Smoking (should or not?)

[Sharing Lights]

May 12, 2006

• FDA Approves New Stop-Smoking Drug
• Study: Overweight Smokers Heading For Early Grave
• Carcinogens From Parents' Tobacco Smoke Found In Babies' Urine
• Free Cigarettes Cost $5 Million
• Secondhand Smoke Linked to Behavioral Problems in Kids
• States Sue Tobacco Firms Over Settlement Funds
• Researchers Find Pesticides In Cigarette Smoke
• Jersey Bars Seek to Skirt New Smoking Ban
• Travelers: Better Leave the Smokes at Home
• CVS Will Restrict Tobacco Sales to Minors
• Senate Bill Would Stop Tobacco Shipments by Mail
• Kids Exposed to Smoke More Likely to Carry Strep
• Cigarette Sales Fall Sharply In 2005
• Cigarette Smoking Leads to Root Canal
• FedEx Clamps Down on Cigarette Delivery
• Is Lung Cancer Becoming a Woman's Disease?
---
• More about Smoking & Health

When mom or dad puffs on a cigarette, their infants may inhale the resulting second-hand smoke. Now, scientists have detected cancer-causing chemicals associated with tobacco smoke in the urine of nearly half the babies of smoking parents.

"The take home message is, 'Don’t smoke around your kids,'" said Stephen S. Hecht, Ph.D., professor and Wallin Chair of Cancer Prevention at The Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota.

According to a study of 144 infants, published in the May issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, Hecht and his colleagues found detectable levels of NNAL, a cancer-causing chemical, in urine from 47 percent of babies exposed to environmental tobacco carcinogens from cigarette-smoking family members.

NNAL is produced in the human body as it processes NNK, a carcinogenic chemical specific to tobacco.

"The level of NNAL detected in the urine of these infants was higher than in most other field studies of environmental tobacco smoke in children and adults," Hecht said.

"NNAL is an accepted biomarker for uptake of the tobacco-specific carcinogen NNK. You don’t find NNAL in urine except in people who are exposed to tobacco smoke, whether they are adults, children, or infants."

A previous study by Hecht and his colleagues indicated that the first urine from newborns whose mothers smoked during pregnancy contained as much as one-third more NNAL compared to the babies in the current study. The newborn infants, however, took in the carcinogen directly from their mothers through their placentas rather than by breathing second-hand smoke in the air in their family homes and cars.

In the current study, when babies had detectable levels of NNAL, Hecht said that family members smoked an average of 76 cigarettes per week, in their home or car while the babies were present. In children of smokers whose babies had undetectable levels of NNAL in their urine, the average number of cigarettes smoked by family members was reported at 27 per week.

"With more sensitive analytical equipment, the NNAL from urine of babies in lower frequency cigarette smoking households would most likely be detectable," Hecht said.

While studies have not determined how the long-term risk of exposure to cancer-causing tobacco smoke affects the genetics of babies during their early years when they are growing rapidly, Hecht said that this study demonstrated substantial uptake of NNK and its metabolite NNAL in infants exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

"These findings support the concept that persistent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in childhood could be related to cancer later in life," he said.

[Sharing Lights]

Free Cigarettes Cost $5 Million
R.J. Reynolds Settles Lawsuit Over Distribution of Free Cigarettes






May 8, 2006

• FDA Approves New Stop-Smoking Drug
• Study: Overweight Smokers Heading For Early Grave
• Carcinogens From Parents' Tobacco Smoke Found In Babies' Urine
• Free Cigarettes Cost $5 Million
• Secondhand Smoke Linked to Behavioral Problems in Kids
• States Sue Tobacco Firms Over Settlement Funds
• Researchers Find Pesticides In Cigarette Smoke
• Jersey Bars Seek to Skirt New Smoking Ban
• Travelers: Better Leave the Smokes at Home
• CVS Will Restrict Tobacco Sales to Minors
• Senate Bill Would Stop Tobacco Shipments by Mail
• Kids Exposed to Smoke More Likely to Carry Strep
• Cigarette Sales Fall Sharply In 2005
• Cigarette Smoking Leads to Root Canal
• FedEx Clamps Down on Cigarette Delivery
• Is Lung Cancer Becoming a Woman's Disease?
---
• More about Smoking & Health

R.J. Reynolds will pay $5 million to resolve a lawsuit in which the California Supreme Court found RJR liable for violating state law when it distributed 108,155 free packs of cigarettes on public grounds.

"RJR flouted an important public health law that combats tobacco addiction among adults and helps keep cigarettes out of the hands of our children," said Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "The Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law, and affirmed RJR's liability for violating it, constitutes a significant legal victory for California's tobacco control efforts."

Under the settlement, RJR will pay $1 million to the Public Health Institute, a nonprofit organization that administers the Public Health Trust and will use the money to fund tobacco control advocacy and education programs.

Additionally, RJR will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty, and $900,000 to cover the Attorney General's costs and fees. The settlement must be approved by the Los Angeles County Superior Court before it becomes final.

A 1991 California law generally prohibits tobacco companies from distributing free cigarettes in any public building or on any public grounds. In the lawsuit filed in 2001 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Lockyer alleged RJR violated the law in 1999 when the firm gave away 108,155 packs of cigarettes to 14,834 people at six separate events held on public property.

At one event alone held at the Pomona Raceway, RJR distributed 96,000 free packs (9,600 cartons) of Winstons, according to the complaint.

The trial court ruled RJR violated the law and imposed a civil penalty of $14.8 million. The Second District Court of Appeal on October 30, 2003 affirmed both the trial court's finding of liability and the $14.8 million penalty. RJR took the case to the California Supreme Court, which granted review. The high court on December 22, 2005 affirmed the lower courts' finding of liability.

The justices rejected the two main arguments offered by RJR: that the state could not enforce its ban on cigarette giveaways on public property because distribution of free samples constituted a promotion, and federal law preempts state laws regulating advertising and promotion of cigarettes; and that, even if federal law did not prevail, RJR did not violate the state statute because it distributed the free cigarettes in private booths guarded by security personnel to keep children out.

The Supreme Court held that distributing free samples did not constitute a promotion within the meaning of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. As a result, the justice ruled, the federal law does not preempt the California ban. States historically have possessed the authority to regulate the sale and distribution of tobacco products, the court held.

In arguing it did not violate the state law because it distributed the free samples in private booths guarded by security personnel, RJR cited a "safe harbor" provision in the California code.

That provision specifies free samples can be distributed on public grounds where minors are prohibited by law, or in public buildings or on public grounds leased for private functions where minors are denied access by law enforcement officers or security personnel.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled the safe harbor did not protect RJR, agreeing with Lockyer that the provision only applies where the entire public building or grounds are off limits to children. In the RJR case, only the booths had limited access, not the entire property.

The Supreme Court remanded back to the trial court the question of whether the $14.8 million civil penalty was too high. Lockyer contended the penalty was justified, based on the extent of RJR's violations and the number of free cigarettes it distributed.

While the settlement provides a smaller payment, Lockyer noted the $5 million still requires RJR to pay $337 per person who received free cigarettes at the six events.

It's not the people that smoke; it's the cigarettes. The people who use them are actually suckers...


Henry Franklin

[Sharing Lights]

So true!

Meanwhile, they jail people for "pot" and support corporations, which cause cancer.
Where is the consistency at least in their failed logic?


Anything can be abused of course even chocolates and sugar but pot has medical purpose too as well as expands consciousness by the psychotropic agents in it.
Cigarettes only expand your valet and cause cancer.
As Govt doesn't know how to tax pot legally, some are allowing its business illegally via borders claiming they fight it while making profits under the table.
The truth remains that many, many artists and musicians, and even scientists crated awesome masterpieces, while in slightly altered states.
No masterpieces have been ever attributed to nicotine.

[Freedomless]

1. During WWII, our government dropped, by planes, thousands of cigarettes to the soldiers.

2. The pollution from automobiles and businesses are much more dangerous to health.

3. Last year, BBC took a poll, asking how long those living and those who have passed who smoke or smoked, lived. There were many who had family that live to be 95+. They rolled their own cigarettes.

4. If the government says it is bad for you, it most likely is not the truth. Follow the MONEY.

5. Use OIL not CIGARETTES - DUH

6. As an oldie but goodie, we burned our trash, roasted meat, marshmellows and vegetables in fires and/or coals. Most of our relatives are nearing 100.

[Sharing Lights]

Originally Posted by Freedomless

1. During WWII, our government dropped, by planes, thousands of cigarettes to the soldiers.

2. The pollution from automobiles and businesses are much more dangerous to health.

3. Last year, BBC took a poll, asking how long those living and those who have passed who smoke or smoked, lived. There were many who had family that live to be 95+. They rolled their own cigarettes.

4. If the government says it is bad for you, it most likely is not the truth. Follow the MONEY.

5. Use OIL not CIGARETTES - DUH

6. As an oldie but goodie, we burned our trash, roasted meat, marshmellows and vegetables in fires and/or coals. Most of our relatives are nearing 100.

Thank you for yourt post, time, and efforts as ideas shared can benefit many.

1. During WWII, our government dropped, by planes, thousands of cigarettes to the soldiers.

Don’t doubt that for a second.

It also allowed certain prostitution, as in times of war and emergencies, any Government would choose lesser of two evils and would try its best to accommodate soldiers.
It is understandable what they did at that time.

A soldier who may die at any moment should have an opportunity to engage in certain behavior contradictory to typical behavior at times of peace.

I would use this example: all (or most) know that steeling is wrong.
Yet, I approve, breaking windows and taking a medicine from a pharmacy that may save one’s life if there is such emergency.
Pharmacy must be compensated later fro the damage but at the moment of emergency, the outcome is more important than fixed laws.

Life means action and movement i.e. not static.
Wrong and right are dictated by the combination of all factors at the given time-space and not the letter of it.

I feel sad that corporations have been allowed to make profits at the expense of people’s health, while most of their executives are knowledgeable enough no to smoke, themselves.

Yet, I would reply that, if I know a soldier may die in few minutes or so and asks me for a cigarette, I would get my butt up and try to find one for him if can. For God’s sake, the man is about to lay down his life.

As I am only interested in defending common sense, I would defend the Government action for 1

2. The pollution from automobiles and businesses are much more dangerous to health.

Therefore, you admit that it is dangerous but pollution is more. I agree with such.

3. Last year, BBC took a poll, asking how long those living and those who have passed who smoke or smoked, lived. There were many who had family that live to be 95+. They rolled their own cigarettes.

If I understood you correctly (but need your confirmation as may be wrong too) they used the “herb” instead. If that’s the case, the poll is accurate as herbal “cigarettes” relax the nervous system and that is a fact. They key is not to abuse anything.

4. If the government says it is bad for you, it most likely is not the truth. Follow the MONEY.

Well, here, I disagree as typical cigarettes do cause cancer and destroy heart tissue, lungs and bronchi, etc.
There is extensive evidence by examining lungs and bronchi of smokers and non-smokers that damage is devastating and of drastic difference.
Pleura, surfactant, the roots of the lungs are the bronchi, pulmonary and bronchial vessels, lymphatic vessels, and nerves al are afected adversely.

The only discrepancy there may be when folks from a polluted city are compared. Then your 2) is so valid.
A smoker in a non-pollutant town is at less risk than a non-smoker in a polluted metropolitan city as the latter is forced to inhale pollutants every day.

In equal study, via a comparison of smoker and non-smokers from the same area by the same time frame, the scientific evidence is overwhelming. The Government has nothing to do with that evidence, as it is purely scientific.

Let’s not blame Government for things that it advocates properly. It does enough acts improperly that we can concentrate on the latter.

5. Use OIL not CIGARETTES – DUH


I feel embarrassed a bit but didn’t catch this one.
On a positive note, I admit so please educate me on this one.

(I am not being sarcastic at all – on the contrary – I sincerely believe that when we exchange ideas, opinion and knowledge, more often than not good things would come out.
I am respectful to all unless they prove not to be.)

6. As an oldie but goodie, we burned our trash, roasted meat, marshmellows and vegetables in fires and/or coals. Most of our relatives are nearing 100.

[Sharing Lights]

I write this not becaue I am bored but becasue I love people and wish them to be well and not be abused by the corporations which make their billions while making somethign else -
making you sick.

Just doesn't seem to be fair.

As air enters through the oral and nasal cavities; it brings with it CO2, nicotine, and all the toxins contained in a cigarette.
Then all of them, together with air, flow through the larynx into the trachea. Both, particularly, larynx become coated with carcinogens contained in the inhaled air - thus if, often, causes throat cancer.


Trachea branches out into bronchi. In humans, it is the two main bronchi (produced by the bifurcation of the trachea) that enter the roots of the lungs.

Bronchi accumulate the aftereffects of the inhaled and polluted air extensively.

The bronchi divide further within the lung and turn into bronchioles. Eventually the bronchial system ends in alveolar sacs, composed of, as you guessed it - alveoli.
Alveoli are extremely sensitive to pollutants and transmit whatever is, now, deposited on their walls further to blood-filled capillaries.

Now, your blood contains all the toxins that your body reports as invaders. Here oxygen from the air diffuses into the blood, but it is mixed heavily with toxins as they can’t just disappear and jump back to your throat and out of the mouth.

Now, your blood flow which the whole body awaits has a clear path to every cell of your body.
However, it, now, contains invaders, while the cells open up their gate to your blood as their life depends on it.

Doesn’t it remind you of Troy and the famous Trojan Horse?

However, the blood is, already, poisoned to some degree. Your cells are confused now.
They recognize blood as their own and lower their defense but they sense that the enemy is somewhere too as the scouts of the immune system report, “invaders are coming.”
Your defense system becomes confused as circuits are overloaded with conflicting messages.

What happens is that the immune system may start attacking randomly as cigarettes’ toxins are all over your blood system.
Random immune system’s attacks are at the core of allergies and many, chronic disease as well as weakening your, whole immune system as additional resources are being spent each time you smoke.
Please, also, realize that, even, when you stop smoking, the effects linger for a while.
It takes time to cleanse your blood system, providing that you don't pollute it with sigarettes again.

When you smoke, your immune system cleans what can but is being overwhelmed as you continue inhaling more toxins with each inhale.

Commercial try to help you out and imply, “take some more – poison yourself if like – just pay as dollars. Kill yourself slowly if like too but give us our dollars.”
A beautiful hot blond a man that women dream of are paid to appear in these commercials.
They also could not care less that you build cancer within you as long as they are paid for their looks, which they prostitute for the might dollar.

Love for dollar is so intense that love for morals is put under anesthesia.


Meanwhile, your oxygen in the blood where it is carried by hemoglobin enters the pulmonary veins towards the heart.
Your heart is now under the direct attack by the carcinogens and all the toxins that cigarettes contain. If you do not believe me they contain such,
say so and I would reply by facts in a next post.

All can say whatever they please but a heart of a smoker would look as such and feel like such one day.

As corporations spend years of researching how to squeeze more profits out of you, they design the system when certain additives are infused into the cigarettes.

Why? Because they contain element that make you addicted and craving cigarettes as a drug addict craves his/her drug.

You have been used by the tobacco corporations to make you an addict; and they laugh at you so that you pay them for life.

Cigarettes of the past were not as dangerous as those that the modern corporations tampered with and the government looked away as the lobbying groups found their loopholes and gave the readily supplied by their corporations “gifts” to the Governmental Officials in charge.

When direct bribes could not be given, trips, parties, campaign contributions were utilized as if that were not bribes under the loophole.

The simple test is such:

Did any Governmental Official spend the money that otherwise didn’t have to spend for whatever and however was given to him/her?

I don’t care if the law says that a bribe was not given. It was via this test!

Meanwhile, your heart pumped toxins with each pump to every part of your body. Every, including your brain. As brains depends on oxygen heavily for sharp thinking and oxygen is burned more rapidly under stress and intense thinking, smoking deprives you of your mental powers.

You could think a bit better and be sharper if your brain cells were less polluted with whatever they are polluted with.
Obviously, any pollution deprives brain of oxygen – not only smoking.
Yet mathematics is simple. We all are subjected to pollution.
Those who smoke (cigarettes) are subjected to that pollution as well.
Now, who is inhaling pollutants more? Just use common sense.

Meanwhile, your heart pumped oxygen, nutrients, all the helping cells, and all the toxins you allowed the corporations infuse you with.

Guess who is laughing at you? Maybe those corporations and their lobbyists from the Ivy League – just maybe?

These are scientific facts how your pulmonary system functions and reality of tobacco industry lobbying – not any, improperly stated vague research without reference to details.

The Government jails people for pot as I wrote before but doesn’t jail these corporations for their crime against you and you health.

Where is the consistency to ask/say the least?
Jail all or none in that respect if the logic is to be followed.

[Freedomless]

Wasn't feeling up to par when I posted.

The government has dropped cigarettes in all war time activities (a good source of income). So does this make the cigarette companies solely responsibility for the addictive behavior?

BBC's poll was for those who smoked tobacco. Most purchased unprocessed tobacco and rolled their own cigarettes or cigars. They lived a long healthy life.

What is added to the tobacco to process the cigarettes is the killer.

I agree that anything that is not used in moderation is unhealthy - but if used properly can be beneficial.

Having smoked for 30 years, quit 5 years ago, due to price and propaganda, smoking can be relaxing.

Second hand smoke has not been proven to kill anyone - propaganda.

The government, after the propaganda plays out, will sooner of later have to let those, who bought in, know the truth.

God made everything for a purpose and most of what he made has/is being polluted. There is not one city in American, other countries also, that is not being polluted by chemtrails or chem fog. What better way to kill millions, than to spread the chemical from the sky. There are much more worrisome things than second hand smoke, which is a LIE.

[Sharing Lights]

Wasn't feeling up to par when I posted.

The government has dropped cigarettes in all war time activities (a good source of income).

(Hello friend!
I do not have exact data on this one and only comment what know. Therefore, assuming that you have the correct data, I rely on such.

Yet, logic demands the following questions:

a) If the Government is implied to make profits on dropping cigarettes on soldiers via the air, how could it collect the payments as dollars could not fly back to the planes from the ground obviously?

b) How would have the Government known which soldiers picked up the cigarettes and smoked and who didn't?

c) I do not see how the soldiers were taxed or charged for such "droppings from the sky?"

I only, respectfully, inquire as do not have exact data.)

So does this make the cigarette companies solely responsibility for the addictive behavior?

(If the above is true, then your implication is correct.)


BBC's poll was for those who smoked tobacco. Most purchased unprocessed tobacco and rolled their own cigarettes or cigars. They lived a long healthy life.

(We, practically, agree on this one as (see additives section) in my previous post.)

What is added to the tobacco to process the cigarettes is the killer.

(See the above.)

I agree that anything that is not used in moderation is unhealthy - but if used properly can be beneficial.

(Re: the end of the sentence above i.e. beneficial
The answer is - not exactly, as some poison can kill in miniscule doses. “Many” or “most” instead of “anything” would be more accurate then.)

Having smoked for 30 years, quit 5 years ago, due to price and propaganda, smoking can be relaxing.

(Due to its mechanism, smoking does produces a feeling of relaxation, particularly mixed with certain elements. Most smokers find combination of coffee and cigarettes to be very relaxing.)

Second hand smoke has not been proven to kill anyone - propaganda.

(I disagree with you on this one fully. Second hand smoke is even worse.
I trust that you believe what stated sincerely and no harm was meant; yet, I must state, that extensive research proved contrary to your claim as well as logic and common sense. I would, also, raise these arguments:

1) Exhale of a smoker i.e. what is referred the effects of the second hand smoke (SHS) contain much CO2 and toxins contained in cigarettes, as mouth, throat, and lungs of humans are not able to remove such from the exhale - fact.

Therefore, the exhale contains them un-removed even though a considerable percentage of such is, already, deposited inside of the smoker.
Yet, he or she adds his/her own CO2 mixed with smoke and his own toxins or even virus.
By the way, that is how a flu is transmitted via inhaling it from the air being contained there or from exhale of a person who transmits such in one’s proximity – fact.

2) Any one who inhales the exhale of a smoker or the exhaust - so to say, - is not only inhaling the air that was surrounding the nonsmoker prior to such act but also the exhaust or exhale of the smoker. That is self-evident as well as easily can be measured by the detection equipment.

3) Once a non-smoker inhaled such combination of the air, he or she is forced to breathe such contaminated air indeed and; thus, it is passed via lungs to the bloodstream to every cell of his body/brain.

It is false to state that a non-smoker possesses a defense mechanism allowing him/her to block the exhale of a smoker unless a respirator or such are used.

Then, active coal or such would trap the CO2 and toxins via the respirator.

There is no present evidence that non-smokers walk in pubic places wearing respirators even though some of their faces may look as such as any of the humans who have similar features. (:

4) Furthermore, as, even, if there were no toxins in the exhale, while there are, the CO2, itself, is poison to us under ordinary circumstances and every cell attempts to expel it and bring in O2 instead –fact .
That is unquestionable.

Being forced to inhale CO2 from the smoker poisons a non-smoker -fact.

There is no way for a non-smoker to avoid the SHS being in the proximity of the exhale, which is being able to get to his or her lungs and bloodstream.

5) As a non-smoker is not used to smoking and or may even have aversion to smoking, as many do, he or she suffers even more.

6) I can state, by personal experience, as well as based on other non-smokers personal experience, that most of us feel nauseous, get headache, etc when are surrounded by the smokers’ exhale.

7)...also, feel the same next to a passing by bus or truck.

8) 7) leads me to a conclusion that the Government exhibits tremendous hypocrisy by advocating nonsmoking and; yet, allowing poisoning as by busses and such based on their exhausts, which in 10 seconds of the bus passing by you, would produce the effect of a nonsmoker being forced SHS for abut half a night.

9) It is a fact that any serious athlete dos not smoke cigarettes as depends on the maximum intake of O2 and minimum of CO2 and toxins in order to perform at the ultimate level. They, equally, avoid being surrounded by the smokers whenever can.

10) I would, further, raise this argument even though it may be dramatic and partly humorous but argument well illustrates the point:

If an exhaust of person next to you would come from not the upper respiratory system but from the lower “derespiratory” system (another word someone would fart next to you) and you are forced by the virtue of the proximaty inhale such exhausts-fumes, what would you state?

Would you say that the laws of physics and anatomy are functioning differently depending on the closeness to the ground within a few feet i.e. mouth vs. butt?

Do you, still, believe the secondary effect of those fumes would not affect you? Really?
Or would you agree that it would be very unpleasant for you to inhale such?

Why would you think (if do so) that it is pleasant for a non-smoker to inhale fumes of a smoker?
Why do you think that such fumes-exhaust coming from the upper respiratory
are not inhaled or are pleasant to non-smoker if you know how it feels to inhale someone else exhausts coming from a bit closer to the ground?

Sorry for being so dramatic but I had to illustrate the point. (:

Let’s face it: effects of the exhaust are not propaganda – but the laws of physics and anatomy in action.
Therefore, I respectfully, disagree on this statement raised by you and find it to be fallacy based on the facts.)


The government, after the propaganda plays out, will sooner of later have to let those, who bought in, know the truth.

(So true, it has a double face.)

God made everything for a purpose

(However, in its proper place and time and the intended purpose.
I would raise this argument also.
God has made fire. It doesn’t mean that we should all burn in it. We have to utilize what is safe to us and not the raw, unrestrained power. Don’t we?)

and most of what he made has/is being polluted.

(By us going against the laws of nature.)

There is not one city in American, other countries also, that is not being polluted by chemtrails or chem fog. What better way to kill millions, than to spread the chemical from the sky.

(You are so correct here.)

There are much more worrisome things than second hand smoke, which is a LIE.

(See the above re: SHS.)

Not only we address interesting issue and share facts and arguments but also elements of the Boolean algebra as all of the above can only educate us more and I thank you for the opportunity for us to share such.
I am, also, glad that you had strength to give up smoking as that takes character and discipline.)

[snowy1]

all I can say about second hand smoke is I can't tolerate it for very long. I fell trees on fire in wildfires on a couple large forest fires back around '92 , for 3 days in one of the larger fires the smoke was so thick you could not see a pickup with its lights on 100 feet away . Ever since then I can not be in a room with a lot of smoke very long or it will make me sick till I puke literally!