Smoking

Health, well-being, medicine, aging.

Re: Smoking

Postby mexi cali » Mar 11th, 2014, 8:01 am

Thanks for the post Notnorth. I too am a former smoker and can claim I think 12 years clean.

I like the idea of making them available only in liquor stores for the obvious access issues that young uns would face. Makes sense to me but I know that many will not see it that way. That's OK though.

Just an interesting factoid; when my daughter was born in the 90's, there was a smoking lounge on the maternity ward at KGH and it was almost always full of moms to be. That amazed me even then. And I remember smoking in theaters and airplanes and pretty much wherever the heck you wanted. man it must have been smelly back then but I guess that because most of us smoked, no one cared.

We have come a long way baby but there's still a long way to go.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
 
Posts: 5641
Likes: 2467 posts
Liked in: 3680 posts
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 1:48 pm

Re: Smoking

Postby LoneWolf_53 » Mar 11th, 2014, 8:18 am

mexicalidreamer wrote:I like the idea of making them available only in liquor stores for the obvious access issues that young uns would face. Makes sense to me but I know that many will not see it that way. That's OK though.


As far as I'm concerned cigarettes should be criminalized and pot legalized. lol

At least pot has medicinal qualities, whereas cigarettes serve zero useful purpose.
"Death is life's way of saying you're fired!"

daria likes this post.
LoneWolf_53
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 12496
Likes: 1120 posts
Liked in: 2652 posts
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 12:06 pm

Re: Smoking

Postby hobbyguy » Mar 11th, 2014, 10:57 am

Prohibition just doesn't work. Never has, never will.

Even in a very repressive state, it never works. Different drug, but even Russia has a problem with heroin that prohibition is not solving.
Dimples - "just not ready"
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 8941
Likes: 2566 posts
Liked in: 9707 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Smoking

Postby jimmy4321 » Mar 11th, 2014, 2:30 pm

I just figure an age restricted product should be sold under the same roof as booze. Especially since tobacco is so addictive.
I just think it's not taken nearly as serious.

People ARE smoking underage so where are they getting it? I know it's illegal to sell to people under 21 , but clearly this happens and I'm doubtfull anything comes from it. There is always an interest when people under 19 obtain booze, you occasionally hear of people getting charge with supplying alcohol to a minor, especially if there's an accident etc.- and I'm certain many more get charged for this.
Sure they'll get it from a brother, friends, parents etc but if sold in a liquour store and not at every corner store I think it would make a difference.

2 people like this post.
jimmy4321
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 4063
Likes: 1113 posts
Liked in: 1895 posts
Joined: Jun 6th, 2010, 4:40 pm

Re: Smoking

Postby hobbyguy » Mar 12th, 2014, 11:07 am

Nicotine based E-cigarettes are easily available off the internet. Cheap out of China.

As with any contraband, there are networks. Kids get beer and mickeys of rum etc. too. On that basis, your liquor store argument fails. Liquor stores don't stop kids from getting booze. Why would you think it would stop kids from getting tobacco products?

Kids get supplies of ecstasy, and that, at least to the best of my knowledge, it is not sold in any stores.

Cheap cigarettes can be had, I've been offered them in a parking lot.

That's why I say prohibition doesn't work. On the flip side, reasonable control measures are well worth it.

It is also easy to go too far down the curve of controls, and then you create black markets.

To get a sense of how sometimes efforts go in directions that are not optimally effective, there are huge efforts going toward second hand smoke, some of which (California) are arguably becoming draconian. Yet all that effort is going toward a problem that at most, based on US figures, causes 1.3% of lung cancers (and that number is disputed). Meanwhile, diesel fumes cause 6% of all lung cancer deaths, and are associated with many other cancers. Note that current lung cancer deaths from second hand smoke as based on long term exposures from before the public/workplace bans, and so it would be reasonable to expect that the actual rates from the current regime of laws will have dramatically reduced the problem. Yet diesels are becoming more prevalent, and actually represent a much more significant problem.

My guess is that current legal regimes will have reduced the second hand smoke problem to something like .2% - and then only for folks that have a smoker who smokes in the same house. Note that the primary problem from second hand smoke is the direct smoke from the end of the cigarette.

Meanwhile, as you walk down the street, the much bigger killer drives by on big mudder tires. Even more concerning is that the new direct injection gasoline engines seem to be just as bad, http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/09/diesel-exhaust-causes-6-percent-lung-cancer-deaths/ That's why I say that if you are concerned about health effects, there are bigger fish to fry.

I also think that you will slowly see smoking peter out with no further control measures. The reason I say that is the addiction hazard profile is much, much higher for kids who had parents (and to a lesser extent grand parents) who smoked. The number of kids in smoking households is dropping very quickly. Smoking is already socially unacceptable. As with most things, it takes time for changes to play out, and this one is slowly doing so.
Dimples - "just not ready"

Dave_1963 likes this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 8941
Likes: 2566 posts
Liked in: 9707 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Smoking

Postby Dave_1963 » Jul 6th, 2014, 8:50 pm

I've smoked for almost 40 years, and I doubt I will ever quit. The thing that gets me is why did Health Canada remove the tar and nicotine levels from cigarette packs? I smoke the cigarettes with the highest nicotine content (found that brand before they took the labels off). 1 pack of high nicotine smokes lasts me for 3-4 days. When I tried "extra light" smokes as they used to be called, I could smoke 2 packs per day. Why? Because nicotine is a drug, and I am an addict. What self-respecting addict of any drug would buy a less potent bag of heroin or cocaine when they could get a higher potency bag of dope from a different dealer for the same price as the low-grade? Same thing goes for light beers. The people I know drink a dozen regular 5% beers on a Friday night, but if they drink "light" beer, they drink upwards of 15.

Up until Health Canada decided to remove the tar/nicotine levels from cigarette packs, there were a variety of health info cards in every pack. One (which I have kept, and Health Canada no longer uses since they removed the tar/nicotine), states "Nicotine is the drug in cigarettes which is highly addictive". Canadian law states that every drug marketed in Canada be clearly marked with the dosage of the drug in each pill (or liquor bottle). I emailed Health Canada asking why the drug nicotine no longer has to have it's level per dose (cigarette) on the package, and was floored when they replied saying "Health Canada does NOT consider nicotine a drug"! I have the card they printed saying it is!

I have always wondered why, when I moved to BC from Alberta 44 years ago, any and all stores in BC would sell smokes to anyone, regardless of age. Heck, my buddy started smoking at age 9! In Alberta, they strictly enforced the legal smoking age. So from 1970 to 1991 when BC started enforcing the age law (coincidentally at the same time as a 50 gram pouch of tobacco went from $2.49 to $16.99 overnight, and a pack of smokes went from $3.50 to $7) , kids could buy smokes all they wanted here in BC. Was this a ploy by the govt. to ensure a few more generations of nicotine addicts to supply the tax base?

I think it is "healthier" lol, to smoke 5-6 cigs with the highest nicotine per day, rather than smoking 40 "light" cigarettes per day with all the cancer causing tar (nicotine in itself does not cause cancer). One poster said here that there are no medical uses for nicotine, yet a new study done in Sweden shows that smokers have a 90% survival rate after a massive heart attack, while non-smokers have a much higher mortality rate. The study also showed that smokers grew new veins and arteries after a serious injury far faster than non-smokers. And nicotine also seems to lessen the severity of congestive heart failure. These are just a few of the benefits of nicotine that are now being explored. I will supply a link to that study (I have over 400 bookmarked pages to search) when I have the time.

As for diesel exhaust, it reminds me of a letter to the editor of Castanet from a woman waiting for her bus at the Queensway bus loop. Middle of winter, 6 busses idling diesel exhaust, and the lady was b*tching about a bus driver who got out and had 3 puffs on a cigarette. Lung cancer rates (especially in non-smoking women) have skyrocketed in recent years even though smoking rates in most countries has dropped considerably. Could car/truck exhaust be the culprit?

I totally respect non-smokers rights. I keep my smoke to myself in my car with the windows rolled up, and have NEVER tapped an ash, or discarded a butt out of my car, or anywhere else. I keep a baggie to put my butts in if I am outdoors hiking. I stub the butt out on my shoe, and squish the butt between my fingers to make sure I do not start a fire.

One last thought. I have worked in a mens group home for schizophrenics, and I found about 80-90% of them are heavy smokers. Evidently, the nicotine helps them feel more normal, and lessens their symptoms. These men were all on disability, and the cost of cigarettes took up the money they were to spend on hygiene/clothing, etc. I think the govt. should allow nicotine e-cigs for these folks. I have an e-cig with nicotine cartridges I get from England, and 1 pack of cartridges costs $12 including shipping. 1 pack of cartridges is equivalent to 125 cigarettes. Buying 125 tobacco cigarettes costs about $60. The e-cig is great, has an actual tobacco taste, and it provides the "hand to mouth" sensation of a tobacco cigarette, and there is no second-hand smoke. The only slight negative, is a real cigarette "hits" me after 5 seconds of taking my first puff, while the e-cig takes about a minute to give me the nicotine hit my addicted body needs.
Dave_1963
Banned
 
Posts: 423
Likes: 13 posts
Liked in: 25 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2006, 9:49 am
Location: Kelowna, B.C.

Re: Smoking

Postby ifwisheswerehorses » Jul 11th, 2014, 4:14 am

jimmy4321 wrote:Why don't they ONLY sell smokes at places where liquor is sold or served? and while they're at it put electronic cigarettes there too.


That wouldn't do well for any 'on the wagon' smokers now would it?
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you’ll ever regret.
User avatar
ifwisheswerehorses
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 899
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 433 posts
Joined: Jul 14th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Re: Smoking

Postby Dave_1963 » Jul 18th, 2014, 11:23 pm

I lost the original link that I had bookmarked when I imported my bookmarks, but found this, which pretty much sums up what the Swedish study said. Note how it is the nicotine with the good effects. One more reason to legalize nicotine E-Cigs here in Canada. The cancer-causing agents in cigarettes are in the toxic by-products of burning leaves.


http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellnes ... nefits.htm
Dave_1963
Banned
 
Posts: 423
Likes: 13 posts
Liked in: 25 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2006, 9:49 am
Location: Kelowna, B.C.

Re: Smoking

Postby Dave_1963 » Sep 8th, 2014, 11:13 pm

Dave_1963
Banned
 
Posts: 423
Likes: 13 posts
Liked in: 25 posts
Joined: Dec 1st, 2006, 9:49 am
Location: Kelowna, B.C.

Re: Smoking

Postby Oxl3y » Sep 25th, 2014, 1:33 pm

In no way would I think that nicotine is good for you but I certainly support ecigs as being a safer alternative to regular cigarettes.
[img] obviously too awesome to be displayed

kimjohn likes this post.
User avatar
Oxl3y
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2634
Likes: 31 posts
Liked in: 488 posts
Joined: Jan 5th, 2010, 2:28 pm

Re: Smoking

Postby Queen K » Nov 27th, 2017, 10:29 am

BUMP

Big Tobacco is court ordered to publish corrective ads showing how they LIED to the public about their cigarettes. The results have debuted today. I am ever so pleased that the courts seem to be in better control of themselves and Big Tobacco.

Do you smoke because Big Tobacco said smoking was safe and used Doctors and nurses on their advertising? Did you parents?

Well no more lying nonsense.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/health/to ... index.html

"There was a decade of litigation over exactly what they say and when they're going to run and what the font sizes are and all of that stuff," said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine and the Truth Initiative distinguished professor of tobacco control at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the lawsuit.
"But it is meant to, to some extent, reverse 50 years of lying to the public," he said.
The ads appear as black text on white backgrounds and detail the health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of cigarettes, and the dangers of secondhand smoke and low-tar cigarettes, among other health concerns."
Could it be that a whole life can shift the day one starts telling the truth about what makes one happy?
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 54144
Likes: 12793 posts
Liked in: 13491 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: Smoking

Postby Bpeep » Nov 27th, 2017, 3:44 pm

The diacetyl used as flavoring in e cigs has been proven to be nasty dangerous.
I wouldnt touch either cigarettes or e cigs.
Dieing from a smoking caused respiratory issue is a nasty way to go.
But it's a good non registered, self directed rrsp.
The more you invest in it the less you'll need for retirement.
I have a baseball for you. You're more than welcome to rent it.

Queen K likes this post.
User avatar
Bpeep
Mindquad
 
Posts: 28609
Likes: 12616 posts
Liked in: 10002 posts
Joined: Mar 1st, 2008, 10:05 am
Location: Surrey-By-The-Lake

Re: Smoking

Postby Emma25 » Feb 12th, 2018, 2:46 am

how much cigarette can someboy smoke in a day?
Emma25
 
Posts: 2
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 12th, 2018, 2:42 am

Re: Smoking

Postby Queen K » Feb 12th, 2018, 8:37 am

How do you mean? By chain smoking pack after pack? Or until one feels sick of it?

As much as you can afford maybe? Are you really 25 years old Emma? Because if you quit, think of all the money you'd be saving when you reach 50!
Could it be that a whole life can shift the day one starts telling the truth about what makes one happy?
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 54144
Likes: 12793 posts
Liked in: 13491 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: Smoking

Postby mexi cali » Feb 12th, 2018, 8:51 am

My FIL smoked three packs a day for centuries. Then he up and quit one day. Never looked back. That was at least 15 years ago.

There is nobody out there who can use the "I've tried and I can't quit" excuse.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
User avatar
mexi cali
Guru
 
Posts: 5641
Likes: 2467 posts
Liked in: 3680 posts
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 1:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest