Emphysema, so often the precursor to lung cancer, but arguably an even more ghastly foe in its own right, is brought on by lung irritants. From the formaldehyde that is so common in the particle board in our houses through to the ash from tall chimney stacks often far away, there are many gases and particulates that cause lung irritation.



I reckon we have largely won the day if children are deterred from taking up the smoking habit.



As far as some (many?) older smokers are concerned, I believe we are treading on their rights, discriminating against them and wasting money by continuing with the nagging war and the price hikes. The addiction of nicotine is not disputed and there is also psychological dependence of years of use. That there could be irreversible changes to the brain is a very real possibility.



Frankly I never agreed with the price increases that went above $5 a packet, which would have been enough to deter, if deterrence might work, but not so far as to discriminate against the less advantaged in the community. Likewise I have no objection to people smoking in public spaces where others can easily move away, or space could be set aside for smokers.



Take the money from the anti-smoking campaign, where the same bureaucrats have had cushy careers for decades producing pamphlets and buy some more counsellors and facilities to reduce suicide,



Every day there are about 6 suicides in Australia, and a further 180

attempts. Notwithstanding the enormous personal and family emotional

costs, and the great financial costs, suicide is a significant concern for the

criminal justice system.

Since 1964, suicide rates in Australia for females (except teenagers)

have fallen dramatically, and for men over 30 have fallen significantly. [b]For

teenage boys the rate has tripled, for men in their early twenties it has

almost tripled, and for those in their late twenties it has increased by more

than two-thirds.[/b][i][/i] Young men of these ages are also the prime focus of the

criminal justice system.





For obvious reasons, suicide is under-reported.

redhead, I don't know if I am reading you correctly, but are you saying that

you don't want to enter the debate because I might call you names?

Maybe my memory serves me incorrectly, but I don't think I have ever called

anybody on here names. I have suggested that 1 writer should go back on

his medicine & I have on the odd occasion got just a little sarci, but I don't

think names.

fwed, you state "innes, according to the ABS “Smoking is responsible for

around 80% of all lung cancer deaths”

Maybe your wife should change doctors.

Posted: 06 June 2011 06:32 AM

Yes, they do state that, but according to the medical stats put out by the

Cancer Council, approximately 1 in 300,000 smokers will die of lung

cancer this year & approx., 1 in 300,000 non smokers will die of lung

cancer this year. They are not my figures.

As I stated before. There is no correlation between smoking & lung

cancer deaths. There IS a direct correlation between car miles driven

& deaths from lung cancer.

redhead, I don't know if I am reading you correctly, but are you saying that

you don't want to enter the debate because I might call you names?

Maybe my memory serves me incorrectly, but I don't think I have ever called

anybody on here names. I have suggested that 1 writer should go back on

his medicine & I have on the odd occasion got just a little sarci, but I don't

think names.



I consider calling anybody "self righteous fools" derogatory but to each his own and as the site title states, Your Life Choices.

I prefer to make my own choices and they are not thinking everybody who disagrees with me is a self righteous fool.

innes, you quote the Cancer Council saying that the same number of non smokers will die of lung cancer as smokers (your figures 1 in 300,000)



The Cancer Council states [i]"World wide there are an estimated 1.5 million new cases of lung cancer each year. Approximately 80% of these new cases are caused by tobacco smoking."[/i]

[url=http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=372]Source[/url]



Now if 80 percent are smokers and you say as many non smokers die then maths makes that 160%

My calculation using the above is that lung cancer deaths are 80% smokers and 20% non smokers.



Would you please give me the URL to the page to support your figures from the Cancer Council.

fwed, I cant be bothered finding the figures that show the Cancer Council

bias in order to justify their existence. I quoted earlier:-

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.

My father died shortly after his 94th birthday, following a lifetime of smoking.

If the Cancer Council people were on the other side of the fence, they would

be saying that my father lived 20 years beyond his life expectancy. Smoking

must be good for the life expectancy!!! The Cancer Council states that there

are an ESTIMATED 1.5 million new cases of lung cancer each year. There

are over 7 billion people on earth, that means, by their own figures, there is

1 new case of lung cancer each year for every 4,700 people on Earth. By

their own figures, half of these are non smokers. They cant even make their

own figures add up.

Let me ask you a couple of pertinent questions:-

How many people work for the Cancer Council?

Who pays their salaries?

How many jobs would remain if nobody on Earth actually smoked?

redhead, your accusation to me stated:-

I consider calling anybody “self righteous fools” derogatory but to each his

own"

If you read back to where I said this, you will see that I was referring to a

group of people outside this forum & as a category, not as individuals.

If you like to look a little more open mindedly at my past words, I actually

defended you & your opinions.

(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.



I had a chuckle at that logic.

If as you state "50% of the non smoking lung cancer deaths were from ex smokers" is it not possible that some were still smoking up to and after their cancer was diagnosed ?

fwed, if the experts can fiddle with statistics at will & feed us the utter

garbage they want to, so why can't I use a little liberty?

redhead, your accusation to me stated:-

I consider calling anybody “self righteous fools” derogatory but to each his

own"

If you read back to where I said this, you will see that I was referring to a

group of people outside this forum & as a category, not as individuals.

If you like to look a little more open mindedly at my past words, I actually

defended you & your opinions.



I apologise if I was wrong.



I'm afraid as soon as I see any name calling I turn off as I can't see it is necessary.

I believe the subject should be discussed without the name calling. It tells me the orator has no further evidence to back up their theory so resorts to name calling to score points.



Rather like the politicians do, instead of getting on with business.

Time wasting and in my opinion is done only to make the speaker feel better about themselves.

Just like primary school children.

You're an idiot!

Am not! You are!

Takes one to know one!

Your ugly!

You stink!



Which usually leads to a punch up.

Which usually leads to a punch up



or in governments case - war

Fwed! what are you trying to do???



Give war a bad name???

"Give war a bad name??? "



I'll drink to that! :-)

Just finished reading all your replys re cigarettes & smoking. I agree with most of what is said

especially from Pommy. Yes the government collects huge tax's from cigarettes so, no way will

they prohibit them. I am a smoker & have tried all ways to kick the habit over the years. I am not successful. I do respect a persons right if they do not allow smoking in their homes or in their area but, I get real aggravated when I am looked at as though I have the plauge when I do have a cigarette. Smokers have rights also as do non smokers.