A few of my friends are smokers, though I dont drink or smoke I wonder why they do it. Smoking puts a lot of carcinogens into our bodies along with the nicotine - so I wondered if the nicotine was really that good and I tried tobacco 40% in a paste about the size of a peanut and it was really nothing - my throat just burned a little but nothing more - by order, tea, coffee, chocolate, sugar and peanut butter all are more fun and stimulating to me - so do like lack some nicotine receptors or something or is it really that unstimulating? Why do they smoke then? By do some people chew tobacco?
Because it tastes good. Because it's relaxing. Because it's better than doing nothing. In all of my 14 years as a smoker, I was never once bored with a cigarette in my hand. Smoking addiction is ugly, but nothing compared to hard narcotics. When I finally quit, it was no great ordeal, except that I was giving up something I truly enjoyed. Even now, nearly 3 years later, if someone told me I could smoke without consequence, I would do it. Unfortunately, it is horrible for you, and not something anyone should do.
First a disclaimer, if you think I am intruding on your privacy, sorry - dont answer if you dont wanna. But you are well informed, smart and rational - how does something that pumps you full of carcinogens get justified as a pass-time? That rational mind is quite powerful and in very good control. Nice to know. Why?
Many older smokers began when they were children. The tobacco companies used to be allowed to market to children and health hazard concerns were stifled and suppressed. Now they market to minorities instead. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When you smoke the first cigarette, you create nicotine receptor sites in your brain and they remain active as long as the affected neuron is alive. That is the chemical addiction. Even many years after a smoker quits, the urge to smoke is still there and can be toggled by situational and behavioral cues. Smoking is a self nurturing activity, you can feel better without input from another person. Nicotine increases brain blood flow, calms one down and helps one concentrate on a task. The same goes for smokeless tobacco, though it is not as fast or intense due to the uptake route. Unfortunately, the smoke from burning vegetable material contains many toxins and carcinogens. Tobacco itself contains polonium 210, lead 210 and traces of uranium from the unrefined high - potency phosphate fertilizers used in growing it. (citation: Scientific American 2011) Passive side-stream smoke is also a serious health hazard so the choice to smoke endangers other people and animals around you unless you compartmentalize your habit. The diseases that can result from tobacco use are debilitating, painful and fatal. They can be pretty much avoided by abstention, thus the recommendation not to consume tobacco.
I'd agree with Stoniphi for he is correct in his viewpoint about tobacco however I believe that people have the right to choose but they must be told the truth about what they are smoking first. Without the facts being known as to the dangers of smoking I don't think that people have enough information to make a good decision about smoking. The tobacco manufacturers advertise only what they want you to know not what the truth is many times which I think is unfair to the average citizen to make an informed decision about their own well being.
It's perfectly alright, though I do appreciate the out you're offering. Can we just stop there? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A very good question. I suppose I did it for the same reason every reckless twentysomething acts the fool: I felt invincible, so therefore I must have been invincible. Of course, having started when I was 14, when giant billboards promoted Newport "pleasure" and depicted Joe Camel wearing a slick leather jacket and shades directly above the neighborhood convenience store, I was a victim of the system. And, to be fair, I didn't really know how bad smoking was at the time. I wasn't dumb for long, though, and I realized I'd have to quit eventually. But that was always down the road. When I turned 28, and maybe didn't feel so invincible anymore (walking out into a winter's morning and being overcome with a coughing fit every day tends to bring home that point), I decided it was time to stop putting it off. Stoniphi did an excellent job of explaining the crap that's actually in the tobacco, so that should suffice. But if it doesn't, take it from someone who knows: You are a slower, less-able version of yourself when you smoke. You tire easily, your breath and clothes stink, your teeth and nails (as well as the books you read) yellow, you're at an increased risk for stroke, heart disease, and a ton of different types of cancer, as well as respiratory diseases like emphysema and COPD. Not to mention the fact that you just about halve your dating prospects. As an ex-smoker, I can now appreciate the old saying "kissing you is like kissing an ashtray." It's hard to believe that I'm typing this, given my history, but if you smoke, that's a romantic deal-breaker for me.
Stonphi Post #4: BTW: Reports that second-hand smokers may be more affected (e.g., cancer) by smoke makes sense re: phosphate fertilizer constituents. The primary (first-hand) smoker directly inhales smoke and immediately exhales it into the environment of second-hand smokers. For example: Assume that uranium and radium 'constituents are contained in the tobacco. The first-hand smoker inhales and exhales quickly and the bulk of U and Ra are carried with the smoke (in then out). Smoke particles tend to become charged as they 'float' around in the air. U and Ra particles spontaneously decay to alpha particles plus daughter products that then attach to charged smoke particles. Seond -hand smokers then inhale (lesser amounts) of smoke particles that the contain attached alphas (~ +900 eV) and negatively charged daughter products. These particles - attached to smoke particle - then enter and attach to second-hand smokers' airways and alveolar surfaces. The attached alphas and short-lived daughter products then do their 'ionizing' radiation, effectively breaking weak hydrogen-bonding in DNA and RNA in surficial (and deeper) cells materials). Broken replicative materials may then re-combine with errors (mutate?). Thus are born replicative cancer DNA and RNA materials and cells. Realize, of course, that all of this still has a minute statistical chance of occuring to the cancer endpoint . . . . but, hey . . . crap happens!
It's enjoyable. There's a theory about drug addiction which suggests that the whole process gives the user pleasure. It's not just the drug, it's also the preparation and act of ingesting the substance.
...and that points to the "self - nurturing" aspect of smoking. Consuming any consciousness - altering substance involves far more than just the substance itself. The setting, mood, expectations, social aspects, self image, paraphernalia and posture are all related components of this type of activity as well. There have been experiments run where the substance in question itself was a simulate stand - in, yet the consumer got "stoned" or "drunk" anyways due to the situational cues involved. Those fake cannabis products are a prime example. (not the one with chemicals sprayed on them, but the look - alikes)Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I smoked for a period of about 4 years through college, began half way through college or so working at a convenience store, it was the only way you could get breaks there. The bottom line was this, cigarettes helped you get into a routine, even if it was a bad routine. When you're working on a math problem for several hours you need breaks, it turned out a cigarette, and a small walk filled that window nicely -- it also probably gave me some sort of psycho-chemical reward for continuing to work I'm unaware of. When I gave up my car and opted for a bike everywhere I simply could not do it anymore, I couldn't breathe! Cigarettes are enjoyable for 10 minutes or so. But you regret them all of the time when you're not smoking them.
I can attest to that. The physical withdrawl was only mildly frustrating; it was the act of smoking that I missed, and was the toughest to put aside.
When you start to smoke for the very first time you actually cough and choke on the smoke so that tells you your body doesn't like what your doing to it.
The numbers are pretty clear, smokers have about 23 times the likelihood of getting Lung Cancer than non-smokers, and the risk goes down pretty quickly if they stop smoking. Smokers also have a higher risk of quite a few other cancers (which also goes down if they stop smoking) And of course, every smoker is also a second hand smoker (comes with the process), so clearly, the risk of second hand smoke can't compare to the risk of actually directly inhaling that stuff every day. The numbers also support this, about 130,000 people will die from lung cancer and about 85% will be smokers or ex-smokers (90% of men, 80% of women). About 3,000 people will die from lung cancer that we attribute to second hand smoke. http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/cancerstats.htm
You're lucky you didn't get smokers flu, it was awful. A little more than 3 days of the worst cough, sneezing and inability to concentrate you could imagine, lingering effects were almost a week. It was worse than some of my 'real' flu's.
I was in military rehab when I started smoking, worst decision of my life, during the greatest social learning period of my life. It does help make me a bit more talkative though, and after drinking something, there's nothing like lighting a bogey.
