Do You Smoke?

[macleod]

Vitualis, this was the articale that I was talking about. Again, this person is lieing or someone else is. This is but one of the many "interesting" articles that I found on the website regarding smoking and statistics. I think that people are use to following or believing sts, or rather what people spoonfeed them instead of actually looking at the numbers and making their own decision.

Regardless of whether it is good or bad for me, I have quit and will be saving $3.00 a day. That should please people on both sides of the fence.

"Secondhand Smoke Kills more Americans each year than cocaine, crack, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fires and AIDS," the headline of a half-page ad in the March 10, l998, Miami Herald screamed in big, bold letters. Below was a listing for the number of deaths in each category. The only figure in boldface was: "Secondhand Smoke - 53,000."

As someone who has closely followed the scientific claims surrounding the smoking issue, I wasn't particularly surprised to see the 53,000 figure. Though no U.S. government agency publishes or endorses it, this number pops up regularly in anti-tobacco ads whenever and wherever the push is on for a smoking ban. And, indeed, the purpose of the Herald ad was to campaign for removal of the preemption clause in the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act, thus enabling city and county commissions to enact local smoking bans. Predictably, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association were the ad's sponsors.

What surprised me was the citation for the 53,000 figure: "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ETS Compendium, l986 data." I knew the "official" EPA number was 3,000, not 53,000, and according to such independent analysts as the Congressional Research Service, even the EPA estimate of 3,000 deaths appeared to be too high, given the available scientific data.

Determined to get to the bottom of the puzzling citation, I phoned the 800 number provided in the ad. It connected me to a voice-mail recording at the American Cancer Society (ACS). I left my name, phone number and a brief inquiry about the EPA citation.

I also e-mailed David Lawrence, publisher of the Miami Herald. Lawrence responded that he would share my concerns with the vice president of advertising, as he did each time I sent him an update.

Several days later, Marcia Nenno of the ACS contacted me. She seemed discomfited by my questions about the citation. First, she said the 53,000 figure was actually from the l986 EPA risk assessment. Then, she claimed that it was from the EPA report. Finally, she said the source was a Surgeon General's report. Based on my familiarity with those reports, I replied that it was from none of those sources.

She insisted there was documentation and asked if I would like her to send it to me. "Yes, indeed," I responded.

A packet from the ACS arrived more than a week later. The explanation in the enclosed letter was vague at best: "Upon researching this we found that such a Compendium was produced in l986, thus the statement that the data was l986 is correct. However, the data was not published until l988. Enclosed is the l988 publication that was the basis of the EPA Compendium data: 'An Estimate of Adult Mortality in the United States from Passive Smoking' by Judson Wells."

The Wells article had been published in l988 all right, but in the journal Environment International, not by the EPA, and the photocopy I was sent bore Wells' name, fax number and the date March 18, l998, at the top of each page. So much for the convention of actually having a document in hand before citing it as a source. Nothing in the packet pertained to the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the "Compendium."

I followed up with a letter to the ACS and copied the Herald and the Tampa Tribune, which had also run the ad. My letter pointed out that the ACS had not substantiated their claim that the EPA was the source for the 53,000 figure and that the organization could well be guilty of false and misleading advertising.

In a terse reply, Jeanne Lambert, director of communications for the ACS, wrote: "As an earlier letter to you indicated, the source of 'secondhand smoke kills 53,000 Americans each year' as the EPA was correct; however, it was not published in l986."

I fired off another letter to the ACS. In essence it said that since the ACS had been unable to produce even a single piece of documentation that the EPA published or endorsed the 53,000 figure in l988 (or any other year), I would file a complaint against the ACS for false and misleading advertising.

Several weeks later, the ACS's final response arrived. "The American Cancer Society will no longer use the Environmental Protection Agency as the source for the statistic because we too have been unable to acquire the documentation to support this citation."

At last, the unambiguous, unvarnished truth -- the ACS had lied in their ad.

However, the letter went on to say: "Any future references to 'secondhand smoke kills 53,000 Americans each year' will be attributed to an article written by Stanley [sic] Glantz, Ph.D., and William Parmley, MD, called Passive Smoking and Heart Disease, Mechanics and Risk published most recently in The Journal of the American Medical Association, April 5, l995 ...."

So the ACS and their anti-smoking allies will continue to use the 53,000 figure in their smoking ban campaigns, but at least from now on there can be no doubt about its source: an article by Stanton Glantz, notorious anti-tobacco activist and a founder of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. The same Stanton Glantz whose inflated mortality figures on secondhand smoke were rejected by the EPA as too flimsy for inclusion in its own controversial report. The same Stanton Glantz that one of his own -- Mike Pertschuk of the Advocacy Institute -- accused of "ugly, propagandistic distortion."

As for the press, the result was what we have come to expect. Even though both the Miami Herald and the Tampa Tribune publishers and ad directors were copied with all correspondence about the ACS ad, to date neither paper has printed a retraction. Even the smoking gun of an outright admission that the citation in the ad was false has left the media barons unmoved.

[vitualis]

I'm sure that was a small subset of Doctors who probably got a lot of publicity because of their extreme unconventional views. I'm pretty certain that your average American doctor wants to be pretty much unassociated with that view.

Regards.

[mats.hogberg]

All right, suckers:

Go ahead tell us about your first cigarette and analyze the situation, please

Some girls in my class that I used to hang out with (was around 15 by then) had started smoking, and complained about how hard it was to quit. I thought they where silly, and just trying to be cool (after all, they'd just smoked for some months!), so to prove them wrong, I started just to show them I could quit any day I liked. Was I wrong... It wasn't until 25 years later I was able to finally quit

/Mats

[AlecWest]

(1) The airline smoking ban is not a ban, merely a restriction. Every jet maintains a bonafide smoking section. It's called "the cockpit." Yup, you can't smoke on the plane but the pilots can. Depends on the airline's policies, not any law. So, if you see a flight attendant popping into the cockpit, it might not be to say "Hi" to the cockpit crew ... but to take a few drags.

Don't know about the US, but by law it is illegal to smoke on an aircraft in Australia.

In the United States, the law makes the distinction between "public" and "private" places. The cabin of an aircraft is public but the cockpit is private. Of course, each individual airline can make its own company policy regarding cockpit smoking ... but such restrictions are not based on law.

(5) Of all the Surgeon General warnings on cigarette packs, one warning most non-smokers would expect to find is nowhere to be found ... a warning about the effects of second-hand smoking. This is not due to pressure from tobacco companies since they have no say-so on the matter ... it's up to the Surgeon General. Why? Because ill effects to non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoking have never been proven scientifically.

You know, there is no high level evidence studies "prove" antibiotics are useful in infections either. Why? Because sometimes things are obvious and it would be unethical to put it to trial.

And sometimes, negative beliefs about something are more obvious to someone predisposed to those beliefs than they are to others.

(whose great-grandfather, Angus, smoked all of his adult life and died peacefully in his sleep ... just short of his 103rd birthday)

N =1 experience.

I suggest that you go to a respiratory unit and talk to all the people with COPD in ward. They are seriously stuffed up and sick people with no cure.

And how many smokers are at home, suffering no ill effects from their smoking, and in no need of a cure? The only reason I mentioned my great grandfather is to illustrate that smoking is not the sole factor in any disease mechanism. Environment matters. So does heredity. So do a lot of other things.

Cigarette smoking is the only known deterrent to ALZHEIMER's disease and a host of other bad diseases. There are no calories nor cholesterol in cigarettes and there are tests recently concluded that conclude that PARKINSON's disease might be prevented by smoking cigarettes."

Let me stop this bullshit here and now. This is bullshit -- utter, sloppy nonsense.

And let me stop YOUR bullshit here and now. While I'm certainly not saying that saladonyourlincoln is correct about smoking being the "only" known deterrent to Alzheimer's disease, it is one possible deterrent. Read this:

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=22

You might also check out this:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005A656-22E7-1EEE-A6B8809EC588EEDF

Of course, YOU could be right and the National Academy of Sciences could be wrong.

[AeR0]

i dont mind being around ppl who smoke as long as they are considerate and keep the smoke away from me.

[AlecWest]

i dont mind being around ppl who smoke as long as they are considerate and keep the smoke away from me.

I agree with that. But, consideration cuts both ways. If I am invited to the home of a non-smoker, I either don't smoke ... or excuse myself to go outside. But, if someone comes over to my house (and they're not already aware of it), I'll remind them that I'm a smoker. Non-smokers and smokers CAN peacefully co-exist ... and consideration (or tolerance) is the key.

[bazooka]

i dont mind being around ppl who smoke as long as they are considerate and keep the smoke away from me.

I agree with that. But, consideration cuts both ways. If I am invited to the home of a non-smoker, I either don't smoke ... or excuse myself to go outside. But, if someone comes over to my house (and they're not already aware of it), I'll remind them that I'm a smoker. Non-smokers and smokers CAN peacefully co-exist ... and consideration (or tolerance) is the key.

Very true

[vitualis]

And how many smokers are at home, suffering no ill effects from their smoking, and in no need of a cure? The only reason I mentioned my great grandfather is to illustrate that smoking is not the sole factor in any disease mechanism. Environment matters. So does heredity. So do a lot of other things.

Sorry, but that is an obtuse argument.

The vast majority of the time, if you drive under the influence of alcohol, you will not be involved in an accident. Alcohol is not the "sole factor" in the event of an accident. Environment matters. So does a lot of other things.

The simple fact of the matter is that nobody can change your "heredity" and nobody can in general change the "environment" either. Smoking is a very strong risk factor for developing a whole host of serious illnesses and it is something that can be stopped.

No one is talking about an absolute ban of cigarettes. It is a ban on smoking in enclosed public places (i.e., not inflicting your second hand smoke on anyone else).

And let me stop YOUR bullshit here and now. While I'm certainly not saying that saladonyourlincoln is correct about smoking being the "only" known deterrent to Alzheimer's disease, it is one possible deterrent. Read this:

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=22

You might also check out this:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005A656-22E7-1EEE-A6B8809EC588EEDF

Of course, YOU could be right and the National Academy of Sciences could be wrong.

No you are wrong. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just read the title and go "ah ha!"

Do you know the meaning of "may"? That means, we don't know.



And it is nicotine that may be a preventative factor, not cigarette smoking. Any possible benefit from nicotine would be long negated by the method of delivery if you are getting it through a cigarette.

Furthermore, one benefit from a drug or chemical doesn't mean that it is good for you overall. Rofecoxib (aka Vioxx) was a great anti-inflammatory agent for people with arthritis. Too bad it increased your risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Regards.

[bazooka]

Who gives a flip?

The people that smoke are going to smoke anyway, and nobody is going to change their minds.

This thread is pointless and has already escalated into a flamewar.

I am the fireman and I say please be nice to each other or I will report this thread and ask for it to be closed.

[macleod]

The people that smoke are going to smoke anyway, and nobody is going to change their minds.

This thread is pointless and has already escalated into a flamewar.

Not really, I have been an ex-smoker for 20 days and have saved $60 as a result of this thread.

I also dont think that there is a flamewar going on. I think you are being a little gunshy.

If some folks are getting a little "ticked", please calm it down a bit as I personalyl wouldnt want this thread locked, but rather let it run its course.

[bazooka]

The people that smoke are going to smoke anyway, and nobody is going to change their minds.

This thread is pointless and has already escalated into a flamewar.

Not really, I have been an ex-smoker for 20 days and have saved $60 as a result of this thread.

I also dont think that there is a flamewar going on. I think you are being a little gunshy.

If some folks are getting a little "ticked", please calm it down a bit as I personalyl wouldnt want this thread locked, but rather let it run its course.

It has run it's course and people are saying bullsh*t to each other. This is not necessary and takes away from any intelligent discussion.

[vitualis]

Sorry, but the illogicality really gets to me.

If cigarette smokers want to argue that it is an infringements on the current liberties, then go right ahead. That is a valid argument. Or that they are being taxed too much. That too is a reasonable argument.

But to argue that: (i) cigarettes don't cause illness or deny their adverse heath effects, or even worse, (ii) cigarettes may actually be beneficial to your health is absolute nonsense.

Quite simply, from a health perspective, people shouldn't smoke. What "public policy" should be is dependent on the consensus of society, which obviously has a lot of smokers too. Look at the poll on this thread. I don't know how representative it is of society in general, but of the respondents, almost half said that they didn't smoke and also hated being around people who did.

Regards.

[bazooka]

Sorry, but the illogicality really gets to me.

If cigarette smokers want to argue that it is an infringements on the current liberties, then go right ahead. That is a valid argument. Or that they are being taxed too much. That too is a reasonable argument.

But to argue that: (i) cigarettes don't cause illness or deny their adverse heath effects, or even worse, (ii) cigarettes may actually be beneficial to your health is absolute nonsense.

Quite simply, from a health perspective, people shouldn't smoke. What "public policy" should be is dependent on the consensus of society, which obviously has a lot of smokers too. Look at the poll on this thread. I don't know how representative it is of society in general, but of the respondents, almost half said that they didn't smoke and also hated being around people who did.

Regards.

I respect your opinion, but when you and alec start insulting what each other is saying, there is a problem.

It is not my place, but it is very unmodlike to argue and hurl insults like what I am seeing.

[vitualis]

Sorry, but I think I have every right to argue and debate on the forum like any other member.

As for "hurl insults", where have I personally attacked Alec? I said that the statement...

Cigarette smoking is the only known deterrent to ALZHEIMER's disease and a host of other bad diseases. There are no calories nor cholesterol in cigarettes and there are tests recently concluded that conclude that PARKINSON's disease might be prevented by smoking cigarettes.

... is bullshit and I fully maintain that position. That above statement is absolute nonsense.

And frankly, yes, it is not your place.

Best regards.

[AlecWest]

No you are wrong. Did you even read those articles? Or did you just read the title and go "ah ha!"

Do you know the meaning of "may"? That means, we don't know.

Yes, I read them. Did you read my post to you and notice I used the words possible deterrent ... or is the meaning of the word possible beyond your grasp? Certainly, the words may and possible are both not meant to be as "absolute" as your use of the words bullshit -- utter, sloppy nonsense.

And it is nicotine that may be a preventative factor, not cigarette smoking.

Hmmm, then why did Medical-Net title their article Cigarette Smoking May Lower Rates of Neurodegenerative Diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? And why did the Scientific American article, in the first paragraph, say, "But one potential upside was discovered recently when research suggested that cigarette smoking may delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease."

Any possible benefit from nicotine would be long negated by the method of delivery if you are getting it through a cigarette.

Neither article supports that belief. Did YOU read them?

Furthermore, one benefit from a drug or chemical doesn't mean that it is good for you overall.

We're in 100% agreement on that. I've never once suggested that, overall, smoking is a good thing for anyone.

[bazooka]

Sorry, but I think I have every right to argue and debate on the forum like any other member.

As for "hurl insults", where have I personally attacked Alec? I said that the statement...

Cigarette smoking is the only known deterrent to ALZHEIMER's disease and a host of other bad diseases. There are no calories nor cholesterol in cigarettes and there are tests recently concluded that conclude that PARKINSON's disease might be prevented by smoking cigarettes.

... is bullshit and I fully maintain that position. That above statement is absolute nonsense.

And frankly, yes, it is not your place.

Best regards.

I sent you a pm.

[vitualis]

Hmmm, then why did Medical-Net title their article Cigarette Smoking May Lower Rates of Neurodegenerative Diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? And why did the Scientific American article, in the first paragraph, say, "But one potential upside was discovered recently when research suggested that cigarette smoking may delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease."

Because those articles are written to be read by the layperson. The titles are provocative and interesting.

As I said, did you actually read the substance of the article? The putative agent is a metabolite of nicotine. Nicotine can be delivered many ways into the body and smoking a cigarette is not a particular efficient or safe way of doing so.

Any possible benefit from nicotine would be long negated by the method of delivery if you are getting it through a cigarette.

Neither article supports that belief.

I wasn't referring to the article. I was referring to the other link I provided (from my blog) looking at the large prospective cohort study on matched smokers and non-smokers. Smokers suffered a mild decrease in their IQ compared to non-smokers. Even if there is a protective effect against neurodegenerative disorders (which is suspect), it would seem that the other effects (e.g., microvascular damage) on the brain from SMOKING CIGARETTES more than counter-acts this on an overall basis.

Did YOU read them?

Yes, I did, but perhaps I got more out of them than you did.

@ bazooka: received (and replied).

Regards.

[AlecWest]

Because those articles are written to be read by the layperson. The titles are provocative and interesting.

... and also undisputed by the research entities mentioned in them. Or, are you aware of a dispute to these articles by those research entities? With their reputations on the line, you'd think they would have disputed them by now ... unless the contentions in the articles had merit.

The putative agent is a metabolite of nicotine. Nicotine can be delivered many ways into the body and smoking a cigarette is not a particular efficient or safe way of doing so.

But, it is one way.

[ZAPPER]

Bazooka
Ease off the trigger a bit. This thread hasn't got political, religious or racial yet. I do agree that some arguments may be stupid, but stupid isn't a reason for locking it. It may in fact provide a service to help some with an issue greater than minor video problems.

[NamPla]

I didn't think this was about the pros & cons of smoking. Every smoker knows the potential harm of their habit (emphasize the word "potential" please! :P ). But don't forget the joyful buzz a hit of nicotine can give you first thing in the morning, or after a hearty meal, or after sex, or while drinking beers at the pub, etc etc... heh.

It's individual choice, pure & simple.

Virtualis' points out the burden on the public health system. Fair enough, but if you're gonna crusade to minimise that burden, where do you stop? Ban smoking, then what? Alcohol? Automobiles? Air transport? Swimming?

The so-called "burden" to the public health system is an "obtuse" argument, because it goes hand-in-hand with living in a democracy. Live with it! (Or else, get rid of democracy altogether & institute a totalitarian state!)

And for chrissakes, whingeing non-smokers shouldn't be in pubs, they should stick to their yuppie bloody cafes!!!

:P

[AlecWest]

It's individual choice, pure & simple.

Yup. BTW, though I think he's a bit too "absolute" in his attitudes, I do respect vitualis' opinions. He is a physician, after all ... or at least his website says he's a physician. But even physicians disagree. I smoke Liggett full-flavor hundreds. My physician smokes Winston lights.

The so-called "burden" to the public health system is an "obtuse" argument, because it goes hand-in-hand with living in a democracy. Live with it! (Or else, get rid of democracy altogether & institute a totalitarian state!)

I think that's what some anti-smokers would like to see. It took Oregon two tries to get an indoor smoking ban (in public places) passed into law. The first proposal never made it out of the state legislature because the "place of business" wording was too broad. Had that first proposal become law, cops would have had the authority to go into private homes and arrest entrepreneurs working out of "home offices" if they dared to smoke in them. They could have even arrested taxi drivers who smoked in their cabs ... or truckers who smoked in their trucks (aka "places of business").

[vitualis]

Read the above poll. About half of people here don't smoke and hate being around people who smoke! That's why there is the change. There are simply more non-smokers than smokers.

With public health you try to change the things that CAN be changed and will have the most impact. Smoking is an easy target. By getting people to quit and by making a whole lot less attractive for people to START smoking, you can improve the health of society significantly.

Alcohol has already been targeted -- hence you have drink driving laws. Most places make it illegal to servce alcohol to minors. Most places make it illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is inebriated.

NamPla, you need to learn what a democracy means. It means that everyone gets representation -- and you take responsibility and accept the judgement of society. In many democracies the will of society is a ban on smoking in public places. Basically what you are arguing for is NOT democratic because you are saying that your wishes are more important than everybody elses.

So, for chrissakes [sic], whingeing smokers shouldn't be in pubs, etc...

:P

Regards.

[vitualis]

My physician smokes Winston lights.

Doctors are human...

Regards.

[jimmalenko]

Sorry, but I think I have every right to argue and debate on the forum like any other member.

True.

As for "hurl insults", where have I personally attacked Alec?

I couldn't find it either ...

If anything, IMO AlecWest is/was getting abusive because Vitualis' facts are/were killing his fiction

I said that the statement...

Cigarette smoking is the only known deterrent to ALZHEIMER's disease and a host of other bad diseases. There are no calories nor cholesterol in cigarettes and there are tests recently concluded that conclude that PARKINSON's disease might be prevented by smoking cigarettes.

... is bullshit and I fully maintain that position. That above statement is absolute nonsense.

Being a doctor, I think Vitualis is more qualified and has done more research than any of us for us to doubt both his expert medical opinion, and proven medical fact.

And frankly, yes, it is not your place.

That might be so, but don't forget that the behavioural example set by a mod resonates throughout every forum

That said, mods are humans too

[bazooka]

That might be so, but don't forget that the behavioural example set by a mod resonates throughout every forum

Thank you.

That was my point, but it seems there are two sets of rules here.

1 for the mods and 1 for everyone else.

[AlecWest]

If anything, IMO AlecWest is/was getting abusive because Vitualis' facts are/were killing his fiction

Not my fiction. Just two articles published on Med-Net and in the Scientific American. And on the abusive part, it wasn't me who used the bullshit word. But, it's no biggy. Water off a duck's back.

Being a doctor, I think Vitualis is more qualified and has done more research than any of us for us to doubt both his expert medical opinion, and proven medical fact.

A number of physicians are not so sure about what is and what is not "proven medical fact." My physician (a smoker) is one of them. And, in his 60s, I suspect he's been a physician a lot longer than vitualis. But, I've met others who feel the same way ... some smokers, some not ... during my eight years as a claims analyst for Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance. So, when one young doctor comes out and stresses his "certainty" on the issue, you'll have to pardon me if I don't do handsprings.

[macleod]

I tend to agree with alexwes and Vitualis.

I remember going in for my yearly physical and having the doctor reek of smoke telling me that it was bad for me. My dad would hack one up and yell at me for smoking. My rebellious youth mind screamed "HYPOCRITES".

A somewhat funny story (to me anyway) was that years ago I was a liquidator for a large company. Basically what I did was sell off collateral for businesses that went under. I remember joining a call for one of the collectors and discovering that the person that was getting ready for the big "L" was a heart doctor (cardiologist or something). As I explained what I will be doing in the event the collector transferred the defaulted loan to me, he told me that he could tell I was a smoker and if I ever was on his table for surgery, he would make sure I didnt make it. I asked about the hypocratic oathy thing and he went ballistic. I bring this up for a few reasons:

1. Had a stray thought when I wrote hypocrite decided to go with it
2. Just because a doctor says something, doesnt mean its the gospel
3. (for the part where the Dr was smoking), his job is to provide you with medical assistance and his opinion. Him smoking doesnt mean that it is OK. Y'all can get matching iron lungs or somethin'.....
4. Vitualis is very passionate about this. I, for one, would like to benefit from his experience, but at the same time I am not going to take what he says as the "word". I am going to take what he says, bump it against the "shit wall", see what sticks and then put whats left into my tiny little head, process it, and come to my own conclusion.

I dont want this to become religious and that is why I am choosing my words carefully....Everyone was given free will to make their own decisions (and to say what they want, within reason so that it doesnt offend the common society)(or more importantly Baldrick, LOL) by whatever y'all do or dont believe in.

Again, Iwelcome Vitualis's (and other folks's) opinions.

[jimmalenko]

I tend to agree with alexwes and Vitualis.

ummm ..... dude .....

How can you agree with both of them when they're disagreeing with each other ?

[Shadowmistress]

That was my point, but it seems there are two sets of rules here.

1 for the mods and 1 for everyone else.

Aw, I think that's rather harsh. Where does it say that if you become a mod you have to generify your opinions and become politically correct so as not to offend anyone?

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with what vitualis has said. The man is passionate about his views and he's not taking shots at anyone personally, he's participating in an intellectual debate. Same goes for AlecWest.

As having gone toe to toe with a mod in the past myself, I don't see anything wrong with them going toe to toe with us. Keep it fair.

(And just for the record, I've been smoking a pack a day, everyday, since I was 11 years old and still do to this day.)

I gather you're implying that this thread *may* get ugly. I don't believe up to this point that it has.

[macleod]

aint been reading my posts too closely have you.....

Both make compelling statements and certain parts of what both of them are writing are correct.

I dont take what a person says as either 100% or 0%, but rather parts of what they have said. Guess that is the Project Manager in me, who knows.

Vitualis has provide some statistics. I am a believer in lies, damn lies, and statistics. Alecwes provides some other cleverly wordsmithed documents. What I am able to pull from this is that there is an amount of damage that occurs, but it is not as bad as the "experts"would lead us to believe. What I am trying to say is that smoking will "assist" in certain people "getting" various diseases and at the same time many folks will smoke like chimneys and die at a ripe old age.

Smoking does not equal death. It is part of the equation, but it is not a 1:1.

So, in short, I agree with both....