Select your preferred language.

This is a Public Group
Anyone can join

Actions

Steam Group

! Smoking Rocks. Anti smokers need to die! (wuahaha) (SR)

Profile _

Sick of anti smokers and their maligned attitudes.

255 Members  |  6 In-Game  |  33 Online  |  0 in Chat

Since September 30, 2007

Derby, United Kingdom (Great Britain) 

"Oh they enjoy smoking, I don't like it, therefore I must make an ass of myself and try to spoil their enjoyment"

There's always somebody that will enjoy something you don't, doesn't make you superior, just makes you different.

Anti-smokers need another bandwagon to jump on. Bunch of uninformed arrogant twunts.

And I quote:
"[...] An awkward fact is that the results of the many studies on the effects of ETS exhibit little consistency in RRs, with a dispersion (in those on spousal smoking, for example) ranging from 0.51 (based on eleven cancer cases) to 4.82 (based on eight). On the most strict reckoning a large majority of results show that the relative risk could be negative (ie below 1.0) which implies a reduced risk of lung cancer from higher exposure – that is, a protective effect from ETS – just as inoculation protects against subsequent infection.

Of course, since each research study examines only a small sample of the total universe (some fewer than a dozen cases of lung cancer), allowance must be made for a margin of error, which is conventionally pitched at 5%. The resulting 95% probability is shown with a varying ‘confidence interval’ which conveys the range within which the true relative risk is likely to fall. For example, the result of the Butler study in 1988, based on a tiny sample of eight lung cancer cases and a probability of only 90% (in place of 95%), yielded a ‘best estimate’ for the RR of 2.02 (that is, twice the risk of lung cancer from ETS exposure) but the range of the confidence interval is shown as 0.48 - 8.56 at 90%.

In layman’s language this means we can be 90% certain (not even 95% in this study) that the true relative risk fell somewhere between 0.48 – which implies a strong protective effect from exposure to ETS – and 8.56, which implies a much enhanced risk of cancer.[...]"

An excerpt from "Smoking Out The Truth"
Forest President, Lord Harris of High Cross,
8 March 2005

Read it yourself, and get something else to feel superior about.
http://www.forestonline.org/files/pdf/Smoking%20Out%20The%20Truth.pdf

"Smoking Out The Truth" article
Forest Online

Announcements _

! Smoking Rocks. Anti smokers need to die! (wuahaha) has not posted any announcements


Upcoming Events _
! Smoking Rocks. Anti smokers need to die! (wuahaha) has 0 upcoming events in the next 2 weeks
View all events

Comments _
You must be logged on to add comments.

 
aBADsmell posted on September 28, 2009 @ 1:30pm
i dont cair if you smoke or not ... the very moment you tell someone els he or she cant do something .. you get in the way of freedom.. Genral somking is still legel(lets hope it stayes that way . or that they don't just make smokes so expensive you cant buy them, so you quit) and that's a round about way to take your freedom.. the more laws we make the more we keep legal the more we make criminals out of are own people.. my own country men are by the thousands are in prisons at this time cuz they did drugs... but did drugs could also mean that they just wanted to feel a special way... that's the same as taking drugs.. see people who don't do drugs should be fighting for other peoples rights to us drugs .. ill tell you why .. see i hate smoking weed.. i like what thay call hard drugs.. witch is bull chit... but i don't like weed .. but ill fight like crazy for your right to smoke weed. cuz once are nabors freedom is taken away your is soon to go..

View all 1 comments

Members _

 Administrators:


Members: