Two new youth smoking studies

[PeZook]

These days, I see a lot of people going oout for smoke breaks every 10 minutes, the fact that it's where the cuter girls tend to hang out asking for a "fag" also doesn't help break their addiction )

Heh...there's a funny story here.

There was this cute girl in high school I had a crush on, and I wanted to ask her out. She was really cute.

I almost managed to work up the courage to do so (in typical angsty teenager fashion...) - that lasted untill she came back from recess reeking of cigarette smoke. Crush over in two seconds

Of course, this isn't a problem to smokers at all as I imagine.

It's apparantly THAT strong to some people.

It's most prevalent for women who don't smoke ; They have a keen sense of smell compared to guys. My mom can literally smell which one of our employees has managed to sneak a smoking break when he wasn't supposed to, as long as he's in the same room as she

[FSTargetDrone]

That said, cigarette smoke doesn't really smell that bad to me. I don't know what this 'stink' is everyone's complaining about. It's not wonderful, but it is vaguely pleasant.

It depends a lot on whether or not you smell it often ; Since nobody in my family smokes, when I come near a smoker or to a smoke-filled pub, I can smell cigarettes on me for hours, and for me the smell is simply rancid. My brother and me actually used to find excuses to stay in the single smoke-free room in my grandfather's apartment during family visits, since it was literally the only place where we could breathe freely.

I've never smelled a good-smelling cigarette.

I remember ages ago when my dad would occasionally take me to see a baseball game in Philadelphia (when I but a lad). At the time, smoking was allowed in the (outdoor) stadium and at times you could see great clouds of smoke from cigarettes and cigars. Every time I smell cigar smoke now I think of the times in the stadium.

Now, of course, smoking is banned in the new stadium, which is wonderful. It doesn't take very many people lighting up for the nauseating smell to spread.

[VF5SS]

Nice, eh? Stupid teenagers and evil tobacco company executives, just like the stereotype. No doubt the makers of South Park will explain that I'm just a left-wing big-city liberal elitist who's full of shit, and these researchers are stupid.

It's surprising just how accurate the stereotypes can be. When the sales reps come to the store I work at they all have a smug grin on their faces as they prep some new promotions. They're always happy to introduce a new product.

[Covenant]

I can smell the stuff extremely easily when it's on someone, and I absolutely detest the smell. It's not even remotely in the same realm as pleasent. This is actually one of it's more helpful qualities, in that it allows you to have a built-in negative reaction to it from a lot of people, along with the 'ashtray mouth' thing, which is at least a somewhat counterbalancing social pressure.

I just wish kids didn't think it was a 'rebellious' thing to do, and would therefore nix the coolness value that some people assign it. Rebelling against your own lungs doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

[FSTargetDrone]

I just wish kids didn't think it was a 'rebellious' thing to do, and would therefore nix the coolness value that some people assign it. Rebelling against your own lungs doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Eh, kids are stupid. I think they may "know" it 's harmful, but there is little thought of future health concerns.

[ArmorPierce]

Where are you from? Around here it is considered disgusting by most, even those who do it.

I don't think it's a "where" that matters here. It's far more common for lower class people to smoke than middle and upper class people. Their kids are also far more likely to smoke, as well as start smoking at an early age. It might be uncool among more well-off kids to smoke (except for the rebellious rich angsty assholes maybe) but the poor kids are still filching cigarettes from their parents before they hit their teen years. If the majority of people are lower class, they define what's cool, and if that means smoking and popping out kids starting at age 13, well there you go.

Yeah, among all the other things (though this wasn't as big an issue as all the rest of it) I was also considered one of those citified pansies who wouldn't smoke or dip or use any kind of tobacco. Rural areas have higher percentages of lower class people and also are slower on the social change uptake.

I've lived in some of the most burnt out ghetto cores. In my experience it was the rich kids that smoked more and it was very prevelant. I suppose that urban poor is different from the rural poor crowd however.

[Darth Wong]

I've lived in some of the most burnt out ghetto cores. In my experience it was the rich kids that smoked more and it was very prevelant. I suppose that urban poor is different from the rural poor crowd however.

This makes no sense. Why would you be seeing rich kids if you lived in a burnt out urban ghetto?

[Buddha]

I've lived in some of the most burnt out ghetto cores. In my experience it was the rich kids that smoked more and it was very prevelant. I suppose that urban poor is different from the rural poor crowd however.

This makes no sense. Why would you be seeing rich kids if you lived in a burnt out urban ghetto?

I think he means that he has seen both the rich kids (who he says smoke) and the poorer ones (who do not smoke more than the well to do). That's just what I thought he meant when I read his post.

Smoking is one of those touchy subjects for me as I have a love-hate relationship to the habit. I have to smell it sometimes when I am out doing stuff, like going to the store and "in public". At times it can be really stinky and at times it can smell kind of nice. I think that it has to do with what kind of cigarette is being smoked (as in brand and such) which is vastly different. I know this doesn't go with the stereotype that my name implys, but I don't care anyway.

[ArmorPierce]

I've lived in some of the most burnt out ghetto cores. In my experience it was the rich kids that smoked more and it was very prevelant. I suppose that urban poor is different from the rural poor crowd however.

This makes no sense. Why would you be seeing rich kids if you lived in a burnt out urban ghetto?

I've lived doesn't mean that I live there now. I actually lived on the outskirts anyway on the border of the ghettos and a couple blocks down was a rich jewish neighborhood. If you read my location under my avatar it states that I used to live in Brooklyn and am currently residing Jersey in a suburban town. Furthermore I attend a pretty diverse university. It doesn't take that much to figure it out, it's not like people from the ghettos are all ignorant of the outside world like many people that lives in the burbs believe to be true and you seem to have fallen into the same trap.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, well, I think I'll take formal research on this matter more seriously than your "I lived in a ghetto so I know what I'm talking about, bitches" argument. Poor people smoke more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/0 ... lexclusion

[ArmorPierce]

Matter of fact I'd go as far to say that kids from the suburbs according to my experience tend to be very ignorant of the outside world not realizing that things could be done different than it is done in their town and not realize the ease and comfort and advantages they have in the life.

[ArmorPierce]

Yeah, well, I think I'll take formal research on this matter more seriously than your "I lived in a ghetto so I know what I'm talking about, bitches" argument. Poor people smoke more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/0 ... lexclusion

That states that the poor tend to smoke more but doesn't state whether it was from urban areas or rural areas. Here http://www.centerforschoolchange.org/20 ... burbs.html states that drug use is roughly equal with the suburbs actually having slightly more use. I will attempt to find more information.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, well, I think I'll take formal research on this matter more seriously than your "I lived in a ghetto so I know what I'm talking about, bitches" argument. Poor people smoke more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/0 ... lexclusion

That states that the poor tend to smoke more but doesn't state whether it was from urban areas or rural areas. Here http://www.centerforschoolchange.org/20 ... burbs.html states that drug use is roughly equal with the suburbs actually having slightly more use. I will attempt to find more information.

How the fuck does that refute a threefold difference in smoking rates between underprivileged areas and well-to-do areas?

[ArmorPierce]

http://homepage.mac.com/georgia.nesmith ... index.html
http://www.standupsafe.org/kids-drinkin ... burbs.html

The parents who send their teenagers off to those freshly-painted, wholesome-looking suburban public schools every morning would probably be shocked if they realized those schools are virtually indistinguishable from urban schools on most measurements of sex, drugs, violence, and delinquency. There may have been a time when suburban schools really were a safe haven from the rise of these so-called "urban" problems. But if there ever was such a time, it's gone.

The study found:

* 74% of suburban 12th graders and 71% of urban 12th graders have tried alcohol more than two or three times; 63% of suburban 12th graders and 57% of urban 12th graders drink without family members present; and 22% of suburban 12th graders and 16% of urban 12th graders have driven while drunk.
* About 40% of 12th graders in both urban and suburban schools have used illegal drugs; 20% of suburban 12th graders and 13% of urban 12th graders have driven while high on drugs.
* More than 60% of suburban 12th graders have tried cigarette smoking, compared to 54% of urban 12th graders.

[Darth Wong]

Is there some particular reason that "urban vs suburban" refutes "rich vs poor"? Or are you assuming that every suburb in the country is wealthy, and every urban area in the country is poor?

[ArmorPierce]

Well if I am wrong you can correct me but the study seems to back up my statement especially the last one that I posted which states specifically that more suburban high schooler uses drugs including cigarettes compared to urban high schoolers and the margin of difference is enough to take into account margin of error I believe.

You can consolidate this with my last post, there is no edit option and I cannot.

[Darth Wong]

Well if I am wrong you can correct me but the study seems to back up my statement especially the last one that I posted which states specifically that more suburban high schooler uses drugs including cigarettes compared to urban high schoolers and the margin of difference is enough to take into account margin of error I believe.

You can consolidate this with my last post, there is no edit option and I cannot.

OK, let me spell this out to you very slowly, moron: your argument relies upon the assumption that every suburb is wealthy, and every urban area is poor. Therefore, it does not refute the link between poverty and smoking. No matter how many times you do a word substitution of "suburban vs urban" for "rich vs poor", it doesn't become true.

[ArmorPierce]

Is there some particular reason that "urban vs suburban" refutes "rich vs poor"? Or are you assuming that every suburb in the country is wealthy, and every urban area in the country is poor?

Well i was commenting on urban areas vs suburban areas and did not that it may be different with urban poor vs rural poor since I never lived in a rural area.

I've lived in some of the most burnt out ghetto cores. In my experience it was the rich kids that smoked more and it was very prevelant. I suppose that urban poor is different from the rural poor crowd however.

Perhaps you are correct that it doesn't take into account poor suburbs regardless it shows little or no difference in the two and I think many people overestimate how bad it is in the ghettos compared to suburbs in terms of drugs and such.

[Darth Wong]

You are still equating "urban" to "ghettos".

[ArmorPierce]

You are still equating "urban" to "ghettos".

You are correct I am and shouldn't be. I don't know of any study in particular that concentrates on just the poorer urban areas vs well off suburbs.

However, the majority of children living in urban areas live in low-income families while most children that live in suburban families live in non-low income families. It is separated by a significant margin of 51% to 29% http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/cye/factsh ... overty.pdf . All things remaining average, this would mean that more well off kids from the suburbs are about as likely or slightly more likely to do drugs including cigarettes than kids from low-income families in urban areas.

[Darth Wong]

Did you actually bother reading the link I posted before? It indicated that the correlation between smoking and poverty could be narrowed down to even small pockets of poverty in better-off areas. In short, even within a suburb, the poorer people are the ones who smoke. Your attempt to turn this into "urban vs suburban" is still a red-herring; it does not refute the earlier cited study.

If you go into an area of primarily poor people, there is a shitload of smoking, particularly if they are welfare-dependent. Just look at smoking and drug use rates in, say, native reservations, which are entirely welfare-dependent.

[Uraniun235]

It seems weird to me that kids with smoking parents would be more likely to smoke. My parents smoked and it spurred a deep loathing of tobacco; I remember the living room being so thick and hazy with smoke that I retreated to my bedroom to play, and I remember car rides in the winter with windows rolled up with both of them smoking and every breath being uncomfortable. Most striking of all, I remember my mother asking me if I smoked. I said that I wasn't, and she said she asked because one of my teachers told her at a conference that I smelled strongly of cigarette smoke. I was enormously grateful when my mother stopped smoking after the divorce.


But that's just my perspective. Maybe other smoking parents aren't quite as severe with their habits.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe welfare payments (or some percentage of them) should be conditional upon non-smoking.

After all, paying someone a stipend to eat if they can't afford food, is a reasonable responsibility. Paying someone to buy tobacco, or giving them food money that then frees up some of their personal $$ to buy tobacco makes no sense, considering that you're basically enabling them to elevate their risk of becoming an even more expensive drain on the public-welfare system.

[Kanastrous]

ghetto edit - I realize this won't help all poor smokers quit, but helping the poor smokers who are on welfare is at least a worthwhile start.

[Mayabird]

ghetto edit - I realize this won't help all poor smokers quit, but helping the poor smokers who are on welfare is at least a worthwhile start.

Actually, that IS part of the problem. While more well-off people might start smoking at some point, they're also far more likely to quit because they have access to programs and medications to help them quit (and also probably have a social structure less conducive to smoking; a whole bunch of your friends puffing away with you aren't exactly good conditions for quitting). I was trying to find some numbers on it but my Google-fu is weak today.

Anyway, statistics from the American Heart Association:

Cigarette Smoking Statistics

In the United States, an estimated 25.9 million men (23.9 percent) and 20.7 million women (18.1 percent) are smokers. These people are at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. The latest estimates for persons age 18 and older show...*

* Among non-Hispanic whites, 24.0 percent of men and 20.0 percent of women smoke (2004).
* Among non-Hispanic blacks, 26.7 percent of men and 17.3 percent of women smoke.
* Among Hispanics, 21.1 percent of men and 11.1 percent of women smoke.
* Among Asians (only), 20.6 percent of men and 6.1 percent of women smoke.
* Among American Indians/Alaska Natives, 37.5 percent of men and 26.8 percent of women smoke.
* Studies show that smoking prevalence is higher among those who had earned a GED diploma (43.2 percent) and among those with 9–11 years of education (32.6 percent) compared with those with more than 16 years of education (7.1 percent). It's highest among persons living below the poverty level (29.9 percent).

* National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 2005, National Center for Health Statistics