Jump to content

Smokers are stupid, Obama is stupid.


51FALCON
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is the truth. A person who smokes has a lower intelligence than people who do not. It does not matter your level of education. They found that people who smoke have less compacity to have cognitive thought. Even smoking a small amount affects the brain. Besides the fact if you smoke you are stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're stupid.

I do not smoke, do you? We all know by now that smoking will kill you. I have seen it. Do you think a person should be President who cannot even know that smoking kills. By the way you are the moron. You are going to vote for a man who is not qualified for the office and has a habit that will kill him, and I am stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not voting for Obama, and I'm not a smoker.

But the idea that smoking lowers intelligence is unfounded, and completely pulled out of your ***.

Therefore, you're stupid.

Smoking does not lower your intlelligence. The fact you smoke indicates a lower intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think he quit just like that? Both my parents died of lung cancer. Both tried to quit for years. If he quit just like that I would love to know how because that would be worth millions.

So you're saying that both your parents have low intelligence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep, having a president that smokes is just unreal, I'd much rather have one with a cocaine addiction like Bush. The thought of our vice president second hand smoking to Obama's nasty cig is making me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

*sarcasm off*. <_<

Obama did a little coke himself. And weed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=2855994&page=2

Obama to Quit -- Smoking, That Is

Political Wunderkind Ready for White House Run, First Opponent Marlboro Reds

Obama has admitted to cocaine and marijuana use in his teenage years, but it's his use of cigarettes that has merited national media attention.

The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that his penchant for butts makes the Democrat "intriguingly imperfect," while Fox News Channel's John Gibson has called it "Obama's dirty little secret" and argued that it makes him wonder "what else do we not know about Barack Obama?" (This literally days before Gibson helped spread the false smear that Obama attended an Indonesian madrassa as a youth.)

Clearly mindful of the image issues smoking may cause, Obama has been careful to keep images of him with what health advocates call "cancer sticks" out of the newspapers.

Unlike Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, members of the media have been unable to find photographic images of Obama smoking even a cigar or pipe. The political gossip Web site Wonkette.com has even offered reward money for anyone who can produce a picture of Obama smoking.

"For someone who's known to be a smoker and for a senator who's photographed all the time, it's odd that there aren't actually pictures of him smoking," said Wonkette editor Alex Pareene.

Not really, though -- Wonkette has also tried in vain to obtain smoking photographs of House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, an unrepentant chain smoker whose Barclays aromatically fill the area outside his Capitol Hill office as if it were an enormous marble ashtray.

Other rumored present or past smokers in political life -- first lady Laura Bush, former Vice President Al Gore -- have assiduously kept any signs of the habit away from any prying shutterbugs.

Health Advocates See Education Opportunity

Some anti-smoking advocates want Obama to come forward even more publicly to discuss his habit.

"I think it would be an enormous first step forward if he would come all the way out of the closet and say, 'I smoke, I wish I didn't, I plan on quitting again, I've tried this many times,'" said Cheryl Healton, president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation. "Because if you dig deep behind the story, my guess is that's probably the reality, that he wants to quit and has tried many times."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think he quit just like that? Both my parents died of lung cancer. Both tried to quit for years. If he quit just like that I would love to know how because that would be worth millions.

you're getting duped into buying the leftist propaganda against tobacco. there is no scientific evidence showing that cigarette smoking causes cancer. nobody knows what causes lung cancer or else scientists would invent a cure. scientists get multimililions of dollars in taxpayer grants to conduct their so-called "research" on tobacco-cancer links so they have a financial motives to exagerate their claims to get more funding!

trial lawyers also get rich suing large companies so don't buy into the leftist trial lawyer garbage either! people with cancer sue deep pockets and that means going after corporations who provide jobs and capital to our great markets! here's an article showing that there's still debate about the scientific link between cancer and smoking

Cigarette giant to deny cancer link

Imperial uses unprecedented defence to fight claim by smoker's widow

A giant British tobacco company is to take the unprecedented step this week of denying there is a proven causal link between smoking and lung cancer in the first case against a cigarette firm to go to a UK court.

The unique defence, to be heard in Scotland's Court of Session, challenges decades of scientific proof of such a link, which was accepted by the Government in 1957.

Imperial Tobacco is being sued for £500,000 by Margaret McTear whose husband Alf, a 60-a-day smoker, from Beith near Glasgow, died of lung cancer in 1993. The case, which starts on Tuesday, will be scrutinised across Europe by lawyers who want to bring similar actions against tobacco firms.

Margaret McTear's lawyers will call scientist Sir Richard Doll, 91, as an expert witness. It was Doll whose work in the Fifties is credited with establishing the link.

Yet Imperial says in documents filed into court and seen by The Observer: 'Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established as a cause of lung cancer. The cause or causes of lung cancer are unknown.'

The company will argue that studies, such as those carried out by Doll, 'report a statistical association between cigarette smoking', not complete proof. The studies 'also report cancer to be statistically associated with many other factors. These include race, ethnicity, religion, sex, personality, low socio-economic status, occupation, diet, stress, education... It is not known which, if any, of these plays a role in the causation of lung cancer'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're getting duped into buying the leftist propaganda against tobacco. there is no scientific evidence showing that cigarette smoking causes cancer. nobody knows what causes lung cancer or else scientists would invent a cure. scientists get multimililions of dollars in taxpayer grants to conduct their so-called "research" on tobacco-cancer links so they have a financial motives to exagerate their claims to get more funding!

trial lawyers also get rich suing large companies so don't buy into the leftist trial lawyer garbage either! people with cancer sue deep pockets and that means going after corporations who provide jobs and capital to our great markets! here's an article showing that there's still debate about the scientific link between cancer and smoking

Cigarette giant to deny cancer link

Imperial uses unprecedented defence to fight claim by smoker's widow

A giant British tobacco company is to take the unprecedented step this week of denying there is a proven causal link between smoking and lung cancer in the first case against a cigarette firm to go to a UK court.

The unique defence, to be heard in Scotland's Court of Session, challenges decades of scientific proof of such a link, which was accepted by the Government in 1957.

Imperial Tobacco is being sued for £500,000 by Margaret McTear whose husband Alf, a 60-a-day smoker, from Beith near Glasgow, died of lung cancer in 1993. The case, which starts on Tuesday, will be scrutinised across Europe by lawyers who want to bring similar actions against tobacco firms.

Margaret McTear's lawyers will call scientist Sir Richard Doll, 91, as an expert witness. It was Doll whose work in the Fifties is credited with establishing the link.

Yet Imperial says in documents filed into court and seen by The Observer: 'Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established as a cause of lung cancer. The cause or causes of lung cancer are unknown.'

The company will argue that studies, such as those carried out by Doll, 'report a statistical association between cigarette smoking', not complete proof. The studies 'also report cancer to be statistically associated with many other factors. These include race, ethnicity, religion, sex, personality, low socio-economic status, occupation, diet, stress, education... It is not known which, if any, of these plays a role in the causation of lung cancer'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cancer_...on_from_NIH.svg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more proof that scientists don't agree whether smoking causes cancer. don't get duped by some silly scientific consensus or the leftist anticapitalist trial lawyers association!

Study questions smoke-breast cancer link

Big British survey finds no evidence

By Sara Shipley Hiles, Globe Correspondent | January 1, 2007

Is it possible that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer?

In 2005, the well-respected state Environmental Protection Agency in California reviewed the scientific literature and decided that women were more likely to get breast cancer at a young age if they regularly inhaled someone else's cigarette smoke.

But now, preliminary findings from the British Million Women Study, described as the largest study of its kind in the world, suggest there is no link.

So should women get more-frequent mammograms if they worked in smoke-filled restaurants or bars or had parents or a spouse who smoked? There are passionate scientists on both sides of the debate, and the answer may come down to the details of the research.

The British work looked at 1.3 million women ages 50 to 64. The preliminary results, presented at a conference in September, showed absolutely no link between secondhand smoke and breast cancer, according to Dr. Michael Thun, who saw a copy of the presentation and heads up epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society.

"These data are strong, and they seriously weaken the evidence that there is in fact any connection," said Thun, adding that he is now reconsidering whether it's worth the American Cancer Society's resources to study the subject further, as it had planned to do. The study "seems like a major challenge to the hypothesis."

The California study agreed that there is no association between older secondhand smokers and breast cancer. But it did find that premenopausal women exposed to secondhand smoke were at a 70 percent higher risk for developing breast cancer than those who weren't exposed.

"According to our calculation, a third of the breast cancer in young women who worked as waitresses is attributable to secondhand smoke," said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco who was on the scientific panel that reviewed the study.

Melanie Marty, the California EPA scientist who oversaw the study, said she can't explain why the finding applies only to younger women. One theory is that breast cancer in older women is caused by different factors than in younger women. Another explanation is that a woman's breast tissue is most susceptible to carcinogens from puberty until her first child is born, making younger women more vulnerable to tobacco smoke.

But Dr. Valerie Beral, the coordinator of the British study, doesn't buy it. She said that when she looked at premenopausal women in her group, she found no association between breast cancer and passive smoking.

Some researchers are skeptical of the California finding, Thun said, because many previous studies have failed to established a link between active smoking and breast cancer -- so there should be even less of a connection with the smaller doses of carcinogens in secondhand smoke.

"There is little effect of either active smoking or passive smoking on breast cancer," said Sir Richard Peto, an epidemiologist at Oxford University in England who collaborated on the forthcoming British study.

Marty and Glantz disagreed, saying that some studies do, in fact, find an association between active smoking and breast cancer. There's also a theory that smoking actually mutes the carcinogenic effect of cigarettes by suppressing estrogen production, which is associated with some breast cancer development.

The risk of getting breast cancer from secondhand smoke is even higher than the risk of getting lung cancer, the California report said.

Toxicology studies also support the California conclusion. Scientists identified 20 chemicals in tobacco smoke that cause tumors in the breast tissue of rodents, giving the connection "biological plausibility," Marty said.

Even if the evidence for a link between breast cancer and secondhand smoke isn't there, people should still be concerned about exposure, said Gary Giovino, a public health professor at the State University of New York in Buffalo who was formerly chief of epidemiology at CDC's Office on Smoking and Health.

"We know there are tons of things wrong with secondhand smoke," Giovino said. "If I had a restaurant, I wouldn't want to be exposing my waitresses to it for this reason and many other reasons."

At a minimum, Thun said, women should know about the scientific debate.

"We don't have a final answer, but it's one additional reason to avoid secondhand smoke," he said.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what there is some loose association but the article shows that nobody has shown proof that smoking causes cancer b/c we don't know what causes cancer. even scientists can't agree whether 2nd hand smoke causes cancer! scientists are still debating the link yet the media and liberals eat it up b/c it feeds into their anticapitalist anticorporation agenda!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the truth. A person who smokes has a lower intelligence than people who do not. It does not matter your level of education. They found that people who smoke have less compacity to have cognitive thought. Even smoking a small amount affects the brain. Besides the fact if you smoke you are stupid.

So by this we can deduce you smoke 12 cartons a day?

And I believe you admitted both of your parents were stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're getting duped into buying the leftist propaganda against tobacco. there is no scientific evidence showing that cigarette smoking causes cancer. nobody knows what causes lung cancer or else scientists would invent a cure. scientists get multimililions of dollars in taxpayer grants to conduct their so-called "research" on tobacco-cancer links so they have a financial motives to exagerate their claims to get more funding!

trial lawyers also get rich suing large companies so don't buy into the leftist trial lawyer garbage either! people with cancer sue deep pockets and that means going after corporations who provide jobs and capital to our great markets! here's an article showing that there's still debate about the scientific link between cancer and smoking

Cigarette giant to deny cancer link

Imperial uses unprecedented defence to fight claim by smoker's widow

A giant British tobacco company is to take the unprecedented step this week of denying there is a proven causal link between smoking and lung cancer in the first case against a cigarette firm to go to a UK court.

The unique defence, to be heard in Scotland's Court of Session, challenges decades of scientific proof of such a link, which was accepted by the Government in 1957.

Imperial Tobacco is being sued for £500,000 by Margaret McTear whose husband Alf, a 60-a-day smoker, from Beith near Glasgow, died of lung cancer in 1993. The case, which starts on Tuesday, will be scrutinised across Europe by lawyers who want to bring similar actions against tobacco firms.

Margaret McTear's lawyers will call scientist Sir Richard Doll, 91, as an expert witness. It was Doll whose work in the Fifties is credited with establishing the link.

Yet Imperial says in documents filed into court and seen by The Observer: 'Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established as a cause of lung cancer. The cause or causes of lung cancer are unknown.'

The company will argue that studies, such as those carried out by Doll, 'report a statistical association between cigarette smoking', not complete proof. The studies 'also report cancer to be statistically associated with many other factors. These include race, ethnicity, religion, sex, personality, low socio-economic status, occupation, diet, stress, education... It is not known which, if any, of these plays a role in the causation of lung cancer'.

Sorry there, it is no leftist conspiracy. Smoking causes lung cancer no doubt in my mind. Now I do not believe they should sue and get money. If I did I would be a millionaire by now seeing how both my parents died from lung cancer. To the others no, my parents were not that bright. I loved them, but they were not on top of things. They did not read enough. They also did not vote, which was probably best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...