2 days left for a fag!

[austrian_girl]

I don't think Wity ever denied the fact that smoking is dangerous. (If I got that wrong then please correct me). I think he meant smoking kills people but not all of them. To be fair, I know some chain smokers who absolutely do not have a problem at all with their lungs, heart, whatever can be affected, even at their "older" age (60+). Smoking decreases your life expectancy, we all agree on that. It's a statistical fact but statistics lack one thing. They do not account for the individual case. To give a drastic example, 99 smokers might die at a young age after suffering from all sorts of "smoking-related illnesses", 1 might become the oldest person on the planet, leading a happy, healthy and fulfilled life. What would statistics say about that case? Exactly, that smoking kills.

However, I don't want to defend Wity's posts because I disagree with them (I don't despise them). If you (and other smokers) don't want to believe in the statistics then that's fine. I just explained a good reason why people don't. But (and this is entirely subjective) I think the risk is simply to high to hope that you are one of the few people that are not affected by smoking. If statistics say that the majority of people are affected, of course, I can still hope that I'm not part of this group but personally, I don't like taking uncalculable risks. But again, each to his own!

I know that a lot of people think why should I stop smoking. I might be run over by a car tomorrow, get some sort of cancer or be struck by lightning. And I think that's a fair argument. However, another reason why I dislike smoking so much is because I don't want one of these things inside my body and I don't give a damn if and how long they are working... (http://www.aerzteinitiative.at/images/raucherlunge.jpg)!

[MrRottweiler]

I stopped smoking 6 months ago after 20 years and I can't stand the smell now and I'll never smoke again. I'm angry with myself for not giving up sooner and for starting so young. There is no doubt a smoke free Britain will improve the NHS which will become evident in the next few years as it already has in other countries. What helped me stop is last Christmas a friend died from Emphysema which took hold very quickly. I visited him in hospital and he clutched my hand with a look of desperation. The previous Christmas was very different with him his usual self entertaining all in the local. Quite simply if he didn't smoke he would still be alive today. There is too much to do in life with very limited time and being fit and healthy can only help you achieve your goals. Turning 30 this year was a wake up call for me to change my lifestyle. I feel much better now, I have so much more energy and I can run again without needing a rest after 20 seconds.

Smoking sucks the life out of you. If you need motivation to stop look at your children and grandchildren and consider their future without you.

I miss u Jimmy.

[Wity]

Nina..


I'll give you a fiver for every quote you can show of mine where I have encoraged smoking or said its not harmful.

Dissagreeing is one thing but lying about what you've read aint fair is it c'mon?

[dantuck_7]

The above image is from a survey done by the British Medical Journal - who looked at 34,000 British doctors from 1951 to 2001.

There is an obvious difference for the life expectancy of smokers and non-smokers. Clearly some smokers will live to 100 years of age but hopefully you can see the bigger picture on this Wity....

If you want to read more have a look at this link - it discusses how attitudes to smoking have changed and also how stopping smoking at a particular age increases the age you live to.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1519

[Wity]

I've seen simlar before Dan. The funny thing about doctors in the UK especially up to around the 70's is that they were renowned for being extremely heavy smokers almost to a man. Cant prove that though as there is nothing to compare them with. Records of smoking only ever came about in the 80's when insurers started offering seperate rates for anyone who'd sign to say they have not smoked in the previous 12 months.

Another thing to consider is as almost all the statistics only ever started from say 1980 they dont truly represent the average smoker of today who smokes cigarettes with a lower tar content, smokes tipped not plain and smokes far less than pre 1980. In other words a lot of the deaths making up these mortality tables include smokers who took in far far more toxins than any smoker today.

[davis_greatest]

Crap!

Sorry? What is crap and why?

That’s as stupid as saying 6 pints of beer will get anyone drunk. It can with some but it doesn't apply to everyone does it?

I never said that smoking kills everyone. On the contrary, I explicitly clarified that the Government has not stated that smoking a cigarette will lead to instant death but rather that smoking has a statistically significant positive impact on mortality. It therefore decreases life expectancy. A decrease in life expectancy for smokers does not imply that the world’s longest-living smoker will die younger than the world’s shortest-living non-smoker. It means that the life expectancy for smokers is (significantly) less than non-smokers and that the former have significantly higher mortality rates. The existence of smoking centenarians proves nothing.

Bottom line is it all depends on what statistics you believe or want to believe. Admittedly I got it wrong when I said a smoker lives on average 3 years less than a non smoker. After 25 years of selling life insurance in the 4 years since I’ve retired I got it mixed up with male/female life expectancy. I suspect the number is closer to 5 although having done a brief Google on the subject the number varies from 4 to 12 not dependent on age but on who compiled the figures.

Of course it is dependent on age! Also on sex and, if you are considering life insurance products, then duration. The comparative future life expectancies of a 110-year-old smoker and 110-year old non-smoker are far closer (being almost the same) than those of a 50-year-old smoker and 50-year old non-smoker. That is why the life industry in which you worked offers significantly greater impaired life annuities for smokers than for non-smokers.

As I said before though whether one smokes or doesn't is only one factor of many when estimating life expectancy…

Correct.

Of course as a salesman I never used the 2/3rds statement, the 95% one got far more reaching for the proposal form. The 95% figure I took from memory of the countless bits of info provided to me by insurers particularly in the critical illness cover market.

If it is true that you have ever sold a life insurance policy and you wrote on the proposal form that 95% of deaths are smoking-related, then if this ever comes to light you and / or the company for which you worked will face a high risk of being fined by the Financial Services Authority for mis-selling.

[Erwan_BZH]

Every packet sold in this country states that smoking kills. A claim that has never been proven but has been disproven hundreds of times by the mere survival of regular lifelong smokers way past their 100th birthday.

Smoking is a danger to your health but no one really knows to what extent. It may be only a long term effect as smokers live on average 3 years less than non smokers but as smokers generally are less health consious than non smokers that one factor only statistic itself is not proof.

Heart disease and lung cancer account for 95% of all adult deaths in the uk. That's smokers and non smokers alike, a statistic hardly likely to change significantly were we all to stop smoking.

We all inhale in the open air toxins produced from many sources least not the motor car, Carry on as we do burning fossil fuels and our grandkids wont have to worry about smoking the sea levels may well rise and drown them all before they are old enough to buy some fags.

Of course barmen, waiters, singers, musicians, and whoever else works in a pub/bar have the right to be working in an environment that's not hazardous to their health as no one makes them follow such careers. We all give up some safety aspect no matter what our job when we take it on.

The simple solution wanted by the vast majority including the owners of enclosed public spaces was to have seperate smoking and non smoking areas.

Like I said, how this ridiculous law ever got passed is beyond belief.

Any oncologist who'd read this would have a heart attack in the following minute...

This is being utterly biased to claim such things. I suggest you to have a look at what the lung of 20 year smoker looks like ...you'd puke the second after!

And I agree with Nina btw.

[snookersfun]

Wity, you sound as if you are working for some cigarette manufacturer, or is this just a swell example of what cigarette smoking is doing to you?

Haven't heard about the low-tar scam either? http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/big-one.html

Trying to convince you, that smoking cigarettes is crap, I could also try to throw my dying aunt it, you should just look at her swollen, red legs and ankles, the way her fingers look, imagine the weekly blood transfusions she needs to be kept alive, the way she is barely able to get out two sentences (no air) and most sadly, hear her talking about her beloved cigarettes, like there was nothing else or sweeter in this world. Now that is sad!

[MrRottweiler]

It is indeed very sad. Nicotine is a rutelessly addictive drug more potent than Heroin or Crack Cocaine. I wish my mum would stop but its like its her and her fags against the world.

[Nina]

Wity

to begin with, I want to make clear that I had and have no intention to attack you personally. It is your viewpoint that I strongly disagree with, and that is the reason for what I wrote and the negative rep.

I don't like playing with words. This is why I said the disincrimination of smoking is implicit. Indeed you never wrote the words "smoking is a good thing and nobody should have a problem with it". I drew my conclusions from your posts however, and correct me if I understood the wrong thing somewhere.

"How such a law ever got through parliment astonishes me. Here we are in a so called democratic multiracial caring society that legislates better than most if not all other countries for the rights of minorities blatently suppressing the freedom of around 30% of it's people with little or no thought to the consequences, just to satisfy the blatent lies of the anti smoking brigade.

RIP freedom of choice. Zeig Heil big brother."

"Every packet sold in this country states that smoking kills. A claim that has never been proven but has been disproven hundreds of times by the mere survival of regular lifelong smokers way past their 100th birthday."

"How can 2/3rds die from smoking when only 13/60ths smoke?"

"Quote:
The statement in the Government’s White Paper on Tobacco, that "Smoking Kills", is inescapable fact.

Crap!

That’s as stupid as saying 6 pints of beer will get anyone drunk. It can with some but it doesn't apply to everyone does it?

Suppose you'll be telling us next 1000 deaths are caused each year in the UK by passive smoking. Another load of drivel with absolutely no proof to back it up."

I don't see the point in continuing this. To my simplistic mind, what is not (proven) harmful is also not so bad after all. You can call me hypersensitive, you will be absolutely right.

It is true some smokers live to be 100. It is is also true some young people die of heart diseases or cancer even though they spent their lives following the rules of healthy living. It is also a given fact I may never smoke but get run over by a bus in the street tomorrow.
But you won't see me standing in the middle of the street while the bus is speeding my way!

I still don't want to do this, but I think I need to make the example in my previous post clearer:
Let's say we have this man who started smoking in his early teens. At the age of 45, when he smokes on average 3 packets a day, he has a heart attack. The surgeon says his heart is like that of a 90 year old man. A quadruple by-pass is performed, and the patient is having post-operation complications, because his lungs will not help his heart as they are "glued" with tar. That ordeal is followed by a new heart attack.
The man stops smoking, never has one cigarette more. With proper treatment he lives 15 years more, but at the age of 60 his heart is working at 20-25%. A new surgery is vital. This time the lungs are clear and the patient recovers faster.
I'll cut the long story a little shorter. My father was 62 when he died. I consider that more than enough reason to not want to take the risk of being the 1% person who won't have his/her health ruined.

Finally, since this thread was about the laws regarding smoking, I want to say that in Greece smoking is officially not allowed in public places such as hospitals, banks or public services. But the average smoker will tell you "who are you to forbid it?" and smoke right under the non-smoking sign. When I ask taxi drivers not to smoke while I'm in their car, they sometimes say "oh if it bothers you I'll open the window"! And I do wish the laws were enforced for a change...

[Sam147]

awww Nina,

Excellent post, eventhough i'm a smoker myself (ashamed of it to be perfectly honest ) i think it's too bad i don't have enough posts to back me up to rep u but believe me the thought is there and i totally agree. I for one am working on quitting not just for my sake but for the sake of the loved ones as well... I don't want my family suffering the consequences of my smoking, be it second hand smoking or having to see me with an ill condition.

[lagermike]

Ah, a new era of smoke free alcohol consumption beckons!
I for one, certainly intend to enjoy it!!

The boot is now on the other foot. It used to be,if you didn't want to breathe in smoke then don't go to the pub. Now it's, if you want to smoke then don't go to the pub.

[dantuck_7]

I've seen simlar before Dan. The funny thing about doctors in the UK especially up to around the 70's is that they were renowned for being extremely heavy smokers almost to a man. Cant prove that though as there is nothing to compare them with. Records of smoking only ever came about in the 80's when insurers started offering seperate rates for anyone who'd sign to say they have not smoked in the previous 12 months.

Another thing to consider is as almost all the statistics only ever started from say 1980 they dont truly represent the average smoker of today who smokes cigarettes with a lower tar content, smokes tipped not plain and smokes far less than pre 1980. In other words a lot of the deaths making up these mortality tables include smokers who took in far far more toxins than any smoker today.

Further to the PM that I sent you - I can understand the last point that you are making. We will have to wait 50 years to find out the life expectancy of people smoking today. However, you can look at the makeup of cigarettes 30 years ago and find the same carcinogens in them as todays cigarettes.

As for doctors being particular heavy smokers - a sample of 34,000 people is large enough represent the population quite fairly. The good thing about this survey is that because it has been carried out of a good length of time - it shows an improvement to life expectancy for people that have quit smoking.

http://www.bmj.com/content/vol328/is...169540.f4.jpeg

Dan.

[MrRottweiler]

You could say its a bit of a wind up. First they introduce longer drinking hours but now the're saying you can't smoke on your all-dayer bender. Maybe next the government will lift all speed restrictions on motorways but make it illigal to drive a car not fitted with a speed limiter!

I think initially private clubs such as Snooker halls and WMC's were exempt from the smoking ban but they U-turned on that and made it across the board.

[davis_greatest]

Suppose you'll be telling us next 1000 deaths are caused each year in the UK by passive smoking. Another load of drivel with absolutely no proof to back it up.

No, I won't. All credible estimates put that figure at at least 10,000.

On what do you base your claim that there is absolutely no proof to back this up? You might read the conclusions of the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health that "passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death...in children." and that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”.

Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”.

Similarly, the Center for Disease Control (established by the U.S. government) concluded last year that "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is ... a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."