No smoking in public places campaign: Bangkok

[firestar]

Incidentally, I'm still waiting on the "officer drinks a whole bottle of Johnny Walker Red and goes behind the wheel" crack down

[geezer2]

It's a real pleasure to follow this thread. All the antismoking fascists are working very hard! You need to be a vegetarian and have a dog named "Blondi" to be a person acceptable to the TV nonsmokers. Hard to believe!

Power to the puffer..Up to me the goverment make a lot of money from ciggy tax getting more like the UK every month so sad makes me bloody dogooders should get a job..

Edited July 7, 2014 by geezer2

[doremifasol]

The right time to quit smoking is NOW.

[Andre0720]

"The campaign was organised after it was found that there are about 80 per cent of smokers in the total population in Thailand"

If the above statement is true, their anti-smoking campaigns don't seem to working that well. Why don't they canvas the government (?) and make it illegal outright, as it should be, if all the facts about it being the cause of all the diseases it is claimed to be responsible for are true?

Or would the tax generated with the sales be stronger than the welfare and health of the population?

Anyway, we know this isn't going to happen.

At least the anti smoking people are sticking with the right ratios for a democratic country, the minority making decisions for the majority.

People die in cars. Should the govt outlaw them as well. My God the socialists in this country are the ones killing me.

Give it some thought.

Take your time.

Cars do have an intrinsic usefulness....

[Absolut]

The goverment should "dictate' that smoking should be made ilegal, that would solve the stinking problem. or do they enjoy the tax revenue too much?

40 baht a pack for local brand, 90 baht for international brands, I can't see a whole lot of tax revenue there.

[Nuddy]

Just tax it more

Its that simple

Other countries make them 600 baht per packet with taxation.

[surangw]

Smoking should be illegal everywhere. Get rid of the cancer sticks.

too much money to be made selling to nicotine addicts, in profits and taxes to get serious about it.

[Maroon Watcher]

... or in an area where they want to smell and taste their food - not your smoke

Well, despite my apprehension that they will able to actually enforce this, I wish them luck. Nothing worse than getting stuck behind some selfish bastard trailing his second hand cig smoke on a crowded pavement

I don't think the law stops you smoking while walking down the street

You're right, but common courtesy should dictate that if you do you should ensure you don't blow it directly into the face of following pedestrians who have as much right to expect to not have smoke in their faces as selfish bastards have to smoke the bloody things.

[Emster23]

"More than 600 bicyclists and walkathon participants travelled around central Bangkok Sunday distributing promotional stickers"... 100 dropped out early due to exhaust fumes.

[h90]

"The campaign was organised after it was found that there are about 80 per cent of smokers in the total population in Thailand"

If the above statement is true, their anti-smoking campaigns don't seem to working that well. Why don't they canvas the government (?) and make it illegal outright, as it should be, if all the facts about it being the cause of all the diseases it is claimed to be responsible for are true?

Or would the tax generated with the sales be stronger than the welfare and health of the population?

Anyway, we know this isn't going to happen.

At least the anti smoking people are sticking with the right ratios for a democratic country, the minority making decisions for the majority.

People die in cars. Should the govt outlaw them as well. My God the socialists in this country are the ones killing me.

Socialists? It was Hitler who wanted to ban smoking after the war.

[h90]

Some people have too much time.....Worry if the neighbor smokes and maybe get cancer 30 years later

Don't really give a rap about a smoker getting cancer in 30 yrs... just worry whether or not I will get cancer from someone else's smoke!

Ever smell the breath of a smoker, especially one with bad teeth? Smells worse than the dirtiest Isaan squatter toilet! Disgusting!!

You might get really an increased risk of cancer by 0.1% if you stay every evening in a closed room bar full of smoker.

But if someone smokes on the sidewalk there is no higher risk of cancer for you.

And if someone has fouling teeth the bad smell of smoke if it can mask part of it makes it only better......else I recommend don't kiss smoker.....

(and note I stopped smoking many years ago (and I smoked 3packs per day), sometimes smoke a few cigarettes on holiday and regret it....but I didn't turn to a fanatics)

[BudRight]

"The campaign was organised after it was found that there are about 80 per cent of smokers in the total population in Thailand"

If the above statement is true, their anti-smoking campaigns don't seem to working that well. Why don't they canvas the government (?) and make it illegal outright, as it should be, if all the facts about it being the cause of all the diseases it is claimed to be responsible for are true?

Or would the tax generated with the sales be stronger than the welfare and health of the population?

Anyway, we know this isn't going to happen.

At least the anti smoking people are sticking with the right ratios for a democratic country, the minority making decisions for the majority.

People die in cars. Should the govt outlaw them as well. My God the socialists in this country are the ones killing me.

Give it some thought.

Take your time.

Cars do have an intrinsic usefulness....

Their smoke doesn't you pathetic simpleton.

[mrfill]

"The campaign was organised after it was found that there are about 80 per cent of smokers in the total population in Thailand"

If the above statement is true, their anti-smoking campaigns don't seem to working that well. Why don't they canvas the government (?) and make it illegal outright, as it should be, if all the facts about it being the cause of all the diseases it is claimed to be responsible for are true?

Or would the tax generated with the sales be stronger than the welfare and health of the population?

Anyway, we know this isn't going to happen.

At least the anti smoking people are sticking with the right ratios for a democratic country, the minority making decisions for the majority.

People die in cars. Should the govt outlaw them as well. My God the socialists in this country are the ones killing me.

Socialists? It was Hitler who wanted to ban smoking after the war.

I have a nagging suspicion that the aforementioned chap didn't actually make it to the end of WW2.

Does anti-smoking lead to acute memory loss?

[noddy77]

Smokers should be able to smoke wherever they want.

But please don't allow me, my hair or my clothes to get near it.

I don't like the extremely foul smell.

[hawker9000]

"...many smokers ignore the prohibitions against smoking in public places."

Gee....Could that have anything to do with the fact that the ban on smoking is not enforced? I see policemen, monks and military personnel, together, smoking at bus stations right under the "No Smoking/2,000 baht fine" sign. The town near which I live has signs and banners stating "No smoking and No drinking of alcohol on the streets". Yet at least one quarter of the people, all farangs, are smoking and drinking. Just about every restaurant has people smoking in them, or if they don't smoke inside, where the sign is, they are smoking by the entrance, where everyone entering has to suck up the poison air, and the smoke drifts inside the restaurant.

Fortunately, in the small village where I live, the monks from the local wat started a no smoking campaign, putting up signs entering the village and flags in front of every house, stating no smoking on the streets. This has worked beautifully. Since this campaign started, I have not observed one person smoking on the streets or in any of the small restaurants. I feel fortunate to live in a village where the monks at the wat still practice traditional Buddhism and not the "reformed Thai style" of Buddhism. It is amazing what can be accomplished when those who are supposed to be the examples of morality take their responsibility seriously.Unfortunately, this seems to be the exception and not the rule in a world, both east and west, where profits are put above all else.

I don't think monks going around telling people not to smoke in the village as being a 'traditional Buddhist practices' as a matter of fact I would say that trying to police what people do legally (and smoking on the street is legal) is anything to do with Buudha's teachings.

This thread is just another major whinging spot for those who choose not to smoke.

'Sounds to me like it's the smokers doing all the whining. As usual. Lol. Enjoy 'em while you can...

[fasteddie]

There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Published in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study found that among current smokers, lung cancer was 13 times more common than in non-smokers, and four times more common among former smokers. But for women who had never smoked, it found that exposure to secondhand smoke did not significantly increase the risk of lung cance

[HerbalEd]

I'm not a socialist ... nor a vegetarian ... and I believe people should be able to smoke if they so chose. But I also think that selfish, rude smokers who still have no social manners when it comes to smoking in public places, are fair game to admonishment, ridicule, and general non-physical abuse. Screw 'em.

[Andre0720]

"The campaign was organised after it was found that there are about 80 per cent of smokers in the total population in Thailand"

If the above statement is true, their anti-smoking campaigns don't seem to working that well. Why don't they canvas the government (?) and make it illegal outright, as it should be, if all the facts about it being the cause of all the diseases it is claimed to be responsible for are true?

Or would the tax generated with the sales be stronger than the welfare and health of the population?

Anyway, we know this isn't going to happen.

At least the anti smoking people are sticking with the right ratios for a democratic country, the minority making decisions for the majority.

People die in cars. Should the govt outlaw them as well. My God the socialists in this country are the ones killing me.

Give it some thought.

Take your time.

Cars do have an intrinsic usefulness....

Their smoke doesn't you pathetic simpleton.

You appear to be pathetically simple minded..

So if I may, the smoke is the result of the useful internal combustion of motors used to carry people and goods from one place to another......

Glad to be some help to you...

[joecoolfrog]

If you dont drive a motorised vehicle, rigourously campaign for enviromental issues and are happy to be abused by those who disagree with certain of your habits...you are not a hypocrite and I applaud your integrity.

If the above does not apply then I suggest you apply a mai pen rai attitude rather than continuing with the sanctimonious , puritanical tripe that many of us go to Thailand to avoid.

Incidently I am an ex smoker , think its a filthy habit , but being a hypocrital bore is a hundred times worse.

[joecoolfrog]

To be clear , I have never had a problem with anti smoking legislation and support all eforts to educate the public on the dangers of smoking. What I cannot abide is those who demonise smokers whilst cheerfully ignoring equally unpleasant aspects of daily life.

[newermonkey]

The goverment should "dictate' that smoking should be made ilegal, that would solve the stinking problem. or do they enjoy the tax revenue too much?

40 baht a pack for local brand, 90 baht for international brands, I can't see a whole lot of tax revenue there.

Thailand’s main taxation on cigarettes is excise tax. Since 1992, the excise tax on cigarettes was increased on ten occasions, from 55% in 1992 to 85% in 2009. This created large amount of government income, from 15,438 million Baht in 1992 up to 41,823 million Baht ( 1,228 million USD) in 2007.The current excise tax rate on cigarettes is an ad valorem rate at 85%of ex-factory price which accounted for 71% of the retail price. An attractive feature of the tax regime is its single rate applied to both locally produced and imported cigarettes.

info found at: http://www.searo.who.int/thailand/areas/tobaccotax/en/

Figures not to be sneezed at (coughed at)

[brownrabbit]

[quote name="ScouseTommy" post="8067427" timestamp="14047322

ERM.... read my post- didnt do 1, 2 or 3 and pretty much agreed with your numbers 1 and 2 in the second batch. Can you explain why your happy about some 'HUMAN BEINGS' dying?you don't know me, or half the others you are wishing death upon.

The only issue I cannot get my head around is your almost sociopathic need for someone you don't know to die?

I don't wish death on anyone - my father, sister and brother all smoke. But we will all die believe it or not.

While we are alive then we should try and live happy and healthy lives and treat others with decency and respect - one way smokers can do that is by not subjecting anyone else to their secondhand smoke. It's really not complicated and there is nothing to debate here.

Uncommon common sense point here but most people don't grasp this fact - when you smell smoke it means you are breathing in smoke. It's always an unpleasant surprise to go in the great outdoors and then smell cigarette smoke - someone can be smoking across the street - that shows how pervasive it is. It beggars belief that smokers got away (and still do in some countries) with smoking in confined public places for so long.

I recently was in 'left-wing/socialist' Berlin and was unpleasantly surprised to see many bars there still permit smoking. I almost forgot how much worse the hangovers are when your throat is killing, your eyes are dry, and your room, clothes, and even your skin all smell like an ashtray. Regardless of the health risks - that's offensive enough.

Smokers smoke away - enjoy it - just don't subject anyone else to your smoke. Can't be fairer than that - why do you get so sensitive to criticism?

On another note the '80 percent of the total population' smoking is glaringly wrong - for starters a large percentage of the population would fall into the under-15 demographic (and most of them obv don't smoke), not to mention over half the population being female - smoking among Thai females is not exactly prevalent.

Evidently lazy quoting of figures - similar to some of those I've read here by pro-smokers (e.g. 0.1pc increase of cancer through passive smoking - seriously?!)

If you want studies to prove just how harmful passive smoking is then you only have to have seen the recent news reports showing a massive drop in cases such as asthma since smoking bans were introduced in pubs and clubs in the UK.

But then a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, la la la la la la la.

[hawker9000]

If you dont drive a motorised vehicle, rigourously campaign for enviromental issues and are happy to be abused by those who disagree with certain of your habits...you are not a hypocrite and I applaud your integrity.

If the above does not apply then I suggest you apply a mai pen rai attitude rather than continuing with the sanctimonious , puritanical tripe that many of us go to Thailand to avoid.

Incidently I am an ex smoker , think its a filthy habit , but being a hypocrital bore is a hundred times worse.

This nonsense comparing the smoking habit to the use or ownership of "motorized vehicles" is pinheaded. Smokers smoke because it's an addiction, or perhaps because they just plain wanna'. They insist on exposing other people to it (those that do that) simply because they're socially challenged. But if they do what they can to minimize the impact on others (e.g., by NOT smoking in public), then it's a simple matter of choice, and I'd have no problem with it. The use of motorized vehicles in contrast is a matter of necessity; it's not a matter of habit or addiction or preference or "just plain wanting to". If a vehicle owner does what he can to minimize impact on the environment by buying a low-emissions vehicle and keeping it tuned and otherwise up to spec, and using public transportation when practical, then he's certainly showing more consideration and public awareness than the terminally rude smoker who insists on subjecting everyone about him to his filthy, scummy habit. Indeed there's just plain no relevance between use of motor vehicles and the issue of smoking in public. It makes just as much sense to charge people who eat beans or fail to control their flatulence with hypocrisy as well! It's just a whiney, juvenile, simple-minded, boring, and very tired tactic to try & distract focus from a noxious personal habit which it's actually impossible to defend in any other way.

"Oh, well, if YOU can drive or ride in motor vehicles then I can smoke anywhere I want!" Really now. How silly can you get? And the overwhelming public majority gets it (because it's so obvious).

[TheSiemReaper]

If you dont drive a motorised vehicle, rigourously campaign for enviromental issues and are happy to be abused by those who disagree with certain of your habits...you are not a hypocrite and I applaud your integrity.

If the above does not apply then I suggest you apply a mai pen rai attitude rather than continuing with the sanctimonious , puritanical tripe that many of us go to Thailand to avoid.

Incidently I am an ex smoker , think its a filthy habit , but being a hypocrital bore is a hundred times worse.

This nonsense comparing the smoking habit to the use or ownership of "motorized vehicles" is pinheaded. Smokers smoke because it's an addiction, or perhaps because they just plain wanna'. They insist on exposing other people to it (those that do that) simply because they're socially challenged. But if they do what they can to minimize the impact on others (e.g., by NOT smoking in public), then it's a simple matter of choice, and I'd have no problem with it. The use of motorized vehicles in contrast is a matter of necessity; it's not a matter of habit or addiction or preference or "just plain wanting to". If a vehicle owner does what he can to minimize impact on the environment by buying a low-emissions vehicle and keeping it tuned and otherwise up to spec, and using public transportation when practical, then he's certainly showing more consideration and public awareness than the terminally rude smoker who insists on subjecting everyone about him to his filthy, scummy habit. Indeed there's just plain no relevance between use of motor vehicles and the issue of smoking in public. It makes just as much sense to charge people who eat beans or fail to control their flatulence with hypocrisy as well! It's just a whiney, juvenile, simple-minded, boring, and very tired tactic to try & distract focus from a noxious personal habit which it's actually impossible to defend in any other way.

"Oh, well, if YOU can drive or ride in motor vehicles then I can smoke anywhere I want!" Really now. How silly can you get? And the overwhelming public majority gets it (because it's so obvious).

The non-smoking fantasy that car journeys are essential. Most people can walk to 7-11, cycle to a supermarket, and take public transport for 99.99% of other journeys - the reason they don't is that they are selfish polluters who refuse to equate the damage they do to other people with the damage that is only done, in their imaginations, by the outdoor smoker. You do know that for thousands of years humanity managed without cars right?

[joecoolfrog]

Wow !

A touchy , hypocritical bore who thinks that all cars are essential and do not in any way contribute to Bangkok's air pollution . Perhaps he would recommend asthmatics take healthy strolls along Sukhumvit or spring time rambles in Chiang Main?

[gerry123]

non purer than the purified

[Thai at Heart]

There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Published in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study found that among current smokers, lung cancer was 13 times more common than in non-smokers, and four times more common among former smokers. But for women who had never smoked, it found that exposure to secondhand smoke did not significantly increase the risk of lung cance

Amen.

The second hand smoking movement has influenced govt, insurance, and society an enormous amount. The stats behind it are largely statistically insignificant but they have had a huge influence on even building codes and bylaws.

Its OK in some ways because it doesn't smell that nice on clothes and irritates eyes and the such. Just sleep safe in the knowledgr that is you are one of the extremely unfortunate people to get cancer from second hand smoke , a diesel engine is far more likely to be responsible.

[rebeli]

If you dont drive a motorised vehicle, rigourously campaign for enviromental issues and are happy to be abused by those who disagree with certain of your habits...you are not a hypocrite and I applaud your integrity.

If the above does not apply then I suggest you apply a mai pen rai attitude rather than continuing with the sanctimonious , puritanical tripe that many of us go to Thailand to avoid.

Incidently I am an ex smoker , think its a filthy habit , but being a hypocrital bore is a hundred times worse.

This nonsense comparing the smoking habit to the use or ownership of "motorized vehicles" is pinheaded. Smokers smoke because it's an addiction, or perhaps because they just plain wanna'. They insist on exposing other people to it (those that do that) simply because they're socially challenged. But if they do what they can to minimize the impact on others (e.g., by NOT smoking in public), then it's a simple matter of choice, and I'd have no problem with it. The use of motorized vehicles in contrast is a matter of necessity; it's not a matter of habit or addiction or preference or "just plain wanting to". If a vehicle owner does what he can to minimize impact on the environment by buying a low-emissions vehicle and keeping it tuned and otherwise up to spec, and using public transportation when practical, then he's certainly showing more consideration and public awareness than the terminally rude smoker who insists on subjecting everyone about him to his filthy, scummy habit. Indeed there's just plain no relevance between use of motor vehicles and the issue of smoking in public. It makes just as much sense to charge people who eat beans or fail to control their flatulence with hypocrisy as well! It's just a whiney, juvenile, simple-minded, boring, and very tired tactic to try & distract focus from a noxious personal habit which it's actually impossible to defend in any other way.

"Oh, well, if YOU can drive or ride in motor vehicles then I can smoke anywhere I want!" Really now. How silly can you get? And the overwhelming public majority gets it (because it's so obvious).

The non-smoking fantasy that car journeys are essential. Most people can walk to 7-11, cycle to a supermarket, and take public transport for 99.99% of other journeys - the reason they don't is that they are selfish polluters who refuse to equate the damage they do to other people with the damage that is only done, in their imaginations, by the outdoor smoker. You do know that for thousands of years humanity managed without cars right?

Sorry but in most citys you cannot walk to 7/11 or take a bicycle because of the exhaust fumes of the cars, busses and trucks.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[hawker9000]

If you dont drive a motorised vehicle, rigourously campaign for enviromental issues and are happy to be abused by those who disagree with certain of your habits...you are not a hypocrite and I applaud your integrity.

If the above does not apply then I suggest you apply a mai pen rai attitude rather than continuing with the sanctimonious , puritanical tripe that many of us go to Thailand to avoid.

Incidently I am an ex smoker , think its a filthy habit , but being a hypocrital bore is a hundred times worse.

This nonsense comparing the smoking habit to the use or ownership of "motorized vehicles" is pinheaded. Smokers smoke because it's an addiction, or perhaps because they just plain wanna'. They insist on exposing other people to it (those that do that) simply because they're socially challenged. But if they do what they can to minimize the impact on others (e.g., by NOT smoking in public), then it's a simple matter of choice, and I'd have no problem with it. The use of motorized vehicles in contrast is a matter of necessity; it's not a matter of habit or addiction or preference or "just plain wanting to". If a vehicle owner does what he can to minimize impact on the environment by buying a low-emissions vehicle and keeping it tuned and otherwise up to spec, and using public transportation when practical, then he's certainly showing more consideration and public awareness than the terminally rude smoker who insists on subjecting everyone about him to his filthy, scummy habit. Indeed there's just plain no relevance between use of motor vehicles and the issue of smoking in public. It makes just as much sense to charge people who eat beans or fail to control their flatulence with hypocrisy as well! It's just a whiney, juvenile, simple-minded, boring, and very tired tactic to try & distract focus from a noxious personal habit which it's actually impossible to defend in any other way.

"Oh, well, if YOU can drive or ride in motor vehicles then I can smoke anywhere I want!" Really now. How silly can you get? And the overwhelming public majority gets it (because it's so obvious).

The non-smoking fantasy that car journeys are essential. Most people can walk to 7-11, cycle to a supermarket, and take public transport for 99.99% of other journeys - the reason they don't is that they are selfish polluters who refuse to equate the damage they do to other people with the damage that is only done, in their imaginations, by the outdoor smoker. You do know that for thousands of years humanity managed without cars right?

...because they had no farther to get to work than the mud hut next door, or the communal fire pit. Really. You're being foolish. OK, so let me get this straight. You equate your smoking habit with the global need for transportation via fossil-fuel burning engines. Right. You forgot in your hypocrisy rant to include everybody who turns on an electric light (since the electricity usually comes from a coal- or oil-fired power plant), buys food at the store (transported there via an internal combustion engine), or buys or operates any manufactured item (since manufacturing always involves energy, which...). Come on. You're just being absurd. We should all go back to wearing loin cloths, riding horses, eating only what we grow or hunt (with bow & arrow, or course), and dancing around the fire for diversion in exchange for you giving up a smoking addiction. I don't think so. I much prefer the high and increasing taxes on tobacco, the restrictive (and steadily ever more so) laws on smoking, and the more intense public awareness and animosity toward smoking. Whine all you want. I'm pretty happy with current trends. Your ride, OTOH, only gets more bumpy from here. Enjoy.

[nisakiman]

"The campaign was organised after it was found that there are about 80 per cent of smokers in the total population in Thailand"

If the above statement is true, their anti-smoking campaigns don't seem to working that well. Why don't they canvas the government (?) and make it illegal outright, as it should be, if all the facts about it being the cause of all the diseases it is claimed to be responsible for are true?

Or would the tax generated with the sales be stronger than the welfare and health of the population?

Anyway, we know this isn't going to happen.

At least the anti smoking people are sticking with the right ratios for a democratic country, the minority making decisions for the majority.

People die in cars. Should the govt outlaw them as well. My God the socialists in this country are the ones killing me.

Socialists? It was Hitler who wanted to ban smoking after the war.

NAZI - a shortened version of Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism.

And yes, Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker. It was all a part of his eugenics program. Racial purity, healthism etc etc. Which is still the driving force behind the anti-smoking movement.

It has never been about health. It's a puritan ideology, and in pursuit of that ideology, the anti-smokers have adopted an 'end justifies the means' approach to the situation, which is why we are bombarded with lies and propaganda about the subject.

Don't believe me? Do some proper research. If you're one of the indoctrinated, you won't like what you find, because it will put your whole belief system in doubt.

Smokers and nonsmokers have similar lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184016,00.html

First Lifetime Heart Disease Risk Assessment Developed

Monday , February 06, 2006

The researchers reviewed the medical records of 3,564 men and 4,362 women who did not have any record of cardiovascular disease at age 50.

The men and women were followed for several decades and all cases of heart attack, coronary heart disease, angina, stroke, claudication (pain in the legs caused by circulation problems), and death from cardiovascular disease were recorded.

When the researchers calculated the impact of modifiable risk factors such as body weight, smoking history, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure, they found that:

–Smokers and nonsmokers had similar lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease.

--------------------------------

"Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests. A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes. Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer. The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages."

-------------------------------

“For years the anti-tobacco crusaders, from Drs. Koop and Kessler to President Clinton, have claimed that “cigarette smoking is the greatest cause of preventable or premature deaths, causing 400,000 deaths a year, a number greater than auto accidents, homicide, suicide, and various other causes of death combined.

Those 400,000 Smoking Victims Live Longer Than The Rest of Us!”

http://www.forces.org/evidence/sammec/newproof.htm

THE FRAUD OF THE POTENTIAL YEARS OF LIFE LOST

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/pyll.htm

PASSIVE SMOKE FRAUD

“Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it’s the dose that makes the poison”

Basic principle of toxicology

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

SMOKING AND ASTHMA

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/asthma.htm

THE ADDICTIVENESS OF NICOTINE

“The notion of addiction suffers from major conceptual, definitional and empirical problems. These problems have been detailed in the scientific literature but they remain almost totally ignored. If the criticism is misguided, the errors should be exposed. If the criticism is not misguided, it suggests the need for a radical revision in the way drug problems are approached. Instead of resolving these core issues in a rational and informed manner, addiction advocates simply cover their ears and press on. They convene consensus committees that attempt to legislate the truth. The addiction hypothesis is based on assertion and faith, not evidence and logic. The belief in addiction exists, not because of scientific information, but in spite of it. It is old-fashioned demonology, thinly disguised as science.”

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/addictiv.htm

SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/lung.htm

SMOKING AND BRAIN CANCER

“Some have suggested that cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use may increase the risk of brain tumors because tobacco product use is considered to be the greatest source for human exposure to N-nitroso compounds, which are potent nervous system carcinogens in animal studies. Our investigation, however, did not find a positive association between cigarette smoking, or with use of other tobacco products, and risk of brain cancer.”

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/brain.htm

SMOKING AND HEART/ATHEROSCLEROSIS

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/heart.htm

SMOKING AND EMPHYSEMA

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/colby.htm

SMOKING AND CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/copd.htm

THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING AND NICOTINE

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

…………………………

= Facts & Lies about Smoking =

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.319663114749521.73523.173802526002248&type=3

---------------------------------------------------

And this from a number-cruncher:

Numbers are curious critters that can look different from various views, much like the front or rear of an elephant.

From the rear of the elephant, Doll’s study tells us that non-smokers, per 1,000, had 0.17 lung cancer deaths per year and current smokers had 2.49 lung cancer deaths per year per 1,000.

2.49 divided by 0.17 is about 15.

Thus, Doll says that current smokers are 15 times as likely to die from lung cancer as non-smokers.

But, does that mean that non-smokers are 15 times as likely to NOT DIE from lung cancer?

For the answer, we have to go to the front end of the elephant.

Here we see that there are 999.83 non-smokers, per year, that did NOT DIE from lung cancer and there are 997.51 current smokers that did NOT DIE, per year, from lung cancer.

999.83 divided by 997.51 = 1.002

Non-smokers are ONLY 1.002 times more likely to NOT DIE from lung cancer as current smokers.

Current smokers have almost exactly the same chances of NOT DYING from lung cancer as non-smokers.

Back at the rear end of the elephant, we find that there are a total of 2.66 lung cancer deaths per 2,000 people.

0.17/1,000 + 2.49/1,000 = 2.66/2,000

2.66 divided by 2,000 = 0.0013 = 13/100th of 1%. of the people died from lung cancer.

Very, very rare occurences!!!

Back to the front of the elephant where we see that those not dying are 999.83 + 997.51 = 1,997.34/2,000

That means that 99.87% of the people DID NOT DIE from lung cancer per year.

The overwhelming vast majority of folks do not die from lung cancer every year!!!!

Doll is , of course, entitiled to the view that he prefers; but, that does not means his end of the elephant is more important.

Let’s look at the total deaths from the diseases said to be caused by smoking. Doll breaks them up into 8 groups.

At the rear of the elephant Doll says that non-smokers have 16.2 deaths per 1,000 and current smokers have 30.21 deaths per 1,000.

Thus, he says that smokers are almost twice as likely to die from those diseases that are caused by smoking.

This is a relative risk and tells us nothing about the actual risks of dying from those diseases.

The view from the front of the elephant tells us that non-smokers have 16.2 deaths from the smoking caused diseases out of a total of 19.38 deaths per year. 16.2/19.38 = 84%

About 84% of the non-smokers died from the diseases caused by smoking.

Current smokers had 30.21 deaths from those diseases out of a total of 35.4 deaths per year. 30.21/35.4 = 85%

85% of the current smokers died from the diseases caused by smoking.

85 divided by 84 = 1.01

Current smokers are ONLY 1.01 times more likely to die from the diseases caused by smoking as the non-smokers.

At no place in the 9 pages of this report is it mentioned that 84% of the never-smokers died from the diseases ‘claimed’ to be caused by smoking.

84 divided by 85 = 99%

Had the smokers never smoked, 99% of their deaths from the diseases caused by smoking would still have occurred!!!!

When you look at the antis studies about the harm from smoking, you will never see comparisons of the chances of not dying or the comparative actual rates of death.

In LA-LA Land, the antis claim that smoking is the biggest single cause of preventable pre-mature death.

In Doll’s study of Doctors, we showed that had the smokers never smoked, 99% of their deaths from the diseases caused by smoking would still have occurred!!!!

In America, it is claimed that smoking causes 400,000 preventable pre-mature deaths per year; but, 396.000 of those deaths would still have occurred if the smokers had never touched a cigarette!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Doll and ischaemic heart disease(heart attack) deaths

In the summary on page 3, there is a table showing the death rate per 1,000 for never-smokers and for heavy(25+per day) smokers.

never-smokers = 6.19/1,000/year

heavy smokers = 11.11/1,000/year

Thus,antis claim, heavy smokers are almost twice as likely to die from heart attacks as are never-smokers.

We do not have to accept their math as the final statement.

In fact, never-smokers are 31% more likely to die from a heart attack as are heavy-smokers.

They don’t mention that an ‘incidence rate’ of deaths is not the same as a ‘percentage of total deaths’.

The total deaths/1,000/year are:

never-smokers = 19.38

heavy smokers = 45.34

Now we have this for heart attack deaths:

never-smokers = 6.19/19.38 = 32% of the total deaths.

heavy smokers = 11.11/45.34 = 24.5% of the total deaths.

32% is 31% greater than 24.5%

Never-smokers are 31% more likely to die from a heart attack as are heavy-smokers.

……………………………………….

Now, let’s look at cancers.

Heavy smokers do more often die from lung,mouth, and throat cancers.

But, those cancers are only about 1/4th of the cancer deaths.

incidence rates, for all other cancers, are:

never-smokers = 3.34/1,000

heavy smokers = 5.38/1,000

Looks bad for the heavy smokers; but, here are the total deaths:

never-smokers = 3.34/19.38 = 17%

heavy-smokers = 5.38/45.34 = 11.9%

17% is 43% greater than 11.9%

Never-smokers are 43% more likely to die from cancers of the brain, stomach, or rectum than are heavy-smokers.

------------------------------------

And veering from defence to looking at the positive aspects:

The brain works better when it gets nicotine - almost like an optimized computer. Nicotine is a "work-drug" that enables its consumers to focus better and think faster. The brain also becomes more enduring, especially in smokers: Nicotine experiments show that smokers in prolonged working situations are able to maintain concentration for many hours longer than non-smokers.

http://www.sott.net/article/235216-Science-is-conclusive-Tobacco-increases-work-capacity

Men who smoke have less of a risk of needing joint replacement surgery than those who have never lit up a cigarette, according to a new study published online in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/2076418/smoking_could_reduce_risk_of_joint_replacement_surgery/?source=r_health

Epidemiological studies consistently demonstrate a reduced incidence of Parkinson's disease in smokers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2486261/

A history of smoking is associated with improved survival in patients treated with mild therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest

http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2813%2900714-4/abstract

Edited July 8, 2014 by nisakiman