Smoking... Yes or No

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I dont want to have to google search everything for you... you clearly have the internet... but here.

"The average American adult takes in 50 milligrams of arsenic each day, with 80 percent of it coming from meat, fish and poultry"

"According to a report from the California Air Resources Board and the Department of Health Services, smokers breathe an estimated 0.8 to 2.4 micrograms of inorganic arsenic per pack of cigarettes"

and incase you dont know 50 milligrams =50,000 micrograms.

So the average person consumes an amount of arsenic equivalent to about 31,000 packs of cigarettes a day.

markinthedark

Even if all that is true with no context involved, does that mean loading yourself with even more arsenic is better?

And besides thats just about arsenic. I thought (and correct me if I am wrong) that cigarettes contain more than just one harmful substance (in fact I hear about tens of harmful substances in it). Such as tar if I am not mistaken.

I think the "there are over 4000 chemicals in cigarettes" is the typical fear mongering line then they like to point out the scary sounding ones like arsenic. But there are thousands of chemicals in just about everything... and alot of them are beneficial.

let me ask you this? do you own a grill? did you know grilling food adds loads of cancer causing agents to it?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I dont want to have to google search everything for you... you clearly have the internet... but here.

"The average American adult takes in 50 milligrams of arsenic each day, with 80 percent of it coming from meat, fish and poultry"

"According to a report from the California Air Resources Board and the Department of Health Services, smokers breathe an estimated 0.8 to 2.4 micrograms of inorganic arsenic per pack of cigarettes"

and incase you dont know 50 milligrams =50,000 micrograms.

So the average person consumes an amount of arsenic equivalent to about 31,000 packs of cigarettes a day.

markinthedark

Even if all that is true with no context involved, does that mean loading yourself with even more arsenic is better?

And besides thats just about arsenic. I thought (and correct me if I am wrong) that cigarettes contain more than just one harmful substance (in fact I hear about tens of harmful substances in it). Such as tar if I am not mistaken.

I think the "there are over 4000 chemicals in cigarettes" is the typical fear mongering line then they like to point out the scary sounding ones like arsenic. But there are thousands of chemicals in just about everything... and alot of them are beneficial.

let me ask you this? do you own a grill? did you know grilling food adds loads of cancer causing agents to it?

Its funny, though. I dont see many people get sick or get cancer by consuming all the stuff you claim to include substances found in cigarettes. I wonder why that is....

stop feeding the troll, Teenaged..Deihjan

I will be off in a couple of minutes, I promise. :P

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]So?

Even if all that is true with no context involved, does that mean loading yourself with even more arsenic is better?

And besides thats just about arsenic. I thought (and correct me if I am wrong) that cigarettes contain more than just one harmful substance (in fact I hear about tens of harmful substances in it). Such as tar if I am not mistaken.

Teenaged

I think the "there are over 4000 chemicals in cigarettes" is the typical fear mongering line then they like to point out the scary sounding ones like arsenic. But there are thousands of chemicals in just about everything... and alot of them are beneficial.

let me ask you this? do you own a grill? did you know grilling food adds loads of cancer causing agents to it?

Its funny, though. I dont see many people get sick or get cancer by consuming all the stuff you claim to include substances found in cigarettes. I wonder why that is....

[QUOTE="Logan1616"]Smoking is stupid.bloodling

No, it's not.

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="Logan1616"]Smoking is stupid.Logan1616

No, it's not.

It's certainly not smart, but I wouldn't say it's stupid. It's a risky habit. Is it worth the risk? It depends on the person.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]Accurate information? There's no way to obtain "accurate" information on the risks of lung cancer (or any cancer for that matter) without having gone through it firsthand, hence that's why scare tactics are used. Showing someone vomit up blood, get 3/4ths of their lungs removed, having to carry around an O2 bottle and talk like a robot through a hole in their throat is a hell of a lot more effective than reading statistics, and is not biased, it's what can and does happen. I try not to preach, but man it sure is going to suck when those that do choose dangerous habits obtain their "education" and enlightenment in the worst possible way. Unfortunately, many people won't even give the risks a second thought until that happens, and by then it may be far too late.

jimmyjammer69

alot of really unpleasant things happen to us later in life. I had a smoker grandmother die of cancer.. and a non smoking grandfather die of cancer. Dying is terrible no matter how you slice it... but neither seemed too horrible.

I also had a grandmother strickens with alzheimers... and that was just a sad decay of life...

Did you know cigarette smoking has been shown to help prevent alzheimers? probably never got that info huh? wonder why...

ahh so adjust for bias on one side of the issue and not the other? gee... shocking. What are the results if they disregard the anti tobacco lobby funded studies?

On a chemical level the reasoning and research behind why nicotine would prevent alzheimers is pretty solid.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

alot of really unpleasant things happen to us later in life. I had a smoker grandmother die of cancer.. and a non smoking grandfather die of cancer. Dying is terrible no matter how you slice it... but neither seemed too horrible.

I also had a grandmother strickens with alzheimers... and that was just a sad decay of life...

Did you know cigarette smoking has been shown to help prevent alzheimers? probably never got that info huh? wonder why...

markinthedark

ahh so adjust for bias on one side of the issue and not the other? gee... shocking. What are the results if they disregard the anti tobacco lobby funded studies?

On a chemical level the reasoning and research behind why nicotine would prevent alzheimers is pretty solid.

Have you got any reason for believing the one side over the other? Why even present that as an argument if you're just going to disregard any results that disagree with you as biased.

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]stop feeding the troll, Teenaged..Teenaged

I will be off in a couple of minutes, I promise. :P

[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

No, it's not.

bloodling

It's certainly not smart, but I wouldn't say it's stupid. It's a risky habit. Is it worth the risk? It depends on the person.

How does it depend on the person? It's bad regardless of the person. If its not smart, and you're paying for these crappy things to ruin your lungs, then it's stupid.Logan1616

The thing is, we're not smoking to ruin our lungs, we're smoking because we like it. It might be stupid to a certain extent, but I don't think smoking one or two cigarettes a day is that stupid. People who smoke a lot aren't particularly stupid, but they did fall into the trap, so they made stupid decisions at some point, but then it's just the addiction that keeps them smoking. I guess smoking a lot for a long period of time and not trying to stop can be considered stupid.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201093039.htm

jimmyjammer69

ahh so adjust for bias on one side of the issue and not the other? gee... shocking. What are the results if they disregard the anti tobacco lobby funded studies?

On a chemical level the reasoning and research behind why nicotine would prevent alzheimers is pretty solid.

Have you got any reason for believing the one side over the other? Why even present that as an argument if you're just going to disregard any results that disagree with you as biased.

That doesnt mean the studies werent funded by anti smoking lobbies... even the ones funded by the tobacco industry are independent studies. All independent studies are funded by somebody.

and the reason i believe one side over the other is because nicotine is shown to help prevent alzheimers and drug companies are working on drugs to replicate the effects of nicotine for that very purpose... and nicotine is proven to exist in cigarettes.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

alot of really unpleasant things happen to us later in life. I had a smoker grandmother die of cancer.. and a non smoking grandfather die of cancer. Dying is terrible no matter how you slice it... but neither seemed too horrible.

I also had a grandmother strickens with alzheimers... and that was just a sad decay of life...

Did you know cigarette smoking has been shown to help prevent alzheimers? probably never got that info huh? wonder why...

markinthedark

ahh so adjust for bias on one side of the issue and not the other? gee... shocking. What are the results if they disregard the anti tobacco lobby funded studies?

On a chemical level the reasoning and research behind why nicotine would prevent alzheimers is pretty solid.

I'm going to assume you're a medic yourself if you can follow and critically analyse the biochemistry behind those studies.

Here's why I trust the tobacco industry lobby less than its opponents: The tobacco industry has billions to gain by denouncing claims against and fabricating evidence for the health benefits of smoking. Opponents have nothing to gain financially - from taxes, as profits... nothing.

Maybe I'm missing some obvious grand conspiracy against tobacco companies which you could fill me in on, though?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201093039.htm

jimmyjammer69

ahh so adjust for bias on one side of the issue and not the other? gee... shocking. What are the results if they disregard the anti tobacco lobby funded studies?

On a chemical level the reasoning and research behind why nicotine would prevent alzheimers is pretty solid.

I'm going to assume you're a medic yourself if you can follow and critically analyse the biochemistry behind those studies.

Here's why I trust the tobacco industry lobby less than its opponents: The tobacco industry has billions to gain by denouncing claims against and fabricating evidence for the health benefits of smoking. Opponents have nothing to gain financially - from taxes, as profits... nothing.

Maybe I'm missing some obvious grand conspiracy against tobacco companies which you could fill me in on, though?

are you kidding me? they have nothing to gain financially? funding, they need funding.... the more the public is scared of tobacco, the more funding they get.

go look at any anti smoking campaign, its riddled with scare tactics... not unbiased information.

[QUOTE="Logan1616"]How does it depend on the person? It's bad regardless of the person. If its not smart, and you're paying for these crappy things to ruin your lungs, then it's stupid.bloodling

The thing is, we're not smoking to ruin our lungs, we're smoking because we like it. It might be stupid to a certain extent, but I don't think smoking one or two cigarettes a day is that stupid. People who smoke a lot aren't particularly stupid, but they did fall into the trap, so they made stupid decisions at some point, but then it's just the addiction that keeps them smoking. I guess smoking a lot for a long period of time and not trying to stop can be considered stupid.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

ahh so adjust for bias on one side of the issue and not the other? gee... shocking. What are the results if they disregard the anti tobacco lobby funded studies?

On a chemical level the reasoning and research behind why nicotine would prevent alzheimers is pretty solid.

markinthedark

I'm going to assume you're a medic yourself if you can follow and critically analyse the biochemistry behind those studies.

Here's why I trust the tobacco industry lobby less than its opponents: The tobacco industry has billions to gain by denouncing claims against and fabricating evidence for the health benefits of smoking. Opponents have nothing to gain financially - from taxes, as profits... nothing.

Maybe I'm missing some obvious grand conspiracy against tobacco companies which you could fill me in on, though?

are you kidding me? they have nothing to gain financially? funding, they need funding.... the more the public is scared of tobacco, the more funding they get.

go look at any anti smoking campaign, its riddled with scare tactics... not unbiased information.

So you smoke? Are you going to quit?Logan1616

Yeah, about 2-4 cigarettes a day, never more than that. I'm very confident that I will stop smoking pretty soon, one of my friends just stopped smoking too. Smoking feels good, but I'll get over it. I can't be a good poker player and stay in a tournament for hours without smoking, so I'll have to stop.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Sorry, just noticed your edit.

I'm going to assume you're a medic yourself if you can follow and critically analyse the biochemistry behind those studies.

Here's why I trust the tobacco industry lobby less than its opponents: The tobacco industry has billions to gain by denouncing claims against and fabricating evidence for the health benefits of smoking. Opponents have nothing to gain financially - from taxes, as profits... nothing.

Maybe I'm missing some obvious grand conspiracy against tobacco companies which you could fill me in on, though?

jimmyjammer69

are you kidding me? they have nothing to gain financially? funding, they need funding.... the more the public is scared of tobacco, the more funding they get.

go look at any anti smoking campaign, its riddled with scare tactics... not unbiased information.

they get alot of funding from the government, from tobacco companies themselves (since they lobby the government to make tobacco companies pay them) and individual contributions. They have stooges on capital hill trying to influence politicians the same way phillip morris does. The more the public hates tobacco the more funding they get.

the anti tobacco lobbies are a huge multimillion dollar business in and of themselves.

I don't smoke. I don't mind people that do smoke as long as they do it in a place where it doesn't affect others.

[QUOTE="Logan1616"]So you smoke? Are you going to quit?bloodling

Yeah, about 2-4 cigarettes a day, never more than that. I'm very confident that I will stop smoking pretty soon, one of my friends just stopped smoking too. Smoking feels good, but I'll get over it. I can't be a good poker player and stay in a tournament for hours without smoking.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="markinthedark"]

are you kidding me? they have nothing to gain financially? funding, they need funding.... the more the public is scared of tobacco, the more funding they get.

go look at any anti smoking campaign, its riddled with scare tactics... not unbiased information.

markinthedark

they get alot of funding from the government, from tobacco companies themselves (since they lobby the government to make tobacco companies pay them) and individual contributions. They have stooges on capital hill trying to influence politicians the same way phillip morris does. The more the public hates tobacco the more funding they get.

the anti tobacco lobbies are a huge multimillion dollar business in and of themselves.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Sorry, just noticed your edit.

I'm going to assume you're a medic yourself if you can follow and critically analyse the biochemistry behind those studies.

Here's why I trust the tobacco industry lobby less than its opponents: The tobacco industry has billions to gain by denouncing claims against and fabricating evidence for the health benefits of smoking. Opponents have nothing to gain financially - from taxes, as profits... nothing.

Maybe I'm missing some obvious grand conspiracy against tobacco companies which you could fill me in on, though?

jimmyjammer69

are you kidding me? they have nothing to gain financially? funding, they need funding.... the more the public is scared of tobacco, the more funding they get.

go look at any anti smoking campaign, its riddled with scare tactics... not unbiased information.

well i know its not anti tobacco lobby... but lets use MADD as an example. MADD was started to get the BAC limit for DUI reduced to .08 and they accomplished this some years ago... so they decided they want to now get the limit to .05 in every state and are working on that... they have also shifted their focus to reducing all alcohol consumption... and not just reducing DUIs.

The founder of MADD left the group saying they are no longer trying to prevent drunk driving and have shifted focus to a neo prohibitionist group... ultimately trying to snuff out all alcohol consumption.

These groups start from humble roots but become so large and all encompassing they take on new issues, change focus and generally do whatever it takes to make sure they keep getting more funding.

No. I think I'm going to die from second hand smoke already. Why the hell would i want to increase this worry?

If you have to ASK people if you should or shouldn't smoke I don't believe you would understand why you should or shouldn't, therefore you're gonna do it regardless.

You're addicted. Smoking is crap. I wonder how much many you have wasted on those things. Smoking is by FAR my biggest hate in the world.Logan1616

For me, around a thousand dollars, which is nothing compared to most smokers. Nicotine is actually pretty good for your brain, the biggest problem is the smoke. Vaporizers solve the issues, but they're pretty expensive. There are also electronic cigarettes.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Erm... so the lobby is now a corporation in itself? WHO do you think is funding them and why?jimmyjammer69

they get alot of funding from the government, from tobacco companies themselves (since they lobby the government to make tobacco companies pay them) and individual contributions. They have stooges on capital hill trying to influence politicians the same way phillip morris does. The more the public hates tobacco the more funding they get.

the anti tobacco lobbies are a huge multimillion dollar business in and of themselves.

I take it you arent familiar with politics in the slightest? These groups lobby politicians to get funding and give the politicians campaign contributions and many other perks... the politicians in turn increase their funding.

Its sort of a you scratch my back, ill scratch yours scenario.

I don't smoke cigarettes, but I recently discovered imported clove cigars which truly are delicious. I smoke one on occasion since they're expensive (5 bucks for a 12 pack).

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

are you kidding me? they have nothing to gain financially? funding, they need funding.... the more the public is scared of tobacco, the more funding they get.

go look at any anti smoking campaign, its riddled with scare tactics... not unbiased information.

markinthedark

well i know its not anti tobacco lobby... but lets use MADD as an example. MADD was started to get the BAC limit for DUI reduced to .08 and they accomplished this some years ago... so they decided they want to now get the limit to .05 in every state and are working on that... they have also shifted their focus to reducing all alcohol consumption... and not just reducing DUIs.

The founder of MADD left the group saying they are no longer trying to prevent drunk driving and have shifted focus to a neo prohibitionist group... ultimately trying to snuff out all alcohol consumption.

These groups start from humble roots but become so large and all encompassing they take on new issues, change focus and generally do whatever it takes to make sure they keep getting more funding.

1) So assuming alcohol was banned, I suppose you're suggesting the lobbyists would somehow make money on that too? The usual argument against prohibiting alcohol is that it would only drive the industry underground (and I'm guessing you think the ex lobby lords would somehow become kingpins of the criminal industry after their lobby becomes worthless), but the same argument almost certainly wouldn't apply to tobacco. Ban tobacco and nobody would give a damn. Smokers would be furious for a couple of weeks, until their addiction's had passed, but I can't see smokers seeking out dealers on street corners for a gram of virginia tobacco.

2) This is entirely beside the point when it comes to tobacco health concerns. You trust the tobacco company lobby for reasons known only to yourself. All statistics point to tobacco being a major risk factor in premature death and disease - even the tobacco comapnies themselves admit that. Why would you argue against every individual health claim held against tobacco companies?

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="markinthedark"]

they get alot of funding from the government, from tobacco companies themselves (since they lobby the government to make tobacco companies pay them) and individual contributions. They have stooges on capital hill trying to influence politicians the same way phillip morris does. The more the public hates tobacco the more funding they get.

the anti tobacco lobbies are a huge multimillion dollar business in and of themselves.

markinthedark

I take it you arent familiar with politics in the slightest? These groups lobby politicians to get funding and give the politicians campaign contributions and many other perks... the politicians in turn increase their funding.

Its sort of a you scratch my back, ill scratch yours scenario.

My mother-in-law passed away almost 8 years ago due to complications caused by smoking. That being said, while I'm not a smoker myself, I don't look down on those people that do smoke. I'm not about to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own body.Darth_Beryl

My mother and her mother died the same way. They smoked from sixteenuntil they were about forty then ended up on oxygen. Both Collapsed and died in their 50's due to the respiratory damage caused by long term smoking.

rather not smoke

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Erm... so the lobby is now a corporation in itself? WHO do you think is funding them and why? Let's imagine the lobby achieves its goal and tobacco is banned. How are "they" supposed to get their funding now?

jimmyjammer69

well i know its not anti tobacco lobby... but lets use MADD as an example. MADD was started to get the BAC limit for DUI reduced to .08 and they accomplished this some years ago... so they decided they want to now get the limit to .05 in every state and are working on that... they have also shifted their focus to reducing all alcohol consumption... and not just reducing DUIs.

The founder of MADD left the group saying they are no longer trying to prevent drunk driving and have shifted focus to a neo prohibitionist group... ultimately trying to snuff out all alcohol consumption.

These groups start from humble roots but become so large and all encompassing they take on new issues, change focus and generally do whatever it takes to make sure they keep getting more funding.

These non profits work just like companies... if the president doesnt keep the organization growing they will be replaced. There is no sense worrying about having a job in 10 years if they might not have one tomorrow.

and tobacco is increasingly turning into an underground economy, and cigarette smuggling skyrocketed since the tax hike last year. Feel free to google it.

I also never said i trusted the tobacco lobbies... only that people should be just as suspicious of the anti tobacco lobbies as they are of the tobacco lobbies.

And i never said smoking isnt bad for you.... only that it is far less bad for you than people think. Most people get their information from 1 extremely bias source which is why we have a generation of bigots hating smokers and blaming them for all of humanity's woes. Look at the all the blind hatred people have for smokers...

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Why would the government fund a lobby that works against its supposed interests (tax revenue and, as you seem to be suggesting, public health)? jimmyjammer69

I take it you arent familiar with politics in the slightest? These groups lobby politicians to get funding and give the politicians campaign contributions and many other perks... the politicians in turn increase their funding.

Its sort of a you scratch my back, ill scratch yours scenario.

its not corruption its politics as usual. Corruption is only if they take bribes under the table. Politicians need campaign contributions and anti smoking groups need funding... its perfectly legal and win win. It costs millions of dollars to run a campaign for congressional office...they have to get the money from somewhere.

And of course we can trust studies about the effects of smoking on health... its obviously bad for you and its proven to cause cancer. But studies also show grilling food is bad for you and proven to cause cancer... but most people own a grill. So why arent we all throwing out our grills and calling people who grill idiots? because there arent multi million dollar organizations telling us to.

I dont have a problem with people choosing not to smoke for health reasons, i have a problem with people hating smokers and trying to punish them. and restrict their individual liberties.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="markinthedark"]

well i know its not anti tobacco lobby... but lets use MADD as an example. MADD was started to get the BAC limit for DUI reduced to .08 and they accomplished this some years ago... so they decided they want to now get the limit to .05 in every state and are working on that... they have also shifted their focus to reducing all alcohol consumption... and not just reducing DUIs.

The founder of MADD left the group saying they are no longer trying to prevent drunk driving and have shifted focus to a neo prohibitionist group... ultimately trying to snuff out all alcohol consumption.

These groups start from humble roots but become so large and all encompassing they take on new issues, change focus and generally do whatever it takes to make sure they keep getting more funding.

markinthedark

These non profits work just like companies... if the president doesnt keep the organization growing they will be replaced. There is no sense worrying about having a job in 10 years if they might not have one tomorrow.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Is it that anti-tobacco lobbies have a short term interest in pushing further restrictions on smoking to show their funders results, but the lobby itself has no long term interest in seeing tobacco banned? Essentially, to ensure maximal funding, they need to prolong the prohibition process as long as possible? I can imagine there would be pressure on the lobby to shift the blame away from the tobacco company, with which it shares a symbiotic relationship, and lay the guilt increasingly onto the shoulders of the individual, who's sandwiched between his freedom to be enslaved by his addiction and its marketing, and his guilt over his own responsibilty to care for his health. If anything, the relationship you seem to be hinting at would encourage this anti-tobacco lobby to downplay the health risks of smoking.

and tobacco is increasingly turning into an underground economy, and cigarette smuggling skyrocketed since the tax hike last year. Feel free to google it.

I don't doubt that. I've never believed that any effective government should be taxing a substance which damages public health or social well-being, exactly for the reason that it empowers lobbies and forces itself into hypocritically relying on continued, increased tax revenue.

I also never said i trusted the tobacco lobbies... only that people should be just as suspicious of the anti tobacco lobbies as they are of the tobacco lobbies.

And i never said smoking isnt bad for you.... only that it is far less bad for you than people think. Most people get their information from 1 extremely bias source which is why we have a generation of bigots hating smokers and blaming them for all of humanity's woes. Look at the all the blind hatred people have for smokers...

That's something that's really hard for the layman to judge, for all the above reasons. Maybe the problem isn't how bad people are led to believe smoking is, but how persuasively and impartially that message is delivered. You've already hinted that the problem is finding impartial information on health risks because of lobbying on both sides. Maybe that's the issue that needs to be addressed first.

I don't smoke, don't think I ever will..

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

I take it you arent familiar with politics in the slightest? These groups lobby politicians to get funding and give the politicians campaign contributions and many other perks... the politicians in turn increase their funding.

Its sort of a you scratch my back, ill scratch yours scenario.

markinthedark

its not corruption its politics as usual. Corruption is only if they take bribes under the table. Politicians need campaign contributions and anti smoking groups need funding... its perfectly legal and win win. It costs millions of dollars to run a campaign for congressional office...they have to get the money from somewhere.

And of course we can trust studies about the effects of smoking on health... its obviously bad for you and its proven to cause cancer. But studies also show grilling food is bad for you and proven to cause cancer... but most people own a grill. So why arent we all throwing out our grills and calling people who grill idiots? because there arent multi million dollar organizations telling us to.

I dont have a problem with people choosing not to smoke for health reasons, i have a problem with people hating smokers and trying to punish them. and restrict their individual liberties.

Again, liberty's a tough one when it comes to addiction. You're arguing about it as if tobacco weren't one of the most addictive substances we know. Add to that the millions of dollars spent on advertising and enforcing a positive image for smoking on a subliminal level, and the whole claim that smoking is a freedom gets a little bit dubious.

I know where you're coming from on hating the whole deliberate-cough-disapproving-glare anti-smoking mentality though. It only makes non-smokers come across as holier than thou pricks to smokers.

One thing that frustrates me is the perpetual hikes in tax on cigarettes. Taxing the addicted is a little mean if you ask me, and if it's purportedly increased to encourage people to quit then they should use the excess tax to supplement the cost of the various aids to quite smoking – patches, gum, whatever…

One thing that frustrates me is the perpetual hikes in tax on cigarettes. Taxing the addicted is a little mean if you ask me, and if it's purportedly increased to encourage people to quit then they should use the excess tax to supplement the cost of the various aids to quite smoking – patches, gum, whatever…

poptart

If only these things to quit smoking weren't so ridiculously expensive...

Never have, don't now, never will. Far better things to spend my money on than something that stains my teeth, stinks up my house and clothes, and gives me cancer. Favorite line from Clerks is, "OF COURSE we're all gonna die some day! But do we have to PAY for it?!"

[QUOTE="Logan1616"]Smoking is stupid.bloodling

No, it's not.

wow i didnt know people were so stupid... im done with this thread, to the idiot saying arsenic and ammonia isn't bad jesus christ yeah the internet is a really bad place, im sorry

Nope

Cigarrettes are bad

I'm shocked to see majority of the ppl here don't smoke :O .. I quit for 50 days then started all over again coz of some foolish reason and I'm back to square one ...the idea of quiting again gets me panic..really who don't smoke I really suggest you dont do it.. have alcohol but don't smoke really its the no 1 addiction and the most powerfull thing to give up .. more than any other drug in the world :(