Hasbeen, medical science is not bull sh1t.

In fact, I suspect you will be relying on it before too long.

Bugsy, Statistics are NOT medical science, and can be and are tailored to prove whatever interest-groups want. The actual science of what tobacco does is real enough, but it only has a "possibility" of causing harm, except in the most mechanical of ways, such as smoke damage to the lungs and throat. I believe you'll find that the particulate pollution from diesel engines is far more prevalent and harmful, yet which is everyone crying about?

oh dear cant we just tell bugsy is a boozer..[maTE you into sport too?,..hows them drunk footballers cant remember raping a woman..eh?

thats what booze does mate[rots ya brain]..you may have read the reports about booze killing 3000 people..[but when you read the full numbers you rerad in the side notes the number has been modified[due to the benifit's on one drink[so the real number was factored down[read the 1999 drug deaths numbers,the final figure was factored down by over 1000]

but the key word in your rave is ATTRIBUTABLE...once we attribute any REAL cause of death to smoking it joins into the DEEMED deaths rate as a contibutary cause..[so many drunks may die of booze but because they suicided[or died in a road death they missed being attributed to the REAL CAUSE of their death]

we dont heaR OF BOOZERS BEING TOLD in govt adverts BY DOCTERS THEY CANT OPPERATE..[INSTEAD THEY JUST GET SOME SMOKERS LIVER]..a smoker[or worse a deemable[attributable smoker]..likely murded by their docter to get their liver or kidneys,for all we know[as previously revealed.. NO AUTOPSIES WERE CONDUCTED to get the numbers

[as long as the doc said..she/he died from smoking..thats the recorded cause of death]

how many you think died from the act of smoking..lol..[go to any hospital on any friday or saturday night arround midnight..[and get high on the fumes of the drunks in hospital for attacking each other]

drunken rapist footballers have their own tv time

have huge advertising budgets and a huge lobby..[and bloggers]
its time that boozers paid mate..[sure prohibition dont work[but the tax needs to be greatly increased on all booze,if only to compensate for the damage it does.

See how easy it is for you to rationalise the evidence away? It's just statistics.

"Statistics are NOT medical science", superficially this is a true statement, but a lot of medical science IS statistics. Statistical analyses are not just used to win an argument, in medical science they are used to find the truth of what is having an effect on our health and what is not. This is true from pharmacological double blind trials through to observational data on lifestyle choice. The idea that statistics can be "tailored" to prove whatever the "interest groups" want is nonsense. The interest groups in this case being almost the entire medical profession. You know, the guys that have been entrusted to improve everyones health? The effect of tobacco smoking on peoples health is a strong one, and the effects of smoke, carbon monoxide (irreversibly binds to haemoglobin btw, deoxygenating your blood) and a range of other constituents in cigarette smoke is well known.

The next time you feel the need to denigrate statistics as mere debating points, why don't you take a look at some real medical literature. Some of the peer reviewed stuff is very good. The Cochrane Collboration is a great source of meta-analyses and have saved more lives than you could possibly imagine.

Yes, many things in life are mere possibilities. You know, if you drive home from the pub blind drunk tonight there chances are that you won't crash, as there are far more drunk drivers than ones that actually crash. Yet it makes sense to make laws against it as it endangers public safety.

You may think that people get upset just because they think smoking is irritating (in the chemical sense, i.e. an irritant to the eyes and nose and throat), but you wouldn't go into a bar and deliberately open up a jar of formaldehyde and expect non-formadelhyde lovers to tolerate it.

You may think that restrictions on where you can smoke are a restriction on your freedom to enjoy your drug of choice. But we endeavour to restrict many activities that impact public health.

For gods sake Bugsy, give it up. You are letting facts get in the way of a good argument.

bugsy<<carbon monoxide..(irreversibly binds to haemoglobin]..>>as usual the bugsy delusion knows no bounds

quoted from wikipedia
<<Carboxy-haemoglobin can revert to haemoglobin,>>..HARDLY IRREVERSABLE...lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning

<<Carbon monoxide is produced normally in the body..establishing a low background carboxyhemoglobin saturation...

..Carbon monoxide also functions as a neurotransmitter..>>...MAYBE THATS WHY NON SMOKERS ARE A BIT SLOW...lol..[their co2 is less than 5 percent..[whereas smokers are at 9 percent]

<<Normal carboxyhemoglobin levels in an average person are typically less than 5%..cigarette smokers(two packs/day) may have levels up to 9%.[40]

Serious toxicity is often associated with carboxyhemoglobin levels above 25%,and the risk of fatality is high with levels over 70%....Still,no consistent dose response relationship has been found between carboxyhemoglobin levels and clinical effects.>>...

also WERE IT REALLY irriversably ..lol..BOUND,..the irreversabilty means WE ALL,..smokers..[9%, and non-smokers..5%]..ALL..WOULD SOON SUCCUMB to co2 poisening...lol..[..and for some reason we keep on breathing...lol]

<<carboxyhemoglobin levels are more guides to exposure levels than effects as they do not reliably predict clinical course or short- or long-term outcome>>...despite the spin non-smokers may seek to convince the gullable it aint so...lol

and i found plenty of ignorance on the search

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=carbon+monoxide+irreversibly+binds+to+haemoglobin&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

SO ITS NOT ALONE YOU..THAT ARE DECIEVED..thus become a deluded deciever