Tbob, I will be looking also, that is scary. The Anti's may get "quit and die". It will be difficult because no one wants to publish things that may be against smokers quiting analogs.
Shocked at public opinion. . .
- Thread starter jennydotz
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No. But we have tons proving that going on triggers it (well, not really, since noone has yet proved that tobacco causes cancer) but the evidence is outta there. So quitting seems to be the lesser evil. I have an hard time in believing that smokin 10years+5quitted is more likely to cause cancer than 15years straight on.
A quick search also refreshed my mind on something i vaguely remembered, ie a timetable of quitting smoking benefit. Right on the 5 years mark:
5 YEARS
-
[*]Lung cancer death rate for average smoker (one pack a day) decreases by almost half.
[*]Stroke risk is reduced to that of a nonsmoker 5-15 years after quitting.
[*]Risk of cancer of the mouth, throat and esophagus is half that of a smoker's.
Not a personal attack or anything TB, just stating my opinion.
This whole thread seems a bit "smoker biased" to me. While nicotine is indeed addictive, its withdrawal symptoms are nothing when compared to other drugs, and i'd like to go with Allen Carr view on the matter.
The understanding that the actual physical withdrawal from nicotine is so inconsequential as to be minor and therefore almost insignificant, enables smokers to finally break free. Smokers using willpower who do not come to these realizations, allow the mental "withdrawal" or anguish to overpower them, resulting in physical manifestations (e.g. sweaty palms, panic feelings, irritation, flushes etc.). It is precisely because many smokers believe these symptoms are caused by lack of nicotine (i.e. physical withdrawal) and not by their psychological dependency and feeling of deprivation, that they are not successful at quitting.
This is an extremization, and i stay somewhere in the middle, knowing that there is a physical effect of nicotine on the brain. But quitting smoking one cig at a time, one less each day... Well, it just reinforces the thought that the cigarette is soooo important, and exasperates the smoker in the in-between waiting. But i agree with Lacey on what she did, and i think it was even more thoughtful for the child-to-come than a cold-turkey. Still, i hope that you had totally quitted after a while, did ya? None of my biz
, rethorical question.I hope you can all enjoy reading a different viewpoint on the matter, and i apologize for the crappy english. I hope that i made myself clear enough to be readable =)
My mum was a very heavy smoker ...had three normal healthy babies....who she loved to bits......and all three of her babies have reached old age......but these days my lovely old mum would be seen as an evil child killer by non-smokers, strange how much things have changed.
You are so right, Pete. Cigarettes have been demonized beyond all science and/or common sense. The shout of "cigarettes kill" is never spoken as "cigarettes might kill". But that's truer. Consider that "50% of smokers die of a smoking-related illness." Duh, that means 50% don't.
I smoked at the time my children were born. I have a photo I'm not proud of where I'm lying in bed after just awakening, holding my new daughter up near my head, a cigarette hanging from my lips. She's now given me three granddaughters and so far all are well. Same with my son. Same with me, as far as that goes.
I've written before that one of my cousins smoked 4 packs a day for 50 years. He quit. He celebrated his 90th birthday last month. Another smoked 2 packs a day for 50 years. He's 87.
I wouldn't recommend anyone smoke cigarettes, but I've quit demonizing them by condemning every smoker to ultimate death by smoke. It just ain't so. How quickly we forget how many smoking moms and dads had children -- us! -- and we didn't croak in the crib from second-hand smoke.
Smoking might not be "good," but put it in perspective, please. Look at the population today. See anything wrong. How about obesity? Another topic, though, and I won't go there.
I smoked at the time my children were born. I have a photo I'm not proud of where I'm lying in bed after just awakening, holding my new daughter up near my head, a cigarette hanging from my lips. She's now given me three granddaughters and so far all are well. Same with my son. Same with me, as far as that goes.
I've written before that one of my cousins smoked 4 packs a day for 50 years. He quit. He celebrated his 90th birthday last month. Another smoked 2 packs a day for 50 years. He's 87.
I wouldn't recommend anyone smoke cigarettes, but I've quit demonizing them by condemning every smoker to ultimate death by smoke. It just ain't so. How quickly we forget how many smoking moms and dads had children -- us! -- and we didn't croak in the crib from second-hand smoke.
Smoking might not be "good," but put it in perspective, please. Look at the population today. See anything wrong. How about obesity? Another topic, though, and I won't go there.
Yes... please. Let's not go there. Obesity is the cancer of food addiction. And we could target this ALL day long. 8-o
Yes, I believe so but the main difference is that the withdrawal symptoms seem to last so long that, in the end, we get worn down by it and surrender to the temptation. I have no idea how long it takes to get over nicotine but I know it's nothing like the short weeks that is claimed. I'd say it's many months (I've never got that far), I'd guess between 3 and 6.
Then there's the loss of nicotine "benefits", e.g., better concentration. I guess ex-smokers never really get over this but just learn to live with being "normal"!
I found a article published in or around 1999 on the National Libary of medicine that said more ex-smokers are getting cancer than smokers, for what that is worth.
Also it take over 10 years to get past the cancer and another article was about a person that got a tranplant lung form a exmoker (20 years) and he/she died of lung cancer in 13 months form transplant date.
Also it take over 10 years to get past the cancer and another article was about a person that got a tranplant lung form a exmoker (20 years) and he/she died of lung cancer in 13 months form transplant date.
Last edited:
The effects of smoking on children, both pre and post natal are well documented. Parents are now much better informed and it would be unbelievably irresponsible for a parent to smoke as a matter of habit in the same house as his/her children. To put children at increased risk so that a parent can indulge his own personal habit calls that persons judgment into question.
I'm with you on the over-reaction of the anti-smoking lobby when it comes to personal health and the ridiculous limitations placed on smoking, but to try and justify risking child health with personal anecdotal evidence is pretty weak.
Sorry for the rant, some issues are just black and white.
Who knows, if my mother had all the modern day facts and figures perhaps she would have given up smoking ......but smoking is an addiction and I would never, ever, condemn any pregnant woman as being some kind of evil baby killer because she continues to smoke....it's her baby, it's her risk.
Quick check found that of 170,000 cases of lung cancer per year in North America, 160,000 involved smokers and another 3000 were statistically from passive smoke. That means that 96% of all lung cancer cases are the result of smoking.
It's one thing to understand the risks and as a person of free will decide that the rewards of smoking outweigh the risk. It is another to attempt to minimalize the risk by cherry picking data and citing anecdotal evidence.
The good news is that esmoking 'appears' to offer much of the rewards of smoking with vastly reduced risks. Obviously more specifically targeted peer reviewed studies are required, but personally, the preliminary information has led me to accept the risk and to enjoy the rewards
And.. not to mention the loss of the habitual addiction... the hand to mouth, the sitting down for a smoke. Basically, retraining yourself to "act" differently. Also, the "crutch" of using a cigarette when you are upset, stressed etc. There is sooo much more to the cigarette than just the nicotine and the additives.
And the additives! There is another addiction to break. My brand loyalty was definitely missed when I gave up the tobacco. I could feel that my body was jonesing for something else... another substance that I could not put my finger on. This is just about over. But I still hanker for something that was in my Parliaments. Maybe it is the additive in ones brand that lasts longer than the nicotine and it is being confused for nicotine withdrawl?
It's interesting. Right now I am watching my four year old give up her thumb sucking addiction. She is having a hell of a time and there is definitely no nicotine on her finger.
Anecdotal (****, this is not funny) evidence. My beloved uncle, sort of fatherlike figure, stopped smoking some three years ago. A year after that he suffered several heart attacks in rapid succession. Almost died. Has three bypasses, some sort of net around the heart and other terrible things. He liked to tell me I was doing it better, cutting from 20+ to 10 and then attempting to quit, because his doctor thought the infarct might have been partly caused by the shock of quitting. Several days ago they confirmed he has massive lung cancer. Well inside the 5-year window.
They cannot do much with it due to his weak, sewn-together heart. May God give him painless death.
They cannot do much with it due to his weak, sewn-together heart. May God give him painless death.
So true, I'm quite happy just vaping and exhaling, bit of a waste of expensive e-liquid but hey, there are worse habits I suppose. I guess if real cigarettes were $1 a pack, I'd have been on 100 a day.
What is that missing ingredient, I'd love to know? I'm thinking that since farmers cross-breed plants and animals to get the best results that many decades of tobacco farming has done the same - tobacco that gives something more than just the nicotine content.
That's one habit you definitely want to break - speaking as someone who had to wear a very painful brace in adult life to correct mal-positioned teeth caused exactly by that childhood habit!
I had a very interesting conversation with a customer a few days ago who used to do smoking research for UofM. He said that "brand loyalty" is an additive specific to specific brands. So while we think we like one cigarette over another, it is actually because we are addicted to a specific brand additive. So for me, it was the additive in the Pfunks. I still crave it. Not as bad... but still.
And... your theory about cross-breeding could be right as well. My aunt used to cross breed roses and roses have a generally good smell, but not strong. You could walk into her house and smell her roses from the back yard!
I know it is basic but have you read about the curing process of tobacco on wikipedia? It is very interesting reading if you haven't. (Actually, the entire entry for tobacco is well done.) Tobacco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Frankie - My grandmother smoked for 50 years. She quit 17 years ago. 2 years ago when she was diagnosed with cancer (the doc believes it was so advanced that she had had it for at least 6 years), she, my father and her doctor were sitting in the docs office. As my dad blames her smoking for her cancer, he says this in the office. The doctor then told him that in fact, it wasn't the smoking, it could very well be from the quitting itself. The doc also reminded my dad that we are predisposed with family genes to be more likely to get cancer over others. She died less than one year later.
This idea I think has some serious merit. Let's look at the body as a whole. After 20 some years, wouldn't you expect your body makeup to change and become dependent on a structural level with a certain toxin? Isn't it possible that with the withdrawl of this substance, the body goes into almost a reverse toxic shock and needs whatever it is lacking to continue functioning normally? Isn't it possible that the immune system has altered itself to work in conjunction with the toxins to perform "normal" duties and possibly subside cancers and other such issues?
Now... like my personal experience with my OBGYN telling me to cut down and not quit: There are doctors out there who carry different philosophies that are not necessarily published, but those philosophies are there and used. (AND... as I know Nuck's toes are probably curling - always seek advice from your respected physician)
And, maybe these philosophies have been published but like the recent study that was withheld by the WHO showing that SHS doesn't have the profound affects we are all led to believe, those studies, articles, and theories have been banished and hidden from our eyes by our "nannies". Further disclaimer: I am not a scientist, doctor, etc. Just find the entire thing curious and would LOVE any links to further studies that give any anything on anything I have said above.
OSHA, said that second hand smoke was a crock. You can not get enough smokers in the same room, smoking fast enought and the room air tight enought to get cancer from second hand smoke. If any one opens the door just one time it ruins the whole mess for days.
It is politicly incorrect to publish a study that does not show that smoking is bad for you or second hand smoking. Therefor; no studies that show anything different will not be pubished. The few that are have some pretty funny qualifiers.
Did you know that smoker having bypass surgry do better than non-smokers. It's called the smokers paradox.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT SMOKERS MUST BE REALLY A TOUGH BUNCH BECAUSE , "THEY PROBABLY DON'T GO TO THE DOCTOR WHEN THEY HAVE CHEST PAINS." That was one study's qualifyer.
It is politicly incorrect to publish a study that does not show that smoking is bad for you or second hand smoking. Therefor; no studies that show anything different will not be pubished. The few that are have some pretty funny qualifiers.
Did you know that smoker having bypass surgry do better than non-smokers. It's called the smokers paradox.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT SMOKERS MUST BE REALLY A TOUGH BUNCH BECAUSE , "THEY PROBABLY DON'T GO TO THE DOCTOR WHEN THEY HAVE CHEST PAINS." That was one study's qualifyer.
Unfortunately I am never sure what to believe......I have read tucked away very small headline news reports of studies that say cancer rates are still 'rising' despite the fact that 'less' people are smoking....We are inundated daily with warnings that passive smoking KILLS...... Yet in a very small print article I once read that in very large study of thousands of non smokers who have lived their whole lives with a smoker there was NO statistical difference in their cancer rates to non smokers who have lived their whole life with another non-smoker...I just don't think we ever get the 'truth' properly presented.
This thread drifted to a health concern, so ...
I did some online research and can't confirm that ex-smokers have an increased lung cancer risk in the first five years after quitting, but ... they don't benefit much either. A difficult-to-read research paper had the statistics we need:
The odds ratio of lung cancer for exsmokers compared to current smokers was estimated to be 0.90, 0.50, 0.51, 0.59, 0.48 and 0.29, for 14, 59, 1014, 15-19, 20-24 and ± 25 years after cessation of smoking, respectively.
What's all that mean? For five years after quitting, the ex-smoker has only a slightly lower chance of being diagnosed with lung cancer than a continuing smoker. Then, the danger drops appreciably, only to rise again at 10 years and 15 years off cigarettes. Only after 25 years off cigarettes, does it decrease to what might be called a comfortable level of chance.
Another article, however, said the body has a kind of "cancer switch" that turns on after 25 years of smoking -- and never turns off. The articles I found basically say lung cancer is not a big threat for a pack-a-day smoker up to 10 years. After 25 years of smoking, it's all bad news. BIG danger.
Here's a quote from another article, following the lung cancer death of Peter Jennings:
Dr. Frank Detterbeck, professor of thoracic surgery and associate director of clinical affairs at the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, said there is a common misconception that once you quit smoking, your lungs can return to their healthy, pre-cigarette state.
"In fact, about half the people we treat for lung cancer are ex-smokers," Detterbeck said. "When you quit smoking, the damage doesn't keep getting worse. But it doesn't disappear, either. It sort of reaches a plateau."
I did some online research and can't confirm that ex-smokers have an increased lung cancer risk in the first five years after quitting, but ... they don't benefit much either. A difficult-to-read research paper had the statistics we need:
The odds ratio of lung cancer for exsmokers compared to current smokers was estimated to be 0.90, 0.50, 0.51, 0.59, 0.48 and 0.29, for 14, 59, 1014, 15-19, 20-24 and ± 25 years after cessation of smoking, respectively.
What's all that mean? For five years after quitting, the ex-smoker has only a slightly lower chance of being diagnosed with lung cancer than a continuing smoker. Then, the danger drops appreciably, only to rise again at 10 years and 15 years off cigarettes. Only after 25 years off cigarettes, does it decrease to what might be called a comfortable level of chance.
Another article, however, said the body has a kind of "cancer switch" that turns on after 25 years of smoking -- and never turns off. The articles I found basically say lung cancer is not a big threat for a pack-a-day smoker up to 10 years. After 25 years of smoking, it's all bad news. BIG danger.
Here's a quote from another article, following the lung cancer death of Peter Jennings:
Dr. Frank Detterbeck, professor of thoracic surgery and associate director of clinical affairs at the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, said there is a common misconception that once you quit smoking, your lungs can return to their healthy, pre-cigarette state.
"In fact, about half the people we treat for lung cancer are ex-smokers," Detterbeck said. "When you quit smoking, the damage doesn't keep getting worse. But it doesn't disappear, either. It sort of reaches a plateau."
- Status
Similar threads
