Rechtub yklus: "Anyway, I'm over this topic. It will always be 'us against them' and in any case, it remains a 'personal choice', so if you choose to smoke then you know the consequences don't you."

How come everyone is so much nicer to drug addicts and alcoholics and wants to help them? But at least no one is alone in the "us" and "them" groups. But I do not flick my butts in public nor smoke around non-smokers. I don't drive and I recycle.

I do that earth hour thing too.. all lights out - I probably ruin it by letting the kids run around with torches for an hour. Oh and I refuse to use cloth nappies these days.

But back to smoking - Because there is no advertising I come across Dunhill Essence by accident. Skinny little smokes. Once you smoke them you just can't go back to the fat ones. My theory was that since they seem to have half the tobacco I'd somehow be better off.

When I die it better be because of something, and even better if it was because of something I enjoyed for a long long time.

Because smokers tend to die earlier than non-smokers so they are probably less of a drain on the public purse than those that left to slowly decay in nursing homes for years on end.

Maybe smokers should be subsidised rather than penalised for performing a valuable public service?

I'd be more impressed by the moralistic anti-smoking brigade if the approach they take on tobacco was repeated across the board, like for alcohol, it's responsible for far more problems than any other drug, yet no-one bans that, do they? There are many pass-times and habits that would be banned if treated the same as smoking, so take away the sanctimonious rationale and what are you left with? "It smells bad" is about all!
Bah Humbug!

Hey Max,

I think it’s time to get down off your soapbox man. I really don't think you would more impressed if the "brigade" (ie doctors) were calling for a ban on alcohol as well. There’s a ton of data out there that shows how bad smoking is for you and what risks are associated with it, just as there is with alcohol. The fact is that alcohol is a least as tightly regulated as smoking, if not more so. There are regulations for the sale and consumption of alcohol within licensed premises, and penalties for public consumption of alcohol in unlicensed areas, as well as laws relating to public intoxication and being under the influence and in charge of a vehicle. Advertising standards have changed quite a bit in regards to both products also. The fact that alcohol and nicotine are both legal, albeit tightly regulated deflates your argument somewhat. Prohibition was tried eighty years ago, to no avail for obvious reasons. Banning cannot work and taxation is about the only avenue available, although I must admit that overboard taxation will increase the value of the illegal tobacco trade.

I know why most of you choose not to listen. The fact is that all smokers are in various stages of addiction to nicotine. Addicts tend not to listen to what is happening to them, it’s uncomfortable. Nicotine is a powerful drug and neurotoxin that, like most neurotoxins, affects neurotransmitter receptors in the nervous system (esp. brain) and gives you a temporary sensation that is pleasurable. The addiction proper kicks in after a prolonged use, when the excitatory affect of nicotine changes the behaviour and number of these receptors in the brain to maintain normal function and so they give a sensation of displeasure until the drug is returned to the system. This happens with many addictive drugs, such as opiates (opiate receptors), only they tend to give more of a rush as the receptors that they affect have slightly different functions in the brain.

(cont'd)

Nicotine by itself depresses the immune system leaving you more vulnerable to infections (esp. respiratory), smoking damages the cilia in your lungs, whose normal function removes dust and fine particles from that lodge in your lungs from the air we breathe every day.

Passive smoking increases risks of heart disease
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/340/12/920

Here’s some more data on the risks asscociated with smoking from the UK:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj;321/7257/323

The vast majority of lung cancers are able to be directly attributable to smoking. So are risk factors for SIDS and other diseases, such as stroke, heart disease etc.

I could produce tons of data and links (and end up looking like OUG), but since you have a computer all you really all you need to do is go to Google Scholar and type in “smoking risks” (or smoking lung cancer, heart disease etc) and see what you get.

And all you can say is that all you can say is that the only argument against it is "It smells bad".

No, it’s a serious public health issue and deserves to be treated as one.

Bugsy, you can do the same for Global Warming, & get just as much bull sh1t.