Why smoke?

I'd like to beging my post in defense, because I know some people won't read till the end before having the urge to respond without knowing my defense, thus wasting their time.

I do not smoke. I have never touched a cigarette. Smoking cannot be defended by:

1. Comparing it with drinking alcohol.
2. Labelling it 'something enjoyable'.
3. Saying 'people can do what they want'.
4. Arguing that 'we all die sooner or later from something, so who cares?'

I will now expand on those points, before stating my case.

1. Drinking is a natural function. We have drinks of all tastes, sizes, consistencies and strengths. A mirage of sources create concoctions which are most delicious to the palate. Even alcohol, when drunk by non-alcoholics and those who simply savour the taste, is not dangerous to the body. Coke is worse (watch the coke conspiracy video found here). I love a glass of red wine, different countries providing different tastes. I never drive after (or even the same day; I can't afford being caught) and, aside with wine, I enjoy tropical-tasting drinks and even plain old water. It's a natural requirement to drink fluids of some kind.

*It is not a natural or a required bodily function to inhale smoke from a stick of paper in your mouth*

2. Smoking may well be enjoyable to some 'mentally', but physically, your body does not enjoy it. It was not designed or created for the required intake of poisoned smoke and does not enjoy it at all; not to the mention the unfortunate people around you who do not wish to partake, passively, in your tasteless (pun intended) habit. Enjoyment in puting some round paper in your mouth with known deadly chemicals in it is far from enjoyable in most people's book. It may provide you with access to certain 'groups' or 'peers' who smoke, but the body does not enjoy it, even if you do. And you become what you intake.

*It is not a natural required bodily function to inhale smoke from a stick of paper in your mouth*

3. I quite agree that people can do what they want. This, however, when living on a shared planet of beings, is not as free-running as you may wish to think. We are all stuck on this dump of a planet with all kinds of insane, stupid, dangerous, axe-wiedling people and, or the most part (smokers included, reluctantly), we are sane, decent people who live generally normal lives, albeit them quite different in nature. Unfortunately, unless you own your own island with a population of 1, you cannot do what you want. You must learn to respect other people in the hope they will respect you, but this is tied to a common agreement of what is right and wrong, polite and impolite, tasteful and tasteless. Partaking in a factually unhealthy, smelly and expensive habit is not something which is tasteful. So, if you wish to do so, you must go to your segregated areas, outside usually, and partake therein. This applies to people who wish to drive fast... go to a racetrack, not the highstreet. If you wish to shoot - go to a driving range, not practice in a school's forest. They go together out of politeness and tastefulness. It's a little like tatoos in the sense that, the body does not 'need' tatoos, and is probably better without them in some way, but you may have them at your guise. However, there is a place, time, kind of people and etiquette that must be 'worn' simultaneously.

**It is not a natural required bodily function to inhale smoke from a stick of paper in your mouth*

4. We do all die sooner or later; I may die upon leaving my house after writing this post and I've never smoked anything in my life! But is that a genuinely intelligent answer? If you want to play that game, do the following: go and kill yourself now. Why? Well, you might be hit by a car, a comet, a cancer of some kind, be involved in a botched robbery or mugging, be in a plane crash, fall down the stairs and break your neck... but it doesn't stop me trying to be a healthy, safe person. You can't apply rules willy-nilly, how you want when it suits you. If you do, you must live entirely by that way and not just pick up such a response to defend your dirty habit. So, throw out your computer, disconnect your phones, live in a bungalow, underground from that comet, never take a plane or drive in a car and, while you're at it, stay undeground and lock all doors and windows. You see how stupid it is? So, whilst I would prefer to use all forms of transport, not fall down stairs or get cancer, I will still try to live a healthy life. It means I won't smoke 'just because I'll die of something anyway so why not this'. The idea is to increase your chances, not reduce them. It's poor, weak excuse.

*It is not a natural required bodily function to inhale smoke from a stick of paper in your mouth*

---

Now to the logic of putting something in your mouth and inhaling. What exactly is it that you find so appealing? Are you like a baby who needs his dummy so badly from his mother? Do you realise what you all look like? Break it down: a company is producing many lethal chemicals (how that is legal, I'll never know), they even tell you it's lethal by advertising it on their packaging (how that is even logical, I'll never know), yet they or you wrap it up into a long tube, seal it, light it and breathe it in... knowing 110% that it smells, it has negative effects on your body, other people don't like the smell of it and, as I may have said a few times: It is not a natural required bodily function to inhale smoke from a stick of paper in your mouth.

Add to this the fact that you can't LIVE if you don't have one... and that people even ask strangers for a light when they have no lighter fluid... you will see what a strange, desperate bunch of individuals you are.

I can't wait for your responses... I'm laughing already.

*armour on*.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by DB340


It's an addiction. There are many people who do not want to smoke but do smoke because the tobacco companies have made it virtually (harder than heroin) impossible to quit. Governments are not in on it but turn a blind eye because of the tax revenue

I do not smoke. I have never touched a cigarette. Smoking cannot be defended by: 1. Comparing it with drinking alcohol. 2. Labelling it 'something enjoyable'. 3. Saying 'people can do what they want'. 4. Arguing that 'we all die sooner or later from something, so who cares?'

reply to post by DB340


OK, Firstly, you state you do not smoke, and have never touched a cigarette.

How do you then know, if it is "something enjoyable" or not? You have no experience of it, so you cannot make that judgement.
Actually, all four your points, that you made, is rather just personal opinion.
It can be compared to drinking, because some drink to relax, and some smoke to relax. Same thing.

Point 3, you made, is well also absurd, because, well, people can do what they want. It is a personal choice to smoke or not.

Again, point 4 is also valid, since its true.

It comes down to choice, smoke if you want, don't smoke if you don't feel so inclined.

However, the fact that you felt you need to come and preach for smokers on here, and tell them, about smoking is frankly a bit trollish. Most smokers know very well, why they smoke, they have their reasons.

vvv

reply to post by DB340


Short answer.

I'm addicted to nicotine, and without it...I'm a dick. I even stayed off ATS for a month while quitting cigarettes.

I started smoking as a teen because it was cool back then. While I have cut back, I still have a cigar during a particularly stressful time or to celebrate a victory of some sorts. So I can’t say I am weaned off tobacco yet.

I don't smoke, but enjoy the odd one sometimes. Its bad, everyone knows it - nobody cares. People do what they want, and a rant like yours attacking smokers won't do any good.
Its slowly becoming harder and harder to smoke in many countries anyway and will one day probably become bloody illegal. Seems everything else is.

reply to post by DB340


Okay, back from having my smoke, now what were you saying?

I would love to quit, tried many things, next will be by meditation.
I could do much more if I didn't smoke, and I am always doing
physical activities outdoors.

Good post, thx

i tried smoking this one time. smoked one little cigarette. i quit.





yes it was yucky.



anyone remember "shards'O glass ice pops" LOL....

i think you are missing the point in that tobacco is a drug it gets you high.
when you smoke the body produce endorphines which feel good, the more you smoke the more endorphines you produce, ergo people associate pleasure with smoking.

to answer your repeated illogical statement about it not being a natural bodily function. there are many things we do which are not natural including flying in planes, processed foods, spray chemicals to hide natural smells, choking yourself with a belt whilst jacking off, if you want to live a compeltely naturally go live on a farm away from modern life.

look around man, world is falling to pieces, cigarettes are the least of our worries

Smokers are NOT addicted to nicotine. This is a marketing ploy to convince the public that smokers needed help to break away from the evil tobacco companies who had unscrupulously enslaved them.

Proof? Of course - first read an MSDS for nicotine

www.erowid.org...

notice the boiling point, the point at which nicotine decomposes. 247 degrees Celsius. That is far less than the burning point of tobacco. Nicotine decomposes into several nitrogen compounds including niacin (including nicotinic acid. Niacin is Vitamin B3. What is niacin good for?

www.umm.edu...

Second - read the 1986 Surgeon General's report.

profiles.nlm.nih.gov...

You will find that the surgeon general made up a whole new definition for the word addiction. Prior to 1986, a substance had to have 5 characteristics in order to be considered addictive. It had to intoxicate a person so that rational thought was not possible. It had to require increasing dosages to achieve the same effect. It had to cause life-threatening symptoms upon withdrawal. and 2 others that I forget at the moment. By this medical definition, there were only 5 substances identified in the world as addictive. Nicotine was NOT one of them. Nicotine did NOT meet the medical definition of an addictive substance.

By changing the medical definition of the word addiction, the Surgeon General had to trivialise the word to the point where anything could be addictive...chocolate, running, shopping, sex, ....anything that stimulated the pleasure centers of the brain could now be considered addictive up to and including eating a hamburger. If an activity or a substance causes a human being to experience please, then that activity/substance could be considered addictive and in need of medical intervention.

(How Orwellian of the Surgeon General)

This new definition allowed the anti-smoking zealots to instill the idea in the public mind that smokers were unable to rationally make decisions and therefore needed medical assistance to "save their lives". Therefore medical intervention in private lives was justifiable. This was also a great marketing scam for Big Pharma's newly invented Nicotine Replace Treatments (patches, gums, lozenges). Completely ignoring the fact that at that point, over 50 million North Americans had decided and succeeded in quitting smoking all on their lonesome, Big Pharma set about to convince smokers that it was impossible to quit smoking without purchasing one of their products.

BTW - the success rate for quitting smoking "cold turkey" is over 50 %. The success rate for Big Pharma's products is less than 2 % over the long term

fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com...

But with the help of the lobbying efforts of anti-smoking, Big Pharma was able to convince government to use tax dollars to provide smokers with this useless "medication".

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by DB340


It is completely disingenious of the OP to claim that smoking is "not natural" to the human body.

Human beings have inhaled smoke by various methods since the dawn of time and in fact, our entire respiratory system evolved and developed in the presence of smoke. We needed to burn organics (wood, coal, oil, dung) in order to heat our homes and cook our food. As a result, our homes have always been full of smoke. Our respiratory systems developed cilia (little hairs) to trap particles and produced mucous for the same purpose.

We have smoked pipes and burned leaves directly, we have developed smokers and incense burners to fill our homes with the pleasant odour of smoke. There have been homeopathic treatments with smoke and in fact, Tobacco has a 400 year history of being the healing herb!

Our very first breathes upon birth were inhaled in the presence of smoke!

The condition of asthma is a condition of having a hypersensitive respiratory system. Asthma used to be a rare ailment that only affected a small proportion of the population. This makes sense. For most people, being exposed to particulates in the form of smoke in homes and workplaces as well as the natural environment, provided a challenge to the respiratory system and the respiratory system developed in the presence of that challenge.

In the last 60 years or so, we began heating our homes with clean-burning fuel (natural gas and electricity), as a result, there has been an 800 % increase in the incidence of childhood asthma since the 1960s and COPD is moving up fast on the cause of death scale.

Tired of Control Freaks

As to why people smoke:

1. it reduces stress
2. increases focus and concentration
3. provides opportunities to take mini-breaks and to refresh one self
4. it potentiates other pleasures (think of a cigarette after sex, think of a beer and a smoke)
5. it relieves boredom
6. it reduces symptoms of depression and other mental issues
7. some asthmatics smoke to relieve asthma systems
8. its fun
9. it provides a shared experience and social bonding
10. it has a relaxing and calming effect under some circumstances
11. it is a stimulating effect under other circumstances.

As to your claim that smokers need to be on an island to smoke - frankly - go to hell!

Smokers are not doing anything you are not doing. You drive a car which emits the very same pollutants as smoking but in extremely higher quantities. (1 minute of idling is equal to the contaminants from about 35,000 cigarettes). You light candles, incense, spray air fresheners, use cleaning products.

You believe that you have the "right" to demand that smokers refrain from smokers anywhere near a non-smoker. You don't! Show me where you have the right to clean air!

tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by DB340


Hi DB340,

Big fan of smoking here so don't expect me to sympathise...

Let's break this down:

1. Comparing it with drinking alcohol.

1. Drinking is a natural function. We have drinks of all tastes, sizes, consistencies and strengths. A mirage of sources create concoctions which are most delicious to the palate. Even alcohol, when drunk by non-alcoholics and those who simply savour the taste, is not dangerous to the body. Coke is worse (watch the coke conspiracy video found here). I love a glass of red wine, different countries providing different tastes. I never drive after (or even the same day; I can't afford being caught) and, aside with wine, I enjoy tropical-tasting drinks and even plain old water. It's a natural requirement to drink fluids of some kind.

-Say what? Drinking is a natural function....yes it is. Drinking alcohol isn't....which was the topic.
-Alcohol, when drunk by non-alcoholics... can you say contradiction in terminis?
-It's a natural requirement to drink fluids....again, yes it is but the topic was drinking alcohol.

It's not that I disagree with you (smoking can't be defended by comparing it with consuming alcohol) but you reasoning is kind of loopy.

2. Labelling it 'something enjoyable'.

2. Smoking may well be enjoyable to some 'mentally', but physically, your body does not enjoy it. It was not designed or created for the required intake of poisoned smoke and does not enjoy it at all; not to the mention the unfortunate people around you who do not wish to partake, passively, in your tasteless (pun intended) habit. Enjoyment in puting some round paper in your mouth with known deadly chemicals in it is far from enjoyable in most people's book. It may provide you with access to certain 'groups' or 'peers' who smoke, but the body does not enjoy it, even if you do. And you become what you intake

Well that's just it, enjoyment is relative. People with an SM fetish will do things with their body that the body does not enjoy either. Marathon runners do things that their body doesn't enjoy either.......yet they label it as such. Enjoyment is up to the observer......fact: smoking is enjoyable (from my perspective).

3. Saying 'people can do what they want'.

3. I quite agree that people can do what they want. This, however, when living on a shared planet of beings, is not as free-running as you may wish to think

Deal!! I'll stop smoking cigarettes if we also stop using cars and polluting our air.

4. Arguing that 'we all die sooner or later from something, so who cares?'

If you want to play that game, do the following: go and kill yourself now. Why? Well, you might be hit by a car, a comet, a cancer of some kind, be involved in a botched robbery or mugging, be in a plane crash, fall down the stairs and break your neck...

I'm putting on my sunglasses now because you logic is blinding!! When somebody uses the argument "we all die sooner or later" your reply is to kill yourself?.....huh??
Somebody who doesn't care when they die does not equal somebody who wants to die.....the argument remains valid in my opinion.

Now to the logic of putting something in your mouth and inhaling. What exactly is it that you find so appealing? Are you like a baby who needs his dummy so badly from his mother? Do you realise what you all look like? Break it down: a company is producing many lethal chemicals (how that is legal, I'll never know), they even tell you it's lethal by advertising it on their packaging (how that is even logical, I'll never know), yet they or you wrap it up into a long tube, seal it, light it and breathe it in... knowing 110% that it smells, it has negative effects on your body, other people don't like the smell of it and, as I may have said a few times: It is not a natural required bodily function to inhale smoke from a stick of paper in your mouth.

You'd be surprised how much toxic, lethal chemicals you are exposing yourself to everyday. You say you like wine but did you know the sugar in it can cause weight gain, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and a depleted immune system?

Add to this the fact that you can't LIVE if you don't have one... and that people even ask strangers for a light when they have no lighter fluid... you will see what a strange, desperate bunch of individuals you are.

I'd call that social interaction.

I can't wait for your responses... I'm laughing already.

You sound bitter, maybe you could use a smoke (it helps to ease the nerves)....

Peace

I think I need a smoke after reading all that!

I don't quite see how to quote so well as you chaps can, it just copies the whole thing, so I'll generally respond to everyone. Don't think I'm leaving anyone out - I read everything.

Comparing "smoking a cigarette" with 'inhaling smoke since the dawn of time' really is quite amusing. That was, in your sense, necessary. Boiling, burning leaves, etc., that is naturally-created smoke. Are you telling me that a cigarette is comparable with burning a leaf!?

If inhaling a nice scented leaf provided benefits, then I would enjoy it, as would my body. However, inhaling something from a massive corporation which I know puts hopelessly damaging chemicals in it (for what reason I'll never know), is absurd!!!!!!

My comparison with drinking 'alcohols' was because people say "You drink alcohol, that harms your body, so why can't I have a cigarette". Well, for me it's wine, whic his from grapes. That's natural. It doesn't have a company adding chemicals to it which will, well, you know all the side-effects. It's impossible to compare. Also, when I said people who enjoy alcohol (apart from alcoholics), I was refering to people such as myself who don't 'need' alcohol, we just enjoy 2 or 3 glasses a week! Hardly dangerous, a few grapes.

I don't find any illogical idea (perhaps worded not so clearly, but I did my best) in my post. You may have psychological reasons for smoking, such as having done so from childhood and finding it impossible to stop, but, as with anything, overcoming an addiction is a battle of brain and will power, nothing else. I started wasting about 2 hours a day reading the news channels... it was so irritatingly #e, that I wanted to stop, but couldn't. I finally gave in after a few weeks. Granted, a small example but still an example of willpower, mind over matter, etc. I have also done so in other areas of my life.

It's amusing how you all know that smoking is bad for your health, but you do it anyway. Odd. Yes, odd.

As for cars and spraying for comparison of doing bad things to the world - that's slightly OTT, n'est-ce pas? What choice do I have of changing the world by not using my car? That would inconvenience me entirely, and be bloomin' freezing in winter on cold, hopeless busses. My as* I'm going to stop driving. Go and complain to Greenpeace and all those green earthers who complain about it with their lives, yet drive and fly to events. Bunch of hypocrits (who probably all smoke anyway).

Smoking a cigarette, with unhealthy chemicals in it, is not a natural bodily function. Billions of people survive without smoking, so it isn't as necessary for the body as you seem to think! If I could smoke a nice vanilla-flavoured plant with extracts of vitamin C and some olive oil scent thrown in, I'd probably enjoy it, as would my body - but a 'pack of fags' from Marlborough... no thanks, mate.

Here is a list of cigarette chemicals.

www.stop-smoking-programs.org...

Enjoy your puffs.

reply to post by DB340


My question is why after decades of fighting between smokers and non smokers no one has thought it was a good idea to JUST BAN THE CHEMICALS!!!!!
I don’t think many people would have a problem with smoking if there were no chemicals, it would reduce the danger 100 fold.

Agree. See the end of my post above.

Originally posted by DB340


My comparison with drinking 'alcohols' was because people say "You drink alcohol, that harms your body, so why can't I have a cigarette". Well, for me it's wine, whic his from grapes. That's natural. It doesn't have a company adding chemicals to it which will, well, you know all the side-effects.

For the love of G... , educate yourself.

Chemicals that are permitted by law for use in winemaking include pesticides, herbicides, equipment cleaning chemicals, and sulphite preservatives

Drink up!!

Peace

Do the same:

www.naturalnews.com...

This is interesting: It would appear that the overall beneficial effect of the phytonutrients, vitamins and mineral in wine, may outweigh the negative effects cause by the acetaldehyde by-products, provided you keep within the recommended consumption guidelines. If you are a regular drinker, aim for a couple of days per week that are alcohol-free to give your liver a rest. And anyone with an impaired liver should not drink.

Incomparably cleaner and better for the body than a pack of Malborough 'lights'.

A glass or two of good wine with dinner contributes extra vitamins, minerals, digestive factors, and greatly enhances the enjoyment of the culinary experience.

reply to post by DB340


DB340

Sorry but you are mistaken. The list of chemicals you provided is the list of chemicals in SMOKE, not tobacco

This list of chemicals appear in smoke no matter what organic is being burned. That would be wood, gasoline, candles, forest fires, erupting volcanos. coal, etc etc

See this link:

burningissues.org...

THIS IS NOT A LIST OF CHEMICALS ADDED TO TOBACCO! As a matter of fact, in Canada, any additives to tobacco were banned over 10 years ago with the exception of ammonia. The reason ammonia is added to cigarette tobacco is to change the pH. Pipe and cigar tobacco has a lower pH because the smoke is not intended to be inhaled. The smoke is too harsh to be inhaled. Increasing the pH of cigarette tobacco allows the smoke to be inhaled smoothly into the lungs.

Banning the smoking of tobacco will NOT result in less exposure to these chemicals. They are naturally present in our environment.

Tired of Control Freaks