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

[drizzle]

She can get lung cancer and die for all I care. I have friends that smoke, I don't waste my time telling them to quit. If they die from smoking, sucks for them. Not my problem.

well ... apparently ... they're not your friends!

 

[Cyrus]

well ... apparently ... they're not your friends!

They are, you're not.

 

[Hepth]

She can get lung cancer and die for all I care. I have friends that smoke, I don't waste my time telling them to quit. If they die from smoking, sucks for them. Not my problem.

I agree. Is it my responsibility to remind them they should brush their teeth, do their homework on time, etc. I assume all of my friends passed the 6th grade, so I can assume they all know what is and isn't harmful to them. Or what may or may not be harmful to them, and they have the mental capacity to asses the risk and weigh that in vs. the benefits.

 

[drizzle]

They are, you're not.

GOOD for me

 

[27Thousand]

I agree. Is it my responsibility to remind them they should brush their teeth, do their homework on time, etc. I assume all of my friends passed the 6th grade, so I can assume they all know what is and isn't harmful to them. Or what may or may not be harmful to them, and they have the mental capacity to asses the risk and weigh that in vs. the benefits.

I agree with you that you don't tell them to brush their teeth or do homework. Keep in mind I don't actually walk around saying this to people. She just seemed quite obsessive-compulsive about smoking. Since they didn't teach us in school that the government says smoking is the number one risk factor, they only tell us it's bad, I just decided to let her know about some recent research at the .gov I found late at night a few days earlier. I know some people say if your social/communication skills are good enough, you can get away with any situation. So that's just part of why I asked the forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

I encountered this a little closer to home. I started in on my son about smoking.

He poo-pooed my concerns. His argument was "I might die of lung cancer, I might not. It's a fifty-fifty chance, right?"

He equated a two-option outcome with a 50-50 outcome.

I freaked. (Not because of the smoking; because of the terrifying math innumeracy.)



In his defense though, I think he was just being argumentative. I don't think he really meant what he said.

 

[Pyrrhus]

She can get lung cancer and die for all I care. I have friends that smoke, I don't waste my time telling them to quit. If they die from smoking, sucks for them. Not my problem.

Yeah, man, like wtf is with all this violation to people's right. I'm not going to impose my beliefs on my friends, no way. Two of some of my closest friends are basically chimneys, and I don't complain about that, we chill together, and I even hang out sometimes when they go smoking, and just chat.

 

[ideasrule]

They are, you're not.

Considering your incivility and total lack of either compassion or concern, it's quite surprising that they'd choose to be your friends.

 

[Cyrus]

Considering your incivility and total lack of either compassion or concern, it's quite surprising that they'd choose to be your friends.

You seem to mistake me for their mother. My friends are adults, meaning they make their own decisions on how to live their life. If they want to smoke like a chimney, it's not my place to tell them what to do. They are well aware of the risks of smoking.

 

[Chronos]

Hard telling. I quit smoking 5 years ago. I stopped coughing the next day and my blood pressure dropped from 144/93 to 120/78 after 6 months. I know those are just numbers, but, they seem encouraging.

 

[drizzle]

Considering your incivility and total lack of either compassion or concern, it's quite surprising that they'd choose to be your friends.

maybe they didn't choose

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why do people rationalize the dangers of smoking? As said earlier, they are addicted. Some people cannot accept that without rationalizing the facts. But what that means to the person addicted is that death is a more acceptable option than the thought of quitting. Given that level of dependence, is it any wonder why people rationalize the facts?

Based on the level of dependence, the most common measure for determining the addictiveness of a drug, the substances ranked as follows, from most to least addictive:
1.Nicotine
2.Heroin
3.Cocaine
4.Alcohol
5.Caffeine
6.Marijuana

http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/most-addictive-drugs.html

It is also no secret that many people genuinely enjoy smoking. That's how they get hooked in the first place. I have heard time and time again how people thought they could control it and just smoke every once in a while, and before they knew it, it was a pack a day. But they started because they liked it.

 

[Cyrus]

Why do people rationalize the dangers of smoking? As said earlier, they are addicted. Some people cannot accept that without rationalizing the facts. But what that means to the person addicted is that death is a more acceptable option than the thought of quitting. Given that level of dependence, is it any wonder why people rationalize the facts?


http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/most-addictive-drugs.html

It is also no secret that many people genuinely enjoy smoking. That's how they get hooked in the first place. I have heard time and time again how people thought they could control it and just smoke every once in a while, and before they knew it, it was a pack a day. But they started because they liked it.

People are accountable for their actions. Most people know smoking is addictive, and it will probably kill them. No one forced her to smoke.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Based on the level of dependence, the most common measure for determining the addictiveness of a drug, the substances ranked as follows, from most to least addictive:
1.Nicotine
2.Heroin
3.Cocaine
4.Alcohol
5.Caffeine
6.Marijuana

I've mentioned it before. Nicotine is not as addictive as cocaine and heroin. The only measure that makes it seem so is availability which is an improper measure since it really has nothing at all to do with the actual physiological addiction process.

For any of you that would like to make convincing arguments about the dangers of tobacco this supposition that it is more addictive than any other drug is a poor one. Any smoker can look at a crackhead or heroin addict and the absurdly destructive lengths they go to for a fix and realize that such a comparison is ridiculous. Your arguments as a whole will look poorer for it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

People are accountable for their actions. Most people know smoking is addictive, and it will probably kill them. No one forced her to smoke.

In the past this was not true. Today it is hard to believe that anyone wouldnt' know about the dangers of smoking. But it is also true that many people do not believe they will get hooked. Now, if you wish to argue that human frailty in smoking, or getting hooked, is worse than human frailty, for example, than when someone tends to be abusive towards others, that is subjective and probably dependent on the nature of one's own faults.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've mentioned it before. Nicotine is not as addictive as cocaine and heroin. The only measure that makes it seem so is availability which is an improper measure since it really has nothing at all to do with the actual physiological addiction process.

Not true.

Here are two more methods.

The tables listed below show the rankings given for each of the drugs. Overall, their evaluations for the drugs are very consistent. It is notable that marijuana ranks below caffeine in most addictive criteria, while alcohol and tobacco are near the top of the scale in many areas.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

 

[drizzle]

It is also no secret that many people genuinely enjoy smoking...

more to the point, when one smokes, he would be breathing the correct way letting a large amount of air into his lungs, this gives a calming feeling, sadly it’s poisoned air. maybe that’s why when smokers get nervous they promptly smoke..that's what I’ve noticed

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Not true.

Here are two more methods.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

You'll note that it is only number one under 'dependence' which in this case means how easily one can quit and is heavily influenced by availability.

 

[Huckleberry]

I started smoking with clove cigarettes. For the first year I had maybe one cigarette a day. Then for a few months it was 3 or 4. Smoking more cloves than that is pretty harsh so I started alternating between regular cigarettes and cloves. Another year and I'm smoking between half a pack and a pack a day, mostly depending on stress. That was almost 10 years ago. When I started I did not think I would become addicted. Now it's the first thing I think of when I wake up and the last thing before bed.

This woman knows smoking is unhealthy. Statistics aren't going to change her mind. It's foolish to think that they would. She already knows you like her.

Statistics are not a reason to quit. They are a reason to never start. A reason to quit is a reason to live healthy tomorrow. She told you she doesn't want to live past 40. Think about that critically and decide if telling her smoking is bad m'kay will benefit anyone.

 

[Richard87]

Smoking is nasty. I repeat. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty.

Plus it's unfair to the nonsmokers. You're forcing them to "smoke" when you're near them while smoking.

 

[DaveC426913]

Smoking is nasty. I repeat. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty. Nasty.

Plus it's unfair to the nonsmokers. You're forcing them to "smoke" when you're near them while smoking.

In defense of smokers, perfume-wearers are just as bad in the "I have to smell you" and "I am allergic" departments (though not the "you're giving me cancer" derpartment).

Back when I was a smoker, I actually brought a non-smoker up-short with this argument. Made him rethink the argument.

 

[Evo]

Not true.

Here are two more methods.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm

Your link claims to show a study by Henningfield, but I found the abstract from the Henningfield study and he clearly states

We conclude that on the current evidence nicotine cannot be considered more addicting than cocaine.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119360087/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Your link claims that Henningfield ranked nicotine as number 1 in addiction and cocaine number 3. That appears to be contrary to the actual study.

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5

Heroin 2 2 1 2 2

Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3

Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1

Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6

Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4

It appears your link may have misrepresented the information in the study. They claim this is a rating of addiction, and it is not.

Having been with herioin addicts that missed a fix and seen the physical withdrawals, missing nicotine is like not having a candy bar when you want one in comparison.

 

[Evo]

Data from The Lancet shows heroin to be the most addictive and most harmful of 20 drugs.[19]

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/images?imageId=gr2&sectionType=green

Figure 2
Correlation between mean scores from the independent experts and the specialist addiction psychiatrists
1=heroin. 2=cocaine. 3=alcohol. 4=barbiturates. 5=amphetamine. 6=methadone. 7=benzodiazepines. 8=solvents. 9=buprenorphine. 10=tobacco. 11=ecstasy. 12=cannabis. 13=LSD. 14=steroids.

 

[rootX]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8267523.stm

 

[DaveC426913]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8267523.stm

Hey. Links require summaries.

Oh wait. This is GD.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Your link claims to show a study by Henningfield, but I found the abstract from the Henningfield study and he clearly states

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119360087/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

The complete quote

Is nicotine more addictive than cocaine? That claim is increasingly in vogue, often supported by data showing the high likelihood of progression to daily tobacco use following experimentation and the high percentage of cigarette smokers, compared with cocaine users who appear addicted. In the context of criteria for addiction or dependence presented by the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, and the US Surgeon General, we consider several lines of evidence, including patterns of use, mortality, physical dependence potential, and pharmacologic addiction liability measures. Within each line of evidence, we compare nicotine with cocaine. We conclude that on the current evidence nicotine cannot be considered more addicting than cocaine. Both are highly addicting drugs for which patterns of use and the development of dependence are strongly influenced by factors such as availability, price, social pressures, and regulations, as well as certain pharmacologic characteristics.

So it appears to be a hot topic and dependent in part on the definition of addiction.

Your link claims that Henningfield ranked nicotine as number 1 in addiction and cocaine number 3. That appears to be contrary to the actual study.

I'm not sure what to think. The link that I provided gives five ratings for each drug, not one. Is the Lancet graph an average value? It also becomes clear that the meaning of addiction is part of the problem. Do you have a link for the complete paper that goes with the graph? It is not clear that we are comparing apples to apples.

In the link that I provided, they define dependence

Dependence -- The difficulty in quitting, or staying off the drug, the number of users who eventually become dependent

Nicotine gets a rating of 1 here. I don't see that necessarily contradicts the other statements made if those include the severity of withdrawals, and other considerations as a measure. According to the link I provided, Henningfield give alcohol the highest rating - 1 - for withdrawals, which is defined as:

The severity of withdrawal symptoms produced by stopping the use of the drug

A reformed alcoholic once told me that alcohol withdrawals are the only ones that can kill you. That probably comes from AA, which I have not found to be reliable, but I thought the claim was interesting. Does anyone know if this is true?

missing nicotine is like not having a candy bar when you want one in comparison.

No doubt that the other drugs have much stronger withdrawals, but it is also true that many x-smokers will tell you that the desire for nicotine never goes away. I know people who haven't smoked for twenty years or more who still crave cigarettes at times.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A reformed alcoholic once told me that alcohol withdrawals are the only ones that can kill you. That probably comes from AA, which I have not found to be reliable, but I thought the claim was interesting. Does anyone know if this is true?

I have been to some AA meetings and I would not necessarily trust their information either. They are quite crusader-esque in their views on alcohol. They seem to generally be nice people though.
As for the 'factoid' I am unsure if it is the only drug where the withdrawals can kill you.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-symptoms-of-alcohol-withdrawal.htm
Here you go. DTs can apparently kill you due to seizures and irregularities in heart beat and rythme. I'm sure that there are similar withdrawal symptoms for other drugs as well.

No doubt that the other drugs have much stronger withdrawals, but it is also true that many x-smokers will tell you that the desire for nicotine never goes away. I know people who haven't smoked for twenty years or more who still crave cigarettes at times.

I have heard the same for other drugs such as meth and even marijuana. But while users of drugs like meth, cocaine, crack, heroin, ect will go to incredibly self destructive lengths to get more of their drug of choice I have never heard of people doing similar with cigarettes. Many drug addicts become thieves, muggers, and prostitutes to help feed their addiction. They do these things primarily because addict to most hard drugs becomes a lifestyle. Addicts usually do little other than what ever is necessary to get their next fix and if going to work and waiting for their next pay check is going to take too long then screw work they'll go steal the money. Some women have apparently even gone to such lengths as selling their own children to get more crack. When you consider these things cigarettes are nothing in comparison.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I think the vast majority of smokers know that it's bad for them and potentially life-threatening and I think most of them care, too... they just don't care enough to fight an addiction as strong as tobacco.

Truth is, I don't feel bad for the smokers so much as I do the people in their lives that get hurt by their decision. I can name at least three instances of people I know who suffered through the torment of having a loved one die slowly due to a terminal disease. In each case the disease was caused by smoking. The biggest lie that smokers tell themselves is that nobody else could get hurt by their decision.

That said, there's little point in trying to convince relative strangers to stop smoking. The only people I would even consider trying that with are family members and very close friends.