Even low doses of smoke deadly - Hawa...

Even low doses of smoke deadly - Hawaii News

There are 48 comments on the Honolulu Star-Bulletin story from Sep 1, 2009, titled Even low doses of smoke deadly - Hawaii News. In it, Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that:

Social smokers might want to think twice about lighting up. A new report by epidemiologists shows people who smoked three cigarettes or less a day had a 65 percent higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than nonsmokers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
OnlyParadise

Pearl City, HI

#1 Sep 1, 2009
smoking is dangerous. no kidding sherlock.

what is the purpose of this article?

I am not for smoking and would not mind if smoking cease.

but i have a feeling someone is asking for money $$$.
amazed

Mansfield, OH

#2 Sep 1, 2009
LOL...yeah, the prevention people want their other 10 million dollars.

"Legislature significantly cut funding for tobacco prevention. Funding dropped from 25 percent to 6.5 percent of the estimated $56 million"
Big John-Hawaii Kai

Kailua, HI

#3 Sep 1, 2009
I've said it before and I'll say it again. "Ban all tobacco products, all of them, in the State of Hawaii. Nothing, no cigarettes, no cigars, no pipe tobacco, no snuff, no chewing tobacco."

Now nonsmokers are happy, right? Wrong, that happiness will be shortlived because when politico's find out that the State government has lost $45 MILLION dollars in annual tobacco taxes, the nonsmokers will be called upon to make up the shortfall. Welcome to the cigarette taxed world of the smoker.

A recent study in Europe showed that nonsmokers placed more of a burden of the health care system than smokers. Reason: Nonsmokers live longer but are subject to the same maladies of old age that other face. Smokers on the other hand, do not live as long, hence less burden on the health care system. I can't believe it took a study to determine this theory.

So, what do I say. "If you got 'em, smoke 'em. Keep paying those outrageous tobacco taxes, because I surely don't want to.
willie

Plymouth, MI

#4 Sep 1, 2009
Too bad tobacco is such a tax cash cow...best bet would be to just outlaw the stuff outright....but that will never happen.
Keith Haugen

AOL

#5 Sep 1, 2009
Aloha:

We need to step up the education program to help addicts of all ages break free of tobacco.

SMOKING KILLS ... both the addict and those around him.

Me ka pono,

Keith Haugen
Nu`uanu
Freedom

Niles, MI

#6 Sep 1, 2009
Keith Haugen wrote:
Aloha:
We need to step up the education program to help addicts of all ages break free of tobacco.
SMOKING KILLS ... both the addict and those around him.
Me ka pono,
Keith Haugen
Nu`uanu
Tell us oh self righteous one...would you be willing to apply your ridiculous standards to other lifestyle choices that many consider unhealthy?

Did you know the meat addicts are the number one source of global warming...as well as the number one producers of highly carcinogenic fine particulate matter?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3976126

Cass and his co-workers quantified 29 different sources of tiny organic particles in Los Angeles' air. In the April ES&T, they reported that meat smoke appears to account for more than one-fifth of these particles, substantially exceeding any other single source--including fireplaces, gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, dust raised during road paving, forest fires, organic chemical processing, metallurgical processing, jet aircraft and cigarettes.
----------

There is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with huge double standards.
Drea

United States

#7 Sep 1, 2009
The study results are slanted towards tobacco - once again. Pollution seems to take second seat here. Living next to a road increases the risk of dying from inhalation related problems as much if not more then tobacco; but that is never emphasized since government has no way of moving us all away from the cause. Anyone else disgusted with slanted reports and studies?
Sun Cruise

Keaau, HI

#8 Sep 1, 2009
Wake up Hawaii.

"Could smoking pot cut risk of head, neck cancer?
Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:05pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health)- You've heard about using marijuana and drugs derived from it to keep some of the side effects of toxic cancer chemotherapy in check. But what if smoking marijuana for 10 to 20 years could actually protect against certain tumors?

In a study, researchers have found that long-term pot smokers were roughly 62 percent less likely to develop head and neck cancers than people who did not smoke pot..."
Stumpy

Honolulu, HI

#9 Sep 1, 2009
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know the meat addicts are the number one source of global warming.
I'm an admitted meat addict. I see BLT's every time I look at a pig, a cow is just one big walking steak to me. Can I sign up for a paycheck someplace for my disability, maybe a handicapped placard like the fat people get? How about some free pogroms like the welfare frauds receive?
heh heh

Mililani, HI

#10 Sep 1, 2009
I'm a smoker and have been since I was 14 years old (I'm 72 now). In fact, I was exposed to second hand smoke from the day I was born (dad was a smoker and I was born at home, delivered by a mid-wife).
Seldom have I needed any medical attention during my working years and it was almost 12 years after retirement before I saw a doctor. I'm not on any medication and have been (medicine free) most of my life.
It's mostly genetics and lifestyle (exercise, moderation, etc).
Granted, smoking is harmful to your health, but other factors needs to be considered (sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diet, consumption of grilled red meat and processed meat, etc).
Jerry Okamura

Lihue, HI

#11 Sep 1, 2009
Isn't there a risk in just about everything we put in our bodies, or our bodies absorb just by being alive?
Bob_Mililani

San Diego, CA

#12 Sep 1, 2009
I used to smoke, and like many others, quit. The other day I was in a convenience store and happened to take notice of the price of cigarettes. More than $9./pack for a brand name. I don't know about anyone else, but that would be one heck of an incentive for me to quit!
DJ Quick

Honolulu, HI

#13 Sep 1, 2009
What ever happened to the enforcement of the smoking ban? People are not smoking indoors but are blowing smoke at peoples face in front of buildings and doors. they should have separate smoking rooms where they can breed back their own poisons.
somecommonsense

Waianae, HI

#14 Sep 1, 2009
Hmm, one more story with no proof to back it up! I am sick and tired of these doomsayers claiming how deadly smoking, second-hand smoke, eating meat, eating fast food, etc etc is to us. I have yet to read the actually PROOF in any of these articles or speeches by the naysayers.

Show me the PROOF and maybe I will start to believe. But until then, smokers are welcome to sit by me! My granparents all smoked unfiltered pall malls and lived to 97, 97, 98, and 96.
somecommonsense

Waianae, HI

#15 Sep 1, 2009
DJ Quick wrote:
What ever happened to the enforcement of the smoking ban? People are not smoking indoors but are blowing smoke at peoples face in front of buildings and doors. they should have separate smoking rooms where they can breed back their own poisons.
That is what the ridiculous smoking ban did- force smokers from their out-of-the-way designated smoking ares where they weren't bothering anyone, right into the public!
go figure

San Diego, CA

#16 Sep 1, 2009
Bob_Mililani wrote:
I used to smoke, and like many others, quit. The other day I was in a convenience store and happened to take notice of the price of cigarettes. More than $9./pack for a brand name. I don't know about anyone else, but that would be one heck of an incentive for me to quit!
It is and believe me no one would like to quit smoking, more than a smoker.
Consenting Adult

Honolulu, HI

#17 Sep 1, 2009
THIS STORY IS COMPLETELY ONE SIDED. Why wasn't the other side of the story included? This junk about 20-30%[25%] increase in heart disease from environmental tobacco smoke is just like the World Health Organization Study.

"10 cases of heart disease per 1,000,000. vs
12.5 cases of heart disease per 1,000,000."

That's how they get the 25% difference. Explain to me how with so many co-factors for heart disease this has any statistical value. Add to that the anti-smoking bias of the people that did the study.

*** ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE ANTI-SMOKING STUDIES = BIASED AND UNSCIENTIFIC.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#18 Sep 1, 2009
Stumpy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an admitted meat addict. I see BLT's every time I look at a pig, a cow is just one big walking steak to me. Can I sign up for a paycheck someplace for my disability, maybe a handicapped placard like the fat people get? How about some free pogroms like the welfare frauds receive?
You are not alone my friend. Sadly the meat addicts are still on their own as far as big brother is concerned....for now.

http://www.meatjunkie.com/essays/addiction.ph...

Everyone now knows that smoking will kill you. Most people also understand that a lifetime spent eating meat isn't much healthier. Few Americans, however, seem to realize that every year meat-related diseases kill twice as many people as tobacco.

And perhaps that's why I've never seen a public service announcement encouraging people to quit meat, or a congressman suggest a meat tax, or a state bring a public health lawsuit against Big Beef.

Then again, this apathy towards meat might be explained by a very simple misunderstanding. Perhaps Americans believe that unlike tobacco, meat is not addictive. If so, I'm here to tell you otherwise. My name is Tyler, and I'm a recovering meat addict.
----------

The times they are a changing however....

Now the UN and a bunch of moral busybodies have decided that the meat addicts days should be numbered. Soon enough the meat addicts will understand just how the smokers feel.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/C...

The U.N.'s 2006 report concluded that the meat industry is "one of the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," and that eating meat contributes to "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."
YES WE CANT

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#19 Sep 1, 2009
Smoking should be banned in all places but your house and car. It is nasty. But we do need the taxes that are levied, and yes it is very exspensive.
Consenting Adult

Honolulu, HI

#20 Sep 1, 2009
If smokers are displeased by the high prices and bans on consenting adults on private property, they should get more involved with their legislators.

Good folks that smoke can also join the local smokers rights group that actively fights high prices and mean spirited bans at;

https://hawaiismokersalliance.com/

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Epidemiology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MMR coverage vs. confirmed cases May '17 Sterling 2
Which epidemiological study design to choose? Jan '17 sharu043 1
Economics of Epidemiology Jan '17 maahrose 1
Need suggestions Jan '17 maahrose 2
Epi Help (May '15) Jan '17 mrose 2
Type of study??? (Jun '16) Jan '17 Sajid Hasni 2
Measurement of Association (Sep '16) Sep '16 PrettyErin 1
More from around the web