Would Smoking Rates Skyrocket if It Wasn't Harmful?

  • Thread starter Richard87
  • Start date
In summary: Smoking is addictive and it's dirty. It can set things on fire.In summary, most people wouldn't smoke if it wasn't bad for their health. It's expensive, it's addictive, it's dirty, it can set things on fire, and it's not safe.
  • #1
Richard87
31
0
Would virtually everyone be a smoker?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Not at today's prices (taxes included).
 
  • #3
Why would they ? It stinks, it's expensive, it's addictive, it's dirty, it can set things on fire... You would have to be more specific as to what you mean in "if it was not bad". If smoking would not cause hazardous depositions in your mouth and breathing system, if it would smell good, if it were free, if it were not addictive, if it were clean and safe, if we had only good reasons to do it, yes sure, maybe people would smoke as they drink water and breath. Except it would be so different from what we know of smoking in reality today !
 
  • #4
Back before we knew cigarettes were bad for one's health, there were many more smokers. Heck, when I was a kid, just about every adult I knew smoked. It was considered to be sauve and debonair.
 
  • #5
Ivan Seeking said:
Back before we knew cigarettes were bad for one's health, there were many more smokers. Heck, when I was a kid, just about every adult I knew smoked. It was considered to be sauve and debonair.

Did people seriously not think that it would be bad for their health back then? Maybe I'm just seeing 20/20 in hindsight, but did people really need studies to show that inhaling smoke is bad for you?

Seems like common sense to me.

And no, even if there were no health risks, I would not smoke, and neither would a lot of people. It's expensive, and I've never heard anybody describe any benefits other than "looking cool."
 
  • #6
Jack21222 said:
Did people seriously not think that it would be bad for their health back then? Maybe I'm just seeing 20/20 in hindsight, but did people really need studies to show that inhaling smoke is bad for you?

I think many people realized that it couldn't be good for you, but most did not realize just how detrimental to one's health it can be.

As late as the 1990's, I believe, the tobacco company owners sat in front of Congress and flatly denied that tobacco causes cancer. And they had the test results to prove it! This may be one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the public. What's more, by making their product more appealing [by increasing the nicotine levels], the tobacco companies were, intentionally or inadvertantly, designing cigarettes to be as addictive as possible.

Seems like common sense to me.

Seems like common sense that the moon orbits the earth, as well, but there was a time when this was not so.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
No; I wouldn't smoke. It would still make my clothes, car, house, hair, etc. smell awful.
 
  • #8
They actually didn't know anywhere close to how bad cigarettes are for you 30 years ago.
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
I think many people realized that it couldn't be good for you, but most did not realize just how detrimental to one's health it can be.

As late as the 1990's, I believe, the tobacco company owners sat in front of Congress and flatly denied that tobacco causes cancer. And they had the test results to prove it! This may be one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the public. What's more, by making their product more appealing [by increasing the nicotine levels], the tobacco companies were, intentionally or inadvertantly, designing cigarettes to be as addictive as possible.



Seems like common sense that the moon orbits the earth, as well, but there was a time when this was not so.

Cigarettes are cough suppressants (in the short-term; obviously not in the long-term) so people actually thought they were healthy "back in the day" IIRC. I think they were even prescribed by doctors for coughs.
 
  • #10
My father knew that cigarettes were bad for him, but he had picked up the habit at a young age, kept smoking through WWII in Europe and when he returned home. When I was 10, he got a cold that turned into a nasty case of bronchitis and he was pretty much bed-ridden for a couple of weeks. He used to store his cigs in the freezer, and I remember him telling my mother that when a friend of his stopped by to drop off some western novels, she should give him all his cigarettes.

Like a fool, I took up smoking in college - coffee and tobacco were staples for long study-sessions in engineering school. Then I got bronchitis and mono back-to-back and lost a LOT of class-time. I still ended up with good grades in quantitative analysis, physics, etc, but it took a lot of catch-up to accomplish that. Duh! The first time that I was well enough to get back to the dining hall for a meal, I finished it off with a coffee and bummed a cigarette from a girl-friend, and almost immediately was so nauseous that she and one of her friends had to help me back to my room. That was my last cigarette - 40 years ago.
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
Seems like common sense that the moon orbits the earth, as well, but there was a time when this was not so.
Huh?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Ivan Seeking said:
Back before we knew cigarettes were bad for one's health, there were many more smokers. Heck, when I was a kid, just about every adult I knew smoked. It was considered to be sauve and debonair.

Finally, something that will force people to consider me as such.
 
  • #13
To be consistent with how non-sensical people usually are, I'd expect smoking to decrease if it was suddenly not bad for you.
 
  • #14
... my conscience would be perfectly clean.
 
  • #15
I hate the smell of cigarettes... and it stains EVERRRYTHINNNG... So no I would not smoke cigarettes ever... and if a girl were going to want to be with me their *** better not smoke either cause I think that a female smoking is the most unattractive thing in the world. Regardless of how attractive you think you are as soon as you put that cigarette to your lips GOOD BYE.
 
  • #16
  • #17
Considering that cigarettes weren't invented until the 19th century, your "coffin nail" claim is not believable.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Cyrus said:
Considering people as far back as the late 1700s called cigarettes "coffin nails" I'm pretty sure people knew it was bad for you.

http://www.answers.com/topic/coffin-nail

Well, isn't that peculiar.
 
  • #19
turbo-1 said:
Considering that cigarettes weren't invented until the 19th century, your "coffin nail" is mot believable.

No what they were smoking was first CALLED a cigarette in 19th century. Before that... they were called other things (coffin nails apparently one of them :smile:)
 
  • #20
Cyrus said:
Considering people as far back as the late 1700s called cigarettes "coffin nails" I'm pretty sure people knew it was bad for you.

http://www.answers.com/topic/coffin-nail

That is a terrible reference site, but I think a careful reading of the answer says that the expression "nail in the coffin" goes that far back, not that it applied to cigarettes.

This is the original quote

Care to our coffin adds a nail, no doubt;
And every Grin, so merry, draws one out.
http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/john_wolcot_a001.htm

What I get from that is, if you are going to smoke, be happy"? :biggrin:

What did he mean by "care to our coffin"? It strikes me that there may be a bit of irony here [I love irony]. Was he talking about worrying about life's problems too much; things like the health hazards of smoking?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Cigarettes were invented in the 1830's by an Egyptian artillery unit that were rewarded with tobacco after they improved their accuracy by wrapping their charges in paper. Their pipe(s) was broken, so they wrapped the tobacco in paper and smoked it that way.
 
  • #22
turbo-1 said:
Considering that cigarettes weren't invented until the 19th century, your "coffin nail" claim is not believable.

I heard this from my history professor back in high school (who was a historian and taught at the Naval Academy). I remember him saying they would smoke corn cob pipes though. His point was that people knew smoking would ruin your lungs, even back then.
 
  • #23
Cyrus said:
I heard this from my history professor back in high school (who was a historian and taught at the Naval Academy). I remember him saying they would smoke corn cob pipes though. His point was that people knew smoking would ruin your lungs, even back then.

The phrase about nails in coffins (as it was written in the late 1700's by Wolcot) had nothing to do with cigarettes or even tobacco.

Peter Pindar (John Wolcot): Expostulatory Odes, Ode xv. This is the whole ode:
"Care to our coffin adds a nail, no doubt,
And every grin so merry draws one out."

My interpretation is that if we worry about or death ("care to our coffin"), we come closer to it ("adds a nail"). It seems to be a statement about anxiety and worry being unhealthy. And the second line is obviously the corollary.
 
  • #24
zomgwtf said:
their *** better not smoke either
I think I would fear anyone that had a smoking ***. :wink:
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
What did he mean by "care to our coffin"? It strikes me that there may be a bit of irony here [I love irony]. Was he talking about worrying about life's problems too much; things like the health hazards of smoking?

"Care" is being used in an archaic sense, meaning "worry". That is, being worried adds a nail to our coffin; being merry draws one out. Presumably, happy people live longer (and I think there is some evidence for this).
 
  • #26
Pythagorean said:
The phrase about nails in coffins (as it was written in the late 1700's by Wolcot) had nothing to do with cigarettes or even tobacco.
I think you missed the point. It doesn't have to have been created for cigarettes to later be applied to them. The phrase was created to be about something being unhealthy, therefore it was later applied to cigarettes.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
I think you missed the point. It doesn't have to have been created for cigarettes to later be applied to them. The phrase was created to be about something being unhealthy, therefore it was later applied to cigarettes.

I think you missed the point. Cyrus was claiming that because the phrase was made in the late 1700's that they knew cigarettes were bad for you in the late 1700's. But since the phrase had nothing to do with cigarettes in the late 1700's... you see?
 
  • #28
Pythagorean said:
The phrase about nails in coffins (as it was written in the late 1700's by Wolcot) had nothing to do with cigarettes or even tobacco.

Peter Pindar (John Wolcot): Expostulatory Odes, Ode xv. This is the whole ode:
"Care to our coffin adds a nail, no doubt,
And every grin so merry draws one out."

My interpretation is that if we worry about or death ("care to our coffin"), we come closer to it ("adds a nail"). It seems to be a statement about anxiety and worry being unhealthy. And the second line is obviously the corollary.

I agree---and would add: "statement about anxiety and worry" about death/the end--

if the two line were reversed:

"And every grin so merry draws one out."
"Care to our coffin adds a nail, no doubt,"

"every grin so merry" takes a nail out (living life with laughter)
so, adding one nail (opposite of draws one) would need the opposite of "every grin so merry"--is 'not happy'/depressed about life/looking toward the end
 
  • #29
"Care to our coffin adds a nail, no doubt,"

Means: Care (stress) indisputably adds a nail to your coffin.

"And every grin so merry draws one out"

Happiness draws a nail out.
 
  • #30
Richard87 said:
Would virtually everyone be a smoker?

Are fruits and veggies bad for you? NO!

Is exercise bad for you? NO!

~Then why do we have so many people in the world that don't do either of them? Oh yeah, people are lazy... for the most part, and like to over eat.
 
  • #31
Smoking is harmless as long as you don't inhale.
 
  • #32
Chronos said:
Smoking is harmless as long as you don't inhale.

I'm not so sure about that - you're still increasing the risk of several types of oral cancer.
 
  • #33
Latest report by doctors say that life is the leading cause of death.
 
  • #35
After more than fourty years of smoking I gave it up.I'm now on day 28 and feeling good.Sorry,I just popped into boast.:wink::biggrin::biggrin:
 
<h2> What are the health benefits of smoking if it weren't bad for you?</h2><p>If smoking weren't bad for you, there would likely be no health benefits. Tobacco smoke contains thousands of chemicals, many of which are harmful and can lead to serious health problems such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Even without these harmful chemicals, inhaling smoke into your lungs can still cause damage and irritation.</p><h2> Would smoking be considered a healthy habit if it weren't bad for you?</h2><p>No, even if smoking weren't bad for you, it would not be considered a healthy habit. Smoking involves inhaling smoke into your lungs, which can damage your respiratory system and increase your risk for various health issues. Additionally, smoking can lead to addiction and dependence, which can negatively impact your overall well-being.</p><h2> How would the tobacco industry be affected if smoking weren't bad for you?</h2><p>If smoking weren't bad for you, the tobacco industry would likely still exist, but it would likely face significant changes. Without the negative health effects associated with smoking, there would likely be less regulation and restrictions on tobacco products. However, the industry would also face challenges in marketing and promoting their products as a healthy choice.</p><h2> Would secondhand smoke still be harmful if smoking weren't bad for you?</h2><p>Even if smoking weren't bad for you, secondhand smoke would still be harmful to those around you. Secondhand smoke contains many of the same chemicals and toxins as firsthand smoke, and can still lead to various health issues, particularly for those with respiratory conditions.</p><h2> How would society view smoking if it weren't bad for you?</h2><p>If smoking weren't bad for you, society's perception of smoking would likely be very different. It may not be seen as a harmful or negative habit, and there may not be as much stigma surrounding it. However, there would likely still be concerns about the addictive nature of smoking and its impact on public health and the environment.</p>

FAQ: Would Smoking Rates Skyrocket if It Wasn't Harmful?

What are the health benefits of smoking if it weren't bad for you?

If smoking weren't bad for you, there would likely be no health benefits. Tobacco smoke contains thousands of chemicals, many of which are harmful and can lead to serious health problems such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Even without these harmful chemicals, inhaling smoke into your lungs can still cause damage and irritation.

Would smoking be considered a healthy habit if it weren't bad for you?

No, even if smoking weren't bad for you, it would not be considered a healthy habit. Smoking involves inhaling smoke into your lungs, which can damage your respiratory system and increase your risk for various health issues. Additionally, smoking can lead to addiction and dependence, which can negatively impact your overall well-being.

How would the tobacco industry be affected if smoking weren't bad for you?

If smoking weren't bad for you, the tobacco industry would likely still exist, but it would likely face significant changes. Without the negative health effects associated with smoking, there would likely be less regulation and restrictions on tobacco products. However, the industry would also face challenges in marketing and promoting their products as a healthy choice.

Would secondhand smoke still be harmful if smoking weren't bad for you?

Even if smoking weren't bad for you, secondhand smoke would still be harmful to those around you. Secondhand smoke contains many of the same chemicals and toxins as firsthand smoke, and can still lead to various health issues, particularly for those with respiratory conditions.

How would society view smoking if it weren't bad for you?

If smoking weren't bad for you, society's perception of smoking would likely be very different. It may not be seen as a harmful or negative habit, and there may not be as much stigma surrounding it. However, there would likely still be concerns about the addictive nature of smoking and its impact on public health and the environment.

Similar threads

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette
Replies
14
Views
2K
Smoking Cigarettes 40 Yrs | No Harm Reported
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
Reducing Secondhand Smoke: Inside or Outside?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Medical Carbon monoxide and Passive Smoking
Replies
15
Views
3K
Is the push to stop smoking going too far?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Smoke smell in a flat below mine.
Replies
3
Views
1K
B How high does a wall need to be to block smoke?
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Poll
Predisposition to smoking: differences in sensitivity to smoke?
Replies
21
Views
4K
Airflow Restriction in Tobacco Smoking Pipe
Replies
18
Views
2K
When will the global smoking ban finally be implemented?
2
Replies
39
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top