World Health Organization study on second hand smoke

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject:

I can't get info on the percentages of people who smoke from those places. I can get info on everything else, just not smoking.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject:

And, I can't find those statistics anywhere else either.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject:

From their full report

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject:

So far, I can't find anything to back up what you were saying other than that site that claims to have gotten the info from the CIA.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

I m thinking they just pulled those numbers out of a hat or distorted real ones to derive whatever they felt like getting. But that's just my gut instinct. =D

The Heritage Foundation and some conservative think-tanks have a habit of making up statistics. I couldn't find it anywhere else either other than through the website's say so.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject:

Jeez--I never bothered to read any of the other drivel of that guy--I'll have to check that out--that's just total BS---yes, cigarettes aren't addictive. Roll Eyes

yeah... ooooohkay...

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

I just did a bit of research, and I remembered there are some important differences between European countries and the United States, that might have n impact on their longevity relative to us, despite having fewer smokers.

A. In Europe, Obesity is no epidemic. Europeans usually have superior diet, as well as exercize can influence life-span. The United States is hit by an obesity epidemic, and that severely cuts lifespan and health.

B. Europe tends to have superior healthcare and less income inequality, which can influence lifespan and health.

If we look at both, although the United States on the list has fewer smokers, it faces both a fairly large group of smokers AND obese people, as well as a generally poor life-style set otherwise without the benefit of an effective socialized healthcare system.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject:

Good point. Smile

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Here are some relevant, and hilarious quotes from his argument against why we ought to consider Nicotine addictive. Let's see if you can see why they are retarded as I think they are:

1. "If nicotine is addictive, so are chocolate candies, pies and cakes, etc. Indeed, if "addiction" is defined as dependence upon some chemical, everyone is addicted, to air!"

Yup. He tries to put it into your head that their definition of addiction makes nicotine no more addictive than air. Seriously. However, his intention make you believe that nicotine can't be addictive also because that would also mean that some foods are addictive...without coming out and saying that. But so? But we shouldn't take his critique seriously anyway, given he seriously tries to undermine the concept of addiction and compare dependence breathing air with dependence on a drug.

2. "I question, however, whether nicotine is the active ingredient in tobacco. If it were, nicotine patches should satisfy a smoker's craving for tobacco; they don't! In prisons, where, as a part of the punishment, smoking is sometimes forbidden, the inmates take to smoking corn silk, paper, string, etc., none of which contain any nicotine."

Here he tries to "doubt" the active ingredient of nicotine, which, and as evidence, as addictive. He makes the entirely unrelated claim that people denied cigs smoke things that have no nicotine in them, supposedly. Well, that doesn't logically imply that nicotine isn't addictive in cigs. Who said that nicotine is the ONLY addictive substance in a cig or that no other substances can fulfill similar functions if ingested, thus relieving the craving? There certainly are. There is also a psychological aspect to smoking which has nothing to do with the chemical dependency.

He also claims patches don' satisfy a smoker's craving: for some, they do. For some, they don't. For some, it's partial, and not entirely. That doesn't mean they don't work as they are supposed to, thus concluding that nicotine isn't addictive. He simply asserts they "don't" and that's that. You just need to trust his word, I guess. The patch won't fix the psychological habit either.

Edit: he also gives ZERO links or citations for any of his medical claims or other claims about nicotine.

But he gets worse: he also claims smoking doesn't cause emphysema OR heart disease.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject:

That's a real great source Smile

Yep, truly wonderful. Laughing

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject:

Mark, please give us another source. I can't find the info based on the sources the author supposedly took from, and when you mix some of the other drivel the author is saying in the same book, he holds absolutely no validity.

I'm willing to look at statistics if you can find some that are taken from another source than the imagination of that author.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Now you know why I get irritated and dismissive when Mark argues these topics? These types of sources aren't one-time flukes; these are the types of sources he consistenlly gets on topics ranging across the health discipline. Smoking? Lead? Asbestos? Obesity? Nah. They aren't problems!! Why? This entirely biased, irrelevant authority says so, of course. Yet the entire medical academic world is wrong or stupid, to him.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject:

I can handle sources like that if they logically make sense. This is not one of those cases. He has brought sources up before that weren't that great, but the argument at least completely followed logical sense. This is definitely NOT one of those cases.

Just about any viewpoint can have a number of websites associated with it. This viewpoint is VERY hard to find a website associated with it.

Some of those viewpoints one finds out there make logical sense, and some of them don't without some major twisting of reality. If one way or another the viewpoint that seemed twisted could be brought up in a way that makes it make logical sense, then it won't look so twisted anymore. For me to take what Mark is saying seriously IN THIS ARGUMENT (I usually take what he's saying pretty seriously and really deeply consider what he says), I really need at least ONE more source for this than something that appears to be made up by an author of a book that's trying to make cigarettes look healthy.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Well, you're one up on me then, since I don't take anything he says seriously anymore. Hahah. My default assumption is that he's wrong, and I go on from there.

Kizzume · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject:

It kind-of shows, unfortunately. Sad

Even people that I know are stubborn in stupid ways, I still will take what they say seriously IF what they're saying makes sense, most of the time. I don't know how to handle someone when they're politically on the left and they're stubborn in stupid ways--it's the only thing that really makes me become emotional and irrational, and I apologize to anyone that I have ever treated that way, OOD included.

I wish I had more patience in those areas. I truly hope I don't moderate based on those kinds of things Sad

This is to anyone: If I do move threads based on those kinds of things, please tell me, and I mean it--be blatant about it. Give examples if you are able to. I will be sure to be more subjective in those areas in the future. I try to be as subjective as I can. How good am I at being subjective--seeing both sides of an issue?