Do you smoke?
-
A TV presenter called Roy Castle never smoked a day in his life and he died of lung cancer. In his early career he played trumpet in working men's clubs and pubs. The large lung-fulls of air he had to take to play, meant breathing in loads of second-hand smoke.
I'm not saying that one case proves the theory... but it is something I always think about.
-
@tobobo said:
A TV presenter called Roy Castle never smoked a day in his life and he died of lung cancer. In his early career he played trumpet in working men's clubs and pubs. The large lungfuls of air he had to take to play, meant breathing in loads of send hand smoke.
It means nothing. It's just coincidence, an example loved by pressure groups such as ASH to win points.
Both grandfathers of my wife, both lived to 99 and 101. Both smoked all their lives. In fact one of them also drank a glass of Vodka everyday too!
Herbie Hancock has probably played in more smoky nightclubs than Roy has had hot dinners! Herbie's now 71 and he's still going strong!
-
@unknownuser said:
It's like getting advice from Ozzy Osbourne
[attachment=0:23fn45vv]<!-- ia0 -->Image 1.png<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:23fn45vv]
-
Fun fact: when people smoked on planes the air was fresher, as they would have to air-condition the cabin more thoroughly
-
It has nothing to do with keeping people in 'mud huts'.
It has everything to do with tobacco companies switching their focus to 3rd World countries who are too poor to resist...after smoking restrictions were introduced in the West.
Link.Roy Castle's death due to secondary inhalation is not 'coincidence'. It was a proven fact and was a major factor in the establishment of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. The fact that Herbie Hancock has survived is down to luck and genetics...as in the case of my grandmother who smoked profusely into old age. My grandfather on the other hand...a burly longshoreman who used to roll his own...died in his 50's weighing only 6 stone (84 lb)
-
@alan fraser said:
It has nothing to do with keeping people in 'mud huts'.
It has everything to do with tobacco companies switching their focus to 3rd World countries who are too poor to resist...after smoking restrictions were introduced in the West.
Link.I'm sorry Alan, but I think it has everything to do with 'mud huts'.
And while it is probable that 98% of lung cancer 'may' caused by smoking, other factors caused by nitrosamines and acrylamides come into play. These can be from frying bacon, cooking chips or even drinking beer. Actually, all the things the British Food Standards Agency love to hate, and love to preach to us what and what not to eat or smoke.
But what you haven't taken into account is that I was talking about smoking tobacco replacement therapies such as gum, pills and vapourisation. With 'vaping' there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any carcinogenic risks involved. So with that, why are we stopping Africans from harvesting tobacco for alternative enjoyment?
@alan fraser said:
Roy Castle's death due to secondary inhalation is not 'coincidence'. It was a proven fact and was a major factor in the establishment of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. The fact that Herbie Hancock has survived is down to luck and genetics...as in the case of my grandmother who smoked profusely into old age. My grandfather on the other hand...a burly longshoreman who used to roll his own...died in his 50's weighing only 6 stone (84 lb)
It was a proven "fact"? Where?
In the case of your own parents and my grand parents don't you see any paradoxes? Your grandfather being a "longshoreman" who died in his 50's? What from smoking? Or perhaps via the passing of tonnes and tonnes of other environmentally hazardous chemicals and substances later found out to be highly detrimental to human health?
While there are many reports that clearly show that smoking can be highly detrimental to your health (I, for one have already given up, and feel so much better for it too), there is still very little evidence to show that passive smoking actually causes cancer. In the case of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, I completely unsurprised that there is an emphasis on any kind of smoking causing cancer because by their very nature, the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation are a charity, and charities need to survive by attracting funders, and if you argue that disease caused by passive smoking hasn't really a leg to stand on, then you are going to turn away many possible investors? It would also be interesting to know who that list of investors are as well. (ASH or the WHO maybe?)
My basic gripe, and don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of smoking- but I've seen so many great businesses go down the pan because the smoking ban has had the opposite effect rather than the desired one, my basic gripe is being nannied by the state to be told what I can think and what I can't in the name of "The Science", where actually there is very little science/evidence to support the claim.
-
Tom, it's perfectly apparent that you think everything is to do with 'mud huts'...even if it involves being staunchly anti-capitalist on one thread and supporting and promoting the profits and exploitative practices of some of the most powerful corporations on earth...like British American Tobacco on another. Citing alternate forms of smoking is pointless. That's not the reality; that's not what is being pushed by the tobacco companies. It will never amount to anything other than a niche market.
You can fantasise all you like about other possible causes, but in the case of Roy Castle, if someone who has never smoked in his life is found to have lungs half-full of tobacco tar you have to stand reason on its head to argue anything other than secondary smoke inhalation. Similarly with my grandfather; I'll take the word of the oncologists who treated him over your speculations, if you don't mind.
-
Surely this is all about OUR freedom, all of us to make our own choice. Why can't there be smoking bars, there were non smoking bars before the ban.
Who are these people who want to treat us like children?When did we give them the right to make laws curbing our freedom without a referendum? I don't remember anyone asking me what i thought.
Suddenly it became law & we all rolled over & accepted it - never mind passive smoking, we are becoming passive tv watching, game playing, facebook users & twitts.Ok smoking might be bad for you, drugs might not do your health any good in the long run - certainly alcohol in excess is bad, but is life all about
being safe?I gave up smoking 18 months ago & i feel better for it, not to mention all the tax i used to give the government, but i loved smoking, i really did!
-
Smoking...?
Who me...?
Although my avatar tells a different story, I haven't been smoking since I was a kid...
-
@frederik said:
Although my avatar tells a different story, I haven't been smoking since I was a kid...
Well, your avatar is telling that exact story.
-
-
From a non smoker as i have already indicated....
I despise the smell; It's just not what i like. I like smelling nice stuff like rain, autumn and grandma's freshly baked scones..... As much as it urks me that my brothers do smoke considering the health issues; at the end of the day I just don't like the smell.....
I have a few brothers that do and i explain it like this:
If you don't like the smell of other peoples farts then don't expect me to enjoy the filth you blow in my face.
Scones are good.
-
Andrew, I also hate the smell of stale cigs but I do enjoy the first whiff of a light up in the morning!
I am currently smoking rollies. I buy my stock in Spain a couple of times a year for VERY low money. Smoking rollies gives me an added satisfaction, knowing that for every twenty that I smoke, I am not paying approx €5+ in TAX!
Another thing I noticed about rollies! They go out when I put it in the ashtray. Standard cigs don't because they have added 'burn on' ingredients akin the rocket fuel. Has any of the EU Governments done anything about this, NO. No, because they are more interested in collecting taxes than lessening the ill effects of cig smoke on smokers!
Getting into rollies at first is a bit time consuming but once you get set up with a good machine and know the paper and tips that suit you best, there is a certain satisfaction in the rollie making process.
The up side is that I DO smoke far less with rollies as I often get two or more smokes from a rollie. It works like this! I get the urge to smoke, make a rollie, have a few drags and put it in the ashtray, after a minute or so it goes out! When I get the next urge I relight if its of a decent length! Okay, I use far more lighters but at least the room is not being filed with smoke!
-
I used to roll my own when I was a student. I used Clan pipe tobacco. The smell was heavenly, but the taste and drug never did anything for me, so I gave it up and saved the money for the other two things....whiskey and wild, wild women.
-
hear here...
-
@mike lucey said:
Andrew, I also hate the smell of stale cigs but I do enjoy the first whiff of a light up in the morning!
I am currently smoking rollies. I buy my stock in Spain a couple of times a year for VERY low money. Smoking rollies gives me an added satisfaction, knowing that for every twenty that I smoke, I am not paying approx €5+ in TAX!
You ol' schemer !!!!!
-
@mike lucey said:
Another thing I noticed about rollies! They go out when I put it in the ashtray. Standard cigs don't because they have added 'burn on' ingredients akin the rocket fuel. Has any of the EU Governments done anything about this, NO. No, because they are more interested in collecting taxes than lessening the ill effects of cig smoke on smokers!
in nyc, it's illegal to sell cigarettes that burn longer than 70 seconds.. new york cigarettes have to have the burning agent removed (akin to salt peter so i hear)..
you know, fall asleep with a lit cigarette and set your house on fire.. do that here and you set a hundred people's house on fire
that said, they're effing expensive.. $12-$14 / pack whereas most of the country has them in the $5-$7 range..
-
@unknownuser said:
they're effing expensive.. $12-$14 / pack whereas most of the country has them in the $5-$7 range..
In NZ I pay $46 for a 50 gram pack of tobacco, our govt has the bright idea that if they up the tax on anything it helps people give up. I started smoking at the age of 12 and at 67 I'm still smoking, no ill health problems yet as long as you don't consider not being capable of running up mountains a problem. I'm getting 'p'd off at the nanny state that we live in here, but as I both smoke and drink [both heavily taxed] I can't afford to leave.
-
My name is Steve, and I have been a nicotine addict for twenty years - and I'm currently really enjoying my first puff after getting home from work, despite being pretty confident of the evidence that it isn't terribly good for me.
Is that a rational choice? In a medical sense, of course not - but I have a funny feeling that one day, I'm probably going to die anyway, and I like to take whatever little pleasures I can on the journey.
Irrational? Hedonistic? You bet - but the current 'nannying' model of discouraging smoking is based entirely on sociological models of human behaviour ('game theory' et al) that disregard the fact that we all have a little devil on our shoulder that sometimes just wants to enjoy 'right now' without stressing over 'what might happen if...'.
It also disregards the fact that (especially to teenagers!),making a behaviour taboo often alienates the very people at whom the message is targeted. Were this an optimal strategy for eliminating smoking, we would already have eradicated heroin addiction.Supposedly, we live in the age of 'choice'. I heartily agree that those who choose to protect their health should not be forced to be exposed to my carcinogenic 'aura', and never light up without asking first - but this can surely be done without going to such lengths as banning even open air smoking. If you want people to smoke (or do anything) responsibly then this implies that they personally are allowed the responsibility for that choice.
Although smoking can be convincingly linked to certain specific illnesses, there has nevertheless still been a rise in many bronchial illnesses during the time that smoking has been in decline - it is unfair to turn smokers into scapegoats at the same time that there are indications that many rises in health problems can be linked to far more ubiquitous pollutants such as diesel particulates. As always the finger is pointed at 'irresponsible' citizens, rather than the industrial and commercial lobbies who lose no opportunity to chip away at legislation to improve the general environment. If automobile pollution or 'addiction' to sugar, salt and saturated fats were treated the same way as smoking, there would be civil unrest unlike any since the 'civil rights' era.
Still, there is always a silver lining - ever since being made to stand outside pubs/bars/clubs to smoke, I have never been short of someone to talk to - the front porch is so often the friendliest place to be!
-
@bill wilson said:
@unknownuser said:
they're effing expensive.. $12-$14 / pack whereas most of the country has them in the $5-$7 range..
In NZ I pay $46 for a 50 gram pack of tobacco, our govt has the bright idea that if they up the tax on anything it helps people give up. I started smoking at the age of 12 and at 67 I'm still smoking, no ill health problems yet as long as you don't consider not being capable of running up mountains a problem. I'm getting 'p'd off at the nanny state that we live in here, but as I both smoke and drink [both heavily taxed] I can't afford to leave.
I guess someone has to pay for new roads, Bill!!!!
Advertisement