunglom said:

so any posts, so little understanding.

Try again.....????

1 hour ago, transam said:

Try again.....????

I've read your posts for years now and I have to say almost to every single one they seem devoid of any real understanding of their topic.

15 hours ago, Thunglom said:

I've read your posts for years now and I have to say almost to every single one they seem devoid of any real understanding of their topic.

That's how I won Poster of the Year on this forum, clever stuff eh......????

On 5/30/2022 at 3:33 PM, transam said:

Near all my family smoked at one time or another, and still lived into their 80/90's.

Fortunate...... lost quite a few prematurely in mine. 

Just now, jacko45k said:

Fortunate...... lost quite a few prematurely in mine. 

Smoking is a bit like Russian roulette, a gamble if one's body can deal with it, in the genes, perhaps.

About 10 to 15 percent of smokers develop lung cancer -- although they often die of other smoking-related causes like heart disease, stroke or emphysema. 

42% of those who had never smoked reported being in very good health, compared to 26% of current smokers. Conversely, 11% of current smokers, reported being in bad or very bad health, compared to 5% of those who had never smoked.