• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Smoking Is Worse Than You Imagined

missing_one

Bluelighter
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
279
Smoking Is Worse Than You Imagined
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
New York Times
January 18, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/smoking-is-worse-than-you-imagined.html

The latest surgeon general’s report (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/index.html) on the health effects of smoking — issued at the 50th anniversary of the pathbreaking 1964 report — offers astonishing new evidence of just how much harm tobacco is causing. Despite the many gains in reducing risks over the past half-century, researchers keep finding new and insidious ways in which smoking is harming the smokers themselves and nonsmokers who breathe in toxic fumes.

The report, issued last Friday, finds that cigarette smoking kills even more Americans than previously estimated (about 480,000 a year, up from 443,000), and is a cause, though not necessarily the major cause, of even more diseases than previously recognized, including liver and colorectal cancers. These add to the long list of other cancers caused by smoking, as well as rheumatoid arthritis and other ailments. The report newly identifies exposure to secondhand smoke as a cause of strokes.

The report estimates that smoking costs the United States between $289 billion and $333 billion a year for medical care and lost productivity, well above the previous estimate of $193 billion.

Most shocking, the report finds that today’s smokers have a much higher risk for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than smokers in 1964, despite smoking fewer cigarettes.

It reports that the risk of developing adenocarcinoma of the lung, the most common type of lung cancer, has increased substantially over the past several decades because of changes in the design and composition of cigarettes. These include ventilated filters that lead to more puffing of noxious materials and blended tobaccos that contain carcinogenic nitrosamines.

There is no doubt who is to blame for this mess, the report says. It is the tobacco industry, which “aggressively markets and promotes lethal and addictive products,” continues to recruit youth and young adults as new customers, and has “deliberately misled the public on the risks of smoking cigarettes.”

The new report rightly calls for more vigorous tobacco-control efforts, including an increase in cigarette taxes to drive up the average price of cigarettes to at least $10 a pack to prevent young people from starting to smoke; an antismoking mass media campaign by government agencies that would run year-round; and new rules extending smoke-free indoor protection to the entire population, double the current level. The goal is to reduce the smoking rate from the current 18 percent to less than 10 percent in 10 years.

There is an additional weapon that can be brought to bear. In mid-2009, Congress passed a law that gave the Food and Drug Administration authority for the first time to regulate tobacco products. It should use those powers to reduce the addictiveness and harmfulness of smoking and reverse the design changes that have made cigarettes even more dangerous than they were in previous decades.
 
Thank god I thought this was going to be another anti grass article.. good lord if you dont know smoking is awful for you buy now then you are beyond slow, your stoped or in denial.
 
Thank god I thought this was going to be another anti grass article.. good lord if you dont know smoking is awful for you buy now then you are beyond slow, your stoped or in denial.

I think most smokers are in denial.

As someone who recently quit smoking after a long battle, I also think this sort of content helps people to stay away from it.

The most interesting part was the official statement that cigarette companies liberally distributing additives in to cigarettes gives people more cancer.

On the main culprit they point to, nitrosamines, Wikipedia states: "significant levels of nitrosamines in many foodstuffs, especially beer, fish, and fish byproducts, and also in meat and cheese products preserved with nitrite pickling salt. The U.S. government established limits on the amount of nitrites used in meat products in order to decrease cancer risk in the population [...] Nitrosamines can also be found in tobacco smoke, American dip snuff, chewing tobacco, and to a much lesser degree, snus. (127.9 PPM for American dip snuff compared to 2.8 PPM in Swedish snuff or snus.)"

This seems to suggest that if you are very health conscious, not only should you avoid smoking, but you should also drink organic / preservative-free beer, eat organic cheese, and stick to freshly caught meat and fish.
 
good lord if you dont know smoking is awful for you buy now then you are beyond slow, your stoped or in denial.

Yeah and very addicted. Some people have been smoking for 30 + years, that's a pretty hard habit/addiction to break.

I became addicted to tobacco after mixing it with weed for many years (thats what we do here, disgusting hey) but it's the norm to chop a gram of buds and mix it with 1 cigarette, anyway after doing this for 15 odd years I moved away and had to give up weed as I didnt know any contacts anymore to buy it off which was a good thing as I was smoking too much all the time, but it led to me smoke plain cigarettes which is obviously even worse, and made me feel shit after a while, and it would play in my mind how I was paying money to become sick and eventually die from it. So I tried to give up twice and found it very hard, lasted only a day and 2 days each time before going back to it.

The third time I quit was a week or 10 days or so before Christmas and I haven't had any tobacco or weed since. So I think it's a bit over a month or more now. I have it out of my system and I am planning to never touch tobacco again. It really disgusts me when a smoker gets too close to me whilst smoking or just after smoking as the smell really turns me off and makes me want to walk the other way. I'm really very happy with myself. Im also saving more money of course as a pack is over 20 bucks here now as well. And that will only keep increasing.
 
Smoking is disgusting and terrible for the smoker and innocent people around them.

Most shocking, the report finds that today’s smokers have a much higher risk for lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than smokers in 1964, despite smoking fewer cigarettes.
That may be due to the increased additives in cigarettes.
 
I've been doing some background reading on HR strategies for tobacco/nicotine and was curious to see that so called "low tar" and "light" cigarettes were once (in the 70's) considered HR approaches for tobacco, but the research supporting the harm reducing efficacy of these so called "safer cigarettes" used machines (not humans), and thus didn't account for real world smoking behavior by humans (i.e., taking more drags, holding smoke longer, smoking more cigs) and thus became in some ways harm induction. Of course the behind-the-scenes product manipulation by big tobacco also ensured high nicotine content, along with whatever other chemicals they added.
 
I've been doing some background reading on HR strategies for tobacco/nicotine and was curious to see that so called "low tar" and "light" cigarettes were once (in the 70's) considered HR approaches for tobacco, but the research supporting the harm reducing efficacy of these so called "safer cigarettes" used machines (not humans), and thus didn't account for real world smoking behavior by humans (i.e., taking more drags, holding smoke longer, smoking more cigs) and thus became in some ways harm induction. Of course the behind-the-scenes product manipulation by big tobacco also ensured high nicotine content, along with whatever other chemicals they added.

Australia banned using words like "light" to describe cigarettes a number of years ago for this very reason - it's false advertising. They had to remove any misleading mention of the amount of tar/nicotine per stick too.
 
I've been doing some background reading on HR strategies for tobacco/nicotine and was curious to see that so called "low tar" and "light" cigarettes were once (in the 70's) considered HR approaches for tobacco, but the research supporting the harm reducing efficacy of these so called "safer cigarettes" used machines (not humans), and thus didn't account for real world smoking behavior by humans (i.e., taking more drags, holding smoke longer, smoking more cigs) and thus became in some ways harm induction. Of course the behind-the-scenes product manipulation by big tobacco also ensured high nicotine content, along with whatever other chemicals they added.
Of course they use the machines to accurately measure shit. If they missed the other subtle effects, why go off accusing them of intentional neglect?
 
Of course they use the machines to accurately measure shit. If they missed the other subtle effects, why go off accusing them of intentional neglect?

Because facts

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conte...50d0a1188aeac059d4062492&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Abstract
Objective: To understand the development, intent, and consequences of US tobacco industry advertising for low machine yield cigarettes.

Methods: Analysis of trade sources and internal US tobacco company documents now available on various web sites created by corporations, litigation, or public health bodies.

Results: When introducing low yield products, cigarette manufacturers were concerned about maintaining products with acceptable taste/flavour and feared consumers might become weaned from smoking. Several tactics were employed by cigarette manufacturers, leading consumers to perceive filtered and low machine yield brands as safer relative to other brands. Tactics include using cosmetic (that is, ineffective) filters, loosening filters over time, using medicinal menthol, using high tech imagery, using virtuous brand names and descriptors, adding a virtuous variant to a brand's product line, and generating misleading data on tar and nicotine yields.

Conclusions: Advertisements of filtered and low tar cigarettes were intended to reassure smokers concerned about the health risks of smoking, and to present the respective products as an alternative to quitting. Promotional efforts were successful in getting smokers to adopt filtered and low yield cigarette brands. Corporate documents demonstrate that cigarette manufacturers recognised the inherent deceptiveness of cigarette brands described as “Light”or “Ultra-Light” because of low machine measured yields.
 
You always hear certain drugs being called "hard drugs"...IMHO tobacco is the hardest of them all; it's highly addictive, with many using it their whole lives (most of my family have), and it's highly toxic to the body- the sheer amount of diseases and damage it can cause people is really scary. How the hell is it even legal? The taxes it brings in are staggering; therefore you can buy this very toxic drug from your local corner store.

Anyway, I've got hope that the E-cig industry will steamroll over big tobacco within the next years/decades; it's growing at a rapid rate.
 
You always hear certain drugs being called "hard drugs"...IMHO tobacco is the hardest of them all;

If I was king of the world and had to regulate drugs I would put heroin and tobacco in the same restrictive class: i.e. medically administered by health professionals, addicts registered and given full access to support services to help them break their addiction.
 
Nicotine and alcohol are both "hard drugs". Who defines that line between "soft" and "hard"? I'll give you one guess.
 
But yeah seriously, I have found alcohol harder to give up than nicotine personally, as I have gone over a month with out tobacco now and cant stop going for drinks to the club and buying beers.
 
Been working to cut back my smoking of cigarettes, I find reading things like these help me realize how pointless, disgusting, and bad for me it Is.
 
^ Do it the hard way, cut that shit entirely and think of the benefits of health and money saved. I swear that saved me. Or has for the last month anyway. The more people who give up the better, it' not a high, it's stupid, focus on that. Good luck bro.
 
Last edited:
^ Do it the hard way, cut that shit entirely and think of the benefits of health and money saved. I swear that saved me. Or has for the last month anyway. The more people who give up the better, it' not a high, it's stupid, focus on that. Good luck bro.

That is what I don't get. If one got high, I would understand why people smoke much better.
Without a real high to speak of, it is just maintenance. At a huge cost.
 
There must be some kind of psychotropic effect. My mum used to describe how smoking would calm her when she was angry or anxious & how the act of smoking would entertain her mind when she was bored.

She died at 72 after suffering a chest infection exacerbated by COPD which she'd had increasingly worsening symptoms of despite having given up smoking 10 years previously. She also lost all her teeth before she was 50 years old.

My dad had a series of strokes & died after a final, big one, at the same age.

Needless to say, both these losses were premature & a direct result of tobacco/nicotine addictions.

Best wishes to everyone battling this fucking poison! Where in the hell the government gets off lecturing us about drugs, I will never know!
 
Of course they use the machines to accurately measure shit. If they missed the other subtle effects, why go off accusing them of intentional neglect?

No - using the machines inaccurately measured the shit, as I had already noted in what you replied to.

Also no "accusing", just stating factual accounts, as noted by another poster as well...
 
Top