Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: roseman on 21/10/2005 18:19:18
-
Smoking has been linked directly to sexual dysfunction in men, and it's believed to have a similar effect in women. One noted urologist, speaking on the news program 60 Minutes, said when he sees a man smoking, he wonders when -- not if -- he will experience erectile dysfunction.
A smoker’s risk of heart attack is more than twice that of nonsmokers. Cigarette smoking is the biggest risk factor for sudden cardiac death -- smokers are looking at two to four times the risk of nonsmokers. Studies have shown that cigarette smoking is also an important risk factor for stroke. The evidence also indicates that chronic exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (secondhand smoke, passive smoking) may increase the risk of heart disease.
Although it’s quite expensive compare to other products, but the 100% assurance of quitting smoking for just a week is in here!
NO NICOTINE FITS!!! NO willpower, and it helped you quit! You take 1 pill twice a day for 2 weeks, then quit smoking, cold turkey. Just like that! You continue the NOSMOQ for only a week or more, and if you do so, you will have no withdrawals or weird side-effects from quitting the NOSMOQ, either! I have been a non-smoker now since March 28, 2000... for just 7 days NOSMOQ is an antidepressant, for those who don't know, about it if you are a smoker who wants to quit. It's gaining popularity for quitting smoking, and for one very good reason: IT WORKS!
Quit smoking Now! For better Life,,!!!
if you can try you can imagine your life bring back the same on the days that you did not smoke that as healthy as you are.. Think about your health, your future! Try and see the difference of NosmoQ!
Click this below for the free bonus gifts:
You or your friends who smoke, pls spread this news as a help for our fellows…This is not just an advertising but it’s more on helping the smokers to quit before it’s too late!
For information and order:
Click:
***Mod edit***
I've taken out the link (as you may have noticed..)
I don't believe the assertion that this is anything other than a sales pitch. If Roseman were a regular contributor to the site I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt and let it stand, but as a one-post-wonder I'm assuming it's a straight sales pitch.
Rosy
*******
THANK YOU!
-
I don't know what all the fuss is about, giving up smoking is easy - I've done it fifteen times and that's just today![:D]
-
God, but I'm fed up with all the "one-post-wonders" who join the forum just to post a link to some naff money-making scheme.
Anyway, the best smoking cure I've ever heard of is one from the Top Tips section in Viz comic:
"Give up smoking by sticking one cigarette from each new pack up a friend's ar*e, filter first, then replacing it in the box. The possibility of putting that one in your mouth will put you off smoking any of them."
"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
-
"Smoking for Hours Helps you Push Up The Flowers"
"Its not just the cigarettes butt thats on the line here!" :)ash
"Don't get sucked into a cigarette"
First Quote Bob Nicholes, a brilliant Blackcountry Artist.
Last two quotes I just made up while rolling a ciggy
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
the greatest no-smoking incentive of my life was to witness my aunt battle through cancer, a battle which she has just lost.
I can't remember anyone saying their first cigarette was the most enjoyable thing they've ever done in their lives, so whats the point. to work at becoming addicted to something that you know will kill you, incidentally in probably the most painful and drawn out way imaginable, seems so unbelieveably dumb i can't believe smokers have managed to get this far through natural selection.
-
quote:
Originally posted by fishytails
the greatest no-smoking incentive of my life was to witness my aunt battle through cancer, a battle which she has just lost.
I can't remember anyone saying their first cigarette was the most enjoyable thing they've ever done in their lives, so whats the point. to work at becoming addicted to something that you know will kill you, incidentally in probably the most painful and drawn out way imaginable, seems so unbelieveably dumb i can't believe smokers have managed to get this far through natural selection.
Firstly, my position is that I am not a smoker, have never been tempted to smoke, and none of my immediate family have been regular smokers (most have not smoked at all).
But as for how nasty dying from lung cancer may be – what are the nice ways of dying, and how (short of arranging your own death) do you guarantee that your death will be relatively pleasant (and, no I am not trying to belittle the tragedy of your aunt's death, but simply to say that most other causes of death will most likely have been equally as unpleasant).
Secondly, the reason most people start smoking is not for the pleasure of it, but for social acceptance. The reason I have never smoked is because I was always too much of a self centred maverick ever to worry about peer pressure and social acceptance.
I really cannot see any way that I can justify demanding other people stop smoking – their life, and their death, is their won, not mine. What I do feel justified in asking is that they don't afflict me with their smoke, not because my life will be so much longer if I don't breathe their smoke, but at least my particular risks are the one's I choose, and not the one's they inflict upon me.
I don't think the natural selection argument works at all. Most smoking related diseases will kill you long after your prime reproductive years are finished, and so will not affect your reproductive success. On the other hand, since smoking is a social phenomenon, it is likely that smokers will have more reproductive success that social mavericks like myself.
-
quote:
Originally posted by fishytails
whats the point. to work at becoming addicted to something that you know will kill you, incidentally in probably the most painful and drawn out way imaginable, seems so unbelieveably dumb.
I must admit it does sound a bit odd when you put it like that. I think the explanation is that most people start smoking when they are young, subject to peer pressure and not really believing in consequences. And once you have started they are highly addictive and quite pleasant.
-
The Best Way To Stop Smoking
I know of different people experiencing success and failure using all kinds of products and services. Some can give up smoking 60 or more a day without any help whatsoever and some people who've been smoking 20 a day or fewer use websites like www.saynotoitnow.co.uk to find the products and services to help them stop.
It's down to the individual - everyone's different.
I think it's best to just stop, rather than use any 'easy' method. If you want to stop, you will :-)
-
I post this already but you may not have seen it
you might like to read this
help on quitting smoking (http://activity4life.com/forum/index.php?topic=304.msg3917#msg3917)
Top 10 Reasons to Quit Smoking (http://activity4life.com/forum/index.php?topic=274.msg3640#msg3640)
-
actually my first cigarette was really quite wonderful. yes, i inhaled, and i expected to cough and gag and choke but i didn't. i felt pleasantly light headed and wanted another one. everyone who smokes knows that it does horrible things. why every single nonsmoker insists on saying how bad it is is beyond me. i have smoked for 5 years. i refuse to smoke around non smokers. especially children. i think everyone has a right to do what they choose to do. we all know it could kill us.
-
smokers really don't need to be told we shouldn't have ever had a chance to live just because we smoke.
-
perhaps i reacted a bit emotionally. it just seems unfair to say that... i'm sorry though for not thinking before i responded. i'm sure you didn't mean that the way i took it.
-
perhaps i reacted a bit emotionally. it just seems unfair to say that... I'm sorry though for not thinking before i responded. i'm sure you didn't mean that the way i took it.
Are you talking to me?
Its just that facts around smoking are shocking and sad....... i am old enough to have lost a number of friends to this drug. If it was a new product it would never be allowed on the market. I accept that you have the right to smoke and if chose to do so then you will. On the other hand if you are ready to chose to stop these facts will help you gather your resolve to do so. I won't ever apology for wanting people to stop hurting themselves because I care them and sometime to be caring you have to hard.
-
actually my first cigarette was really quite wonderful. yes, i inhaled, and i expected to cough and gag and choke but i didn't. i felt pleasantly light headed and wanted another one. everyone who smokes knows that it does horrible things. why every single nonsmoker insists on saying how bad it is is beyond me. i have smoked for 5 years. i refuse to smoke around non smokers. especially children. i think everyone has a right to do what they choose to do. we all know it could kill us.
As a non-smoker, I agree with this wholeheartedly.
I refuse to allow a smoker to light up in my presence, but what they do in private is none of my business. The argument that smoking kills you is only realistic if the alternative was immortality (and I do more than enough things that are capable of killing me some time or another).
Smokers deserve to know the truth about their habit, but if the know it, and accept it, and so long as they ensure it harms nobody but themselves, then it is an informed judgement they, as an autonomous human being, have a right to make for themselves. I will support, and be pleased for them, if they choose to give up smoking (party simply from a selfish perspective - if I enjoy the company of a smoker, and I cannot be in their presence when they are smoking, then I am deprived of the enjoyment of their company during that time); but I will not condemn them for smoking in their own private space.
-
Has anyone thought about the land used to grow tobacco that could be used for food instead?
-
actually my first cigarette was really quite wonderful. yes, i inhaled, and i expected to cough and gag and choke but i didn't. i felt pleasantly light headed and wanted another one. everyone who smokes knows that it does horrible things. why every single nonsmoker insists on saying how bad it is is beyond me. i have smoked for 5 years. i refuse to smoke around non smokers. especially children. i think everyone has a right to do what they choose to do. we all know it could kill us.
As a non-smoker, I agree with this wholeheartedly.
I refuse to allow a smoker to light up in my presence, but what they do in private is none of my business. The argument that smoking kills you is only realistic if the alternative was immortality (and I do more than enough things that are capable of killing me some time or another).
Smokers deserve to know the truth about their habit, but if the know it, and accept it, and so long as they ensure it harms nobody but themselves, then it is an informed judgement they, as an autonomous human being, have a right to make for themselves. I will support, and be pleased for them, if they choose to give up smoking (party simply from a selfish perspective - if I enjoy the company of a smoker, and I cannot be in their presence when they are smoking, then I am deprived of the enjoyment of their company during that time); but I will not condemn them for smoking in their own private space.
i agree with you George on this.
one extra point: in my country and i know in yours we have a state funded health system the you and i are paying for it in our taxs. Should we pay to to provide health care for thouse who smoke when the money could be spent on other parts of the health system. (i am referring to smoking related illnesses)?
-
i agree with you George on this.
one extra point: in my country and i know in yours we have a state funded health system the you and i are paying for it in our taxs. Should we pay to to provide health care for thouse who smoke when the money could be spent on other parts of the health system. (i am referring to smoking related illnesses)?
We also have a State funded pensions system (albeit, the pension payments are scarcely adequate on a personal level, but they nonetheless cost a significant amount in terms of State spending). I would have thought that the savings in pensions payments would have more than offset any increase in health service costs.
In any case, I have yet to be convinced that smokers do add anything at all to the health service budget. The fact is that we will all become ill (excepting those of us who succumb to sudden death - which is irrespective of whether we smoke or not), and shall all die. Smokers may become ill and die sooner than non-smokers, but the inevitability of it happening is exactly the same for both groups, it is merely the timing of it that is different.
And, don't forget the massive amount of contributions that smokers contribute to taxation revenue through the enormous taxes placed on tobacco products.
Overall, I would say that in all probability the State gains far more from smokers than it loses.
-
i agree with you George on this.
one extra point: in my country and i know in yours we have a state funded health system the you and i are paying for it in our taxs. Should we pay to to provide health care for thouse who smoke when the money could be spent on other parts of the health system. (i am referring to smoking related illnesses)?
We also have a State funded pensions system (albeit, the pension payments are scarcely adequate on a personal level, but they nonetheless cost a significant amount in terms of State spending). I would have thought that the savings in pensions payments would have more than offset any increase in health service costs.
In any case, I have yet to be convinced that smokers do add anything at all to the health service budget. The fact is that we will all become ill (excepting those of us who succumb to sudden death - which is irrespective of whether we smoke or not), and shall all die. Smokers may become ill and die sooner than non-smokers, but the inevitability of it happening is exactly the same for both groups, it is merely the timing of it that is different.
And, don't forget the massive amount of contributions that smokers contribute to taxation revenue through the enormous taxes placed on tobacco products.
Overall, I would say that in all probability the State gains far more from smokers than it loses.
Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm?
-
Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm?
-
Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm?
In strictly financial terms, yes. The political interest might be otherwise.
-
Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm?
In strictly financial terms, yes. The political interest might be otherwise.
it's a crazy world .................
-
Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm?
In strictly financial terms, yes. The political interest might be otherwise.
i feed myself agreeing with George far too often these days [;)] , and this is no exception. For all the Government adverts and warnings, i doubt that they actually want all smokers to stop. i remember the other week buying two packs of ten, one carried the warning "smoking may affect your health" the other "smoking kills". tongue in cheek i asked the assistant to take away the one that said "smoking kills" and give me another pack of "may affect your health.
i heard o the radio the other day that they may force the cigarette companies to stop selling packs of ten! This is so ludicrous, i now only buy packs of ten. this has helped me cut down my smoking, the reason for yesterdays relapse was because the shop only had packs of twenty left. now i knew that i should separate them and put ten away but the fact that i had twenty on me, well............i just had to smoke them.
i know that sounds strange, and you may say i did not have to. but, my brain and all logic went out the window. i had twenty and by Christ i was going to smoke then, the temptation was just too much.
i would say, stopping selling packs of twenty, or more was the better option.
-
they sell packs of ten there? what a fantastic idea. why don't they do that here?
-
I heard that cigs contain trace, very trace, amounts of chemicals were present in the atom bomb.
-
I heard that cigs contain trace, very trace, amounts of chemicals were present in the atom bomb.
So does sea water. Not sure what significance you place upon that?
-
Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm?
In strictly financial terms, yes. The political interest might be otherwise.
i feed myself agreeing with George far too often these days [;)] , and this is no exception. For all the Government adverts and warnings, i doubt that they actually want all smokers to stop. i remember the other week buying two packs of ten, one carried the warning "smoking may affect your health" the other "smoking kills". tongue in cheek i asked the assistant to take away the one that said "smoking kills" and give me another pack of "may affect your health.
i heard o the radio the other day that they may force the cigarette companies to stop selling packs of ten! This is so ludicrous, i now only buy packs of ten. this has helped me cut down my smoking, the reason for yesterdays relapse was because the shop only had packs of twenty left. now i knew that i should separate them and put ten away but the fact that i had twenty on me, well............i just had to smoke them.
i know that sounds strange, and you may say i did not have to. but, my brain and all logic went out the window. i had twenty and by Christ i was going to smoke then, the temptation was just too much.
i would say, stopping selling packs of twenty, or more was the better option.
If you are prepared to accept the government is happy to kill off a percentage of its citizens for money then why would you trust them on anything?
-
If you are prepared to accept the government is happy to kill off a percentage of its citizens for money then why would you trust them on anything?
And who says we do trust them on anything?
-
If you are prepared to accept the government is happy to kill off a percentage of its citizens for money then why would you trust them on anything?
And who says we do trust them on anything?
i did say why would you, did i not, not that you did.
-
well the point is :::::::: stop smoking ;)
-
I think "kill off a percentage of its citizens" is actually only one way of phrasing that, and possibly rather a naive one.
I mean, I think it's arguable that allowing smokers to continue smoking at the expense of their health/longevity but at considerable gain to the tax payer is (depending how you look at it) in some was pretty closely analogous to not spending a huge percentage of the NHS budget on some hugely expensive wonder drug that will cure some nasty disease or other.
Either way, the people involved are likely to die rather earlier but there will be a lot more money swishing around the health service to save the lives of other members of the public (say by paying for childhood vaccinations or similar).
In some ways it's fairer to let the people who want to choose to exchange a short term buzz in whatever the weather throws at them for a (statistically) shortened life do so if it's going to line the public purse and they don't inflict the vile smell on the rest of us, than to refuse treatment of an expensively cureable disease on budgetary grounds.
I offer no comment on the moral ins and outs of the above.
-
I think "kill off a percentage of its citizens" is actually only one way of phrasing that, and possibly rather a naive one.
I mean, I think it's arguable that allowing smokers to continue smoking at the expense of their health/longevity but at considerable gain to the tax payer is (depending how you look at it) in some was pretty closely analogous to not spending a huge percentage of the NHS budget on some hugely expensive wonder drug that will cure some nasty disease or other.
Either way, the people involved are likely to die rather earlier but there will be a lot more money swishing around the health service to save the lives of other members of the public (say by paying for childhood vaccinations or similar).
In some ways it's fairer to let the people who want to choose to exchange a short term buzz in whatever the weather throws at them for a (statistically) shortened life do so if it's going to line the public purse and they don't inflict the vile smell on the rest of us, than to refuse treatment of an expensively cureable disease on budgetary grounds.
I offer no comment on the moral ins and outs of the above.
Actually, I do not disagree with any of the above; the only dubious bit about it is the holier than thou preaching from the politicians.
If the politicians just came out and said that they have no problems with people who undertake risk taking behaviours (it is after all their own life) so long as they can balance the books, and it does not impinge on the rights of third parties, then I would be happy.
-
I heard that cigs contain trace, very trace, amounts of chemicals were present in the atom bomb.
So does sea water. Not sure what significance you place upon that?
Hm, didn't know that.
Oh well, it's good to learn something new everyday.
-
Bored Chemist as far as the comment about the land used for tobacco farming which could be used for food instead...I don't think people are starving to death as a result of a lack of available food...but a lack of available funds to purchase the food, which has nothing to do with acreage of farming land. I know at least in the United States the grocery store shelves always seem reasonably well stocked (depending on where you shop) with food (and cigarettes)...yet people still die of starvation. Regardless of what scientific studies suggest about the ill effects of smoking...I know many smokers who have lived long lives, yet not one person who has been a non-eater and lived very long at all. Perhaps therein lies the real tragedy.
-
I have been quiting for 3 weeks by reading and following the instructions from this quit smoking ebook such as understand addiction,creating supporter and success strategies. http://www.stop-and-quit-smoking.com
-
I have three people I have known for along time who all quit the same time two months ago and are doing well! all three!
-
I quit smoking in August 2005, and haven't felt the need for one since. I was never a heavy smoker - I only smoked in the evening up to perhaps 10 if I was out at a bar, but usually 3 or 4. There were several reasons for my giving up..A girl I knew contracted cancer in her throat due to smoking. A friend of mine's brother contracted lung cancer due to smoking. My brother in laws best friend contracted lung cancer due to smoking. One, thankfully, recovered (37), one is now dead (50) one is terminal (47). I have 2 young boys - I still want to be able to run around with them when they are wanting to play football, and not be some wheezy old Dad. I want to be here when they ARE wanting to play football.
I gave myself a scare in that August - I woke up after a friends birthday, with a desperately sore throat that wouldn't go for a few days. It was at the same time that one of the above died. I was worried that perhaps I may have something wrong - the girl always complained of sore throats - and that after this, I would never smoke again. I promised myself, that if I ever felt the urge to have a cigarette / cigar, that I would just remember how I felt when I thought something might be wrong, and what I could potentially lose.
-
HERE HERE...I have lost my Mother and My Grandma and numerous relatives to cancer.. It is a disease that does not pick and choose. I do not smoke or drink or do drugs for the same reason you stated and my father was a drunk driver who killed himself and injured I don't know how badly several other people in his drinking driving death.
My sister had different cancer is doing well but several are dead from it. I was raised in a house exposed to second hand smoke by both parents for years my mom a chain smoker.. quit when she got lung cancer and I took care of her for thirteen months .. Other peoples health should be a good enough reason to quit also.. you having that scare is like me last year with my weight and heart problems..that was before it got complicated again.. I am not sure why we have to have crap scared out of us to do something that will save us so much pain discomfort and emotional stress for ourselves and our families... Good for you! good for you and for your family!!!
-
Thanks! [^]
-
Your welcome you have done a stupendous job! It is not easy to quit! some can, just walk away and some can't.. well done! I am sorry about your losses and your sick loved ones I only hope that others around you see the same thing and make changes too!
-
karen you, uh...may want to correct that typo. lol. that doesn't sound right...
-
All Better! LO sorry Denty!
-
All Better! LO sorry Denty!
It's ok! I didn't see it before you edited!
There is still one thing that REALLY annoys me about smokers. They (and I'm aware I'm making a generalisation here, but it's very close to the truth) seem to think that their cigarette butts are somehow excluded from the classification of "rubbish" and just throw them onto the ground without a moments thought. Therefore, we all have to wade through thousands of the damn things whenever there is an agglomeration of humanity - at stations for example. I find this supercilious behaviour particularly abhorrent.
Discuss.....
-
well, here in ohio since the general population accidentally passed a smoking ban, the cigarette butt problem has been reduced a great deal. now anyone smoking has to be outside at least thirty feet from an entrance to a building. since this is terribly confusing to a state of people who couldn't properly read the issues on the ballot, designated smoking areas have to be marked and all of them contain very large outdoor ashtrays
-
How did they "accidentally" pass a ban?
-
there were two smoking issues on the ballot. one was for the smoking ban, the other was not to have a smoking ban. the way they were worded, some people who read too quickly voted for the wrong one. then when everyone said hey wait, that's not what we wanted, the people that decide these things said well too bad, now nobody can smoke, although we're raising the smoking taxes and you have to pay for all of the nice new buildings and stadiums, where you are also not allowed to smoke.
-
I hate how they think it is ok to just toss their butts, me mom actually got a hot cigarette butt in her eye.. we were driving along on the freeway , windows down, a car began passing us to the left in the fast lane when this womens window came down and she flipper cigarette out and it came whizzing into the window connecting with my moms eyes, my mom apparently caught sight of it as it made contact and had been able to get her eye closed upon impact it burned the crud out of her eye lid as the wind had really heated the end of the cigarette! I was so mad we almost wrecked...
-
Bored Chemist as far as the comment about the land used for tobacco farming which could be used for food instead...I don't think people are starving to death as a result of a lack of available food...but a lack of available funds to purchase the food, which has nothing to do with acreage of farming land. I know at least in the United States the grocery store shelves always seem reasonably well stocked (depending on where you shop) with food (and cigarettes)...yet people still die of starvation. Regardless of what scientific studies suggest about the ill effects of smoking...I know many smokers who have lived long lives, yet not one person who has been a non-eater and lived very long at all. Perhaps therein lies the real tragedy.
Actually, there are many instances where people are very short of food even though there are a lot of export crops planted locally. These crops are much more subject to failure than the traditional ones which have been displaced. The problem can be that people who used to have a working food based (subsistence) economy are forced into a cash based economy
The Irish Potato Famine was a great example of a local population suffering because of this. At the time millions of people were dying because they could not afford the food which was being exported from Ireland.
There is great inequality everywhere in the world and that accounts for a lot of suffering. Tobacco achieves nothing of worth for anyone (except company profits). It takes up growing space, fertiliser and fuel. There is no justification for any land to be wasted on its cultivation. (Can anyone doubt the evidence against smoking?)
Comparing Smoking with Starvation is a pointless exercise.
-
Now, would you believe, ASH wants the government to ban smoking in private cars!!!
They claim the cost to the health service from tobacco related disease was £2.7 billion this year. A terrible cost indeed, but they fail to realise that the duty and VAT on tobacco products brought into the treasury £10 billion in 2006/7.
There is an estimated £18 billion cost to the NHS & Police for alcohol related problems, from a revenue of £13 billion collected in duty and VAT. So why not ban alcohol?
When did you last hear of a bunch of rowdy smokers creating a disturbance in the early hours? Or starting a punch-up, or attacking innocent people going about their daily lives?
-
There is still one thing that REALLY annoys me about smokers. They (and I'm aware I'm making a generalisation here, but it's very close to the truth) seem to think that their cigarette butts are somehow excluded from the classification of "rubbish" and just throw them onto the ground without a moments thought. Therefore, we all have to wade through thousands of the damn things whenever there is an agglomeration of humanity - at stations for example. I find this supercilious behaviour particularly abhorrent.
Discuss.....
The laws are already in place to combat smokers rubbish and some have received heavy fines for dropping cigarette butts. I think it depends on the how the local council enforce the law. Here in Sheffield they are very strict and a woman from Derbyshire was recently fined £290. The fine would have been much less but she failed to pay the fixed penalty fine of £50 or attend court.
The cigarette butts don't annoy me that much, its the chewing gum everywhere that needs targeting.
The evil thing about Tobacco manufacturers and growers is because of the new smoking laws they are targeting poorer countries which have little controls on smoking. Bush wants to protect the tobacco growers as well as it still provides work and plenty of income for them.
-
Now, would you believe, ASH wants the government to ban smoking in private cars!!!
Well, here's their current policy web page and it doesn't mention private cars so, erm, no I wouldn't believe it.
They do say that the govermnent needs to consider whether or not legistaltion covering smoking in cars would be effective at reducing the exposure of children (who are most at risk) to second hand smoke.
http://www.smokefreeaction.org.uk/news/strategy_priorities.html
That's a whole different ball game from a blanket ban.
http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_uw78hlcv.htm
-
BC, take a look at this from Reuters yesterday. http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2008/10/07/ban-smoking-in-cars/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2008/10/07/ban-smoking-in-cars/)
-
Electronic cigarettes anyone?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/7658334.stm
I never realised they existed, seems like a good idea to me.
-
Now I've seen it all! Electronic fags!!!
Or have I ???
-
Hi to all,What are the effects of smoking on human health?
-
Hi 2jessica,
Smoking cigarettes causes various diseases because they contain nearly 4000 chemicals and hundreds of toxic substances. The toxic ingredients in cigarette smoke travel throughout the body and causes damages in several ways. Nicotine is found in every part of a smoker’s body with the carbon monoxide affecting blood cells and preventing a full load of oxygen from being circulated in the system. Cancer causing agents damage genes that control growth of cells. Visit this website to know more about the effects of smoking: http://smokingharms.com/
-
Oh, how convenient! [:)]
-
Oh, how convenient! [:)]
He he :) Well yes, but apart from the commercial side of it on there, its not a bad site, if seen much worse!
-
Now I've seen it all! Electronic fags!!!
Techno-gays?
Or "Do Gay Androids Dream Of Electronic Fags?" [:D]
-
If you need a why there are many.
1) You stink!
2) You have been all but shunned in the eyes of lawmaker's business owners and the public in general.
3) Ciggies are astronomical in price. I mean you could pay for your kids' college with ease by not smoking.
You may want to quit but you are just not sure how to do it. You have heard how tough it can be and are worried if you have the will power to stop. I know, I get it, I have been where you are and now I am on the other side. I am a non-smoker. I have climbed that mountain and am now the person I never thought I could be. A non-smoker!
-
Well done Hugh, but do please remember, there are none so righteous as an ex smoker. Without fear of contradiction I can say that the non smokers I know are far more tolerant than the ex smokers.
Don't get me wrong, smoking is a bad habit in every sense and I would always strongly discourage it. But damn it all, I enjoy a smoke sometimes and I will not be dictated to by some bunch of do gooders who actually benefit from smoking to the tune of £3 billion per year! That's the difference in the cost of treating smoking related problems (£5 billion pa) and the revenue from tax on tobacco (£8 billion pa).
Perhaps alcohol will be the next target of those do gooders, and why not, since there is a net cost to the nation of £5 billion pa, as a result of the £13 billion pa in medical, policing, judicial etc costs against £8 billion pa in tax revenue.
If we in the UK all stop boozing and take up smoking, we'll get the national debt under control in no time at all. He said 'tongue in cheek'.
-
"Without fear of contradiction I can say that the non smokers I know are far more tolerant than the ex smokers."
I guess it depends on how you define "I know" but you haven't seen me on a bad day.
And the govt. has plans to raise the (minimum) price of alcohol with the hope of reducing consumption.