PDA

View Full Version : The Smoking Thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10

Anita18
07-09-2012, 10:38 PM
I would imagine that the less direct the cause and effect are, the more likely we are to engage in high risk behaviors whether that is bad eating or smoking. It takes a few years of both to start noticing the ill effects.

However, when Japanfan mentioned addictions earlier, the one I thought of was Crocodile. This is a form of meth that has a time frame of killing users of two years. And it turns your skin (and your internal organs) a hard scaly green along the way. Which is why they call it Crocodile. So there is a direct and short killing effect of the drug but people cannot get off of it once they are hooked. When I read about this particular drug, this is what really hit home the power of addictions, whatever they may be.
We had a thread about Crocodile earlier. People are "forced" to use it if they can't afford heroin. I'm not sure but I think that crocodile addicts could (and would) switch back to heroin in a heartbeat if they could afford to. Crocodile takes a long time to make and the high is extremely short. I think the ones who turn to it must be desperate.

BlueRidge
07-09-2012, 10:50 PM
I would imagine that the less direct the cause and effect are, the more likely we are to engage in high risk behaviors whether that is bad eating or smoking. It takes a few years of both to start noticing the ill effects.

However, when Japanfan mentioned addictions earlier, the one I thought of was Crocodile. This is a form of meth that has a time frame of killing users of two years. And it turns your skin (and your internal organs) a hard scaly green along the way. Which is why they call it Crocodile. So there is a direct and short killing effect of the drug but people cannot get off of it once they are hooked. When I read about this particular drug, this is what really hit home the power of addictions, whatever they may be.

With addictions, it seems like people must always start from the belief that either they will not be one who can become addicted or that they can easily quit? No one starts smoking today without knowing the health effects or (that people will give them dirty looks for doing it!), that's the part that gets me. So do they all believe they won't be addicted or they won't have a hard time quitting? And is it the same for hard drug users?

skatingfan5
07-09-2012, 11:30 PM
With addictions, it seems like people must always start from the belief that either they will not be one who can become addicted or that they can easily quit? No one starts smoking today without knowing the health effects or (that people will give them dirty looks for doing it!), that's the part that gets me. So do they all believe they won't be addicted or they won't have a hard time quitting? And is it the same for hard drug users?With the case of some (especially those who first try addictive substances at a very young age -- i.e. preteens), I don't think they think much at all about any consequences beyond the present moment/experience. :(

Grannyfan
07-10-2012, 12:25 AM
My dad used to roll his own ciggies. :eek:

My dad did that occasionally when he couldn't afford to buy a pack. Had a little contraption that was supposed to roll them out nice and round, but mostly he just did it himself. It always fascinated me to watch him hold the paper in one hand, pour the tobacco out of the little Bull Durham sack, pull the drawstring on the bag with his teeth, lick the paper and roll it up. He ended up with a rather wet and messy cigarette, but it burned and he smoked it.

On really desperate occasions when they had no packs of "real" cigarettes, I've also seen my parents get all the butts out of the ashtrays, tear them open and use that tobacco to make another cig.

I've made it sound like my parents would do anything for a cigarette, but I can assure you we kids never went without so they could buy their smokes. :)

Louis
07-10-2012, 01:38 AM
No one has to smoke anything, but everyone has to eat, but why do we (pretty much we've all done it) go around eating things that are very likely to cause us illness?

The belief (right or wrong) about "everything in moderation?" The fact that we haven't classified many foods as addictions and even give an OK to ones that are addictions (e.g., caffeine)? The political subsidies of certain industries? The lack of regulation around what we can put in/treat food with?

As a small aside, I truly hope doctors are right about the health benefits of coffee, particularly the part about them being optimal at around six cups per day. :shuffle:

Japanfan
07-10-2012, 01:54 AM
I think that the objective to trying to live healthy lifestyles isn't so you'll have years added to your life. It's about the quality of your life day by day. If you exercise, you're going to feel better on a daily basis.

I'm a huge control freak, and I see so clearly that doing all these things to ward of the reaper or just the pounds is part of a control thing. We can't control life much at all, really. We're all going to get sick and die eventually. We have absolutely no control over that.

But-we can control how we feel on a day to day basis. Simplistic, I know.

It is the viewpoint that works for me. Feeling good on a day-to-day basis is immediately gratifying and rewarding.

Looking ahead to when I'm elderly, frail and perhaps demented is not gratifying, nor particularly motivating in terms of living healthy. I'll probably be poor old woman, too, and one who has no children. So the notion of living to be 90 is really not very appealing. My dad was a heavy smoker who quite at age 60 and overweight/inactive most of his life. He made it to 90, so it's possible for me as well.

Some people die too soon, some too late, and not enough people die well (peacefully in your sleep as opposed to languishing in a nursing home or from a horridly painful condition). I prefer not to think about all of that and try to live in the moment. In which case, feeling good day to day is the point.

Really
07-10-2012, 01:58 AM
Young people do all kinds of stupid, addictive things because of the sense of invincibility. *I* won't get addicted, cancer, sick, dead...

Nomad
07-10-2012, 02:08 AM
serious question - how do people get addicted to something that tastes and smells like hot sewage?

Speaking only from my own experience here: both my parents smoked. Most of the adults I knew smoked. And I was addicted, from a very young age, to movies from the thirties and forties where everyone smoked and made it look so glamorous and sophisticated and alluring ("Definition of Lake: A body of Veronica, surrounded by men"), or rebellious and cool. Add to that getting picked on in junior high as the oddball/freak/foreigner/whatever. I started smoking and that turned me a "bad kid" instead, which was preferable (at age 13) to those other labels. Nicotine did the rest.

nubka
07-10-2012, 03:27 AM
In post #31 up thread Holley Calmes said that she had smoked from age 18 to 26 (more than 35 years ago).

Sorry! This is a looooong thread, and it's easy to miss details. :shuffle:

Holley Calmes
07-10-2012, 04:37 AM
So do you smoke, or not? Just curious. :)

No, I am 62 and have not put a cig to my lips since I was 26. I do have other mildly addictive issues, but they haven't caused major problems. I'm just sympathetic to people who have these problems, and I will never judge anyone who smokes or has another addictive issues in their lives. None of us are perfect.

Japanfan - I pray for you a gentle death-in about 80 years.

DAngel
07-10-2012, 09:30 AM
The fact that we haven't classified many foods as addictions and even give an OK to ones that are addictions (e.g., caffeine)?

As a small aside, I truly hope doctors are right about the health benefits of coffee, particularly the part about them being optimal at around six cups per day. :shuffle:

How serious is caffeine addiction? I'm under the impression that it is not as destructive as others (drugs, nicotine, etc)

I've never heard of lives ruined because of coffee, except for this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DpNTgPl9E8). ;)

Japanfan
07-10-2012, 09:50 AM
It doesn't cost more for a person to not smoke, in the manner that organic food costs more than nonorganic food or a couch potato doesn't have to pay for a gym membership. In fact, it is quite very much the opposite. If you want money to take the kids to Disney World, you would get off those cigs ASAP! 2 months of not buying a daily pack of cigs would get you enough tickets for a family of four! It would be even less time if you lived in a state where cigarettes are mind-bogglingly expensive, like NY.

I completely understand that addiction is difficult and finding a different coping mechanism is difficult, even when the health ramifications are staring you in the face. But using the money analogy just makes no sense...

I see that my point was confusing. Basically, it was that people don't always use health as the basis for the choices they make about how to spend their money. A smoker might choose cigarettes over a trip to Disney World. I always factored the cost of cigarettes into my budget.

AndyWarhol
07-10-2012, 10:45 AM
being involved in the music and fashion industry, non smokers are definitely the minority.

tralfamadorian
07-10-2012, 08:24 PM
You are right, french fries and cola are waaaay worse than cigarette smoke. :rolleyes:

Actually, that may be so much closer to the truth than you think.


http://commonsensemd.blogspot.hu/2010/07/what-soft-drinks-and-cigarettes-have-in.html
What soft drinks and cigarettes have in common

... many health professionals consider soda to be nothing less than the "new tobacco." There are many good reasons to think so. The average American consumes approximately 50 gallons of soda each year, which is thought to be a major contributor to our current epidemic of obesity, the details of which I discussed in a previous post. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that obesity killed almost as many people in the U.S. per year (about 400,000) as tobacco did, and predicted that it would soon surpass it as the number one cause of death.

Or for another parallel, someone mentioned upthread that smoking is more addictive than cocaine, the same is true for sugar.

http://www.slashfood.com/2007/08/27/sugar-found-to-be-more-addictive-than-cocaine/
Researchers recently determined that refined sugar is actually more addictive than cocaine. In a recent study rats were given a choice between sugar water and cocaine, and 94% them chose sugar. Even the rats that had previously been addicted to cocaine switched to the sugar once it was a choice. No wonder it's so hard to give up that 3 pm pack of M&M's, it's more addictive than illegal drugs.


There are so many ways sugar (meaning refined sugar/HFCS) damages the body it would be hard to list them all, but I find this one especially some food for thought:

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/is-drinking-soda-worse-than-smoking.html?page=4
Fructose is also a likely culprit behind the millions of U.S. children struggling with non-alcoholic liver disease, which is caused by a build-up of fat within liver cells. Fructose is very hard on your liver, in much the same way as drinking alcohol.

- Liver burden number one: After eating fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver—ONLY your liver can break it down. This is much different than consuming glucose, in which your liver has to break down only 20 percent, and the remaining 80 percent is immediately metabolized and used by the rest of the cells in your body.
- Liver burden number two: Fructose is converted into fat that gets stored in your liver and other tissues as body fat. Part of what makes fructose so bad for your health is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar. For example, if you eat 120 calories of fructose, 40 calories are stored as fat. But if you eat the same amount of glucose, less than one calorie gets stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!

Fructose metabolism is very similar to the way alcohol is metabolized, which has a multitude of toxic metabolites that, if consumed in excess, can lead to non-alcoholic liver disease. For a complete discussion of fructose metabolism, see my comprehensive article about this.

Regular table sugar= 50% fructose + 50% glucose, high fructose corn syrup = approx. 55% fructose + 45% glucose.
A can of coke has the same amount calories in sugar as a can of beer in ethanol, thus it puts a similar burden on your liver. Frightening, huh? For more on that: Sugar: UCSF’s Lustig on why we love it, and how it’s killing us (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/05/04/robert-lustig-the-guy-on-obesity-speaking-may-3/) (I really really recommend watching the whole video Sugar: The Bitter Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oMhttp://) linked in this article for a more detailed explanation of the science, it's long but so worth the time.)
There are a lot of other things wrong with (refined) sugar and if you want to be turned off forever another great resource is this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0446343129/) (William Dufty: Sugar Blues extracts (http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/sugar_blues.htm)) but IMO the fructose metabolism/effect on the liver is the most shocking aspect.

And sorry for going a bit off topic, but for me it's actually pretty much on topic because I smoke and my whole logic behind digging into all the healthy eating stuff was to see if I can cheat and maybe get away with smoking if I do everything else the healthy way? :lol:
But by now I've pretty much quit everything else that's supposed to be unhealthy so now there's nothing else left to quit but the &@#! cigarettes... but it's hard. (Mind you, the one thing other than nicotine that almost all cigarettes contain is.... added sugar. Really. So while I won't eat the stuff, I'll still smoke my sugary cigarettes without thinking, how's that for crazy?)
But seriously, I hope I managed to scare you guys about sugar just as much as reading this thread scares me about the cigarettes, because IMO the sugar really is that bad.

Holley Calmes
07-10-2012, 11:41 PM
Yikes, forget the ciggies. Between the sugar and the wine, I should have been dead a decade ago.