Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I smoke and I know that it's a horrible habit on my health and it weighs on my conscience daily for many reasons.
I enjoy smoking and kicking the habit is hard. With many stresses in my life and considering my personality and tendency towards addiction, I choose coffee and cigarettes over other things.
I will be working with my doctor to quit. I have an appointment in July.
If anything happens to my health as a result of smoking, I have no one to blame but myself.
But...but...smokers still get lung cancer much more often than non smokers... pesky little fact....One in seven people who get lung cancer are non smokers. That means 6 out of seven people who get lung cancer ARE smokers.
Frequently Asked Questions About Lung Cancer
From the link you provided (which is skewed towards the anti-smoking propoganda of course)
"It turns out that more than 60% of new lung cancer patients have never smoked or already have quit smoking"
When they take stats to prove something they are very liberal in accepting anything that fits their position.
Example: a person gets lung cancer. They ask "Have you ever tried a cigarette?" If the person says "Yes" then they are a smoker (even if they only ever had 1 cigarette in their life). If they say "No" then they try to find a situation where the person was exposed to second hand smoke.
The reason for this is that smokers are much easier to blame then the pollution problem (the pollution problem effects big business and people with money who control everything)
Again, propoganda is a very powerful tool and is often used as "a smoke screen" to cover the real issues. (excuse the pun)
From the link you provided (which is skewed towards the anti-smoking propoganda of course)
"It turns out that more than 60% of new lung cancer patients have never smoked or already have quit smoking"
When they take stats to prove something they are very liberal in accepting anything that fits their position.
Example: a person gets lung cancer. They ask "Have you ever tried a cigarette?" If the person says "Yes" then they are a smoker (even if they only ever had 1 cigarette in their life). If they say "No" then they try to find a situation where the person was exposed to second hand smoke.
The reason for this is that smokers are much easier to blame then the pollution problem (the pollution problem effects big business and people with money who control everything)
Again, propoganda is a very powerful tool and is often used as "a smoke screen" to cover the real issues. (excuse the pun)
From the link you provided (which is skewed towards the anti-smoking propoganda of course)
"It turns out that more than 60% of new lung cancer patients have never smoked or already have quit smoking"
When they take stats to prove something they are very liberal in accepting anything that fits their position.
Example: a person gets lung cancer. They ask "Have you ever tried a cigarette?" If the person says "Yes" then they are a smoker (even if they only ever had 1 cigarette in their life). If they say "No" then they try to find a situation where the person was exposed to second hand smoke.
The reason for this is that smokers are much easier to blame then the pollution problem (the pollution problem effects big business and people with money who control everything)
Again, propoganda is a very powerful tool and is often used as "a smoke screen" to cover the real issues. (excuse the pun)
Yeah that has more to do with my smoking than anything else.I hate the self proclaimed holier than thow exponents who believe that they will live longer than me because they don't smoke. I'm a punter I'm happy to take the bet.Not to mention, the vast majority are so obnoxiously condescending that they make people light up out of sheer spite.
Yeah that has more to do with my smoking than anything else.I hate the self proclaimed holier than thow exponents who believe that they will live longer than me because they don't smoke. I'm a punter I'm happy to take the bet.
i don't know whats wrong with us,
we refuse god,because we don't have evidence.
and in order to smoke,we refute evidences and science.
I tell you what Kath, if the government stops reaping in billions of revenue from taxes on tobacco products and then tells me I shouldn't smoke, I may listen. But I abhor hypocrites.So you choose to intentionally harm your health because other people irritate you?
Maybe people want you to quit smoking, not because they think they are better than you, or they believe they will live longer than you, but because they truly hate to see anyone sabotage their own health. I doubt very seriously that ANYONE who encourages you to quit smoking is even slightly interested in laying bets on who will live longer.
Oh really! I go for days at a time without smoking when that is the situation I'm in. Nice try but generalisations are not worth the electrons.Very pithy comment. You are so right - so many atheists who claim that science is the only valid source of knowledge disregard all the scientifically provable good sense when it comes to nicotine addiction. The facts of life are that nicotine causes a temporary elevation of dopamine levels (like crack or meth, just not as strong), followed by a drop of dopamine to below normal levels after about 50 minutes.
This 'dopamine yo yo effect' is indisputable science. The idea that smoking is 'enjoyable' is a pathetic rationalisation for being unable to consciously assess that chemical monkey trap and make a sane judgement.
The idea that "I want" a cigarette after 50 minutes is tied to a belief in free will which ignores the actual Pavlovian conditioning, to avoid the embarrassing truth that smokers are idiot victims.
Oh really! I go for days at a time without smoking when that is the situation I'm in. Nice try but generalisations are not worth the electrons.
I tell you what Kath, if the government stops reaping in billions of revenue from taxes on tobacco products and then tells me I shouldn't smoke, I may listen. But I abhor hypocrites.
Oh really! I go for days at a time without smoking when that is the situation I'm in. Nice try but generalisations are not worth the electrons.
Yes! And your point is? There are also other times. But please elucidate.When you're in the hospital, from what you've said.