Can you please start with capital letters. Please.

That was so priceless.

I have a dog, well I've actually had him for a very long time. He's proof dogs can grow grey hairs when they age, (he was originally black with patches of white, but grey hair is beginning to form around his mouth.)

I used to have a cat, quite a strange story considering it turned up on our doorstep exactly ten years after my mother died, same date and everything. And she was a cat lover. Unfortunately, the damn thing pissed everywhere one day so my dad got rid of it.

I smoke, quite alot. I think it's because of the stress, I do wonder why I do it though. I find myself going through 5-8 packets a week.

8 fucking packets, bloody hell your a chimney xD

The standard amount of cigarettes a week is 70 -80 so 4, 20 packs.

If I'm pissed off; 100 - 110 a week.

I don't buy 20 packs though, 10 packs are in better quality. I'd rather perform cunnilingus on an ash tray then smoke a 20 pack.

They all taste same to me unless there foreign.

Smoking's bad for you.

No it isn't, it clears your sinuses.

Yeah Used. Smoking can't be bad for you. My Nana survived her lung cancer.

Oh...wait...

Lol, and fucks your lungs.

If smoking gave you lung cancer, then everyone who smoked would be dying of lung cancer. Arguments?

I strongly feel that it's not the "carcinogens" that enter the body that CAUSE cancer, it's the body's inability or inhibited ability to rid of them that causes the cancer.... and what causes inhibited/reduced body function/immune system? Stress. The very thing many people who smoke are attempting to ease.

There's nothing "wrong" with smoking; its the body's inability to deal with the chemicals that smoking introduces us to that is the killer. Let's use common sense people; for christ sake. Else, why are there people who are 90 years old with no sign of cancer at all, yet people who are 30 who are cancer riddled? Look at their lifestyles.

I'd care to wager that a great deal of 90 year old cancerless smokers don't lead stressful lifestyles.

I'm not a smoker (of cigarettes) ....I don't like the taste... but I certainly don't disapprove of it because of that.

...and I certainly am not led blindly by hype to feel that smoking is "bad" or "immoral"... which to a smoker, would only cause more guilt and stress! Jesus...

That's a far more flawed argumentum ad absurdum than I'd have expected from you, Justin. Smoking and lung cancer are always correlational but only sometimes causational. It's certainly a large factor involved.

Ah, well little 'ol me looking at things in terms of black and white? Perhaps this is something that needs to be explained to everyone. You have the floor. :fuzwink:

Now this is exactly what I tell people when they say "Smoking Kills". If they kill that many people then why sell them?
I think smoking is not good for you, but it isn't a definite killer.

~Bit of a rant xD
I still don't get why cigarettes and alcohol are legal when weed isn't, really. If you made it legal less people will be curious to try it and wont be getting spiked crap that's actually going to mess you up.

I suppose that could be said for any drug, but oh well...

I'm afraid my limited knowledge on the chemistry of carcinogens and the effect they have on the human biology couldn't possibly do the subject justice, no, you'll just have to wait for BM for a didactic on the harmful effects of smoking.

The Philosophy fairy is just here to clear the ground and tell you that there is something rotten in the logic of your argument.

This is an argument that indeed doesn't make sense. Why do they sell fast food; talk about unhealthy... a definite risk factor involved. Do people eat it? Yes. Rationally? ...not always so. Do people eat it in addition with other personal health risk-factors at play? Certainly.

This is a problem... but as with anything that you count on others to provide for you, there is always an unknown; sometimes with the intent of getting you hooked.

A bit macabre here... but this is where 'The Consumer' becomes 'The Consumed'

There was never an argument that carcinogens were not harmful to the body. The argument was that the inability for the body to rid itself of carcinogens is what is harmful. Therefore, any statistics for the harmfulness (that BM or anyone else may add) won't invalidate the argument.

The body is a miraculous, complex machine which can handle quite a great deal of abuse... if it's kept in good shape and well maintained.

I'm a firm believer that fatty foods should be taxed. It'd be fair to smokers and should mean we have less cases of obesity.

Which is a bigger killer.

Oops, Joe I think we're walking on each other here. I just saw your last post after I posted mine and edited in a new comment. Just making sure it wasn't missed.

No joke about obesity though.

No, not to worry. It just seemed to me like you were saying 'Not all smokers die so therefore smoking is not in the least harmful.' Which is Bad Romanian.

I don't think any of them. It really depends on the persons ability to withstand something. Some people eat like pigs and are still skinny.

For example, some one could die after they take an ecstasy pill, but others may not. This is an extreme example though of how different people react to different things.

Some people I know that smoke can run for miles, whereas some people like myself cannot.

That's a bit obtuse, wouldn't you agree? But it make a luscious tidbit for *cough* someone to bite and start a world class discussion. :p

Once again, further discussion smooths out the bumps.

I'm in that boat, I'm quite prone to pigging out but due to my genetics I stay thin as a rail. So did my father and his father all their life. In fact, the Rubsams have trouble KEEPING weight on, which can be as troublesome as being obese.... no outside indications (weight) to act as a warning sign that I may be at risk.... so careful I must stay! ;)

Different bods have different genetic and chemical makeups, without a doubt. What's a risk for one individual undoubtedly is less/more of a risk for another.

Definatly, by the way that cough wasn't because your smoking was it xD.

No, it was yours.

I do adore your new avatar though. You've got 'tude.

BACK ON TOPIC!

http://i.pbase.com/o3/39/403439/1/34...mokingEdit.jpg

Thank you, your avatar is attitude. Hands on hips stance and everything.

Oops, posted straight after you WoF, good point, this topic has gone though enough topics as it is.

I smoke like a chimney. Went to the doctor's the other day and while during a general cardiovascular check remarked that my lungs were fine.

I didn't believe anything she said from that point on.

Alcar...

What topic? *raises eyebrow* This thread is wonderful! So many things we can talk about freely!

It's like a real Candyland! For the mind.................. For the mind......................

Yeah Roger's all attitude, baby. ;)

As long as we keep loosely to the topics of cats, dogs, cigarettes and stuff Nate doesn't know what else.

Its the "chocolate-fall" in Charley and the Chocolate Factory only its a "topic-fall". It mixes the topics xD

Good point Joe.

Yes, except for that Fat Kid who cigarattes falls into the damn dog chocolate lake and clogs up the fucking cat pipe! Speaking of Risk Factors for obesity.... Good lord pal, have a little control. smoke!

Hehe, damn dog, fucking cat. The fat kid actually really pisses me off. I wish he got pumped into the boiler.

Oh he got pumped, but not in the friendly 'California Howdy' way...

Is that why you live in the desert? No body fat to insulate you?

Also, smoking's still bad for you.

But it's worse for cats.

100+ vocal cords won't sound nice after that.

Come on, to say that cancer is just the body's inabilty to handle certian substances is just like saying that being crushed from a steel beam at a construction sight is just the body's inability to handle that much weight. And yeah, the inabilty to handle carcinogens results from stress, but is it really helping to compensate the relief of stress with just extra carcinogens?

Yes, in the high desert where it drops 20 degrees the instant the sun goes down.



It's not like that at all. A steel beam will crush you in one instant. I think that's a poor analogy.

And here to back up my argument....

http://bobris.mine.nu/public/cougbites.jpg

That snack machine could fall over and KILL her!!!

But basically, if poor health results from the body's inability to handle something, is it smart to keep introducing that something into your system? Why should death be the line anyway? People say you have to die at some point, but do you want to do it choking to death? That's the main reason my mom quit.

No, of course not, I think it's be pretty senseless to keep doing it with deteriorating health.... yet it is done, regardless.

While it stands that some smokers have died young of 'cancer' (the original ailment in question) it also stands that some very heavy smokers have never had an ounce of cancer in them, even at a ripe old age. This does not prove that cigarettes CAUSE cancer... it is suggested that cigarettes degrade your health. For that matter, what else can 'degrade' your health? Should we start a list?

I'm not convinced that cigarettes 'cause' cancer. A correllation exists but not a direct link.

God, I sound like a pro-tobacco lobbyist or what???

i think the snack machine is in more danger.

Did anyone read what it says at the bottom of that snack machine???

you mean intence milk? it also says that at the top.