Smoking
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2011, 03:22 PM
Smoking
When I was at high school a few years back every so often we would get PHSCE days. These were days where instead of our normal timetables we would learn about drugs/sex/alcohol etc. or do activities where we would pretend to be business' and have to market stuff or be politicians and have to deal with crises, you get the idea (I am sure you have some sort of equivalent in other parts of the world).

Anyways, when we learnt all about smoking we were always told just how dangerous it is, all the possible side-effects and how we should never smoke. I noticed one thing that we never got told though, something that you would think would be a major part of the topic. We never got told any sort of statistics. I have also noticed that all anti-smoking adverts follow the same formula. You get told how bad it is, that you should never smoke, yet no statistics. This seems very odd to me. I still have no idea about the actual risks statistically of the various issues.

This leads me to one conclusion. That the statistic aren't as bad as people would have us believe. To clarify I am NOT in any way suggesting that smoking isn't bad for you, it is, I know that. What I am saying is that all my life I have had it suggested to me that if you smoke, by 40 you'll cough 3 times a second and be unable to walk upstairs unassisted, by 50 your guaranteed to have lung cancer and you have no chance of making it past 55. I'm beginning to think that maybe this is an exaggeration.

I would love to hear other peoples views on this but most of all if any knows any accurate statistics then I would love to hear them.

For the record I am an ex-smoker, I smoked socially for about 2 years and then started smoking between 5-10 a day for another couple of years. I quit about 6 months ago due to a health issue (not directly smoking related but at risk of being exacerbated by smoking). I now only smoke when drunk (varies but usually once or twice a month). Since I quit I have not once smoked when not drinking.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2011, 03:52 PM
RE: Smoking
Probably, advocates and advertisers, including the government, stay clear of concrete numbers because they don't want to open themselves to lawsuits.
You can say how many lung cancers were diagnosed in a given year, or how many people died of that, plus emphysema, and how many of those people we smokers - but you can't state with any certainty what percent of those people also worked with hazardous substances or in an environment containing what other carcinogens; how many lived in cities near bus depots and waste disposal sites, over defunct tanneries, in houses insulated with asbestos and heated with imperfectly refined fossil fuels...
There is so much in modern industrial processes that causes cancer, and so many people are exposed to several known and unknown sources over indeterminate periods, that it would be impossible to reduce the mortality statistics of any single cause.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2011, 03:59 PM
RE: Smoking
I know it's difficult to give concrete numbers but just a general idea would be nice.

Something along the lines of 'statistically people who smoke more than X number of cigarettes a day are X% more likely to suffer lung cancer than those who don't smoke at all'. I know it's vague and doesn't allow for other causes but I would like to have at least a basic idea of the probability of the various complications.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2011, 06:17 PM
RE: Smoking
Okay.
People who smoke a pack or more a day for 30 years or more are three times as likely to contract lung cancer by 65 than people who don't smoke at all. People who smoke pipes are 10 times more likely to develop cancers of the lip and tongue than people who smoke cigarettes or nothing; people who smoke more than two cigars a day for 10 or more years are four time more likely to develop cancers of the throat or pharynx than people who don't smoke at all. people who live with people with a 3-pack-a-day habit are twice as likely to die of respiratory cancer, emphysema or heart attack than people who live in a smoke-free environment. Barmaids, too.
I don't know how accurate those figures are, but i'm pretty sure they're in the ball-park.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2011, 08:09 AM
RE: Smoking
There are a number of good effects of smoking that are hardly ever mentioned. Smoking calms people, helps people focus, opens the mind for better problem solving, etc. If you want to go down the same route as the reasons canabis is banned it actually does fit in with smoking tobacco. The only real diference is that tobacco is more dangerous if you smoke too much too often (smoking more than 4 cigarettes a day is too much IMO. If you find yourself smoking alone or smoking for the sake of smoking, eg; first thing in the morning / last thing at night, out in the rain on your own while your friends sit inside; then you are smoking too much), and gathers a hell of a lot of tax income for the government.
This would also explain why everything is pinned on smoking even though the amount of cancer causing agents in the air is more dangerous than tobacco smoke. WHO once released a paper saying that smoking caused 90%+ of premature deaths (though I think they withdrew it after a short time due to backlash), which cannot be true.

Alcohol on the other hand has been pretty much left alone since the sudden banning of all drugs started up after the 1890s; other than that one time in the USA which showed very clearly how illigality makes drugs so much more dangerous.

Anyway that's what I think. Everyone is hyping up the negative effects and hiding the possitive effects because the possitive effects exist. Going the same way as canabis.

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2011, 02:25 PM
RE: Smoking
Actually, tobacco isn't so much more dangerous than cannabis. The really bad stuff is put into mass-produced cigarettes, loose tobacco and some brands of cigar by the industrial process of preservation, mildew resistance, burning stability, flavour-enhancement, moisture retention, and maybe increment of addiction potential. If you went out and cut you own leaves, dried and chopped them, you'd be almost as safe as smoking oregano and sage; just have the nicotine to worry about.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2011, 06:29 PM
RE: Smoking
My brother converted to ecigs some months ago now. Basically it's just a vaporization system which atomizes liquid nicotine into a vapor which you inhale. No smoke, no tar, no carcinogens, just pure nicotine vapors delivered straight to the lungs. I'm like, "Dude, why haven't they done this with reefer?" My brother's response was, "What do you mean? They already did that years ago. Where the hell do you think the idea of ecigs came from?"

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-10-2011, 08:46 PM
RE: Smoking
Of course, in large doses, nicotine can kill you dead in minutes.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2011, 09:09 PM
RE: Smoking
(20-10-2011 08:09 AM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  Everyone is hyping up the negative effects and hiding the possitive effects because the possitive effects exist.

We have some evidence that nicotine may be prophylactic against Alzheimer's.

(20-10-2011 08:46 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  Of course, in large doses, nicotine can kill you dead in minutes.

Sure, but your lethal dose is much lower than my lethal dose, Peterkin. I've been doing 80 mg/day of Nicorette gum for some 20 years now as a substitute for Copenhagen snuff. That dose would seriously fuck you up, but it's only a maintenance dose for me. If I'd have stayed on the Copenhagen the odds of me being dead from esophageal cancer would've been much higher.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-10-2011, 09:24 PM
RE: Smoking
(20-10-2011 08:46 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  Of course, in large doses, nicotine can kill you dead in minutes.

Made me think of that episode of Midsomer Murders...

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: