• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vapng vs Smoking

Sorry dude.. the causal link is well established.
Only in your dreams. Fascists like to pretend there is a causal link so they can run roughshod over everyone's rights, but it is a deliberate lie. There has only been a statistical link, and not even a good one at that. There are no studies that show any sort of causal link, except in your delusional mind.
 
Only in your dreams. Fascists like to pretend there is a causal link so they can run roughshod over everyone's rights, but it is a deliberate lie. There has only been a statistical link, and not even a good one at that. There are no studies that show any sort of causal link, except in your delusional mind.

Nope.. its not..the research is well established. It has nothing to do with fascism. or whatever lie you want to tell yourself.

I already linked to a systematic review that showed a causal link. And for you to have a causal link.. well.. you have to have a statistical link.

Look man.. You can have the freedom to be ignorant despite the real scientific data that proves you wrong.

I have had patients that thought they new better as well. Rarely did it work out for them.

Have a good day.
 
Nope.. its not..the research is well established. It has nothing to do with fascism. or whatever lie you want to tell yourself.

I already linked to a systematic review that showed a causal link. And for you to have a causal link.. well.. you have to have a statistical link.

Look man.. You can have the freedom to be ignorant despite the real scientific data that proves you wrong.

I have had patients that thought they new better as well. Rarely did it work out for them.

Have a good day.

It is bunk of the highest order. There is no causal link between smoking and ANY disease or cancer, and there never has been. Otherwise you would have produced this peer-reviewed study that demonstrates a causal link, but you can't because none exist. All you have is your deliberate lies, and we all know it.
 
It is bunk of the highest order. There is no causal link between smoking and ANY disease or cancer, and there never has been. Otherwise you would have produced this peer-reviewed study that demonstrates a causal link, but you can't because none exist. All you have is your deliberate lies, and we all know it.

I already linked to the peer reviewed study which was a systematic review.. in other words it used a ton of other studies in its statistics which made it extremely powerful.
 
I already linked to the peer reviewed study which was a systematic review.. in other words it used a ton of other studies in its statistics which made it extremely powerful.

Nothing you linked to demonstrates any causal connection, once again you are deliberately lying. Everything demonstrates a statistical connection, not a causal one. Since you are incapable of producing a single peer-reviewed study to demonstrate any causal connection, this conversation is over and you will be noted for your deliberate lies in the future.
 
It is bunk of the highest order. There is no causal link between smoking and ANY disease or cancer, and there never has been. Otherwise you would have produced this peer-reviewed study that demonstrates a causal link, but you can't because none exist. All you have is your deliberate lies, and we all know it.

Fine.. Here is a great place to start. Its a research paper discussing exactly your premise.
I thought it a good place for you to start. The causality between smoking and lung cancer among groups and individuals: addressing issues in tobacco litigation in South Korea

here is an important excerpt from it.

Epidemiological studies have played multiple roles in verifying the causality between smoking and lung cancer and quantifying the extent of harmfulness of smoking. However, in establishing the evidence for the causality between smoking and lung cancer, other observational and experimental results (i.e., individual observations, animal studies, and laboratory chemical analyses) have also contributed significantly [20].
First, there are the results of animal experiments. These include studies that demonstrated cancer development when ‘tobacco juice’ was administered to animals. Wynder and colleagues induced carcinogenesis by applying cigarette tar to mice [21].
Second, there are observational studies of cellular pathology. Since the 1930s, pathologists determined that smoking impairs the movement of cilia (a cellular organelle in the human body that sweeps foreign materials out of the lungs) in the upper airway causing ciliostasis [20]. Cellular pathologic studies have found that upon ciliostasis, the cigarette contents inhaled become trapped in the lungs, which can cause cancer.
Third, carcinogenic chemicals have been found in cigarette smoke. In the 1930s, Angel Roffo identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present in cigarette smoke [20], and in 1952 researchers in the tobacco company Brown and Williamson, identified benzpyrene [22]. Afterwards, numerous carcinogens were identified through chemical analysis. Indeed, approximately 7,000 chemicals are produced during smoking, which may have harmful effects on human [23].
Scientific evidence for the causality between smoking and lung cancer is based on data from individuals and groups, studies in animals and humans, observational and experimental studies, studies in laboratories and communities, and studies in both underdeveloped and developed countries. Therefore, the denial of the causality between smoking and lung cancer cannot help but be considered denial of the current scientific knowledge system.
 
Fine.. Here is a great place to start. Its a research paper discussing exactly your premise.
I thought it a good place for you to start. The causality between smoking and lung cancer among groups and individuals: addressing issues in tobacco litigation in South Korea

here is an important excerpt from it.

Pure propaganda of the highest order. It can easily be disproved by demonstrating not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. If there was causal link, as you claim, then ALL smokers should have lung cancer. Since the overwhelming majority of smokers don't have lung cancer, and will never get lung cancer, it disproves your BS quite easily.

There is a statistical link because some people are more susceptible than others. Therefore, if given a large enough sample size, someone will invariably get lung cancer smoking cigarettes. But to claim a causal link is delusional at best.
 
I was reading this piece this morning talking about how the state of Michigan is banning all flavored vaping materials, except tobacco flavor; several other cities have enacted similar measures but it got me thinking. There's been some talk on the hazards of vaping - there's even been a death attributed to vaping.

So, I'm wondering why, if these entities are so attuned to the health concerns of their constituents, why only go after vaping. Don't far more people get sick and die from smoking tobacco? Why not ban the sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The percentage of people who smoke has been declining for a long time- why not just cut it to zero and be done with it?
Makes me wonder who is behind the whole thing. If people vape instead of smoke who loses money?

Other than for about two days in Navy boot camp I've never smoked or vaped so I plead ignorance as to the attraction addictiveness.


I hate to be cynical (no I don't) but is it possible that to our elected representatives tax revenues from the sale of cigarettes are more important than our health?


Thoughts?
Tobacco was America's first cash crop I don't think it's going anywhere.

Vape seems like a fad, though a long lingering one. It's possible that people who vape will never smoke maybe they would have if vaping wasn't available.
 
With vaping people are likely to up their nicotine addiction, making quitting smoking even harder.

Vape shop products are designed to make massive clouds of steam to maximize how often the customer has to buy more of the vaping liquid. Chemicals in that steam make for the flavors - and it is that massive dosages of those chemicals that are causing "popcorn" lung, which is what is harming and killing people.

It isn't that vaping itself is causing the harm, but the massive levels of chemical laced steam being produced - something that does not happen for those who vape marijuana.

Lol, where do you get your information from because just about everything in your post is straight up BS.

#1 Most people reduce the levels of nicotine as they vape because lower nicotine produces less of a throat hit.

2. There has NEVER been a single documented case of "Popcorn" lung caused from vaping.

3. The entire lung disease and death scare going on right now is caused from vaping cannabis oil not the typical nicotine e-juice.
 
Makes me wonder who is behind the whole thing. If people vape instead of smoke who loses money?


Tobacco was America's first cash crop I don't think it's going anywhere.

Vape seems like a fad, though a long lingering one. It's possible that people who vape will never smoke maybe they would have if vaping wasn't available.

The Government
 
It is quite funny to me. Michelle Obama made school lunches healthier and people lost their minds. Trump wants to ban flavored vape juice or whatever it is called and people applaud.

Helping kids eat healthy = bad
Banning adults from vaping = good

I'd love to hear the rationale from people on this.
 
Tobacco companies stand to lose more.

I doubt it. A pack of cigarettes would only cost around $2 if not for the extra taxes applied so that is a considerable drop in tax revenue. As for the tobacco companies, they are also in the vaping industry as well so while they are losing money it isn't as much as the government is losing out on.
 
I doubt it. A pack of cigarettes would only cost around $2 if not for the extra taxes applied so that is a considerable drop in tax revenue. As for the tobacco companies, they are also in the vaping industry as well so while they are losing money it isn't as much as the government is losing out on.

Well if people stop using tobacco products the tobacco industry dies the government collects taxes on everything else.
 
Only in your dreams. Fascists like to pretend there is a causal link so they can run roughshod over everyone's rights, but it is a deliberate lie. There has only been a statistical link, and not even a good one at that. There are no studies that show any sort of causal link, except in your delusional mind.

First, no one is stopping you from smoking.

Second, there are 70 cancer-causing ingredients in cigarettes, so...cigarettes CAN give you cancer...no matter if the argument statistical or causal.

Third, smoking is not a right, its a luxury. If a ban were to appear, your rights are not impacted. But your addiction might be....
 
I was reading this piece this morning talking about how the state of Michigan is banning all flavored vaping materials, except tobacco flavor; several other cities have enacted similar measures but it got me thinking. There's been some talk on the hazards of vaping - there's even been a death attributed to vaping.

So, I'm wondering why, if these entities are so attuned to the health concerns of their constituents, why only go after vaping. Don't far more people get sick and die from smoking tobacco? Why not ban the sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The percentage of people who smoke has been declining for a long time- why not just cut it to zero and be done with it?

Other than for about two days in Navy boot camp I've never smoked or vaped so I plead ignorance as to the attraction addictiveness.


I hate to be cynical (no I don't) but is it possible that to our elected representatives tax revenues from the sale of cigarettes are more important than our health?


Thoughts?

How about just not smoking and/or vaping. They are both nasty habits and it makes people smell like poop. :fart2
 
Pure propaganda of the highest order. It can easily be disproved by demonstrating not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. If there was causal link, as you claim, then ALL smokers should have lung cancer. t.

Nope.. that's not true. So not true. Thats not how the scientific process works. The article explains why you are wrong.

Let me give you an easy for you to understand example of what that's not true.

Patient A.. smokes.. gets lung cancer and dies of lung cancer at age 75.

Patient B smokes.. WOULD have got lung cancer.. in fact may have lung cancer but its undiagnosed.. and dies of a heart attack at age 72

Both patients.. IF they had been exactly identical.. would have DIED from lung cancer.

But that didn't happen because though patient B would have gotten a lung cancer diagnosis.. He died of a heart attack before the cancer was detectable.

Thats just an easy way to explain why you are so so wrong.. stating that a causal link would only be proved if ALL smokers have lung cancer.
 
That is a lie. There is no causal link, and there never has been. If their was a causal link, then everyone who smoked would contract cancer and that doesn't happen. What there is, is a statistical link. Some people who smoke get cancer, statistically. They can't tell you which ones, but some do get cancer by smoking if your sample size is large enough. Just like there is a statistical link between excessive consumption of processed meat and cancer. Some people who eat hamburger will also get cancer, statistically.

The last pulmonary exam I had the doctor told me I had the lungs of a 40 year-old non-smoker. I was 58 at the time and smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes per day for 47 years. I also had no problems passing my Marine Corps 3-mile runs for my physical fitness tests during the 1970s, while I smoked as I ran. Smoking had absolutely no effect on my lungs whatsoever. However, I also know statistically that smoking can effect people adversely. Some are much more susceptible to the chemicals in tobacco than others.

You have no idea what a causal link his.

:doh
 
Well if people stop using tobacco products the tobacco industry dies the government collects taxes on everything else.

Tobacco companies are already transitioning to vaping as that is the future for nicotine products. The government is really the only one losing out unless they begin taxing vape juice as they do cigarettes.
 
Tobacco companies are already transitioning to vaping as that is the future for nicotine products.
I'm sorry I still think they would much rather continue on the same business they've been doing for the past three hundred years versus retooling and having to find new suppliers and be at the mercy of the manufacturers of various vaping devices.

That makes more sense.

The government is really the only one losing out unless they begin taxing vape juice as they do cigarettes.
Some of the government loses unless they do exactly what they've always done. No I'm sorry it's the tobacco companies that stand to lose. All the government has to do is tax something else. As you figured out.
 
I'm sorry I still think they would much rather continue on the same business they've been doing for the past three hundred years versus retooling and having to find new suppliers and be at the mercy of the manufacturers of various vaping devices.

That makes more sense.


Some of the government loses unless they do exactly what they've always done. No I'm sorry it's the tobacco companies that stand to lose. All the government has to do is tax something else. As you figured out.

I'm sure they would rather keep the status quo but that isn't how things work.

I think you are missing the point I was making. For example, when you buy a $15 pack of Marlboros in New York, the vast majority of that money goes to the state and not Philip Morris. Eric Garner didn't die as a result of protecting Philip Morris's profit but the profits of the state.
 
I'm sure they would rather keep the status quo but that isn't how things work.
big industries if they have enough money they have enough clout to interfere with governance. It actually happens all the time.

I think you are missing the point I was making. For example, when you buy a $15 pack of Marlboros in New York, the vast majority of that money goes to the state and not Philip Morris. Eric Garner didn't die as a result of protecting Philip Morris's profit but the profits of the state.

If cigarettes disappeared tomorrow and all their ones was vape they would tax that just the same. So they wouldn't be losing anything the only people that would be losing the companies who makes the cigarettes.
 
big industries if they have enough money they have enough clout to interfere with governance. It actually happens all the time.



If cigarettes disappeared tomorrow and all their ones was vape they would tax that just the same. So they wouldn't be losing anything the only people that would be losing the companies who makes the cigarettes.

They are doing that now by using the CDC and media to promulgate the fear that vaping is the cause of these cases of lung disease and death when it has absolutely nothing to do with vaping nicotine products.

I'm not sure that the government would be able to tax it in the same way they do cigarettes. The last time someone tried to institute a new sin tax was the soda tax in Philly and it didn't go over so well.
 
They are doing that now by using the CDC and media to promulgate the fear that vaping is the cause of these cases of lung disease and death when it has absolutely nothing to do with vaping nicotine products.

I'm not sure that the government would be able to tax it in the same way they do cigarettes. The last time someone tried to institute a new sin tax was the soda tax in Philly and it didn't go over so well.
Sure they could just classify them as tobacco products.
 
Back
Top Bottom