Poll on Not Smoking DURING tournament matches.

[JoeW]

Respectfully, second hand smoke is a carcinogen. I wouldn't even call them anti smoking zealots, i'd call them anti-cancer-on-self zealots. I have yet to hear the reason why anybody feels they can spew a carcinogen into other people's vicinity. Other than the fact that is has been and is legal, do you have an answer??

Why do you feel you can spew a carcinogen into other people's vicinity? I honestly want to hear answers to this, as I think it is at the root of the real problem here. That is, just because things are legal doesn't mean you should feel comfortable doing them.

Here is a link to known human carcinogens (Group 1)
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/Cancer...cinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

A partial and interesting list is shown below.

Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages)
Alcoholic beverages (if you breath on others that would be secondary alocohol "speweing")
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds (some used in wood production)
Asbestos (all forms) and mineral substances (such as talc or vermiculite) that contain asbestos
Coal, indoor emissions from household combustion
Coke production
Epstein-Barr virus (infection with)
Estrogen postmenopausal therapy
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
Ethanol in alcoholic beverages
Formaldehyde
Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with)
Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 (infection with) (Note: The HPV types that have been classified as carcinogenic to humans can differ by an order of magnitude in risk for cervical cancer)
Ionizing radiation (all types)
Isopropyl alcohol manufacture using strong acids
Leather dust
Mineral oils, untreated or mildly treated
Painter (workplace exposure as a)
Rubber manufacturing industry
Salted fish (Chinese-style)
Shale oils
Silica dust, crystalline, in the form of quartz or cristobalite
Solar radiation
Soot (as found in workplace exposure of chimney sweeps)
Tobacco smoking (smokeless and second hand)
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, including UVA, UVB, and UVC rays
Ultraviolet-emitting tanning devices
Vinyl chloride
Wood dust
X- and Gamma-radiation

Seems that there are many things in common use that are known carcinogens.

If your BMI is above 25 you are are obese (that would be 5’ 9” tall and 200 lbs) approximately 1/3 of US adults are obese. Quit smoking and add 10 – 20 pounds to your BMI Index value.
Obesity Risk factors include:” … diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and some cancers in both men and women. Other co-morbid conditions include sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, infertility, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, lower extremity venous stasis disease, gastro-esophageal”
(http://www.omahamedicine.com/health_risks_of_obesity.html)

Nicotine is better than any other commonly used substance for improving attention and concentration, especially in older people. Source National Institute of Health. Reference not readily available but it is out there.

Some of the benefits to smoking can be found here
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

Smoking lowers Parkinson’s disease risk.

Smokers have less Alzheimer’s disease risk.

Smokers are less likely to have a restenosis after angioplasty (I had angioplasty at age 45 and am now 68 with no coronary restenosis - ever)

Less risk of severe gum recession for smokers.

Smokers have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy.

Kids of smokers are less likely to have asthma

Carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke inhibits blood clotting (useful in cardiovascular disease treatment)

Smoking may reduce risk of skin cancer.

Smoking reduces the risk of breast cancer.

The list goes on for those who might be interested.

Seems to me that the sin tax for smoking is really what it is all about. That and people who simply do not like the smell of burning tobacco. Once you get away from all the hype, smoking has its benefits. Social disruptions, fights, anxiety and depression increased in hospitals and prisons when smoking was restricted.

I personally know many people in the health professions who smoke. They just don’t go against the social grain and talk about it openly.

 

[JoeyA]

No! You are mistaken? This person doesn't have a right to their opinion? Who died and left you in charge #$@%^& cigarette nazi!!

Well let's put it another way. Maybe that will help you.

I FIND my opponent's smoldering cigarette two feet from my eyes far more distracting than a spectator's smoldering cigarette dozens of feet from my eyes.

I FIND my opponent's smoking gesticulations when I am down on a shot, facing him, far more distracting than a spectator's movements. The spectators are normally much father away from the table than my opponent.

How's that for you?

 

[JoeW]

BTW I do not spew smoke at others any more than you spit food at others. I don't buy the hype and I don't go where people object to smoking. I think there are many others like me.

Because many people are intolerent, often rude, and easily lead by what is politically correct I simply avoid or do not associate with them. I also avoid other zealots such as skin heads and overly religious people.

Live your life as you choose and leave me to live as I choose. When the question was asked I gave my opinion, nothing more. There are many areas in life where people interact and affect each others' lives in various ways. Some are more obnoxious than others. Those who make self righteous claims based on slight evidence and have not considered the alternatives are objectionable to me, probably as much as they find me objectionable.

 

[pt109]

Respectfully, second hand smoke is a carcinogen. I wouldn't even call them anti smoking zealots, i'd call them anti-cancer-on-self zealots. I have yet to hear the reason why anybody feels they can spew a carcinogen into other people's vicinity. Other than the fact that is has been and is legal, do you have an answer??

Why do you feel you can spew a carcinogen into other people's vicinity? I honestly want to hear answers to this, as I think it is at the root of the real problem here. That is, just because things are legal doesn't mean you should feel comfortable doing them.

Chillin'......we're on the same side again...woohoo!
I voted no...I smoke but I try not to share it with non-smokers.

regards
pt..<..smokes with smokers...gambles with gamblers

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

Here is a link to known human carcinogens (Group 1)
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/Cancer...cinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

A partial and interesting list is shown below.

Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages)
Alcoholic beverages (if you breath on others that would be secondary alocohol "speweing")
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds (some used in wood production)
Asbestos (all forms) and mineral substances (such as talc or vermiculite) that contain asbestos
Coal, indoor emissions from household combustion
Coke production
Epstein-Barr virus (infection with)
Estrogen postmenopausal therapy
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
Ethanol in alcoholic beverages
Formaldehyde
Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with)
Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 (infection with) (Note: The HPV types that have been classified as carcinogenic to humans can differ by an order of magnitude in risk for cervical cancer)
Ionizing radiation (all types)
Isopropyl alcohol manufacture using strong acids
Leather dust
Mineral oils, untreated or mildly treated
Painter (workplace exposure as a)
Rubber manufacturing industry
Salted fish (Chinese-style)
Shale oils
Silica dust, crystalline, in the form of quartz or cristobalite
Solar radiation
Soot (as found in workplace exposure of chimney sweeps)
Tobacco smoking (smokeless and second hand)
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, including UVA, UVB, and UVC rays
Ultraviolet-emitting tanning devices
Vinyl chloride
Wood dust
X- and Gamma-radiation

Seems that there are many things in common use that are known carcinogens.

If your BMI is above 25 you are are obese (that would be 5’ 9” tall and 200 lbs) approximately 1/3 of US adults are obese. Quit smoking and add 10 – 20 pounds to your BMI Index value.
Obesity Risk factors include:” … diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and some cancers in both men and women. Other co-morbid conditions include sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, infertility, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, lower extremity venous stasis disease, gastro-esophageal”
(http://www.omahamedicine.com/health_risks_of_obesity.html)

Nicotine is better than any other commonly used substance for improving attention and concentration, especially in older people. Source National Institute of Health. Reference not readily available but it is out there.

Some of the benefits to smoking can be found here
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

Smoking lowers Parkinson’s disease risk.

Smokers have less Alzheimer’s disease risk.

Smokers are less likely to have a restenosis after angioplasty (I had angioplastisty at age 45 and am now 68 with no coronary restenosis - ever)

Less risk of severe gum recession for smokers.

Smokers have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy.

Kids of smokers are less likely to have asthma

Carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke inhibits blood clotting (useful in cardiovascular disease treatment)

Smoking may reduce risk of skin cancer.

Smoking reduces the risk of breast cancer.

The list goes on for those who might be interested.

Seems to me that the sin tax for smoking is really what it is all about. That and people who simply do not like the smell of burning tobacco. Once you get away from all the hype, smoking has its benefits. Social disruptions, fights, anxiety and depression increased in hospitals and prisons when smoking was restricted.

I personally know many people in the health professions who smoke. They just don’t go against the social grain and talk about it openly.

Joe;

You are obviously a smart man and I enjoy reading your posts.

This reminds me, though, of a debate class where they assign a basically hopeless position to defend.

With all due respect, I can demonstrate, unequivocally, without even having to conduct a study that, for instance, heroin users are much less prone to having their fine art stolen from their homes.

Does this mean that using heroin confers some kind of protection or resistance which would be a good thing? No, of course not. It simply means that heroin addicts are much less likely to possess the fine art or even the homes to house such fine art and are therefore, much less likely targets.

My speculative guess would be that smoking is by far much more unhealthy than not smoking. But admittedly, I don't have complete knowledge about this.

I wonder how many of the studies cited in that long list were funded by RJ Reynolds.

Best,
Brian kc

 

[decent dennis]

Oh no not the blue ink. I don't need your help. Your grasping for straws now.

 

[justadub]

Joe;

You are obviously a smart man and I enjoy reading your posts.

This reminds me, though, of a debate class where they assign a basically hopeless position to defend.

With all due respect, I can demonstrate, unequivocally, without even having to conduct a study that, for instance, heroin users are much less prone to having their fine art stolen from their homes.

Does this mean that using heroin confers some kind of protection or resistance which would be a good thing? No, of course not. It simply means that heroin addicts are much less likely to possess the fine art or even the homes to house such fine art and are therefore, much less likely targets.

My speculative guess would be that smoking is by far much more unhealthy than not smoking. But admittedly, I don't have complete knowledge about this.

I wonder how many of the studies cited in that long list were funded by RJ Reynolds.

Best,
Brian kc

Tap, tap, tap.

(to include enjoying JoeW's posts here, always appreciated...)

 

[JoeW]

Joe;

You are obviously a smart man and I enjoy reading your posts.

This reminds me of debate class where you are assigned a basically hopelees position to defend.

With all due respect, I can demonstrate, unequivocally, without even having to conduct a study that, for instance, heroin users are much less prone to having their fine art stolen from their homes.

Does this mean that using heroin confers some kind of protection or resistance which would be a good thing? No, of course not. It simply means that heroin addicts are much less likely to possess the fine art or even the homes to house such fine art and are therefore, much less likely targets.

My speculative guess would be that smoking is by far much more unhealthy than not smoking. But admittedly, I don't have complete knowledge about this.

I wonder how many of the cited studies in that long list were funded by RJ Reynolds.

Best,
Brian kc

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There are definitely some people who should not smoke but there are some people for whom smoking has benefits that out weigh the risks. In my opinion the risks have been overly magnified by those with a particular point of view. Smoking like many other things in society has its place for some people some of the time. The current crusade is simply uninformed.

Greasy food is not good for you, and being overweight is certainly bad for one’s health, perhaps more so than smoking for some people. Obesity is more of a social problem than smoking in terms of cost, medical complications, and general loss of productivity. We can hope for the best of all worlds in which no one smokes and every one has a BMI under 20 but it isn’t going to happen.

Of all the substances available alcohol is by far the most destructive of chemicals commonly available. Did you know that alcohol is involved in over 70% of all street crimes (as of a few years ago, I haven’t read the lit lately). It is found in the perpetrator, the victim or both. If we were to rid ourselves of any one chemical based on danger it should be alcohol. But we all know that isn’t going to happen.

Based on facts we should legalize morphine (and its derivatives) as it poses much less of a societal harm than alcohol. It is self destructive but it causes less harm to society.

We can look down the throat of any research that is conducted and certainly much of the reserch has been masked, made unavailable or simply hidden by the anti-smokers as by any other group. But you don't hear about that.

The vast majority of taxes and fines derived from smoking has gone to pay state debt, not medical research. We are talking billions of dollars. Curretly a $1.00 pack of cigarettes sells for $6.50 (or so). The tax is regressive with poor people paying the bill.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There are definitely some people who should not smoke but there are some people for whom smoking has benefits that out weigh the risks. In my opinion the risks have been overly magnified by those with a particular point of view. Smoking like many other things in society has its place for some people some of the time. The current crusade is simply uninformed.

Greasy food is not good for you, and being overweight is certainly bad for one’s health, perhaps more so than smoking for some people. Obesity is more of a social problem than smoking in terms of cost, medical complications, and general loss of productivity. We can hope for the best of all worlds in which no one smokes and every one has a BMI under 20 but it isn’t going to happen.

Of all the substances available alcohol is by far the most destructive of chemicals commonly available. Did you know that alcohol is involved in over 70% of all crimes (as of a few years ago, I haven’t read the lit lately). It is found in the perpetrator, the victim or both. If we were to rid ourselves of any one chemical based on danger it should be alcohol. But we all know that isn’t going to happen.

Based on facts we should legalize morphine (and its derivatives) as it poses much less of a societal harm than alcohol. It is self destructive but it causes less harm to society.

We can look down the throat of any research that is conducted and certainly much of the reserch has been masked, made unavailable or simply hidden by the anti-smokers as by any other group. But you don'y hear about that.

The vast majority of taxes and fines derived from smoking has gone to pay state debt, not medical research.

I do agree with much of what you are saying above, BUT:

Having an affinity for trying to boil things down to their most simplistic form, and all of the potentially harmful (and even beneficial :wink effects of smoking notwithstanding, I ask; can't we at least acknowledge that for people who are sensitive to 2nd hand smoke, that for them it's a distinct disadvantage having to compete with someone who is smoking during their match?

Think burning eyes, breathing difficulty, smell, tougher to see through the hanging layer of smoke, etc...

I believe that smoking during a match has real potential to create an uneven playing field, or table in this case.

Best,
Brian kc

 

[ShootingArts]

how about nicotine?

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There are definitely some people who should not smoke but there are some people for whom smoking has benefits that out weigh the risks. In my opinion the risks have been overly magnified by those with a particular point of view. Smoking like many other things in society has its place for some people some of the time. The current crusade is simply uninformed.

Greasy food is not good for you, and being overweight is certainly bad for one’s health, perhaps more so than smoking for some people. Obesity is more of a social problem than smoking in terms of cost, medical complications, and general loss of productivity. We can hope for the best of all worlds in which no one smokes and every one has a BMI under 20 but it isn’t going to happen.

Of all the substances available alcohol is by far the most destructive of chemicals commonly available. Did you know that alcohol is involved in over 70% of all crimes (as of a few years ago, I haven’t read the lit lately). It is found in the perpetrator, the victim or both. If we were to rid ourselves of any one chemical based on danger it should be alcohol. But we all know that isn’t going to happen.

Based on facts we should legalize morphine (and its derivatives) as it poses much less of a societal harm than alcohol. It is self destructive but it causes less harm to society.

What percentage of perps or victims have nicotine in their systems? Fords and Chevrolets have a strong link to drunken driving too. Grains or grain products are almost always found in victims and/or perps when autopsied. The dangers of bread, cereals, and similar foods can't be overstated. When we look at all factors concerning deaths in the US, maybe the most common factor is speaking American english. Learning a foreign language and using it exclusively could add many years to our lifespan. Most automotive wrecks happen close to where the driver lives so we could minimize wrecks if we parked our vehicles a few miles from home and either walked or took public transportation to get to our vehicles. Having multiple forms of cancer at a young age leads to a sharp reduction in diseases associated with old age so finding a way to cause cancer in young people would prevent many diseases.

When my brother graduated high school in the early seventies he got a wee bit tired of all of the aunts and uncles, great aunts and uncles, cousins, all asking what career he was going to pursue. He started assuring them all that he was going to become a heroin addict. When they pointed out this wasn't exactly a career path he disagreed strongly. Hard core addicts spent $40,000 to $60,000 on drugs a year, therefore their income was something over that much, a very nice income at the time!

It is easy to use logic to come up with illogical answers.

Hu

 

[pt109]

Joe;

You are obviously a smart man and I enjoy reading your posts.

This reminds me, though, of a debate class where they assign a basically hopeless position to defend.

With all due respect, I can demonstrate, unequivocally, without even having to conduct a study that, for instance, heroin users are much less prone to having their fine art stolen from their homes.

Does this mean that using heroin confers some kind of protection or resistance which would be a good thing? No, of course not. It simply means that heroin addicts are much less likely to possess the fine art or even the homes to house such fine art and are therefore, much less likely targets.

My speculative guess would be that smoking is by far much more unhealthy than not smoking. But admittedly, I don't have complete knowledge about this.

I wonder how many of the studies cited in that long list were funded by RJ Reynolds.

Best,
Brian kc

My favorite statistic from Mark Twain....
..man drowns in river whose average depth was three feet....

But KC....what do you have against heroines?
..my personal favorite was Joan of Arc

regards
pt..<..who has reading comprehension issues

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

My favorite statistic from Mark Twain....
..man drowns in river whose average depth was three feet....

But KC....what do you have against heroines?
..my personal favorite was Joan of Arc

regards
pt..<..who has reading comprehension issues

either he was laying down on the job or was a strayer. :grin-square:

best,
brian kc

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

My favorite statistic from Mark Twain....
..man drowns in river whose average depth was three feet....

But KC....what do you have against heroines?
..my personal favorite was Joan of Arc

regards
pt..<..who has reading comprehension issues

did she play out of Corner Pocket in Fairfax?

if we're thinking of the same one, man, she was real dreamy...

best,
brian kc

 

[sfleinen]

What percentage of perps or victims have nicotine in their systems? Fords and Chevrolets have a strong link to drunken driving too. Grains or grain products are almost always found in victims and/or perps when autopsied. The dangers of bread, cereals, and similar foods can't be overstated. When we look at all factors concerning deaths in the US, maybe the most common factor is speaking American english. Learning a foreign language and using it exclusively could add many years to our lifespan. Most automotive wrecks happen close to where the driver lives so we could minimize wrecks if we parked our vehicles a few miles from home and either walked or took public transportation to get to our vehicles. Having multiple forms of cancer at a young age leads to a sharp reduction in diseases associated with old age so finding a way to cause cancer in young people would prevent many diseases.

When my brother graduated high school in the early seventies he got a wee bit tired of all of the aunts and uncles, great aunts and uncles, cousins, all asking what career he was going to pursue. He started assuring them all that he was going to become a heroin addict. When they pointed out this wasn't exactly a career path he disagreed strongly. Hard core addicts spent $40,000 to $60,000 on drugs a year, therefore their income was something over that much, a very nice income at the time!

It is easy to use logic to come up with illogical answers.

Hu

Hu, (and Brian!):

I agree. I love in JoeW's post how "conclusions" are arrived at "so conclusively." E.g. "Smoking reduces the risk of breast cancer." Really now? Could that be because the smoker dies of some other form of cancer first? Deflective reasoning does no good except conceal the facts by the, umm... "smoke" and mirrors.

I think everyone here in this thread needs to watch the AMC TV series Mad Men. This is a series about a marketing company (their employees, actually) set in the 1950s, tasked with marketing, among other things, tobacco products. (Later episodes also deal with the marketing of other now-known dangerous products, like asbestos products, thalidomide, etc.) Although the character names are fictional, the scenes and situations described are actual events. The slogans are actual slogans. The marketing campaigns are actual. A friendly warning -- when watching this series, you are going to be doing a lot of facepalming and slapping the side of your head in disbelief!

Another piece of media that I think is "required viewing" is the movie The Insider with Russel Crowe and Al Pacino. (Side note: the producers of this film received several threats from well-known tobacco companies before the movie was even released or previewed -- just based on a couple "outtake" scenes that *were* released. See the section entitled "Controversy" in the link.)

Anti-no-smoking zealots want to throw around the term "lemmings" and "nazis"? I wonder who is really the lemming?

-Sean

 

[JoeW]

All statistically based studies are correlational -- The covariation of two or more variables.* And all research can be challenged on many different grounds. It seems that when some people do not like the results they resort to one or more challenges. Some criticisms have more intuitive appeal than others.

The general consensus seems to be that until you have better data, the conclusions drawn are the "better" conclusions. It is also good to think along the lines that for every criticism you create the same could be leveled against your own series of studies unless they have specifically accounted for the potential error.
--

* "true" experiments manipulate the time sequence but they too are correlational. While we have more or less "faith" in one or another type of study they all rest on the same logic with a few additional controls here or there.

PS Sean, I am sure that you are aware of the idea that statements should be well formed and stated so they are subject to further study. In general conclusions such as those mentioned above are supported by more than one study and appear to be a summary of something like a meta analysis of the data and or studies. You allude to other possible causes for some of the research and unless you have better data it seems your statements should be tentative suggestions for further research. In addition, you challenge the integrity of those who know the field well and did in fact conduct the research by immediately supposing they they did not consider possible contaminants. Many of the people trained in the sciences would dismiss your unsupported statements as unwarrented unless you have additional information.


Basically, it is a simple matter to throw stones at research that you do not like. Why should it be that people who conduct research in the nicotine area are any more or less honest or more or less competent than any other researcher -- unless you have an ax to grind.

 

[sfleinen]

All statistically based studies are correlational -- The covariation of two or more variables.* And all research can be challenged on many different grounds. It seems that when some people do not like the results they resort to one or more challenges. Some criticisms have more intuitive appeal than others.

The general consensus seems to be that until you have better data, the conclusions drawn are the "better" conclusions. It is also good to think along the lines that for every criticism you create the same could be leveled against your own series of studies unless they have specifically accounted for the potential error.
--

* "true" experiments manipulate the time sequence but they too are correlational. While we have more or less "faith" in one or another type of study they all rest on the same logic with a few additional controls here or there.

PS Sean, I am sure that you are aware of the idea that statements should be well formed and stated so they are subject to further study. In general conclusions such as those mentioned above are supported by more than one study and appear to be a summary of something like a meta analysis of the data and or studies. You allude to other possible causes for some of the research and unless you have better data it seems your statements should be tentative suggestions for further research. In addition, you challenge the integrity of those who know the field well and did in fact conduct the research by immediately supposing they they did not consider possible contamients. Many of the people trained in the sciences would dismiss your unsupported statements as unwarrented unless you have additional information.


Basically, it is a simple matter to throw stones at research that you do not like. Why should it be that people who conduct research in the nicotine area are any more or less honest than any other researcher -- unless you have an ax to grind.

Hi Joe:

I wanted to address you directly, since I actually am a fan of your contributions to this site. And I really like your website, too.

But you'll remember sometime back that we had a disagreement on this very topic -- of what conclusions to draw from "statistics" and "market research." Actually, I think Hu nailed it. His examples of e.g. car companies' products "have been found to contribute" to auto accidents, and how accidents that normally occur within a short distance of one's home can be avoided by parking/driving exclusively outside that distance -- really lay it out how logic can be used to create the illogical.

I really suggest, if you have time, to view the Mad Men series, because it drives at the core of the reasoning you're stating (or copying/quoting from other sources). Although I personally was not on this earth back in the 1950s, I do know that the very same "studies conducted by so-and-so 'concludes' that such-and-such is the result" was used back then as well. And some of these "studies" were said to be just as much "based in the sciences" as you state above. And I GUARANTEE that you, being a reason-oriented and intelligent person, will be drop-jawed and facepalming a lot, at some of the "studies and market research" that was quoted as being used back then. BTW, my parents are in their mid-70s, and when we catch up on the phone, we talk about this TV series a lot. They relate to me that the material and situations posed in this TV series is 100% spot on -- they remember these ad campaigns, slogans, and "product conclusion" drawn from "research."

-Sean

P.S.: I hope you're done editing your original post, and that the copy I quote above is the most up-to-date. <wink> <elbow-nudge>

 

[tomnan24]

Let me start by saying that I quit smoking about 8 years ago for my health and am happy that I have. It is bad for ones health. Quitting was one of the hardest things I've ever done. Any one whom has ever smoked can attest to this.

Back when some cities and states started making it illegal to smoke in public places it was said that less than 30% of the population still smoked. I went to a pool room for three nights and ended up asking around 150 people if they smoked or not. According to my simple survey, over 80% of the people frequenting the room smoked. Quite a difference from what the officials stated that normal people do. As every pool player knows, pool is a pressure game. For smokers, the more pressure the more they need a cigarette or some other means to calm the pressure.

Those that don't smoke are lucky as they don't need a cigarette to calm their nerves as smokers do. As far as I'm concerned, not allowing smokers to smoke is probably the biggest shark that can be performed against them akin to someone dropping fire crackers behind them while stroking.

It's funny that non-smokers had no problems for 125 years in going into smoke filled rooms to play but now, suddenly it is atrocious to even think such a crude thing should be allowed.

In Cincinnati in 1997 there were over 20 pool rooms, today there are 3. You can say that there probably could be other causes for that, which probably is partially true, BUT, across the Ohio river in KY where there are no smoking laws, new rooms have opened and are thriving do to the influx of Ohio players

Dick

The Ohio/Kentucky situation is pretty typical of why our pathetic politicians along with rich special interest groups should go suck an egg. What's wrong with letting a free market place decide what happens. By the way I'm an on again off again smoker who used his rights as a US citizen to quit going to restaurants that allowed smoking as even I, as a smoker, didn't like to smell smoke while eating. What the hell is wrong with allowing each person to make a decision.

 

[JoeW]

What percentage of perps or victims have nicotine in their systems? Fords and Chevrolets have a strong link to drunken driving too. Grains or grain products are almost always found in victims and/or perps when autopsied. The dangers of bread, cereals, and similar foods can't be overstated. When we look at all factors concerning deaths in the US, maybe the most common factor is speaking American english. Learning a foreign language and using it exclusively could add many years to our lifespan. Most automotive wrecks happen close to where the driver lives so we could minimize wrecks if we parked our vehicles a few miles from home and either walked or took public transportation to get to our vehicles. Having multiple forms of cancer at a young age leads to a sharp reduction in diseases associated with old age so finding a way to cause cancer in young people would prevent many diseases.

When my brother graduated high school in the early seventies he got a wee bit tired of all of the aunts and uncles, great aunts and uncles, cousins, all asking what career he was going to pursue. He started assuring them all that he was going to become a heroin addict. When they pointed out this wasn't exactly a career path he disagreed strongly. Hard core addicts spent $40,000 to $60,000 on drugs a year, therefore their income was something over that much, a very nice income at the time!

It is easy to use logic to come up with illogical answers.

Hu

And every car crash involves a car.
Nearly all humans in a car crash has two arms and two legs.
Cars involved in crashes usually have gasoline in them

Some statistics are more interesting than others.

 

[JoeW]

Hi Joe:

I wanted to address you directly, since I actually am a fan of your contributions to this site. And I really like your website, too.

But you'll remember sometime back that we had a disagreement on this very topic -- of what conclusions to draw from "statistics" and "market research." Actually, I think Hu nailed it. His examples of e.g. car companies' products "have been found to contribute" to auto accidents, and how accidents that normally occur within a short distance of one's home can be avoided by parking/driving exclusively outside that distance -- really lay it out how logic can be used to create the illogical.

I really suggest, if you have time, to view the Mad Men series, because it drives at the core of the reasoning you're stating (or copying/quoting from other sources). Although I personally was not on this earth back in the 1950s, I do know that the very same "studies conducted by so-and-so 'concludes' that such-and-such is the result" was used back then as well. And some of these "studies" were said to be just as much "based in the sciences" as you state above. And I GUARANTEE that you, being a reason-oriented and intelligent person, will be drop-jawed and facepalming a lot, at some of the "studies and market research" that was quoted as being used back then. BTW, my parents are in their mid-70s, and when we catch up on the phone, we talk about this TV series a lot. They relate to me that the material and situations posed in this TV series is 100% spot on -- they remember these ad campaigns, slogans, and "product conclusion" drawn from "research."

-Sean

P.S.: I hope you're done editing your original post, and that the copy I quote above is the most up-to-date. <wink> <elbow-nudge>

I have not seen the show but will try to catch it. Thanks for the referral.

I guess we all go to our own church when it comes to how we come to know things. Reasonable and devout practitioners are those who are most aware of the limitations of their methods. I can say that I am acutely aware of the limits of science as only one of the four ways of coming to know. But of the available methods its conclusions have taken us far down the road. Undountedly it has many problems with how it proceeds and it is of limited use when trying to answer many questions such as, Why am I here? What is Love? and What is beauty?

None-the-less

I believe in the normal curve.

Thou shalt honer the Z test.

Do not covet thy neighbor's hypothesis.

Damn it, I just gotta add, studies by those who use research and those who are "scientists by trade" are no where near the same thing. Because science is so powerful many who do not know how to use it abuse it.

 

[Neil]

................