Guys start because it fits in with the rugged/renegade image that young buck wants to project. Gals do it because it’s sexy.
Zette wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
Poleeeeeeeeeeze -
Enlighten us with one cite proving that prenatal smoking affects future grandchildren.
JFTR - I AM NOT A SMOKER!
>^,^<
KITTEN
Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.
Thank you, Diane… I really love these Anti-smoking Nazis too…
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.
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 . . .
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!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
Manhattan wrote:
He’ll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen! Tip your waitstaff!
I’m not flying fast, just orbiting low.
Dammit! I was hoping that would last at least a few posts before someone smoked me out.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
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?
>^,^<
KITTEN
Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.
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.
>^,^<
KITTEN
Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.
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.
>^,^<
KITTEN
Coarse and violent nudity. Occasional language.