Adult smoking rate drops to 19 percent

The state Department of Health says fewer New Mexican adults are smokers. A recent Department of Health survey shows New Mexico's adult smoking rate has dropped to 19 percent for 2008 from 24 percent in 2001.

[Confederate1989]

lmao......its mexican cigarettes you dippys....they never quit you just cant figure it out anymore by counting the sales reciepts for the smokes that are legally sold....bwahaahaah

[azmac]

So if we use the figures given. Since smoking is already down 50% that now makes it 79% now and all the so called smoking diseases are still going up as much as 500%. Sure don't sound like smoking is the cause.Since 2/3 of all cancer deaths are non-smokers, I guess that will be going up also.

[just candid]

Not all cancer is caused by smoking. Smoking related illness like COPD take years to show up.

[azmac]

just candid wrote:

Not all cancer is caused by smoking. Smoking related illness like COPD take years to show up.

Most all here with copd are non-smokers and from the smoggiest state in the country, Calif. But your side claims smoking is the cause of all so called smoking diseases. Look at all the studies here in topix on smoking, all from your side and claim smoking causes every thing from warts to lung cancer.

[Mazed]

Heart disease is usually the first statistic to show variation after a decrease in smoking prevalence. Graphing heart-related response to SHS (or some other types of smoke) is said to produce a near vertical climb through low levels of exposure and then to increase only gradually through the higher exposure levels.

Smoking-attributed illness and death is only the difference in frequency between smokers (or exposed nonsmokers) contracting them and non-exposed nonsmokers contracting them under similar circumstances.

The prominence of other pollution-related factors in California could very well mask the effects. That could be why the tobacco industry selected California's 0.01% of the subjects from the ACS study when they hired the signatures for that BMJ "study" all the smokers love to tout.

[Confederate1989]

Mazed wrote:

Heart disease is usually the first statistic to show variation after a decrease in smoking prevalence. Graphing heart-related response to SHS (or some other types of smoke) is said to produce a near vertical climb through low levels of exposure and then to increase only gradually through the higher exposure levels.
Smoking-attributed illness and death is only the difference in frequency between smokers (or exposed nonsmokers) contracting them and non-exposed nonsmokers contracting them under similar circumstances.
The prominence of other pollution-related factors in California could very well mask the effects. That could be why the tobacco industry selected California's 0.01% of the subjects from the ACS study when they hired the signatures for that BMJ "study" all the smokers love to tout.

The acs started that study in 1959...... the tobacco companys picked it up after the acs dropped it because the preliminary results didnt show any effect on non-smokers,even with all the pollution.....you sure have a strange way of interpreting things.

The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/a...

[William L]

Smokers Just Suck, That is all there is to it !!

[just candid]

azmac wrote:

<quoted text>
Most all here with copd are non-smokers and from the smoggiest state in the country, Calif. But your side claims smoking is the cause of all so called smoking diseases. Look at all the studies here in topix on smoking, all from your side and claim smoking causes every thing from warts to lung cancer.

Aprox 70-75% of people who die with/from COPD or COPD related illness are or were long turm smokers. Aprox 10-15% with COPD are alpha 1 Defincay people who may not be (usualy aren't) smokers. Sad to say they usualy die by age 40-50, often much younger.

[LANL Research proposal]

Give me a Savinelli group six full of Rattray's Red Raparee q.i.d. and we'll see if this "smoking causes everything bad" theory pans out.

[azmac]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Aprox 70-75% of people who die with/from COPD or COPD related illness are or were long turm smokers. Aprox 10-15% with COPD are alpha 1 Defincay people who may not be (usualy aren't) smokers. Sad to say they usualy die by age 40-50, often much younger.

Show me the link that says that. Not what I have been seeing for the last 10 years. No douby it is from one of the paid lackeys of the drug companies.

[Mazed]

Confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text>
The acs started that study in 1959...... the tobacco companys picked it up after the acs dropped it because the preliminary results didnt show any effect on non-smokers,even with all the pollution.....you sure have a strange way of interpreting things.

Nope. The tobacco industry, at the peak of their efforts to produce "data" over formerly credible signatures in a massive effort to discredit legitimate research, found a "scientist" whose price they were ready to meet. The lead author himself states that he works for the tobacco industry because they pay him so much better than anyone else would.

This credibility-hiring effort was largely responsible for the current RICO convictions of several major tobacco companies.

In this case, the ACS did a study over the course of 14 years or so, using over a million subjects and several contacts/questionnaires and keeping track of the subjects.

The tobacco industry and its shiny new lackey selected a group representing a little more than 0.1% of the subjects from the ACS study, tried to figure out who and where they were a decade and a half AFTER the ACS finished its study, sent out ONE more questionnaire, then misrepresented and paraded THAT data as a "continuation" of the ACS study.

The result has been so widely discredited that the author had to put up a website trying to explain why his "study" was NOT EITHER "fatally flawed"!

Still, shills like you continue to pompously trot this out every time you think you have a sufficiently unaware audience that you can sway opinion.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it and I won't let it stand.

[No Freedom]

I wish the state and the nation would get iit over with and just go ahead and ban tobacco so we could move on and persecute some other minority. After we get rid of smoking we can work on people who over eat.

[Freedom]

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. The tobacco industry, at the peak of their efforts to produce "data" over formerly credible signatures in a massive effort to discredit legitimate research, found a "scientist" whose price they were ready to meet. The lead author himself states that he works for the tobacco industry because they pay him so much better than anyone else would.
This credibility-hiring effort was largely responsible for the current RICO convictions of several major tobacco companies.
In this case, the ACS did a study over the course of 14 years or so, using over a million subjects and several contacts/questionnaires and keeping track of the subjects.
The tobacco industry and its shiny new lackey selected a group representing a little more than 0.1% of the subjects from the ACS study, tried to figure out who and where they were a decade and a half AFTER the ACS finished its study, sent out ONE more questionnaire, then misrepresented and paraded THAT data as a "continuation" of the ACS study.
The result has been so widely discredited that the author had to put up a website trying to explain why his "study" was NOT EITHER "fatally flawed"!
Still, shills like you continue to pompously trot this out every time you think you have a sufficiently unaware audience that you can sway opinion.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it and I won't let it stand.

You are so full of ****.

Your kind attacked good scientists for daring to call into question your sides unrelenting propaganda machine.

For those who are interested...here is a link to follow for the complete story.

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/B...

The ACS claim that our peer-reviewed study published in a world-renowned journal is “Part of Organized Effort to Confuse Public About Secondhand Smoke” is a contemptible, baseless fabrication.

Indeed, one must ask why ACS would chose to attack a peer-reviewed publication of research based on its own CPS I before reading the paper and without presenting a shred of evidence that our results
are incorrect.

The vehemence of ACS’s attack and its choice of venue reveal ACS’s desire to exercise total control over which results from CPS I and CPS II are made public and to discredit any dissenting opinion.

It is a curious feature of this ad hominem attack that no reference is made to the fact that both authors have a substantial record of achievement in conducting epidemiologic studies with direct relevance to the paper published in BMJ.

In order to paint us as agents of the tobacco industry, this
record, dating back to 1974 (5), has to be totally ignored. Until the intemperate attack by MJT neither of us had ever had his professional integrity challenged.

[LocalPower]

it boils dow to cost. i know many who smoked and the cost is why