There is a difference, Yabby.

>>Ah Pericles, you mean as simple as losing those extra kilos, just eat less.<<

(I know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. But I thought I might take you seriously for a moment)

Eating is essential in order to live. Smoking is not.

So if I were to say "getting slim is as simple as... not taking the next mouthful", you would suggest something a little less drastic. Like cutting down. Or cutting out carbs, or fats, or whatever the latest gimmick might be.

You would not have much success with a no-food diet.

Not in the medium-to-long term, anyway.

The problem with smoking is that cutting down the intake does not solve the problem.

The tars are still layering themselves up in your lungs. The acrolein and benzopyrene still attach themselves permanently to nuclear DNA. The carbon monoxide and cyanide will continue to cause the alveoli to lose their elasticity.

So whereas with dieting, there is at least a chance that the lower intake of food will have a beneficial effect on your weight, cutting down on smoking will not have a similarly beneficial effect on your health.

Cutting it out completely, however, does give your body an opportunity to effect some repairs. I would not normally use Fox News as supporting evidence, but their summary is quite succinct:

"By the first anniversary of your last cigarette, your risk of heart disease should be about half of a smoker’s. By your 15th anniversary, it should be about the same as the risk for someone who never smoked."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229761,00.html

So losing weight and giving up cigarettes are two entirely different propositions, Yabby.

But you knew that anyway, didn't you?

I don't mind smokers. I have an old neighbour who has a problem driving from time to time. I often take him into town with me.

He smokes a strong roll your own tobacco. He always asks before having a smoke in my little sports car.

The rolling is not that great, as some tobacco is often spilt, however the smell of the smoke is really great. It is almost enough to make me want one.

I gather the smell of stale smoke is as bad as that of stale grog, but as my old thing doesn't have air conditioning, the windows are open, & all the fresh air means no smell remains

*Eating is essential in order to live. Smoking is not.*

Ah, but overeating is not essential to live Pericles, in fact it
might kill you. So my point is, why can't people just simply
eat less, if as you state, they can simply stop smoking.

Why people overeat or have that next cigarette, is far more
complicated then simple rational thoughts.

We are all just a little different, physiologically, so for some
quitting can be easy, but others extremely tough, depending on
many things. Like genetics for instance. Like brain chemistry.

Nicotine affects dopamine levels. You'll find that those with
ADHD issues, or those with schyzophrenia issues, have a far more
difficult time quitting, then perhaps a Pericles.

If quitting smoking was as easy as you claim, the average smoker
would not need 13 attempts to do so. The failure rate is well
over 90% and some of those are not hard core addicts. That includes
people with patches etc.

If you are really interested in all this, read what Renee Bittoun
has written on the subject. She's a professor, based
at Sydney University, IIRC.

IMO the overriding issue with smoking is that it does not kill quickly enough, if at all.

Now if there was a larger dose of arsenic mixed with the other chemicals, then we would have a ball game. Warnings on packaging would really be pertinent given that inhalation over a 10 year period definitely caused your death.

But for now if it is legal and by that I mean taxable, other than a prohibition on the age of the consumer, leave it alone.

Yabby:>> We are all just a little different, physiologically, so for some quitting can be easy, but others extremely tough, depending on
many things. Like genetics for instance. Like brain chemistry<<

Hey Yabby that is the most valuable thought you have added to this forum in eons, well said.
My only criticism would be that you should have replaced “like” with “such as”..lol.

Shadow Minister I heard that story too.
It reminded me I had thought about starting a thread here.
We humans are different are we not.
Never thought, for a second tax would be called us stealing from smokers.
And my beer is taxed just as much.
But to see doubt placed on if it kills at all stunned me.
Health costs surely, out way tax income.
Now once most of us smoked, we started as a fashion thing, surely few of us liked that first drag.
But we after seeing it displayed that way, smoking was sexy, cool, the thing to do.
I even remember young smoke in hand never drawing it into their lungs.
OUG I did not know until this thread you are a tobacco activist, am in no way taunting you.
Mate you speak as if you just may be going through a bad time.
As you go along in life except this, opinions are every ones right mine and yours.
You move yours around a bit, seeing things I never intended in my posts.
But NEVER EVER will I give my right to say much more harm than good comes from smoking.
Last OUG tell me, please, how I knew you smoked other substances, you Bragg about it often bloke.
Tax Tobacco ,almost out of existance, yes black market will follow ,but a big reduction in health problems will too.
Imagine how you smoke if it is not legal.

Belly,

Not just a story. I was surprised, but the state of California tried to sue Philip Morris and some other large cigarette producers for the increased costs to the state for health care. This collapsed when Philip Morris showed that the average medical cost to the state of a smoker was less than that of a non smoker. This was mostly due to the high cost of medical care as one ages, and the final year is expensive whether due to smoking or not.

For example lung cancer is relatively cheap, as it is usually untreatable, and relatively quick once diagnosed.

The more cynical would suggest handing out cigarettes with the pension.