Smoking

[Prize Gotti]

I really don't understand why intelligent people smoke. Surely once you've got past the "look at me, I'm cool because I smoke" phase, you would realise that it's going to fucking kill you and you'd stop.

I didnt smoke cigarettes til I was 16, I was smoking weed before, but cigarettes never interested me. It wasnt until I started drinking on a regular basis and working every day that I decided to take up smoking. Yes I know it may kill me one day, but I dont intend to smoke once I have a family.

And no, just because you smoke doesnt all ways mean you will die younger. My dad started smoking at 16, his is now 50, other than stress, he is pretty much perfectly healthy.

And it doesnt do as much damage as people make out, when I was younger, I had a weak lung capacity, since i started smoking regulary, my lung capacity went from 250 to 700, it actually strengthened my lung capacity. And yes, people do die from smoking, people do get cancer from smoking. Im not saying they dont.

Sure they tell you 40,000 people die from smoking a year, what they don't tell you is that millions of other people dont.

 

[Sebastian]

Sure they tell you 40,000 people die from smoking a year, what they don't tell you is that millions of other people dont.

Hahaha...logic?

 

[Tha_Wood]

my grandma started smoking when she was 17, shes turning 80 in january and shes fit as a fiddle

 

[The.Menace]

We don't have to discuss now the fact that smokin' is not healthy.... right?

 

[Illuminattile]

Let's not get into the whole "my dad starting smoking at age 12 and now he's 104", because that doesn't change the fact that smoking is ridiculously harmful. If you knew someone who'd jumped off a 12 storey building and survived, would you go and do it?

Sure they tell you 40,000 people die from smoking a year, what they don't tell you is that millions of other people dont.

Try 36,000 people every month.

50% of lifetime smokers die prematurely because of it. If you happen to know one of the other 50%, congratulations. Don't assume that you'll be as lucky.

 

[Casey]

Let's not get into the whole "my dad starting smoking at age 12 and now he's 104", because that doesn't change the fact that smoking is ridiculously harmful. If you knew someone who'd jumped off a 12 storey building and survived, would you go and do it?


Try 36,000 people every month.

50% of lifetime smokers die prematurely because of it. If you happen to know one of the other 50%, congratulations. Don't assume that you'll be as lucky.

For fucks sake man, everyone has a vice, it's not as if people who smoke do it because they are unaware
of the health risks as self-righteous non-smokers seem to imply when they start pointing out health risks every 5 minutes.

Traffic is the biggest killer, far more than cigarettes. Does that mean we shouldn't cross the road? Drinking alcohol also increases your chances of heart disease, liver disease, blah, blah blah. Would you walk into a bar and point that out to someone having a pint, and then dismiss them as unintelligent? Tupac chain smoked Newports, would you call him unintelligent? What about Joni, she chain smokes and has been known to smoke an entire pack in one interview, and 2 or 3 packs per gig. Would you call her unintelligent?

I'd rather be happy and unhealthy than be healthy and bored shitless.

I apologize if this comes across as a rant, but there's nothing worse than anti-fucking-smokers with their self righteous bullshit. It really pisses me off, especially when they criticize celebrities who smoke and whatnot. Have a read of this:

Colin Farrel Targeted By Anti Smoking Bigots


Irish actor and Hollywood heart throb Colin Farrel has been targeted by anti smoking bigots in America. StopSmokingForGood.com a company which sells an online smoking cessation product awarded Colin an “As-A-Role-Model-You-Really-Suck” award. Their website then goes on to lambaste Colin and other Hollywood stars in a fanatical rant.

A blog on StopSmokingForGood.com invited visitors to vote on which celebrity influenced young people the most in starting to smoke. Visitors voted Colin top offending smoker beating other such notable stars such as Johnny Depp, Julia Roberts and Britney Spears.

StopSmokingForGood.com is a company that claims to promote global smoking cessation through online awareness programs and personal education. Like many other similar operations, it has proven not to be adverse to spreading hysterical misinformation and anti smoking fanaticism in efforts to peddle it's wares. According to their site over 50% of Americans start smoking because they see celebrities doing it.

Anti smoker groups have long since demanded that Hollywood remove all smoking scenes from film and TV. They mere sight of a celebrity lighting a cigarette sends them into convulsions as witnessed when Whoppi Goldberg insisted on smoking during a recent American sitcom. Enraged groups from anti smoker lobbies to self righteous moralistic organisations including 'African Americans For Positive Imagery' raged against Whoppi for having the audacity to do such a thing as to smoke a cigarette on screen.

Whoppi and Colin are in a long line of good company who have drawn the ire of the anti smoking fanatics. A blog on StopSmokingForGood.com rants and rages against smoking celebrities and movies they appear in. It criticises Sandra Bullock in 'A Time To Kill' for teaching us smoking helps us to stay cool under pressure, they slate Al Pacino for smoking in 'Devils Advocate' and claim every rogue in every movie this year will be a smoker and then rounds on Clint Eastwood for smoking in his westerns as it teaches us good guys smoke ! There is no winning with these people. No matter what circumstances somebody smokes on screen it is all bad to them. Even the aliens in 'Men In Black' do not escape their anger for smoking.

The reasons why people smoke and continue to do so are varied and complex as is the case with all lifestyle choices people make. According to the anti smoking fanatics, whereas up to 35% of less well off Americans smoke only 14% of their wealthier more educated counterparts choose to do so. Isn't this the same wealthy and educated section of American society where cocaine use is endemic ? Hardly a habit they picked up from watching Tom and Jerry, two hapless cartoon characters whom the anti smoking fanatics successfully campaigned to have cigarettes removed from and the censors scissors taken to.

Real people such as Colin Farrel and his fellow celebrities are a much harder nut for the anti smoking fanatics to crack. This does not stop them from campaigning vigorously to control what everyone should and shouldn't see on their screens and in theatres. The battle between Hollywood and various intolerant interests groups has been ongoing since images began flickering onto the silver screen at the beginning of the last century. Censorship and prohibitions are desperate acts of those who would have us all do and behave as they deem fit. By their very nature, censorship and prohibition are abominations to free democratic societies and cannot succeed. Unless that is, the very parameters and nature of what we consider to be 'Freedom' is changed itself.

People choose to smoke regardless as to whether they watch 'Little House On The Prairie' or 'Reservoir Dogs'. Pinning the blame on celebrities, introducing prohibition and censorship will only serve to make it even more attractive especially to the young. As record producers have long since known if you want a chart busting hit one of the best ways to ensure massive sales is to find some intolerant busy body to campaign to have it banned and better still a government body to follow up with an actual ban. Herein lies the reason why downward trends in cigarette consumption are reversed in areas and countries where smoking bans are introduced.

Whether Colin Farrel smokes or is seen to smoke matters little to cigarette consumption worldwide. This won't prevent the anti smoking fanatics putting him and other celebrities into their sights as they attempt to bulldoze the rest of us under their juggernaut of intolerance.

 

[Sebastian]

Traffic is the biggest killer, far more than cigarettes. Does that mean we shouldn't cross the road? Drinking alcohol also increases your chances of heart disease, liver disease, blah, blah blah. Would you walk into a bar and point that out to someone having a pint, and then dismiss them as unintelligent?

This comparison sucks. Why? Because there is no way you can avoid traffic. You have to cross the road, use a car etc. But you can choose if you want to smoke or not. Get the difference?

I'd rather be happy and unhealthy than be healthy and bored shitless.

Its very likely that you are not happy when you are ill. Plus this comment makes it seem like everyone who doesnt smoke is bored. Which is absurd, of course.

 

[Illuminattile]

For fucks sake man, everyone has a vice, it's not as if people who smoke do it because they are unaware of the health risks as self-righteous non-smokers seem to imply when they start pointing out health risks every 5 minutes.

Well the figure that Prize posted was way off, so obviously he was unaware of the scale. Besides, it can't hurt to just reinforce how much more likely you are to die because of your "vice".

Traffic is the biggest killer, far more than cigarettes. Does that mean we shouldn't cross the road?

Crossing the road is a necessity, smoking isn't. That's a specious argument as you well know.

Drinking alcohol also increases your chances of heart disease, liver disease, blah, blah blah. Would you walk into a bar and point that out to someone having a pint, and then dismiss them as unintelligent?

People who binge drink are unintelligent, yes. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Tupac chain smoked Newports, would you call him unintelligent? What about Joni, she chain smokes and has been known to smoke an entire pack in one interview, and 2 or 3 packs per gig. Would you call her unintelligent?

For smoking, yes.

I'd rather be happy and unhealthy than be healthy and bored shitless.

Then find a hobby that doesn't cause cancer.

 

[Casey]

This comparison sucks. Why? Because there is no way you can avoid traffic. You have to cross the road, use a car etc. But you can choose if you want to smoke or not. Get the difference?

The comparison doesn't suck, you've actually completely missed the point. The point was not whether you have a choice.

The point was that the logic of "Smoking kills. You shouldn't do it" is the same as "Traffic kills, so don't cross the road", in that both are equally absurd. Are smokers aware that smoking may kill? Yes. We choose to do it anyway. Are people crossing the road aware that they could get hit by traffic? Yes, but they do it anyway. You don't have to cross the road. And I'm talking about crossing the road where you need to cross it, not walking half a mile to the nearest fucking traffic light.

Its very likely that you are not happy when you are ill. Plus this comment makes it seem like everyone who doesnt smoke is bored. Which is absurd, of course.

I didn't say that, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm talking about smokers such as myself who enjoy smoking. And it was a statement that was intended to reflect all vices, not just smoking. If you gamble, you may lose all your money. Does that makes gamblers stupid? If you drink, you may damage your liver. Are drinkers stupid? If you are promiscuous, you may catch a disease. If you drive, you may get hit by another car and killed. Et cetera, et cetera.

People spend their whole lives worrying too much about bullshit to have a good time, and then they get to be an old person, some dude breaks into their house and kills them anyway. Alternatively that doesn't happen, but they still die one way or another. Everybody does. Maybe some self-righteous non smokers will get run over by a van of fellow anti-smoking campaigners, tomorrow, in a hilarious incident of irony. You never know.

Well the figure that Prize posted was way off, so obviously he was unaware of the scale. Besides, it can't hurt to just reinforce how much more likely you are to die because of your "vice".

Maybe he was unaware of the scale. Or maybe he just didn't care.

Crossing the road is a necessity, smoking isn't. That's a specious argument as you well know.

See above. If you prefer to walk an extra 500 yards for the sake of finding the nearest traffic light or pelican crossing, then fair enough. Me, I cross the road where I need to.

People who binge drink are unintelligent, yes. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Of course you can argue otherwise. If Isaac Newton was a binge drinker would that make him unintelligent? Of course not.

For smoking, yes.

I'd love to hear you say that to Joni's face. You are presenting your own skewered definition of intelligence believing that everyone else thinks in the same way you do. YOU may consider it unintelligent to damage your body by smoking. That is going by YOUR PERSONAL definition of intelligence. Smoking makes me happy. Therefore, since I would rather not be unhappy, it is INTELLIGENT for me to smoke.

Then find a hobby that doesn't cause cancer.

If everyone lived their lives worrying about doing things that MAY cause them harm then nobody would ever do anything.

 

[Sebastian]

The comparison doesn't suck, you've actually completely missed the point. The point was not whether you have a choice.

The point was that the logic of "Smoking kills. You shouldn't do it" is the same as "Traffic kills, so don't cross the road", in that both are equally absurd. Are smokers aware that smoking may kill? Yes. We choose to do it anyway. Are people crossing the road aware that they could get hit by traffic? Yes, but they do it anyway. You don't have to cross the road. And I'm talking about crossing the road where you need to cross it, not walking half a mile to the nearest fucking traffic light.

Its more like "Smoking can kill, yo dont do it!" but ok. And no, this statement is not absurd, your second one is though.

And i cant really understand why you are not able to see the difference between both things. I guess its because you dont want to see it. Once again: You have to cross the road, its not a matter of choice, you simply have to do it! Do you have to smoke? NO!

I didn't say that, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm talking about smokers such as myself who enjoy smoking. And it was a statement that was intended to reflect all vices, not just smoking. If you gamble, you may lose all your money. Does that makes gamblers stupid? If you drink, you may damage your liver. Are drinkers stupid? If you are promiscuous, you may catch a disease. If you drive, you may get hit by another car and killed. Et cetera, et cetera.

People spend their whole lives worrying too much about bullshit to have a good time, and then they get to be an old person, some dude breaks into their house and kills them anyway. Alternatively that doesn't happen, but they still die one way or another. Everybody does. Maybe some self-righteous non smokers will get run over by a van of fellow anti-smoking campaigners, tomorrow, in a hilarious incident of irony. You never know.

If they put all their money into gambling, yes, they are stupid for doing it.

Drinkers as in excessive drinkers, yes they are stupid for doing it.

 

[Casey]

/\ read it again. I'm talking about crossing the road wherever you need to cross it. not walking to a traffic light.

 

[Illuminattile]

The point was that the logic of "Smoking kills. You shouldn't do it" is the same as "Traffic kills, so don't cross the road", in that both are equally absurd.

How is it absurd to say "smoking kills, you shouldn't do it"? That's a true statement, and a good piece of advice. It's not the same as saying "don't cross the road, you might get run over", or "don't leave your house you might get struck by lightning" or "don't go to sleep, you might not wake up again". Those things are risks that everyone has to face. Smoking is a risk you choose to face, and it's a really stupid choice to make.

FYI, smoking kills more than 9 times as many people as car accidents, per year.

People spend their whole lives worrying too much about bullshit to have a good time

I like how you're implying that I'd smoke if I were less worried about "bullshit" like cancer. It might shock you to learn that smoking isn't my idea of "a good time".

See above. If you prefer to walk an extra 500 yards for the sake of finding the nearest traffic light or pelican crossing, then fair enough. Me, I cross the road where I need to.

You're such a rock star. I'm sure Kurt Cobain would be proud.

Of course you can argue otherwise. If Isaac Newton was a binge drinker would that make him unintelligent? Of course not.

If Isaac Newton jumped off a cliff because he thought he could fly, would that make him unintelligent? No, but it's an unintelligent thing to do. As is smoking.

I'd love to hear you say that to Joni's face.

I don't think Joni needs me to tell her that smoking is retarded.

You are presenting your own skewered definition of intelligence believing that everyone else thinks in the same way you do. YOU may consider it unintelligent to damage your body by smoking. That is going by YOUR PERSONAL definition of intelligence.

I'm not saying you're unintelligent, that was a poor choice of words on my part. But smoking is an unintelligent thing to do. Intelligent people do unintelligent things. You can't argue that wilfully damaging your body and sending yourself to an early grave is smart, though.

Smoking makes me happy. Therefore, since I would rather not be unhappy, it is INTELLIGENT for me to smoke.

If smoking is the only thing that makes you happy then you need help. I wonder how happy you'd be if you were to have a heart attack or a stroke tomorrow, or contract lung cancer, or develop cataracts, or get pneumonia, emphysema, bronchitis...

If everyone lived their lives worrying about doing things that MAY cause them harm then nobody would ever do anything.

Whereas you, as a smoker, are living a much richer life than all us pitiful non-smokers. Shame you probably won't live as long.

 

[Sebastian]

Lol, this is really funny.

 

[hizzle?]

I was never a big smoker, but I smoked for a while. Stopped for 5 months. restarted to smoke in the 82nd minute of the Liverpool - AC Milan game.

 

[Prize Gotti]

Try 36,000 people every month.

That is a international figure. 36,000 <<<<<<<<<<< The rest of the worlds smoking population.

When they 50% of smokers die younger, that doesnt mean they live for 50% of their lives, it means the life expectancy drops by about 10 years at the most.

And when they uses sentences like "smoking can cause cancer" they mean "smoking may trigger cancer". The same as anything else that may trigger cancer.

Eating fish can cause cancers, but your not gonna call them stupid for eating fish?

 

[Casey]

How is it absurd to say "smoking kills, you shouldn't do it"? That's a true statement, and a good piece of advice. It's not the same as saying "don't cross the road, you might get run over", or "don't leave your house you might get struck by lightning" or "don't go to sleep, you might not wake up again". Those things are risks that everyone has to face. Smoking is a risk you choose to face, and it's a really stupid choice to make.

FYI, smoking kills more than 9 times as many people as car accidents, per year.

It is absurd because just because you smoke does not mean smoking will kill you. Just as drinking alcohol does not mean you will die of liver poisoning. I feel there that anti-smoking campaigners in particular overexaggerate. There's plenty of people who have smoked their whole lives and it has not caused them any ill effects.

I like how you're implying that I'd smoke if I were less worried about "bullshit" like cancer. It might shock you to learn that smoking isn't my idea of "a good time".

That's not what I was implying. I was making a generalised statement, not talking to you in particular.

You're such a rock star. I'm sure Kurt Cobain would be proud.


If Isaac Newton jumped off a cliff because he thought he could fly, would that make him unintelligent? No, but it's an unintelligent thing to do. As is smoking.

That first point was unneccesary. But thanks, although Kurt was a bad example to use since he was very anti-rock star. Maybe you could have said Axl Rose, or Steven Tyler.

I don't think Joni needs me to tell her that smoking is retarded.

I don't think she'd really care even if you did.

I'm not saying you're unintelligent, that was a poor choice of words on my part. But smoking is an unintelligent thing to do. Intelligent people do unintelligent things. You can't argue that wilfully damaging your body and sending yourself to an early grave is smart, though.

Again, it depends on your definition of smart. In my view it is not unintelligent as I am a hedonist and I do things that I enjoy. I enjoy smoking. In your view it may be unintelligent but that is because you have a different outlook on life than I do. Different strokes, I guess.

If smoking is the only thing that makes you happy then you need help. I wonder how happy you'd be if you were to have a heart attack or a stroke tomorrow, or contract lung cancer, or develop cataracts, or get pneumonia, emphysema, bronchitis...

Did I say it was the only thing that makes me happy? I never said that. It is a low priority compared to other things, and as I've said, I'm not even a heavy smoker. My uncle used to smoke 100 a day. Most days I have less than 3.

Whereas you, as a smoker, are living a much richer life than all us pitiful non-smokers. Shame you probably won't live as long.

Short, fulfilled, fun life > Long, drawn out, boring existence.

 

[S O F I]

despite selling weed to the 2nd years, graffiti-ing the entire playground, clocking up more detentions and suspensions than any other student in the school's history, smoking cigars in my form room, setting lockers on fire, throwing sealed packs of 200 exercise books out of third story windows onto the road, freestyling in physics class about fucking the physics' teachers daughter

Do intelligent people do these things?


Aside from that, I will say that you're a very dislikeable/loser person, solely due to the nature in which you replied to my post. You may never understand why that is, and I don't have time nit-picking it to prove my point, but I just thought I'd let you know.

Now, you and illu are arguing the same points over and over again. It's clear to me that Illu does not or does not want to acknowledge the notion that people see life different and treat life different. Illu, your post implies that an intelligent person is one who is doing his/her best to guard his/her health. Why does this have to be like this?

 

[Casey]

Do intelligent people do these things?


Aside from that, I will say that you're a very dislikeable/loser person, solely due to the nature in which you replied to my post. You may never understand why that is, and I don't have time nit-picking it to prove my point, but I just thought I'd let you know.

Now, you and illu are arguing the same points over and over again. It's clear to me that Illu does not or does not want to acknowledge the notion that people see life different and treat life different. Illu, your post implies that an intelligent person is one who is doing his/her best to guard his/her health. Why does this have to be like this?

Intelligent people may do any manner of things, I believe your real question should have asked whether those are intelligent things to do, to which I will reply no they were not, but there is a reason for everything. The spiritual turmoil, anguish and unresolved issues I had at that time for a number of reasons resulted in that behaviour. Regardless, it is no-one's position to judge and certainly not yours.

Aside from that, I will also say that you are also a dislikeable/loser person for the way you patronize people. Your current user title of "Rahim is a retard" is a prime example of this. Call me a dislikeable person all you want, it seems the majority of this board, at what I recall being a 17-3 ratio, would argue otherwise.

Regardless, if you'd like to expand on "the nature" of my post, feel free to PM me. However, if you are going to make it public in another pitiful attempt to discredit my character, such as your recent post in my comedy thread (which was, rightfully, deleted), then don't bother at all.

On the other hand, if you'd like to have a one-on-one conversation in real life about this, and perhaps then make your judgments on me from a more realistic and accurate perspective, I will be visiting Seattle this July.

I agree with your last point about how Intelligence does not necessarily equal a regard for one's health. It is something that is highly subjective, and, all bullshit aside, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that SOFI.

 

[Dante]

PLEASE DON'T SUE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

a wise man knows when they haven't a leg to stand on and promptly shuts the holy fuck up. ye of scattered smarts will argue his short but amazing life away being wrong through and through. earth can be an interesting place.

beam me up, scotty!

 

[Sebastian]

Now, you and illu are arguing the same points over and over again. It's clear to me that Illu does not or does not want to acknowledge the notion that people see life different and treat life different. Illu, your post implies that an intelligent person is one who is doing his/her best to guard his/her health. Why does this have to be like this?

Its irritating me that you seem to be serious about your question...

What is your life worth if you are (fatally) ill? I affirm that those who are smart know that their own health is the basic thing for everything they do. What the...why am i trying to explain it?