don't quote me on this but, i heard someplace that lung cancer from smoking was not an issue till the advent of pesticides..

there have been cases of very old people, who have smoked their entire adult lives with no serious ill effects, whether this is due to chemical free tobacco or not, i dunno.

something to consider i suppose

i'm sure you are right, but caused?

i never doubt smoking contributes to cancer, but i also know that its not just smoking as well, so to assume that it caused it is rather short sighted IMO.

i smoked 27+ years total, i quite almost 7 years ago, i think cancer could be in my future even though i quit, but i don't think smoking would cause it. i used to work in fiber glass products, its far more likely that it will be my root cause if i get cancer.

anyways, as an ex-smoker, i am a bit over-sensitive when it comes to blame, and effect, when it comes to cigarettes.

Ack, would people please distinguish between causation and necessity? They are just about as different as two concepts can get!

Bah.

jeff, re-read everything i wrote.

i do in fact believe its entirely probable that they died from smoking, but i do also believe there is some room for doubt. but truly thats beside the point.. the issue is, you must be argumentative, to the point of generating misquotes to incite anger from your opponent.. thats just wrong.

the seatbelt issue, i know i am correct, i stumbled upon the figures while researching cell phone accidents last year, but you being a the close minded person you are, insist on my being the one to prove my point, thats not only wrong, its down right lazy, i told you i was sure, you should have taken the initiative and researched it at least long enuff to get some numbers of your own to persuade with.. but no, again it me whom must do so..

i posted a link to the definition of hypocrite, and it clearly stated that i was not one, yet you again ignored this tid-bit of nomenclature, in favor or incurring my temper.. why? i do not falsify my comments, i believe them entirely, the fact that some of the pit does NOT doesn't automatically make me a hypocrite.. if i changed my viewpoint with the crowds opinion, THEN i could be considered one, but dammit.. even in my erroneous views, i am consistent in them.. they are unwavering, and rock solid the same month after month, post after post, and f**king year after year.. my being WRONG does not make me a hypocrite.

now, allow me to enlighten you, then i am done with this f**king post/topic.

1) wearing seat-belts in an accident, will not automatically save your life.
2) not wearing them will not automatically mean you will die.
3) seat belts are mainly effective in roll over and frontal collision accidents, ALL others the seatbelt is either ineffective or a hindrance to its designed purpose.
4) lower colon damage has caused many deaths directly due to the belt, but easily overlooked by a doctor.
5) with the popularity of the SUV, another factor was introduced into the accident and fatality issue.. the height difference between them and a normal car is great enuff to cause the frames to never meet.. the SUV hits your door, pushes you into the next seat, the belt is connected to the frame, it doesn't move.. you now have two halves of you in the passenger seat.. YOU DIE!! this type of accident is more and more common.

when i said seat belts cause deaths, that was slightly inaccurate, it would be safer to say, they do not save as many as you would think..

next time, you force me to prove my point, i will ignore you as nothing more than a lazy bum. at some point, it would be so nice to see you disprove an issue with something other than mis-quotes.

i am done with this topic, whether i convinced you or not, i am to f**king angry to give a god damned anymore.