If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Major new study dismisses whole idea that second-hand smoke can give you cancer. "It is a blatant and scientifically demonstrable lie spread by the Nanny State and its findings will come as no surprise to anyone with a shred of scientific integrity"   (blogs.telegraph.co.uk) divider line 440
    More: Obvious, scientific integrity, secondhand smoke, nanny state, tobacco smoking, gentlemen's club, Jacob Sullum, lung cancer, British Medical Journal  
•       •       •

10914 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2013 at 11:05 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



440 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-18 06:53:18 PM
My, what a complete surprise.
 
2013-12-18 07:05:26 PM
I knew it. That's why I smoke second-hand cigars.
 
2013-12-18 07:10:53 PM
Good thing cancer is the only disease smoking causes then.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-12-18 07:11:40 PM
I won't get cancer because I don't smoke, I simply nicotine snowball a chain smoker...
 
IP
2013-12-18 07:12:37 PM
Fine, but I still don't want to breath your goddamn cigarette smoke.
 
2013-12-18 07:20:28 PM
What I find truly amazing is that anyone ever expects facts to have any effect whatsoevar on a Nanny, or their hired politicians.
WTF are you people thinking?
 
2013-12-18 07:21:10 PM
The real second hand smoke issues have never been about cancer but the tobacco companies had been actively trying to steer thinking that way because the science showing it causes skin cancer wasn't very good or it showed an incredibly low risk.  The links to other problems are well documented with good solid research.
 
2013-12-18 07:25:21 PM
Oh wait, the summary article says there is no risk but the research paper says otherwise.
 
2013-12-18 07:50:48 PM
This thread should be a hoot.
 
2013-12-18 07:57:32 PM
Most reasonable people never really thought that it did.  We just want you to take your cancer-sticks out of our faces, and away from the front door of the office building.  Go slowly sign your death warrants somewhere else.
 
2013-12-18 08:01:07 PM

IP: Fine, but I still don't want to breath your goddamn cigarette smoke.


let's be honest...that is what the fuss is really all about and always has been.

/not saying wrong or right
 
2013-12-18 08:02:00 PM

snocone: What I find truly amazing is that anyone ever expects facts to have any effect whatsoevar on a Nanny, or their hired politicians.
WTF are you people thinking?


No, what IS truly amazing is the delusional right-wing apologists.
 
2013-12-18 08:14:37 PM
Smoker here. I really don't think people were that worried about getting cancer. They just don't appreciate smelling like the throw blanket from Aunt Dottie's trailer against their will. It's completely understandable. As a smoker the only complaint I even have is that I wish I could smoke in more dive bars if they'd want to offer it.
 
2013-12-18 08:19:15 PM
I am violently allergic to cig smoke, so....thanks for protecting me from that shiat.
 
2013-12-18 08:21:16 PM
Or we could all act like mature adults and realize that bar owners should be able to decide whether or not their place is smoking or non-smoking.

/But I doubt it.
 
2013-12-18 08:41:15 PM

This About That: I knew it. That's why I smoke second-hand cigars.


Us hardcore NYC types wait for da bums to finish first.

/around midtown you roam past the lawyer clubs on the East Side and find plenty. Walks to work early
 
2013-12-18 08:45:04 PM
FTA:

It's not just British health Nazis who like to promulgate this myth. Here's what America's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say on the subject:

Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.

The actual number, Jacob Sullum argues at Reason, is "probably closer to zero."



Well, I'm convinced. Never mind what the DOCTORSat the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention said, one author at ReasonTMMagazine says it's zero.

Case close.

/clown shoes article is clown shoes
 
2013-12-18 08:48:05 PM

violentsalvation: This thread should be a hoot.


owlishmutterings.mu.nu
 
2013-12-18 08:51:24 PM
And the libertarian f*cktard comments below the article are just gold.

Hey, f*ckface, no one is saying you can't smoke cigarettes ever and will be thrown in a gulag at the mere thought of a long drag on a Marlboro. Don't get your Freedom Fighting codpiece out just yet.
 
2013-12-18 08:59:00 PM
I never gave a shiat whether second hand smoke caused cancer. I don't want to smell your crappy, disgusting cigarette. Go kill yourself somewhere else.
 
2013-12-18 09:19:30 PM
I can't find anything about "the American Cancer Institute". The link in the article goes to a summary of the article that is behind a paywall. Plenty of "Nanny" and "Nazi" thrown around though.

The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more

Light em up, you stupid farkers. Light em up!!!
 
2013-12-18 09:40:43 PM
"Your smoking is bothering me."

"Yeah, well it's KILLING me."
 
2013-12-18 09:59:32 PM
Banning smoking has never been about health.  It's about people who get off telling other people what to do and who in their hearts want to exercise bigotry and oppression of other people without having to admit who they truly are.
 
2013-12-18 10:07:10 PM

Lsherm: Banning smoking has never been about health.  It's about people who get off telling other people what to do and who in their hearts want to exercise bigotry and oppression of other people without having to admit who they truly are.


Riiiight.

www.cdc.gov

i.lifelinescreening.com

It's because we hate your rights. That's it.
 
2013-12-18 10:10:16 PM

Rev.K: Well, I'm convinced. Never mind what the DOCTORSat the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention said, one author at ReasonTMMagazine says it's zero.

Case close.

/clown shoes article is clown shoes


It's just another part of the Big Pharma/Big Medical conspiracy to keep you sick for profit by campaigning against money making cigarettes.
 
2013-12-18 10:11:25 PM
I smoked for... many years. And then I finally just quit 2 years ago

/the smell of cigarette smoke makes me gag now
//but oddly, I still crave one now and then
 
2013-12-18 10:13:54 PM

Lsherm: Banning smoking has never been about health.  It's about people who get off telling other people what to do and who in their hearts want to exercise bigotry and oppression of other people without having to admit who they truly are.


Wait, you mean the second hand smoke crusade is about keeping the black man down?

Holy fark are you a goddamned idiot.
 
2013-12-18 10:19:43 PM

hardinparamedic: Lsherm: Banning smoking has never been about health.  It's about people who get off telling other people what to do and who in their hearts want to exercise bigotry and oppression of other people without having to admit who they truly are.

Riiiight.

[www.cdc.gov image 450x436]

[i.lifelinescreening.com image 650x216]

It's because we hate your rights. That's it.


Then ban it.  Quit lying about secondhand smoke and just outlaw smoking altogether.  It's the rampant hypocrisy that rankles me.

Smoking is dangerous for smokers.  It's insanely addictive.  I quit over a decade ago and I'll still never be the same as someone who never smoked.  But you people who just don't like smelling it are full of shiat.

Darth_Lukecash: Wait, you mean the second hand smoke crusade is about keeping the black man down?

Holy fark are you a goddamned idiot.


Only a goddamned idiot doesn't know what the definition of bigotry is.  Here's a farking hint:  it can involve, but is not limited to, racism.
 
2013-12-18 10:43:05 PM

Lsherm: Banning smoking has never been about health.  It's about people who get off telling other people what to do and who in their hearts want to exercise bigotry and oppression of other people without having to admit who they truly are.


11/10... That's going to get a ton of bites.  Well done, sir troll.
 
2013-12-18 11:02:53 PM
I can still smoke while drinking beer and playing 9-ball in my favorite pool hall/dive bar. Beyond this....doesn't bother me to smoke outside.

/FL - the law says as long as they don't serve food, it's up to the owner. This is the only sane law we've got here.
 
2013-12-18 11:08:26 PM
Who wants popcorn?
 
2013-12-18 11:08:37 PM
News flash ... we didn't ban you people from smoking in places because of cancer. We banned you from smoking in places because it smells. I'm glad it's gone and it needs to stay that way. If they bring smoking back because of this I'll personally take a dump in each smoker's dinner.
 
2013-12-18 11:09:29 PM
Well if some random blogger on the internet says it, it must be true!
 
2013-12-18 11:10:16 PM
Now, was that quote taken from the American Cancer Institute who actually did the study or the taken from the opt ed to make flamebait out of a medical study?
 
2013-12-18 11:10:57 PM

Lsherm: Banning smoking has never been about health.  It's about people who get off telling other people what to do and who in their hearts want to exercise bigotry and oppression of other people without having to admit who they truly are.


You won't mind people sticking their asses into your face in restaurants and letting rip with big juicy farts then.

Koresh forbid that you would tell them what to do with their asses.
 
2013-12-18 11:11:43 PM
Wait, are people taking a blog seriously? Did anyone read the About section for this guy?

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books

And looking at his website, I'm pretty sure he's close to the Ben Shapiro spectrum of crazy.
 
2013-12-18 11:12:04 PM
I've often wondered why restaurant workers, airline workers, and others who were subjected to second-hand smoke never suffered withdrawal when smoking in those places was banned, like they only got the tars and carcinogens but not the nicotine.
 
2013-12-18 11:14:01 PM
Two threads down, smoking is a-ok.
 
2013-12-18 11:14:33 PM
Smashing yourself in the genitals with a 10-pound sledge hammer also doesn't cause cancer.  Doesn't mean it's a smart or safe thing to do.

/Apparently smokers' lungs are magical and transform smoke into something completely harmless.
 
2013-12-18 11:15:33 PM

scottydoesntknow: Wait, are people taking a blog seriously? Did anyone read the About section for this guy?

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books

And looking at his website, I'm pretty sure he's close to the Ben Shapiro spectrum of crazy.


The trick is to look at the actual source instead of whatever clickbait or blogspan that gets greened.
 
2013-12-18 11:16:14 PM
I'm allergic to it... but I don't project my problems on to the rest of society. I expect no special treatment.

Good on this. The war on tobacco has gone all Jihad. People are absolutely insane about it.
 
2013-12-18 11:16:48 PM
From the paywalled article:

"Passive smoking has many downstream health effects-asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease-but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer"

Oh I see. Fine. Go ahead and light up.

Also

'Meanwhile, said Winn, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (as well as NCI) has said unequivocally that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer. "You shouldn't conclude from this study that it isn't," she said.'
 
2013-12-18 11:17:08 PM

Dinki: Good thing cancer is the only disease smoking causes then.


This. Banning second hand smoke is one of the best things that happened in my life. I am highly allergic to smoke of all kinds but cigarette smoke in particular is horrible. I honestly would refuse to go to work at this stage if they tried to allow smoking again.
 
2013-12-18 11:17:45 PM
They made OSHA withdraw its reporting saying the same thing, so it's not like they're going to let facts get in the way of a good crusade.
 
2013-12-18 11:17:46 PM
Clearly there's something in nicotine or the 20,000 additives they put in cigarettes that absolutely destroys brain tissue.  Of course the smoking bans were partly to protect the health of non-smokers from the effects of second hand smoke, but it's mostly about make sure that we don't have to be assaulted by that disgusting smell.  What I don't understand though is why we can't also ban perfumes and colognes for the same reason.  I don't care if you can't properly manage your personal hygiene, though I wonder why it's so hard to keep your fat, sweaty ass clean, but please stop trying to cover up your body funk with those noxious chemicals.  You're forcing me to have horrible headaches, shortness of breath, allergies and sometimes even hives.  The fact that you can't smoke indoors but you can assault someone with your Estee Lauder is ridiculous.
 
2013-12-18 11:17:56 PM
And where shall I find this major new study printed? NewsMax? Or WorldNutDaily? Or possibly Free Republic?
 
2013-12-18 11:18:41 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Lsherm: Banning smoking has never been about health.  It's about people who get off telling other people what to do and who in their hearts want to exercise bigotry and oppression of other people without having to admit who they truly are.

Wait, you mean the second hand smoke crusade is about keeping the black man down?

Holy fark are you a goddamned idiot.


No he's saying that there is a certain type of individual out there that has a burning need to kick other people in the teeth because they don't like something they do. That need has more to do with the feelings of inadequacy of the kicker, and not much at all to do with anything the kickee has actually done.

Clear enough?
 
2013-12-18 11:19:27 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Most reasonable people never really thought that it did.  We just want you to take your cancer-sticks out of our faces, and away from the front door of the office building.  Go slowly sign your death warrants somewhere else.


As long as you're being honest about this being about judging people and not being about health, I'm cool with that.  If you can own it, great.  It's the hypocrites that drive me crazy.
 
2013-12-18 11:19:48 PM

worlddan: I honestly would refuse to go to work at this stage if they tried to allow smoking again.


That's a pretty good argument for bringing back smoking in the workplace. Fewer annoyingly whiny jackholes to deal with. I'm sorry you were born flawed but that isn't really my problem.
 
2013-12-18 11:21:29 PM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: And where shall I find this major new study printed? NewsMax? Or WorldNutDaily? Or possibly Free Republic?


The right wing echo chamber that is that American Cancer Institute?

/ Fark has trained people to have nearly pavlovian reflexes to even the faintest sign of politics.
 
Displayed 50 of 440 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report