Should drinking be considered as bad as smoking?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for DA_B0MB
DA_B0MB

9938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 DA_B0MB
Member since 2005 • 9938 Posts

They both are extremely unhealthy and could potentially kill you if done enough. Examples being cancer for smoking and liver failure for drinking. I think drinking could be worse though considering that if you drink enough to develop life threatening health problems, your social life is likely totally destroyed. I don't think smoking does that, though I'm still very againt smoking I'm making points. Your thoughts?

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#2 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

Drinking is not bad for you if done in moderation. Smoking is always bad for you. So no.

Avatar image for rawsavon
rawsavon

40001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 rawsavon
Member since 2004 • 40001 Posts
Drinking has some health benefits...can even provide some nutrients Smoking has 0 benefits There is no second hand drinking ...Smoking is worse
Avatar image for Faber_Fighter
Faber_Fighter

1890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Faber_Fighter
Member since 2006 • 1890 Posts
It's obviously not as harmful as smoking when in moderation, but unfortunately for a LOT of people alcohol is hard to drink in moderation.
Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

18091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#5 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 18091 Posts

You can kill yourself in a single night drinking. Smoking at least takes a few decades.

Avatar image for cybrcatter
cybrcatter

16210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 cybrcatter
Member since 2003 • 16210 Posts
It's obviously not as harmful as smoking when in moderation, but unfortunately for a LOT of people alcohol is hard to drink in moderation.Faber_Fighter
i don't find it hard to drink in moderation. . . but I do find that it's not as fun.
Avatar image for DA_B0MB
DA_B0MB

9938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 DA_B0MB
Member since 2005 • 9938 Posts

You can kill yourself in a single night drinking. Smoking at least takes a few decades.

br0kenrabbit
Oh this is a good point.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Drinking is not bad for you if done in moderation. Smoking is always bad for you. So no.

sonicare

I agree with this.

Avatar image for rawsavon
rawsavon

40001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 rawsavon
Member since 2004 • 40001 Posts
[QUOTE="Faber_Fighter"]It's obviously not as harmful as smoking when in moderation, but unfortunately for a LOT of people alcohol is hard to drink in moderation.cybrcatter
i don't find it hard to drink in moderation. . . but I do find that it's not as fun.

Truer words have never been spoken on GS
Avatar image for Jackboot343
Jackboot343

2574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Jackboot343
Member since 2007 • 2574 Posts

I don't mind being around people having a drink, but I do if they're having a cig.

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

You can kill yourself in a single night drinking. Smoking at least takes a few decades.

br0kenrabbit

Water can kill you in a single night if you drink too much of it. Asbestos at least takes a few decades.

See the problem with the logic?

Avatar image for Robbler
Robbler

616

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Robbler
Member since 2010 • 616 Posts

I'm not one to talk, as I am a hardcore boozer, but I am a functional boozer. Dysfunctional boozers are another matter altogether.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e97585ea928c
deactivated-5e97585ea928c

8521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 deactivated-5e97585ea928c
Member since 2006 • 8521 Posts
I laugh at the two that say it's worse than drinking. It can only(allergies and bodily problems don't count) kill you if you're stupid. i.e. drinking and driving, drinking way too much. Smoking at all has no benefits and hurts your body. It's also meant to be addictive whereas alcohol isn't as addictive (although for some it can be.)
Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

It all depends on how you use them. Either can be VASTLY worse than the other, depending on how it's used.

Bottom line is that they are both extremely dangerous and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Avatar image for Robbler
Robbler

616

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 Robbler
Member since 2010 • 616 Posts

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

You can kill yourself in a single night drinking. Smoking at least takes a few decades.

gameguy6700

Water can kill you in a single night if you drink too much of it. Asbestos at least takes a few decades.

See the problem with the logic?

Too much of anything and not enough of some things will kill you. I appreciate your logic, but it it is impractical in the context of this conversation/debate.

Avatar image for H_U_R_D
H_U_R_D

4006

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#16 H_U_R_D
Member since 2006 • 4006 Posts

drinking=good time

smoking=need a fix

plus, smoking is just plain disgusting, period

Avatar image for hiphops_savior
hiphops_savior

8535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 2

#17 hiphops_savior
Member since 2007 • 8535 Posts

Alcohol can be drank in moderation, and red wine does have anti-oxidants. Smoking, on the other hand, is addictive, has no benefits whatsoever, and can create cancer through second hand smoke.

Avatar image for XilePrincess
XilePrincess

13130

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 XilePrincess
Member since 2008 • 13130 Posts
If you have an occasional half glass of wine or something, alcohol isn't bad for you, it can be beneficial even. but just drinking to get drunk isn't good for you, I don't understand the appeal. your liver and kidneys are a filtration system, they work hard enough as is with the daily crap they filter out, why on earth would a person want to basically drink poison? do they get a kick out of knowing that their insides are freaking out trying to deal with it so it doesn't kill you? Smoking is nasty and disgusting all the time. the only time I'm alright with people smoking is medical marijuana if they're in severe pain due to some condition and it's PRESCRIBED by a doctor. It smells repulsive whether it's cigarettes or pot, but I'll hold my tongue for those who have cancer and stuff, I don't have cancer so I'll just suck it up if I have to smell their smoke.
Avatar image for mike4realz
mike4realz

2577

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 mike4realz
Member since 2003 • 2577 Posts

They both are extremely unhealthy and could potentially kill you if done enough. Examples being cancer for smoking and liver failure for drinking. I think drinking could be worse though considering that if you drink enough to develop life threatening health problems, your social life is likely totally destroyed. I don't think smoking does that, though I'm still very againt smoking I'm making points. Your thoughts?

DA_B0MB

beer and wine has some health benefits...reduce the chances of strokes, heart and vascular disease. Smoking has no benefits at all so i consider smoking is the worse

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Alcohol can be drank in moderation, and red wine does have anti-oxidants. Smoking, on the other hand, is addictive, has no benefits whatsoever, and can create cancer through second hand smoke.

hiphops_savior

Tobacco can't be smoked in moderation?

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="DA_B0MB"]

They both are extremely unhealthy and could potentially kill you if done enough. Examples being cancer for smoking and liver failure for drinking. I think drinking could be worse though considering that if you drink enough to develop life threatening health problems, your social life is likely totally destroyed. I don't think smoking does that, though I'm still very againt smoking I'm making points. Your thoughts?

mike4realz

beer and wine has some health benefits...reduce the chances of strokes, heart and vascular disease. Smoking has no benefits at all so i consider smoking is the worse

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't heroin and opium have legitimate medical benefits?

Avatar image for deactivated-5e97585ea928c
deactivated-5e97585ea928c

8521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#22 deactivated-5e97585ea928c
Member since 2006 • 8521 Posts

[QUOTE="mike4realz"]

[QUOTE="DA_B0MB"]

They both are extremely unhealthy and could potentially kill you if done enough. Examples being cancer for smoking and liver failure for drinking. I think drinking could be worse though considering that if you drink enough to develop life threatening health problems, your social life is likely totally destroyed. I don't think smoking does that, though I'm still very againt smoking I'm making points. Your thoughts?

MrGeezer

beer and wine has some health benefits...reduce the chances of strokes, heart and vascular disease. Smoking has no benefits at all so i consider smoking is the worse

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't heroin and opium have legitimate medical benefits?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't heroin and opium have an extremely larger chance of leading to harder drugs or addiction ;)

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

drinking is worse.

sc

Avatar image for yentlequible
yentlequible

2620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 yentlequible
Member since 2009 • 2620 Posts
I have heard that alcohol is actually healthy for you when it is drank in moderation. However, I believe that drinking is worse. Smoking may have worse side effects to your body, but at least the user is still aware of everything (unless your smoking something else). I would be more wary of a crowd of drunken idiots than a group of smokers.
Avatar image for carrot-cake
carrot-cake

6880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 carrot-cake
Member since 2008 • 6880 Posts

[QUOTE="hiphops_savior"]

Alcohol can be drank in moderation, and red wine does have anti-oxidants. Smoking, on the other hand, is addictive, has no benefits whatsoever, and can create cancer through second hand smoke.

MrGeezer

Tobacco can't be smoked in moderation?

Well I'm pretty sure it would be harder to smoke cigarettes in moderation due to nicotine cravings, although I wouldn't know, but when it comes to pipe tobacco and cigars I can smoke those as infrequently as once a month and I wont get such cravings for a smoke.

Avatar image for cybrcatter
cybrcatter

16210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#26 cybrcatter
Member since 2003 • 16210 Posts
I have heard that alcohol is actually healthy for you when it is drank in moderation. However, I believe that drinking is worse. Smoking may have worse side effects to your body, but at least the user is still aware of everything (unless your smoking something else). I would be more wary of a crowd of drunken idiots than a group of smokers.yentlequible
You don't fraternize much, do you?
Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't heroin and opium have an extremely larger chance of leading to harder drugs or addiction ;)

FrostyPhantasm

Heroin and opium are ALREADY extremely hard drugs which will ruin a person's life.

So is alcohol.

The question is, if hard drugs like heroin and opium have actual medical benefits, is that enough to declare that heroin use is inherently "better" than smoking tobacco?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that use of alcohol is as "bad" as using opium (at least, for most people), but I'm curious what the "medical benefits" actually have to do with anything. I guarantee that most drinkers aren't drinking for their health. So the fact that alcohol CAN have benefits if used properly is sort of irrelevant if most of the people who drink it AREN'T drinking it for medical benefits.

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

You can kill yourself in a single night drinking. Smoking at least takes a few decades.

Robbler

Water can kill you in a single night if you drink too much of it. Asbestos at least takes a few decades.

See the problem with the logic?

Too much of anything and not enough of some things will kill you. I appreciate your logic, but it it is impractical in the context of this conversation/debate.

It's not impractical in this context at all and I find it odd that you saw my point but failed to appreciate it's application in this context.. My point is that just because something can kill you very quickly if you overdose on it doesn't make it worse than something that will kill you but not until decades after you started taking it/being exposed to it. Reason being that, like you said, you can kill yourself on literally anything if you take too much of it.

Alcohol is safe as long as you aren't being an idiot and binging really hard. In fact, it's extremely difficult to kill yourself via alcohol overdose because it's effects on the nervous system cause you to become unconcsious well before you reach the lethal dose. People who die from drinking too much did so because they managed to imbibe the lethal dose before they passed out (which pretty much requires something along the lines of a beer bong and a lot of alcohol) or because they threw up while passed out and choked on their own vomit (which really isn't a direct cause of death from alcohol, you run that risk anytime you pass out).

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

It's not impractical in this context at all and I find it odd that you saw my point but failed to appreciate it's application in this context.. My point is that just because something can kill you very quickly if you overdose on it doesn't make it worse than something that will kill you but not until decades after you started taking it/being exposed to it. Reason being that, like you said, you can kill yourself on literally anything if you take too much of it.

Alcohol is safe as long as you aren't being an idiot and binging really hard. In fact, it's extremely difficult to kill yourself via alcohol overdose because it's effects on the nervous system cause you to become unconcsious well before you reach the lethal dose. People who die from drinking too much did so because they managed to imbibe the lethal dose before they passed out (which pretty much requires something along the lines of a beer bong and a lot of alcohol) or because they threw up while passed out and choked on their own vomit (which really isn't a direct cause of death from alcohol, you run that risk anytime you pass out).

gameguy6700

Here's the thing though...if we accept that you have a very slim chance of getting sick or dead as a result of smoking ONE cigarette, then we can accept that there is a level of exposure which is for all practical purposes "safe".

That's the thing...no one's cancer is traceable back to that one cigarette that they tried back when they were 16. When we talk about smoking killing people, we are talking about prolonged and repeated exposure.

So...it stands to reason that there is a certain level of exposure which is "dangerous". The question is...what is considered "safe" when it comes to tobacco smoke? What level of exposure is required before the tobacco smoke actually becomes a risk factor?

Avatar image for -Iconoclast-
-Iconoclast-

6506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 -Iconoclast-
Member since 2005 • 6506 Posts

Addiction is bad.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

18091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#31 br0kenrabbit
Member since 2004 • 18091 Posts

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

You can kill yourself in a single night drinking. Smoking at least takes a few decades.

gameguy6700

Water can kill you in a single night if you drink too much of it. Asbestos at least takes a few decades.

See the problem with the logic?

Alcohol can contribute to death in ways water can't. I've never heard of someone killing an innocent family of four on the road because they drank too much water, or smoked too many cigarettes.

Avatar image for deathtarget04
deathtarget04

2266

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#32 deathtarget04
Member since 2009 • 2266 Posts

Smoking is worse.

However i'm not a chain smoker, hell i might have a cig once a week if that just to get the godly headrush.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e97585ea928c
deactivated-5e97585ea928c

8521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 deactivated-5e97585ea928c
Member since 2006 • 8521 Posts

[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't heroin and opium have an extremely larger chance of leading to harder drugs or addiction ;)

MrGeezer

Heroin and opium are ALREADY extremely hard drugs which will ruin a person's life.

So is alcohol.

The question is, if hard drugs like heroin and opium have actual medical benefits, is that enough to declare that heroin use is inherently "better" than smoking tobacco?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that use of alcohol is as "bad" as using opium (at least, for most people), but I'm curious what the "medical benefits" actually have to do with anything. I guarantee that most drinkers aren't drinking for their health. So the fact that alcohol CAN have benefits if used properly is sort of irrelevant if most of the people who drink it AREN'T drinking it for medical benefits.

Fair enough, but in context of the question, if you were to write a pro's and con's list of smoking and drinking, why would you exclude health benefits simply because it's an accidental pro?
Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"]Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't heroin and opium have an extremely larger chance of leading to harder drugs or addiction ;)

FrostyPhantasm

Heroin and opium are ALREADY extremely hard drugs which will ruin a person's life.

So is alcohol.

The question is, if hard drugs like heroin and opium have actual medical benefits, is that enough to declare that heroin use is inherently "better" than smoking tobacco?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that use of alcohol is as "bad" as using opium (at least, for most people), but I'm curious what the "medical benefits" actually have to do with anything. I guarantee that most drinkers aren't drinking for their health. So the fact that alcohol CAN have benefits if used properly is sort of irrelevant if most of the people who drink it AREN'T drinking it for medical benefits.

Fair enough, but in context of the question, if you were to write a pro's and con's list of smoking and drinking, why would you exclude health benefits simply because it's an accidental pro?

I'm saying that the pros and cons would not be comparable. That these drugs are very different, that they have very different effects, different qualities, etc.

I'm suggesting that the very question is flawed, since neither is fundamentally "worse" than the other.

Look, it's not really a simple matter of "drugs are bad, m'kay." It's not even necessarily a matter of "this drug is better than THAT drug, m'kay." How "bad" or "good" a drug is depends on how it is used. Period. And since there is no inherent fundamental means by which ANY drug MUST be used, then ALL drugs are morally neutral. Words like "bad" and "good" simply do not apply.

Look, we can ignore context all we want, and state that killing people is better than smoking tobacco. None of that means anything though, because we've just removed the context from the equation. It is ALL about context.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

This has come up before on this forum. Smoking kills way, way more people than drinking. The numbers aren't even close. So how the **** could drinking possibly be worse than smoking?

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

This has come up before on this forum. Smoking kills way, way more people than drinking. The numbers aren't even close. So how the **** could drinking possibly be worse than smoking?

Palantas

Is that an inherent result of the drug, or is that simply an indicator that more people are likely to misuse that drug?

Drugs are morally neutral. If anything, we could reword this topic in order to ask the completely different question of, "why are more people likely to misuse tobacco than they are to misuse alcohol?"

Avatar image for X360PS3AMD05
X360PS3AMD05

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 X360PS3AMD05
Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts
Balances out, plenty drink and drive and kill people, while smoking takes a long time to kill people.
Avatar image for Adrianstalker
Adrianstalker

1467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#38 Adrianstalker
Member since 2008 • 1467 Posts

This has come up before on this forum. Smoking kills way, way more people than drinking. The numbers aren't even close. So how the **** could drinking possibly be worse than smoking?

Palantas

I'm pretty sure though, that in the long run, alcohol beats smoking. Users death, sure smoking kills more.. but indirect death, like the sober wife of a drunken medieval men, alcohol got it.

Avatar image for Adrianstalker
Adrianstalker

1467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 Adrianstalker
Member since 2008 • 1467 Posts

Balances out, plenty drink and drive and kill people, while smoking takes a long time to kill people.X360PS3AMD05

People are bad

Alcohol kills more people faster. Alcohol is a better drug

Avatar image for Elephant_Couple
Elephant_Couple

1404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 Elephant_Couple
Member since 2010 • 1404 Posts

No, for every reason listed herin.

Avatar image for Toriko42
Toriko42

27562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 45

User Lists: 0

#41 Toriko42
Member since 2006 • 27562 Posts
Drinking is good for the soul
Avatar image for X360PS3AMD05
X360PS3AMD05

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 X360PS3AMD05
Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts
Alcohol has been banned before, so can we safely say it is worse?
Avatar image for Toriko42
Toriko42

27562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 45

User Lists: 0

#43 Toriko42
Member since 2006 • 27562 Posts
Alcohol has been banned before, so can we safely say it is worse?X360PS3AMD05
No, that's cause of idiot feminists who wanted to spread their stupid agenda
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#44 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
In the short-term drinking is worse, in the long-term they're both as bad as each other in equal quantities.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#45 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Alcohol has been banned before, so can we safely say it is worse?X360PS3AMD05

I don't think you're being serious here, but in case you are... This is a total leap in logic. When trying to determine which of two events is worse, you're going to base that on whether or not one of them was banned in one particular country? Whaaa? All sorts of behaviors have been banned by governments throughout history, which are now regarded as basic human rights.

Avatar image for Elephant_Couple
Elephant_Couple

1404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Elephant_Couple
Member since 2010 • 1404 Posts

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

This has come up before on this forum. Smoking kills way, way more people than drinking. The numbers aren't even close. So how the **** could drinking possibly be worse than smoking?

Adrianstalker

I'm pretty sure though, that in the long run, alcohol beats smoking. Users death, sure smoking kills more.. but indirect death, like the sober wife of a drunken medieval men, alcohol got it.

Dude...stop trying to rationalize it. Like Palantas said...the numbers are NOT EVEN CLOSE. The American Cancer Society makes that quite clear.

"How does smoking cause illness and death?

About half of all Americans who keep smoking will die because of the habit. Each year about 443,600 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

Cancer caused by smoking

Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It is linked with an increased risk of the following cancers:

  • lung
  • larynx (voice box)
  • oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips)
  • pharynx (throat)
  • esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach)
  • stomach
  • pancreas
  • cervix
  • kidney
  • bladder
  • acute myeloid leukemia

Smoking is responsible for almost 9 out of 10 lung cancer deaths. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women, and is one of the hardest cancers to treat. Lung cancer is a disease that can often be prevented. Some religious groups that promote non-smoking as part of their religion, such as Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists, have much lower rates of lung cancer and other smoking-related cancers.

Other health problems caused by smoking

As serious as cancer is, it accounts for less than half of the deaths related to smoking each year. Smoking is a major cause of heart disease, aneurysms, bronchitis, emphysema, and stroke.

Using tobacco can damage a woman's reproductive health and hurt babies. Tobacco use is linked with reduced fertility and a higher risk of miscarriage, early delivery (premature birth), and stillbirth. It is also a cause of low birth-weight in infants. It has been linked to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), too.

Smoking can make pneumonia and asthma worse. It has been linked to other health problems, too, including gum disease, cataracts, bone thinning, hip fractures, and peptic ulcers. Some studies have also linked smoking to macular degeneration, an eye disease that can cause blindness.

Smoking can cause or worsen poor blood flow in the arms and legs (peripheral vascular disease or PVD.) Surgery to improve the blood flow often doesn't work in people who keep smoking. Because of this, many surgeons who work on blood vessels (vascular surgeons) won't do certain surgeries on patients with PVD unless they stop smoking.

Some studies have found that male smokers may be more likely to be sexually impotent (have erectile dysfunction).

The smoke from cigarettes (called secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke) can also have harmful health effects on those exposed to it. Adults and children can have health problems from breathing secondhand smoke. (See our documents, Secondhand Smoke and Women and Smoking.)

Effects of smoking on how long you live and your quality of life

Based on data collected from 1995 to 1999, the CDC estimated that adult male smokers lost an average of 13.2 years of life and female smokers lost 14.5 years of life because of smoking."


.........now let's look at some statistics from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This radical abolition organization says that drunk driving resulted in 11,733 deaths in 2008, and that binge drinking by college students accounted for 1700 deaths in the same year. So let's say that all binge drinking comes to about 10,000 a year (which is super generous). That comes to 20,733 deaths a year. Now let's do something ridiculous...let's DOUBLE that number just for the hell of it. We'll pretend it's 42,000, which would never, ever happen. Now look at the tobacco-related death stat from above...443,600. That's right. Doubling the yearly alcohol deaths still doesnt even make them 1/10 of tobacco related deaths. Now lets say smoking is only halfof those tobacco-related deaths (which would also never happen, it's way more). Drinking STILL doesn't even account for 1/5 as many deaths.

So you see, even when you balloon the statistics as much as possible, you just can't win. Smoking is worse.

Avatar image for Elephant_Couple
Elephant_Couple

1404

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 Elephant_Couple
Member since 2010 • 1404 Posts

Here are some more links that demonstrate how even when generously accounting for ANY AND ALL possible deaths that could be related to alcohol, it's still not even 1/4 of the 442,000 smoking/tobacco related deaths (the vast majority of which are obviously from smoking).

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/alcohol_abuse/deaths.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/

Avatar image for donwoogie
donwoogie

3707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#48 donwoogie
Member since 2004 • 3707 Posts
Well.... considering how much more addictive smoking is, I'd probably say smoking is worse, then again, I've never heard of someone killing their entire family with smoking. That being said, I don't think either of them shold be illegal. If a person wants to smoke and they aren't hurting anyone, fine, do it. I think any drug should be fine as long as the person who uses them respects the personal freedoms of everyone else.
Avatar image for tofu-lion91
tofu-lion91

13496

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 tofu-lion91
Member since 2008 • 13496 Posts
Don't know, just as bad? Either way I did a lot of both last night so couldn't care which is worse :P
Avatar image for donwoogie
donwoogie

3707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#50 donwoogie
Member since 2004 • 3707 Posts

Well.... according to study done here in the UK based on harm to self, those around us and society:

drugs

Link