Is SMOKING really injurious to health?

1. 60

   Prince Maakposted 16 years ago

   Is SMOKING really injurious to health? If Yes, why do people smoke, And why there is no World Wide Ban on smoking.
   
   I think, by banning smoking we may control the increasing pollution level a bit.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. Because they were brainwashed into it and it's addictive. There's too much money to be made.
      
      Think again. Get rid of the airplanes and the cars and I might agree.
      
      If you just remember your government thinks you are stupid - it all makes sense.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Kenny Wordsmithposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, that's the pot calling the kettle sooty! Let one who never uses a smoke spewing automobile speak about pollution. If you use passive smoking as an argument, I might agree.
         
         I never do that.
         (meaning I'm careful about who's in the vicinity.)

         replyreport
   2. 61

      thecounterpunchposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Oh my and now the great new Big Bang Buzz: cigarettes are responsible for pollution
      Happily I don't smoke.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      thecounterpunchposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      The governement doesn't care poisoning the population with barium at high toxic level and you think they would care about your health ?
      
      Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails
      http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

      replyreport
2. 44

   coolbreezeposted 16 years ago

   Ha Ha  Hell yes Mark !!!

   replyreport
3. 83

   gamergirlposted 16 years ago

   As a smoker, but a considerate soul who does not smoke in the presence of non-smokers, children or pregnant women, I can honestly say that yes, it is injurious to the body to inhale chemicals and tar and all that.  BUT.. how different is it from inhaling smoggy air, or eating too much, or any other health - impacting scenario?
   
   I smoke Djarum cigarettes.  I smoke them for flavor, barely inhaling just to get that little edge of a burn, to get the little rush a cig gives.   Oddly enough, I also donate to several organizations which plant trees yearly, I recycle and I use my buying power to support companies who show a desire to help our planet rather than hurt it more. 
   
   Smoking is a personal choice, just like the choice to have seconds of your favorite dinner food or the choice to drink alcohol.  Worldwide ban on one of the most profitable industries based on personal choice (I think smoking is a better vice to hold to than, say, gambling.)  Yeah, that won't happen.

   replyreport
4. 67

   Stacie Naczelnikposted 16 years ago

   Gamergirl, what about innocent pets? 
   
   A worldwide smoking ban isn't okay.  As a non-smoker, I do not want to deal with secondhand smoke, but the government has no right to say I cannot smoke if I want to.  It can be made more difficult and pricey, but a ban isn't justifiable.  Next, we will be banned from going outdoors during the day because the sun causes skin cancer.

   replyreport
5. 88

   Paragliderposted 16 years ago

   You go into a bar (in the Middle East where smoking is not banned) and you smell and taste smoke. You know that all that smoke has already been breathed in and out, by the smoker and then by several dozen others.
   
   You go into a bar in San Francisco or London and smell and taste bugger-all (a technical term for not-a-lot). But that same not-a-lot has also been breathed in and out by everyone present. Let's not kid ourselves that smoke is the great evil. The minute you step inside from the great outdoors, you're sampling the insides of all your fellows. Let's hope they're all healthy.
   
   We can all get too precious sometimes, methinks.

   replyreport
6. 65

   Bob Ewingposted 16 years ago

   I do not like bans as a way to affect human behaviour, it rarely works and often creates an under ground oppporunity. I have not smoked in nearly 30 years,.
   
   I appreaciate going into public palces where no one is fouling my air. I do not choose to inhale someone's second hand smoke. Smoking is hazardous to everyone's health.

   replyreport
7. 82

   Whitney05posted 16 years ago

   Although, I'm not a smoker. I'm not a fan of being smoked around. I think after two years, my boyfriend has finally figured that out. As it's more unhealthy for me to be around him something than him smoking, I just don't like it.
   
   I will admit that I like the smell of some cigarettes, but at a distance...
   
   As for bans. I agree that by banning something you create a large blackmarket world. It happened with alcohol (or rum. I forget) was banned way back win. I don't see why a ban on cigarettes would be different, as they bring in a good deal of money to the government.

   replyreport
8. 83

   gamergirlposted 16 years ago

   Stacie:  Innocent pets too.  I won't smoke around anything but other smokers.  If nonsmokers are about, I won't light up around them, even though I smoke cigarettes that 'smell nice'.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Stacie Naczelnikposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Good, I'm so glad!  I can still like you then.  I would be pissed at anyone who smoked around my cats.  They are my babies.  Good thing I'm married or I would be that weird woman down the street with all the cats.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gamergirlposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Aww!  But the weird cat lady was my friend in my old childhood town..
         
         I'm one of those smokers who goes outside to smoke, though most often I go into my garage.

         replyreport
9. 94

   thooghunposted 16 years ago

   Innocent pets? My jack Russel lies and manipulates me at every turn! I'll be typing a comment, then suddenly wake up outside in the garden a rubber toy in my hand.
   
   Hmmpf. Regarding the smoking ban. It is simply unjustifiable in my mind.
   
   And to the O.P I know that Gore recently made an issue of saying that Smoking is "major contributor" to global warming, I'd like to see some data to convince me of that. As far as I know cigarettes do contain carbon dioxide, but the amounts are tiny.
   
   We'd be better off banning deodorant.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Stacie Naczelnikposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I never said all pets are innocent!  Oh man...which rubber toy?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Iðunnposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I liked the way you typed it the first time when it was a bit mystical and mysterious and hinted of hidden dream-like significance.
      
      

      replyreport
10. 94

    thooghunposted 16 years ago

    Oh dear, that might have come out wrong now that I read it again.
    
    The object in question is this rubber CAT that she adores to chew on and chase into the undergrowth.
    
    I repeat, the rubber toy is a CAT.

    replyreport
11. 94

    thooghunposted 16 years ago

    Yes, but the rubber toy...

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Iðunnposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       hehe.

       replyreport
12. 62

    College politicoposted 16 years ago

    you guys should watch the movie "thank you for smoking" you might enjoy it... and it might give you some perspective.

    replyreport
13. 83

    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    Thanks, but I rarely go out and see movies where folks tell me it will "teach me a lesson" or "give me perspective."
    
    Makes it feel like propaganda.

    replyreport
14. 62

    College politicoposted 16 years ago

    no the movie just has some pretty good points. Especially since you're a smoker.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       LOL the only thing you could possibly learn from that movie is the fact that the tobacco companies and the American government are quite happy to manipulate public information for money.

       replyreport
15. 94

    thooghunposted 16 years ago

    While it is a good movie, don't get me wrong (yes, I have seen it.) I think you'll find that smokers are aware of what smoking entails,(the ones with a brain) the manipulation that Mark mentioned for instance, and the powerful lobbying movements. But it is an addiction (usually) formed when you have notions of immortality (teens) and hard to shake later on.
    
    My Opinon.

    replyreport
16. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Quite right. I started smoking when I was 13. it's hard to kick.

    replyreport
17. 67

    Stacie Naczelnikposted 16 years ago

    I suggest watching the movie if you want a good laugh.  I found it very humorous.

    replyreport
18. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    I want to know more about thoogun's rubber toy fetish...Perhaps a hubpage? Please.
    
    It would probably be very popular.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Iðunnposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       quite.  I would love to see a freudian take on his phrase as dream analysis.    glad I'm not the only to admit to being taken by his choice of wordz.

       replyreport
19. 65

    Bob Ewingposted 16 years ago

    I saw the movie and was not impressed a few laughs but that was all.

    replyreport
20. 83

    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    *sighs*
    
    Another good topic ruined by anti-government conspiracy theory.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       thecounterpunchposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       It amazes me how the common people prioritize risks, sorry as project manager that's my daily job
       
       Grow up a little bit, there are risks that are 10000000 times important for your children !
       
       http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg

       replyreport
       1. 66

          darksideposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Do you see every thread as a potential soapbox?

          replyreport
    2. 62

       College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       I don't smoke but the movie makes a good point... I mean what about the people who want to smoke even when they know the risks? Its hard for me to decide how much the government should be aloud to regulate smoking...
       
       also the whole pollution thing is a croc.

       replyreport
    3. 61

       thecounterpunchposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       It's funny how 20 years ago Global Warming was considered a "Conspiracy Theory" now it isn't any more.
       
       So I guess that in 20 years, when people will discover that for fighting this supposedly Global Warming, the gov. spreaded barium and other toxic substances in the sky, you will pretend to be ignorant ?
       
       And what are you just children ? If you don't want to smoke, just don't where's the problem ? Whereas if you don't want the barium in the sky and so in your breathe I'm sorry but you don't have the choice like for cigarettes.
       
       You think to stop cancer by stopping cigarettes ? Well that's useless since with barium, aluminium etc. they're polluting the atmosphere with x times the level of toxicity cancer risks are much higher than all the cigarettes you smoke.
       
       NBC news: Chemtrails over California
       http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg

       replyreport
       1. 62

          College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Actually 20 years ago scientists thought the world was cooling... guess they changed their minds...

          replyreport
          1. 83

             Marisa Wrightposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             You remember that too?   I clearly recall, about 30 years ago, reading an excellent novel based on the climate theory of the time - that the Earth was way overdue for another Ice Age. 
             
             Recently, I have seen some minority climate scientists suggesting that if it wasn't for global warming, we would be moving into another Ice Age (which would eventually mean most of the States and northern Europe would be under an ice sheet).  So perhaps global warming is not entirely a bad thing.
             
             We all think science is about facts, but when you look closer a lot of it's just guessing...

             replyreport
             1. 94

                thooghunposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                The two are inter-linked. The argument claims that global warming would lead to an ice-age. The summary would be that fresh water from the melting of the polar icecaps would arrest the Gulf Stream, which happens to be what keeps most of us warm.

                replyreport
21. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Well, I agree with counterpunch, but the rubber toy thing was much better.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Iðunnposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       to this I offer the quasi-political Idunn stand-by "tend to agree".

       replyreport
22. 62

    College politicoposted 16 years ago

    Also I always find it amazing how people can find massive conspiracies in anything....

    replyreport
    1. 61

       thecounterpunchposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Sure, WHO (World Health Organization from the United Nations) is just predicting that 50 millions people in the whole world especially children and old people will die with cancer disease from these chemical "experiments" to supposedly fight "global warming" ...

       replyreport
       1. 62

          College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Well I've never heard anything like that but I agree that chemical experiments to "fight" global warming is an incredibly stupid idea

          replyreport
          1. 61

             thecounterpunchposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             And isn't it not only a stupid idea but an horrendous idea when GOV has conducted biological weapons trials on its own citizen at big scale ? This is now FACT as revealed by the guardian by the own confession of British Ministry of Defence.
             
             http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Artic … 07,00.html
             
             "The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
             
             A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.
             
             Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told."
             
             Worst: Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ONGOING RESEARCH' !!!!!!!
             
             So do you still think that's it's just conspiracy theory when it comes from the mouth of the Bristish Gov huh ? So continue to concentrate on cigarettes toxicity instead of toxicity of what they're putting in the atmosphere ... surely your health will improve globally.

             replyreport
23. 83

    Marisa Wrightposted 16 years ago

    I've been meaning to go and see that movie - another thing on my long "to do" list!  From my understanding, it's not bashing smokers at all. It's the cigarette companies they're gunning for.
    
    I used to think that our bans on smoking in public places were going too far and it was creating a backlash (I see more and more young people smoking compared to a few years ago).  Then I went on holiday to Europe, and realised I had completely forgotten what it felt like to walk into a smoky bar.   Or how a hotel room smells when it's had smokers in it the previous night, even if it has been cleaned.   
    
    So although I still feel bans risk creating resentment - people don't like being told what they can't do - I can now see it's created a much cleaner and pleasanter environment here (I'm in Australia).  We have a culture where people are aware it's not appropriate to inflict their habit on other people, which is generally not true around the Mediterranean.

    replyreport
24. 62

    College politicoposted 16 years ago

    I have to agree with Marisa Wright on most of what she said...

    replyreport
25. 64

    Ralph Deedsposted 16 years ago

    Continuing to raise cigarette taxes combined with public education about the health effects of smoking is a better approach than a total ban, in my opinion. High taxes on cigarettes, liquor and gasoline can help pay the social costs of their excessive use as well as discouraging their use. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/busin … ref=slogin

    replyreport
    1. 62

       College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       but how much more can we be educated about the health effects of smoking? And as the movie points out... fatty foods may be more of a killer than smoking.... just something to think about

       replyreport
       1. 86

          livelongerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          There's always room for better analysis of existing data. I've been reading Gary Taubes's book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and he makes a very strong case (after examining over 600 studies over the past 50 years) that high-carb foods are a killer, not high-fat foods.
          
          But at the end of the day, it depends on each individual how much this sort of information means to them.

          replyreport
          1. 62

             College politicoposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             But what I'm saying would people stand for the same kind of taxes and regulations on food as they do on cigarettes? I know I sure wouldn't.
             
             I mean its the classic "government knows better than you" mentality...

             replyreport
             1. 86

                livelongerposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                I certainly wouldn't support it since there isn't a consensus on what's unhealthy when it comes to food (or, rather, there is an enormous gray area...)
                
                With cigarettes, I'm pretty sure there is consensus that tobacco is really bad for your health.

                replyreport
          2. 83

             Marisa Wrightposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, I've been reading about that too.  People spread fear and loathing of fatty foods, but then it's safe to put epileptic children on a long-term low carb, high fat diet to reduce their seizures.  Once again, we all think it's science fact when a lot of it is just the best theory as far as we know today.

             replyreport
             1. 61

                thecounterpunchposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                Science has no problem, the problem is politicians who use science as they use religion AS FAKE PRETEXT for their hidden political agenda:
                Rockefeller's Political Agenda: On the birth of the Concept of Global Warming
                http://hubpages.com/hub/Quote_of_the_day_060507
                http://hubpages.com/hub/Whats-really-be … eenwashing
                
                The middle class is going to be taxed taxed taxed under the disguise of Global Warming whereas the super elites will get their financial interests based on these tax through the power of gov.

                replyreport
    2. 64

       Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Ralph, I never think higher taxes is a solution to anything. Education may be yes, taxes - no. That is not to say I admire any kind of direct or indirect ban either.
       
       Higher taxes make government stronger, and this is the last thing this country needs. Governments tend to get used to higher revenue, thus being interested in supporting the source of it.
       
       Education on government terms turns into a blatant propaganda, which discredits the whole idea...
       
       After all, it's all about personal choices...

       replyreport
26. 64

    Ralph Deedsposted 16 years ago

    Food is a necessity. Alcohol and cigarettes are not. Sin taxes are a long tradition in this country. They do discourage consumption of the taxed items.  And the revenues help defray the social costs of cigarettes and alcohol--health care, police to stop drunk driving, premature death, etc.
    
    Misha, in cas you haven't noticed our country has been incurring huge, unsustainable deficits as a result of the Iraq war and George Bush's tax cuts for the richest Americans. Taxes are required to repair and improve our roads, regulate air transport, drugs, etc. Taxes in the U.S. are among the lowest of all industrial countries and, as a result our roads and bridges are in disrepair, health care for the poor is non-existent, etc. You talk like a libertarian. Fortunately, only a small minority hold that belief although nearly everyone complains about taxes.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Ralph, I may be a libertarian, but mostly I'm talking out my life experience and common sense based on this experience.
       
       If you guys stop the war, you'll show surplus in no time. And I don't think cuts on rich have anything to do with the current deficit.
       
       Just as a reference point - income tax in Russia is plain 13%. You can say it is a third world country - and you will be right in a sense - but it is developing into the World superpower pretty fast. And taxes are one of the main reasons behind that move...
       
       This is not to say Russia does not tax tobacco - they do, but they keep this tax much more reasonable...

       replyreport
27. 62

    College politicoposted 16 years ago

    I understand what you're both saying but what about Mcdonalds food(or candy or soft drinks)? Its certainly not a necessity and I think most people will agree that its unhealthy (though I suppose its not too bad in moderation)
    
    Maybe thats the real difference between the two? Junk food and candy can be safe in moderation whereas cigarettes (and illegal drugs) are not...

    replyreport
28. 83

    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    Every thread that's seen a few views is not a place for you to stand on the Propaganda Pulpit, Counterpunch.

    replyreport