Why do people start smoking?

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Oh, I see. If your child were 23 and openly told you that he purposely drives at dangerous speeds without wearing a seatbelt, that would not register any protest from you and that you have no right to ask that he cease engaging in that high risk activity. I understand where you stand now.

I would disagree, but I would be in no position to tell him he can't. That can be the job of the police officer that pulls him over that my taxes pay for.

Would you educate them that it can be unhealthy in some people, or would you educate them that smoking leads to bad/diminished health in many, if not the majority of those who do it? I guess I am asking you, would you just paint it as a 50/50 possibility of facing health damage from smoking. What kind of odds are you going to impart with the education on the choice of smoking and the long terms affects from it?

Yes, I would educate them of the health risks of smoking.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather I would disagree, but I would be in no position to tell him he can't. That can be the job of the police officer that pulls him over that my taxes pay for.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. At least we now have it established that some authority figure does have a right, if not obligation, to tell some that they cannot engage in dangerous high risk activities to themselves and others.

Authorities in executing the laws of their countries prevent a lot of emotional pain to its citizens. But Heather, a mother is an authority figure and even over the age of 18 many children respect the authority of their mothers and do let the emotional urgings affect them. Merely pawning it off on police with your excuse of paying taxes for them to do so is just distancing yourself from it -- not eliminating it.

Yes, I would educate them of the health risks of smoking.

Yes, that it is a 50/50 proposition? or yes, that it is a high risk activity that leads to a majority of smokers experiencing diminished health? Your answere seemed a little ambiguous.

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Ok, now we are getting somewhere. At least we now have it established that some authority figure does have a right, if not obligation, to tell some that they cannot engage in dangerous high risk activities to themselves and others. Authorities in executing the laws of their countries prevent a lot of emotional pain to its citizens. But Heather, a mother is an authority figure and even over the age of 18 many children respect the authority of their mothers and do let the emotional urgings affect them. Merely pawning it off on police with your excuse of paying taxes for them to do so is just distancing yourself from it -- not eliminating it.

There is a difference in my opinion between driving fast and smoking on private property. Roads are not private property are they? And where they are not public roads, at least where I live, the laws pertaining to stop signs, speed limit etc., not not apply because it is private property. If my child above the age of 18 wanted to head my warning, wonderful, if not, again their illegal activities will catch up to them. I am not pawning anything off on police, rather, citing a very large difference between public property and private property as is the difference in your examples. I cannot force anyone to heed my personal warnings, and when they do not where the law is concerned, then yes, law authorities can deal with that person appropriately.

Yes, that it is a 50/50 proposition? or yes, that it is a high risk activity that leads to a majority of smokers experiencing diminished health? Your answere seemed a little ambiguous.

I would research the subject and give my children factual information.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather There is a difference in my opinion between driving fast and smoking on private property. Roads are not private property are they?

Ok, I see we are coming to some kind of agreement here in some ways. You accept now, or maybe you always have accepted, that there should be no smoking in public areas -- the street, sidewalk, national parks, city parks etc... Great. I am happy we agree that high risk activities are under the jurisdiction of authority in those areas.

And we do agree, like I said earlier, that you should have the right to fill your lungs with carcinogens in your own fully contained living compartment.

I guess you are clinging to owners of private establishments having the right to accept high risk activities on their private premises, right? What high risk or created unsafe environment by an owner of an establishment could you imagine that would not be acceptable as a right to do? Is there anything that could be unsafe that could cross the line, so to speak? Or is it just open season on all high risk activities?

I would research the subject and give my children factual information.

Are you telling us that you have not come across enough information by now through reading, radio, television, internet, that you don`t know that smoking is not just a 50/50 chance risk of diminished health? You still seem to be answering in an ambiguous way.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Stronghearts Ok, I see we are coming to some kind of agreement here in some ways. You accept now, or maybe you always have accepted, that there should be no smoking in public areas -- the street, sidewalk, national parks, city parks etc... Great. I am happy we agree that high risk activities are under the jurisdiction of authority in those areas.

Smoking in an open area does not pose a high risk to others' health.

[Deus_ultima]

I started smoking and smoked usually ou of boredom, I'd think.
And habit.

I stopped because I have better things to do of my time now.
:)

[another day]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin What if it gives you cancer at 60 and it is a slow slow eating cancer of pain and debilitation lasting 10 years until you are 70? Who the hell wants to be eighty anyway? Oh, I forgot -- you do.

cancer at 60 is fine too.

[TheNeutralClaim]

I smoke because it relieves stress and I believe that i can do what ever i want with my own lungs. To ban smoking we would have to ban alot of other more enjoyable things.

[Deus_ultima]

Quote by: TheNeutralClaim I smoke because it relieves stress and I believe that i can do what ever i want with my own lungs. To ban smoking we would have to ban alot of other more enjoyable things.

It actually creates stress within your body.

I'm happy that smoking in public places is banned in Wales and soon in the whole of the UK.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Deus_ultima It actually creates stress within your body.

That is right:

Smoking causes people stress but many people believe the opposite. They fail to realise that the apparent mood lift produced by smoke inhalation is a result of the relief from nicotine withdrawal.

I imagine they are also stressed more when they know they are going to be confronted with a situation where they won`t be able to smoke for some time. Withdrawel from addictive substances sends the body into physiological and temporary psychological changes.

Andy Parrott[a psychologist at the University of East London ] recently proposed a model that is based on the idea of nicotine dependency as a cause of stress. According to the model, most smokers are psychologically and physiologically dependent on nicotine, a chemical found in tobacco, and become tense and irritable when they do not have enough nicotine in their system. Consequently, cigarettes may seem like stress relievers because they provide the nicotine that smokers need to feel normal.

There you go. Some people need drugs to feel normal.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin There you go. Some people need drugs to feel normal.

Can you say anything without sounding snotty? Or is this just your natural state: judgemental and pushy, with a side order of self-righteousness?

First: the decision to smoke is generally also the decision not to be normal, as one cannot help but be aware that the natural state of things is not to inhale toxic smoke, and also that the majority of the population does not do so. Secondly, the fact that physiological stress results from smoking has nothing to do with its efficacy in working as an aid in dealing with mental stress; whether the effects are psychosomatic or not makes no difference. I think we all know that the mind has great influence over the body, and if smoking makes your mind think it should relax, then it will relax. That will reduce stress, even if it increases physical stress. Whether that is a good idea or not -- well, that's up to the smoker, not you, despite your apparent inability to understand that your decision making abilities stop where mine start.

And thirdly, what the hell is wrong with needing drugs to feel normal? Are you coming down on Tom Cruise's side here, that anyone who needs medication is simply a weak person? Y'know, voicing that opinion didn't work out too well for him.

[Praxius]

Quote by: TheNeutralClaim I smoke because it relieves stress and I believe that i can do what ever i want with my own lungs.

The stress factor is accurate. Although it might cause some forms of stress internally.... what doesn't these days?

When I was smoking, it was for the nicotine rush.... but then I realized I'm not getting high from nicotine, I was getting an oxygen high. When I was outside and smoking a cig, after I was done or almost done of the smoke, I noticed a bit of light headedness, which was similar to when one is hooked up to oxygen. The increase of smoke in your lungs blocks the amount of clear oxygen your body is absorbing at the time.... when you are done, and you start to breath in normally, you will notice a relaxed light-headedness going on. For about 15 mins or so, anything that has been bothering me, I just can't be bothered to care about it as I did before I smoked.

But weed is much more effective for this.

To ban smoking we would have to ban alot of other more enjoyable things.

Indeed.... if everyone was so scared of second hand smoking and that crap... then say goodbye to your vehicles, and other pollutants that spew even more chemicals in the air for you to inhale than any cig can make. That's what I find idiotic about the fight...... you'll all hang the smokers, but you wont hang the guy driving down the road with the bad exhaust system and who requires an oil change.

[shawmutt]

Indeed.... if everyone was so scared of second hand smoking and that crap... then say goodbye to your vehicles, and other pollutants that spew even more chemicals in the air for you to inhale than any cig can make.

Not to mention the energy it takes, from coal burning power plants, to keep this economy going and us on teh internets. We can learn much from Buddhism, where one of the main tenets is mindfulness.

The crucifixion of smokers is like any other "just cause". Just like the color of someone's skin, or religious clothing, the smoker is easily identifiable, and judged the enemy. Meanwhile, the judge is happily unaware of their own hypocrisy from their high horse.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint ...what the hell is wrong with needing drugs to feel normal? Are you coming down on Tom Cruise's side here, that anyone who needs medication is simply a weak person? Y'know, voicing that opinion didn't work out too well for him.

I can`t believe you are going to argue, or analogise an addict justifying his habbit as self medicating to that of someone taking medicine prescribed by a licensed therapist or doctor. I presume that is what you are doing with your Tom Cruise reference.

[nilan3000]

I smoke cause its fun to smoke. Simple.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Those who`d score low on it, sure wouldn`t want it to be. It would amaze me if you could find some doctors who would state otherwise, that choosing to not smoke is a smart decision. And actually, there have been some studies showing that smoking leads to diminished IQ. Yes, it is an individual choice, and some choose the choice that may lead to a lower IQ. Not a smart choice.

When Reagan started the anti-smoking crusade to sidetrack the environmental movement away from oil and chemical companies it became clear to any research group that depends upon grants from the government that their studies must end up not favoring smoking or else, no more grant money.

They said that pot smoking would damage the brain and cause memory loss and low I.Q. and now they are trying that old trick to make kids not want to try smoking. Duh!

I challenge you to present "some" studies (based on real science) that can demonstrate facts to support the claim that smoking lowers the I.Q. of people in the majority of cases. Or any study what-so-ever that has an once of real proof. The "it MAY" in that line is a dead give-away that the study is highly questionable. Why would they say "it may cause lower I.Q. instead of saying it does or does not? 'cause they don't really know. It is just false advertising.

[Jack]

Memory is a wonderful if randomly defective function of the brain.

I can remember why I started smoking, even recall the incident, after 35 years...but I haven't a clue why I started again after stopping for two years. And that was only 20 years ago.

Getting old sucks, but it's still better than the alternative.

[Kuldeep]

Why do people start smoking?

Just for fun in their childhood. This in their latter years becomes habbit!!!

[Osborn F Enready]

I quit smoking as an adult, and then started again by choice.

It had nothing to do with habit.

Smoking offers something to those who smoke, in some way. Some are hooked, some are not. Some choose to be hooked, some don't.

Everyone starts and stops for different reasons.

I enjoy smoking, thats why I smoke.

[Madeline]

I work in an office building so many of the workers are high-strung or stressed out, this is probably why they take up smoking...but not entirely sure. Anyways, I think it's a disgusting habit ingesting poison into your system -- plus cigarettes stink!