posted
Chemically you are over the addiction in three days. It is the triggers that get you.
I heard that most big-name cigarettes have figerglass in them. Also gunpowder and loads of other additives. The only pack of cigarettes I ever bought was a Natural American Spirits, more for the metal pack than the tobacco. All natural, no additives or reconstituted tobacco. A higher percentage of freebase nicotine! The tasted significantly better than regular cigs too. After smoking six I gave them away, to the amazement and joy of my friends and a bum.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Metal pack sounds cool. I think I smoke more than I do because I give away cigarettes all the time.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a somewhat unrelated note, just thought I'd pipe up and say that smoking has been all but outlawed in Ontario. Starting next year you may smoke in your hotel room, your car, or your own home. Everywhere else is off limits.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) There are no "healthy" cigarettes or tobacco products. Even "in moderation" they have nasty stuff. Nicotine is a poison, albeit mild. Smoke contains nasty stuff like Carbon Monoxide (another poison) and tar (um...just gunk).
2) The "major" brands treat the tobacco so you also can get things like formaldehyde (and forget what else). It's not "gunpowder" by the way, but saltpeter (which is an ingredient in gunpowder). It makes the cigaretter stay lit instead of going out like pure tobacco would. Brands without saltpeter aren't really better for you, but you might say they are less bad.
3) Smoking raises the incidence of heart disease by affecting your cholesterol levels. Lung disease (of course) is more prevalent. Lots of health conditions are made worse due to the effects of smoking. Stuff like the common cold or flu can become much more serious if you smoke.
4) Lung tissue does recover once you quit smoking. Last I heard, the estimate was that 7 years after your last cigarette, your lungs would be about what a non-smoker's of similar age & physical condition would be. Of course, if you wait until you have emphysema or cancer, this is not a likely outcome.
5) The US government pays tobacco farmers a subsidy. Sometimes they're paid NOT to grow tobacco. keeps the prices higher? I don't get it. We subsidize the growers and then sue the manufacturers, and the money goes to the lawyers. Great system.
6) A 2 pack-a-day habit costs you almost $2000 a year.
I think every smoker pretty much knows this stuff. It's not like the information is secret. Given that, I figure we should just leave 'em the heck alone. We all have our problems. Some of us eat too much. Some of us take too long in the shower. Some of us waste time on the internet.
We're all responsible for our own behavior.
One thing I think would be good, though, is for health insurance to charge a rider for people who smoke. Something to cover your increased risk of heart or lung disease. Since it's your choice, and your choice affects EVERYONE's medical premiums, I think it's only fair to lower the premiums for non-smokers and have a rider policy to cover those diseases for smokers. Those who want to incur the increased risk should be willing to pay to cover that risk.
Of course if we did that, we'd also have to start charging people more if they overeat, or engage in other detrimental behaviors.
quote: :| Haven't you ever seen the black lung photos? Smoking = not good for your health, especially your lungs.
Smoking is bad for you? Where on earth are you getting that from? I think if there was something unhealthful about smoking we would have heard about it before this.
One thing I think would be good, though, is for health insurance to charge a rider for people who smoke. Something to cover your increased risk of heart or lung disease. Since it's your choice, and your choice affects EVERYONE's medical premiums, I think it's only fair to lower the premiums for non-smokers and have a rider policy to cover those diseases for smokers. Those who want to incur the increased risk should be willing to pay to cover that risk.
Of course if we did that, we'd also have to start charging people more if they overeat, or engage in other detrimental behaviors.
Insurance companies already do charge more (on individual policies, at least) for people who weigh more than guidelines. I'm pretty sure smokers get charged more as well.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I've heard that there's actors who'll ask that their characters smoke, so that they can be more comfortable while they're acting. I wish that as part of movie credits that we'd see the lung x-rays of the actors who smoke -- it might help to counteract the glamorous image of smokers that they're helping to put out.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
