Smoking bad for you? Why do people believe smoking isn't bad for you?

[Jasongreat]

You're right in the sense that "Not every person shot in the head with a gun dies." But you can't say that therefor "Gun shots to the head are not proven to be dangerous beyond (your) reasonable doubt. So keep an open mind." They are NOT the same thing.

No, but I can say not everyone who gets shot in the head will die. And I don't even have to make assumptions or say its beyond a reasonable doubt.
What percentage of people don't die because of a gun shot to the head(when they did get shot)? What percentage of smokers don't die because of heart trouble, lung cancer and so on? I'll bet the percentage of people that survive head wounds will be small, the percentage of smokers who die of other causes will be bigger, probably not huge, but substancially bigger.

 

[Jasongreat]

Thats very open minded of you! I assume then that, due to your critical nature, you're also an atheist right?

So its open minded to be forced into something, but its close minded to believe I have a right to look at the evidence and come to my own conclusion. I understand that reason is limited by the facts you know, if you don't know it you can't use it in your reasoning,but Jumping to conclusions will also limit your reasoning, a cup that's full has no room for any thing more.

 

[Jasongreat]

Thats very open minded of you! I assume then that, due to your critical nature, you're also an atheist right?

Why would being an atheist make me more critical? Seems to me maybe the agnostic would be a more critical position, or at least more logical. Dont they say we don't know one way or the other so they choose not to jump to conclusions. The people that say there is no god(because a book told them so), are just as closed minded as those that absolutely believe there is a god(because a book told them so).

 

[27Thousand]

So its open minded to be forced into something, but its close minded to believe I have a right to look at the evidence and come to my own conclusion. I understand that reason is limited by the facts you know, if you don't know it you can't use it in your reasoning,but Jumping to conclusions will also limit your reasoning, a cup that's full has no room for any thing more.

So just a thought, I think he'd see it as a lot more open minded and wanting to look at the facts if you could explain the questions asked and facts from .gov links presented in post #26, second and third paragraphs. Just saying we can't prove for sure similar to how we can't do the same for plate tectonics or germs causing diseases may not be seen as reasonable open-mindedness by some. If you had better answers to those questions other than smoking being the cause, and some sources to back yourself up?

 

[Cyrus]

Wait, so you've expressed concern for someone before?

Another woman at that place of work was also a smoker. I told her that she may want to consider they keep on saying on the news that a little less than 90% of those who die from lung cancer are smokers. She said, "Yea I know. I probably should quit eventually." So I'm not sure, but I think it could also depend on how you go about doing it?

I mean, it's their choice, and I'll respect whatever they want. I just had a sense of caring for both of them. If someone was stealing from your neighbor, you'd let them know about it. Although the analogy isn't the exact same, much of the concept is concern for others. When I feel concern, I usually don't talk about feelings, but rather peer-review scientific journals, because they make sense. She can do what she wants. I just wonder if there could have been a way in that situation to let her know the truth?

She can get lung cancer and die for all I care. I have friends that smoke, I don't waste my time telling them to quit. If they die from smoking, sucks for them. Not my problem.

 

[drizzle]

She can get lung cancer and die for all I care. I have friends that smoke, I don't waste my time telling them to quit. If they die from smoking, sucks for them. Not my problem.

well ... apparently ... they're not your friends!

 

[Cyrus]

well ... apparently ... they're not your friends!

They are, you're not.

 

[Hepth]

She can get lung cancer and die for all I care. I have friends that smoke, I don't waste my time telling them to quit. If they die from smoking, sucks for them. Not my problem.

I agree. Is it my responsibility to remind them they should brush their teeth, do their homework on time, etc. I assume all of my friends passed the 6th grade, so I can assume they all know what is and isn't harmful to them. Or what may or may not be harmful to them, and they have the mental capacity to asses the risk and weigh that in vs. the benefits.

 

[drizzle]

They are, you're not.

GOOD for me

 

[27Thousand]

I agree. Is it my responsibility to remind them they should brush their teeth, do their homework on time, etc. I assume all of my friends passed the 6th grade, so I can assume they all know what is and isn't harmful to them. Or what may or may not be harmful to them, and they have the mental capacity to asses the risk and weigh that in vs. the benefits.

I agree with you that you don't tell them to brush their teeth or do homework. Keep in mind I don't actually walk around saying this to people. She just seemed quite obsessive-compulsive about smoking. Since they didn't teach us in school that the government says smoking is the number one risk factor, they only tell us it's bad, I just decided to let her know about some recent research at the .gov I found late at night a few days earlier. I know some people say if your social/communication skills are good enough, you can get away with any situation. So that's just part of why I asked the forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

I encountered this a little closer to home. I started in on my son about smoking.

He poo-pooed my concerns. His argument was "I might die of lung cancer, I might not. It's a fifty-fifty chance, right?"

He equated a two-option outcome with a 50-50 outcome.

I freaked. (Not because of the smoking; because of the terrifying math innumeracy.)



In his defense though, I think he was just being argumentative. I don't think he really meant what he said.

 

[Pyrrhus]

She can get lung cancer and die for all I care. I have friends that smoke, I don't waste my time telling them to quit. If they die from smoking, sucks for them. Not my problem.

Yeah, man, like wtf is with all this violation to people's right. I'm not going to impose my beliefs on my friends, no way. Two of some of my closest friends are basically chimneys, and I don't complain about that, we chill together, and I even hang out sometimes when they go smoking, and just chat.

 

[ideasrule]

They are, you're not.

Considering your incivility and total lack of either compassion or concern, it's quite surprising that they'd choose to be your friends.

 

[Cyrus]

Considering your incivility and total lack of either compassion or concern, it's quite surprising that they'd choose to be your friends.

You seem to mistake me for their mother. My friends are adults, meaning they make their own decisions on how to live their life. If they want to smoke like a chimney, it's not my place to tell them what to do. They are well aware of the risks of smoking.

 

[Chronos]

Hard telling. I quit smoking 5 years ago. I stopped coughing the next day and my blood pressure dropped from 144/93 to 120/78 after 6 months. I know those are just numbers, but, they seem encouraging.

 

[drizzle]

Considering your incivility and total lack of either compassion or concern, it's quite surprising that they'd choose to be your friends.

maybe they didn't choose

don’t bother yourself, you’ll get used to it

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why do people rationalize the dangers of smoking? As said earlier, they are addicted. Some people cannot accept that without rationalizing the facts. But what that means to the person addicted is that death is a more acceptable option than the thought of quitting. Given that level of dependence, is it any wonder why people rationalize the facts?

Based on the level of dependence, the most common measure for determining the addictiveness of a drug, the substances ranked as follows, from most to least addictive:
1.Nicotine
2.Heroin
3.Cocaine
4.Alcohol
5.Caffeine
6.Marijuana

http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/most-addictive-drugs.html

It is also no secret that many people genuinely enjoy smoking. That's how they get hooked in the first place. I have heard time and time again how people thought they could control it and just smoke every once in a while, and before they knew it, it was a pack a day. But they started because they liked it.

 

[Cyrus]

Why do people rationalize the dangers of smoking? As said earlier, they are addicted. Some people cannot accept that without rationalizing the facts. But what that means to the person addicted is that death is a more acceptable option than the thought of quitting. Given that level of dependence, is it any wonder why people rationalize the facts?


http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/most-addictive-drugs.html

It is also no secret that many people genuinely enjoy smoking. That's how they get hooked in the first place. I have heard time and time again how people thought they could control it and just smoke every once in a while, and before they knew it, it was a pack a day. But they started because they liked it.

People are accountable for their actions. Most people know smoking is addictive, and it will probably kill them. No one forced her to smoke.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Based on the level of dependence, the most common measure for determining the addictiveness of a drug, the substances ranked as follows, from most to least addictive:
1.Nicotine
2.Heroin
3.Cocaine
4.Alcohol
5.Caffeine
6.Marijuana

I've mentioned it before. Nicotine is not as addictive as cocaine and heroin. The only measure that makes it seem so is availability which is an improper measure since it really has nothing at all to do with the actual physiological addiction process.

For any of you that would like to make convincing arguments about the dangers of tobacco this supposition that it is more addictive than any other drug is a poor one. Any smoker can look at a crackhead or heroin addict and the absurdly destructive lengths they go to for a fix and realize that such a comparison is ridiculous. Your arguments as a whole will look poorer for it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

People are accountable for their actions. Most people know smoking is addictive, and it will probably kill them. No one forced her to smoke.

In the past this was not true. Today it is hard to believe that anyone wouldnt' know about the dangers of smoking. But it is also true that many people do not believe they will get hooked. Now, if you wish to argue that human frailty in smoking, or getting hooked, is worse than human frailty, for example, than when someone tends to be abusive towards others, that is subjective and probably dependent on the nature of one's own faults.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've mentioned it before. Nicotine is not as addictive as cocaine and heroin. The only measure that makes it seem so is availability which is an improper measure since it really has nothing at all to do with the actual physiological addiction process.

Not true.

Here are two more methods.

The tables listed below show the rankings given for each of the drugs. Overall, their evaluations for the drugs are very consistent. It is notable that marijuana ranks below caffeine in most addictive criteria, while alcohol and tobacco are near the top of the scale in many areas.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

 

[drizzle]

It is also no secret that many people genuinely enjoy smoking...

more to the point, when one smokes, he would be breathing the correct way letting a large amount of air into his lungs, this gives a calming feeling, sadly it’s poisoned air. maybe that’s why when smokers get nervous they promptly smoke..that's what I’ve noticed

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not true.

Here are two more methods.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

You'll note that it is only number one under 'dependence' which in this case means how easily one can quit and is heavily influenced by availability.

 

[Huckleberry]

I started smoking with clove cigarettes. For the first year I had maybe one cigarette a day. Then for a few months it was 3 or 4. Smoking more cloves than that is pretty harsh so I started alternating between regular cigarettes and cloves. Another year and I'm smoking between half a pack and a pack a day, mostly depending on stress. That was almost 10 years ago. When I started I did not think I would become addicted. Now it's the first thing I think of when I wake up and the last thing before bed.

This woman knows smoking is unhealthy. Statistics aren't going to change her mind. It's foolish to think that they would. She already knows you like her.

Statistics are not a reason to quit. They are a reason to never start. A reason to quit is a reason to live healthy tomorrow. She told you she doesn't want to live past 40. Think about that critically and decide if telling her smoking is bad m'kay will benefit anyone.

 

[Richard87]

Smoking is nasty. I repeat. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty.

Plus it's unfair to the nonsmokers. You're forcing them to "smoke" when you're near them while smoking.

 

[DaveC426913]

Smoking is nasty. I repeat. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty.

Plus it's unfair to the nonsmokers. You're forcing them to "smoke" when you're near them while smoking.

In defense of smokers, perfume-wearers are just as bad in the "I have to smell you" and "I am allergic" departments (though not the "you're giving me cancer" derpartment).

Back when I was a smoker, I actually brought a non-smoker up-short with this argument. Made him rethink the argument.

 

[Evo]

Not true.

Here are two more methods.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

Your link claims to show a study by Henningfield, but I found the abstract from the Henningfield study and he clearly states

We conclude that on the current evidence nicotine cannot be considered more addicting than cocaine.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119360087/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Your link claims that Henningfield ranked nicotine as number 1 in addiction and cocaine number 3. That appears to be contrary to the actual study.

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5

Heroin 2 2 1 2 2

Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3

Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1

Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6

Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4

It appears your link may have misrepresented the information in the study. They claim this is a rating of addiction, and it is not.

Having been with herioin addicts that missed a fix and seen the physical withdrawals, missing nicotine is like not having a candy bar when you want one in comparison.

 

[Evo]

Data from The Lancet shows heroin to be the most addictive and most harmful of 20 drugs.[19]

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/images?imageId=gr2&sectionType=green

Figure 2
Correlation between mean scores from the independent experts and the specialist addiction psychiatrists
1=heroin. 2=cocaine. 3=alcohol. 4=barbiturates. 5=amphetamine. 6=methadone. 7=benzodiazepines. 8=solvents. 9=buprenorphine. 10=tobacco. 11=ecstasy. 12=cannabis. 13=LSD. 14=steroids.

 

[rootX]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8267523.stm

 

[DaveC426913]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8267523.stm

Hey. Links require summaries.

Oh wait. This is GD.