Smoking is utterly idiotic

Why do people smoke? What is incentive is there? I do not understand the line of reasoning "I think it looks cool." Since has when has giving yourself lung cancer, shortness of breath, yellow teeth, potential hear problems whilst ensuring other non-smokers have to breath in these toxic fumes as well been cool? Another argument "I do 'cause I am stressed and need to chill." RIGHT, this only happened AFTER you got addicted to the nicotine and developed a depency on it. Another line of reasoning I have been given, and this is ABSURD to me is: "I smoke because I want to die at an age where I can go to the toilet whilst retaining my dignity." Right, so you'd rather die younger from cardiac arrest or heart complications or cancer and suffer potentially very bad health in your final years than live for longer and die peacefully in your sleep? I dunno, these were the factors I used in deciding whether I should smoke: 1) It is expensive 2) It also kills you 3) You also harm other around you 4)You get addicted 5) But in this process, you also look ultra-cool, so killing yourself slowing is perfectly fine. I didn't actually personally believe that last one to be honest, it was part of my very cynical analysis on trying to understand the logic is being in the pockets of tobacco companies who product kills you.

Apparently some feel that way about perfumes too, check this out:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toron...

Lynda wrote:

Apparently some feel that way about perfumes too, check this out:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toron...

I can kind of understand the perfume/deodorant thing as well, the fact that on one of my deodorant cans it says: "Use in well vetilated areas, avoid prolonged spraying" kind of suggests that the stuff in them isn't all that good for you if you overdo it. However, I'm unsure that scents are as bad news as smoking, as you can't really get addicted to them (unless you become a solvent abuser; not good), and I don't think they are as harmful as tobacco smoke. However, I haven't researched this so I'm not fully aware of the health implications associated with scents.

Not entirely sure, when I smoked it was just something out of interest, almost like a hobby. I never really liked cigarettes but partook in cigars/experimented with pipe tobacco. I used to visit tobacco farms and tobacco museums. I loved going to the tobacconist in my town.
So yeah it was just like stamp collecting to me, but more dangerous.
I quit awhile ago when I read about the dangers associated with my habit, like various mouth cancers and of course lung disease. I still like to visit tobacco museums.

Scissor wrote:

<quoted text>
However, I'm unsure that scents are as bad news as smoking, as you can't really get addicted to them (unless you become a solvent abuser; not good), and I don't think they are as harmful as tobacco smoke. However, I haven't researched this so I'm not fully aware of the health implications associated with scents.

The real health implications will only matter to those seriously allergic to scents. Otherwise, like cigarette smoke, there is little danger to the normally healthy person.

The point however, is that it won't matter if it's a health issue or not, it will just take one person with some reaction to claim it is, and push for bans and start exaggerating the facts in order to win over the minds of the general population. THIS is how it starts. Regardless of your feelings about smoking and cigarettes, it will continue because the door has been opened and more and more people are finding fault with things others do that they don't like. And THAT is one scarey thought.

Of course it will continue, but I do feel there is a strong case with smoking. It is universally accepted, with perhaps the exception of tobacco companies themselves, that smoking is generally not good for your health. my uncle has been smoking for 40 years and is suffering for it; shortness of breath is a regular occurence, he has been in hospital a a few times. I guess that main thing that irks mes is that fact that non-smokers have to put up with smoke in smokey places. I'm a musician, and I do a lot of gigs in clubs and bars. I often find that smoke accumulates in these buildings and, by some of by smoking friends own admission, makes the air really horrible and clogged up. I actually did a gig where the smoke had accumulated to the point where it was irritating everyone's eyes. This is more than a small annoyance. And with regards to cigarette smoke being of little harm to normal healthy people; in the short term this is probably right. Passive smoking occasionally probably doesn't do that much harm. What I am considering is the accumulative effecy of passive smoking on people's health over many years which is damaging. I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as it is not affecting others (I still do not understand the logic in smoking though), which is why I am looking foward to the smoking ban in public places coming into place here in England in 2007.

And another point I noticed, when I tell my smoking friends I've never had a cigarette, as I haven't seen the point they say "That's really good you never started. I'm trying to quit." Virtually all my friends who smoke are want to quit at some point and generally advise against me taking up smoking. If even the smokers themselves are saying this, you know that smoking isn't perhaps a particualrly good idea.

Scissor wrote:

Of course it will continue, but I do feel there is a strong case with smoking. It is universally accepted, with perhaps the exception of tobacco companies themselves, that smoking is generally not good for your health. my uncle has been smoking for 40 years and is suffering for it; shortness of breath is a regular occurence, he has been in hospital a a few times. I guess that main thing that irks mes is that fact that non-smokers have to put up with smoke in smokey places. I'm a musician, and I do a lot of gigs in clubs and bars. I often find that smoke accumulates in these buildings and, by some of by smoking friends own admission, makes the air really horrible and clogged up. I actually did a gig where the smoke had accumulated to the point where it was irritating everyone's eyes. This is more than a small annoyance. And with regards to cigarette smoke being of little harm to normal healthy people; in the short term this is probably right. Passive smoking occasionally probably doesn't do that much harm. What I am considering is the accumulative effecy of passive smoking on people's health over many years which is damaging. I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as it is not affecting others (I still do not understand the logic in smoking though), which is why I am looking foward to the smoking ban in public places coming into place here in England in 2007.
And another point I noticed, when I tell my smoking friends I've never had a cigarette, as I haven't seen the point they say "That's really good you never started. I'm trying to quit." Virtually all my friends who smoke are want to quit at some point and generally advise against me taking up smoking. If even the smokers themselves are saying this, you know that smoking isn't perhaps a particualrly good idea.

I'm not arguing a single point you made here, except maybe the bit about passive smoking since there hasn't been a single report yet that shows any strong link between second hand smoke and illness (and I'm speaking of reports here, NOT the press releases and notes the media are given to promote). However, it is still a choice, and as more and more places go smoke free on their own, even you will have the choice of where to play.

Non-smokers can have the majority of places, most smokers don't care about that, as long as there are a few places they too can socialize AND smoke in comfort. Total bans are not necessary and are an attempt to denegrate and entire group of people who do smoke.

I smoke, and have been a one to two pack a day smoker since I began 38 years ago, and have no desire to quit. I just enjoy it, and can't really say why. Fortunately, I suffer no ill effects from smoking..........at least yet. But I'm also not worried about it either, for we are all going to die when it is our time regardless of what we do or don't do. Not smoking will not save you from death at all, nor guarantee that you will die peacefully in your sleep.

You don't have to understand why people smoke, I personally don't understand people who climb rocks either, but hey, it's their choice, or people who sky dive. I tolerate that they have their quirks like I have mine, and accept their right to make their choice, even if their choice could result in injury that will disable someone and have them living off our tax dollars.

It's all about choice, and yes, non-smokers do indeed deserve to have smoke free environments they too can enjoy and socialize in, no arugument there from me at all. Just don't totally strip away the the same rights of at least 25% of the population who does smoke (or doesn't mind being around it).

The problem is, with Britain having a National Health Service (which I am very grateful for), there could many smokers who end up in hospital due to smoking related illness, and in turn our tax money will be paying for those people just as you said about the sky diving thing. In these circumstances, I think people should try to take care of themselves better, and if they do smoke, not to become a chain smoker.

With regards to the smoking in public places, I don't really mind if there are designated smoking bars as long as there are plently of smoke-free environments for people.

I think passive smoking does have an effect on people. There are the same part of the same fumes that the smokers had inhaled into their lungs, and simply breathed back out again. The other day some smoke got blown into my face and I could not stop coughing. I then felt a bit sick, and had to go outside for fresh air. I understand this is not a very scientific explaination, but my intuition tells me that these fumes aren't particularly healthy (i understand for that reason that this issue is still open to debate). Second-hand smoke also sticks to everything, which is annoying and makes people smell like ashtrays. I'm not an expert so I can't say for definite that what I belive is correct. But there are reports linking passive smoking to illness, such as http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html... .

This is not information given out by the genral media, it is a health firm. I don't really think this is biased scare-mongering.

Scissor wrote:

But there are reports linking passive smoking to illness, such as http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html... .
This is not information given out by the genral media, it is a health firm. I don't really think this is biased scare-mongering.

BUPA is a health insurance company. Sorry, no way I can take that seriously.

I find it amazing that any report that is done with as little a $1 funding from a tobacco company is immediately discredited at biased (but ONLY if it doesn't reach the conclusion that the anti-tobacco crowd wants). Yet, all the so-called reports that were funded by organizations and pharmaceutical companies (and it's the pharmas who manufacture nicotine replacement therapies doing the funding) is supposed to somehow be pure?

The American Cancer Society is no better either, their own reports are also tainted and I beleive their latest doesn't back up their own claims. AND they also receive funding from the biggest shareholder of NRT pharmaceutical companies.

I'm not saying that cigarette smoke is harmless, just that it is nowhere near as deadly to the average healthy person, as is being portrayed. IF it were, then none of us baby boomers would have survived. I mean some of the things being blamed on smoking are really reaching ridiculous and I'm just waiting for the report that blames smoking for ingrown toenails and unwanted pregnancies next. Yes, THAT is how ridiculous some of the claims are.

Do you not find it the least bit curious that so many children today, under the age of 15 are so ill? Smoking rates had dropped by almost half by the mid 80's, more and more places were smoke free by then also. These children were hardly exposed to cigarette smoke, so how do you explain the rise in asthma amoung them? Why does no one want to even admit that our general air pollution is worse and is the major contributing factor? That the number of chemicals in air in greater numbers than cigarette smoke, might be the cause? Because then auto manufacturers might lose money as well at oil companies, and most major corporations. So instead, we'll just attack a habit that many don't care for anyway. Who cares? Those smokers are in the minortiy anyway, right?

The problem with that mentality is that it is now spreading, to foods, beverages, perfumes, clothes no less. Trust me, at this rate, Iranian women will have more freedoms than Americans. Nice thing to tell our boys and girls fighting so-called wars for freedom eh?

Just some food for thought.

I can definitely see your point. I am acutally a keen environmentalist and I too think pollution is contributing as you say to asthma problems and other cardiovascular ailments. But there is a definite push for sigificant pollution reduction as well, I don't think smokers are being singled out. With Al gore's moving coming out on the dagerous effects on pollution and Arnold Scwartzengger's (or however you spell it) push for significant CO2 reduction and many other US cities defying George Bush's decision on the Kyoto subject, there too concerns about air pollution like there are for cigarette smoke. Questioning the healthiness of cigarette smoke is only for the purpose of promoting a healthier society, I don't think there is any harm in doing that, like we should, as you rightly said, question the healthiness of living with air pollution. If you can't trust the BUPA source, fair enough. But we can both agree that cigarette smoke isn't harmless.

Scissor wrote:

If you can't trust the BUPA source, fair enough. But we can both agree that cigarette smoke isn't harmless.

Unfortunately I no longer trust most of what is aired on the news or printed in papers anylonger. I don't even trust doctors any more, THAT is how much lying has been done, and not just about the smoking issue either. It's really sad the damage all these fear mongerers have created, which could be a problem if people who really have health problems ignore them because of that disbelief. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we attempt to deceive" (or something like that hehehehe)

I can agree that cigarette smoke is probably annoying and irritating to the majority of non-smokers. I can agree that IF one has a serious respiratory problem or heart problem that cigarette smoke, or any smoke for that matter, could in fact be a problem. I just cannot agree that it is as deadly as being promoted nor is it the sole cause of anything really. I mean even the researchers still say they don't know exactly what causes cancer, but they all admit that genes definitely play into it, which explains why 1 person will get cancer and the next with an identical lifestyle won't. There is no one thing that causes most of these issues.........it is a combination of things.

I can also agree that yes, we do need to lead healthy lives, but cannot agree that being healthy means eliminating all risks totally, for then we'd all be living in bubbles and never doing anything, for there is risk in just about everything we do in daily life. I may smoke, but apart from that, I tend to lead a healthy lifestyle, well, ok, I'm not the world's healthiest eater either, BUT I'm trying....hehehehe And I am a healthy person, which irritates my doctor to no end as she can't use poor health to get me to quit smoking.......hehehehehe

Moderation, common sense, as well as courtesy and respect for everyone, would play big time into a peaceful co-existance between all, I think. But that's just me and maybe I'm being delusional at the moment....LOL

Sorry, I think I accidentally deleted your post. I don't think I've understood the format of this interface properly. FOOL! There you go, lack of smoking causes cluminess! haha
Je suis desole.

Scissor wrote:

Sorry, I think I accidentally deleted your post. I don't think I've understood the format of this interface properly. FOOL! There you go, lack of smoking causes cluminess! haha
Je suis desole.

Apparently not. Hmmm, I'm confused. Think I should lie down.

The human body was designed.(for lack of a better term). To breathe and process a certain percentage of nitrogen, oxygen, and certain trace gases.

Who knows what kind of ill effects long term exposure to greater or lesser levels of the these can cause.

Add other man made or processed substances into the mix and the results can only be worse. Regardless of what certain studies conclude.
There is always room for human error, and there is usually some guess-work involved.

Couple that with the fact that some company or organization is always behind the funding for these studies and you have a recipe for a lopsided conclusion.

Scissor wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently not. Hmmm, I'm confused. Think I should lie down.

Awwww, don't feel bad, it happens to the best of us occasionally..........hehehehe he

As I tell my boss all the time "IF you're trying to confuse me......you're too late" hehehehehe

And just to stay on the smoking topic, here's another little diddy. The can of worms has been opened and the little buggers are all running amok..........LOL

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/641690.h...

I think the bonfire thing is slightly different to smoking thing. They aren't a daily occurance normally. You don't go out into town somewehre out smell yet another bonfire, whilst you can pretty much guarantee that if you go into a bar or club or somewhere there wil be a congregation of smokers. The only reason people see smoking as a problem is the fact that it is a daily occurence and the fact that it is so commonplace and everywhere.

*You don't go into town and smell yet another bonfire

Scissor wrote:

I think the bonfire thing is slightly different to smoking thing. They aren't a daily occurance normally. You don't go out into town somewehre out smell yet another bonfire, whilst you can pretty much guarantee that if you go into a bar or club or somewhere there wil be a congregation of smokers. The only reason people see smoking as a problem is the fact that it is a daily occurence and the fact that it is so commonplace and everywhere.

From the sounds of that article it occurs often enough that neighbors are complaining.

I wasn't attempting to compare it to cigarette smoking, just making a point that once this started, and all the non-smokers were cheering, some of us realized it wouldn't stop with smoking, and it's not. Did you see the other link I posted on the other threads regarding the perfume and another on baggy pants? People are now looking to restrict, ban and/or outlaw any old thing they don't like. THAT was my point in posting that.

OK, but outlawing smoking in public places is not any old thing. It is a topic that is regarded as more of a concern than baggy pants, perfume and maybe bonfires (depending if you are constantly uin the firlng line of bonfire smoke) by the vast majority of people. I remembering you saying you just enjoy smoking, but couldn't really say why. Could it be due to the fact that you have developed an addiction to the nicotine, an thus when you go out without a cigarette your body feels the need for some. So, when you smoke your next cigarette it satifies your body's need for the drug and thus improves your mood ever so slightly. I mean, if you look at it as it is, would people enjoy inhaling the foumes of burning leaves of plants in there were no addictive drugs in them? Generally, by most people's admission when they first try them, cigarettes don't taste that nice. My mum gave up smoking twenty years ago and still has cravings when ever she is in a smoky place, the addictive quality of the drug is THAT strong. Generally, I think this is why most people enjoy smoking. The nicotine. Sometimes I hear my friends trashing the fact that people are at the whim of major corporations; that indeed may be true. I notice, however, with them being a smoker and being addicted to them, that they are also at the whim of major corporations. Imagine if suddenly all the cigarettes in the world disappeared; people would go crazy, my uncle gets cranky enough when he doesn't have a cigarette for a couple of hours. The heavy smokers are almost enslaved: you can't do a marathon because you get a craving to light up, you can't sit through a three hour play and have to go outside to light up, you find sitting on a 9 hour flight witout smoking a real challenge.

Scissor wrote:

I remembering you saying you just enjoy smoking, but couldn't really say why. Could it be due to the fact that you have developed an addiction to the nicotine, an thus when you go out without a cigarette your body feels the need for some. So, when you smoke your next cigarette it satifies your body's need for the drug and thus improves your mood ever so slightly. I mean, if you look at it as it is, would people enjoy inhaling the foumes of burning leaves of plants in there were no addictive drugs in them? Generally, by most people's admission when they first try them, cigarettes don't taste that nice. My mum gave up smoking twenty years ago and still has cravings when ever she is in a smoky place, the addictive quality of the drug is THAT strong. Generally, I think this is why most people enjoy smoking. The nicotine. Sometimes I hear my friends trashing the fact that people are at the whim of major corporations; that indeed may be true. I notice, however, with them being a smoker and being addicted to them, that they are also at the whim of major corporations. Imagine if suddenly all the cigarettes in the world disappeared; people would go crazy, my uncle gets cranky enough when he doesn't have a cigarette for a couple of hours. The heavy smokers are almost enslaved: you can't do a marathon because you get a craving to light up, you can't sit through a three hour play and have to go outside to light up, you find sitting on a 9 hour flight witout smoking a real challenge.

I never claimed it wasn't addicting. I do however just enjoy smoking, and have from the first cigarette I ever tried. I'm one of those people who IF I don't like something, NOTHING can make me continue consuming it. But that's just me.

My problem with the use of the term is how everyone makes it out to be such a sinful crime. If you seriously think of it, we are all "addicted" to something. Some people are addicted to sugar (my mother and sister are two I personally know), some to alcohol, others to prescription drugs, still others to illegal drugs. They claim people are addicted to their TV's and computers. I feel some are addicted to sports (my ex was, he had no favorite as long as it was a sport). Some people are addicted to gambling. And let us not forget caffeine either.

I understand your point about smoking affecting others and am not totally dismissing it. I still stand by my belief however, that it is nowhere near as deadly as you all have been and are being lead to believe. Seriously, read the actual reports and you will find that the studies themselves do not back up the press releases and abstracts issued.

Reasonable restrictions are perfectly fine, it's the logical and courteous thing, but the total bans, the attempt to force everyone to live a certain way, is dead wrong. Sorry.