45
   

Is smoking good for you?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 03:40 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
The number is on average 10.
can you document? I have seen studies that have it just over 2 years, to claims of 15 years by anti smoking crusaders. I however see nothing that can be regarded as authoritative.
engineer
 
  1  
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 03:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
I had the hyperlink in the last post. It was from a 50 year study of British doctors.
BDV
 
  1  
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 03:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I care about years lost to smoking, and since nobody can make up their minds what that number is I am not inclined to figure it is a major problem.


Your problem is you want to live forever, accept the inevitable.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 04:10 pm
@BDV,
I said in this thread that I am a live hard, die young kinda guy....please pay attention.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 04:16 pm
@engineer,
OK I see the link. Your information is wrong. He said that of the 1/2 of LIFE LONG smokers who die of smoking caused reason die an average of ten years earlier, so the average that life long smoking takes is five years. That is only of those who reached a certain age, some die in traffic accidents and what-not, so the average is really less than five years.
Quote:
The results
suggest a shift of about 10 years between the overall
survival patterns of the continuing cigarette smokers
and the lifelong non-smokers in this particular
generation. That is not to say that all such smokers
died about 10 years earlier than they would otherwise
have done: some were not killed by their habit, but
about half were, thereby losing on average more than
10 years of non-smoker life expectancy.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint_abr/328/7455/1519

page 1524

and this is a guys who's work had a lot of problems, because after he died it came out that he had long been on the take from corporations whos products he studied. He also had early in life been a devoted socialist and his following work on smoking has all of the marks of a crusade to change behavior over pure science.
0 Replies
 
BDV
 
  2  
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 04:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I said in this thread that I am a live hard, die young kinda guy....please pay attention.


You can say allot of things, doesn't make it fact.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Wed 21 Apr, 2010 04:46 pm
@BDV,
Quote:
You can say allot of things, doesn't make it fact
I am the subject matter expert on me. Do you have anything to add to this thread or are you just pissin around??
BDV
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 02:00 am
@hawkeye10,
Apologies, I was acting like an "Anti-smoker" and misread your post, ignored facts and tried to belittle you.

The point i'm trying to make is there is benefits to smoking, and the anti-smoking extreme stance is exaggerated, unwelcome and extreme. It has reduced smokers to the point where enjoying a cigarette has become criminalised. Theres also a chance that the nocebo effect could be costing lives and creating health problems http://www.impactednurse.com/?p=1083.. It is well documented to having an effect.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 02:25 am
@BDV,
Quote:
The point i'm trying to make is there is benefits to smoking, and the anti-smoking extreme stance is exaggerated, unwelcome and extreme. It has reduced smokers to the point where enjoying a cigarette has become criminalised. Theres also a chance that the nocebo effect could be costing lives and creating health problems http://www.impactednurse.com/?p=1083.. It is well documented to having an effect.
Smokers allowed themselves to be bullied, and the rest of us either participated in the act or stood by and did nothing.

Bulling those who drink alcohol was going great till science proved that drinking is good for us.....OOPS

Now it is on to those who like high fat food

Next after that the target will be those who like salty food

After that who can say, maybe it will be guys who wear cowboy hats.

But let some high school kids bully a girl for being a slut and watch them get hauled into adult court on felony charges. Gee, wonder where those kids got the idea to do that!
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 02:47 am
@hawkeye10,
We were more than bullied hawk. We were tricked as well.

There were three bills to be voted on that infamous night and Media were leaking everywhere that the option to give pub landlords a choice so that non-smokers could have their own pubs was the one going to be passed. The extreme blanket ban was going to be defeated. So we took no notice. Then BANG--out of the blue the buggers passed the blanket ban exempting palaces i.e. Westminster Palace where they boozed and stitched up their expenses claims.

Pubs are closing at an alarming rate and now they are attacking alcohol. As pubs are the last bastion of freedom it's obviously freedom that is ther prime target. My pub is nearly empty these days.

They want us all sat in front of the telly like Orwell predicted and not fraternising with each other. The lefties on the threads I go on never miss a chance to sneer at my boozing. The idea being, of course, that we are left with only one source of information--Media. Spin.

Religion is another target because people fraternise at church.

After that they can structure our heads just as they like.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 03:05 am
@spendius,
Quote:
We were more than bullied hawk. We were tricked as well.
you were expecting honesty.......HONESTY!...Really?

You, a babe in the woods?? I had no idea....
spendius
 
  0  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 04:32 am
@hawkeye10,
Well-- what about the ship on the sandbank? I suspect a great deal of the weaving of the winds over that non-event.

I wasn't taking a lot of notice on the smoking vote. Nobody expected the total ban. With hindsight I suppose I should have known that the House of Thieves knew that non-smoking pubs would be so boring that they would wither away and no landlord who chose a smoke-free pub would survive 3 months.

I think TV has to go at some point. It's too dangerous. It's got politicians by the balls.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 05:16 am
@BDV,
Interesting article. Especially this bit.

Quote:
There is absolutely no doubt regarding the terrible suffering that smoking inflicts on people. And the positive impact that these campaigns has had on countless lives as well as the massive savings to the health system are indisputable.
spendius
 
  0  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 07:37 am
@maporsche,
Yes--but a lot of other things inflict terrible suffering on people. The take over by White Man of the aboriginal hunting grounds in the name of "progress" inflicted terrible suffering. So does motoring. Flying. Defending the national interest. Defending freedom.

You have a non-sequitur on your hands map.

You could probably ban every known activity on the grounds that they inflict terrible suffering on people. Going into hospital is a cause of much suffering on top of the reason for entering in the first place.

And on costs there is no doubt that the smokers pay their way plus plenty extra for the care of non-smokers.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 07:38 am
@spendius,
By far the biggest cause of suffering is having babies. It's the cause of all of it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 08:58 am
The taxes from smokes in most western countries pays for the health budget. Lets say no-one smoked. People would live longer putting more strain on the health system, whilst more taxes would be required. Compared to old age smokers are relatively bed free up until they die.

Nevertheless, I would be happy to see tobacco an illegal drug.

On a cautionary note, we have an entire hospital ward full of brain dead aboriginee children who have been sniffing petrol. It seems clear the problem is not whether a substance is legal or illegal.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 09:15 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Nevertheless, I would be happy to see tobacco an illegal drug.


So would I--it would be a damn sight cheaper.

Come on you anti-smoking brigade. Get tobacco banned. Take on your government instead of bullying us one at once. Save some lives.

We don't like thinking you are only expressing a whimsical affectation. It lowers the respect we have for you. We smokers are as easy as babies in prams. We tend to be easy going and non-activists. We should be a pushover.

Write to your congressmen. Your senators. Get parading. There's lives to save and suffering to ameliorate. Get your arses in gear.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 10:07 am
@spendius,
I'm only arguing against the initial post that suggests that smoking actually has a net-overall-healthy effect on smokers, that the non-smokers are somehow missing out on.

It's not a non-sequitar, it's right on topic.

I really have no other reason to be here; I don't smoke, I don't care if you do, etc.

I think it's important that the initial post be debunked, as long as BDV is around saying that smoking is overall-net-healthy.
spendius
 
  2  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 12:23 pm
@maporsche,
Whether smoking is good or bad for an individual is too complex a matter for fruitful discussion.

I think smoking is good for society. The defence of freedom is good for society but bad for many individuals. Same with driving. And with industrial production. With many things.

The anti-smoking brigade cannot show satisfactorily that smoking is bad for society. Obviously, I thus think that their agenda is subversive of society as it raises the individual above it and thus justifies conscientious objection.

It may be that people who have become scared of smoking or can't afford to are envious of the smoker's known ability to focus, be creative, look stylish, be more productive and more socially outgoing and relaxed and are trying to get everybody down into the same hole they are in so they don't stand out so much as gumpy, witless, charmless clunkers as they do in the company of smokers and they forget that 301 million like themselves might not be competitive in world markets or even bearable to each other.

A microcosmic example to make that clearer would be the drug taking in the music and movie businesses. Creativity is enhanced by dope of all types. David Lynch scoffed five pounds of icing sugar to prepare himself for a shoot. Or so he said. And those shamans are something else. And what about incense in churches? Crazy man. Pipes of Peace. Picasso really smoked. Real strong stuff too. Made it to 92.


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2010 03:06 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I think smoking is good for society.
absolutely, as is the sex industry, but we can't bring ourselves to embrace that either.


Quote:
The anti-smoking brigade cannot show satisfactorily that smoking is bad for society. Obviously, I thus think that their agenda is subversive of society as it raises the individual above it and thus justifies conscientious objection.

BULLSHIT! The pressure groups use the language of individual rights, but they work to denigrate the right of the individual to hold opinions or act in defiance of the collective desire. They have forgotten their history, or more likely never knew history, and thus don't know that individual freedom is only as strong as that freedom which is allotted to the most despised individual amongst us. The pressure groups get away with their power play because far too few can see through the illogic, diversions, and lies that they spew.

 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 02:56:06