• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

About Smoking Attn: Smokers

smoking bad for you quitting quitters smart intelligent story how to why to end smoking

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#31 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 March 2013 - 05:52 PM

I'd probably go radical here too. I'd start by designing an optimal food source that was filling, and promoted optimal body metrics and prevented obesity.

Because it's that easy, right?
All we truly have to worry about is forcing people to do the right thing.

Anyways, we're getting off topic, this thread is really about smoking. My point is that healthier people are happier people. Excess food doesn't make anyone happy and food as bonding and social thing is more of a social habit that can be changed. There's no reason to have things that are unhealthy for us. It hurts people.


You are ignoring the fact that there are biochemical (as opposed to social) reasons why people get fat.

#32 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:50 PM

Asbestos still keeps you warm and insulates your house better fiberglass at a lower cost. Why not keep it around? Some people wouldn't mind. Lots of governments around the world still permit asbestos use. Some very influential countries were still using it in through 2011. By that argument we should make it legal if people want to work with it and put it in their homes. What will people who smoke marijuana today think about their usage later on? Are they aware that people are steered towards drugs? Would they feel the same about it if they knew it was being used against them when they were smoking it?

#33 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:57 PM

I'm not ignoring social reasons. Ban social behaviors that lead to the unhealth of anyone. Why let people harm themselves for social reasons? If people would normally get fat b/c they don't have friends, now they wouldn't and having less fat cells to produce hormones that would promote selfish behavior.

I didn't say it was just that easy, I intimated doing it as fast as possible and pulling out all of the stops.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 19 March 2013 - 12:50 AM

Do I understand you correctly? You wouldn't ban abestos, but you would ban social behavior that lead to the unhealth? Don't you see a difference? First, absestos affects all the people who live near it or come in contact with it, while "social behavior" is damaging only to the one who is pracitising it (if we're talking about smoking in open areas or eat unhealthy or sth like that). Second, people should have the right to harm themselves for any reason, but nobody should have right to harm other people (except in some circumstances like self-defence or prosecuting criminals) (using asbestos is harming other people because you can't just go away from it and even if you can it is very damaging in very low doses).

#35 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 20 March 2013 - 06:17 PM

No you don't understand me correctly. I would ban everything and keep everyone healthy! At least that would be a closer understanding.

How is that different than people accepting that other people are unhealthy, so it is more okay for them to be unhealthy? Asbestos or fatty fast food, it has a negative impact on anyone who gets near it. Filmmakers making pot movies are promoting pot use, so their use of pot harms others and is quite intentional. Your friend in college who gets good grades but still smokes pot changes the hearts and minds of those around him and leads them to drug use. That overweight friend who everyone else likes may make you feel better about being unhealthy yourself. It all hurts people. The difference only seems to be that we've recognized one (after quite a bit of ignorance) and not the other, or some only to some extent. Like were it was still okay to use asbestos if you ventilated it into the air for a while in Japan. Eventually people realized it was just transferring harm rather than stopping it altogether. In some cases it looks like we're even transferring harm to groups who we'd rather have the harm done to and feeling good about it.

#36 **DEACTIVATED**

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 120 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Undisclosed
  • NO

Posted 20 March 2013 - 07:47 PM

Lol, this thread is ridiculous. I stumbled upon it because I thought it was directed towards Cannibis. I actually am not a fan of cigarettes, but I take a drag about 4 times a month for fun..

Anyway, cryonicsculture, while I have thought similar thoughts as you (quite frequently actually), you cannot tell people what to do and expect a good response..

#37 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 21 March 2013 - 05:43 AM

I just can't imagine anyone who continues to smoke to be in their right mind. Esp immortalists. I can't imagine anyone who sells a damaging product such as cigarettes to be in their right mind either. Would you knowingly produce a poison for human consumption knowing that people who used it were going to be more prone to illness and disease in later life and during use? Considering the 7 minute figure, if we were to apply the golden rule, the people in the supply chain could never be born.

You and I are both from states that allow the death penalty. I don't believe in it, but wouldn't these people get the chair if we had a different perspective?

#38 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:13 PM

I agree that at least propaganda should be strictly forbidden (like it is in Australia and most of the Europe, propaganda includes even cigarette packages), but drugs shouldn't be forbidden even if they are unhealthy. Some people actually just lifestyle that includes (dangerous) drugs (I'm not talking about addiction here, this is a bit more complicated than "addiction is a disease, we should treat it") or dangerous lifestyle for that matter.

#39 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:49 PM

Harmful addictions should certainly be treated. I can imagine a few I wouldn't worry about, but if the individual's life, existence, health, or lifespan, are being harmed in the near or far term and the addictive potential is created by an artifice, it should be removed, and therefore the addiction stopped.

#40 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 23 March 2013 - 05:57 PM

Yes, but they shouldn't be treated by force. Treatment should be offered, not forced (except if the addiction would harm other people around the addicted individual).

#41 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 March 2013 - 03:43 AM

Well, from a system running by my opinion, no one would be forced into treatment because the addictive substance just wouldn't be available. In the system we have, people find themselves forced into such situations and people get hurt to protect the "freedom" of choice that others have to participate in a social culture that results in harm to others. If you think about it, what I'm suggesting isn't much different than what other organizations do currently. IIRC, the Boys and Girls Clubs seek to provide lifestyles and recreation to young people to keep them off drugs and other addictive substances. What I'm suggesting is keep people from harm and allow other healthy innovations to replace the bad habits of the past. Don't allow the cigarettes to be available, and people who had to quit would suddenly become a market for more healthy products. One of ours could even sell them tobacco harm reversal supplements that would have much higher efficacy than they would should smokers be allowed to continue.

In the system we currently have people are forced one way or another (unless they never quit) should they be susceptible to addictive substances and use.

So let me ask you this. If we already lived in a society that didn't allow things like tobacco products to exist, and no one was a smoker, no one had a substance addiction of any kind, and people were happy never having known anything more than Tobacco was a poisonous plant that was found to be a leading cause of cancer, what would be the harm in not having it? Tobacco certainly isn't necessary for human sustenance or procreation, so how does anyone suffer because we don't have it?

Add to that, that the later this day comes, the more of us immortals may have to look back and remember the addiction and see ourselves as having been part of that bygone day and you have what amounts to an existential burden.

#42 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 24 March 2013 - 01:23 PM

I agree with you, that people won't regret something that has never been available. It is well known that people feel worse if you give them something and then take it back than if they never had this thing, although both end states are the same.
But I'm trying to be practical and realistic regarding drugs: of course people wouldn't regret if they never had any drug available - but they do have these drugs available and you can't just force them to quit - this has to be gradual process with harm reduction and feeling of free choice. I have already explained how I would lower smoking incidence - first I would propagate snus (or other less harmful tobacco products) and when most people would use snus, then I'd propagate not using tobacco. IMO, this would be more efficient long-term.

#43 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 March 2013 - 07:42 PM

No because marketing targets for harm reduction will effect fewer people than an outright ban.Those who are not the beneficiaries of harm reduction become acceptable casualties.

As everyone knows, the younger you are when you invest, the more money you will have when you are older. The most efficient way long term is to stem it immediately. When you ban tobacco products, you choose to help everyone. Who would be the casualty of an outright and immediate ban on tobacco? Well maybe the executives of the company that has been torturing most smokers to death with disease for quite some time, maybe some marketing firms and sales executives, but who are we kidding, they'll have golden parachutes and plenty of other things to do.

#44 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 24 March 2013 - 11:31 PM

Do you remember what happened when alcohol was banned in USA?
And do you know what is happening in Sweden which promotes harm reduction with snus? And what is happening in every other EU country that forbids snus sale? You have theory, I have the evidence. :P
  • like x 1

#45 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:20 AM

Do you really think gangsters will be shooting people over illegal cigarette sales? Even to the addict, there is no extreme pleasure from cigarettes as there is with alcohol or other street drugs. No one becomes so lost in the nicotine that they would join a cartel. Though drug dealers might have something else to sell, and drug users might still have access to tobacco, but the harm done from the tobacco will lessen once it costs what street drugs do and people smoke much less of it.

In China, prior to their revolution, opium was legal, and because of outside influence, drugs were used to make people lazy and addicted. Now they punish drug use with death and don't have a problem. I'm not saying to kill anyone, but it's better not to have them around and better to be free of drugs as a nation. I used to support the LEAP ideas (I think this is what you're referencing), but I outgrew it when I realized drugs would be readily available to the depressed and become a tool used to control people by NGOs. As we speak, these organizations are using ideas such as this to make legalization possible, essentially saying "pot solves your problems by making the socially disconnected stupid and susceptible to manipulation. I can't reconcile that as an existentialist.

How about:
*Smokeable tobacco banned this year
*Snus banned a year from then
*All other tobacco such as e-cigs banned a year from snus ban

In the mean time, pre-employment tobacco tests would be done to adjust health insurance premiums accordingly.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 25 March 2013 - 01:22 AM.

  • dislike x 3

#46 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 25 March 2013 - 08:35 AM

And you probably never heard about smuggling counterfeit cigarettes? Or making home-grown marijuana and making alcohol at home (the same is possible with cigs and opium and many other drugs).

#47 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:05 AM

Do you really think gangsters will be shooting people over illegal cigarette sales? Even to the addict, there is no extreme pleasure from cigarettes as there is with alcohol or other street drugs.

Yes, since tobacco is about as addictive as heroin. Prohibition is fascism and will never work.

#48 TheKidInside

  • Guest
  • 135 posts
  • 35
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 25 March 2013 - 02:07 PM

Just wondering if anyone's read Easy Way to Quit Smoking? It's a great book that goes into the mental side of the addiction. It's actually a full length book if you could believe it (not just some pamphlet) and really drives the point home.

Do you really think gangsters will be shooting people over illegal cigarette sales? Even to the addict, there is no extreme pleasure from cigarettes as there is with alcohol or other street drugs.

Yes, since tobacco is about as addictive as heroin. Prohibition is fascism and will never work.



first off, nothing in life, at least this one, is so black and white. NYC just "banned" sodas over 16 ounces and if it was up to me soda and white sugar would be banned period but alas, it's not. I think there are times when deterrence simply fails and outright bans are needed. I mean it's a catch-22, we don't trust the government to deliver MAIL effectively (at least no one I know does) and this wouldn't be any better but it's a start HOWEVER;

true progress happens when you EDUCATE people. I'm a nutrition consultant and no matter what, if I don't properly prepare a client or an athlete mentally and answer all their stupid questions about "why is white flour so bad?" over and over again without rolling my eyes and simply stating "because I said so, it's bad" then it will never stick.

So, there has to be education along with the prohibition as you would say....

Edited by TheKidInside, 25 March 2013 - 02:11 PM.


#49 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 25 March 2013 - 04:37 PM

Do you really think gangsters will be shooting people over illegal cigarette sales? Even to the addict, there is no extreme pleasure from cigarettes as there is with alcohol or other street drugs.

Yes, since tobacco is about as addictive as heroin. Prohibition is fascism and will never work.


When you were young, your parents told you not to put your hands near or on the stove. That's a prohibition. No one markets putting your hand near the stove and burning yourself, and no one does it. We all know better. But it could become the next cool scarification method with teenagers. It'll be the same thing when no one smokes anymore and it isn't available.

Anyways, it's like I said, their is no positive reinforcement with smoking as there is with heroin. You don't get high, there is no euphoria. It's just a cigarette and you don't get anything out of it except quenching the addiction. How many smokers do you know who have robbed people when things got bad to keep smoking? The very fact that you respond by calling it fascism is because of covert persistent tobacco marketing. The tobacco seed grows inside you, why do you need to smoke it?

#50 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 25 March 2013 - 06:02 PM

And you probably haven't read a lot about specifics of nicotine addiction. Nicotine is even more addictive than heroin despite that it doesn't cause euphoria (although it does cause pleasure!) - it's actually habit forming in a way different than other addictions.
I recommend you reading a chapter about nicotine in Psychopharmacology: Drugs, the brain, and behavior (authors Meyer, J. S., Quenzer, L. F.).

Comparison about putting your hand on the stove is just plainly stupid - we're aversive to heat because it is immediately dangerous to us, with smoking the death is far, most people can't really imagine the damage caused by smoking or there is much cognitive dissonance here.

#51 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 26 March 2013 - 02:26 AM

But if someone took my nicotine away, I'd be relieved. People just aren't going to do the same things they did under alcohol prohibition. If nicotine is so addictive, why do heroin users get to go on vacation at a detox center and get intensive counseling while they quit? It was hard for me to quit smoking, sure, but the cigarette lacks the feeling of empowerment that drugs like heroin have. During prohibition, there was a demand, no one wanted to quit alcohol, it was a party drug and it was fun, so people kept using it. Cigarettes don't have that appeal. Most smoker would quit if it were easy and save their money. The taxes go up a little here and a little there, people drive across state boarders and swing by a bunch of 7/11s picking up a carton at a time to cheapen the habit, no one notices much over time, they just smoke a cheaper cigarette for a while until they feel their old brand calling them back. I never wanted to be a smoker when I was one, I just couldn't stop and it was too easy and convenient to buy them. I eventually quit, but how many don't? I got some opiate painkillers that I was on for my wisdom teeth some time back and they were pretty good! I didn't want to quit those cuz they felt good, but I ran out of them. Cigarettes don't make you feel good! Even the smokers who like their smoking when they give it up long enough or can't get it often enough. When I was struggling with the nicotine addiction, the addiction faded when I didn't smoke all day, but as soon as I had one, or half of one, or I took a puff of an e-cig, I craved the cigarette. I craved the cigarette again when I use the "patch." It seems like having the stuff metabolize is part of the cause of the addiction and not just the nicotine itself. As I begin to remember that part of the addiction, I really doubt snus would keep me from smoking again if cigarettes are still around. When I e-cig'd, the e-cig just didn't have the capacity to quench the withdrawal symptoms that the actual cigarette did. I was getting nicotine sure, but even with different brands, the e-cig lacked the full satisfaction that a cigarette did. Even different brands and subbrands of cigarettes would change the satisfaction level I experienced. You have to wonder if the tobacco companies didn't breed their strains that way. We already know they were adding things to increase addiction levels, what were they doing with strain selections? Monsanto and other companies have done some incredible things with plant breeding. Did the tobacco companies pioneer in genetic manipulation of their tobacco strains? It certainly seems like it. Smoking is like living in a trap when you think about it. What's the difference between living in a tobacco trap and being a resident of Saddam Hussien's Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan? What happened to freedom? Or is smoking a form of prison? The tobacco culture certainly treats us like they are our authority. Why aren't the marines storming 401 N Main St Winston-Salem, NC 27101 and taking out Daniel M Delen like Pablo Escabar?


Now on the comparison to putting one's hand on the stove, we never really understand it until we know what getting burned feels like. Until then, we're just curious kids in a world of magic and experiencing the same ignorance or dissonance that a smoker experiences later in life. We may not be likely to burn ourselves twice, but the difference as you say is the immediate nature of getting burned, and again, we cough the first time we smoke, we cough pretty hard, but we treat it as a right of passage and bypass the immediate warning signs because we get a buzz. What if we treated burning our hands as a right of passage until we couldn't feel the sensation on our hands anymore? That's what's happening when people begin to smoke. Even if you quit for 10 years, the next cigarette still won't make you cough. Your lungs are permanently adapted to it.

Oh and another thought:
Look how RJ Reynolds isn't marketing to children anymore with their youth prevention program just a few topics below the sphere of cookiecutter boys and girls going hand in hand with BIG TOBACCO's broken message.
http://www.rjrt.com/

It's also interesting how they are waving the banner of harm prevention on their website! Harm prevention would be announcing that they are giving up the tobacco business altogether and moving into something distinctly healthy. They say they're trying to meet society's expectations, but they are forming our expectations and lowering them, practicing prevention of having high expectations of tobacco, like forming a global exit strategy from tobaccabusiness. Why shouldn't we expect them to come clean and describe how they've been manipulating people into smoking and creating death culture to fill their pockets and practice social engineering.

Harm prevention is bullshit. It doesn't come near to harm prevention unless it prevents harm. Harm prevention would be a complete withdrawal from tobacco sales. Anything else is minimally targeted harm, meaning some demographics are still being targeted for harm and back to the earlier parts of my argument, the desire to smoke and acceptance of smoking harm is a residual of past marketing. Not caring that it kills you is part of a herd mentality and is not valid. There are simply too many influences. You don't let a serial murder keep doing his business as long as he agrees not to kill some people. You take a stand and say it's not going to happen to anyone!

#52 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:20 AM

Harm reduction is exactly what it says: reduction of harm. That means that you have less probability of developing cancer etc. and this is true for snus.

One reason that e-cigs may not be so appealing or have different effect than usual cigs is that e-cig smoke only contains nicotine, whereas tobacco smoke also contains MAOI (type B I think) which is supposed to be responsible for much of the tobacco addictivesness - that means that nicotine isn't so addictive by itself, it is really addictive only in combination with MAOI. And interesting thing with snus is that it is not just plain nicotine but a form of tobacco - that means that it also contains MAOI. Many people find it easier to quit smoking with snus than with other nicotine replacement products. This may be one reason for this.

And one reason that cigarettes are so addictive is that they are similar to crack. In what sense? Read this: http://addiction-dir...ig-tobacco.html

As it turns out, they did it by increasing nicotine’s kick. And they accomplished that, in essence, by means of freebasing, a process invented by the cigarette industry. Adding ammonia or some other alkaline compound transforms a molecule of nicotine from its bound salt version to its “free” base, which volatilizes much more easily, providing low-pH smoke easily absorbed by body tissue.


Besides that it is true that Big Tobbaco puts a lot of other substances in tobacco to make it easier to smoke (like cocoa, sugar and god knows what).

But we already agree that it is harmful, we just don't agree in how to lower incidence of tobacco smoking. I think it is better to do it gradually and with education (but not only that). I have nothing more to say regarding that so I will not repeat myself.

Edited by hippocampus, 26 March 2013 - 10:24 AM.


#53 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:29 PM

We've been educating and emblazoning each pack for 20-30 years. We still have lifetime smokers. We still have a problem. If we didn't have tobacco products, we wouldn't have tobacco users. What ever happened to the vaccine for nicotine? Why not just make it a requirement for every kid entering school. I'm certain we can get it right. Stick it in the next flu shot too. If you do that, you won't have anyone who will enjoy smoking anymore and no crime will occur.

#54 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:57 PM

This thread is maddening. We've been very successful at reducing smoking rates without being absolute fascists about it. Most people find nicotine pleasant or they never would have had that second dose. Nicotine is addictive as hell- there's pretty much nothing else like it. I watched my dad have a freaking seizure from one of his numerous attempts to quite smoking. Vaccine for nicotine? Does that exist? A lot of people won't even give their kids vaccines for diseases- I doubt this is going to fly.

#55 nightlight

  • Guest
  • 374 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Lexington MA

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:19 PM

This thread is maddening. We've been very successful at reducing smoking rates without being absolute fascists about it. Most people find nicotine pleasant or they never would have had that second dose. Nicotine is addictive as hell- there's pretty much nothing else like it.


That is antismoking mythology. Most long term smokers who can't quit are not smoking because of nicotine. Nicotine is only mildly addictive and its widthdrawal symptoms (which are tolerable even on cold turkey quitting) last only few days. With nicotine replacement one can eliminate these symptoms completely, yet the person will resume smoking (only few percent manage to quit using pharmaceutical NRT). If it were about nicotine addiction NRT would work (hand motions etc, are non addictive trivial habits), but it doesn't even beat cold turkey (except in short term cessation). Neither are MAOI B effects of tobacco smoke since adding selegiline to NRT barely makes a difference in quitting rates.

The reason many smokers can't quit (nearly every one has probably tried after all the pressures and costs) is that tobacco is a potent medicinal plant with myriad unique therapeutic and protective effects that nothing else can replace -- there is no other substance, synthetic or natural, which covers even remotely as wide therapeutic spectrum and in such depth as tobacco smoke. There was an earlier long thread "Smoking is good for you" on this subject. Since there was lots of noise (from antismoking hysterics) the TOC with highlights is here, where item #17 attempts to list what would it take to replace the known major beneficial effects of tobacco smoke (any of which may be the primary reason why a person continues to smoke in the face of all the costs and hardship; there are probably some presently unknown as well).

For some effects, such as strong upregulation of all major detox & antioxidant enzymes (near doubling of glutathione, catalase and SOD, possibly as a hormetic effects), there isn't anything else you can take to replicate these effects. For example, if someone is exposed to high levels of industrial toxins (e.g. heavy metals, paints, solvents etc) or is particularly sensitive to them at lower exposures, smoking, by doubling their detox rates, is the only thing which can make their job or living conditions tolerable. Nicotine, Zyban, Chantix,... won't do a squat for such person.

Similarly, person smoking to keep their autoimmune disease tolerable, won't benefit much from any such replacement since tobacco smoke has unique multilevel anti-inflammatory/anti-sepsis spectrum (pressing anti-inflammatory levers from CNS/vagus controls to nicotinic receptors in somatic cells). Nicotine alone yields only partial anti-inflammatory effects of the full tobacco smoke (e.g. see the TOC link above for rheumatoid arhtirits experiments). Another related benefits without substitute are the potent anti-amyloidosis effects (including protection against beta-amyloidosis of brain a.k.a. Alzheimer's). It is extremely inhumane to keep tormenting & punishing people who are self-medicating with tobacco to compel them quit.

Of course, that's why the chief sponsor of antismoking is none other than pharmaceutical industry, spending many billions over last few decades, on buying antismoking laws, regulations and hypertaxation of smokers, spawning and financing "grass roots" antismoking groups, creating and peddling antismoking junk science,... Of course, pharma invests on wars against other natural medicines & remedies as well, but it fights none as viciously as tobacco, the most beneficial of them all. If you look at the sharp rise of medical costs and of numerous diseases (especially of autoimmune type) as smoking rates more than halved over the last 2-3 decades, it becomes obvious why the pharma and the rest of the sickness industry are doing everything they can to suppress tobacco smoking.


I watched my dad have a freaking seizure from one of his numerous attempts to quite smoking.


Quitting smoking (or starting smoking) doesn't by itself cause seizures. The seizures he had may be due to pharmaceuticals he used in the process (e.g. Zyban & some other antidepressants can cause seizures in some people). Or it may be that he was self-medicating with tobacco for some condition which could lead to seizures if left untreated (e.g. some auto/inflammatory process, or some CNS toxicity kept in check by smoking). Many long-term smokers who have hard time quitting will get very sick, even get lung cancer (see items #6, #11, #12 from the TOC list) shortly after abruptly quitting.
  • Well Written x 1

#56 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:42 AM

Conspiracy theories. Stupid, they are.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#57 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:29 PM

This thread is maddening. We've been very successful at reducing smoking rates without being absolute fascists about it. Most people find nicotine pleasant or they never would have had that second dose. Nicotine is addictive as hell- there's pretty much nothing else like it. I watched my dad have a freaking seizure from one of his numerous attempts to quite smoking. Vaccine for nicotine? Does that exist? A lot of people won't even give their kids vaccines for diseases- I doubt this is going to fly.


I wouldn't call what we have a success. Liking cigarettes is all psychological. It's an image people put on with a cigarette. People like the image. People are dieing and suffering. New smokers are being made every day, and they may very well die from it. It's all in what I've said before. There exists manipulative marketing that has persisted and reinforces smoking behaviors. The only way to stop something like this is to end it completely. It's infected our culture and makes people sick.

#58 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,249 posts
  • 1,169
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 27 March 2013 - 03:42 PM

Nightlight: You lost me at medicinal... The long term benefits don't outweigh the risks. It makes you die sooner and suffer longer, that isn't medicine, it's torture.

Hippocampus: It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an evolution of culture that isn't clearly understood. I'm trying to illustrate it. One of those thing where, if you are able to learn from history and know it more intimately, you can repeat a phenomena for another purpose and permanently influence the future, at least for those who don't get it.

#59 hippocampus

  • Guest
  • 736 posts
  • 112
  • Location:medial temporal lobe, brain

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:27 PM

I was replying to nightlight regarding tobacco being healthy. Go tell that to cancer patients, stupid.

edit: And yeah, I know that it lowers risk for few diseases and it may alleviate some conditions like ocd or schizophrenia (although more research is needed), but this doesn't make it "a potent medicinal plant with myriad unique therapeutic and protective effects that nothing else can replace".

Edited by hippocampus, 27 March 2013 - 04:33 PM.


#60 TheKidInside

  • Guest
  • 135 posts
  • 35
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:27 PM

Ummm we have successfully reduced smoking rates? What universe do you live in? Last time NYC did a poll about this, even though prices have more than DOUBLED to 13-15 bucks a pack, smoking has not gone down whatsoever. The only thing that has are rates from the 1960's....well, duh, no one is arguing about that.

Furthermore if you think heroin addicts simply go on "vacation with counseling" I need not read anything else you have to say lol





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: smoking, bad for you, quitting, quitters, smart, intelligent, story, how to, why to, end smoking

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users