Hell Freezes Over! -Flash-

[Lord Jim]

Wow...

Where to begin...

First of all, the smoking number includes deaths from "second hand smoke" for which no good study using sound methodology has ever been conducted, making the number immediately suspect and inflated...(the number probably just uses the bogus 50,000 figure that's commonly used, but there's no way to know from this.)

However, if you insist on using it, then you can hardly take the number of folks who actually smoke and compare it to a number of deaths that include deaths of people who don't smoke; totally invalid.

On the other hand, you use numbers that don't include deaths caused by people who have been drinking (such as those killed by drunk drivers or in domestic disputes by someone who is intoxicated; numbers that can be determined much more validly than "second hand smoke" fatalities.)

With all these statistical flaws in what you've presented you really don't have much of of anything there.

[rubato]

Data is from the CDC. A better source than, well, you. They are not made stupid by hatred.





yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

They are not made stupid by hatred.

My, my you certainly get testy when you're handed your ass...

You'll probably be even testier when you see the way I've handed it to you a second time in the "nanny" thread...

ETA:

BTW, just how stupid does a person have to be to think it could possibly be statistically valid to take a number that includes people who don't smoke and divide it with a number that includes only smokers?

Only someone extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest would do that...

[rubato]

You were ass-whupped, boy. Go home and lick your wounds and try to think it through?


The numbers of deaths were compared to the numbers of people who participated in each activity.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The numbers of deaths were compared to the numbers of people who participated in each activity.

LMAO

Gezus, just how dumb are you? (Or perhaps it's cocktail hour at Chez Rube...It's certainly beginning to look that way...)

Now really try to focus this time rube:

More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)

An estimated 42.1 million people, or 18.1% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.

480,000 / 42,100,000 = 0.0114 Smoking risk factor

Get it this time?

Rube, it's really not my fault that you are so laughably poor at interpreting statistics, (or understanding what you're reading in general.)

[rubato]

I cannot remediate your stupidity. Nor do I care to.

The number of deaths divided by the number of people who participate in the activity gives a first-pass estimate of the inherent danger of the activity. Smoking deaths / Smokers = RF Smoking, Drinking Deaths / Drinkers = RF Drinking.

It is not all that difficult. And it is merely a first-pass estimate.


But the fact that the difference is more than 20x is a bit significant.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The number of deaths divided by the number of people who participate in the activity

Yo, moron:

Are you really not seeing the words:

(including deaths from secondhand smoke)

Are they not appearing on your computer screen?

Let's try this again:

More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)

An estimated 42.1 million people, or 18.1% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.

480,000 / 42,100,000 = 0.0114 Smoking risk factor

Any chance you got it this time?

[Lord Jim]

Looks like he's gone to sleep it off...

First smart thing he's done today...

[rubato]

So you are now saying that there is a very large number who die from second-hand smoke? that is your assertion? You are so certain that this is true that you deny that smoking deaths vs smokers is even a good first-pass estimate of the danger? You admit that all of your earlier posts which said that second-hand smoke was not a risk factor were lies?

Well if your're now admitting that second-hand smoke is dangerous (and you were lying before) I would have to agree. But it is still a good estimate of the danger to compare deaths vs smokers. Because the deaths vs drinkers also includes those killed by drunk drivers &c.

So there you go.

But the difference is still more than 20x.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

So you are now saying that there is a very large number who die from second-hand smoke?

Wow....

You simply CAN...NOT...READ...

Here again is what I in fact said:

You have taken a number that includes "death from second hand smoke" and then divided it with the number of only those who actually smoke....to come up with your "Smoking risk factor"...

Totally invalid methodology....

What you would have to do to get any thing with even superficial validity, is either remove the number of second hand smoker deaths hypothesized in the 480,000 total, and then perform the division, or somehow add in all the people exposed to second hand smoke to the 42.1 million number, and then perform the division.

(How the hell anyone would figure out that number is pretty much impossible to imagine, but maybe the same folks who cooked the numbers to come up with the 50,000 deaths a year from second hand smoke BS have made up an "exposure" number too.)

Try again rube; sound the words out if you need to or have someone else read and explain it to you; I don't have the time to take on responsibility for your remedial grade school education:

The number of deaths divided by the number of people who participate in the activity

Yo, moron:

Are you really not seeing the words:

(including deaths from secondhand smoke)

Are they not appearing on your computer screen?

Let's try this again:

More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)

An estimated 42.1 million people, or 18.1% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.

480,000 / 42,100,000 = 0.0114 Smoking risk factor

Any chance you got it this time?

I really don't understand why you're not getting this; it's not subtle or complicated...

You have got to be the dumbest humanoid life form in this quadrant of the galaxy....

ETA:

The next time anyone feels inclined to say something like, " Oh come on, Rubato is too smart to believe X" I present this exchange as Exhibit A in rebuttal...

The guy is dumber than Dum Dum McDummy, the seven time winner of The International Mr. Dumb Contest...

[oldr_n_wsr]

oldr--I think it depends on what you mean by addiction; with tobacco and alcohol there is a recognized chemical dependence that occurs in some portion of the persons who smoke or drink. This chemical dependence is understood to produce the physical withdrawal symptoms experienced by those stopping the activity. I am not aware that food has any such chemical dependence, but it clearly does produce a psychological dependence in some who compulsively overeat. Still a difficult habit to kick, but for different reasons.

I agree to some extent as I don't know enough about food addiction. My counselor in one of my outpatient courses had the food problem and was going to OA. I should have questioned her more on the subject. I know she had a gluten problem and that at some point it made her "high" or feel drunk.

There is the physical allergy and the mental obsession with the alcohol/drugs. The physical allergy can be "controlled" (or eliminated) as once the substance has been removed from the body for some length of time, there is no longer the physical "need" to use. Then we have the mental obsession which is much much much harder to control/eliminate.

As far as the stats that were posted, I too question the numbers for second hand smoke. Just about everyone in hte world has been subjected to second hand smoke. Is every/some/any cases of lung cancer in someone who doesn't smoke attributed to second hand smoke? Only those who lived with a smoker? Fuzzy science and fuzzy conclusions.

As far as the alcohol deaths, those deaths listed are only from drinkers. If one is including second hand smoke victims, then one has to also include second hand alcohol victims, aka drunk driver caused deaths, alcohol fueled domestic violence deaths, bar brawl deaths, beer bravado deaths, etc.
Here the comparison between butts and booze is not accurate even if it was the CDC who compiled the results.

[PMS Princess]

[Lord Jim]

Hey!

I made the exact same points oldr did, three days earlier, and I didn't get any applause...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Must be my status as runner up to the runner up in that poll we had. But just for you, here:

And to make sure it doesn't go to your head

[rubato]

Good article from UCSF:

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/02/111651 ... w-movement

"... Noting that pharmacies in other developed countries do not sell cigarettes, the authors maintain that if drugstores don’t make this effort voluntarily, federal or state regulatory action would be appropriate.

Others have endorsed the elimination of tobacco sales in pharmacies. Among them, the American Pharmacists Association in 2010 called for the discontinuation of sales and the end to license renewals of pharmacies that sell the products. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association called for a ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies, and the American Medical Association passed a resolution opposing tobacco sales in products.

Some cities have already banned tobacco sales in pharmacies, including San Francisco and Boston.
'One of the Most Important Public Health Challenges of the 21st Century'

The toll from smoking is monumental. Smoking is attributed to the deaths of more than 480,000 people in the United States annually, and costs $132 billion in direct medical costs, the physicians write, depicting it as “one of the most important public health challenges of the 21st century.”

During the last 40 years, tobacco control efforts, including cigarette taxes, smoke-free legislation, and a growth in smoking cessation programs, have reduced the prevalence of smoking in the U.S. from approximately 42 percent of American adults in 1965 to 18 percent today. ... "

"The continued sale (of cigarettes) would appear to sanction the most unhealthy habit a person can maintain.”

Troyen A. Brennan, MD, MPH, and Steven A. Schroeder, MD

One local pharmacy stopped selling tobacco back in the 1970s because the owner (since retired) said it was inconsistent.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Whinging about small adjustments such as adding the drunk driving deaths which adds 10,000 to 88,000 and makes the comparison 480,000 vs 98,000 or eliminating the contribution from second-hand smoke (42,000 ) does nothing to move the numbers far enough to matter. The numbers are then 438,000 smoking deaths and 98,000 alcohol-related deaths

By all measurements smoking is far more dangerous.

438,000 / 42,100,000 = 0.0104 Smoking risk factor
98,000 / 167,500,000 = 0.0006 Drinking risk factor

Which is still a difference of 18 TIMES. You've done basically nothing to move the dial.

Even if I arbitrarily add 50% more deaths from alcohol the difference is still 12 TIMES as dangerous.

You have done exactly nothing to show that alcohol is even close to as dangerous as tobacco or that the ratio is even significantly different than the first-pass estimate.

Absolutely staggering stupidity.





yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I have no problem with stores choosing what to not sell. Don't think we need laws dictating to those stares what they can and cannot sell. As long as the item is legal, let the store owners make that choice.

[rubato]

Re-read the opening post. This is a worthwhile news story because it was voluntary and they gave up ca $1.5B in annual sales.




yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I did read the opening post.
I was commenting on your previous post where you quoted

Noting that pharmacies in other developed countries do not sell cigarettes, the authors maintain that if drugstores don’t make this effort voluntarily, federal or state regulatory action would be appropriate.

And this

Some cities have already banned tobacco sales in pharmacies, including San Francisco and Boston.

I maintain that the store owners shoudl be able to sell what they want (as long as it's legal and they have whatever license they need to sell it). Here the gov decided. IMO that is wrong.

[Lord Jim]

Some cities have already banned tobacco sales in pharmacies, including San Francisco and Boston.

Laying aside the fact that this is a gross misstatement, (tobacco has never been sold "in pharmacies"...) the city of San Francisco actually did me a great favor when they decided to impose this bit of fascist life management...

Before this diktat was imposed, for years I would buy my pipe tobacco of choice, ("Half and Half A Virginia Burleigh") in small box packages, at the local supermarket or Walgreens, paying the outrageous taxes imposed, as a trade off for the convenience...

But once they created a situation where I could only obtain it locally by driving across town to a tobacco shop, the convenience trade off ended, so naturally I sought alternatives...

Today, I buy it by the 14 ounce can on line, getting two cans, (which lasts me about three months) plus having it delivered to my door with three day delivery, for about the same price one can would cost me with the inconvenience of driving across town to pick it up, and paying the outrageous taxes...

So let me give a big shout out to TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF, and thank them for inspiring me to save so much money, while denying them the tax revenue I was happy to pay...