Don't Peek at the Answer Book

Forum Index > Smokers Rights > Don't Peek at the Answer Book > Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic:

Message

Author

by libertarian99 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:37 pm

runamok wrote:

Asmoker2 wrote:

I'm curious, too, if they can't tell the levels of nicotine, etc from urinalysis or blood tests, just like they do with drugs.

A blood or urine test that is checking specifically for nicotine (or cotinine actually...that is what the body metabolizes nicotine into) will find it but they don't run those tests for a basic check-up/examination unless you specifically ask for it which will cost extra. They're not going to spring for it. No money in it for the clinic......yet. Of course, there may be a bounty on us soon Shocked

Well, don't worry. If nicotine tests ever do come into widespread use, you can count on underground entrepreneurs to invent a nicotine blocker to foil the test. There is a whole cottage industry built around staying one step ahead of fascism.

libertarian99 Enthusiastic Smoker

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: May 01, 2009 Posts: 453

by alist on Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:56 am

activist0000 wrote:

Smokers can increase their fitness levels and get a lot of benefits from exercising, but it's hard to convince people of that..

That is so true. Even though I no longer smoke, I was still smoking like a chimney all of last year. (10 pounds every quarter) I did low-carb, began working out with weights and proceeded to do 2 mile speedwalks in 25 minutes flat, while carrying 25 pounds of dumbbells. I got conditioned VERY quickly and found myself passing (most likely non-smoking) kids half my age on the track. Even in 90+ degree weather it was no issue.

Yet, I know a man here, who is a bit older than me, who is diabetic (Type 2 adult onset), has blood pressure issues, who also smokes, is overweight, refuses to eat vegetables and gets out of breath walking half of a block down the street. You know if he has a heart attack or dies, it will ALL be blamed on the smoking.

alist

Smoker Joined: Sep 01, 2007 Posts: 133

by 63westonmo on Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:50 am

I looking more at being able to tell based on vital signs, fitness tests, not having missed work due to sickness for 5 or 10 years---that sort of thing.
As for the quantitative and qualitative analysis to detect presence of nicotine, that begs the question and misses the point. The chemical testing that athletes go through can be as faulty as a spiked food or drink someone didn't know about, and it can rob them blind as a result. Just try telling them you don't know how it got there and see if anyone will believe you. As for the one who put it there, they never get caught. Myself and another person actually saw the spiked drink thing happen many years ago, and it can be a scary thing to see and think about. A female did it to a male, he fell asleep, and security handled the matter after that. Looking at the alcohol versus the tobacco, where's the equal time there for the tax collector? As for rotted livers and traffic fatalities, where's the equal time there for the advertising ban?

63westonmo Newbie

Newbie Joined: Jun 01, 2009 Posts: 20

by garhkal on Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:02 pm

activist0000 wrote:

I knew one guy who smoked and was also a long distance runner for a local college. I would see this guy out training every day before dawn, running right down the middle of the street. He used to joke that he ran the whole race thinking about the cigarette he was going to enjoy after the race. He would cross over the finish line and just keep right on running out to his car for his post-race smoke. That dude was a blast.

Sounds like a few chiefs i know. BUT these days they prohibit smoking during or right after a PRT. Where as for 4+ years ago it was still ok to run the PRT with a smoke IN YOUR mouth.

garhkal

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 24, 2009 Posts: 278

by Asmoker2 on Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:20 pm

activist0000 wrote:

There are tests available that can measure the levels of cotinine in your blood, urine and saliva. Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine. That's one of the things that's been used to imply non-smokers are harmed by SHS, because they can have measurable cotinine levels in their blood.

Thanx, activist!

runamok wrote:

Thank you, too, runamok; however, you didn't answer the question about the information on "black lung" being a myth. From where did you get this information?

Asmoker2

Smoker Joined: Mar 24, 2009 Posts: 143

by runamok on Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:12 pm

Asmoker2 wrote:

Thank you, too, runamok; however, you didn't answer the question about the information on "black lung" being a myth. From where did you get this information?

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm among other places.

runamok

Smoking Lobby Sponsor Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 1288

by jsidney on Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:40 am

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/075/00007569.pdf

"The Smoking/Health Controversy: A View From the Other Side", presented to TIME magazine by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., July 7, 1970. "Let us look at some of the specific charges leveled against cigarette smoking..." I recommend that you read the entire 32 page document regarding lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, morbidity and mortality statistics and low birth weight babies. Although this document was written in 1970, the arguments are logical, well presented, and valid today.

Page 26: ""Smoking Turns Your Lungs Black" - This assertation prompted many questions in the recent Congressional hearings. However, a number of pathologists and other doctors testified that there was no way to tell a smoker's lung from a non-smoker's lung. Here is SOME of their testimony......"

Page 27: "Dr. Duane Carr - Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: "Smoking does not discolor the lung."

Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: "I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked."

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: "...it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not intorduce carbon particles into the lung."

The whole question was summed up well by Dr. Irving Zeidman, Professor of Pathology at the University of Pennsylvania, when he was asked in Congress whether it was possible to tell which of two lungs was the lung of a smoker. He said: "I would estimate that of a thousand pathologists in this country 998 would say, 'I could not tell,' and the other two would say, 'I could tell,' and those two who could tell either had some divine intuition or were not telling the truth."

It would thus appear that at best this claim is not scientifically supportable and at worst, that it is another deliberate attempt to frighten people."

Moreover, if smokers have such grossly diseased lungs, why are those same lungs acceptable for transplants? Yes, they are! I have recent documentation on that, too, somewhere in my disordered files.

jsidney

Toker Joined: Jun 07, 2007 Posts: 86 Location: California

by Asmoker2 on Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:51 am

Very interesting. Thank you both for the links.

Yet they use X-rays of "black" lungs to teach nursing students and others in the medical profession how to deferintiate between a smoker and non-smoker. Hmmmm.

Asmoker2

Smoker Joined: Mar 24, 2009 Posts: 143

by garhkal on Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:29 pm

It does make one thing.. but then again who is it that teaches.. the left.

garhkal

Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 24, 2009 Posts: 278

by jsidney on Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:42 am

Asmoker2 wrote: "They use 'black-lung X-rays' to teach nursing students to differentiate between smokers and non-smokers".

Interesting statement. Can you point me to a link or a reference? I would like to research this.

jsidney

Toker Joined: Jun 07, 2007 Posts: 86 Location: California

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next Smoking Lobby Smokers Rights Forum Index ~ Smokers Rights

Smoking Lobby Forum for Smokers Rights