Why smoke?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


DB340

A cigarette or two after dinner provides Vitamin B3, reduces the risk of alziemers, parkinsons, multiple sclerosis, provides good joint health, lowers cholesterol, reduces appetite and prevents over-eating produces feelings of relaxation and satisfaction, greases the wheels of social interaction, supports social bonding, provides an overall feeling of satisfaction and well-being.

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Why did I wake up this morning?

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one.

People go to startling lengths to back-up their opinions. Startling.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


Wow. The air must be very rarified up there on your moral high ground! Must be as difficult to breath up there as one of us low life smokers.

I'd like to tackle the statements in turn from the positions of a) a smoker b) a counsellor who has worked in the addiction field c) a fellow human being.

1) Comparing it with drinking alcohol.
Firstly, I'm a little confused as to the manner of your comparison. Are you comparing it as an ingestion of a substance, the social implications or both?

No matter. I completely concur with you that drinking is a natural function. It is a statement of the obvious.However, your statement that alcohol is not harmful to "non-alcoholics" is erroneous. There are several studies (see below) that show that there are limits to safe and healthy drinking for those who imbibe. In section 3. of your argument you allure to the respect of other people, yet you make no mention of the harm that the misuse of alcohol can do to those around the consumer. I have not had a client come into the clinic who has been arrested for stabbing someone after ten cigarettes. After ten beers, yes. Or the partner who has had to go on the game to feed her children, after her husband drank all the benefit money.The only thing that got her through the day was cigarettes.

Suffice to say I could go on to give many other personal examples, but hopefully a more objective view can be found in these links.

www.drinkingandyou.com...

www.bma.org.uk...-4Hh7Dw

To conclude on this section, I believe that even though I have had these experiences, I do not believe that I have the right to judge anybody who drinks. Inform, if asked, but to judge? Who gave me that right?

2) Labelling it 'something enjoyable'.
On what evidence to you base this proposal? All enjoyment is mental and, most importantly, it is subjective. Certainly the human body is not designed to intake smoke, but you seem to believe that the human body has a disconnection between the physical and mental. The human body is a holistic entity and the psychological changes that take place within the body affect the brain and visa versa. The is same for drinking, sports, sex, drugs as well as tobacco. We are not disputing the harm that is done to the human body here, but whether that it is enjoyable or not. You have already stated that you do not smoke and are therefore in no position to judge it's enjoyability. Agreed? In my case, I am a smoker, and in my experience it is enjoyable and I know several fellow smokers who have the same experience. We are all outside in our little peer group cooking up something nefarious.Or is it just having a bloody good laugh?


3) Saying 'people can do what they want.
I completely agree with all your points here. Without doubt we require social norms to live within a safe society. I am prepared to recognise that those social norms change. For me, growing up in the sixties and seventies smoking was accepted and to some degree encouraged. Now it is not and it is banned from all public places. No problem with that and I am happy to go outside and remove myself from what others find distateful.I make sure I light up when no children are around and when it does not impose on others. So what the bloomin' heck is the problem with that?


4) Arguing that 'we all die sooner or later from something, so who cares?'.
Sorry, but what is the point you are trying to make in this section? What's all this business about going out and killing ourselves? OK, I know that here in the UK there is always a furore about the amount of money it costs to treat a smoker on the NHS (not to mention obesity and drink, but they are another story), but I believe the tax revenues outway the cost.(Happy to be corrected) There is always this noise and bluster, but the UK society never has the balls to say "OK, let 'em die. In reality, in my humble opinion, more leeway should be given to the individual to be allowed to choose when, where and how they should die. It's about the choice of the individual not society.


Finally. I believe in personal freedom, the ability for the individual to do what the hell he or she likes, even if it is harmful to them, on the condition that it does not harm another. Now, rightly or wrongly, it's my perception that smokers are now a minority and an easy target for the moral majority who love a little superiority.

So, if you're a non-smoker, I guess there's nothing like that first hit of self-righteousness!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


That poster speaks the truth mate.

You said in your OP, that you cannot wait for the responses, even "putting on armour".
Some here have made viable and true claims, yet, you don't seem to want to believe it.

It seems you have allready made up your mind, so no matter what anyone tells you, you just won't believe it.

vvv



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I smoke because it satiates me.

Same thing food does.

No I don't need it... I also don't need gunga.... But then one is legal and open for discussion, the other not and .. not.

Lets all be hermits and explore what hiding from ourselves what we feel as pleasurable..

*goes to cave, eats a .. oh my a mushroom..*



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Having sex with young children satisfies paedophiles, they enjoy it very much it would seem, but it's not an acceptable thing to do, is it! Sex is a normal bodily function, as are sexual urges - but it's quite rightly not acceptable!

Certain things require certain non-freedoms. Smoking your smelly, unhealthy fags in the presence of those who, more correctly, do not smoke, is one such non-freedom and that is why you smoke outside or in segregated areas.

I have no problem with the backlash. Minds of similar opinion will always flokck together (such as all here, who clearly smoke), and those who speak out against the grain will always take flank, even if it's complete rubbish flank - such as 'health benefits' of smoking.

As I said, I'd happily 'smoke'/'inhale' a vanilla-smelling, victamin-C-fueled joint from an olive plant - that would be nice! But I wouldn't smoke a chemical-laden-producing cigarette which tells me itself that it will kill me if I continue!

You guys kill me!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


DB340

So you would happily inhale smoke? So what is your point?

As for not smoking in the presence of non-smokers. Most non-smokers have absolutely no problem with it provided there is sufficient ventilation. However, can you suggest such a place?

Smokers have been happily accepting restrictions for the last 30 years. Now with outdoor smoking bans - there is no such place.

Perhaps owners of private workplaces and facilities should be left to make up their own minds as to whether they wish to provide services to smokers or not? And a simple sign on the door advising consumers of whether smoking is allowed or not? Non-smokers would then have to choose whether or not they wish to work and socialize in a smoking facilities.

Surely non-smokers are intelligent enough to read a sign?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


Won't smoke a cigarette cause it might cause cancer?

Oh my goodness - will you look at this - alcohol causes cancer as well?

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

and sugar - by god - this is so toxic that it must be taxed and regulated just like tobacco

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Oh my - looks like smokers aren't the only ones who are going to be taxed and humiliated until they comply with Big Pharma's and Big Health demands.

This is going to be fun folks

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DB340
Having sex with young children satisfies paedophiles, they enjoy it very much it would seem, but it's not an acceptable thing to do, is it! Sex is a normal bodily function, as are sexual urges - but it's quite rightly not acceptable!

Certain things require certain non-freedoms. Smoking your smelly, unhealthy fags in the presence of those who, more correctly, do not smoke, is one such non-freedom and that is why you smoke outside or in segregated areas.

I have no problem with the backlash. Minds of similar opinion will always flokck together (such as all here, who clearly smoke), and those who speak out against the grain will always take flank, even if it's complete rubbish flank - such as 'health benefits' of smoking.

As I said, I'd happily 'smoke'/'inhale' a vanilla-smelling, victamin-C-fueled joint from an olive plant - that would be nice! But I wouldn't smoke a chemical-laden-producing cigarette which tells me itself that it will kill me if I continue!

You guys kill me!
edit on 2-2-2012 by aurora_black because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-2-2012 by aurora_black because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Sugar is part of 'required bodily functions'. It has always been and always will be. This is just another stupid thing that the Daily Mail have got hold of for their scaremongering tactics. It's a load of tosh. Give it a few months and something else will be reported about sugar! A fail of defense on your part.

"There is increasing evidence that links alcohol consumption to cancer.". Well, not proof then? Like there is proof, not evidence, that smoking is terribly harmful to health? I see.

Yes, I would 'inhale' if it was a nice smell, purely natural and healthy. A nice breath of 'olive oil mixed with vitamin C and mint' would be quite enjoyable for both myself and my body. Would you not choose that over a pack of Marlborough? (I always use this company since I can't think of others!).

The absolute, medically-proven fact is: Smoking harms. You can go on all you like about wine making and alcohol (in moderation), but that's all noshnosh (just made up that word since I'm speechless). I do, however, agree about sugar intake and have reduced mine considerably in this new year.

**It also occured to me that, when I posted a link to the chemicals in cigarettes, I was counter-argued by the fact that it was the smoke rather than what is inhaled.... Great! So those who don't want to smoke but must inhale passively, get the worst crap than you 'safely' do by inhaling!!! How kind you all are.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


DB340

Please provide your "proof" that smoking CAUSES any disease. Note: I said provide proof of CAUSATION, not correlation.

I would be happy to see it. I have looked and looked. Judges in court cases have looked and looked and so far - no luck. But if you have it - please provide it.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Here's the problem I have with smoking. Smokers could give a s**t who they subject their second hand smoke to. I enjoy breathing fresh air and have a right not to breath these harmful chemicals. When I breath these chemicals in, it's you who put my health in jeopardy! Just like someone who has too much to drink and decides to drive, it should be illegal.

Not to mention how ugly it looks when a beautiful woman smokes and how she smells like an ashtray. I can only imagine what this is doing to our atmosphere as well.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismicha77
 


Where is your "right" to clean air written and who has to provide it to you, if the air you are currently breathing is not to your satisfaction.

Where do you find "clean" air or is tobacco smoke the only pollutant you feel you have the right to control?

What do you say to people who demand the "right" not to be exposed to WIFI and their claims that it makes them ill? Do they have a similar "right" to clean environment that you do?

Do people who are allergic to purfume have the same "right" to demand clean air and control other people's actions? How about people who are allergic to pet dander - do they have a similar right to demand that the work place be free of people who own pets? That people can't house a pet in a multi-unit residential complex?

If you have the "right" to demand air that contains no smoke contaminants - what will you do with all the car exhaust, candles, wood burning appliances, coal burning facilities etc etc. Or is tobacco smoke your only concern?

At what point, do you no longer have the "right" to control other people's actions? Or is there an end in sight anywhere? So far - anti-smokers have the "right" to demand smoke-free air in other people's private property, outdoor environments, and even in a smoker's own home?

Or are you just so arrogant and full of yourself that you feel that you have the right to control the actions and private lives of everyone around you?

Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Your addiction is NOT my problem, you make the decision to smoke and subject those around you to your poisons. Cigarettes are a drug and should be treated as one. Just because you make the decision to pollute your body, doesn't give you the right to pollute others. I see smokers riding in a car with their young child subjecting them to something they have no control over. IT'S WRONG!

None of your defense holds any water.

Wifi and perfume doesn't cause cancer and death.

Everyday pollutants from cars, factories, and such are out of necessity and can't be compared to cigarettes. Nor does it have near the horrible effects on a human than cigarettes.

Take a look at this:


Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable illness and death in the United States. It causes many different cancers as well as chronic lung diseases, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and heart disease.[1]
Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 443,000 deaths each year, including approximately 49,400 deaths due to exposure to secondhand smoke.[2,3]
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States, and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths among men and approximately 80 percent of lung cancer deaths among women are due to smoking.[4,5]
Smoking causes many other types of cancer, including cancers of the throat, mouth, nasal cavity, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, kidney, bladder, and cervix, and acute myeloid leukemia.[1]
People who smoke are up to six times more likely to suffer a heart attack than nonsmokers, and the risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked. Smoking also causes most cases of chronic obstructive lung disease.[6]
In 2009, approximately 20.6 percent of U.S. adults were cigarette smokers.[2]
Nearly 20 percent of high school students smoke cigarettes.[7]
An estimated 9 percent of high school students use smokeless tobacco.[7]


www.cancer.gov...

Prove to me cigarettes are good for you and others, then I'll listen.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismicha77
 


Prove to you that cigarettes are good for you! No problem! But I have asked for proof that cigarettes cause one single disease and I haven't received it yet. Your little quotation is simply propaganda. The deaths attributed to cigaretts are "theoretical" deaths calculated by computer called SAMAC. And you know the old saying "garbage in - garbage out"

I know that cigarette smoking is good for me because I enjoy it so much. Pleasure reduces stress and increases satisfaction with life in general.

There is your proof. It is all the proof you need. I, an adult, have chosen to smoke. I bought a product, I paid for the product, the government (and albeit at arm's length, you have also) profited by that transaction and now I intend to consume the product I bought and paid for.

Now give me the proof that smoking CAUSES one single disease. Come on now - it must be close to hand. You seem so sure! The research has been going on for some 60 years now. Is there one single disease that smokers get that never-smokers do NOT get? Tell me the disease and show me the biological mechanism by which smoking CAUSES the disease to occur?

BTW - you have also failed to address why anti-smokers and anti-smokers alone are allowed to demand their "right" to clean air? You have failed to demonstrate where that right exists. You have failed to acknowledge that there are other contaminants that may cause the very same irritation that second-hand smoke does.

Did you think I would forget? Come on - I am calling you - who are so intent on bullying smokers - to account for your bloody actions. And I think very soon - there will be a great many calls for such an accounting and it is possible that some will go to jail (as some already have).

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
oh and BTW - those neat little statistics on lung cancer. They are about to be turned on their head by the discovery that the HPV virus CAUSES (not linked to, not associated with but CAUSES) oral and throat cancers as well as lung cancer.

In some studies, where the actual tumors of lung cancers have been examined, the HPV was present in 85 % of the tumors. Other studies, only 25 %. But in any event, the idea that lung cancer occurs more frequently in smokers than never-smokers is now very very suspect as it is the smoker's who get the type of lung cancer associated with HPV!

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I would suggest that when BIG PHARMA decides that they want to develop and sell a vaccine for oral and lung cancers - you and a lot of other anti-smokers are going to be answering a lot of embarassing questions related to scientific and public fraud!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCommentator
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.


I would reply to your post, but due to the color of the text, it is nearly impossible to read.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
As I sit here, in the middle of winter, in front of my fire place.

I take a nice long draw off of my pipe (filled with a nice aromatic cavindish), and pet my loyal companion retriever, I just simply have to realize.....

You are ignorant to the situation.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Just because something is harmful or not to others or yourself is not the point. The point is selfishness. If I moved in next door and did the following, how would you respond:

- Put a massive satellite in my garden, over-hanging your personal space - because I like to pick up long-distance TV/radio/comms. I like it, you don't, that's your problem.

- Play music until 2am, heavy death metal, because I like it. It will damage my ears but I like it so screw you. You don't like it? Move house.

- I shall purchase 5 loud dogs and a few cages of dangerous animals which may, on occasion, infiltrate youe garden, eat your plants and perhaps kill a pet for food or fun. Oh, I'm sorry, don't you like that? I suggest you move house or get used to it.

Your attitudes to smoking are as disgraceful as the habit. All you can do is pick up rogue, yes, rogue stories about health and smoking/cancer connections. You and I both know that medical research changes every week, every day almost, so it will change soon. Wine is good for you, then it's not. Chocolate makes you fat, then it doesn't... the list is endless.

The fact remains that smoking is not healthy. Smoke has chemicals which are harmful. Why do they need to be present? Why do you need to support the manufacture of dangerous/hamful/unwelcome chemicals and blow the smoke in my direction?

As for cars and transport pollution - that's a BS response too. The whole world uses cars because, unfortunately I agree, we NEED them. If nobody had cars or transport, the world would come to a stop in a single hour. We will soon, however, have more choice than we do now to purchase electric vehicles. That's good, isn't it? We're moving away from pollution. Smokers? You are not. Car companies try to reduce emissions to meet targets etc. Yes, I agree most targets are nonsense, unachievable and just 'for show', but the fact remains they try. What do you do? To be honest, I couldn't care less because cigarette smoke is so minutely small that it most likely does less than 0.01% to the pollution levels, granted, but for micro-environments and immediate surroundings, it's a horrible smell which stains and smells on my clothes for ages until I wash it - itself making other clothes smell.

Nobody comes in my car if they smoke. It's just a smelly, disgusting habit. Comparing it to wine also is ludicrous. Making connections between after-effects is also ridiculous. More people kill other people by drinking than driving, but someone can have 50 fags a day and kill nobody? Fine, fair thing to say, but off-topic and unrelated. If someone said 'smoking is safer to the community when you drive than drinking' I would say yes, you are correct. Now let's talk about health and smell implications! Like we are here.

Smoking in your own home, fine. I couldn't care less. No doubt you enjoy it. Perhaps I'll also enjoy doing what the hell I want to the discontent of others... but not only that, I'll do it with harmful chemicals and encourage company growth to produce such products by purchasing them!

You're all a disgrace. Smoke something healthy with no chemicals and I'll probably join you! I love smelling certain drinks and that's cool - but such dangerous, unhealthy chemicals? If not in the inhalation, then in the passive - harming others and not yourself?????

You selfish bunch of hypocrits.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   


You're all a disgrace. Smoke something healthy with no chemicals and I'll probably join you! I love smelling certain drinks and that's cool - but such dangerous, unhealthy chemicals? If not in the inhalation, then in the passive - harming others and not yourself????? You selfish bunch of hypocrits.


No mate, YOU are the disgrace.

All you have been doing in this thread is bad mouthing smokers, some members have provided lots of information regarding smoking, yet you just feel to belittle and frankly insult anyone that smokes.

We get the message, YOU DON'T LIKE SMOKERS, but that does not justify the stuff you are saying about them.

And please, stop generalizing like you do, not all smokers are the same, some take care where and when they light up. In our country it is illegal to smoke with a kid under 13 in the car.

Your attitude regarding this matter, is almost as off putting as the smell of ashtrays are to you.

vvv





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join