Why do people even smoke cigarettes?

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Pathetic habit, like any addiction. Nothing but weakness. No loss to society when they croak sooner than most people, IMO.

What if it's a scientist working on the cure for AIDs and right before he makes the important breakthrough he croaks due to a sudden lung cancer attack?

Lemegeton wrote: »

utter ****ing bull****. smoking does not affect just the person doing it. everyone around them has to smell it and inhale it, and then their clothes stink too.

Only if they want it to, people that think otherwise are simply to sensitive to be let out in public.

Lemegeton wrote: »

utter ****ing bull****. smoking does not affect just the person doing it. everyone around them has to smell it and inhale it, and then their clothes stink too.

No-one is forced to inhale anything when the smoker is standing outside. And the smell is no worse than the aftershave/perfume that some people insist of dousing themselves with, in fact, imo, it's better.

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

If they injected, it'd be less hassle for the rest of us. Any contribution they make to society in other ways is made redundant by the medical bills they hit the rest of us with. I truly believe that the state shouldn't pay for any medical conditions that have a cause, be it lung/oral cancer for smokers, liver deterioration for drinkers, and so forth.

And I don't smoke, therefore I > smokers.

Better shut down all those STD & Drug clinics, pscyhiatric hospitals (you know, especially people who get depression which can be a cause of various things), Alcoholic groups, etc.

Stay up on that high horse while the rest of us hang about here in reality. The less of those with superiority complexes the better.

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

If they injected, it'd be less hassle for the rest of us. Any contribution they make to society in other ways is made redundant by the medical bills they hit the rest of us with. I truly believe that the state shouldn't pay for any medical conditions that have a cause, be it lung/oral cancer for smokers, liver deterioration for drinkers, and so forth.

And I don't smoke, therefore I > smokers.

That would be great, we'd have no hospital bills at all because you could say nearly every condition and accident is caused by the person doing something that causes it. Don't look both ways crossing the road and get knocked down you should be left there.

fakearms123 wrote: »

but only for reasons to fit in with a group

That has to be the most stupidest ever reason to smoke.

fakearms123 wrote: »

Cigarettes give you a digusting horse voice, it's what I'd imagine a cabbage to sound like if it could talk.

I don't actually know any smokers like this.

fakearms123 wrote: »

You have to go out into the cold or rain if your smoking on a night out, unless the beer garden is heated, even then its still cold.

I find that the people in the smoking area are much more chilled than those packed inside. Also, you can actually talk outside, and not have to bellow over the music to the person next to you.

fakearms123 wrote: »

Smokers can't enjoy a bus/train/plane journey without getting all twitchy over their next cigarette.

They have a larger problem than just smoking, then. Heck, there are people who get twitchy over when they'll play their xbox next.

Promac wrote: »

I smoked for 20 years, 30 to 40 a day at the end - more on the weekend.

Holy f**k. I never really got why people smoked so much a day. A box of tabacco usually lasts me a week. I've gone from an average of 6 to 8 boxes per month to 4 to 5 boxes a month.

Promac wrote: »

I loved smoking. My clothes never smelled bad. I loved the smell and taste of smoke.

I'd say, after 30 or 40 a day, you couldn't smell much of anything.

Promac wrote: »

And I can now travel on long flights. Correction - I can now admit that I would never take a long flight because I was afraid of the withdrawal.

On 30 or 40 a day, I'd be surprised how you lasted the checkin process, tbh :P

Pace2008 wrote: »

I would say (and I’ll readily admit that this is an assumption) that the majority of regular smokers will experience some degree of physical detriment through their habit, whether it be reduced cardiovascular performance or terminal lung cancer.

I've found that "the majority of regular smokers" don't excercise that often. Some because they find that they can't. I smoke, but also excerise (gym, football, etc).

Pace2008 wrote: »

I believe there’s a difference between understanding the risks and actually believing them.

Agreed.

Pace2008 wrote: »

And then, of course, there are people who genuinely don’t give ****.

That would be me.

Grolschevik wrote: »

And I quit by using snuff, which is dirt cheap, isn't set on fire and inhaled, and has no documented links to lung cancer. Nor indeed documented links to much else, because it's such a minority pursuit that the research hasn't been done. That said, I'm sure it has the potential to cause nasal/oesophageal cancer.

But I'm equally sure that I'll quit the snuff someday, too. You know why? Because I'll want to.

The, err... benefit of snuff is that I reckon you'll see the symtons of the cancer at an early stage (provided you educate what they are).

I sometimes smoke using a pipe. I know that should if I were to smoke the pipe fulltime, that I would need to tell my dentist, as he could preform checks on my mouth, to see was I getting gum cancer, for example.

Little Acorn wrote: »

I did manage to stop before though for about month and a half or 2 months I think, but the cravings never left me. What got to me more though is just that I felt really left out, or like I had somehow changed from being me.

I think the cravings don't leave you for 2 weeks. Now, did you still "hang out" with smokers? If so, you'll be breathing in 2nd hand smoke, and thus not really not be smoking. Added to that, as you are not getting a "full fix", but rather only a breath of the stuff, you'll continue to crave.

=-=

For the record, I started the 2nd week of the Leaving Cert. At the start, I smoked cigs, 1 a day. Used to get a dry throat the morning after a session of cigs & booze. Switched to tabacco a while back, and haven't looked back. No longer have a dry throat the next morning. Longest time I've stopped for so far is 8 months.

I have a haterd for anyone who has said that they "quit multiple times". You don't quit. You never quit. You stop. You can stop permanently, or you can restart.

I was standing at St. Stephen's green waiting to cross over to Lesson St. I was smoking away, blowing upwards. A women next to me turned and gave me (and my cigarette) the filthiest look I've ever gotton from someone, anyway the light turned green and she flicks her hair and walks off in an angry fashion, she was so busy displaying her outrage at my smoking that she walked straight into the kerb on the other side and face planted the ground. Sweet jesus I've never enjoyed watching someone hurt themselves, like it was pretty humiliating faceplant. But of course I screeched with laughter and pointed a little too. :D:D I don't usually wish badness on people but that snooty cow so deserved it, it was so very satisfying to walk past her laughing my ass off.

Don't smoke if you don't want to, and good for you but at the end of day some smokers are arseholes and some non-smokers are arseholes. It's an addiction, it's not a sign of weakness or stupidity or any of the other ridiculous suggestions I've seen here, it's a drug addiction plain and simple. I hope to stop fairly soon myself, reading the Alan Carr "Easy way to stop smoking" book at the moment.

liah wrote: »

I'm saying it's okay for people to do whatever the hell they want, and it's seriously bloody hypocritical for a person who probably goes out drinking every weekend and following up at the chipper is seriously criticizing people's habits for "health reasons" when each of those things has the ability to be incredibly destructive to one's body if not done in moderation.

Not every smoker smokes 20+ a day (or even a week), just the same as everyone who drinks isn't an alcoholic, or everyone who goes to McDonald's isn't obese.

You can say what you like to justify killing yourself but it's not just you.

The average smoker goes through 20+ a day and it's not just their own health they're messing with. There's an article in the Irish Times today about it: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1126/breaking9.html

"Passive smoking claims more than 600,000 lives each year around the world — an estimated 1 per cent of all deaths, a study by the Word Health Organistation (WHO) has found."

1 out of every 100 deaths around the world is caused by passive smoking - not even smoking itself, just being around other people who smoke. And most of them are children.

liah wrote: »

Live and let live and stop wasting your time being so concerned with other people's habits, I'm sure you have more than a few that drive people nuts. Your feeling of superiority is entirely hypocritical, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Live and let live is a great concept but you aren't doing it. As long as people smoke kids will keep on picking up the addiction and people will keep getting killed by it. It's not a bad habit we're talking about here, it's not like leaving the toilet-seat up or drinking out of the milk bottle. It's a very serious addiction that is killing over 5 million people a year.

Can we all agree that addictions are not accidents?

If so, I know this is going to sound very fascist, but I am going to say it anyway - the state should NOT pay for the various illnesses and deceases that one brings on themselves by smoking.

The state should spend money saved there on providing facilities to encourage people to quit smoking instead. And if someone decides that they want to continue smoking, why should the tax payer pay for their health issues?

positron wrote: »

the state should NOT pay for the various illnesses and deceases that one brings on themselves by smoking.

I see why this would make sense, but enforcement would be impossible. If I've been living with a smoker all my life and present with lung cancer, telling the hospital that I've never smoked, how do they differentiate me from the 40-a-day guy who has presented on the same day, equally claiming that he's never smoked.

On top of that, there are no diseases caused solely by smoking, and of those heavily linked to smoking, how would a hospital prove that smoking caused it? I can get lung and throat cancer without ever having smoked, therefore there is no basis on which to claim that a smoker with lung cancer wouldn't have been ill if they never smoked. The statistics are there, and it's plain as the nose on their face, but you don't have any proof.

There's also the argument of non-treatment of other self-inflicted illnesses. The vast majority of injuries and illnesses presented in hospitals could be said to be self-inflicted in one way or another.

positron wrote: »

If so, I know this is going to sound very fascist, but I am going to say it anyway - the state should NOT pay for the various illnesses and deceases that one brings on themselves by smoking.

The state should spend money saved there on providing facilities to encourage people to quit smoking instead. And if someone decides that they want to continue smoking, why should the tax payer pay for their health issues?

Cigarette smokers are tax payers too, as far as I'm aware.

Also, if the state is so concerned about the health of smokers, perhaps banning them might help, rather than leaving smokers to die. I suspect this will never be an option as us pesky smokers bring in huge revenues to the government.

Oh well..... next suggestion?

liah wrote: »

You are not going to die from second-hand smoke just from passing for a few seconds it on the streets (again, just can't picture anyone being dumb enough to stand around smokers if they're non-smokers). The majority of those cases are family cases where people have been smoking in the home. That seems to be decreasing lately. I don't know anyone, really, who smokes inside their houses if there's non-smokers present.

It occurs, but lesser than it did, and education is the key to minimizing the effect of smoke on people who choose not to smoke. Banning never solves anything, it will always be available (much cheaper, btw) on the black market. Educate people, don't nanny them.

I believe people should have the right to choose what they put into their own bodies. If that means some people are going to be assholes about it, that's unfortunate, but that's life. Drink-driving kills millions a year all over the world, alcoholism destroys families and escalated violence in millions of homes, no one's banning drink even though it has potential to cause serious harm to others. I don't want it banned.

I believe in freedom, and that's all there is to it.

Typical self-important attitude - smokers wouldn't appreciate it if I decide to spit all the time while walking down the street, but hey - it's my freedom to do so, isn't it? And if you get caught in the way of my spit and phlegm, well tough titties to you.