SPCR

Big tobacco companies have no need to defend their business. Smokers are more then willing to stand up for their rights.

Yeah, their right to kill themselves, be a burden to the health service, harm unborn babies and damage other peoples' health; what great citizens they are. Can't you see the tobacco companies are using you?

limee....I felt the same as you when I was young, strong, invincible, captain of the track team, football, etc. I got my wake-up call early with an appendicitus attack at age 18. Then I broke my leg, started having kidney stone attacks, followed by a long list of medical problems that still plague me.

But I still ran up to about age 35......when I realized my knees were going. It'll happen you also, hopefully later than it happened to me. I used to run a 100yd dash in 10.0......now it hurts to walk that far.

Guys... I've bad news for you. Spending large amounts of time on those forums is bad for your eyes... possibly your spine too.

Seriously... I can understand motorcycling, mountain biking and other dangerous stuff... but running is about as natural of a sport as it gets. Try cutting back on eating, it's bad for your teeth.

Just be sure to run on grass or something softer than pavement.

jaganath wrote:

Big tobacco companies have no need to defend their business. Smokers are more then willing to stand up for their rights.

Yeah, their right to kill themselves, be a burden to the health service, harm unborn babies and damage other peoples' health; what great citizens they are. Can't you see the tobacco companies are using you?

Yes.. And the candy industry is using kids, so ban candy while you are at it.

Tobacco marketing is illegal anyway, and the packs have text like "Smoking clogs the arteries and causes heart attacks and strokes" and "Smoking hurts fertility and causes impotence" and things like that. And i seriously doubt a lot of people have stopped or not started because of those labels. The labels take up about 50% of the surface area of the pack.

Now they are thinking of putting similar texts on alcohol bottles, like anyone would decide not to buy a beer because of that. And it causes a lot of expenses for small brewers and importers. And when alcohol consumption reduces, the government can say it's because of their damn stickers... They could work for some if the labels read "Consuming alchohol can make you dance naked and sing crappy songs really loud" on the bottles though. No smilies, im bored.

lmao

running is about as natural of a sport as it gets.

What is this "natural" schtick that you and Trip are on? Do you think hunter-gatherers spent all their time running 26-mile marathons? They would only sprint in short bursts to catch prey, like cheetahs; most of humans hunting ability comes not from their speed but from their cunning, ie setting traps etc. For overweight people, who need exercise the most, running puts excessive loads on the joints which can lead to damage to the cartilage over time, and eventually osteoarthritis.

Well then how about power walking? I hate to turn fat people impotent riding bikes.

I think this is a great thread. I like it when people discuss positive things, and how to live healthily is a positive discussion.

However, I think people generally know how to live healthily. People are pretty smart, they know more or less whether something is good or bad. I'll bet most smokers know smoking is bad, for instance. Yet people continue to smoke, drink and all the rest.

So I don't think it's a case that people want to live long and healthy lives but don't know how. Rather, I think people don't want to live long and healthy lives per se. Whatever people are living for does not include living long and healthily.

I often hear people say "I don't care" about many different things. I always wonder how someone can not care. To not care means you are totally unaffected by it, it might as well not exist. But usually when people say this, it is about something unpleasant, some unwanted event. Perhaps someone crashes their car, but then proclaims "I don't care", or they smoke and upon being warned about the health effects, proclaim "I don't care". But it seems to me that it should be normal to care about such things. I would expect someone to care if they crash their car, or if their health is being damaged.

Well, if it is true that they don't care, they should look completely content with the outcome, because it has not affected them at all. However, my experience has been that people do not typically look content at such times. They usually seek some diversion, or change the subject. I think it's fair to say that people say they don't care when they obviously do care.

That they profess not to care when they obviously do care, and when it would be completely normal to care, must be significant. Presumably if they did care, they would change their behaviour in some way. As smokers, they would perhaps stop smoking, or as drivers, perhaps they would use public transport or buy a cheaper car. That they profess not to care I think must mean they don't want to change their behaviour. What they are currently doing is too important to change perhaps, more important to some degree than life and limb.

I think people are willfully short-sighted. When looking at a future of getting old and dying, it's not a nice thing to think about. As time ticks by, we move closer to the end of our lives, so time is very precious and should probably not be wasted. Living a healthy life might guarantee some extra time, but nothing really changes. It's a little more time in this temporary life that we don't like to think about.

So what if I smoke? I enjoy it, and if I cut it out I'll be more healthy perhaps but without that enjoyment, and what is life without enjoyment? Life does not afford much enjoyment, so I'll take it where I can get it.

I think it is people's enjoyment that is more important than life or limb. Unless people can see that they will enjoy a healthy and slightly longer life, I don't think they will ever change. Telling them that they will enjoy it less in the future if they don't probably doesn't hold much weight, because less of their life will be left then, so surely now is the best time to seek enjoyment.

I think the only way to get people to change is to dispel the illusion of the enjoyment they are current having. If you can show them that they are currently not enjoying themselves, they will change of their own accord. Or, you can make them feel guilty, which politicians typically try to do. Either way, ending their current perceived enjoyment is the only way to get people to change.

Nevertheless, I like positive threads. They don't try to make people feel guilty. They are pleasant, and if I am wrong, they might help people. At the very least, they serve to show that someone cares, and I think that is just the greatest thing.

Yeah I used to party all the time, smokey bars, loud music, wine, women, song. But when I look back at those times, it just doesn't seem to be very important. When I think what it actually cost in terms of money, wasted time, wasted health, I have to cringe. And wish I had done it differently....

You know there are all sorts of things working against you, like the sun for instance. It's a silent killer, turning beautiful young bodies into wrinkled, cancerous old people....well before their time. That beautiful tanned body is inviting trouble.

I went to a high school reunion a few years ago...a shock. My favorite blond had turned into a shrived up wrinkled mess....not that old either.The sun did it I guess.....or stupid tanning booths. Now I avoid the sun.....diabetics are supposed to. No more tans for me.

I was bored and used the Stumble plugin in Firefox for Humor, and came across this quote wich suits this thread pretty well.

You can live to be a hundred if you give up all the things that make you want to live to be a hundred.
-Woody Allen

Bluefront wrote:Yeah I used to party all the time, smokey bars, loud music, wine, women, song. But when I look back at those times, it just doesn't seem to be very important. When I think what it actually cost in terms of money, wasted time, wasted health, I have to cringe. And wish I had done it differently....

Come on, you cannot say that! What would you be like if you never went to parties and stayed at home? Your body might be better off, but you might be mentally messed up by now, or have committed suicide...

I like this one:

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

Funnily enough, I can't remember where that came from...

Come on, you cannot say that! What would you be like if you never went to parties and stayed at home?

You can't have a party without getting drunk? I thought that was strictly a US attitude.

aristide1 wrote:

Come on, you cannot say that! What would you be like if you never went to parties and stayed at home?

You can't have a party without getting drunk? I thought that was strictly a US attitude.

Finland says you are not alone.

People will always make excuses for doing things the easy way, or to explain away their chemical addictions. Social smoking? Yeah right, I'm sure if there was no nicotine in tobacco everyone would still be sitting around smoking with each other. Anyone who thinks smoking makes them fit in either needs a spine or new friends. [insert additional berating comments that we've all heard many times before but refuse to listen to here]

The only folks still arguing that tobacco and alcohol don't harm people are the addicts and companies selling to them. I recall reading a medical study years ago that said the damage from 1 cigarette took about 1 month for your lungs to regenerate the damaged cells, assuming the carcinogens didn't cause a cancerous mutation of course. This was actually testing folks using scopes and everything, not some assumptions based on faulty cause-effect guesswork. A person who quits after years might only need a few months or a couple years for the tar buildup to eventually get out of their lungs, but whatever effects it's had up till then are permanent. Some aren't permanently harmed, but many are to certain extents.

Nothing in life is 100% certain, but neither is russian roulette. Doesn't mean you should ignore the risks. To sit there and do all these harmful things because you only live once seems pretty backwards. "I only live once, so I better mess it up while I can" seems a bit more accurate. If you feel you need to be intoxicated or stoned to enjoy life, consider what you're trying to avoid by being half conscious if at all. Yes moderation in life is good, but that doesn't mean do everything some. "Eat lead paint, but only in moderation" "drink antifreeze, but only in moderation" "I stick a gun with 1 bullet in my mouth and pull the trigger, but only occasionally and at parties"...

The younger you are, the more blissfully ignorant you are.

breunor wrote:People will always make excuses for doing things the easy way, or to explain away their chemical addictions. Social smoking? Yeah right, I'm sure if there was no nicotine in tobacco everyone would still be sitting around smoking with each other. Anyone who thinks smoking makes them fit in either needs a spine or new friends. [insert additional berating comments that we've all heard many times before but refuse to listen to here]

Your opinions are prejudiced and show you clearly have never smoked or know what you are talking about. And of course nicotine is an important part, it's one of the reasons smoking gives pleasure. There are lot of "useless" activities or food that would be given up, if they didn't give pleasure, for example coffee or sky diving. But nicotine is not the only reason that makes smoking addictive, why would the use of addictive substance help quit addiction to the addictive substance in question? This paradox is the reason, why I personally feel that nicotine gum is bs. When I was in the army, I had a liutenent who was addicted to snus and tobacco. His wife wanted him to stom smoking, so he started using nicotine gum. The end result? Eventually he started using snus and smoking again, but in addition he was also addicted to nicotine gum.

The only folks still arguing that tobacco and alcohol don't harm people are the addicts and companies selling to them.

I don't work for tobacco company and I don't smoke either, and when I used to smoke, I was never physically addicted. I could stop smoking whenever I wanted and I did it couple of times to win bets, never had withdrawals. And yet I cannot agree with your statement as a whole. It's just too black and white.

Not even tobacco companies or smokers deny that tobacco and alcohol are able to cause damage. But I refuse to support the claim that tobacco and alcohol are harmful, when there are no studys or evidence that demonstrate that moderate casual smoking clearly causes harm. And when there are many studies that show that moderate use of alcohol has health benefits. There are no studies for health effects of moderate casual smoking, but some studies have found out that smoking has some health benefits like preventing Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease among other things.

I recall reading a medical study years ago that said the damage from 1 cigarette took about 1 month for your lungs to regenerate the damaged cells, assuming the carcinogens didn't cause a cancerous mutation of course. This was actually testing folks using scopes and everything, not some assumptions based on faulty cause-effect guesswork.

I'll call that "study" bs and I'd like to have a reference. I guess it's ok to lie, when it's done in a good cause?

Nothing in life is 100% certain, but neither is russian roulette. Doesn't mean you should ignore the risks. To sit there and do all these harmful things because you only live once seems pretty backwards. "I only live once, so I better mess it up while I can" seems a bit more accurate. If you feel you need to be intoxicated or stoned to enjoy life, consider what you're trying to avoid by being half conscious if at all. Yes moderation in life is good, but that doesn't mean do everything some. "Eat lead paint, but only in moderation" "drink antifreeze, but only in moderation" "I stick a gun with 1 bullet in my mouth and pull the trigger, but only occasionally and at parties"...

Nice strawman. Relax, have a glass of red wine and one cigarette. You might be suprised to find out that it won't kill you or throw your life into downward spiral.

The younger you are, the more blissfully ignorant you are.

Ignorant? Ignorance would imply to lack of knowledge? How does this have anything to do with decisions to smoke? People who choose to smoke don't do it because they don't know about the dangers of smoking, it's more of a value/moral choise because it's done based on a feeling and usually on an impulse.

Your statement however applies to children as they don't have fully developed brains, so they aren't always able to make rational decisions. But it's not really a good argument against a 25 year smoker.

People who really believe that old people know better can be split into two groups. When the other was young, they used to believe they were right and old people were wrong. In their own opinion they are always right, throughout their life. Now they can just use the excuse of knowing better because of being old.

The other group has great respect for authority and when they were young they rarely questioned the truth of things told to them by authorities like parents. Now that they are old, they still don't question authoritys and believe that themselves have authority by age and because of this, they know better.

The opposite of your statement is not true either: "The older you are, the less ignorant you are." Old people are usually unable to change their opinions, even if they are proven wrong. But this phenomen isn't directly related to age. It's because of their overly large trust in authority. Believing that age is infallible authority, is just as bad as it is for church to use bible as authority. Inquisition of Galilei is good example of the bad use of infallible authority. Or the the popes condemning of condoms. Parents usually use their authority wrongly when they reply "Because I say so." to a child that is disobedient and asking why he should obey.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and especially bad, when it is used in moral debates or when the authority in question is age.

But nicotine is not the only reason that makes smoking addictive, why would the use of addictive substance help quit addiction to the addictive substance in question?

I don't think patches work. This is a good time for me to recommend this book (ISBN: 1402718616) to all smokers. Erssa, before you judge patches, read that.

There's a whole lot more to the smoking addiction than just the nicotine. The smoking thing is a whole way of life, different from non-addicts. It even gets down to what to do with your hands when just sitting somewhere. It's a difficult addiction to beat, and the patch helps, helps with the physical part of the addiction. If that craving is reduced, it becomes easier to change the other parts of the addiction.

Anyone who states that tobacco has any physical health benefits, or can even be managed with moderate use, is fooling himself. Tobacco is a cancer-causing drug.......no amount of it is safe, not even one.

It sharpens the mind I believe. Similar to caffeine.

Some of my friends tried lollipops to control their oral fixation.

Yes smoking gives pleasure, the same way cocaine gives pleasure, heroin gives pleasure, it causes physical effects that some folks get off on. Tobacco companies artificially increase the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to increase the addictive quality of their "nicotine delivery devices" as they call them. I don't care if a person smokes every day of the week, so long as I don't have to smell it or pay for the health effects it causes via increased health insurance premiums. I've seen folks who lost parts of their face due to cancer, imagine the chance it developed on the gun just under where that chew sat for years. Nothing like looking at a guy who lost all of his lower jaw and part of his throat, and looked like the living dead for the few months he "survived" after having the cancer carved off.

Everyone can find some "study" that shows their side of any story. Many studies are funded by groups and companies to prove their side of the story, so there's always a bias. Nicotine patches help reduce the addiction withdrawal effects that many people experience, so they only have to tackle the behavior addiction side of it. Anyone who has felt irritable or gotten headaches after going longer than normal without a smoke knows the early signs of chemical withdrawal from nicotine.

If you're one of those extremely rare folks who can smoke as many as you like, then stop for months without feeling any type of physical reaction then you're quite lucky on that front. Only time will tell if you've put your body at much greater risk for a variety of health problems which smoking amplifies over the long term.

I must be one of those very rare people then. I can smoke a lot for a few weeks, and then just get bored with it for a month completely forgetting i smoke. I get irritated when i don't eat properly or get enough sleep though.

This very likely sounds weird, but the only time i have really wanted a cig was before i ever smoked one. My environment or friends did not change, but for some reason i craved a smoke during the days, and smoking started to appear in my dreams. Honestly. So i woke up several times, before ever tasting tobacco, wanting a cig. After i started smoking i have never wanted a cig when i wake up.

I don't think about smoking when im at work, but i might have a smoke afterwards, at about 17:00(5PM). Wich would most likely be the first smoke of the day, possibly the only one.

Taking a smoke is relaxing. For example when i have been to the shop and go to my car. And no, i don't stand right in front of the doors

If im with friends that smoke, i usually smoke. Not because i would feel stupid or outside if i didn't, but because i like it. If i donät feel like smoking, i don't.

And yes i am aware of a lot that tobacco can cause, however you could call me ignorant because i don't want to know everything it can cause. I don't want to live my life thinking of the long-term consequences of everything i do. Call me stupid if you like

Anyway, got to go now...

nici, you will get hooked eventually. I think everyone started that way. I used to smoke for a month or two a pack a day and then quit, but after a few years... I didn't want to quit.

Though you and I also could be one of the few, if they exist, who dont get addicted easily. Anyway, I've now quit so I'm happy.

The thing is, it's a pattern that plays out over a lifetime. As I mentioned earlier, my habits were similar to nici's. Looking at it as a short term thing, it seems pretty harmless, but stretch it out over twenty, thirty years... how many have I smoked? Just because you space it out doesn't make it less harmful; every puff is doing permanent, cumulative damage.

For those who think they are smoking at a 'sustainable' level, or plan to quit some time, why not set a date to quit? How about 1 year from now, 5 years, or 10? Yes, it's too hard to think about isn't it? Funny about that...

Addiction to smoking is even more insidious than it first appears, and requires a genuine commitment to bring it under control.

I'll say this once again....the guilty verdict against smoking is easy to see. The smokers are always dying earlier than the non-smokers. And I think many people just dismiss this as coincidence.

Get a little older and you start seeing people younger than you are, dying at early ages.......mostly smoking related deaths. I'm seeing this all too frequently. Fortunately for me, nobody in my entire family is a smoker any longer.....those that were are all dead. I expect to outlive my 400lb younger cousin who doesn't smoke, but that's another issue.

Anyway, I've now quit so I'm happy.

Have you ever met a person who said they regret quitting?

I haven't

alleycat wrote:For those who think they are smoking at a 'sustainable' level, or plan to quit some time, why not set a date to quit? How about 1 year from now, 5 years, or 10? Yes, it's too hard to think about isn't it? Funny about that...

They don't set a date because smoking is nice and fun. It's not about addiction. When I smoked I was never addicted, I just liked smoking, so I didn't want to quit, simple as that. And when I stopped smoking, health was on the bottom of my short list of reasons. Main motivator was to prove I could do it and money came second.

Just because you don't stop doing something you enjoy doing, doesn't mean you are addicted. Setting a date is stupid anyway, if you don't like smoking or want to stop, there's no reason not to do it immediately. And if you feel no need to stop smoking, why stop? Quitting for the sake of quitting is not a good reason to quit.

Bluefront wrote:The smokers are always dying earlier than the non-smokers. And I think many people just dismiss this as coincidence.

You overgeneralize. It's better to say smokers often die earlier then non-smokers.

Americans tend to say "always" and "never" when they actually mean "usually" and "usually not." It's rhetoric.

Erssa wrote:It's not about addiction. When I smoked I was never addicted, I just liked smoking, so I didn't want to quit, simple as that. And when I stopped smoking, health was on the bottom of my short list of reasons. Main motivator was to prove I could do it and money came second.

Been there, done that. During my smoking "career" I'd "given up" several times, sometimes for years at a time. Now tell me, how long since your last puff? Considering your attitude, I think that you will probably smoke again, and for how long will it be next time? The nature of addiction is perhaps a little more complex than you think.

alleycat wrote:Been there, done that. During my smoking "career" I'd "given up" several times, sometimes for years at a time. Now tell me, how long since your last puff? Considering your attitude, I think that you will probably smoke again, and for how long will it be next time? The nature of addiction is perhaps a little more complex than you think.

5 years in January. And 3 years ago I went through the hardest time of my life, probably something that I won't have to face ever again. and I didn't cave in. Besides I'm too stubborn to start again. Starting again would mean that I'm not a man of my word, I'd lose respect for myself.