Is smoking good for you?

@spendius,

I admit I'm running a business inbetween my posting here and I don't always do in-depth thoughts on your posts (and okay, sometimes in the middle I glaze over, sorry). I'll try again later when I have more time.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

Quote:

The big hole in it is that the reason they banned the advertising is because smoking is so bad for you.

Not at all boomer. They were advertising tobacco products long after the report of the Royal College of Surgeons was published about 1960 which started the whole industry of busybodies going. In fact Media resisted the ban with some force. Right up to fairly recently, when tobacco sponsorship of Grand Prix motor-racing was finally stopped, certain sections were still resisting. Media will advertise anything it is allowed to. It is full of Darwinian atheistic amoralists who have no compunctions about anything. Hence the regulations imposed on it by governments. They tell anybody with eyes to see how far Media can be trusted.

Media advertises junk food on children's programmes and speed inducers in car adverts, and those for gas, despite speed on the roads having killed and maimed maybe millions of people and many thousands of children. "Put a tiger in your tank" was an Esso slogan that ran for years.

A scandalous number of its programmes are one long advert. The blitz of programmes about evolution and Darwin had no other purpose than to turn people away from religion.

I suspect Media of finding a loop-hole in the ban on subliminals. I see Media as a conspiracy against the public interest. I don't think they can lie in bed straight and when they die they'll be screwed into the ground.

It transpires that the "rules" for what was trailed as "history making TV" (my arse): the debate of the party leaders last night, was about 40 pages of fine print.

They even give potential criminals advice and demonstrations on methods of procedure and avoidance of detection in order that their news broadcasts can contain dramatic stories and then their simpering goodie-goodies can wallow in how awful it all is as if they are doing their best to stamp it out.

0 Replies

@Green Witch,

My friends mother died the same horrific death, not very nice, the lung cancer was slow and very stressful for those around her, the only problem was she didn't smoke, was never in a smoking environment, non of her family smoked, yet the death was put down to being "Smoking related". The family protested but to no avail, the final cause of death was set in stone and of course added to the useless stats that are compiled by governments to prove their agendas.

Now I'm not saying smoking doesn't kill, it does, but so does paracetamol, yet there's no big warnings on the packet. The hysteria around cigarettes is unfounded and only used to increase VAT on these items to give governments more money and reduce medical care bills by refusing people access to health care for being a "Smoker" yet drug addicts, obese people, self abusers all get access.

There are positive benefits to smoking which should not be hidden away, and should be openly discussed. My Grandmother died from a horrific disease that may have been prevented by smoking. If this is so then I am as angry as you that she will not see her grandchildren born since her death.

"Considering people you love" is not a good arguement to not smoking, used in any death this would end up with some absurd statements like "he should not have driven a car" due to auto-mobile deaths, "He should not have ate food" due to obesity deaths, etc etc etc. Many things kill, and kill allot yet society doesn't make these people selfish due to the cause. Yet you do. why is that?

If smoking "Kills" then it should kill all "Smokers". No ifs or buts, I have had several relatives who lived to their 80 and 90's who smoked most of their lives. The oldest working man in the UK, who lives in London, England, smokes and drinks everyday, yet is 95 years of age. Will his family make him out to be selfish when he passes away. I doubt it.

2 Replies

@BDV,

I think it'd be fairly easy to compare the lifespans of smokers vs non-smokers.

If 100% of people started smoking at age 20 to make sure they didn't get Alz., which only something like 1 in 10 people get at some point in their lives (and most cases are mild)....don't you think that more than 1 in 10 people would develop complications from the smoking? Or that their quality of life would suffer (can't exercise as much, costs a lot of money, cancer, etc).

2 Replies

@BDV,

Quote:

The oldest working man in the UK, who lives in London, England, smokes and drinks everyday, yet is 95 years of age. Will his family make him out to be selfish when he passes away. I doubt it.

He will be added to the statistics of smoking related deaths of course. I'm aiming to outdo the bugger. By laughing treatments.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I think it'd be fairly easy to compare the lifespans of smokers vs non-smokers

it is, and I dont think that anyone serious doubts that smoking will cause lose of human life days. Some people might decide that it is a worthwhile trade-off for them though. Sky diving will tend to shorten life too but I don't hear any busy bodies trying to outlaw that.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I'd bet the life expectancy of a sky diver and that of equally healthy sky divers is pretty much the same. The accident rate is not nearly enough to bring down the LE average.

I'm fine if smokers want to smoke; just not around your children, and not around me.

Not directed at you, but at the OP, here is an article I found, touting some possible benefits of nicotine, but NOT OF SMOKING.

Also, one of the reasons that the smoking community may not experience Parkinson's or Alzheimers is that those diseases tend to be diseasese that hit you when you reach an old age (on average); smokers, like Hawkeye said, live shorter lives, less of them reach an old age where they may develop some of these diseases. Just one factor. Not to be considered for anything else than a possible flaw in the argument.

Quote:

Smoking is bad for you. We all know that and that it's one of the biggest killers in the world however the smoking fact that will surprise many people is:

Nicotine can actually be good for you.

This article is all about this smoking fact and it's significance for smokers everywhere.

Nicotine is ONLY responsible for the addiction

Most people assume Nicotine is harmful as it is responsible for the addiction of cigarette smoking, however it is a smoking fact that it is NOT responsible for disease and there is no medical evidence to date that it causes cancer.

Smoking fact - Other chemicals are the real killers

The World Health Organization has postulated that tobacco smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals, of which nicotine is just one.

In addition to tar, carbon monoxide is present (found in car exhaust fumes), ammonia is also present
(found in floor cleaner) and arsenic (found in rat poison).

At least 43 of the chemicals in tobacco smoke are medically proven to cause cancers of the lung, throat, mouth, bladder and kidneys.

Tobacco smoke is also responsible for a number of other cancers.

Smoking Fact: Nicotine is NOT Harmful

As we have seen, nicotine is the ingredient responsible for addiction, the other compounds (not nicotine in tobacco smoke) are the ones primarily responsible for the harmful health effects of smoking cigarettes.

There is no evidence at all that indicates that nicotine itself can cause cancer.

Smoking fact - Nicotine is good for you!

It's a smoking fact that while we all know smokers are addicted to nicotine but it is actually a naturally occuring compound.

Trace elements are found in common foods and vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes, bell peppers, cauliflower, eggplant, chili peppers, and even some teas.

Nicotine is known to switch on receptors on the surface of cells in certain parts of the brain, causing these neurons to release the Neuro-transmitter dopamine, a chemical that is associated with feelings of pleasure.

In its natural state, and when ingested through the digestive system, nicotine is safe and non-toxic.

It does not present the health hazards associated with smoking cigarettes.

Additionally, the nicotine molecule is showing great promise in medical research and clinical studies for the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer and Parkinson's disease.

FOR MORE FREE INFO

On Nicotine and to read more facts and articles on Nicotine and discover the first ever, organic nicotine replacement drink - NicLite; now available for purchase online at http://www.smokefreechoice.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sacha_Tarkovsky

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

costs a lot of money

What on earth do you mean by that? Tobacco is a plant like cabbage. Imagine dried cabbage for sale at £6 for half an ounce. You're just trying to avoid the taxes that go to pay for the national health service. And pose on the moral high ground at the same time.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Even without taxes it's expensive. I it were $2 / pack it'd still cost you tens of thousands over your lifetime if you were a pack a day smoker.

1 Reply

A quick google search has the loss of life from smoking all over the place, which means they don't really know. Both is years lost and lost of minutes per cig there is no consistency.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Dried cabbage would be about 5 cents a pack I should think.

Try another way of excusing your failure to help pay for the medical costs of the dodderers.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Like this?

http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol8.htm

1 Reply

@BDV,

there is no consistency though, I saw one claim that the average is 15 years lost, and a study that claimed that each cig cost 28 minutes. Who knows what the truth is, I doubt anyone has tried to find out. The anti smoking groups promoted a lot of crap science about how bad smoking is, which was largely bought because people tend to be too lazy to question what they are being spoon fed, but what are the facts?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Great, so grow your own. If you are asking Phillip Morris to do it, you are going to pay whatever they want to charge.

0 Replies

@spendius,

And you know damn well that not all plants are equal. What should a half ounce of tobacco cost? What should they charge for their labor and packaging and distribution?

Grass at the park is basically free, while a 40 year old oak tree will cost you 10's of thousands. While a dried 4x4 will cost you $6.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You're just trying to avoid the taxes that go to pay for the national health service. And pose on the moral high ground at the same time.

And I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. Maybe I'm stupid; but if you would care to explain a little further, I'd appreciate it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Well, I was a little terse there, and while my "smoking is no good for you, fool" is my definitive thought on the matter, I'm generally pretty non-proscriptive about people smoking, it being their business - and yes, I've had several friends with emphysema/copd. I'm probably convinced re second hand smoke, but not very excited against it except with parents smoking with kids in closed cars.

I smoked between one and three full packs a day for twenty years, and know the 'good' effects, how it calmed me, and so on. In many cases, just like the ads..
I quit because of the increasing data implicating cigs, and was surprised to find myself calmer after that, and further thrilled at how good my lungs felt, how much I value breathing well as someone who used to have some asthma and lots of bronchitis. Decades from my last cigarette, I'm still exhilarated by good old fashioned breathing. All true, but I do remember liking cigarettes.

0 Replies

@BDV,

Quote:

Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, some forms of cancer are drastically reduced within the smoking community. Stress related illnesses are also significantly low. Plus many other things that the "Anti-lobby" do not wish us to hear.

So, if smokers don't live long enough to get Alzheimer's, does that really mean their rate is lower? If you only compare the rate of Alzheimers in smokers to the rate in non smokers then you aren't really making a valid comparison if you are adjusting for average life span.

I wonder about the research that you think shows this. Do you have a source for it?

The same goes for Parkinson's and Cancer. Many cancers and Parkinson's can occur late in life. If it normally occurs at a time when a certain percentage of smokers are already dead, I question the research.

Of course, one could easily argue that death prevents many diseases. That might be all this research is showing.

3 Replies

@parados,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15521056

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11865136

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So, if smokers don't live long enough to get Alzheimer's, does that really mean their rate is lower?

Not necessarily but it saves their relations and friends a great deal of heartache and the economy a great deal of money which arguably could be put to better use. Anybody might think that having Alzheimer's was like having a a slice of chocolate chip-cake.

0 Replies

Is smoking good for you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know