Second hand smoke, I will give you the benefit of the doubt Heaven021, may kill, at most, 1,000 people each year (That number is extremely high and far fetched). Drunk drivers kill several thousands of non-drunk-drivers in accidents each years. Tobacco also doesn't cause men to beat their wives, children and girlfiends. Thousands of crimes committed each year are commited under the influecen. Alchol harms far moe people that don't use it than tobacco.

Bushsupporter, I think I have an answer to your question. People, not in upstanding morales, like to drink alcohol. They don't want to attack something they like, even though they know it is extremley dangerous. Instead they focus their efforts on the 'gross', 'bad guys', the tobacco industry even though they know it is less harmful to non users than alcohol.

Quote from Bushsupporter:

"I could go on and on about the things we make tobacco do and not alcohol. Alcohol is worse because other people are killed. When you smoke, you only kill yourself. Why is this? Answer me that."

When you smoke you kill others too! Secondhand smoke claims countless lives every year! So now, you're killing yourself and others. Children with parents who smoke usually develop asthma, and respiratory problems. As long as you're not smoking in the range of human civilization, you're harming others! I just wanted to point out that you're statement was a lie.

Everyone just has to blame tobacco companies when it is the people who use tobacco that run the risk of possible illnesses associated with tobacco. No one forces people to smoke or chew. Also, why aren't any of you (except Bushsupporter and Marine) attacking alcohol companies? No one sues Budwieser for a DUI charge or an alcohol related death! But you are so quick to accuse the tobacco companies for giving someone cancer, even though it was that person's voluntary action to smoke. The tobacco companies are merely a business. Don't attack the business.

What is the solution to the problem? I continue to contest the validity for the argument that tobacco is worse than alcohol. We don't sanctoin alcohol; we don't restrict their advertising; we don't tax six dollars a pack; we don't make them pay anti-alcohol websites; I could go on and on about the things we make tobacco do and not alcohol. Alcohol is worse because other people are killed. When you smoke, you only kill yourself. Why is this? Answer me that.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington, DC.

It is sad that you liberals feel the need to attack Big Tobacco by making the radical assumption that tobacco kills. You people are typical. You are just looking for another way to make America more communists by having the government interfer with another big buisness.

I am not jealous because you did not find a loophole in my argument. the only thing you did was strengthen my argument. They dont get steady results becaue some people have stronger immune systems than others and soem people smoke more/less than others. It has been proven that some people have died from cancer related to the chemicals in ciggerette smoke.

Your talk about corolations proving nothing is off base because that is what scientists use to prove things. ALso 22 times more likely doesnt mean 22% of them. THey are telling you that you have a greater chance of getting cancer but might or might not. still if you take the population of the world and divide it into two and take 22% of that you get 660000000 people(assuming population of 6 bil) I do not take that chance. If half the world thought like you that many people would be LIKELY to have cancer.

The odds might not totally be against you but you are taking your chances. It is a big risk.

THe pill that slowly kills people is outlawed because suicide is outlawed and they the pills are used expessly for euthanasia and kill all hte time.

I might not be able to say that ciggerettes kill everyone but they do kill some. IT is proven that the chemicals in the smoke inhaled are deadly and cancer causing.

if you choose to smoke i hav enothing against you but i dont want you smoking around me because I inhale that smoke and that is a DIRECT relationship.

Last time I checked, Strangelove, the Surgeon General's warnings were applied to ALL Tobacco Products, not just a few. That means they are unified. They do not say one product is more harmful than another. All tobacco products are on the same level, regardless of the comany. They don't just pick and chose, based on some court decision what compainies must let public about their product. If the government knows that tobacco is deadly than why do they make the tobacco compaines says 'Our product may kill you' Why don't they make them say 'Our product will kill you' (I encourage you to go to Phillip Morris's web page. Strangleove you talk about specific evidence? You will see the 'specific evidence' the government MAKES them post) Why, if the government can prove tobacco is deadly, do they have a warning that reads 'Ciagrettes may cause lung cancer, emphazima and heart diesease; even in non smokers'? (As I previously said, thet MAY part is completley independant of the 'even in non smokers', but I'm sur eyou learned that in English class.).

As to my poison tylenol analogy. If the same tobacco scenerio you provided with me was applied to to a poison's tylenol, would the government let them sell it? You and I both know they would not. You and I both know that the government would close them down. Why havn't they closed down the tobacco industry? Ar eyou suggesting that the government is placing the success of tobacco farmers and toabcco employes over millions of tobacco users?

no one has given me any PROOF as to the fact that the government CAN NOT prove tobacco IS deadly. All they can prove is that it simply MAY be deadly.

Jealousy? why would you speak such ignorance and garbage? The government uses 'correlations' so they cannot be held responsible for the consequences of tobacco use! Cigarettes for example contain a small amount of rat poison(which is deadly)<---obviously, and that's proof..rat poison and anmonia isn't going to improve your health it's going to slowly kill you. The government knows that tobacco use kills..If I personally, worked for a tobacco company, I sure wouldn't go around advertising the label 'yes, this product will cause death' that would make a lot of people NOT want to buy what I'm selling...c'mon now! That would just cause me to be jobless, moneyless, and eventually homeless!! See where I'm going with this? The gov. has more common sense than to say or do that! Not to mention tobacco companies bring in so much money that why would they want to shut it down?? They don't, and since they are required by law to state the risks of using tobacco they are going to find a 'sugar coated' way of saying this product causes deadly diseases! They don't want to lose business..I'd rather smoke something that says, 'this product may cause...etc..' than a product that says 'this product WILL cause...etc..' It's basically just like I said, a 'sugar coated' way of keeping their business thriving! But another good point is people know that tobacco slowly kills and they still chose to smoke it..so the only way to actually someday possibly slow the tobacco business is to CHOSE to not use tobacco therefore your money won't be spent supporting it! That's all I have to say!

but hey, I'm just a peasant what would I know??

1.) Millions of people in the US aren't already addicted to that pill, and thousands of farmers incomes aren't dependent on producing that pill.
Then you have the fact that you are comparing a medicine to what amounts to a recreational drug.

2.) A specific lawsuit against that specific company. I believe it entailed evidence that allpied directly to Phillip Morris's product. Since no evidence was provided against other companies formulas, and the lawsuit was not against those other companies, they are not forced to post that specific message.

3.) Read above. Also archaic laws and legal wrangling. Really, do you doubt that smoking cigarretes with ammonia doesn't contribute to cancer? I don't know, maybe asbestos is still the "miracle mineral" and all children's cloths should be made of it so thier fire retardant.

Sheesh.

I think you guys are just jealous because I can so easily point out the loop holes in your arguements, when there are none in mine.

My questions still stands...

The government wouldn;t let tylenol sell a capsule that slowly killed a person, so why would they let the Tobacco Industry?

How come the government only makes Phillip Morris post, on their website, "Cigarettes may cause lung cancer"?

Why are there so many loo holes in the Surgeon General Warning? (Why does one say it does cause lung cancer and one says it is likely to cause lung cancer.)

No one has yet to answer these questions.

[B[Aimee--[/B]
You are totally right. Thanks for pointing out the fact that we are indeed arguing with a brick wall. But while it lasted, thanks for your support AGAINST the tobacco companies. (I'm glad you found those sites helpful... I think they rock too, especially www.thetruth.com)
Marine16--
This will be my last response to you on this topic. You obviously have completely different views than mine, even if I have support to back up my claims and you don't. One last thing... I did not specify that only Phillip Morris is required to post those warnings on their labels,
ALL TOBACCO COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO. We are not giving up our fight against big tobacco, just against you and your opinions, because our energies could obviously be better spent elsewhere.

Thanks to everyone who supported the argument against tobacco. Like Aimee said, continue making a difference by joining an anti-tobacco group and speading awareness about the dangers of tobacco!

Later,
Linnea

I will not argue the fact that some warning say 'This Product cuases Lung Cancer'. But explain this one, Atmoic Sneeze , 'SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Tobacco Smoke Increases The Risk Of Lung Cancer And Heart Disease, Even In Nonsmokers.' (http://ftc.gov/opa/2000/06/cigars.htm) (You might take note that 'Tobacco Smoke Increases The Risk Of Lung Cancer And Heart Disease' is completley independant of the phrase 'Even In Nonsmokers'. But I am sure you learned that English class.). Why doesn't it read 'Tobacco causes lung cancer and heart disease even in nonsmokers'? Explain to me the fact as to why the government only makes Phillip and Morris admit that 'ciagrettes may cause lung cancer'? Why don't they make them admit that 'Cigarettes do cause lung cancer?' (Go to Phillip Morris's webpage and look at their warnings that the government requires them to post)

There are too many loop holes in the governments "facts" to prove the tobacoo is deadly.

Hey AtomicSneeze, I totally agree with you. However, I think we are talking to a brick wall and should concentrate somewhere else. But thanks for all the great sites! They're awesome. You should join one of the anti-smoking groups (if you aren't a part of one already). It's cool. You sound like you could really make a difference.

Marine16, there are indeed correlations. Thank you for raising that issue. But The surgeon general also states that:

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema

NOTE the word CAUSE. Excuse me, but I do believe that is more than a correlation -- it is a PROVEN FACT.

Let's look at this little equation for some easy comparison, shall we?

if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. (all you algebra folk should know this one.)

So...
if smoking causes cancer,
and cancer causes death
then...
smoking causes death.

CASE CLOSED

see source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1333.html

Your bullet analogy, Heaven, is ridiculous and obsurd so I won't even dignify it with a respons.

Do you even listen to what I am saying? I don't even think you read my prompts.

Here is my proof,
'Males who smoke are 22% more LIKELY to get lung cancer.' and 'This product MAY cause mouth cancer'. If there was any proof that people would get cancer 'LIKELY' and 'MAY' would be replaced with 'WILL' (And yes, as you said 'Yes, it may, or may not, but the FACT is that sometimes it does' But that simply means all the government has is a correlation. And a correlation is anything but hard PROOF.).

In addition, the government, as I have said time and time again (It is evident, Heavan, that you are not reading my prompt), that the government wouldn't let tylenol sell a capsul that slowly killed people. So whould they let the tobacco industry? You can 'surf' the net to look for an answer but the only answer is because they have no proof tobacco kills people (And don;t say the government dosnt close them because they make too much money. The government dosn't care about how much money companies make and that is made clear through Microsoft.).

Can you not get my arguements through your head? My arguement is the only the one that has no loopholes in it? My arguement is the only valid one I have heard.

Marine16, can you offer PROOF that people DON'T die from tabacco use? Can you even offer close to a good example?? As far as the other side is concerned, a man can die, and a scientist CAN say the direct cause of death was tobacco use. Can you disprove that?

The Surgeon General says, the use of this product MAY lead to cancer. Yes, it may, or may not, but the FACT is that sometimes it does, and sometimes people DIE. You're justifications are weak. A man could be shot, and have a bullet in his side, and you'd say, well he MAY have been shot, but he could've died naturally and then someone placed the bullet in his body. Isn't the BULLET which can be CORRELATED, (you're favorite word), to the TAR in a dead smoker's lungs enough?

Only PROOF is good enough for me, not correlations. Only PROOF is good enough to send 2 millions tobacco employees home without a job, not correlations. Only PROOF is good enough for the government to have a reason to close down the tobacco industry, not correlations.

Tobacco says their product is addictive and they admit that it MAY be harmful. When you make confessions like that, confessions that could costs millions of dollars in profits, you have a lot of integrity and honesty. What honest Abes!

Will you please answer my question of why a correlation isn't enough??? If this thng can kill you and there is no way for it to be used as good, why can't it be banned?

Did you check out that news article. Kind of dampens your praise of the tobacco industries being all truthful and junk.

Listen, no one has done nothing to disprove my argument that tobacco is not not deadly. Tobacco is not dealy because the government can't prove it is deadly.

My arguement is backed by, first, the fact that, as you wined liltrumpetgirl, everyone is different so there will not be the same effect on everyone (Because of this they can get no STEADY results.). Second, the Surgeon General's warning says that tobacco 'MAY be hazardous to your health'. And third, the government wouldn't let Tylenol sell a capsule that slowly killed people, so why would they let the tobacco industry?

PS - Liltrumpetgirl, the odds are agianst me? Atomicsneeze gave me a GOVERNMENT statsitic that 22% of males are more LIKLEY to get lung cancer. That means that the other 78% do NOT get lung cancer. The odds are against your argument, liltrumpetgirl.

(Here are those statsitics directly quoted from Atomicsneeze-
'--Male smokers are 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer and 27 times more likely to develop mouth cancer than non-smokers.

--Female smokers are 10 times more likely to develop cancer of the esophagus')

TO: LilTrumpetGurl and Aimee
Thank you for your awesome support and reasoning regarding the tobacco industry and this NOISEboard.

Later,
Linnea