Thread: About Smoking

Originally Posted by $aturn¥oshi

You do know South Park is mainly parody, right? It's not something to take seriously.

That said, I did smoke a couple cigarettes back in the day. Like maybe 10-15 or so years ago. They did nothing for me, so I never took up the habit. I like my lungs to have as little chemicals and smoke in them as possible.

It is a parody, but it uses parody to make points. However, I think that Ghetsis-Dennis may have partially missed the point to which he was referring. Trey and Matt were attempting to point out the hypocracy of being super die hard against one thing while ignoring or advocating something more dangerous. In this case, fatty foods, since heart disease kills more per year than smoking related illness.

On a more personal note, I smoked pipe tobacco for a while my first year of college. My reasoning was I wanted to join my friends when they went out for a cigarette since a lot of them smoked cigarettes, the pipe tobacco smelled good, and I liked to play with the smoke and watch how the air currents acted and whatever because I'm an aerodynamics nerd. I can confirm that I didn't get addicted because I just stopped doing it one day and never gave it a second thought. I'll still smoke hookah or a cigar if the opportunity arises, but I never go out of my way to smoke something. Especially cigarettes since they smell horrible.

Whether or not I care what other people do to their bodies is not only irrelevant, but should not even be a legitimate question.

Just my two cents:

I personally am totally against smoking. Simply put, I find it beyond the realm of common sense to think that inhaling smoke (one that has already been proven full of the deadlies) is something one must do in the first place. Factor in the fact that the act of smoking frequently bothers those around you ('cept fellow deathstick-ers), makes you and the general area you were doing the deed in smell bad, and causes pollution (on a minute scale, at least), and I find it hard to comprehend why people still throw logic to the wind and smoke themselves to death.

Clearly, common sense and smoking can never be in the same room together.

I myself have never smoked, nor do I intend to do so ever. I do know a lot of people who do, including some family members who have ended up dying because of the habit, so you comrades can see why I'm so opposed to this ghastly act.

Meh - I'm tired of arguing on this matter when there are people who aren't accepting true facts about smoking. Heck - doctors tell you to stop smoking and none of them would encourage burning your lungs.

So yeah - I'm not going to care. But please please, I ask all smokers here : PLEASE smoke where there are absolutely NO CHILDREN, NO PREGNANT WOMEN, and NO ASTHMA PATIENTS are around. Even the minimum amount of smoke can be deadly to them, and if you aren't going to be responsible of thier lives, then PLEASE be careful.

Originally Posted by Form11ess 5hot

Meh - I'm tired of arguing on this matter when there are people who aren't accepting true facts about smoking. Heck - doctors tell you to stop smoking and none of them would encourage burning your lungs.

What's the point of having a debate if people don't have differing views on the subject? And personally, I've tried to explain my reasoning behind what I say, while still accepting that I might be wrong, and ultimately smoke because I enjoy it, regardless of any perceived health issues.. That said, I thoroughly enjoy discussion, which is why I keep coming back. Not to convince anybody, since I doubt that would be possible in such a topic.

One thing I want to point out, however, is that you're saying "true facts" (which I feel compelled to point out is redundant), as if there were such a thing as an absolute truth. Anything that we know to be "true" is only true within the realm of our current knowledge. It used to be that smoking was normal, and doctors advocated it. New evidence came to light and they changed their mind - this is what science does. If it finds new facts, it adapts accordingly.

But what I see (and again, this may be my own bias) is that most people are choosing faith over science. Faith in that cigarettes (which seems to be the only smoking most people are aware of) have to be bad, so anything good to come out of them (protecting joints, reducing the risk of Alzheimer's, treating depression, etc) are seen as either "false" or "outweighed by the bad". It's a typical case of "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" without stopping to consider other possibilities.

So yeah - I'm not going to care. But please please, I ask all smokers here : PLEASE smoke where there are absolutely NO CHILDREN, NO PREGNANT WOMEN, and NO ASTHMA PATIENTS are around. Even the minimum amount of smoke can be deadly to them, and if you aren't going to be responsible of thier lives, then PLEASE be careful.

Ignoring that seemingly derisive dismissal, I agree that one shouldn't smoke near women and children - not out of any health issues, just old-fashioned etiquette. Hell, I go out of my way to not smoke near other people when I do it in public, and still get glares from time to time. But how should we know that there's an asthmatic nearby? And saying that "any amount of smoke is deadly" sounds like hyperbole to me. Before the "evils" of smoking were commonly known, women were recommended not to stop if they already smoked just because they got pregnant. There's still people around, so obviously "a small amount" isn't necessarily fatal (considering that moderate smokers back in the day were considered those that smoked about a pack a day, from what I've heard).

And this reminds me of an article I stumbled across, from Health.com, titled "97 Reasons to quit smoking". Listed among these are such gems as "You'll be smarter than Goofy", "You'll save space in your pocket/purse", and "you'll fit in nicely working at Dell". The vast majority of those are utterly ridiculous. And even some of the ones that do deal with health are deceptive:

Originally Posted by Health.com

15. You may be less likely to get psoriasis.
Studies have shown that daily smoking is linked to the risk of developing psoriasis. The higher the number of cigarettes over 20 smoked per day, the greater that risk. (Emphasis mine)

"Over 20".

And,

39. Cheer up without meds.
Smoking may increase the risk of depression.

Which goes directly against at least one study finding that nicotine increases dopamine and serotonin, the lack of which is a common cause of depression.


There's more than one side to every issue. That's all I'm trying to say.

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

What's the point of having a debate if people don't have differing views on the subject? And personally, I've tried to explain my reasoning behind what I say, while still accepting that I might be wrong, and ultimately smoke because I enjoy it, regardless of any perceived health issues.. That said, I thoroughly enjoy discussion, which is why I keep coming back. Not to convince anybody, since I doubt that would be possible in such a topic.

One thing I want to point out, however, is that you're saying "true facts" (which I feel compelled to point out is redundant), as if there were such a thing as an absolute truth. Anything that we know to be "true" is only true within the realm of our current knowledge. It used to be that smoking was normal, and doctors advocated it. New evidence came to light and they changed their mind - this is what science does. If it finds new facts, it adapts accordingly.

But what I see (and again, this may be my own bias) is that most people are choosing faith over science. Faith in that cigarettes (which seems to be the only smoking most people are aware of) have to be bad, so anything good to come out of them (protecting joints, reducing the risk of Alzheimer's, treating depression, etc) are seen as either "false" or "outweighed by the bad". It's a typical case of "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" without stopping to consider other possibilities.

Then let me ask you - IF smoking isn't so bad like you said, then WHY are there clinics for quitting smoking? WHY are doctors advising people not to smoke? And - this may differ from country to county - WHY ARE THERE NO SMOKING ADVERTISEMENTS? I haven't seen a single advertisement on 'buy our cigarettes!' anywhere. I have seen multiple ads on quitting smoking, and nowadays, the media bans smoking from apperaing in any program.

And NO - we're not choosing faith over science. WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE - I've said this again and again - it's been PROVED that they can be the source of cancer, and I know someone who's been hospitalized because of secondary smoking. No joke - true story. Her husband quite smoking after his wife got hospitalized because of him. She's still visiting her doctor regularly, and although she's recovered a lot, she still has problems with her lungs.

Ignoring that seemingly derisive dismissal, I accept that one should smoke near women and children - not out of any health issues, just old-fashioned etiquette. There's still people around, so obviously "a small amount" isn't necessarily fatal (considering that moderate smokers back in the day were considered those that smoked about a pack a day, from what I've heard).

EXCUSE ME??? I've seen people who said they would consider their surroundings when they smoke - but WUT?? It's written in every official scientific research papers that smoke from cigarettes are bad for children, and as I mentioned before, infants can die from Third-hand smoking - it's been officially stated by doctors!!

I don't know where exactly you're getting all the info, but what you said that I marked Bold isn't acceptable at all. If you really can't believe that smoking is bad for you or anyone around you - be it children or whatever, just visit your nearest doctor and ask what's true or not in this entire thread. Hear for yourself what the response might be.

MOD NOTE

This is a DEBATE thread. It is possible that there will be people who disagree with your points here and DEBATE threads are for conversations with them. Please do not attack people. Rather, debate about what they stated.

Originally Posted by Form11ess 5hot

Then let me ask you - IF smoking isn't so bad like you said, then WHY are there clinics for quitting smoking? WHY are doctors advising people not to smoke? And - this may differ from country to county - WHY ARE THERE NO SMOKING ADVERTISEMENTS? I haven't seen a single advertisement on 'buy our cigarettes!' anywhere. I have seen multiple ads on quitting smoking, and nowadays, the media bans smoking from apperaing in any program.

Why are there clinics for quitting? Because it can develop into an addiction. That's something that anyone needs help getting over, but it's not exclusive to cigarettes, and it's not necessarily physiological. Someone can be psychologically dependent on, say, shopping, or relationships, and they will also need help to get over it.

People, doctors included, advise you to not smoke because most people see it as a bad thing. This does not mean that it is. Or that it isn't. Also, there have been laws passed against promoting smoking. And, if I may let my cynical side come out for a moment, laws aren't always made in the best interests of the people.

And NO - we're not choosing faith over science. WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE - I've said this again and again - it's been PROVED that they can be the source of cancer,

If you believe in science, please tell me why every citation I've made has been utterly ignored. Why every argument I see in this thread is either "smoking is bad", "I don't like smoking", or "I know someone that was sick/died because of smoking". Subjective opinions and anecdotes - which is perfectly valid for a personal point of view. Opinions are what we're here to share, after all. But what makes the study I cited, that claimed no significant correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer, any less valid than where any of you get your information from? I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I possess the undeniable truth, just let's consider the possibility that what we all know isn't entirely true, as we now "know" those before us weren't always right.

and I know someone who's been hospitalized because of secondary smoking. No joke - true story. Her husband quite smoking after his wife got hospitalized because of him. She's still visiting her doctor regularly, and although she's recovered a lot, she still has problems with her lungs.

I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm glad she's doing alright. Of course I wish no harm on any other human being, and don't want to diminish anyone's personal experiences. I had respiratory problems myself when I was a kid, and my dad's smoking was blamed, although it only ever came up once, and now I smoke myself, and don't even cough.

As personal and compelling as one's experiences can be, the experiences of one or even a few hundred people aren't necessarily going to be the norm. George Burns once said "If I had stopped smoking when my doctor told me to, I wouldn't have lived to be at his funeral." Of course, one should assume he said it for comedic effect, but it still shows that there are some exceptional cases out there, and it's likely that they will fall on both ends of the spectrum.

EXCUSE ME??? I've seen people who said they would consider their surroundings when they smoke - but WUT?? It's written in every official scientific research papers that smoke from cigarettes are bad for children, and as I mentioned before, infants can die from Third-hand smoking - it's been officially stated by doctors!! I don't know where exactly you're getting all the info, but what you said that I marked Bold isn't acceptable at all.

That was a typo which I corrected as soon as I spotted it.

And I do admit that was more of a rhetorical argument than a factual one. But it's true that doctors used to recommend smoking (at the very least, it looks like they did). Science marches on. We used to believe that the atom was indivisible, we now know that it's not. Eugenics used to be widely accepted, now it's been discredited. Medicine used to be drilling holes into your head. You never know what might be discovered in the future, and I repeat, the fact that something is held to be true now, even in spite of some conflicting information floating out there, some of which I've tried to point out, doesn't mean that it's necessarily and absolutely true.

If you really can't believe that smoking is bad for you, just visit your nearest doctor and ask what's true or not in this entire thread. Hear for yourself what the response might be.

Once more, I am not saying it's not bad for you. I'm saying that it might not be as bad as we're told. I've said it like three times already.

And I don't have to go see a doctor - most of my family is in medicine, and most of them would agree with you all that it's not healthy. Again, I will not dispute this. But I will remain stalwart that smoking has been demonized. And that any positive effects that may come with it are dismissed without further question. For example: nobody here has commented one word on what I've said about joint replacement and Alzheimer's. It has been swiftly ignored to press on instead with the same argument that "smoking is just bad, don't you get it?" Again, I'm going to point out that I'm not saying "it has good things too, so it's not bad". I'm saying "here's some people that disagree and have data to back their claims up with, let's hear them out".


Edit: I'm not trying to attack anyone and apologize to anyone that feels like I am. It isn't my intention.

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

Originally Posted by Form11ess 5hot

Then let me ask you - IF smoking isn't so bad like you said, then WHY are there clinics for quitting smoking? WHY are doctors advising people not to smoke? And - this may differ from country to county - WHY ARE THERE NO SMOKING ADVERTISEMENTS? I haven't seen a single advertisement on 'buy our cigarettes!' anywhere. I have seen multiple ads on quitting smoking, and nowadays, the media bans smoking from apperaing in any program.

Why are there clinics for quitting? Because it can develop into an addiction. That's something that anyone needs help getting over, but it's not exclusive to cigarettes, and it's not necessarily physiological. Someone can be psychologically dependent on, say, shopping, or relationships, and they will also need help to get over it.

People, doctors included, advise you to not smoke because most people see it as a bad thing. This does not mean that it is. Or that it isn't. Also, there have been laws passed against promoting smoking. And, if I may let my cynical side come out for a moment, laws aren't always made in the best interests of the people.

And NO - we're not choosing faith over science. WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE - I've said this again and again - it's been PROVED that they can be the source of cancer,

If you believe in science, please tell me why every citation I've made has been utterly ignored. Why every argument I see in this thread is either "smoking is bad", "I don't like smoking", or "I know someone that was sick/died because of smoking". Subjective opinions and anecdotes - which is perfectly valid for a personal point of view. Opinions are what we're here to share, after all. But what makes the study I cited, that claimed no significant correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer, any less valid than where any of you get your information from? I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I possess the undeniable truth, just let's consider the possibility that what we all know isn't entirely true, as we now "know" those before us weren't always right.

and I know someone who's been hospitalized because of secondary smoking. No joke - true story. Her husband quite smoking after his wife got hospitalized because of him. She's still visiting her doctor regularly, and although she's recovered a lot, she still has problems with her lungs.

I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm glad she's doing alright. Of course I wish no harm on any other human being, and don't want to diminish anyone's personal experiences. I had respiratory problems myself when I was a kid, and my dad's smoking was blamed, although it only ever came up once, and now I smoke myself, and don't even cough.

As personal and compelling as one's experiences can be, the experiences of one or even a few hundred people aren't necessarily going to be the norm. George Burns once said "If I had stopped smoking when my doctor told me to, I wouldn't have lived to be at his funeral." Of course, one should assume he said it for comedic effect, but it still shows that there are some exceptional cases out there, and it's likely that they will fall on both ends of the spectrum.

EXCUSE ME??? I've seen people who said they would consider their surroundings when they smoke - but WUT?? It's written in every official scientific research papers that smoke from cigarettes are bad for children, and as I mentioned before, infants can die from Third-hand smoking - it's been officially stated by doctors!! I don't know where exactly you're getting all the info, but what you said that I marked Bold isn't acceptable at all.

That was a typo which I corrected as soon as I spotted it.

And I do admit that was more of a rhetorical argument than a factual one. But it's true that doctors used to recommend smoking (at the very least, it looks like they did). Science marches on. We used to believe that the atom was indivisible, we now know that it's not. Eugenics used to be widely accepted, now it's been discredited. Medicine used to be drilling holes into your head. You never know what might be discovered in the future, and I repeat, the fact that something is held to be true now, even in spite of some conflicting information floating out there, some of which I've tried to point out, doesn't mean that it's necessarily and absolutely true.

If you really can't believe that smoking is bad for you, just visit your nearest doctor and ask what's true or not in this entire thread. Hear for yourself what the response might be.

Once more, I am not saying it's not bad for you. I'm saying that it might not be as bad as we're told. I've said it like three times already.

And I don't have to go see a doctor - most of my family is in medicine, and most of them would agree with you all that it's not healthy. Again, I will not dispute this. But I will remain stalwart that smoking has been demonized. And that any positive effects that may come with it are dismissed without further question. For example: nobody here has commented one word on what I've said about joint replacement and Alzheimer's. It has been swiftly ignored to press on instead with the same argument that "smoking is just bad, don't you get it?" Again, I'm going to point out that I'm not saying "it has good things too, so it's not bad". I'm saying "here's some people that disagree and have data to back their claims up with, let's hear them out".


Edit: I'm not trying to attack anyone and apologize to anyone that feels like I am. It isn't my intention.

Okay - I apologize if my behavior had been offending anyone and if the mods feel I need to edit my posts entirely, I will do as such.

But look - I HAD BEEN paying attention to what you've said. You pointed out that smoking may not be as bad as we all think. However, the cons of smoking are so heavy and actually visible that the pros are neglected and simply ignored. Anything good about smoking - whether it be in the past, present, future, nothing really can outweigh the fact that it can potentially kill you and anyone around you. If something can kill you and your family direct and indirectly, then most peoplr wouldn't think to see the good points of it.

Alcohol is consumed individually, thus unless you force-feed someone, nobody's affected by alcohol just because someone's drinking it. Cars are dangerous and numerous people die from accidents everyday. Yet the pros outweigh the cons - it's what made our industrial life more easier, and many of the accidents can be prevented if you're careful. Smoking, on the other hand, no matter how you're careful, the smoke spreads in the air and it actually lingers in the air even after the smoker is gone. Anyone within the range is potentially affected.

I know that not everybody dies because of smoking problems, but people have to accept it IS bad - it CAN kill, and the smell of smoke is dangerous as well. What good points can actually outweigh potential killing products?

Originally Posted by Form11ess 5hot

Okay - I apologize if my behavior had been offending anyone and if the mods feel I need to edit my posts entirely, I will do as such.

But look - I HAD BEEN paying attention to what you've said. You pointed out that smoking may not be as bad as we all think. However, the cons of smoking are so heavy and actually visible that the pros are neglected and simply ignored. Anything good about smoking - whether it be in the past, present, future, nothing really can outweigh the fact that it can potentially kill you and anyone around you. If something can kill you and your family direct and indirectly, then most peoplr wouldn't think to see the good points of it.

That right there is my main motivation for bring it it to light. Not that it will sway opinions (especially on such a polarizing topic such as this one), but precisely because most people wouldn't think to see the good parts. That, to me, is willful ignorance. It is my firm belief that one should look at and consider as many sides to an issue as possible. If nobody ever questioned anything, not even the harmful effects of smoking would have been discovered.

Alcohol is consumed individually, thus unless you force-feed someone, nobody's affected by alcohol just because someone's drinking it.

To take a few posts out of the Alcohol thread, what about people that drink so much their judgement is clouded? Drunk drivers, men who come home drunk and beat their wives, wives who come home drunk and beat their husbands, bad decisions made by your impulses no longer being in check? I've seen at least one commercial of a funeral with a family crying and a voice-over saying; "He died in a drunk-driving accident. He never drank a drop."

And to turn your own question back at you, what's so good about alcohol that one would overlook the potentially fatal effects of ingestion, such as liver damage and what I've already mentioned, to continue drinking it? You know, besides having anti-oxidants, possibly helping prevent cancer, helping with Alzheimer's and memory in general, preventing heart disease, among other things, depending on the drink in question.

I think I'll focus on this a bit, since it's an interesting comparison to make. Alcohol is potentially more dangerous, at least immediately dangerous, than smoking is. You can go out and get drunk and drive, and end up killing several people all in one night. Whilst you can smoke for several years, maybe never even get cancer, because it's not a certainty, either, maybe end up developing some respiratory problems a few years down the line. All of smoking's effects are long-term. And yet smoking is still vilified, and alcohol is okay - like I said in my first post, I wonder how people would react if they started putting horrible warning images of little girls crying and people whose heads got torn in half in a drunk driving accident on cases of beer. They can both harm you and others. They can both kill you and others. Just one of them in a few years and the other at any time you use it.

Of course one could argue that you can just not drink as much and not get drunk. And I would argue that someone could smoke one cigarette a day and what harm can that do, really? If you're drunk in public, you can end up harming a lot of people, even if you don't mean to. If you smoke in a public, well-ventilated area, unless someone's standing downwind from you and rather close, most of the smoke is just going to dissipate in the air.

So what makes cigarettes that much more evil than alcohol? If anything can't they be equal?

Cars are dangerous and numerous people die from accidents everyday. Yet the pros outweigh the cons - it's what made our industrial life more easier, and many of the accidents can be prevented if you're careful. Smoking, on the other hand, no matter how you're careful, the smoke spreads in the air and it actually lingers in the air even after the smoker is gone. Anyone within the range is potentially affected.

"Potentially" being the key word. If you lock someone in a room with you and chain-smoke a whole box of Cubans, they probably won't end up looking too good. But if you smoke, for example, like I do, in my own home, and usually in my own room, who else is really affected?

Also, the more the smoke would spread, the less effect it's going to have. It's like dropping a bottle of food coloring in a glass of water and another in a bucket - it has to be spread thinner. And I mean that literally, because gases expand to fill their containers. And the sky is a really big container.

I know that not everybody dies because of smoking problems, but people have to accept it IS bad - it CAN kill, and the smell of smoke is dangerous as well.

I have to say, I think you're misunderstanding how third-hand smoke <insert obligatory "allegedly"> works. It's not the smell. It's what causes the smell. The residue that remains. But here's the thing - the Acting Assistant Secretary of the OSHA said:

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded. (Letter from Greg Watchman, 1997)

(Now, this was said in 1997. But keep in mind the Surgeon General's Report still quoted and slapped onto all tobacco packages was published in 1964.)

That's just second-hand smoke. Recall that the Wikipedia article mentions they "proved" the dangers by spraying four to twelve times (which is a considerable gap, I'd think) the normal amount of nitrous acid found in the typical home onto residue-laden surfaces.

Just because something might happen doesn't mean that it will.

What good points can actually outweigh potential killing products?

I'd say it depends on the product. Because everything can potentially kill. It's just human nature to dismiss or ignore the hazards of things we enjoy. But still, we shouldn't stop living our lives because of it.

A milder example I think we can all relate to: Any safety booklet in a video game will tell you that, even in people that have never experienced an epileptic episode before, playing video games for long stretches of time can induce seizures. That doesn't stop any of us from playing, though, does it?

My house's roof could cave in over my head tomorrow. So I say smoke 'em if you got 'em.


Wow. I just realized how long my posts can be.

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

Originally Posted by Form11ess 5hot

Okay - I apologize if my behavior had been offending anyone and if the mods feel I need to edit my posts entirely, I will do as such.

But look - I HAD BEEN paying attention to what you've said. You pointed out that smoking may not be as bad as we all think. However, the cons of smoking are so heavy and actually visible that the pros are neglected and simply ignored. Anything good about smoking - whether it be in the past, present, future, nothing really can outweigh the fact that it can potentially kill you and anyone around you. If something can kill you and your family direct and indirectly, then most peoplr wouldn't think to see the good points of it.

That right there is my main motivation for bring it it to light. Not that it will sway opinions (especially on such a polarizing topic such as this one), but precisely because most people wouldn't think to see the good parts. That, to me, is willful ignorance. It is my firm belief that one should look at and consider as many sides to an issue as possible. If nobody ever questioned anything, not even the harmful effects of smoking would have been discovered.

Alcohol is consumed individually, thus unless you force-feed someone, nobody's affected by alcohol just because someone's drinking it.

To take a few posts out of the Alcohol thread, what about people that drink so much their judgement is clouded? Drunk drivers, men who come home drunk and beat their wives, wives who come home drunk and beat their husbands, bad decisions made by your impulses no longer being in check? I've seen at least one commercial of a funeral with a family crying and a voice-over saying; "He died in a drunk-driving accident. He never drank a drop."

And to turn your own question back at you, what's so good about alcohol that one would overlook the potentially fatal effects of ingestion, such as liver damage and what I've already mentioned, to continue drinking it? You know, besides having anti-oxidants, possibly helping prevent cancer, helping with Alzheimer's and memory in general, preventing heart disease, among other things, depending on the drink in question.

I think I'll focus on this a bit, since it's an interesting comparison to make. Alcohol is potentially more dangerous, at least immediately dangerous, than smoking is. You can go out and get drunk and drive, and end up killing several people all in one night. Whilst you can smoke for several years, maybe never even get cancer, because it's not a certainty, either, maybe end up developing some respiratory problems a few years down the line. All of smoking's effects are long-term. And yet smoking is still vilified, and alcohol is okay - like I said in my first post, I wonder how people would react if they started putting horrible warning images of little girls crying and people whose heads got torn in half in a drunk driving accident on cases of beer. They can both harm you and others. They can both kill you and others. Just one of them in a few years and the other at any time you use it.

Of course one could argue that you can just not drink as much and not get drunk. And I would argue that someone could smoke one cigarette a day and what harm can that do, really? If you're drunk in public, you can end up harming a lot of people, even if you don't mean to. If you smoke in a public, well-ventilated area, unless someone's standing downwind from you and rather close, most of the smoke is just going to dissipate in the air.

So what makes cigarettes that much more evil than alcohol? If anything can't they be equal?

Cars are dangerous and numerous people die from accidents everyday. Yet the pros outweigh the cons - it's what made our industrial life more easier, and many of the accidents can be prevented if you're careful. Smoking, on the other hand, no matter how you're careful, the smoke spreads in the air and it actually lingers in the air even after the smoker is gone. Anyone within the range is potentially affected.

"Potentially" being the key word. If you lock someone in a room with you and chain-smoke a whole box of Cubans, they probably won't end up looking too good. But if you smoke, for example, like I do, in my own home, and usually in my own room, who else is really affected?

Also, the more the smoke would spread, the less effect it's going to have. It's like dropping a bottle of food coloring in a glass of water and another in a bucket - it has to be spread thinner. And I mean that literally, because gases expand to fill their containers. And the sky is a really big container.

I know that not everybody dies because of smoking problems, but people have to accept it IS bad - it CAN kill, and the smell of smoke is dangerous as well.

I have to say, I think you're misunderstanding how third-hand smoke <insert obligatory "allegedly"> works. It's not the smell. It's what causes the smell. The residue that remains. But here's the thing - the Acting Assistant Secretary of the OSHA said:

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded. (Letter from Greg Watchman, 1997)

(Now, this was said in 1997. But keep in mind the Surgeon General's Report still quoted and slapped onto all tobacco packages was published in 1964.)

That's just second-hand smoke. Recall that the Wikipedia article mentions they "proved" the dangers by spraying four to twelve times (which is a considerable gap, I'd think) the normal amount of nitrous acid found in the typical home onto residue-laden surfaces.

Just because something might happen doesn't mean that it will.

What good points can actually outweigh potential killing products?

I'd say it depends on the product. Because everything can potentially kill. It's just human nature to dismiss or ignore the hazards of things we enjoy. But still, we shouldn't stop living our lives because of it.

A milder example I think we can all relate to: Any safety booklet in a video game will tell you that, even in people that have never experienced an epileptic episode before, playing video games for long stretches of time can induce seizures. That doesn't stop any of us from playing, though, does it?

My house's roof could cave in over my head tomorrow. So I say smoke 'em if you got 'em.


Wow. I just realized how long my posts can be.

You misunderstood my point. I didn't say anything about overconsuming alcohol and getting drunk, or packs of cigarettes. I meant the action itself. Whether it be a simple sip of alcohol, or a simple breath of smoke. And I know that everything can potentially kill you if overused/overconsumed, but I didn't say anything about that. That was not my point. And it's not my point because it's obvious, ya know...

I already mentioned this in the Alcohol thread, but there are countries that are proud to be famous for alcohol brands. France with Wine, Germany with Beer, and Russia with Vodka. I just said this because when I hear that country, that sort of alcohol product pops into my head. Good brands are sold expensively, and make good gifts at parties. Wine are known to be good for health, of course, if not overconsumed. Some alcohols have been fermented over 50 years, some over 100, and the price is sky-high - yet there are people who would buy them. There are actually sommerliers who can tell us what is good wine or not. Famous brewers and winerys make famous places to visit - some even dating back to more than a 100 years ago. Alcohol has been part of our human history from ancient times, and it's hard to separate it from our culture.

But what about smoking?

Originally Posted by Form11ess 5hot

You misunderstood my point. I didn't say anything about overconsuming alcohol and getting drunk, or packs of cigarettes. I meant the action itself. Whether it be a simple sip of alcohol, or a simple breath of smoke. And I know that everything can potentially kill you if overused/overconsumed, but I didn't say anything about that. That was not my point. And it's not my point because it's obvious, ya know...

I already mentioned this in the Alcohol thread, but there are countries that are proud to be famous for alcohol brands. France with Wine, Germany with Beer, and Russia with Vodka. I just said this because when I hear that country, that sort of alcohol product pops into my head. Good brands are sold expensively, and make good gifts at parties. Wine are known to be good for health, of course, if not overconsumed. Some alcohols have been fermented over 50 years, some over 100, and the price is sky-high - yet there are people who would buy them. There are actually sommerliers who can tell us what is good wine or not. Famous brewers and winerys make famous places to visit - some even dating back to more than a 100 years ago. Alcohol has been part of our human history from ancient times, and it's hard to separate it from our culture.

But what about smoking?

Perhaps I did misunderstand. For that I apologize.

What about smoking indeed. In this case, I'd step aside from cigarettes and turn to my true loves, cigars and pipes. Needless to say, there's Cuba. It's the first country that comes to mind when one thinks of a cigar, and rightfully so - it has all the properties to produce varieties of premium cigars.

There's also the Dominican Republic, which some call The Cigar Country". It has about 600,000 acres of land dedicated to tobacco production, with a soil and climate similar to that of Cuba's; it's the leading producer of tobacco world-wide, and top-quality product, at that.

Nicaragua, whose cigar industry was founded by experts that fled from Cuba due to the revolution. Others went to Honduras, also with ideal soil and climate conditions for leaf production. While not a country, Connecticut is also a quality producer of tobacco.

The making of a quality cigar is an art. Not only in the actual growing and harvesting of the crops, but fermenting and aging it, sometimes for ten or twenty years, possibly longer; knowing what parts to use and how, not to mention every cigar worth it's salt is going to be made by hand. Someone that knows can tell the flavor and quality of a cigar mostly by handling it; seeing the colors, noting the textures. Seeing how well it was rolled.

And there are also cigar sommeliers, make no mistake about it. But they're not infallible - in at least one blind tasting, french sommeliers ended up declaring Caloifornian wines superior to their own French wines, much to their horror. There's been studies that show the more expensive a wine is, the better it tastes, simply because it was expensive. The placebo of the snob, if you will. And believe you me, there are some rather expensive sticks out there, too.

The reason tobacco isn't as ancient as alcohol in our history is because it wasn't really known until the discovery of the Americas, when natives introduced Europeans to the tobacco. Ever since it's been a part of our culture in various ways - even today, when you think of an old university professor, he will have a pipe clenched firmly in his jaw as he puffs away in silent contemplation. A cigar-chomping man will invoke thoughts of authority or power. They have images and ideas bound to them that will also prove difficult to separate.

Here's an interesting opinion piece I found online a few years ago, and while I don't agree with everything it says, it does present some interesting ideas on smoking, what it represents, and why we continue to do it.

And just as the savouring of a fine wine is a ritual, and a very enjoyable one, at that; so can smoking be, as well. Particularly the pipe, my favorite method to partake of the leaf. The cleaning and care one puts into his pipe, sometimes heirlooms passed down from fathers or grandfathers. The packing of the bowl, the lighting, the carefully measured draw. Smoking a pipe is today just as much of a ritual of introspection, contemplation, meditation, as it was when the natives of this land shared the peace pipe with the Europeans, centuries ago.

As Rudyard Kipling's The Betrothed eloquently states, "A good cigar is a Smoke."



Now; leaving all of that waxing aside, the difference is that smoking has, I repeat, been vilified. It is no longer politically correct to be proud of smoking in any way shape or form. And it's a very sad thing, really, for one that appreciates the toil, the care that can go into making such a product. It's no less of an art form or tradition than brewing.

But then again, the Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy. So just because alcohol or tobacco has a history and is an ingrained part of our culture or not, doesn't mean it should get a free pass.

Still... the government is trying hard to make laws to get people to stop smoking. I don't know much about cigars or pipes, but I've seen a cigarette pack where pictures of terminal lung cancer were all over the pack. I think it also said something like "Warning - smoke at your own risk" or something similar.

Also, I feel that this conversation is taking us nowhere. We're simply stating and restating what we know and what everyone else knows and this is getting tiresome. I'm stepping out of this debate. Bye.

I don't feel we should ban smoking, but rather restrict it like we already do. That is to say, have smoking areas away from non-smoking areas. I've heard people complain, but I think it's polite to respect other people's decisions not to smoke, and not smoke near them. But sometimes it's not always as simple as that. For example: My college only has one smoking section on the entire campus. That is a huge inconvenience to people who smoke, and have classes on the opposite side of the campus, and I feel there should be more accessible locations for people to step out and have a smoke.

Likewise, I've also been to places where the smoking section was way too close to public areas. At a hotel I stayed at, there was a smoking section in the courtyard right outside the exit from the main building. So any time you'd go into the courtyard, you had to walk through a cloud of cigarette and hookah smoke, and for someone like me who is nauseated by the smell, it was horrible, and a severe inconvenience. I would have preferred it be in the middle of the courtyard, and not right outside the door.

Wouldn't those electronic cigarettes shown in commercials a few times be the solution to all our problems with cancer and other diseases?

Possibly but not necessarily
Analysis Finds Toxic Substances in Electronic Cigarettes - The New York Times
Evidence suggests e-cigs safer than cigarettes, researcher claims

The concentrations of harmful substances is substantially lower in electric cigarettes but they are not free from toxic substances. Of course there is not very much information of long term use of electric cigarettes and more studie are needed.