Why the HELL does anyone smoke?

People seem to feel as strongly about this as about religion and the Jill vs. Melin Celebrity Death-Match, so I hope I have opened a nice wriggly can of worms.

Shall I start? No, I don't believe cigarettes should be made illegal--that didn't work with booze in the '20s and it wouldn't work now. I do believe non-smokers should be protected from smokers, who sicken and kill more innocent people each year than heroin and coke addicts combined (a case CAN be made for alcoholics killing more people than smokers). I have seen in my own family what havoc second-hand smoke can cause healthwise, so please don't tell me it's not dangerous.

But why the hell would anyone in their right mind smoke? I see supposedly normal intelligent people walking down the street puffing away and all I can think is, "are you INSANE?" Is it that people start when they're too young and stupid to know any better, and now they don't have the will power to quit? If nothing else, why would you hand over so much of your hard-earned cash to evil tobacco execs who will gladly dance on your grave?

Huh?

[Gr8Kat]

Well, you do get to smell like Humphrey Bogart.

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

Yeah . . . dead.

[Stoid]

Like nearly everyone who ever smoked, I started as a teen. 16, to be exact. Prior to that time, I had mocked and chided my friends and hassled my mother and other family members, telling them they were all gonna die with blackened lungs. Yet, because my friends were smoking, I felt left out, wanted to join in the "fun" of being a smoker.

I have a compulsive-addictive personality to begin with (I was already very overweight), so adding some new oral and chemical fixation was not a great idea. The first day i took up smoking, I smoked a pack and kept at it from that day forward.

I have tried to quite several times. It's extremely difficult. It has been said by people with more scientific knowledge than I ever hope to have that nicotine is more powerfully addictive than heroin, and I believe it.

I hate it. Except for one or two cigarettes in the morning, I mostly do not get any pelasure from it, yet find myself driven to do it all day long. I hate the smell, the cost, the ostracism I endure, the taste in my mouth, and most of all the constant fear that I'm killing myself. But still I do it. I feel compelled. It's comepletely fucked up.

I'm hoping that I will find it slightly easier now that I live with my fiance and have had to adjust to not smoking inside. It has definitely cut my smoking in half. So hopefully I will soon be able to get rid of it altogether. I just have to remember that I am a drug addict and that by giving it up I am doing only good and there is nothing to feel badly about.

Good luck to me, eh?



------------------
*************
We do precision guesswork

Thank you, Stoidela, you have explained more to me about smokers than I've ever heard before--and I really do hope you can quit someday. Get your fiance to help! Especially if you're ever planning to have kids.

You were too nice for the BBQ Pit, though--I was expecting to get jumped all over, and here you are being polite and informative! You're going to completely screw up my negative view of smokers if you're not careful . . .

[Satan]

I just quit a month ago (Zyban rules) after smoking since I was 19 and getting up to two packs a day.

I love tobacco. In fact, since I am of the "Eat well, stay fit, die anyway" school of thought, if Marlboro promised me a lifetime supply of smokes for free, I'd light up right now...

But it costs too much so I quit.

But as for what I liked about it: Just about everything. The feel of the warm cigarette in my hand and mouth. The smoke going into my lungs, held in for a moment, and exhaled, giving my mouth and nose the smell of sweet tobacco.

I also loved the calming effect the nicotine offered me when stressed, and I really miss smoking after:

a) Great sex
b) A nice meal

Yes, the cliches are true...

Sure it was gonna kill me. And of course before I did it, I didn't get the appeal either. But after being addicted, I loved it, and though I swear I will do my best to not smoke again, it doesn't mean I don't miss it.

Very much...

------------------
Brian O'Neill
CMC International Records
rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html (http://rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html)

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

[CatInHat]

Stoidela, quitting is hard. I finally quit when I got so disgusted with myself that I couldn't stand it anymore. The only advice that I can (or will) give you is to find a good support group. The long-term programs are best (mine went for 6 months). I found one at a local hospital by calling their physician referral number.

Being around people who'd been there was invaluable. They also helped me by making me plan ahead for high-stress situations (e.g., visits from my mother, who still smokes and who tried to sabotage my efforts). I made it, though! :)

A lot of people who've never smoked, and some who have, underestimate the difficulty. Besides the addictiveness (is that a word?), nicotine is an appetite suppressant and a central nervous system stimulant. It improves concentration, short-term memory, etc. It has other "positive" side effects, which I can't remember offhand (this is stuff I learned in my smoking-cessation support group, about 3 years ago, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details). Plus, there's the fact that cigarettes are very easy to get, and that smoking is "cool", at least at the beginning. This is what gets a lot of kids started (plus it's a way of being rebellious that PO's parents and teachers but doesn't immediately kill you). That wears off pretty soon, but by then, you're hooked.

In short, it's really easy to start smoking, and really hard to stop. I have to say, though, it's such a relief not to "need" a cigarette all the time!

------------------
The Cat In The Hat

[Eissclam]

An excellent topic, and one in which I have a great deal of professional interest.

Stoidela is quite correct: almost all tobacco users initiate use as adolescents. We know very little about their initial tobacco use episodes, but ,having reviewed what we do know, my opinion is that tobacco users:

use tobacco the first time to be part of a group

are aided in their initial use by group members

interpret the negative experience of a first use (i.e., taste, nausea, coughing) with the help of group members. For example, a novice might hack and cough and feel dizzy upon first smoking. The experienced user (who gave the novice the cigarette and the match with which to light it) might say "Yeah, I felt like that too -- but it goes away after a few cigs"

As cigarette use becomes more regular, tolerance does develop to these nasty sensations. Unfortunately, with increasing tolerance comes increasing dependence. The dependent user smokes to avoid withdrawal more than for any meaningful/logical reason. So herein lies at least part of the answer to the original question. Smokers smoke to avoid the unpleasnt withdrawal they would feel if the didn't. If you were dependent, you'd probably do it to.

If you are a heavy caffeine user and you would like to understand better why smokers smoke, abstain from all caffeine for 3-4 days. If you can do it, you may understand a little bit where Stoidela, and many smokers, is/are coming from.

Stoidela:

1) Hang in there. Quitting is like learning how to ride a bike. Everyone falls, but eventually you do it and never forget. If you've cut down halfway due to a change in living arrangements, you are making solid progress.

2) If you don't mind sharing, and you can recall anything about your first smoking episode, what was it like? Were you alone or with smoking peers? Did you feel sick or feel nothing? Did you inhale on that first cigarette? The second?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Gr8Kat]

Yeah . . . dead.

Exactly ;)

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

[Stoid]

Flora:

Youa re more than welcome. I guess you don't personally know any smokers, though, or you'd know our deep dark secret: we are just folks. Just poor, pathetic, misguided folks who made a stupid decision when we were kids and now pay the price. We come in all flavors, just like any bunch of folks. The only thing that is the same about all of us is that we smoke.

You may have come across some militant smokers in your life, smokers who, in my opinion, feel so frustrated and stupid for having taken up such an insane habit, can't just cop to it and feel the need to somehow defend or justify it. I've never been like that. The few times I quit, I learned immediately how offensive smoking is to those who don't...the smell is overpowering, so I understand completely why non-smokers don't like it around. (My fiance is always telling me after I come in from having a cig that I smell like I'm on fire.)

Jerry Seinfeld, in his book, made a very amusing (of course) observation about smokers: perhaps it's a macho kind of thing, something like: "I have fire right in my face and it doesn't bother me at all!".

Satan:

You sound like a guy that is going to be smoking again before long. Let me recommend a book to you...shit, I'll have to go find it, it's something like "The easiest way to quit in the world" or soemthing. Bottom line to it is that the whole book is spent disabussing you of yoru false beliefs about your smoking, such as the idea that it calms you, which it doesn't. But I can't do it here, you really should read the book. It will help you transform your thinking about it so you will be able to STAY a non-smoker. Taking one drug to be rid of another doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.

Cat: thanks for the encouragement. I am reading the book I suggested to Satan because I do think it is crucial to change my mindset about smoking in order to successfully rid myself of it, never need it, never want it.

Eiss: I was at a party on the last day of school. It was an all-night pool party, and like most Hollywood kids in 1974, we were smoking pot and taking other drugs. Cigarettes were jsut part of the mix. I inhaled, I liked the look and feel of the cigarette in my hand. I used to love to watch my hand with a cigarette in it, isn't that ridiculous? I didn't feel sick, and I kept smoking all night. My lungs felt pretty thrashed the following day, but that iddn't stop me.

Nowadays, it blows my mind to watch old TV shows and movies where it looks like EVERYONE smoked! The NEWSCASTERS smoked, for heaven's sake! And in old movies, two people are puffing away, and then do a lip-lock. YAR! I never do any major kissing without thorough tongue and toothbrushing and gargling first! (One of the many things I hate about my smoking: it totally blows any spontaneous smooching with my honey!)

This is a good thing for me to be talking about...very inspriational.

[sivancat]

I remember my first cigarette. My coolest friend, Debbie, taught me how to inhale. It took a few drags to get it right, but once I did I felt incredible--like I was finally cool too. I was addicted almost immediately. After a few months, I was even smoking between classes when I could get away with it. I loved the feeling of being a rebel that I got when I stood there with a cigarette in my hand.

Unfortunately, I was only 14 at the time and many of my peers were pretty impressed that I smoked. By the time I quit (almost 2 years ago at age 30) smoking hadn't been cool for many years, but I was addicted and I loved my cigarettes. I finally quit because I knew that I was actually an adult and I couldn't say, "Oh, I'll quit later." It really scared me to see older adults smoking and to think that would be me someday soon.

To answer your question about why anyone smokes, I would have to say social reasons. The reason people keep smoking is addiction.

[Sassy]

I agree that it's hard, and I am also an addictive personality. I also, like Satan, really did like smoking -- and I still miss it; expect to miss it. It's been six weeks and I am still using the meds -- and I recommend them. Zyban is a blessing, and it's not replacing one addiction with another because Zyban is not addictive... it's not even a very strong dose (it's a version of Welbutron, which is a mood stabilizer, but at doses that are about 1/3 what's considered theraputic.) The patch is also a help, giving me a little help with the physical aspects while I relearn the mental choices I make. The psychological elements are much harder than the physical, but both should be faced. I know I will not relapse, because there is no way that I want to go through what I've faced in the last month or so -- once was enough!

------------------
The reason gentlemen prefer blondes is that there are not enough redheads to go around.

[Athena]

OK, Eissclam, I've got a question for you seeing as you have a professional interest in smoking. How come I'm not addicted?

I had my first cigarette when I was around 10. I smoked on and off through high school. In early college, everybody I knew smoked, so I did, too. Later on, I was with a crowd that didn't smoke, and I didn't smoke. Now, I'm a recreational smoker. If I go out on a Friday or Saturday night, I'll have a few cigarettes. I inhale (only the ultra-lights, though.)

I've never had any problems stopping, and even at my most-smokey stages I rarely averaged more than 2 a day. I just never wanted any more than that. If I do start smoking 2-3/day for more than a few days, they start hurting my lungs and stop tasting good, so I stop. It's never hard to just stop - I just no longer want them.

By all accounts, at one point or another, I should have gotten addicted. Is it possible that for some physical reason nicotine is not addictive for me? Am I just lucky? I often smoke, but I can't remember the last time I actually finished a pack. They go bad before I'm half through the pack.

[Lou]

I'm with Satan too only I still smoke. I enjoy smoking. I have cut down because it's gotten so f***ing expensive so I don't take smoke breaks at work and I only smoke in the afternoons and evenings on weekends (I was never a big fan of the cigarette first thing in the morning thing.) I enjoy the taste of cigarettes and beer or cigarettes and coffee so when I'm sitting around listening to music and drinking a beer I want to smoke a cigarette. When I'm laying about on Sunday afternoon reading and drinking coffee I like to smoke. I like to smoke at the bar, I like to smoke when I drive, I enjoy a smoke after a meal and I LOVE sharing a smoke with my boyfriend after some steamy play.
I know it's bad for me and I suppose someday I will quit but I don't want to right now so I'm not going to. I don't feel guilty and powerless in the face of my addiciton. I just like it for now. At some point I'm sure I will become disgusted with it and quit but now it suits me just fine.

[Lucky]

Why do people smoke crack?

Why do people eat junk food until their arteries are clogged?

Why do people gamble away all their money?

Why do people beat their kids?

Why do people.....

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

[red wings]

I grew up in Canada and then went to univerity in the midwest (Go Buckeyes!) which
is the chewing tobacky capital of the world, or so I thought. Anyway I have since moved to Sweden where I learned that it is the chewing tobacky capital of the world. To the point, I have met a number of people that smoked but found it offensive to others, as well as to themselves, the smoke, the smell, etc. and have since started with chewing tobacky to give then their nicotine fix. I know that in the US the picture that is painted of a redneck with a mouth full of drooling brown spit is digusting, but in Sweden they put the chew in their upper lip (which does not create as much saliva) and therefore never, ever spit. In the northern parts of Sweden, even a majority of the beautiful blondes chew tobacco and it accepted socially, as far as the business world, etc. My point... If you have the craving for nicotine, but do not enjoy being an outcast and having to stand outside by yourself several times a day, try putting a Skoal Bandit in your upper lip. It's just an idea that most people have never thought of.

[Diane]

Not to change the subject, but I gotta ask -

Red Wings, I have veteran clients who have been in Korea, Thailand, and other Eastern countries, I also have a lot of military friends who have been stationed in those countries as well.

Does your name, Red Wings, mean what I think it does?

If so. . . . .

EEeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww :o

------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

[red wings]

Actually, No!

[Gr8Kat]

I thought there was a sports team or something called the Red Wings. Diane, what do you think it means? I'm intrigued... :)

------------------
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it," Jack Handy

[red wings]

2 + 2 = 4

[threemae]

For the hell of it I would like to throw this information in, lung cancer has a 1.14 WHO health risk rating for smokers meaning that you are 14% more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke. Because of the relatively low number of lung cancer cases in general the WHO itself has admitted that by its guidelines this number is not significant. If you think the guidelines are screwed whole milk drinkers have a 1.40 WHO risk factor of lung cancer. Respond to that.

------------------
"The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."

--Joseph A. Schempeter

[Stoid]

Red Wings is the badge of honor given to men who are willing to go down on a woman while she's on her period.

absolute yar-city

[Stoid]

Those statitstics things are a bitch.

While tis true that the majority of lung cancer victims are smokers, tis also true that the majority of smokers do NOT get lung cancer.

However, most long term smokers develop one cancer, heart disease or emphysema.

But then, so do most people. It's just a question of when and exactly which.

The thing that gets me is what an utterly perverse act it is in the first place. What the hell were the native Americans thinking? (They started it!). Hey...let's set this plant on fire and inhale the noxious fumes! That sounds like a great idea!



------------------
*************
We do precision guesswork

[Lynn Bodoni]

It's pretty obvious to me that anyone who smokes wants to be doused with a pail of water. Or s/he wants his cigs loaded with explosive loads.

Seriously, my husband started smoking in basic training in the Air Force over 20 years ago. He said he did it because of several reasons...

1. Smokers got a smoke break, while non-smokers got to "patrol the area", which meant picking up trash and stuff.

2. Smoking was cool, and a lot of the senior NCOs did it and were sympathetic to smokers (see #1).

3. He missed me, and smoking comforted him.

I think that he also started smoking because the adults in his family smoke. He won't admit this, of course...but even now, almost every single one of his parents' grandchildren smoke. My daughter doesn't, and the kid who has severe asthma doesn't.

I flirted with smoking when I was a teen, because I thought that it looked cool and rebellious and independent. Fortunately, I didn't get hooked on it.

My husband deeply regrets getting hooked. BTW, he and I are both 41, so we both knew the dangers.

(as a poster, not as staff)


------------------
Lynn the Packrat

[Eissclam]

Athena:

One of the many things that we don't yet know about any addiction is what makes some people use, continue using, and then progress to regular use while others use and don't continue, or continue only sporadically (as you describe). People with your occasional use pattern are "chippers" and there are chippers who use tobacco, heroin, and (to a lesser extent) cocaine.

(Of course, the vast majority of alcohol users could be called chippers, though for some reason we tend to call them social drinkers and be done with it.)

You tobacco chippers are very much in the minority (I think something like 5% or less) and I sure would like to know what makes you that way. Some hypotheses include:

chippers have a liver enzyme that breaks down nicotine especially quickly

and

a different pattern of nicotine receptors in the brain that makes nicotine less pleasurable.

I wish I could answer your question with somthing more than "I wish I knew" but. . . I wish I knew.

What are your thoughts? What do you get from smoking? When you inhale the first cigarette on a friday night do you feel anything from it?

Eissclam

[dawnbird]

When I started smoking (both times) it was to relieve stress. I had some problems in my teenage years, and I couldn't find a way to deal with them. I asked one of my coworkers what he did for stress, (he was a laid-back person) and he said he smoked. I weighed the odds as best I could in that state, and decided that cigarettes would take longer to kill me than would another breakdown.

I later quit, when my situation started to improve. I joined the military and within a year and a half of service, I was smoking again.

[nene227]

I'm 42, and both my parents smoked like chimneys. Yet none of my three sisters nor I have ever lit up a cig. I think we got so much second hand smoke as children (during the winter months we would all be in the back seat of the station wagon, windows up against the cold, and the car so full of smoke it looked like a fog in there!), that we had had enough by the time we were adults.

I can't tell you why I smoke, since I don't, but I can sure tell you why I DON'T smoke. I'm too cheap, I'm too active to sit still that long and poke something in and out of my mouth (I think eating and sleeping are a waste of time, for goodness sakes!), and one look at my mother tethered to a 10' oxygen hose so she can breath due to her emphysema, that she is convinced is due to 55+ years of smoking, is enough to keep me from the demon weed.

[coffeecat]

Stoidela, where do I go to pick up my badge?

------------------
Bruce

Love Poems - http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9104/

[Satan]

the whole book is spent disabussing you of yoru false beliefs about your smoking, such as the idea that it calms you, which it doesn't.

Oh Stoidela, if there's nothing I hate more it's being told that I am not feeling the way I'm supposed to.

Smoking calmed me. I don't care what it's supposed to do.

Also, what gives you the idea that I will be smoking before too long - because I admit that I liked it and miss it? Honey, let me tell you - I'm not going to lie to you or myself about this. And just because you can't fathom how someone would enjoy it is irrelevant to someone who does enjoy it, and will miss it.

I can't fathom how a guy wants to have sex with another guy, but I trust that some guys do.

It is a proven fact (if you want to get into statistics) that women have a harder time quitting because they are addicted to the pshcyological aspects of smoking, whereas males tend to be addicted to the physical attractions behind tobacco.

This might explain why you are doing something you hate, and hating that you are doing it, whereas I quit something I loved, but am thus far successful at it.

Obviously, like any stats, this is not a 100% across the board thing, but from just knowing smokers reformed and otherwise in my life, it's true for the most part IMHO.

Also, don't dis the Zyban. I never could have made it without it. It is non-intrusive, non-addictive as all it does is tell the part of your brain that loves nicotine that it really doesn't. Better than a lobotomy, no?

[threemae]

I see no one has directly answered my post yet.

------------------
"The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."

--Joseph A. Schempeter

[matt_mcl]

I object to people smoking in my air for the same reason I object to people puking on my plate of food, boomboxing in my vicinity, or advertising in my headspace. It's an invasion. It annoys nobody for me not to smoke.

[Murry]

While your at it, why don't you also ask: WHY DO PEOPLE OVER-EAT? WHY DO PEOPLE DRINK? WHY DO PEOPLE PROCRASTINATE? WHY IS IT THAT I WAS GIVEN THE FINGER WHEN DRIVING TO WORK THIS MORNING?

C'mon. People have bad habits that they know are bad. Don't tell me you have none. It seems you have cast the first stone...

[Eissclam]

threemae:

From the CDC {and thus for USA population}:

Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times. Women who smoke increase their risk of dying from lung cancer by nearly 12 times and the risk of dying from bronchitis and emphysema by more than 10 times. Smoking triples the risk of dying from heart disease among middle-aged men and women.

The link is
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/osh/mortali.htm

I don't know how to make it clickable on this message board (sorry).

The original data are in:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-attributable mortality and years of potential life lost--United States, 1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1993;42(33):645-8.

If you believe these statistics for the US (I do), they suggest that either the base rate of world lung cancer is much greater than in the US (hard to believe, but possible) OR the data you cited may have been misinterpreted. Can you please give a link or source for your WHO data? Once you do I'll examine it and get back to you.

Eissclam

[Eissclam]

I guess I *do* know how to make it clickable.

Learn something new every day!

Eissclam

Murray, no one dies from second-hand finger-giving, or second-hand junk food. One of my main objections to smoking is not that it killed my father, but that it's killing my mother, who had to breathe his smoke for 30 years and has serious respiratory problems as a result. If anyone lights up anywhere in her vicinity, she winds up in Emergency. Thank goodness for today's non-smoking sections; she can finally eat in restaurants, take planes and trains! People say, "George Burns smoked, and he lived to be 100!" Yeah, but Gracie Allen died in her early 60s of heart disease . . .

ThreeMae, Stoidela did answer your post: yes, it's true that not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. But almost no one who doesn't smoke gets it; and smokers also let themselves in for heart disease, premature wrinkles, other lung problems and other cancers--as well as causing SIDS and miscarriages in their own babies.

I am keeping my fingers crossed for all of you trying to quit, I really hope you make it! The posts here have reinforced what I'd suspected--the best way to cut smoking is to double the price. That would encourage adults to quit, and keep a lot of kids from starting. I think those "Don't Smoke!" campaigns aimed at kids are worse than useless; if kids know adults don't want them smoking, just watch 'em run for the cigarettes! And actors (especially Winona Ryder) really should not be photographed or filmed constantly smoking--they are role models whether they like it or not, and should not be making it look "cool" to their impressionable young fans.

Eissclam, are you a doctor, or do you just play one on TV?

[Eissclam]

Flora:

They call me "doctor" though I'm a scientist, not a physician. Cigarette withdrawal is one of my primary areas of study. Lately I've become particularly interested in why some kids who try tobacco (and most do) go on to use regularly and others try it and don't use (or use sporadically). I think understanding the details of initial tobacco use episodes, of which we currently know next to nothing, will be very important in reducing the costs associated with tobacco use over future generations.

I've been keeping up with the Straight Dope ever since graduate school. Does anyone else think Uncle Cecil has lost some of his wit/sarcasm over the years? The heady days of parsecs full of flies and rhyming physics lessons ("Said Win, 'don't panic, no grease monkey I, but Quantum Mechanic') have given way to some pretty tame responses.

[Athena]

Eissclam asked:


What are your thoughts? What do you get from smoking? When you inhale the first cigarette on a friday night do you feel anything from it?

Well, it makes me rather chipper! (sorry, couldn't resist.)

That's a good question. What *do* I get? A little bit of a buzz, since I'm not all that used to nicotine. It wakes me up. I like the taste of tobacco. I also like the "break" it gives me. I live in a town where smoking is banned in restaurants and bars, so generally what happens is a girlfriend and I go outside to yak and have a cigarette.

What I don't like is that after 2-3 in one night, I know I'll wake up the next morning feeling like some small animal has crawled into my mouth and died. I also work out regularly, and I can definitely tell the difference when I've been smoking too much. To me, too much is more than 3 cigarettes 2 nights in a row.

I go in cycles. I'll smoke a little for 3 months, then it just becomes unappealing to me and I stop for several months. I've stopped for years a time, simply because I wasn't around other people who smoked, and my ex husband was sure to give me crap about it and tell me I was going to become addicted.

So, Eissclam, I believe that if I was going to become addicted, I would have already. Does your research agree to this? I sure would hate to wake up one morning addicted. Could that happen?

Athena, I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist (and keep up the good work, Eissclam!), but I'm gonna guess that you are one of the incredibly lucky freaks of nature who don't have whatever "addiction" gene that is. Some people can get hooked on a drug after one puff; you're just their direct opposite. I urge you to reproduce a lot, so we can populate the world with non-addicts!

[Eissclam]

Athena:

Thanks for the response. Generally speaking, less than 5 cigarettes/day should not lead to nicotine dependence in an adult. Thus, if this is the pattern that you have maintained for years, you are likely not to be currently dependent on nicotine. Furthermore, so long as you maintain the pattern, I doubt that you will become dependent.

I glanced through my files for a reference for this statement (I am certain there is one) but couldn't find it.

As a word of caution for others, though, I note that this pattern is exteremely rare and difficult for most users to maintain. You may be tempted to try it but I wish you wouldn't. Odds are you'll progress to more regular (and thus dangerous) use.

BTW, Athena and other chippers: people are actively working on what makes you dependence-resistant. I picked this little tidbit off of an abstract in PubMed (Kassel et al., 1994).

"The strongest finding indicated that sensation seeking best discriminates among the three groups, with nonsmokers clearly viewing themselves as more socially inhibited and less interested in pursuing sensations relative to both regular smokers and chippers, both of whom evidenced comparable scores. Regular smokers evidenced less self-control, or restraint, and appeared more impulsive and unable to resist temptation, compared to chippers and nonsmokers. Surprisingly, none of the groups could be differentiated on the basis of perceived stress, coping, or social support. Even among the personality variables, however, the effect sizes were relatively small, indicating that these differences in personality cannot fully account for chipper's resistance to dependence."

[Ukulele Ike]

Oh, Flora, Flora...just when I was going to ask you to be Missus Ukulele, too.

I enjoy smoking cigarettes, they're one of the perfect examples of a perfect pleasure; exquisite, yet leaving one feeling unsatisfied. Thank you, Mr. Wilde.

As for the health considerations, as the estimable Mr. Satan said, "Eat right, stay fit, die anyway."

------------------
Uke

Oh, Ike, Ike . . . I guess I will have to wait to marry you till you're on life support, then I can unhook you and inherit the vast Ukelele fortune . . .

[topolino]

There are people who are allergic to cigarette smoke, like myself, who feel the effects of second-hand smoke quickly and harshly...ie increased cigarette smoke-tasting phlegm (oh yay), migraine, and eventual vomiting-especially in closed up spaces like cars.

I certainly don't think I have the right to tell people whether or not they can smoke in their own home. I can even understand WHY they smoke as I do have my own bad habits (although I can't think of one that affects another person). I do, however, think I have a right to chime in on what they do in public since it directly affects other people.

[Ukulele Ike]

We'd probably get hit by a bus during our honeymoon. That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.

Hope I'll have time for one last quick Camel straight whilst I'm flying through the air.

------------------
Uke

[threemae]

Well we seem to have conflicting statistics here on actual death rates and its important to note that just because a disease has been associated with smoking does not mean that all deaths were caused by smoking. Assuming the World Health Organization's statistics are correct, only 12.2% of all lung cancer deaths are smoking related (14/114). When saying that smokers die an average of seven years earlier than non-smokers do, the CDC is not necessarily examining the effects of smoking specifically, just the difference in life spans of the demographics. Smokers generally make less money than non-smokers do and poor people do not live as long as relatively richer people. In the example given comparing the increased rates of lung cancer from 1960 to 1990 increased by 400% while smoking decreased showing an inverse relationship between lung cancer deaths and smoking.

------------------
"The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."

--Joseph A. Schempeter

ThreeMae, lung cancer scarcely existed before WWI, when cigarettes first became popular (as opposed to cigars, pipes and chawin' tebaccy). Why are you so intent on "proving" that cigarettes really aren't that harmful, when even the tobacco companies are now admitting that it is both addictive and potentially deadly?

I also second Topolino--my mother is severely asthmatic due to second-hand smoke, and she can die if exposed to a smoker. As far as smoking "in your own home," I have a downstairs neighbor who does just that--and as a result, she also smokes in MY home, which now smells like an ashtray!

I sympathize with people like those above who are trying to quit, or those who honestly try to keep away from non-smokers, or those I am engaged to be married to, like Ike. But why should I have to put up with having poison blown into my face by a drug addict?

[gene]

I must be blessed... I actually tried smoking and never liked it!
In my late teens, I smoked for 2-3 years, trying to be cool. I hated it! I could never get beyond the coughing and gasping stage.
In my late 20's I tried to smoke a pipe-never liked it!
The last thing was cigars-I tried all the top brands-I remember feeling very ill after smoking a cohiba.
I guess I'm lucky-I tried for years to be a smoker, but never ever got to like the damned weed!
Call me lucky!

[topolino]

As far as smoking "in your own home," I have a downstairs neighbor who does just that--and as a result, she also smokes in MY home,
which now smells like an ashtray!

I remember you talking about that before! I thought to myself, "What would I do in this situation?" That's really a horrible situation. If it made me sick enough, and I could get nowhere with the smoker or landlords, I'd probably be hiring a lawyer...or cooking chitlins and doing whatever I could to make sure the odor wafted downstairs (that is, if I could handle the smell. If I'm angry enough tho, I think I could).

[Athena]

So is second hand smoke *always* that bad? Seems to me there are degrees, but I'm no expert. Setting aside those people who are legitimately allergic and experience immediate reactions, how likely is it that occasional exposure to cigarette smoke is going to really do anything to your lungs? Granted, if you live with a smoker, or have a job (bartending, waiting tables, etc.) that forces you to be around it all the time you have a legitimate complaint.

I thought I've read that a smoker who stops smoking can pretty much count on most of their lung tissue healing within a certain amount of smoke-free time. I would guess this is only true of people who don't actually have lung cancer. Given that, I have a hard time believing that occasional exposure to smoke such as one would get going out to dinner, or having a drink at a smoky bar, really causes much long-term damage.

[Prairie Rose]

Eissclam- you sound an awful lot like my brother-in-law. You wouldn't happen to be in Connecticut, eh? :)

I know that smoking is supposed to be addictive, but the first time (and only) that I tried it I got so sick that I threw up. I threw the pack away in disgust, wondering how ANYONE could pay money to do it! Unfortunately, my sister wasn't as lucky. She still smokes, and quit during her pregnancy only when she was hospitalized for pre-term labor (for two months). I have to wonder how her smoking affected her twin girls.

Stoidela, good luck on quitting. My husband quit 15 years ago and he says he still craves it now and then, but once he gets a whiff of someone's second hand smoke it cures him of the urge.

Prairie Rose

------------------
If you're not part of the solution you're just scumming up the bottom of the beaker.

[tracer]

Flora wrote:

I have seen in my own family what havoc second-hand smoke can cause healthwise, so please don't tell me it's not dangerous.

It's not dangerous. :-P

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Nickrz]

I hate it. Except for one or two cigarettes in the morning, I mostly do not get any pelasure from it, yet find myself driven to do it all day long. I hate the smell, the cost, the ostracism I endure, the taste in my mouth, and most of all the constant fear that I'm killing myself. But still I do it. I feel compelled. It's comepletely fucked up. Ahh.. common ground. Come sit by me, sweetie, because we're both in the same boat.

[tracer]

threemae wrote:

lung cancer has a 1.14 WHO health risk rating for smokers meaning that you are 14% more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke.

Are you sure it isn't "lung cancer has a 1.14 WHO health risk rating for second-hand smokers?"

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Eissclam]

Prairie Rose:

No I'm not from CT, though I'll be flying there next week. I did do some time in Iowa though . . . and even dated a Nebraska farm girl.

As for your sister's kids, the most likely effect of smoking during pregnancy is low birth weight, which I hope they have gotten over by now. There is some research demonstrating cognitive deficits in children who smoke, but I am not up on that literature.

Interestingly, its more likely the carbon monoxide (CO) in the cigarette smoke that does the damage to the fetus, rather than the nicotine. The CO is passed to the baby's blood from the mother's. CO of course, binds extremely well to hemoglobin, especially fetal hemoglobin -- thus is the fetus partially asphyxiated before birth. There's hope though -- most pregnant women at least cut down their cigarette intake, and even a small reduction can make some difference. Moreover, we're actively engaged in research to determine the safety of nicotine patch or bupropion (Zyban) in pregnant women. This type of research is necessarily slow, though.
The safety of the mother and the fetus are the top priority.

If there are any pregnant smokers out there -- please talk to your health care professional about ways to help you quit.

Eissclam

[Eissclam]

threemae:

I am still eager to review your source documentation for the relative risk numbers you've been citing (mentioning WHO in your posts isn't sufficient). As I said, CDC states that the risks of lung cancer are 12-22 times greater for smokers, depending on if the smoker is a woman or a man (I provided a link where you can access those numbers). I find it difficult to believe that the CDC and WHO are in such disagreement.

[Eissclam]

Being a little anal retentive, I went to the WHO homepage. There I found info on their tobacco initiative, which anyone can access at:
http://www.who.int/toh/

Reviewing the WHO's Health Consequences of Tobacco, I note that:

"In populations where cigarette smoking has been common for several decades, about 90% of lung cancer, 15-20% of other cancers, 75% of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and 25% of deaths from cardiovascualr disease at ages 35-69 years are attributable to tobacco. Tobacco-related cancer constitutes 16% of the annual incidence of cancer cases -- and 30% of cancer deaths -- in developed countries, while the corresponding figure in developing countries is 10%."

Again, I am eager to review threemae's sources, as these figures give me cause to believe that the WHO, like the CDC, considers smoking a major threat to lung health.

On that page you will also find a 1998 press release concerning passive smoking which notes that in a recent study "there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to the small sample size, neither risk was statistically significant."

I don't post these figures to anger or annoy smokers (or anyone else, for that matter). I welcome a dialogue with anyone interested in tobacco use from whatever perspective. I would hope that any such dialogue will contain figures that are accompanied by a readily accessible source.

No, Topolino, there's nothing I can do about my living situation. If that woman is not going to give up smoking for her new baby (she smoked through her pregnancy, too), she's sure not going to give it up for me! I just use fans and air conditioning and open the windows. And when I move--which may be soon!--I will have it written into my lease that no smokers are to live below me (I may just have to get a ground-floor apt.).

Tracer, consider yourself as having been given a ladylike Bronx Cheer!

Athena, I don't think that sitting near a smoker at dinner for an hour is going to significantly increase my chances of heart disease or cancer. But it will make my eyes sting, my clothes and hair stink, it will give me a sore throat . . . Why should I have to put up with that? If they were sitting there quietly taking heroin or cocaine and not bothering anyone, I wouldn't mind!

[kellibelli]

this is the pit right??????
well, as the daughter of a pack-a-day,dying at age 50 of LUNG CANCER mother, I can safely say...

IF YOU SMOKE AND YOU CAN READ, YOU ARE REALLY FUCKING STUPID, AND YOU NEED A REALLY HARD KICK IN THE HEAD!

Mothers who smoke while pregnant should be charged for abuse...they sure as hell would be if they held a pillow over babys face and cut off the air!

Parents who smoke around the kids should loose custody...It is abuse pure and simple.
I dont give a hairy fuck how good it makes you morons feel, it hurts children and other bystanders.It is a filthy habbit, get a damn patch before you all die.

so there.

[Eissclam]

threemae: No sweat, these things happen.

kellibelli: Hey now, slow down. Some people do manage to quit, and Jahender's lady love might have quit, given time. For all we know, she's living the high life, smoke free, wishing she knew Jahender's address right now.

You might get farther with your strong anti-smoking sentiment if you cloaked it with a little more empathy -- addicts don't have much choice over their behavior. Still, I understand your strong feelings on the matter.

[kellibelli]

you are a born diplomat, but I am pretty pissed, and the pit is the spot for pissin, aint it?

addicts don't have much choice over their behavior.

bullshit.

I dont have ANY DAMN CHOICE AT ALL!!!!!!
I cant CHOOSE to make Mom NOT DIE!
I can CHOOSE to have her NOT SUFFER!!!!
I dont have ANY CHOICES AT ALL!!!!!!!

what are those stages of grief?
1.denial
2.anger
3.complete and utter panic at the thought of telling my children that grammy has DIED?

choices, Mom finally quit smoking....it wasnt that hard....the morphine helped... I guess with the proper incentive, anything is possible.

Poor Kelli, I really do feel awful for you (my father died from cigarettes, too, and my mother's still ailing from HIS smoke). If it's any comfort at all, maybe you will scare the living daylights out of someone reading this and help them give up smoking.

[kellibelli]

thanks flora...that is why I bother...if just one person stops, the pain that can be prevented is beyond measure.

[Jahender]

I dated this girl in college who was the woman of my dreams. Smart, funny, beautiful, great in bed,...and we dated for seven months, but she smoked and from day one I begged her to quit. Finally I told her that it was either the cigs or me. She told me to fuck off and the rest is history.

I just couldn’t look past the fact that the woman who I cared a great deal about would do that to herself. I thought it was a self-esteem, self-value issue, but after reading these posts, (and the fact that I'm older and more laid back) I think she was just addicted to smoking like so many others. Damn, I fucked up, she was a catch.

[kellibelli]

yeah, I bet she woulda aged well too, and buring her after a long bout with cancer would have been a real treat...stick with your memories man, they are DEFINATELY better that the reality of what her smoking would have done to your lives...kids...home...all of it.

[threemae]

First of all I would like to apologize profusely for giving incorrect statistics, yes the statistics were for second hand smoke and they were 1.16-1.17, not 1.14 however the risk for whole milk drinkers was 2.4 not 1.4. I finally looked the statistics up this morning on the Cato Institute website and here is the link. [url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf[url/] Regardless of whether you doubt the statistics, I still suggest the article, it is extremely interesting.

------------------
"The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."

--Joseph A. Schempeter

[Satan]

kellibelli:

You are obviously totally against smoking. To the point where you do not really think clearly. Let me tell you a few things which might educate you on this:

1) You telling people to quit will do nothing but make them want to smoke to spite you. Sure, it's cutting off the nose to spite the face, but guess what? Telling someone who is addicted that they shouldn't be addicted is akin to telling a raging fire to please extinguish itself. Except the fire isn't likely to get pissed off like the smoker...

2) You wind up alienating the person you love. I would rather have a good relationship shortened than have a long antagonistoc relationship because I can not accept a person faults and all.

You think you are the only person who has felt pain from a smoker loved one who passed away? Well, my mom died at the end of June. She was only 57. Her cigarette smoking could have made non-smokers in the family act all defensive, made her hate them.

Instead we all loved her. Sure, we all wish she would have not smoked and most-likely still been here. But nothing we would have done would have changed her mind on this. It's ultimately up to her...

I get the feeling that you would rather bury someone early after several tense estranged years and be able to say "I told you so" rather than enjoy a relationship with someone and tolerating their faults.

Sure, you ask them to not smoke in your house or car. Sure, you request the non-smoking section when eating out with them.

But your fury shows me that you have gone too far with your anti-smoking sentiments.

I'm sorry for your pain, but you really should look at the time you had, not the time you feel you missed. Nothing is guaranteed anyway...

a couple of things i hate about smokers/smoking:

1. it stinks
2. them smoke-breaks
3. it stinks
4. the taste (ever kissed a smoker?)
5. it stinks

a couple of things you should do to smokers:

1. if you walk past a smoker, or enter a room where people are smoking; make a face, say "eeewwwwww" and go away.
2. if a smoker enters your room or in any way enters your privite area, simply tell him to go away because he stinks to much for company.
3. if you are working with people who take smoking-breaks, take a nonsmoking-break, just say you are not going to smoke.
4. if you find out that your girlfriend/boy is smoking just tell them you will see them when they quit smoking.

now what happens when people smoke?

1. all the statistic things you all know about.
2. they cant keep the smoke for themselves, can they?
3. about this chewing tobacco thing, oh yeah, great. you know what it does to your skin? (i know, i know you have excuses)
4. if parents were smokers when their kids were born, the kids were born smokers.
5. appartments get smoking walls (yellowish hue), cars get a permanent smoking stink, your fingers go yellow and stinky and you have this aura of smoke around you.
6. it stinks, stinks stinksstinksstinksstinksstinksstinksstinks
stinksstinksstinksstinksstinksstinksstinks
stinksstinksstinksstinksstinksstinksstinks
stinksstinks. (line breaks inserted by moderator)

im not telling you this for a fact factor, it is not an enlightenment speach, it isnt a teachers lecture. you know this to be true and still you smoke?
which makes you a part of the stupidest lot i know to exist in this otherwise lovely world.

---------------------------------------------

right now im wearing a t-shirt labeled "blow the smoke, kick the tar. no thank you to tobacco!" given to me by the chairman of anti-smoking comitee of iceland



[Note: This message has been edited by Lynn Bodoni]

[bj0rn]

oh yeah, one other thing. to satisfy the nicotine need you need only 7-8 cigs a day. everything in excess is just the habit of smoking.

[the first supraliminal]

Why don't they do a study on assholes? I think opinionated assholes do more detriment to society than cigarettes.

If a study showed that the stress of listening to an asshole whine caused harmful health disorders, I suppose they might concoct a definition of asshole and give each offender a well deserved punch in the mouth.

Hey, this world is no paradise, so quit your fucked up whining.



------------------
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ

[Satan]

People like kellibelli and Bjorn make me want to light up again...

[Fretful Porpentine]

Why do I smoke? I think the answer should be damned obvious to anybody who's read the last few postings ...

[Shirley Ujest]

Lung cancer scarcely existed prior to WW2

Do you have a cite for this?

Cancer was and still is a dreaded disease. It was whispered about back then..."Stella has <whisper> cancer. " like it was contagious by words and not other means.

I think you didn't hear about it because no one really thought smoking was bad. Drinking and driving wasn't taken seriously until the 80's, for cryin' out loud, doesn't mean it didn't exist until MADD came along.

Little sidebar regarding cancer: A very good friend of ours (nonsmoker) had cancer of the pancreatic and something else. Little chance to live. Visiting him in the hospital, hubby and I (both very familiar with hospitals) noticed something really really odd about this ward. It was the cancer ward and all other wards have the patients name written outside the room on the door or chart holder thingy. Not there. Cancer is still a stigma and privacy is very highly guarded. Our friend is now cancer free and has his hair back.

[Satan]

Kelli:

Since when are you responsible for your mom's decisions? Since when are you responsible for saving the fucking world?

You didn't "get" your mom to a doctor, she went. In fact, I'll bet your constant bitching made her want to smoke more...

Saying that nothing is guaranteed is a "cop-out" you say? Please elaborate on how the obvious is a cop-out. If you can guarantee anything in life, aside from death, please let me know.

Hell, smoking doesn't even guarantee that you'll die younger - it just increases the statistical odds. And you cannot guarantee that cigarettes did what is killing your mom.

A child with a loaded gun? So your mom is a child - someone who cannot care for herself, someone who cannot make her own choices, huh? She was ignorant of the choice she was making, in spite of warnings, media coverage, and loud-mouths like you telling her about how she was gonna die? I wouldn't tell my Dad that he shouldn't carry a legal firearms, though apparently you feel yourself to be responsible for this.

Oh, and FUCK YOU for telling me how I should feel about cigarettes or my mother. I am twisted, huh? Well, your inane rambling on this subject shows me that you have some very serious issues to work out between you and your mother than would be there whether she smoked or not.

The cigs no doubt helped put my Mom in her grave earlier than I or anyone else around her wanted. That doesn't mean I'm going to waste my life and energy crusading against it. I'm against crack, but I'm not going to become a psycopath like you are rallying against it.

You really need to see someone about this guilt you have, kelli. It's really not healthy, and let me tell ya - You'll be dead at 57 without taking a single drag off a cigarette if you don't look after these issues...

[kellibelli]

hell, now that bjork agreed with me, [i]I[/]feel like lighting up too.....
christ you freak, dont agree with me anymore, it gives me a burning rash RIGHT ON MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!

and my mom is not dead yet thank you very much, and I certainly will take no pleasure in "i told you so"s (are you crazy?), if anything I wish I had tried HARDER to get her to quit, at least got her to go to the DAMN DOCTOR!!!
the anger you get from me is at myself-you dumbass- how can I ever forgive myself for all the shit I pulled, all the pain I caused, and the fact that I didnt take better care of her when I was too busy with my own bullshit.....saying that nothing is guaranteed ...life is uncertain...all that other crap is a cop out, would you let a child play with a loaded gun and leave the result up to fate???
the sad fact that you have lost your own mother and still are so twisted that you dont DESPISE the cigatrettes that killed her makes me sad for you...
(I am assuming that the cigs did it, if I am wrong, I do apologise.)
Ironically I desperately hope that I will be able to tell people that my mom made it to 57 before she died.

[middsy]

Smoking is a drug, once you are hooked it is very difficult to give it up, so the problem is starting to smoke, campaigners should definitely concentrate on the 11-16 age range as to why and how they would start to smoke, I have tried to quit smoking but find it very hard, and always end up smoking after a few ales,

Middsy, Bath,England

[bj0rn]

kellibelli: i rather dispise lying, so i wont do that just to disagree with you. that would be plain silly. you can do that if you want to, but it will only make you look stupid, you know.

this anti-smoking thing we have here isnt about making all of you who smoke quit it. its about going away and leaving us non-smokers alone with our fresh air.

satan: no need getting mad at us because you smoke/d.

one last thing, kelli...you sure you arent in hell?

[kellibelli]

no Bjorn, I am not at all sure....

and if satan could show where I indicated "constant bitching " at my mother I would like to see it.The problem is that I DIDNT bitch, I didnt say a damn word.I never once bugged her to quit, never once told her her breath stank or her clothes smelled, never asked her to go for a check up, I never did a damn thing.Nothing. I sat back and watched her kill herself.Her doctor, one of the most respected (if blatantly arrogant and almost repulsive) in his field told her the cigarettes did it.
I am still not quite sure what this has to do with your dad's guns, and oh, fuck you, you are the one who is telling me how I should feelI get the feeling that you would rather bury someone early after several tense estranged years and be able to say "I told you so" rather than enjoy a relationship with someone and tolerating their faults.
You have NO IDEA how this pains me to say, but Bjork is right, no need to get mad at us if you choose to smoke....
Btw, I have been a smoker, andI still crave one when I drink, or when I am upset, and the smell of a newly opened pack makes me swoon.....but I choose not to indulge, just as I choose not to drink & drive, shoot heroin, fuck strangers, any other activity that might shorten my miserable life, because I have children and they are MY responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to try to be around for as long as possible.
Sure I could get hit by a bus tomorrow (probably driven by Satan), but I am far less likely to be hit by that bus if I look both ways.
I am going to see someone about my guilt though...I am a mess. You might want to do the same though....I doubt there are any of us who wouldnt benefit from a few volts of elecroshock (joke).
I wont be posting in this thread again, I just cant stand agreeing with Bjork :)

[Mr.Zambezi]

I smoked from 15 to 26. At 27 I was diagnosed with Asthma. I love, love, love tobacco, love the smell, taste, nicotine, and rituals. But I can't smoke anymore. I stil miss it.

One thing everyone is forgetting here is the effect on one's breathing. Even if they don't get cancer, most smokers I know are not going to go for hikes, bike rides, x-country ski trips, etc.

We only have so much time on the earth and Smiking limits our enjoyment of it.

[ShavaunJ]

I had my first cigarette when I was 18 years old. I was at the end of the worst day of my life and I was hysterical. I don't know what it was that prompted me to get up and go to the corner store for cigarettes but I did. Only one of my friends at the time smoked, no one in my family smokes, I was never around it. I puffed tentatively at it for a few seconds, then took a small drag, then I filled my lungs with smoke. I never coughed, I never puked, it was never nasty or disgusting to me. When I finished the first one, I felt better than I had before. So I had another.

I am VIOLENTLY allergic to most perfumes. If a man or a woman is wearing more than a hint of fragrance, my eyes water, my throat closes up, I get a migrane and become short of breath. On a few occasions I've had an asthma attack as a result. Every time I get into an elevator or go to a restaurant I run the risk of encountering someone that, by doing something that they have every right in the world to do, could make me very ill.

I do not stink. My clothes, my home, my hair, and my breath all smell the same as any non smokers. I do not take smoke breaks, because I don't have to. The fact that I am a smoker is no reflection on, nor has any bearing at all on my ability to do my job.

I know the dangers of smoking. I am not an idiot. I smoke because I enjoy it. When I stop liking it, I'll stop doing it.

People go backwoods skiing in avalanche country, people jump out of airplanes, people get into ships and sail towards the horizon having no idea what will happen to them on the way. We aren't safe creatures. We don't do right for ourselves and we don't do right for each other.

We could find something better to fight about.

[manhattan]

I hadn’t been following this thread, but as it happens I quit smoking 13 hours, 44 minutes ago.

I have a 21mg Nicoderm patch, but it is a piss-poor substitute for the 40 to 60 Camel straights I've been enjoying daily for 18 years on-and-off until this morning.

I brought my putter and a stress ball into work today. I already putt better, but I got exactly Jack done at work.

I’ve exiled myself from bars for the next few days or weeks, when I could most use a drink.

I may have to exile myself from my friends, too, if I want to keep them.

Last time I tried to quit, about 4 years ago, I put a cab driver in the hospital because he cut me off in a pedestrian walkway. This is as "The dangers of second-hand not smoking."

So, just so everyone knows, one answer to the OP, "Why the Hell does anyone smoke?" is that when we don’t smoke, we really, really, really, really want a cigarette.

Be [i]very[i] nice to people trying to quit, and don’t give too much grief to those who aren’t ready.


------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[manhattan]

And I screwed up the italics.

Because they are on fire?

[Satan]

if satan could show where I indicated "constant bitching " at my mother I would like to see it.

Well, guess what? Constant bitching at smokers you don't know, smokers you meet at the bar, or people on-line who will never be close enough to you to make you worry about second hand smoke does not atone for this. It only annoys us. Please stop.

The problem is that I DIDNT bitch, I didnt say a damn word.I never once bugged her to quit, never once told her her breath stank or her clothes smelled, never asked her to go for a check up, I never did a damn thing.Nothing. I sat back and watched her kill herself.

That is very sad, but it was her choice. It was not your responsibility to tell your mom what to do. And if it is any counselation, she wouldn't have listened. You quit when you're ready...

Her doctor, one of the most respected (if blatantly arrogant and almost repulsive) in his field told her the cigarettes did it.

He is full of shit as much as he is full of himself. He can say it is very likely that smoking caused it, he can say it made it worse without a doubt, but he cannot guarantee the cause of anything!

I am still not quite sure what this has to do with your dad's guns, and oh, fuck you,you are the one who is telling me how I should feel

You mention giving a child a handgun. I said that your mom is not a child, and if an adult has a legal firearms, comparing that to a child having the firearms is rather stupid, unless your mom was retarded and unable to think as an adult.

Oh, and I am not telling you how to feel. I am telling you to shut up. And I am telling you that you are acting like you feel guilty, and I surmise that you feel this way over things which go beyond tobacco. But you cannot point to a place where IO tell you how you should feel...

no need to get mad at us if you choose to smoke....

I do not get mad at you because I choose or chose to smoke. I get mad when you and your kind (the crowd at alt.smokers (http://alt.smokers) calls you "anti-smokers") crusade against it like you do.

You not only got the planes, you got the airports, the cabs, the busses, trains, and a lot of restaurants and even bars and streets! As in, in the open air!!

Well, I'm all for people who do not smoke being able to avoid smokers in enclosed spaces, but I am not for smokers being made to feel like third-class citizens!

I quit smoking, and I am smart enough to know the damage it causes, but I have no problem avoiding smoke if I want and I have no need to tell someone else how to live their life.

I did quit, but I refuse to become an "anti-smoker." I am simple someone who chooses not to smoke. That apparently isn't enough for you, Bjorn and your like. And that pisses me off...

Btw, I have been a smoker, andI still crave one when I drink, or when I am upset, and the smell of a newly opened pack makes me swoon.....but I choose not to indulge, just as I choose not to drink & drive, shoot heroin, fuck strangers, any other activity that might shorten my miserable life, because I have children and they are MY responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to try to be around for as long as possible.

Two things:

1) Remember back when someone you didn't know made you feel like shit for smoking - How much you were thinking they should shut the hell up and you never asked their opinion.

2) If you know the lure of cigarettes, how can you fault others for indulging? I would never fault someone the same things I myself feel... Sounds pretty hypocritical to me!

Sure I could get hit by a bus tomorrow (probably driven by Satan), but I am far less likely to be hit by that bus if I look both ways.

Just quit jumping into traffic and you have nothing to worry about!

I am going to see someone about my guilt though...I am a mess. You might want to do the same though....I doubt there are any of us who wouldnt benefit from a few volts of
elecroshock (joke).

I think everyone could benefit, just some more than others. I'm glad you are seeing someone. Get well...

I wont be posting in this thread again

Cool! I get the last word!

[bj0rn]

satan: you quit? good for you. why did you quit? even better, why did you start again? you wanted to quit for some reason...and then you forgot about it...what made you do that?

a tiny story from a friend of mine: he, his sister and his dad all stopped smoking. now 1½ years later both his dad and his sister have started smoking again. sometimes he wakes up in the morning because his sister is in the other end of the house lighting up a cig. the smell in their appartment is disgusting, and no place for an ex-smoker. now they are moving and my friend is insisting that his sister and dad will not smoke in their new appartment because he thinks it is the least they can do to respect the fact that he managed to quit smoking, and stay quit.

i want to remind you of what i said earlier, i dont care if you smoke, just dont do it anywhere near people who dont smoke. that includes restaurants, planes, airports, cars...whereever. because the smell doesnt go away. you talk about bars and stuff in the open air, well it aint so open when you are surrounded by smokers, ill tell you that much.

id say in answer to "why the hell does anyone smoke"...its an addiction, they cant help it, but bloody hell, i and alot of other people arent.

just get it through your smoke filled skull now, dont light a cig anywhere near another person, not even in your own house. and a word to everybody else, if someone starts smoking near you, go away, or just politely say "excuse me for a moment, i dont want to be near you when you smoke, could you either put that out or smoke somewhere else." if the person smoking doesnt put it out or moves away, then the smoking person is demonstrating how he/she feels about other people.
and no, i bloody well am not going to see it from you point of view. its you who are violating my personal sphere.

and now, please be stupid enough to argue with me!

[topolino]

I am VIOLENTLY allergic to most perfumes. If a man or a woman is wearing more than a hint of fragrance, my eyes water, my throat closes up, I get a migrane and become short of breath. On a few occasions I've had an asthma attack as a result. Every time I get into an elevator or go to a restaurant I run the risk of encountering someone that, by doing something that they have every right in the world to do, could make me very ill.

I wouldn't have a problem with you rallying against perfume. It's your right to do so.
Your comments seem to imply "too bad about you" regarding my allery to cigarette smoke. It's obvious that you don't care about me. Most people I don't know don't care about me. That's why I'm my own biggest advocate (with the possible exception of my mother and, sometimes, my father and boyfriend) ;). When I have children, I won't want them breathing second-hand smoke either and I'll fight tooth and nail for them.

The thing about smoking though is that it doesn't only hurt the people who are allergic to it. It hurts everyone. If, tomorrow, they discovered that CK1 can cancer to a significant portion of the wearers and those who smelled it, you bet I would be in the anti-CK1 camp.

True, some industrial pollution causes much more deteriment than smoking. Don't think I'm not angry about that either!

As for jumping out of planes and such, I don't mind that. As long as the people know the risks, they can do whatever they want as long as they're not knowingly hurting innocent people. If someone plays chicken with a train and gets killed, I see it more as a "thinning of the herd" than some kind of tragedy. They were dumb enough to play chicken with a train and they killed themselves. Oh well.

With things like smoking and driving drunk, you're placing other people at risk. I'll speak out about that. Actually, driving drunk, IMO, is worse than smoking, but I'll still speak out against either of them.

ShavaunJ, you do so stink--smokers never smell their own odor, and after they quit are amazed and embarrassed at how they smelled. I can smell you right through my computer screen.

Shirl, I don't have a citation on lung cancer (not all cancers, only lung) having risen dramatically after WWI, I have just read it in several medical journals.

Manhattan, good for you! I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Come back, kelli! I agree with Bjorn, too, he makes a lot of sense on this thread! I've disagreed with lots of people on one thread and found them to be quite sensible on others . . .

And as for you unapologetic smokers like Shavaun, BeerUser and Shirley--please, please, keep smoking! Constantly! I'll buy you some! Never take those cigs out of your mouth! You'll be silenced for good, and will leave the rest of us to enjoy a better, cleaner world.

[Satan]

satan: you quit? good for you. why did you quit? even better, why did you start again?

I quit for about seven months. A trip to New York, where I smoked when I lived there, and thanks to archaic laws telling people they cannot have a smoking area in their building, I walked around Manhattan surrounded by smokers. Not just people smoking either, but people who have been in their office all day, probably wanted a smoke for a couple of hours and coundn't get away until some boss was appeased, so they all were, like, smoking! Like it was the best thing in the world! Inhale... Hold... Release in a whoosh... Ahhhhhhhhh!

So I bought a pack, figuring I would just smoke while there. After five days of this, I got back, lasted promptly six minutes, bummed smokes off co-workers until they wanted me dead, and next thing I know, I'm back up to two packs a day.

So I renewed my Zyban and I quit again. I am doing fine. It has everything to do with finances, very little to do with health reasons. That's my decision, not made to appease you, my mom's memory, or some insurance company. I hope either to remain smoke free or to have Marlboro promise me free cigarettes for life. Until then, I've got better ways to spend my money.

i want to remind you of what i said earlier, i dont care if you smoke, just dont do it anywhere near people who dont smoke. that includes restaurants, planes, airports, cars...whereever. because the smell doesnt go away. you talk about bars and stuff in the open air, well it aint so open when you are surrounded by smokers, ill tell you that much.

Well guess what, Mensa boy - I think there are sufficient places for you to go and be smoke free. It is far easier in these times where tobacco is a bigger threat to humanity than AIDS, the Black Death and Communism ever could be or was to find a place where you don't have to deal with smoke than to find a place to smoke.

If you come up to me on the street and ask me not to smoke, I will tell you to fuck off. If I am the smoking section of a restaurant and you tell me not to smoke, I will tell you to fuck off. If I am in the smoking section of an internationall flight and you tell me i can't smoke, I will tell you... Well, you get the picture.

Just as you will not see me light up in your house when I smoked, if you do not wish to spend time with me in mine because I smoke there, well, that's your loss.

Even as a non-smoker I am now, I do not have problems with smoke. People blow smoke in my face and I see bands live all the time in bars for my job. I guess I'm just not as weak as your family members. Or aybe I just remember what it was like. Whatever...

The point is I'm all for non-smokers rights, but you anti-smokers seem totally against any rights for smokers, even when the rights smokers want still give you plenty of places to avoid us if it offends. Well, maybe there are some hardcore folks who want to smoke in elevators, but I'm talking reasonable things. And the screams of kellibelli and yourself (and your kind) are anything but tolerant.

just get it through your smoke filled skull now, dont light a cig anywhere near another person, not even in your own house. and a word to everybody else, if someone starts smoking near you, go away, or just politely say "excuse me for a moment, i dont want to be near you when you smoke, could you either put that out or smoke somewhere else." if the person smoking doesnt put it out or moves away, then the smoking person is demonstrating how he/she feels about other people.

and no, i bloody well am not going to see it from you point of view. its you who are violating my personal sphere.

So your personal space is in my house all of a sudden? You can either pay my rent or play hide and go fuck yourself.

I maintain that in public, there are far more places to be smoke-free than to be able to smoke. Yet, you anti-smokers still want more. Face it, you want tobacco to be outlawed and for it not to exist.

Well, it does. And if they tried to get rid of it, it would be like prohibition in the '30s in America. So learn to live with it, like smokers have learned to live with long flights they cannot smoke in, restaurants they cannot smoke in, and assholes like you who want to take even more rights away from them.

and now, please be stupid enough to argue with me!

You're right. I can't argue with someone who is so set in their ways that they cannot realize that they can have their rights without trampling on the rights of others. I can't argue with someone whose attitude and rudeness is far more harmful and than 15 seconds of second-hand smoke would ever be. And I sure can't argue with someone who reacts emotionally to an issue when looking at it with common sense is the more prudent choice.

In a nutshell: I am all for non-smokers rights. You are against any and all smokers rights. Who is the inflexible party here?

[Ukulele Ike]

Sigh...I hate fighting with Flora, even in the Pit. We agree on everything except tobacco and Lupe Velez.

You're not planning on dying? Like Doc Daneeka said, "Where the hell else do you think you're headed?"

The "You smoke and you're going to die, I don't and I won't" thing is startin' to bug me.

------------------
Uke

[kellibelli]

that was a horrible thing to say.
Shame on you.
I dont care what a jerk someone is, there is SOMEONE out there that loves them, and would suffer untold pain at their death.
you should be truly ashamed of yourself for saying a thing like that after you have read what I am going through with my mom...that is the most offensive post I have ever read.
you sicken me.

I have often warned my children not to wish harm on others, as it will come right back at you.

And to the 'pro-smokers', I wish you would quit, I admire those who have, and if you choose to continue...I truly wish you the best of health, and I hope you live long productive lives.I mean that with my whole heart.

This IS the BBQ Pit, isn't it? Did I accidentally wander into Satan's Sunday afternoon tea party? So sorry! Thought you people could dish it out AND take it, guess I was wrong.

Kelli, I did think twice about you before I posted, but I tried to word it specifically to those three people--the ones who are PROUD of the fact that they smoke, consequences be damned and screw you anti-smokers. I've made it very clear that I feel sorry for those who are hooked and who want to quit.

Satan, I HAVE thanked smokers for enlightening me on certain topics--no one has changed my mind on anything, because nothing mind-changing has been posted.

And dear Ike, we can disagree and not hate each other! Yes, I plan on dying--but I don't plan on taking anyone else with me by blowing poison in their faces.

Kelli, there is really no one in the entire world you have ever wished ill? "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."

I'll see y'all in General Questions, I guess none of you are Fit for the Pit . . .

[kellibelli]

only my ex-inlaws, but not publicly...until now.and I dont wish them dead...just a nasty rash on their ASS!

I also wont call in to work and say that someone died...bad Karma.
we can disagree and not hate each other!
I see...but you wish them dead?

I'll see y'all in General Questions, I guess none of you are Fit for the Pit . . .

Look, satan and I got into it pretty good, and we never resorted to death wishes...
why dont you trot on along and we will catch up later.
" Hey Teacher! Flora is putting chunks of ice in her snowballs again...I dont want to play with her anymore!-She's bad!"

Kelli, I know this is an emotionmal issue for you--me too, as my mom has serious breathing problems from my father's smoking (which killed him). I don't "wish" smokers dead. But I do think that anyone who has started to smoke since the late 1960s, when it became widely known that it would kill you, does indeed deserve whatever they get. People our parents' age, who were tricked into it, are pretty much blameless. Someone in their 20s who started smoking in, say, 1990, I'll have no sympathy for when they get sick and die. "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

P.S. There is no such thing as "Karma."

[Satan]

Flora - Are you implying that I must call you a douche bag cunt-lipped shit-fucker to make a point here?

It seems to me that you just don't get it.

Maybe because you lack the intellectual prowess to comprehend that I don't have to resort to childish name-calling (no matter how fun it is) to flame you.

Because, you see, I have taken everything that has been dished out by guilt-ridden Prozac addicts like kellibelli, Hitler-esque anti-smokers like Bjorn, and now, meaningless horse poop from you, someone who, from the posts here, I gather simply likes hitting "Submit Reply" and reading it back over and over to yourself to justify your existence.

And I'd say I dished it out rather nicely, IMHO. You may differ, but hey, that would just make you wrong bout one other thing. Like spitting in the ocean, I sumbmit...

I'd suggest you head over to General Questions now, darling... Because if you wish to get into a battle of wits, you are sadly lacking the fire power to do so.

My, what as THAT all about, Satan? Run short of ciggies?

I'm beginning to rethink my planned trip to hell if it is run by such a hissy, delicate little person. If you'd like to question my posts individually, point by point, I'd be happy to debate. But calling me naughty names neither makes a point, upsets me, nor enlightens or amuses our readers. I may be a Lady, but I have read enough graffiti to have seen all those words, dear.

Now. Is there something SPECIFIC you'd like to ask me?

[kellibelli]

And as for you unapologetic smokers like Shavaun, BeerUser and Shirley--please, please, keep smoking! Constantly! I'll buy you some! Never take those cigs out of your mouth! You'll be silenced for good, and will leave the rest of us to enjoy a better, cleaner world.
I should type faster...
This is the post I was offended by.

[kellibelli]

hey satan..."hide and go fuck yourself"...please, stop--I just blew pop out my nose!

[Satan]

And as for you Flora... You start a post asking why people smoke. You have been given ample reasons from smokers and ex-smokers and even people who simply knew smokers and didn't have their head up their ass (first-hand anal vapors are preferable to second-hand smoke, of course), yet you still act arrogant and as ignorant as when you asked th question.

Do not ask a question if you think you're not going to like the answer. And do not keep badgering people with commentary th6t shows you never intended on listening in the first place...

[kellibelli]

What? Nothing for me? was it the pop crack?
Do you like me now? (teasing)

[bj0rn]

my oh my...you have been busy

well now, ive got to start somewhere, so...
flora: quite early in this topic you were saying something like

You were too nice for the BBQ Pit, though--I was expecting to get jumped all over, and here you are being polite and informative!
well, i belive you got what you wanted.

and now from the mists of smoke, satan:

So your personal space is in my house all of a sudden? You can either pay my rent or play hide and go fuck yourself.

i have simply one thing to say about that, no thank you!
do you leave your personal sphere at home when you go to work, or...? that might explain alot, you know.


That's my decision, not made to appease you

of course it is. i dont want anything to do with your decision.


...I will tell you to fuck off...

no thank you!


In a nutshell: I am all for non-smokers rights. You are against any and all smokers rights. Who is the inflexible party here?

as you put it, i am the inflexible party. but you are the illiterate one. im not talking about rights and stuff, i dont care if it is your decision to smoke, just dont do it anywhere near me or any person who doesnt want it. thats the only rule that should be made about this particular subject.
and that includes places where the smell lingers after you go.


guilt-ridden Prozac addicts like kellibelli, Hitler-esque anti-smokers like Bjorn

now thats a direct similation of a person to something as negative as hitler and a drug addict. i think that calls for a delete from a moderator.
from the rules:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is:

1. knowingly false and/or defamatory,

2. inaccurate,

3. abusive,

4. vulgar,

5. hateful,

6. harassing,

7. obscene,

8. profane,

9. sexually oriented,

10. threatening,

11. invasive of a person's privacy,

12. or otherwise violative of any law.

i belive you broken rule number 1 and possibly number 5 as well.

one last thing satan, for comforts. smoking breaks more of theese rules than you do.

Gee, why does everyone seem to dislike Bjorn? Seems like a nice guy to me . . . .

I know I'm almost certainly going to regret this, but what the hell -- no pain, no gain.

First, a little background. I am an ex-smoker. At one point, I went through upwards of a pack and half a day. Had my first cigarette when I was -- lemmesee -- yeah, seven. I believe it was the same morning I tried to set fire to the schoolhouse. However, I'm not saying one necessarily had anything to do with the other.

Didn't have my second one until I was about 13. By the time I was 18, I was hooked. Both my father & mother smoked, as well as both my older brothers; strangely (or perhaps not) my older sister never smoked.

I tried several different methods for quitting, including individual therapy, group therapy, etc. What finally worked for me was identifying time periods when I could go without smoking and then gradually expanding them as I progressed. My primary adjustment was, I would only allow myself to smoke when I was at home. Never carried smokes or lighter out in public; however, I'm the first to admit that, if I was with someone who smoked, I'd often bum one from them (and later buy them a whole pack) to get by. Eventually, I was able to resist the urge to bum one, as long as I stayed upwind from my smoking friends.

I should also point out that, since I work close to home (8 minutes by car) if my 'jones' came down bad I could always manage to hold off until either lunch or the end of the day.

When I finally had myself disciplined to only smoke at home, I began cutting out certain time periods. The first was easy -- I swore to myself,"I shall not smoke between the time I go to bed and the time I get up in the morning!" Yeah, now that's whatcha call real moral backbone, huh?

Actually, up to that time, I often got up in the middle of the night to whiz, and took the opportunity to smoke one then, too.

After I mastered that, I started taking periods out of the day. Wednesday from noon to bedtime. Then Wednesday and Friday. Then all day Thursday. Then all day Tuesday and Thursday. I found that, if I could just keep focused on the next smoking period, the non-smoking ones weren't really that much of a hassle. Then I tried not smoking from 6 p.m. Friday to Monday morning. As I gradually eliminated other days of the week, I was somewhat surprised to discover I didn't seem to be suffering much from withdrawal. I had occasional restless nights, but a couple of aspirin were usually enough to ease the craving pains.

Finally, I got to a point where I didn't smoke from Monday to Friday, but ONLY smoked from Friday evening to Monday morning, the reverse of what I had done at one point. Then I eliminated Sunday evening. And gradually I cut back to just Friday night, if I wanted to, because my then I had reached a point where I not only wanted to quit completely, I also knew that I could.

Now, having said all that, I will also say this. While I was trying to quit, I replayed an old record I have -- it's by Baba Ram Dass (formerly known as Richard Alpert, the guy who introduced America to LSD with Timothy Leary). On his "Love, Serve, Remember" album, he's giving advice (on a radio phone-in talkshow) to a wannabe non-smoker who constantly finds himself backsliding (like someone we ex-smokers probably ALL know). The essence of his advice was something like,"Well, don't be addicted to smoking, but don't be entirely addicted to NOT smoking, either. If you find yourself out somewhere, and you really, *really* want to smoke, sort of step outside yourself and say something like,'Well, here I am, God, smoking again' and make the act into a sort of offering to God. But don't bash yourself over the head about it, and remember that when you're NOT smoking that that's also your offering to God". That struck me at the time as being eminently sane and I have followed it to this day, vis., when I'm sitting down with my girlfriend (who lives in my house, but in the downstairs apartment I set up for her and her daughter) and I feel like it, I'll still bum one.

One or two smokes over a period of several days, I have no problem with, especially since it's in my house. I still never smoke in public, though.

My mother died of congestive heart failure about 9 years ago, at the age of 69. Much of the last eight or nine years of her life she spent at the end of a 20-ft plastic tube connected to an oxygen generator, and she never denied greatly regretting taking up smoking and knew it had deprived her of a great deal of life. She lived long enough to see her grandson, but lamented (toward the end) that she knew she would never see him grow up.

I live in, and work for the government of, Kentucky, a state as slavishly addicted to tobacco money as any that has ever been (well, maybe excepting North Carolina). Fortunately, tobacco makes up a smaller and smaller part of the state's economy with each passing year. If there's any place that supports the idea of "smokers' rights", this is probably it, since a goodly number of the state legislators rely on it for income and get downright fascistic about it.

But "smokers' rights" are bullshit. There are no such things as "smokers' rights", with apologies to Satan and the rest of you. What you have are the same rights as everyone who doesn't smoke -- the presumptive right under both statutory and common law to breathe air that is not polluted and to work under conditions that are not harmful to your health.

That's not to say that I don't think some accomodations can't be made for smokers, but as the ones with the bad habit, they ought to be the ones who make the adjustments. In every office of state government, there's a room set aside for smokers with a big freakin' Smokeeter going full blast, and it's hopeless -- the room still smells like an ashtray. Furthermore, the geniuses who set it up have the exhaust vented from the room over to the front wall of the building, where it emerges ten feet from my car. Even on a windy day (due to the shape of the building), I can go out there and the air can be crystal clear -- and unbreathable. What really pisses me off, though, are the idiots who stand just outside the front doors of the building, filling the air with pollution, as if the place has been designated a smoking area. I do not see why I or anyone else should have to walk through a cloud of someone's smoke to enter or leave a building. If they can't be bothered to walk an extra 20 feet away from the entrance, I should be able to 'give in to the call' and pee all over their shoes when the need strikes, rather than go all the way indoors to the men's room. I mean, isn't urination a much more natural function than smoking?

When someone smokes around me in an undesignated public place, without having the courtesy to ask first, I don't ask them to quit -- I just don't feel constrained to hold in my farts. And, believe me, I GET EVEN!

And, don't even get me *started* on the number of cigarette butts littering the building around every entrance -- even the ones where there ARE ashtrays. Smokers have turned the building into a pigsty -- but try suggesting that they clean up after themselves. Just try . . .

[kellibelli]

That was the best post I have ever read.
The analogy of farting and peeing on the shoes to the smoke...brilliant.
You are a smart man.I like you very much.
Tell your girlfriend I think she is lucky to have you.

Kellibelli, garsh, lady, ya make me blush!

I've enjoyed your posts, too. I thought you made some very cogent points to Jen.

I think my girlfriend is very luck, too.(Blushes). Unfortunately, for a a number of reasons which don't bear going into under this thread, our relationship at the moment is entirely platonic, despite the fact that we've known each other about 10 years.

Now -- try reading my posts under the 'S.E.T.H' thread on Great Debates; you'll probably hate me by the end . . .

But thanks for the good words,anyway. See ya round the board!

[kellibelli]

only read the first couple of pages, then my glass eye dried out, but what you wrote only leads me to an even higher opinion of you, and I would bet the platonic status has to do with the child, and that makes me think even higher of you...your mom must be very proud.
(before anyone gets nasty, I am not 'flirting', I am offering the encouragement and approval that I feel he has earned in a hard and thankless world which all too often fails to recognise the 'good guy' )
kudos to you my new friend.

[Shirley Ujest]

For all you smokers out there...(named names)...like Shirl...keep smoking.

sorry for a terrible paraphrase...

I would like to state that I don't smoke. Having a Father that died on Christmas Day of lung cancer when you are nine has a way of taking out the joys of nicotine. Besides, I'm way to too frugal. Buying all those packs would cut into my book habit, of which there is no patch.

[Jen]

I have no desire to quit smoking really....pressures put on by non-smokers are forcing us in to the basement (so are my children), but I truly enjoy smoking..

Let me relay a story to you....

I smoked during both of my pregancies and a woman I worked with probably weighed in at 350+ and she was also pregnant. Each day I was chastized for smoking and the harmful effects it would have on my children.

She delivered 6 months prior to me and her son was hospitalized for resparatory problems. My children were born with absolutely nothing wrong. Now go figure...

[kellibelli]

I wasnt going to respond...but here goes..

Are you saying that because her kid is sick this somehow validates your smoking?

are all the experts wrong?

Smoking really doesnt contribute to low birth weight, sids, assorted health problems..etc..?

Smoking does not introduce toxins into the fetal environment?

It sound like you dont smoke around the kids now...thank you.

I dont think a woman as big as the one you describe has any business getting pregnant until she gets healthy, but neither do drug addicts, alcholics, nor you my dear.

Your kids may be all right NOW, but your selfish use of your precious cigarettes may hurt them later, or even their kids.
Its not the tobacco, its the arsenic, tar etc that are in these things.
In canada, they put warning labels on cigs. (I dont know if they do it in the states.)
some of the labels say:
smoking can kill you
smoking can cause low birth weight
smoking can harm your children
etc...
and the cigarette companies put these on,-

HEY- they should talk to you, you must have magic powers that can protect unborn babies from smoking...just think of all the good you can do!

[bj0rn]

no, thank you DIF.

kelli and jen, dont forget that it is in most ways the nicotine that harms the kid.
you know, born an addict to it. everyone i know who had parent who smoked have started smoking later in life, and each and every one of them had the same story, "right from the first cig, i was hooked". and so it continues.

DIF: good for your sister.

[matt_mcl]

If someone smokes where I am, they are pretty much vomiting on my food. Now if I see someone vomiting into the kitchen sink, I can take my plate of food away from there. But it's pretty nasty of them to come right up to me, look me in the eye, and barf on my food. Ok?

[kellibelli]

well put...very well put.

As I said to my ex-husband, (when he was still my husband)"Dont smoke that at the table, even a dog wont shit where it eats!"
Funny why things didnt work out.

[katmandu]

If someone smokes where I am, they are pretty much vomiting on my food. Now if I see someone vomiting into the kitchen sink, I can take my plate of food away from there. But it's pretty nasty of them to come right up to me, look me in the eye, and barf on my food. Ok?

Oh, give me a break. Someone who smokes at the table next to you(presumably in the smoking section) is as represensible as someone who purposely pukes in your food? Please.

[bj0rn]

katmandu: in the smoking section? i wouldnt eat at a restaurant with a smoking section thank you very much. and yes he would be!

do you know what ATF is? its U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), and just look at what they are doing with firearms in the states. wonder whats next?
i wouldnt mix alcohol with firearms. some insist on the other hand that they have to smoke when they drink. some might even want to smoke after shooting someone, just to make sure he is dead you know.

this is made to provoke an attack. please reply.

[Jen]

Kellibelli...no her childs illness does not validate my smoking...it just demonstrates the fact that if anyone can be sick or die from something and that smoking is not the root of all evil. I completely agree that it is dangerous, gross, etc, etc...but you cannot blame all of the worlds trouble on it. I have known people who have died of lung cancer and never smoked a day in their lives...people who have high cholesteral, who don't eat much fat...it's in the genes!!

Hell...a jogger who has never smoked, does not eat fat and who takes excellent care of themselves could be run down by a bus...busses are harmful to our health too.

And by the way, I am a courtious smoker as I do not wish to inflict my smoke on others.

[kellibelli]

you are obviously an intelligent woman, and I admire your courteousness.
I am sure I must come off like a real zealot, but I am not really,
Lately, cancer is all I think about...and it is impossible not to let it out.
The world contains many vices, smoking is only one of them, I know I cant save the world, I just want to spare anyone the pain the cancer is causing my family...sorry if I sound like a facist.

[heatherlee]

well I have one quick thing to write about this topic. Its my choice if I wanna smoke. therefore I must take any consequences that come along with it. I do not need anyone telling me I shouldnt do it. Its my body and I will do as I please with it. when the time comes and I decide I want to quit I will until then I will continue to light up and continue to enjoy the way it tastes to me. everyone has their own opinions on things they like and dont like. you people might smoke dope. I dont. I dont like it. But I wpouldnt sit here and preach to you about doing it.

[bj0rn]

Its my choice if I wanna smoke. therefore I must take any consequences that come along with it.

yes, exacly...thats about as complicated as it gets. one of the consequences is: do not smoke near me!

bj0rn

Also, Heatherlee, is it REALLY your choice? What I've been hearing from a lot of smokers on this thread is that they started when they were too young and stupid to know any better, and are now hopelessly addicted. The majority of smokers would quit if they could, but don't have the strength to do so.

. . . No offense meant, Ike (oop, I think he's off on vacation, maybe he'll overlook this).

[Brother Haus]

What the HELL is wrong with you people?!?

This is how it goes: *For all you Bocephus fans out there*

"Hank, why do you alllll drink? TO GET DRUNK.
Why do you alllll smoke? TO GET STONED.
And why must you liiivvvve out the songs that you wrote? TO GET LAID."

And that's how it goes.

I am an everyday smoker, NOT a Midnight Toker!! :)

------------------
I am not weird, I'm just normle challenged.

[BoBettie]

Just my 2 cents- I smoked from age 14 to 21 (Had to quit when I had back surgery)...I still light up on occasion, as I don't seem to be addicted. (I can have an occasional smoke and not want more..like candy)

My husband, who is a recovered drug addict (turned his life completely around after being a junkie) said it was much easier to quit coke and HEROIN then to quit smoking. He has tried and tried, so far no success. So think about that...He had the ability to stop doing HIGHLY addictive illegal drugs, but cannot stay off tabacco...what the hell is in that stuff??

------------------
An optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity; A pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity.

[speakeasy]

Two things:

The lady of the house, light of my life, reason for being, girl who is currently putting up with me, smokes a pack a day. I don't. Been around it all my life, love the smell of fresh tobacco & coffee, don't touch the stuff. Reminds me of playing cards by the fireplace on a winter day.

She has a will of steel, but she has given it three real good tries in a row with patch & gum, and can't kick it. Sez the biggest problem for her is that her smokes are the only time when she can take a few minutes away from the crazy job and enjoy the sunshine.

It's called meditation, try it you might like it. Use in small doses. We are currently trying to find other ways that she can get the same break without the nicotene. I thought I had a good idea, but she says I'm just horny....


The other thing, I fell in with some rough company some years back and was briefly addicted to crack. Talk about a hook straight to the hindbrain. Wham! Blew some days, money, and brain cells I'd like to have back, but walked away when I opened my eyes real late one hazy night and realized I had my hand on the gate to hell. Worst I've ever been scared in my life.

Some people can, some people can't. The bright boys are working on it, the best information right now is that it's genetic. Me, I just have a good suffer. After awhile it stops hurting. I kinda like it, in a sick twisted sorta way.

[Jvanhorn]

I smoked for about 25 years, while trying to hide it from my family, because everybody made fun of my grandfather for smoking (whie he tried to hide it).

I started for pretty much the same reasons as anyone, I was 18 years old and in college, convinced that it helped me clear my mind, and that I could quit any time I wanted to. I have tried several times before, but what finally finished me was the fact that my daughter took up smoking, and as long as I was smoking, I had no right to comment on what she was doing.

I do not stink. My clothes, my home, my hair, and my breath all smell the same as any non smokers. I do not take smoke breaks, because I don't have to. The fact that I am a smoker is no reflection on, nor has any bearing at all on my ability to do my job.



I believed this too. When I quit, I realized how awful I smelled, particularly soon after smoking a cigarette. It makes you feel pretty stupid to realize that everybody knew you were smoking when you thought you had it hidden.

Even when I was smoking, I didn't much care for someone else's smoke, but now it's even worse, almost to the point of making me ill. I welcome this though, as it helps to keep me from smoking.

It is probably not productive to try to irritate the people you care about until they quit smoking, but I do think that it is important to make sure that they know that you find it unacceptable. (My daughter was quit and started again when a boy dumped her, so she's still smoking in spite of the mean things her Dad says).

I don't care to be around smokers any more, but I do understand them. kellibelli and bjorn have understandable attitudes, but I think that they may be counterproductive, especially for people close to them.

Nicotrol and a week off of work helped me quit (I didn't smoke at home for quite a long time).

DIF said:
I tried several different methods for quitting, including individual therapy, group therapy, etc. What finally worked for me was identifying time periods when I could go without smoking and then gradually expanding them as I progressed.

This was somewhat similar to what i tried, but it didn't work for me, I had to quit. It's been 8 months now, and still sometimes I find myself reaching for my pocket to get a cigarette. I still have my last one, in my jacket pocket, if it hasn't fallen apart yet!!

To all of you that still smoke, don't quit quitting, any time not spent smoking is worth it, and sooner or later you will make it work, one way or the other :)

Eight months, three days, 10 hours, 58 minutes and 30 seconds. 8625 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,164.31. Life saved: 4 weeks, 1 day, 22 hours, 45 minutes.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Guys start because it fits in with the rugged/renegade image that young buck wants to project. Gals do it because it's sexy.

[tracer]

Zette wrote:

My husband, who is a recovered drug addict (turned his life completely around after being a junkie) said it was much easier to quit coke and HEROIN then to quit smoking. He has tried and tried, so far no success. So think about that...He had the ability to stop doing HIGHLY addictive illegal drugs, but cannot stay off t[o]bacco...what the hell is in that stuff??

The addictiveness of coca and opium products are very likely exaggerated in the popular media. Somewhere I read that cocaine and heroin are about as addictive as alcohol.

Nicotine, on the other hand, is one of the most addictive substances known to Man.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Stoid]

ShauvanJ:

You smoke?


You stink.


(I smoke, I know. Some stink less or more than others, but there is no such thing as a smoker who doesn't smell of it to some degree. Unless you have magical cigarettes? Shower and change you clothes after every cig? Don't kid yourself)

------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

[Diane]

IF YOU SMOKE AND YOU CAN READ, YOU ARE REALLY FUCKING STUPID, AND YOU NEED A REALLY HARD KICK IN THE HEAD!

And if you drink alcohol (every hear of liver disease?), or sunbathe (ever hear of skin cancer?), or eat McDonalds french fries (ever hear of heart disease?), or not exercise, or eat too much salt, or drive too fast, or don't floss your teeth, or live in a rough neighborhood, or work in a stressful job, or . . . . . .

Can we assume that you do none of these things?

Mothers who smoke while pregnant should be charged for abuse...they sure
as hell would be if they held a pillow over babys face and cut off the air!

Good God, it's 1984!

I personally find it sad and disgusting when I see a pregnant woman with a cigarette dangling from her mouth, but are you willing to enforce the health police to monitor her every move, including eating right, taking prenatal vitamins, regular doctor visits? We all know how important these things are in forming a healthy baby, right? Should we charge her for abuse when she doesn't seek prenatal care?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am vehemently opposed to the government invading on my right to make my own decisions on what I do or do not do with my body.

Just out of curiousity, are you pro-life or pro-choice?

I also challenge you to cite one case of a pregnant mother being charged with holding a pillow over her unborn baby's face.

Parents who smoke around the kids should loose custody...It is abuse pure and simple.

You're kidding, right?

Are you actually saying that it is less harmful to a child to remove him from his parents?

Amazing.

Tell me - what should we do with mothers who use illegal drugs? You know, like smoke reefer? Didn't you admit to smoking pot Kel?

I dont give a hairy fuck how good it makes you morons feel, it hurts children and other bystanders. It is a filthy habbit, get a damn patch before you all die.

Who died and made you the conscience of the world?

In your spastic, fanatical rant, you make the assumption that every smoker endangers children and bystanders. Just like every other group of people, there are those who are rude and those with consideration. With very few exception, almost every smoker I know, will not light-up in someone's home or car (even with permission) nor will they smoke in public areas. They are not putting you, me, or the children of the world in any danger, so calm down. Those who do are rude assholes who should be dealt with accordingly.

If they die from the effects of smoking, that is a choice they made themselves. In case you have not noticed, there are a certain age limits the government has established in buying cigarettes (not a perfect system, but a system nonetheless). It is determined that those under a certain age are not mature enough to make the decision to smoke, however, there is a reason why those over the age limit are allowed to purchase cigarettes. THEY ARE LEGALLY OLD ENOUGH TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION OR ACCEPTANCE! Deal with it.

yeah, I bet she woulda aged well too, and buring her after a long bout with cancer would have been a real treat...stick with your memories man, they are DEFINATELY better that the reality of what her smoking would have done to your lives...kids...home...all of it.

Yet more overzealous assumptions.

All cigarette smokers die from lung cancer - WRONG! You don't know how this story would have ended, so unless you have facts to back it (aside from your own anecdotes), don't present your own anti-smoking fanatical, over emotional beliefs as truth.

BTW - it is DEFINITELY.

whereever. because the smell doesnt go away. you talk about bars and stuff in the open air, well it aint so open when you are surrounded by smokers, ill tell you that much.

If I want to sit in a smoke-free establishment, I will. If I choose, of my own free will, to frequent a place that allows smoking, then I have no right to bitch when the room fills with smoke, now do I?

just get it through your smoke filled skull now, dont light a cig anywhere near another person, not even in your own house.

Let me get this right. . .

If a person smokes and you are a guest in their home, they should not light up? Hey, you're the guest. Don't like it? Leave!

if someone starts smoking near you, go away, or just politely say "excuse me for a moment, i dont want to be near you when you smoke, could you either put that out or smoke somewhere else." if the person smoking doesnt put it out or moves away, then. . . .

And if they are in a smoking desginated area or the privacy of their own home. . . ? Why should they be expected to smoke somewhere else? Excuse me for a moment - YOU don't have the right to ask.

Why do you feel that your status as a non-smoker gives you an upper hand over smokers who are obeying designation laws?

Shirl, I don't have a citation on lung cancer (not all cancers, only lung) having risen dramatically after WWI, I have just read it in several medical journals.

Until you post a cite, we can only assume that other factors are involved such as better record keeping, more accurate diagnosis, larger population, effects of other pollutants such as automobiles, factories, etc.

Your kids may be all right NOW, but your selfish use of your precious cigarettes may hurt them later, or even their kids.

Poleeeeeeeeeeze -

Enlighten us with one cite proving that prenatal smoking affects future grandchildren.

JFTR - I AM NOT A SMOKER!


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

[Satan]

Thank you, Diane... I really love these Anti-smoking Nazis too...

[Doobieous]

try putting a Skoal Bandit in your upper lip. It's just an idea that most people have never thought of.

Oh yes, then develop mouth cancer and possibly have to have your jaw removed because the cancer got to the bone. Not to mention how nasty is it to see a beatiful young woman (or man) spit nasty reddish orange saliva.

I dont smoke, but i don't chastise people who do. I understand that If i go to a smokers house that they are well within their rights to smoke inside. I just go outside with my friends who don't smoke. However, fortunately my friends who do smoke go outside to have their ciggarettes (even if theyre in their own apartments).

One thing I am glad that California did was to eliminate smoking in restaurants (i'm sure non-smoker waitpeople are glad too).Even with a smoking section, often the non-smoking and smoking sections ran right up into eachother, and you could still smell the smoke. I prefer not to smell ciggarettes when eating (I want to experience the food, not the smell of burning nicoteine).

If smokers want to smoke, no reason to make them feel like pariahs for it. If they're in an area where they are allowed to smoke don't berate them for it. I think the anti-smoking committees should focus more on targeting younger kids who havent started, than adults who are already smoking.

As I have said, i dont smoke but i did try it before (three times, and as most smokers say, because a friend was doing it). I had no pleasure from it and couldn't stand to swallow my saliva (i was spitting after each puff). For me it was the nastiest thing. I also dont smoke because the expense, and the smell.

"I really love these anti-smoking Nazis . . . "

Ah, yes, another example of dragging Nazis into an argument! Disagree with feminists? Call 'em "feminazis!" Disagree with people trying to protect themselves from second-hand smoke? Call 'em "anti-smoking Nazis!"

Oh, yeah, I can really see the similarity between women trying to gain equal rights, people trying to protect their health, and a National Socialist Party that murders millions of innocent people and invades surrounding nations. GREAT simile, Satan.

[Sam Stone]

If I may be a voice of moderation here...

First of all, I've been a non-smoker all my life, up until about a year ago. Last year, my wife suddenly decided she was going to start smoking again (she had quit just before we met, 10 years ago). In an attempt to get her to stop, I told her that if she started I'd start, because I wouldn't be able to tolerate the smoke unless I acclimated to it. Unfortunately, this didn't work.

I then started researching the health effects of smoking, and discovered that cigar and pipe smoking is much safer, for two reasons: 1) you don't smoke as much, and 2) you don't inhale. So I layed down the law: if she was going to smoke, it had to be cigars (or little cigarillos), she couldn't inhale, and I'd do it occassionally too.

Well, that's the bargain we struck, and she's kept to it. So have I, and now I smoke a pipe or a cigar on occasion (maybe once or twice a week). From my research, this carries a very low health risk, and I've found it quite pleasant.

Obviously humans benefit from smoking in some way or another, because it's a common activity among many cultures, even primitive cultures that have never been exposed to it. It seems to fulfill some human need.

I got interested in this aspect of it, and started doing some research into the chemical effects of nicotine. It's a central nervous system stimulant, and as such it probably improves concentration and mental focus.

Interestingly, the main treatment for Attention Deficit Disorder is a stimulant medication, and ADD diagnoses have been on the rise in recent years, with a reasonable correlation between that and the decline of smoking. In ADD people, stimulants actually tend to calm them down, a paradoxical result from the norm. This one of the diagnostic tools used to determine if someone actually has ADD. So it's possible that there is a large population of people who find cigarettes to be calming, enhance focus and mental clarity, etc.

This is not to downplay the hazards of cigarettes, but clearly some people find that they have significant benefits over and above the pain of withdrawal from the addiction.

Dhanson, pipe and cigar smokers have a greatly increased incidence of mouth, tongue and throat cancer, in addition to the usual lung cancer and heart disease that all smokers risk. So I hope you and your wife have good insurance policies, and whichever of you winds up in chemo first is going to be well nursed by the other . . .

Actually, Satan, you and I want the same things--never have I said that people should not be able to smoke anywhere.

Yes, I do "hate all smoking," but not all smokers--in fact, I feel sorry for them, as I have said time and time again here. I have never said that people shouldn't smoke "in the streets, a bar, in one's own house . . ." and you know it (or don't you?).

My OP was, in fact, "Why the HELL does anyone still smoke?" and I got some enlightening answers from some of the more thoughtful and honest board memebrs. Never do I say anywhere that smoking should be outlawed--that would work as well as Prohibition did. I DO say that non-smokers should be safe from smoke in the workplace, restaurants, public transportation, and I assume you agree with that.

As for the Nazi simile, I strongly suggest you study some history, maybe you wouldn't make such highly inappropriate comparisons.

[Sam Stone]

Flora: Actually, daily cigar smokers have about the same incidence of oral and laryngeal cancer as pack-a-day cigarette smokers, but lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema rates are much, much lower. In the case of a cigar smoker who smokes one a day and doesn't inhale, his lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease risks are negligible. And the last three risks make up the vast majority of smoking-related deaths.

In particular, the American Cancer society determined that one-a-day pipe and cigar smokers had a risk of death over a 12 year period only 2% higher than nonsmokers, compared to 69% for cigarette smokers. And the 2% number was statistically insignificant.

The risk of cigar smoking matches that of pack-a-day cigarette smoking when a cigar smoker has five a day and inhales. I don't know any cigar smokers who can manage this, as the average cigar takes you an hour to smoke, and North Americans typically don't inhale. The average cigar user will have the occasional cigar on the porch after supper, or after a meal out with friends, and might at most smoke one or two a day. And at those levels, the health risks really are minimal.

Specifically here is an excerpt from:


Iribarren C, Tekawa IS, Sidney S, Friedman GD. Effect of cigar smoking on the risk of cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer in men. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1773-80.



Results. In multivariate analyses, cigar smokers, as compared with nonsmokers, were at higher risk for coronary heart disease (relative risk, 1.27; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.45), COPD (relative risk, 1.45; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.91), and cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract (relative risk, 2.02; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01 to 4.06) and lung (relative risk, 2.14; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 4.11), with evidence of dose-response effects. There appeared to be a synergistic relation between cigar smoking and alcohol consumption with respect to the risk of oropharyngeal cancers and cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract.

If you will note, every one of these risks fell between the error bars of the study, meaning they are close to being statistically insignificant (the fact that they all err on the same side of the curve indicates that there is risk). These relative risks of between 1 and 2% compare to relative risks for cigarete smoking of 60-80%.

These are the kinds of relative risks associated with things like second-hand smoke. Your risk of cancer is much, much higher if you don't eat enough fruits and vegetables.

Sorry to inject some actual facts into the discussion.

[zoony]

I used to be a rabid anti-smoking zealot (I think "Nazi" is a term thrown around a little too frequently), but recenltly I have had cause to relax a little on my ideas of who should be allowed to smoke and where.

If you're the guest of a smoker, live with it: you chose to be there, you chose the smoke. It's their house and you wouldn't like them telling you how to behave in yours. If ya don't like it, don't go.

I really don't think smoking should be allowed in restaurants, but I can live with physcial separtation and/or a helluva high-powered ventilation system. I've been to smome places that have them, and they work.

My biggest beef is acutally with the littering aspect. I think it's disgusting walking in the entrances of some buildings, or around bus stops when sometimes there are quite litterally thousands of butts on the ground. Worse yet, when some asshole tosses his still-lit butt out of his car window and it bounces off mine, it's a damn good thing I don't carry a firearm with me, otherwise...

And yes, with the exception of my step-mother, just about every smoker I know or have encountered has the good graces to not smoke while others are eating, or to butt out if asked politely.

It's like anything else, if you present as being inflexible in your views, your opponent will adopt the same attitude.

Can't we all just get along?

Z

I'd still hate my step-mother though. I think I hear my therapist calling....



------------------
"Always forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."
- John F. Kennedy

Eissclam:
Reviewing the WHO's Health Consequences of Tobacco, I note that:

"In populations where cigarette smoking has been common for several decades, about 90% of lung cancer, 15-20% of other cancers, 75% of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and 25% of deaths from cardiovascualr disease at ages 35-69 years are attributable to tobacco. Tobacco-related cancer constitutes 16% of the annual incidence of cancer cases -- and 30% of cancer deaths -- in developed countries, while the corresponding figure in developing countries is 10%."

Private-sector taxpayers shell out 2.9% of pay for Medicare (government health benefits for those 65 & over); really 5.8% because this amount is matched by the employer, who could otherwise pay it as salary. Also, a sizable chunk of income taxes pays for Medicaid (government health benefits for the poor).

A lot of this expense is because of smoking. So please, smokers, don't get so indignant. The fact that you're smoking causes me to pay higher taxes.

[manhattan]

The fact that you're smoking causes me to pay higher taxes.Well, sorta. As one wag said (I think it was George Will), "medicare pays for exactly one fatal disease per person." The smokers’ rights groups not paid for by Big Tobacco (there are some) claim that a smoker’s higher incidence of disease per year is offset or nearly offset by his earlier demise. The logic is that a person who has a heart attack at 50 or dies of lung disease at 60 saves taxpayers from Alzheimer care, broken hips, etc.

I’ll let someone who still smokes cough up the exact statistics if anybody cares. (15 days. Woo Hoo. I want a cigarette.)

And trust me, you do not want to regulate people’s behavior by whether it raises your taxes. If you do, I got a list…

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[tracer]

Manhattan wrote:

I’ll let someone who still smokes cough up the exact statistics

He'll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen! Tip your waitstaff!

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[manhattan]

Dammit! I was hoping that would last at least a few posts before someone smoked me out.

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Diane]

Private-sector taxpayers shell out 2.9% of pay for Medicare (government health benefits for those 65 & over); really 5.8% because this amount is matched by the employer, who could otherwise pay it as salary. Also, a sizable chunk of income taxes pays for Medicaid (government health benefits for the poor).

A lot of this expense is because of smoking. So please, smokers, don't get so indignant. The fact that you're smoking causes me to pay higher taxes.

Bullshit.

Can you back up your statement with cold hard statistics?

A good percentage of my indigent clients are receiving Medicaid (an area that I am very familiar with), and I can tell you from experience that only a very small percent are disabled due to smoking.

Also, how much money are you contributing to the taxes collected from tobacco sales?


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

[Diane]

I should also mention that most of my clients are aging veterans who are receiving Medicare. Again, my job demands that I am aware of the disabilities of each one of my clients (I counsel disabled and/or homeless veterans).

In reference to my own experience (approximately 300+ contacts per week), there are very few in receipt of Medicare (just as Medicaid) who are disabled for disabilities caused by smoking.

I can't imagine that my clientele is unique and not a reflection of recipients nationwide.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

[Diane]

Damn - talk about piece-mealing a post together. That's what I get for trying to write a post and do 9000 other things at the same time.

In regard to the above - if you want to chastise smokers for an added tax burden (you still need to convince me there is even a measurable amount), you should include those who are receiving benefits for disabilities caused by unhealthy living. Afterall, these areas make up a large part of the people drawing disability benefits.

Need I mention the many disabilities caused by lack of exercise and high fat/calorie/sodium diets?

What about those who work or live in high-stress areas and are now suffering the physical affects?

It's all fine and dandy to jump on the old anti-smoking band-wagon, but let's not lose sight of the facts.



------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

[Satan]

Flora:

If the shoe fits...

When I (and others) say Nazi's, it's about having to have the world conform to their idea of utopia, regardless of what others want, or even if others might be able to not subscrbe to this vision, yet it doesn't effect them at all.

You hate all smoking. You can easilly with the current laws and regulations go through a day and not deal with cigarette smoke. It is almost impossible in some places to smoke anywhere.

Despite this, you and your kind still want people to never smoke, to take away smoking areas that are nowhere near you and in places you never would want to go.

Whereas I, the voice of reason, am all for non-smokers rights. Just give people who want to smoke a place to do so as well as giving people who don't want to deal with smoke their place as well.

I just happen to find the scale of this balance already tipped heavilly in favor of the rights of non-smokers, yet for you, it's not enough until there is no place someone can smoke - not the streets, not a bar, not even in one's own house according to Bjorn!

Sig heil!

[Sam Stone]

Most people consume a large quantity of medical resources during the last year of their lives, whether that year comes at 55 due to lung cancer, or 85 due to emphysema, Alzheimer's, or other degenerative illness.

It's possible that smokers cost society less, because they don't spend as many years consuming retirement benefits.

Until I see a definitive study I wouldn't want to guess which one is correct.

[Diane]

Exactly dhanson.

When all disabilities are taken into consideration (including those caused by unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, stress, genetics, accidents, and conditions caused by aging) the amount of tax dollars spent on smoking conditions is very small, if even measurable.


------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

This is by no means definitive, but it stands to reason that wide-spread use of any product that ruins health will have a drag on the economy, and therefore on taxes collected. Here's my take on the following story:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/smocost.htm

To the $80 billion in goods & services lost annually due early retirement & death from smoking, I'm guessing that the last part about loss of productivity because of smoking is an equal amount, another $80 B. Federal taxes on that would be maybe 25%, of $40 B.

Because I don't know the numbers, I'll concede for now that the Federal share of the $50 B of medical costs due to smoking is cancelled out by lower entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.

Cigarette taxes are what? $10 billion, maybe. Nowhere near the ~$40 B lost.

[Diane]

A couple of things I ain't buying from this report which makes me question if it was written in bias.

"The Treasury analysis, certain to be attacked by the tobacco industry as incomplete, says the U.S. loses $80 billion a year of goods and services that would have been produced by Americans who either die prematurely or retire early because of smoking-related ills."

With the exception of the privately owned small business that would may fold due to the death or early retirement of the owner, I find it hard to believe that job positions left vacant would not be filled immediately or soon after.

Hiring behind the previous employee could in fact be taking a person off of the unemployment or welfare rolls and putting him into the workforce - thus saving tax-payers dollars.

"Successfully preventing people from acquiring an addiction they do not want to have -- by effectively combating youth smoking -- is a free lunch with real benefits for our economy ...."

Effectively? The last report I read showed an actual increase of youth smoking.

"The administration's goal is to reduce smoking among teenagers by 60% over 10 years, primarily by raising cigarette prices. For every 10 cents added to the price of a pack of cigarettes, Mr. Summers said, about 700,000 fewer teenagers will begin smoking, and more than 200,000 premature deaths will be avoided."

Pure speculation.

Cigarette prices have continued to rise throughout the years and as I stated above, teenage smoking is on the rise. They have no way of knowing that a .10 cent increase would be a deterent to 700,000 teens who would have otherwise started.

"The Treasury analysts ignore some of the economic benefits of smoking that other economists have quantified: Medicare and Social Security programs save money because smokers die prematurely. Although this affects the federal budget, the Treasury argues, it doesn't represent true savings to the economy. Similarly, the tally doesn't reflect taxes paid on cigarettes, which don't affect the value of goods and services produced in the U.S."

Why doesn't it represent true savings to the economy? Why wasn't the cigarette taxes included? Did they just ignore the additional tax monies that are put into the economy?

It doesn't surprise me that certain aspects were not included in the report. Could it be that:

". . . as part of a Clinton administration campaign to push tobacco legislation through Congress".

A-ha. Now it all makes sense.

Interestingly, politicians are historically known to selectively show numbers to back legislation they are trying to sell Congress.

I would be interested in seeing the differences of facts in an unbiased report.

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

[Sam Stone]

This is by no means definitive, but it stands to reason that wide-spread use of any product that ruins health will have a drag on the economy, and therefore on taxes collected.

Why? What if it only ruins the health of people close to retirement? If everyone died exactly on the day of their retirement, would this be a drag on the economy?

As for the Treasury... I can make the same argument against condoms. "Analysts conclude that every child not conceived will cost the country $1,000,000 in lost productivity". Start screwing, everyone.

[bj0rn]

So is second hand smoke *always* that bad?

yes, its always that bad...

bj0rn

[Eissclam]

Diane, Daniel Moore, and dhanson:

You have taken this thread into a very interesting domain. If I understand your recent posts correctly, you are asking what are the actual costs of smoking, and how will we, as a society, benefit from decreases in smoking? As with many important issues, the answers to these questions are difficult to obtain to everyone's satisfaction. One attempt, I think a good one, was made by the CDC in 1994. Please check out:
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031803.htm

I am no HTML stud, so I'll just have to put a few quotations from this report in normal text below:

First:

. . . estimated smoking-attributable costs for medical care in 1993 were $50.0 billion. Of these costs, $26.9 billion were for hospital expenditures, $15.5 billion for physician expenditures, $4.9 billion for nursing-home expenditures, $1.8 billion for prescription drugs, and $900 million for home-health-care expenditures.

And then, from the Editorial Note:

The findings in this report indicate that cigarette smoking accounts for a substantial and preventable portion of all medical-care costs in the United States. For each of the approximately 24 billion packages of cigarettes sold in 1993, approximately $2.06 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking. Of the $2.06, approximately $0.89 was paid through public sources.

If I understand this paragraph correctly, the health care costs from smoking cannot be recaptured from the current taxes on cigarettes - those costs, estimated at $2.06/pack, amount to more than the entire pack.

More from the editorial note:

The smoking-attributable costs described in this report are underestimated for two reasons. First, the cost estimates do not include all direct medical costs attributable to cigarette smoking (e.g., burn care resulting from cigarette-smoking-related fires, perinatal care for low-birthweight infants of mothers who smoke, and costs associated with diseases caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke). Second, the indirect costs of morbidity (e.g., due to work loss and bed-disability days) and loss in productivity resulting from the premature deaths of smokers and former smokers were not included in these estimates. In 1990, estimated indirect losses associated with morbidity and premature mortality were $6.9 billion and $40.3 billion, respectively (3); these estimates suggest that the total economic burden of cigarette smoking is more than twice as high as the direct medical costs described in this report.

To sum up then, and here I quote immodestly from a recent book chapter of mine:

Annual health care costs attributed to cigarette smoking have been estimated at 50 billion dollars each year, with an additional estimated 50 billion in indirect costs related to premature death and disease . . . Smoking cessation decreases an individual's risk for smoking-related disease, and can be expected to produce subsequent decreases in smoking-related health care costs . . .

No matter how you slice it, $100 billion in U.S. health care costs is a pretty big slice of the economic pie. And, not to be callous, lets remember that the cost in lives of U.S. citizens (estimated at 419,000 annually) is also substantial. Do we really want to stand idly by and allow this preventable loss of lives and dollars to continue?

To Diane:

Your clinical experience is indeed interesting and thought-provoking and I thank you for contributing it. I would like to note thought that your statement that "I can't imagine that my clientele is unique and not a reflection of recipients nationwide" is surprising given your otherwise obvious thoughtfulness. There are over 220 million people in this country - the probability that your non-random sample (non-random by virtue of a variety of selection factors, including location, disease-state etc. etc. etc.) could legitimately be used as a representative sample is extremely small. Consider - do you really believe that your sample matches the national breakdowns in terms of race, religion, income and smoking status? It is possible, but I doubt it.

Also, in response to your calling estimates regarding the falloff in smoking caused by increased taxes "pure speculation", I must disagree strongly. These estimates are based on well-considered and published analyses of laboratory and real-world experiments, including (but not limited to) Canada's well-publicized cigarette tax increases and decreases. You are correct that no one can possibly predict the actual number of kids who won't smoke or who will quit smoking due to a tax increase. However, the numbers cited are the best estimates based on the known facts. The label "pure speculation" is an indefensible descriptor.

Finally, I think that the article that stated "Successfully preventing people from acquiring an addiction they do not want to have -- by effectively combating youth smoking -- is a free lunch with real benefits for our economy . . ." may have been a bit unclearly worded. I believe that the intent of that line was something like: **if and when** we can effectively combat youth smoking we will reap real benefits for the economy. I don't think anyone in the field believes that we have settled on an effective strategy yet, and you are correct to note that youth smoking is, alas, on the rise.

Apologies for the long post; serious questions deserve serious answers.

Eissclam.

Thank you, Eissclam, for your excellent analysis.

The CDC and Treasury reports focused on the impact of smoking on the economy. This is important, but I wish there were good statistics available on the extent smokers pay their way via the cigarette tax. The total economic impact is felt mainly by the smokers themselves and the shareholders of the companies they work for.(?) So an easy response is either: "Hey, it's my economic welfare. MYOB.", or "The rich aren't quite as rich as they could be. Boo-hoo."

From an economic standpoint, the $50 billion in smoking related medical cost is a genuine cost, because it's for repair of needless damage. It's money down the rat-hole, similar to the expense you have to pay if someone throws a brick through your windshield. Nurses, doctors, & undertakers have employment repairing & dealing with the damage rather than producing new goods & services.

The $50 B from productivity loss ($80 or more according to the Treasury report) is a direct reduction in wealth creation.

Cigarette taxes don't add anything to the economy; they just redistribute the money. And I agree that Treasury's reasoning is sound about assuming that the contribution of the tobacco industry to the GNP can be ignored. Demand for other goods & services would increase with the increase in disposable income that would result from all smokers suddenly quitting, making up for it.

The claim that smokers pay their way thru the cigarette tax reminds me of the stickers on the back of huge semi-trailers bragging about how much taxes they pay, as if it were anywhere near the cost of fixing the damage those vehicles cause to the roads.

Also, Diane, the fact that there are other unhealthy habits doesn't make smoking any more acceptable. As the #1 preventable cause of morbidity & premature mortality, there is a handy deterrent: a tax increase. Increased taxes on junk food have also been proposed. Guess what? As long as this can be justified by good science, I'm for it.

[Eissclam]

Daniel Moore:

You wrote:

"This is important, but I wish there were good statistics available on the extent smokers pay their way via the cigarette tax."

Well, if the CDC is correct and the annual cost of health care amounts to $2.06 for every pack of cigarettes purchased (in 1993), all we need to do is find out how much:

1) A pack of cigarettes costs
and
2) of the total cost of a pack is tax.

Then, based on CDC numbers, we can determine how much smokers are paying their own way, vis-a-vis health care costs, and how much they are leeching off the backs of the non-smoking proletariat.

Does this sort of analysis get at the answer that you seek?

One might argue that we need to use the $0.89 cost attributed to public sources as opposed to the $2.06 total/pack, but I would argue that, public or private, we all pay more (in insurance) each time a medical service is used.

Can anyone out there provide a reference for how much of the total cost of a pack is tax?

Eissclam.

[Sam Stone]

The big flaw with these arguments is that they don't consider the costs that would accrue anyway. For example, if a person spends a year undergoing cancer treatments and then dies, that's tallied up on the 'cost' side of smoking. But that's an inflated figure because that person would die ANYWAY at some time, and when he does he'll consume a lot of medical resources along the way, and perhaps even more.

Also, when a person dies of a smoking related illness before he's old enough for medicare, the costs are usually picked up by his family, or his insurance company. These costs are then passed on to other smokers in the form of increased insurance premiums for smokers. So smokers are picking up a big chunk of the tab from increased insurance premiums along with their cigarette taxes. Now, if the same person dies from Alzheimers at 75, a good chunk of THAT will be picked up by the taxpayers because medicare covers health expenditures by the elderly.

So even if it turns out that smoking causes more money to be spent on health care, it's not clear at all that it causes taxpayers to pay more.

Eissclam et al:

This is what I'd like to see. On the left side of the equation (or inequality), there's the revenue from cigarette taxes. On the right, there's:

o The $21 B or so corresponding to the $0.89 per pack that taxpayers pay for smoking-related medical costs; PLUS

o The taxpayers' cost of all other damages caused by smoking, including fires; PLUS

o The amount of tax revenue lost due to premature death, retirement & extra sick days taken because of smoking; MINUS

o The net savings to taxpayers from entitlement programs due to smokers shorter lifespans.

[Sam Stone]

For the 21 billion in smoking related costs, I'd rather see:

The average consumption of medical resources by a non-smoker from birth until the day he dies, compared to the average consumption of medical resources by a smoker. It's possible that smokers actually consume less, since the elderly make up the vast amount of medical claimants. When you get old you need heart surgery, hip replacements, arthritis treatments, retirement homes, some times constant care nurses because you can't go to the bathroom on your own, etc. If a smoker stays healthy then gets cancer and dies in 6 months, that's possibly a net medical savings.

Well, I'm thrilled to the white meat--a thread I started has extended to four pages!!

[Eissclam]

I agree that these would be worthwhile data to collect and I imagine that they exist somewhere. I'm a little swamped with my own datasets, though, and haven't the time to track all this down. Anyone else want to give it a try?

I will note to dhanson that the model that you suggest (rapid cancer deaths for smokers, lingering death for non-smokers) seems, on the surface, unlikely. Smokers have a dramatically increased risk for lung diseases like emphysema and a variety of other disorders which are not immediately fatal. I mention emphysema because it is a particularly slow, costly, and unpleasant way to expire (couldn't resist the pun). Moreover, I imagine that not every non-smoker takes that long slide into eternity that you describe. Still, your hypothesis is interesting and testable.

I can't help but wonder about the wisdom of engaging in a behavior that is best recommended by the idea that, if you do it, you die young and quickly. There are better ways to accomplish that goal.

Eissclam

[ExTank]

Without reading anyhting other than the OP, I'll respond with this:

It's a drug, we're addicted, fuck you!

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"Brought to you by Dennis Leary."</FONT>

[Sam Stone]

The issue of cost to society is important because it's the rationale (along with second-hand smoke) that is used to interfere in the lives of smokers. Smoking is dangerous, it can kill you. But that's no one's damned business but the smoker's. To get around this, we trot out this notion that all of us are paying huge bucks because of smokers, then trot out statistics collected by biased sources to 'prove' this. The methodology used in these studies is clearly wrong. If it were done right it might still come down on the side against smoking, but we won't know until someone does it.

[Diane]

Simple question to those who rant over *their* tax money going to pay for smokers drain on the economy.

How many of your personal tax dollars are spent exclusively on the effects of smoking? A few cents per year? I can assure you, it isn't breaking your wallet. Smokers are paying many times what a non-smoker contributes through cigarette taxes, higher insurance premiums, etc.

Before you bitch about bad habits causing a strain on the taxpayers pocketbook, take a look at the effects of stress, high fat diets, idleness, obesity, and the other many things that cause a list-full of disorders and diseases.

It is hard to not see it as selective judgements by certain non-smokers (again, I am NOT a smoker). Those who protest loudest about paying taxes for smokers may be the same people who load up on McDonalds fries, drink too much coffee, stress out at work, rarely exercise, etc.

These may be the future heart, stroke, or bloodpressure patients draining those same tax dollars. See the irony? The truth is, (aside from genetics and aging) there are very few of us who live lifestyles that won't have to depend on future health care benefits.

[Diane]

Hey Tank - Did you just get here? I haven't seen you since the old board. Maybe you have been here forever and I was just in a daze.

Either way - Welcome :)

------------------
&gt;^,,^&lt;
KITTEN

Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.

Well, I was stunned this weekend to find out how much cigarettes cost--I had no idea! This guy in front of me at Rite Aid bought a carton for $30, and ya coulda knocked me over with a brick!

Doesn't it bother smokers that so much of your hard-earned cash is going right into the pockets of the evil corporate bastards who are laughing their heads off that they conned you into smoking in the first place? Not only are you killing yourselves (OK, your choice), but you are paying for the homes and cars of the very people responsible!

Doesn't this tick you off?

[tracer]

Flora McFlimsey wrote:

Doesn't it bother smokers that so much of your hard-earned cash is going right into the pockets of the evil corporate bastards who are laughing their heads off that they conned you into smoking in the first place? Not only are you killing yourselves (OK, your choice), but you are paying for the homes and cars of the very people responsible!

Actually, a lot of the cost of cigarettes (maybe even the majority of their cost) is tobacco excise taxes.

Tobacco and gasoline are two favorite targets of excise taxation. Users of either one of these aren't likely to cut down on their usage jusst because they're more expensive. So, if your government needs a little extra revenue, just jack up one of the excise taxes. Taxing tobacco has the additional advantage that smoking is considered "evil", so it's easy to garner public support for a tax hike.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Sam Stone]

Cigarettes are an easy form of taxation because the demand is 'inelastic' i.e. it doesn't go down much as the price increases. So it's a sure revenue getter. Other taxes are tricky, because the increase in price cuts demand and the revenue increase won't be as much, or may even be negative (as happened with the luxury tax).