Yes the evidence is there, you believe that hundreds of scientists tens of thousands of health workers from nurses to doctors to consultants world wide are all wrong but with your superior intellect you are right . You are self deluding in order to justify your filthy addiction. I am pissed off having to change & shower just to get the stink out of my hair & cloths after going out in public places amongst smokers, you are the bigots because you want what you want and sod everyone else
@trackend The evidence is not there, many enlighted doctors and nurses have the good sense to see that. Unfortunately a small minority of anti smoking bigots have told the same lies for so long that the majority of fools have fallen for it. For them (and you) it is a far easier option than actually bothering to check the science for yourself. And if you don't like going where smokers are, then don't. We don't want to smoke where we like, we just want property rights to be respected.
@HairyChestnuts what utter tosh you dont really have a clue do you why dont you just admit irrespective of facts that you will always ignore and claim are from the unenlightened of medical science world wide that you just want a fag and are desperate to justify your addiction by saying its ok for you. oh and before you replay the record ill say it for you bigot bigot bigot cut and paste
@trackend If you actually bothered to read the research you would be aware of the fact that your beloved science has already admitted that smoking is not addictive, it is only habit forming. But clearly you don't care about little things such as truth. PS: you provided me with some good examples of anti smoker ignorance and bigotry, but I am tired of reading your bile so I shall block you now. You can force your insults and ignorance on someone else. Goodbye.
I appologise I didnt realise that dying worried you so much surely it cant do you dont careless if it effects those around you. Also I am Sorry as I did not realise that you had a monopoly on education does your information on my education come from the same source as your infomation on the health effects of smoking however much you like to be an ostrich smoking is a killer & instead of trying to justifiy your addiction by rambling just say I like a fag and if it effects others I dont care.
@trackend There is no evidence of anything you say regarding smoking, you are simply a blinkered fool that gladly accepts the anti smoking lies to justify your own bigotry. It is you that needs to pull your head out of the sand. Smokers pay over 10 billion in tax, yet the most far fetched costs made up by the anti smoking uk government is less than 3 billion. PS: Every body dies, even ignorant bigots.
Please increase your intake of snouts as much as possible 80-90 a day should do the trick so you have fatal a heart attack rather than long lasting emphysema or cancer with all those bottles of oxygen and nursing care and using up inhalers every five paces. that way the rest of us won't have to foot such a big treatment bill & before you say it the amount raised in tax from fags does not even come close to covering the cost of treating smoking related complaints so please die quickly , thanks
I daresay, I would rather enjoy travelling to Britain and enjoying a pint and a smoke with you. I may not agree with you on every level, but at least you make your points clearly and with a healthy sense of humor. Slainte!
All that said, I believe it is the right of an establishment to OK or ban smoking and should not be dictated by the government. I enjoyed your video and the your point of view. The warning on the cigarette packet is nonsense but at the same time, I think you are rationalizing your addiction. I am a smoker who is seeking alternatives like the e-cig, simply because my genes say I will get emphysema if I continue, as evidenced by my Mother, who is tied to an oxygen tank 24-7.
The carcinogens in cigarettes are mainly derived from the the 500+ additives tobacco companies use. That said, let's be honest. Lighting up and inhaling smoke of any type simply can't be a good thing. I do believe however, that genetics determines a great amount of predisposition to contracting cancer. Prolonged smoking though, is simply bad for your lungs. All that said, it's about choices. If you wish to smoke, have at it.
When the government says 'Smoking kills', it doesn't really make sense, because what it should really say is 'Smoking can kill you'. What they are going on is the age old statistics that link cigarette smoking to lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and stroke. I am a smoker myself, and I make no mistake about the fact that there is around about a 50/50 chance that Smoking will kill you, these facts are unescapable but it is unfair to deprive someone of an attachment (pint and a smoke).
@deppressed1 Just because you hate some people is no reason to shout out at everybody? I get pissed off too at people when they try to tell me how to run my life. You quit smoking? Good for you, but you don't put other people down because they smoke or eat fast food or whatever? Because at the end we all end up dead anyway of something or another? I've seen physically fit athletes die in their sleep in their 30s! So just let people live the way they want cause life is temperary for all of us!
@deppressed1 Bye Bye. Run along then. And while you're away, why not take the trouble to make and upload some videos of your own, rather than trolling youtube in search of others to insult with your shallow and ill informed nonsense.
@deppressed1 Clearly you are one of those people that believe anything you hear. You gave up smoking after being indoctrinated by the lies of the anti smoking lobby, without ever bothering to question their bogus statements. You would rather accept any old rubbish your see or hear on TV than actrually take the time to think and learn for yourself.
@deppressed1 And two months ago, while you were a smoker, did you enjoy it when ill educated fools looked at you with disdain and called you an idiot? Of course not, so why do you now consider it perfectly acceptable to insult others? Typical behaviour from the ex smoker.
@deppressed1 Is that the best you can come up with? "Smoking is bad"? May I suggest you run along and learn a thing or two before wasting my time and that of others with such empty and shallow statements.
In 85 I just got off work at 3 am. Driving home, I was stopped at a red light & reached for a cigarette. The light turned green but I did not go on right away because I was searching for my lighter in my purse. I found it, lit my cigarette & proceeded to step on the gas to go when all of a sudden a bus went right through the red light. He stopped & so did I....He apologised as I carefully drove around him. Now if I drove when that light turned green? I would be dead now for 25 years!
@woden20 Cheers :-) The Antis have squandered far more time and money on trying to PROVE smoking kills, than has ever been spent trying to prove the existance of the Lochness monster. With exactly the same result, fuck all.
hate to burst your bubble but smoking kills from its harmful substances, its assumed thats what they mean because that is what the comments are based on, but doesnt matter to me you go ahead and smoke and increase your chances of dying young because it is more likely youll die early and have less quality of life from smoking than getting hit by a bus
@chizzy555 Now for the sake of argument Let's say it is proven smokers die younger ( which is not proven) but I give you that ! WTF is it to you ? I cannot comprehend you War makes people die Famine makes people die car accidents make people die Murderess make people die Where is the ban on war ? The ban on Famine ? The ban on cars ? get a life please and do something worthwhile !
I notice you left off the crucial part of the title.
"Mortality from Tobacco in Developed Countries, an indirect ESTIMATION".
And the lead researcher is R Peto. HIs estimates are legendary for their rediculousness. He once managed to make an estimate of mortality from SHS in the UK that actually matched the anual death figures. Thus through his junk guesses we would to be imortal were it not for SHS.
Had Richard Peto actually bothered to check what the deaths from all causes were that year, he would have refrianed from publishing his trash. But he didn't bother and succesfully proved himself to be a fruad.
Wow, you sound like someone who is trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. Breathing dangerous car fumes can kill people after years, should we ban your cars for it? So that millions could die of starvation just to stem a CHANCE of cancer? Do you think about the poor places that lots of this tobacco comes from? The communities that will be destroyed just cause of a lack of choice? Maybe you need to do more than cite a few studies in the sea of forged studies thanks to Gov. B.S.
I couldn't care less. As I've already said, I havn't got any.
Rather than waste time trying to invent hypothetical questions set in a fictional world, how about answering a simple question based in the real world.
You believe smoking causes lung cancer. Name one single scientific study that proves it? I guarentee you can't.
children smoking is not a hypothetical question. children smoke in the real world. and you don't care, you think they should carry on smoking, you'd give a cigarette to a child and encourage him/her to smoke, if there were no legal consequences to you. I think you should be worried more about the impact of cigarettes on your brain cells, rather than your lungs. you are undoubtedly out of reality.
You are clearly a fantasist and can't distinguish between what I wrote, and what you wish I'd wrote, I repeat, "I couldn't care less, I havn't got any". I note you do not provide the name of a single study that supports your fantasy about smoke causing cancer.
you did write that you couldn't care less about the children. as I said earlier, smokers are utterly selfish. instead of trying to change the laws and making-up worldwide conspiracies, leave politics to responsible people who do care, boy.
You did it again. Trying to blame me for something I didn't write.
I'll repeat it yet again, "I couldn't care less, I havn't got any".
Do you understand that sentence? You seem to be struggling. Let me help you. I havn't got any children, so I don't care. See, that wasn't too hard was it. Now provide me with the name of a single study that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
well, you couldn't care less about children smoking,because you don't have any. how are you going to explain your theories to people who do have children?
I ask you a question about the children and you say that the reason you don't care is because you don't have any. your response would be irrelevant to people who have children, or care about them. In other words - 99% of the population. that's why your gibberish wouldn't fly in the real world. do your own research, WHO reports, etc.
Ah! The WHO. I'm glad you brought them up. All WHO commisioned studies have failed to prove smoking causes cancer. However, their largest staudy ever carried out into secondhand smoke, while it failed to demonstrate any risk, it did demonstrate that children brought up in smoking households are less likely to develop respiratory diseases in later life.
Give me the name of a single study that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
which WHO studies have failed? Name them. What is "the largest study ever carried"? Name it. There are a myriad fact proving smoking is harmful : from the chemical structure of a cigarette, to the statistics, to the fact that smokers cough, to the operated throat of my grandfather. It's called common sense. Can you name one single study which proves that sitting on a hot stove would hurt your buttocks?
Who COMMISIONED studies. All of them. The largest I refered to was the "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe" spanning 39 years of retrospective data it failed to provide the risk they sought, so they simply ignored their own research and falsly reported that it did. I go beyond reports and look at the studies behind them. You clearly do not.
I will find all the same unsubstantiated reports I've already read. What they fail to do is provide the actual study data. This I have also already read and it only demonstrates a lack of actual scientic facts.
You accept things because you are told they are true. I accept things only when I can see the proof they are true true.
Now name a single study that proves smoking causes cancer.
You misunderstand yet again. All the REPORTS are unsubstantiated, because the studies they are based on do not substaniate their conclusions.
Carcinogens, are by definition, are only suspected to cause cancer because as yet no-one knows what causes cancer.
Those found in cigarette smoke are in too small a quantity to even be considered a true risk factor. There's already vastly higher levels in the air we breath every day of our lives.
One at a time please. You are obviously not taking the time to read these studies are you. If you were you would not have chosen this waste of space. The first paragraph says it all when it describes itself as an ESTIMATE. This word appears three times in that intro paragraph alone. And further reading of each of the methodology sections ESTIMATE crops up with abundance. In other words what they can't prove they estimate (guess).
you asked for studies, I provided you with them. You're obviously in denial, just as every other drug addict is. it's the nicotine in your system that's talking. don't worry, pal, there are institutions that can help you. mental, you know...
Not years ago, over the last three years. And for your information, nicotine is not addictive. Another lie that you have fallen for. You denialists are all the same, you happily believe any nonsense thrown your way, but never dare to question whare that nonsense comes from. If you did, your world would collapse around you.
And I'm still waiting for a study that actually proves smoking causes cancer. Not a link to an anti smoking website, or yet another estimate.
Nicotine is addictive, just as alcohol is. If you think that I'm going to waste my time proving every simple fact, you're wrong. I provided you with studies, it's up to you to do the reading. I'm done with you.
You ask me what I would do if I had a child (which I don't), and lived in a world without law (which I don't), and in this world children could be trusted to never have an accident with fire (which it isn't).
That's nothing but hypothetical. You may as well ask what colour hat would I wear if I was six inches tall and lived in a shoe?
it's not hypothetical. you don't see anything wrong with children smoking. you're either playing dumb, or you're so delusional, that you can't even grasp the essence of a simple question.
The assumption that childhood smoking is harmfull to their health is hypothetical. Whereas the exitance of law and fire risks are very real indeed. By removing these real factors, yet leaving only a hypothetical and unproven health risk. You reveal yet more lack of understanding. I see whats wrong with real and proven things, you fear the hypothetical. When are you going to provide me with the name of a single study that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
listen, FAG, smokers die younger than 1) people who don't smoke, 2) they would've lived if they didn't smoke. I'm not going to watch all the rubbish you've put on the internet, just keep your smoke away from non-smokers. Smoking shows 1) utter selfishness, 2)stupidity, 3)disrespect for life.
My grandfather barely survived throat cancer and he hasn't been able to speak for almost 20 years already. Very cool, isn't it?
Your Grandfather survived throat cancer and still lives twenty years after. Good for him, but whats that got to do with smoking? By your own admission it didn't kill him.
he barely survived it, millions other die of cancer each year. he's currently unable to speak and he was a smoker, before he was diagnosed. it's not only about longevity, but about life quality as well. smoking always harms your health. I live next to a mountain and it's very sad to see young people running out of oxygen after 5 minutes of hiking. There are old people in better shape!
You make two false assumptions. First you assume your grandfathers cancer was caused by his smoking despite no evidence to support such an assumption (bare in mind no link between smoking and cancer has ever been proven). And second you seem to assume young peoples lack of fitness is attributable to smoking. I was an army training instructor at 35 and could outrun my 18yr old recruits yet few of them smoked.
obviously, I can't put medical reports on YT, can I? And it's not my problem that you didn't bother to research.Tar is a carcinogen, hence it causes cancer. It might not be the only substance that causes cancer,it might not ALWAYS cause cancer, but it does.What kind of evidence would satisfy you? What substance is proven to cause cancer by your standards?Smoking does affect your lung capacity, so you would run out of oxygen faster than if you didn't smoke. Do you have kids?Do you let them smoke?
Tar does not exist in cigarette smoke, the residue that forms on the filter was originally called "tar" for want of a word. It is not actual Tar. There are a few carcinogens in cigarette smoke, but in such microscopic quantities they are harmless. Not one single study has ever managed to prove smoking causes any form of cancer, but some have established multiple health benefits from smoking.
Again, there is no actual tar in cigarettes, only a residue that has been named tar for want of a better word.
And in answer to your question, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. Many things have been statisticly demonstrated to be risk factors to high or low degrees. But interestingly, smoking is not actually one of them. All the studies can be read and examined in full, and the lack of medical knowledge about cancer is the most obvious conclusion.
At least you accept the truth. If X caused Y then without X, Y would not occur. However, non smokers get cancer (including lung cancer) all the time. So something else must be the cause. But what? Nobody knows so they choose the easy option of ignoring the inconvenient discrepency and just blame smoking regardless.
An academic question can only result in an academic answer. I would have no option but to stop the child from smoking, as to allow him is illegal and would result in him/her being taken into state care.
Even in your entirely fictional (and irrelevent) world without unjust laws and state interference, you overlook the obvious risk of allowing children to play with fire. Only a fool would hand a kid anything that burns and say "get on with it".
lol, you are obviously dodging my real question. I'm not asking you about the legal consequences or the risk of children playing with fire. Would you like children to smoke?
I LOVE your videos and I hate cigs. Its the principle of the thing. What about a day of massive civil disobedience? You pick a day and get a couple hundred thousand to commit to smoke in pubs, the owners call the bobbies and complain and everyone has a grand old time. If anybody gets arrested, have an organization already set up to pay bails etc.
Let all free men rise up to the Statists and say "Come and Get Us!"
I have seen a few of your videos and I tend to agree with your libertarian values. However, to deny that cigarettes have any effect on health is ridiculous. My father was a heavy smoker for most of his life and he used to start every morning with a ten minute cough where he would go blue in the face and bring up thick phlegm. He had a 'smoker's wheeze' too. A year or so after he gave up, in his sixties, the cough disappeared. Coincidence? I don't think so. Many people have the same experience.
Also, you cannot deny that smoking makes you stink. I like going to the pub and coming home without all my clothes and my hair reeking of smoke.
Having said that, I am against the smoking ban in pubs. Pubs should be allowed to have smoking rooms indoors and not force people out into the cold and rain to have a ciggie.
I have sympathy for your feelings but your arguments are very poor.
Another piece of fiction, Jean. Since smoking prevalence has plumetted over the last forty years, how do you explain the massive increase in lung cancer cases? Oh I forgot, you're an anti smoker, so you can't explain anything.
In Great Britain, lung cancer rates for males have fallen by 46% from 113 per 100,000 in 1975 to 61 in 2006. This correlates with male reduction in smoking. Over the same time period female lung cancer incidence rates have risen by 64% from 23 to 37 per 100,000 population. This correlates with female increase in smoking.
61 is less than half of 113, yet in the time frame you provide smoking prevalence amoungst male smokers has dropped by more than that (and has only recently begun to rise sinse the smoking ban).
Your female figures would suggest a doubling of smoking rates, which is simply not the case.
These figures come from the anti smoking handbook and do not equate with reality.
But most importantly, your figures (even the highest at 113 per 100,000) are patheticly small.
Actually, the drop in smoking prevalence fits very nicely with the above figures. In summary, you now admit the falsity of your claim regarding "a massive increase in iung cancer cases" despite an overall reduction in smoking.
No, as I pointed out, they're rubbish stats from the lobby groups. They completely ignore the global rise in all cancers (including lung). They don't fit with reality, let alone smoking rates.
If we accept your silly figures at face value and addopt your junk methodology of narrowing your test group to Britain only, and then follow your distorted logic of simply guestimating a correlation. We could equally determine that lung cancer rates are directly caused by the increase in women taking over traditionally male employment roles.
Hmmm! So using your un scientific science we find that equal oportunities cause lung cancer and therefore should be banned.
Tobacco smoke contains more than 60 known carcinogens. Smokers regularly inhale these carcinogens into their lungs. And smokers are far and away the group most afflicted with lung cancer. This correlation exists cross culturally among smokers -- regardless of the state of working women. So, we cannot "equally determine" that the change in women's working roles affects lung cancer rates as we can that inhaling carcinogenic tobcco smoke on a chronic basis causes lung cancer.
60 known carcinogens (most carcinogens are only suspected by definition), yet in what quantities? Negligable! So stop quoting cigarette packs and wake up to the fact that you probably either consume or inhale a miniscule amount of almost every single carcinogen each and every day of your life.
But more importantly, I wish your figures were true because they clearly demonstrate how low the risk of lung cancer is amoungst smokers.
Take your male lung cancer figure, 61 out of 100,000, thats .0061%. If we assume it's not all due to smoking, then we can bump up the number by applying the favourite anti smoking line of "Smoking increases you chances of contracting lung cancer by up to 25%". This gives us a final figure of .007525%. In other words Fuck all.
If lung cancer was the only risk inhering to smoking, the scientists and medical experts and public policy makers might say "fuck all," as well -- and hit the pubs. The problem is the sheer volume of health problems caused by smoking, such as COPD, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer of the tongue, throat, lips, stomach, pancreas, liver, etc. and the concomitant personal and public cost of these terrble illnesses. Any of this making sense to you, dum-dum?
Yes dum-dum, it makes perfect sense. You are incapable of independent thought, so you simply repeat the same failed garbage from your favourite lobby group. By simply reeling off a list of ailments and blaming them on smoking without a single shread of actual evidence to prove this blame, all you achieve is clearly demonstrate your lack of inteligence.
Why would I deny the Holocaust? The death toll was undeniable. You can't hide a million bodies.
On the other hand, your deranged friends cannot find a single provable death from smoking.
It is you and your ilk that are the denialists. You constantly deny the fact that you have squandered millions trying to prove a risk from smoking but have completely failed to do so.
Carry on burying your head in the sand if you wish, but sooner or later you will die (regardless of whether you smoke or not).
Burying my head in the sand? What world do you live in, you fool? No provable deaths from smoking? Say that to any pulmonologist and he'll laugh you out of the room. But it will be a grim laugh, since he spends half his time trying to palliate incurable lung ailments of dim-witts like you. You're entertaining because you flaunt your total ignorance with the camp of Liberace. But you're only fooling yourself. I hope you don't develop emphysema. But you probably will. Keep us posted.
Ha ha, you denialists are all the same. Whenever your rubbish arguments fall apart you resort to the usual feeble insults (If you think calling someone Liberace an insult).
Sometimes I think of blocking you just for a laugh. But I'm not that cruel, I know you'd be lost without me. That's why you subscribed after all.
Here here...hear... my good man. I found your logic compelling. I will endeavour to smoke a lot more than I used to. Thanks to your straight forward assasination of the governments lies. Don't take off the uniform....The south will rise!!
I've seen arguments against and for smoking. In the end, it just depends on the individual: certain people withstand carcinogens better than others. So wouldn't it make sense to look for what it is in the human body that handles these carcinogens well as opposed to just saying that certain people cannot? It seems pessimistic to just say, "People have died because of smoking!" instead of, "Wow! Certain people can withstand carcinogens better than others!"
Agreed. I am a part time smoker, but I understand the dangers. I think this video is addressing cigarette packet warnings, but there is a crafty insinuation inserted that smokers will not die from smoking any more than they would be likely to die from being hit by a car/bus, which is false.
Remember about ten or twelve years ago when a woman named Anne died in France at age 124? She'd been the world's oldest living person for several years before she passed.
I love history. i found out that winston churchchill died at 90, at first i was shocked. he smoked a lot. then there is my grandfather who smokes like a pack a day and he is over 80 years old. the whole "smoking kills doesn't add up to what i have notice.
The fact that smokers aren't dying like they keep telling us we should, is a constant cause of annoyance to the anti smoking movement. Unfortunately, they're know taking steps to ensure that we die, through the compulsory introduction of so called fire safe cigarettes. These are apparently laced with acroliene, which gives off poisonous fumes when ignited. In the 20+ US states that have introduced them, smokers are experiencing coughs, sickness and general ill health.
the fact isnt right. it isnt that smokers die younger.. it is smokers are MORE LIKELY to get cancer and die younger because there are 40 carcinogens [cancer causers] in ciggarettes. this doesnt mean that EVERYONE who smokes will die young. it just means they have more of a chance than non smokers.
The worlds longest living people were all smokers. After fifty years of trying to prove smoking kills, no research has done so. Experiments on animals however, did reveal that rats permanently exposed to high levels of tobacco smoke, not only lived longer, but also demonstrated improved inteligence over their non exposed counterparts. Tobacco is not the big killer the antis would have you believe, Nicky.
Thats all just a gamble...my grandfather (a very heavy smoker)died at 89,... on the other hand someone i loved dearly died recently from a direct result of his smoking. Sure... the act of smoking dosnt kill you.. its the chemicles that cause mutations in genes that do! Cigarettes contain alot of mutagens. Im not gonna go on about it..u make me cry.
By the way smoking in a bath of petrol wont kill you... the fire/explosion is what will kill you......do ya get it???
I'm glad I'm still free to tie a rubber band to my ass and jump off a bridge, or jump out of a perfectly good airplane for a rush, take a little plastic wing device and run off a cliff, or throw myself in a rubber raft and hurtle down a raging river into some rocks... but the government needs to protect me from cigarettes because they're "dangerous"... how about that phoney Iraq war of theirs, how about that crap... they'd love me to enlist to go put myself in danger for that bs...
A very strange comment, tom4342. I clearly explain how a the statement "Smokers die younger" is an unfinished sentence and you say "dumbass". If you paid more attention in school, you would understand that. By the way, you should have spelt dumbass with a capital "D".
A very strange comment, HairyChestnuts. You said "I clearly emplain how a the statement" You put an 'a' in where it isnt supposed to be. Also smokers die younger isnt a unfinished sentance. It basicly means you wont live as long as the average normal people.
Yes the "a" was a type error, but as I said "smokers die younger" is an unfinished sentence. The same as "Trees grow taller" or "cakes are nicer". Without a point of reference, such statements are meaningless. And could you define "average normal people"? Because I can't, and it would be arrogant and bigoted for me to try.
And that's not even "passive smoking" lies. That's 20 a day, "I smoke tabs, me" full-on smoking. And their figures still don't add up. This whole "passive smoking" pseudo science debacle has had me looking at research into "active" smoking, and some of the numbers (like incidence of cancer) seem bogus, too. For actual smoking! I'm going to look at heart disease next. Smoking must be bad for something....
Smoking is bad because it makes you die younger than the average person. It also makes you get tar in your lungs, your breath stinks and you will have stained teeth, and a brown face. Fags are for people who wanna fit in because they are depressed.
ASH say a third of cancer cases can be attributed to smoking. So in a country where 22-25% of the country smokes, 33% of the people who get cancer are smokers? That doesn't look like an enormous link to me. Throw in the fact that EVERY smoker who gets cancer has their condition attributed to smoking, when even their own figures suggest that a large proportion of those smokers would have gotten cancer anyway and you can see where even this small difference can be explained. NO MORE LIES!
Despite what the antis say, all the evidence contradicts them. Fifty years of brainwashing people into being afraid of smoke has cemented the lie. But they've pushed people too far with their smoking bans, and we are waking up to the fruad.
While passive smoking is a lie I was a little puzzled by your contention in this video. Until I did some research. The average life expectancy for a Briton is 77.7 (US CENSUS DATABASE), yet in Japan (50% of adult males smoke) it is 80.7. I then looked up other heavy smoking nations... The good ol' French - (40% smoke) LE is 78.8. "Ah," the ASH Nazis will say. "They have better diets than us." But then what does that prove? That diet is a factor, not smoking?
Amazing video! That's the way I feel. You die when your number comes up. Nothing you can do to change that. Sucks that you guys have to deal with that smoking ban over there. It's complete BS!!
Btw, were those American Spirit? Greatest cigs on the planet. Try the periques (black packs) they're great!
I love American Spirits but they're hard to get over here. They are found in specialist tobacco shops and very ocasionally other shops might get a few in.
I've only ever seen the blue and yellow packs, I'll have to look out for black. Cheers mate :-)
Great video as always. One comment I'd like to make though is, if you are sitting in a tin bath full of petrol, wouldn't it be the lighter or match flame that would ultimately kill you rather than the cigarette? Just a thought :o)
Yes the evidence is there, you believe that hundreds of scientists tens of thousands of health workers from nurses to doctors to consultants world wide are all wrong but with your superior intellect you are right . You are self deluding in order to justify your filthy addiction. I am pissed off having to change & shower just to get the stink out of my hair & cloths after going out in public places amongst smokers, you are the bigots because you want what you want and sod everyone else
trackend 6 months ago
@trackend The evidence is not there, many enlighted doctors and nurses have the good sense to see that. Unfortunately a small minority of anti smoking bigots have told the same lies for so long that the majority of fools have fallen for it. For them (and you) it is a far easier option than actually bothering to check the science for yourself. And if you don't like going where smokers are, then don't. We don't want to smoke where we like, we just want property rights to be respected.
HairyChestnuts 6 months ago
@HairyChestnuts what utter tosh you dont really have a clue do you why dont you just admit irrespective of facts that you will always ignore and claim are from the unenlightened of medical science world wide that you just want a fag and are desperate to justify your addiction by saying its ok for you. oh and before you replay the record ill say it for you bigot bigot bigot cut and paste
trackend 6 months ago
@trackend If you actually bothered to read the research you would be aware of the fact that your beloved science has already admitted that smoking is not addictive, it is only habit forming. But clearly you don't care about little things such as truth. PS: you provided me with some good examples of anti smoker ignorance and bigotry, but I am tired of reading your bile so I shall block you now. You can force your insults and ignorance on someone else. Goodbye.
HairyChestnuts 6 months ago
I appologise I didnt realise that dying worried you so much surely it cant do you dont careless if it effects those around you. Also I am Sorry as I did not realise that you had a monopoly on education does your information on my education come from the same source as your infomation on the health effects of smoking however much you like to be an ostrich smoking is a killer & instead of trying to justifiy your addiction by rambling just say I like a fag and if it effects others I dont care.
trackend 6 months ago
@trackend There is no evidence of anything you say regarding smoking, you are simply a blinkered fool that gladly accepts the anti smoking lies to justify your own bigotry. It is you that needs to pull your head out of the sand. Smokers pay over 10 billion in tax, yet the most far fetched costs made up by the anti smoking uk government is less than 3 billion. PS: Every body dies, even ignorant bigots.
HairyChestnuts 6 months ago
Please increase your intake of snouts as much as possible 80-90 a day should do the trick so you have fatal a heart attack rather than long lasting emphysema or cancer with all those bottles of oxygen and nursing care and using up inhalers every five paces. that way the rest of us won't have to foot such a big treatment bill & before you say it the amount raised in tax from fags does not even come close to covering the cost of treating smoking related complaints so please die quickly , thanks
trackend 6 months ago
@trackend And please get yourself some form of rudimentary education before you post any more hate filled bile wishing death on people.
HairyChestnuts 6 months ago
I daresay, I would rather enjoy travelling to Britain and enjoying a pint and a smoke with you. I may not agree with you on every level, but at least you make your points clearly and with a healthy sense of humor. Slainte!
RonG40 9 months ago
All that said, I believe it is the right of an establishment to OK or ban smoking and should not be dictated by the government. I enjoyed your video and the your point of view. The warning on the cigarette packet is nonsense but at the same time, I think you are rationalizing your addiction. I am a smoker who is seeking alternatives like the e-cig, simply because my genes say I will get emphysema if I continue, as evidenced by my Mother, who is tied to an oxygen tank 24-7.
RonG40 9 months ago
The carcinogens in cigarettes are mainly derived from the the 500+ additives tobacco companies use. That said, let's be honest. Lighting up and inhaling smoke of any type simply can't be a good thing. I do believe however, that genetics determines a great amount of predisposition to contracting cancer. Prolonged smoking though, is simply bad for your lungs. All that said, it's about choices. If you wish to smoke, have at it.
RonG40 9 months ago
When the government says 'Smoking kills', it doesn't really make sense, because what it should really say is 'Smoking can kill you'. What they are going on is the age old statistics that link cigarette smoking to lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and stroke. I am a smoker myself, and I make no mistake about the fact that there is around about a 50/50 chance that Smoking will kill you, these facts are unescapable but it is unfair to deprive someone of an attachment (pint and a smoke).
MatthewDavidParr 1 year ago
Wow a true idiot, smoke dummy smoke !
Sliderstone86 1 year ago
@deppressed1 Just because you hate some people is no reason to shout out at everybody? I get pissed off too at people when they try to tell me how to run my life. You quit smoking? Good for you, but you don't put other people down because they smoke or eat fast food or whatever? Because at the end we all end up dead anyway of something or another? I've seen physically fit athletes die in their sleep in their 30s! So just let people live the way they want cause life is temperary for all of us!
Godzie1 1 year ago
@deppressed1
Phil is not an idiot & you have no right to say so.
Plus the only thing that is bad on here is your spelling stupid & get educated!
Godzie1 1 year ago
Everbody dies younger than the japs. Get it?
Wintercalypso 1 year ago
@deppressed1 Bye Bye. Run along then. And while you're away, why not take the trouble to make and upload some videos of your own, rather than trolling youtube in search of others to insult with your shallow and ill informed nonsense.
HairyChestnuts 1 year ago
@deppressed1 Clearly you are one of those people that believe anything you hear. You gave up smoking after being indoctrinated by the lies of the anti smoking lobby, without ever bothering to question their bogus statements. You would rather accept any old rubbish your see or hear on TV than actrually take the time to think and learn for yourself.
HairyChestnuts 1 year ago
@deppressed1 And two months ago, while you were a smoker, did you enjoy it when ill educated fools looked at you with disdain and called you an idiot? Of course not, so why do you now consider it perfectly acceptable to insult others? Typical behaviour from the ex smoker.
HairyChestnuts 1 year ago
@deppressed1 Is that the best you can come up with? "Smoking is bad"? May I suggest you run along and learn a thing or two before wasting my time and that of others with such empty and shallow statements.
HairyChestnuts 1 year ago
all of the people who thinking its bad take a shit and die.
the tax smokers pay thats what kills them and NOT and not anything else.
smoker live forever
smoking 4 life BIATCH
Dolmo11 1 year ago
I think that if u eat right and exercise then if your a smoker u should see a long life
playingod1 1 year ago
In 85 I just got off work at 3 am. Driving home, I was stopped at a red light & reached for a cigarette. The light turned green but I did not go on right away because I was searching for my lighter in my purse. I found it, lit my cigarette & proceeded to step on the gas to go when all of a sudden a bus went right through the red light. He stopped & so did I....He apologised as I carefully drove around him. Now if I drove when that light turned green? I would be dead now for 25 years!
Godzie1 1 year ago
@Godzie1 In other words? Smoking saved my life!
Godzie1 1 year ago
It is far more dangerous coming up to me when i ain't had a fag and telling me what i can and can't do.
Fuck off you non smoking Nazis
Good Video Geezer
woden20 1 year ago
@woden20 Cheers :-) The Antis have squandered far more time and money on trying to PROVE smoking kills, than has ever been spent trying to prove the existance of the Lochness monster. With exactly the same result, fuck all.
HairyChestnuts 1 year ago
hate to burst your bubble but smoking kills from its harmful substances, its assumed thats what they mean because that is what the comments are based on, but doesnt matter to me you go ahead and smoke and increase your chances of dying young because it is more likely youll die early and have less quality of life from smoking than getting hit by a bus
chizzy555 1 year ago
@chizzy555 I hate to burst your bubble but you've been lied to and indoctrinated by bigots.
HairyChestnuts 1 year ago
@chizzy555 Does not matter if you smoke or not. We all die & people who smoked lived to see 100. So sorry your brainwashed.
Godzie1 1 year ago
@Godzie1 just because a few lucked out isnt proof that smoking isnt deadly
chizzy555 1 year ago
@chizzy555 Now for the sake of argument Let's say it is proven smokers die younger ( which is not proven) but I give you that ! WTF is it to you ? I cannot comprehend you War makes people die Famine makes people die car accidents make people die Murderess make people die Where is the ban on war ? The ban on Famine ? The ban on cars ? get a life please and do something worthwhile !
mizz77anna 1 year ago
I deffinately agree with you, there are alot of stupid people out there who believe everything that is put in front of them.
wasfrom 2 years ago
Above The Law posted as a video response to this great understated video deals with another bit of bullshit. Speeding!! Do enjoy yourselves!!
BeyondRealityMusic 2 years ago
Peto, R., A. D. Lopez, J. Boreham, M. Thun, and C. Heath, Jr. (1992). "Mortality from Tobacco in Developed Countries"
search it.
nickyripper 2 years ago
I notice you left off the crucial part of the title.
"Mortality from Tobacco in Developed Countries, an indirect ESTIMATION".
And the lead researcher is R Peto. HIs estimates are legendary for their rediculousness. He once managed to make an estimate of mortality from SHS in the UK that actually matched the anual death figures. Thus through his junk guesses we would to be imortal were it not for SHS.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
sure,sure. I bet you even know him personally and he stole the silver spoons from your house.
nickyripper 2 years ago
Had Richard Peto actually bothered to check what the deaths from all causes were that year, he would have refrianed from publishing his trash. But he didn't bother and succesfully proved himself to be a fruad.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Wow, you sound like someone who is trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. Breathing dangerous car fumes can kill people after years, should we ban your cars for it? So that millions could die of starvation just to stem a CHANCE of cancer? Do you think about the poor places that lots of this tobacco comes from? The communities that will be destroyed just cause of a lack of choice? Maybe you need to do more than cite a few studies in the sea of forged studies thanks to Gov. B.S.
theangrygimp 2 years ago
I couldn't care less. As I've already said, I havn't got any.
Rather than waste time trying to invent hypothetical questions set in a fictional world, how about answering a simple question based in the real world.
You believe smoking causes lung cancer. Name one single scientific study that proves it? I guarentee you can't.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
children smoking is not a hypothetical question. children smoke in the real world. and you don't care, you think they should carry on smoking, you'd give a cigarette to a child and encourage him/her to smoke, if there were no legal consequences to you. I think you should be worried more about the impact of cigarettes on your brain cells, rather than your lungs. you are undoubtedly out of reality.
nickyripper 2 years ago
You are clearly a fantasist and can't distinguish between what I wrote, and what you wish I'd wrote, I repeat, "I couldn't care less, I havn't got any". I note you do not provide the name of a single study that supports your fantasy about smoke causing cancer.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
you did write that you couldn't care less about the children. as I said earlier, smokers are utterly selfish. instead of trying to change the laws and making-up worldwide conspiracies, leave politics to responsible people who do care, boy.
nickyripper 2 years ago
You did it again. Trying to blame me for something I didn't write.
I'll repeat it yet again, "I couldn't care less, I havn't got any".
Do you understand that sentence? You seem to be struggling. Let me help you. I havn't got any children, so I don't care. See, that wasn't too hard was it. Now provide me with the name of a single study that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
well, you couldn't care less about children smoking,because you don't have any. how are you going to explain your theories to people who do have children?
nickyripper 2 years ago
And what theory would that be? You're the one that is making up hypothetical questions.
Don't forget to name one single study that proves smoking causes cancer.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
I ask you a question about the children and you say that the reason you don't care is because you don't have any. your response would be irrelevant to people who have children, or care about them. In other words - 99% of the population. that's why your gibberish wouldn't fly in the real world. do your own research, WHO reports, etc.
nickyripper 2 years ago
Ah! The WHO. I'm glad you brought them up. All WHO commisioned studies have failed to prove smoking causes cancer. However, their largest staudy ever carried out into secondhand smoke, while it failed to demonstrate any risk, it did demonstrate that children brought up in smoking households are less likely to develop respiratory diseases in later life.
Give me the name of a single study that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
which WHO studies have failed? Name them. What is "the largest study ever carried"? Name it. There are a myriad fact proving smoking is harmful : from the chemical structure of a cigarette, to the statistics, to the fact that smokers cough, to the operated throat of my grandfather. It's called common sense. Can you name one single study which proves that sitting on a hot stove would hurt your buttocks?
nickyripper 2 years ago
Who COMMISIONED studies. All of them. The largest I refered to was the "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe" spanning 39 years of retrospective data it failed to provide the risk they sought, so they simply ignored their own research and falsly reported that it did. I go beyond reports and look at the studies behind them. You clearly do not.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
at info[dot]cancerresearchuk[dot]org you'd find a lot of info. happy reading.
nickyripper 2 years ago
I will find all the same unsubstantiated reports I've already read. What they fail to do is provide the actual study data. This I have also already read and it only demonstrates a lack of actual scientic facts.
You accept things because you are told they are true. I accept things only when I can see the proof they are true true.
Now name a single study that proves smoking causes cancer.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
of course, all studies that do not pertain to your view are "unsubstantiated".
all the substances in tobacco smoke that are called carcinogens. they cause cancer.
nickyripper 2 years ago
You misunderstand yet again. All the REPORTS are unsubstantiated, because the studies they are based on do not substaniate their conclusions.
Carcinogens, are by definition, are only suspected to cause cancer because as yet no-one knows what causes cancer.
Those found in cigarette smoke are in too small a quantity to even be considered a true risk factor. There's already vastly higher levels in the air we breath every day of our lives.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
cancer[dot]suite101[dot]com/article[dot]cfm/effects_of_smoking_carcinogens_medical_study
nickyripper 2 years ago
The study "The Quantification of Drug-caused Mortality and Morbidity in Australia, 1998"
aihw[dot]gov[dot]au/publications/phe/qdcmma98/
nickyripper 2 years ago
One at a time please. You are obviously not taking the time to read these studies are you. If you were you would not have chosen this waste of space. The first paragraph says it all when it describes itself as an ESTIMATE. This word appears three times in that intro paragraph alone. And further reading of each of the methodology sections ESTIMATE crops up with abundance. In other words what they can't prove they estimate (guess).
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
read and educate yourself. I hope you will thank me one day.
nickyripper 2 years ago
lol, sure you "read them all years ago".
you asked for studies, I provided you with them. You're obviously in denial, just as every other drug addict is. it's the nicotine in your system that's talking. don't worry, pal, there are institutions that can help you. mental, you know...
nickyripper 2 years ago
Not years ago, over the last three years. And for your information, nicotine is not addictive. Another lie that you have fallen for. You denialists are all the same, you happily believe any nonsense thrown your way, but never dare to question whare that nonsense comes from. If you did, your world would collapse around you.
And I'm still waiting for a study that actually proves smoking causes cancer. Not a link to an anti smoking website, or yet another estimate.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Nicotine is addictive, just as alcohol is. If you think that I'm going to waste my time proving every simple fact, you're wrong. I provided you with studies, it's up to you to do the reading. I'm done with you.
nickyripper 2 years ago
Just as there is a big difference between a Report and a Study, there is also a big difference between Adiction and Habit.
Once you've mastered these simple lessons, you might be ready for the big stuff.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Of course it's a hypothetical question.
You ask me what I would do if I had a child (which I don't), and lived in a world without law (which I don't), and in this world children could be trusted to never have an accident with fire (which it isn't).
That's nothing but hypothetical. You may as well ask what colour hat would I wear if I was six inches tall and lived in a shoe?
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
it's not hypothetical. you don't see anything wrong with children smoking. you're either playing dumb, or you're so delusional, that you can't even grasp the essence of a simple question.
nickyripper 2 years ago
The assumption that childhood smoking is harmfull to their health is hypothetical. Whereas the exitance of law and fire risks are very real indeed. By removing these real factors, yet leaving only a hypothetical and unproven health risk. You reveal yet more lack of understanding. I see whats wrong with real and proven things, you fear the hypothetical. When are you going to provide me with the name of a single study that proves smoking causes lung cancer.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
fag
nickyripper 2 years ago
That's what we call cigarettes.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
listen, FAG, smokers die younger than 1) people who don't smoke, 2) they would've lived if they didn't smoke. I'm not going to watch all the rubbish you've put on the internet, just keep your smoke away from non-smokers. Smoking shows 1) utter selfishness, 2)stupidity, 3)disrespect for life.
My grandfather barely survived throat cancer and he hasn't been able to speak for almost 20 years already. Very cool, isn't it?
nickyripper 2 years ago
Your Grandfather survived throat cancer and still lives twenty years after. Good for him, but whats that got to do with smoking? By your own admission it didn't kill him.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
he barely survived it, millions other die of cancer each year. he's currently unable to speak and he was a smoker, before he was diagnosed. it's not only about longevity, but about life quality as well. smoking always harms your health. I live next to a mountain and it's very sad to see young people running out of oxygen after 5 minutes of hiking. There are old people in better shape!
nickyripper 2 years ago
You make two false assumptions. First you assume your grandfathers cancer was caused by his smoking despite no evidence to support such an assumption (bare in mind no link between smoking and cancer has ever been proven). And second you seem to assume young peoples lack of fitness is attributable to smoking. I was an army training instructor at 35 and could outrun my 18yr old recruits yet few of them smoked.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
obviously, I can't put medical reports on YT, can I? And it's not my problem that you didn't bother to research.Tar is a carcinogen, hence it causes cancer. It might not be the only substance that causes cancer,it might not ALWAYS cause cancer, but it does.What kind of evidence would satisfy you? What substance is proven to cause cancer by your standards?Smoking does affect your lung capacity, so you would run out of oxygen faster than if you didn't smoke. Do you have kids?Do you let them smoke?
nickyripper 2 years ago
Tar does not exist in cigarette smoke, the residue that forms on the filter was originally called "tar" for want of a word. It is not actual Tar. There are a few carcinogens in cigarette smoke, but in such microscopic quantities they are harmless. Not one single study has ever managed to prove smoking causes any form of cancer, but some have established multiple health benefits from smoking.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
there is tar in cigarettes. you didn't answer my question : what is proven to cause cancer?
nickyripper 2 years ago
Again, there is no actual tar in cigarettes, only a residue that has been named tar for want of a better word.
And in answer to your question, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. Many things have been statisticly demonstrated to be risk factors to high or low degrees. But interestingly, smoking is not actually one of them. All the studies can be read and examined in full, and the lack of medical knowledge about cancer is the most obvious conclusion.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
yes, nothing is proven to cause cancer.we know nothing about it. it just happens. you're a joke. I'm done with you.
nickyripper 2 years ago
At least you accept the truth. If X caused Y then without X, Y would not occur. However, non smokers get cancer (including lung cancer) all the time. So something else must be the cause. But what? Nobody knows so they choose the easy option of ignoring the inconvenient discrepency and just blame smoking regardless.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
do you encourage your kids to smoke?
nickyripper 2 years ago
I have no children.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
What would you do if you had a 10yr-old kid and you caught him smoking?
nickyripper 2 years ago
An academic question can only result in an academic answer. I would have no option but to stop the child from smoking, as to allow him is illegal and would result in him/her being taken into state care.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
no,no, forget the legal issue or state care. would you like children to smoke?
nickyripper 2 years ago
Even in your entirely fictional (and irrelevent) world without unjust laws and state interference, you overlook the obvious risk of allowing children to play with fire. Only a fool would hand a kid anything that burns and say "get on with it".
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
lol, you are obviously dodging my real question. I'm not asking you about the legal consequences or the risk of children playing with fire. Would you like children to smoke?
nickyripper 2 years ago
I LOVE your videos and I hate cigs. Its the principle of the thing. What about a day of massive civil disobedience? You pick a day and get a couple hundred thousand to commit to smoke in pubs, the owners call the bobbies and complain and everyone has a grand old time. If anybody gets arrested, have an organization already set up to pay bails etc.
Let all free men rise up to the Statists and say "Come and Get Us!"
HoustonTeaParty 2 years ago
We tried it with a "National Smoking Day" on new years eve 2007. It's hard to find any men/women amoungst the sheep in this wretched country.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Confederate uniform FTW!!!
somethingfishietx 2 years ago
FTW?
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
For The Win!!!
somethingfishietx 2 years ago
I know, I may be forty, but I act twelve.
somethingfishietx 2 years ago
I have seen a few of your videos and I tend to agree with your libertarian values. However, to deny that cigarettes have any effect on health is ridiculous. My father was a heavy smoker for most of his life and he used to start every morning with a ten minute cough where he would go blue in the face and bring up thick phlegm. He had a 'smoker's wheeze' too. A year or so after he gave up, in his sixties, the cough disappeared. Coincidence? I don't think so. Many people have the same experience.
Pwecko 2 years ago
Also, you cannot deny that smoking makes you stink. I like going to the pub and coming home without all my clothes and my hair reeking of smoke.
Having said that, I am against the smoking ban in pubs. Pubs should be allowed to have smoking rooms indoors and not force people out into the cold and rain to have a ciggie.
I have sympathy for your feelings but your arguments are very poor.
Pwecko 2 years ago
You said it yourself "Heavy smoker", all things have to be taken in moderation.
I'm sure a Heavy wanker would wake up each morning with a sore wrist (I'll ask him next time I see him).
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Across the developed world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
Another piece of fiction, Jean. Since smoking prevalence has plumetted over the last forty years, how do you explain the massive increase in lung cancer cases? Oh I forgot, you're an anti smoker, so you can't explain anything.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
In Great Britain, lung cancer rates for males have fallen by 46% from 113 per 100,000 in 1975 to 61 in 2006. This correlates with male reduction in smoking. Over the same time period female lung cancer incidence rates have risen by 64% from 23 to 37 per 100,000 population. This correlates with female increase in smoking.
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
61 is less than half of 113, yet in the time frame you provide smoking prevalence amoungst male smokers has dropped by more than that (and has only recently begun to rise sinse the smoking ban).
Your female figures would suggest a doubling of smoking rates, which is simply not the case.
These figures come from the anti smoking handbook and do not equate with reality.
But most importantly, your figures (even the highest at 113 per 100,000) are patheticly small.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Actually, the drop in smoking prevalence fits very nicely with the above figures. In summary, you now admit the falsity of your claim regarding "a massive increase in iung cancer cases" despite an overall reduction in smoking.
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
No, as I pointed out, they're rubbish stats from the lobby groups. They completely ignore the global rise in all cancers (including lung). They don't fit with reality, let alone smoking rates.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
If we accept your silly figures at face value and addopt your junk methodology of narrowing your test group to Britain only, and then follow your distorted logic of simply guestimating a correlation. We could equally determine that lung cancer rates are directly caused by the increase in women taking over traditionally male employment roles.
Hmmm! So using your un scientific science we find that equal oportunities cause lung cancer and therefore should be banned.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Tobacco smoke contains more than 60 known carcinogens. Smokers regularly inhale these carcinogens into their lungs. And smokers are far and away the group most afflicted with lung cancer. This correlation exists cross culturally among smokers -- regardless of the state of working women. So, we cannot "equally determine" that the change in women's working roles affects lung cancer rates as we can that inhaling carcinogenic tobcco smoke on a chronic basis causes lung cancer.
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
60 known carcinogens (most carcinogens are only suspected by definition), yet in what quantities? Negligable! So stop quoting cigarette packs and wake up to the fact that you probably either consume or inhale a miniscule amount of almost every single carcinogen each and every day of your life.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
But more importantly, I wish your figures were true because they clearly demonstrate how low the risk of lung cancer is amoungst smokers.
Take your male lung cancer figure, 61 out of 100,000, thats .0061%. If we assume it's not all due to smoking, then we can bump up the number by applying the favourite anti smoking line of "Smoking increases you chances of contracting lung cancer by up to 25%". This gives us a final figure of .007525%. In other words Fuck all.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
If lung cancer was the only risk inhering to smoking, the scientists and medical experts and public policy makers might say "fuck all," as well -- and hit the pubs. The problem is the sheer volume of health problems caused by smoking, such as COPD, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer of the tongue, throat, lips, stomach, pancreas, liver, etc. and the concomitant personal and public cost of these terrble illnesses. Any of this making sense to you, dum-dum?
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
Yes dum-dum, it makes perfect sense. You are incapable of independent thought, so you simply repeat the same failed garbage from your favourite lobby group. By simply reeling off a list of ailments and blaming them on smoking without a single shread of actual evidence to prove this blame, all you achieve is clearly demonstrate your lack of inteligence.
Congratulations, Dum-Dum.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Oh, what a numb skull you are. You probably deny the Holocaust and the moon landing.
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
Why would I deny the Holocaust? The death toll was undeniable. You can't hide a million bodies.
On the other hand, your deranged friends cannot find a single provable death from smoking.
It is you and your ilk that are the denialists. You constantly deny the fact that you have squandered millions trying to prove a risk from smoking but have completely failed to do so.
Carry on burying your head in the sand if you wish, but sooner or later you will die (regardless of whether you smoke or not).
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
Burying my head in the sand? What world do you live in, you fool? No provable deaths from smoking? Say that to any pulmonologist and he'll laugh you out of the room. But it will be a grim laugh, since he spends half his time trying to palliate incurable lung ailments of dim-witts like you. You're entertaining because you flaunt your total ignorance with the camp of Liberace. But you're only fooling yourself. I hope you don't develop emphysema. But you probably will. Keep us posted.
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
Ha ha, you denialists are all the same. Whenever your rubbish arguments fall apart you resort to the usual feeble insults (If you think calling someone Liberace an insult).
Sometimes I think of blocking you just for a laugh. But I'm not that cruel, I know you'd be lost without me. That's why you subscribed after all.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
You are deluded, aren't you? You won't block me. You'd eat your own boogers if you thought someone would watch.
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
Eat my own boogers? Are you an infant?
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
There's wit for you. You'll be running that warehouse in no time!
:B
JeanScallopsidi 2 years ago
Smokers live longer... nuff said.
ben480 2 years ago
Here here...hear... my good man. I found your logic compelling. I will endeavour to smoke a lot more than I used to. Thanks to your straight forward assasination of the governments lies. Don't take off the uniform....The south will rise!!
mc5kotjmf 2 years ago 2
He's British...and I don't think Cornwall has rebelled for several centuries...
aasaucier 2 years ago
My grandfather smoked his whole life and even survived being run over with a tractor.
justwannawatchvids 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Loves me some emphysema. And, oh yeah, breath that smells like dogshit.
funboy7979 2 years ago
I'm sure you have many friends. You sound such a nice person.
HairyChestnuts 2 years ago
haha
justwannawatchvids 2 years ago
Smoking makes you cool. So do drugs. And guns. With sniper scopes and silencers. Put them together and you have one cool mother fucker.
suspendmeassholes 3 years ago 2
Difficult to silence a Barrett M107 .50cal, but that's really cool ;-)
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
Hairy, true story my Gran Died by being hit by a bus in Kingsland High Road in 1955.
Botswana7 3 years ago
i totally love these videos.
mulukchuwen 3 years ago
I've seen arguments against and for smoking. In the end, it just depends on the individual: certain people withstand carcinogens better than others. So wouldn't it make sense to look for what it is in the human body that handles these carcinogens well as opposed to just saying that certain people cannot? It seems pessimistic to just say, "People have died because of smoking!" instead of, "Wow! Certain people can withstand carcinogens better than others!"
tbussard 3 years ago 2
I haven't watched the video but I thought you might like to know that your title irritated me, I would much prefer "than whom".
johnwrw 3 years ago
whateva
ANQford 3 years ago
P.S.
Someone shoot the bird.
Please.
DawsonIsABlank 3 years ago 2
Buses kill people.
Therefore, ban buses.
DawsonIsABlank 3 years ago 2
realy cool video another entertaining one that makes my life more worth living :)
daveravegin 3 years ago
Love the video!
I am all for Freedom of choice no matter what that may be to anyone. We all have the right to be ourselves and not be 'punished' for it.
Love the uniform too. Very Smart :-)
Katieezz 3 years ago
u might not die younger but u r probably more likely to die in a painful fashion, i.e. cancer
medstu56 3 years ago
Agreed. I am a part time smoker, but I understand the dangers. I think this video is addressing cigarette packet warnings, but there is a crafty insinuation inserted that smokers will not die from smoking any more than they would be likely to die from being hit by a car/bus, which is false.
billhicks8 3 years ago
part time smoker...basically means ye never buy the fuckin things, but you'll still smoke OUR fegs!
belfastlawd91 3 years ago
Yeah but I have to keep working while you take all the smoko breaks. So it evens out in the end.
billhicks8 2 years ago
lolz, a witty youtuber. unbelievable (non sarcasm) if this website wasn't full of morons i wouldnt have had to put that in brackets! haha
belfastlawd91 2 years ago
I know what you mean. Youtube can open a disturbing window into modern society. Hence I try to get out more these days...
billhicks8 2 years ago
Remember about ten or twelve years ago when a woman named Anne died in France at age 124? She'd been the world's oldest living person for several years before she passed.
Well, guess what? She was a smoker.
DiddleySquatt 3 years ago
that is very inteasting. thanks for the info.
ivanova88 3 years ago 2
I love history. i found out that winston churchchill died at 90, at first i was shocked. he smoked a lot. then there is my grandfather who smokes like a pack a day and he is over 80 years old. the whole "smoking kills doesn't add up to what i have notice.
ivanova88 3 years ago
The fact that smokers aren't dying like they keep telling us we should, is a constant cause of annoyance to the anti smoking movement. Unfortunately, they're know taking steps to ensure that we die, through the compulsory introduction of so called fire safe cigarettes. These are apparently laced with acroliene, which gives off poisonous fumes when ignited. In the 20+ US states that have introduced them, smokers are experiencing coughs, sickness and general ill health.
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
the fact isnt right. it isnt that smokers die younger.. it is smokers are MORE LIKELY to get cancer and die younger because there are 40 carcinogens [cancer causers] in ciggarettes. this doesnt mean that EVERYONE who smokes will die young. it just means they have more of a chance than non smokers.
Lindseykins7 3 years ago
It says all that on your cigarette pack, Lindseykins? Must be either very small writing, or a massive pack.
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
no. i'm just smart
ive done my research
i come form a family of smokers
im not stupid
Lindseykins7 3 years ago 4
mint, this well makes me laugh, as it so damn true Im Soooo spreading this!
ieuansharp 3 years ago
The worlds longest living people were all smokers. After fifty years of trying to prove smoking kills, no research has done so. Experiments on animals however, did reveal that rats permanently exposed to high levels of tobacco smoke, not only lived longer, but also demonstrated improved inteligence over their non exposed counterparts. Tobacco is not the big killer the antis would have you believe, Nicky.
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
Thats all just a gamble...my grandfather (a very heavy smoker)died at 89,... on the other hand someone i loved dearly died recently from a direct result of his smoking. Sure... the act of smoking dosnt kill you.. its the chemicles that cause mutations in genes that do! Cigarettes contain alot of mutagens. Im not gonna go on about it..u make me cry.
By the way smoking in a bath of petrol wont kill you... the fire/explosion is what will kill you......do ya get it???
luda265 3 years ago 3
wtf listen to urself...talking riddles
luda265 3 years ago 3
Riddles? The only riddle, is how people can be so easily misslead by blatent lies and half truths from the anti smoking fraudsters.
Nice legs, by the way ;-)
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
exactly what balant lie u refering to...
that smoking kills??
yep.. u die when ur number comes up... but why help it up by smoking??
Glad u liked my legs...(of a non smoker)
luda265 3 years ago 5
I'm glad I'm still free to tie a rubber band to my ass and jump off a bridge, or jump out of a perfectly good airplane for a rush, take a little plastic wing device and run off a cliff, or throw myself in a rubber raft and hurtle down a raging river into some rocks... but the government needs to protect me from cigarettes because they're "dangerous"... how about that phoney Iraq war of theirs, how about that crap... they'd love me to enlist to go put myself in danger for that bs...
badjesus666 3 years ago 2
dumbass
tom4342 3 years ago 3
A very strange comment, tom4342. I clearly explain how a the statement "Smokers die younger" is an unfinished sentence and you say "dumbass". If you paid more attention in school, you would understand that. By the way, you should have spelt dumbass with a capital "D".
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
A very strange comment, HairyChestnuts. You said "I clearly emplain how a the statement" You put an 'a' in where it isnt supposed to be. Also smokers die younger isnt a unfinished sentance. It basicly means you wont live as long as the average normal people.
RatchetBean259 3 years ago 3
Yes the "a" was a type error, but as I said "smokers die younger" is an unfinished sentence. The same as "Trees grow taller" or "cakes are nicer". Without a point of reference, such statements are meaningless. And could you define "average normal people"? Because I can't, and it would be arrogant and bigoted for me to try.
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
well, you have a point there...
RatchetBean259 3 years ago
Great vid and so true!!
prochoicechuckles85 3 years ago
And that's not even "passive smoking" lies. That's 20 a day, "I smoke tabs, me" full-on smoking. And their figures still don't add up. This whole "passive smoking" pseudo science debacle has had me looking at research into "active" smoking, and some of the numbers (like incidence of cancer) seem bogus, too. For actual smoking! I'm going to look at heart disease next. Smoking must be bad for something....
demonsonofman 3 years ago 2
Smoking is bad because it makes you die younger than the average person. It also makes you get tar in your lungs, your breath stinks and you will have stained teeth, and a brown face. Fags are for people who wanna fit in because they are depressed.
RatchetBean259 3 years ago 3
ASH say a third of cancer cases can be attributed to smoking. So in a country where 22-25% of the country smokes, 33% of the people who get cancer are smokers? That doesn't look like an enormous link to me. Throw in the fact that EVERY smoker who gets cancer has their condition attributed to smoking, when even their own figures suggest that a large proportion of those smokers would have gotten cancer anyway and you can see where even this small difference can be explained. NO MORE LIES!
demonsonofman 3 years ago 2
I really think we should do away with motor vehicles and airplanes. Too hazardous for you and those around you. Great video.
RhondaH 3 years ago 3
Despite what the antis say, all the evidence contradicts them. Fifty years of brainwashing people into being afraid of smoke has cemented the lie. But they've pushed people too far with their smoking bans, and we are waking up to the fruad.
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
While passive smoking is a lie I was a little puzzled by your contention in this video. Until I did some research. The average life expectancy for a Briton is 77.7 (US CENSUS DATABASE), yet in Japan (50% of adult males smoke) it is 80.7. I then looked up other heavy smoking nations... The good ol' French - (40% smoke) LE is 78.8. "Ah," the ASH Nazis will say. "They have better diets than us." But then what does that prove? That diet is a factor, not smoking?
demonsonofman 3 years ago 4
Amazing video! That's the way I feel. You die when your number comes up. Nothing you can do to change that. Sucks that you guys have to deal with that smoking ban over there. It's complete BS!!
Btw, were those American Spirit? Greatest cigs on the planet. Try the periques (black packs) they're great!
Groga07 3 years ago 6
I love American Spirits but they're hard to get over here. They are found in specialist tobacco shops and very ocasionally other shops might get a few in.
I've only ever seen the blue and yellow packs, I'll have to look out for black. Cheers mate :-)
HairyChestnuts 3 years ago
Great video as always. One comment I'd like to make though is, if you are sitting in a tin bath full of petrol, wouldn't it be the lighter or match flame that would ultimately kill you rather than the cigarette? Just a thought :o)
SickOfNannyState 3 years ago 2
Right you are! Good thing I don't bathe in petrol. :-)
DiddleySquatt 3 years ago 2
As usual, brill vid Hairy!
NoBanJan 3 years ago