Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    I enjoy tackling positions I disagree with.



    I can't possibly list them all, but they include a significantly reduced risk of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases and reduced ageing of the brain generally, significantly reduced risk of breast cancer, significantly reduced risk of ulcerative colitis, while it is also an effective treatment for the symptoms of many mental health problems. About 80% of schizophrenics smoke, and it is reasonable to attribute this to smoking's positive effects on many of the cognitive, psychiatric and physical symptoms of the illness. The effects of smoking have been shown to effectively treat major depressive disorder, for another example.

    More generally, cigarette smoking enhances concentration, improves memory, inhibits pain and reduces anxiety. Cigarette smoking, depending on the speed and strength of inhalation, can be both a stimulant and a relaxant. Smoking is also useful in tackling obesity, which can be infinitely more dangerous than light smoking, because it inhibits appetite.

    Here are some well written and well sourced pages on some of the health benefits of smoking:

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

    http://www.sott.net/article/221013-H...moking-Tobacco

    Lung cancer. There is undeniably a much bigger risk of lung cancer with smoking but it is nowhere near as likely as is portrayed. A well sourced quote from Wikipedia:



    In other words, I have a 1.5/10 risk of developing lung cancer if I smoke as I do for the rest of my life, while as a woman you would have a 0.95/10 risk. In my mind, considering the pleasure it gives me and the benefits touched on above, I do not believe this risk is great enough for me to abstain from it. There is a 75% chance I won't develop the disease.

    The biggest scandal we've never heard about is that medical practitioners make a great deal of money from encouraging anti-smoking. Below is the link to an article by a man who has done the leg work - and he concludes that doctors make about £88m annually from being anti-smoking. The newspapers, meanwhile, make a pretty penny from enticing people into reading them by scaremongering, and politicians are mostly populist at the top and will do everything possible to conform to popular attitudes when there is no great need to resist them. All three of these actors are responsible for the vilification of smoking in the public conscience and I ask you to consider that they are all their own respective conflicts of interests before you take their word for it. Smoking is not as great a danger as we have been led to believe, and its many benefits have been hushed up.

    http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2488
    So you smoke?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    I was commenting more on the "cancer from smoking is extremely rare" line,
    I will re-phrase: it is nowhere near as common as is believed. The figure above states that the risk of lung cancer for smokers is 1.5/10 for male lifetime smokers and 0.95/10 for women. These odds are hardly reflected by the hysteria and vilification surrounding smoking.


    10-15% of lung cancer cases are estimated not to be caused by smoking, and that's coming from a cancer charity:

    People who don’t smoke can also develop lung cancer. Approximately 10-15% of people (around 1 in 10) who get lung cancer will never have smoked.
    as well as the notion that smoking has any "pros". Let's get real now.
    Smoking has a great many health benefits, I suggest you read the above post outlining them. I also suggest you do even a little of your own research before commenting with such finality. Think for yourself instead of regurgitating what other people tell you.

    (Original post by _Charlotte15)
    You've just completely contradicted what you said on your previous posts stating that most smokers don't pick up these diseases due to their habit but now your saying the illnesses they have are "predominately caused by smoking". Eating your words.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    When did I say that most smokers don't contract diseases as a result of smoking? Read my posts more carefully.

    (Original post by _Charlotte15)
    I'm also still waiting for the pros list


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I accidentally lost it before but it is posted now.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There was a recent study that came to the conclusion that 2/3 of cancers are just down to pot luck.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Charlotte15)
    So you smoke?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, I do. Do you still believe that smoking has no benefits and the risk is not exaggerated? What about doctors making £88m annually from being heavily opposed to smoking?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    There was a recent study that came to the conclusion that 2/3 of cancers are just down to pot luck.
    Yes, indeed:

    (Original post by BBC News)
    Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Just one smoke? Nah man, you need two cigarettes in either hand, that's cool as ****:eyeball:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    I will re-phrase: it is not as rare as is believed. 10-15% of lung cancer cases are estimated not to be caused by smoking, and that's coming from a cancer charity:





    Smoking has a great many health benefits, I suggest you read the above post outlining them. I also suggest you do even a little of your own research before commenting with such finality. Think for yourself instead of regurgitating what other people tell you.
    Smoking does not automatically = lung cancer. But lung cancer is not even the only cancer which is vastly more likely to occur in smokers, let alone the only disease or detrimental effect. Combining the impact on risk of a number of cancers; lung, oesophageal, oral, pharygeal, stomach, as well as several others, respiratory diseases such as COPD which greatly reduce quality and length of life, vascular diseases/stroke/aneurysm/heart attacks, dental & periodontal health, visible deterioration in skin health/youthful appearance, not to mention smelling like **** 24/7, you'd be hard pressed to make the claim that health risks and negative points made about smoking are overstated.

    The idea that smoking is calming or has an anxiolytic effect is ridiculous. It temporarily reduces stress in people who are already addicted to nicotine, and then leads to ever increasing withdrawal and dependency. Exactly the same deal when it comes to the supposed increase in concentration. You take away their fix, they feel worse, you give them the fix, they feel and perform better. How you think this is an argument in its favour I'm not sure. The effect on Parkinson's, whilst certainly interesting, can hardly be touted as a health benefit given the number of health risks which massively outweigh a small reduction in the risk of an already rare disease.

    Stop trying to convince yourself your habit has a net benefit on your life.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah don't smoke 'cause it's cool lmao it's not.

    I smoke and I only do it when I'm angry not for the social aspect (I don't smoke socially really) - I'd encourage people not to take it up.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mals94)
    in the winter smoking is cool imo


    checkered shirts, beards, black skinny jeans, quiff and cigarettes is a great look

    girls cant get enough :cool:

    also tattooos, not full sleeve though because thats too common
    Ever kissed an ashtray?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Smoking does not automatically = lung cancer. But lung cancer is not even the only cancer which is vastly more likely to occur in smokers, let alone the only disease or detrimental effect. Combining the impact on risk of a number of cancers; lung, oesophageal, oral, pharygeal, stomach, as well as several others, respiratory diseases such as COPD which greatly reduce quality and length of life, vascular diseases/stroke/aneurysm/heart attacks, dental & periodontal health, visible deterioration in skin health/youthful appearance, not to mention smelling like **** 24/7, you'd be hard pressed to make the claim that health risks and negative points made about smoking are overstated.
    You'll see above that I've done this quite successfully. The risks are overstated. Lung cancer is touted as one of the most probable health risks to manifest, and the risk is 1.5/10 and 0.95/10 for lifetime male and female smokers respectively - respectively, an 85% and 95% chance of not developing the disease over a lifetime. There are many illnesses and diseases linked to smoking, but with lung cancer one of the most likely and the odds of developing it so infinitesimally small, I find it incredibly easy to say that the health risks have been exaggerated. Since it is the flagship disease mentioned by the anti-smoking brigade, I am going to assume that the risks are equally tiny in the other illnesses as well, unless you can evidence otherwise, and therefore just as dismissable as reason to be so opposed, despite how many of them there are.

    Sun tanning causes deterioration of skin and youthful appearance, but people seem to be a little more mature about how they approach that risk, while anyone who washes themselves regularly will not smell unless they are a chain smoker.

    The idea that smoking is calming or has an anxiolytic effect is ridiculous. It temporarily reduces stress in people who are already addicted to nicotine, and then leads to ever increasing withdrawal and dependency.
    No, this is incorrect, for the simple reason that it has these effects on people who have never encountered nicotine before. They are inherent to tobacco and independent of addiction.

    Exactly the same deal when it comes to the supposed increase in concentration. You take away their fix, they feel worse, you give them the fix, they feel and perform better. How you think this is an argument in its favour I'm not sure.
    As above, this is wrong. These effects are caused in people who have never smoked as they are in those that have. Smoking does create these effects independent of addiction. I am a smoker and I do not feel what you are describing at all - do you have any evidence that smokers have worse concentration or that they are less calm than nonsmokers?

    The effect on Parkinson's, whilst certainly interesting, can hardly be touted as a health benefit given the number of health risks which massively outweigh a small reduction in the risk of an already rare disease.
    That there are health risks does not invalidate the health benefits, that's absurd. The reduction is not small, it is quite significant, and personally Parkinson's strikes me as a far more frightening illness than lung cancer, for example, it is also completely incurable, unlike lung cancer and the other health problems you mention. You have also completely ignored the vast list of other health benefits which I touched on and linked to further information. Once again, the health risks of smoking are exaggerated - I have already tackled lung cancer as an example, and I don't understand how you can reasonably dismiss smoking's defence against Parkinson's but warn against its encouragement of lung cancer when there is an 85/95% chance that lifelong male and female smokers will not develop the disease, it being said to be one of the most likely health problems.

    Stop trying to convince yourself your habit has a net benefit on your life.
    It does have a net benefit on my life. You seem rather angry about what I'm saying, and if you had faith in the strength of your argument you wouldn't feel the need to ask me to stop confronting the scaremongering nonsense of the media, doctors and politicians over the last few decades, all of whom have vested interests to promote this view of smoking. You have not responded either to my point that doctors make £88m annually from strongly opposing smoking, or engaged with whether this might somewhat compromise their integrity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Smoking does not automatically = lung cancer. But lung cancer is not even the only cancer which is vastly more likely to occur in smokers, let alone the only disease or detrimental effect. Combining the impact on risk of a number of cancers; lung, oesophageal, oral, pharygeal, stomach, as well as several others, respiratory diseases such as COPD which greatly reduce quality and length of life, vascular diseases/stroke/aneurysm/heart attacks, dental & periodontal health, visible deterioration in skin health/youthful appearance, not to mention smelling like **** 24/7, you'd be hard pressed to make the claim that health risks and negative points made about smoking are overstated.

    The idea that smoking is calming or has an anxiolytic effect is ridiculous. It temporarily reduces stress in people who are already addicted to nicotine, and then leads to ever increasing withdrawal and dependency. Exactly the same deal when it comes to the supposed increase in concentration. You take away their fix, they feel worse, you give them the fix, they feel and perform better. How you think this is an argument in its favour I'm not sure. The effect on Parkinson's, whilst certainly interesting, can hardly be touted as a health benefit given the number of health risks which massively outweigh a small reduction in the risk of an already rare disease.

    Stop trying to convince yourself your habit has a net benefit on your life.
    What he said
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    You'll see above that I've done this quite successfully. The risks are overstated. Lung cancer is touted as one of the most probable health risks to manifest, and the risk is 1.5/10 and 0.95/10 for lifetime male and female smokers respectively - respectively, an 85% and 95% chance of not developing the disease over a lifetime. There are many illnesses and diseases linked to smoking, but with lung cancer one of the most likely and the odds of developing it so infinitesimally small, I find it incredibly easy to say that the health risks have been exaggerated. Since it is the flagship disease mentioned by the anti-smoking brigade, I am going to assume that the risks are equally tiny in the other illnesses as well, unless you can evidence otherwise, and therefore just as dismissable as reason to be so opposed, despite how many of them there are.

    Sun tanning causes deterioration of skin and youthful appearance, but people seem to be a little more mature about how they approach that risk, while anyone who washes themselves regularly will not smell unless they are a chain smoker.



    No, this is incorrect, for the simple reason that it has these effects on people who have never encountered nicotine before. They are inherent to tobacco and independent of addiction.



    As above, this is wrong. These effects are caused in people who have never smoked as they are in those that have. Smoking does create these effects independent of addiction. I am a smoker and I do not feel what you are describing at all - do you have any evidence that smokers have worse concentration or that they are less calm than nonsmokers?



    The reduction is not small, it is quite significant, and personally Parkinson's strikes me as a far more frightening illness than lung cancer, for example, it is also completely incurable, unlike lung cancer and the other health problems you mention. You have also completely ignored the vast list of other health benefits which I touched on and linked to further information. Once again, the health risks of smoking are exaggerated - I have already tackled lung cancer as an example, and I don't understand how you can reasonably dismiss smoking's defence against Parkinson's but warn against its encouragement of lung cancer when there is an 85/95% chance that lifelong male and female smokers will not develop the disease, it being said to be one of the most likely health problems.



    It does have a net benefit on my life. You seem rather angry about what I'm saying, and if you had faith in the strength of your argument you wouldn't feel the need to ask me to stop confronting the scaremongering nonsense of the media, doctors and politicians over the last few decades, all of whom have vested interests to promote this view of smoking. You have not responded either to my point that doctors make £88m annually from strongly opposing smoking, or engaged with whether this might somewhat compromise their integrity.
    You're completely wrong in thinking that lung cancer is the #1 risk of smoking (it's cardiovascular disease).

    The increase in coronary and vascular diseases is huge; heart attacks, strokes, aneurysms - these are already by far the biggest killers in the western world, moreso than all cancers combined, and regular smoking increases the risk dramatically (2-4 times).

    COPD is also one of the leading causes of death, and smoking increases the risk by a similar amount as in lung cancer (15-20%). Even if you don't die from it, having to be put on oxygen and strain for every breath is not how I think anyone would want to spend their days, even if they may be "lung cancer free", by your strange definition of good health. Don't forget pneumonia and other respiratory tract infections too.

    You get 30 year olds whose (already yellow and disgusting) teeth start becoming loose because their periodontal health has gone to absolute ****, you get people who struggle to do mildly strenuous tasks without being completely out of breath, you get people who look 10 years older than they are, etc.

    The effects on stress and anxiety are everything to do with addiction: http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1151 Large systematic review confirming that smoking cessation reduces chronic depression, anxiety and stress. Yes if you give an addicted smoker a cigarette he will feel better, this isn't news. Long term, being free from cigarette addiction considerably improves several markers of mental well being, in both people with psychiatric problems and without.

    The risk of developing Parkinsons is around 1%. You would chronically smoke and largely increase your risk of getting cancer, respiratory disease, respiratory tract infections, heart attacks, strokes, start losing your teeth early, and look much older than you are, to reduce the risk of a disease you have 1% chance of getting? You aren't worried about a 15% risk of getting lung cancer (not even including all the other numerous health risks, some more significant than lung cancer), but are worried about a 1% risk of Parkinsons? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't anywhere near that stupid, so cut the BS and accept that you smoke because you are addicted in some capacity, not because it is doing you good. It's not like I've never smoked a cigarette myself, but on the few occasions I've done it I've fully accepted how completely pointless it was.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)

    Lung cancer. There is undeniably a much bigger risk of lung cancer with smoking but it is nowhere near as likely as is portrayed. A well sourced quote from Wikipedia:

    "The probabilities of death from Lung cancer before age 75 in the United Kingdom are 0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women), 5.5% for male former smokers (2.6% in women) [and] 15.9% for current male smokers (9.5% for women)"

    In other words, I have a 1.5/10 risk of developing lung cancer if I smoke as I do for the rest of my life, while as a woman you would have a 0.95/10 risk. In my mind, considering the pleasure it gives me and the benefits touched on above, I do not believe this risk is great enough for me to abstain from it. There is an 85% chance I won't develop the disease.
    Yet before you said:
    "Secondly, smoking does not 'double' your chance of getting diseases like cancer. The vast majority of people with lung cancer are smokers, but the vast majority of smokers will not develop lung cancer. Your risk is raised significantly but it still remains infinitesimally small, because the risk in the first place is almost non-existent."

    Lol ok
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Yet before you said:
    "Secondly, smoking does not 'double' your chance of getting diseases like cancer. The vast majority of people with lung cancer are smokers, but the vast majority of smokers will not develop lung cancer. Your risk is raised significantly but it still remains infinitesimally small, because the risk in the first place is almost non-existent."

    Lol ok
    What inconsistency do you see here? Smoking doesn't double the chances of getting lung cancer, it is more than that but the point is that the risk is still a very small one. Men and women who smoke throughout their lives are 84.1% and 90.5% likely not to develop lung cancer respectively. The risk in the first place is almost non-existent, look at the figures for nonsmokers, they don't even make single percentage points. The risk for smokers is much higher than for nonsmokers, but still remains very slight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mals94)
    in the winter smoking is cool imo


    checkered shirts, beards, black skinny jeans, quiff and cigarettes is a great look

    girls cant get enough :cool:

    also tattooos, not full sleeve though because thats too common
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    LMAO!! Oh my God

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Smoking is so cool. If you don't smoke or drink then you're probably really boring. Cigars and Scotch are all I need in this life of sin. When you're wearing a suit dressed like a boss, with a glass of Scotch in one hand and a cigar in the other, women know that you've made it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OP:

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    Smoking is so cool. If you don't smoke or drink then you're probably really boring. Cigars and Scotch are all I need in this life of sin. When you're wearing a suit dressed like a boss, with a glass of Scotch in one hand and a cigar in the other, women know that you've made it.
    Please smoke. Cough your lungs out while you're at it. I won't miss you. In fact...no one will. :kiss:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    i cant say much but smoking is not nice tbh. like from a girls point of view its not always attractive.when i smoke i only socially smoke, so when im drunk.. it got to a point where every weekend i would smoke. i hate it and i dont know why i did it and its just horrible. but do what you like its your own body
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.