What's the point of smoking?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Roxdog My grandfather smoked his whole life and it didnt kill him...

Ok I'm tired of this kind of argument, so here I say: compare the average lifetime of smokers and non-smokers, then tell me it's not harmful.

Now that we know it's harmful, why to smoke?

[Tycoon]

Ok I'm tired of this kind of argument, so here I say: compare the average lifetime of smokers and non-smokers, then tell me it's not harmful.

Thank you...

[Maryjane]

Now that we know it's harmful, why to smoke?

Because it gives people something else to bitch about

[another day]

Quote by: nerdvincent Ok I'm tired of this kind of argument, so here I say: compare the average lifetime of smokers and non-smokers, then tell me it's not harmful. Now that we know it's harmful, why to smoke?

Why eat cheesecake or mcdonalds? Why go sky-diving or rock climbing?

They are all dangerous things that can potentially kill you but which OBVIOUSLY offer pleasure.

end of story.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: nerdvincent Why do you smoke? Isn't it a bit stupid? Spending [lots of] money to die slowly?

I smoke my cigars just because I want to.

It is a major health hazard (both for thou and the people around thou), so why do they allow tobacco and not salvia divinorum? Come on, tell me!

Is it really the tobacco that is harmful or is it all the chemicals (like urea and formaldehyde) that the tobacco companies add to cigarettes?

[nm420]

Quote by: nerdvincent Why do you smoke? Isn't it a bit stupid? Spending [lots of] money to die slowly? It is a major health hazard (both for thou and the people around thou), so why do they allow tobacco and not salvia divinorum? Come on, tell me!

There are several reasons. Oftentimes it's a social thing; I've met quite a few interesting souls while standing outside smoking that I otherwise would never have. Also, drinking and smoking go together like peaches and cream, and I like to drink. Coffee and smokes go together so well, and I'm a coffee fiend. Other times it's simply to break up the monotony of the day.

Stupid is a relative term. You may think I'm stupid for choosing to enjoy a few cigarettes a day, but I certainly don't think of myself as stupid. There's all kinds of behaviors other people engage in which I find to be utterly irrational, though they are certainly rationalized by the people engaging in them.

I personally spend no more than $20 a month on tobacco, and probably less than that on average. I do find it hard comprehending how people can smoke a pack a day, or multiple ones at that, but it's their money, so who am I to judge? The amount I smoke I have found to not be any more detrimental on my health than the rest of my lifestyle choices. If at some point in time I find bodily health to be more important than cheap thrills, I'll change my behaviors accordingly. 'Nuff said.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Tycoon No, you're supposed to take the word of years and years of medical research done by scientists that are smarter than you are.

If they are so smart how come they are not absolutly sure what causes cancer or how to cure it?

I am not so much fighting what real scientists learn from their studies or years of research but what I dislike most is the advertising used by the anti-smoking people which claims that those studies have produced absolute facts that smoking is the leading cause of cancer, their phoney stats which the just made up, and with all the miss-information they brainwash people with. And with the bans and taxes they have promoted via the poltical manipulation of our system. In other words I do not like the miss-interpretations of the data so far collected.

I cannot say that I am smarter then thet average anti-smoking advocate becuase it is not within the Volconvo rules to suggest they are stupid relative to my opinon. Which I would be claiming if I answered yes to the question you asked. So I will pass on answering your question.

[gela]

If they are so smart how come they are not absolutly sure what causes cancer or how to cure it?

We do know what causes cancer - our DNA is damaged somehow, causing cells to reproduce uncontrollably..
We don't know everything that can cause the DNA damage.

As for finding a cure - genetics is very very complicated, and DNA is microscopic.
Microscopic and very very complicated is not a good mixture.

[southernbread]

Smoking itself s not what is addictive to me. I think since were creatures of habbit that we just get used to doing it when ever were sad happy or whatever the situation. Like for example: Chewing tobaco in your lip, i just got used to it being in my lip an habbit. Id even put gum there sometimes and the beef jerky. Adventually i stopped wanting something there. Smoking also allows us to have something that we can rely on. Like if theres a bad time then we kknow when we smoke its always like this. but these are just the way i feel nuthing proven either-southeren

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Technosoul: There is scientific evidence, directly linking cigaret smoking to lung cancer, emphasema, and a long list of other illenesses. This science is called epidemiology. Alot of time, and money, and effort is spent, by scientists, comparing peoples life styles to their health problems. These scientists have found, indesputably, that smoking causes lung cancer. Go ahead and argue with your logic, unfortunatly, you are not a scientist, and you do not have the data that these scientests have, and have used to prove the risks of smoking. Technosoul's repley - You do not have to be a scientist to do a study of life styles and to use that data to speculate a link between a life style and a medical illness. As I have pointed out before with my anology as an example. If 87 % of the people who have cancer also watch TV for more then 3 hours of the day then I have my stats to suggest a possible link between cancer and TV watching. If you then add the fact that a TV tube can emit trance amounts of radeation simular to nuclear materials and the fact that you cannot dump a TV tube into regular trash because of it's toxic substances, and the fact that the medical industry used to warn parents not to allow their children to sit too close to the TV tube because of the possible dangers of cancer and so forth, then I would have the same kind of evidence you claim to have about smoke. Everyone in the city has an equal chance of getting lung cancer because of the pollution? Wrong. These studies have found that if you smoke, you have a higher chance of dying. Its just that simple. It is science. Techonsoul's repley; Are you saying that smog cannot cause lung problems that might be deadly over the long run? But your answer does help to prove my fact that they selected the smoker to demonize so that envirnomentalists will think that all cancers and other major illnesses are caused by smokers, and so that they will be distracted from protesting the toxic stuff produced by industry and in particular the oil / gasoline industry. So that lawyers will not bring class action legal claims agenst Big Oil or other such speical interest groups. And so that the poltical people will no longer feel the pressure from voters to regulate or ban industral polution. Wrong. The purpose of our lungs is to provide a surface for cellular respiration. They are not, in any way, designed to filter out harmful chemicals. That is why the harmful chemicals stay in our lungs, and slowly destroy the alveoli - causing emphesema. Technosoul's repley; Your logic is strange - the lungs do not act like a filter and so that is why polution stays in the lungs instead of intering the blood stream- etc.? Of course, I agree that filtering is not the only purpose of the lungs. People who live near the Amazon river in the rainforest die early in life due to lung problems, in their case they breathe in damp droplets of fog, those tiny drops of water become warm and then micro-organizems that are breathed in make a home in the water drops and reproduce, the micro-organisms then distroy the lungs and their ability to breathe. Yes, the scietists don't know anything, and you know everything. Apparently every government in the world are focused on cigarettes, because these results arn't only found in America. Also, it is against the governments interests to reduce smoking - they get a shit load of tax off it, and its more consumarism to help the economy. Technosoul's repley: Politics is not run by whom they can tax but by who will provide the political party with the most donations and funding. I have studied how emipidematology works in biology, they look at everything, they have huge huge sample sizes, they found that smoking kills. You have a hunch, and you have the fact that you don't want smoking to be bad for you because it feels good. Technosoul's repley; And yet you still cannot tell me what trace amount of tar is in the smoke produced by one cigarette. But at least you can type a lot of big-sounding words. A trace amount of a harmful chemical. Right, so you smoke two packs a day? I've never smoked, so I don't know how many cigarettes are in a pack, but im going to take a guess at 12. So, multiply that trace amount by 24, then multiply the result by 356, then multiply that number by how ever many years you have been smoking. Technosoul's repley; So you got all the facts together?.. wrong - we have 20 cigs in an average pack of cigarettes. Nice to hear your facts are based on guesswork. It matters not if you do the math if you cannot show proof that the chemicals you claim is in smoke will stay in the lungs forever and ever and thereby accumlate enough to represent a threat. As well as proof that all the trace amount remains in the lungs of the smoker and does not become 2nd hand smoke, for if all the tar stayed in the smokers lungs then 2nd hand smoke would not be voiced by you advocates as a hazard. ( whatever chemical you are worried about ). Our lungs are not designed as a filter, they have no method of removing chemicals once they are in there. Unless you count wheezing and coughing, which arn't all that effective. My proof? I've ever heard of anyone that could cough up tar. Technosoul's repley; You totally missed my point, the lungs do not filter what goes into the lungs, they filter out stuff from getting into the blood stream. The lungs have tiny brush like things that push things up from out of the lungs so it can be exhaled. The purpose of the food items I mentioned (or provided a link for) will keep those brushes clean so they can do their job properly ( and perhaps one medical inhaler has chemicals designed for that purpose, but I have no first hand data on that product). Keep in mind that cancer is not introduced from the outside into your body, it is your own cells that basically rebel and start to grow in a way that counter-acts other cells that reproduce in conformity with the bodies natual processes. My debate with you is about cancer and heart attacks only and if smoking is a absolute cause. Or I could just sit up wind from them.. Im not stupid enough to believe that occaisionaly inhaling a small amount of smoke will kill me. My friends always smoke out side, and they arn't heavy smokers. If I was going to ask them to stop, it would be because I hate the smell, not because of health risks. Technosoul's repley; At least you are honest now about your intent. It is possible for you to overcome such resentments if got the right phycological help. Cigarette smoke gets into the carpet and the funiture and makes it smell. People don't like the immediate smell, and It sets off some asthma reactions. Its perfectly reasonable for businesses to ban smoking on their premises. Unfortunatly, you are a minority - no ones going to be inconvienienced by a minority.

Note: I have inserted a repley in-between all the above statements you made. I think you should be concerned about your resenting the smell of tobacco smoke because when you react in a negative way your body might also react due to that emotion thinking it is a threat, that reaction could result some illness triggered by repeated reactions of hatred.
In my opinon. Like an animal evolving a defense from a threat that it fears or hates, you could evolve a cancer. As evolution can can work both ways. (aka - cause and effect).

[Tycoon]

Note: I have inserted a repley in-between all the above statements you made. I think you should be concerned about your resenting the smell of tobacco smoke because when you react in a negative way your body might also react due to that emotion thinking it is a threat, that reaction could result some illness triggered by repeated reactions of hatred. In my opinon. Like an animal evolving a defense from a threat that it fears or hates, you could evolve a cancer. As evolution can can work both ways. (aka - cause and effect).

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ohhhhh. Hahahaha. Hehehe.

[gela]

Technosoul.

That isn't my most recent post, your just repeating the argumets you made to that post last time

[Tycoon]

You do not have to be a scientist to do a study of life styles and to use that data to speculate a link between a life style and a medical illness. As I have pointed out before with my anology as an example. If 87 % of the people who have cancer also watch TV for more then 3 hours of the day then I have my stats to suggest a possible link between cancer and TV watching.

TVs have not been proven scientifically to cause cancer. Cigarettes have carcinogens. Carcinogens cause cellular mutations. Cellular mutations otherwise known as cancer.

Are you saying that smog cannot cause lung problems that might be deadly over the long run? But your answer does help to prove my fact that they selected the smoker to demonize so that envirnomentalists will think that all cancers and other major illnesses are caused by smokers, and so that they will be distracted from protesting the toxic stuff produced by industry and in particular the oil / gasoline industry.

And as for the smokers that aren't exposed to smog for long periods of time and still get lung cancer??

Of course, I agree that filtering is not the only purpose of the lungs.

Filtering is not a purpose of the lungs at all! Trust me on this one. I am studying the respiratory in system in Biology right now...

So you got all the facts together?.. wrong - we have 20 cigs in an average pack of cigarettes. Nice to hear your facts are based on guesswork.

So.... there's even more tar than she was guessing?

You totally missed my point, the lungs do not filter what goes into the lungs, they filter out stuff from getting into the blood stream. The lungs have tiny brush like things that push things up from out of the lungs so it can be exhaled.

Those "tiny brush like things" are called cilia, and they are not in the lungs. They are in the air passages between the nostrils and the lungs. And you know what's funny? Smoking paralyzes the cilia so they don't keep stuff out of the lungs anymore. That's why smokers cough more.

You are persistent in your ignorance and I am done arguing this. Everything you say is about trying to poke holes in our statistics. You completely ignore all of the scientific proof and make up stuff about the function of the lungs. Nobody is going to respond to your ignorance anymore.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Matt W I love the way you rubbish lab tests as 'junk science' and then quote the above websites. How about this: BBC News | BUSINESS | Tobacco chief admits smoking 'risk' This was 6 years ago. Just think how much more evidence has piled up in those 6 years?

The lawyers of the tobacco industry has advised the tobacco chiefs to publish something that states that tobacco is known to represent certain health risks. Because they can be sued for millions of dollars by any cancer victim that once smoked. By warning the public they cannot be sued because it would then be the fault of the smoker, after reading the warnings, to continue smoking or to start smoking. Thus, saving the cigarette company the need to go to court and paying for lawsuits because 12 people on a jury determined to award those payments.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Technosoul The lawyers of the tobacco industry has advised the tobacco chiefs to publish something that states that tobacco is known to represent certain health risks. Because they can be sued for millions of dollars by any cancer victim that once smoked. By warning the public they cannot be sued because it would then be the fault of the smoker, after reading the warnings, to continue smoking or to start smoking. Thus, saving the cigarette company the need to go to court and paying for lawsuits because 12 people on a jury determined to award those payments.

Any proof of that? At all? You obviously didn't read the article. This is a personal choice, Technosoul. The tobacco chief in question isn't publishing anything at all, he is stating that he doesn't smoke and he wouldn't want his children smoking either because of the health risks.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela The phenomena: Disease The observation: Observing the life styles of people who suffer from a disease The Identification: Recognising common patterns in these observations Experimental Investigation: Looking into how the disease is caused by the pattern; and/or studying the health of other people who follow this pattern in life style. Theoretical Explanation: Link the Life style Pattern to the Disease. Yep.. seems like a science to me. Can't see any way or form that it isn't science. I also googled 'real science' to see if there was such a term, and I couldn't find any such thing. There have been studies taken for years and years, all over the world, done in different cultures and under different governments. Yet there is no study, anywhere, that contradicts the fact that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer. There is no more proof we can possible give. You are the one you has to disprove it now. If you want to say a widly accepted fact isn't true, then your the one who has to come up with the proof, not the rest of us, who have proved it countless times. My point was, that smokers and non smokers live in the city, and are exposed to car fumes. Yet it is still the smokers who are more likely to get lung cancer. Non smokers can also get lung cancer from the car fumes, but you are more likely to get it if you smoke. In short. No. I've already wasted enough time on this thread; I have no doubt that I could go and do it, but it would be time consuming, and I don't care that much. Besides even if I did get the exact amount you would claim it is agenda driven. DNA makes you predisposed to cancer. Its a very simple concept. If your grandmother had lung cancer, then you are more likely to develop cancer if you smoke. However, if you don't smoke, and you eat the steamed vegetables, then you can also avoide the disease. Being geneticaly disposed to a disease is just another aspect to a disease to factor in. Correct me if im wrong, but doctors also ask wether or not you smoke. Lungs do not act like a filter. Cellular respiration is the swiching of oxygen and carbon dioxide through a semi permiable membrane. The membrane is there so the blood doesn't spill into your lungs. Its semi perbiable so that cellular respiration can still occur - the CO2 can leave the blood and the Oxygen can enter the blood. The filtering effect is coincidental, your lungs are not designed to be a filter - if they were, then they would have a method of releasing what they have filtered out. And 'that disease' was Emphysema. Emphysema - Risk Factors and Causes - pulmonologychannel What was that? Theres a special name for emphasema thats caused by purley genetic reasons. Because they have a certain protein that doesn't work in there body. However, emphysema caused by cigarette smoke, in perfectly healthy lungs make up 90% of cases. Theres a difference between questioning authority, and claiming that every single scientific study into the effects of smoking are wrong, and your hunch that cancer is caused by stress, is right. Do not use the results of singular studies to prove a point about the millions of studies that have been done on smoking and its health risks. I think the rewards and the fame and the glory of finding a cure to cancer would by far outweigh the wage of continued research. Think about what you are saying there. Don't worry, this will probably be my last post on this thread. If thousands of pathological, and epidemilogical studies on smoking can't prove it to you, I doubt my debating will.

A "theoretical explaination" is not the same thing as a absolute fact. It is a speculation that may or might not be true. Based on an assumption that the chances of it being true might outweigh the evidence that the data interpretation is not supportive of an absolute fact.
AKA - guessing.

It matters not if you have 1 or 100 such speculations on 1 or 100 studies following the same guidelines. It is still just an opinion based on a what is called an educated guess.

They had experts from a number of governments saying they had proof or evidence that Saddam had WMDs. So we went to war. Later we find out it was all a big lie. The war on smokers is simular, using your manner of determining the truth.

I doubt if you can find much if you google "real science". Partly because the keyword takes you mostly to publications using that name. I should have used the term "sound science" as apposed to what has been termed "junk science".

Junk science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were many studies that said point blank that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer piror to when Reagan took office.
Then came the anti-environmentalist war spearheaded by Reagan philosophy (such as the death of the electric car in favor of oil cars) and the now famous anti-smoking agenda. Many of the research companies are funded by governmental grants, and only the research companies that found "links" to suggest that smoking causes cancer were award that grant money, and those that found no evidence to link the two got zero in futher grant money. So soon all were finding evidence. Then the anti-smoking movement made a claim that the old studies were paid for or influenced by the rich tobacco industry. Soon all evidence of such research has vanished from the internet and elsewhere that you are likely to search at. The oil industry and big name chemical companies want you to believe that all cancers, heart attacks, and what-have-you are caused by cigarette smoke, not by smog of other toxics produced as by-products of oil or certain industrial chemicals. Big oil runs Washington DC and espeically when Republicans gain power there. They do not want you to blame auto fumes, bug spary, nuclear technology or medical x-ray machines. Making people think it is all due to cigarette smoking is a big advantate to the oil and other kinds of industry that does not want to get regulated by the government under voter pressure. Wake up and smell the roses!

It is not up to me to come up with as much money as big oil to proove my point. How do you honestly expect me to get that much money? How do you expect me to run TV ads every hour to brainwash people about my stand on this so that it becomes an accepted "truth" when I cannot even afford the $3.50 a gal I must now fork our for a gal of gas?

Now you are claiming that you could care less about finding out how much tar is in the smoke of a cigarette after stateing that as an important "proof" for you side of this debate. So I will stick with my stand, the trace amount is sooooo teenie weenie that they really pose no threat but the did not give you that data because it would not scare people to know that. They gave you a scary sounding half-truth.

I am taking the stand that not smoking will not allow you to avoid an illness handed down from your grandmother via DNA (genes). The reason Doctors ask if you smoke (how come they cannot smell it on your cloths is beyond me) is because they can bill medicare and other insurance companies for their time spent advising you to stop smoking, that is easy money in their pockets. Thanks to a law from President Bush. But Bush said that any treatment to help people to stop smoking will not be paid for by insurance.

90% of the cases eh? Another stat someone invented which was then automatically repeated by everyone else. No evidence of that stat based on sound science. Let's stick with real science and not something like a poltical exit poll of voters, okay?

Do I think that fame for finding a cure would outweigh the desire for continued research money? First off the word "cure" is copyrighted and you cannot use it to promote a product without permission from governmental medical board that must authorized a drug before it is marketed. So you cannot claim a cure until you get their permisson, and who said they would give it too you? They might tell you to study it for 10 more years. Fame is important you say. Then tell me the name of the lady in Africa who found a cure for AIDS if she is so famous, before she sold the copyrights to a major drug company for three millon buck. Is she so famous that you even herd about that in the headlines of your local news source. I doubt it. You speak of fame, then tell me the name of the man who found out you can cure cancer by implanting DNA into tobacco plants? That tobacco can be used to cure cancer, ever here of that famous discovery? I doubt it. You get what the newspapers want you to get and they must worry about their advertisers who are mostly drug compaines, auto makers, and big oil.

[gela]

It is pointless debating with you. This isn't even a debate - its you ignoring the points that don't suit you, and repeating what you want to believe is true.

You constantly ask for evidence and proof. When it is given to you, you say its a

Another stat someone invented which was then automatically repeated by everyone else. No evidence of that stat based on sound science. Let's stick with real science and not something like a poltical exit poll of voters, okay?

When 'sound science' is given to you, eg.

AS FOR SCIENTIFIC PROOF, CIGARETTES CONTAIN MANY KNOWN CARCINOGENS, A FACT YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE (Caps so you won't ignore it this time). These carcinogens have been proven to cause cancer. These carcinogens cause the mutations that are cancer.

You blatantly ignor them. Then continue to ask for science.


Then, without a scrap of evidence, you go on about conspiracy theories.
eg.

Big oil runs Washington DC and espeically when Republicans gain power there.

Completely ignoring the point I made earlier - that smoking research has been done throughout the entire world, not just your little American world.
I hate to disapoint you, but the oil companies do not have control of the Australian Government. Yet Australian studies still come out with research proving the harm of smoking. Wait, what was that? Countries besides America research diseases? Its shocking I know, but true.
The same can probably be said about hundreds of other countries around the world.
Japan doesn't even have an anti smoking campaign - I see anime characters smoking all the time, being portrayed as 'cool' - yet they still accept that smoking is terrible for your health.

Let me make this very clear for you. There are two completely seperate causes for emphysema.
One is caused geneticaly - it probably appears several times throughout a family tree. It is caused by the absense of a protien that protects your lungs in your genetic make up. It makes up 10% of cases.
90% of cases are caused by the destruction of the protective layer of your lungs through inhaling harmful chemicals.
All of the people who suffer from this strand of emphysema smoke.
They are seperate diseases with identical results. There is no room for theorising.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela It is pointless debating with you. This isn't even a debate - its you ignoring the points that don't suit you, and repeating what you want to believe is true. You constantly ask for evidence and proof. When it is given to you, you say its a When 'sound science' is given to you, eg. You blatantly ignor them. Then continue to ask for science. Then, without a scrap of evidence, you go on about conspiracy theories. eg. Completely ignoring the point I made earlier - that smoking research has been done throughout the entire world, not just your little American world. I hate to disapoint you, but the oil companies do not have control of the Australian Government. Yet Australian studies still come out with research proving the harm of smoking. Wait, what was that? Countries besides America research diseases? Its shocking I know, but true. The same can probably be said about hundreds of other countries around the world. Japan doesn't even have an anti smoking campaign - I see anime characters smoking all the time, being portrayed as 'cool' - yet they still accept that smoking is terrible for your health. Let me make this very clear for you. There are two completely seperate causes for emphysema. One is caused geneticaly - it probably appears several times throughout a family tree. It is caused by the absense of a protien that protects your lungs in your genetic make up. It makes up 10% of cases. 90% of cases are caused by the destruction of the protective layer of your lungs through inhaling harmful chemicals. All of the people who suffer from this strand of emphysema smoke. They are seperate diseases with identical results. There is no room for theorising.

I did not ignore any of the studies using junk science I only said they do not represent what can be called an absolute fact or undisputable proof.

I am aware that other countries conduct studies to try to find out what causes different illnesses. The biggest concern in Australian research now is that the ozone hole over that area that results in skin cancer. Some of those other countries also develope treatments and cures that are ignored by our medical establishment here in the USA. No matter where the study is conducted there is a difference between junk science and sound science and so far you refuse to see that difference.

Japan imports a lot of cigarettes from USA companies.

I fully agree that certain chemicals can cause health problems, perhaps even cancer (confirmed by tests on rats and other animals). And I agree that they can find tiny trace amounts of those chemicals in cigarette tobacco. As well as other plant foods we might cook and eat.
What I am saying here is that you must be exposed to a large enough dose (amount of the chemical) for it to have an impact on your health.
Example: I could introduce a teenie weenie trace amount of rattlesnake poison to your blood and you would never feel or have any bad side effects, and although that poison in a larger dose can kill you, a teenie weenie amount would do nothing to put your health status at risk. Same with all those chemicals you claim are found in cigarettes or cigarette smoke. My point is that the trace amount is too small to represent a health risk and they know it, but still use that finding to scare people.

Now science knows that if you add a trace amount of rattlesnake poison to your blood stream on a repeated bases that your immune system can build of better resistance to a actural snake bite in full dosage. Some people do that if they are in the snake business. If I used that fact as a backdrop I could speculate that a trace amont of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke could help be build up resistance to the tons of carbon monozide released everyday via car fumes. But nooooooooooo, they do not want to conduct as study like that, and I feel politics is behind it.

And it is clear that those who use those chemical componants found in cigarettes to scare you with are not making it well known that those chemicals are in such small amounts that they do not represent a big risk.

I do feel that women who are with child should not smoke, and that might shock you. They should avoid smoking, drinking booze, most drugs and in particular unlawful drugs that are addictive. And even some unhealthy foods. That has been a long standing policy of shamans who use such things for religious purposes. For which reason women do not take part in such native rituals, and later in histroy excluded from teaching roles in many religions world wide. So I will give you that one reason as a good reason for women not to smoke for "health reasons".
Due to the very long term study made by primitive shamen.

I was born with emphysema and have it as confirmed by a doctor. My father's brother died from it when he was in his 70s, my father was told that he had it but he died of natual causes. The Doc told me I was in the early stages of the disease (that was in the 1970s). They have not found a cure for the generic version. I have not yet researched data about the one you claim is caused by smoking. But am also a smoker and began smoking in the late 1950s.

So I stand a double-wammy chance of that being my doomsday. According to the warnings I should be plugged into a breathing machine by now. But such is not that case (born in 1939). In fact as I go about my business I have no awareness of any such health problem or breathing problems that others suffer with that illness. That is due to my life style. Being happy and positive. Stress reduction meditations, and other things. They should study my life style to learn about how to prevent the illness from developing.

One preventive measure is to ignore it and to cast such thoughts out of your mind, because if you think you are doomed then you will draw that to your self, which is how voodooism works. So you need an anti-voodooism attitude. When I was a little lad I had "hey fever" which is an old term for a breathing problem. I had to use an inhaler, those illnesses are also genetic and most people outgrow them. I overcame it by comprehending that fear causes the air passage to shrink and so you get "uptight". So stuff cannot flow freely in and out. Casuing weezing and difficulty catching your breath. When I adopted a more dominating attitude and became fearless my breathing problems vanished.

Fear is a stress related condition.

It does not take a rocket scientist to become aware of your own mind/body experiences and to make choices to develope a better life style that does not trigger as many illnesses.

"It is not what you consume that defiles a man, but what you express from within yourself". A simple attitude adjustment can cure many potential health problems. Science studies have confirmed that being happy ( joking around ) is one preventive step. So I am not off base in these concepts even if some drug collage did not authorize me as being an expert. The collage ones are only told to medicate, operate, or redeate. I believe many other choices are useful.

And so I will stand my ground. Thanks for your continued support of this topic with your comments.

Please overlook typing errors as I am in a hurry and gotta go do something else.