I hate to bring old posts to the top, but I wanted to wait until I'd made it one whole year before I chimed in. I quit smoking on January 27th, 2001, and today's my one-year anniversary. I smoked from the summer of 1996 until a year ago today, before I decided to quit. Still the best decision I ever made. Of course, given that it was reversing the worst decision I ever made-- namely, at the age of 22 to begin smoking-- I suppose that figures. What I think is funny is the way I'm sometimes treated by people I used to smoke with-- Them: "Have you started again? Wanna go outside and smoke?" Me: "Nope. Not interested." Them: "Ah, you'll give in eventually." I've never understood that attitude. I always think, Sorry you're not smart enough or strong enough to kick the habit, but I beat its ass last year and I don't ever intend to give it another chance. If you're interested in quitting, I recommend the gum over the patch. The patch is an unrealistic approach to quitting, IMHO, because it puts a consistent stream of nicotine into your bloodstream. That's not how smoking works-- you have peaks and valleys, fits and starts, where your craving is either satisfied by a cigarette or beginning to growl at you. The gum works much better. It mimics the smoking approach by giving you short bursts of nicotine as the result of an action on your part-- I'm getting irritable, need a piece of gum-- without the side benefits of having a cigarette (hanging out with other smokers and talking, the pleasurable physical action of smoking a cigarette). After two weeks of treating my cravings with the gum, I realized I hated having to chew it. It wasn't anywhere near as fun as actually smoking, so I wasn't willing to allow myself to be dependent on it. I quit the gum and never looked back. If you can quit for any length of time, I'm amazed you can start back up. I would never want to be one of them. I harbor a low-level contempt for smokers-- the way they smell, the tacky appearance of smoking, the idea that you have to sacrifice minutes out of your day to quell an addiction. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to run to the fridge for another beer.
Glad that you brought it up. Here's something I found recently: <i>"One in every eight lung cancer deaths among nonsomkers was caused by passive smoking," asserts Naohito Yamaguchi of the National Cancer Center Research Institute of Japan. Scientists based their findings on a study of 52,000 people who who died from lung cancer. Additionally, "long-standing research shows that toxic carbon monoxide and carcinogens are more prevalent in secondary smoke directly inhaled by smokers," says Asahi Shimbun newspaper.</i>
Well, I'm on your side on this one-- I hate cigarette smoke like hell and don't think I should EVER be subjected to it-- but what percentage of the overall population is represented here? We're talking about 13 percent of what I would guess would be an overall group representing maybe 1 or 2 percent of the total population, if that. I'm not sure fatality is the best approach to take here. You're very unlikely to die from anything other than extreme overexposure to second-hand smoke.
I agree with you, actually. I was just pointing out that the idea that nonsmoking isn't hazardous to your health is not necessarily true. Besides, this was just a study of lung cancer. It didn't cover other cardio-pulmonary and respiratory disorders like emphizema, asthma or heart/lung disease.
Agreed completely. It is hazardous to the health of non-smokers, so even if the effect is limited, exposure to second-hand smoke should be limited. Hell, people can drink and drive without having accidents. That doesn't mean we should just shrug and say "Sure some people are killed by it, but most aren't".
Congrats on your anniversary BK. Keep up the good work. By the way...Jan 27th was by parents' 45th wedding anniversary. Both are reformed smokers. The old man quit cold turkey on his 50th birthday. He will be 73 this year.
Glad to hear that, Tex (congrats as well as your quitting). I wish more people considered how long life can be. My maternal grandfather died in 1982 at 52, from lung cancer. He found out he had it in July of that year and was dead in six months. Hell, he'd only be 71 if he'd lived-- not even all the way to his life expectancy. Think about that. He's been dead almost 20 years, and if he hadn't died, he still wouldn't have reached his life expectancy. I'd be surprised if a smoker could read that and just shrug.
While I can accept that there may be an argument for letting the market decide whether restaurants and bars should allow smoking or not, the notion that ETS/second hand smoke is not harmful is preposterous. From the CDC website:- http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/factsheet_ets.htm The National Institutes of Health's National Toxicolgy Program's 9th issue of the Report on Carcinogens listed ETS as a "known" human carcinogen, which indicates that there is a cause and effect relationship between exposure and human cancer incidence. • ETS is classified as a Group A carcinogen (known to cause cancer in humans) under the EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. Exposure to ETS causes lung cancer and has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease in nonsmokers. • ETS causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers. Scientific studies have also estimated that ETS accounts for as many as 62,000 deaths from coronary heart disease annually in the United States. More research is needed to know exactly how recent changes in ETS exposure may affect lung cancer rates among adult nonsmokers. • ETS causes serious respiratory problems in children, such as greater number and severity of asthma attacks and lower respiratory tract infections. ETS exposure increases the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and middle ear infections for children. • Cotinine is a major metabolite of nicotine. Exposure to nicotine can be measured by analyzing the cotinine levels in the blood, saliva, or urine. Since nicotine is highly specific for tobacco smoke, serum cotinine levels track exposure to tobacco smoke and its toxic constituents. • In 1991, data showed that nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population had measurable levels of serum cotinine in their blood. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals found more than a 75 percent decrease in median cotinine (metabolized nicotine) levels for nonsmokers in the United States since 1991. • Children and teenagers, 3-19 years old, had higher levels of cotinine than did adults, 20 years old and above. • Involuntary exposure to ETS remains a common, serious public health hazard that is entirely preventable by adopting and enforcing appropriate regulatory policies. Smokefree environments are the most effective method for reducing ETS exposure. Healthy People 2010 objectives address this issue and seek optimal protection of nonsmokers through policies, regulations, and laws requiring smoke-free environments in all schools, work sites, and public places. • Only California meets the nation's Healthy People 2010 objective to eliminate exposure to ETS by either banning indoor smoking or limiting it to separately ventilated areas. Because of a comprehensive statewide tobacco control program, virtually all indoor workplaces in California are now smokefree, including restaurants, bars, and gaming clubs. • The dramatic declines in serum cotinine levels among nonsmokers are a good indication that efforts to ensure clean indoor air through smoking restrictions in workplaces, restaurants and other public places are working. However, there are still too many people, especially young people, who continue to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Hayes St.s assertion that the patron can choose to whether to visit a smoking or non smoking venue is fine, however, ultimately it will come down to the employees rights. Employers are obligated to provide a safe workplace, and a smoke filled room is not.
Let's look at the first post in this thread... OK, so exactly HOW did this become a political debate?
I believe everything on this board becomes a political debate. If somebody started a thread which said "How Was Your Day Today" it would probably become a political debate sooner or later. Come A-Train don't tell me you're just now seeing that?
