Is smoking good for you?

Most smokers enjoy smoking so they don't want to break the addiction. Which most smokers will admit to having (the addiction, that is). It's not good for you, but neither is caffeine, or parabens or a hundred other chemicals we ingest or put on our skin every day. Choose your poison I guess.
I think that the smoking ban is a good thing, however I also think that smokers have just as much right to smoke while having a beer as a non smoker has not smoking while having a beer. They should have separate rooms at bars; one for smokers and one for non smokers. The whole, smoking and non smoking sections was a joke. The smoking section was 5 feet from the non smoking. How is that non smoking?

1 Reply

@Bella Dea,

Quote:

It's not good for you, but neither is caffeine, or parabens or a hundred other chemicals we ingest or put on our skin every day. Choose your poison I guess.

Scientifically, I have to object... this is very misleading. Things aren't equal-- some chemicals/behaviors are far worse then others. And, this isn't guesswork, there are quantitative measures (i.e. they can be measured and compared mathematically) about how dangerous a chemical is.

If you take three groups of 100,000 people that are equal except that one group smokes a normal amount, one group uses a normal amount of caffeine and one group does neither... it is a scientific fact (backed up by experiment) that more of the people in the smoking group are going to die early.

Scientifically speaking, there is no reasonable comparison between tobacco use and caffeine. Interestingly enough, trans fats are somewhere between the two-- but that is a different question.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

My point is that there is very little in this world that we do that isn't bad for us in some way. We're all going to die. Why not at least enjoy life while we're here.

2 Replies

@Bella Dea,

But we measure in terms of benefit versus harm. Exercise can harm you, but there are lots of benefits to counter that harm.

Back to the original question, is smoking good for you? No, the evidence is overwhelming in this regard. Does that mean you can't smoke? No, everyone gets to pick their vice. You have to decide if the benefit you receive is worth the harm or risk you endure. Lots of people love rich food, but there is a cost to pay.

0 Replies

@Bella Dea,

Quote:

My point is that there is very little in this world that we do that isn't bad for us in some way. We're all going to die. Why not at least enjoy life while we're here.

Sure Bella-- I have no problem if anyone says;

"I know smoking is very bad for me, but I enjoy it enough that it is worth the greatly increased risk that I will die of cancer or heart attack."

This is honest and logical and there are a couple of things that I have done that are risky (most recently visiting family in Ciudad Juarez). I didn't deny or ignore the risk... I simply weighed them against the benefits and decided the trip was worth the risk.

But that is not what is happening on this thread-- people here are basically saying

"I really like smoking so I am going to make up all kinds of reasons that it isn't that bad including anecdotes and conspiracy theories that the government and private organizations trying to prevent lung cancer and heart disease are out to get the noble tobacco industry for some sinister purpose".

If someone wants to smoke-- that is fine with me, as long as I don't have to smell it.

What brings me into this thread is the clearly fallacious arguments used, not say to say smoking is so enjoyable it is worth the serious risks... but to deny that risks exist.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Things aren't equal-- some chemicals/behaviors are far worse then others.

Obviously. But when the do-gooding busybodies have got smoking banned you don't think they are going to go home and watch telly do you? They are addicted to dogoody busybodying. They'll start on the next on the list and so on until you'll all be safely cocooned in a padded room drinking meltwater and eating lichens. Boozing looks to be next. After that it'll be driving. The mayhem, death, injury and illness caused by driving is horrendous. And it's not just applicable to those who have enjoyed in for 50 years. Passive driving has killed and maimed more kids than bears thinking about and you can bet all the do-goody busybodies drive and think nothing of spewing their noxious gases, some of which are not known in nature, into school playgrounds and gardens where the little monsters are romping. Even just for making social calls and driving around aimlessly to pass the dragging time.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You could say that smokers are holding the line. They are sapping the do-goody busybodies' energy and defusing it so that they can't strart on anything else.

You should all be proud of us and think of us heroically sacrificing ourselves and our tax contributions on behalf of the rest of you.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Smoking is really good for non-smokers. In lots of ways.

0 Replies

Smoking is good, cause i like it, it relaxes me, helps me think and will prevent me growing old, just because "It may" shorten my life does not mean its bad, I personally don't want to live forever, but smoking does reduce stress related illnesses, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

It is found that having a healthy diet will counteract most ill-effects of smoking, eating fresh fruit, fresh fish and other quality foods have their benefits, but this is not what the "No-sayers" want us to hear. The message being broadcast from that camp is simple "Smoking will Kill you and cause horrific illnesses". Its posted on every packet of cigarettes. This is hardly fair or just treatment of a very large section of your community. Why don't they put messages on the packets like "Eat healthy and counteract the possible side-effects of tobacco", wouldn't that be a nicer more humane thing to do.

1 Reply

@BDV,

Quote:

Smoking is good, cause i like it, it relaxes me, helps me think

True. Why not just stop here.

Quote:

will prevent me growing old

That is an odd way to say it will kill you, but OK.

Quote:

but smoking does reduce stress related illnesses, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

I haven't seen any any scientific evidence that this is the case-- and you haven't provided anyway. I have already shown you that lung cancer is more than 10 times the problem of Alzeheimer's or Parkinson's disease-- and we haven't even mentioned the greatly increased risk of Heart Disease.

Quote:

t is found that having a healthy diet will counteract most ill-effects of smoking, eating fresh fruit, fresh fish and other quality foods have their benefits, but this is not what the "No-sayers" want us to hear.

This is simply and scientifically untrue.

Quote:

The message being broadcast from that camp is simple "Smoking will Kill you and cause horrific illnesses".

This is a scientific fact.

Quote:

Why don't they put messages on the packets like "Eat healthy and counteract the possible side-effects of tobacco",

This is nothing but wishful thinking.

Quote:

wouldn't that be a nicer more humane thing to do.

If lying to people to make them feel better is humane.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Here is my point BDV, if you want to smoke, that is your business... as long as I don't have to smell it or pay for the increased health cost of your decisions.

If you believe that the benefits you get from smoking outweigh the risks, then your decision to smoke is a logical decision (as long as the benefits you are citing are the enjoyment you get from smoking-- not made up health benefits).

That you like it is reason enough. Why do you need to deceive yourself beyond this?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

It doesn't take much effort to find research on the net that's positive for smoking, just try looking, but what you read is not what you want to see so there's no point as it will be ignored. No scientific facts for diet/smoking/benefit/smoking/pro/smoking will ever work, search google.....

As for people breathing my smoke, well TBH i take the stance that if you breath it then you should pay some of the tax that went towards the greedy governments that i paid, don't steel my smoke (Get outa the room when i'm puffing). A 1/10th payment is acceptable, so start paying for your passive theft.

2 Replies

@BDV,

BDV wrote:

As for people breathing my smoke, well TBH i take the stance that if you breath it then you should pay some of the tax that went towards the greedy governments that i paid, don't steel my smoke (Get outa the room when i'm puffing). A 1/10th payment is acceptable, so start paying for your passive theft.

I'd be much happier if you put your head in a box while you smoked and you can have it all to yourself.

0 Replies

@BDV,

Quote:

It doesn't take much effort to find research on the net that positive for smoking, just try looking, but what you read is not what to hear so there's no point as it will be ignored.

It also doesn't take much effort to find research on the net that proves aliens are abducting people while they sleep to perform dental experiments. Valid science is conclusive on the effect that smoking has on society. I accept the legitimate science, whether you accept it or not is your decision.

Social policy in any sane society is based on objective science. The tax on smoking should be high enough to cover the added cost of smokers to our health care system.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

The tax on cigarettes pays for everyone's health care, maybe overweight people should pay excessive tax also, where will it stop? Unless you r perfect you must pay excessive taxes!! There is no logic in your statement. As for some facts:

2,400,000 die in the USA per year

212,000 diagnosed with lung cancer
178,000 die within 5 years,

89,000 are ex smokers (Highest group)
68000 are smokers
21,000 are radon related deaths

72,000 die from Alzheimer's disease
121,000 car accidents
72,000 Diabetes

Only 1/35 deaths (Per year) is due to a smoker having lung cancer, hardly a strain on any health system considering 20 % 0f americans smoke.

These figures are close estimates and can be confirmed from government statistic sites. The figures don't add up to the scare mongering BS.

1 Reply

@BDV,

Your numbers are similar to the ones I am using--- about 219,000 new cases of lung cancer each year, and about 159,000 deaths.

The number you are omitting is the cost of each lung cancer case-- the life time treatment cost is about $55,000 on average (it is more expensive if you survive longer). This is only medical costs. It doesn't take into account lost ability to work, etc.

The 212,000 people diagnosed with lung cancer this year will cost $11.7 billion. Let's assume that only half of that is caused by smoking (and I am being generous), this means smokers cost the healthcare industry $5.5 billion per year (I am averaging lifetime costs for each new years lung cancer smokers... so each year we start the process of paying another $5.5 billion).

Now some of this will be paid by health insurance companies-- which is fair as long as the money the insurance companies need to get to pay these cost is only sucked out of smokers.

But some of these costs will be born by the tax payers... and again, making non-smokers pay them is simply not fair.

If people are going to smoke and we can't just shoot them when they get lung cancer-- then cigarette taxes are the only way to make sure the people getting all this enjoyment pay their fair share.

1 Reply

Everytime I scroll down to this thread I wonder why it continues. People like BDV spent their life talking about, crowing about, arguing about, boring everybody about their smoking and how it really does keep them healthy.

They want attention so they can be excited about, over and over again, smoking.
The conversation will always be about them. I have a brother who drinks beer and smokes all day long, and talks about it all day long. He was quite healthy until about age 75. Now, he has all kinds of illness and has had a rotten cough for years that he denies he has. "Oh, I'm allergic to the air conditioning," etc., ad nauseum. These people are all the same. They also have obscessions - his is with the Dallas police - and they talk daily about the subject.

2 Replies

@Pemerson,

don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, we are too busy conversing to care about your lack of interest.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

So, carry on. I described my experience with a smoker. I happen to think however that a few cigarettes daily, for some, can be a good thing, but that is difficult. Should have added that bit.

I was a smoker for years but had to quit because of an allergy problem that affected the inner ear. Toughest thing I've had to do.

0 Replies

@Pemerson,

I never talk about smoking, just thought the debate would be interesting, if you are so bored then feel free not to read the thread, nobodies forcing you, so go away. Sometimes theres nothing worse than an ex-smoker. BTW 75 is a good innings so don't knock it, I have had many relatives who didn't smoke die in their 60's.

As for taxes on cigarettes (USA) - taken from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-25-cigarette-tax_N.htm -

Average tax per packet - $2.97 -
$136,620,000 per day

Say average 1 pack per day per smoker

$49,866,300,000 per year

0 Replies

Is smoking good for you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know