Is Smoking Unhealthy?

[Jubloz]

While the tendency to debate whether or not smoking tobacco is unhealthy has become less common, some still choose to argue that it's not. Please don't use this thread to discuss whether or not smoking cigarettes should or shouldn't be legal, that is not the purpose. Rather, I'd like to see supporting and opposing arguments for tobacco health risks.

Quote by: Technosoul Yes I mean smoking cigarettes. The studies doctors use to discourage smoking are based on pseudoscience.

First, let's form a clear definition of 'unhealthy' to work from. The dictionary defines 'unhealthy' as:

Quote by: Dictionary 1. not in a state of good or normal health; in an unsound, weak, or morbid condition. 2. symptomatic of or resulting from bad health: an unhealthy pallor. 3. not conducive to good health; unhealthful: Night air was formerly considered unhealthy. 4. morally bad, harmful, or contaminating: unhealthy examples for the young. 5. dangerous; risky: Asking questions in this neighborhood can be unhealthy.

What we'll be discussing will include 1, 2 and 3. Now we'll need a clear definition of 'pseudoscience'. I like Wikipedia's:

Quote by: Wikipedia Pseudoscience is any kind of knowledge, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[

Quote by: Dictionary an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

[improvident]

Smoking.. is obviously bad for you.. smoke for a week.. and see how you feel.. then stop.. and see if you feel any better..

Is this a debate about TOBACCO or Cigarettes? They are two totally different things.. cigarettes are horrid little devices.. look at one under a black light..or burn half of one.. put it out.. then look at its contents again..

Most all my friends smoke.. one is trying to quit.. reverting to dipping instead.. but even in that i can tell a change in his health.. the way he looks acts and feels..

I can personally feel a difference in my health when i hang out and stay with friends who smoke.. vs staying at home where no one smokes.. they always joke and say that ill be the one who dies from lung cancer and not them lol..

[Vivid]

I started smoking when I was 13.

I started having asthma attacks when I was 24.

I quit smoking in September, 2006.

I have not had an asthma attack since then - and Ive been exercising tons. (Exercise would have caused me an attack, before, when I was smoking).

Quitting smoking cleared up the asthma, therefore I think its logical to assume that it was the cause of the asthma. The allergy specialist I visited confirmed that quitting could clear up my asthma. And I think there have been studies done that say it can cause asthma too.

I KNOW smoking is bad for your health from personal experience. I'm completely certain of it.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Vivid The allergy specialist I visited confirmed that quitting could clear up my asthma. And I think there have been studies done that say it can cause asthma too. I KNOW smoking is bad for your health from personal experience. I'm completely certain of it.

I am glad that you have quit, Vivid, and you are correct with your assessment about the link between asthma and smoking.

The health of people with asthma is significantly affected by tobacco smoke.

Tobacco smoke, both through active smoking and through SHS exposure, has been found to be a cause of asthma.

Many people with asthma also smoke, making their asthma symptoms worse and their medication less effective.

Parental smoking is associated with an increased prevalence of asthma and respiratory symptoms in children. For those children with asthma, exposure to SHS, primarily by their parents, is associated with more severe disease experiences and symptoms.

Scientific research overwhelmingly shows that tobacco smoke increases asthma attacks and asthma symptoms both for people with asthma who are smokers and those people with asthma who are nonsmokers. Tobacco should, therefore, be avoided.

[Le GoogelGuRu]

My parents haven't never smoked and neither have anyone else in the family and I developed asthma and lots of other respiratory problems early.

Obviously smoking is not good for your health.

[tmay563]

I think that is pretty obvious that smoking is detrimental to your health. I would like to see someone making the argument that it is not. How can inhaling any type of smoke into your lungs not be bad for you? My granddad smoked his whole life, right up until he died of lung cancer at age 67. Its pretty remarkable that anyone smokes, I even smoke on occasion. I guess people just don't think that it can happen to them until they are smoking through a hole in their neck.

Tobacco is the only consumer product I know of that when used as directed kills half its users. Call me an "alarmist" but I think that qualifies as unhealthy.

Regards
S.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: tmay563 I would like to see someone making the argument that it is not.

I was hoping that Technosoul would provide some counter arguments and evidence given that he's the reason I chose to create a fresh thread about this particular topic. I haven't heard of any quality studies that disprove all the evidence that smoking is detrimental and was hoping that he could provide the citations.

[gallo]

Contrary to what Technosoul states, the studies that show that smoking is detrimental are not pseudoscience. I would be careful in accepting anything that Technosoul says about science/pseudoscience since he has demonstrated on multiple occasions that he doesn't know what science is or how it works, and places considerable faith in pseudoscience (blue day dreaming and all that).

Now it is possible that all of those studies are wrong since they are essentially statistical in nature. As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. But there are so many peer reviewed studies that come to the same conclusions.

But still, some of the effects of tobacco use are evident from a single use, for example, nausea, dizziness, and contraction of blood vessels in the extremities. These are physiological and can be measured. Wouldn't it make you think that something that makes you throw up when you take it probably isn't good for you? The first two go away with continued use while the third becomes chronic and can result in other serious circulatory problems in the extremities. But those are only the effects of the nicotine. There are other harmful products in tobacco, especially when burned. For example, various cancers (lips, gums, tongue, throat, lungs, fingers), as well as COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).

But few of us actually read the studies and aren't, therefore, in a position to judge the scientific merits of such studies. The tobacco companies certainly contested these results for many years, claiming that they were inconclusive because they are, as I mentioned, essentially statistical. Such tactics worked with those of us who were addicted to nicotine and wanted to believe that such overwhelming statistics were somehow inconclusive.

So most of us rely on anecdotes and personal experience, which has no scientific merit. But I can tell you that after 37 years of smoking I began to develop COPD (early stage as diagnosed by an MD from X-ray). I developed chronic shortness of breath and a chronic cough. All gone now that I have quit. I made no other changes in life style so I can only conclude that those symptoms were the result of smoking.

And that doesn't take into account the increased risk of cardiovascular disease among smokers. But again, as the tobacco companies used to say, there is no direct link between smoking and cardiovascular disease. The evidence is just an overwhelming statistical link.

Here's another nifty statistic for you that is only now being investigated. It appears that SIDS is more common in the children of smokers. Yet another statistic.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: improvident Smoking.. is obviously bad for you.. smoke for a week.. and see how you feel.. then stop.. and see if you feel any better.. Is this a debate about TOBACCO or Cigarettes? They are two totally different things.. cigarettes are horrid little devices.. look at one under a black light..or burn half of one.. put it out.. then look at its contents again.. Most all my friends smoke.. one is trying to quit.. reverting to dipping instead.. but even in that i can tell a change in his health.. the way he looks acts and feels.. I can personally feel a difference in my health when i hang out and stay with friends who smoke.. vs staying at home where no one smokes.. they always joke and say that ill be the one who dies from lung cancer and not them lol..

Feeling well or feeling sick is not scientific proof of anything. Feeling sick and being sick are not really the same thing, and people can feel well when they might be unhealthy. Take a ride in a boat for the first time and you can get sick - barf up - but that is not being unhealthy.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Vivid I started smoking when I was 13. I started having asthma attacks when I was 24. I quit smoking in September, 2006. I have not had an asthma attack since then - and Ive been exercising tons. (Exercise would have caused me an attack, before, when I was smoking). Quitting smoking cleared up the asthma, therefore I think its logical to assume that it was the cause of the asthma. The allergy specialist I visited confirmed that quitting could clear up my asthma. And I think there have been studies done that say it can cause asthma too. I KNOW smoking is bad for your health from personal experience. I'm completely certain of it.

Smoke can irratate the eyes by contact. And smoking might effect a few people who are prone to having breathing problems. But those are not terminal illnesses. Lots of recording artists who dance around on stage for hours also smoke cigarettes during their breaks. Doctors are trained to tell you that smoking is not good as they are directed to do so by "lame" and unscientific research.

No one knows for sure - one company is trying to sell this product because damp air can cause asthma (the main cause of poor health among people living in the Amazon rainforests).

Asthma

However your Doctors do not sit you down for a talk about not taking showers or steamy baths, do they? Ever wonder why?

Fear related stress can trigger an attack. Household dust. Damp or foggy air. Pollen from flowers and plants ( sometimes transported in the fur of cats and other pets ). Perhaps smoke can be a "trigger" it but is not the cause of those conditions because the trigger is active only on those who already got the problem or prone to having it. But smoking is not unhealthy it is the person's physcal defect that make them unhealthy, they have a problem living in the environments around them and need to get into a isolated "bubble" to feel okay. Also particals from automoble fumes can be a trigger in that environment. Even tiny mites can irritate and block air passages. But we should not blame flowers and cats just because some people do not want to live in a "clean room bubble".

Now if you are 13 years old and smoke to counter-act fears related to peer groups or parents, school. Then it might work as a stress reduction agent for a while, but it cannot cure that problem and can make the problem worse when the short term effect no longer works, and you start to have those fear and panic attacks.

If you eat certain kinds of dark veggies that will clear out stuff in your lungs that you inhale from the environment.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jubloz While the tendency to debate whether or not smoking tobacco is unhealthy has become less common, some still choose to argue that it's not. Please don't use this thread to discuss whether or not smoking cigarettes should or shouldn't be legal, that is not the purpose. Rather, I'd like to see supporting and opposing arguments for tobacco health risks. First, let's form a clear definition of 'unhealthy' to work from. The dictionary defines 'unhealthy' as: What we'll be discussing will include 1, 2 and 3. Now we'll need a clear definition of 'pseudoscience'. I like Wikipedia's:

Now they did a study in the 1950s where they asked questions from people who had cancer to discover what those people had in common.
They could eliminate some things because most of them did not have that in common. One thing a lot of them had in common was smoking and so the researches assumed that smoking is linked to lung cancer.
Then the assumed notions of that study were used as facts for doctors and for the government to promote not smoking. The "key word" is was the assumed notion false or was it true. Pseudoscience or real science.
Most of them also watched TV everyday but that was not one of the questions asked. I do not think "talking a poll" is the best way to get your facts, although they do it in politics a lot. Also in the 1950s nearly everyone smoked or they were around those who did. so it would be a known that they would answer yes to that question. I call poll taking Pseudoscience - AKA - assumptions and speculation based on collected data from Q&A or simular "studies" of small groups of people.

Here is an interesting article about the 'science wars'.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~sphelan/Papers/whatis.pdf

[Technosoul]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I am glad that you have quit, Vivid, and you are correct with your assessment about the link between asthma and smoking. The health of people with asthma is significantly affected by tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke, both through active smoking and through SHS exposure, has been found to be a cause of asthma. Many people with asthma also smoke, making their asthma symptoms worse and their medication less effective Parental smoking is associated with an increased prevalence of asthma and respiratory symptoms in children. For those children with asthma, exposure to SHS, primarily by their parents, is associated with more severe disease experiences and symptoms. Scientific research overwhelmingly shows that tobacco smoke increases asthma attacks and asthma symptoms both for people with asthma who are smokers and those people with asthma who are nonsmokers. Tobacco should, therefore, be avoided.

I looked at the link provided and like nearly all the anti-smoking links they NEVER show you the study it'self or how it was conducted, what processes were used to make such claims. I am not saying the speculations are false, only that they may not be founded on real science as they have not provided me, the public, with details about the study so that i can make up my own mind - they just say "we got proof and here are the results". And I am expected to believe it "on faith" alone? Is science about a following of the faithful - a religion?

What about the increase in carbon particles (smog) blowing into Canada from the USA? What about the cold and damp weather conditions in Canada (being a rainforested area) could Global Warming be linked to an increase? What about an increase in stress that can cause panic or fear, is that happening in Canada?

Now if the walls of the passage becomes inflamed to shrink the amount of air that can go in or out then we need to know why the walls are prone to react that way. If I blow smoke on my toe it does not swell up. And why would that happen to an extreme amount for some people and not for everyone? Why are some people resistant to such reaction to those environmental 'triggers'. The study did none of that but only targeted one thing - smokers. Because that was the objective of the study and with such a pre-determined objective to prove smoking is bad they are tempted to 'color' the results by evidence that supports that objective only, no objectively. AKA - bad science. However they hide the study from the public in those webpages and only say 'here are our results' and so we cannot prove the study was improperly conducted.

That is like if they contacted a lot of Natives and the research confimed that 80 percent of them saw Big Boot in Canada. Okay folks - here are our results - Big Foot is real.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jubloz I was hoping that Technosoul would provide some counter arguments and evidence given that he's the reason I chose to create a fresh thread about this particular topic. I haven't heard of any quality studies that disprove all the evidence that smoking is detrimental and was hoping that he could provide the citations.

I was unaware of your new post until today - I do not know of any study to disprove all the studies (they got them by the truck loads - thanks to governmental grants). Researchers are cashing in on it because they got lots of paying clients for the results which can be used to "attack smokers" with. Ciggarette companies got other results but now fear legal action if they they release that as factual data - if the Cig companies put warnings on their labels then they cannot be sued and so they are playing it safe by agreeing with Surgen General.

But I have responded now with some of my personal logic on the topic.

How am I doing so far - I normally do not post in this forum.

[improvident]

I was actually reading wikipedia about the disease I have Ulcerative Colitis.. and it actually says that alot of smokers have less problems with the UC than do non smokers.. Not taking away from the fact that I feel it is unhealthy.. but still random little tid bit

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo Contrary to what Technosoul states, the studies that show that smoking is detrimental are not pseudoscience. I would be careful in accepting anything that Technosoul says about science/pseudoscience since he has demonstrated on multiple occasions that he doesn't know what science is or how it works, and places considerable faith in pseudoscience (blue day dreaming and all that). Now it is possible that all of those studies are wrong since they are essentially statistical in nature. As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. But there are so many peer reviewed studies that come to the same conclusions. But still, some of the effects of tobacco use are evident from a single use, for example, nausea, dizziness, and contraction of blood vessels in the extremities. These are physiological and can be measured. Wouldn't it make you think that something that makes you throw up when you take it probably isn't good for you? The first two go away with continued use while the third becomes chronic and can result in other serious circulatory problems in the extremities. But those are only the effects of the nicotine. There are other harmful products in tobacco, especially when burned. For example, various cancers (lips, gums, tongue, throat, lungs, fingers), as well as COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). But few of us actually read the studies and aren't, therefore, in a position to judge the scientific merits of such studies. The tobacco companies certainly contested these results for many years, claiming that they were inconclusive because they are, as I mentioned, essentially statistical. Such tactics worked with those of us who were addicted to nicotine and wanted to believe that such overwhelming statistics were somehow inconclusive. So most of us rely on anecdotes and personal experience, which has no scientific merit. But I can tell you that after 37 years of smoking I began to develop COPD (early stage as diagnosed by an MD from X-ray). I developed chronic shortness of breath and a chronic cough. All gone now that I have quit. I made no other changes in life style so I can only conclude that those symptoms were the result of smoking. And that doesn't take into account the increased risk of cardiovascular disease among smokers. But again, as the tobacco companies used to say, there is no direct link between smoking and cardiovascular disease. The evidence is just an overwhelming statistical link. Here's another nifty statistic for you that is only now being investigated. It appears that SIDS is more common in the children of smokers. Yet another statistic.

It is true that I have posted a lot of topics about spiritual philosophy, and a few about 'day dreaming' as it might be labeled. And seldom post here about stuff as another arm-chair scienitist, because I'm not part of that community- as you know by now.

And likewise I agree that people should not take my word for things, they need to make up their own minds.

You have somewhat agreed that much of the abundant anti-smoking information is based on statistics alone or "personal experiences and related personal opinons" rather then "lab work" science or "real science". Which is my point from which I had objected. However statictics can be false or true even if not scientifically collected.
So we likewise got no proof the statistics are false - just opinons or interpretations of the data collected or the objective of the study.

Statistics should just be viewed as suggestions based on the old saying "where there is smoke there is the potential of fire". The statistics should just be used as a signpost to tell science to "look in that direction" and see if real science can find out some facts. Has that been acturally done relative to terminal illnesses? I think such real research is still on-going and the claims have yet to be acturally confirmed.

Original tobacco products were once stronger and sold to England because they made people feel dizzy (even fall down). The "buzz" was what they wanted for some "fun thing" they liked. Later "mild" cigarettes were made and could be used with less dizzy effects. Native Ameicans used them for religious like rituals in the old Peace Pipe. So I agree with your comments about that. And cigarettes are linked to what you might view as pseudo-medicine. Re: using smoke to drive out the evil spirits. And for more practical reasons as an insect repellant and to repel "goody two-shoe" people" who linked smoking with paganistic behavior. A religious objective and in part the objective of science to boo hoo primitive beliefs as being superstition.

Am I sounding logical so far? (not sure for how long - enjoy).

Taking a boat ride might make people thow up and feel dizzy until they get used too it. Is boating unhealthy? Logically - or is that one of those "improper anologies"?

Taking presciption drugs can make me dizzy so should I beware of such if recomended? Dancing can make make the girl "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" and so it must be some supersititious feeling caused by paganism. Or is that also to be discounted in this debate? Re: Rock and roll is immoral and supersitious and there for unhealthy. I agree ahead of time that this sort of making use of an extreme form of logica deduction. So I better get back to some comments that better conform to scienitific thinking.

Caughing is a natural way for the body to expell congestivie "muck" from the lungs and related air tubes. Smoking can help to trigger that natual processes as can eating some types of veggies. Now what would happen if you did not caugh out the toxic particles caused by fosil fuels and they stayed inside the lungs, to build up in the filtering system that the lungs are for, to protect the blood? Is caughing better for our long term health or bad for it? Or is coughing a sign that inhaling smoke is bad and that is what is being cast out via the natural pocesses of caughing. Is removing the caugh the remendy for cancer - etc.?
Or the preventative for all such cancers and other deadly conditions?

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=improvident;401987]

I was actually reading wikipedia about the disease I have Ulcerative Colitis.. and it actually says that alot of smokers have less problems with the UC than do non smokers.. Not taking away from the fact that I feel it is unhealthy.. but still random little tid bit

I think anything can have good effects. Smoking is supposedly good for the colon. It's bad for just about everything else.

I'm against the way it's been taxed so heavily, but it is a luxury item, and luxuries get taxed higher.

I smoked for 30 yrs. I wanted to quit for probably at least 15 of those years. It was incredibly hard to quit.

I'm at the point where I think it should be illegal. It's possible to live without it, and not even miss it. It may take years, but it does eventually happen. You might have flashbacks every once in a while, but once you kick the habit it's much easier to turn off the desire.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm

[Technosoul]

[quote=Marilyn Monroe;401994]

Quote by: improvident I think anything can have good effects. Smoking is supposedly good for the colon. It's bad for just about everything else. I'm against the way it's been taxed so heavily, but it is a luxury item, and luxuries get taxed higher. I smoked for 30 yrs. I wanted to quit for probably at least 15 of those years. It was incredibly hard to quit. I'm at the point where I think it should be illegal. It's possible to live without it, and not even miss it. It may take years, but it does eventually happen. You might have flashbacks every once in a while, but once you kick the habit it's much easier to turn off the desire. Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs --- United States, 1995--1999

Ever see Reefer Madness movie - also based on those governmental departmental health agents who wish to become the dictators of health.
Your link is a "governmental study" and should not be trusted by reasonable people.

Now re-read the O.P. as it was requested that this topic should not be about if smoking should be legal or not. You did a "no no".

I am not sure if "addiction" is on the agenda for this topic? But if someone wants to know how to quit pronto without medical aids I can provide that service.

The link you provided contains so may "facts" that are so highly questionable it is down right silly. Hardly what I call being scientific. It is a voodoo style scare tactic with smoking being the mythological boogie man. If someone like Gallo really wanted to do so he could tear those "facts" in that link too shreds.

Where is the REAL proof?

[improvident]

Wasnt me who said that.. :(
I dont listen to much of anything the government says..

All I said.. was that from personal experiences.. folks i know who smoke.. feel better when they take a break for a few days and see how their body feels afterwards.. TOBACCO may not be extremely unhealthy.. but cigarettes.. IMO are.. like i said.. hold any cigarette under a black light.. black lights make bad things glow.. cigarettes.. just look disgusting under one...

Do you yourself smoke Techno? If yes.. then quit for a week.. and see how you feel.. If no.. your arguments hold no merit.. to me anyways

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Technosoul;402032][quote=Marilyn Monroe;401994]

Ever see Reefer Madness movie - also based on those governmental departmental health agents who wish to become the dictators of health. Your link is a "governmental study" and should not be trusted by reasonable people. Now re-read the O.P. as it was requested that this topic should not be about if smoking should be legal or not. You did a "no no". I am not sure if "addiction" is on the agenda for this topic? But if someone wants to know how to quit pronto without medical aids I can provide that service. The link you provided contains so may "facts" that are so highly questionable it is down right silly. Hardly what I call being scientific. It is a voodoo style scare tactic with smoking being the mythological boogie man. If someone like Gallo really wanted to do so he could tear those "facts" in that link too shreds. Where is the REAL proof?

I was merely providing info on myself, and that I had some first-hand knowledge of smoking.

I'm not going to hang around this thread cause I've said what I wanted to say.

If you are a smoker, you are in denial. I was like that for years.

I don't know how the government gets it's info, but some of it is probably from independent studies that aren't paid for by the government. I felt that the "Center for Disease Control" was a reputable source.