California lung cancer drops by 1/2, Alabama doubles
 

... since 1933, lung cancer in California has dropped by 1/2, yet doubled in Alabama.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...cer-in-alabama

And in other news :

300k people left California and got their new drivers license in Alabama so that they
could smoke.

Source?

If true, would you rather risk lung cancer or not?

Google "California Exodus".


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...861056966.html
This effectively makes your stats a crock of shit.

The people who could afford to smoke and get health care to be detected are the ones
that left California. While the broke people who stayed, died without health care or
autopsies and thus were never diagnosed or counted.

:)

Seriously, you're saying there was a mass exodus of smokers from California to Alabama? And if so, how does that even detract the facts that California lung cancer incidents since 1933 has halved, while Alabama has doubled? If true, isn't it just further proof?

Troll much?

So, four million people moved here then left. As a 5th generation Californian let me be the first to say, "thank you."

Anyone else thinking of moving here should reconsider. Four million of your counterparts can not be wrong.

Guess the mass exodus is why AL has almost 5 million residents now. People moving from CA supplemented the deaths from cancer.

you really are reaching for a point that isn't even true.

who dies without autopsies?

Now if the government would just ban cars, traffic fatalities would go WAY down.
Ban pools and drownings drop quite a bit.
Ban alcohol and liver problems are cut by half.
Ban walking outside without sunscreen and skin cancer goes down.
Ban showers that don't have safety harnesses and slip and fall injuries decrease.
Ban skiing and injures on the slopes will disappear.
Ban skateboards and a ton of teenage trauma wounds would stop.
Ban any food with fat and there will be fewer strokes and less heart desease.
Ban large speakers and people won't hurt their hearing.
Ban.......




Lets just take away all choice and everyone will live to be a healthy 100 years old!



WOOOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!




.

slippery slope, argument invalid...

I forgot to answer this part.

Given the fact that less than 10% of full time smokers ever develop cancer;
I think enviromental causes of cancer are greatly over looked.
It may be that cigarete smoking expands the effect of the environmental causes
in some people and thus getting rid of environmental causes may cut lung cancer
down to only 1% of full time smokers.

There must be an explanation why 90% of people who smoke full time all their
lives are living just as long and in many cases longer than non-smokers.
I say it's the environmental causes such as air pollution, fine particle inhaling
from construction materials in buildings, brake pad grindings, aresol sprays in home,
and pesticides. These take hold in an individual and are exacerbated by smoking.


:)

We're still talking about 1/2 decrease in California, and 200% for Alabama.

If you have to change states because you're too weak a human to quit smoking, you are a loser beyond anything the rest of the world can comprehend. They should make a new category of loser just for these people.

Poor people.

Who do think pays for this shit.

:1orglaugh


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011...-u-s-hospitals

Who's arguing? I think it's great! If we could just have the government take care of us, and make sure that we don't make bad choices, we would all be much much happier and healthier. I want the government to take care of me! We can't really make those kind of choices by ourselves. You and I are not smart enough. There are experts in the government that could help us by making those choices for us. It's GREAT! :thumbsup







.

You know, I'm forty-three years old and I've been blessed with good health - Never had any issues. I smoked from age 15 or so (back in the day when the high schools had smoking lounges) and drank a lot. I was always a runner and have jogged every morning of my life (including this morning); When I was a teen I used to jog two miles to a secret stash of smokes so I could smoke every morning!

Now I've quit smoking, quit drinking, completely quit fast food, and quit drinking soda.

I feel fucking great.

I don't think we should ban swimming, but if Cancer is the biggest killer and we can stop it... I think we should.

I think it's great the drain on healthcare expenses went to states like Alabama, isntead of California. Why should the residents of California pay the additional expenses for healthcare of idiots who want to keep smoking?

They are not mandatory everywhere.


I guess you think smokers have the right to infringe on my space.

:1orglaugh You get Phillip-Morris as a client?

We could call them Black Monsters.

Well, you're quite the fool to take my post literaly word for word.

:1orglaugh

People who had the means left California for better jobs and opportunity;
being a smoker was simply a coincidence since many people smoke.

Lol! People...

Smoking causes cancer. Yes its true that not everyone who smokes will get cancer, and yes people who never smoke may still get lung cancer. These facts however do not mean that smoking does not cause cancer.

If you want very simple to understand proof, call your insurance company and ask them if they charge a higher premium on health insurance if you smoke than if you don't smoke.

If anyone should know the statistics on smoking related deaths, it is the insurance industry. Smokers are more likely to die from lung and heart disease, and burn their houses down.

There is less lung cancer in California because less people are smoking in california.

A move towards a healthier lifestyle is not more government regulation to take away anyones rights. It's just smart.

CA: More people in one county than AL has in entire state, yet our cancer rates going down. It must be just smokers with cancer that moved. And they all went to AL.

Not my client; I'm just offering up the part of the debate that's not popular.
No one wants to ban car driving or airplanes, but they are a cause of health
problems too. Saying that your car exhaust is not "infringing" on my space is
ludicrous.

I think that if I have a private business, and I want to have people smoke in there, that I should be free to do that, and you should be free to come into my business or decide not to, as YOUR choice. I think that if a private business happens to be a restaurant, or a bar, and you don't go there because you don't like smoking, you should be free to not go there, or to not work there. I think that if other people WANT to go into, or work at, my restaurant because they like smoking then that should be THEIR choice.


I'm just about freedom of choice.



.

And you should pay for 100% of any healthcare expenses, for all your smokers.

BTW :

I do think people should stop smoking.
I do agree with bans at work place, hospitals, etc...

But banning smoking in a bar when 90% of people there are going to drive home
drunk is just plain folly. If these people want to prolong their lives then quit drinking
or working at a bar. There are many jobs that carry a health risk just by going to
work. Some of them are COP, Fireman, Doctor(they ain't immune to your shit),
military etc....

So the argument that bartenders need special protection on the job is bullshit since
they can quit that job just like COPs quit all the time.

Just quit being socialist about it. If you want to smoke, pay for your own shit. Don't put the state government at risk paying for your cancer.

Same goes for you.
Stop tanning and creating skin cancer for the government to pay for.
Why are we paying to research something that can be stopped by telling people
to get out of the sun?

:1orglaugh

"My smokers"??? I'm not forcing anyone to smoke. I'm not forcing anyone to come into my business, nor am I forcing them to work there. I don't think that anyone should pay for someone else's healthcare. If you chose to smoke then pay for your own healthcare. (and if you chose not to smoke you should STILL pay for your own healthcare).


Why is it that people are so anti personal choice and freedom? It's just so weird to me....






.

We're talking about smoking. If you're a smoker, and you get lung cancer, and you depend on the government (taxpayers) to pay for your stupidity, you're the problem.

It isn't personal choice if the state (taxpayers) has to pay for your healthcare. Your choice is costing the rest of us. Deal with it.

No, we are talking about cancer!
You would not have made this thread if there was no link between smoking and
cancer.

You are just picking on smoking because you like doing all the other stuff that
creates cancer like driving, flying, spraying, tanning, chewing tobacco and eating
pussy tainted with HPV virus.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I'm not picking on smoking, without reason. I'm pointing out the statistics between California and Alabama since 1933. Period.

cigarette smoking doesnt just cause cancer, it does a trick on your heart as well.

in another 20 years we will all be asking ourselves why we were dumb enough to breathe in toxic fumes.
my guess is the cigarette as we know it will be illegal by then.

Did you read my post? Taxpayers should NOT have to pay for it. One of the ways that government uses to justify control, is to confiscate money from everyone to pay for others. It's all part of the same big problem that takes away personal choice. That's my point.


Please re-read my post again, perhaps more carefully?




.:)

Congrats on your health. Being an avid runner and not doing any of that stuff probably makes you feel like a million bucks.

I don't smoke and drink maybe once or twice a year so I don't call myself a drinker, but I cut out cola and most fast food and bread (still have a soft spot for pizza and an occasional burger / sub) and that alone made a difference. The more I learn about what is inside the food we eat and what we drink, the more I learn how deadly it is. I can't believe some of this shit is legal. We're literally being poisoned at every level. From our drinks, to our food, to our plastics, to even some vaccines and fluoride. No wonder cancer rates are through the roof.

but like sperbonzo pointed out, same exact argument can be made for anything "unhealthy", everything from sports cars, motorcycles to alcohol, drinks with unhealthy amounts of sugar, etc... if you stretch the logic far enough, 90% of products/activities could be viewed as unhealthy...

I don't feel like researching it, but it's very likely that for example motorcycle owners impose higher cost on society than smokers... so lets assume that's the case, would you then say that motorcycles should be banned?

No doubt it's bad for you, but I've always wondered why tobacco companies have not found a way to get rid of the horrible smell from them. That is the #1 reason why non-smokers complain. If it didn't stink, people mostly wouldn't bitch about smokers.

You certainly like to pull numbers out of your ass, don't you?

good for america

how is that pulled out of his ass? it's pretty obvious that most people drive back home (at least at the bars that I go to)...

most are probably legally sober enough to drive, but still certainly put everyone at some risk...

while others, perhaps 10-20% are "drunk", and put everyone at a high level of risk...

with the amount of weed smoked in cali, its more proof that it doesn't cause lung cancer. smoking cigarettes is just dumb, it does nothing for you. might as well at least catch a buzz if you're gonna inhale smoke.

Also, his "stats" start in 1933. I don't believe the CA smoking laws came into effect then...

This thread is hilarious.

Alabama is the Opposite living style of California.

This stat is extremely good news for California and Cancer research btw.

You're right, taxpayers should not have to pay for smoking related illnesses, ie. lung cancer, oral cancers, etc...

California smokers are killed in drive by shootings before they get cancer.

:1orglaugh

Most of US shoot back now

Get a grip.

The only thing you shoot off is your mouth and with extreme inaccuracy.

:1orglaugh

FYI Cali has always had a lower lung cancer rate/smoking rate than the rest of the country. Way before ban smoking in bars (1994) etc.

Clearly I have better research skills than the people at NPR. I found this info within 30 seconds of reading the article. :thumbsup

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4947a4.htm

Not to mention about ZERO coal was mined in Cali where in Alabama they employ around 100k people in the coal industry. So since 1933 millions of people have worked in coal mines in Alabama?

Not saying smoking is good for you, just saying it is not the laws that have helped. Because as stated above Cali had a lower rate even before all the laws/taxes.

would like to see weights and heart diseases comparison too.. :)