58 replies to this topic

[JLL]

Do you know him personally? How do you know he's an idiot?

[Gerald W. Gaston]

http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry263376

[VictorBjoerk]

It is very strange that some of the world's oldest people have been smokers considering how enormously dangerous it actually is for most people

[kismet]

It is very strange that some of the world's oldest people have been smokers considering how enormously dangerous it actually is for most people

No it isn't. That's a fallacy even beyond "correlation does not imply causation", we don't even know if there is an actual correlation, most probably you only perceive one, because of bias. Even if there was some kind of correlation, it could still be statistical fluke or explained by "they do it BECAUSE they can (be healthy regardless)". Unhealthy people do not smoke BECAUSE they're sick so probably more healthy peole smoke. Ergo smoking makes you healthy! Heck no, correlation does not imply causation.

I liked this guy and his thread was pretty funny even though I just skimmed over it, maybe there's some actual merit to it, who knows..

[mustardseed41]

Give smoking a try. Let us know how it works out for you. Good luck will be needed.

[Brainbox]

This could be the symbol for the global smoking promotion effort.

[VictorBjoerk]

is that diamonds on the skull?

[ajnast4r]

Do you know him personally? How do you know he's an idiot?

its a pretty safe assumption that anyone who tells you smoking cigarettes will increase your lifespan is an idiot

It is very strange that some of the world's oldest people have been smokers considering how enormously dangerous it actually is for most people

No it isn't. That's a fallacy even beyond "correlation does not imply causation", we don't even know if there is an actual correlation, most probably you only perceive one, because of bias. Even if there was some kind of correlation, it could still be statistical fluke or explained by "they do it BECAUSE they can (be healthy regardless)". Unhealthy people do not smoke BECAUSE they're sick so probably more healthy peole smoke. Ergo smoking makes you healthy! Heck no, correlation does not imply causation.

I liked this guy and his thread was pretty funny even though I just skimmed over it, maybe there's some actual merit to it, who knows..

i dont even know how to respond to this.

smoking causing disease.. specifically cancer and heart disease... is FACT. this is not up for debate... there will always be people who are genetically stronger, and have decreased incidence of disease due to smoking... but to say smoking causing disease is a fallacy or a product of faulty statistical correlation is bordering on lunacy and shows a deep disconnect with modern medical science.

http://www.cancer.go.../tobacco/cancer

PM USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette

http://philipmorrisu...es/default.aspx
not only does the ENTIRETY of the modern medical community agree that cigarettes cause disease, but so do the COMPANIES THAT SELL CIGARETTES:

Edited by ajnast4r, 10 November 2008 - 03:17 AM.

[Matt]

its a pretty safe assumption that anyone who tells you smoking cigarettes will increase your lifespan is an idiot

Absolutely agree. Maybe it's time to do the smart thing and let this topic slowly die :0

Edited by Matt, 10 November 2008 - 03:16 AM.

[frederickson]

This could be the symbol for the global smoking promotion effort.

first you would have to color the teeth with a beautiful yellow/brown tint

[JLL]

its a pretty safe assumption that anyone who tells you smoking cigarettes will increase your lifespan is an idiot

Did you even read the thread? You may disagree after you've done so, but judging beforehand is unreasonable.

In my mind, it's a pretty safe assumption that anyone who calls someone else an idiot without knowing anything about them is, in fact, an idiot.

smoking causing disease.. specifically cancer and heart disease... is FACT. this is not up for debate...

No? So why are there studies on rats where the ones subjected to smoke live longer? That was all news to me, maybe the studies are wrong or whatever, but it should at least open the door for debate.

Anytime anyone says that the debate over something is over, he/she is most likely wrong and promoting an agenda of their own. But then again, perhaps you are a religious person and do not care much for the scientific method.

Edited by JLL, 10 November 2008 - 10:12 AM.

[Ben]

its a pretty safe assumption that anyone who tells you smoking cigarettes will increase your lifespan is an idiot

Absolutely agree. Maybe it's time to do the smart thing and let this topic slowly die :0

I say make it quick. Put it out if its misery.

[JLL]

Watch out, the censors are back.

[kismet]

It is very strange that some of the world's oldest people have been smokers considering how enormously dangerous it actually is for most people

No it isn't. That's a fallacy even beyond "correlation does not imply causation", we don't even know if there is an actual correlation, most probably you only perceive one, because of bias. Even if there was some kind of correlation, it could still be statistical fluke or explained by "they do it BECAUSE they can (be healthy regardless)". Unhealthy people do not smoke BECAUSE they're sick so probably more healthy peole smoke. Ergo smoking makes you healthy! Heck no, correlation does not imply causation.

I liked this guy and his thread was pretty funny even though I just skimmed over it, maybe there's some actual merit to it, who knows..

i dont even know how to respond to this.

smoking causing disease.. specifically cancer and heart disease... is FACT. this is not up for debate... there will always be people who are genetically stronger, and have decreased incidence of disease due to smoking... but to say smoking causing disease is a fallacy or a product of faulty statistical correlation is bordering on lunacy and shows a deep disconnect with modern medical science.

You don't know how to respond, because I'm so right? Or did you get offended by my tolerance? "I just skimmed over it, maybe there's some actual merit to it, who knows.." (maybe my wording was bad, I meant any merit (e.g. nootropic nicotine), not necessarily life extension)
Personally I cannot judge a topic that I don't understand. Well I could judge, but that's simple prejudice.
Or did you miss that I wholeheartedly agreed with the assumption that "smoking causes disease" in as far as possible for someone who doesn't know all the facts and just refuted some possible misunderstanding about cenetarians & smoking (you probably misunderstood my text: in fact I mentioned those statistical fallacies to make a case against smoking, not the opposite)

Certainly there could be some merit to it. Did you ever hear of such a thing like a trade-off? A net effect (good + bad = net effect)? UV radiation is most probably a carcinogen, but it enables vitamin-d synthesis, so is it healthy or unhealthy if you don't have access to supplemental vitamin-d?
Turning on telomerase might make us live longer, if cancer doesn't kill us.
BTW an intervention that causes some kind of disease does not need to be bad for life span per se. CR might cause some disease, i.e. increase the likelihood of infection (I know MR claims the opposite, but so far we don't have any reliable human data at all), but it's net effect is still very positive.

EDIT:
There is no such thing as fact. Both statisticians and most (?) philosophers will agree. Maybe you have heard of Sir Karl Popper, one proponent of this theory: there is no absolute truth in science.

Edited by kismet, 10 November 2008 - 02:38 PM.

[ajnast4r]

ill just leave these here...

http://www.iarc.fr/e...rchText=smoking
http://www.who.int/topics/tobacco/en/
http://www.cdc.gov/t...ancer/index.htm
http://www.cancer.or...sp?sitearea=PED
http://www.surgeonge...ngconsequences/


someone lock this stupid thread.

[meatwad]

Have to agree,threadlock this puppy.

[jbtampa]

OK, I registered here to reply to you and offer my educated opinion. I am a RN and a RRT (registered respiratory therapist), and a certified smoking cessation counselor. No preaching here. Your question was how much is too much, and how little is safe. Here are the facts:

It is now known no amount is safe, either directly or even close to a smoker. At one time, the usual required exposure for damage was more than six daily. And, the term is pack years, meaning how many packs multiplied by how many years. Quitting before twenty pack years will eventually bring risk down considerably for lung cancer. COPD, chronic obstructive lung disease, is defined as a mix of chronic bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema, the latter will progress no matter what, is not curable, and slowly your lings become so obstructed it is described as breathing 24/7 through a drinking straw. That process will break your heart to watch as a patient suffacates over several years.

Pretty much all do at work is treat smoking related disease. And it is bad. To a person, every single patient damms the day they started smoking, and they do that all the time. Addiction is insidious. It changes the brain to require the nicotine recepters that we all have to be stimulated. We also know the only safe ammount is no ammount, no matter who, why, where, or what. That is science. That is a statistic.

Statistics are facts derived from numbers. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin, pretty much on a level with meth.

What is a safe ammount to tweak?

John B in Tampa

[bacopa]

why would a couple of ciggarettes a week be dangerous?

[JLL]

ill just leave these here...

http://www.iarc.fr/e...rchText=smoking
http://www.who.int/topics/tobacco/en/
http://www.cdc.gov/t...ancer/index.htm
http://www.cancer.or...sp?sitearea=PED
http://www.surgeonge...ngconsequences/


someone lock this stupid thread.

All they have is flash animations and statements like "smoking is the leading cause of cancer". I'm looking for actual studies.

Not that I'm a smoker, but reading the other thread got me curious. And seriously, you've got to give it to nightlight for dissecting each opposing claim and giving references to his claims. All I see here is "lock this thread" and "smoking kills". Tsk tsk.

[VictorBjoerk]

my grandmother married 4 times, everyone smoked,everyone died of lung cancer, sounds improbable?, no it's true! I hate smoking as well as passive smoking because of that.

[Matt]

All my great grandparents and 3 grandparents smoked, all died of lung cancer too. I expect my grandmother who is only in her late 60's to die of lung cancer sometime in the near future. Everyone did survive to age 85 despite smoking, but I don't think she will. I imagine they would have all had a few more yeras left in them because they were all active at that age before they got hit with lung cancer associated with the smoking.

Edited by Matt, 12 November 2008 - 12:23 AM.

[bacopa]

matt and victor how long did your grand and great grandparents smoke? I'm trying to quit now and I have only been smoking for five years. I hope I'm not too late!

[Matt]

about 60 years for my grandparents, not sure about great grandparents but pretty much most of their life, one them gave up at around age 60 but was heavily exposed to passive smoking for the remainder of his life.

You say you smoke for 5 years... thats 5 years too many, but I doubt its too late. I hope you manage to quit soon as possible!

Edited by Matt, 12 November 2008 - 01:14 AM.

[katzenjammer]

why would a couple of ciggarettes a week be dangerous?

Not good for you obviously. But unless you are a very unhealthy person and/or with unhealthy habits, it's hard to believe that a few cigarettes/week are something to worry about. I think for most people, the problem is they just can't keep it to a few per week. I am one that can. So I do. But I also go many, many months without a single one. This is definitely a "you simply have to decide for yourself" territory. No one probably can say.

Edited by katzenjammer, 12 November 2008 - 01:25 AM.

[JLL]

If I WAS a smoker, I'd be concerned about the studies that show how quitters have more lung cancers than those who continue to smoke. Maybe best not to ever start, but once you do start...

[bacopa]

Thanks Matt. Boy 60 years is much much longer than me so that makes me feel better. Yes I quit a week ago no more smoking for me. JLL never heard studies saying that quitters have more lung cancer can you show me links?

[VictorBjoerk]

My grandmothers husbands died all in their 50s :( so noone lived to an old age. Some people tolerate it better than others... If you have only smoked 5 years and still are young you may be able to reverse all risks... I hope you manage to quit, even a few cigarettes a week causes noticeable disease,skin damage etc...

[Liquidus]

I've weened myself completely off cigarettes after originally posting this. I may have only had a single cigarette in the last 3-4 months. I'm sure I'll be guilty of the occasional 'bar/social' smoke, but aside from that, I haven't purchased a pack in probably 6-8 months.

As part of the 'experiment', I noticed that after stopping on cigs, I lost the 'cough' that I had developed, I use to cough all the time, almost like a habit of clearing my throat. Ever since I stopped smoking semi-regularly, I don't get that as often anymore. I also seem to feel more energized overall when I don't have cigarettes around.

I haven't stopped smoking marijuana, in fact I would say that my consumption has increased, but I don't feel nearly a quarter of the negative effects with marijuana as I do with cigarettes (not tired, more motivated, don't feel 'fatigued' all the time, etc...)

And one other thing to mention, I'm planning on buying a vaporizer very soon, although I'm sure marijuana smoke is marginally better than cigarettes, the smoke/toxins themselves aren't good in any situation, a vaporizer should more or less remove that issue. Once that happens I can say that I'm officially off of smoke completely.

[bacopa]

I quit five days ago but not completley I still manage to have three or four cigarettes a day so I've really just slowed down. I've been depressed and flat for a really really long time and cigs seem to help me with this flat affect. It's a daily battle but I know lung cancer is not high on my priority list of things to get.