Jump to content

Smoke 'em if you got 'em (or not...)


Fierce Critter

Do you smoke cigarettes?  

63 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 4 months later...

i am 27 now.. i quit at 22... i started up again a few months ago.. some days i smoke alot.. other days i have maybe 4 cigs... but i really.. REALLY like smoking cloves.. Djarum Black... mmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto Shade Everdark!

I'm a severe asthmatic..... I smoke socially.. on breaks at work and at the club.. almost never at home unless I'm upset.. maybe 2 packs a week at MOST..... and I willl continue this indefinately... because I feel no addiction to it.. I can (and have) stop for months.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ditto.

Of course, i'm not "killing myself", i'm saving the lives of those around me! :grin True story.

Of course, I smoke more under stress, but I can't smoke in the apartment because one of the cats has asthma. Fortunately, if she didn't, Scott knows well enough that all of these "studies" against second-hand smoke and how it allegedly "causes cancer"(1) is propaganda -- after all, any evidence which supports this notion is negligible, at best.

(1)nothing actually causes cancer -- if you're genetically predisposed to cancer, doing cetain things may accelerate its onset, but NOTHING has actually been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to "cause cancer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I’m a cigarette smoker but I do love an occasional cigar or clove from time to time. I haven't ever really smoked outside of social situations but I see nothing wrong with it for those that do.  I'm more adept to light a cigar up over an Irish whisky at a local pub then anything.

~TLS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here I go, getting nit-picky over commonly misused terminology.

"Cloves" are just cigarettes with clove oil and ground clove bits. Just like, I'm sure, over half the people here recognise "menthols" as cigarettes, just as much as the next guy, "cloves", too, are cigarettes. If you smoke "cloves", you basicly smoke cigarettes.

Clove cigarettes are an Indonesian thing (as in, that's where they started and that's where they're imported from). 90% of the cigarettes sold in Indonesia are clove cigarettes (or "kretek" in Indonesian). Furthermore, anybody who says that clove cigarettes are "worse than regular cigarettes" has bought into more anti-smoking (and this time, anti-import) propaganda. 90% -- NINETY PERCENT, of the cigarettes bought and assumedly smoked in Indonesia are clove cigarettes -- and yet, the United states leads the world in every type of cancer imaginable and almost every respiratory problem imaginable. The cigarettes are probably playing less of a part than people's lifestyles are, but since nobody in the States wants to change their habits but instead blame the substance, look at the facts: obviously, entire countries in Southeast Asia aren't toppling over from cancer every day, so logically, clove cigarettes must not be more harmful than anything else you can smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1)nothing actually causes cancer -- if you're genetically predisposed to cancer, doing cetain things may accelerate its onset, but NOTHING has actually been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to "cause cancer."

Um, no, any chemical or radiation that alters the structure or replication of DNA causes cancer. There are even standardized protocols where you can test and rate the mutagenicity of whatever stimulus you want.

There is of course genetic variability in how well your body responds to these mutations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I bet I know what you mean - that nothing has been proven to cause cancer in humans. In a technical sense, that is true. But you have to understand the specific terminology to know why nothing has been proven to cause cancer in humans or ever will be.

For actual causation to be proven, you have to experimentally manipulate the variable you're looking at. In a medical setting, this is done in a 'randomized clinical trial', which means you would take a big, random group of people and make half of them do something, but the other half not. In this case, you would have to take a big random segment of the population and force a random half of them to smoke and the other half not to smoke. Since it is very unethical to force people to do something so strongly correlated with cancer across the board, this is never going to happen. Nor will it for any suspected carcinogens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...knows well enough that all of these "studies" against second-hand smoke and how it allegedly "causes cancer"(1) is propaganda -- after all, any evidence which supports this notion is negligible, at best.

(1)nothing actually causes cancer -- if you're genetically predisposed to cancer, doing cetain things may accelerate its onset, but NOTHING has actually been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to "cause cancer."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the bullets never kill, it's the rapid blood loss, the nerve stem damage-causing the heart to cease when the brain or spinal cord are impacted. Those that die from GSWs are just predisposed to having weak, slow healing capillaries and such. :whistling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I bet I know what you mean - that nothing has been proven to cause cancer in humans.  In a technical sense, that is true.  But you have to understand the specific terminology to know why nothing has been proven to cause cancer in humans or ever will be.

For actual causation to be proven, you have to experimentally manipulate the variable you're looking at.  In a medical setting, this is done in a 'randomized clinical trial', which means you would take a big, random group of people and make half of them do something, but the other half not.  In this case, you would have to take a big random segment of the population and force a random half of them to smoke and the other half not to smoke.  Since it is very unethical to force people to do something so strongly correlated with cancer across the board, this is never going to happen.  Nor will it for any suspected carcinogens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're talking science.

That's SEXY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm a smoker. I enjoy smoking. A lot. I've never tried to quit because I've never wanted too. I've been smoking for 10 years now. I figure if I don't die from alcohol poisoning at 23 then I can die from lung cancer when I'm old. Specially if they legalize pot for medicinal purposes. But hey, Non smokers rock too. *Hugs for everyone*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you about the wave interferance pattern created by a dual slit experiment and what it tells us about wave-particle duality in both electrons and electromagnetic photons...

:grin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you going to be at Necto tonight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you about the wave interferance pattern created by a dual slit experiment and what it tells us about wave-particle duality in both electrons and electromagnetic photons...

:grin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet you say that to ALL the girls...

"Dual slit experiment" - you cad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    38.9k
    Total Topics
    820.2k
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 97 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.