The Student Room Group

advice for smokers

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Shawshank
x


Original post by the bear
x


Original post by redferry
x


Original post by Beardbrah
x

People who say that smoking absolutely will kill you clearly haven't done their research. There's no doubt that smoking is bad for your health but the government, media and anti-smoking groups have manipulated statistics to paint a far worse picture than is realistic, and whenever I've discussed the issue of smoking with exactly the sort of cocky twit that is represented above the flashy, insubstantial rhetoric they regurgitate from the Man soon turns to dust when they run out of tabloid headlines and fear-mongering messages on the backs of cigarette cartons.

Smoking isn't as bad as it's made out to be. The chance of getting lung cancer undoubtedly increases massively for smokers than non-smokers, (apparently it is about 0.01% for non-smokers) but that risk in the first place (excepting those with strong family histories etc.) is so infinitesmally small that this massive increase isn't enough to justify describing the risk of getting lung cancer even for a life smoker as anything but highly improbable. As the passage from Forest shows below, the risk of lung cancer for smokers of varying lengths of time ranges from 0.2-1.6/10. I call those pretty excellent odds for something which, as I briefly elaborate on below, brings many rarely told benefits, and frankly if, against the odds, I contract lung cancer decades from now, as a contributing taxpayer I will probably benefit from advances made in treatment and possibly even cure via the NHS. Point: having considered everything, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks; personally, I'm far more concerned about the potential health implications of red meat, alcohol and mobile phones.

According to Professor Sir Richard Doll (the man who first discovered a correlation between smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s) research suggests that if you start smoking as a teenager and quit aged 30, the risk of developing lung cancer is 2 per cent; give up at 50 and the risk goes up to 8 per cent; give up at 70 (by which time you have been smoking for more than 50 years) and the risk rises to 16 per cent.


Smoking has many beneficial qualities which are never talked about. It decreases stress and anxiety, enhances memory, enhances concentration and has even been shown to decrease the likelihood of developing illnesses like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and reducing the likelihood of developing problems such as with knee joints in old age. I am social agoraphobic, for 8 months I didn't leave my house in the worst period, but I started smoking and have found that it is a kind of 'solid courage' between my fingers, and have found that others with similar anxiety problems have agreed - my GP even advised me to continue smoking while I deal with this, and they get angry if you don't eat 5 a day or exercise for obscene amounts of time per week.

Here is a link to the website of Forest, a sensible pro-choice-style-pro-smoking organisation, which elaborates on much of what I have said. If you have looked for yourself at independent research which isn't being funded by anti-smoking or pro-smoking organisations, and have come to the reasoned conclusion that you think smoking is bad, then by all means say so without coming across as an unbearably self-righteous twit who can't tolerate alternative lifestyles. Please don't, however, simply regurgitate all the tabloid headlines and parental warnings you've been fed over the years and with this wafer-thin knowledge and understanding lambast smokers in violent tones for choosing their own path.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by cambio wechsel
I'm a smoker and the best advice I ever received was inside a book of matches: "Keep in a dry place and away from children". Words to lead a life by. Nice one.


PRSOM :rofl:
Reply 22
Original post by Birkenhead
People who say that smoking absolutely will kill you clearly haven't done their research. There's no doubt that smoking is bad for your health but the government, media and anti-smoking groups have manipulated statistics to paint a far worse picture than is realistic, and whenever I've discussed the issue of smoking with exactly the sort of cocky twit that is represented above the flashy, insubstantial rhetoric they regurgitate from the Man soon turns to dust when they run out of tabloid headlines and fear-mongering messages on the backs of cigarette cartons.

Smoking isn't as bad as it's made out to be. The chance of getting lung cancer undoubtedly increases massively for smokers than non-smokers, (apparently it is about 0.01% for non-smokers) but that risk in the first place (excepting those with strong family histories etc.) is so infinitesmally small that this massive increase isn't enough to justify describing the risk of getting lung cancer even for a life smoker as anything but highly improbable. As the passage from Forest shows below, the risk of lung cancer for smokers of varying lengths of time ranges from 0.2-1.6/10. I call those pretty excellent odds for something which, as I briefly elaborate on below, brings many rarely told benefits, and frankly if, against the odds, I contract lung cancer decades from now, as a contributing taxpayer I will probably benefit from advances made in treatment and possibly even cure via the NHS. Point: having considered everything, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks; personally, I'm far more concerned about the potential health implications of red meat, alcohol and mobile phones.



Smoking has many beneficial qualities which are never talked about. It decreases stress and anxiety, enhances memory, enhances concentration and has even been shown to decrease the likelihood of developing illnesses like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and reducing the likelihood of developing problems such as with knee joints in old age. I am social agoraphobic, for 8 months I didn't leave my house in the worst period, but I started smoking and have found that it is a kind of 'solid courage' between my fingers, and have found that others with similar anxiety problems have agreed - my GP even advised me to continue smoking while I deal with this, and they get angry if you don't eat 5 a day or exercise for obscene amounts of time per week.

Here is a link to the website of Forest, a sensible pro-choice-style-pro-smoking organisation, which elaborates on much of what I have said. If you have looked for yourself at independent research which isn't being funded by anti-smoking or pro-smoking organisations, and have come to the reasoned conclusion that you think smoking is bad, then by all means say so without coming across as an unbearably self-righteous twit who can't tolerate alternative lifestyles. Please don't, however, simply regurgitate all the tabloid headlines and parental warnings you've been fed over the years and with this wafer-thin knowledge and understanding lambast smokers in violent tones for choosing their own path.


whatever next ? it's fine to swim with crocodiles ? salmonella is your friend ? don't listen to those killjoys who stop you snorting crystal meth ?
Original post by the bear
whatever next ? it's fine to swim with crocodiles ? salmonella is your friend ? don't listen to those killjoys who stop you snorting crystal meth ?


Are you going to respond with some semblance of evidence-supported argument or are you content spouting rhetorical nothings? If you're going to bother responding make it worthwhile. The fact that something has acquired a notorious reputation is not evidence that that reputation is justified - people have equally said: 'Whatever next? Marriage between blacks and whites? Acceptance of homosexuality? Legalisation of atheism?'
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 24
Original post by Birkenhead
Are you going to respond with some semblance of evidence-supported argument or are you content spouting rhetorical nothings? If you're going to bother responding make it worthwhile.


have you seen someone with emphysema gasping for breath ?

have you seen someone with both feet amputated ?

have you seen gangrenous toes ?

these are all direct consequences of the charming habit which you are encouraging us to indulge in.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by the bear
have you seen someone with emphysema gasping for breath ?

have you seen someone with both feet amputated ?

have you seen gangrenous toes ?

these are all direct consequences of the charming habit which you are encouraging us to indulge in. **** you.


Ah, the concluding line of any debater confident in the quality of his argument - '**** you'. Nice :yy:

The examples you have given are examples of statistical outliers and are not persuasive in arguing against smoking any more than some people contracting mouth cancer from cunnilingus or sustaining brain damage after slipping in the shower are persuasive arguments against those things.

Let me explain it for you in simple terms:

Most people don't have emphysema.
Many people with emphysema are smokers.
However, the vast majority of smokers do not and never will contract emphysema.

The conditions you cite aren't actually caused by smoking but by effects of smoking in the body which are also present elsewhere in society - the majority of people with emphysema don't smoke. Again - an increased risk, but not increased enough to justify this extreme hostility and fear-mongering away from something which also has a string of positive benefits, many of which fortify your health and even protect you from diseases.

I have taken the time to throw a few facts and figures into the mix which you haven't been able to respond to and a favour you haven't reciprocated. It's about proportion. Risk is everywhere in life, and it's sensible to calculate appropriately. My point is that people are far too hostile to smoking relative to the risk it actually poses. You should be more concerned about injuring yourself in a car accident or contracting cancer from red meats than you should with any of the extremely unlikely implications you have grouped above. Tell me, what percentage of smokers contract emphysema or gangrene, or still less, have both of their feet amputated? I'd be willing to bet a pretty penny the figures are minute, and that you'd be wise to direct your energies into guarding against much more probable everyday risks. I'm not encouraging anyone to smoke, I'm simply trying to rectify what I see as an unreasonable amount of opposition and a twisting of the facts against doing so.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 26
i am sorry for suggesting that smoking is bad for you. i do not know what i was thinking.
Original post by the bear
i am sorry for suggesting that smoking is bad for you. i do not know what i was thinking.


No-one has disagreed with you on that, as you know. Feel free to give a half-decent response a stab at any time.
Lets be honest not smoking is healthier then smoking
Original post by Captain Obvious
Lets be honest not smoking is healthier then smoking


It's also healthier not to eat junk food, or red meats, or processed food, or drink alcohol, or live in an urban environment where you are constantly breathing in exhaust fumes which have been proven to be comparable to smoking. It is also safer not to drive, or to travel in airplanes, or to skydive, or to swim with sharks. In fact, it is best for your health and safety to spend your entire life in a 4x4 metal box where you will not encounter risk of any kind. I'm guessing you will be abstaining from few of these things, some of which pose greater risk.

Putting aside the fact that smoking has been proven to yield numerous benefits, health and otherwise, there are many, many things which aren't good for you, but 'let's be honest', life is **** without many of these things. Instead of abstaining from everything that poses a risk to your health, it is surely more sensible to assess whether the benefits outweigh the risks of something pleasurable like smoking. I have outlined my own assessment above and have yet to see anyone mount a half-decent challenge amidst waves of this sort of platitudinal comment.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 30
If it was up to me there'd be a blanket ban on smoking. It's the second hand smoke that's the problem. Alcohol may be harmful but if I get smashed and breathe on you it doesn't have any negative effects. People can do what they want (including ruining their lives) but if it affects anyone else it's wrong. It's also a disgusting habit, it stinks and smokers generally just look stupid.
My advice would be to not smoke at the same time every day or smoke everyday if it's possible. I've smoked for five years now and although I am a little bit addicted I can overcome the cravings and go without. I put this down to not having a cigarette at the same time so I don't make an association between smoking and other activities (other than drinking). Not all smokers are addicts!
Reply 32
Original post by Birkenhead
People who say that smoking absolutely will kill you clearly haven't done their research. There's no doubt that smoking is bad for your health but the government, media and anti-smoking groups have manipulated statistics to paint a far worse picture than is realistic, and whenever I've discussed the issue of smoking with exactly the sort of cocky twit that is represented above the flashy, insubstantial rhetoric they regurgitate from the Man soon turns to dust when they run out of tabloid headlines and fear-mongering messages on the backs of cigarette cartons.

Smoking isn't as bad as it's made out to be. The chance of getting lung cancer undoubtedly increases massively for smokers than non-smokers, (apparently it is about 0.01% for non-smokers) but that risk in the first place (excepting those with strong family histories etc.) is so infinitesmally small that this massive increase isn't enough to justify describing the risk of getting lung cancer even for a life smoker as anything but highly improbable. As the passage from Forest shows below, the risk of lung cancer for smokers of varying lengths of time ranges from 0.2-1.6/10. I call those pretty excellent odds for something which, as I briefly elaborate on below, brings many rarely told benefits, and frankly if, against the odds, I contract lung cancer decades from now, as a contributing taxpayer I will probably benefit from advances made in treatment and possibly even cure via the NHS. Point: having considered everything, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks; personally, I'm far more concerned about the potential health implications of red meat, alcohol and mobile phones.



Smoking has many beneficial qualities which are never talked about. It decreases stress and anxiety, enhances memory, enhances concentration and has even been shown to decrease the likelihood of developing illnesses like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and reducing the likelihood of developing problems such as with knee joints in old age. I am social agoraphobic, for 8 months I didn't leave my house in the worst period, but I started smoking and have found that it is a kind of 'solid courage' between my fingers, and have found that others with similar anxiety problems have agreed - my GP even advised me to continue smoking while I deal with this, and they get angry if you don't eat 5 a day or exercise for obscene amounts of time per week.

Here is a link to the website of Forest, a sensible pro-choice-style-pro-smoking organisation, which elaborates on much of what I have said. If you have looked for yourself at independent research which isn't being funded by anti-smoking or pro-smoking organisations, and have come to the reasoned conclusion that you think smoking is bad, then by all means say so without coming across as an unbearably self-righteous twit who can't tolerate alternative lifestyles. Please don't, however, simply regurgitate all the tabloid headlines and parental warnings you've been fed over the years and with this wafer-thin knowledge and understanding lambast smokers in violent tones for choosing their own path.

You sure this isn't due to the body being given more nicotine due to an addiction to it?

Also I don't think any fit to practice GP would advise the continuation of smoking.
Reply 33
tbh i realise now that i have been brainwashed by the anti-smoking junta. all those people in the hospital where i worked were stooges with cleverly faked amputations and artfully performed breathing "problems". i feel such an idiot to have been taken in.
Reply 34
carry on smoking if you want to. Smokers shouldn't be persecuted, they pay huge amounts of tax on tobacco, they die younger and faster, thus, they don't claim a pension for as long as non-smokers.
Original post by VK96
You sure this isn't due to the body being given more nicotine due to an addiction to it?


Yes. It's all on the internet.

Also I don't think any fit to practice GP would advise the continuation of smoking.

She's the head of our student health, probably knows what she's doing.
As someone who smoked 20 a day from the age of 15 to 20. I would say i have no right in moaning at smokers.

When I quit it was a forced choice down to income and once i did i never realised how amazing i would feel. Not only did I save £48 a week, but a month after I quit my gums began to bleed, when i went to the dentist convinced i had gum disease he told me they were bleeding because smoking constricts blood flow to the gums and so now the blood was no flowing freely had i not quit i probably would have gum disease by now. I am now less lethargic and generally feel much healthier, its the best thing i ever did.

My advice to a smoker would not be to quit. You need to ensure you're ready as its a gruelling ordeal but i would suggest getting an E-cig. You would be surprised how quickly you can quit using those.

Officially been quit one year as of June, I do however have a crafty one every 4 months or so. :wink:
Reply 37
If you like smoking, keep at it if you know the risks. **** the holier-than-thou preachers.
Reply 38
Little bit smoke good for our health, Excess amount of smoke is bad for our health. Make Life more busy & Active.
Original post by F.R.A.W.A
If it was up to me there'd be a blanket ban on smoking. It's the second hand smoke that's the problem. Alcohol may be harmful but if I get smashed and breathe on you it doesn't have any negative effects. People can do what they want (including ruining their lives) but if it affects anyone else it's wrong. It's also a disgusting habit, it stinks and smokers generally just look stupid.


You should be far more concerned about the effects of vehicle exhaust fumes than you should passive smoking. The effects are insanely higher for the former and this strikes me as just another way for people to attack smoking without really knowing what they're talking about. What other ideas do you have? Imprisoning and exterminating certain parts of the population?

Smoking has been used as a glamorous accessory in modelling, painting, photography and film for decades and if there's one thing which smoking definitely doesn't do it's make someone look stchewpid.
(edited 10 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest