Cigarettes

Ok, before i start im not some bible bashing, propaganda spewing being or giving a patronising and rather boring health lecture. Nor am i directly attacking any of you. Its just that this has been playing on my mind for quite some time.

I've NEVER understood the concept of smoking, especially cigarettes IF so many of you know the detrimental long term effects that come along with inhaling hot fumes of a plant and how physically and mentally addictive of a drug nicotine actually is why start in the first place?! Not to mention the financial drain, yellow stained teeth, ash-tray breath and most importantly the lingering, pungent, vile aroma of tobbaco

Ok so some of you may justify your reasons for starting say it was a 'phase' during your teenage years and then you got addicted but we all know addiction is not as black and white as that. You dont get addicted that suddenly you must have kept on going to such an extent despite full-heartedly knowing the long term effects and what not.

Or were you just simply ignorant and unaware of the eternal line of side effects that come tumbling down with starting such a habit? maybe for many others of you it might've be the social status that comes along with puffing on such a vile thing. Perhaps you are what they call a 'social smoker' that only smokes on nights out?

Well evidently, im not very good at articulating what I mean, but I think you get the jist of it.

So what one was it? (why did you start in the first place?)
How old were you when you started?
Any regrets?

 

i guess its just something some people choose to do.

22 yrs old here and never even tried one, nor do I ever plan on it.

 

You're underestimating just how addictive they are, many people are pretty much hooked after five or less cigarettes.

But you're right, I've never understood why people start, not now at least when there is no debate over the incredible danger it poses.

 

I started just to see what i was like. i was 12, i do regret starting because they are a bad costly and useless habit, but i still smoke now. someday i will qu it though before i turn 18.

 

How is this a reason for using it? How about not using any dangerous substances if at all possible?

Also, what on earth do you mean by 'you are less likely to have a physical accident while using it than while not using it'?

And finally, shop bought cigarettes are not just tobacco. There are thousands of foreign chemicals deliberately inserted into tobacco products for a multitude of reasons, particularly to increase addictiveness.

It certainly does and I agree with you, but this is hardly the point of this thread.

It's not though. It doesn't only harm the smoker, it harms everyone around him, particularly young or unborn children. Also, regarding alcohol, it is possible to drink moderately and have no long term effects. A glass of wine with dinner is not harmful.

 

It may well be, but the effects are an order of magnitude apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant


So what? This is mostly propaganda, the active ingredient remains the nicotine.

And for this reason I generally try to avoid extremely processed food

Absolutely, but there is a middle ground between processed and perfectly pure goods.

I agree, but like it or not Western civilisation simply cannot function without power stations and petrol vehicles, whereas it could quite easily without tobacco.

And I would take a bet that constant smoking inside a house or a car will have a far greater impact on the lungs of a young child than the pollution produced by cars and so on. Not to mention at some point the fairly high chance of losing a parent.

I can just as easily quote a contrary study, your frequent cry of 'junk science' is hardly applicable here.

Ideally, nobody should drink. What I'm arguing is that low to moderate drinking has a far less significant effect than the same degree of smoking. This article seemed to me a fairly accurate representation of my opinion.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/alcohol/index.html

 

I am vaccinated because, through empirical science, vaccination proven to prevent fatal and debilitating diseases. You are always one for scientific integrity, this is an undeniable fact.

You proposed that car exhaust is more dangerous than cigarettes, which is somewhat true. Many of the same harmful substances are also released in power production through the combustion of fossil fuels. What exactly is your point?

When did I ever qualify pollution as 'destruction of property'?

You sir make some extraordinary leaps of logic. I don't hate smokers. I know many, and on the whole they're rational and kind people. However, I dislike smoking, because it is harmful not only to the smoker, but those around them. We've been through this.

 

smoke a Cuban cigarillo and you'll understand. I think just about everyone knows they're bad for you since half the box is covered with information about disease.

To be honest smokers (on average) are some of the coolest people around, not because they smoke, but because of their attitude towards life and social characteristics.


Everything in moderation

 

So why do you think that popular prejudice against smoking exists? There are two main points. The first is the deleterious health effects of smoking, that science has thoroughly proven. The second is that the political class increasingly frown on it, since it is more popular among the lower classes. That stems from cultural and educational changes that led to the more educated sectors reducing consumption of most harmful substances. That naturally links back to the first point.

So what your position suggests is that you think science is wrong about how harmful smoking is. Is it all propaganda, is smoking really just one of those inconsequential habits that the government has some vested interest in demonizing or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco

 

Sythe, are you a smoker?

 

Oh dear oh dear..
I'm not sure where to begin with this one

Do you see smoking as cancer-causing? Or health-debilitating?
Say, from the day you start, and then 5 decades later, you suddenly have cancer, and then you have 8 to 14 months to live.

Your health deteoriates rapidly and your immune response is weakened, you are more prone to infections and you don't recover as quickly.

Diminishing quality of life is the median they use to measure whether a patient is allowed to opt for euthanasia in the netherlands.

If you go by .. "as long as I'm not dead", sure, cigarettes is probably "better" than anything downright toxic.

Alcohol in moderation never caused any problems, while any smoking is detrimental

I believe this is a strawman argument o:

The scenario you paint of alcohol being dangerous sounds a lot llike the public service announcements for excessive consumption; besides, is this not the same prejudice you speak of in the quote above?

I am afraid syllogisms or rather, deductive reasoning is only valid when both premises are sound, The fact "bad" being a subjective view immediately nullifies the premise' validity

Premise #1: Destruction of property is bad
Premise #2: Trees are destroyed during backburning to preserve property more valuable

Conclusion: So is destruction is bad, and therefore rendering your premise false; or are we really going to not burn down trees to stop further bushfires?