Effects of smoking... (yes I know some think this is Personal Choice)

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well, you see, I know a smoker. (Leave alone that second hand smoke) He said for years, even decades, that it didn't do any damage to him. Well, guess what? It is FINALLY catching up to him. So if you live long enough... I guarantee this to you... sequeleae. Whether those are minor or major depends on your body.

Now as you said... personal choice... that Oxygen tank will be a good addition to your wardrobe I guess.

But hey, what can I say? And this is the part that many addicts, not just tobacco, insist. That they will be the exception to the rule, and never evah face those consequences.

Now I'd better get behind that wall, and plenty of asbestos... because I expect the usual from the usual libertarian crowd. Never mind that yes, it is ultimately your choice... but the consequences are not nice.

[no limit]

1. Wow some breaking news here. Smoking bad for your health? You don't say

I think 99.9% of people that puff on a cigarette know its not good for them, but addiction is a bitch.

[tammywammy]

2. +1 n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. And because of that additction

many addicts will offer to you the (insert drug of choice here) that allowed somebody they know to live all the way to 100 years of age, and always did the (insert drug of choice here) enjoy.

And that is the point.

We have the rare 100 year old person that tells you, yeah, I smoked and drank all my life, and I am fine.

Well 99% of us, or more, will not escape the consequences if we chose to use (insert drug of choice here). But those examples are part of the denial process.

[no limit]

48. I never met anyone that thinks smoking is good for them

and I met lots of smokers. Most people also don't like the fact that its not good for them rubbed in their faces, I wonder why.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. I wonder why you actually have a need

oh never mind...

They do exist... if you have not met them, does not mean they don't exist.

Now let me see if I can find a recent story... oh never mind you can use the google yourself. Search for long life and secrets to such.

[no limit]

71. I wonder if you are just as snarky when you meet a fat person.

And I have a very hard time believing you run in to people that think smoking is good for them. Sure, idiots are out there. But they are far and few in between. That's not an excuse for putting up a strawman.

I also don't know if this is a coincidence but my Polish Dad always feel the need to tell people that smoking is bad for them too. Although I am also Polish I never had the urge to tell people something they already know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. No I am not snarky when I meet people who have adiction

problems, whether these are food, alcohol, tobacco or other drugs. I also recognize that there is an element of denial with people who have an addiction.

And once again, you cannot believe they exist, they do. I NEVER said they are common. That is what you understood, or chose to understand. They are rare, but they DO EXIST.

[no limit]

99. They are extremely rare. So I am still trying to understand the point of this thread

Was a couple idiots in the world worth an entire thread rubbing in the fact that smoking is bad for you as if the people that smoke don't already know this? Some people on this planet still believe the earth is flat, should I make a thread pointing out that it's not?

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. I've met some of those people

IN THE FLESH, not in a newspaper article. That is the point.

[Dorian Gray]

119. My mother in law

claims that she can't quit (despite her high white blood cell count, her having two cancer scares, and her having diabetes) because it will be bad for her "nerves" if she quits, thus causing her to get sick.

people can convince themselves of anything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. That's the addiction for you

crack tobacco is stronger than Heroine addiction.

[Dorian Gray]

142. I quit almost six years ago

and I still crave cigarettes at times. It does have a strong chemical and physical hold over you.

[Javaman]

133. That "sickness" is called withdrawal.

That's the part they don't really like.

[Dorian Gray]

143. You are right....

I went through it myself. (Though I never convinced myself that it would be bad for my health to quit.)

[Luminous Animal]

96. It is a rare 100 year old that can tell anybody anything because

100 year olds are rare no matter how they've lived their life.

There are a lot of things that people do that will shorten their life. C'est la vie.

[graywarrior]

3. Get ready for being reminded of you posting the same tired old shit

and other delightful accusations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Look up thread

why I'd better reach for the asbestos...

:-)

[graywarrior]

Link?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7232527&mesg_id=7232537

[graywarrior]

31. Ahh...remember my thread? I got pulverized.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6985320

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Of course and here I am not even dealing with secondary

only primary

[graywarrior]

37. You're evil.

No stocking stuffers for YOU!

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. I am Jewisn and Hannukah Harry does not stop at home anyway

:-)

[laughingliberal]

95. See, that's just wrong. I never smoke around non-smokers. I never did, even before there were laws

about it. I tend not to spend much time around non-smokers but, when forced into their presence, I avoid it.

[seabeyond]

100. so many family and friends lecture me on their hate of smoke. when i disengage to go smoke

totally away from them, even to the point of being out of sight, so they dont have to SEE me smoke, they follow. i tell them, go away, i am going ot smoke. oh no... no no, it is ok, cause they want to continue the conversation

it is like

wtf

i endure your lecture and how offensive it is, but you wave hand to dismiss cause you want to continue a conversation.

just amazes me. and

enlightens me

another

is the non smoker that says, you smoke; dont want to be around you

ok, fine. not a loss, lol. they act like they are depriving me of something, lol. i just think it is a hoot

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. I leave if I have a choice

my asthma acts up if I don't.

Yes I am that sensitive to it. It could be from second hand smoking for half of my life, or from Mexico city smog, or most likely both. (As well as some smoke eating while in rescue services)

I just leave... and then come back and pick up the conversation where it was.

If you chose to keep smoking, be my guest though.

[seabeyond]

103. that is fine that you do. but my point is.... so many mouth off about it, but

what i have found, when something takes precedent for them beyond their hate of smoking, they just dont feel as strongly about it.

i am the one willing to leave. so no problem there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Well I do because the last time I did not

I came this close to a few hours at your local Emergency Room. And I carry my inhaler anyway when I KNOW I will be around people who are smokers. I know it is an addiction. I know how strong it is. I also know that if they started selling NATURAL tobacco some of it would go away. It is in the processing of it. IT is crack tobacco... which makes it that much more addictive, and that much more damaging.

IF they did that, we'd hear smokers complaint that they lost their kick.

:-)

Would be good, it would take away some of the witches brew in the smoke, and not precisely make it a health product, but make it less dangerous.

[seabeyond]

109. fine nad. you talk about starting this post for the FEW that deny effect of smoking

then go on and on about walking away. fine. walk. as i say, i would walk first. that is what you want. right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Nah from your posts that is what you want

the whole discussion to go away.

By the way second hand smoke is not crock. You need to learn to read all them studies. After all a kid that grows up in a household with smokers has a better chance of developing asthma, for example, than a kid that does not. Guess what? Kids do die from Asthma. NO, they will not drop like flies but you will have MORE dying. ANd yes I am simplifying the conclusion of thousands of studies done in the US alone. Let's not even go world wide.

You deny all of the science that is being done. So I'd say the one in denial is you.

Oh and before you accuse me of this again... I am not morally superior to you. I just know how to interpret those studies, and their results.

What is this? A world wide conspiracy against smokers? I wish the companies were forced to make a healthier product though and chiefly that much less addictive.

[laughingliberal]

120. I do know how to interpret studies and have already posted the conclusions of one of the first

researchers involved in gathering the data. He had the raw numbers. He knows what they said. And he, absolutely, said the information they were feeding us was grossly exaggerated. I'll take his word for it. He's been at this for years, is a highly respected researcher, has no political agenda to sell, and does not smoke himself. No reason in hell for him to be less than honest about what he found.

My point has never been that 2nd hand smoke is not dangerous. It is that the real dangers of it have been exaggerated and those interpreting the data to provide them with a desired conclusion or cooking the numbers to 'prove' something they already believe do themselves and their cause no good. Once they are shown to be liars their credibility is gone. How do you figure out which part they are now telling the truth about? It is, exactly, like the example I gave of those who sought to scare us in my teenage years about the evils of drug use with the ridiculous anti-drug propaganda films. Even as teenagers we knew that was crap. And the people pushing that crap were now all liars to us. They lost all ability to then convince us of the real dangers of drug use and there are many. What the hell is the deal with the tactics of trying to change people's behavior with fear and dishonesty? It never works. Fear will only work for as long as the fear lasts. Dishonesty will only work as until the truth comes out. People can handle the truth. A lot of people will attempt to quit with accurate information.

Those who can't or won't aren't going to quit because people start running around with their hair on fire. Those who are truly concerned for our health could lobby for some programs to pay for addiction treatment for us and regulations which force insurance companies to cover treatment for smokers the same as they do treatment for other addictions. While you're at it let's talk about mental health parity. Many smokers are suffering from conditions with symptoms that improve with smoking. 90% of people with ADD smoke. A very high percentage of those with depression smoke. The release of dopamine keeps the symptoms at bay. I have quit many times. I have listened to the crap about how "after 3 days, it's all in your head." Well, the craving is all is gone after 3 days but the other symptoms become worse the longer I go without smoking. It was proven some years back that the hardcore smokers who can't quit no matter what have abnormally low dopamine levels. They can not quit without addressing the issues which the nicotine is controlling. I was seeing a doctor for my ADD some years back who was once the head of neuro-psych for the VA, nationally. He told me that if they ever find a non-fatal way to target the same nicotine receptors that smoking does, they will knock every other anti-depressant and anti-anxiety agent off the market, as well as a lot of other drugs. The current nicotine replacement products do not target the same receptors.

The funding to help those with mental illness is almost non-existent since the days of Reagan. If you're concerned about our health then start fighting as hard to change this as you do to prove how evil we all are. Yes, I am aware of the dangers of smoking. I am also aware of the impact on my life when the conditions kept under control by smoking start going wild. Might I die a few years before my time? Sure. But is that enough motivation for me to live the years until then in major depressive episodes, unable to focus on tasks in front of me? No, it's not. Is it worth having my IBS go wild cause the nicotine has been keeping it under control? Not to me. Why would I want to live longer if I'm miserable? It is a classic example of an old joke. Not everyone who quits smoking lives longer but it feels like it. I do not impose my smoking on others. But I refuse to live the years I have left in misery from depression, uncontrolled ADD, active IBS because the knowledge that I smoke offends someone else's sensitivities and the ability to condemn and lecture smokers allows them to have a sense of smug superiority. I know the people who are really trying to help us when I meet them. Their compassion tells me who they are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. One versus how many?

That falls in the category of weather change...

I guess they are also exaggerating that.

Oh and this had not one iota to do with Reagan by the way.

[laughingliberal]

127. It's not the same at all. They did not commission their own studies. They lied about his.

The researcher with whom I worked did the original studies. The very ones from which the first reports were written. There were not conflicting studies disputing his numbers. It was HIS data from which they formuated the reports. This is NOT he said/she said. It is he said and they cooked his numbers and reached conclusions which were not there. Period. He had no reason to lie. He has a successful practice, is a successful author, has nothing to gain from lying. His practice does not involve the issue at hand in any way. His books are not written about this subject. He has no reason to lie about it. If subsequent studies showed trends his did not, it does not change the fact that they blatantly made up scenarios which, were in no way, shown by the data. Here's the problem with that. For the sake of argument, let's say the data proving their desired conclusions is there now. What would now entitle them to the benefit of the doubt? That's the problem with lying. Ever after, even when you're telling the truth, there is always a question in the minds of others.

The issue with the climate change (weather is an entirely different matter) is that you have groups of scientists who do crooked research to benefit the petroleum industry. They are paid by them and they fake their own numbers. It is not the reputable scientists' numbers that others are taking and cooking. See how that's different? An entirely other group of scientists doing their own dishonest research and throwing it out to compete with the original investigators. Not the original investigator looking at a report and saying, "They are lying about what my data showed."

I'm not sure why you are defending Reagan. I believe it is historically accurate that he began the cuts to funding in the area of mental health. It's a fairly well documented fact that homelessness among the mentally ill increased dramatically as the result of this. It is consistent with his overall philosophy of letting the weaker fend for themselves while taking care of the rich. But feel free to defend Reagan all you want. I just don't expect that to make you a lot of friends among the poor, mentally ill, or working poor. And, again, I'm simply overwhelmed by the compassion. Yours is not a case of wanting to find answers and help for those caught in an addiction with underlying mental health concerns. Yours mimics the attitudes of those who would prefer to punish and criminalize us. It's good stuff for preaching to the choir of like minded people but you will not sway many smokers with those tactics.

Again, I don't smoke around non-smokers. If they can't provide some sort of help, I don't need their lectures.

edited punctuation

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. You are talking about Reagan, I am not

You broght him to this conversation, not me.

And yes, it is the same thing.

Or are you claiming this is a world wide conspiracy to attack smokers through this side issue called secondary smoking?

Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

You feel under attack, so be it.

So let me make this clear for you.

This is not a moral judgment...

Smoking is an addiction... you enjoy it, by all means, have fun.

And if you smoke cigs long enough it will be have side effects sooner or later, that is the truth of smoking. And it is also true that if the formulation changed and moved away from all the things they do, it would be LESS addictive, and a little less harmful.

Now I think we are truly done. You are the one trying to bring into this discussion what is not part of it... by the way... Reagan and mental heath, though distantly or directly connected to this (it is an addiction) is not part of THIS discussion.

[laughingliberal]

136. I brought up the fact that Reagan cut fundiding for mental health and there is no

denying it. And it is not distantly related for smokers who can not quit without some mental health services.

I am claiming the data about second hand smoke was ginned up to make it look worse than it is. I am not saying there is no danger to it. I am saying it is not as dangerous as they have made it out to be. So, why would they do that. Well, let's look at the results. Public opinion has now demonized smokers. Everyone cheers when they raise taxes on cigarettes. It is raising huge amounts of money which they then use for all sorts of things which benefit those not paying that tax. An uncle of mine in the late 1970''s was working in military intelligence. I was a young adult at the time and we were talking one day about smoking and how it was good there was information out there now to stop kids from smoking as I wished I had not started. He said something which, at the time (I was still rather naive) shocked me. He said, "If all the smokers in this country quit smoking today, the government and the economy would collapse." And that was before they were relying as much as they are now on us for revenue. They are now reaching diminishing returns. There are fewer smokers and the revenue is decreasing. They are having to raise the taxes further on people who still smoke to cover the shortfall. Eventually, with luck, it will reach the point where they will have to look for the revenue somewhere else. The saving to the system from people quitting in no way comes close to the revenue collected. Why do I think they might gin up the numbers about second hand smoke? To turn public opinion around so no one stands up and asks if it is fair to be trying to balance the economy of the nation on the backs of smokers. "It's what they deserve," is the attitude. I don't care. I've accepted it will be this way. I just wonder where they go next for the money when they no longer get it from us.

I accept the possibility smoking may cause me some health problems in my later years. It has not been the case in the history of my family but it could happen. The last attempt I made to quit smoking failed after 3 months when I was taken in, unconscious, to the emergency room after a suicide attempt. I had determined that I was going to stay off cigarettes no matter what. The exacerbation of my depression was horrible. The medications I was on did not help. But, damn it, if others could do it, I was just as good as they were. Guess what? I wasn't. I have my reasons for not quitting. Were there help available to actually deal with the problems quitting causes me I would try again. Until then, this works for me and it is not about "have fun."

You can dismiss the lack of funding for the mentally ill as not part of this discussion. But it is disingenuous to believe you are part of the solution by telling people smoking is bad if you don't care that smokers, have little help with the battle. If you don't believe funding should be restored or increased for this vital need then you really aren't interested in helping.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Once again YOU are bringing Reagan in

been a generation, we need to refund Mental Health, but like all promises... neither party delivers.

That is a DIFFERENT discussion. And it is a DIFFERENT discussion that takes us into national health care, national priorities, and all that. The system is collapshing and we don't get reform in any way, shape or form... that is a different discussion.

As to being addicted, you are, I see you admit it. Cost benefit for you, that is fine. I am not dismissing the fact that it is a HIGHLY addictive substance, actually worst than Heroine. But you are also dismissing data saying it is exaggerated. Well guess what, so are Global Weather Change deniers. Either the world is not heating up, or it is part of a natural cycle... we are addicted to fossil fuels, as a species that is... same mass behavior.

So is this a world wide conspiracy about second hand smoke?

I guess it is.

Good luck, I really mean it. I hope you do beat the odds, and all that.

[laughingliberal]

141. It is not a a different discussion. I pointed out the varous factors working against those heavily

addicted smoker who would quit if the support for quitting was there. Pretty simple. There are those who can't quit without help. It's not just Reagan. It's everyone who hasn't restored any parity to the system since then.

It is worse than heroin. I spent a year in residential drug rehab when I was 17. And it was a piece of cake compared to the battles I've had with cigarettes. It serves no purpose to lecture and shame those people still smoking. Put your energy into supporting programs that help make sure the kids of today don't take it up.

My point about the dishonesty we saw with the initial studies on 2nd hand smoke are not that it is a world wide conspiracy. I, truthfully, have no dog in that fight. I don't smoke around non-smokers. I do not frequent places that forbid smoking. It affects me, directly, not in the least. My point is someone had a reason to skew the initial results. The initial results would more than have supported the sensible legislation that banned smoking in public especially in the presence of children. I don't know the answer. I suspect it was to gin up sentiment against smokers to allow the excessive taxation of them. I don't care, really. We've adjusted. They're seeing the diminishing returns now and will be moving on to the next group of evildoers for their revenue soon.

I don't care if I beat the odds or not. I'm old, I'm poor. If I live as long as the rest of my family, I'm in deep shit.

[laughingliberal]

116. Thank you, I will. Cigarette smoke is an irritant which can trigger asthma attacks in people

I am the opposite. I had asthma as a child and started smoking at 12. Never had another asthma attack. Finally got around to asking a doctor why my asthma attacks would have stopped when I started smoking. The answer is nicotine is a smooth muscle relaxer and the bronchi are smooth muscle. Doesn't justify it but is something you never hear. Same with ulcerative colitis. Many people who have ulcerative colitis are never diagnosed until they quit smoking. The smooth muscle relaxation of nicotine keeps the disease under control.

I have no problem not smoking around non-smokers. I do what I can to avoid them, of course, but when forced to be around them I don't smoke. I was always a considerate smoker-never did care for smoking around others who didn't smoke. Can't figure out, though, why people who become enraged at the rudeness of some smokers think it is perfectly acceptable to butt into my business, lecture me, rage, tell me how to live. Do these people insert themselves into the lives of other people they don't know over other issues which are not their business?

I also wonder, when so many colognes, perfumes, cleaning solutions, etc...are irritants which can trigger asthma attacks why we never hear the sanctimonious lectures and condemnation of people who use these substance. I began to have a few asthma attacks again at 47. Mostly if exposed to rabbit fur or alfalfa but have had some attacks triggered by cleaning solutions and some colognes. It has never occurred to me to start pushing to have colognes banned because I am sensitive to them. I may have to excuse myself from a room where someone is wearing cologne or some such thing but I don't go back and lecture them about wearing it. I guess it's just never been in my personality to insert myself into the personal choices of others whose lives do not affect mine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. My mother in law was different

smoker for 25+ years, with asthma. She has not had one attack since she stopped.

Proving once again, bodies are different as well.

And I try to leave because I know it is my responsibility to take care of myself, as nobody else will do it as well as I can.

[laughingliberal]

121. Yes, people are different. And I do not advise people to smoke and I do not smoke around non-smokers

Hell, I don't like second hand smoke and will move away from an area with too much smoke in it. I don't ask anyone to endure my second hand smoke. I'm not sure why, in an alleged, free country people who don't know me or live with me or ever have to breathe any of my smoke think they get to impose their opinions of my behavior on me. Course, I've never understood why the American public believes the personal lives of their politicians are their business, either. If my legislator is cheating on his wife with a consenting adult and is doing a good job, otherwise, I don't give a damn. I didn't elect him to be a good husband.

[malaise]

145. I thought you were attempting to quit a

few months ago.
Quitting is good.

[seabeyond]

147. yes it is and i have been trying for a while now

and i have not quit trying to quit. lol. i am gonna go another direction beginning of year.

it is hard

i have done other things and total control, be it eating, drugs of different sorts, whatever, has never been a challenge. smoking is a challenge.

yes

quitting is good. and i really really want


people say you will quit when ready. there really is nothing i like about smoking. i am ready. i do want. and i havent been able to do yet

i dont beat me up, crucify me, guilt me, degrade me in order to quit though. i do love the pathetic little me that holds on to this, it just hasnt let go yet

i dont know

* but i am not into the sanctomonious, self righteous, mocking type posts like the op's for any reason, on any issue.

[seabeyond]

4. or you could just love the person. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. What does stating a medical fact have to do with love?

Oy

[seabeyond]

16. bitchy, snarky.... an ass.

oy

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Okie dokie, medical facts are bitchy and snarky

got it.

[seabeyond]

23. okie dokie.... pretend it is about medical facts and not the post you wrote. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Okie dokie, you are right, medical facts are snarky and bitchy

sorry if you think so... But I guess they are.

[Tailormyst]

5. Just a quick note

I quit a year ago. Still to this day every "you need to quit smoking" thread or story or advertisement has one effect on me. It makes me want to go find a cigarette. Smokers know it is not good for them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Some ex cannot stand it... rare

most will have that need. It is harder than heroin, I know. GOod for you though.

[rurallib]

20. take about 10 deep breaths when you get an urge.

The urge goes away. And it is free.

[Tailormyst]

56. Yup thats what I do

Then I remember the cost that I cannot afford. Cost is what made me quit. Nothing else. Yes, sad, I know, but its a powerful drug.

[rurallib]

59. Man win I quit smokes were @ 50 cents a pack

and that about broke me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Some people find exercise helpful

essentially replace one drug for another... of course that means intense exercise.

Just trying to help there.

[Taverner]

7. It's not the drug but the delivery method

Chew Nic Gum and you're fine

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. NIc gum still has a few cardiac effects

it is a stimulant after all.

[Taverner]

21. Well yeah, but no more dangerous than coffee...

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Actually yes, more dangerous than coffee

it is a stronger drug.

Granted I'd rather have somebody addicted to the gum than the cig... as it reduces some things....

[Taverner]

52. Studies have shown no significant increase of health problems in nic gum and patch users

Than a control group that did none...

[rcrush]

8. I smoke and I know its bad for me.

And I dont care.

[Zynx]

42. Fine. Don't do it in public. You have no right to enforce that on people.

[Arugula Latte]

9. I know a woman dying of lung cancer ... from second hand smoke.

Her husband smoked like a chimney for years.

"I'm only harming myself" is bullshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. On purpose I staid away from the second hand on this OP

this is about the main user who was in denial about the damage (still is actually) for oh decades.

[dionysus]

68. the secondhand smoke debate often gets ugly. while it's obvious that prolonged exposure to it is bad

news, i kind of get a kick out of the people that think they're going to die when they walk by someone smoking outdoors...

[proteus_lives]

11. Yup, smoking's bad for you.

Trust me, no one is more aware of it then smokers.

Hey, I'm addicted I can admit it. If it kills me, it kills me. Or maybe I'll quit for good someday. (Last time I tried, I last a year.)

[kctim]

14. You don't have to

be a Libertarian to respect the individual rights and freedoms of others.

[rurallib]

17. I will support your post - My mother was one of a set of identical twins

My mother smoked. 3+ packs of Pall Mall per day. I have no idea when she started. I would guess high school.
She died of lung cancer at age 53. I watched her die, gasping for every little bit of oxygen. I had just passed 20. Really kind of young to lose your mother.
Her sister never smoked. She died of lung cancer also. Her husband smoked. But she was 83 when she died.
30 more years.

[Warpy]

39. Smoking brings out genetically programmed illness

about 20 years before it would ordinarily happen.

I was genetically programmed to develop high blood pressure. I developed it 25 years later than my parents did.

[napi21]

22. Oh I won't flame you. I've smoked for 50 years, and I know

some day SOMETHING is going to kill me. Personally I"d rather it be a sudden heart attack or stroke instead of cancer of some kind or any long term thing, but I guarantee you that SOMETHING WILL, and SOMETHING will get you too someday.

[RebelOne]

29. Your words are exactly what I tell people.

I am a smoker and I have smoked for over 50 years. I am 70 now. I say that something is going to kill me eventually, so it may as well be something that I enjoy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. It is the COPD and the Emphyzema that get most patients who live

long enough and it SUCKS.

[G_j]

25. the gov. ought take that war money and offer free rehab

services to smokers. my 2 cents

[seabeyond]

27. lock in room, straight jacket and drug ya for 30 days. i hear ya. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. And other drug users

correct.

To a point that is a side discussion.

:-)

[bjb]

49. The government help smokers?

What a joke! The government loves the taxes smoking brings in. The money states have received from tobacco settlements have never been spent on helping smokers quit. With all the money brought in, a smoker should be able to go into any drug store and get whatever smoking aid they need to quit for free.

[sinkingfeeling]

32. You know, most people do die from something. It could be cancer, or a heart attack, or a stroke with

an underlying cause of smoking. Or not. It could be cancer from getting that CT scan at age 20. Or you could have diabetes, or a heart attack or a stroke because your overweight and don't get enough exercise. You could go out through a windshield because you don't like seat belts or have your head crushed like a pumpkin because you don't believe in helmets. Or you could be sitting in your den and part of an airplane drops on your head. We're all gonna die of something.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Yeah but it is about the quality of life

at the end.

Now if you think dragging around an O2 tank... for a few years.

[sinkingfeeling]

55. I know several obese, diabetics that have to have oxygen tanks as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Of course and at the risk of hitting 'nother hornet's nest

obesity, especially the super obese, is a form of addiction too.

Both are lifestyle choices that at one point or another take on addictive behavior.

I count my lucky stars that I did not like smoking... and that I was able to lose quite a bit of weight.

[beevul]

97. To you, it is.

"Yeah but it is about the quality of life at the end."

To others, it might be about the quality of life for the majority of life.

I very much doubt that any three people measure "quality of life" exactly the same.

[vadawg]

33. i guess we could say the same of the idiots lost on MT hood, or the idiots who drown whilst surfing

or the idiots who eat to much, or the idiopts who do 1000's of other stuff that shortens our lives....

[Warpy]

35. I watched my mother die slowly for 25 years

because she quit smoking just a few years too late. I wouldn't wish that kind of death on anyone, fighting for every breath, day and night.

However, yes, it's a personal choice and some true addicts can't quit, no matter how hard they try, unless they're incarcerated somewhere and can't get their drug of choice, whether it's heroin, alcohol or nicotine. I think we can all agree that the cure is worse than the disease.

Trying any drug is a real crapshoot because we don't as yet know how to pick out the people who are set up for addiction by their brain chemistry before they try a drug.

If you smoke, it will eventually wreck your body. My mother lived to the age of 94, but I wouldn't wish that kind of "life" on Dick Cheney, although it appears he's got it and for the same reason she did.

However, it's a legal activity. I respect the right of my fellow citizens to make stupid choices that are different from my own stupid choices.

Just set fire to those things outside, m'kay? We'll get along just fine.

[superduperfarleft]

69. As a smoker, I think yours is the best post on the thread.

The assumption that we don't know what happens to our bodies due to smoking, or the assumption that we don't have experience with watching someone die of lung cancer is what pushes a helpful post into the territory of scolding. Your post accomplishes what I would guess the OP is trying to do, without coming off like a condescending nag.

And I always smoke outside. ;)

[Brother Buzz]

41. Ernest Borgnine agrees

He smoked five packs a day for over forty year before he finally quit. He's 92 years old and the last chapter of his autobiography addresses smoking with some simple advice: DON'T or quit. He considers himself lucky to be living on borrowed time but lives with the knowledge the hammer will drop, even if he's over ninety years of age.

[seabeyond]

43. 92 friggin yrs old is "borrowed" time. lol. i be happy to make 65. nt

[Brother Buzz]

46. I smoked for over forty years too

I got tagged in my mid-fifties with stage four C (but not lungs). Statistics suggest I'll be lucky to reach sixty-five, but Quinton McHale gives me hope.

[LynneSin]

61. Borgnine may be lucky he's live that long smoking 5 packs a day but he probably smells awful

Heavy smokers just have the worst smell to them from all that smoke. I use to sit near someone at work who was a heavy smoker and ugh, it was just horrible. I realize I can't 'catch' anything from people smelling bad but it doesn't make it easy to work while trying to hold back your gag reflexes.

[pipoman]

140. Ernie has looked dead for the last 25 years..

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

44. Even if you quit, you won't necessarily escape its effects

My dad started smoking when he was 16. He quit in 1997, at 49. Not a cigarette since a quintuple bypass then, at 49.

In April 2009, he just couldn't pee anymore. They thought it was a kidney stone. After emergency surgery, several tumors in his bladder were biopsied. The pathologist report: carcinoma in situ of the bladder, highly aggressive.

It is estimated that at least 50% of bladder cancer cases are due to smoking and quitting won't keep you safe. When you smoke, all those chemicals that you inhale in such strong concentrations (unlike exhaust which, unless you stick your mouth around a tail pipe, you won't inhale in such high concentrations), filter through your blood and eventually through the kidneys.

Some deposit within the bladder walls and, with some mechanism that still isn't known (not discounting genetics, of course), eventually aids in the progression of cancer.

So now he faces a radical cystectomy, where he is going to have a hole in his abdomen through which he will release his urine, and he probably won't be able to have a regular sex life any more.

I never touched a cigarette (indeed, since I was a little girl I've had a bit of a cigarette phobia. Can't touch one; can't even touch a carton, nor ash, nor a butt; but I know I certainly inhaled a lot of second-hand smoking which, no doubt, has affected my current exertion-induced asthma.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I understand that

and hugs about your dad. As your Ashma... yes it is part of the lot... of second hand smokers...

Hope he does have some quality of life.

[Le Taz Hot]

138. Holy shit.

You DO realize that your diatribe is going to act as a DISensintive, right? :eyes:

Here. Here's some REAL science for those of you who would like to quit smoking. There are IMMEDIATE benefits.

http://www.blisstree.com/healthbolt/what-happens-to-your-body-if-you-stop-smoking-right-now/

[RedCappedBandit]

45. There are only two types of smokers that get to me:

1) The ones who insist on standing right at the entrance to a building and blow their smoke in your face.
On my college campus, you can get a ticket for smoking within 20 ft of a building.
Then they go and put the ashtrays right next to the doors, wtf? So I can't even really blame the smokers.

2) The ones that claim moral superiority. I know plenty of smokers who look down on other drug addicts but don't see a problem with their own drug of choice. Ridiculous.

[notadmblnd]

50. No one gets out alive

No one is guaranteed a tomorrow no matter what. If you don't like smoking, don't go around it. Hell it's been banned in so many places that it shouldn't be that difficult for you to avoid. But I can guarantee, something is going to kill you. No one outside of an accident has died perfectly healthy. Just ask the dead jogger they found in the parking lot of my employer early one morning.

[TexasObserver]

51. That deserves a press conference, this news that smoking is bad for one.

This is why I read this board. Cutting edge news and commentary.

Oh and ahem, apple pie and ice cream taste great, but are very fattening with no nutruitional value.

[seabeyond]

53. apple as in apple pie. cream, calcium as in ice cream. i read the board to argue

lol

[snooper2]

54. stem cell research...

by the time my lungs are shot I'll just have a new set grown in glass jar :)


You can now resume to read other threads on the Internets while stuffing your face with twinkies :evilgrin:

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Them twinkies

how old?

:evilgrin:

[Bluenorthwest]

57. About that asbestos

it is extremely toxic, and a causes cancer. Interesting that you would use that particular word. If I ask the question, would you rather actually hide behind plenty of asbestos or smoke a pack of Camels, what would your answer be? Would you be willing to demonstrate with actual asbestos, while I smoke a pack of Camels?
The words we use say so much more than we intend sometimes. Thank you for that lesson.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Two reasons

it is what is called an ALLEGORY.

And in case you wonder, as toxic as it is... in some fire rescue it is still used. See Aircraft. See them silver suits?

[laughingliberal]

58. Although the statistics are difficult to nail down, the best numbers I could find show

about 15% of smokers get lung cancer. COPD affects about 15-30% of smokers. These were the statistics I first heard a few years ago while working for an oxygen company doing respiratory assessments on oxygen patients. It was kind of interesting to watch the participants in one continuing ed class we took. The instructor first asked the class what percentage of smokers they thought got lung cancer. Every answer the class gave, every one of them, far exceeded the actual numbers. Students were yelling out 90%, 75%, 50%. Not one person guessed below 40%. I did not answer as I already knew the stats having worked in oncology for a number of years. He then asked what percentage of smokers develop COPD (a group of lung diseases which includes emphsema, asthma, and chronic bronchitis). He got me on this one because I assumed the rate for this to be high, like in the over 50% range. No one in the class guessed <50%. There were audible gasps throughout the room when he announced 15% of smokers get lung cancer and 15-30% of smokers are diagnosed with COPD. A quick search this morning confirmed these numbers still hold. One site listed COPD as occurring in 25% of smokers but that still falls in the range I learned some years back. Ignoring the fact that smokers with lung cancer and COPD are often the same people and just adding the highest numbers together this gets you to 45% of smokers who develop serious lung disease. These are the numbers for the United States. I would guess the lung cancer rates are lower in other countries due to the recent discovery of the presence of a substance in American cigarettes not found in the cigarettes of other countries which has been tied to a type of smoking related lung cancer not seen in smokers in other countries. We have heard that the non-additive cigarettes are not safer than any others. Not entirely true. Adenocarcinoma of the lung is not seen in smokers in other countries. It has been proven that an additive used in the United States does put smokers at a risk not seen with non-additive cigarettes. Presumably the risk for other types of smoking related lung cancers are the same with non-additive cigarettes.

National news carried a story in the past year about research which had found a genetic connection to smoking related lung cancers. Here is a link to some studies looking at the genetics involved:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/04/03/36947.aspx

<snip> The paper is one of three published by Nature this week from three unique teams that have identified the same genetic locus as associated with increased lung cancer risk. The findings are a major step forward in identifying those at high risk for non-small cell lung cancer and for understanding how smoking and genetic factors interact to cause the disease.

"The major risk factor for developing lung cancer is cigarette smoking," Amos said. "What we do not understand is why some long-term smokers develop lung cancer and others don't. There are so many different cancer-causing compounds in tobacco smoke that it's hard to separate them and we don't fully understand the mechanisms that cause lung cancer."

While all smokers and former smokers are at higher risk for lung cancer, less than 20 percent of these "ever smokers" eventually develop the disease. "We need to get a better handle on how genetic factors increase risk and what molecular pathways are involved in development of lung cancer," Amos said.

The research team, comprising scientists from M. D. Anderson, Johns Hopkins University, and the Institute for Cancer Research and the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, pinpointed two spots of genetic variation on chromosome 15. <snip>


Genetic predispositions to developing COPD have long been suspected as asthma and COPD has tended to cluster in families. A link to some of the research in this area:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76664.php

<snip> Jill Ohar, M.D., senior researcher and a professor of internal medicine-pulmonary, said it's likely that -1112C/T is one of several genetic variants that influence the risk of a smoker developing COPD. About 25 percent of smokers develop the disease, suggesting that genetic factors, in addition to environmental exposure (in this case cigarette smoking), play a role.

"This finding may help us to understand why some smokers develop COPD and improve our understanding of how the disease develops," said Ohar. "It shows us that it's likely the gene/environment interaction sets you up for this disease."

Sadeghnejad said that by understanding more about the role of IL-13 in COPD, the protein may one day be a target for new drugs for the disease.

The variant has been shown to be associated with asthma, which may help explain why COPD and asthma tend to cluster in families, Ohar said. <snip>

[seabeyond]

73. about 15% of smokers get lung cancer. thank you for the FACTUAL info.

i didnt realize it was so low. common sense and reality told me it was much lower than people project, but didnt realize so low. i also realized people were genetically inclined

now this is about info in truth

not about validating smoking. there are many reasons to not like smoking. many.

but truth is always a good thing and what we dont get from anti smoking

[laughingliberal]

75. You're quite welcome. I think the dangers of smoking are significant enough

that this sort of overstating of the case (either by outright lying or implications) is unnecessary and destroys the credibility of all their arguments.

And the dangers of second hand smoke have been so blown out of proportion as to qualify as science fiction. I was in a seminar in San Antonio in the 90's with one of the researchers involved in the original studies on second hand smoke. The seminar focused on collecting data and analyzing numbers. He stated, without apology, that the articles and information he saw being circulated about the results of the studies so overstated what was actually shown it was tantamount to outright lies. In general, what they found was the only permanent damage seen by second hand smoke was to children growing up in homes where people smoked. There was never any evidence shown that smoking outside put anyone except the smoker at risk (not counting the danger of forest fires). Several people asked about people allergic to smoke and he replied that allergens are proteins (which he should not have had to tell a roomful of health professionals) and there is no protein in cigarette smoke. He did say cigarette smoke is an irritant and can be a trigger in those with asthma just as colognes, perfumes, cleaning solutions, and many other substances. He was convinced the numbers were being cooked to facilitate a political agenda. Some statistics which he readily admitted would piss off those on the vendetta against smokers were:

1) If you started smoking before the age of 16 and are still smoking at 40, you will not, statistically, increase your life expectancy by quitting (you may, perhaps, mitigate some of the side effects by quitting).
2) If you are 35 or older and have never smoked, starting now will not, statistically, decrease your life expectancy.

People are aware of the dangers of smoking. If the fear of the repercussions does not motivate them to quit, hair on fire, over the top fearmongering is not going to do it, either.

[seabeyond]

80. see, reason. the second hand story so ridiculous people and kids would be dropping like

flies for the last handful of decades.

jsut absurd and then argue suppose to buy it

all the things i teach my kids about i tell them, important to do in honesty. not in scare. scare is worthless and does more damage. honesty is good enough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Since LUNG CANCER IS ONLY ONE CAUSE

and one of the MANY consequences....

I mean if you are going to stick to truth and all that. Not that this is your interest in this whatsoever.

[seabeyond]

82. should i have put everything on subject line that i pulled from that posters post?

i dont think ALL the information would fit in that little space. but truly, if people would like to get ALL that info, they can readily click on the posters post and read it themselves as i am sure you did.

[laughingliberal]

84. I will be more than happy to provide anyone interested with the percentage of smoker who develop

heart disease, other forms of cancer, etc...but it is that really necessary? Suffice it to say, smoking is certainly dangerous.

Also suffice it to say the overblowing of the statistical dangers is one reason the rabid anti's lose credibility with those they allege they are trying to help- much as the reefer madness movie of the 30's became proof to my generation of the dishonesty of those trying to warn us of the dangers of drug use. We could see through that crap and it distracted from the real facts which might have made an impact on us. Once people showed themselves to be liars and exaggerators why would we believe anything they say? People can rarely be scared out of an addiction. If you are truly worried about their health, advocating for funds to treat smoking addiction and a regulation that insurers cover treatment for this addiction as they do any other would do more good than gleeful lectures and finger waving shaming abour the future you presume awaits us.

There are people who smoke who never experience any significant effect on their health. They tend to run in families. Those who suffer ill effects tend to run in families also. My husband and I both come from long lines of smokers. There has never been a case of lung cancer or emphysema in my family. Not one. On the other hand, everyone in his family who ever picked up the habit developed emphysema.

edited grammatical error

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. It is your choice

enjoy.

And I am not blowing anything out of my ass.

Have a good day...

The usual suspects do show up... ALWAYS.

In fact a good life... PLOINK

The pro smoke crowd is just as fanatical as the ultra lets get forbid it crowd.

[laughingliberal]

88. It is my choice and I am not pro-smoke. I am more than happy to tell anyone it is not a good idea

Neither, though, is it a good idea to exaggerate and lecture. I never knew one addict who was helped by this. I am OK with the smoking bans in public. I don't smoke in places where it is forbidden. I do not smoke at the entrances of buildings. I do not smoke anywhere a non-smoker could remotely claim they are being forced to endure my second hand smoke. Just as non-smokers have a right to be free of my second hand smoke, I claim a right to avoid their lectures about what I am doing to myself. I am far more informed on the health risks of smoking than those who would lecture me. I was an oncology nurse for 15 years and a hospice nurse for 10. And those with an opinion about my choice are, certainly, entitled to that opinion. And I am entitled to mine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Then may I suggest the ignore feature

every time there is a thread remotely connected to smoking? That way you avoid the lecture.

:-)

And all is alright with the world.

[laughingliberal]

128. I prefer to have a say in the debate. There are more issues involved with quitting for some smokers

than most would care to acknowledge. Doctors who have worked extensively with it know it. The problem is if people actually became aware of the issues involved to treat a hardcore smoker then there would be demands that help is available to us. And no one wants to spend the money. Why do insurance companies pay for treatment for other types of addiction, both inpatient and followup care, and leave people in the grips of one of the strongest addictions to fend for themselves? Here's why: the health issues which smokers have generally occur later in life, if ever. They know most of them will not still be covered under their policies by the time it costs money to treat them. Most, in this country, will be on Medicare by then. It's a cost/benefit ratio as is everything in that industry. Nice, huh? BTW, the talking points about punishing smoking because it costs so many of our health care dollars is a little disingenuous. Those smokers who do develop health problems as the result of smoking also die younger and, therefore, provide a savings to Social Security. They know it. That's why they don't use the taxes they make on cigarettes to do anything to solve the problem We're just their ATM machine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. I am all for treating addictive behavior

regardless of the cause, in a medical fashion.

By the way what you wrote, applies to grossly obese patients (a form of addiction), heroin, medical drugs. You know that, I know that.

If it was up to me, if you want to cease smoking, the state should make it available to you the medical aide needed to quit, as well as the support. There are reasons why that will not happen in the current environment. In that there is no argument from me.

[dionysus]

65. every time i hear ppl claim there's no ill effects i am amazed...

some people can get away without killing themselves... that's called a very lucky few...

[laughingliberal]

76. 15% of smokers get lung cancer, 15-30% develop COPD

There are more smokers who never develop serious lung disease than there are who do. Doesn't mean it's safe but does not mean the ones who avoid these problems are a "lucky few."

I've never met anyone who claims there are no ill effects of smoking. And I would correct them if I did.

[dionysus]

98. i know. i am so glad i quit that shit.

[TxRider]

148. I'm not

It took over 25 years of smoking for me to see any effects.

But there were eventually effects, that got worse after 25 years..

[Hello_Kitty]

66. They should stop funding non-smoking related programs via sin taxes on smoking

I don't have a problem with taxation being used to disincentivize smoking or pay for smoking-related health issues, but we shouldn't be paying for things like childrens health care with it.

[laughingliberal]

77. Might be more helpful to use the money for treatment programs to help smokers quit but, then again,

I don't think helping people quit has ever been the goal of the taxes.

[superduperfarleft]

70. People might actually listen to you

if you didn't come across like a finger-waving nag (and the little martyr crap at the end is completely over the top). Sad, because you actually seem to have a valid point.

[onehandle]

74. People are welcome to smoke, just not around me. Laws are taking care of that.

80% of Americans are being protected more and more with each passing year from this minority.

And these laws will get more and more strict.

Interestingly, these laws are inspired and created in the most liberal and conservative communities in America.

Seems like we do have something in common.

[laughingliberal]

79. The laws are taking care of that and, yet, I still run across people who have never endured one puff

of second hand smoke as the result of my habit who want to start with the lecturing, nagging, shaming, etc...

My question: If I have never smoked around you, what the hell's it to you what I do? I avoid non-smokers for the most part.

[joeybee12]

81. And the addicts come out to defend their addiction! K&R!

[laughingliberal]

89. And the self-righteous come out and defend their smug superiority. nt

[joeybee12]

117. You're an addict buddy, plain and simple...if you could give it up tomorrow,

it'd be a choice...but you can't...you're addicted...seek professional help. Stop trying to rationalize your addiction as something other than what it is.

[JonQ]

83. By that logic shouldn't any acitivity that can be shown to be unhealthy

be banned as well?

Good bye junkfood, sodas, television, booze, and casual sex, hello forced exercise, dieting and monogamy!


I mean, you can't just ban things that other people do, but defend your poison of choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Point where in the OP is the word ban...

[JonQ]

87. Not really sure what other point there could have been

that tobacco is bad for you? Um, ok? That's not really a discussion. It's a proven fact.

It may be that all you wanted to do was point that out for us. But I don't see why.

[laughingliberal]

90. A chance to express a punishing, smug, self-righteous attitude towards those who choose to do

something they don't agree with. It is a bit of plus to some people to do this and then congratulate themselves on their superior judgement and character.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Those statements are about you, not the rest of us

there is no moral superiority when we are talking about addictive behavior. And truth be told, everybody has an addiction... mine are pens... I just collect them.

[seabeyond]

110. talk about denial. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Well if you are that sensitive

about it, seek help. Serious.

Again, there is no moral superiority when talking about addictive behavior.

Let me emphasize this for you. There is no morality involved when talking about addictive behavior, whether this is illegal drugs, legal drugs, (coffee, alcohol or tobacco), Food, OCD, or any other addictive behavior. If you believe that any conversation on this involves moral superiority, do seek help. Or at least with me it does not. I am not morally superior to you because I happen NOT to smoke. I have my addictions, they are pens... I have a hell of a collection... alas I am not in denial of it. It is healthier than other possible addictions out there. Those include legal drugs, illegal drugs, or food.

[seabeyond]

112. who says i am sensitive. i am calling you out for the snotty post. that is all. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. IT is not snotty

it is factual... get help. Now that is snotty, and snarky... in case you need a translation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Again this was not about a ban

that is nuts. And that goes for many other drugs that currently are illegal.

And yes it was ... let me translate this for you, if you imbibe in this particular drug, in this particular delivery system, given enough time you will suffer the consequences, that's it.

If you choose to smoke, realize the we know it is bad for you, most smokers (and other drug users) are in true denial as to how bad it really is.

Have a good day, and next time read the OP, OK.

I should add, the current delivery system is also far more addictive than in its natural form, it is crack tobacco, not tobacco. It is also a little more toxic. Thank the companies for that. They did that on purpose.

:-)

Why do you think Tobacco was used by Native Americans without that many addictive issues?

[JonQ]

124. So the whole point of this post waws that smoking is bad for you?

Alright. Sure. That needed to be said.

Next up: water is essential to life.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Read whatever you want into the intentions of posters

that is YOUR issue, not mine.

Have a good fucking life...

Oh and I do suggest the ignore thread feature if this bugs you so much.

[JonQ]

129. It doesn't bug me

just strikes me as silly.

Do we really need a new thread pointing out the ill effects of smoking?

Next you should do one saying "hey fatties, not getting enough exercise and eating too much is making you fat, deal with it".

See how that goes over.

[onehandle]

91. Kill yourself with smoke. Fine.

Just don't do it around me in public.

[laughingliberal]

92. I do think laws have been established for that. No worries here. I avoid non-smokers. nt

[JonQ]

130. I don't smoke

nor do I advocate it.

I just don't see the point of this thread.

[MilesColtrane]

93. "the consequences are not nice"

Anyone who can read, and who has bought a pack of smokes in the last 39 years knows that.

[laughingliberal]

94. Ok. Water Wet, Grass Green. Cigarettes Bad. Anything else? nt

[Cetacea]

107. Cars,fat,sugar,Co2, ban them all. Oh wait, I like sugar.

[laughingliberal]

131. Lol!

:rofl:

[Duppers]

115. 2 days ago, my brother, a 40+year smoker, was diagnosed with

Lung cancer!

3 yrs ago he had a heart attack but didn't quit. I begged him but my words rolled off.

I am furious because I CARE.

I understand the habit---I was there---3 packs @ day, but I stopped cold turkey.
Wasn't easy but I stopped--26 yrs ago.

[laughingliberal]

132. It's very sad. There needs to be more help for people who can not quit cold turkey

but there is not. This does go back to the debate on mental health parity in this country. We don' t spend the money to help people with issues we feel they should just be able to 'buck up and get over.' We criminalize and ostracize.

Many people have been able to quit without help and it's difficult for them. I am convinced, though, that the extent to which someone is able to quit on their own is, in most cases, dependent on the level of addiction (not everyone with a physiologic dependency is an addict in the full sense of the word) and the severity of underlying issues which lead to the addiction in the first place.

There has to come a day when the addict sees the benefits of quitting as outweighing the problems quitting creates in their life. Once they reach that point, some will need emotional support and, possibly, medical help to deal with depression, ADD, and other issues which the smoking masked.

I am sorry to hear about your brother. My best friend died of lung cancer at 48. Another close friend of mine died at 43 of a heart attack. The one who died of lung cancer had quit smoking 2 years earlier but not in time. The friend who died of the heart attack was still smoking. He had been battling it for a number of years and had many valiant attempts to quit, which failed, behind him.

[Hatchling]

125. Yup.

Years of smoking = COPD for me. I guess I'm fortunate in that the person(my mom) who gave me permission to smoke as my sixteenth birthday present died of cancer. It could have been worse.:sarcasm:

I'm smoke free since August 22nd, but not nicotine free. My income is going to be reduced by more than $300 dollars in the next few months and I am desperately trying to get off the nicorettes as well by then.

I can breathe easier, and my health seems stronger, but I have permanent damage to my lungs that will not heal as it would have if I had stopped earlier. I will never be able to run again.

The reason I finally stopped? Not my health! In fact I was smoking little cigars like cigarettes because they were cheaper and I could afford them. The reason I stopped was social pressure. I joined two new groups of women and none of them were smokers. When the groups went on break, no one joined me outside for a ciggy. And when I went back inside, I could see noses wrinkling up in disgust at the smell. No one chastised me. No one said a thing, but I was losing out on valuable social interaction because of my addiction.

Sadly, I there are more resources for alcoholics and heroin addicts, than for smoker's. Rehabs, antabuse, methadone, etc. Recidivism is rank in those treatments, but the effort is still made. But arguments for not treating a nicotine addiction is that there is too much recidivism, that treatments won't work. :(

[Le Taz Hot]

137. The least effective method for

getting people to quit smoking is sanctimonious preaching.

[Cetacea]

144. And recent studies back that up.

In fact, the exact opposite happens.

[invictus]

146. kick