Just ban cigarettes already. Please.

[Syrinx]

Really.

I know they are bad for me.

But I smoke them anyway.

Ban them.

Make them illegal.

Instead of just continually raising taxes on them for your latest endeavor, just fucking ban them.

Then maybe I'll quit.

Instead of making me feel guilty, and making me a pariah. Just fucking ban it.

Make tobacco illegal.

Do it. I dare you.

I want you to do it.

[Tx4obama]

1. What kind of BS is this ???

Tobacco is a legal product in The USA.

If you want to quit smoking then go ahead.

But that does NOT mean that the rest of us smokers want to.

Around 35 years ago I worked in a nursing home, we had three older gentleman that were in their 90s that everyday came up to the nurses station to retrieve their cigarettes and matches when they wanted to go outside for a smoke.

ALL THREE of them started smoking in their teenage years and NONE of them had any lung problems what-so-ever.

In my opinion, the reason folks die of lung cancer is due to smog, exhaust fumes in traffic jams, environmental CHEMICALS, etc and NOT due to cigarettes - I am sure that 'others' will disagree with me but I am going to stand by my observations of what I have seen in real life.

[Syrinx]

5. BS?

Cigarette smoking isn't related to lung cancer? Yeah, that's pretty much BS.

[Fawke Em]

42. Actually, it's never been proven,

despite the widespread belief that it has.

One of my colleagues expresses the situation in this way: If it has not been proved that tobacco is guilty of causing cancer of the lung, it has certainly been shown to have been on the scene of the crime. The American Cancer Society, along with a growing body of professional and scientific opinion, has taken this position: Although the complicity of the cigarette in the present prevalence of cancer of the lung has not been proved to the satisfaction of everyone, yet the weight of evidence against it is so serious as to demand of stewards of the public welfare that they make the evidence known to all.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1956/01/lung-cancer-and-smoking-what-we-really-know/4760/

That's not to say, as pointed out, that it may "trigger" the gene that causes cancer, that it's unhealthy for the lungs and causes emphysema and other lung disease, but the statement that "cigarette smoking causes lung cancer," is not correct.

I'm with the other poster: even the World Health Organization has recognized that, while smoking is decreasing, the instances of lung cancer are increasing and they are looking a total factors, such as diet, chemicals, pollution, lack of exercise and genetic factors.

[Fawke Em]

47. And just to reiterate lest I get attacked...

I'm not saying smoking isn't bad.

I'm not saying it should be restricted to personal homes, cars and smoking areas (although, I doubt a couple of whiffs of smoke as you walk past a smoker will hurt you when there are thousands of cars whizzing by you).

I'm not even saying that there IS NOT a connection between smoking and lung cancer.

I'm simply pointing out that the absolute connection has not been proven.

That is all.

[Neurotica]

72. That article is from 1956...research has come a long way since then

[Fawke Em]

109. No, it's not. That's a mistake.

[Major Nikon]

74. Actually it has

The statement that "cigarette smoking causes lung cancer" is very correct. There is some debate as to whether nicotine itself should be listed as a carcinogen, but there's no doubt that cigarette smoking can and does cause cancer.

[Armin-A]

92. Yes and no

cigarette smoking doesn't CAUSE lung cancer... it causes a significantly higher risk for lung cancer.... so if you smoke it doesn't mean you will get it.... but chances are you're gonna develop lung cancer 15, 20 years down the road...even if you quit. its all about chance and probability but it has almost undoubtedly been shown to have an increase in rate of lung cancer

[Major Nikon]

95. It causes cancer as much as anything else causes cancer

The more you smoke and the longer period over which you smoke certainly come into play just as every other thing that causes cancer does.

[Armin-A]

96. ...no sorry. all carcinogens aren't on the same playing field.

you don't have the same chance of developing bladder cancer from napthylamine as you would lung cancer from smoking. clumping everything together is overly simplistic... there are too many things to account for especially, age, duration of exposure, level of exposure, etc. but when it comes down to it the more its done the more likely it happens is basically the general rule that has come out of the research.

[Major Nikon]

102. What I'm saying is that the greater your exposure, the greater your chances

This is true regardless. I don't know of anything that causes cancer which produces a greater cancer risk the less you expose yourself to it.

[Armin-A]

103. gotcha. we're on the same page now ;p

[Saving Hawaii]

97. By that standard driving drunk doesn't cause car crashes, shooting heroin won't kill you...

They just cause a significantly higher risk for those things.

Cigarette smoking isn't guaranteed to kill you. You may die of other things. You may be relatively healthy and just die of old age. But you're significantly upping your risk for lung cancer, COPD, and a variety of other disease processes that can kill you. You may get lung cancer that isn't even due to cigarette smoking... if you'd never touched a smoke in your life, you could still get lung cancer.

It's pretty misleading, I think, to suggest that cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you're not guaranteed to get lung cancer (sorry Kurt Vonnegut) and you might get lung cancer even if you never smoke. It drastically increases the risk for that; hence it causes it. People can quibble over definitions of words like "cause", but I think it's pretty misleading if your definition of "cause" exonerates cigarettes from causing lung cancer.

[Armin-A]

98. NO. I think you're missing the point.

I'm not saying smoking is not bad.
Do I smoke? No.
Do I care if others do? No, unless it I am coming into contact with it... whether it's second hand or third hand smoke.
There is a correlation between the two... it just isn't a causation.

Does the alcohol come up out of a bottle and steer the wheel? No it messes up your body to a point it drives into a tree or another car. Shooting heroin on the other directly degrades your body or if you overdose we know how that goes.

My point is cancer is a probability.... and smoking is like playing blackjack and playing on 20 everytime...

[eridani]

117. Independent (non-statistical) evidence can settle whether correlation is related to causation

And it has. Extract components of smoke, expose lung cells to them, and voila! Cancer.

[Armin-A]

119. okay good luck keep a few lung cells alive for 20 years....

[eridani]

121. It takes very little time to induce cancer in lung cells with known carcinogens

What would running the experiment out for 20 years add?

[Armin-A]

122. a mutation yes. cancer no

[eridani]

123. Yes, cancer. Google is your friend n/t

[Armin-A]

124. yes so is 6 continuing years of research of cell biology

[Fawke Em]

111. Right.

[Syrinx]

6. I know tobacco is a legal product in the US

What kind of argument is that?

Smog and pollution are bad, but come on.

You don't think sucking all that smoke into your lungs has a bad effect.

[demosincebirth]

21. I think you forgot the

I hope.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

12. Calling someone else's post BS after saying what you just said...

...is terribly hypocritical. My dad died due to Smoking Related Illness caused by smoking heavily for decades. No other reason. And if he we were here to tell the tale, he'd tell you it was true. Just because you know people who smoke for years and never had problems doesn't mean that it doesn't cause cancer in others. You keep smoking, but keep it to yourself. Don't make the rest of us smell your toxic chemicals. I can't even sit in my house in the spring with my windows open without getting someone else's crap in my house and stinking the place up because someone feels like they need to kill themselves a little faster. Personally, I find it selfish. I mean, you'd rather smoke than spend a few extra years with your family and children?
Duckie

[shanti]

53. exactly

my deceased father and grandmother would beg to differ as well, both dying as the result of lung cancer. they were also lifelong tobacco smokers. nobody can tell me that there is no correlation between cigs and lung cancer.

[onenote]

14. You don't think cigarettes contribute to lung cancer?

Wow. I hate to say it, but that kind of anti-science attitude sounds like something I'd expect to see on other lists, not this one.

[Fawke Em]

44. Considering that science hasn't definitively proven that,

I think your opinion is on the opposite of science.

Again, not saying smoking isn't bad for you or that it isn't at the "scene of the crime" in lung cancer diagnoses, but the jury is still out on this one, scientifically speaking.

[onenote]

51. wow. Do you also dispute the claim that human activity is a major contributor to climate change?

After all, there are scientists who dispute claims that climate change has been "definitively" proven. Indeed, I suspect I could dig around and find some scientist that disputes that evolution has been "definitively proven."

But that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is and has been for decades that there is a significant causal link between cancer and cigarette smoke.

In fact, you should check out what Philip Morris, the cigarette company has to say about it on its website:

"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."

If you can find a single, credible scientific study that disputes the cancer/cigarette link and establishes that its just an "opinion,", I'd love to see it.

[Fawke Em]

110. Nope, that's been proven.

And, I did find a single, credible scientific study that disputes the absolute. You chose to ignore it.

[onenote]

116. Your "credible" study is from 1956, which means its no longer credible

So, yes, I chose to ignore it. The fact that you are staking your argument on it is simply ridiculous. There has been extensive research since Charles Cameron was head of the American Cancer Society and you know it. Not only is there no evidence that the article in question wasn't really written in 1956 (as you apparently claim), the fact is that whatever Dr. Cameron may have written or thought in 1956, he had a different view just a few years later. In one of the first cases brought by a smoker against a tobacco company, Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers, Dr. Cameron was one of five medical experts that testified "categorically" that there was a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

Finally, just to put to rest your bald assertion that Cameron's 1956 article isn't really from 1956, please take note of the fact that Cameron was head of the ACS back in the late 40s (there is an award that ACS gives out each year that he created in 1949 -- google him and you'll see), left the ACS in 1966 to go to Hahnemann Medical College, retired in 1972, and died at age 90 in 1998.


NEWS
Dr. Charles Cameron, A Force At Hahnemann
October 29, 1998 | By Andy Wallace, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Charles S. Cameron, 90, a doctor who was a major force behind the growth of Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital and a prominent figure in cancer-prevention education, died of respiratory failure Saturday at Beaumont at Bryn Mawr retirement center. During the 16 years he was at Hahnemann (now Allegheny University Hospital) as dean, president, and chairman of the board of trustees, Dr. Cameron added a full-time clinical faculty, developed the graduate school, vastly increased research activities, and prepared a 25-year building program that continued long after he retired in 1972.

[obamanut2012]

15. You really didn't just say that, did you?

OMG.

[edhopper]

18. My answer to this type of

anecdotal nonsense is:
I know a couple of people who were shot but are fine now, so I don't see why people think shooting someone is so bad.

[dionysus]

28. ok, i agree with much of what you post.. but this one is BS. look at the ass end of a filter.

then just try and tell me the shit isn't a killer.

and i'm not an anti-smoking zealot either.

[Broderick]

29. Ban cigarettes and legalize Pot!

Woot.

[dionysus]

37. i can get behind that.

[Broderick]

38. They will have to pry my alcohol from my cold

dead hands.

[dionysus]

64. +1

[Fawke Em]

112. I hate pot.

It stinks and smells like skunk.


And I don't want to breathe it.


There. My obligatory post. I really think pot sucks. It really does nothing for me, but I really don't want to ban it.

If y'all legalize it, some corporation will make it as poisonous as tobacco.

Don't y'all get that, yet?

[Zoeisright]

32. When you can keep that shit in your own lungs, you can smoke anywhere you want.

You "right" to smoke ends at my nose. And your post is proof that denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Sad.

Anecdotal evidence means jack shit compared to scientific research. You might want to do a little reading rather than making life assumptions on what you observe.

Buh-bye.

[rustydog]

52. My brother smoked for approximately 20 years In July he lost a lung to cancer

Do you want to guess the CAUSE.
Ask the Marlboro man what he thinks of smoking...Oh that is right smoking fucking killed him...
Your opinion is ignorant and lacking in standing accepted scientific study..is your name Phillip-Morris?

[hfojvt]

59. you ought to know that that is a ridiculous kind of "proof"

You know how the game Russian Roulette works? You put a bullet in the chamber of a revolver, spin it and then put it up to your head and pull the trigger. Now imagine that 100 million people are playing it once a year on lottery day. Obviously some of the players are going to die, but not all will. 5 out of six will survive each time (83%). 25 out of 36 will survive two years (69.4%) 125 out of 216 will survive for three years (57.9%) Some will live into their 90s even though the odds of surviving for 40 years are .0007 and the odds of surviving even ten years are .016.

Still, out of 100 million players, 1.6 million will survive for ten years and 70,000 will survive for 40 years. Yet you will meet a few of the survivors and think they are not playing a dangerous game with their health just because THEY happened to be one of the lucky ones who beat the odds. At the nursing home you will never see the much larger number of people who did not live long enough to goto the nursing home because they died of lung cancer. You will only see the ones who dodged the bullets.

Bubonic plague only kills 25% of the people who get it. Are you gonna expose yourself to those germs? Are you gonna know some people who were exposed, and yet survived and say that "plague germs don't cause bubonic plague"?

Ah well, you can feel free to put that revolver in your mouth and spin the barrel. Ya pays your money, ya takes your chances.

[hedgehog]

75. You were unaware of all the people who never lived long enough to

make it to your nursing home because they died from cancer and/or heart disease. Also, it is possible that the effects of cigarette smoking led to the disabilities that put the 90 year old gentlemen in your nursing home!

[GeorgeGist]

90. Another simple-minded imbecile ...

like Ron Paul.

[roguevalley]

93. almost every male in my family died from lung cancer. it was a death

i wouldn't wish on hitler. just because three old men didn't have symptoms of this doesn't make it okay.

Frankly, it is a fricking crime that these fuckers make money off killing our people.

[Bake]

100. To quote Jerry Reed ...

"I've been smokin' all of my life and I ain't dead yet!"

Yeah, I don't really want the govt. to ban it. I don't even want to quit at this point. It is one of the few pleasures I have. I enjoy it, even if it's bad for me. I enjoy a Big Mac now and then, too.

And I'm pretty courteous about it, even.



Bake

[LeftishBrit]

2. While I sympathize...

I don't think that banning cigarettes would be a good idea. We have seen what Prohibition did in the 1920s, and what the drug wars are doing now.

[oldhippydude]

3. oh crap btdt

i quit 8 years ago.. here's what i did.. good luck let me know if can help, off group!!

http://www.voicesofnicotinerecovery.com/

[taterguy]

4. Let's not and say we did

[Warren DeMontague]

7. why don't you pretend that it's banned, and then stop, if that's what you want?

Seriously. We have enough unenforceable laws. You're a 'pariah' because other people don't want to be subjected to your smoke, and because lots of other people have quit, and it's not as socially accepted and ubiquitous as (gack!) it once was.

But consenting adults should be free to make choices, even bad ones.

You don't have to tell me that it's bad for you. My dad died of lung cancer. But I'm not your nanny and the government shouldn't be, either. That said, it's reasonable both to have restrictions on where people can smoke AND to have taxes on them much as we tax things like liquor. Much as we ought to tax a product like pot, were it ever made legal.

I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and wager that you don't really want cigarettes banned, so much as you want to not be a 'pariah' for smoking them after you've paid taxes on a pack.

[bowens43]

8. Yes , that's just what we need more attacks on personal freedom.....

your weakness should dictate that actions of others.

[rustydog]

54. You do NOT have the "personal freedom" to blow smoke out that I have to breathe.

I quit smoking 20 years ago. I miss it every day, But I am an EX smoker, your right to smoke is not more important than my right not to have to breathe in your smoke.

This is a difficult subject, but don't over simplify it by claiming individual right or freedom, yours can't infringe upon mine and vice versa.

[Zorra]

9. Smoking is a really thoughtless bad example for adults to provide for children.

Should it be illegal? I can't say, that's not my dog.

Should we make a personal decision to not smoke because it is a terribly harmful vice/habit that gets passed from generation to generation? Because children get addicted to this harmful substance and it very well might make them sick and kill them later in life?

That's up to you to decide for yourself.

[99Forever]

10. Or you could just quit using them being "not illegal" as an excuse to keep smoking them.

Quitting smoking was perhaps the hardest thing I've ever done. More tries than I can count. When I finally decided to stop "trying to quit" and just did it, it worked. There is no easy way to do it, that's now my incentive to never start again, it's been over 5 years.

[LeftinOH]

11. Organized crime would love for cigarettes to be banned;

best thing since prohibition. Then we'd have to decide how much law enforcement should "look the other way", since "cigarette buster" enforcement would cost us taxpayers lots.

The prohibition of alcohol failed on every level, starting with the fact that in many areas, law enforcement simply ignored the booze trade. They had to -since the taxpaying public was unwilling to have their taxes increased to cover the cost enforcement of the ban.

[hobbit709]

13. Prohibition worked out so well for alcohol

and is doing a great job on marijuana so why not.

what's that definition of insanity?

[tawadi]

87. Pretty much exactly what I was going to post. eom

[obamanut2012]

16. An interesting book on this subject

By David Kessler, MD and former FDA Commissioner under George HW Bush and Bill Clinton:

A Question of Intent

[meaculpa2011]

19. Parents should show...

a good example to their children. That's why my wife and I don't smoke, eat the right foods and exercise regularly.

My daughter is 18 and started smoking when she was 14. My son is 21, eats junk, is 60 pounds overweight and spends most of his time playing computer games. He also has sleep disorder and the early signs of diabetes and heart disease.

Smoke if you want. Eat what you want. Do what you want.

But the next person that tells me that parents should show a good example for their kids is gonna get hit in the face with a brick.

BTW: When my daughter asked me what I wanted for Christmas I said that I wanted her to give up cigarettes. It's been almost three weeks and I hope she can keep it up.

[JVS]

20. How about we get your money until you quit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I have a friend who has been saying this for years.

Makes more sense all the time.

[Snake Alchemist]

23. Those taxes pay for a lot of important programs. nt

[Recovered Repug]

24. Try e-cigarettes.

I used to smoke too much for over 25 years. I switched to e-cigs about a month ago and haven't gone back to the regular stuff. They're a lot cheaper too.

[spin]

49. True. I also like the e-cigs. I'm pufing (vaping) on one right now...

Of course, I will probably just trade one addiction for another. However it's not the nicotine in cigarettes that cause cancer but the hundreds of other chemicals.

Many mistakenly think nicotine causes cancer, rather than the smoke

Main Category: Smoking / Quit Smoking
Article Date: 05 Nov 2005 - 7:00 PDT

Women who smoke are more concerned about their habit and their ability to quit than men, yet both genders appear misinformed about smoking and its link to cancer. In a new study presented at CHEST 2005, the 71st annual international scientific assembly of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the majority of smokers mistakenly believed nicotine causes cancer, leading many to smoke "light" cigarettes because they believed them to be less harmful. Women also were more likely than men to have feelings of guilt, fear, and worry associated with tobacco use and quitting the habit.

***snip***

"People smoke to get the addictive drug, nicotine, but the drug alone does not cause cancer. The delivery system, a cigarette full of hundreds of toxic chemicals that are inhaled along with nicotine, does," said Ms. Reichert. "This misinformation leads many smokers to smoke 'light' cigarettes, thinking they will inhale less nicotine. In reality, smokers tend to smoke more light cigarettes and inhale more deeply to get nicotine from light cigarettes, resulting in a significant amount of harmful chemicals being inhaled."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/33023.php

[RebelOne]

67. How are they a lot cheaper?

I bought a package of 4 of them. The price was $40 and each cigarette was equal to a pack. Do the math.

[KharmaTrain]

80. Here's Some Math...

I used to smoke 2 packs a day at 3 dollars a pack was $6 a day, $42 a week, $168 a month and $2,016 a year. Yep...lots of money.

I switched to an E-Cig last April and stopped smoking cigarettes altogether. Yep, the initial investment was $30 for the aerator and battery and another $20 for the "goop" or fluid...that's $50 that lasted me most of the month...compared to $168...I'd say that's a bit of savings. That's $136 a month and $1632 a year or the price of a couple of nice vacations.

The costs to my health can't be calculated as I'm down to almost zero nicotine and can still enjoy the pleasure I had of smoking. Also the "smoke" is steam and disipates quickly so I can smoke this thing in a closed car full of people and no one can smell it...not to mention I no longer smell like an ashtray and have my sense of taste and smell back.

I'd strongly doing a little homework on the subject...avoid those cheap e-cigs you see at gas stations. I smoked for nearly 40 years and made the changeover with little difficulty...and glad of it.

[RebelOne]

83. The e-cigarettes I bought are not from a gas station.

Here is the review on them. They still do not give me the nicotine kick that cigarettes do.

Blu Cigs

The product is really popular and the flavors are great. Lately they have changed to the 2-piece design, and are now paying a lot of attention to safety and quality. While the blue LED makes it stand out among the crowd, even the ecig packs are stylish and functional as battery chargers. Blu also gives you free shipping services and 30 day money-back guarantee. Product has quite good reviews by users, only thing is that shipping might sometimes take a lot of time and the customer support isn’t prompt. But due to the recent changes the product has become one of the best e cigs on the market. $69.95 (free shipping)
Full Blu Cigs Review & Deals | Visit Blu Cigs Web Site

[KharmaTrain]

85. A Lot Of Different Types Out There...

After months of research I found what I needed at VaporPro (several DUers recommended them as well). You can get "juice" in any combination up to 36ml (very strong) that is what I started with...still got the throat hit and nicotine kick...and, more important, didn't feel any withdrawls from not smoking a "regular" cigarette. Over the next 8 months I lowered my nicotine and still feel the "rush" I used to.

But then a lot has to do with how much you want something to work. I had the motivations of not only the money and a family that long had wanted me to give up tobacco but the long nagging knowledge that I was killing myself. I had an uncle who smoked 2 packs a day and died of lung cancer at 65...I'm about to be a grandfather...I'd like to stick around.

My best advice is to keep investigating and looking...you may just find the motivation and the best system. Today you may not be ready but its the best option this longtime smoker found in getting that 900 gorilla off my back. It's nice not to have to sit outside in the cold to catch a quick smoke...

Cheers...

[pamela]

105. You bought a bad brand.

Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)

There are a lot of ecigs that are better and cheaper. I don't know any veteran vaper who would recommend that brand. I don't like to recommend specific products but if you check out the ecig forum there is a wealth of info there. Good luck.


edited to add: I'm sorry, I'm not feeling well tonight and this post came out sounding kind of abrupt and snotty. Trying an ecig can be daunting. There is so much to learn and so many brands. The most highly advertised brands like Njoy, Smoking Everywhere and Blu are also probably the worst brands out there and sadly, they are the ones that most new users are exposed to first. The best thing to do is sign up at the ecig forum and read, read, read. Then, when you think you've narrowed it down to a few models and styles, jump in and ask for recommendations on where to buy. There are lots of good suppliers there with products and prices much better than those name brands.

[Broderick]

25. I need big brother and big sister

to make my decisions for me and to determine what is best for me. If they ban cigarettes, I will have to quit. They should make sure they take away other things from me too that are detrimental to my health. Such as driving, eating transfats, fast food, cholesterol, complex sugars, etc etc etc. Ban the happy meal too, because it doesn't make me very happy.

[Tikki]

39. I needed them to quit....and I feel honored that the people of....

California felt it was so important that I live a healthy life.
The laws they voted on and passed made it more and more unpleasant for
me to pay the prices to buy cigarettes and to find a place in public to smoke.
I gave in and quit.

Not a day of the 7 years since I quit goes by that I am not thankful for the push
I got to quit.

No sarcasm here.


Tikki

[Broderick]

43. Some sarcasm here, but I left out alcohol

No way in heck are they taking that away from me.

[hedgehog]

76. It may be that many of the fine people of California didn't

give a damn about your health, they just didn't want to deal with your point source air pollution!

[Tikki]

86. That works for me, also.

I want to do the best by the State that does the best for me.


Tikki

[roguevalley]

94. make them ten bucks apiece.

[theAntiRand]

26. As someone addicted to cigarettes, I agree they should be banned

It's not a goddamn choice.
"Well just quit then," the self righteous say smugly, having never smoked a single cigarette in their life. You know what telling me that makes me do? Light up another one, to deal with the stress of being told off by some asshole that just doesn't get it.

[hobbit709]

30. I just quit cigarettes, cocaine and alcohol.

wasn't easy but I did. 30 years later there are still times I find myself wanting a cigarette.

[99Forever]

79. I was, where you are at.

Didn't much care to hear from the "smoking N*zis" myself. Told myself that "I'll show them" by firing one up just to spite them. I won't for a second get self righteous or smug, because I KNOW just what a grip smoking held on me. Made giving up other bad habits into child's play by comparison. I lost count of how many times I tried to give it up and failed. I hear you when you say that hearing "Well just quit" angers you. Sure did me too.

Then I realized something, having a smoke to show "them" my anger, was hurting and costing me a heck of a lot more than it ever did "them." "They" didn't wake up coughing every morning. "They" didn't have to figure out how to come up with the $3 or $4 a pack to keep me supplied. "They" didn't have to stand out in the cold like an outcast to feed my habit. And on and on. All of the negative stuff fell on me, not "them."

One thing I found out, (much to my own consternation) is that the only way to quit smoking, is to just do it. With or without an aid. It's that harsh bit of reality I hadn't been ready to accept, that I finally did, that once and for all, got me over the hump.

That's was just over 5 years ago. I still get "the urge" from time to time, tho less often as time passes. When I do, all I need do is remember just how difficult the battle to give up smoking was and it's a no-brainer for me.

Good luck to you and here's hoping you can break free too.

[Codeine]

101. Of course it's a goddamn(ed) choice.

It's not an easy one, but it is one people make and keep to every day. Each day you don't seek an alternative (gum, patch, lozenge, Chantix, willpower, whatever) you're making an informed choice to take the easier, much more destructive, route.

[ljm2002]

27. That will work about as well as Prohibition did...

...and with a lot of the same side effects, notably a rise in crime and a rise in shoddy and sometimes poisonous product.

Not a good idea IMO.

[JSnuffy]

31. You could just send the government a check...

.... whenever you smoke and just pretend. That would be best for everyone.

[SOS]

33. Buy in Canada for $8

Sell in New York for $30.

That's $220 a carton profit for the bootlegger.

Great idea!

[MattBaggins]

63. Bomb Canada

[The Straight Story]

34. Suggest people ban alcohol, and the 'freedom lovers' come out, talk about banning smoking and you

complain,you get called a libertarian...

[Ron Green]

41. That's because tobacco is different from alcohol,

both individually and socially. There's really no way to use tobacco moderately without addiction. There's no way to establish an appropriate time of day for smoking, as there is for responsible drinking. There's no level of smoking that has actually been shown to be health positive, as some studies have shown for red wine. And so on.

A thread like this always brings out libertarians, anecdotists and people who conflate issues of "personal freedom" with those of public health.

Yeah, this country was built on tobacco (see Jamestown), but it was also built on slavery and we got rid of that. It's time to get rid of the modern form of slavery known as the "custom" of smoking, which is nothing but a corporate-driven drug delivery system that reaches to every corner of America.

[The Straight Story]

46. I'd rather trade health for freedom than freedom for health

And alcohol costs us just as much if not more than smoking in health care costs, drunk driving/boating accidents, physical abuse, crime.

Health Benefits:

Digestive system
Risk of ulcerative colitis has been frequently shown to be reduced by smokers on a dose-dependent basis; the effect is eliminated if the individual stops smoking.[5][6]
Smokers are less often affected by aphthous ulcer.[7]

Cardiovascular system
Kaposi's sarcoma[8]

Reproductive/breasts
breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene[9]
Pre-eclampsia[10]
Smoking can also reduce rates of uterine fibroids.[11][12] This may be due to estrogen inhibition, as opposed to general inhibition of inflammation.
The risk of endometriosis has been reported to be reduced in smokers.[13]

General
atopic disorders such as allergic asthma[14]

Neurologic
Smoking has been consistently found to be a protective factor on epidemiological studies for Parkinson's disease. The basis for such effect is not known but possibilities include an effect of nicotine as dopamine stimulant.[15]
The majority (80% in Australia as of 2001, 85% in the US as of 2007) of schizophrenics smoke, apparently to self-medicate.[16] Nicotine appears to be an effective antipsychotic, and work is underway to develop antipsychotic drugs based on nicotine without the ill effects of smoking or of nicotine itself.[17]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_benefits_of_smoking

More? Yep:
Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease

Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks

Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html

[Ter]

57. My beers are cool and harm no one second-hand

I drink moderately, my indoor card game at my house once a week. I don't drive after, since I'm in my house. If I smoked, everyone in the room would be affected.

[The Straight Story]

58. But...you do drive?

And the smog created does harm others. In a house you can open a window

[phleshdef]

70. When I still smoked cigs, I only did it outside and away from other non-smokers.

So I didn't effect anyone but myself either.

You drink responsibly. Thats great. But there are plenty of people who get drunk and raise hell, beat their wives, etc. Alcohol is not superior to tobacco, nor does it have any less potential to negatively effect others. Either has the potential to be used in moderation and in a responsible way or the opposite of that. People are generally better off without either too.

[Ron Green]

65. Wow. A post listing the health benefits of smoking.

As I said, a thread such as this brings out all kinds of surprises. Yet I maintain that smoking is pretty much ALL bad, and drinking not necessarily so. And I don't have to do back flips to have this position.

[totodeinhere]

45. I don't care if you drink as long as you don't drive and kill me. I can sit next to

you while you drink and the worst that can happen is I might smell it on your breath. But if you smoke I can be exposed to second hand smoke. That's big difference.

[former9thward]

50. So stay away from smokers if you are so paranoid about it.

BTW do you stay away from streets because of the pollution given off by cars? I didn't think so. If you think cigarette smoke is more deadly than vehicle exhaust I challenge you to breath in cigarette smoke for 60 seconds and then get next to an car exhaust and breath in that for 60 seconds.

[totodeinhere]

73. There is substantial scientific documentation of the fact that second hand smoke is harmful.

Since it is smokers who are causing the harm with their smoke, doesn't it make more sense for them to stay away from me rather than the other way around? I should be able to go where I want to. I am doing no harm.

[former9thward]

78. Your ignored my challenge as I knew you would.

I know you ignored it because you are still posting. If you took it up you would not be around. Of course you have a car or use a vehicle which emits exhaust so it is ok that you pollute.

Second hand smoke is a totally unscientific myth. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1#.TxSBn4Ev_5k

[totodeinhere]

82. You are quoting notorious right winger and Fox News broadcaster John Stossel?

Enough said.

As far as auto exhaust goes, of course it is a pollutant. And there are federal regulations that require vehicles to be equipped to minimize it as much as possible. So why can't we do that same with cigarette smoke?

[former9thward]

99. This was a ABC News report not Fox but don't let facts get in your way.

Anti-smoking fanatics never do. You don't want to stay away from me with your killer exhaust because you use a vehicle. You do not want to be inconvenienced. Yet you wish to go everywhere in the world and smokers are supposed to flee the area -- again because you do not wish to be inconvenienced even though YOUR pollution is killing people. I will give you a link showing how junk the science is behind second hand smoke although I do not expect you will be able to read it or understand it. http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html

[totodeinhere]

104. John Stossel was working for ABC but left there and now works for Fox. And he is a right winger.

In October 2009 Stossel left his long time home on ABC News to join the Fox Business Channel and Fox News Channel, both owned and operated by News Corp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel

I do have my facts straight. Also, I am not an anti smoking fanatic and my reading comprehension is just fine. I do not appreciate the personal insult. You should be able to disagree with me without insulting me.

This is from the Centers for Disease Control website. The CDC is of course a US Government agency.

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that include smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke), and exhaled mainstream smoke. Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 known toxic chemicals, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.2 Secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and a number of health conditions, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and respiratory infections, in children.

http://www.cdc.gov/datastatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html

[former9thward]

118. I apologize for the insult.

1) I don't care what Stossel,"s politics are, I only care what the facts are. If a right winger says the sun rises in the east I am not going to challenge him just because of his politics.

2) From your link this is the next paragraph: More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places. Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces. Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.3

If second-hand smoke was a cancer problem the rates of cancer would be at the moon with this many people exposed. They are not.

3) If you follow the links that are found within your link eventually you will find CDC reports on various actual studies that have been made. Without exception every study which says there is no link with cancer and second hand smoke is trashed by the CDC saying the study "is flawed" and "not good analysis", etc. This shows science is being throw out the window by people that have an agenda.

[totodeinhere]

120. There might be someone with an agenda here, but I don't think it's the CDC. n/t

[pipi_k]

35. uh, oh...

Instead of just continually raising taxes on them for your latest endeavor, just fucking ban them.

Then maybe I'll quit. [/div class="excerpt"]


"...maybe I'll quit."

maybe...

Maybe isn't good enough.


anyway. Lots of people have been pariahs for lots of reasons. Lots of people have sickened and died for lots of reasons.

We can't ban everything that's bad...

[phleshdef]

36. I switched to a high quality electronic cig over 2 years ago and have never looked back.

I recommend it to anyone that just can't quite kick the habit. Be sure to get a high quality model as the low quality ones will just frustrate you. You can ween yourself down to 0 nicotine with them if you want, or you can just stick with the nicotine, its still literally 3000 times healthier than the real thing either way. No tar, no smoke, no thousands of added chemicals, no carcinogenic reaction due to the process of burning something. My lungs feel great. I'm saving money. I don't smell bad. I don't have to go outside every hour in the middle of winter. Its made my life way better.

[NavyDem]

66. I agree with you and share your experiences

It's been 15 months since I dropped the Analog cigs and went to e-cigs. I went with a high quality one, and I have not been disappointed. I'm still addicted to nicotine, but I'm not having to ingest all the other nasty chemicals. I was a two pack a day smoker for 25 years.

[phleshdef]

68. Right on. This invention is going to save lives.

I got a Silver Bullet from Altsmoke and then recently purchased an Omega (I wore my SB switch out!).

[slackmaster]

40. We tried prohibition of a popular substance once

It didn't work out very well.

[former9thward]

48. You have no self control over your life so you want to deny others.

Some people like cigarettes -- no they are not addicted to them. Maybe we should prohibit alcohol, credit cards, fast food and everything else where some people can't control themselves.

[Throd]

55. Cocaine wasn't exactly legal when I was snorting big piles of it.

Do the hard work yourself.

[Quantess]

56. Is this like a DU analogy

where you ask Skinner to please ban you from DU?

[onehandle]

60. Nope. Just keep increasing the restrictions on public use.

Smoke away, just not in my personal space.

[Prophet 451]

61. 'Cus prohibition worked so well for booze and drugs

I smoke. I like smoking. I'm one of the increasingly rare people who actually enjoy smoking. I don't do any other drugs and I rarely drink but I enjoy smoking. Over here (England), I'm banned from smoking in enclosed public spaces (like bars or cafes) and that's fine. It's a minor irritation but one I'm happy to put up with for the sake of the general health.

But screw you if you tell me I can't smoke in my own home.

[hfojvt]

62. if you smoke them now when they are taxed

What makes you think you would stop smoking if they were illegal?

Many would just buy bootleg cigs and smoke in a place where nobody can see them

[Taverner]

69. Yes because prohibition was such a success...

And the war on drugs CLEARLY got rid of drugs

[Charlemagne]

71. The Mafia

agrees with you completely.

[Wistful Vista]

77. I smoked for 46 years, 2+ packs a day then I quit 4 years ago. Cold turkey. No patches or anything

just decided not to waste any more money on it...so I know it's possible and not even that difficult if the motivation is there. You can quit too, just do it.

[FarCenter]

81. Just ban possession of more than a ton of tobacco

This would convert the tobacco industry into an industry for small and medium businesses.

It would end the dominance of the huge corporations with their market power, large-scale factories, advertising budgets, and distribution networks.

BTW -- do the same for marijuana.

[zorahopkins]

84. Big Corporations Thank You Very Much For Your Money

Several huge corporations -- the ones that manufacture cigarettes -- thank you very much for your money.

You are great for profits.

You help pay the salaries of the top executives of several large corporations, and they thank you.

I agree with you.

BAN Cigarettes.

NO PROFITS for corporations that make people addicts!

[Honeycombe8]

88. Ban jelly beans, please! Just go ahead and do it! Please!

I have no control over my urge to eat jelly beans. Instead of continually raising the price on the colorful little jelly heads, just go ahead and take the decision away from me, and ban them altogether!

[lildreamer316]

89. Yes, let's limit freedom of choice even more than we do already.

SARCASM^^

Prohibition. DOES.NOT.WORK.

[meaculpa2011]

91. I smoked four packs of unfiltered Camels a day.

Quit cold turkey more than 30 years ago on the day they went up to $1 a pack.

Never lectured anyone. Never told anyone to stop smoking in my presence.

Then my daughter took up the habit.

That's when I started begging, pleading and praying.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

106. "Psst! I need a cigarette!" "I've got a guy"

And then way more people would die from tobacco- not its use, but it's illegality

[sce56]

107. Just put it in your head to quit!

I went cold turkey in 95 after 23 years of smoking a pack a day! Now I hat the smell of smoke especially when I have a cold! Just do it quit!

[Matariki]

108. Great idea.

Then we can have even MORE people in prison working at wages that will compete with China. More illegal things! Yay!

[Skip Intro]

113. The government is not, should not be, in the business of protecting you, or me, from ourselves.

You have the choice to stop.

If you want to stop, then stop.

There are resources available to help you.

Make your own decisions in life, rather than asking someone to make them for you.

This is freedom.

[Skip Intro]

114. Second take...

You are obviously having a hard time. I'm guessing you've tried to quit before. You sound like you need a shoulder, a rock. I understand that.

I tried for years to quit. Last year I had to have someone take me to the emergency room because I just could not breathe. I'll never forget that feeling. I haven't smoked tobacco since (with one exception just a week or two later during a sudden and shocking, to me, event). Eight months.

It's hard, buddy, but not hard every minute. The cravings fade in duration and intensity.

My dad, who smoked heavily, died of a heart-attack at work before he was sixty.

My mom, who smoked heavily, died of a stroke in her early sixties.

I know it's hard to quit, but it does get easier with each passing day.

Whatever effort is demanded, believe me, it's better to breathe.

[LetTimmySmoke]

115. Because the first two Wars on Drugs (alcohol-1920s, cannabis-today) have gone so well......

...let's start a third. Why the fuck not! /sarc