Australian Politics Forum - oh dem poor smokers...

Raven Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2981 Around	Re: oh dem poor smokers... Reply #75 - Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:52pm Double post.
Back to top	Quoth the Raven "Nevermore" Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned. IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Legend

Posts: 21718
Rockhampton, Q
Gender: male

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #76 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:07am

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:

Raven's point is the government won't ban cigarettes, they make to much money off it.

Raven's point is totally flawed when you factor in the costs of accidental arson, health costs, loss of work production, money stress, and a whole range of other factors smoking costs us. Whatever tax is collected from cigarette sales is superseded by the need to spend more money covering the losses cigarettes cost society.

Back to top

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #77 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 2:30am

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:07am:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:

Raven's point is the government won't ban cigarettes, they make to much money off it.

Raven's point is totally flawed when you factor in the costs of accidental arson, health costs, loss of work production, money stress, and a whole range of other factors smoking costs us. Whatever tax is collected from cigarette sales is superseded by the need to spend more money covering the losses cigarettes cost society.

And yet the government continues to regulate a product that kills 15,000 people per year. A product that 86% of the population doesn't use.

Back to top

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #78 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 6:41am

Raven wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 2:30am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:07am:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:

Raven's point is the government won't ban cigarettes, they make to much money off it.

Raven's point is totally flawed when you factor in the costs of accidental arson, health costs, loss of work production, money stress, and a whole range of other factors smoking costs us. Whatever tax is collected from cigarette sales is superseded by the need to spend more money covering the losses cigarettes cost society.

And yet the government continues to regulate a product that kills 15,000 people per year. A product that 86% of the population doesn't use.

we already have a huge problem with tobacco smuggling raven......if smoking was banned my god I would think tobacco smuggling would over take drugs and guns...for sure..

anything you prohibit makes it more exciting...

I think they have done a lot to curb its use..

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47350
At my desk.

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #79 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:35pm

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:51pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

Phil, would you draw the line anywhere?

What about some of those synthetic cannabis ones that are bloody dangerous, Ice?

It's interesting actually. The government regulates a product proven to kill tens of thousands of people per year in this country alone.

Yet they ban a product like cannabis which in all of recorded history has killed a grand total of zero people.

Cigarettes kill more people then ice, cocaine and heroin combined.

When they say don't do drugs they must really mean, don't do those untaxed drugs.

So no-one has ever died from cancer caused by smoking pot, or misadventure caused by intoxication?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 131456
Gender: male

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #80 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:39pm

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:51pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

Phil, would you draw the line anywhere?

What about some of those synthetic cannabis ones that are bloody dangerous, Ice?

It's interesting actually. The government regulates a product proven to kill tens of thousands of people per year in this country alone.

Yet they ban a product like cannabis which in all of recorded history has killed a grand total of zero people.

Cigarettes kill more people then ice, cocaine and heroin combined.

When they say don't do drugs they must really mean, don't do those untaxed drugs.

So no-one has ever died from cancer caused by smoking pot, or misadventure caused by intoxication?

Strangely enough, a study from about 10 years ago shows that people who smoke marijuana don't appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer.

Back to top

IP Logged

miketrees Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6488 Gender:	Re: oh dem poor smokers... Reply #81 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 5:22pm https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516340/
Back to top	IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #82 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 5:31pm

Results:
There were 79 cases of lung cancer and 324 controls. The risk of lung cancer increased 8% (95% CI 2% to 15%) for each joint-year of cannabis smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking, and 7% (95% CI 5% to 9%) for each pack-year of cigarette smoking, after adjustment for confounding variables including cannabis smoking. The highest tertile of cannabis use was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer RR=5.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 21.6), after adjustment for confounding variables including cigarette smoking.

Conclusions:
Long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adult

if petrol sniffing can do so much harm whatever makes us think cannabis wont..

we take a lot of poisons into our system today more than ever before......fluoride is a good one...if it was rolled up and smoked I am sure it would kill..

being controlled it does more good than harm..

I remember reading where face powder was once made from arsenic

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47350
At my desk.

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #83 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:14pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:51pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

Phil, would you draw the line anywhere?

What about some of those synthetic cannabis ones that are bloody dangerous, Ice?

It's interesting actually. The government regulates a product proven to kill tens of thousands of people per year in this country alone.

Yet they ban a product like cannabis which in all of recorded history has killed a grand total of zero people.

Cigarettes kill more people then ice, cocaine and heroin combined.

When they say don't do drugs they must really mean, don't do those untaxed drugs.

So no-one has ever died from cancer caused by smoking pot, or misadventure caused by intoxication?

Strangely enough, a study from about 10 years ago shows that people who smoke marijuana don't appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer.

Did your dealer tell you that? Or the HEMP party?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 131456
Gender: male

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #84 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:39pm

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:51pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

Phil, would you draw the line anywhere?

What about some of those synthetic cannabis ones that are bloody dangerous, Ice?

It's interesting actually. The government regulates a product proven to kill tens of thousands of people per year in this country alone.

Yet they ban a product like cannabis which in all of recorded history has killed a grand total of zero people.

Cigarettes kill more people then ice, cocaine and heroin combined.

When they say don't do drugs they must really mean, don't do those untaxed drugs.

So no-one has ever died from cancer caused by smoking pot, or misadventure caused by intoxication?

Strangely enough, a study from about 10 years ago shows that people who smoke marijuana don't appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer.

Did your dealer tell you that? Or the HEMP party?

Neither.

It was Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

He was surprised by the results of his study too.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 131456
Gender: male

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #85 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:44pm

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:51pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

Phil, would you draw the line anywhere?

What about some of those synthetic cannabis ones that are bloody dangerous, Ice?

It's interesting actually. The government regulates a product proven to kill tens of thousands of people per year in this country alone.

Yet they ban a product like cannabis which in all of recorded history has killed a grand total of zero people.

Cigarettes kill more people then ice, cocaine and heroin combined.

When they say don't do drugs they must really mean, don't do those untaxed drugs.

So no-one has ever died from cancer caused by smoking pot, or misadventure caused by intoxication?

Strangely enough, a study from about 10 years ago shows that people who smoke marijuana don't appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer.

Did your dealer tell you that? Or the HEMP party?

"Tashkin has spent 30 years studying cannabis.

"In 2006, he was in charge of a large case-control study on marijuana and the risk of cancer.

"Contrary to his group's expectations, the study found no increase in lung cancer risk even among heavy users of marijuana."

__________________________________

"The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke.

"A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one.

"Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers."

Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 131456
Gender: male

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #86 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 9:22pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 8:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:51pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 10:10pm:

We should have more freedom not less....Pot should be legalised as well....If people want to smoke, drink or get high it is their choice IMO....It is those who complain about PC so they can be assholes that want to restrict the most freedoms!!!

Phil, would you draw the line anywhere?

What about some of those synthetic cannabis ones that are bloody dangerous, Ice?

It's interesting actually. The government regulates a product proven to kill tens of thousands of people per year in this country alone.

Yet they ban a product like cannabis which in all of recorded history has killed a grand total of zero people.

Cigarettes kill more people then ice, cocaine and heroin combined.

When they say don't do drugs they must really mean, don't do those untaxed drugs.

So no-one has ever died from cancer caused by smoking pot, or misadventure caused by intoxication?

Strangely enough, a study from about 10 years ago shows that people who smoke marijuana don't appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer.

Did your dealer tell you that? Or the HEMP party?

"Tashkin has spent 30 years studying cannabis.

"In 2006, he was in charge of a large case-control study on marijuana and the risk of cancer.

"Contrary to his group's expectations, the study found no increase in lung cancer risk even among heavy users of marijuana."

__________________________________

"The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke.

"A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one.

"Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers."

Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer

I guess FD doesn't like studies done by experts with more than 30 years experience in the field.

Back to top

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Legend

Posts: 21718
Rockhampton, Q
Gender: male

Re: oh dem poor smokers...
Reply #87 - Jan 18^th, 2018 at 9:59pm

cods wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 6:41am:

Raven wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 2:30am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 12:07am:

Raven wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:

Raven's point is the government won't ban cigarettes, they make to much money off it.

Raven's point is totally flawed when you factor in the costs of accidental arson, health costs, loss of work production, money stress, and a whole range of other factors smoking costs us. Whatever tax is collected from cigarette sales is superseded by the need to spend more money covering the losses cigarettes cost society.

And yet the government continues to regulate a product that kills 15,000 people per year. A product that 86% of the population doesn't use.

we already have a huge problem with tobacco smuggling raven......if smoking was banned my god I would think tobacco smuggling would over take drugs and guns...for sure..

anything you prohibit makes it more exciting...

I think they have done a lot to curb its use..

I think there will come a time when smoking is shunned to such an extent that only about 1% of Australians will be smoking by 2030. That will be the time when the future government will enforce a ban on smoking. Allowing 5 years to get the smokers left to quit smoking. Then another 5 years of misdemeanour convictions for those that continue to smoke (rollies and such).

For all I care, a ban on cigarettes will lead to heroin dealers switching to cigarettes to sell illegally, as it will be easier to import cigarettes than heroin to Australia. This might lead to the end of heroin imported, since cigarette/tobacco smuggling will be in demand instead of heroin. I can deal with smokers. But I have trouble reasoning with junkies.

I would rather the government regulate cigarettes than leave it unregulated. But there will be a time when cigarettes are about as used as heroin. And by then, heroin will be replaced with something else or left to have users dry out.

Back to top

IP Logged