Smoking cigarettes...why?

[dudewithasock]

This question isn't directed at any of the older folks here, but at the people of my own generation and even younger. I understand that a mere 15-20 years ago, the current knowledge about the effects and plain stupidity of smoking cigarettes wasn't, well, known. And if it was, it wasn't widely advertised.

Nowadays, pretty much everyone is aware of how pointless smoking is. And yet I still see kids my own age and younger (that's the scariest part) smoking cigarettes. I have to ask myself why they would at least not smoke weed instead - at least then they would experience a much more appreciable high and a much lower chance of physical addiction.

So...why?

[PKHodgie]

becuase there stupid and they think its cool. Someone needs to teach them all a good lesson. In my year all the really good sports people think its cool to smoke but in the end they arnt going to be good at sports much longer.

[amanda.gallacher]

Cos it's social, it's something to do to waste that extra 5 minutes between classes and, of course, peer pressure. If all of your friends smoke, you would feel a bit left out when they head to the smoking area in school / college / pub / restaurant etc.
I don't smoke. Nor do my the majority of my friends. Of the ones that do, some are embarassed about it and it's quite secret they smoke, some are just social smokers and others have been smoking since they were far too young.

[dudewithasock]

Cos it's social, it's something to do to waste that extra 5 minutes between classes and, of course, peer pressure. If all of your friends smoke, you would feel a bit left out when they head to the smoking area in school / college / pub / restaurant etc.

Whatever happened to just chilling? Why do you need to be inhaling death just to be social? That answer isn't nearly satisfactory...it just makes the human race seem like idiots.

[James_Potter]

First of all, I think saying that "it makes you look cool" is the lamest argument...I don't know a single person who smokes to fit in with the "cool kids."

People don't just inhale burning tobacco for something to do, there is a noticeable physical and mental effect that people like, just like caffeine and marijuana. The difference is that there are much worse consequences to using tobacco than any other socially acceptable drug. But I certainly would not say it's "pointless".

As for those consequences, everyone knows that smoking will probably make them die earlier than they would have otherwise. But a lot of people don't think that's a bad thing. To die at age 60 instead of age 80...many people think 60 years is long enough.

[Jerrick]

If all of your friends smoke, you would feel a bit left out when they head to the smoking area in school / college / pub / restaurant etc.


I wouldnt.

Its something I dont like, and will not do. Id feel slightly liberated if all my friends went to smoke and left me to do whatever.

[wickedbob]

This question isn't directed at any of the older folks here, but at the people of my own generation and even younger. I understand that a mere 15-20 years ago, the current knowledge about the effects and plain stupidity of smoking cigarettes wasn't, well, known. And if it was, it wasn't widely advertised.

Nowadays, pretty much everyone is aware of how pointless smoking is. And yet I still see kids my own age and younger (that's the scariest part) smoking cigarettes. I have to ask myself why they would at least not smoke weed instead - at least then they would experience a much more appreciable high and a much lower chance of physical addiction.

So...why?

Yes, smoke weed instead because its much worse and more fun! Seriously weed is worse for you lungs than cigarettes are. Also since weed is an illicit drug finding a safe source would be much harder than finding a good source for tobacco. People splice weed with many different things or even soak low quality weed in chemicals like formaldehyde to get you that high. I can only see what you said reasonable if you live in a place where wed is legal and you know the source is completely safe.

As for why kids smoke, I think it is to fit in. Every kid that smokes in my school, that I see, are basically the sheeple of the world. They do whatever to fit in. This goes far beyond smoking, of course. These are the kids that do things like carry around skate boards, change their style to fit in with their friends, and to what people tell them to do. They don't have an once of character at all.

This is not why all people smoke of course. This is why I think 12year olds smoke and so on. They see Lindsy, Paris and all the other media whores do it so they jump on the train.

Just my two cents, don't kill me.

[Jerrick]

First of all, I think saying that "it makes you look cool" is the lamest argument...I don't know a single person who smokes to fit in with the "cool kids."

I think it is a plausible argument, and I know quite a few people who only smoke to be cool. Only smoke when certain friends are with them, and then dis smoking when around other. Quite a few people start smoking because their friends do it, and they are curious, and want to fit it.


People don't just inhale burning tobacco for something to do, there is a noticeable physical and mental effect that people like, just like caffeine and marijuana.

Again, I know a few people who smoke just for something to do. Im sure he wont mind me saying this, but my friend Donnie, I think you rode with him once, smokes just to smoke. He hates how it makes his body feel, the smell, the taste, and everything, but when he is bored, he go and smoke so he is doing something.

The difference is that there are much worse consequences to using tobacco than any other socially acceptable drug. But I certainly would not say it's "pointless".

Still some terrible stuff happens from other drugs.

As for those consequences, everyone knows that smoking will probably make them die earlier than they would have otherwise. But a lot of people don't think that's a bad thing. To die at age 60 instead of age 80...many people think 60 years is long enough.

Thats true, a lot of people really don't care or have much to look forward to, so for them it doesn't matter.

Its still sad for me to hear my dad cough violently for minutes because he smokes, and the effects it is having on my mom. She is getting better. Some of my friends who have started smoking now do way worse stuff. Ill use Donnie again for an example. He started with cigarettes, which he now smokes 11-12 a day, then he started with alcohol, getting drunk a lot, cigarettes started to bore him, and now he smokes weed all the time, and then his friends who do drugs tell him to move on from weed, try more stuff, and so he has, and sorry to curse, but he is seriously fucked right now.

My friend Rocky who just got married is having lots of trouble because of smoking, both him and his wife do it. Lots of time they get in big fights cause there are no cigarettes left. They run out of money, because instead buying food and whatnot, their first priority is cigarettes. They also are so addicted to it, that they have to live with his mother-in-law, because they cant afford and cant save money to do anything else. It doesn't help that they are trying to have a baby too.

So its not just dying faster as an consequence, but smoking can really cause your life to roll downhill.

[wickedbob]

His post

Good post.

[Borgschulze]

What I hate is the majority of smokers that don't care about other people who don't smoke.

My Dad is one of them, whines and complains I don't go to his place enough, and I told him it's because I end up coughing for a couple days afterwards every time I go there. I also get a very serious headache from it after about 15 minutes of being in a smokers house.

Top it off with the worst possible case, kissing a smoker, it seriously is like kissing an ashtray if they don't brush their teeth before hand and maybe drink some water.

Jerrick - My Dad has a smoke about every 10 minutes. I tell him to stop when I'm at his place, or tell him to stop killing me.

[wickedbob]

I know, I went into a friends house and his parents were smoking and I got the worst headache ever. The light even hurt my eyes and the slightest noise.

[Borgschulze]

I know, I went into a friends house and his parents were smoking and I got the worst headache ever. The light even hurt my eyes and the slightest noise.
I also get a pressurized feeling in my head, like something in my head is expanding.

When I leave school I hold my breath for about 20 seconds every time, because I have to walk past the 75% of the school that smokes. They're not even supposed to be on school property smoking, but nobody enforces the rule.

When I rode the Unicycle to school I didn't have to because they all moved out of the way, but I don't trust the kids in the Auto class, majority of them are pretty well known as thieves. They stole so far this semester, 1 Winter tire for a truck, a Mac Tools Impact Gun, tons of pencils from in the teachers desk, change from in peoples cars when we work on them, it's quite sad.

[Borgschulze]

I was checking out some pictures on Deviant Art when I came across this...

http://xxkaisaxx.deviantart.com/art/Parental-Influence-24484235

[James_Potter]

Yes, smoke weed instead because its much worse and more fun! Seriously weed is worse for you lungs than cigarettes are. Also since weed is an illicit drug finding a safe source would be much harder than finding a good source for tobacco. People splice weed with many different things or even soak low quality weed in chemicals like formaldehyde to get you that high. I can only see what you said reasonable if you live in a place where wed is legal and you know the source is completely safe.
Dude, why do you think that marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes? Cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, thereby causing cancer...marijuana smoke is just burning leaves, so it's bad, but just as bad as any other smoke, no worse. Tobacco smoking is WAY worse for you than marijuana smoking. And anyway it's really easy to get pure marijuana, just get it from someone you trust. Trust is the key word.

As for why kids smoke, I think it is to fit in. Every kid that smokes in my school, that I see, are basically the sheeple of the world. They do whatever to fit in. This goes far beyond smoking, of course. These are the kids that do things like carry around skate boards, change their style to fit in with their friends, and to what people tell them to do. They don't have an once of character at all.
People in Moscow must be a lot different than in everyone else's neck of the woods...some people here smoke to relax, but no one I know smokes to "fit in" and I couldn't really imagine anyone doing that...especially not changing the way they are to look the same as everyone else. If anything, it's exactly the opposite (people try to look and act differently).

[James_Potter]

Again, I know a few people who smoke just for something to do. Im sure he wont mind me saying this, but my friend Donnie, I think you rode with him once, smokes just to smoke. He hates how it makes his body feel, the smell, the taste, and everything, but when he is bored, he go and smoke so he is doing something.
Maybe he should get a new hobby....
Still some terrible stuff happens from other drugs.
True, but that's why I said socially acceptable drugs...by that I mainly mean caffeine, and marijuana sometimes.

Its still sad for me to hear my dad cough violently for minutes because he smokes, and the effects it is having on my mom. She is getting better. Some of my friends who have started smoking now do way worse stuff. Ill use Donnie again for an example. He started with cigarettes, which he now smokes 11-12 a day, then he started with alcohol, getting drunk a lot, cigarettes started to bore him, and now he smokes weed all the time, and then his friends who do drugs tell him to move on from weed, try more stuff, and so he has, and sorry to curse, but he is seriously fucked right now.
That is definitely unfortunate, but can you really blame cigarettes specifically? I mean, some people are gonna use hard drugs and some people aren't, and there are a lot of people who smoke tobacco and never use any other drug, probably even more than do go on to use harder drugs.

So its not just dying faster as an consequence, but smoking can really cause your life to roll downhill.
It can, if you're irresponsible about it. So can alcohol, or playing video games (that guy in Korea who played for so long he starved to death, for example). The difference, of course, is that nicotine is one of if not the most addictive substance known to man...so yes, it can seriously mess your life up, and the lives of everyone who cares about you. That, in my opinion, is why tobacco is so dangerous, not because of lung cancer or mouth cancer or yucky smells.

[wickedbob]

Dude, why do you think that marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes? Cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, thereby causing cancer...marijuana smoke is just burning leaves, so it's bad, but just as bad as any other smoke, no worse. Tobacco smoking is WAY worse for you than marijuana smoking. And anyway it's really easy to get pure marijuana, just get it from someone you trust. Trust is the key word.


People in Moscow must be a lot different than in everyone else's neck of the woods...some people here smoke to relax, but no one I know smokes to "fit in" and I couldn't really imagine anyone doing that...especially not changing the way they are to look the same as everyone else. If anything, it's exactly the opposite (people try to look and act differently).

Well, don't stab me in the neck, I am going off what I have been told. I am not a scientist or anything like that so I listen to those who teach me. From what I have heard weed has more tar/ or crap that makes it much worse. I do accept the fact that could be a lie, until I have something proving other wise I stand my ground. Ok.... I dont think your average drug dealer is going to be trust worthy whether you trust him or not. Besides weed changes hands so unless you trust every single person involved, the you can't be sure. That is whether or not you trust them or not. Once gain the exception is if you know somebody that actually grows it by themselves, which I am willing to bet most don't.

They must be. How do people get started is what this seems to be about mostly, so why did the people who want to relax get started? According to what I have seen it is not at all pleasurable when you start, making relaxation something your obviously not starting for. Well, it happens even if you can't imagine it. I don't know how you can miss that, but I guess you could. I mean haven't you seen little kids smoking candy cigarettes pretending to be cool? The next step is real ones which I admit is a big step to take and many don't, but you can't deny this behavior/ mind set leading to real smoking. Well if they want to be different why do you see big groups of kids smoking with their friends? If they did want to be different they would not smoke. That is almost like saying goth/emo/punk/preppy kids want to be different, no they want to be goth/emo/punk/preppy. Get what I mean? I think young kids smoke to be perceived a certain way. The reasons can be different, but the act the same.

[James_Potter]

Well, don't stab me in the neck, I am going off what I have been told. I am not a scientist or anything like that so I listen to those who teach me. From what I have heard weed has more tar/ or crap that makes it much worse. I do accept the fact that could be a lie, until I have something proving other wise I stand my ground. Ok.... I dont think your average drug dealer is going to be trust worthy whether you trust him or not. Besides weed changes hands so unless you trust every single person involved, the you can't be sure. That is whether or not you trust them or not. Once gain the exception is if you know somebody that actually grows it by themselves, which I am willing to bet most don't.
I personally have never heard anything about the tar content from marijuana, but I've read many studies showing no negative health effects from smoking the reefer. Like this one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html) for example.
Anyway, the general population give drug use a rather negative connotation, so you always think of drug dealers as being these shifty dangerous dirty people hiding out on street corners with a gun in their pocket...whereas in reality, all the people I know who sell are in college or high school, and are perfectly respectable citizens.

Well if they want to be different why do you see big groups of kids smoking with their friends? If they did want to be different they would not smoke. That is almost like saying goth/emo/punk/preppy kids want to be different, no they want to be goth/emo/punk/preppy. Get what I mean? I think young kids smoke to be perceived a certain way. The reasons can be different, but the act the same.
If you're gonna use that argument, why don't you look at the big groups of kids not smoking? People I know don't stop smoking because their friends do, and they don't start smoking because their friends don't, or vice versa. Usually there's a group of people hanging out, some are smoking and some aren't. My school doesn't really have the goth/emo/preppy cliques...there are groups of friends but it'd be hard to label them any more specifically than "the ones that sit on the stairs at lunch."

[oneisenough]

i havent read many of these posts, a bit long for me:o .

personally i think that anyone who smokes (anything) is a loser in my eyes and wont hang out with anyone who does, especially someone who lets it control their lives. i cannot explain why kids do, but i think it is gross, and hate even walking by someone who is smoking.

[Hazmat]

The only thing that puzzles me is why do it in the 1st place. I think who does it just because they think its cool is a complete and utter moron.
i havent read many of these posts, a bit long for me:o .

personally i think that anyone who smokes (anything) is a loser in my eyes and wont hang out with anyone who does, especially someone who lets it control their lives. i cannot explain why kids do, but i think it is gross, and hate even walking by someone who is smoking.
I totally agree with you on this my friend.

[wickedbob]

I personally have never heard anything about the tar content from marijuana, but I've read many studies showing no negative health effects from smoking the reefer. Like this one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html) for example.
Anyway, the general population give drug use a rather negative connotation, so you always think of drug dealers as being these shifty dangerous dirty people hiding out on street corners with a gun in their pocket...whereas in reality, all the people I know who sell are in college or high school, and are perfectly respectable citizens.


If you're gonna use that argument, why don't you look at the big groups of kids not smoking? People I know don't stop smoking because their friends do, and they don't start smoking because their friends don't, or vice versa. Usually there's a group of people hanging out, some are smoking and some aren't. My school doesn't really have the goth/emo/preppy cliques...there are groups of friends but it'd be hard to label them any more specifically than "the ones that sit on the stairs at lunch."

Ok, either me or you messed something up. I said people don't do stuff to really be different, in my eyes. They do something to be perceived a certain way. This can be applied to kids who do not smoke. Athletes might want to show they are the best, student leaders to set and example and maybe straight edge punk kids to show you don't have to smoke to be punk. That is strange, you and your area seem to be the exception. At our school we have cliques, and most other places. Sorry if I didn't explain what I meant clearly the first time around.

That is not what I think of at all. Yeah, respectable to you. Anybody that directly breaks the law on purpose, doesn't get respect from me. If drugs were legalized it would be different, which I think they should be. Still that doesn't change the fact they are breaking the law and most, from what I know, drug dealers sell more than just weed. The only way I could consider them respectable is if they sold weed and that was all. They also have to know where the weed was grown and that is is perfectly safe. Chances are they don't. If that is the case they are distributing a product that could potentially kill or even harm somebody else. It is also fair to say most don't even know the quality of their product or how it got to our country at all. Well, that is not very respectable is it?

[wickedbob]

P.S. James all the studies are flawed probably in one way or another. People looking to find something specific will find it, or perhaps the lack of it.

[The UniSLAB]

I wondered the very same thing you have for many years.

I finally realized that people do this for the simple fact that there insecure and feel that they have to smoke to be cool and "blend in" with there friends. It's sad really, to think people out there don't have enough self confidence to say no to a silly stick of chemicals and tobacco that ultimatley ends your life short.

But I guess that being unhealthy and smelling bad is appealing to some.

This question isn't directed at any of the older folks here, but at the people of my own generation and even younger. I understand that a mere 15-20 years ago, the current knowledge about the effects and plain stupidity of smoking cigarettes wasn't, well, known. And if it was, it wasn't widely advertised.

Nowadays, pretty much everyone is aware of how pointless smoking is. And yet I still see kids my own age and younger (that's the scariest part) smoking cigarettes. I have to ask myself why they would at least not smoke weed instead - at least then they would experience a much more appreciable high and a much lower chance of physical addiction.

So...why?

[The UniSLAB]

Well, don't stab me in the neck, Ok.... I dont think your average drug dealer is going to be trust worthy whether you trust him or not. Besides weed changes hands so unless you trust every single person involved, the you can't be sure. That is whether or not you trust them or not. Once gain the exception is if you know somebody that actually grows it by themselves, which I am willing to bet most don't.


Know the grower=know your weed.
Know your dealer=know what your getting

If you don't know the grower/dealer your just one of those kids that get stacked.

[Ohcrazyone]

I personally have never heard anything about the tar content from marijuana, but I've read many studies showing no negative health effects from smoking the reefer. Like this one (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html) for example.

I'm pretty sure marijuana does contain more carcinogens than cigarettes. BUT, people who smoke pot smoke much, MUCH less than people who smoke cigarettes. Pot is supposed to have about twice as many carcinogens as tobacco, however, the average user smokes 3-4 joints a week. It's not uncommon for cigarette smokers to go through 1-2 packs(20-40) a day. Which means that for a pot smoker to get as many carcinogens as a cigarette smoker he would need to smoke 10-20 joints a day, and there are very few people who smoke that much.

[s0me0ner]

I must say, all the arguments for the non-smoking are very good but I must say the monetary aspect is one of the biggest one of them all. I am currently reducing my cigarette consumption to finally stop. Here is my master plan. I opened a savings account and every week, I'll put in it the amount that I would spend on cigarettes. I calculated that by the end of the winter (Yeah I live somewhere where it is simply Impossible to ride in the winter) I would have enough to buy a brand spanking new Kh20 2007 (witch I will buy).

The problem with cigarettes is that you not only have to beat the addiction but also you have to kill the habit such as after a meal or with a coffee in the morning. That is the main reason why people loose their minds. To all of you smokers out there I encourage all of you to do the same.

[peleschramm]

it just makes the human race seem like idiots.
exactly, the reason behind smoking is that the majority of members of the human race ARE idiots.:rolleyes:

[spyder]

Top it off with the worst possible case, kissing a smoker, it seriously is like kissing an ashtray...

I'll remember that the next time I'm alone.

[GhettoSmurf]

calming

[torkerdx]

calming
smoking is calming?
how about knowing you are killing your self? is that also calming>

peleschramm
most of the human race are idiots anyways. smoking probabaly doesnt help though

[feel the light]

But, as your friends do, many of mine also. IMHO it is a powerful drug, with a genetic appeal that is felt by some , but not by me. It seems to relieve anxiety and depression in certain people. But not for me.

I believe in giving all drugs that respect my needle phobia a fair chance. I won't bullshit you and say I have tried them all, just that I have tried.

Young people may think that smoking is about being cool. Yet I (49 ) know better. I have seen and talked to friends who are smoking after surviving what they call their "first" heart attack. There is something about cigarettes that is extremely important to some people.

I have tried them, but I felt a weird tense feeling. If I had a better response, perhaps I would be clutching one now as I write this. I am sure I am no paragon of will power. I drink to much.:o

[thejdw]

becuase there stupid and they think its cool. Someone needs to teach them all a good lesson. In my year all the really good sports people think its cool to smoke but in the end they arnt going to be good at sports much longer.
+1 very true

[cathwood]

Rebellion?

[dan de man]

beacause it COOL!:P

[Hazmat]

because it COOL!:P
:mad: Smoking is not cool at all. :mad:

[dan de man]

I know

[thejdw]

beacause it COOL!:P
you fish (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=anFK9SA5kKw) ;)

[Hazmat]

I know
Good man. :D

[dan de man]

well done ad ,but i dont smoke

[thejdw]

well done ad ,but i dont smoke
you can't hide forever

[kington99]

if you smoke you get fag breaks at work, simple as

[thejdw]

if you smoke you get fag breaks at work, simple as
do you buy those fake cigerettes that puff out grey powder then?

[gkmac]

Until fairly recently, in the UK if you wanted to go to the pub you had no choice but to smoke. This included myself, although you may be surprised to find that no cigarette ever touched my lips in my lifetime.

I'm talking about passive smoking. When I went out to the pub with some friends I chose not to smoke, yet somehow I still got my lungs temporarily polluted, my simple ability to breathe the air got impounded, occasionally I'd get headaches and migraines and, worst of all, I'd have to wash every single piece of clothing I was wearing as soon as I got home.

Everything in the above paragraph I'd have to endure simply because I wanted to see some friends, be they smokers or not. And I didn't seem to have a choice in whether I wanted those side effects or not. In the pub nobody ever seemed to ask "Oh, do you mind if I ruin your lungs and make you stink?"

As for cigarette breaks, nobody I know works in a place which allows them; to quote a cartoon I once saw... "If you want to kill yourself go ahead, but don't you dare do it in company time!" Since the indoor smoking ban came into effect, they'll have no choice but to get cold and wet whilst killing themselves during the upcoming winter months. But personally I prefer the dilemma of supermarket night-shift workers, most aren't allowed outside at all and thus will have to go without their cancer sticks.

I did feel sorry for the people who had to clean the former smoking rooms when the ban came into effect. I moved into an ex-smokers house about ten years ago and I can tell you that seeing the slight orangey-brown stains on the formerly white ceilings was pretty sickening enough, and even a completely blind person would tell it was an ex-smokers house, even though the last cigarette was smoked in there about five months ago.

However, nothing could prepare me for the wallpaper and ceiling stripping phase done with a steam cleaner. The steam is supposed to melt the wallpaper paste, with the side effect of making it damp and having distilled water running out below the steam plate. With "smoked on" wallpaper it also brings out the embedded nicotine, the water running out is brown/orangey coloured and drips onto the floor, after striking the white skirting board and staining it. There's hardly much worse things than that.

One last thing is I've known some pretty less privileged people during my lifetime, the sort that live on council estates and have dead-end jobs. The odd thing was that pretty much all of them smoked, yet seemed to complain that they were poor. I can't bear to think how much their lifestyle could improve by simply giving up the habit.

[smee56]

Peer Pressure is the main reason....

[ivan]

I know a lot of 15-16 year olds who smoke and it pains me. Many of them are really cool: nice, clever, interesting... When you talk to them about smoking, a lot say they want to stop. When you ask them, well, why don't they, they say they're addicted. That's the lamest excuse ever, in my books. Also, it seems like it's an excuse that's handed out to smokers by all the anti-smoking organisations and campaigns. The reasoning seems to go like this: "I smoke, I'm addicted, so even if I want to stop, I can't do anything about it, so I won't even try". And even when they do quit smoking, usually it's for 1-2 days(or a couple of hours). Honestly, now! They're not even making a genuine effort...

Maybe I care too much.

[Unibugg]

Since this post is limited to a small segment of the public (unicyclists or those interested in unicycling) I wonder how deeply we can find out the truth about why people start smoking given what we know.

I'm curious about our smoking habits. Please respond to this poll. Responses are anonymous.

http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65628

[James_Potter]

you fish (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=anFK9SA5kKw) ;)
You wanna see a good anti-smoking commercial?
checkitout (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTJZzmEfm38)
I think their message is, don't smoke, but drop as much acid as humanly possible.

[Joseppi]

I've been a smoker for a couple of years (on and off), and I'm not quite sure where a lot of people get off telling me horror stories to try to scare me into quitting. I know that smoking is bad for me (relatively, since really everything is bad for you these days), but I make the choice to smoke because I get enjoyment out of it, mostly because of the immense social aspect to smoking that most non-smokers don't seem to quite understand.

Also, I actually go out of my way to avoid smoking around non-smokers, since I know a lot of people dislike it. And yet I still get persecuted to some extent for making a life choice that, to the best of my ability, doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest.

I smoke to an extent that I am unaffected when doing long distance unicycling. However, I am cutting down so that I can increase my lung capacity for trials unicycling. I have will power enough to adjust my level of smoking as my life demands. I shape smoking around my life, not the other way around. And though I may be different from the average smoker, it's still really old to deal with the same disdain and disrespect I get from the average elitist non-smoker.

My 2 cents.

[dan de man]

You wanna see a good anti-smoking commercial?
checkitout (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTJZzmEfm38)
I think their message is, don't smoke, but drop as much acid as humanly possible.
:O

WTF!!

[glen]

I'm on Joseppi's side on this one. I'm suprised by the smug contempt of people on this thread. You're like a bunch of overzealous christians picking on gays because you think your opinion trumps their right to make their own choices.

Here's a few of my thoughts:

-Smoking could be viewed as self-distructive behaviour. But since when are people not allowed to choose to perform self-destructive behaviours? Almost anything we do can be self-destructive. Ever driven a car? Eaten candy? Fallen off a unicycle? People do things that are bad/dangerous all the time, and nobody gives it a second thought. But for some reason it's become socially acceptable to pick on the smoker. Consider this: If your actual concern is the potential damage to a smoker's health, why don't you walk up to every fat person eating a bacon cheeseburger and start ranting?

-Think smoking is stupid? So what? Some people think unicycling is stupid. Come up with an actual argument.

-Think smokers need to be informed that smoking has health risks? Come on. All you're doing is pissing them off by telling them what they already hear 50 times a day. It's bad enough that they have those warning labels on cig packs. How would you like it if every time you wanted to ride a unicycle you had to look at a picture of someone who smashed their face off a rock doing muni? What would that accomplish other than grossing you out. You know the risks without having to see that.

-Don't argue that smoking is bad because it's bad for your health and then argue that weed is good because it's not QUITE as bad as cigs.

-I understand arguments such as "smokers are a drain on the health care system (Canada at least), minors shouldn't smoke, smokers shouldn't smoke indoors around non-smokers..." things like that. But there's a difference between making a logical arguement, and just decreeing "i am smarter than all smokers, and i have evaluated their reasons for smoking and decided that they are wrong." That's just childish.

[Naomi]

This question isn't directed at any of the older folks here, but at the people of my own generation and even younger. I understand that a mere 15-20 years ago, the current knowledge about the effects and plain stupidity of smoking cigarettes wasn't, well, known. And if it was, it wasn't widely advertised.

So...why?

A friend of mine was taught by his headmaster that smoking was not good. This was more than 50 years ago, so certainly the knowledge, if not the researched knowledge, has been around a long time. So I cannot see why anyone should be able to sue a cigarette manufacturer. This headmaster used to ridicule smokers as people who spent their lives with little bonfires under the end of their noses.
I also, as a "never smoked" find it very hard to understand why it is so difficult to give up, and I suppose, why something which to me smells so absolutely disgusting, can give great pleasure if only I were a lot closer to the smoke.

Nao

[gkmac]

Smoking could be viewed as self-distructive behaviour. But ... Almost anything we do can be self-destructive. Ever driven a car? Eaten candy? Fallen off a unicycle? People do things that are bad/dangerous all the time, and nobody gives it a second thought.I drive a car every day, just like I've done for over three years, and I've never been destructed. I've eaten candy for years and I've never been destructed. I did fall off a unicycle and fracture my shoulder once, but I recovered and back to where I was before, without being destructed.

Smoking however, is self-destructive. There's no safe way of doing it. And even those who give up may not be able to reverse the cumulative damage to their health, unlike my fractured shoulder that healed up.It's bad enough that they have those warning labels on cig packs. How would you like it if every time you wanted to ride a unicycle you had to look at a picture of someone who smashed their face off a rock doing muni?No point, because only one or two of the many muni riders will have the misfortune to smash their face off. It's a risk, but not a guaranteed one. The warning labels on cig packs refer to things that always happen to smokers.

[James_Potter]

I drive a car every day, just like I've done for over three years, and I've never been destructed. I've eaten candy for years and I've never been destructed. I did fall off a unicycle and fracture my shoulder once, but I recovered and back to where I was before, without being destructed.
And many people smoke for their whole lives, living to be 80 or 90.
Why don't you talk to people who drive a car every day and eventually die prematurely from it? Or children with diabetes from eating too much candy, or people who die from clogged arteries from eating meat?

Smoking however, is self-destructive. There's no safe way of doing it. And even those who give up may not be able to reverse the cumulative damage to their health, unlike my fractured shoulder that healed up.No point, because only one or two of the many muni riders will have the misfortune to smash their face off. It's a risk, but not a guaranteed one. The warning labels on cig packs refer to things that always happen to smokers.
I disagree...everyone knows it's unhealthy, so is eating processed sugars and saturated fats. If you're that concerned about your health, why are you not vegan? (assuming that you're not, I don't actually know). Many people don't recover from the negative health effects of certain foods, so why are you not saying that candy and big macs are self-destructive and unnecessary?
You're kidding yourself if you say every smoker is going to die from lung cancer...it is most certainly not going to always happen, it's just a risk.

[glen]

I drive a car every day, just like I've done for over three years, and I've never been destructed. I've eaten candy for years and I've never been destructed. I did fall off a unicycle and fracture my shoulder once, but I recovered and back to where I was before, without being destructed.

I was speaking more probabilisitically. Something like 1 in 5000 people die in a car (they don't recover). The point I was kinda getting at(although I guess I wasn't really explicit) is that there are many things that are bad for us, but we don't consider this enough reason to not do those things. There is no doubt that using cars increases your chance of death, but we consider this an acceptable risk. Likewise, smoking will increase your chance of death, but if a smoker has decided that the pro's outweigh the con's, that's their choice.

That being said, like I mentioned before, I DO think there is room for debate when it comes to smokers infringing upon non-smokers, but if a consenting adult standing in the middle of an empty parking lot decides to light up a smoke, how is that different from someone ordering a quadruple bacon-burger?

No point, because only one or two of the many muni riders will have the misfortune to smash their face off. It's a risk, but not a guaranteed one. The warning labels on cig packs refer to things that always happen to smokers.
Not everyone has half their teeth grow black and fall out, while simultaneously becoming impotent. The graphics on the packs are extreme cases.

[gkmac]

Why don't you talk to people who drive a car every day and eventually die prematurely from it?See glen's post below yours to see why this is an incorrect comparison of risk.I disagree...everyone knows it's unhealthy, so is eating processed sugars and saturated fats. If you're that concerned about your health, why are you not vegan? (assuming that you're not, I don't actually know).Everyone has a sweet pudding after their meals which almost always contain sugars. Everyone likes to have butter spread on their bread, which contained saturated fats. The right amounts of processed sugars and saturated fats are harmless.

But is there such a thing as a "harmless" amount of smoking?

As for veganism, that's a natural part of the human diet needed to survive. When was the last time you saw a vegatarian lion?Many people don't recover from the negative health effects of certain foods, so why are you not saying that candy and big macs are self-destructive and unnecessary?Where did I say that candy and big macs were harmless???You're kidding yourself if you say every smoker is going to die from lung cancer...it is most certainly not going to always happen, it's just a risk.A risk that can be avoided. Also I do know that not every smoker will die from lung cancer, not the ones that have premature heart attacks anyway.but if a consenting adult standing in the middle of an empty parking lot decides to light up a smoke, how is that different from someone ordering a quadruple bacon-burger?No difference, but I've never seen anyone find an empty parking lot and walk to the middle of it, just to smoke.Likewise, smoking will increase your chance of death, but if a smoker has decided that the pro's outweigh the con's, that's their choice.So what exactly are the pro's of smoking?

[James_Potter]

See glen's post below yours to see why this is an incorrect comparison of risk.
Fine, disregard cars, focus on the cause of other physical ailments such as diabetes and heart disease. Those are avoidable, but at the cost of that which people find pleasurable. People know that hamburgers are unhealthy, but because they're delicious, people are willing to sacrifice some good health for some pleasure.

Everyone has a sweet pudding after their meals which almost always contain sugars. Everyone likes to have butter spread on their bread, which contained saturated fats. The right amounts of processed sugars and saturated fats are harmless. But is there such a thing as a "harmless" amount of smoking?
Of course not, but I don't think there is a "harmless" amount of saturated fats or processed sugars either. However, as with unhealthy food, it is easily possible to smoke in moderation so the negative health effects will never surface (like I said in an earlier post, some people smoke for their whole lives and live to be very old).

As for veganism, that's a natural part of the human diet needed to survive. When was the last time you saw a vegatarian lion?
People can survive without animal products, and it's been proven that those who do, live longer and are healthier. Are you saying that it's necessary to be somewhat less healthy in order to live more "naturally"?

Where did I say that candy and big macs were harmless???
You didn't, but you are going vigilante on smokers killing themselves, but not fat Amerikans killing themselves. Why is that? Why are you willing to tell a smoker that s/he's killing him or herself, but not a McDonald's lover that s/he's killing him or herself?

A risk that can be avoided. Also I do know that not every smoker will die from lung cancer, not the ones that have premature heart attacks anyway.
Lung cancer, heart disease, gum disease...all physical ailments caused by tobacco are not absolute guarantees for all smokers. They happen to some but absolutely not to 100% of those who smoke. Just like eating unhealthy is not a guarantee that you will get diabetes or clogged arteries.

No difference, but I've never seen anyone find an empty parking lot and walk to the middle of it, just to smoke.
You've never seen a smoker find an isolated location to avoid annoying nonsmokers? People in your area must be very rude.

So what exactly are the pro's of smoking?
Some people like the feeling that tobacco has on their body.

[wickedbob]

Just a question for James here. How do you know being a vegan makes you healthier? From my own (very limited) vegans tend to be over weight or under weight and frail. It seems to live a life style like that and actually be healthy is quit hard, no? I don't think I will even give up eating meat. It is what made the human race what it is today, you know. This was not meant to be condescending in anyway I am genuinely interested.

[siafirede]

First of all...I don't drink or smoke. However, the study of drugs has always fascinated me, and one of my favorite courses I took was the Sociology of Drug Use.

here are several social functions of drug use in general:

Religious reasons
source of magic
mark a rite of passage
mark social boundaries
promote solidarity
consummate a social contract
promote economic productivity
promote efficient warfare
act as a social lubricant
recreational use
and medicine.

Some of these functions are only common in pre-modern societies. Modernized societies are more likely to use drugs to get something, rather than to symbolize something. They use drugs to do more work, produce more dead enemies, protect themselves and loved ones from illness, have a more relaxed conversation and therefore a better chance of getting a date, or to have fun. These are the functionally rational reasons for use.

(Above info largely from: Drug and Alcohol Consumption As Functions of Social Structures, by James E. Hawdon)

Why do people smoke? Because it gets them something.

As to the debate over marijuana. Marijuana is much less physically harmfull than alcohol or tobacco, and yet it is demonized by politicians and moral entrepreneurs. I think that anyone looking at drug laws over time will see that there is no objective reasoning to the laws. There are many other factors that come into play when drug laws are concerned, it has little to do with the objective physical harm that the drug does to the user.

[James_Potter]

Just a question for James here. How do you know being a vegan makes you healthier? From my own (very limited) vegans tend to be over weight or under weight and frail. It seems to live a life style like that and actually be healthy is quit hard, no? I don't think I will even give up eating meat. It is what made the human race what it is today, you know. This was not meant to be condescending in anyway I am genuinely interested.
If all you do in becoming vegan is take out animal products from your diet, that will not be healthy. You have to replace the nutrients found in meat with those found elsewhere, and by doing so, you're still getting the protein, iron etc. necessary to survive but you're not getting the cholesterol, which is why a proper vegan diet is healthier.

[glen]

So what exactly are the pro's of smoking?

I don't smoke. As far as I am concerned though, people's reasons are their own. I simply defend their right to make informed decisions for themselves without being harrassed.

Just for the record, I don't support smoking, and don't hang out with smokers. I just don't understand why there is almost a cult-ish appeal to attacking smokers. I think people should be concerned with reducing the negative impacts of smokers on non-smokers, but they shouldn't simply harrass smokers. There's a subtle difference there, but to me it's huge.

EVERYONE has the right to make decisions (good or bad)...UNLESS it impacts others. It's one thing to say, smokers shouldn't smoke indoors, but it's unacceptable to walk up to a random smoker and tell them they're killing themself. It seems like some people are so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they can't tell the difference between the two.

That's basically what irks me. Hopefully it makes sense.

[unisteve]

I smoked cigarillos for a few weeks in high school. The main reason I stopped was that my lung capacity was being negatively affected. I couldn't run like I used to. Cancer and looking cool were not really part of the equation.

Anybody that directly breaks the law on purpose, doesn't get respect from me. If drugs were legalized it would be different, which I think they should be. Still that doesn't change the fact they are breaking the law ...
Apparently you have never heard of unjust laws. Your government is glad you have such implicit faith in them.

... and most, from what I know, drug dealers sell more than just weed. The only way I could consider them respectable is if they sold weed and that was all. They also have to know where the weed was grown and that is is perfectly safe. Chances are they don't. If that is the case they are distributing a product that could potentially kill or even harm somebody else. It is also fair to say most don't even know the quality of their product or how it got to our country at all. Well, that is not very respectable is it?
As has been already stated, know thy dealer and his sources. It's all part of being a responsible drug user.


And to add a little bit to the "why not Mary Jane?" debate:

-Cigarettes are not perceived the same way as marijuana is. They are in completely different realms: cigarettes are legal and widely available; marijuana is illegal and has many social stigmas attached that tobacco smoking does not. Many people don't consider tobacco smoking drug use, just like they don't consider caffeine a drug.
-The effects of marijuana and tobacco are very different from each other. Tobacco (nicotine) is a stimulant. It gets your central nervous system going. Without being overly specific, marijuana is not the same at all.
-Also: tar =/ immediate cancerzzzzzzz. Reference: http://erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml(*)


More (completely unrelated) reading about whether marijuana will kill you:
-"Marijuana Use and Mortality" (http://erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1997_sidney_amjpubhealth_1/1997_sidney_amjpubhealth_1_text.shtml)(*)
-Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891) (**)

*Erowid.org is a known pro-drug website
**NORML is a known pro-cannabis organization

[wickedbob]

I smoked cigarillos for a few weeks in high school. The main reason I stopped was that my lung capacity was being negatively affected. I couldn't run like I used to. Cancer and looking cool were not really part of the equation.


Apparently you have never heard of unjust laws. Your government is glad you have such implicit faith in them.


As has been already stated, know thy dealer and his sources. It's all part of being a responsible drug user.


And to add a little bit to the "why not Mary Jane?" debate:

-Cigarettes are not perceived the same way as marijuana is. They are in completely different realms: cigarettes are legal and widely available; marijuana is illegal and has many social stigmas attached that tobacco smoking does not. Many people don't consider tobacco smoking drug use, just like they don't consider caffeine a drug.
-The effects of marijuana and tobacco are very different from each other. Tobacco (nicotine) is a stimulant. It gets your central nervous system going. Without being overly specific, marijuana is not the same at all.
-Also: tar =/ immediate cancerzzzzzzz. Reference: http://erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml(*)


More (completely unrelated) reading about whether marijuana will kill you:
-"Marijuana Use and Mortality" (http://erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1997_sidney_amjpubhealth_1/1997_sidney_amjpubhealth_1_text.shtml)(*)
-Cannabis Smoke and Cancer: Assessing the Risk (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891) (**)

*Erowid.org is a known pro-drug website
**NORML is a known pro-cannabis organization

Ok I phrased that very wrong. There are times when the only choice is to break a law to do what is right. Some laws are the for the simple reason people want them there and nothing else. Breaking or following laws doesn't really determine what kind of person you are all of the time. What I meant to say, but didn't at all was most who do break laws are not respectable. I realize there are of course exception to the rule just like anything. Sorry for npt saying what I really meant. I don't have complete faith in the government although by what I wrote you would think that.

Yes, but how many know the dealer or their sources? You also have to know their sources and so on. Something that changes hands so many times is not always going to be actually what it is said to be. Pure weed is much better for you than spliced weed. Same thing with tobacco. They stuff it with hundreds of chemicals to get people addicted. Surely smoking pure tobacco would be better for you, right?

[UniBrier]

I skimmed most of this thread, really surprised to see it reach so many pages since last time I checked in.

I think most start smoking for social or peer reasons. I haven't smoked cigarettes in over 17 years but I still say it was a great habit (socially and side effects of nicotine), too bad it's really bad for you. I'm glad I was able to quit and not go back.

[johnfoss]

Wow, hot topic! I skimmed through it, so pardon me if anyone already mentioned about how what must be a majority of smokers are extremely annoying litterbugs (and fire-starters).

A butt is litter. I don't care how small it is, and I don't care if it's all biodegradable. Everything's biodegradable, it's just a matter of time. Many cigarettes have plastic filters or other stuff beyond simple paper and leaves. Stop littering! The world is not your *#$@*% ashtray!

That was annoyance #1.

#2. Tossing "live" butts. This is how nearly all roadside fires get started in California. Our state gets very dry in the summer and fall. Think some smokers care? Not if they have to put it out inside their own car...

#3. Smokers who rationalize about it with bad logic and wishful thinking. "Some people smoke and live to be old." Some people get hit by lightning and live. Does this mean lightning isn't bad for you? "Cigarettes contain carcinogens and pot doesn't, because pot is just leaves." What's tobacco then? Lumps of pre-cancer? Your non-smoking friends aren't necessarily trying to scare you into quitting, they just care about you. They can be annoying too, I know. Just tell them you hear them, and you appreciate their concern for you. You already know it's bad for you. Or do you ignore the mountains of evidence?

#4. Smokers who claim the right to endanger the health of nonsmokers. If it's legal, that doesn't mean it's polite (in a crowded line for instance).

Secondhand smoke is more unhealthy than sucking it in yourself. I don't understand why, but I can feel the effects. You don't need to be a doctor to understand that breathing smoke is generally a bad idea. What do firemen die from? Usually not from burning up. Duh. I know someone who died from secondhand smoke. She never smoked in her life, but her family did when she was growing up. By the time her doctors realized she had lung cancer, it was past too late to save her. What an awful way to die. Her husband hasn't been the same since.

The Surgeon General's report (USA) came out in 1964, I believe. That was the beginning of the legal/official process to legilate more rights for non-smokers. Only during the 80s and 90s did very large studies come out with indisputable evidence of these health effects. Also by then the tobacco companies had clearly been exposed with their multimillion (billion?) dollar campaigns to discredit all the science and keep promoting cigarettes for the next generation. Once the courts could point to a piece of paper that "confirmed with sufficient strength" that cigarettes were definitely unhealthy, followed legal actions to protect nonsmokers in their places of work and beyond.

"You must smoke to be cool." That's what I used to say to my smoking HS students when I worked Drivers' Ed through my driving school in the 90s. They would go "Huh?" and I'd let them think about it. If you insist you're not smoking to be cool you have to come up with another reason. They all generally suck. Yes, nicotine has a soothing effect, and once you're hooked it's really hard to quit. But is it worth it?

[gkmac]

Also, I actually go out of my way to avoid smoking around non-smokers, since I know a lot of people dislike it. And yet I still get persecuted to some extent for making a life choice that, to the best of my ability, doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest.My uncle was an intelligent man, the same kind of mind that I had, and we got on well together.

He smoked, and by going outside to do it and making sure the cigarette butt was disposed of in a sensible way, went out of his way to make sure it didn't affect anyone else in the slightest. In other words, his choice.

He died in his fifties of a heart attack, directly caused by his smoking. He died well before his time, because he chose to smoke. Had he chosen not to, he'd still be alive today. I miss him. My aunt misses him. We all miss him.

Now please tell me how his choice to smoke "didn't affect anyone else in the slightest".You've never seen a smoker find an isolated location to avoid annoying nonsmokers? People in your area must be very rude.People in my area are quite polite actually. It's just the smokers that are rude.Some people like the feeling that tobacco has on their body.Well tobacco mainly clogs the lungs, reduces your sense of taste and smell, makes you and your clothes stink, and turns your teeth yellow...

I don't see how people can "like" those feelings.

[bungalistic]

Everything you do these days invovlves a risk or sorts, people who smoke know the risks and it is their choice to still smoke you cannot persecute them for that.

I do not smoke and do not like it very much and was very glad for the ban in England, going to a pub now is much nicer and it's good to not have to change your clothes just because you want a drink with friends. Many of my friends do smoke but I do not shout at them for doing so and it makes them no less of a friend because they smoke (my housemate also smokes) although it can effect how much I see them as sitting in a smoky person's house is not pleasant.

My Grandad who passed away earlier this year also smoked, (whether smoking was the cause I do not know but i'm sure it was part of it) and he enjoyed having his 1-2 cigs a day there was very little else for him to enjoy so why begrudge him a little happiness.

How many of you out there who say they hate smokers drink alcohol? It is just as damaging and can effect people both directly and indirectly in many ways. Just accept the fact that some people have made a choice in their life that you do not agree with, why hate people you probably don't know just because they have one habit you don't agree with, everybody should be free to make their own decisions in life.

There are many places that you can go now where smoking is not allowed so there should be no reason to complain, be all means don't associate with smokers if that is your choice but to hate them is just stupid.

[siafirede]

How many of you out there who say they hate smokers drink alcohol? It is just as damaging and can effect people both directly and indirectly in many ways.


+1

In the States...
The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%).

Not to mention how many lives get ruined by alcohol (not including deaths), and motor vehicle deaths caused by alcohol.

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence.

On campus at Virginia Tech on any given weekend or after happy hour anywhere in a lot of cities I've been to, I've always seen drunk fights. My friend was put into the hospital for a week because a group of drunkards jumped him on campus.

Of course this doesn't relate to "responsible drinking" or moderation.

The point is...alcohol is a drug...and is very damaging. Tobacco is a drug...and is very damaging. Marijuana is a drug...but as far as studies and data show it is nowhere near as damaging as both of the above mentioned legal drugs. It is also no where near as addictive tobacco (or some can even argue alcohol).

I'd rather not partake in any of the above though, but that is my personal choice. I think that if we are to have drug laws though, they should be based on something objective.

[bungalistic]

The point is...alcohol is a drug...and is very damaging. Tobacco is a drug...and is very damaging. Marijuana is a drug...but as far as studies and data show it is nowhere near as damaging as both of the above mentioned legal drugs. It is also no where near as addictive tobacco (or some can even argue alcohol).

I'd rather not partake in any of the above though, but that is my personal choice. I think that if we are to have drug laws though, they should be based on something objective.

And that was also my point it is down to personal choice and respecting people's personal choices, providing that people can respect others views, so don't smoke in other peoples faces, don't get so drunk you upset (violent or otherwise) people around you.

I will add also that I do not use drugs either (again some friends do, that is their choice again, also my choice not to be around when they do so).

Yes I do drink but not often and not a lot and hopefully when I do I don't annoy others, I certainly don't start fights (i'd lose anyway).

[cathwood]

they should be based on something objective.

there is nothing objective. As you can see from the various threads on these topics, contributions are very much subjective and often very emotive. Both sides of the argument usually claim their evidence is more 'true'/objective. There is nothing objective.

[thejdw]

read though this and was wondering if a smoker could answer this: You know smoking decreaes your life spam (almost always), so do you enjoy shortening your life?

[cathwood]

read though this and was wondering if a smoker could answer this: You know smoking decreaes your life spam (almost always), so do you enjoy shortening your life?

I think it's always good to have your life spam decreased.

[James_Potter]

I think it's always good to have your life spam decreased.
Especially if you're vegetarian like me...gross.
And anyway, eating less spam in your life is sure to increase your life span.

[wobbling bear]

I do not smoke for two reasons:
main reason: when I was young it was "cool" to smoke ... but since I am a snob I thought it was even cooler not to smoke !!!
secondary reason: I just didn't like the feeling

afterwards I grew up and smokers annoyed me: by smoking in a restaurant (altering my smell) or smoking in a dance floor (hey I need to breathe) ... so I kept annoying smokers.

afterwards the ban on smoking extended and being in charge of health and security I tried to keep a smoking room in our company's office. After all, I thought, if people feel happy smoking together, why not let them share a place for that.
I don't fear contradicting myself :p

[James_Potter]

read though this and was wondering if a smoker could answer this: You know smoking decreaes your life spam (almost always), so do you enjoy shortening your life?
I think when most smokers light up, they probably don't think, "shorter life, woohoo!"
They do know that it's going to shorten their life, but they've probably come to terms with that fact and are fine with it, they just don't want to live to be eight or ninety.

[wobbling bear]

I think when most smokers light up, they probably don't think, "shorter life, woohoo!"
They do know that it's going to shorten their life, but they've probably come to terms with that fact and are fine with it, they just don't want to live to be eight or ninety.
I think the assertion that people want to have a long life is wrong: may be we are programmed to kill ourselves in a way or another so other people will replace us ...
People really willing to live longer are a rarity (and deserve admiration!)

[kington99]

read though this and was wondering if a smoker could answer this: You know smoking decreaes your life spam (almost always), so do you enjoy shortening your life?


answer me this, riding in a car increases the chance of you dying young, it's a relatively dangerous activity, do you enjoy risking your life doing it? of course they dont enjoy that particular aspect but it's part and parcel of an activity that they do enjoy overall. I dont like getting pedal bites but i'm prepared to risk it in order to unicycle, it's worth it. Smokers know the risks associated with their activity and also feel that it's worth it. Now I can't quite understand how becaue i'm not a smoker but that's not the point, it's just the same reasoning.

[thejdw]

I think when most smokers light up, they probably don't think, "shorter life, woohoo!"
They do know that it's going to shorten their life, but they've probably come to terms with that fact and are fine with it, they just don't want to live to be eight or ninety.
But surley they must also realise that the most active part of there like will be less enjoyable.

[James_Potter]

I know, that's the thing is that many people do seem to want to live as long as possible...but certain people think that living past 70 or 80 is just biding your time and unnecessary, and living at that age will just be more painful than it's worth. Some of those people, therefore, don't see any risk in smoking.

[James_Potter]

But surley they must also realise that the most active part of there like will be less enjoyable.
Maybe, and that is actually a reason people eventually smoke less or quit, for those who do like to get active. But in the modern world, many people are not active enough anyway (what with cars and the internet it's hardly necessary to move). So for those who don't work out very often (let's call them "Americans") the lowered lung capacity is not really a problem.

[UAC]

Smoking is a very stupid invention (call me whatever you want). I see it as a kind of deliberately self-imolation. I don't hate smokers, just fell sorry for them...at most...

Haha...smoking is cool...haha
having theese inside you is even cooler:
http://www.google.com/search?q=smoking+lungs&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Flaviu

[UAC]

I think it's always good to have your life spam decreased.

Wise wording from you!

Flaviu

[UAC]

Maybe, and that is actually a reason people eventually smoke less or quit, for those who do like to get active. But in the modern world, many people are not active enough anyway (what with cars and the internet it's hardly necessary to move). So for those who don't work out very often (let's call them "Americans") the lowered lung capacity is not really a problem.

Oh yes, it is!

[siafirede]

there is nothing objective. As you can see from the various threads on these topics, contributions are very much subjective and often very emotive. Both sides of the argument usually claim their evidence is more 'true'/objective. There is nothing objective.

I'm talking about scientific objectivity, not philosophical objectivism.

There is empirical data about drug use cross-culturally, and there is data about deaths and injuries caused from drugs. You are right in saying that contributions are very much subjective and emotive, but these contributions should not be what drives drug laws.

[Joseppi]

My uncle was an intelligent man, the same kind of mind that I had, and we got on well together.

He smoked, and by going outside to do it and making sure the cigarette butt was disposed of in a sensible way, went out of his way to make sure it didn't affect anyone else in the slightest. In other words, his choice.

He died in his fifties of a heart attack, directly caused by his smoking. He died well before his time, because he chose to smoke. Had he chosen not to, he'd still be alive today. I miss him. My aunt misses him. We all miss him.

Now please tell me how his choice to smoke "didn't affect anyone else in the slightest".

Thank you for only selectively responding to my post. There's a lot more in my message than that, some of which addresses what you just said.

[James_Potter]

Oh yes, it is!
Why do you say that?

[johnfoss]

...but certain people think that living past 70 or 80 is just biding your time and unnecessary, and living at that age will just be more painful than it's worth. Some of those people, therefore, don't see any risk in smoking.I don't think you've quite thought this through.
Question: will a lifetime of smoking lead to a sudden, quick, painless death, or be more likely to be slow and painful?
Answer: Unless you have a fatal heart attack, the second part.

What James is suggesting is to shorten the time before you get old and live in pain. Which is fine, because that's what smoking (and any number of other unhealthy activities, like not exercising) will do for you. As for me, I intend to ride a unicycle on my 100th birthday. I haven't made many plans for that day, other than being there, but it's a core part of my "life plan."

To help this plan work, I've chosen to not smoke, to not drink too much, to not use illegal drugs, and to try to maintain a healthy lifestyle through unicycling and trying to eat decently. The unicycle is my drug of choice.

[cathwood]

I'm talking about scientific objectivity, not philosophical objectivism.

There is empirical data about drug use cross-culturally, and there is data about deaths and injuries caused from drugs. You are right in saying that contributions are very much subjective and emotive, but these contributions should not be what drives drug laws.

Scientific objectivity in relation to the 'human sciences' is more a idealistic fantasy than an actuality. the results of research often depend on who finances it (no matter what is done to try to avoid this).

PS, although I want as little life spam as possible, I actually want to live forever.

[thejdw]

I don't think you've quite thought this through.
Question: will a lifetime of smoking lead to a sudden, quick, painless death, or be more likely to be slow and painful?
Answer: Unless you have a fatal heart attack, the second part.

Well said

[Unibugg]

I dont like getting pedal bites but i'm prepared to risk it in order to unicycle, it's worth it. Smokers know the risks associated with their activity and also feel that it's worth it. Now I can't quite understand how becaue i'm not a smoker but that's not the point, it's just the same reasoning.

This might be the case with some smokers. But I think most smokers who find themselves trapped don't feel it is worth it but haven't found their way out yet.

I also think the analogy of unicycling risks might be something we can relate to but still isn't a close enough analogy. Unicycling is a challenge. Physical exercise. Something we enjoy that gets our hearts beating and lungs breathing deeper. Something we can feel proud of as a sense of accomplishment. There is nothing wonderful about realizing that you are "owned" by a chemical addiction.

[UAC]

This might be the case with some smokers. But I think most smokers who find themselves trapped don't feel it is worth it but haven't found their way out yet.

I also think the analogy of unicycling risks might be something we can relate to but still isn't a close enough analogy. Unicycling is a challenge. Physical exercise. Something we enjoy that gets our hearts beating and lungs breathing deeper. Something we can feel proud of as a sense of accomplishment. There is nothing wonderful about realizing that you are "owned" by a chemical addiction.

I completely agree with you!

Flaviu

[UAC]

Why do you say that?

Less physical active people have a slower metabolic rate. Then smoking and other vices has an even worse effect on them...I wish I had time to say more here

Then again, I have nothing against them - it's not about understanding them either, it's about a simple fact - smoke kills and I think this is a poor way of killing yourself...

Finally, everybody has to have a(some) vice(s)

Flaviu

[dan de man]

Then again, I have nothing against them - it's not about understanding them either, it's about a simple fact - smoke kills and I think this is a poor way of killing yourself...
Flaviu
expenseive way

[smee56]

May I just say i think that it is a persons right if they decide to smoke and if you dont like it well "YOU" dont do it but leave the smokers...to do what they do..


i Tried smoking and i stopped after 3 days because i found that it Basically stuffed me up...

[cathwood]

Self destruction is part of human nature.

Throughout history we have engaged in various methods of self-destruction. For example, in every society in every time period that we know about people have committed suicide.

[dan de man]

I agree with smee but just keep the smoke away from me please

[smee56]

omg i actually had someone agree with me WOW i am happy

[Hazmat]

I agree with smee but just keep the smoke away from me please
+1 :D

[dan de man]

here in aus they are trying to stop people smoking in pubs but i say have a smoker only pub if posible?

[dan de man]

omg i actually had someone agree with me WOW i am happy
i have a feel you and i will get along swimmingly :)

[smee56]

i have a feel you and i will get along swimmingly :)


swimmingly hmmm (i like lol)...they banned smoking in public places and now in Australia they want smoking to be stopped in cars... i mean cant people have the right to smoke in their car...it seems like its becoming more and more like the cancer debate...

Lets see what the government would say:

what gives you cancer:

What Gives You Cancer (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cancer%20list.htm)
McDonald's
Smoking
Sun
The things we do in everyday lives
What next using a computer
or unicycling

its like the government is slowly starting to control our lives...next they will be telling us what to eat and when...

[wickedbob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y29cDyemV6U, Wow explains everything in 30seconds.

[wobbling bear]

.. i mean cant people have the right to smoke in their car..

some exceptions:
- cars you rent (ever rented a car that was used by a smoker: it stinks!)
- people smoking in their cars with children aboard (see that all the time)

so again same rules apply: do whatever you want as long as it does not harm someone else..... (now we can start a discusion: does this encompass something that does _harm_ you ... it depends)

note : I know of a lady who is in deep trouble with her step_mother: the grand-mother thinks it's her right to smoke (even in the presence of children) ; the mother opposes that. The battle is turning nasty ....

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

I smoke every once in a while when I'm super nervous.

Other then that, I don't.

[thejdw]

Throughout history we have engaged in various methods of self-destruction. For example, in every society in every time period that we know about people have committed suicide.
But if that was the aim of smokers why don't they do somthing thats quicker and less painful? (and tax free)

[glen]

But if that was the aim of smokers why don't they do somthing thats quicker and less painful? (and tax free)

The aim of smokers is not to kill themselves. We can probably call that a fact, not an opinion.

[gkmac]

I dont like getting pedal bites but i'm prepared to risk it in order to unicycle, it's worth it. Smokers know the risks associated with their activity and also feel that it's worth it.Kind of know where you've coming from, except that each and every pedal bite doesn't take five minutes off your whole lifetime.I know, that's the thing is that many people do seem to want to live as long as possible...but certain people think that living past 70 or 80 is just biding your time and unnecessary, and living at that age will just be more painful than it's worth. Some of those people, therefore, don't see any risk in smoking.So some people smoke to shorten their lives because living past 70 or 80 is more painful than it's worth.

Bit of a silly excuse when the clogged lungs and reduced breath capacity will mean that the end of their shorter life will be more painful than it's worth.Throughout history we have engaged in various methods of self-destruction. For example, in every society in every time period that we know about people have committed suicide.But if that was the aim of smokers why don't they do somthing thats quicker and less painful? (and tax free)I agree. Kind of reminds me of "Life of Brian"... Matthias: Well, you could be stabbed. Centurion: Stabbed? Takes a second. Crucifixion lasts hours. It's a slow, horrible death. Matthias: Well, at least it gets you out in the open air. Centurion: You're weird!The aim of smokers is not to kill themselves. We can probably call that a fact, not an opinion....and yet some of the cigarette packets they buy have the disclaimer "Smoking kills" printed in large friendly letters on them. They see that disclaimer, yet they still buy the packet. So I cannot see how the aim of smokers is "not to kill themselves" is factual.

[glen]

...and yet some of the cigarette packets they buy have the disclaimer "Smoking kills" printed in large friendly letters on them. They see that disclaimer, yet they still buy the packet. So I cannot see how the aim of smokers is "not to kill themselves" is factual.

My wording may have been ambiguous. I'm going for "Smoker's do not smoke with the aim of killing themselves", not "smokers smoke with the aim of preventing themselves from being killed". Arguing the latter would be silly.

Hopefully that was the confusion. If not, then perhaps you are misunderstanding a smoker's intent when they buy a pack. A smoker may purchase a pack because they enjoy the flavour, buzz, relaxation, and social aspect a cigarette provides (in spite of the risks), but I would argue that nobody purchases cigarettes for the purpose of killing themselves.

[cathwood]

My wording may have been ambiguous. I'm going for "Smoker's do not smoke with the aim of killing themselves", not "smokers smoke with the aim of preventing themselves from being killed". Arguing the latter would be silly.

Hopefully that was the confusion. If not, then perhaps you are misunderstanding a smoker's intent when they buy a pack. A smoker may purchase a pack because they enjoy the flavour, buzz, relaxation, and social aspect a cigarette provides (in spite of the risks), but I would argue that nobody purchases cigarettes for the purpose of killing themselves.

Sorry, i didn't mean to imply that people smoked with the aim of killing themselves, only that human beings are not averse to doing stuff that has a side effect of causing death.

[Kayote]

People smoke for exactly the same reason they do anything.
They like it.

Debates may rage forever about why they like it (many different reasons) or why they shouldn't. Doesn't matter.

Anyone can try to get a smoker, or all smokers, to stop- also for many different reasons. Doesn't matter.

When you enter a debate like 'smoking vs. not smoking' be prepared to talk at cross purposes to the other debators. It's usually impossible to get a single debate about smoking to stay on one issue- civil rights, public health, taxation, government meddling, industry/economy, health insurance, advertising... whatever. Typically, one aspect is used as a bludgeon against a completely different aspect, and the arguments get tangled.


Except for a three year period long ago, my father has smoked since he was sixteen. He won't quit, and the chances are that he'll die from a smoking-related cause, although he's sixty two and shows no signs of anything so far. He expects to die from smoking related causes, and when confronted with the fact, he'll just say, "I enjoy smoking." and leave it at that. He won't argue. Doesn't matter. To him, anyway.

But you know the thing that bugs me? I was in a duathlon (unicycle class) and a guy on a 36" passed me (on a 26") flat out. I was breathing like a dying cow when he did it. He wasn't breathing hard at all. I only found out after the race that before he passed me, he'd STOPPED DURING THE RACE FOR A SMOKE BREAK! Ah, it still kills me. Maybe I should start smoking- build up a resistance.

[James_Potter]

So some people smoke to shorten their lives because living past 70 or 80 is more painful than it's worth.
Bit of a silly excuse when the clogged lungs and reduced breath capacity will mean that the end of their shorter life will be more painful than it's worth.
Not necessarily. People aren't smoking for the sole purpose of shortening their lives...they're doing it for the good feeling that nicotine brings. But they understand that it will indeed cause their lives to be shorter, and they're okay with that fact.
As for the end of life being excruciatingly painful, yeah, it will be...and I believe most people know that and yet are still okay with it. That may be stupid, but I'm just trying to understand and explain possible rationalizations of smokers for not caring that they are killing themselves.

...and yet some of the cigarette packets they buy have the disclaimer "Smoking kills" printed in large friendly letters on them. They see that disclaimer, yet they still buy the packet. So I cannot see how the aim of smokers is "not to kill themselves" is factual.
Smokers don't decide to smoke as a form of suicide...that's the entire point. They know that it will indeed kill them, but that's just a side effect (understatement of the year, yeah yeah), it's not the reason some people choose to light up. And therefore, the aim of smoking is not to kill themselves.

[glen]

sry, I was replying to gkmac's comment, Cathy. I certainly agree with you that humans tend to perform behaviours that have a side effect of death.

[johnfoss]

Fixed:The aim of most smokers is not to kill themselves. We can probably call that a fact, not an opinion.Now it's pretty safely a fact. But the guy who, after his third heart attack, is told by his doctor that if he doesn't stop smoking RIGHT NOW he could die at any time... and keeps smoking... is making a pretty guaranteed choice.

We know, he's smoking because he enjoys it. The part he may not be willing to admit to, is whether he enjoys it more than being alive, and more than leaving his wife & kids behind.

[cathwood]

sry, I was replying to gkmac's comment, Cathy. I certainly agree with you that humans tend to perform behaviours that have a side effect of death.

Also, ofcourse, people have a tendancy to belive that, whereas smoking kills some people, it doesn't kill everyone and it wont kill them.

[glen]

Fixed:Now it's pretty safely a fact. But the guy who, after his third heart attack, is told by his doctor that if he doesn't stop smoking RIGHT NOW he could die at any time... and keeps smoking... is making a pretty guaranteed choice.

We know, he's smoking because he enjoys it. The part he may not be willing to admit to, is whether he enjoys it more than being alive, and more than leaving his wife & kids behind.

I'd still argue that the guy doesn't ignore the doctor and smoke because he wants to die, but I certainly see what you are getting at. At that point he has made a choice that will almost certainly kill him. Perhaps it is semantics, but I wouldn't equate that with desiring death.

What I am trying to argue against is the straw man argument that smokers smoke because of a conscious decision to kill themselves...the sort of reasoning that leads to statements like "why would smokers want to kill themselves?", which I don't think really add much to the debate since, as I mentioned, I don't think smokers actually want to kill themselves.

If no smoker agrees with the premise that smokers smoke because they want to die, then any argument that follows from that premise isn't really going to change their mind about anything. That's what I was getting at.

One could certainly make a good argument about whether the harm smoking causes to loved ones/society is sufficient enough to warrent a full out ban on smoking. I'm not sure whether or not I would agree with the argument, but there's certainly room for debate there.

Geez I tend to ramble.:rolleyes:

[smee56]

Hi-5 nice points...and yes it does come down to a persons choice to smoke but still having to remember about the people around them and how they feel about smoking...perhaps not aiming smoking commercials at smokers themselves but trying to stop they younger generation from smoking...I mean every day i see older people giving the younger generation...to stop smoking we need to stop it where it starts...i guess the same could go with drugs...on monday i was at the skatepark and people were smoking joints...What is a policemans job...is it to collect parking fines...or protect the community...

[uni57]

In any activity, you have to weigh the pluses and minuses. The enjoyment or benefit vs. the risk and the danger. The original question was about young people smoking. So, the question must be answered in that context. I don't know what it's like to be a kid in today's world (things were much different when I was a kid not too long ago), but I do know that kids today are smart. They know about the dangers of smoking. Why don't they seem to care? Well...

Could there be a sense of hopelessness in today's youth? I mean, if one thing won't kill you, something else will. We have epidemics of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, autism, infertility, and erectile dysfunction. People born today, for the first time in history, have a life expectancy less than their parents. The FDA is constantly taking drugs off the market that were once thought to be safe but are actually killing people. Mad cow. Bird flu. Wars. Some even say that talking on the phone is dangerous! (cell phones) People drive their cars crazy and so many people die as a result. School shootings. Metal detectors. Terrorist attacks. Like I said, if one thing doesn't kill you, something else will.

So what's the big deal about cigarettes in light of all that?

Is the above feeling present in young people today? Maybe a vague feeling in the background somewhere? A general feeling of wow, the world is really screwed up. A lost sense of optimism? I hope the answer is no.

Secondly, if you are 15 years old, do you really know what it means to live to be 90? Can you imagine that enormous time span? That's six times your entire lifetime so far. Or nine times the part of your life that you can vividly remember living. I'm 42. It would take some effort to imagine what it would be like to live to be 252 or 378 years old (six or nine times my current age). But the older you get, the more concrete the large, human lifetime time spans become. It becomes easier to imagine living to 90 or 100 (not because your remaining life keeps getting smaller, but because the multiplier gets smaller). I can't imagine living nine times my current age, but I can imagine living to twice my current age (42 x 2 = 84). I've been at the same job for the last 18 years. Large spans of time are comprehensible because I've experienced them. I know them. I know what it would mean to chop off 20 or 40 years of my life.

So, I'm theorizing that young people don't have a concrete, fully-internalized concept of how much life they are protecting or throwing away. The number is just too big -- too abstract. Live to be 50, 90, 100? It's all "way out there". It's too far in the future to imagine, so it's all the same. Die early and leave your kids without a father? You aren't even close to being married -- you are 15. It's all too "out there". It's not concrete. So why not light up? Die at 50? That seems like a long time to live.

I'm just speculating about ALL of this. I'm curious what the younger people think about my ideas. Like I said, I'm a bit disconnected from what it's like to be a kid in today's world.


P.S. - Some people in this thread have dissed saturated fat. I've done an admirable job of staying quiet about that! It wasn't easy.


Edited for grammar

[SqueakyOnion]

I think I tend to agree with what you're saying, uni57, that if one thing doesn't get you, another will. In fact, I think that mentality has had a huge impact on my life.

I take risks. A lot of them. Daily. I'm also prepared to accept the consequences of those risks.

However, I have no desire to feel pain or die, and like to think I don't take "stupid" risks.

If there's one thing that my life has taught me in recent years is that your life can change, at any time, for the worse. If there's something you want to do, DO IT NOW. Get off the couch. Get out, experience life NOW. Don't wait.

Last spring '07, my girlfriend, at age 19, was diagnosed with MS. Outta the blue, one day, she can't get out of bed. She has trouble walking on her own. She has to drop out of school, unable to make it to classes. If you're familiar with MS, you know that, in the long run, the disease only gets worse, not better. I can't even imagine how emotionally debilitating that must have been, knowing that things will gradually only be getting worse, not better. Her life is forever changed.

Members of my family have also, relatively recently, gone through dramatic life-changing events, though in these cases I choose not to elaborate.

These events are what caused me to learn to unicycle. I thought about it one day, and acted on those thoughts a few days later.

Life changes too unexpectedly to put off the things you really want to do. Throw caution to the wind, overcome your fears, take risks...all the while, thinking of the future.

When I'm on my deathbed, I want to look back and remember all the awesome places I've been, things I've done, and people I've met and loved...not regret all that I didn't do.


These days, it seems like everything is bad for you. Everything will give you cancer, increase your risk of heart disease, or raise your cholesterol.

Anything in the right amount will give you something. I think the problem with cigarettes is their addictive nature. Smoking sparingly, or in moderation, probably won't give you cancer more than anything else will.



Take everything in moderation, including moderation.



I apologize for the horrendously lengthy post, I just kept thinking and my fingers kept moving. Also, apologies for veering at least somewhat off-topic.


To close my rant, I include some quotes from the movie Waking Life, if you care to read...

"To interrupt the continuum of everyday experience and all the normal expectations that go with it."

"To rupture the spell of the ideology of the commodified consumer society so that our repressed desires of a more authentic nature can come forward."

"To demonstrate the contrast between what life presently is and what it could be."

"To immerse ourselves in the oblivion of actions and know we're making it happen."

"The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the postmodernists with some interest, even admiration. But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are."

[dan de man]

swimmingly hmmm (i like lol)...they banned smoking in public places and now in Australia they want smoking to be stopped in cars... i mean cant people have the right to smoke in their car...it seems like its becoming more and more like the cancer debate...

Lets see what the government would say:

what gives you cancer:

What Gives You Cancer (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cancer%20list.htm)
McDonald's
Smoking
Sun
The things we do in everyday lives
What next using a computer
or unicycling

its like the government is slowly starting to control our lives...next they will be telling us what to eat and when...
I thought they couldnt smoke in their cars with kids present which i think is fair enough

[schoesno1]

smoking is just outright stupid
smoking anything, whether it is tobacco or weed or whatever is stupid
and it screws up your body so you have a shorter life which means less time to unicycle in
you cant unicycle if you are stuck in a hospital bed with lung cancer
as for smoking being cool, well id rather not be cool and be alive than be the coolest person in the country but die in a few years
i usually call ciggarettes "coffin nails"

[Hazmat]

I think smoking in general........
- Is a waste of time and $$$
- If you smoke inside a car or motor vehicle in general. It will diminish the interior and leave it as a rot bucket.
- You become so addicted to it, that you damage your insides and it will/maybe too late b4 you realise it.

[Mikeswarbrick]

I think smoking in general........
- Is a waste of time and $$$
- If you smoke inside a car or motor vehicle in general. It will diminish the interior and leave it as a rot bucket.
- You become so addicted to it, that you damage your insides and it will/maybe too late b4 you realise it.

You’re not that informed are you? Your English could do with a bit of improving too; although saying that, it is better than the majority. I just feel to be taken seriously in an argument 'text language' and misspellings should be addressed.

You say 'I think smoking in general........' Then follow it with 'It will', the latter is a statement, not an opinion as you started.

My car has been had numerous smokers in, there isn't a spot of 'rot' on it. Why would a car 'rot' from having smokers inside it? I can't follow your logic there. To add to that point, you would never know anyone had ever smoked in my car.

Three elderly people I can think of off the top of my head are over 75 and have smoked throughout their life, back from the days when it was 'good for you'.

Sorry Matt, to address your original post; I feel that people start for numerous reasons. Peer pressure, sheer boredom, attention, whatever it might be. As to why they continue to smoke, I am unsure. It is hard to acquire real opinions from smokers without them feeling targeted. I am in split minds about situations to do with smoking. Yes, I feel we should be protected from smoking, but I feel we live in a ‘nanny state’ as it is.

Here in England MP’s have banned smoking from all pubs, clubs and private members’ clubs. I do know people who have quit because of this, although this doesn’t outweigh the people who have carried on smoking regardless.

Would your opinion of me change if I smoked? I should hope not.

Cheers,

[johnfoss]

Why would a car 'rot' from having smokers inside it?Slang varies from country to country. I have no idea what it means in Australia. In American it would tend to suggest rust, though it's obvious smoking doesn't make your car rust. No, it makes your car smell like an ashtray. I can't speak for your car, but I've rented cars, supposedly non-smoking cars, that smelled like ashtrays. How can a car get to stink this bad with so few miles on it, I thought? That stink hit us fresh every time we got back into it until we returned it to the agency.

Three elderly people I can think of off the top of my head are over 75 and have smoked throughout their life, back from the days when it was 'good for you'.Apparently that's because they started early enough. It's too late for the rest of us. Or were you trying to indicate some sort of medical trend? Are the people around you less affected by smoking or is there some other scientific data we should know about?

As to why they continue to smoke, I am unsure.Mostly the answer to that is because they can't, or in other words it's really hard. Funny how the addiction part didn't seem to occur to you. For young people who haven't tried to quit, many still believe themselves to not be addicted. But you can't know until you put it to the test. Then once you do, you have to either lie to yourself (and others), like many smokers do, or admit that you are addicted and take it from there.

Here in England MP’s have banned smoking from all pubs, clubs and private members’ clubs. I do know people who have quit because of this, although this doesn’t outweigh the people who have carried on smoking regardless.I don't know the legal reasons behind the bans in the UK, but if it's similar to the California ones, the (primary) goal is not to help people quit, but to protect the people from working in harmful environments. It's about the employees, in other words, not the patrons. The basis of the CA laws is that you can't make someone work in an environment that's filled with known carcinogens and/or other illness-causing substances.

But isn't it at-will employment? Yes and no. Nobody can make you work. But if the only jobs available to you can damage your health, the state of CA chose to step in and say you should not have to make that decision.

[Mikeswarbrick]

Slang varies from country to country. In American it would tend to suggest rust. No, it makes your car smell like an ashtray. I can't speak for your car.

I guess that the slang could have been translated badly on my part, in England 'rot' would be translated to 'rust', as (apparently) in America.


Apparently that's because they started early enough. It's too late for the rest of us. Or were you trying to indicate some sort of medical trend? Are the people around you less affected by smoking or is there some other scientific data we should know about?

Don't quite follow your post here, I never tried to imply people around me are less affected. By saying about the elderly people I know, I was merely trying to show that there are people who smoke throughout their life and never have a problem. Could you explain the first 3 sentences? I can't understand, not very well at all, sorry.


...many still believe themselves to not be addicted. But you can't know until you put it to the test.

Speaking from experience of being a student in this situation day to day (unlike yourself most probably), I can say with confidence that a lot of people don't even try to pretend their not hooked. This is either because they are hooked, know it, and deal with it. Or, because they want to be seen as almost 'cool' for being hooked on smoking.

Cheers,

[Unibugg]

For young people who haven't tried to quit, many still believe themselves to not be addicted. But you can't know until you put it to the test. Then once you do, you have to either lie to yourself (and others), like many smokers do, or admit that you are addicted and take it from there.

I'd have to add you can't know until you put it to the test then once you do AND FAIL, you either have to lie or admit that you are addicted.

I do know a few people who have smoked for a long time and quit as easily as if they were changing shoes. Unfortunately many others smoked for a VERY short time and soon discover how deeply the addiction has grabbed them.

But I absolutely agree with the spirit of your message. Unless a smoker has tried to quit they wouldn't really know. There is no way to really know until you deny yourself the drug.

Edited to add: I believe that a lot of people choose to lie about the addiction to themselves and others. It is easier than admitting the demoralizing fact that you are not in control.

[glen]

Apparently that's because they started early enough. It's too late for the rest of us. Or were you trying to indicate some sort of medical trend? Are the people around you less affected by smoking or is there some other scientific data we should know about?


Don't quite follow your post here, I never tried to imply people around me are less affected. By saying about the elderly people I know, I was merely trying to show that there are people who smoke throughout their life and never have a problem. Could you explain the first 3 sentences? I can't understand, not very well at all, sorry.

It's sarcasm. You were joking about smoking being good for you back in the day.

As for those 3 elderly people, I don't see the purpose of pointing out cases where people lived long though. Cigarettes are bad for you, that's been established. I could point you to specific incidences where people have fallen out of planes without parachutes and lived, but that isn't an argument in favour of the safety of jumping out of planes without a parachute. There's always going to be a few people in the far reaches of either end of the bell curve.


I don't know the legal reasons behind the bans in the UK, but if it's similar to the California ones, the (primary) goal is not to help people quit, but to protect the people from working in harmful environments. It's about the employees, in other words, not the patrons. The basis of the CA laws is that you can't make someone work in an environment that's filled with known carcinogens and/or other illness-causing substances.

But isn't it at-will employment? Yes and no. Nobody can make you work. But if the only jobs available to you can damage your health, the state of CA chose to step in and say you should not have to make that decision.

I would definitely agree with this reasoning.

[wobbling bear]

I personally knew someone who committed "suicide by cigarette".
She was the sister of a friend, she thought she was ugly (not my opinion), was sad, never tried to get a boyfriend/husband ... she was more and more depressive and drowned herself in smoke.
I knew she was commiting suicide: she died of lung cancer in her early forties.

[tobbogonist]

All is not lost (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22762416-13762,00.html)

[kington99]

I don't know the legal reasons behind the bans in the UK, but if it's similar to the California ones, the (primary) goal is not to help people quit, but to protect the people from working in harmful environments. It's about the employees, in other words, not the patrons. The basis of the CA laws is that you can't make someone work in an environment that's filled with known carcinogens and/or other illness-causing substances.



It's the same in the UK, the point was to ban smoking from places of work, inlcuding inside company owned cars. However the government made no secret of the fact that they hoped this would cause people to quit aswell.

[bungalistic]

It's the same in the UK, the point was to ban smoking from places of work, inlcuding inside company owned cars. However the government made no secret of the fact that they hoped this would cause people to quit aswell.

Smokers have had their way for far too long and why should non smokers be put at risk because of others. I know quite a few part time smokers who only smoke when out drinking and most of them now do not smoke at all, so I think it will encourage some people to make that commitment to quit without having it in their face everytime they go out.

[James_Potter]

I personally knew someone who committed "suicide by cigarette".
She was the sister of a friend, she thought she was ugly (not my opinion), was sad, never tried to get a boyfriend/husband ... she was more and more depressive and drowned herself in smoke.
I knew she was commiting suicide: she died of lung cancer in her early forties.
Are you sure that was the main reason of her smoking, or was it just because she was depressed and so used drugs as a way to escape?

On that note, Kurt Vonnegut always said he smoked cigarettes as a form of suicide. But he also attempted suicide at least once, and was an outspoken misanthropist, so there's that....

[schoesno1]

i think australia has just made a great move by recently banning smoking in all pubs and clubs

[milly]

Even though I smoke sometimes, I support banning smoking in bars and public places. Even though I'm pretty used to smoke, even I get overwhelmed by the smoke in some venues I've played at that allow smoking. Think about someone who dosn't smoke.
I don't smoke around people who don't smoke even if they "don't mind" it cuz the second hand smoke does just as much damage to you as firsthand.

That being said, I really don't smoke at all...