Graphic Anti-Smoking Signs Will Be Required By Law

You're a complete fucking tool. I know a thoracic surgeon who spends 75 percent of his practice operating on lung cancer patients. 85 percent of them are current or former smokers. And most of them die anyway. The Cleveland Clinic itself, ranked by US News and World Report as the 4th best hospital in the country, will not hire anyone who smokes.

And only 20 percent of smokers get cancer? That's funny, because roughly 50 percent of the entire population gets cancer at some point in their lives. Are you saying that smoking actually prevents cancer, you stupid fucking idiot?

When you do risk assessments you do not look at each chemical individually. You add up the effects of each chemical. And a chemical concentration below the PEL is not a guarantee of safety.

This doesn't mean the conclusion of what you pasted is incorrect, but the methodology certainly is.

Smokers don't have enough money to pay for all the medical bills they run up in their lifetimes because of their stupid habits. That's why the rest of the country pays for their end-of-life care and pointless lung cancer surgeries.

As readers and the Gothamist surely have surmised, “harleyrider” is no ordinary commenter. He’s a notorious spammer.

Harleyrider's specialty is hijacking message boards. Boards like the Gothamist's are manipulated to function as his own free PR Newswire. His loose-nut boilerplate is slammed onto every board in the country (Google him). He seems part of this weird cabal of maybe 10 shameless spammers who try by sheer force of numbers to make their lies seem true, deluging boards with torrents of misleading sewage--like his tobacco-funded study, or Big Tobacco's long-discredited misrepresentation of a normal study.

Noise intended to drown out truth is a typical, documented tobacco industry tactic.

It must be a full work-day to hit every message board in the country as he does.

And it’s all anonymous; he doesn’t have to stand up to spew this swill out in the open in front of a legislative body, where he might have to account for himself or his misrepresentations.

Does Post-for-Pay exist? Read how US corporations are taking their PR wars to the Internet--without disclosure:

www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watc...

“Allegiances are not always explained. The most impassioned defense … on the blogs comes from Trevor Butterworth, editor of Statistical Assessment Service, also known as STATS. He regularly combs the Internet for stories … and offers comments without revealing his ties to industry.”

(STATS: funded by the tobacco industry)

Once the Flat Earthers, Holocaust Deniers, etc. start following hareleyrider’s scurrilous PR methods, message boards like the Gothamist's will soon become as useless as newsgroups are today.

Not to totally side with "harleyrider", but there are a lot of well-documented, independent studies out there that have found little or no danger from secondhand smoke. And in some studies that claim to have have found dangers, the subjects (i.e. lab rats) were exposed to levels of smoke that in some cases would be the equivalent of firsthand smoking.

I am all for taxing the hell out of smoking, limiting their advertising, warning labels, and all that. But I'd rather we just admit that non-smokers just find it gross, annoying and rude to have to be forced to breathe it or wear the stink home, instead of citing secondhand smoking risks that may not actually exist.

>>"there are a lot of well-documented, independent studies out there that have found little or no danger from secondhand smoke. And in some studies that claim to have have found dangers, the subjects (i.e. lab rats) were exposed to levels of smoke that in some cases would be the equivalent of firsthand smoking."

Nonsense. Total nonsense. Well, not total--yes, there are some studies that show little harm. But that in no way leads to your rash conclusion. The 2006 Surgeon General's report examined all relevant studies and found the literature as a whole shows major health risks.

Don't know your sources for your supposed information, but your BS detector has failed you here.

they should focus less on the people already addicted and focus more on finding new and more effective ways to stop people from starting in the first place. those who start smoking already know the dangers, so i really dont think this is going to make that much of a difference.

Gothamist: The ban is on candy-FLAVORED cigs, not the candy version of cigarettes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKdYE3UEXb9ZfiXoS43vCQyzBUgAD9ASI7JO0

Corrected, thank you.

I'd much rather my tax dollars be spent on posters than on treating lung cancer patients on medicare.

To be fair, I wish they'd include details regarding how many packs those lungs smoke and for how long.

agreed. pre-existing medical conditions also apply.

But smoking makes me look so cool! With my tight jeans, 80s shades, and smug, smile-free face... a cig is the ultimate style attribute.

I wonder if they're considering the same graphic images in abortion clinics. No judgements, just sayin'.

Why? To convince gynecologists to quit smoking?

Smoking is bad for your health? Gee whiz, I had no idea.

Just more bureaucrats trying to justify their existence.

Man, I remember when they made cigarette-shaped candy. Didn't make me want to be a smoker.