Smoking and Cancer

[Tokaji Kyoden]

In reading about the death of Peter Jennings and talking about it on another board, I've been thinking about the topic of smoking and cancer.

Peter Jennings died of lung cancer because he smoked for most of his life. I feel bad that he died and all, but because he smoked all his life, I don't really feel all that bad. How can you feel sorry for someone dying from cancer due to smoking(other than just the fact that they died), when they knew all along that smoking causes cancer, and that that's probably how they'd die? I don't understand why people do that, and how people can feel so bad for those kinds of people. What are others views on the subject? Is it amoral not to feel sorry for someone who brought this kind of death on themselves?(again, it's always sad when someone dies, it's just a matter of how).

[Sea Skimmer]

He stopped smoking over 20 years ago; people didn't take the risk seriously until the last couple decades.

[FSTargetDrone]

Cigarette smoking can be apowerful addiction for many people. Also, if you have tobbacco companies marketing their product to young children (how many people do you know start smoking in their 30s or beyond?), or even young adults who may not think of the long-term effects of smoking, it's hard to blame the smoker. A kid who gorws up ina household where mom or dad smoke is a lot more likely to be a smoker him or herself and once you start, it can be very difficult to quit.

Lung cancer is a hell of a bad way to die. And it's almost entirely preventable.

[gizmojumpjet]

In reading about the death of Peter Jennings and talking about it on another board, I've been thinking about the topic of smoking and cancer.

Peter Jennings died of lung cancer because he smoked for most of his life.

Prove it. People who have never smoked a cigarette in their whole life get lung cancer; many people who smoke their whole lives don't get lung cancer.

I feel bad that he died and all,

Why? Did you know him? Did he owe you money?

but because he smoked all his life, I don't really feel all that bad.

Do you or don't you "feel bad" that Peter Jennings died? Make up your fucking mind.

How can you feel sorry for someone dying from cancer due to smoking(other than just the fact that they died), when they knew all along that smoking causes cancer, and that that's probably how they'd die? I don't understand why people do that, and how people can feel so bad for those kinds of people. What are others views on the subject? Is it amoral not to feel sorry for someone who brought this kind of death on themselves?(again, it's always sad when someone dies, it's just a matter of how).

I don't feel bad that Peter Jennings died, because I didn't know him and he didn't owe me money. It doesn't have anything to do with his smoking. That's not to say I wished him harm or that I am glad he's dead, but rather that I wasn't even remotely invested in Peter Jennings' existence, and his passing has absolutely no effect on me, my life, or those that I care about. People die every day. Just because he was on TV doesn't make him special.

If you're the sort that does feel bad when people they don't know die, it seems sort of capricious to me to begin making exceptions based on the person's pre-mortem habits. People knowingly and willingly engage in risky behaviour all of the time. Are you going to stop feeling bad for sedentary people who die of heart failure? For outdoor lovers who die of skin cancer? For surfers who get eaten by sharks? For people who die in car wrecks because they didn't buy a super-safe Volvo station wagon and rather opted for the Miata? For the soldier killed by an IED because he knew the military could be risky? Or do you reserve your disdain solely for icky smokers?

If you put value on the lives of others, it doesn't make sense to disregard that value if they make poor decisions in their life. Humans are fallible creatures and will make mistakes as a matter of course. It's fun to flame them on internet message boards, but perhaps you can set the sanctimonious judgementalism aside in the event of their death?

As to why people "do that," nicotine is addictive and smoking becomes a comforting habit. Most people pick the habit up when they're young and stupid, and it's not easy to quit. Seriously.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Genetics has a lot to do with it. There are people that get cancer of the lung and never smoke, and there are those that smoke all their life and never have any (fatally) ill effect. Like with eating, it varies, though it is universally accepted that smoking will increase your risk of getting such ailments over the norm, just as eating purely fatty food will increase the chances of developing pulmonary heart disease.

[Zoink]

People knowingly and willingly engage in risky behaviour all of the time.

There is a difference between risky and stupid behavior. There are no benefits from smoking, unlike some of the other things you've listed. The swimmer has no real reason to worry about shark bites, and the benefits from swimming far outweight the risks. ie. Its 'smart' to take up swimming. The solider is serving his country, he's taking a known risk to benefit his country. Are you honestly trying to equate soldiers with smokers; that I can't critcize one without the other?!?

Most people pick the habit up when they're young and stupid, and it's not easy to quit. Seriously.

Exactly, smoking is a stupid habit, and that is the key point that differentiates it from most of the activities you've listed.

[NapoleonGH]

Smoking IS NOT A HABIT.

It is an addiction.

There is a tremendous difference.

[gizmojumpjet]

There is a difference between risky and stupid behavior. There are no benefits from smoking,

Wrong, smoking does have benefits. It's relaxing and, once you're addicted, smoking eases withdrawal symptoms brought on by not smoking. I'll thank you not to misread that as an endorsement of smoking like you misread the entire point of my previous post.

unlike some of the other things you've listed. The swimmer has no real reason to worry about shark bites,

Did I mention swimmers? Nope, I mentioned surfers. When I read what you wrote about swimmers having no reason to worry about sharks, I laughed.

and the benefits from swimming far outweight the risks. ie. Its 'smart' to take up swimming.

Swimmers aren't surfers, but yes, swimming is good for you. However, swimming in a pool is safer than in the open ocean for lots of reasons, not limited to the sharks. Therefore, swimming in the ocean is stupid, compared to not swimming in the ocean. Surfing is stupid, too.

The solider is serving his country, he's taking a known risk to benefit his country. Are you honestly trying to equate soldiers with smokers; that I can't critcize one without the other?!?

The OP did not question whether or not smokers should be criticized:

I don't understand why people do that (smoke), and how people can feel so bad for those kinds of people (when they die).

My post did not address whether or not smokers should be criticized either. I compiled a quick list off the top of my head of risky behaviors that people make the choice to engage in, and explained my view: if you're going to go around mourning people you don't know, it's asinine to make exceptions because a person engaged in activities which one didn't approve of since nobody's perfect. I also explained why people start smoking and keep smoking: youth and addiction.

Please work on your reading comprehension skills.

[Zoink]

Wrong, smoking does have benefits. It's relaxing and, once you're addicted, smoking eases withdrawal symptoms brought on by not smoking. I'll thank you not to misread that as an endorsement of smoking like you misread the entire point of my previous post.

It relaxes you in that it eases the withdrawl symtoms caused BY smoking. The smoke is not benefiting you, it's harming you. You don't have to be a f--ing genius to figure that out.

Nope, I mentioned surfers. When I read what you wrote about swimmers having no reason to worry about sharks

It's the same thing. So I guess you're the type that goes swimming and says "I'm not swimming in the ocean, there's sharks!" lol. The point is that the benefits from physical exercise far outweighs the risks of injury. There is no reason to think surfing is going to kill you and that shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether you give it a try.

Swimmers aren't surfers, but yes, swimming is good for you. However, swimming in a pool is safer than in the open ocean for lots of reasons, not limited to the sharks. Therefore, swimming in the ocean is stupid, compared to not swimming in the ocean. Surfing is stupid, too.

"the sharks"!!!

No, neither is stupid because the benefits from swimming or surfing in both locations far outweighs the risks.

The OP did not question whether or not smokers should be criticized:

You equated the act of calling smoking stupid to calling soldiers stupid. I'm saying you're wrong.

My post did not address whether or not smokers should be criticized either. I compiled a quick list off the top of my head of risky behaviors that people make the choice to engage in,

You said you can't criticize smoking because you'd have to criticize things like surfing and soldiers. You completely missed my point. I'm saying you're wrong, that smoking is not just another "risky behaviour" like those you listed. Smoking is a stupid habit that develops into an addiction that provides NO benefits and bears no similarity to living an active life full of physical exercise like surfing.

Please work on your reading comprehension skills.

Fuck you too asshole.

[gizmojumpjet]

It relaxes you in that it eases the withdrawl symtoms caused BY smoking. The smoke is not benefiting you, it's harming you. You don't have to be a f--ing genius to figure that out.

No, it relaxes you becasue nicotine is a psychoactive substance that induces a feeling of relaxation.

It's the same thing. So I guess you're the type that goes swimming and says "I'm not swimming in the ocean, there's sharks!"

Yes, I'm exactly that type. The ocean is full of fucking dangerous shit. Also, no, swimmers aren't surfers. The only people who think that are your fellow inmates and you.

No, neither is stupid because the benefits from swimming or surfing in both locations far outweighs the risks.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that, champ.

You equated the act of calling smoking stupid to calling soldiers stupid.

No I didn't.

You said you can't criticize smoking because you'd have to criticize things like surfing and soldiers. You completely missed my point. I'm saying you're wrong, that smoking is not just another "risky behaviour" like those you listed. Smoking is a stupid habit that develops into an addiction that provides NO benefits and bears no similarity to living an active life full of physical exercise like surfing.

No, I said that if you're going to go around mourning people ("feeling bad") you don't even know, it's capricious not to mourn those who just happen to have engaged in behaviour of which one disapproves, since no one is fucking perfect. A life is precious, even if the person living it is flawed. Yes, that means you.

Please stop misrepresenting my argument, it's getting tiresome.

[Darth Wong]

Nice black and white fallacy, moron. The death toll from swimming is statistically insignificant next to the death toll from smoking. To equate the two on any level is something only a liar or an idiot would do.

[NapoleonGH]

"It relaxes you in that it eases the withdrawl symtoms caused BY smoking. The smoke is not benefiting you, it's harming you. You don't have to be a f--ing genius to figure that out.
"

Ohh its not that simple.

For one like any major stimulant nicotine improves awareness while you are on it, there is some alteration of cognition, and there is the stress relief factor. There is also the sheer actual physical pleasure derived from the drug.

Like all drugs nicotine has fun components for many people, it also has risks associated with it. If one smokes will they get cancer? No. Do they have a significantly higher chance of getting it? Yes. Do they have a life expectancy which is reduced by 8 years as compared to if they didnt smoke? Yes. And what reduction in life expectancy does an obese person have?

[wolveraptor]

Nicotine is more than merely a relaxant. It increases blood pressure, respiration rate, and heart rate. It has also been connected to increased blood clotting and other diseases, I've read.

I haven't heard, though, that nicotine alone can cause cancer. I think you mean smoking itself.

[Tokaji Kyoden]

Smoking IS NOT A HABIT.

I very much disagree. Smoking starts out as a habit. Poeple start to do it as a habit because they feel that it is cool, or that it will relax them, deciding to ignore the negative effects. I am in no way saying that smoking isn't addictive, but I do remember reading a report somewhere that it takes an average of 20 cigarettes smoked to actually become addicted. It would have to be a habit before you become addicted(smoked over like a two week period of time). I can't seem to find the report again, and it's probably outdated by now, so if I'm wrong, please feel free to find evidence against it. As far as I can see however, smoking starts out as a habit.

[NapoleonGH]

"of 20 cigarettes smoked to actually become addicted"

Well I most certainly was addicted and I never in my life smoked more than 15 in a day, and usually only smoked about 5-7.

[Mrs Kendall]

No No , I think he means 20 cigarettes in the time span of 2 weeks. I know when I first started smoking I wasn't addicted as I could decide whether or not I needed a cigarette. At the time I started smoking though I continued because I was 15 and thought it was cool cause everyone I hung out with did it. That's what teenagers do, so don't call me stupid. I continued to do it to be cool with my 'friends' and then I got addicted and couldn't stop for 7 years. Smoking is very addictive if you get past the stage where it's not and if someone dies from it I do feel bad for them because while it was their fault that they started smoking the likely started when they were young and impressionable and quitting smoking is extremely hard. My grandfather died from a heart attack and he smoked, but I don't judge him because he eventually killed himself because I know from personal experience how hard it is to quit. I also know that he tried to quit all the time.

If Peter Jennings did quit 20 years ago then he was smart and was lucky to be able to quit, he onbviously was trying to minimize the chances of him dying once he found out how dangerous smoking can be. My parents always say that they smoked because they didn't know it was so bad for them, and they quit when they found out. Peter Jennings generation didn't know it was dangerous, give him a break man. Try talking from experience rather than judging people when you don't even know how hard it is to quit.

[Dakarne]

Nice black and white fallacy, moron. The death toll from swimming is statistically insignificant next to the death toll from smoking. To equate the two on any level is something only a liar or an idiot would do.

That... and Smoking can produce many difficulties in later life, swimming does the opposite.

[Tokaji Kyoden]

If Peter Jennings did quit 20 years ago then he was smart and was lucky to be able to quit, he onbviously was trying to minimize the chances of him dying once he found out how dangerous smoking can be. My parents always say that they smoked because they didn't know it was so bad for them, and they quit when they found out. Peter Jennings generation didn't know it was dangerous, give him a break man. Try talking from experience rather than judging people when you don't even know how hard it is to quit.

I agree that it was very smart of him to stop when he learned of the negative effects. However, for todays society, there're enough anti-smoking campaigns targeted at teens, and they learn all about it in school, that I can't really call those people anything but stupid. They fully know the risks, and still make the choice to smoke. And don't try to say that they only do it because it's cool. There are plaenty of teens out there who don't smoke just "because it's cool" Same with all kinds of other things like marijuana and alchohol. If teens feel that the only way that they can fit in is to smoke, and actually are stupid enough to do so, then something is majorly wrong with our society.

[Trytostaydead]

If you go to some countries, almost the entire population smokes.. it's not just a "coolness" factor. People above have already stated many reasons why people will smoke, especially when relaxation is needed.

Would you not feel pity for someone then who dies of heart disease of colorectal cancer? Both of which has strong ties to lifestyle?

[Tokaji Kyoden]

Would you not feel pity for someone then who dies of heart disease of colorectal cancer? Both of which has strong ties to lifestyle?

Yes. As I have said before, I feel pity if someone dies, doesn't matter how. But again, they chose that lifestyle, and thus brought that death upon themselves. As cold hearted as it sounds, I say the same to those who commit suicide. Yes, it is sad that they died, but if they are dumb enough to think that killing themselves is the only solution, then I can't really have that much pity for them. There is always another solution, killing yourself if just plain stupid.

...especially when relaxation is needed.

There are much better ways to relax than putting arsenic and tar into your body.

[Trytostaydead]

There are much better ways to relax than putting arsenic and tar into your body.

Mmmm, alcohol.

[gizmojumpjet]

That... and Smoking can produce many difficulties in later life, swimming does the opposite.

You seem to have missed my point entirely, so I will restate it for the final time: If you're going to mourn, or "feel bad" in the words of the OP, about the deaths of people you don't know, it's capricious to pick and choose between them based on whether or not they engaged in activity you consider risky. I did not, as has been erroneously and repeatedly stated, argue that "you can't criticize smoking because you'd have to criticize things like surfing and soldiers." Criticism of smoking was not the subject of the OP, but rather the appropriateness of not feeling bad about the deaths of certain classes of individuals.

Additionally, I did not equate the death tolls of surfing and smoking, but rather held them both up as examples of risky behavior. Factually, they both are. I NEVER said they were equally risky.

My only regret is that I did not take enough time to compile a list of risky behaviors that was 100,000% un-nitpickable.

[Zoink]

People above have already stated many reasons why people will smoke, especially when relaxation is needed.

The problem with nicotine and any number of addictive drugs is that the short term benefits from initial use become overshadowed by the addiction. The stress relief from the nicotine turns into an inability to deal with stress without nicotine. Simple situations are turned into stressful ones because they trigger a craving for cigarettes.

From observation and discussion with friends and coworkers who smoke, the ones who smoke don't have less stress. In fact, most are subject to a greater number of mood swings, usually followed by "man I need a cigarette". Their workday is often a large sea of stress and aggravation broken by brief islands of nicotine. They need about 3x the number of work breaks just to survive the day.

I don't doubt the fact people have reasons for starting smoking. I'm just saying smoking is a stupid solution to solve those problems. For example, I can list a number of 'reasons' why a kid may feel pressured into going along with a gang murder, but none of those reason make the act any less wrong.

My intent isn't to judge people, only the act of smoking. There are far greater thing when it comes to judging the merits of an individual. I know that when I criticizing smoking, smokers are defensive and point out that I am probably guilty of a 'stupid' act(s). I have none that are nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol related, but yes I have done stupid things.

[Darth Wong]

Additionally, I did not equate the death tolls of surfing and smoking, but rather held them both up as examples of risky behavior. Factually, they both are. I NEVER said they were equally risky.

Don't play this "I didn't come right out and say it" game with me. You argued that if one felt a certain way about a smoker, he should also feel that way about a surfer. That implies equivalence.

[Zoink]

rather held them both up as examples of risky behavior. Factually, they both are. I NEVER said they were equally risky.

And I am just trying to point out the glaring difference in risk factors between the things you've listed. In fact, they are so glaringly different that the activities fall into completely different categories (which for simplicity's sake, I've referred to smoking as simply 'stupid'). Because of the huge difference, there are completely different rationalization processes that make someone become a surfer, soldier, or smoker.

As a problem solver, smoking has kinship with crack cocaine and Russian roulette. Soldiering falls into a category of informed personal sacrifice for the benefit of the nation. Surfing falls into a category of physical activity that is generally encouraged. (btw: You are more likely to die in your bathroom from slipping than experience a shark attack.)

I got the impression that your intent was a typically defensive response, that people shouldn't judge smoking because everyone is kind of like a smoker. That is what I was responding to. My intent wasn't to judge the smoker as a person.

-----------

In reviewing the OP, I think the original poster is referring to a "Darwin Award"; the response people often have when someone who engages in a dangerous activity gets the 'expected' result. In such cases the usual sympathy for a lost life is replaced by "he should have known better".

I think people do this because they feel that by giving sympathy to the victim they are condoning his actions. So if a guy jumps from Yankee Stadium to see if the foul ball net will support a person, people don't want to express sympathy for his well-being (ie. "I hope he's OK") and instead attack him and his action (note: I was in the later group )

From what I know of Peter Jennings he stopped smoke something like 20 years ago and took it up briefly around 9/11. He should have known that putting smoke into your lungs wasn't a good idea, however I wouldn't go so far as to label him a Darwin Award. He seemed to have learned his lesson, he tried to correct it, and he didn't go to his grave ignorant of his error.