Smoking and Cancer

[Darth Wong]

In the specific case of Peter Jennings, I don't think it's a Darwin Award because as others have said, he quit 20 years ago. Although, as an aside, I should point out that the apologists exaggerate when they say that people didn't know about the risks 30 years ago; ignorant people didn't know the risks but my parents certainly did, and they made those risks very clear to me as a child; for that matter, there were public-education campaigns in the schools already. But perhaps another decade or two in the past and their claims would be more valid.

In any case, I've met lots of unapologetic smokers; they would qualify for Darwin Awards if they got lung cancer.

[NapoleonGH]

Yes of course, because it is stupid to make a quality vs. quantity of life choice..

You may not agree with the choice, but who cares? One accepts the risks and the statistically 7 year shorter life.

[Darth Wong]

Yes of course, because it is stupid to make a quality vs. quantity of life choice..

Ironic argument in light of the fact that smoking has a very high probability of destroying the quality of life in your later years as you wheeze through life with Vaderized lungs. And how the fuck does smoking improve quality of life? The fact that you've addicted yourself to it?

You may not agree with the choice, but who cares? One accepts the risks and the statistically 7 year shorter life.

No, I don't think so. I don't believe that anyone ever started smoking because he made a rational assessment of the risks and decided that smoking was worth it. Why do you think almost no one ever takes up smoking once he's gotten past the "danger years" of high school and university? People start smoking because they're immature, ignorant, or stupid (or some combination of the above). They can't quit because they're weak.

[Mrs Kendall]

Just a quick question for you Mike.. Have you ever smoked, gotten addicted to cigarrettes? Just curious where you get your statement where you say that people who can't quit are weak. I don't mind the statement myself because it actually favours me since I have quit I was just curious. I guess I'm trying to evaluate whether or not my grandfather was just not strong willed enough quit.

[Mrs Kendall]

sorry that should read

... I'm trying to evaluate whether or not my grandfather was just not strong willed enough to quit

[Darth Wong]

Just a quick question for you Mike.. Have you ever smoked, gotten addicted to cigarrettes? Just curious where you get your statement where you say that people who can't quit are weak.

No, I never smoked or got addicted to cigarettes. I knew from a very young age that it was an idiotic activity that only an ignorant fool would do. You could go back in time and ask my 14-year old self what I thought of smoking, and that's what I'd say: "only idiots smoke". But I had well-educated parents, which gave me an advantage.

As for being unable to quit, the fact that some people can quit proves that the people who can't quit are weaker than they are.

I don't mind the statement myself because it actually favours me since I have quit I was just curious.

That means you are stronger than people who can't quit. Strength is a relative term, as is weakness. But there are plenty of people out there who can find the willpower to quit, so it's not a freakish one-in-a-million thing, and it's not unfair to say that people who can't do it are weak.

I guess I'm trying to evaluate whether or not my grandfather was just not strong willed enough quit.

Given how old he was, he was probably from the generation that insisted on denying the magnitude of the risks. That would place him in the "ignorant, possibly weak" category.

[gizmojumpjet]

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

I'm willing to admit that my list included some clumsy elements. I don't think that bears upon the main point of my original post and I regret that it seems to have devolved into that.

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.)

Yes, but I find the idea of being eaten by a fish particularly horrific. You'll never convince me that swimming in the ocean is advisable, or that the benefits outweigh the risks. It's a subjective judgement. I'll find a different way to exercise.

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.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm a former smoker. Smoking IS stupid. I'll never defend smoking. I will point out that holding people's petty faults against them is capricious in regards to the mourning of their passing, if you're the sort that affords value to the lives of perfect strangers and feels bad about their passing.

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.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. His final signoff affected my life quite directly.

Regards.

[Mrs Kendall]

Ok, sounds good to me. My grandfather fought in WW2 if that gives you an indication of how old he was. He died at age 75 and was trying to quit for years, probably since he was about 65. Although, I was young when he died. I think I was like 12 or 13 so I could just be getting some false info in there. He probably had PTSD cause looking back I realise that in his later years he seemed to be very withdrawn and he would just sit by himself a lot. The Smoking probably just helped him pass the time and keep him somewhat sane. Maybe he didn't really even try that hard at all, who knows. Thanks for your response though

[NapoleonGH]

Now mike, I know that this isnt a logical argument, and therefore isnt really valid, but honestly, one must have been addicted to something before understanding addiction enough to really be able to comment on it righteously. this is in response to the "dont quit because they are weak"

[Darth Wong]

Now mike, I know that this isnt a logical argument, and therefore isnt really valid, but honestly, one must have been addicted to something before understanding addiction enough to really be able to comment on it righteously. this is in response to the "dont quit because they are weak"

Nonsense. If a significant portion of the population can break it, and others can't, then those who can't are weaker than those who can. What part of this do you not understand? Were the people who succeeded not really addicted in the first place? Or are you just wasting my bandwidth with pure unadulterated bullshit?

[Mrs Kendall]

Just a quick note to anyone who wishes to learn more about how addictions work, this is a great book..



It gives you all the myths of addictions, 3 different stories which give you a better understanding of how to get rid of an addiction, explains how sometimes you are addcited by the mind and sometimes it's a physical addiction... This page describes the book well

Anyway, from my search on a Chapters website on addictions I got that people are not weak for not being able to quit, it's not a weakness it's a willingness to stick with it, if you don't have that willingness to stick with it then you don't really want to quit deep down. You have to really want to quit in order to actually quit for good.
You might find something here...tobacco addiction

a quote from this page...\

" Only 3% of smokers quit smoking for good, much lower that alcohol addiction, about the same as heroin."

May find something here as well to explain why it is so hard to quit and why only 3% of people are able to quit for good.

[url=http://www.tobacco-facts.info/tobacco_withdrawal.htm[/url]

I don't mean to start a fight here, all I'm doing is trying to help people understand that quitting smoking is genuinely hard to do. I don't think it means you're weak if you can't I think it just means that you don't really want to yet.

[Mrs Kendall]

oops can someone fix my link there?

[NapoleonGH]

Now mike, I know that this isnt a logical argument, and therefore isnt really valid, but honestly, one must have been addicted to something before understanding addiction enough to really be able to comment on it righteously. this is in response to the "dont quit because they are weak"

Nonsense. If a significant portion of the population can break it, and others can't, then those who can't are weaker than those who can. What part of this do you not understand? Were the people who succeeded not really addicted in the first place? Or are you just wasting my bandwidth with pure unadulterated bullshit?

If you completely ignore the part of addiction where some people are more addicted than others, suffer greater withdrawal, etc. then your point might be correct. Of course addiction doesnt effect everyone the same way, withdrawal is worse for some than others, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Now mike, I know that this isnt a logical argument, and therefore isnt really valid, but honestly, one must have been addicted to something before understanding addiction enough to really be able to comment on it righteously. this is in response to the "dont quit because they are weak"

Nonsense. If a significant portion of the population can break it, and others can't, then those who can't are weaker than those who can. What part of this do you not understand? Were the people who succeeded not really addicted in the first place? Or are you just wasting my bandwidth with pure unadulterated bullshit?

If you completely ignore the part of addiction where some people are more addicted than others, suffer greater withdrawal, etc. then your point might be correct. Of course addiction doesnt effect everyone the same way, withdrawal is worse for some than others, etc.

Provide your medical evidence that some people are genetically more addicted by the same substance.

[Lancer]

napoleon, what do you think niccotine gum and patches are for? Advertising has made it pretty much impossible not to know that there are products and resources out there to help people quit smoking. If they're having trouble quitting cold-turkey, they have other options available.

[Darth Wong]

I would also be interested to know why he thinks weakness isn't weakness if some people have more of it.

[mr friendly guy]

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.,

To clarify that point, there are several different types of lung cancer based on histology. One of them, adenocarcinoma is the type of lung cancer non-smokers get, however to complicate matters it is known that smoking can also cause adenocarcinoma as well.

Even if Jennings had this type of lung cancer its hard to use the argument "that he would have developed it anyway" since smoking still increases the chances of developing adenocarcinoma.

[PainRack]

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.

Maybe he means throat cancer. Chewing tobacco and nicotine is linked to that.

[Glocksman]

The odds of successfully giving up cigarettes is tied to the motivation that you have for doing so.

I used to be a pack a day smoker from age 20 until I was 34.
I didn't want to quit and ignored the pleas from my family to do so until my mother made me promise to quit as she lay dying from pancreatic cancer.
I promised to do so, but I continued to smoke until 3 months after her funeral and decided that if I was to ever look at myself in the mirror again, it was time to keep my word.

My last pack of Camels was smoked on June 1, 2000.
I'm not going to lie and say it was easy, because it wasn't, but I persevered and now the only time I even remotely want a smoke is if I'm in the car on a long road trip.

Without my mother making me promise that to her, I would still be smoking today.

Maybe he means throat cancer. Chewing tobacco and nicotine is linked to that.

IIRC, nicotine itself isn't a carcinogen, but tobacco contains a lot of other compounds that don't have to be burned in order to be carcinogenic.

[Mrs Kendall]

Provide your medical evidence that some people are genetically more addicted by the same substance.

Actually, at the risk of stepping in and getting involved in this fight, if you read that book on addictions, Mike you will find that there are multiple times where it's mentioned. I had this book sent to me by my sister who was trying to help my husband get over his addiction to alcohol. So I've read through it and I do know that the book says it, I doubt you'll buy the book just to see, but maybe you would have a use for it because everyone is addicted to something, be it food, the internet, computer games, tv, smoking. etc..

A person can get addicted to anything. And addictions also slide from one thing to another, while my husband quit drinking and has been sober since January he is now addicted to the internet because he didn't really take care of the core issue because he couldn't read through the book there was a lack of interest in the book for him. It's too bad really because until he does read it and until he sees that this it's just going to keep happening with different things then he'll stay addicted to one thing or another his whole life. Not to be rude but there is your evidence right there.

[Mrs Kendall]

Actually, I just had a thought. You could go to your local library and the book should be there. In fact you could always go to Chapters if your library doesn't have the book and spend a bit of time reading there, they allow you to read the books before you buy them there (in case you didn't know that which I doubt you didn't), if you do do that then the parts you should read are..

"Chapter 6, Hooked by the Mind: Physical and Phycological Addiction"
"Chapter 8, Myths of Addiction"
"Chapter 11, Efforts to Understand"
"Chapter 18, Treatment" The part you really want to read in chapter 18 is the part which is called "Success and Failure"

But I do recommend that anyone who is interested to get the book, it really puts things into perspective, and I do not regret reading it at all. Definatly worth the money for anyone.

The book talks about only a limited amount of addictions but when reading it you can see that you can think of other addictions as well, like they don't mention cigarrettes because the book is focused on alcoholism and the more addictive and dangerous drugs like Heroin and Ecstacy. It also focuses on addictions to exercise, food, computers, and sex. But you can make it work for any addiction.

I hope this helps you and everyone else to understand why some people succeed and why some people fail. It's not always a weakness, it's how much you wish to succeed, like what Glocksman described in his post.

[NPComplete]

Provide your medical evidence that some people are genetically more addicted by the same substance.

from here:

+http://corp.aadac.com/services/developm ... issue8.asp

"We know that there is genetic vulnerability to alcohol addiction."

and

"To date, Dr. Gordis reported, genetic research has discovered that chromosomes 1, 4, 7 and 11 are implicated in vulnerability to alcohol addiction (the exact genes on those chromosomes remain to be identified—see article on research). Early research results suggest that tolerance and withdrawal are separate biological mechanisms, likely with different genetic indicators."

There is also some stuff there on racial differences in tolerance to alcohol (specifically Chinese/Japanese/Korean lacking an enzyme which aids in alcohol elimination). There are other articles around which tie this in to the higher incidences of alcoholism in Native Americans (land-bridge to Asia and all).

I'm not a biologist or geneticist.

[NPComplete]

(specifically Chinese/Japanese/Korean lacking an enzyme which aids in alcohol elimination).

Should read 'more often' lacking..... I think that a good proportion of all races do or do not have this enzyme.

Also here:

http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

"The quest for genes that influence alcohol abuse follows two paths. One goal is to locate genes that predispose a person to alcoholism. The other is to identify genes that help to prevent this from happening. Li and his coworkers have made important advances in this latter category. "We have identified two genes that protect against heavy drinking, and these are particularly prevalent among Asians," Li says. "We have shown that Native Americans, who have a high rate of alcoholism, do not have these protective genes. The one that is particularly effective is a mutation of the gene for the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase, which plays a major role in metabolizing alcohol. The mutation is found very frequently in Chinese and Japanese populations but is less common among other Asian groups, including Koreans, the Malayo-Polynesian group, and others native to the Pacific Rim. "We've also looked at Euro-Americans, Native Americans, and Eskimos, and they don't have that gene mutation," says Li. Thus, incidentally, the study of genetic mutations and alcoholism links native North-American populations to central Asian ancestors, not to those from China and Japan."

[NPComplete]

On re-reading my material, it appears that the Chinese/Japanese have the non-drinking gene more, but Native American's have it less, so it looks like my reference to migration across the land bridge was a red herring.

However, there appears to be strong evidence for genetic vulnerability to addiction.

[Darth Wong]

Provide your medical evidence that some people are genetically more addicted by the same substance.

from here:

+http://corp.aadac.com/services/developm ... issue8.asp

"We know that there is genetic vulnerability to alcohol addiction."

Obviously, I should have worded my retort more carefully so that people couldn't play bullshit games with it. Two points:

1) The "substance" in question is obviously tobacco (look at the thread title), not tobacco.

2) How does this disprove that it's a weakness? If someone is scrawny by genetics (yes, genes do dictate that some people are scrawnier by nature), does that mean I'm not allowed to say that I'm stronger than him by virtue of having a genetic predisposition to bigger, stronger muscles?