• 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 is wrong with those people who smoke cigarettes?

Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
sovietchild said:
What is wrong with those people who smoke cigarettes?
Click to expand...
I actually wonder the same thing myself. It's so bad for you, nothing else can even come close to comparing to the destructive and lethal capabilities, it's a very expensive habit, it smells worse than *** and death, and if any substance should be banned no other single one is as deserving as tobacco (though I don't support such a ban because they do more harm than good in the long run).
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
buddhist said:
"many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers" (wiki)
Click to expand...
Now, let's add the rest of that in (emphasis added):
Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15]
Nowhere does that downplay the risks and dangers associated with tobacco smoking. Your own article doesn't even bring it up the "my granny smoked until the she was 90 and it didn't kill her" way of pointing out smokers who lived into a very old age.
 
buddhist

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Now, let's add the rest of that in (emphasis added):
Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15]
Nowhere does that downplay the risks and dangers associated with tobacco smoking. Your own article doesn't even bring it up the "my granny smoked until the she was 90 and it didn't kill her" way of pointing out smokers who lived into a very old age.
Click to expand...
All I'm claiming is that some people value the momentary pleasures associated with smoking. Not everyone values or places priority on a long, physical life, if it comes with great mental suffering.

I don't know why most people seem to think their own values (e.g. long physical life in this instance) must be everyone else's values.
 
sovietchild

sovietchild

Well-Known Member
buddhist said:
All I'm claiming is that some people value the momentary pleasures associated with smoking. Not everyone values or places priority on a long, physical life, if it comes with great mental suffering.

I don't know why most people seem to think their own values (e.g. long physical life in this instance) must be everyone else's values.
Click to expand...

If smoking cures anxiety for short term, then it also increases anxiety for long term. Right? Its like drinking coca cola, more you drink it more you want it.

"Shaitan made it look so good that you want it more, if you took a bit you still not satisfied you want it more."
 
buddhist

buddhist

Well-Known Member
sovietchild said:
If smoking cures anxiety for short term, then it also increases anxiety for long term. Right? Its like drinking coca cola, more you drink it more you want it.

"Shaitan made it look so good that you want it more, if you took a bit you still not satisfied you want it more."
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Many can control their addictions.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
buddhist said:
All I'm claiming is that some people value the momentary pleasures associated with smoking. Not everyone values or places priority on a long, physical life, if it comes with great mental suffering.

I don't know why most people seem to think their own values (e.g. long physical life in this instance) must be everyone else's values.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between saying "go ahead and pollute and damage your body if you want" and saying "I have no idea why anyone would ever want to use such a dangerous, destructive, and deadly substance." And thinking in terms of short term pleasures is a problem. It's why we have toxic "convenient foods," it's why we raped the environment, and it's how smokers can enjoy a cigarette now (it's not actually the cigarette per say but the neurochemical reactions in the brain that happen because of the chemicals in cigarettes) and why nearly a half-million of them will die this year from painful and agonizing diseases.
Father Heathen said:
lol what
Click to expand...
Not necessarily just Coke, but sugar and caffeine are addictive. And our casual attitude and dismissal towards caffeine abuse is really nothing more than a reflection of just how poor our national dialogue and understanding of drugs really are.
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Not necessarily just Coke, but sugar and caffeine are addictive. And our casual attitude and dismissal towards caffeine abuse is really nothing more than a reflection of just how poor our national dialogue and understanding of drugs really are.
Click to expand...

Of course caffeine is addictive, and is by definition a drug. Sovietchild's choice of verbiage made it sound like he was comparing sugar to crack cocaine, however.
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
sovietchild said:
What is wrong with those people who smoke cigarettes? If smoking tobacco relaxes one, then is it like a drug? The more you take it, the more you need it?
Click to expand...

You may have a better source of figures for this, but here is a an excerpt from a report by the CDC outlining the top 5 preventable diseases that cause death in the U.S.

"The CDC released data naming the five leading causes of death among Americans under age 80 for 2014. After heart disease, cancer was the most likely cause of death. Rounding out the list were stroke; chronic lower respiratory diseases, such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema; and accidents. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of deaths in the United States were caused by these five diseases or conditions. Thirty percent of heart disease deaths, 15% of cancer deaths, 28% of stroke deaths, 36% of chronic lower respiratory disease deaths, and 43% of accident deaths were preventable, the CDC researchers said."

The question would be what percentage of heart attacks, respiratory disease, cancer, etc. are actually caused by smoking tobacco, since there are other contributing factors for all of these diseases. I have no idea, and I suspect it is pretty much impossible to sort that out. None of this to say that tobacco wasn't a major contributor, maybe even the primary in many cases.
 
Mary Blackchurch

Mary Blackchurch

Free from Stockholm Syndrome
Robert Vincelette said:
2. Second-hand smoke, by account of W.H.O. kills about 600,000 nonsmokers per year worldwide, matching the Nazi death camps' 9,000,000 every 15 years. How can any religion that tolerates this earn any credibility?
Click to expand...

Almost as many people died from war last year, and most were young and healthy and had some aristocratic ideologies and religo-fascist theologies imposed on them second and third hand. Why do these religions have credibility in any argument?
 
Maponos

Maponos

Welcome to the Opera
A religious prohibition on smoking would be rather pointless, but it's incredibly unhealthy and makes you stink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top