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

  • Thread starter 27Thousand
  • Start date
92
0
You state beyond a reasonable doubt, I have the capability of reason, why cant I use my reason to decide for my self, why do I have to trust your(or their) reasoning blindly?

I never said anything was made up. I said that science is fallable(it is watched over by human beings), since it has been wrong before, and will most likely be wrong again. What if we were to blindly follow global warming, say we change our whole economy at great expense, since nothing is cheap nowdays. Then 5 yrs down the road some new evidence is found to dispute the claim, wouldnt we have been better off not to blindly follow in the first place? You can present all facts you want(without facts what good is reason) but everyone has the right nay the responsibility to reason for themselves. They dont have to believe them just because you say so.
Not me saying so, but science saying so. I said smokers should allowed to smoke if they want. I only pointed out that it's not reasonable to believe smoking isn't bad for you. If they were to find an alternative explanation to germs causing disease and tested the alternative, you could argue they would have to change germ theory. Keep in mind that most aren't going to see the very slight little chance of germ theory being wrong as a reason to not have any health laws assume that germs cause diseases. If it gets dark outside my windows all of a sudden, then I see rain, and then someone comes in drenched, for all I know it could be the sprinklers at the same time as the dark clouds. However, it's unreasonable to believe that it's not raining just to be doing that.

Like you said, it's your choice to believe what you want. With that freedom in mind, something to think about: How do you explain to yourself why smokers are much more likely to develop heart disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than non-smokers? For the conditions it's most likely to affect http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm Also check out http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/cig_smoking_mortality/index.htm [Broken] Even after trying to rule out as many third factors as scientists can think of, you need to ask yourself why smokers are still more likely to develop these conditions? Without an explanation, you need to ask yourself why it would be reasonable that it's not bad for health?

The same could be asked about secondhand smoke. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/index.htm

Since it sounded like you don't trust the American Medical Association, the links I gave are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just something to look at.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jasongreat

I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you sound like a creationist jealous of the successes of modern science. If you jump in front of a train, what happens? How do you know? It's not as intuitively obvious that smoking leads to cancer as it is that jumping in front of a train will kill you, but that doesn't mean the evidence is any weaker.

Would you also say that it shouldn't be a crime to shoot people because the mechanical, chemical, and maybe electrical principles that the gun depends on might be disproved tomorrow, and that it's only an assumption that pulling the trigger will cause a bullet to strike the target at legal velocities?
I love this mindless democratic drivle!
Ok, i'll bite lets look at the gun argument. When was the last change in any gun dynamics? 200 yrs ago? That was the addition of rifling and the cartridge. When was the last change to the global climate theory? 30 yrs? Werent the 70's all about going into the next ice age, then came the late 90's, we were going to burn up!(incidently they love to state stats from the 70's to prove how hot we are now).
If I shot you with a gun, couldnt I find the bullet and trace it to my gun by the rifling marks on the bullet. It would also be kind of hard to deny I damaged you with you having a gaping hole in your chest. Now, show me that same kind of empirical evidence for smoking. You can dissect a body, you can show me damage to the internals, but you cant prove that smoking caused that damage. You can show me all the reports of studies but the most you can ever prove is that it seems beyond (your) reasonable doubt that smoking might contribute to the problems seen. I choose to try and keep an open mind?
 

Hepth

Gold Member
437
39
You can show me all the reports of studies but the most you can ever prove is that it seems beyond (your) reasonable doubt that smoking might contribute to the problems seen. I choose to try and keep an open mind?
That's not an open mind, that's a closed one to empirical evidence.

Its not just "trends" which is what you're trying to make it. Its DIRECT PROOF(inasmuch as its detrimental to your health).
I'm surprised you're arguing this. Even the tobacco companies agree, they're more about fight for the right for people to CHOOSE to do something unhealthy, than arguing about it being unhealthy.

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.
 

Jasongreat

Since it's the same principle about Science, if the medical field and government are allowed to claim that germs causing disease is correct, then why aren't they allowed to say smoking is bad for your health when the scientific evidence also says it's beyond reasonable doubt? Just because you can't prove for sure for sure in Science? I mean after they compare the ratio of smokers vs. non-smokers who die from certain types of deaths, tracking death related markers, etc.
They can claim all they want, they just cant force me to believe those claims.
 

Hepth

Gold Member
437
39
They can claim all they want, they just cant force me to believe those claims.
Thats very open minded of you! I assume then that, due to your critical nature, you're also an atheist right?
 

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 dont even have to make assumptions or say its beyond a reasonable doubt.
What percentage of people dont die because of a gun shot to the head(when they did get shot)? What percentage of smokers dont 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 dont know it you cant use it in your reasoning,but Jumping to conclusions will also limit your reasoning, a cup thats 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 dont 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).
 
92
0
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 dont know it you cant use it in your reasoning,but Jumping to conclusions will also limit your reasoning, a cup thats 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?
 
2,903
13
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

Gold Member
352
54
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!
 

Hepth

Gold Member
437
39
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.
 
92
0
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

Gold Member
18,294
1,904
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

Homework Helper
2,160
1
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 gonna 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

Homework Helper
2,266
0
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.
 
2,903
13
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

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
738
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

Gold Member
352
54
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 :rofl:

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

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
 
2,903
13
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.
 
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
 
Last edited:

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

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
784
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Top