Banning Smoking????

Should all smoking be banned in public indoor places?

  • Yes

    Votes: 62 50.4%
  • No

    Votes: 48 39.0%
  • It doesn't bother me

    Votes: 13 10.6%

  • Total voters
    123

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
This BS that says smoking "causes" cancer is simply that, BS. If smoking "caused" cancer one would think that after 30+ years of smoking I would be dead. Guess what, I'm not and I just had a chest x-ray that shows no lesions on the lungs. Blood work shows nothing either. The only cancer I am dealing with is melanoma resulting from serious sunburns while cutting tobacco as a youth. BTW some would classify this as a smoking related illness due to simply working with tobacco and not smoking it at that time.

If smoking truly “caused” cancer you would think that the Japanese, those with the greatest consumption rate, would have a higher incidence of cancer. But guess what, they don’t, as a matter of fact they have one of the lowest rates worldwide. Explain that to me if in fact smoking is a “cause”.

As to the crap about second-hand smoke causing asthma, this is just more BS being put out by the anti-smoking freaks to further their interests (and grant money). Ever hear of junk science?
 

SeaRide

......
Ken King .. go on a tour in the hospital or health research center where they will show you a smoked lung in a jar and a healthy lung in a jar.. you will see the difference. :duh:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by SeaRide
Ken King .. go on a tour in the hospital or health research center where they will show you a smoked lung in a jar and a healthy lung in a jar.. you will see the difference. :duh:
Seen them, BFD. The tar covered lung may or may not be cancerous. What I am saying (and typing real slow just for you) is that if in fact smoking tobacco "caused" cancer everyone that smoked would have cancer. Catch the differnce or does this just scream over your head?
 

SeaRide

......
Originally posted by Ken King
Seen them, BFD. The tar covered lung may or may not be cancerous. What I am saying (and typing real slow just for you) is that if in fact smoking tobacco "caused" cancer everyone that smoked would have cancer. Catch the differnce or does this just scream over your head?
Let me type slower for you .. tar, crust , funny looking thing .. whatever .. may or may not be cancerous .. well duh I know that. Did I mention the magic word "cancer" in any of my previous post in this very thread? Read slower, okay? tyvm!
 

cattitude

My Sweetest Boy
Originally posted by Ken King
What I am saying (and typing real slow just for you) is that if in fact smoking tobacco "caused" cancer everyone that smoked would have cancer. Catch the differnce or does this just scream over your head?

Ken, why do you do that? :frown:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by SeaRide
Let me type slower for you .. tar, crust , funny looking thing .. whatever .. may or may not be cancerous .. well duh I know that. Did I mention the magic word "cancer" in any of my previous post in this very thread? Read slower, okay? tyvm!
You responded directly to the post I made and it was cancer that I was talking about you stupid twit. What is it all of you freaks say, "That smoking CAUSES cancer". What I am saying to you is prove it. I know you can't and I have known for years that junk science and it's quacks have forwarded the propaganda just as much as Al Jazeera does on how the war in Iraq is going. No go crawl back under your rock while I step outside to have a cigarrette and take Catt with you. Christ you would think I told someone to leave a bowl of ethyl glycol out for a feral cat or something.
 

cattitude

My Sweetest Boy
Originally posted by Ken King
You responded directly to the post I made and it was cancer that I was talking about you stupid twit. What is it all of you freaks say, "That smoking CAUSES cancer". What I am saying to you is prove it. I know you can't and I have known for years that junk science and it's quacks have forwarded the propaganda just as much as Al Jazeera does on how the war in Iraq is going. No go crawl back under your rock while I step outside to have a cigarrette and take Catt with you. Christ you would think I told someone to leave a bowl of ethyl glycol out for a feral cat or something.

What an a$$. A typical response. :frown: And it's allowed.....
 

migtig

aka Mrs. Giant
Originally posted by kwillia
Can't we all just get along... can't we all meet at Asahi or something... :cheesy:
I've tried that before and it didn't work (actually I think it got worse):rolleyes:
 

cattitude

My Sweetest Boy
Originally posted by kwillia
Can't we all just get along...

I don't have a problem. I respect Ken for his vast knowledge of many topics. I just don't understand why he feels the need to belittle people to get his point across.
 

SeaRide

......
Originally posted by Ken King
You responded directly to the post I made and it was cancer that I was talking about you stupid twit
:rolleyes: *sigh**slow dragging voice* Yes, I read the post that you made about cancer and it got me thinking about the organs (lungs, brains, livers, etc) in the lab so bite me for thinking like this on my own you stupid twit. Anything else?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by cattitude
I don't have a problem. I respect Ken for his vast knowledge of many topics. I just don't understand why he feels the need to belittle people to get his point across.
You don't have a problem as long as you're not the one being called an @ss. I understand you better now.

Originally posted by Searide
so bite me for thinking like this on my own
I don't think I would want to get my mouth close enough to you to bite anything. Probably smell and taste like sushi.
 

cattitude

My Sweetest Boy
Originally posted by Ken King
You don't have a problem as long as you're not the one being called an @ss. I understand you better now.

I thought this was a discussion board. People were posting their opinions. Name calling is name calling, a$$ is no worse than twit or insinuating stupidy. Perhaps I was wrong to get in the middle of your discussion with Searide and for that I apologize. Understand me? Not hardly.
 

VicMackey

New Member
Originally posted by Ken King
If smoking "caused" cancer one would think that after 30+ years of smoking I would be dead. Guess what, I'm not and I just had a chest x-ray that shows no lesions on the lungs.

Oh. My. God.

On your profile page is says you work in RDT and E. Please tell me your job is sweeping floors or making coffee or something and not doing actual engineering (unless you just drive a little train around base; I can accept it if you're that sort of engineer). The alternative--that someone in charge of testing and evaluating stuff for the military apparently has NO CONCEPT of the fundamental principles of probability, causality, etc--is too horrible to contemplate.

You every bother to read any kind of medical study? Ever notice how those studies usually say, "X causes Y to happen in Z percent of the population studied"? That "Z percent" is the important part. Particularly with cancer, which involves damage to DNA, and which tends to be a random process (that is, for a given cancer-causing process there's a probability that some DNA molecule in you will be damaged in such a way that it results in cancerous growth. Integrate that probability over all cells exposed to the carcinogen over time.), sometimes you get lucky and for whatever reason a particular individual doesn't get cancer. None of the DNA molecules got whacked, or if they did they were killed off by the body's defenses, or any of a host of other reasons.

In the Ken King world, it seems that if something has the ability to cause cancer in one person it must therefore by definition cause cancer in every single human being it comes in contact with. Kenny lives in an all-or-nothing world, I guess.

I mean, how can you have any idea how to properly test systems if this is the extent of your reasoning? "I, Ken King--a sample of one--do not have cancer, therefore smoking doesn't cause cancer."

As for the Japanese, who knows? I suspect they live a different lifestyle than Americans. There could be some other factor that mitigates the increased risk due to smoking. (And I won't even touch on obscure possibilities--maybe their smokers have other bad habits that kill them before they can die of lung cancer).

You worry me, Kenny. You really worry me. I think that 30+ years of smoke might be dulling your mental faculties, and causing you to type and think slowly.
 
Top