• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you think of smoking ?

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
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.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
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.

That is FANTASTIC news, Dawny - I wish you luck.

I don't mean to imply that quitting is easy. It's not. If quitting addictions was easy, I'd weigh at least 20 pounds less. I guess I could start smoking and I'd probably lose that weight...

But you hit the nail on the head. You KNOW and accept the fact that smoking is harmful to your health, and you are taking steps to try to stop. That's all anyone can do.

And if you don't stop, and you end up with some sort of smoking related health problems, I doubt that you'd be blaming pollution or acting surprised, as if your smoking didn't contribute to it at all.

We all have urges and compulsions and habits that are hard to control. I think that at least taking responsibility for them and for the ramifications is the first step toward bettering our health and our lives. It's a hard, painful first step though, isn't it?
 

Vultar

Active Member
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) :D
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
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) :D

Smoking causes a wide myriad of serious, often fatal, and sometimes disfiguring, health problems. Do you disagree with that statement?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Overview

Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body. Smoking causes many diseases and reduces the health of smokers in general.1

Smoking and Death

Smoking causes death.

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3

More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4

Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1

An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1

Smoking and Increased Health Risks

Compared with nonsmokers, smoking is estimated to increase the risk of—

coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times,1,5

stroke by 2 to 4 times,1,6

men developing lung cancer by 23 times,1

women developing lung cancer by 13 times,1 and
dying from chronic obstructive lung diseases (such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema) by 12 to 13 times.1

Smoking and Cardiovascular Disease

Smoking causes coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States.1

Cigarette smoking causes reduced circulation by narrowing the blood vessels (arteries) and puts smokers at risk of developing peripheral vascular disease (i.e., obstruction of the large arteries in the arms and legs that can cause a range of problems from pain to tissue loss or gangrene).1,7

Smoking causes abdominal aortic aneurysm (i.e., a swelling or weakening of the main artery of the body—the aorta—where it runs through the abdomen).1

Smoking and Respiratory Disease

Smoking causes lung cancer.1,2

Smoking causes lung diseases (e.g., emphysema, bronchitis, chronic airway obstruction) by damaging the airways and alveoli (i.e., small air sacs) of the lungs.1,2

Smoking and Cancer


Smoking causes the following cancers:1

Acute myeloid leukemia
Bladder cancer
Cancer of the cervix
Cancer of the esophagus
Kidney cancer
Cancer of the larynx (voice box)
Lung cancer
Cancer of the oral cavity (mouth)
Pancreatic cancer
Cancer of the pharynx (throat)
Stomach cancer

Smoking and Other Health Effects

Smoking has many adverse reproductive and early childhood effects, including increased risk for—

infertility,
preterm delivery,
stillbirth,
low birth weight, and
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1,8

Smoking is associated with the following adverse health effects:8

Postmenopausal women who smoke have lower bone density than women who never smoked.
Women who smoke have an increased risk for hip fracture than women who never smoked.

References

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004 [accessed 2012 Jan 10].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 2000–2004.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008;57(45):1226–8 [accessed 2012 Jan 10].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health, United States. Hyattsville (MD): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. [accessed 2012 Jan 10].

Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual Causes of Death in the United States. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 2004;291(10):1238–45 [cited 2012 Jan 10].

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1989 [accessed 2012 Jan 10].

Ockene IS, Miller NH. Cigarette Smoking, Cardiovascular Disease, and Stroke: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association.Circulation 1997;96(9):3243–7 [accessed 2012 Jan 10].

Institute of Medicine. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence. (PDF–747 KB) Washington: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 2009 [accessed 2012 Jan 10].

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, 2001 [accessed 2012 Jan 10].
 
Last edited:

apophenia

Well-Known Member
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) :D


Nevertheless smoking tobacco kills half of its users.

On the subject of 'propaganda',I have heard smokers claiming that smoking around their children helped the children develop 'antibodies' against the harmful agents in cigarettes, thus protecting them from damage !

There is no form of immunity to chemical poisoning.

There is no recovery for emphysemic lung tissue.

The same people who claimed that exposure to the dangerous chemicals led to 'immunity' refused to put their kids in seat belts because 'the negative attitude would attract bad karma'.

Duh.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
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) :D

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.
 
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.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
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.

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.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
My granddad smoked until he retired from the railroad.
The he just quit...for no apparent cause.
He lived to be one hundred.

I think there is far too much media hype about it.

The topics that ARE of concern are rarely seen....and often not repeated.

Like the interview of the tobacco ceo who quit his 300,00 dollar job.
He knew what goes in the cigarette, and his conscious was bothering him.

He was having to testify before lawmakers....with careful words.
The product is tampered with...and he knew it.

As for me...I puff on 100% tobacco cigars.
It's not a deep breath practice.
I don't think it ever should have been.

Cigarettes make it too easy to draw.
Definitely a drug oriented device.
 

apophenia

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 

apophenia

Well-Known Member
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 can smoke or not smoke myself too. I learned that after realising that I was destroying my lungs, and applied some basic self discipline. 99% of smokers (or thereabouts) do not do that.

It is a valid generalisation however. Three cheers for you for being such a wonderful exception to the rule.You are clearly a superior kind of human. But if you think you are typical, you are really not paying attention to the general situation, so your condescension is not worth the electrons IMO.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
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.

Apparently at your own expense!

I'm not so naive that I don't realize there are hypocrites in government and leading tobacco companies. Of course there are.

That doesn't negate the FACT that tobacco products can wreck your health. I mean, it just doesn't.

The old expression "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

Tobacco is an addiction with serious health consequences. It is what it is. Don't do this to yourself!
 
Top