quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:

quote:

Colby was a part of the tobacco industry

Dear Know it all,
Your Dementia is getting worse again; and your lack of validity rising.

I was hoping for some statement of how you know these are the same Colby.

Since I know of several people that have the precisely same name as mine, I suspect there are several Colbys running around also.

STILL praying for you.

Anyone have some better straws for gkayser30 to clutch at?

quote:

Originally posted by I know it all:
Anyone have some better straws for gkayser30 to clutch at?

You could use some:

Colby

Oh wait, that one didn't work. Never mind.

LMAO

Go blow a butt, addict. You'll feel better.

quote:

Originally posted by nightlight:
funded and whipped into frenzy by the Big Pharma & health bureaucracies, was able to keep winning so far.

Who pays your funding nightlight? You have a lot of time for this for an amateur.

Just been reading Mr Lauren A Colby's book and in chapter 4, the first chapter I started reading he makes some interesting comparisons between declines in smoking rates and increases in lung cancer risk. He states

quote:

The Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the Commerce Department, 1993 Edition, gives statistics for cancer death rates in men and women during the time period from 1970 to 1990. Unlike the international statistics, reported in the previous chapter, the figures in the Statistical Abstract are not percentages. Rather, they represent the number of deaths per 100,000 of population. Where the figures refer to a particular age group, they refer to the number of deaths per 100,000 population in that particular age group. Thus, the figures are automatically "age adjusted" 7 .

It turns out that in every important age grouping, LCDR's have increased, steadily, between 1970 and 1990, notwithstanding the decline in smoking! Here are the figures from the Statistical Abstract:



Particularly interesting are the figures for women. They show dramatic increases in LCDR's, in the key age groups where lung cancer is most prevalent, notwithstanding a steady decline in smoking rates.

You may notice that for young men the cancer rates actually went down and for women remained relatively steady. You may note from his own report

quote:

According to the Surgeon General's Report, released in 1964, cigarette consumption in the United States was 50 cigarettes per capita per annum in 1900; 138 in 1910; 1965 in 1930; 1828 1940 and 3322 in 1950. In 1961, according to the Report, cigarette consumption reached a "peak" at 3986. In that year, according to the Report, 68% of all males in the United States over the age of 18 were smokers 4 .

He goes on to show that the numbers at least for the time or the report's release appear accurate.

If smoking caused you to immediately contract cancer and die then he would have a point but as cancer risk increases with exposure to tobacco smoke there must be some residual affect from all the years of smoking that those people who were smoking in the tobacco golden years. So why is it that those born and under the age of 18 at the peak of the tobacco golden years are those who show a decline in cancer rates and even men as old as 64 have almost steady cancer rates?

Women have an increasing cancer rate in the 55 to 64 age bracket and to a lesser extent the 45 to 54 age group which coincides with the tobacco giant's marketing push toward women in the peak and declining years of tobacco.

To combat this problem, as we are not dealing with a stupid man here he quotes heart disease death rates,


It is worth noting that there are positive links between cardio-vascular desease and tobacco consumption. It is also worth noting that the decline in male smoking rates, 51.1% in 1964 down to 36.9% in 1979 while for women remained relatively steady at 33.3% in 1964 to 28.2% in 1979. This may account for the higher increases in lung cancer deaths among women that in men in the 55 + ages.

As these are not closed experiments and there may be other environmental factors like car ownership rates I expect to be shut down by nightlight and his cohorts but if you are considering quiting remember ever rabid suposed libertarians can twist the figures to suit their fight.

Quotes from http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap4.htm

And this in chapter 10, the next chapter I looked at:

quote:

Quite frankly, I do not know whether there is a risk to smoking, or not.

Good reading this.

Then this a little further on:

quote:

Just about every human activity involves risk. Walking across the street runs the risk of getting hit by a car. Bungee jumping involves the risk that the bungee cord may break or become detached from the supporting structure....
Automobiles, used carefully and driven properly, can still cause death if a tie rod breaks at 60 mph. I don't know whether starches and sugars can cause death in a person genetically susceptible to diabetes, but from personal observation, I feel there is a risk and, because of the history of diabetes in my family, I choose not to take the risk.

Mr Colby, when a person crosses the road they are taught from an early age strategies to minimise the risk, when your car is designed it is built to ensure the tie rod won't break and a prudent and sensible person will take steps to ensure it is well maintained that the risk is minimised. A bungee jumper also takes steps to ensure his safety when engaged in what is perceived to be a high-risk activity. Generally a person who bungee jumps is supervised by experts in the field who would have inspected the equipment and ensured it's proper use. There are also regulations controlling where and how a person may bungee jump. In Australia and I suspect in the USA government agencies check these adrenalin rides with greater frequency than they check industrial sites for uncontrolled and unacceptable risks.
Tobacco companies are selling a product they know has serious risks and very few smokers do anything about those risks. There may also be risks posed by tobacco on non-smokers. Who will mitigate the risk for them? Should that mitigation restrict the freedom of those who don’t smoke? Rather than reduce the risk of tobacco, tobacco companies sponsor campaigners to attempt to debunk the genuine research that exposes those risks and lawyers to fight in the courts against anyone bold enough to claim tobacco used as it's maker intended has done them harm.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: I know it all,

First, it has to be noted that cigarette toxicity has decreased by 3X since the 1950's. In other words, you could walk into a store in the fifties and buy a a television advertised pack of smokes that contained 50 MG of tar and who knows how much nicotine.

Today, a Marlboro Red contains 16MG of tar.

One could say "Well, that's because of government intervention", but that's not the case.

Government intervention usually either follows or coincides a special interest or grassroots movement. These movements usually find enough intervention via the press and activism to cause a reaction from a corporate entity.

For instance, before New York City governmentally banned trans fats, many products were already including the phrase "no transfats" or "transfat free" on their packaging. This may not have been exclusively because of consumer demand, but to remain free of future tort action from special interest groups. Also, the press was on the issue.

Special interest groups are fine and even welcome in a Libertarian world provided this; the solutions they propose are spread via the free market without government assistance.

The problem we have with tort in the U.S. is not so much tort itself, but government reacting to tort.

I'm a Libertarian and I disagree with the "loser pays" argument that many Libertarians make. The "Loser" already pays; usually these cases are taken without a fee in the the hope of a 40% share of the decision for the attorneys. If the attorneys lose, they often lose many thousands or millions that they put into the case. The alternative is having the actual plaintive pay. This creates a situation where the least able are unlikely to sue.

For example, if I buy a toy for my son and it explodes and burns and disfigures him, and I make $30,000 a year, and I hire a lawyer according to my income and sue for $1,000,000, should I have to pay tens of thousands to the corporation if I lose and a corporate lawyer proves that I didn't carefully read all of the fifteen pages of directions that came with the toy?

I think not. I don't think this is the problem.

I think the problem is that there has to be a greater separation between judicial decision and legislation. This is why in a previous post I suggested my Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that basically stated that no law may be decided legislation in reaction to a judicial decision unless that decision is made by The U.S. Supreme Court for a period of five years. In other words, could Federal, State or Local government pass a law banning smoking in a publicly owned park? Absolutely. Could they do it in the face of a tort decision that sued and won a decision against the city that held that park? Not for five years.

Tort involving private exchanges where money is exchanged should be exempt from law. Exchanges where damage is done should be subject only to tort. If you want to sue a tobacco company because you developed lung cancer and didn't know the risk, that's fine. Governments have nothing to do with it though.

Government should have no power over private property beyond theft, rape, murder, or direct involvement in a conspriratorial crime involving the other three. Government has no right to invade the residence of any citizen to inspect their possesions beyond these definitions.

No one, to my knowledge, started smoking because someone held a gun to their head and made them smoke. Also, there are now more former smokers than there are smokers. Regarding the risks, there are many statistics that indicate smokers actually OVERESTIMATE the risks of smoking, though non-smokers further overestimate the risks.

If anti-smoking were private and there wasn't government intervention, this is what things would like today:

Tobacco companies would have responded to special interest groups and spent maybe tens of billions to better the technology of the cigarette for worry of tort.

The dangers of ETS wouldn't exist, because, well, they don't exist.

Bars and Restaurants would simply adjust to customer demand. In 1992, I lived in an apartment downstairs from the one -third owner of the only smoke-free bar in my city. They independently made that decision. They did a great business. I think even he smoked. They were a weird novelty at the time. I know he smoked pot and his roommates smoked cigarettes. He was a good guy. It wasn't an issue. Back then, his smoke-free bar was a novelty and the bartenders were constantly having to tell people to put their smoke out. I liked the guy, but I went to other bars. Most others stayed. We'd stop in now and again for a beer to show our friendship, then we'd get the hell out of there.

It's 15 years later. They're still going. How the hell did they survive until there were smoking bans and they were equalized?


I. All, if you are going to attack Libertarian arguments, you should at least know what they are. Look; I can't help but take up some of your time, so how do you want them--internet video or reading?

I can't explain these views in three sentences. It's more elaborate than that. If you want Libertarian views in a Money-Shot, here: The U.S. Constitution, Property Rights, and individual rights.

It's unfortunate on my part that I'm responding to you again. I've tried over a course of weeks to get, ARE YOU LISTENING MR. "I KNOW IT ALL"; a comprehensive postion on how you want the world to run.

Since you "Know It All", please know that you are RULER OF THE EARTH. Now, please, for the love of God, give us your comprehesive position, so we have the slightest idea what we're debating about. Don't link a report or tell me "what you'd like", please, for the love of everything, tell me what you would do regarding smoking if you ran the world. It's such a simple question; why can't you answer it?

Otherwise, I'm going to start a campaign to throw you off this discussion board. After many weeks, you've only caused a distraction. I have better uses of my time with likeminded people.

quote:

First, it has to be noted that cigarette toxicity has decreased by 3X since the 1950's. In other words, you could walk into a store in the fifties and buy a television advertised pack of smokes that contained 50 MG of tar and who knows how much nicotine.

Today, a Marlboro Red contains 16MG of tar.

One could say "Well, that's because of government intervention", but that's not the case.

Government intervention usually either follows or coincides a special interest or grassroots movement. These movements usually find enough intervention via the press and activism to cause a reaction from a corporate entity.

So your saying here that "antis" bought about a reduction in tar levels in cigarettes?

quote:

I think the problem is that there has to be a greater separation between judicial decision and legislation. This is why in a previous post I suggested my Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that basically stated that no law may be decided legislation in reaction to a judicial decision unless that decision is made by The U.S. Supreme Court for a period of five years. In other words, could Federal, State or Local government pass a law banning smoking in a publicly owned park? Absolutely. Could they do it in the face of a tort decision that sued and won a decision against the city that held that park? Not for five years.

Therefore, in the case of Trans-fats there would need to be a 5 year "cooling off period" under your amendment? The trouble with things like trans fats is some foods aren't labelled like fast food or something someone serves to a party so you need a quick ban when it is realised to be harmful. Would this also have applied to Thalidomide?

You see Winston I don't have a concrete position on anything discussed here. I only post to counter the absolute bullshit posted about the health benefits of smoking. I really do not want a smoker thinking of quitting to stumble into this forum as I did and find the lies that he or she may interpret as truth. That would be counter productive in his or her efforts to find the support they need to shake the tobacco stone from around their neck.

You all like it in this forum because although you have likely had several attempts at quitting each has been unsuccessful. By hanging out here, you are being fed a diet of reasons you should not quit and reasons your body rebelled against quitting that help you cope with those failed attempts to quit. Nightlight in my recollection has never posted about rights of smokers only the crap about health benefits, most of which made up by cranks twisting numbers. Note this is my recollection and as I have a life outside of this forum I don't read his every word of drivel. There may be no scientific proof that tobacco is harmful but the statistic show it involves an elevated risk, in my humble opinion an unacceptable risk. Would you bet the farm against a dollar that a coin toss would come down heads? No way! Because the odds are 50/50 and the risk is too great. Would you spend thousands a year for increased risk ond no real gain? Yes if you were addicted. You started smoking as a teen, before you were mature enough to make mature decisions, how do I know? The odds are in my favour. You have tried to quit several times since you turned 20, maybe you did quit for a while. How do I know this? The odds are in my favour, most, no nearly all smokers have. I have no right to impose my will on you but I have the right to voice an opinion. As a libertarian, I am sure you will defend my right to voice my opinion.

I know a lot of people here see me as a plant from anti-tobacco but that simply isn't true. I have conceded some points, which I feel certain a plant would never do. I did not do any research on tobacco before I came to this forum so in the start I was shooting from the hip. I have learned a lot. Not all of what I learned agreed with what I believed was true but mostly it has. Like you, the more resistance I encounter the more I push back.

In an ideal world in relation to tobacco, I would love that my grand children, should I be so blessed, will never be exposed to tobacco. I also wish that the world be freed from the grip of tobacco addiction. Tobacco is the opposite to freedom. When you are addicted you are trapped, unfortunately governments are also trapped by tobacco addiction. Each year tobacco money contributes billions to government tax revenue. No government in a developed country can afford to ban tobacco, no government in a third world country has prevented it's penetration. Banning tobacco will purely drive the industry underground and the tax income will vanish. The health cost will likely continue for 50 years or so as some damage has already been done. The price of tobacco would only increase as the cost of the supply chain would include criminal elements, bribes protection and high mark ups to cover risks of criminal activity. . Do you think the likes of Capone was into sly grog for fun? The price, regardless of the tax will always reflect what the customer is willing to pay. Why are tobacco prices so low in third world countries?

As I have said in the past I have travelled to England from Australia 3 times in the last 4 years and have noticed that smoking there is far more prevalent than here. You notice when you arrive in the airport, restaurants, clubs, bars, retail outlets, walking down the streets etc that the smell of tobacco smoke is everywhere. People smoke in supermarkets and McDonalds has ash trays on the table, what the hell is a restaurant chain that mainly caters to kids doing with ashtrays on the tables?

The biggest advantage of smoking bans is that it make smoking less convenient. I'm not familiar with smoking bans in homes but I can understand the problems it may cause in high density housing. I agree with bans in the home if children are present. Why would I agree with the taking of freedom from adults in their own homes? Because kids idolise their parents, they don't believe their parents would do anything to harm them but a majority of smoking parents smoke near their kids. Those kids don't have the knowledge to make a decision to ask a parent not to smoke around them and judging by the reaction to my presence here that request would be met with a reaction from cooperation to abuse and punishment or a lecture about the benefits of side stream smoke. How can kids rights be protected? I have no idea. Smoking bans in homes won't work, as you have said it is a constant battle in a restaurant or bar so how are you going to enforce a ban where the perpetrator of the crime is the person in charge?

To achieve the elimination of tobacco I think the governments of the western world are going in the right direction. While cold turkey is the best way for a smoker to quit the fiscal shock of cold turkey would hurt a government.
The choices for a government to reduce the dependence of it's people on tobacco are several, outlaw it, didn't work for tobacco, bump up the cost, doing that, make it inconvenient to smoke, doing that, point out the harm it is doing you, doing that, make you aware of what your missing out on, could be more of that, control it like prescription drugs, see ban. Governments are doing just what I want them to do with tobacco.

There are already many things you cannot legally do in your own home. You cannot tattoo a minor nor practice genital mutilation nor make drugs nor use illegal drug nor sell alcohol to minors nor open a casino nor set fire to your furniture inside the house and the list goes on. There are many things you must do in your home like provide a safe environment for any children present, Perhaps have a smoke alarm installed(Australia), ensure any electrical wiring or plumbing is done by a qualified person, keep the grounds clear of hazards and vermin, fence a swimming pool with a child-proof fence and the list goes on.

Why impose bans on all venues? Because it allows everyone to go out and enjoy the facility. While a majority of eateries and bars are filled with tobacco smoke non-smokers will stay home. Smokers are still able to enter and enjoy the facility of a smoke free establishment, you show that it can be done in your post above. It isn't possible for a person to enter a smoking permitted venue without being assaulted by tobacco smoke. Even those places with separate smoking and non-smoking areas, regardless of the ventilation system, there is tobacco smells in the non-smoking section. Believe me on this I have been to many with segregation, it does not work. Without a ban what happens if a group want to go out for a meal and one of them smokes? The whole group bends to that person and they head to a smoking eatery. Again I have been there. This simply adds weight to your observations that smoking permitted venues have plenty of customers.

As far as governments making decisions based on the decisions of courts. Criminal courts interpret laws made by governments. Civil courts apportion blame and responsibility. If a government is proven by a court to be negligent in its duty of care for people it is charged with, among other things caring for, it’s constituents, how can that government sit back for 5 years after that danger is revealed and do nothing about it? These things only end in the supreme court if the losing party takes it that far.

Here is why I don’t really buy the libertarian thing. Some people don’t like wearing clothes, why aren’t you campaigning for their freedom to go without clothes? Because you are campaigning for your right to smoke. Why? Because you smoke. The right to walk the streets naked does not interest you. (I think)

I had a person saw me in uniform and he had to protest to me that the government was allowing a wind farm to be built near his home. He said the wind farm would be dangerous as it would distract motorists driving by. This guy actually chased me up the road in his car to tell me this, flashing headlights and all. I explained to him I have no power in relation to this. (I love wind farms and pay a premium for my electricity to get wind and hydro energy) I asked him why he was really concerned, he said he was worried for peoples safety. I said, do you have any other concerns? He said the wind turbines kill birds in the area. I asked, do you have any other concerns, concerns about any other projects in the state? No he answered. So what do you think about the wind farm on the Yorke Peninsula about 100 kilometres away? I asked. I don’t care about that wind farm. Why not? I asked? I don’t know, he said. Could it be you can’t see it from your home but you can see the one near your home? Well yes but…
By the way this guy who put himself to me as an environmentalist drove a smoky old volvo.
Come around, if it does not affect you, you could not give a toss. This has nothing to do with general freedom, it has to do with the freedom for you to smoke and the burden of non-smokers to cop it sweet.

Summary
1. I am not a plant but an independent person.
2. I don’t think most people here know what independent thought is.
3. I don’t like the crap being preached here about "health benefits" of tobacco.
4. Tobacco isn’t used now in the same way it was 300 years ago, reference to that use is irrelevant to today’s (non American aboriginal) smoker.
5. The majority of smokers don’t smoke pipes cigars or roll/stuff there own.
6. I don't want my grandchildren to be exposed to tobacco.
7. I have experienced locations with less smoking control than here. It wasn’t good.
8. Governments are addicted to tobacco just like smokers.
9. Prohibition doesn’t work in stopping anything, it drives it under ground.
10. People put on fancy hats to push dirty barrows in this world. Liberty/tobacco Environment/NIMBY (not in my back yard) so it can be hard to tell what they are pushing from the words they use.
11. Liberty is another argument, this forum is about tobacco.
Smokers in the main don’t care about and never have cared about the rights of non-smokers. Often asking a smoker on the next table not to light a cigarette is met with an angry stare.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: I know it all,

quote:

Originally posted by nightlight
... completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities.

Nightlight I believe alcohol was banned during the 1920s in USA for religious reasons not for health reasons although like pro-smokers they claimed otherwise such as to benefit the country. Prohibition simply lead to an increase in organised crime which is why the current tactic in relation to tobacco is far better than prohibition.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by I know it all:
[ It isn't possible for a person to enter a smoking permitted venue without being assaulted by tobacco smoke. Even those places with separate smoking and non-smoking areas, regardless of the ventilation system, there is tobacco smells in the non-smoking section.
" the burden of non-smokers to cop it sweet."



The debate about the adverse health effects of SHS is over, The US Surgeon General's report says so.
2006 SURGEON GENERAL’S REPORT
Now let us look at what the report, pages 13-16, said are some of the things SHS exposure does not cause:
1. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy
and spontaneous abortion.
2. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal
mortality.
3. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between maternal
exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy
and preterm delivery.
4. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
exposure to secondhand smoke and congenital
malformations.
5. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive
functioning among children.
6. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral
problems among children.
7. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s
height/growth.
8. The evidence not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between prenatal and
postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and
childhood cancer.
9. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between prenatal and
postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and
childhood leukemias.
10. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between prenatal and
postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and
childhood lymphomas.
11. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between prenatal and
postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and
childhood brain tumors.
12. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence of a causal relationship between prenatal and postnatal exposure to secondhand smoke and
other childhood cancer types.
13. The evidence is not sufficient
to infer a causal relationship between parental
smoking and the natural history of middle ear
effusion.
14. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
parental smoking and an increase in the risk of
adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.
15. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure from parental smoking and the
onset of childhood asthma.
16. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin
E-mediated allergy in their children.
17. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke and breast cancer.
18. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and a risk of nasal sinus cancer
among nonsmokers.
19. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
secondhand smoke exposure and a risk of
nasopharyngeal carcinoma among nonsmokers.
20. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between
secondhand smoke exposure and the risk of
cervical cancer among lifetime nonsmokers.
21. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between exposure
to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of
stroke.
22. Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical
vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall
thickening, are not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between exposure to
secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
23. The evidence is not sufficient
to conclude that persons with nasal allergies
or a history of respiratory illnesses are more
susceptible to developing nasal irritation from
secondhand smoke exposure.
24. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms
including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and
difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
25. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms
including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and
difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
26. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and chronic respiratory
symptoms.
27. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between short-term
secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline
in lung function in persons with asthma.
28. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between short-
term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute
decline in lung function in healthy persons.
29. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence of a causal relationship between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and an accelerated
decline in lung function.
30. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and adult-onset asthma.
31. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma
control.
32. The evidence is not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease(emphysema and chronic bronchitis).
33. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and morbidity in
persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease.

Not much of an assault!

Regarding our EPA's 3000 lung cancer deaths from exposure to SHS:
The Australian Supreme Court reached this conclusion, officially rejecting the EPA report because:
"The [study] results set out in tabular and statistical form did not support the claim of risk."
- Federal Focus, Vol VIII, NO. 11, 1993

If I sat behind you at a eatery and flicked the back of your head every 15 seconds the whole time you were there would I be assaulting you? I couldn't be according to what you say. If you cant prove a causal effect to any health problems then it isn't assault. When i am eating out, your tobacco smoke annoys me and robs me of being able to smell my food. At an outdoor motorsport venue part of the experience is the smell of burning rubber and racing fuel, a smoker sitting beside me in my alocated seat is taking that part of the experience from me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by I know it all:
When i am eating out, your tobacco smoke annoys me and robs me of being able to smell my food.

Since there are a great number of eateries that do not allow smoking and you choose to go to those that do allow smoking, I can only conclude that you enjoy and revel in being annoyed. Smokers are merely helping you to achieve your desired state of mind.
Deliberately seeking pain and discomfort is a definition of masochism. Sort of explains your posting on this forum.

quote:

Deliberately seeking pain and discomfort is a definition of masochism. Sort of explains your posting on this forum.

lmfao!

quote:

Originally posted by claude zachary:

quote:

Deliberately seeking pain and discomfort is a definition of masochism. Sort of explains your posting on this forum.

lmfao!

Know it all also stated:"It isn't possible for a person to enter a smoking permitted venue without being assaulted by tobacco smoke."

Assulted by the air! I guess that we have to add PARANOIA to his other problems.

I guess that is how they manage to believe in all of those non-existent deaths caused by ETS.

The EPA 1993 Report states that nonsmokers die from lung cancer at a yearly rate of 1 per 10,000 and that nonsmokers exposed to ETS have a 20% increased death rate or 1 per 50,000 per year.

The dose makes the poison.
Here in Illinois;US Dept of Labor figures show that a town of 25,000 would have 160 nonsmoking bartenders,waiters and waitress working in fullservice restaurants and liquor only bars.

50,000 divided by 160 is 1 lung cancer death every 310 years for those b/w/wtrss.

They are exposed to ETS 40 hours per week. An equal number of patrons going to a bar for 2 hours per nite, 5 nites a week,would be exposed to 1/4th the ETS and have 1 lung cancer death every 1240 years.

160 patrons going out to eat for 1 hour per nite, two nites a week, would be exposed to 1/20th the ETS and have 1 lung cancer death every 6,200 years.

Looking at this from another view;all 15,000 nonsmoking adults in our little town could dine out twice a week and be exposed to ETS for one hour per visit and they would have 1 lung cancer death every 65 years.

So much for the health benefits of smoking bans.

quote:

Know it all also stated

Eh, that one is on iggy. I dunno y they would come to a pro-smokers rights forum and then try to have the last post on every thread, calling everyone "addicts" and other choice words. If (s)he would leave, (s)he would have more time for the other things (s)he enjoys... washing their hands 100's of times a day, counting the 1 inch square tiles on their bathroom floor, picking lint off themselves and others, standing nect to the road with a cheap speed gun and clocking motorists, and the other things often engaged in by groups of neurotic socially outcast pariahs, like anti-smokers.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by I know it all:
When i am eating out, your tobacco smoke annoys me and robs me of being able to smell my food.

Since there are a great number of eateries that do not allow smoking and you choose to go to those that do allow smoking, I can only conclude that you enjoy and revel in being annoyed. Smokers are merely helping you to achieve your desired state of mind.
Deliberately seeking pain and discomfort is a definition of masochism. Sort of explains your posting on this forum.

I don't know about where you live gkayser30 but around here until smoking was banned in places food is served there were very few smoke free eateries. Oh and there wasn't a massive number of bankrupt restaurants after the bans started, in fact it seemed to increase the patronage but I must add that was my personal observation.

(Offpoint: can someone please tell me how to properly use the "reply with quotes" thing, because I'm not getting it, apparently.)

[/QUOTE]
So your saying here that "antis" bought about a reduction in tar levels in cigarettes?[/QUOTE]

Yes, very probably! And the private market responded! There's nothing wrong with being a protester in a Libertarian world. However, because anti-smoking used government intervention, this trend never evolved as it should have. Big Tobacco has in the past, and was willing in the future, to spend many tens of billions on creating less risky cigarettes (despite how ridiculous such a notion is to anti-smoking). Libertarians aren't against anti-smoking, or any other political cause, they're against government intervention.


[/QUOTE]Therefore, in the case of Trans-fats there would need to be a 5 year "cooling off period" under your amendment? The trouble with things like trans fats is some foods aren't labelled like fast food or something someone serves to a party so you need a quick ban when it is realised to be harmful. Would this also have applied to Thalidomide? [/QUOTE]

Yes, there would. Most don't know that trans-fat is so prevalent because the very same organization that is demanding trans fat bans, The Center for Science in the Public Interest, lobbied for them to be created as a substitute for saturated fats in the late eighties and food manufacturers cooperated. Trans fats have been around since people have been eating food. They're nothing new. They're just "the latest thing" being enacted in law.

Regarding thalidomide, thalidomide (or brand name Thalomid) still exists and is still used to treat certain conditions. I know this because I work in Health Insurance and have handled myself cases where people had it prescribed by their physician. Government regulation of drugs kills more people than it saves and increases the cost of drugs. If you'd like an interesting book to read, I'd suggest reporter John Stossel's book "Give Me a Break", where he covers this idea more thoroughly.

[/QUOTE]You see Winston I don't have a concrete position on anything discussed here. I only post to counter the absolute bullshit posted about the health benefits of smoking.[/QUOTE]

I know and this is my precise problem with your posts. You want YOUR world.

I think you've confused being a Libertarian with the idea that your going to have to live in MY world, and that's not correct.

Libertarians believe in property rights. This allows for both of us to be accomodated according to the businesses we choose to attend.

It would be greatly appreciated if you'd learn a bit more about Libertarianism before you criticize it. It would be my pleasure to refer you to places where you can get this information, either free on the internet, via videos and writings, or via books and films.

[/QUOTE] The right to walk the streets naked does not interest you. (I think)[/QUOTE]

Libertarians actually have fought for nudist's rights on private property where the government intervened and told them that they didn't have the right to behave as they wished on private property. I am not a nudist, but that does concern me; those people should be left alone. Notice please that this is not a nudist's site or a Libertarian discussion board, but a smoking issues board. I'll let the nudist's fight for themselves and agree with them via my political affiliation; being a Libertarian. I'm not gay, but I support the right of gays to marry. I've never solicited a prositute, but I believe prostitution should be legal, despite the fact that these notions makes me a bit uncomfortable personally. I don't seek government as a means of ensuring that my personal likes and dislikes run the world...because, again, you can't run a world that way, which is becoming increasingly evident.


Summary
1. I am not a plant but an independent person.

I've never accused you of being a plant, but I understand why you feel the need to make that clear.

2. I don’t think most people here know what independent thought is.

That's unnecessary and insulting. Nightlight's independent, controversial views seem to be what brought you here in the first place.

3. I don’t like the crap being preached here about "health benefits" of tobacco.

Why not? What if, despite how much you and others believe otherwise, they exist? I don't agree with what Nightlight has preached here, but I he has led me to information and questions that I hadn't asked before once I put aside pre-conceptions.

Why, for example does a 45 year old pack a day smoker or a never smoker even get lung cancer, when other smokers have lived to record ages? I've personally looked for a breakdown of information regarding risk by brand for tobacco and found little or no information because of anti-smoking's "all or none" approach. Why does tobacco have a lung cancer risk, but no such risk has been shown with marijuana smoking? Political bias? Lack of evidence due to the illegality of marijuana? Personally, I don't agree so far with Nightlight's assertions that "smoking is good for you", but he's given me some clues regarding these discrepancies which anti-smoking has never given me. Because of Nightlight's writing, I'm intrigued by the notion that smoking tobacco is dangerous because of the physical composition of the tobacco leaf which allows it to more readily pick up residual radioactive by-products, whether naturally occuring or not. This makes smoking tobacco a delivery system for radioactive substances, and until that is reconciled, it doesn't make smoking good for anyone's health. There are several other thoughts I have here, but I'm stopping for length.

4. Tobacco isn’t used now in the same way it was 300 years ago, reference to that use is irrelevant to today’s (non American aboriginal) smoker.

Not getting it. So, if people were at celebratory dinners at restaurants or home and broke out a long pipe and smoked out of it and shared it even with the children, that would be okay if it were just occasional?

5. The majority of smokers don’t smoke pipes cigars or roll/stuff there own.

I actually went out and purchased some "roll my own" tobacco after reading Nightlight's writing to test out his ideas. The problem is that I don't know how to properly roll a cigarette and end up with a lap full of tobacco. I assume that this is why more don't do it. Smoking cigars is tremendoulsy popular and many cigar smokers actually classify themselves as non-smokers. Pipes; not so much anymore. It carries a pretentious perception for reasons perceived via the movies, television and books.

6. I don't want my grandchildren to be exposed to tobacco.

Do you mean that you don't want them exposed to the smoke or that you don't want them to know that it ever existed? Either view is impossible.

7. I have experienced locations with less smoking control than here. It wasn’t good.

Whatever. Depends on your definition of "good".

8. Governments are addicted to tobacco just like smokers.

Actually, governments aren't "addicted" to anything. "Addicted" may the most over-used and inappropriately used word in history. In a Libertarian world, government wouldn't have anything to do with tobacco. The same people who demand government intervention are those who create these situations in the first place.

9. Prohibition doesn’t work in stopping anything, it drives it under ground.

So does almost any government action. The only exception I can readily think of is ending slavery, which, of course, increased freedom.

10. People put on fancy hats to push dirty barrows in this world. Liberty/tobacco Environment/NIMBY (not in my back yard) so it can be hard to tell what they are pushing from the words they use.

Absolutely right. Same for public health groups. There should be no involvement between governments and private enterprise.

11. Liberty is another argument, this forum is about tobacco.
Smokers in the main don’t care about and never have cared about the rights of non-smokers. Often asking a smoker on the next table not to light a cigarette is met with an angry stare.

If I'm in on private property where the property owner has said that smoking is allowed, it should warrant an angry stare. If I were on property where smoking wasn't allowed and lit up, I'm sure you'd make your irritation known. Both parties are correct.

Smoking sections were created by the government, not by private businesses. The owner of a very popular restaurant in my area expressed relief at the smoking ban because he personally disliked smoking, but was required to maintain a smoking section.

Finally, I, for one, did not start smoking as a teenager. In fact, I was approaching my 21st birthday when I began smoking. I personally disliked smoking before, but never had the hypochondriac, zealous reactions people do today. I know that they're fake and psychogenic. Why did I start at such an advanced age?

Simple curiosity and philosophical reasons. In terms of mortality, I was asking several questions at the time regarding that very subject and a bit troubled by the fact that others were'nt troubled by the inevitability of death without satisfactory answers regarding the meaning of life. It was very troubling for me at the time and I even saw a therapist a few times. Smoking, for me, was a rejection of my mortality fear. It was a way of taking up strength against a neurosis I had at the time. In the meantime, psychology has actually created a classification for what I was going through; many people actually go through a kind of preliminary mid-life crisis in their late teens/early twenties when they realize that the promise of youth is over and the reality of adulthood is upon them.

Smoking made me feel good. Smoking fights depression, if this isn't evident by its prevalence among the mentally ill. It invited imagination and ambition. It was a kick in the butt. I needed it at the time. At the time, I thought "Fuck lung cancer, If this is getting me through now, I don't care what everybody says, I'm going with this. At least I'm not thinking about dying all the time."

As an avid athlete in high school, people would say to me "God, Winston, you're the last person I ever thought would smoke." So was I. What I peronally do for my own survival is not the stuff that I like to hang out for others. If you think I shouldn't be sharing this sorry-ass story, I think you're right. I asked the therapist I saw five times back then, before I smoked, for medication, and they said "no". The message I got at the time was "find your own way out of this."

They were absolutely right.

Those feelings haven't vistited me since. I don't who that person even is anymore. I have to admit that it was me, but I don't get how anymore. I don't deny it because I can't, but, well, it's just not me anymore.

The world we live in now seems to justify the neurosis I had then. It's so full of neurotic agendas becoming popular perception that I can't even stand to watch a sitcom reflecting our modern world. You think what you want and I'll think what I want. I think secondhand smoke is bullshit. I think the bird flu is bullshit. I think the oversold fear of identity theft is bullshit (and I've had this happen to me). I think anthropogenic global warming is bullshit. Trans fat is bullshit. Globalization is bullshit.

Non-bullshit, in my mind: The National ID card. Human RFID chip implantation. Big pharma. There are conspiracy theories out there regarding these things and I don't agree with them. These conspiracy theories are simply trying to label something that governments always do when they're given enough time: oppress individual freedom. Now there's greater technology to help the whole thing along. It's not Illuminati or NWO, or any such thing. It's just what has always happened when goverment is given too much power. Orwell explained it all quite well and he didn't need some idea about George Bush plotting 9/11. These are simply symptoms of government enterprise mixing with private enterprise. These shouldn't mix.

Private is GOOD.

So, I...All, again, you, by admission, haven't given anyone any idea of what kind of system you want for the world, even being "King of the World". You want what YOU WANT.

The rules in this world have to have some kind of over-arching implicit sense to them. You don't have a relevant debate.

Here's your view from what I can tell:

-Prohibition doesn't work, but I don't want any smoking.

-I want social engineering to continue, don't care about the ramifications, and eventually everyone will get the point and my world will exist.

-I don't want someone smoking next to me in a restaurant, despite the fact that no one is asking to smoke next to you in a restaurant.

-I don't like what Nightlight says, but I want to say what I say. If you're a Libertarian, you should stand up for my first amendment right, but I don't understand that you already do, but just on another site.

-I'm a former smoker and I quit so I'm safe to monopolize the issue.

I have to ask, I...All, if this site were comprised of intelligent design advocates who were looking for a way to give their view to the world, do you think that a rabid atheist who didn't fully understand the arguments and kept referencing studies would be welcome?

If I want to start a discussion regarding, let's say, the parallels of Orwell and anti-smoking, I now have to contend with the discussion being sidetracked by your comments and people debating you until the entire point of the original post is lost. The subject is too sprawling for these types of distractions.

It's not a tit-for-tat thing and it's not a personal thing, but I think admin should throw you out.

I don't agree with Nightlight, but I'm respectful of his points, and try to give a reasoned response.

I'm enlightened and often surprised by NightLight. (That's probably why he chose the name).

I'm yet to be enlightened by you, despite the same respect that I've given you from the beginning. I'm quickly finding it has no reward.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
I'm intrigued by the notion that smoking tobacco is dangerous because of the physical composition of the tobacco leaf which allows it to more readily pick up residual radioactive by-products, whether naturally occuring or not. This makes smoking tobacco a delivery system for radioactive substances, and until that is reconciled, it doesn't make smoking good for anyone's health.

The radiation from tobacco smoke is a red herring. Whether radioactive atoms are absorbed from fertilizer or from rain water (picking radioactive fallout after decades of nuclear tests), any plant and animal will pick it, hence our food is vastly greater source of that radioactivity simply because you inhale 20-50 mg of tobacco leaf matter per cigarette or 1 gram per pack. Between food and beverages you consume thousands times more matter. For example, a recent New York Times article (antismoking as usual) Puffing on Polonium cites 0.04 pCi (unit for # of alpha particle emitting atoms) inhaled per cigarette, hence 0.8 pCi per pack, call it 1 pCi/Pack. A glass of water (250ml) has 3-10 pCi of alpha emitters. As one might have expected, the New York Times didn't consider it 'fit to print' to inform readers that a glass of water will give you as many radioactive atoms as 3-10 packs of cigarettes. They even had to twist the plain fact of 'smoker longevity' in Caucasus into a clumsy half-truth "tobacco growers’ longevity in the Caucasus", since putting 'smoker' and 'longevity' together must have grated too much on the author's & editor's ears (the author was a court witness against tobacco industry).

Most foods and beverages have tens of times more alpha emitters per unit of weight than water:

* Beer= 390 pCi/liter
* Tap Water= 20 pCi/liter
* Milk= 1,400 pCi/liter
* Salad Oil= 4,900 pCi/liter
* Whiskey= 1,200 pCi/liter
* Brazil Nuts= 14 pCi/g
* Bananas= 3 pCi/g
* Flour= 0.14 pCi/g
* Peanuts 8 Peanut Butter= 0.12 pCi/g
* Tea= 0.40 pCi/g

Further, not only you take in much less of tobacco leaf matter, but unlike most agricultural products, tobacco leaf is cured and aged, hence even in the little of tobacco leaf matter you take in, the Po-210 (which has half life 138 days) will be mostly gone by the time you end up smoking the leaf (a year or two later).

Note that you will also find in antismoking literature theoretical figures of absorbed radiation (in mrad units) based on a 1960s study (which was never reproduced). That often cited 8000 mrad/year (for 2 packs/day smoker) is a bogus antismoking "fact" (by virtue of repetition) which has been debunked by Colby in several usenet discussions (see also my post there for additional refs). In view of lawsuits against tobacco industry, had anyone been able to validate that often cited mrad figure, tobacco companies would have been required by law & EPA regulations to remove Po-210 from tobacco years ago. Similarly, it would have been trivial to induce lung cancers in lab animals by exposing them to tobacco smoke (yet antismoking "science" still can't do it and it still has to rely on blind statistical associations, half a century later).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

Nightlight, thank you for the useful information.

Two things occur to me regarding smoking versus food consumption:

1) Delivery system and

2)The anatomical structure of the lung and respiratory system versus other systems like digestive, and excretory system.

I don't pretend to be an expert on anatomy but regarding 1) The delivery system of smoking. Smoking, of course, involves sucking an air/smoke mix directly into the lung with and filling the alveolar sacks with this combination. From there, my understanding is that air and chemicals are delivered to the bloodstream via a permeable layer. It seems that this would allow for a greater possibility of permanently lodging material, including radioactive material in the lung where it can accumulate over time in the alveolar sacks.

This brings me to 2) The anatomical structure of the lung against, let's say the kidney or stomach. As you know, the kidney and stomach have a top entrance point and bottom exit point.
The lungs lack a "gravity and flow friendly" exit point. The only exit point material in the lung has other than permeability to the blood stream is the way it came in. Now, I'm not sure how blood engorged or exposed to veins the surface of a lung is versus the surface of of a kidney. Nonetheless, the lung doesn't have a ureter.

If material doesn't go into the bloodstream in the lung, it's got to get out the way it came in. Cough!

Now, I know the stomach and intestines have a permeable layer but they also have the "downstream" exit point of excretion and, even if material remains on one pass, it occurs to me that it's likely to get caught on the next pass.

I don't want to beat this to death, I think you catch my drift. I know that material gets caught in other organs as well, but those organs seem more readily able to remove this material than the lung because of the constant downward stream of material through them. The lung is, of course, designed to collect and expel air. Foreign substances, of course: cough!

Summing up , it would seem to me that there is an additional problem with radioactivity getting into the lung versus it getting into other organs in even greater quantities because the lung doesn't have as efficient an exit system as other organs. It occurs to me that radioactive particles would be more likely to get jammed up in the respiratory system via an activity like smoking than they would get caught in the stomach from, say, eating a doubly contaminated sandwich.

Now, I'm taking alot for granted here regarding anatomy and, again, I'm not trying to pretend that I know more about it than I actually do. This is my feeble hypothesis regarding radioactivity collecting the lung and causing lung cancer via the delivery system of smoking.

Also, I've heard (but haven't compared myself) that the tobacco leaf has tiny "hairs" on its underleaf that marijuana leaves have either less of or lack altogether. The idea is that this allows radioactive particles to become trapped in between these "hairs" more readily than on a marijuana leaf. I don't know this to be true, though.

Regarding Colby, et all, versus public health evaluations on smoking. This is a tough one. Anecdotal experience seems to back up the idea that smoking causes a greater prevalence of lung and throat cancer. Of course, I've also been told and sold this my whole life. I'm beginning to learn that perception can create experience as much as experience can create perception. It's difficult to reconcile such extremes in opinion because I've got to believe somebody else. The behavior of public health gives me more and more reason to distrust them, but I'm as uncomfortable saying "Direct Smoking is good for you" as I am going off on a politically correct anti-smoking bender. I want sense to intervene here and give me some truth in between where the dots can be connected.

I think that's why most of us are here. This is emotionally and psychologically tough. You're stuck between an entity you've been told your whole life not to trust (tobacco) and an entity that you know from experience you can't trust (public health, anti-smoking, etc). Coming to any conclusion makes one feel that they're delving into an extreme position that turns one off.

I wonder if I'm the only one who finds himself buying old movies so he can have them before the editors get to them and remember the way the world was when no one worried about this crap?

BTW, on the link you provided, Dr. Colby indicates that he would welcome studies on autopsied lungs to get to the bottom of this whole thing:

"If the theory were proven, a fundamental bastion of the anti-smoking movement would crumble, since we'd all agree that tobacco, itself, is not injurious; only the isotopes, which could be easily removed."

It seems implicit to me from that statement that he hasn't completely dismissed the idea that radioactivity could be the culprit, though I know that he intellectually believes it to be untrue.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

winstonsmith-buy those movies...they will disappear (except ?? AMC channel, which lovingly puts out the black and whites and EVERYBODY IS SMOKING...good guys and bad guys alike!)
Also, hadn't someone (sorry forgotten who) on this site postulated the "deathcurse" smokers are supposed to be living with each and every day?
I am here to tell you: I am 50 now, on NO MEDS (only vitamins) and in pretty darn good shape, and of course my own good cookin.
Even after having and raising two sons, working full time since 1975 at: farming (yes, I am a capable tobacco farmer, hog farmer, crops, without the chemicals), chef, mother, student at 40, fulltime law enforcement now and still looking to advance myself further.

IKIA seems to be of the "victim mentality" that all should SACRIFICE THE MANY FOR THE ONE..or at least realize "Resistance is Futile" of the BORG persuasion.

and winstonsmith, I would posit: our bodies are more than capable of "fighting" off way more than the MEDOCRATS will ever give us credit for. If we are put on this planet to SURVIVE AND THRIVE, that means we better do it-or die- as the mother planet has no patience for the WEAK DELICATE FLOWERS WE HAVE NOW PRODUCED.

The best and only thing I have passed along to my two sons is this: BE COMFORTABLE IN YOUR OWN SKIN AND HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT.

by the by: I am a selfish objectivist of the aynrand persuasion.

Oldstudent,

Nightlight talked about the "death curse" and that is something to be taken very seriously that public health seems not to care about. I've read of a study where nuns diary entries were looked at when they were teenagers and evaluated as either "negative outlook" or "positive outlook". Those with the former died ten years earlier on average.

BE COMFORTABLE IN YOUR OWN SKIN AND HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT....

....from another of the Rand persuasion (working my way through "Atlas Shrugged" now), I love your attitude, my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by oldstudent:
Also, hadn't someone (sorry forgotten who) on this site postulated the "deathcurse" smokers are supposed to be living with each and every day?

I use the term death curse here and in usenet posts. The rationale for the term was given in the post "Dr. W. T. Whitby: Smoking is good for you" as follows:

... Regarding the Whitby's award, we should note that the antismoking brainwashing does harm the health of smokers and non-smokers, not just by denying them the health benefits of ancient medicinal plant, but more directly via "witch doctor" effect (negative placebo):

J. Hatton, R. Harris Murder a Cigarette: the Smoking Debate



There was a study in Heidelberg, described by Professor Eysenck in Psychological Reports (1989) in which 528 men were asked whether they, as smokers, were convinced that they would be very likely to develop lung cancer, heart disease, or other 'smoking related diseases'.

The 72 who answered 'yes', while admitting that their views were taken from information in the media, had an almost three times higher death rate at the end of 13 years than those who were not so influenced.

Fear can kill. This has been known since disease was first studied. We are entitled to wonder how many people have been killed more by the fear of 'smoking related diseases' than by any actual disease itself.


Leslie Kenton Modern-day Death Curses



Almost everybody has heard of death curses: psychological literature is laced with accounts of how Aboriginal witch doctors have quite literally brought about the death of the young and healthy by cursing them. No sooner do these people learn of the fate which has been cast for them than they begin inexplicably to sicken and eventually to die. It appears that through complex biological processes, their simple belief in the curse brings about destruction of their organism.

In civilized society we tend to look upon such phenomena as anthropological curiosities - products of primitive superstition which simply don't touch us in our more enlightened age. What we are not aware of however is that many of us in the civilized world are also under our own brand of `death curses'. They may be subtler than those issued by witch doctors but they can be every bit as potent in bringing about the physical and mental decline which we have come to associate with aging.

Common (and usually unconscious) notions such as `retirement', `middle-age', `It's all down hill after forty', and `At your age you must start taking things more easily', are widely held. They can exert a powerful effect on the process of aging by creating destructive self-fulfilling expectations about age decline. Instead of facing the future full of confidence and excitement about what lies ahead, optimism is replaced by anxiety as we are warned to `Be careful', or `Don't take chances on a new career at your age.'

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight,

I'm continually interested and fascinated by this.

What's the good of feeling bad? Feeling bad sucks, regardless of your habits.

Another thing I'm EXTREMELY interested in is the human tendency toward asceticism (self-denial, simply stated). The origins of asceticism are attributed to religious efforts to achieve transcendence of "bodily wants", but I can't help that it has something deeper in our collective conscious or even our sociobiological origins.

Quite simply; people seem to reject anything that is truly enjoyable and we're constantly told that what we enjoy is bad for us. Meanwhile, this is awesomely counterintuitive. My favorite meal is a good Cheeseburger with good fries or steak and eggs. In fact, the more enjoyable I find any food, the worse it's supposed to be for me, better!

Sex, meanwhile, feels great, because, well, nature wants us to do it.

Why the hell is everything else so damn different?

I've accepted this as an external reality, but asceticism seems to have some kind of universal, internal logic running of its own.

I think that everyone knows what I'm talking about, but except for religious or metaphysical discussions, I am left with nothing when I search for exporations, discussions, writings or studies on asceticism.

I ate a salad the other day and, as salad's go, it was a good one, but it had no visceral enjoyment to it and it took half an hour to eat the damn thing. I find salads to be very labor intensive.

Why does the stuff I don't want always, as reliable as a clock, have to be good for me? There are exceptions; beginning to exercise stinks, but feels great once you get going and you want to do more. Learning or reading or mental difficulty often seems to much but it seems to carry a momentum once the ball gets rolling.

I know people who absolutely demand that they love salads and tofu and they're always kind of bright eyed and smiling, and I get a vibe that's not always a health vibe; it feels more like "moonie" vibe.

Why asceticism?