Apparently in England they let you play lottery at 17.

[John Connor]

Anyone else think she looks like a British version of Carmen Electra?

Ah, no...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Links? Belief without proof is religion, and religion is bullshit. Of course, by "links" I mean studies published by respected journals. Not internet "health" sites which are 99.x% abominations.

No, no links, just loads of anecdotal evidence, that if you keep doing chew, you WILL get mouth cancer. Not if, only when, if you don't quit.

(Just like drinking Mt. Dew will make you lose your teeth.)

And yes, I know that there are also anecdotal stories of people that have (allegedly) "smoked all their adult lives" and "never got cancer".

So, I guess, choose what to believe yourself, this country is still free enough that you're allowed to kill yourself with your vices, although they'll tax you to the grave for doing so, if they can.

Edit: And if I told you that I made a simple observation, correlated with others, that the sky was blue the other day, does that follow under your definition of "religion", if there wasn't a scientific study to back it up?

 

[zinfamous]

Links? Belief without proof is religion, and religion is bullshit. Of course, by "links" I mean studies published by respected journals. Not internet "health" sites which are 99.x% abominations.

wow, you're really going to the mat with this "my tobaccy ain't a cancer thing!" aren't you?

 

[lxskllr]

wow, you're really going to the mat with this "my tobaccy ain't a cancer thing!" aren't you?

Everyone here is so sure of themselves, it should be trivially easy to prove me wrong. I should be drowning in flood of data showing what a dumbass I am, but so far all I've gotten is crickets and reigious bullshit. So, yea, I'm ready for a fight, but mat? I doubt I'll get any mat time.

You're a good candidate. You probably get access to some sweet journals. Wanna rumble?

 

[TheVrolok]

Links? Belief without proof is religion, and religion is bullshit. Of course, by "links" I mean studies published by respected journals. Not internet "health" sites which are 99.x% abominations.

There was a 2008 review of this data in The Lancet you can look at it if interested. There overall weight of the evidence suggested that there is a mild increase in cancer in the snus users (esophageal and pancreatic if I), but that it is a rather small increase in risk (and really based on "weaker" evidence) and dramatically better than cigarette smoking with regard to risk. I believe the study you're betting on, though, is the one suggesting there is no increased risk at all.. Of course that study was funded by Swedish Match itself. There was a fair bit of literature that came from big tobacco decades ago, and big oil these days.. If history is the precedent, literature funded by companies stating that they're risky products aren't risky is on shake ground to start. But hey, keep playing the lottery.

Also, you seem oddly emotional about your snus.

 

[lxskllr]

There was a 2008 review of this data in The Lancet you can look at it if interested. There overall weight of the evidence suggested that there is a mild increase in cancer in the snus users (esophageal and pancreatic if I), but they it is a rather small increase in risk and dramatically better than cigarette smoking with regard to risk. I believe the study you're betting on, though, is the one suggesting there is no increased risk at all.. Of course that study was funded by Swedish Match itself. There was a fair bit of literature that came from big tobacco decades ago, and big oil these days.. If history is the precedent, literature funded by companies stating that they're risky products aren't risky is on shake ground to start. But hey, keep playing the lottery.

The study they're citing came from a poorly controlled study of construction workers, from the 70s if I remember right. Data's been rehashed a few times since with inconsistent results, but trending downward from even the modest risk assessments of the worst. Here's the abstract for a more recent study...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.30773/full

Full text is available if one wants to use a search engine.

 

[TheVrolok]

The study they're citing came from a poorly controlled study of construction workers, from the 70s if I remember right. Data's been rehashed a few times since with inconsistent results, but trending downward from even the modest risk assessments of the worst. Here's the abstract for a more recent study...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.30773/full

Full text is available if one wants to use a search engine.

I read it years ago, as I mentioned, it's certainly what we would call "low quality evidence." Unfortunately, it has hard to get truly "high quality evidence" with this type of topic. Most studies are retrospective or cohort studies thus the weaker level of evidence. From what's out there, the risks of snus don't seem to be a fraction smoking, but to crusade that it's "no risk" is dangerous as well. The evidence that there is NO risk is just as weak as the evidence FOR. I'd summarize this as "There is some low quality evidence suggesting a mildly increased risk between certain cancers and snus use. Given a lack of high quality evidence showing its safety, I would recommend against the use of such products until more high quality data is available. "

 

[lxskllr]

I read it years ago, as I mentioned, it's certainly what we would call "low quality evidence." Unfortunately, it has hard to get truly "high quality evidence" with this type of topic. Most studies are retrospective or cohort studies thus the weaker level of evidence. From what's out there, the risks of snus don't seem to be a fraction smoking, but to crusade that it's "no risk" is dangerous as well. The evidence that there is NO risk is just as weak as the evidence FOR. I'd summarize this as "There is some low quality evidence suggesting a mildly increased risk between certain cancers and snus use. Given a lack of high quality evidence showing its safety, I would recommend against the use of such products until more high quality data is available. "

"No risk" is a bold claim to make about anything regarding biology/chemistry interactions. Current indications show snus risk is on par with other minor vices like coffee drinking, and moderate alcohol use.

What bothers me is the knee jerk reaction to anything tobacco. It's just a plant, and what you do with it determines the outcome. There's safe and unsafe ways to use everything. Rejecting a tool completely due to unsafe applications is foolish.

Anti tobacco has become religion, and all rational thought has ceased. People's personal identity has been tied to the crusade, and anything that contradicts their belief is a personal affront, and can't be allowed to stand. It's continued through the apathy of the "doesn't affect me" crowd.

There's good reasons not use an addictive substance recreationally, and anything you add to life that isn't quality food and water adds potential risk, but all forms of tobacco aren't the instadeath eveyone thinks.

 

[TheVrolok]

"No risk" is a bold claim to make about anything regarding biology/chemistry interactions. Current indications show snus risk is on par with other minor vices like coffee drinking, and moderate alcohol use.

What bothers me is the knee jerk reaction to anything tobacco. It's just a plant, and what you do with it determines the outcome. There's safe and unsafe ways to use everything. Rejecting a tool completely due to unsafe applications is foolish.

Anti tobacco has become religion, and all rational thought has ceased. People's personal identity has been tied to the crusade, and anything that contradicts their belief is a personal affront, and can't be allowed to stand. It's continued through the apathy of the "doesn't affect me" crowd.

There's good reasons not use an addictive substance recreationally, and anything you add to life that isn't quality food and water adds potential risk, but all forms of tobacco aren't the instadeath eveyone thinks.

I definitely don't disagree with anything you've said here. Hell, I'll probably get a bagel sandwich from Dunkin Donuts on my drive home from a trip this weekend and a cogent argument could be made for that being just as risky (or perhaps more so) than snus.

 

[shortylickens]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ectra-Tara-Reid-Madea-Halloween-premiere.html

She looks OK, I guess.

 

[lxskllr]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ectra-Tara-Reid-Madea-Halloween-premiere.html

She looks OK, I guess.

I've been seeing that day of the dead skull a lot lately. Seems to be a bit of a trend.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I feel no sympathy when idiots who win tons of money just blow it all. That said, I think it's silly that there even is an age limit to the lotto. There are plenty of other avenues where kids can gamble, anyone remember pogs? A casino happening right in the school yard! Or playing Bingo over the intercom, is that still a thing? Everyone would be in class and they'd call the numbers on the intercom and if you had a Bingo they'd just call the reception desk from the button on it. Then there's stuff like arcades etc.

Gambling imo is not a bad thing if you don't overdo it. There is a chance of winning something big with a little effort, may as well try right? Just don't blow all your money on it. Lotto tickets arn't really that expensive, if you happen to already be spending money on gas or something may as well pick one up at same time. If you're already spending $60+ on gas then what's another couple extra bucks for a super low chance at being a millionaire. Though in the states I probably would not bother just for the principle of it, I think it's BS that the government gets a big chunk of the winnings, there's no logic behind that other than "because we said so". People should collectively protest that and stop buying tickets. Sure if you win the 1 bil powerball 300mil or whatever is left after all taxes is still a lot, but it would piss me off knowing that so much money that could be going to charity is going straight in the toilet.

 

[John Connor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ectra-Tara-Reid-Madea-Halloween-premiere.html

She looks OK, I guess.

Da fuck are they wearing?