I dont smoke. I hate it when people blow their cigarette smoke to where you are sitting/standing. i have to breath into my sleeve.
Smokers poll
- Thread starter riku_124
- Start date
The polls a little Biased.
Afterall there is these questions:
Did you smoke?
Do you intend to start smoking?
When I was younger I did smoke both normal cigarettes and "The Herb". I noticed after a few years of doing both of these things dramatic and un-nerving changes were present.
For instance the original reason for smoking cigarettes was the "dizzy" sensation or "headrush" that was achieved from smoking them (in fact you could say that Cigarettes led me down the path of hard drugs, although I decided to stop going that path before it got too far.)
This "dizziness" only lasted for a short period of time, long enough to get me hooked. Smoking cigarettes was bad as my fingers became stained yellow with nicotine, my teeth became yellowed, my breath smelt of smoke (along with my clothing and hair).
The money I had as a youngster for just living a life (eating, drinking and mingling) was often cut shorter by the increasing habitual nature of cigarettes taking ahold.
I got to the point were I would starve to buy a packet of cigarettes, rather than quit smoking too buy food.
Also their was a great impact on my Psychology, afterall a person that smokes will find themselves "relaxed" when they smoke, however within a duration of time (based on their habitual addiction) they can find themselves nervous, tense and even quite aggressive. Those that go without a smoke might break into arguements with syblings or work collegues for the whole irrational reasoning of just not smoking a cigarette to keep their addiction under control.
(To this effect I actually support Banning smoking from Nightclubs, Pubs and where people interact, afterall when you want to go out and enjoy yourself, you don't want to suffer from someone that hasn't smoked a cigarette all day starting a fight)
As for the Pot smoking, this increased the ambient problems with Sybling or work collegue interaction. Most of the time I would be too "Stoned" to do anything or even want to do anything. Admittedly my fondness for food increased, but only when I was "wasted" (The "Munchies" TM)
However the amount I smoked was controlled by my Cigarette habit and the quality of the merchandise by both it being illegal and saved up for via starving. (This meant if I was smoking 10 cigarettes aday, I started smoking 10 reefers aday)
Eventually my habitual nature moved to new grounds, and the internet got ahold of me, this lessened the herbs hold (since I couldn't be on net and smoke, since theres only so much starving a person can do to pay for one or other bill)
With that in mind thats why I'm here now after I decided to quit smoking pot. When I had quit that... (which was pretty easy, although I noticed that my interpretation of straight when I started to quit was actually pretty wasted in comparison to a few months down the road)
I moved on to quiting Cigarettes, I mean why bother with the afterall the only use they had become now was just packing filler in making Reefers that I no longer did.
So with that over a couple of months I slowly weened myself off through smoking the lowest tar, lowest nicotine cigarette I could get. (They are actually cheaper than patches, and as long as when you decided to quit smoking all together you sit on your hands or find something else to do, you can walk away from them without the additive nature of nicotine trying to erge you back)
I mention all this because this was my life experience, the smoking effected my life negatively, it wasn't "cool" it has generated a wasted hole in my life that will never be fixed, filled or replaced.
The only gratification I have out of the experience was I was strong enough to "Break" this self-destructive spiral from such addictions. I suggest for any of you youngsters out there feeling that you should smoke to be apart of your group of friends to think very deeply about where you want to be in the future, don't let yourself ruin your health and potentially you family/career over being addicted to something, no matter how trivial you might class that addiction.
Afterall there is these questions:
Did you smoke?
Do you intend to start smoking?
When I was younger I did smoke both normal cigarettes and "The Herb". I noticed after a few years of doing both of these things dramatic and un-nerving changes were present.
For instance the original reason for smoking cigarettes was the "dizzy" sensation or "headrush" that was achieved from smoking them (in fact you could say that Cigarettes led me down the path of hard drugs, although I decided to stop going that path before it got too far.)
This "dizziness" only lasted for a short period of time, long enough to get me hooked. Smoking cigarettes was bad as my fingers became stained yellow with nicotine, my teeth became yellowed, my breath smelt of smoke (along with my clothing and hair).
The money I had as a youngster for just living a life (eating, drinking and mingling) was often cut shorter by the increasing habitual nature of cigarettes taking ahold.
I got to the point were I would starve to buy a packet of cigarettes, rather than quit smoking too buy food.
Also their was a great impact on my Psychology, afterall a person that smokes will find themselves "relaxed" when they smoke, however within a duration of time (based on their habitual addiction) they can find themselves nervous, tense and even quite aggressive. Those that go without a smoke might break into arguements with syblings or work collegues for the whole irrational reasoning of just not smoking a cigarette to keep their addiction under control.
(To this effect I actually support Banning smoking from Nightclubs, Pubs and where people interact, afterall when you want to go out and enjoy yourself, you don't want to suffer from someone that hasn't smoked a cigarette all day starting a fight)
As for the Pot smoking, this increased the ambient problems with Sybling or work collegue interaction. Most of the time I would be too "Stoned" to do anything or even want to do anything. Admittedly my fondness for food increased, but only when I was "wasted" (The "Munchies" TM)
However the amount I smoked was controlled by my Cigarette habit and the quality of the merchandise by both it being illegal and saved up for via starving. (This meant if I was smoking 10 cigarettes aday, I started smoking 10 reefers aday)
Eventually my habitual nature moved to new grounds, and the internet got ahold of me, this lessened the herbs hold (since I couldn't be on net and smoke, since theres only so much starving a person can do to pay for one or other bill)
With that in mind thats why I'm here now after I decided to quit smoking pot. When I had quit that... (which was pretty easy, although I noticed that my interpretation of straight when I started to quit was actually pretty wasted in comparison to a few months down the road)
I moved on to quiting Cigarettes, I mean why bother with the afterall the only use they had become now was just packing filler in making Reefers that I no longer did.
So with that over a couple of months I slowly weened myself off through smoking the lowest tar, lowest nicotine cigarette I could get. (They are actually cheaper than patches, and as long as when you decided to quit smoking all together you sit on your hands or find something else to do, you can walk away from them without the additive nature of nicotine trying to erge you back)
I mention all this because this was my life experience, the smoking effected my life negatively, it wasn't "cool" it has generated a wasted hole in my life that will never be fixed, filled or replaced.
The only gratification I have out of the experience was I was strong enough to "Break" this self-destructive spiral from such addictions. I suggest for any of you youngsters out there feeling that you should smoke to be apart of your group of friends to think very deeply about where you want to be in the future, don't let yourself ruin your health and potentially you family/career over being addicted to something, no matter how trivial you might class that addiction.
i was dropped on my head but intill now everyone had the kindness not to tal kabout it thank you!
but that has nothnig to do with my typing, if you read my type its jsut my fingers get ahead of myself spaces beofre the ned of a word are letters before they come
but that has nothnig to do with my typing, if you read my type its jsut my fingers get ahead of myself spaces beofre the ned of a word are letters before they come
spuriousmonkey said:
The last table summarizes the statistical null hypothesis (P values) weighed against Hackshaw's distribution of case studies; it shows that as sample size increases (more studies) Hackshaw's confidence interval of 95% for a 1.24-1.26 risk probability drops significantly as data which does not support his median of 25% is given more weight against the CI. Readjusted for the same CI, it shows that unsupportive data was more likely to be excluded (or outside of his 25%)- indicating publication bias.
In simplest terms, that if new studies were introduced into Hackshaw's study the "25% more likely" number would drop.
...
Your interpretation is-?
You know what Twain said about statistics though
Last edited:
riku:
FUCKING VINDICATED!
since i started in october ive used maby about 20 dollers whale smoking, but ive got a question for you guys
if your parents buy a carton of cigeretts ( 10 pack) is it steelnig if you take one pack every week week and a half ( they get 2 cartons a qweek)
if your parents buy a carton of cigeretts ( 10 pack) is it steelnig if you take one pack every week week and a half ( they get 2 cartons a qweek)
riku_124 said:
Stealing is taking someones elses posessions without asking them to either use yourself or sell on.
Morally it's wrong, Legally it's only wrong if the person you stole from reports it. (unless it's identity theft)
I actually think when I was young and stealing a cigarette here and there from my fathers cigarette box I probably aid him being a little eccentric, afterall he thought he had 7 cigarettes only to find 5 in the box etc.
Also it probably made him more paranoid about every move I made, since afterall he lost trust in me in a big way which eventually transpired into a lot of shouting matches.
riku:
You're a big boy. You should be able to work that one out for yourself... THIEF!
qwerty mob said:The last table summarizes the statistical null hypothesis (P values) weighed against Hackshaw's distribution of case studies; it shows that as sample size increases (more studies) Hackshaw's confidence interval of 95% for a 1.24-1.26 risk probability drops significantly as data which does not support his median of 25% is given more weight against the CI. Readjusted for the same CI, it shows that unsupportive data was more likely to be excluded (or outside of his 25%)- indicating publication bias.
In simplest terms, that if new studies were introduced into Hackshaw's study the "25% more likely" number would drop.
...
Your interpretation is-?
You know what Twain said about statistics though
It doesn't say there isn't a risk involved.
That's the whole point- risk was all that Hackshaw examined.
In my opinion, if the risk was greater than 50% he'd have something... he doesn't; it paints a picture that one is more likely to have low risk of ailment due to SHS.
If you don't believe me, explain how it is possible that SHS would be more dangerous to passive smokers than actual smokers, since actual smokers fall into both categories.
In my opinion, if the risk was greater than 50% he'd have something... he doesn't; it paints a picture that one is more likely to have low risk of ailment due to SHS.
If you don't believe me, explain how it is possible that SHS would be more dangerous to passive smokers than actual smokers, since actual smokers fall into both categories.
One swallow doesn't make spring.
14% is still more than 1 in 10.
14% is still more than 1 in 10.
WARNING: FACTS AHEAD (well, and a little opinion)
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/overview/anniversary.htm
(*) Declared number was wrong, according to their very own posted calculations; off by 5%, they added one extra smoker for every nineteen in their data.
The data, corrected in 2005, hadn't changed their tune however:
1970 - "Smoking kills over 400,000 people per year!"
2005 - "Smoking kills over 400,000 people per year!"
This means that despite taxing the hell out of it (here in the US), and cutting smoking in half, AND banning smoking just about everywhere in some localities... that not a single life has been saved statistically.
Ofcourse it's a fallacious argument; no one can be "statistically saved."
I'd like a logical explanation why, in countries like Japan who smoke more than we do, and places like Greece where they smoke way more than anyone else in the world, that their people seem to have lower rates of "smoking-related" mortality and diseases like cancer than we do in the US.
(Ditto- discrepencies in "AIDS" _versus_ HIV infections between US statistics and the rest of the world- but that's another thread)
...
Using the same numbers from the last time I argued this (from the CDC's own numbers (above) of USA Adult smoker population, adjusted for total population growth according to (then) US Census Survey counter):
Number of Adult smokers, 1965 - 54 million (43% total pop. rate)
Number of Adult smokers, 2005 - 57 million (22% total pop. rate)
Let's use their inflated mortality numbers for fun's sake.
This year, suppose 440,000 smokers die of "smoking related illnesses" (which aren't exclusively smoking related, remember). Of the total population of smokers, by the US CDC's own numbers, one's actual risk of develping a lethal "smoking related illness" amounts to 440,000/46,000,000, or 0.00772 = 0.772...
Less than 1%.
Let's be generous to the anti-smoking lobby, and round up to 0.8 percent.
That's where my 4 in 500 numbers come from; 1 in 125 people who smoke will die of "smoking related" illness.
It's not "smoker hype" and it's not "denial" it is actual, objective data which anyone can calculate from the same freaking numbers the CDC, et al, are (mis)using to SCARE the sheep in this country and grow their budgets; lining their pockets in the name of public safety at the expense of a legal commercial industry's product AND the civil rights guaranteed to ALL US Citizens by The Bill of Rights.
Besides, and this is another argument- when you read shit like "The Smoking Industry MURDERS people"- and "Smokers are KILLERS!"- it borders on hate speech.
...
Once you understand how the CDC misuses it's numbers (as do others), even assuming that their numbers were exhaustive and errorless, they still have not shown a serious behavioral health risk. Their nifty, new "8+ million smokers having at least one smoking related illness..." numbers are the same derivative, data-mined horseshit- and I can't wait to see actual numbers for "immunological depression" in smokers VERSUS non-smoking populations
Ask them to calculate "time lost" and "prodcutivity lost" due to eating, using the bathroom, jerking-off, or, fuck- simply commuting to and from work.
Thanks for Reading.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/overview/anniversary.htm
(*) Declared number was wrong, according to their very own posted calculations; off by 5%, they added one extra smoker for every nineteen in their data.
The data, corrected in 2005, hadn't changed their tune however:
1970 - "Smoking kills over 400,000 people per year!"
2005 - "Smoking kills over 400,000 people per year!"
This means that despite taxing the hell out of it (here in the US), and cutting smoking in half, AND banning smoking just about everywhere in some localities... that not a single life has been saved statistically.
Ofcourse it's a fallacious argument; no one can be "statistically saved."
I'd like a logical explanation why, in countries like Japan who smoke more than we do, and places like Greece where they smoke way more than anyone else in the world, that their people seem to have lower rates of "smoking-related" mortality and diseases like cancer than we do in the US.
(Ditto- discrepencies in "AIDS" _versus_ HIV infections between US statistics and the rest of the world- but that's another thread)
...
Using the same numbers from the last time I argued this (from the CDC's own numbers (above) of USA Adult smoker population, adjusted for total population growth according to (then) US Census Survey counter):
Number of Adult smokers, 1965 - 54 million (43% total pop. rate)
Number of Adult smokers, 2005 - 57 million (22% total pop. rate)
Let's use their inflated mortality numbers for fun's sake.
This year, suppose 440,000 smokers die of "smoking related illnesses" (which aren't exclusively smoking related, remember). Of the total population of smokers, by the US CDC's own numbers, one's actual risk of develping a lethal "smoking related illness" amounts to 440,000/46,000,000, or 0.00772 = 0.772...
Less than 1%.
Let's be generous to the anti-smoking lobby, and round up to 0.8 percent.
That's where my 4 in 500 numbers come from; 1 in 125 people who smoke will die of "smoking related" illness.
It's not "smoker hype" and it's not "denial" it is actual, objective data which anyone can calculate from the same freaking numbers the CDC, et al, are (mis)using to SCARE the sheep in this country and grow their budgets; lining their pockets in the name of public safety at the expense of a legal commercial industry's product AND the civil rights guaranteed to ALL US Citizens by The Bill of Rights.
Besides, and this is another argument- when you read shit like "The Smoking Industry MURDERS people"- and "Smokers are KILLERS!"- it borders on hate speech.
...
Once you understand how the CDC misuses it's numbers (as do others), even assuming that their numbers were exhaustive and errorless, they still have not shown a serious behavioral health risk. Their nifty, new "8+ million smokers having at least one smoking related illness..." numbers are the same derivative, data-mined horseshit- and I can't wait to see actual numbers for "immunological depression" in smokers VERSUS non-smoking populations
Ask them to calculate "time lost" and "prodcutivity lost" due to eating, using the bathroom, jerking-off, or, fuck- simply commuting to and from work.
Thanks for Reading.
spuriousmonkey said:
And has nothing to do with smoking, does it?
qwerty mob said:
You are right about the figures being inaccurate, after that only covers "Adult Smokers" not just the young that also start up.
Smoking does kill, I know of a Man that use to own a Public House (Pub/Bar) who lost his wife in recent years to lung cancer. She wasn't a smoker, however all her patrons were which meant the second degree smoke she inhailed over the years behind the bar, killed her.
(Afterall some of the local people in pubs might suffer from a 20 day habit, times that by the number of patrons and you could then probably apply the volume of the room to work out how much smoke she'd inhail if they all lit up at once)
I also know that smoking doesn't have all the figures worked out for it. For instance children that have smoking parents will be more likely to suffer psychological conditions than children with parents that don't smoke. This is caused by parents and their forcing of second degree smoking.
Nicotine and it's addiction can cause notible instabilities in a smoker like irritability when they can't get their "Fix". With second degree smoking the same can be said, however the children don't know what their "Fix" is and sad to say the parent's rarely pickup on their smoking being the problem.
Which means that bad temperaments, failings in school and anxiety in general can become a problem for these particular children. So the children might find themselves seeking psychological help, even though it's just their parents smoking around them causing their issues.
I'm not trying to force the notion that smokers should quit, (Although a quicker alternative would be just to put a gun to your head) I'm mearly suggesting that "think about your actions" and try to curb them from effecting others.
Thanks for your two cents... want the change?
/jk i respect nonsmokers air space; my wife quit last Feb.
/jk i respect nonsmokers air space; my wife quit last Feb.
qwerty mob said:And has nothing to do with smoking, does it?
Look buddy. You quote a paper that quotes a paper in which the risk for SHS (second hand smoking) is determined at around 24%. The paper you quote says it is 15%. How has it nothing to do with smoking?????
Sir, I apologize.
I confused what you wrote with something worthy of a reply.
And, tragically- it's happened again.
I confused what you wrote with something worthy of a reply.
And, tragically- it's happened again.
Did you happen to read the responses to the paper?
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7270/1221
and this:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7270/1221
and this:
If the cut back in smoking was only achieved recently, the benefits (or a notable lack thereof) will only be measurable several decades from now. No one argued that smoking kills instantly.qwerty mob said:
Maybe they have a lifestyle which doesn't aggravate health further, in contrary to other countries. I admit, I'm merely speculating here. Do you have references to the numbers of "smoking-related" mortality in Japan and Greece?
Regardless of above, in Japan they've found a relationship between smoking habits and lung cancer too, if we may believe http://bvs.insp.mx/bibliografia.php?id_referencia=4477&id_seccion=2
I have to admit, I'm not sure if, for example, all of the lung cancers are automatically labeled "smoking related" or whether the deceased patient's smoking history is taken into account.
I must have missed something. Where did the 46 million figure come from? I think you meant 440.000 / 57.000.000 (which amounts 0.0072, in contrast with 440.000 / 46.000.000 which amounts to 0.0096), am I correct?
At this point, we've only discussed fatalities. I haven't yet looked into other, serious but not fatal, diseases.
My pleasure.
Last edited: