Cigarette smoking and its dangers

[Obamot]

"saves the payment of its retirees",

What civic sense! Yes but he will never take advantage of it, he, the turkey: and moreover he will have paid to contribute to his own extermination! (Ahmed's dark humor doesn't hurt anyone lol)

Joking aside, what is happening with lobbying in this case is the archetype of the confiscation of democracy.

Hello everyone!

obamot hello
Unfortunately no economic sector (or not for that matter) escapes pressure groups.

For sure! But in the light of this "death market", corruption takes on a surprising relief. Enarques and other legislators can no longer hide behind their usual fallacies (such as "one does not explain or one cannot explain it to a populasse which in any case would understand nothing there ...")

If the cigarette has recently become the bête noire because of the millions of deaths it generates, we do not shoot as much with red balls on the alcoholists who nevertheless claim as many victims and even more if we consider the violence which results from it . There, it's all beautiful! Hypocrisy? No! Preservation of a sector which employs a very large quantity of individuals (future voters or elected officials in place) which is no longer the case for tobacco and if we find and impose on tobacco packages the mention: tobacco kills and pictures of organ breakdown; no image, no deadly mention on the other poison (it's less seller) Same thing for the bidoche elsewhere!

I agree in substance, but not in the application. There is "social" alcohol (the wine of masses, celebratory meetings, etc.) Alcohol is special, there is a cultural dimension that there is not with cigarettes at the historical level. . The fact remains that alcohol is very dangerous, the switch from addiction to addiction can be done in just a few days if we are not careful. In the present day even more than before: alcohol has become a real "field of challenge" (as everything can be) and shows the resignation of the education of our system which comes back to us in the face as a boomerang! When we see what is happening in Brussels, we cannot blame young people for drinking - what alternatives and what future does society offer them? - there would be enough to enlist in an extremist movement or a sect!

In recent times, I remember that those in civil society, who made sure to engage in "prevention" in their work as journalists, were the unloved ones of radio-TV channels and other media. There was also a red ball against "civil society" (because allegedly potentially competing with the "democratic society in place" in the eyes of certain politicians and even "red-headed") and its idealistic initiatives! (Ditto with participatory democracy, allegedly "already participatory", this program shows that it is not because it is confiscated) We can see why now, they were preventing people from going around in circles!

The gangrene had already started! It is essential to put the work back on the carpet.

after philip moris smoking resoud the problem of pensions since smoking kills ... well that's what is said at the moment on 2 on TV ... and if it's on TV it's true? ??
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post277420.html#277420

it's cynicism, but it also corresponds to a tangible reality. Retirement savings are usually spent on very expensive care like cancer, but it's not the same budget!

There, the debate around "demographic weapons»Becomes plausible, since it is a proof (in this sector there at least). And when we see how far the cynicism of some parliamentarians can go, it would have deserved the electric chair in other times!
Is it the tree that hides the forest of coffins? Since we know that degenerative diseases and cardiovascular problems included, this represents 80% of pathologies! These are the new genocides of "modern" times.

[Janic]

ahmed hello

I would like to qualify: the costs of care are maximized at the end of the patient's life, so a patient who dies young saves the payment of his pensions; It should not be forgotten that if cigarettes (like other toxic drugs) cause premature death, this does not prevent the certain mortality, in fine, of non-smokers!

So I would also qualify! No one is immortal, smoker or not, it's obvious! But reading the families of deaths highlights the alcohol-tobacco couple with more than 130.000 cumulative deaths. (73.000 tobacco + 60.000 alcohol) with interactions with other common products like the pill in women. Certainly there are many premature deaths (more rarely before the fifties) so after having contributed for thirty years; but risk becoming big customers for the SS.

http://www.inpes.sante.fr/CFESBases/cat ... df/362.pdf

http://www.e-cancer.fr/prevention/alcoo ... and-public
Alcohol, the second preventable risk factor for cancer
Date of last update: 05 / 06 / 2014
Alcohol represents the second preventable cause of death from cancer after tobacco in France, according to the WHO. Often denied or overlooked, its carcinogenic character is however clearly established. It is responsible for 9,5% of cancer deaths, or around 15 deaths each year.
Alcohol consumption in France was estimated at 11,8 liters of pure alcohol per inhabitant in 2012, or approximately 2,5 10g glasses of alcohol per day per inhabitant. Down from the early 1960s (26 liters of pure alcohol per capita / year), this consumption remains one of the highest in Europe, where France ranks 5th, and in the world.
In addition, 12% of French people aged 18 to 75 say they consume alcohol daily.
Even at low doses, alcohol increases the risk of cancer
Alcohol is classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Consuming it greatly increases the risk of developing certain cancers:
• mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus (upper aerodigestive tract);
• colon-rectum;
• breast;
• liver.
It is thus considered that almost 80% of esophageal cancers, 20% of colon cancers and 17% of breast cancers are due to alcohol consumption in France.
The effect of consuming alcoholic beverages depends mainly on the amount of alcohol provided and not on the type of drink (wine, beer, aperitifs, etc.). Regardless of the type of alcohol consumed, the standard glasses served in bars all generally contain the same amount of pure alcohol: a glass of wine will therefore have the same carcinogenic effect as a glass of strong alcohol.

It has also been shown that the risk increases linearly with the amount of alcohol consumed and that there is no threshold below which the risk of developing cancer is zero. A study published in 2013 indicates that even the regular intake of a single glass a day - about 10g of pure alcohol - significantly increases the risk of cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract, esophagus, colon-rectum and breast.
Alcohol and tobacco: an increased risk
The effects of alcohol are reinforced when they are combined with those of tobacco: their joint actions considerably increase the risks of cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract. It is estimated, for example, that the risk of developing cancer of the oral cavity can be multiplied by 45 among heavy users of tobacco and alcohol.
To find out more about tobacco, visit our dedicated file.
Tips to prevent alcohol-related cancers
To effectively reduce your risk of developing alcohol-related cancer, it is recommended that you limit not only the amount of alcohol drunk on each drinking occasion, but also the frequency of those occasions. The risk of developing cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract has been shown to decrease after 10 years of stopping alcohol consumption, and after 20 years, it no longer differs significantly from that of people who have never drunk .
If you feel that you need help to limit or stop your consumption of alcohol, you can talk to your doctor or go to a care, support and prevention center in addiction (CSAPA), which can offer you free individual support or follow-up.
You can also benefit from listening and support on the Internet via Alcool Info Service, or reach this service by phone on 0980 980 930 (from 8h to 2h, cost of a local call).

Causes of death change code]
In 2008, Inserm's CépiDc recorded the death of 543 people in France. The causes were139:
• for 29,6%, neoplastic tumors (compared to 28,1% in 2000) head lung cancer (5,4% in 2008)
• for 21,4%, cardiovascular diseases (30,5% in 2000);
• for 6,1%, cerebrovascular accidents (1st cause of death in women)
• for 4,6%, accidents (including transport 0,78% and accidental falls) (5,4% in 2000);
• for 3,2%, Alzheimer's disease (1,5% in 2000);
• for 2,5%, the causes are not known or not specified;
• for 2,2%, diabetes (2,1% in 2000);
• for 2,0%, pneumonia and influenza;
• for 1,9%, suicide (2,0% in 2000);
• for 1,8%, dementias (1,9% in 2000);
• for 1,7%, chronic diseases of the lower respiratory tract (1,8% in 2000).
• for 1,4%, chronic liver diseases (1,6% in 2000);
• for 1,3%, kidney and ureter diseases;
• for 0,9%, Parkinson's disease;
• for 19,3%, other causes.

wikipedia

Obamot hello

Janic wrote:
obamot hello
Unfortunately no economic sector (or not for that matter) escapes pressure groups.

For sure! But in the light of this "death market", corruption takes on a surprising relief. The enarques and other legislators can no longer hide behind their usual fallacies (such as "we do not explain or we can not explain it to a population who in any case would understand nothing ...")

It also exists for the alcohol market, but this consumption benefits from a favorable brand image in the minds of society and therefore of policies (we condemn the drunkards, but not the small consumers) if only because of its historical antiquity as you also point out below. On the other hand tobacco (and I am far from being an advocate) is the subject of a nonexistent campaign for alcohol. No question of: " one cigarette is fine, but three hello the damage " or " watch out for tobacco abuse ", It is clear the obligatory information is well" tobacco kills"on the packages, but alcohol never kills on the bottles, while their morbidity and mortality are almost equivalent.

I agree on the substance, but not in the application. There is “social” alcohol (wine for masses, celebration meetings, etc.) Alcohol is special, there is a cultural dimension that there is not with cigarettes historically . The fact remains that alcohol is very dangerous, the change from addiction to addiction can be done in just a few days if you are not careful.

Whether we take care or not! How many anonymous alcoholics testify that they saw nothing happen, it only takes a big problem a few times for addiction to take hold. As a former AA testified to me, gradually he multiplied all occasions to drink without having any (known) particular problems.

The gangrene had already started! It is essential to put the work back on the carpet.

Dreamer: D

[Obamot]

Unfortunately no economic sector (or not for that matter) escapes pressure groups.

For sure! But in the light of this "death market", corruption takes on a surprising relief. The enarques and other legislators can no longer hide behind their usual fallacies (such as "we do not explain or we can not explain it to a population who in any case would understand nothing ...")

It also exists for the liquor market, but this consumption benefits from a favorable brand image in the minds of society and therefore of policies (we condemn the drunkards, but not the small consumers) if only because of its historical antiquity as you also point out below.

Aaah no, alcohol is considered a hard drug in the same way as cocaine ... I say that it is very dangerous. Everywhere it must be specified that alcohol abuse is dangerous for health.

Now we cannot prohibit everything, since statistically speaking it would be a counterproductive effect. Just like the presence of these over-the-counter substances, puts people on the hook. There is therefore a limit to coercion: a threshold of disempowerment ...

I agree on the substance, but not in the application. There is “social” alcohol (wine for masses, celebration meetings, etc.) Alcohol is special, there is a cultural dimension that there is not with cigarettes historically . The fact remains that alcohol is very dangerous, the change from addiction to addiction can be done in just a few days if you are not careful.

Whether we take care or not! How many anonymous alcoholics testify that they saw nothing happen,

This is what I said above and above, it is a hard drug or the changeover is very fast, without anyone even noticing ...

it takes a big problem a few times for addiction to take hold.

Even without that, just with a festive aspect in consumption, that's enough (it's even worse ...)

The gangrene had already started! It is essential to put the work back on the carpet.

Dreamer: D

òh that ... always! (but not so naive ...)

[Janic]

Aaah no, alcohol is considered a hard drug in the same way as cocaine ... I say that it is very dangerous. Everywhere it must be specified that alcohol abuse is dangerous for health.

I did not question TE, but the ancestral culture of the picole.
Indeed, what I have widely emphasized is a dangerous drug and recognized as such in the classification of drugs. Where it gets stuck is the abuse side as if outside "abuse" it was not dangerous. As the site cited: there is no minimum dose, any alcoholic drink consumption promotes the development of certain cancers and yet the people concerned (with rare exceptions) will continue the booze "in a reasonable way". It's their choice! But all this grape could make good, invigorating juice for everyone to consume, including and especially children, rather than this deadly product.

[Obamot]

There is an anecdote from a doctor friend. Who in addition to being FMH has inherited a good number of traditional medicine methods, notably African.

He told us that a single absorption of alcohol destroyed cells in the windpipe, many of which no longer replenish! Then the body adapts as best it can to counter this stress, until ....

He had banned all consumption of alcohol, which I did not do, but limited me to a few occasions in the year ... (I have some other faults)

[Janic]

obamot hello

He had banned all consumption of alcohol, which I did not do, but limited me to a few occasions in the year ... (I have some other faults)

Everyone leads their life as they see fit and it is not a case of trying anyone. However, the information of the product itself is a duty of conscience whether for alcohol, tobacco or any other product.

[Janic]

carried over from the humor topic

Did67 wrote:
chatelot16 wrote:
after philip moris smoking resoud the problem of pensions since smoking kills ... well that's what is said at the moment on 2 on TV ... and if it's on TV it's true? ??


It's not funny. And it's not humor !!! So it has nothing to do here.

Argumentiare exists and has been developed as part of lobbying against anti-smoking regulations. The Czech questioned never denied the principle of the study. So it's true. Not because it's on TV. Because it exists and the director of the box who released this study for Philipp Morris did not deny it.

I note that Philipp Morris is attacking the European Tobacco Control Directive in order to win a few more years of maximum profits. This one is however much less binding, than expected, thanks to their lobbying.

At the cost of thousands more deaths. It's proven.

This absolute cynicism (with the complicity of smokers: "when I think that it would be enough for people not to smoke for their agitations to be in vain!" - I paraphrase Coluche; I would so much like to succeed in convincing people of 'quitting smoking, for their happiness, their life but also to fuck (PMI = Philipp Morris International) has no place in the humor section.

This is unfortunately too true!


I wrote this stupidly on the topic humor while it's very black humor ... but I did not dare to open a real subject ... it may be necessary to move all this in a real subject

the state continues a real harassment on the road safety whereas the tobacco makes a lot more victim, but reports so much

the state is not only complicit in making a lot of money on this trade, which should be called trafficking since it is the same problem as other drugs

I went to military service and I saw the almost free distribution of cigarettes which encouraged many to start smoking ... I was entitled to mine too and I gave them to anyone who wanted ... a shame

this machine to incite to start smoking was formidable: long inactivity and boredom with cheap cigarette
I was not risking anything because my father had convinced me from the youngest age of the absurdity of smoking ...

An old maxim used by Sully was: " plowing and grazing are the two udders of France "That we could pastiche in" alcohol and tobacco are the two udders of drugs It was noted that it was rare for young people to switch directly to illegal drugs without first going through the legal drugs of alcohol, tobacco and other neural stimulants. There is of course education that can act as a brake, but rarely a barrier to take the plunge. The only way not to be swallowed by the gear is to not put your finger on it.

[Ahmed]

I have always found the inscription on cigarette packets very strange: "smoking kills" ...
From a logical point of view, it is also relevant to state: "not smoking kills"!
This shortcut is annoying, because the reality is that smoking kills prematurely, which is very different; in our society which suppresses death, this formulation is very enlightening of a state of mind ...

[Janic]

ahmed hello

From a logical point of view, it is also relevant to state: "not smoking kills"!

Not quite! This direct indication calls into question the tobacco companies' desire to generate deaths since they are no longer unaware of this state of affairs. But it is also a way of not attacking the latter head-on because tobacco, as long as it is not transformed into a consumable product, does not kill. In fact it should be mentioned: "the tobacco companies are killing you ..."same thing for alcoholics:"alcoholics kill you ... in small sips"You can see from here the reaction of all kinds of wine producers and other brewers.

[Obamot]

I react late about the title of this thread:

Cigarette smoking and its dangers

The cigarette, in itself, is harmless !!!

Cigarettes are no danger, it's smokers who are dangerous!

It is a problem of "personal will", to begin with, just like the use of any "stimulant" or drug.

It is a completely different axis to see this societal problem like this! Because to say that "cigarettes are dangerous", would not commit smoker's responsibility seen as a "victim of smoking". But it is the smoker who is his own victim, his own executioner.

Then we can discuss everything else, but the main point is there, IMHO ...

No one would choose to start smoking (to take drugs), and the danger was over !!!