Do You Smoke?

[macleod]

Use your brains and think about what smoking is.....

Smoking is cool! 8)

That is what I thought when I started 109,500 cigs ago...

[mats.hogberg]

Smoking is cool!

...said the Marlboro man, just before he coughed up his last piece of tar soaked lung.


/Mats

[tompika]

Use your brains and think about what smoking is.....

Smoking is cool! 8)

You really used all your brainpower, just like L. Ron Hubbard did.

Real Audio file: http://clambake.org/archive/media_vault/Smoking.ra

"So I thought that it might be a good thing to know in event of atomic war that we would get -- we might have some chemical assist so that maybe the people who were only slightly frazzled and so forth, could -- could come out of it. And it would have to be very simple. It would have to be some common drug, some common pill.

Well, there are societies in England that are having an awfully good time fighting the cigarette. They can't do anything else, so they fight cigarettes. And they say that the cigarette causes lung cancer. And they've -- you've been hearing something of this, I'm sure. Yeah. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer! If anybody is getting a cancerous activity in the lung, the probabilities are that it's radiation dosage coupled with the fact that he smokes. And what it does is start to run out the radiation dosage, don't you see. But I'd say that would be better than not running out any of the radiation dosage at all and the number of lung cancer cases which exist, of course, that don't smoke are just forgotten about by these societies, but they are very numerous.

Anyway, there's nicotinic acid in that cigarette. Inevitably, on inhalation of tobacco, you will get some of this phenomena of face flush, but in view of the fact that a cigarette isn't pushing its smoke over the outside of the body but on the inside, of course, you run it out internally "

From SHSBC-35 6107C19, Q-and-A Period: Auditor Effect on Meter, 19th July 1961

[NamPla]

But Lee Marvin smoked cigarettes!

[NamPla]

the number of lung cancer cases which exist, of course, that don't smoke are just forgotten about by these societies, but they are very numerous.

Yes, Professor, this is the very point I am trying to make!

These "societies" that lay beneath us, well, Professor, they are doomed to shrink & decrypt into the CRYPT.

SMOKE UP, EVERYBODY!!!!

[tompika]

SMOKE UP, EVERYBODY!!!!

Yeah, go smoke a fag...

[PPlys]

Is 40 a day 'Yes, but raryly'?

[vitualis]

The type of lung cancer that is caused by smoking is actually extremely rare in non-smokers...

Regards.

[NamPla]

The type of lung cancer that is caused by smoking is actually extremely rare in non-smokers...

Does it matter what "type"?

[vitualis]

If you got cancer, you'd think it matters as it would determine your chances of living.

Regards.

[jimmalenko]

The type of lung cancer that is caused by smoking is actually extremely rare in non-smokers...

That would be ................. um, expected, wouldn't it ?

[NamPla]

If you got cancer, you'd think it matters as it would determine your chances of living.

Regards.

Ha ha, that's where I got ya! Virtualis!!! 8)

[NamPla]

WHOAAA!!! Vitualis?? Jimmalenko??? Similar AVATAR????

Are YOU the SAME PERSON??????

Hoor???

[vitualis]

The type of lung cancer that is caused by smoking is actually extremely rare in non-smokers...

That would be ................. um, expected, wouldn't it ?

Ah ha... but it is important. There are often more than one cause for any particular disease. For NSCLC, the vast majority are caused by smoking. This is also the most common type of lung cancer. For the other types of lung cancer, smoking is still often the cause but there are often other important causes as well.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1333.htm

@ NamPla: make your own avatar here: http://illustmaker.abi-station.com/index_en.shtml

Regards.

[NamPla]

Vitualis, thanks for the avatar tip-off! That was fun! But I didn't quite get what I was after...???

Maybe, my avatar is what happens to you if you SMOKE CIGARETTES!!! Ha ha... :P

[NamPla]

Forget my last comment, my new avatar ROCKS!!! It's coool, man. It looks like ME!

[SatStorm]

I use to look like this few months ago...

[mats.hogberg]

Not completely unlike mine, that I made for fun yesterday. Could have been me, had I been made of flesh and blood...

/Mats

[p_l]

Smoking was great! I was hardcore, would not be outsmoked, did it for 20 years, loved every moment of it.

A year and a half ago, I just quit.

[ricky1756]

only when I'm awake

[AlecWest]

I'm 54 years old. I started smoking the same time I got my first job as a paperboy ... when I was 8 (back in the bad old days when child labor laws weren't so strict). I lived in a rural town where, every morning at 4 AM, a Trailways bus would drop off the newspapers in front of a hotel. And, in the hotel lobby was a cigarette machine (25 cents a pack). I'd smoke on my paper route and occasionally at home (when parents were away). It was easy to get away with because my mom was a regular smoker. Further, she was one of those people who didn't like "carrying" a pack around with her. There were always different packs open in different rooms of the house. Also, I made it a point to smoke "her brand" (Raleigh filters). If I was smoking when my parents came home, I'd just toss my pack anywhere. I'm sure that sometimes, my mom would smoke out of my packs or I'd smoke out of hers.

One day, though, she decided to switch to menthols (Alpines) ... and I thought I was gonna die puking. Eventually, after I left home, I switched back to non-menthols.

A few little factoids:

(1) The airline smoking ban is not a ban, merely a restriction. Every jet maintains a bonafide smoking section. It's called "the cockpit." Yup, you can't smoke on the plane but the pilots can. Depends on the airline's policies, not any law. So, if you see a flight attendant popping into the cockpit, it might not be to say "Hi" to the cockpit crew ... but to take a few drags.

(2) Many people believe that the smoking "cabin restriction" (not ban) made the air better to breathe. Wrong. As soon as the law took effect, airlines merely cut back the speed of their cabin ventilator systems to "maintain" pre-law quality levels.

(3) Prior to the cabin restriction, preventive maintenance personnel searched for interior cabin-wall cracks simply by looking for the nicotine buildup around them. They were visible. Now, they must use sophisticated (and expensive) equipment to perform the same search.

(4) Prior to the California indoor smoking ban, a study was commissioned by the Los Angeles Restaurant Owners Association. The study concluded that, in a typical restaurant, a non-smoker would have to remain in the non-smoking section of a restaurant for 72 consecutive hours to inhale the equivalent of one cigarette.

(5) Of all the Surgeon General warnings on cigarette packs, one warning most non-smokers would expect to find is nowhere to be found ... a warning about the effects of second-hand smoking. This is not due to pressure from tobacco companies since they have no say-so on the matter ... it's up to the Surgeon General. Why? Because ill effects to non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoking have never been proven scientifically. Don't believe it? Send an email to the Surgeon General's office and ask him (as I did).

About 20 years ago, Newsweek published an issue devoted to cultural changes they noticed in the U.S. -- a move away from the tolerant live-and-let-live attitude of the 50s to a litigious society of whiners and complainers. I wish I kept a copy of that issue, titled, "The New American Crybaby." Their prediction of anti-smoking zeal was right on the money.

AlecWest
(whose great-grandfather, Angus, smoked all of his adult life and died peacefully in his sleep ... just short of his 103rd birthday)

[tompika]

Do you suckers realize that you are just victims of the tobacco industry?

[Capmaster]

Do you suckers realize that you are just victims of the tobacco industry?

And all of us aren't victims of the oil industry? What's your point?

[saladonyourlincoln]

I, too, am a friendly smoker. I don't smoke indoors nor in any automobile. I, too, am sick of the whiney-bag wimps that complain about second-hand cigarette smoke. Ironically, many people that I've known over the years that tried to quit smoking, suffered from the same fate. They became overweight and developed all sorts of bad things, predominately DIABETES. Also, even more ironic was a lecture my daughter received just about six months ago by a biology professor at a major university here in the USA. The statement went something pretty close to this: "The medical community has always blamed just about everything in the world on cigarettes and cigarette smoke. Well, let me tell you now that the medical community has also "covered up" several things about cigarette smoking that you should be aware of. Cigarette smoking is the only known deterrent to ALZHEIMER's disease and a host of other bad diseases. There are no calories nor cholesterol in cigarettes and there are tests recently concluded that conclude that PARKINSON's disease might be prevented by smoking cigarettes."

Seems to me that we have all been indoctrinated with the same medical community BS...if we don't really know that much about it and we can't cure it...blame it on cigarettes...and blame it on cigarettes they have for several years now...

[AlecWest]

Do you suckers realize that you are just victims of the tobacco industry?

Yes, we do. Other victims:

(1) People who would pay $4.00 for a $1.00 cup of coffee as long as the seller stirs in a spoonful of Nestle's Quik and refers to the drink as a "Café Mocha."

(2) People who would pay $2,500 a month in rent for an $850 a month apartment as long as the landlord refers to the dwelling as "a loft."

(3) People who still believe that Coke & Pepsi are something more than dark/sugared carbonated water.

Lots of victims out there. Comedian, Andy Kaufman, died of lung cancer and had never smoked in his life ... and Dr. Jim Fixx, a major proponent of the health benefits of jogging died of a heart attack while jogging. Life happens.

[AlecWest]

Also, even more ironic was a lecture my daughter received just about six months ago by a biology professor at a major university here in the USA. The statement went something pretty close to this: "The medical community has always blamed just about everything in the world on cigarettes and cigarette smoke. Well, let me tell you now that the medical community has also "covered up" several things about cigarette smoking that you should be aware of. Cigarette smoking is the only known deterrent to ALZHEIMER's disease and a host of other bad diseases. There are no calories nor cholesterol in cigarettes and there are tests recently concluded that conclude that PARKINSON's disease might be prevented by smoking cigarettes."

I didn't know that but certainly don't dispute those statements. I used to work for a local Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance provider. One day with nothing to do over my lunch hour, I looked through the magazines in our waiting room and came upon an issue of "Hippocrates," a magazine for doctors. In it was an article titled, "Statistical Burial."

The article mentioned a study commissioned by a group of internal medicine specialists who were absolutely convinced that coffee drinking contributed to the incidence of pancreatic cancer. The study pored over close to a thousand medical records of people who had died of pancreatic cancer ... records with complete background info on patients in regards to their diet and personal habits. However, when the study was complete, the conclusions indicated that the majority of people who died from pancreatic cancer were non-coffee drinkers ... followed by decaf drinkers, followed by regular coffee drinkers. When the internal medicine specialists discovered that the study "disproved" their contentions (actually, suggested the "reverse"), they reported publically that the study was "inconclusive" and shelved it. But, the American Coffee Council knew about the study, uncovered the findings, and published them.

In short, there are very few doctors who will publish findings that run counter to preconceived notions or prejudices since doing so would tend to lower their stature as competent practitioners.

[tompika]

Do you suckers realize that you are just victims of the tobacco industry?

And all of us aren't victims of the oil industry? What's your point?

I wouldn't depend on both.

[tompika]

Do you suckers realize that you are just victims of the tobacco industry?

Yes, we do. Other victims:

(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) ...

I don't like coffee.
I'm an owner.
I hardly ever drink Cola.

[vitualis]

(1) The airline smoking ban is not a ban, merely a restriction. Every jet maintains a bonafide smoking section. It's called "the cockpit." Yup, you can't smoke on the plane but the pilots can. Depends on the airline's policies, not any law. So, if you see a flight attendant popping into the cockpit, it might not be to say "Hi" to the cockpit crew ... but to take a few drags.

Don't know about the US, but by law it is illegal to smoke on an aircraft in Australia.

(4) Prior to the California indoor smoking ban, a study was commissioned by the Los Angeles Restaurant Owners Association. The study concluded that, in a typical restaurant, a non-smoker would have to remain in the non-smoking section of a restaurant for 72 consecutive hours to inhale the equivalent of one cigarette.

Hmm... commissioned by the Restaurant Owners Association. I'm sure that study was universally accepted as have good study design with non-biased results as well.

(5) Of all the Surgeon General warnings on cigarette packs, one warning most non-smokers would expect to find is nowhere to be found ... a warning about the effects of second-hand smoking. This is not due to pressure from tobacco companies since they have no say-so on the matter ... it's up to the Surgeon General. Why? Because ill effects to non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoking have never been proven scientifically.

You know, there is no high level evidence studies "prove" antibiotics are useful in infections either. Why? Because sometimes things are obvious and it would be unethical to put it to trial. In this occasion, there is actually quite a lot of evidence to the contrary so I suggest that you review the literature. Furthermore, that warning would probably not be on a box of cigarettes because it wouldn't be particularly effective on the smoker.

Compare:
(1) Smoking may cause people around you to become unwell
(2) Smoking may cause lung cancer

You choose.

(whose great-grandfather, Angus, smoked all of his adult life and died peacefully in his sleep ... just short of his 103rd birthday)

N =1 experience.

I suggest that you go to a respiratory unit and talk to all the people with COPD in ward. They are seriously stuffed up and sick people with no cure.

Or go to a cancer unit and have a look at all the people with lung cancer. Over 9 out of 10 of those people will not have lung cancer if they didn't smoke.

Or go to a vascular unit and have a look at the amputees with peripheral vascular disease.

Cigarette smoking is the only known deterrent to ALZHEIMER's disease and a host of other bad diseases. There are no calories nor cholesterol in cigarettes and there are tests recently concluded that conclude that PARKINSON's disease might be prevented by smoking cigarettes."

Let me stop this bullshit here and now. This is bullshit -- utter, sloppy nonsense. Cigarette smoking is more likely to cause dementia than prevent it. Results of large prospective cohort study here: http://vitualis.blogspot.com/2004/12/smoking-reduces-your-iq.html

Go forward another 10 years when people who are going to have strokes start having them. Smoking is a STRONG risk factor of strokes --> increases your chances of a vascular dementia.

The article mentioned a study commissioned by a group of internal medicine specialists who were absolutely convinced that coffee drinking contributed to the incidence of pancreatic cancer. The study pored over close to a thousand medical records of people who had died of pancreatic cancer ... records with complete background info on patients in regards to their diet and personal habits. However, when the study was complete, the conclusions indicated that the majority of people who died from pancreatic cancer were non-coffee drinkers ... followed by decaf drinkers, followed by regular coffee drinkers. When the internal medicine specialists discovered that the study "disproved" their contentions (actually, suggested the "reverse"), they reported publically that the study was "inconclusive" and shelved it. But, the American Coffee Council knew about the study, uncovered the findings, and published them.

Before you spread pseudo-science, have you actually considered that the results of that study really WERE inconclusive? The study that the above describes is a restrospective study and generally provides second-class evidence. What those general physicians found was that caffeine/coffee doesn't really have much of an effect on pancreatic cancer at all. The evidence didn't show much of any association. With a retrospective study, the only conclusion you can make is that there is no really conclusion (but likely that coffee/caffeine is neither protective or a risk factor for pancreatic cancer).

The way you can know for certain is a prospective double-blinded trial (i.e., have a group of patients and randomise one half to get coffee and the other half to get placebo) and then look at the rates of pancreatic cancer. This will not be done for some obvious reasons: (i) difficult blinding (how are you going to make a placebo coffee?), (ii) people on the placebo arm are probably going to drink coffee anyway, (iii) there is no evidence to believe from the previous weaker trials that there will be any significant effect either way, nor is there any pressing biological plausiblility to it.

Trials cost money. Unless you plan to get important results, it is probably better to not do a trial rather than doing a crappy one and get poor quality data that gives you false positives or negatives.

Regards.

[daamon]

Top man vitualis

My girlfriend's a cardiology nurse - UK trained, and now working in the Royal Melbourne, Oz - and some of the young peole she's seen because of smoking and passive smoking, not to mention the (expected) older people who are in coz of smoking - and that excludes other wards.

Never tried it, never will.