PDA

View Full Version : Teenage Smoking



Basil
07-03-2009, 11:17 PM
There is a general smoking thread that is largely dedicated to adult quit attempts, a chesschat smoker survey and various older person's themes. Given the seriousness of smoking, I thought it might be worthwhile (not necessarily popular) to start this thread.

Here are some stats (http://www.nsma.org.au/facts/children.htm) reproduced below :

Australian Council on Smoking & Health 334 Rokeby Road, Subiaco 6008.

* Every year in Australia 70,000 teenagers become regular smokers.

* Each day more than 500 Australian school children smoke their first cigarette.

* In Australia more girls than boys smoke regularly. In Western Australia, by Year 10, 26% of boys and 27% of girls usually smoke cigarettes one or more times a week.

* Researchers found that in Australia in a week, 28% of 15 year old girls and 25% of 15 year old boys smoked cigarettes.

* Each day, 192 Australian school children become regular smokers - three times the number of people who die each day from diseases caused by smoking.

* In Western Australia, by Year 7, more than a third (37%) of the girls and over half (55%) of the boys have at some stage smoked or at least puffed on a cigarette.

* Three quarters of adults who smoke began smoking when they were adolescents.

* One out of every three adult smokers started smoking before they were 9 years old.

* In Australia, if present smoking trends continue, 256,000 boys and 159,000 girls who are now under the age of 14 will die before their time because they smoked.

* The younger the children are when they start smoking the more likely they are to die of a smoking-related disease.

* Children whose parents tell them not to smoke or children who believe that their parents would disapprove of them smoking are less likely to smoke than children who do not receive such messages from their parents.

* Children are less likely to smoke if their parents do not smoke.

* Children who see themselves as poor students are more likely to smoke.

* Young teenage girls who don't know the health risks of smoking are more likely to become regular smokers than those who are aware of the health risks.

* Children who smoke suffer more respiratory problems than children who do not smoke.

* Adolescent smokers can develop the customary smoker's cough within a year or two of becoming regular smokers.

* In Western Australia it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children and young people under 18. The law states: no person shall sell, give or supply tobacco in any form or cigarette paper to or for the use of any person under the age of eighteen years. But 54% of school children who are regular smokers purchase their cigarettes from shops.

* In New South Wales it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18. But a survey showed 53% of 15 year olds who smoke purchase their cigarettes from shops.

* Children smoke the most heavily advertised brands of cigarettes.

* The most popular brands of cigarettes for adolescent boy are Winfield and Peter Jackson. Adolescent girls prefer Winfield, Peter Jackson and Alpine.

* The advertising efforts on the part of the Peter Jackson cigarette brand are reflected in its rise from 1% of the Australian adolescent market in 1983 to 37% in 1987.

* Young children first become conscious of cigarettes as early as 4 months and by the age of 3 years more than 90% of children are familiar with cigarettes.

* Children in families where there are smokers suffer more coughs and respiratory infections than those children in families where there are no smokers.

Basil
07-03-2009, 11:39 PM
Acouple more facts

$200 million
Tobacco companies earn nearly $200 million in annual profits from cigarette sales to minors.

86 percent
86 percent of kids who smoke prefer Marlboro, Camel, or Newport - the three most heavily advertised brands. Only a third of adult smokers prefer these brands.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/4383/index22.html

Desmond
08-03-2009, 06:59 AM
What type of advertising are we talking about here? I thought tobacco company advertising was all but banned. Are we talking about promotional material in the shops themselves?

MichaelBaron
08-03-2009, 08:59 AM
If Kids under 14 are smoking and parents are not doing anything to make them quit they should be made legally liable for this. Parents' negligence is at large the main reason for teenage, alcohol, smoking, and drug abuse.

Space_Dude
08-03-2009, 10:09 AM
lucky im not one of them!!

Sinister
08-03-2009, 01:22 PM
I can't stand the thought of smoking

Saragossa
09-03-2009, 09:39 PM
Those facts are quite interesting. I don't have much to add although another risk is I watched some guy for the first time he smoked, he took a really long drag got dizzy fell over and hurt his head...I lold cos' he just got a lump but turned out fine.

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 11:37 AM
They say that smoking kills, What they don't tell you is that every single person that has lived to he ripe old age of over 100 plus where all smokers.

next I have smoked since I was 21 and nver beenn sick a day in my life.

We are forced to beleive that smoking kills us for one reason and 1 reason only and that is to take our minds away from what really kills us which is the pollution in the air, car fumes, factory fumes etc.

But these companies are major big players so no way are siencest going to tell you there are killing us.

Ciggarette taxes is a classic example of government policy on smoking.. they profit from it to no end and keep find the excuse that they raise the taxes on smoking so look after us. If all this was true and they really cared why not just banned making of ciggarettes altogether rather than make money from it.

the smokers of Australia and the world should take a stand as 1 united people and teach the governments a lesson by not buying ciggarettes for 6 months, the government would quickly change all their policies as they would go broke, just a month and they would start to feel the pinch. They need smokers for they buget to work, without us they are lost on how to make money.

Surs smoking is adictive and hard to give up but it's no different to having a chocolate fettish you have to force yourself not to buy anymore, ciggarettes are no different.


Look at the laws they bring in to control our lives for smokers and yet criminals in jails get given smokes for free, armed forces hand out smokes in their rashens an dthe biggest joke of them all is the actual government and lawyers and judges. I went to the city to see a lawyer on a matter and when you get their you see buildings upon buildings of highrise buildings full of lawyers supposably inforcing the laws of the land.

I stopped at one of the cafes at the base of one of these buildings for a cuppa and a smoke sitting outside of cause and I noticed about 8 NO SMOKING signs all over the place around this cafe so I was a little annoyed but the law is the law. Then I noticed, Oh my god, lord and behold there must have been about 20 people in expensive suites actuallt standing right under these NO SMOKING signs and they where all somking like there was no tomorrow.

I said to the waiter " I thought this was a NO SMOKING area" she replied " Yes it is but these are lawyers and they do what they want but we would appreciate it if you didn't smoke here' WHAT THE FK. Since when did I become less important a person thaa a lawyer that obviously has no respect for the law and yet we have to pay them to and obey the law.

If I was a millionaire I would spend taht money suing each and every one of them.


So smokers that a stand and stand up for yourself as 1 and lets teach these so called laws that supposably care about us and send them broke.


Cheers

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2009, 12:00 PM
Ciggarette taxes is a classic example of government policy on smoking.. they profit from it to no end and keep find the excuse that they raise the taxes on smoking so look after us. If all this was true and they really cared why not just banned making of ciggarettes altogether rather than make money from it.
It is actually a very sensible policy: discourage smoking and tax the hell out of it. Outright prohibition would likely have the same effects as alcohol prohibition: sure, it discouraged lots of drinking, but bootleggers became rich, since prohibition makes the price skyrocket, and in effect protects big cartels who can afford the risks and bribe officials, and much crime was connected with alcohol transport (think Al Capone). Alcohol was frequently contaminated since there was no legal comeback by consumers on an illegal product. Milton Friedman argues that the same is true of the war on drugs.

nLsCC0LZxkY

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 12:09 PM
* Children in families where there are smokers suffer more coughs and respiratory infections than those children in families where there are no smokers.

I am a smoker and I have kids 5 actually.

Your statemnet is a load of crap as my kids range from 5 to 24 and none of them have ever been sick and only one actaully smokes.

I come from a family of 5 kids and only my father smoked. I have 4 sisters younger than me, only two of us actuall smoke and I personally didn't start till I was 21.

the only sickness my family gets are related to the females of the family who gat female problems.

I am a food expert being the the cooking industry for 40 years and so has my family been for 3 genearations.

All these illnesses are not due to smoking but to other major factors that even though they are written in front of us we ignore them totally.

1 - pollution in the air - and yet that isn't even a major factor.
2 - Food - now where can i start and keep it breif at the same time.

all foods these days are made and preserved to keep for longer times than they would if they where natrual.

It is these preservatives and Addatives that make people sick and cause problems as you get older. Some these preservatives and addatives have mild poisons in them and the way it works is like this.

In reality we only need 1 addative to presreve foods which is salt or lemon juice but these only prolong the life a few days. So they add stronger acids, and other premade startches to help these 2 last longer.

It's these acids, poisons, straches, perservatives and addatives that kill us and make us sick.

Our family life by one ploicy, we never by canned foods, pagkaged seeled foods, and we only ever buy takeout 1 or twice a year.

We omly buy real fruits and vegies, buy meat when it's brown and not red as when you see meat it means it's old and it had a colourate added to make it look fresh, Frozen vegi's are also ok as they are only boiled with a little salt and then kept frozen, premade foods on the shelves that only need reheating are things to stay away from.

If siecnests had any brains and less time to kill and stopped trying to impress the government with what they want to hear so they can get funding from them, and did some real research they would find out that what i am saying is 100% correct. But it's all about money and seeming to do the right thing and if they got no money from the government they wouldn't even get jobs as no one would empoly them so funding is the only way they can survive. these people are just as bad as our government as all we here is what they want us to here and reality is thrown out th ewindow.

For those that get sick stop buy crap off the shelves and start cooking real foods and you will feel better in no time.

that's what diets are based on and even then you have to watch which one you go with.

The show the Biggest Looser is probably the best and closest I have ever seem to keeping weight loss down as they actually tell you to only use real foods.

Smoking doesn't kill, all the oldest living or lived people in the world where all smokers, I persoanlly am a fitness freak and jog everyday, have run 5 x 42klm marathons, walk and yet I smoke, In the army no body could match me when it cme to running and yet I smoked, It's all in your heads and what they want you to beleave, don't get sucked in by it or you will get sick.


As for those that visit doctors,, lets look at this logically.

they say the smoking kills yet those that go to doctors are those that stopped smoking which in turn I do beleive this will make you sick while your body reajusts or are none smokers. I have also seen stats that state that more none smokers get cancer than actual current smokers. So yes in this view smoking does kill buyt it's not smoking it's actually the stopping of smoking that can kill you. These commercials they show on Tv of body parts and the way people look when they smoke, What a joke as I can only think of how stupid and how disperate they must be to make themselves sound important.

Anyway these are my views and I stand and live by them and while all you keep fighting to stay what they called so call healthy I am going to continue living my totally healthy life along with my kids and family who are never sick and my smokes when I want one.

Cheers

Don't get me wrong as I do beleive that a person is better off not smoking altogether if they are strong enough willed to avoid it. but that doesn't mean that if you do smoke it will kill you, this i disagree with 100%.

Desmond
23-12-2009, 12:42 PM
I am a smoker and I have kids 5 actually.

Your statemnet is a load of crap as my kids range from 5 to 24 and none of them have ever been sick and only one actaully smokes.Wow based on your extensive quantitative analysis on 1 famliy you have completely overturned what we know about smoking. Don't forget to publish your findings. :rolleyes: :hand:

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 12:56 PM
It is actually a very sensible policy: discourage smoking and tax the hell out of it. Outright prohibition would likely have the same effects as alcohol prohibition: sure, it discouraged lots of drinking, but bootleggers became rich, since prohibition makes the price skyrocket, and in effect protects big cartels who can afford the risks and bribe officials, and much crime was connected with alcohol transport (think Al Capone). Alcohol was frequently contaminated since there was no legal comeback by consumers on an illegal product. Milton Friedman argues that the same is true of the war on drugs.

nLsCC0LZxkY

Yes I agree it would bring black market on yet that still happens anyway even though it is legal, It's all about want to pay less for them, so it really doesn't matter whether it is legal or not as bootleggers will always and still be around, it's human nature to always want more than what we have and pay less for it.
BUT prohibit the growth, close down all growers, and treat it like you do drugs and it will instantly cut out 90% of smokers smoking, so they may make there own at least then the covernment would have a leg to stand on if they where to say,, we want doctors to refuse helping those that smoke,, Thus at the current moment the government allows us to be supplied with smokes on one hand because they profit from it like no otherand yet on they other hand they say we want to look after you by refuse you proper medical attention and will fine you (another revanue maker) if you smoke.

The only reson they don't close growing field down is purely due to the fact that it would put a lot of people out of work, So what the government is really saying is we know it's bad and we know it will kill you but because we mmake so much money from it and so many people are emloyed by it that we will allow it to have these people make such a product that will kill you and your family.

who is trying to kid who here. It is all and only about money and nothing about caring for the people.

Cheers

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 01:12 PM
Wow based on your extensive quantitative analysis on 1 famliy you have completely overturned what we know about smoking. Don't forget to publish your findings. :rolleyes: :hand:

M8 if had the money I would, this isn't based on 1 family but about life time proven stats that excist which where printed by the very same people/siencest that tell us differenly now.

If you really paid attention to what polics and sicentests have been doing all our lives you would notie that something they say is bad for you is all of a sudden good for you a few years down the track and visa versa.

They change thier minds every few years, Look at alcohol,, it's wrong and you should stop drinking but it is actually good for you as a class of wine a day is better than an apple a day or a beer a day is actally good for you yet if you do have a class a day you are considered an alcoholic.

Who are people to beleive, We have to make our own minds up and that is what I am doing as I have all my life and is why I and my family live a totally healthy life and smoking as no barring on it.

You say base on one family; It is not based on one family that actual smokers visit doctors much less frequently than none smokers or those that quit. It's not based on one family that preservative, additavies etc make you sick and are not healthy for you.

It is not based on one family that a class a day of alcohol is good for you.

and it's not based on one family that smoking is only bad for you once you quit. better not starting at all is the way to go.

So rather than look at what I wrote as it been about me,, look at it and go do some research and you will be shocked at what you find. Then come back and tell me I am wrong.

I have 40 years of food technology behind me,, what do you have.

I also will always remember a couple of statments made in the late 70s by politicians.
1 - We will be charging 25.00 per packet of ciggarettes by the year 2012.
2 - by the year 2010 there will only be major supermarkets on the street and individual stores will not exist anymore. we will commercialize the shopping industry to just a few major companies.

Please tell me where or which one of these is NOT happening or nearing it to be that way at this present moment. 425.00 per packet; they will be there before then. Commercialize shopping stores to 1 area,, almost there now, Who owns all the major department stores as we speak,, 2 to 3 major companies run them all under differnet names.

Is all this based all on one family. maybe you should start to not beleiving everything you read today and think about how what you read came about.

Cheers




Cheers

Desmond
23-12-2009, 01:53 PM
If you really paid attention to what polics and sicentests have been doing all our lives you would notie that something they say is bad for you is all of a sudden good for you a few years down the track and visa versa.

They change thier minds every few years, Yeah funny about that. They change their minds based on the evidence available at the time.


Look at alcohol,, it's wrong and you should stop drinking but it is actually good for you as a class of wine a day is better than an apple a day or a beer a day is actally good for you yet if you do have a class a day you are considered an alcoholic.According to who does a glass a day make you an alcoholic?


You say base on one family; It is not based on one family that actual smokers visit doctors much less frequently than none smokers or those that quit. If that is true, and I seriously doubt it is, then how does it automatically follow that they visit doctors less because they get sick less? Perhaps they do not visit the doctor because they have a fair idea what is causing their cough. :hmm:


So rather than look at what I wrote as it been about me,, look at it and go do some research and you will be shocked at what you find. Then come back and tell me I am wrong.Or I could just cut out the middle man; you're wrong.


I have 40 years of food technology behind me,, what do you have.What is food technology and what is your actual job?


Is all this based all on one family. maybe you should start to not beleiving everything you read today and think about how what you read came about.Umm if I believed everyting I read wouldn't that mean I believe you?

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 02:07 PM
Umm if I believed everyting I read wouldn't that mean I believe you?

No by all means don't beleive me go do you own research as I have for the last 40 years.

That is what these forums are for, pointing out your views and chating about them. I never asked anybody to beleive what I wrote as that is your choice.

My job I am and my last 3 generations are chefs, pastrychefs, bakers and food techonlogy which is all about discovering what ingredents are and what they do.


Quote:
So rather than look at what I wrote as it been about me,, look at it and go do some research and you will be shocked at what you find. Then come back and tell me I am wrong.

Or I could just cut out the middle man; you're wrong.

That is quite a droad minded answer considering you only base your answer on judging me rather that what i said just for the sake of sound right. then again you have to expect people like that in public forums, You have your thoughts and I will have mine.


According to who does a glass a day make you an alcoholic?

every alcoholic agency around and has been mentioned on the news thousands of time including many other adverting media places. Guess you don't get out much.


Cheers

Desmond
23-12-2009, 02:48 PM
No by all means don't beleive me go do you own research as I have for the last 40 years.
That is what these forums are for, pointing out your views and chating about them. I never asked anybody to beleive what I wrote as that is your choice.That's lucky as I doubt anyone will.

My job I am and my last 3 generations are chefs, pastrychefs, bakers and food techonlogy which is all about discovering what ingredents are and what they do.I worked with chefs, pastry chefs, and bakers for about 4-5 years. Admittedly not 40 years but I can't recall any of them referring to themselves as a "food technology worker".

That is quite a droad minded answer considering you only base your answer on judging me rather that what i said just for the sake of sound right. That's quite a peculiar assumption on your part.

every alcoholic agency around and has been mentioned on the news thousands of time including many other adverting media places. Guess you don't get out much.CheersWell, first definition I found doing a google search was from here (http://www.alcoholism-and-drug-addiction-help.com/definition-of-alcoholism.html)

"Alcoholism is a primary illness or disorder characterised by some loss of control over drinking, with habituation or addiction to the drug alcohol, causing interference in any major life function, e.g. health, family, job, spiritual, friends,legal."

Somehow I doubt a glass of wine or beer a day falls into that category.

Saragossa
23-12-2009, 02:57 PM
Can we please get a troll that can spell?

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 03:24 PM
Food techology in done in labs and not kitchens are which is what you are refering to have worked in. Sorry you feel that this is not an important feild but it is who diegnosies ingredients and what affects they may or may not have. just to help you out here is a link which will tell you what a food techologyperson does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_technology

Cheers

Desmond
23-12-2009, 03:33 PM
Food techology in done in labs and not kitchens are which is what you are refering to have worked in. Sorry you feel that this is not an important feild but it is who diegnosies ingredients and what affects they may or may not have. just to help you out here is a link which will tell you what a food techologyperson does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_technology

Cheers
Yet not one reference on that page to "chef", "baker" or "pastry chef". Maybe you should read it yourself. :lol:

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 03:44 PM
If Kids under 14 are smoking and parents are not doing anything to make them quit they should be made legally liable for this. Parents' negligence is at large the main reason for teenage, alcohol, smoking, and drug abuse.
This is quite hard to impliment considering Australian laws prevent you from forcing your kids from doing anything that doesn't constitute an illegal act.

Once kids turn 12 they are protected by law and have the same equal say you have in a court and the kids know it because they learn this at school.

While your tring to teach your kids that they should listen to you and or they will be punished, grounded, or what ever else, They learn at school that a parent has no right to punish them and that they should be able to decide what they do for themselves, Yet as soon as they play up the parent gets the blame.

The problem is with Australian Laws is they protect side with the kids over any parent, thus docs is well know for doing just that, All any child has to do is tell there school they are mistreated or have problems with their parents and bang you have docs on your doorstep and there is no telling them that it is not true either as you will be looked upon as being an unfitworthy parent even if what the child says is a lie.

I have a 15 year old daughter who started smoking drugs and going out and sleeping with bikies twice plus her age, I tried everything to help and stop her both the police and docs told me that due to Australian laws they can do nothing to stop her ever though she was sleeping with these guys, All she had to do was say she was there housekeeper and bang I had no say what so ever.

I lost my daughter due to that and why because I treid to protect her.

So how will suing parents stop kids from smoking as they will keep doing it.
The problem is not with most parents but with the way the law perseives parents and their rights with their own kids.

I wouldn't be surprised if the government brings out the fact that you will need a licence to have kids one day.

Cheers

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 03:47 PM
Yet not one reference on that page to "chef", "baker" or "pastry chef". Maybe you should read it yourself. :lol:
How do you ever get on in a day I wouder.

As stated earlier I am quaified in all those feilds. Are You?

Desmond
23-12-2009, 04:05 PM
How do you ever get on in a day I wouder.

As stated earlier I am quaified in all those feilds. Are You?
Good point. Maybe if I had your cooking experience I would understand more about how awesome smoking is for teenagers.

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 04:20 PM
Good point. Maybe if I had your cooking experience I would understand more about how awesome smoking is for teenagers.

Never once did I say it was good or awesome. so that is quite a false statement you are making and I feel just for the sake of (what ever your reason is).

If you read back I did ay the smoking was a good thing to start doing at any age, being a teenager has nothing to do with it.

I also said that and based upon the orginal post that I didn't beleive smoking was the case of all the iusses that was stated. I also said that if you do smoke you are more like to be sicker when you acually stop than what you would be if you keeped smoking.

But I did stress that if you wher strong willed enough to not start smoke at all that you would be better and healthier.

Smoking will harm you but I do beleive it is not going to kill you to the point that they try to have us beleive it will.

You will probably find that whether a parent smokes or not has no barring as to whether a child smokes as they will decide for themselves depending on peer presure around school friends and nothing to do with parents smoking.

As a parent you can teach your child all the right things in the wolrd you want, but as soon as they leave school I can stack my life that when their mates at school try to incourage them to smoke, their parents will be that last thing on there mind and they will do it behind you back if they have to.

That is the reality of it.

cheers

Desmond
23-12-2009, 04:34 PM
Never once did I say it was good or awesome. so that is quite a false statement you are making and I feel just for the sake of (what ever your reason is).You said that smokers tend to out-live non-smokers and tend to be less ill. That would appear to me to be a good thing.


If you read back I did ay the smoking was a good thing to start doing at any age, being a teenager has nothing to do with it.Yet you struck up your tirade in the Teen Forum under the topic Teenage Smoking. As mentioned by the opening poster in this thread, there are other threads available regarding smoking in this forum. You chose this one.


I also said that and based upon the orginal post that I didn't beleive smoking was the case of all the iusses that was stated. I also said that if you do smoke you are more like to be sicker when you acually stop than what you would be if you keeped smoking.Which is complete nonsense.


Smoking will harm you but I do beleive it is not going to kill you to the point that they try to have us beleive it will.So, a less serious case of death, then.


You will probably find that whether a parent smokes or not has no barring as to whether a child smokes as they will decide for themselves depending on peer presure around school friends and nothing to do with parents smoking.Complete nonsense. The opening poster linked to stats, if you want to dispute these stats provide some of your own.


As a parent you can teach your child all the right things in the wolrd you want, but as soon as they leave school I can stack my life that when their mates at school try to incourage them to smoke, their parents will be that last thing on there mind and they will do it behind you back if they have to.If after they leave school they are still hanging out with people at school I suggest they either find some friends their own age or stop bugging the repeaters; they probably need to study.

phil1ooo
23-12-2009, 04:54 PM
You said that smokers tend to out-live non-smokers and tend to be less ill. That would appear to me to be a good thing.

Yet you struck up your tirade in the Teen Forum under the topic Teenage Smoking. As mentioned by the opening poster in this thread, there are other threads available regarding smoking in this forum. You chose this one.

Which is complete nonsense.

So, a less serious case of death, then.

Complete nonsense. The opening poster linked to stats, if you want to dispute these stats provide some of your own.

If after they leave school they are still hanging out with people at school I suggest they either find some friends their own age or stop bugging the repeaters; they probably need to study.

It is quite clear that you just have no idea of what you are saying and are not joining in the converstaion but just creating a post of annoyence silly remrks.

As a result I will not be answering your post in recards to mine anymore.

As for my trade it was only mentioned as a why of explianing how I come to beleive what I do and not out for dispute.

As for your links well since much of what I said here comes froms stats and media coverage constently world wide it might be good for you to do some research as these are as I stated stats from past years compared to those of todays. BUT I will take your comment notice an when I come across links I will for your benifit post them on here for you so that maybe you might just learn that there is more to life than to waste people's times with your silly remarks that actually mean nothing and don't contribute to the matter at hand.

cheers

Desmond
23-12-2009, 04:58 PM
toodle-ooo then

Desmond
23-12-2009, 05:19 PM
It is quite clear that you just have no idea of what you are saying and are not joining in the converstaion but just creating a post of annoyence silly remrks.Being corrected might strike you as annoying, but you might try following your own advice and try actually learning something. Did you end up finding a defintion of "alcoholic" that is remotely similar to what you thought it meant?


As a result I will not be answering your post in recards to mine anymore.Oh dear, a troll threatening to not post. We'll see how long that lasts.


As for my trade it was only mentioned as a why of explianing how I come to beleive what I do and not out for dispute.I said "tirade". Want me to google a definition for you?


As for your links well since much of what I said here comes froms stats and media coverage constently world wideWell then you should have no problem finding some supporting sources then, should you.
it might be good for you to do some research as these are as I stated stats from past years compared to those of todays. BUT I will take your comment notice an when I come across links I will for your benifit post them on here for you so that maybe you might just learn that there is more to life than to waste people's times with your silly remarks that actually mean nothing and don't contribute to the matter at hand.On the one hand you want to say only the latest information is relevant and on the other you want to point to stuff you supposedly did 40 years ago. So which is it?

Basil
23-12-2009, 05:24 PM
M8 if had the money I would, this isn't based on 1 family but about life time proven stats that excist which where printed by the very same people/siencest that tell us differenly now.
Your punishing analysis is desperately required by the tobacco manufacturers. You are a plank.

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2009, 08:37 PM
That is what these forums are for, pointing out your views and chating[sic] about them.

This one's actually for discussion of chess, and for discussion of any subject by posters who are interested in chess or in some way connected to it. Given that your opening contributions have been 10 posts to a single issue non-chess thread without any sign of interest in the game, perhaps you could more usefully enlighten us on such issues as whether smoking should be banned from tournament halls, whether Nimzowitsch had anything to worry about when he complained that his opponent was "threatening to smoke", and whether Botvinnik's pre-match training method of having his practice opponents blow smoke in his face was effective.

Hobbes
23-12-2009, 08:42 PM
all the oldest living or lived people in the world where all smokers,

5 seconds of research (http://tinyurl.com/ygyecm8) suggests that this is not the case:

Approximately half (42%) of the supercentenarians had a history of smoking; however, of those participants who did smoke, most began later in life and tended to smoke < 20 cigarettes per day and/or quit by their 70s (data not shown). Only one third of the supercentenarians had a history of regular alcohol consumption, and they tended to be social drinkers who drank moderately (data not shown). Five of 12 supercentenarians (42%) never drank alcohol or smoked during their lifetimes.

ChoiSeulKi
31-03-2011, 11:40 PM
Owneddd!!!