Letterman and Palin

[BuzzH]

TLC,

"The overwhelming majority of lung cancers, greater than 90%, are caused by cigarette smoking.

There are currently almost fifty million smokers in the U.S. and another fifty million are ex-smokers.
This means that approximately one third of the population of our country is at high risk for this terrible disease and for multiple other tobacco-related diseases, including cancers of the mouth, tongue, throat, larynx, esophagus, pancreas, bladder and kidney, and also at risk for coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, gangrene of the legs and stroke."

Another,

"Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in both men and women. The rise in lung cancer over the last half century is directly related to cigarette smoking."

Another:

"According to the American Cancer Society, lung cancer continues to be the biggest cancer killer of both men and women in the United States, with over 80% of cases attributable to cigarette smoking. Lung cancer causes 1 out of every 3 cancer deaths in men (31%), and about 1 in 4 cancer deaths among women (27%)."

Lung Cancer
Smoking responsible for 90% of cancer deaths
Incidence of lung cancer is rising. Lung cancer is responsible for more cancer deaths than colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer combined. Lung cancer primarily strikes people over age 45."

and another: "Cigarette smoking alone is directly responsible for approximately 30% of all cancer deaths annually in the United States(1)."

TLC, are we done here???

Only a complete idiot would think that smoking does not cause cancer...go ask any doctor, medical institution, researcher, etc.

 

[smalls]

Wow, this thread is a trainwreck.

Poking holes in Buzz's defense of Jose would have been like stabbing a watermelon with a steak knife...yet somehow the argument has evolved into a "do cigarettes cause cancer?" debate.

Unreal.

 

[BuzzH]

smalls...points to credibility...how reliable do you find someone who is in denial that cigarretes cause cancer?

Thats whats unreal.

 

[noharleyyet]

Wow, this thread is a trainwreck.

Poking holes in Buzz's defense of Jose would have been like stabbing a watermelon with a steak knife...

...nice.

 

[ringer]

You miss my point Buzz and Matt. I never said the society does not need to regulate drunk driving as that impacts others. When is the last time a person who died from not wearing his seatbelt actually harmed anyone else? It all comes down to your side having a desire to control others in order to protect THEM from themselves. I could care less if you die from choosing to smoke or not wearing your seatbelt. I do believe that smoking causes cancer in a fairly decent percentage of users but I also believe there is an entire industry that benefits from classfying every lung cancer case as smoking related rather than aerosol deodorant, spray paint, black lung, drywall dust etc. Do you guys think if a person dies at the age of 50 from smoking that the average treatment cost is greater than the SS and medicare cost payout from the age of 62 to 85? At $1500 per month to cover SS and medicare that is $414000 per individual. Doubt that the average treatment paid for by insurance or the government is that high.

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

How is regulating drunk driving and regulating where people smoke (so it doesnt harm others, which it absolutely does) different?

Are you now saying that second hand smoke does not impact others?


I also agree, I could care less if someone smokes or drinks themselves to death. Their choice, but the minute that decision impacts me...then yes, I will demand accountability for your actions so that YOUR CHOICE does not take basic rights away from me. That simple.

That includes drunk driving, smoking in public places, and seatbelt requirements.

Argue all you want, but if everyone wore seat belts, a ton of money would be saved each year in medical expenses, no question.

Also, I dont buy your argument of medical care costing less than SS. Been to a hospital lately?

 

[ringer]

Just saying that moronic moves to prolong people's lives at all costs are why we have healthcare problems. Let a few more die and ease the budget a bit.

Ebeneezer Scrooge

 

[jabber]

Is this the thread about Letterman and Palin? :W::W::W:

 

[Moosie]

So Letterman and Palin ... Neat topic eh....

 

[ringer]

Who is Palin?

 

[TLC]

OK, now that I have a few more minutes, lets straighten Buzz out a bit.

"The overwhelming majority of lung cancers, greater than 90%, are caused by cigarette smoking.

There are currently almost fifty million smokers in the U.S. and another fifty million are ex-smokers.
This means that approximately one third of the population of our country is at high risk for this terrible disease."

Ok, so how many of these 50 million have lung cancer? after all, you keep saying that smoking causes cancer. your posted numbers say what the anti smoking crowd wants them to say. most idiots would look at that and say damn, thats a lot of people with lung cancer. but wait. doesn't say that 90% of smokers HAVE lung cancer. it says that 90% of lung cancer folks are smokers. big difference there. how many have blue eyes? how many are blondes? when you get a clue as to how to read past what they are trying to sell, you'll be able to see both sides of this Buzz. until then, seems you're the one with no clue.

did the looking for you. and from what you posted, seems llike the same article. "In 2003, an estimated 171,900 new cases of lung cancer occurred and approximately 157,200 people died from lung cancer." so out of 50 MILLION people, 157,200 got lung cancer. someone do the math for me? .003438. and thats at 50 million, not the total of past and present smokers that would be 100 million.


Buzz, heres your other problem you have displayed. where do I say that wearing a seatbelt is bad? where do I say that smoking is good? never did. the point of this was the hypocricy that Jose shows when it fits his need. my points(examples)were to show how the govt is constantly telling us what to do. leaving us NO INDIVIDUAL choice.

now, are we ever going to get that number of how much your insurance went down after they started the seatbelt law? and you want to tell people to get a clue? please. maybe you should have something to back up what you pot before you criticize others.

 

[TLC]

"Dude, I generally don't jump on others' posts but the above post is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever read on the internet. You and 2 other people not getting cancer from smoking hardly constitutes a sample...let alone a scientific study."

MNH, where did I say that it was eitther of the things you say? didn't. just posted things that I have first hand knowledge of. nothing more. nothing less. sorry if I confused you. wasn't meant for that. just showing that for someone to say definatively that smoking causes cancer is wrong. now, if they said it MAY contribute to it, would agree with that.

 

[TLC]

"Wow, I have to laugh at the ignorance of people who learned all their science and statistics on a barstool instead of wasting time getting an edjumacation....... "


so are you saying that getting an education is a waste of time? after all, thats what you there.


well Jose, you are living proof that an education does not mean someone has any intelligence or common sense for that matter. so you keep right on laughing. after all, fair is fair. people llaugh at you all the time.

 

[BuzzH]

TLC, of the 171,900 new cases...90% were caused by smoking.

Hey, I wont get in the way of you and Rush Limbaugh believing that smoking is harmless...knock yourself out. I dont smoke and its banned from every public place I frequent...none of my rights have been taken away. In fact, smoking bans have reestablished my rights to breath air free of cigarrete smoke. Win-win for me.

Of course the government tells you what you can and cant do...been doing it since the day the constitution was ratified...

 

[TLC]

Buzz, what about the other 49,828,100 that did not get lung cancer from smoking? seems to me your post says that there is more to getting cancer than just smoking. but that must just be the way I look at those numbers.

still no answer?

 

[BuzzH]

What I find amazing is that you look at numbers with your head in the sand.

How do you explain 90% of all lung cancer patients are also smokers? Just bad luck? Just pure happen-chance?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Dude, I generally don't jump on others' posts but the above post is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever read on the internet. You and 2 other people not getting cancer from smoking hardly constitutes a sample...let alone a scientific study.

The scary/funny part is that TLC is too stupid/ignorant to understand how stupid/ignorant that comment is....

His time listening to his fellow BarstoolOlogists instead of people with real edjumacations shows when he makes comments like that.


ringer,

When is the last time a person who died from not wearing his seatbelt actually harmed anyone else?

Everytime a First Responder has to go out to a wreck they are risking their lives. I had to pull a guy out of the South Fork of the Payette River who was launched out of his vehicle. If the guy would have been wearing a seatbelt, I would not have had to risk harm to pull him out of a Class III/IV river. A good friend of mine is a fireman for one of the local cities here, nearly got killed one night along the freeway looking for the former occupant of an empty car seat that was not buckled into the car properly. How many wrecks happen after the first wreck?

If seatbelts weren't a good idea, how come the US Military pilots all hook them on before they start their plane rolling???

 

[TLC]

The scary/funny part is that TLC is too stupid/ignorant to understand how stupid/ignorant that comment is....

His time listening to his fellow BarstoolOlogists instead of people with real edjumacations shows when he makes comments like that.


well Jose, you are living proof that an education does not mean someone has any intelligence or common sense for that matter.

enough said again on that part of this thread.

 

[TLC]

What I find amazing is that you look at numbers with your head in the sand.

How do you explain 90% of all lung cancer patients are also smokers? Just bad luck? Just pure happen-chance?

well Buzz, at least my heads not in an orifice somewhere on the human body. seems you are the one that looks at the numbers rather strangely. why did you ignore the 49 million number I posted? can't come up with a response that makes sense? or do you just latch on to some bullchit and not let go? and if you read before you typed, then you would have seen me post this, "now, if they said it MAY contribute to it, would agree with that." see, the difference between us is that I don't see absolutes when there aren't any. you keep saying smoking causes cancer. and whether you like it or not, you are wrong. now, does it contribute? possibly. but to go with your absolutes, means that EVERY smoker will get lung cancer. according to you. and the numbers YOU posted do NOT bear that out. so, unless you have new numbers to post that contradict what you have already posted, seems you are wrong. sorry.


and are you going to just keep ignoring the question about the insurance? sad when a grown man can't admit when they made a mistake.

 

[TLC]

"Everytime a First Responder has to go out to a wreck they are risking their lives."

yep, part of their job description that they voluntarily sign up for. and they should be commended every time they go out.

"I had to pull a guy out of the South Fork of the Payette River who was launched out of his vehicle. If the guy would have been wearing a seatbelt, I would not have had to risk harm to pull him out of a Class III/IV river."

sounds like you made an individual choice. you were not forced into doing it as part of your job description. congrats. sounds like you did something you should be proud of.


"A good friend of mine is a fireman for one of the local cities here, nearly got killed one night along the freeway looking for the former occupant of an empty car seat that was not buckled into the car properly."

sorry to hear your friend had a close encounter. but just like police, its part of their job. they know that going in to it.

"How many wrecks happen after the first wreck?"

why don't you post that number for us? sounds like you have the information. also, are you saying that accidents only happen because people don't wear their seatbelts? never seen where a police officer was hit while giving out a ticket for speeding?

"If seatbelts weren't a good idea, how come the US Military pilots all hook them on before they start their plane rolling???"

first, how many cars go mach 1,2,3 4 or whatever they do? second, being married to an air force vet, know that those "seatbelts" as you call them, are more than just a seatbelt. they are attached to the seat for emergencies when they may have to eject from the plane. are you really comparing a seatbelt in a car to a "seatbelt" in a plane or jet? and you call me uneducated? what the hell are you smoking tonight? do you think planes have a lot of accidents where the seatbelt saved their life?:hump::hump: