China produced nearly 2.4 trillion cigarettes in 2010, which contributed more than 7 percent of the nation's annual total tax income, yet more than one million died of tobacco-related diseases, accounting for 13 percent of the total 9.43 million of deaths in 2010.

China's tobacco industry is 100 percent state-owned.

wefd, my question remains unanswered. You stated:-

"Innes, I think you will find current patterns of lung cancer incidence

(new cases) reflect smoking behaviour 20 years ago."

Quite correct!!! However, according to the Cancer Council, 72% of Australian

men were smokers in 1945 & only 18% in 2007. Puts question to the 20

year statement?

BTW It is stated by Lynne Eldridge MD , About.com Guide

Updated February 08, 2011

(About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the

Medical Review Board)

that 50% of the non smoking lung cancer deaths were from ex smokers!!!

That means that 50% had never smoked.

Although we look on smoking as being a source of various cancers,

it is not the only one, Just think of asbestos, which was killing people

and being denied long before public knowledge, even Bolte a premier

of Vic stated you could eat it with no harm.

Then there is all the chemicals used in food and in the home.



Innes the 50% who had never smoked may have been inhaling

2nd smoke which has been shown to cause a cancer,

In the early days just about everyone smoked, even in the theatres

At interval it was like walking through a wall of smoke..

OK seth If you smoked you have a good chance of getting lung cancer in

20 years time & if you never smoked, you have exactly the same chance,

so there is no reason to not smoke, is there!!!!

Isn't it interesting to note that if 3000 people are given strychnine, 3000

people WILL die, but if 3000 people smoke (or don't smoke) 1 of them will

die of lung cancer each year. Very odd result from the deadliest poison

known to mankind!!!

The point that I am trying to make (for the chance to debate only) is that

there is no correlation in any of the BS that we are being fed, at great

taxation cost.

My wife proudly told her Doctor 2 years ago that she walked on the footpath

alongside the main road, 5 K's every day. He said that her lungs would

be a lot better if she stayed at home & chain smoked for the same 1 1/2

hours. Point: There is virtually no relationship between smoking cancer

& non smoking cancer. However, there is a close correlation between

motor vehicle miles driven & cancer deaths.

BTW, I cannot remember ever seeing smokers in a theatre in AU, only

in London, (but of course I am only a young 71 YO)

Innes you are a young man, smoking in theaters was very common,

even in some venues for awhile after the war.

I would also like to know why they are so down one Cigs--as those that smoke are really just doing themselves harm-

-I know you are going to say 2nd hand smoke etc--but its not like they get into a car and have their mind altered in any way--like they do with drink driving and kill others as well--or get into fights because they have become so aggressive but there is nothing done about Alcohol abuse and it goes on all the time and getting worse.

Yes movies and work and everywhere--trains and all public transport--they used to have smoking carriages and non smoking, even in the Drs office

Sorry seth. I happily bow to your seniority.

what is wrong with the questions that I asked? Is the subject so emotive

that no one can supply a logical answer. As I said at the beginning, I don't

believe that smoking is good for you, BUT we are being fed a pile of BS

& you are all just so happy accepting it.

I am a bit confused at your questions innes.

Are you trying to suggest that smoking cigarettes does not contribute to lung cancer ?

I must add that smoking killed my father. He started smoking when he

was 10 & it eventually killed him. He died of emphysema which was

definitely caused by smoking. I remember it well. He had not long turned 94!

fwed, I am just trying to get a logical debate. I don't believe that smoking

is good for anyone, even though a number of doctors believe that it is the

best treatment for depression. If you look at the stats with an open mind,

you will see that we are being taxed beyond belief for the use of a legal

product that statistically is way less dangerous than alcohol. I am amazed

that the population of Australia is prepared to accept the absolute BS that

any Government bothers to hand out without any question whatsoever.

It would appear to me that we get the Government that we want and deserve.

innes, according to the ABS "Smoking is responsible for around 80% of all lung cancer deaths"



Maybe your wife should change doctors.

Innes, some may not want to get into a debate with you due to the possibility of being called derogatory names.

As far as I am concerned as soon as remarks like 'self righteous fools' or 'bleeding heart liberals' start the debate is over. Rather like Godwin's Law for me. :)

Sometimes I persevere to try and keep things on a level peg but prefer to bow out as name calling to me is a form of bullying. Sorry, but you did ask.



Back to the topic.

I believe that we all have the ability for any cell to turn cancerous but it needs a trigger and our individual body will do it's best to defeat it as it does for any other disease.

How effective it will be depends on our genes and our immune system which will depend on how good that is and our health at the time, our environment and our mental attitude.

Same as with other causes of cancer, certain preservatives, the pollution etc. Any or all of which can be a trigger.



If they truly believe tobacco use is costing a fortune in hospitals and doctors, they would ban it, or make it as illegal as other drugs.



If they truly want people to stop buying cigarettes they would use real pictures, not ones that look like make up on actors.

And leave the ingredients on the side in full view and larger so it can be read easily so people can choose the lowest percentages of the tar and nicotine contents thereby possibly doing less harm and make it easier to give up.



I am not a smoker so asked a teenager yesterday why his peers smoke and he said they did not know either. He thinks they think it means they are an adult as it's usually the insecure kids who smoke.

I asked him why don't they tell the smokers how it makes them stink and he said they do but just get smoke blown on them in defiance with the I don't care attitude.