Maybe you were smoking them backwards? 
:smack: At least it made quitting easy. :smack:
The fact that people do other stupid stuff doesn’t mean something’s not stupid, or that doing stupid stuff is okay. It just means we have to fight stupidity on numerous fronts. We want a world where no one smokes and Honey Boo Boo is off the air, not choose between one or the other.
Seriously, this is Parental Speech #2, right after “If everyone else jumped off a bridge…”
The thing is though, at least on this board, nobody is calling fat people stupid.
It really is hard to compare the two, though. If all humans were born eating only healthy veggies and fruits and lean cuts of chicken, and they were all thin and healthy and fit and there were warnings all around them of fat, sick and dying people and a huge campaign in the media about how awful fats and sugary sodas were, and then all of a sudden, at the age of 19, they decided to for the first time, take in sodas and cup cakes…they would hear ‘idiot’ as much as any smoker.
I enjoy fighting ignorance. It’s the Straight Dope after all. I wanted to know where the idea that a substantial fraction of Americans drop dead from “secondhand smoke” each year comes from, since no one has ever met anyone who has died from “secondhand smoke” or anyone who claims to have met such a person or any doctor who has ever treated one. I looked into it and found out what I posted above—someone took a sampling of corpses at a morgue, declared every one with nicotinic compounds in his blood a “secondhand smoke death”, and multiplied that proportion by the total deaths in the U.S. each year. Hence, the famous, and totally unscientific, “sixty thousand” number.
I’m sure some infant with asthma or something was killed by secondhand smoke once, but by and large the SS concern is a thin pretext to turn “your habit annoys me” into “your habit is LITERALLY CAUSING MY DEATH” and continue to use laws where discussion or tolerance would be more appropriate. I don’t enjoy being surrounded by smokers either, but I don’t make up a bunch of fake statistics to have them thrown in jail for it, I just don’t go to those bars.
That thread/poll illustrates a fairly good point. I hope a few dopers in this thread look down at their own guts before they continue patting themselves on the back for being so clever about their health.
Smoking’s bad, mmmkay? But it’s one of many, many unhealthy habits human beings regularly engage in. Are people who like to ride motorcycles idiots? Motorcycles are expensive and dangerous too.
And what’s with all this “today” and “kids these days” crap? The surgeon general first publicly declared that smoking could cause cancer in 1957. I understand that tobacco companies tried to put out counter studies for a couple years after that, but could anyone who started smoking in say, 1983, really claim they didn’t know smoking could cause cancer?
Finally, a lot of people are making statements along the lines of “smoking cigarettes doesn’t even make you high, so why do people do it?” Note that people often react to different drugs differently. Some people get no joy out of being drunk, other people love it. Plenty of people report getting a mild buzz from tobacco products, while others like the feeling of alertness and focus using tobacco gives them.
Let’s also keep in mind that there is a tradition of both right-wing religious (Puritan) and left-wing secular (Hindu-influenced via 60s culture) asceticism in the U.S. for whom the fact that something “gets you high” or is otherwise enjoyable is all the reason needed to avoid, distrust, and stigmatize it. And people in positions to make laws or participate in intellectual culture are disproportionately from those two strains as opposed to the anomic lower class that smokes.
I believe you are wrong here. The study you apparently are referring to (an epidemiologic study from researchers at UCSF published in 2012) looked at serum cotinine levels for non-smokers dying of just four secondhand smoke-related conditions. It would not have been enough just to find some cotinine in their blood (most of us have detectable levels), so valid results would have to involve nonsmokers with high levels associated with secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure. I cannot find the exact methodology used in the study, but I can’t believe any reputable journal would have accepted SHS causality based on any detectable cotinine.
Again, the study likely underestimated deaths from SHS. According to the report:
“The toll from just two adult and four infant conditions linked to secondhand smoke in 2006 was 42,000 deaths, 600,000 years of potential life lost and $6.6 billon in lost productivity.”
If you’re going to toss epidemiologic studies out the window for supposed imprecision, you’ll have to disregard similar studies of associations between death/disability and active smoking.
And it’s not as if we don’t have abundant non-epidemiologic evidence supporting a link between SHS and harm in non-smokers.
These two statements are incompatible. 
It’s not a direct comparison but it’s close enough to make. Cigarets were never seen as anything other than a danger to one’s health and the same goes for obesity. I don’t have the numbers in front of me but I’d make a conjecture that obesity does a pretty good job of killing people early in life. Depending on your genes you can smoke into your 90’s but you don’t see too many 90 year old blimps walking around.
Putting aside which does a better job ruing one’s health it’s pertinent to look at the mindset of using this as a reason for intervention into one’s life. There are many companies that discriminate against smokers. They simply won’t hire them. Now we’re seeing this applied to BMI indexes. At what point are we going to stand up and say no, we don’t find this intrusion acceptable?
If you laugh at the idea this will never happen look at the progression of cigaret bans. Airplanes to offices to restaurants to bars to apartments to cars with children. When the bans started the argument was made that it was not a slippery slope. It was. Now you can agree that evil cigarets should be banned but that mindset will continue towards all manner of foods and activities that are deemed harmful.
So it assumed they “died from secondhand smoke-related conditions” as the first premise in proving they died from secondhand smoke.
Hmm.
I’d say I was smoking them just like this poster was.
Whatever. Any idiot knows that regularly inhaling 30+ known carcinogens isn’t conducive to good health and the widespread knowledge of that fact has fuck-all to do with puritanical or hedonistic ideals blah blah blah.
Is there some reason you are disregarding the hastened death of persons with otherwise managable heart and lung disease or communicable pathogens whose symptoms are compounded by exposure to second hand smoke?
There’s a difference between dangerous and unhealthy. Purposely ingesting toxins on a regular basis is not the same as riding a motorcycle or mountain climbing or swimming in the ocean.
One of the chief differences being that riding a motorcycle can kill you at anytime, whereas smoking typically takes decades to kill you. I wasn’t particularly hating on motorcycles, merely pointing out that people often enjoy risky behavior.
I will say that I think climbing mountains for recreation (I mean actually climbing, not just hiking to a higher elevation to enjoy the view) is pretty fucking stupid. But to each their own.
I took up smoking when I was 19 or 20, for the specific purpose of learning to inhale properly, and then applying that skill to other substances. I only did that a few times, but here I am at 31, and still smoking cigarettes.
Supremely friggin’ idiotic. :rolleyes:
Operative word bolded. As dangerous as motorcycle riding, mountain climbing, and other activities can be, it’s possible for people to indulge in them their entire lives without impacting their health negatively. In fact, the majority of people do just that.
The impact of smoking on your well-being isn’t a possibility - it’s inevitable.
I always try to imagine what decisions I’m making now that Future Me is cursing.
If I get lung cancer, I know I’ll attribute it to the city air. Not only did I choose to live right next to an expressway, I choose to do almost all of my exercise outdoors. But it’s not stupid to live in the city or exercise. Both have tangible benefits and improve my life in countless ways. So I might have a flicker of a regret, but just a flicker.
If I get colon cancer (just to name something), I’ll probably blame it on the meat in my diet. I am not a big meat-eater, but I eat it everyday and I know it’s not exactly health food. Every day there seems to be a new study showing meat in an unfavorable light. I know this and yet I still plan on eating meat for the rest of my life.
Will Future Me rue the day I discovered chicken thighs and bacon? I think it’s possible.
But I’ll be honest. The badness of eating meat–even in the form of a Big Mac–doesn’t seem to be nearly as nefarious as smoking to me. Maybe one day, as science advances, we’ll see a more clear-cut linkage between meat-eating and bad health, and Chicken McNuggets will come with a picture of a clogged artery. But we don’t have to wait for the science regarding tobacco. That’s why I feel comfortable saying that taking up this habit is MORE idiotic than eating an occasional Big Mac. Just like sleeping on the railroad tracks is MORE idiotic than playing hopscotch during a heatwave, which is MORE idiotic than dancing in your underwear. Not all risky behaviors are equally stupid.
I don’t have the citation, but if I recall correctly, the main killers of obesity are Type II diabetes (from resultant complications as opposed to uncontrolled blood sugar), heart disease, and stroke. Some cancers show up more often in obese people, but I don’t know how much of an effect this has on mortality. Yes, severe and morbid obesity reduces life expectancy by at least a decade.
But here’s the thing: cigarettes weren’t considered a threat to health for decades after they became popular. Before WWI, when cigarettes were given to troops for free, lung cancer was a rarity. After those soldiers had been smoking long enough, lung cancer began showing up. Prohibition introduced women to smoking, so add another ten years before lung cancer in women began to show up. It wasn’t until the 60s that the medical community really understood that smoking (any type of smoking, not just cigarettes, and any type of material, not just tobacco) damaged the lungs and the entire circulatory system. It wasn’t until the 1980s that anti-smoking laws began to be passed and that smoking was seen as disgusting, stupid, and weak-willed. It wasn’t until the 1990s that tobacco companies admitted that not only was smoking bad for health, but that they’d known it all along.
We are seeing the same thing happen with obesity, with one difference. Obesity in our society has always been viewed as a character flaw, synonymous with gluttony and sloth. The reason it’s become a national issue is because the number of people who are severely and morbidly obese has grown at an unparalleled rate.
At the point when your addiction and smoking habit do not cost me financially, emotionally, and physically, and at the point where my obesity does not cost you financially, emotionally, and socially.
Not even considering, say, insurance rates or the cost of universal health care, there is a heavy price to be paid by everyone else for all of us who are smokers or obese or both. Lost work days, uncovered hospital costs, the burden of caring for the ill by friends and family members, disability, and such all take a toll on our society. Our friends and loved ones hurt when we fall ill and grieve when we die before our time. Even people who are unconnected to us have others in their lives who fall into these categories.
I mean, before then, we can certainly try to tell people to butt out, but it’s not going to work.
The bans expanded because there was more and more evidence that second hand smoke is always unhealthy. A smoker can choose to smoke a cigarette knowing full well what the risks and consequences are, but the people in the space around the smoker haven’t given their consent to those risks. Not being a smoker, I haven’t run into the apartment ban yet. I can see the reasons why - it’s difficult to clean the smell of smoke out of an apartment for the next tenant, cigarette smoke can easily penetrate into other apartments, and cigarettes pose a fire hazard (how much of one, I won’t guess at) - but I think it’s self-defeating.
The difference between smoking and obesity, though, is that there is no secondhand substance involved in obesity. Smokers, while smoking, put the people around them in harm’s way. Eating around someone doesn’t. Cigarettes are considered addictive in and of themselves. Cupcakes aren’t. There is a clear distinction between “a person smoking tobacco RIGHT NOW” and “person not smoking tobacco RIGHT NOW”. A smoker can go into all of these tobacco-forbidden zones without trouble. They just can’t smoke while they’re in there.
How do you police someone’s food intake? Sell cupcakes only to skinny people? Forbid the sale of cupcakes entirely?
And what about the efforts of companies which make the food we all say is part of the obesity epidemic? Tobacco companies are a $35 billion industry. Food companies like Coca-Cola, MacDonald’s, and Frito-Lay? Coca-cola brought in $48 billion dollars by itself last year. Nearly everyone points at sodas as a culprit in obesity. Can you imagine the fight they would put up if someone suggested outlawing sodas? Or even just taxing and regulating them as we do tobacco? Talk about tilting at windmills.
Don’t get me wrong, Magiver. While I am in favor of outlawing smoking in public places or around children (because they can’t give their consent in what is really a demonstrable health risk), I feel a great deal of compassion towards smokers. Sure, they chose their addiction. So do the rest of us. I understand why companies refuse to hire smokers, and it’s one of the reasons why I advocate universal healthcare. It takes the burden off the employer and keeps smokers in the jobs they need. I don’t think the social stigma towards smoking is helpful. I think smokers and the rest of society would be better off if we accepted smokers without insulting them, made resources to quit smoking readily available, and spent the tax from tobacco products on research into addiction and cancer treatments.
Here’s an anecdote to go along with the “what are they thinking?” train of thought.
About a decade ago, I lived in an apartment with two roomies. One was a long-time smoker who was up to two packs a day and hated it. He tried to quit on several occasions but without any success, and he had to smoke, so even if it was twenty degrees outside there he would be, on the porch, lighting one up. We had an agreement that there would be no smoking indoors. The coughing, the hacking, the thrill of spending so much of his pay on cigs… he demonstrated the lot.
The second roomie was ~23, recently divorced, and working a dead-end job. He was most certainly depressed, and we tried to help him as much as we could where it seemed reasonable.
One day he takes up smoking, and I call him something monstrously insulting (the exact words escape me) to indicate my supreme displeasure with his decision. He sees what it has done to our roommate. So I ask him a simple question: “Why?”
His response? “What do I have to lose?”
Depression is depression, and is a fearsome beast no doubt, but when you turn to cigs as a coping mechanism in the face of the very unpleasant results you will come to encounter, that’s just plain stupid.