Smoking & Cancer

[le_poete_mourant]

A recent study has determined that cigarettes will kill more than a billion people this century, placing it more deadly than alcohol and illegal drugs, and probably AIDS as well.  Is it not time to shut down this disgusting business?  Yet it seems in the U.S. at least, we are more concerned with gay marriage and flag burning.  Yes, I know, it would probably be just as much as a failure as prohibition was, so legislation might fail.  But raise prices on them, raise taxes, etc. 

I recently have become very close with a family who in February lost the father/husband to lung cancer.  I see the emotional burden and damage it has done to the mother and two daughters aged 16 and 19.   It only makes me more frustrated that they should have to lose so much so soon, so early to such a preventable end. 

So I challenge the smokers of Pianoforum, cut down on the smokes and quit altogether if you have the strength, if not for your own sake, for the sake of your families, friends and loved ones. 

[cziffra]

no

EDIT:  smoke ganja, it's better for you

[mike_lang]

Yes, I complete agree with you.  I recently quit (finally after a few years of on-off-on-off), and it's been the best decision that I've made.  Not only will my life expectancy be longer, but I can smell and taste everything.  It's like life has more color (I exaggerate not).  Not to mention, it's a liberation from the slavery to weather, location, group of people, etc.  If anyone on here smokes, I highly recommend quitting.  And if you do, make sure you start running or some other sort of exercise - once that was in place, I really lost the desire to smoke.

Best,
ML

[thalbergmad]

I gave up in Jan 05 after 20 years of smoking.

It took a long time to really feel the benefits, as i stupidly continued the nicotine replacement treatment far too long. Almost 18 months later, I am almost cough free and a lot fitter. The only problem I have is getting my weight back to my non-smoking days.

I treat myself to 1 cigar on my birthday and 1 Christmas Day.

The money saved is also another benefit.

Giving up was the hardest thing I have ever done.

Thal

[lisztisforkids]

The easiest solution to the problem is to not start smoking in the first place..

[mike_lang]

The easiest solution to the problem is to not start smoking in the first place..

Of course prevention is the best solution to any problem.  However, in order to take a more pragmatic approach to the problem, it is also necessary to convince those who indeed have the problem to acknowledge it and dispense with it.

Best,
ML

[johnny-boy]

The cost of cigarettes would be enough to make me quit.

I never had a cigarette. What do they taste like?

John

[lukeskywalker]

They taste great, you should try one.

Don´t worry about statistics, its a waste of time ... you know there are also surveys that shows that : The risk of lungcancer is the same from living in a city with more than 1 million inhabitants (due to polution of the air from trafic) , and it will on average shave 6-10 years of your life-expectancy.


I have come to the conclusion that people waste around 60-80 % of their life worrying about, considering, planning, being carefull, feeling guilty about, thinking about, fearing ... well, ... all kinds of dangerous things ... like smoking, unsafe sex, what food to eat, how much to loose weight, how much money to save, what thing to buy next, insurance...and so on

And then, when something bad eventually happens ... - AND IT ALWAYS DOES, just wait and see  ... they spend the remainder of their life complaing about it and feeling sad about it, and saying : ooh, if only we didn´t smoke, if only we didn´t drink, I shouldn´t have done this or that ...

It would be much better to ban worrying completely ... people in general would be so much happier, and I´m sure its better to live only 40 years in complete happiness, than living 80 years wasting all the time trying to be healthy and fearing to die ... - which enevitably will happen anyway. It might even be a completely natural and non-dangerous thing, - dying .... - ?  - And sometimes it seems to happen very often much sooner than we imagine, even if we eat only salad, get plastic surgery all over the face, exercise, quit smoking and never do anything funny.



PS I also quit smoking due to the fact I need to be in better shape, ... and it really helps after a few years. So I´m sure its much healthier not to smoke ...

[gorbee natcase]

I worked it out once that I will pay more than £50.000 in tax on cigarettes over 40 years and that is a concervative esimate

                                About £1400.00 a year = the average council tax bill per household in the UK

Why would the government want to stop me from giving them money.

[zheer]

 Apparently it takes 10 years of no smoking to clear tar from a smokers lung.

[musik_man]

I don't see why anyone should really care about other people smoking in private.  If a smoker would rather live smoking for 60 years than not smoking for 70 years, it's fine by me.  We take risks all the time.  If we should prohibit smoking to protect people from themselves, why shouldn't we prohibit them from motorcycles, obesity, skydiving and any other activity that is deemed too dangerous?  We can live in a Demolition Man(greatest movie ever) world.

[mike_lang]

I don't see why anyone should really care about other people smoking in private.  If a smoker would rather live smoking for 60 years than not smoking for 70 years, it's fine by me.  We take risks all the time.  If we should prohibit smoking to protect people from themselves, why shouldn't we prohibit them from motorcycles, obesity, skydiving and any other activity that is deemed too dangerous?  We can live in a Demolition Man(greatest movie ever) world.

Well - Sandra Bullock's bad acting aside...

I wouldn't put motorcycles and skydiving in the same category as smoking.  Yes, they're risky, but not in the same way.  Smoking has a definite effect, regardless  of chance.  Motorcycles and skydiving threaten an accident, not a cumulative effect.

Best,
ML

[musik_man]

Well - Sandra Bullock's bad acting aside...

Four words

"Arnold Schwarzenegger Presidential Library"
 

[gruffalo]

and I´m sure its better to live only 40 years in complete happiness, than living 80 years wasting all the time trying to be healthy and fearing to die.

that would be true, if it were actually a happy ending. in fact, its a rather disgusting ending. this is almost exactly what i bloke i knew said once. he was single for a very long time.

i gave up smoking, and i felt happy, free and i had more energy. fitness stayed the same because i have a randomnly great fitness with not much training (ok most of that is prob endurance). The conclusion being that smoking sucks, and you dont know it till you stop.

Gruff

[johnny-boy]

I don't see why anyone should really care about other people smoking in private.  If a smoker would rather live smoking for 60 years than not smoking for 70 years, it's fine by me.  We take risks all the time.  If we should prohibit smoking to protect people from themselves, why shouldn't we prohibit them from motorcycles, obesity, skydiving and any other activity that is deemed too dangerous?  We can live in a Demolition Man(greatest movie ever) world.

There's another factor to consider. Smokers (I know, as well as over weight people) are causing a rise in health care costs.

Also, smoking isn’t a pleasure (remember the first time you lit up) – it’s an addiction.

John

[berrt]

There's another factor to consider. Smokers (I know, as well as over weight people) are causing a rise in health care costs.

That is only a short-lived effect: Non-smokers die randomly 10 ys later than smokers, then suffering from illnesses as expensive as those of smokers. Get me right: Poeple should quit, but health-care cost is not an argument.
B.

[musik_man]

There's another factor to consider. Smokers (I know, as well as over weight people) are causing a rise in health care costs.

Also, smoking isn’t a pleasure (remember the first time you lit up) – it’s an addiction.

John

This is only a problem if society pays collectively for health care.

[mike_lang]

That is only a short-lived effect: Non-smokers die randomly 10 ys later than smokers
B.

I don't think there is anything random about it...

[living_stradivarius]

This is only a problem if society pays collectively for health care.

Insurance pools consist of people with varying degrees of risk. So yes, they do increase insurance premiums for those who are at less of a health risk. And anytime there is a reason for more people to go to the hospital, health care costs go up. Simple supply and demand. Insurance companies do take this into some account, but I don't want to pay a dime for another guy's emphysema treatment.

[musik_man]

Insurance pools consist of people with varying degrees of risk. So yes, they do increase insurance premiums for those who are at less of a health risk. And anytime there is a reason for more people to go to the hospital, health care costs go up. Simple supply and demand. Insurance companies do take this into some account, but I don't want to pay a dime for another guy's emphysema treatment.

Health Insurance companies should be able to discriminate in cost based off of behavioural factors like smoking, obesity, etc.  Then no one has to pay for other people's stupidity.

[Kassaa]

People who smoke should get no treatment for lung cancer.

[le_poete_mourant]

People who smoke should get no treatment for lung cancer.

That's a rather cruel statement.  I infer that you have never known anybody who has suffered from lung cancer.  Cancer doesn't discriminate.  Just because you smoke doesn't mean you're a bad person who deserves less compassion and medical consideration than any other person.  Remember that even forty years ago the scope of the consequences was not fully understood; and once you're hooked, it's a hard habit to break.  Can you condemn a human being for succumbing to nature (i.e., desire)?   

I think that if somebody has no one who loves them, enjoys their company, likes them in the slightest way, and cares whether they live or die, that person has every right to go ahead and smoke themselves to an early grave.  What upsets me is that this is hardly ever the case.  Once the victim is gone, they no longer have to live with their cancer.  But it haunts the ones who knew and loved them in a much different way than because they were taken from them much too soon. 

Insurance be damned.  If paying an extra ten bucks a year is the worst result of cancer you can think of, you should reevaluate your humanity. 

[berrt]

People who smoke should get no treatment for lung cancer.

People who don't smoke and suffer from coronary heart disease with 80ys should get not treatment as well, because they should have died with 70ys from lung cancer. We found the way to save health insurances!

B.

[mike_lang]

People who smoke should get no treatment for lung cancer.

I do not think that even the benefit of the doubt does much for you.  The best we can assume of your comment is irony, and even then it is in poor taste.

ML

[le_poete_mourant]

Not all smokers will die of lung cancer.  Some may never develop it.  Can you decide who deserves it? 

[Kassaa]

https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/nicotinestudy

Everyone who started smoking after it was known that smoking was extremely unhealthy chose death for themselves. Why help them when they chose for it? If you still want to help them, let them pay all the costs and place them on the lowest place of the hospital-queue.

[zheer]

   Smoking 20 - 30 cigs a day is not the same as somking 4 - 5 a day, i know because i started smoking when i was  16 on and off but have stoped smoking  know. As an X smoker i would say that it all starts either at school to look and feel cool or at work a kind of relaxation, anyway if you go clubs and bars its very tempting if you are drunk and having fun with friends dancing ( night life ). Basically its not cool walk into a club or bar and order mineral water with an oxygin mask and listining to Back WTK.

[zheer]

   Smoking 20 - 30 cigs a day is not the same as somking 4 - 5 a day, i know because i started smoking when i was  16 on and off but have stoped smoking  now. As an X smoker i would say that it all starts either at school to look and feel cool or at work a kind of relaxation, anyway if you go clubs and bars its very tempting if you are drunk and having fun with friends dancing ( night life ). Basically its not cool to walk into a club or bar and order mineral water with an oxygin mask and listining to Back WTK.

[zheer]

   Smoking 20 - 30 cigs a day is not the same as somking 4 - 5 a day, i know because i started smoking when i was  16 on and off but have stoped smoking  now. As an X smoker i would say that it all starts either at school to look and feel cool or at work a kind of relaxation, anyway if you go clubs and bars its very tempting if you are drunk and having fun with friends dancing ( night life ). Basically its not cool walk into a club or bar and order mineral water with an oxygin mask and listining to Bach WTK.

[franz_]

   Smoking 20 - 30 cigs a day is not the same as somking 4 - 5 a day, i know because i started smoking when i was  16 on and off but have stoped smoking  know. As an X smoker i would say that it all starts either at school to look and feel cool or at work a kind of relaxation, anyway if you go clubs and bars its very tempting if you are drunk and having fun with friends dancing ( night life ). Basically its not cool walk into a club or bar and order mineral water with an oxygin mask and listining to Back WTK.

Exept the oxygen mask, I find it pretty cool.

[le_poete_mourant]

https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/nicotinestudy

Everyone who started smoking after it was known that smoking was extremely unhealthy chose death for themselves. Why help them when they chose for it? If you still want to help them, let them pay all the costs and place them on the lowest place of the hospital-queue.

The report your link goes to was published in 2003. 

By your logic, you have also justified the inaction and cleared the consciences of the 40-odd climbers on Mt. Everest who left David Sharp to die alone on the mountain while continuing on their own journey to the peak. 

By your logic, all the minorities shot to death in slums and ghettos around America don't deserve extra police forces or violence-prevention programs because if they were valuable contributions to society, they would be able to get themselves out. 

By your logic, people should not get bypass surgery because it's their own damn fault for eating fatty foods. 


Bottom line: human life is important no matter what dumb mistakes they make. 

[Kassaa]

The report your link goes to was published in 2003. 

By your logic, you have also justified the inaction and cleared the consciences of the 40-odd climbers on Mt. Everest who left David Sharp to die alone on the mountain while continuing on their own journey to the peak. 

By your logic, all the minorities shot to death in slums and ghettos around America don't deserve extra police forces or violence-prevention programs because if they were valuable contributions to society, they would be able to get themselves out. 

By your logic, people should not get bypass surgery because it's their own *** fault for eating fatty foods. 


Bottom line: human life is important no matter what dumb mistakes they make. 

No, smoking is something you CHOOSE for, living in a slum isn't. The last example I haven't made up my mind about, yet. To my logic, yes, people who eat fatty foods should pay for their bypass surgery, although is extremely difficult to find the right criteria.

The link I gave was the wrong one, https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9598&feedId=online-news_rss20 is the right one.

[pianistimo]

zheer, ur very funny.  mineral water and an oxygen mask listening to bach's wtc.  you make it sound very sterile. 

what i think is sad is when you get to the tracheotomy point.  no fun after that.  you can't talk when you breath.

[le_poete_mourant]

To my logic, yes, people who eat fatty foods should pay for their bypass surgery, although is extremely difficult to find the right criteria.

There is a difference between having to pay for your own bypass surgery and not being allowed to have bypass surgery.  Your first post:

People who smoke should get no treatment for lung cancer.

This suggests you believe they should not be treated no matter how much they pay.  If, however, you meant they should not get treatment for lung cancer for free, I have misunderstood you. 

I do not take issue with the statement that lung cancer treatment should not be for free.  It is an expensive process.  However, if charities and people want to make donations to help, there is no reason to stop them.  As well, at a certain point, treatment only serves to ease someone's passing or extend their life. 

Is lung cancer treatment free in other countries?  I know in the U.S. it is certainly not. 

Kassaa, I urge you to think not generically but individually, personally.  Many good people smoke cigarettes.  This is not entirely their fault.  Blame must be placed, ultimately, on the tobacco industry and the governments who do not recognize nicotine as a drug that is as destructive and dangerous as marijuana, and thus should be illegal. 

I am very close with a family who lost a member to lung cancer in February.  It is because of this that I have thought at length on this topic.  This man was 56 when he died.  He is survived by two daughters, age 16 and 19, upon whom this is very difficult.  I do not know about you, but try to imagine losing a father so young, someone who is not only a protector but a friend.  Imagine as well, how difficult it is for his wife.  Perhaps you have not been with somebody so long that it is physically painful to be without them, and to know that you must be without them for the rest of your life is even worse.  The relationship of a married couple, particularly a happily married couple, is one of the strongest, deepest relationships known to humans.  It is very, very difficult emotionally for all three women to come to terms with this.  But as well, it leaves all sorts of questions financially (putting two children through college on just one income, etc.) and domestically - more work when divided into three than into four. 

Think beyond the people who die.  Think of what they leave behind. 

[pianistimo]

i had a grandfather also die from lung cancer.  he probably tried to quit - but ended up smoking more packs instead of less in the end.  it's not just a problem among people who smoke nowdays.  i was watching a show about how people shouldn't take showers with their mouths open.  something about some kind of pollutant in the water that gets into the lungs and starts bothering or infecting them.

i even wonder about bicycling.  sometimes in the spring and fall there's all these bugs in the air.  some people wear bandanas.  i've inhaled various bugs and tried to expel them - but wondering if they are just caught in my lungs.  also, various times there is a lot of pollution (near 4-5pm) - you see people exercising really hard when maybe they should be indoors at that time.

[zheer]

   "Am not afraid of dying i just dont wont to be their when it happens" ( Woody Allen)

[Kassaa]

i had a grandfather also die from lung cancer.  he probably tried to quit - but ended up smoking more packs instead of less in the end.  it's not just a problem among people who smoke nowdays.  i was watching a show about how people shouldn't take showers with their mouths open.  something about some kind of pollutant in the water that gets into the lungs and starts bothering or infecting them.

i even wonder about bicycling.  sometimes in the spring and fall there's all these bugs in the air.  some people wear bandanas.  i've inhaled various bugs and tried to expel them - but wondering if they are just caught in my lungs.  also, various times there is a lot of pollution (near 4-5pm) - you see people exercising really hard when maybe they should be indoors at that time.

There's a difference between risks and dangers. Smoking is a risk you take, cycling to your work isn't. People often turn dangers into risks to decrease their fear, but if you see everything as a risk, you won't be able to live properly.

[thalbergmad]

Smoking is a risk you take, cycling to your work isn't.

Well, i used to smoke a cigarette whilst cycling to work, which must be double the risk.

I have given up smoking but not cycling.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, i used to smoke a cigarette whilst cycling to work, which must be double the risk.

I have given up smoking but not cycling.

Thal

This reminds me of a remark made on BBC Radio 4 years ago by the journalist and newscaster Brian Redhead (who died some years ago, though of what I cannot tell anyone) anent having found (for himself) a viable solution to the problem of drinking (alcohol) and driving - he'd given up - driving...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

This reminds me of a remark made on BBC Radio 4 years ago by the journalist and newscaster Brian Redhead (who died some years ago, though of what I cannot tell anyone) anent having found (for himself) a viable solution to the problem of drinking (alcohol) and driving - he'd given up - driving...

Best,

Alistair

I enjoyed that one.

Now that i have given up smoking, i have noticed that when cycling, my legs give out before my lungs. It used to be the other way around.

Thal

[ahinton]

I enjoyed that one.

Now that i have given up smoking, i have noticed that when cycling, my legs give out before my lungs. It used to be the other way around.

Thal

I gave up smking at the age of 14, only a few months after I'd started; I've never smoked anything since. I fear that, were I to try cycling, my lungs and my legs would immediately get into competition with one another as to which would give out first ("first" meaning before I'd even gotten onto the wretched cycle, that is - or at least that would be if I even possessed a cycle in the first place).

Cycling is supposed to be very environmentally friendly, since the bicycle is supposedly a means of transport that ostensibly uses up no fossil fuels; however, I wonder if the sheer amount of carbon dioxide that must explode from the mouths of all dedicated and fit cyclists while cycling actually adds to this problem - and, if it does, they'd better start encouraging more car driving in the Netherlands. On top of that consideration, just imagine the megalitres of carbon dioxide expelled by all those people in gyms the world over as they prepare themselves to get fit enough to drive bicycles in city traffic without slowing any of the cars down...

Best,

Alistair

[zheer]

   Debussy and Rachmaninoff both died from cancer.

[zheer]

 But they did not know that smoking was the reason they had cancer.

[living_stradivarius]

Lenny Bernstein died from lung failure caused by excessive smoking. His fans loved him so much they actually rallied near his home with signs telling him to stop smoking!

[BoliverAllmon]

My grandmother stopped smoking40+ years ago, but still developed emphyzema (sp?)

boliver