Yes I smoke tobacco and marijuana in large amounts and this is troubling...although I don't know how much I can trust it.
Cigs don't just make you feel better because of the nicotine addiction factor but also due to the fact that there are many chemicals in them that inhibit oxygen absorbtion in the blood stream, creating a euphoric effect. (that's why the strangulation fetish exists, because the brain gets happy and wacked off of having O2 cut off from it)
Seriously, if it's the one puff thing that scares you, just think that if it's enough to kill you, you'd probably had also died inhaling monoxide carbon from the cars just by crossing the street.
Not to dismiss the long term effects, but there's nothing IMO about one killer puff. That's hyperbole.
Well, this is Fox News, what else can I say?
Seriously, if it's the one puff thing that scares you, just think that if it's enough to kill you, you'd probably had also died inhaling monoxide carbon from the cars just by crossing the street.
Not to dismiss the long term effects, but there's nothing IMO about one killer puff. That's hyperbole.
ohhh +1
they said it makes your blood "sticky" when you smoke...that was the part that made me wonder if this was serious.
The thing is, this shouldn't be a shocker to anyone really. The only thing that could be worse for you is huffing car exhaust right off the tailpipe.
Cigs don't just make you feel better because of the nicotine addiction factor but also due to the fact that there are many chemicals in them that inhibit oxygen absorbtion in the blood stream, creating a euphoric effect. (that's why the strangulation fetish exists, because the brain gets happy and wacked off of having O2 cut off from it)
Do you smoke?
they said it makes your blood "sticky" when you smoke...that was the part that made me wonder if this was serious.
That was probably to keep it in understandable terms.
Also, smoking is bad for you at any rate, so I don't see how this makes it any worse?
they said it makes your blood "sticky" when you smoke...that was the part that made me wonder if this was serious.
That was probably to keep it in understandable terms.
Also, smoking is bad for you at any rate, so I don't see how this makes it any worse?
not necessarily, it made me lose weight and it makes me happy.
Excercise also makes you lose weight, by the way.
(Note: I do not condone anyone sewing their mouth shut, in case you are wondering)
Anyway. I don't mind you smoking, as long as you stay far away from me, which shouldn't be too hard considering the ocean and everything
So does sewing your mouth shut.
(Note: I do not condone anyone sewing their mouth shut, in case you are wondering)
Anyway. I don't mind you smoking, as long as you stay far away from me, which shouldn't be too hard considering the ocean and everything
but I was gonna show you my smoke rings :[
When I see people smoking I usually think they're pathetic losers, no different than a bunch of rummies huddled together sharing a bottle of after shave. The fact most of them reek to high hell doesn't bolster my opinion any either.
I've taken to mixing k2 in my ciggys and it makes the smoke smell like ginger bread or pine trees
depending on what kind I useFeel free to show me pictures of them. Just don't smoke around me
I shall mail you a jar of smoke
I like how they blame the 'one puff kill' on smokers. They also happened to say the the one puff can kill you or someone nearby if their arteries are already clogged. You know, from stuff they ate and exercise they didn't bother to do. When it's a combination of factors, it's disingenuous to focus the blame on one. Especially when the other is really the primary cause. Bad article is bad. It's never ok to lie and/or exaggerate to change behavior you personally don't like. Be honest about it or keep your mouth shut.
I agree with this.
Where's the 700 page report detailing what the air city-dwellers breathe 24/7 is doing to them? I'm a smoker, so I'm fairly accustomed to bad air, but, when I go into the city for a few hours, I feel like I power-smoked a whole pack.
I like how they blame the 'one puff kill' on smokers. They also happened to say the the one puff can kill you or someone nearby if their arteries are already clogged. You know, from stuff they ate and exercise they didn't bother to do. When it's a combination of factors, it's disingenuous to focus the blame on one. Especially when the other is really the primary cause. Bad article is bad. It's never ok to lie and/or exaggerate to change behavior you personally don't like. Be honest about it or keep your mouth shut.
I agree with this.
The worst part is, when I was still a heavy smoker, I would have people literally LIE TO MY FACE about things like this, attempting to get me to stop smoking. And when I called them on it, the common response; "Well, it's not really lying, because I'm trying to help you."
The truth is, however, cigarette smoke and tobacco smoke, and the chemicals within them, as well as the tar from smoking does do bad things to your body. It elevates your blood pressure, because nicotine constricts the arteries.
This next point requires a little background. Your DNA is easilly damaged by things like sunlight, background radiation, certain chemicals, etc. DNA, or Deoxyribonucleic Acid is shaped like a ladder twisted into a spiral. Each rung of the ladder consists of two base chemicals hydrogen bonded to one another, called a base pair. The base pairs consist of bonds between adenine and thymine, or guanine and cytosine. Sometimes, mutations can occur, where one of the bases in a base pair is converted to another (when it matches up with the wrong base, it creates what is called a mismatched base pair), the actual base is somehow removed from the molecule, the bases are damaged, the bases are converted to non-base chemicals, or a mutation called a dimer can occur (where base chemicals in the double helix bond to the chemical above it or below it, as opposed to the one next to it). Your body has a number of genes that produce DNA editting enzymes which snip out and replace these mutations (there a number of others that these enzymes glaze over), and if the damage is too much, just before your cells divide, the cells also produce a chemical reaction which causes the cells to die if the damage to your DNA is too much and the DNA editting enzymes can't replace them. Sometimes, however, the body encounters just enough mutations to the DNA in your cells, where it doesn't cause it to die, but its too many for the DNA editting enzymes to handle, and they call things which cause this "mutagens."
Your body also has what are called tumor suppressor genes (such as the P53 gene) and proto-onco-genes. If damage occurs there, to certain places in the telomeres (end pieces of your chromosomes), to the tumor suppressor genes, or to the proto-onco-genes, your body no longer is able to snip out damaged parts of the DNA, kill cells with too much damaged DNA, or regulate its own cell growth or rate of division, and thus, you end up with some form of cancer.
At the biochemical level, tobacco has certain radioactive additives in it, mutagens. I'm not sure about marijuana, although, I wouldn't be suprised if it also had similarly harmful chemicals in it. In any case, tobacco causes damage to the DNA molecule, and while out of the roughly 3.1 billion base pairs in your genome, there are only 20,000 genes, which only take up about around 2% of the overall 3.1 billion base pairs, every time you smoke, you're increasing the odds of getting cancer. Even if you don't end up getting cancer, you're still increasing the chances of getting a number of other health complications, such as emphysema, asthma, heart attack, and stroke (from the high blood pressure).
I quit last March after reading about what it does to you (coincidentally in a book about DNA). I just wasn't able to sit comfortably knowing I was objectively giving myself cancer. It's been rough. I still crave nicotine from time to time, and I have to fight urges. I wake up in sweats and feeling guilty after just dreaming at night about smoking. But its been worth it. And what I've been learning as far as biochemistry in college has only reinforced and deepened my reasoning for not smoking. The point is, its really bad for your body, and neither cigars nor dip/chew/snuff are any better for you.
Somehow, the Surgeon General never says that most smokers die from non-smoking related causes. Seems like that would be an important fact.
Hmmm....40,000,000 smokers. 400,000 die every year from smoking-related illnesses. At that rate, it will take 100 years for smoking to kill off the smokers. Not bad odds.
Somehow, the Surgeon General never says that most smokers die from non-smoking related causes. Seems like that would be an important fact.
It would be if no smokers died from smoking.
But this is all a conspiracy by big government to control people, because it does not want to collected taxes on cigarettes.
Sigh....comspiracies do not abound everywhere. I am employed by big government and have been involved in both drafting and enforcing legislation. Rest assured, the vast majority of actions taken by governmental forces are made with the best of intentions by individuals who have the same inability to see every side of the picture as I.
You must be new here. I thought you were a conspirationist.
Nope, just a person who likes to know facts rather than propaganda.
Offhand, the math behind smoking-related deaths does not appear to match the veracity with which much anti-smoking propaganda is presented.
What does the propaganda say exactly?
There is not a single unified anti-smoking source for propaganda. It is all over the board.
The particular instance that started this thread cited the danger that smoking one mere cigarette can impose as if an otherwise healthy individual will kick the bucket. That is a distortion of the truth.
What does the propaganda say exactly?
You didn't read the article, did you?
But I was talking of anti-smoking propaganda in general. Generally what I hear is: smoking is addictive, cigarettes are very toxic, smoking reduces the quality of your life, smoking can make you sick, smoking kills.
Propaganda runs the gamet. Check out commercials from an outfit called "the truth". Hardly truthful.
Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time smoking knows they are bad - you can feel the effects on your body. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to discover what the actual risk factors are beyond the bad-bad-bad mantra.
What I find most annoying is that every single time I visit a doctor, I must endure the anti-smoking lecture.
But I was talking of anti-smoking propaganda in general. Generally what I hear is: smoking is addictive, cigarettes are very toxic, smoking reduces the quality of your life, smoking can make you sick, smoking kills.
Propaganda runs the gamet. Check out commercials from an outfit called "the truth". Hardly truthful.
Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time smoking knows they are bad - you can feel the effects on your body. Unfortunately, it is near impossible to discover what the actual risk factors are beyond the bad-bad-bad mantra.
What I find most annoying is that every single time I visit a doctor, I must endure the anti-smoking lecture.
Well, the problem is that it is "bad-bad-bad." It only gives you a perceived benefit.
But I understand when you say that you've worked for the government. I worked for a military-gov't subcontractor for four years. Speaking metaphorically, the US government's history isn't lilly white, but it would be nothing short of paranoid to say it was definitely, or even likely, obsidian black. What secrecy they actually engage in is typically to prevent sensitive information (usually technology or engineering specs of some sort) from falling into the hands of competitors, or into the hands of someone who could unwittingly deliver it into the hands of said competitors. There's a lot of espionage that goes on at the hands of other countries (most of it is economic espionage, however), which makes such methods necessary.
In fact, I also worked with a few admitted members of the Freemasons. They're not a group with any real power in the country, they're just a secret club of asswits who get together and talk about conspiracies and "controversial spiritual ideas," like Deism, or the premise of "The Secret."
Personally, I don't buy into the concept of "if I don't understand it, or if its invisible to me, it MUST mean the government/big business/science is out to get me and otherwise ruin my good time." The same scientific method that allows you to type on a computer, that puts people into outer space, or that offers life saving cures to easilly treatable diseases is the same one that tells us that smoking is most certainly bad for you. At the Biochemical level, it almost literally ties your DNA in knots. There are around 70 chemicals in tobacco which all cause cancer, but nicotine is also bad for you, as are the other additives and chemicals, which cause problems besides cancer. While I agree, the concept of one cigarette killing you is a bit silly, I think the Fox News article is a distortion of a peer reviewed paper that came out recently stating that just one cigarette, or even occassional smoking and second hand smoke can have lasting effects on your health, and that there was no "safe level of tobacco smoke," not that it would necessarilly kill you right away. Say you ingest a certain about arsenic, but it doesn't kill you, its still dangerous, in humans there is no safe level of arsenic.
Anyway, here's an article from DiscoveryNews which discusses what the paper actually says:
news.discovery.com/human/tobacco-smoking...
Hmmm....40,000,000 smokers. 400,000 die every year from smoking-related illnesses. At that rate, it will take 100 years for smoking to kill off the smokers. Not bad odds.
Actually, in Europe, the number of people who die from smoking is roughly 1.2 million. Worldwide, that number is around 10 million.
Also, your math is a bit flawed, because that isn't a constant rate. The number of old/dying smokers is often replaced by the number of new smokers, so, let's stick with the 40,000,000 number, assuming that the smokers are around the same age group. I assure you it'll take much less than 100 years, and the more years of smoking you add, the higher the number of people who die out of that group will be. It's also estimated that somewhere between 12 and 14 years get taken off of the life expectancy of a smoker, so if any of the smokers out the 40,000,000 number lived to be 100, it'd be very few of them if any. And if you really wanted a control group for this analogy/experiment, you could have 40,000,000 people who don't smoke, and see how well the two groups compare. :D
The CDC also estimates that the number killed annually in the US is actually 443,000, so your number was off there, too, and its still higher than the number of people who die from HIV/AIDS every year in the US. It also doesn't include the number of people who die from carcinogens in smokeless tobaco products. (Although a seperate roughly 400,000 die from health complications due to obesity, poor nutrition, and lack of exercise.) Globally, the number of people who die from tobacco related illnesses is just as high as the number of people killed in the Holocaust. I would say those were some pretty horrible odds...
www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact...
Somehow, the Surgeon General never says that most smokers die from non-smoking related causes. Seems like that would be an important fact.
Would you care to cite a source for that?
That link and you making so much sense only demonstrate that you are a communist!! ;)
Yeah, you know what, that's true. I'm an evil, Marxist, communist, Darwinist, godless heathen out to destroy humanity for the red army.
Heil Stalin! Heil the shadowy cabal known as the Obama administration! FEMA death camps and mandatory cancer-laiden vaccines for all! :P
(I hope that all comes off as a joke, or enough of it anyway...)
Hmmm....40,000,000 smokers. 400,000 die every year from smoking-related illnesses. At that rate, it will take 100 years for smoking to kill off the smokers. Not bad odds.
Actually, in Europe, the number of people who die from smoking is roughly 1.2 million. Worldwide, that number is around 10 million.
Also, your math is a bit flawed, because that isn't a constant rate. The number of old/dying smokers is often replaced by the number of new smokers, so, let's stick with the 40,000,000 number, assuming that the smokers are around the same age group. I assure you it'll take much less than 100 years, and the more years of smoking you add, the higher the number of people who die out of that group will be. It's also estimated that somewhere between 12 and 14 years get taken off of the life expectancy of a smoker, so if any of the smokers out the 40,000,000 number lived to be 100, it'd be very few of them if any. And if you really wanted a control group for this analogy/experiment, you could have 40,000,000 people who don't smoke, and see how well the two groups compare. :D
The CDC also estimates that the number killed annually in the US is actually 443,000, so your number was off there, too, and its still higher than the number of people who die from HIV/AIDS every year in the US. It also doesn't include the number of people who die from carcinogens in smokeless tobaco products. (Although a seperate roughly 400,000 die from health complications due to obesity, poor nutrition, and lack of exercise.) Globally, the number of people who die from tobacco related illnesses is just as high as the number of people killed in the Holocaust. I would say those were some pretty horrible odds...
www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact...Somehow, the Surgeon General never says that most smokers die from non-smoking related causes. Seems like that would be an important fact.
Would you care to cite a source for that?
Because the math points that direction.
Of the 443,000 deaths per year cited in the linked website, 49,000 are from second-hand smoke. Hence deaths from the cigarette smoking populace would be 394,000. That is an average and will vary from year to year.
The smoking population is not a monolithic block. The original Fox article cited 46 million smokers. That is a moving target. Some just started, some have been smoking for decades. Some just have a couple cigarettes a day, some huff down 3 packs a day.
The CDC data states that approximately 20% of the population over 18 currently smoke (where the 46 million comes from?). It further states that approximately 20% of the population formerly smoked but have quit. Some of the 394,000 deaths come from the currently smoking population, some come from the formerly smoked but have quit population. Hence, the total population of smokers and non-smokers from which the 394,000 deaths derives would be from approximately 40% of the population over 18 - or roughly 92 million people.
The CDC data estimates that 25 million people alive today will die prematurely of smoking-related illnesses. If we divide 25 million into the 92 million, that means about 27% of people who smoke will have their lives pre-maturely ended from smoking. Actually, the 25 million figure includes non-smokers who die from a smoking-related illness, so the percentage of smokers who die froma smoking-related illness would be even smaller than 27%.
My armchair math is showing that, even though I smoke, I still have something like an 73% chance that my cigarettes are not going to kill me, but rather, something else will.
Anecdotally, given that I don't know anyone in my family who has died from a smoking-related illness, and virtually every adult member of my family has smoked at one point or another, my personal chances may very well be greater than the 73% average of being gacked by something other than the tobaccy.
What would be interesting would be to compare the number of smokers and death related to smoking and the numbers for drinking alcohol and deaths related to alcohol. My feeling is that the number of people who drink alcohol is higher then the number of smokers, but the number of deaths related to alcohol are smaller. It this were the case, it could indicate that cigarettes are very toxic.
...or that you need a helluva lot alcohol to be as damaging to you as smokes. Even more if you're Polish or Russian ;)
Allthough many Dutch people try to match them, but that's because they're dumb.
Actually I'm pretty sure most people would agree that Russians are considered the toughest drinkers
Allthough many Dutch people try to match them, but that's because they're dumb.
There's a joke: three Russians were drinking all winter. In spring one of them got up and went to the forest - because it was a bear.
Because the math points that direction.
Of the 443,000 deaths per year cited in the linked website, 49,000 are from second-hand smoke. Hence deaths from the cigarette smoking populace would be 394,000. That is an average and will vary from year to year.
But its still part of the number, and shouldn't be excluded because its just "second hand smoke." Someone's smoking is still causing someone to get sick and/or eventually die, so its still a valid part of the statistic.
The smoking population is not a monolithic block. The original Fox article cited 46 million smokers. That is a moving target. Some just started, some have been smoking for decades. Some just have a couple cigarettes a day, some huff down 3 packs a day.
Not really relevant, but I used the starting point of the same age group for the sake of a controlled example. But let's say those numbers in the example are just as mixed as this. Who dies and when is a little bit more difficult to pin down precisely, but it can still be measured. I guarantee that if you took 40,000,000 smokers, who never quit, and keep smoking, will die much sooner than 100 years. Even assuming the age group/life style difference, your arm-chair math is still off.
The CDC data states that approximately 20% of the population over 18 currently smoke (where the 46 million comes from?). It further states that approximately 20% of the population formerly smoked but have quit. Some of the 394,000 deaths come from the currently smoking population, some come from the formerly smoked but have quit population. Hence, the total population of smokers and non-smokers from which the 394,000 deaths derives would be from approximately 40% of the population over 18 - or roughly 92 million people.
Actually, it says this, and I quote:
"an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, including 5 million people younger than 18 years of age."
Let's try not to invent numbers. The numbers are 25 million people who will die early at some point, and 443,000 who die from smoking related illnesses annually. Bare in mind that not everyone who smokes and quits dies from tobacco related illnesses, and not everyone who smokes continues to do so until they die or until the damage is too irreversible.
Admittedly, some people who quit unfortunately do so when it is too late. My paternal grandfather is one such person. Unfortunately, when he finally resolved to quit, he didn't know he'd had pancreatic cancer for almost two years, and died within three months. However, my grandfather doesn't represent everyone who quits, but one subset of those who do.
There are also people who smoke under the age of 18 however, but again, not everyone smokes themselves to death, or quits when its too late. Even if you take 20% of the population who are active smokers, and 20% who have quit, and somehow get a number other than roughly 40 million active smokers, but if you ignore all of the factors I've just mentioned, that's the only place your 92 million number really comes in.
The CDC data estimates that 25 million people alive today will die prematurely of smoking-related illnesses. If we divide 25 million into the 92 million, that means about 27% of people who smoke will have their lives pre-maturely ended from smoking. Actually, the 25 million figure includes non-smokers who die from a smoking-related illness, so the percentage of smokers who die froma smoking-related illness would be even smaller than 27%.
Actually, if you divide the 25 million into the actual 40 million number of active smokers, instead of your conflated 92 million number, which either dishonestly or mistakenly includes people who have quit (the take home point is, your 92 million number is wrong), you have a 62% chance that your first-hand smoking will kill you prematurely. Have fun driving yourself to a slow, agonizing death.
Anecdotally, given that I don't know anyone in my family who has died from a smoking-related illness, and virtually every adult member of my family has smoked at one point or another, my personal chances may very well be greater than the 73% average of being gacked by something other than the tobaccy.
See the 62% chance number done using the actual numbers to see why that's wrong. There's a good 62% chance that you're going to die of tobacco related health complications if you don't quit. There's only a 38% chance that something else will do you in.
Also, I should point out that only if your family has a history of susceptibility to cancer or addictive personality would that even be remotely relevant. Just because you don't know of any active smokers in your family who have died yet doesn't mean you never will, or that those who quit did so until a point that they needed to be concerned about their health. So without a family history of people driving themselves to death by smoking doesn't make you impervious to doing so yourself.
So, anymore pseudo-scientific statistics or points you'd like to bring up, or was it just the tobacco thing?
Actually, if you divide the 25 million into the actual 40 million number of active smokers, instead of your conflated 92 million number, which either dishonestly or mistakenly includes people who have quit (the take home point is, your 92 million number is wrong), you have a 62% chance that your first-hand smoking will kill you prematurely. Have fun driving yourself to a slow, agonizing death.
25 million is the total number of individual currently alive who CDC expects to have their lives shortened by cigarettes.
For your 62% calculation to be correct, every one of the 25 million would have to come from the current population of 40 million smokers. However, that is not accurate. Some of the 25 million will come from the current population of smokers. Some will come from former smokers who have quit. Some will come from current non-smokers who will take up the smoking habit. Some will come from non-smoker who are affected by second-hand smoke.
Hence, the denominator must be greater than the 40 million current smokers. That is why I estimated a denominator of 92 million. Granted, my estimate is inaccurate. However, mathematics requires the denominator be greater than the 40 million current smokers.
This is why my only point is that a smoker has difficulty in attaining an accurate estimate of the dangers.
Thank you for engaging in debate on the numbers. I am a bit confused why you would appear to have some ire toward my nasty smoking habit such that you would interject some tartness in your response. If you are somehow offended by my desire to know what my actual dangers are beyond "it is bad-bad-bad", then I apologize.
Actually I'm pretty sure most people would agree that Russians are considered the toughest drinkers
Allthough many Dutch people try to match them, but that's because they're dumb.
There's a joke: three Russians were drinking all winter. In spring one of them got up and went to the forest - because it was a bear.
With this sort of humor, I am wondering if I have Polish roots.
I think it's actually a Russian joke - they often follow this "a sentence or two" format rather than your usual story with a punchline.
Have fun driving yourself to a slow, agonizing death.
If it was good enough for Vonnegut (who called smoking unfiltered Pall Malls a 'classy way to commit suicide') it's good enough for anyone. By the way, ol' Kurt died from inoperable brain injuries sustained as the result of a fall. ;)
Have fun driving yourself to a slow, agonizing death.
If it was good enough for Vonnegut (who called smoking unfiltered Pall Malls a 'classy way to commit suicide') it's good enough for anyone. By the way, ol' Kurt died from inoperable brain injuries sustained as the result of a fall. ;)
Poor guy.
EDIT: The point, though, was that his classy suicide took long enough for a fall to claim him first. ;)
He probably slipped on an ashtray that fell. Just kidding
Heh. Nice.
25 million is the total number of individual currently alive who CDC expects to have their lives shortened by cigarettes.
For your 62% calculation to be correct, every one of the 25 million would have to come from the current population of 40 million smokers. However, that is not accurate. Some of the 25 million will come from the current population of smokers. Some will come from former smokers who have quit.
Which the article doesn't state, and which you have no basis to just assume. It says based on "current cigarette smoking patterns," with no reference to those who quit or second hand smoke. Again, you're 92 million number is not justified.
Hence, the denominator must be greater than the 40 million current smokers. That is why I estimated a denominator of 92 million. Granted, my estimate is inaccurate. However, mathematics requires the denominator be greater than the 40 million current smokers.
It's not only inaccurate, its either dishonest or mistaken like I said, but the point is you're incorrect, and just asserting based on your opinion. The CDC source doesn't say anything you're trying to read into it for the sake of medical denialism. The number of active smokers is 40 million. Nothing states anywhere that the denominator MUST be higher, you're just making a bare assertion fallacy. If they continue to smoke at the rate that they do, 25 million of them, roughly 62%, will die early, as much as by 14 years in some cases. The statistic also refers to cigarette use, with second hand smoke related illnesses below it. They're seperate statistics.
And if you don't believe me, take a look at the source for that statistic, it says that the mortality figures don't include death or illness caused by second hand smoke. So, yes, the 25 million number is based on active smokers, which at the moment, there are roughly 40 million in the US.
Unless you can provide another credible source, point out where the CDC source says otherwise, or qualify your own skills in statistics/mathematics, from where I'm sitting, you're still just making assertions based on your opinion, not fact.
This is why my only point is that a smoker has difficulty in attaining an accurate estimate of the dangers.
Oh, absolutely, when people like you exist who claim that smoking isn't all that bad, when the literature says anything but, and the biochemistry can be laid as to how it effects your body and to what degree. But people like you say similar things about vaccines, medical/agricultural transgenics, about whether HIV actually causes AIDS, and whether microbes are caused by lacking hygiene. It's an attempt at a cop out, a way of backing out of the discussion, while still trying to look credible, by just claiming "well, we both can't be right, unfortunately, we just don't know."
You're still wrong is the take home point, but perceived difficulty in finding reliable sources doesn't justify any point you've made. And actually, its not that difficult to find proper, reliable sources. There's the CDC website, WebMD, peer review paper sites, text books (which are actually, quite reliable), or, you could even talk to a specialist or doctor.
I am a bit confused why you would appear to have some ire toward my nasty smoking habit such that you would interject some tartness in your response.
Any ire of mine towards you has nothing to do with whether or not you choose to smoke, because it has no baring on me. As a Biochemistry major, and someone working to get into Medical genetics however, I have a natural disdain towards conspiracists, medical denialists, and others who push anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific agendas. I'm not apologetic about it. It's a debate I've been in the middle of for almost the last couple years. To put it simply, I don't like you, or your kind.
I already knew all that, so if you'll excuse me I'm gonna "smoke, smoke smoke that cigarette."*
*A dollar to whoever can tell me the name of this song, and the artist.
So basically, what I got out of this 4 page conversation, is that smoking is bad for you. It may or may not kill you before something else does. Either way, you die.
I already knew all that, so if you'll excuse me I'm gonna "smoke, smoke smoke that cigarette."*
*A dollar to whoever can tell me the name of this song, and the artist.
Actually, the point was FoxNews was wrong, OleOneEye is also wrong, but chances are smoking will still kill you before something else does, and while some anti-smoking campaigns, like the Truthgroup, will distort facts, smoking still has demonstrably bad effects on your biochemistry. Just smoking one cigarette also has lasting effects, as does second hand smoke and only smoking occassionally. It's also possible to get reliable information on whether cigarettes are all that bad for you, how bad, and where to get that information. That's it in a nut shell anyway...
But as for the song, that line IS the name of the song ("Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)"), and it was Merle Travis and Tex Williams. Check or cash will be fine. :D
So basically, what I got out of this 4 page conversation, is that smoking is bad for you. It may or may not kill you before something else does. Either way, you die.
I already knew all that, so if you'll excuse me I'm gonna "smoke, smoke smoke that cigarette."*
*A dollar to whoever can tell me the name of this song, and the artist.
Actually, the point was FoxNews was wrong, OleOneEye is also wrong, but chances are smoking will still kill you before something else does, and while some anti-smoking campaigns, like the Truthgroup, will distort facts, smoking still has demonstrably bad effects on your biochemistry. Just smoking one cigarette also has lasting effects, as does second hand smoke and only smoking occassionally. It's also possible to get reliable information on whether cigarettes are all that bad for you, how bad, and where to get that information. That's it in a nut shell anyway...
But as for the song, that line IS the name of the song ("Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)"), and it was Merle Travis and Tex Williams. Check or cash will be fine. :D
For the first part- I have no doubt that my smoking habit is harmful, and could kill me well before anything else. I kind of find the whole argument moot. That being said, I find more merit it your analysis than Fox News.
Second- You get two dollars, for naming BOTH artists, as well as inserting the parentheses in the title. CHeck's in the mail.
That smoking can kill you is a moot argument to make you stop smoking?
That something can kill you is always moot. Damn near everything can potentially kill you.
That smoking can kill you is a moot argument to make you stop smoking?
That something can kill you is always moot. Damn near everything can potentially kill you.
This. Walking can kill me. Drinking water can kill me. Getting in a firefight with a crackhead can also kill me, albeit quicker than most other fashions. Sadly, my job could result in that scenario, so I might as well do what I like.
Smoking accelerates a foregone conclusion, in my mind. It's not so much "Smoking will kill me" that's the moot point, but rather the overarching sentiment "You die."
So to some extent, Gold, yeah. 'Smoking can/will kill you' is not the most effective argument to dissuade me, personally, from smoking.
Oh, and Toasted, if you HAD to pick, what's your favorite Vonnegut work?
That smoking can kill you is a moot argument to make you stop smoking?
That something can kill you is always moot. Damn near everything can potentially kill you.
This. Walking can kill me. Drinking water can kill me. Getting in a firefight with a crackhead can also kill me, albeit quicker than most other fashions. Sadly, my job could result in that scenario, so I might as well do what I like.
Smoking accelerates a foregone conclusion, in my mind. It's not so much "Smoking will kill me" that's the moot point, but rather the overarching sentiment "You die."
So to some extent, Gold, yeah. 'Smoking can/will kill you' is not the most effective argument to dissuade me, personally, from smoking.
Oh, and Toasted, if you HAD to pick, what's your favorite Vonnegut work?
First, a crack head will have sold the gun for crack. Maybe a knife fight.
Second, well it's not just that it might kill you, but it can reduces significantly your quality of life.
Well, if a crackhead DID sell the gun for more crack, then yeah, I guess it'll be a knife fight.
Secondly, it might do me more harm in the long run, but I won't ALWAYS need to be in top fighting condition, or even moderate fighting condition. Smoking (and I'm talking about cigarettes, not weed) makes me happy, or if not genuinely happy, it makes me feel slightly less angry. It's the same concept for some as smoking marijuana. If it doesn't affect anyone else ,excluding that sentimental 'family' crap,
which in my case it does (I smoke in my home or car, I live alone and keep my own company, I don't smoke around non-smokers), then it should be okay. I'm not saying it's wrong to tell your friend or parent or kid or whatever to stop smoking; I just think that it's an individual choice.
Also, if you don't smoke around people who are bothered by it, sfar as I'm concerned, you can smoke all you want
Here the argument that society pays for healthcare, thus the problems you inflicted to yourself are paid by the collectivity. It means you are a parasite! This sort argument explains why governments fund a lot of anti-smoking initiatives. Same for healthy diet and pro-excercises campaigns.
I'm not saying this is a a good thing or a bad thing. Just a thing.
That's the thing- I don't HAVE a medical problem stemming from smoking. I have a busted knee from boot camp, and that's it. My health care, if I choose to use it, comes from my employer, which is technically the state I live in. I understand the argument, but I try my damndest to make it a non-issue.
I'm not actively arguing with you, though. For the most part, I agree. We just disagree on this point.
It's a moot argument, there's enough taxes on a pack of cigarettes to make smokers pay for their own healthcare.
Also, if you don't smoke around people who are bothered by it, sfar as I'm concerned, you can smoke all you want
Not here. Taxes revenues from selling cigarettes are lower then the cost of health care.
@ak1287: I know, we are jsut discussing matters in a civilized way. /slap
Pay attention!You do not have a medical problem now but in 10 20 years? What age are you?
Haha, you can't say we're having a civil discussion and then slap me! I call shenanigans on that! :P
I'm 25 now. And in all honesty, in 10 or 20 years, I'll either be dead from something other than smoking or I will have a medical complication from smoking. I hold no illusions of immortality- I have a dangerous job, I had a dangerous job before this, and if I do live to see 30, I'll probably still have a dangerous job. I wouldn't say I necessarily have a death wish, but (and this is going to sound REALLY weird, and kind of like some emo-goth BS) if I'm going out, I'm going out the same way Sinatra advertised; My way.
Besides, the truth is I'll probably quit before then, on my own terms. I've kicked tougher habits :P.
Nothing is tougher then nicotine. It ranks higher then smack and blow when it comes to addictiveness!
So what is your job?
Haha, you're gonna love this, considering you called people in my profession 'objectionable.'
I'm a cop
. Cigarettes and donughts are the worst combo for health!!
So what is your politics on beating protesters? On the head or just the chins?
Ironically, I can't eat doughnuts. It's horrible. Lunchtimes are always awkward.
Second question- as thoroughly as possible :P.
That smoking can kill you is a moot argument to make you stop smoking?
You're right, smoking can kill me so I should stop. I should also never have been born as, by being born, my death has been assured.
The question really boils down to whether you want to live a potentially longer life or a life where you enjoy yourself more. I used to smoke and quit - mostly. I have the occasional cigar because I enjoy smoking and I enjoy cigars. I chose the middle ground. I'm weak like that.
No doughnuts? Are you really a cop?
Either that, or a VERY disgruntled citizen
I can understand, I smoked for 10 years. But I enjoy my life much more withou it. Yeah, much more...
Oh yeah, my life is a lot better now that I don't smoke regularly. You really don't notice how nice it is until you stop.
I smoke like 2 cigarettes a day I think? Thats not too bad right? haha
So what city or county do you police?
Rude question, boyo.
Now, if someone is comfortable doing so that is fine, but it is still rude to ask.
Sorta like how a woman can give out her age with no problems, but a gentleman won't ask her age baring unusual circumstances (say, blind date with someone that looks 13).
But I am a barbarian.
Hence: rude.
That smoking can kill you is a moot argument to make you stop smoking?
You're right, smoking can kill me so I should stop. I should also never have been born as, by being born, my death has been assured.
The question really boils down to whether you want to live a potentially longer life or a life where you enjoy yourself more. I used to smoke and quit - mostly. I have the occasional cigar because I enjoy smoking and I enjoy cigars. I chose the middle ground. I'm weak like that.
Actually, cigars are worse for you than cigarettes (I also smoked those). It has to do with the damage they can do to your mouth, and all the second hand smoke you put into the air and then breathe back in.
However, my argument wasn't whether or not someone should quit, that would be too close to impinging on personal freedom. It was just that they were bad. If you're going to smoke, knock yourself out, just don't try to fool yourself like OleOneEye into thinking they're [mostly] NOT bad for you. In the end, the decision is yours.
Actually, cigars are worse for you than cigarettes (I also smoked those). It has to do with the damage they can do to your mouth, and all the second hand smoke you put into the air and then breathe back in.
However, my argument wasn't whether or not someone should quit, that would be too close to impinging on personal freedom. It was just that they were bad. If you're going to smoke, knock yourself out, just don't try to fool yourself like OleOneEye into thinking they're [mostly] NOT bad for you. In the end, the decision is yours.
I actually find that for my day to day life, they're much better than cigs were. I understand that's not what you're saying, but the impact of putting far less smoke and tar into your lungs in comparison (you can kill a pack of 20 smokes easily. cigars, otoh, are more difficult to smoke) - and a helluva lot less chemicals - is something you can actually feel. There really is an appreciable difference. But yeah, the stuff is no good for ya. Nothing truly enjoyable really is.
Actually, cigars are worse for you than cigarettes (I also smoked those). It has to do with the damage they can do to your mouth, and all the second hand smoke you put into the air and then breathe back in.
However, my argument wasn't whether or not someone should quit, that would be too close to impinging on personal freedom. It was just that they were bad. If you're going to smoke, knock yourself out, just don't try to fool yourself like OleOneEye into thinking they're [mostly] NOT bad for you. In the end, the decision is yours.
I actually find that for my day to day life, they're much better than cigs were. I understand that's not what you're saying, but the impact of putting far less smoke and tar into your lungs in comparison (you can kill a pack of 20 smokes easily. cigars, otoh, are more difficult to smoke) - and a helluva lot less chemicals - is something you can actually feel. There really is an appreciable difference. But yeah, the stuff is no good for ya. Nothing truly enjoyable really is.
Actually, there's just as many chemicals in the tobacco used in cigars as there is in cigarettes. And cigar smoke you end up breathing back into your lungs as second hand smoke. I thought the same thing until I had to go to the emergency room for a serious asthma attack. They had three doctors examine me, and the third, the lung doctor on staff, said that because of the second hand smoke, cigars are worse for you than cigarettes (I had ditched cigarettes for cigars).
In any case, they put me on respiration therapy, which was nice, because I could not only breathe afterwards, but I left with an oxygen high.
25 million is the total number of individual currently alive who CDC expects to have their lives shortened by cigarettes.
For your 62% calculation to be correct, every one of the 25 million would have to come from the current population of 40 million smokers. However, that is not accurate. Some of the 25 million will come from the current population of smokers. Some will come from former smokers who have quit.
Which the article doesn't state, and which you have no basis to just assume. It says based on "current cigarette smoking patterns," with no reference to those who quit or second hand smoke. Again, you're 92 million number is not justified.
Hence, the denominator must be greater than the 40 million current smokers. That is why I estimated a denominator of 92 million. Granted, my estimate is inaccurate. However, mathematics requires the denominator be greater than the 40 million current smokers.
It's not only inaccurate, its either dishonest or mistaken like I said, but the point is you're incorrect, and just asserting based on your opinion. The CDC source doesn't say anything you're trying to read into it for the sake of medical denialism. The number of active smokers is 40 million. Nothing states anywhere that the denominator MUST be higher, you're just making a bare assertion fallacy. If they continue to smoke at the rate that they do, 25 million of them, roughly 62%, will die early, as much as by 14 years in some cases. The statistic also refers to cigarette use, with second hand smoke related illnesses below it. They're seperate statistics.
And if you don't believe me, take a look at the source for that statistic, it says that the mortality figures don't include death or illness caused by second hand smoke. So, yes, the 25 million number is based on active smokers, which at the moment, there are roughly 40 million in the US.
Unless you can provide another credible source, point out where the CDC source says otherwise, or qualify your own skills in statistics/mathematics, from where I'm sitting, you're still just making assertions based on your opinion, not fact.
"If these smoking patterns continue into adulthood, SAM and YPLL are expected to increase. Assuming that one third of adult smokers, 10% of former smokers, and 5.3 million persons aged less than 18 years die from smoking and that current smoking patterns continue, an estimated 25 million persons alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses (7,8)." Perspective in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Smoking – Attributable Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost – United States, 1984, as amended in the editorial dated 1997, published in MMR Weekly on May 23, 1997 www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm
That is the quote from the research paper which the current CDC website cites as source material. Hence, I think it fair to surmise that the CDC agrees with the finding of the paper.
The paper states that one third of adult smokers will die from smoking. My original assertion was that less than half of smokers will die from smoking. I did not due my research and came up with a pseudo-number, and for that I was wrong. The research relied upon by the current CDC website states that one third of current adult smokers will die from smoking. I hope to be in the two thirds that do not die from smoking.
The paper does not mention non-death related illnesses caused by smoking such as emphazema or heart disease. Lots more smokers will suffer grueling effects from illnesses caused by smoking even if smoking is not what kills them. Smoking also causes other things like lowering your immune system, yellowed teeth, aged skin, and smelling bad.
"If these smoking patterns continue into adulthood, SAM and YPLL are expected to increase. Assuming that one third of adult smokers, 10% of former smokers, and 5.3 million persons aged less than 18 years die from smoking and that current smoking patterns continue, an estimated 25 million persons alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses (7,8)." Perspective in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Smoking – Attributable Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost – United States, 1984, as amended in the editorial dated 1997, published in MMR Weekly on May 23, 1997 www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm
That is the quote from the research paper which the current CDC website cites as source material. Hence, I think it fair to surmise that the CDC agrees with the finding of the paper.
Right. Then we both agree. The CDC just doesn't agree with you. Take note of where it says "assume." That doesn't take into consideration people who quit later on, or people who only occassionally smoke, so it takes longer for them to die. It also doesn't take into consideration how long quitters smoked before finally quitting. But, ignore all of that, ignore everything other than the active smokers part of the equation, if you had to take your numbers from just that, 1 in 3 odds of getting sick or dying due to smoking still doesn't seem like great odds.
The paper does not mention non-death related illnesses caused by smoking such as emphazema or heart disease. Lots more smokers will suffer grueling effects from illnesses caused by smoking even if smoking is not what kills them. Smoking also causes other things like lowering your immune system, yellowed teeth, aged skin, and smelling bad.
Sure. We're not in disagreement about smoking causing these things, however, while yellowed teeth, aged skin, and smelling bad aren't terminal, if smoking causes a particular disease, and the disease leads to their demise, would you not agree that smoking was ultimately responsible for their demise?
It's what I'm understanding from this, anyway
I hope to be in the two thirds that do not die from smoking.
That's one hell of a thing to bet with, especially at those odds.
I hope to be in the two thirds that do not die from smoking.
That's one hell of a thing to bet with, especially at those odds.
Well, to live to old age as a smoker, you can't roll a 3 on 1d3. Somehow, it just seems like playing russian roulette. Just hope you don't get a 3. The critical hit on tobacco does 3x damage. :P
Someone dying at age 83 when they could have lived to 91 without smoking is not quite the same as someone picking up a cigarette and dying immediately. Imo, people should, ideally, be allowed to make that choice, just like they should be allowed to eat until they get fat, and not be judged by it in other areas. They can be generous, intelligent, and morally upstanding people nonetheless, and I see too much intolerance disguised as health concerns already.
That said, subjecting others to it is not acceptable to me.
spoilered for size
I grew up with two smokers at a time when it was completely normal and health concerns didn't enter into it. Despite having an otherwise excellent health, I exhibited most of the signs of passive smoking, but no one saw the connection at the time. I also got motion sickness when I was in a car with my parents, who would both smoke there, and eventually, even getting into the car which stank of smoke was enough to make me nauseous.
By my mid teens I no longer got pneumonia and otitis, but I frequently had trouble with my lungs and throat. I would get this dry cough like my throat was itching, and I couldn't seem to relieve it. The muscles in my stomach would be sore from all the coughing, but I couldn't help it, and I would lie awake at night crying from the pain, deadly tired but unable to rest. At that time, the term 'passive smoking' had entered the vocabulary, and I started to occasionally hate my parents. Fortunately, that was also around the time I moved away from home, and a few years later, my health was back to normal. Today, I don't get anything more serious than laryngitis, which is easily cured with honey, lemon, and ginger, and rarely lasts more than a couple of days.
and Erato i'm curious...have you ever tried smoking?
hmm the dice joke was an epic win.
and Erato i'm curious...have you ever tried smoking?
Twice. Once around 14, where I didn't inhale but just tasted the smoke in my mouth, and another time when I was around 17, where I guy gave me his cigarette on the condition that I inhaled. From what I remember, it felt like I was chocking, and my throat burned and itched, and promised myself not to do it again. I also kissed a smoker to test the theory that it should be like licking an ashtray, and while feeling was better (she was a good kisser and had very soft lips) the taste was a turn-off.
and I only asked cuz usually second hand smoke really bothers people until they actually try smoking. It used to bother me and choke me up really bad but now its fine.
I do work out but smoking stops me from eating as much.
So does not eating as much.
Switch to e-cigs. All the good, none of the bad. Replicates smoking 99% of the way. You can even ween yourself off of the nicotine by lowering the dosage in the juice. You can even use it in the office if your HR department clears it (mine has) as well as in public places if your state/region has banned smoking.
I..uhhh....I thought you were a girl...
I am. If I wasn't, I would probably have practised with a guy instead (assuming my male friends were up to it).
and I only asked cuz usually second hand smoke really bothers people until they actually try smoking. It used to bother me and choke me up really bad but now its fine.
People only notice that they're bothered when they don't smoke. Today, I can smell my parents smoking in a way I couldn't when I lived with them (barring the car, which has always smelled bad), and when I come home from visiting I can smell the smoke on my hair. But my grandfather died from some illness in the lungs probably caused by smoking, my mother has severe asthma and is often short of breath, and my father stopped smoking after he got pneumonia.
On a related note, he (my dad) always told me that in order to get into shape, I should sprint for the last 200 meter or so when on my bike, and not stop until I was gasping for breath. I never succeeded in it, because my leg muscles always ached so bad I had to stop before I was short of breath. I was really annoyed by it, because I'm in fairly good shape and have a decent pain tolerance, so slowing down because of a muscle pain made me feel like a wimp, when my dad made it sound easy. But recently he's told me that after he quit smoking, he can't do it either. His muscles set out before his lungs do, exactly like mine. So all that time, it wasn't actually that his legs were stronger than mine, but rather that he reached the point where he was gasping for breath much sooner.
So even though smokers rarely notice it, it still affects them negatively. If I have to choose between suffering the health consequences of smoking (and I'm not mainly talking about dying early), and get physically uncomfortable because people smoke around me, I'll choose the latter. But it's not fair that I have to make that choice, enough people are bothered by cigarette smoke that it ought to be unacceptable to let out where other people can smell it.
All things in moderation of course (I was angry when my uncle made my sick grandfather get out in the cold because he didn't want smoke in his house), but most farts smell better, last for a shorter amount of time, have fewer negative consequences for your health, and are necessary to let out in order to stay healthy, and people still often apologise when farting close to someone. Why are we making an exception for cigarette smoke?
I..uhhh....I thought you were a girl...
No, she isn't.
She is a woman.
I agree with your points on smoking though.
and RH I was using it as a broad term lol I should have said female.
My wife and I use to kiss a lot... real sloppy, with lots of tongue and slobber...
But that was years ago...
I can't remember the last time we kissed...
But she quit smoking, while I still do, and that may have something to do with it...
And she quit "cold turkey". Came in the house one day, put her half pack of cigs on the table and said "I quit".
And she hasn't picked them back up since.
Actually, I have to either smoke outside or in the basement... I'm not allowed to smoke in the house. And since we have kids, I think that is a good idea.
I still enjoy smoking, so I am not ready to quit.
My wife and I use to kiss a lot... real sloppy, with lots of tongue and slobber...
But that was years ago...
I can't remember the last time we kissed...
But she quit smoking, while I still do, and that may have something to do with it...
And she quit "cold turkey". Came in the house one day, put her half pack of cigs on the table and said "I quit".
And she hasn't picked them back up since.
Actually, I have to either smoke outside or in the basement... I'm not allowed to smoke in the house. And since we have kids, I think that is a good idea.
I still enjoy smoking, so I am not ready to quit.
You should really do something about that RH (her not kissing you)
did you ever wonder why she quit?
Her sister quit and was pressuring her a bit, I think.
But no, I never really asked why.
I just figured she was tired of it.
No, she isn't.
She is a woman.
I'm confused
Usually, the term 'woman' is considered more positive than 'girl'.ohhh ok...I don't get your logic (with kissing) but...thats neat! haha
I agree with your points on smoking though.
and RH I was using it as a broad term lol I should have said female.
Practising kissing with girls is easier, safer, and less awkward, so it's the logical place to start. The downside is that it doesn't necessarily make you a better kisser in regards to guys (except from making you more comfortable and help you figure our what you like), and when you finally get to that part you risk disappointment...... I wonder where goldy is to comment on this
Edit: Btw R_H, kuddos to your wife. Stopping this abruptly, and with another smoker still in the house, takes a serious amount of willpower. I figured she would have some, for putting up with you (kidding, but don't tell me you don't agree ), but still, good job.
Her sister quit and was pressuring her a bit, I think.
But no, I never really asked why.
I just figured she was tired of it.
ohhh, well I wish you good luck in trying to get some romance back into your marriage. I suggest some greenery...
No, she isn't.
She is a woman.
I'm confusedohhh ok...I don't get your logic (with kissing) but...thats neat! haha
I agree with your points on smoking though.
and RH I was using it as a broad term lol I should have said female.
Practising kissing with girls is easier, safer, and less awkward, so it's the logical place to start. The downside is that it doesn't necessarily make you a better kisser in regards to guys (except from making you more comfortable and help you figure our what you like), and when you finally get to that part you risk disappointment...... I wonder where goldy is to comment on this
Edit: Btw R_H, kuddos to your wife. Stopping this abruptly, and with another smoker still in the house, takes a serious amount of willpower. I figured she would have some, for putting up with you (kidding, but don't tell me you don't agree
It is lol I wasn't thinking about it and came off as slightly rude.
So you're saying my first kiss (no complaints from her by the way ;D [she was a **** so thats saying something]) should have been with a guy?
Thats gay Erato. I don't know where you live but in america thats considered gay in my age group.
No, she isn't.
She is a woman.
I'm confusedohhh ok...I don't get your logic (with kissing) but...thats neat! haha
I agree with your points on smoking though.
and RH I was using it as a broad term lol I should have said female.
Practising kissing with girls is easier, safer, and less awkward, so it's the logical place to start. The downside is that it doesn't necessarily make you a better kisser in regards to guys (except from making you more comfortable and help you figure our what you like), and when you finally get to that part you risk disappointment...... I wonder where goldy is to comment on this
Edit: Btw R_H, kuddos to your wife. Stopping this abruptly, and with another smoker still in the house, takes a serious amount of willpower. I figured she would have some, for putting up with you (kidding, but don't tell me you don't agree
I was actually trying to be nice to you Erato. I didn't mean woman as a negative. I simply meant you are mature. Girl infers youth and, perhaps, immaturity. And while you may be young, you certainly aren't immature.
And yeah, I can be hard to get along with... sometimes.;)
But my wife is pretty hardcore and she doesn't take crap from anyone, especially me!
So you're saying my first kiss (no complaints from her by the way ;D [she was a **** so thats saying something]) should have been with a guy?
Thats gay Erato. I don't know where you live but in america thats considered gay in my age group.
I think that'd be the definition of it, wouldn't you?
The real question is: would you care that it is gay?
Thats gay Erato.
I think that'd be the definition of it, wouldn't you?
The real question is: would you care that it is gay?
If you're gonna quote something like that please quote the whole thing so it doesn't look hateful or anything. And yes I would care Plu. Personally the thought of kissing a guy sickens me. I don't care if gays like it lol good for them. Its just not my thing.
So you're saying my first kiss (no complaints from her by the way ;D [she was a **** so thats saying something]) should have been with a guy?
Thats gay Erato. I don't know where you live but in america thats considered gay in my age group.
Not necessarily your first. My first was with a guy, as was the first who gave me a hicky. I just spent some time experimenting with both girls and guys after that, more girls than guys. Because if you kiss a guy, there's more of a chance he'll get serious and want to go further. Girls are safer, people don't make the same sexual assumptions when two girls kiss.
Besides, it's interesting to notice the difference. I once thought girls were better kissers than guys, but then I started to wonder if perhaps girls and guys (generally) liked different things, and both kissed the way they would like to be kissed. So I asked a bi-curious male friend who confirmed that he found guys to be the superior kissers. After that, I started to take on a more male style when kissing guys, and noticed distinct sings of increased arousal. It's some very interesting stuff, which I think more people would benefit from experiencing.
Also, what exactly do you mean by '****'?
And yes I would care Plu. Personally the thought of kissing a guy sickens me. I don't care if gays like it lol good for them. Its just not my thing.
Eh sure, as long as you don't do it because you don't like it and not because your friends don't like it, it's all fine with me.
Also I included the whole quote for you.
Sex is good for ya.
Not if you've eaten and lazed yourself into a bad circulatory system it isn't. One pump can kill you, man!
Actually, there's just as many chemicals in the tobacco used in cigars as there is in cigarettes. And cigar smoke you end up breathing back into your lungs as second hand smoke. I thought the same thing until I had to go to the emergency room for a serious asthma attack. They had three doctors examine me, and the third, the lung doctor on staff, said that because of the second hand smoke, cigars are worse for you than cigarettes (I had ditched cigarettes for cigars).
In any case, they put me on respiration therapy, which was nice, because I could not only breathe afterwards, but I left with an oxygen high.
I was under the impression that cigars are subject to different regulations than cigs are - as evidenced by companies like Djarum re-classifying their clove cigs as clove cigars. Chemicals, IIRC, are also now added to the paper cigs are rolled in to make them less a fire hazard. Cigars are rolled in tobacco leaves.
I understand your point on the safety issue but I'm tellin' ya it isn't what I've physically experienced. Mostly because when I smoked cigs I'd smoke them more often and smoke far more of them. With cigars, I don't get the 'itch' to smoke 'em. It's cold outside now. I don't go out and smoke. In fact, I only smoke if I'm heading to a bar or something - never at home. So, for me, they've helped me smoke less - even when I'm smoking - which has made a real difference in my day to day life. As I've participated in certain cardio intensive activities for 20 years or so, I can honestly say I can see the difference. So while cigars aren't a safe alternative, they've certainly been good to me.
Hm, maybe we can agree that cigars - the actual object - are worse for you than smokes but cigars - the habit - may well be better? I dunno, I may be askin' a lot.
That's one hell of a thing to bet with, especially at those odds.
Not really. You're already dead, you see.
Not really. You're already dead, you see.
Doomed, not dead. You're essentially betting (or just sacrificing) twenty years off your life.
Although I do understand in a way; at 80 or so life starts being less valuable to many people, so if you're getting something from it between 20 and 70 and trade in the years between 70 and 80 for it, that might be worth the trade-off
And yes I would care Plu. Personally the thought of kissing a guy sickens me. I don't care if gays like it lol good for them. Its just not my thing.
Eh sure, as long as you don't do it because you don't like it and not because your friends don't like it, it's all fine with me.
Also I included the whole quote for you.
Thank you
So you're saying my first kiss (no complaints from her by the way ;D [she was a **** so thats saying something]) should have been with a guy?
Thats gay Erato. I don't know where you live but in america thats considered gay in my age group.
Not necessarily your first. My first was with a guy, as was the first who gave me a hicky. I just spent some time experimenting with both girls and guys after that, more girls than guys. Because if you kiss a guy, there's more of a chance he'll get serious and want to go further. Girls are safer, people don't make the same sexual assumptions when two girls kiss.Besides, it's interesting to notice the difference. I once thought girls were better kissers than guys, but then I started to wonder if perhaps girls and guys (generally) liked different things, and both kissed the way they would like to be kissed. So I asked a bi-curious male friend who confirmed that he found guys to be the superior kissers. After that, I started to take on a more male style when kissing guys, and noticed distinct sings of increased arousal. It's some very interesting stuff, which I think more people would benefit from experiencing.
Also, what exactly do you mean by '****'?
oh perfect now I get it lol I understand now.
and I'm not going to argue about the definition of a ****. bit.ly/hnUoBA
there that should help.
and I only asked cuz usually second hand smoke really bothers people until they actually try smoking.(...)
That's one of the major problems with smoking: the smoke doesn't choose, it just floats around, affecting even those who wanted to stay healthy and not smoke. If you choose to poison yourself, fine, but why do you have to drag me along?
and I'm not going to argue about the definition of a ****. bit.ly/hnUoBA
there that should help.
Very cute. I meant I'm curious as to how you use the word. Do you see the girl who gave you your first kiss as dirty and wrong, or do you use the word to mean a sexually promiscuous person in a more neutral sense?
Doomed, not dead. You're essentially betting (or just sacrificing) twenty years off your life.
Although I do understand in a way; at 80 or so life starts being less valuable to many people, so if you're getting something from it between 20 and 70 and trade in the years between 70 and 80 for it, that might be worth the trade-off
Meh, most things are a bet. Eating, sex, for some it's their work environment, drinking, driving to work, riding the bus, etc, etc. Hell, my friend smokes, in part, precisely because he expects it to lower his life expectancy. Doesn't want to be a diaper wearing, doddering burden, I guess. That's the question, really. Do you want to live longer or, possibly, enjoy a shorter life more? Not everyone that lives to 90+ has a crappy old age and not everyone that smokes dies at 70 or sooner, either (George Burns always comes to mind. Smoked cigars 'til he was 100 or something). It all depends which risk you'd rather take. If you enjoy smoking and decide to quit because it'll lengthen your life, what good did it do if you die in a car wreck at 25? Was it worth it to deny yourself that pleasure while you were here? It depends upon what kind of investor you are, I guess. What it's worth to you. What's worth more.
Our modern world has made it possible to live longer than we were really designed to. Is it living, though, to spend your days confined to a bed or a chair in a nursing home with your mind so ravaged by time that you can't remember who your own kids are? I've seen that. My great grandmother was that person. It's one of the few things I remember about my early youth feeling sad for my grandpa cuz his mom couldn't remember who he was. She made it to 98. My grandfather is now 93 and doing sorta ok. His mind is fine but his body is not. He lives in a nursing home and has to push a li'l cart around with an oxygen tank in it. He had to quit driving a few years ago because he just couldn't focus properly (he willingly quit although he misses it). He, I'm fairly certain, is just fine with rollin' on into the future. My dad's mother, though, was a similar and yet quite different story. She made it to 92. I was her favorite and she had no trouble telling her other grandkids just that about me right in front of 'em. Anyhoo, her mind was in great shape and her body wasn't bad considering her age (she lived in the city and had been walking nearly everywhere for decades). Still, from a few years before she was 90 on, she'd tell me and a few other people that she was done. Done living, that is. She lived enough life and just wanted it to be over. No pain, no memory loss, she was just done. That hurt to hear. It did make it a little easier when she finally passed on, though. At any rate, it has become my firm belief that just because we can live longer now doesn't mean we should. And we should be able to decide just how long we wanna go and just how we want to spend our time here, too. So that's why I do what I do the way I do it. Smoking is something I like. It began to take a toll that made my current quality of life drop so I changed things up. Other stuff (*cough*) from my 20s was the same sort of deal, too. When I'm finally old enough to be unable to physically do the things I like to, I think I'll start smokin' again. Why not. ;)
Sorry for the ramblin'. We've only got so much time and I'm sorry for wastin' that much o' yours.
And really I don't mind people smoking either; if that's the choice they make then so be it. It only bothers me when people decide for me that I'll have to and stand in their smoke and lose a bit more of my health and maybe long life. I really don't like smoke and I do my best to stay far away from people smoking, and so far it's working pretty nicely.
and I'm not going to argue about the definition of a ****. bit.ly/hnUoBA
there that should help.
Very cute. I meant I'm curious as to how you use the word. Do you see the girl who gave you your first kiss as dirty and wrong, or do you use the word to mean a sexually promiscuous person in a more neutral sense?
If you think THAT was cute you should add me on facebook lol jk jk
and I meant that she was promiscuous, yes.
I've got plenty of time left for the time being, so don't worry about that. Informative story, and one I also agree with. I'd like for people to be given back control of their own life, and to be able to say "I don't want this anymore" and be allowed to just put an end to it.
It's amazing to me that we don't allow people to end it on their own terms when they deem themselves ready. Instead, we force people to suffer until some incurable ailment finally claims them. While some reason that this is because life is a gift from god that should be treated as such, I fail to see how any god would wish that this gift cause so much pain for so many.
And really I don't mind people smoking either; if that's the choice they make then so be it. It only bothers me when people decide for me that I'll have to and stand in their smoke and lose a bit more of my health and maybe long life. I really don't like smoke and I do my best to stay far away from people smoking, and so far it's working pretty nicely.
It's a sticky thing, IMO. While I can certainly appreciate the wish to not be exposed to smoke, I also appreciate the wish of business owners to determine for themselves what sort of establishment - smoking or non - that they'd like to run. In any event, so long as we all respect each other it should all work out. 'Course that'll never happen, but that's a different discussion.
Doomed, not dead. You're essentially betting (or just sacrificing) twenty years off your life.
Although I do understand in a way; at 80 or so life starts being less valuable to many people, so if you're getting something from it between 20 and 70 and trade in the years between 70 and 80 for it, that might be worth the trade-off
Meh, most things are a bet. Eating, sex, for some it's their work environment, drinking, driving to work, riding the bus, etc, etc. Hell, my friend smokes, in part, precisely because he expects it to lower his life expectancy. Doesn't want to be a diaper wearing, doddering burden, I guess. That's the question, really. Do you want to live longer or, possibly, enjoy a shorter life more? Not everyone that lives to 90+ has a crappy old age and not everyone that smokes dies at 70 or sooner, either (George Burns always comes to mind. Smoked cigars 'til he was 100 or something). It all depends which risk you'd rather take. If you enjoy smoking and decide to quit because it'll lengthen your life, what good did it do if you die in a car wreck at 25? Was it worth it to deny yourself that pleasure while you were here? It depends upon what kind of investor you are, I guess. What it's worth to you. What's worth more.
Our modern world has made it possible to live longer than we were really designed to. Is it living, though, to spend your days confined to a bed or a chair in a nursing home with your mind so ravaged by time that you can't remember who your own kids are? I've seen that. My great grandmother was that person. It's one of the few things I remember about my early youth feeling sad for my grandpa cuz his mom couldn't remember who he was. She made it to 98. My grandfather is now 93 and doing sorta ok. His mind is fine but his body is not. He lives in a nursing home and has to push a li'l cart around with an oxygen tank in it. He had to quit driving a few years ago because he just couldn't focus properly (he willingly quit although he misses it). He, I'm fairly certain, is just fine with rollin' on into the future. My dad's mother, though, was a similar and yet quite different story. She made it to 92. I was her favorite and she had no trouble telling her other grandkids just that about me right in front of 'em. Anyhoo, her mind was in great shape and her body wasn't bad considering her age (she lived in the city and had been walking nearly everywhere for decades). Still, from a few years before she was 90 on, she'd tell me and a few other people that she was done. Done living, that is. She lived enough life and just wanted it to be over. No pain, no memory loss, she was just done. That hurt to hear. It did make it a little easier when she finally passed on, though. At any rate, it has become my firm belief that just because we can live longer now doesn't mean we should. And we should be able to decide just how long we wanna go and just how we want to spend our time here, too. So that's why I do what I do the way I do it. Smoking is something I like. It began to take a toll that made my current quality of life drop so I changed things up. Other stuff (*cough*) from my 20s was the same sort of deal, too. When I'm finally old enough to be unable to physically do the things I like to, I think I'll start smokin' again. Why not. ;)
Sorry for the ramblin'. We've only got so much time and I'm sorry for wastin' that much o' yours.
and when you hit that age you, RH, and me can have a grand 'ole time hotboxing
It's a sticky thing, IMO. While I can certainly appreciate the wish to not be exposed to smoke, I also appreciate the wish of business owners to determine for themselves what sort of establishment - smoking or non - that they'd like to run. In any event, so long as we all respect each other it should all work out. 'Course that'll never happen, but that's a different discussion.
On the other hand, rules have a function. I observed very early that my generation lacked them. Or rather, we lacked frames, as it's called here. We would party, but none of us had learned to dance and there were no social frames for how to go about it, so when we were younger, it often ended with girls dancing shyly with each other while feeling awkward about how to move, while most of the boys were busy getting bored or teasing the few boys who danced with the girls. Later, people just got drunk to become brave enough to dance, which just made alcohol, rather than talking or dancing, into the basis for socialising.
My parents railed against having to go to dancing school every Sunday, and criticised the concept of girls sitting passively while the boys asked them to dance. But like it or not, being used to dancing on formal occasions, and boys being taught early on that it's not just OK to ask girls to dance, it's expected, really gave them some frames to base their socialisation on. It didn't mean that they couldn't go from waltz to improvised jitterbug, but having learned some actual steps under stricter conditions helped with that, rather than inhibit them creatively. Ok I went off a tangent here, but same thing applies to smoking. We don't have proper rules for it (or rather, the ones we had don't work and we haven't got any new ones), and it shows.
Over here, many pup/bar/restaurant owners report an increase in customers after smoking have been banned in smaller establishments, because non-smokers no longer keep away. In theory, it should be possible to just make non-smoking establishments for them, but in praxis, it haven't worked that way before (or it wouldn't have changed with the law), and it probably still doesn't work that way. Smokers still go out even if the law requires them to smoke outside, but many of them expect their friends to oblige them if there's a possibility to go to a smoking establishment. So instead of taking the confrontation (which could damage the friendship, or cause the smoker to just not invite them again), non-smokers just don't go out as much.
I think a decade or so with rules like this could help establish the frames for smoking, as something that doesn't belong to a normal night out with your friends. Afterwards, I have no problem with people establishing smoking establishments, for people to specifically meet for smoking. It would be preferable if it came by itself instead, but that's just rarely how something like that works.
To me, if it's a business you own you should be able to determine whether or not people are allowed to smoke in it.
See, the libertarian in me agrees with this.
Alas, the libertarian in me is in great conflict with the practical person in me.
See, the libertarian says "if there's a demand for smoke-free pubs, then they will happen."
The practical person in me says "yeah, that worked out really well for blacks in the south that wanted a frickin' lunch counter."
Edit: gross simplification of history, I'm sure, but you see the point, I hope.
To me, if it's a business you own you should be able to determine whether or not people are allowed to smoke in it. The people, then, can decide whether or not to frequent your place based upon whichever approach you take.
I'm with EE, sort of. On a practical level, that's just not how it works. I would have preferred if the smokers had changed by themselves, but that didn't work out, so for now, I'm glad the law is what it is.
But I am a barbarian.
Hence: rude.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." — Robert E. Howard
See, the libertarian in me agrees with this.
Alas, the libertarian in me is in great conflict with the practical person in me.
See, the libertarian says "if there's a demand for smoke-free pubs, then they will happen."
The practical person in me says "yeah, that worked out really well for blacks in the south that wanted a frickin' lunch counter."
Edit: gross simplification of history, I'm sure, but you see the point, I hope.
Oh yeah, I get it. It's something that I'm sorta torn about, too. Seems it's impossible to make everyone happy. Whodathunk?
I'm with EE, sort of. On a practical level, that's just not how it works. I would have preferred if the smokers had changed by themselves, but that didn't work out, so for now, I'm glad the law is what it is.
I'd rather it be different, obviously, but you're right in that the past is pretty fair evidence that things would not be as fair to non-smokers as they should be.
To me, if it's a business you own you should be able to determine whether or not people are allowed to smoke in it. The people, then, can decide whether or not to frequent your place based upon whichever approach you take. Unfortunately, that's not how it works here. You don't get a choice if you're a smoker. You can go anywhere you wish, of course, but only if you smoke outside (and there's rules for exactly how you can do this, too). Meh, it just doesn't seem right to me is all. Smoking sections obviously don't work, though, so something better needs to be found. To me, that better thing is to simply let the business owners choose.
I agree on the basis of this except for two things:
* Allowing smokers is nearly always better for business because you have a larger clientele; many people refuse to go where they can't smoke (unless forced) but very few people refuse to go where you can smoke.
* Just because the business owner doesn't care about working in a smoking establishment, doesn't mean his workers do the same. And since they don't have a choice about working in a non-smoking establishment (like I said; there aren't any) their options are "work in smoke against my will" and "not having a job", which is an unfair choice for them.
I fully agree with the "no smoking inside businesses" to protect the people working in such businesses (I don't want to work in a smoking enviroment; it makes me nauseous) so without that rule I'd either be unemployed or severely demotivated and sick at work.
I somewhat agree with the "no smoking in pubs", I can understand the reasoning (it's basically the same) but it's not good for the pubs as many people go there to have a smoke with their friends, and now they're just staying at home to do so.
And it's not actually generating any new customers either because most people either tolerated the smoke or simply don't care about pubs at all, so now they're all in financial trouble due to lack of clientele.
Not sure if this applies everywhere, but here the anti-smoking laws inside had little impact on business. Before, 54% of smokers went out. Now 46% still go out. Not a dramatic lost. They just smoke less when they go out!
They might be exaggerating of course, but there's been a lot of complaining of pubs going out of business.
They don't look very crowded anymore either. But like I said; I never go to pubs anyway.
(Yeah, there were a lot of protests against that one from the pot-shops, where the basic idea is "buy pot, smoke it here" I think they changed it so that they had to give people joints without tabacco or something...)
I' not gonna hate on you for smoking your fake cigs but....to me...it just seems really stupid, like a novelty. When I see my mom smoke one of those it looks like she's taking a hit of crack.
Yes, because inhaling all of that tar and other chemicals is just so smart.
No hooker jokes? You feeling well ZB?
I'm ok, just sorta tired.