World's Oldest - All smokers.

[Ansel]

Haven't had a chance to corroborate the information but makes for interesting reading. Not sure if this has been posted here before.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamil...her/oldest.htm

[lxskllr]

:^D

There's a lot of truth there, but the implication is as much BS, as the zealots they're lampooning. The focus on health consequences one way or the other is a red herring(kippered) though. Nobody addresses the fundamental truth that it isn't the government's fsckin' business what people do. As long as the tobacco companies aren't making false claims about cigarettes being vitamin sticks, the government has no business interfering.

Want to smoke? Good for you! Smoke up, and enjoy life as you wish.

Want to snus? Awesome! Have some snus. It goes great after a greasy bacon cheeseburger, and a beer.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? That's what we're allegedly here for. Pursue happiness any way you wish. As long as you aren't hurting other people, it's all good....

[Ansel]

Well said lxskllr.

[devilock76]

<sarcasm>BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!?!?</sarcasm>

Ken

[Darwin]

But isn't the nanny state's irresistable urge to protect everyone from anything that could conceivably harm them a decidedly Progressive attitude?

[Ansel]

Therein lies the rub...

[precious007]

lx just couldnt have said it better

everyone has the power to choose .. even drugs should be legal from this point of view.

there's more people dying from unhealthy food than people that die from LSD

should burgers be banned ?

[angrylollipop]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? That's what we're allegedly here for. Pursue happiness any way you wish. As long as you aren't hurting other people, it's all good....

they argue second hand smoke kills, and hurts other people... which is probably true over long periods of time if exposed to second hand smoke in enclosed areas...

A family friend of ours died from lung cancer (though he never smoked) his wife did though, and his job required him to be in bars day in and day out so after 50 years or so of exposure in enclosed spaces, it caught up with him.


About a year or two ago the New York times ran an article about the differences between Australian smokers and U.S. smokers. They found that the rate of lung cancer among smokers in Australia was considerably lower than the rates in the states. They concluded that the biggest difference was American tobacco companies used chemicals to dry and cure their tobacco, where as the Australian companies allow the tobacco to dry naturally.

[truthwolf1]

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CONSPIRACY.

http://www.acsa.net/HealthAlert/radi...e_tobacco.html

To grow what the tobacco industry calls "more flavorful" tobacco, US farmers use high-phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content).4

Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year.5 The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University reports that the radiation level for the same smoker was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year.6 Another report argues that a typical nicotine user might be getting the equivalent of almost 22,000 chest X-rays per year.7

US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210, but were unable to cause cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco.10 The most potent non-radioactive chemical, benzopyrene, exists in cigarettes in amounts sufficient to account for only 1% of the cancer found in smokers.9