Smoker who has 10 cigars a day celebrates his 100th birthday

[De Selby]

Just something to remember when you read these stories....

You can read an interview with someone who smoked every day and lived to be 100,

but you can't read interviews with all the people who are dead from smoking-related illnesses...

so, there tends to be a bit of a distorted perception with respect to the danger of the activity.

[wmenorr67]

Just something to remember when you read these stories....

You can read an interview with someone who smoked every day and lived to be 100,

but you can't read interviews with all the people who are dead from smoking-related illnesses...

so, there tends to be a bit of a distorted perception with respect to the danger of the activity.

Blah, Blah, Blah.  We all are going to die someday.  Might as well enjoy life as it comes.  You never know when your number is up.  And there are people who die from cancer that never smoked or drank.  A lot of things are in your genes.

[De Selby]

Just something to remember when you read these stories....

You can read an interview with someone who smoked every day and lived to be 100,

but you can't read interviews with all the people who are dead from smoking-related illnesses...

so, there tends to be a bit of a distorted perception with respect to the danger of the activity.

Blah, Blah, Blah.  We all are going to die someday.  Might as well enjoy life as it comes.  You never know when your number is up.  And there are people who die from cancer that never smoked or drank.  A lot of things are in your genes.

Sure, that's all true-but it's still fairly clear that smoking is bad for you, and aside from significantly increasing the odds you will get cancer, also ruins your health in other ways.

I'm not saying it's wrong to do it-I'm just saying, let's not pretend that it's actually not risky/bad for your health. 

If you think the tradeoff in health and risk is fine, I say go for it.  Your choice.

[RevDisk]

Just something to remember when you read these stories....

You can read an interview with someone who smoked every day and lived to be 100,

but you can't read interviews with all the people who are dead from smoking-related illnesses...

so, there tends to be a bit of a distorted perception with respect to the danger of the activity.

As Tyler Durden once said, On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

[De Selby]

As Tyler Durden once said, On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

I'm not disagreeing there-but I think sometimes smokers tend to take these stories and run with them to the conclusion that smoking actually isn't as risky as it's made out to be, or they convince themselves that they're in the same exception to the rule as the 100 year old smoker.

Better to make a decision as to the risk/reward ratio while being fully honest with ourselves about the risks, imo.

[wmenorr67]

Just something to remember when you read these stories....

You can read an interview with someone who smoked every day and lived to be 100,

but you can't read interviews with all the people who are dead from smoking-related illnesses...

so, there tends to be a bit of a distorted perception with respect to the danger of the activity.

Blah, Blah, Blah.  We all are going to die someday.  Might as well enjoy life as it comes.  You never know when your number is up.  And there are people who die from cancer that never smoked or drank.  A lot of things are in your genes.

Sure, that's all true-but it's still fairly clear that smoking is bad for you, and aside from significantly increasing the odds you will get cancer, also ruins your health in other ways.

I'm not saying it's wrong to do it-I'm just saying, let's not pretend that it's actually not risky/bad for your health. 

If you think the tradeoff in health and risk is fine, I say go for it.  Your choice.

I do and will, not that I need your permission or anything.  There are alot of things that are risky/bad for your health.  Ever try driving?  How about some of the food you may eat?  Do you partake in alcohol?  By some studies that will increase your risk for various sorts of cancer.  Just living today puts you at risk of some forms of cancer.

[wmenorr67]

As Tyler Durden once said, On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

I'm not disagreeing there-but I think sometimes smokers tend to take these stories and run with them to the conclusion that smoking actually isn't as risky as it's made out to be, or they convince themselves that they're in the same exception to the rule as the 100 year old smoker.

Better to make a decision as to the risk/reward ratio while being fully honest with ourselves about the risks, imo.

I do believe most people know the risk/reward ratio and really don't care what other people think.  I know I only listen to three other people when it comes to things I do.  Those would be my wife and two children.

[RevDisk]

As Tyler Durden once said, On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

I'm not disagreeing there-but I think sometimes smokers tend to take these stories and run with them to the conclusion that smoking actually isn't as risky as it's made out to be, or they convince themselves that they're in the same exception to the rule as the 100 year old smoker.

Better to make a decision as to the risk/reward ratio while being fully honest with ourselves about the risks, imo.

It'll be a toss up between cigarettes or environmental contamination killing me.  But yes, as a smoker, I am aware that Smoking Is Bad For You.   All smokers know this.  We really do.  The cheesy ads reminding us are a waste of time and money, but I'm sure someone is making their money off them.  Do you honestly think there is a single smoker out there that is NOT aware smoking is bad for you?

Seriously.  We smokers gave up the WHOLE plane.  We tolerately walk x number of feet from the buildings to smoke.  Certain totalitarian cities have banned indoor smoking.  ("For your own good" is the worst evil humanity has ever invented.)  We deal with stupid warning signs on the cigarette boxes.  We PAY for those stupid anti-smoking ads by being bled dry with taxes.   Do you know how much a pack of smokes costs without taxes?   $1.  That includes the store profit.  We pay 3 or 4 bucks in taxes for 1 buck in product. 

[De Selby]

I do and will, not that I need your permission or anything.  There are alot of things that are risky/bad for your health.  Ever try driving?  How about some of the food you may eat?  Do you partake in alcohol?  By some studies that will increase your risk for various sorts of cancer.  Just living today puts you at risk of some forms of cancer.

Yep, those things are all true.

And smoking adds to every other risk of cancer you incurred today.  That's all I'm pointing out.

Whatever things you do today that increase your risk of cancer, smoking on top of doing those things increases it even more.

I'm not anti-tobacco, or anti-weed.  I have smoked before (not weed), and I support legalizing marijuana.  But I don't support legalizing it because it's good for you or even not harmful-it is.

And so is smoking.  That is the only point I'm making here.  I think it is perfectly rational to decide that the increased risk of cancer, and the nearly certain general damage to your lungs, are worth the benefits you get from consumption of the product.

But again, let's not go overboard in countering the anti-smoking zealots-they are indeed right when they say that it significantly increases your risk of disease and that it generally damages your health.  

[De Selby]

Seriously.  We smokers gave up the WHOLE plane.  We tolerately walk x number of feet from the buildings to smoke.  Certain totalitarian cities have banned indoor smoking.  ("For your own good" is the worst evil humanity has ever invented.)  We deal with stupid warning signs on the cigarette boxes.  We PAY for those stupid anti-smoking ads by being bled dry with taxes.   Do you know how much a pack of smokes costs without taxes?   $1.  That includes the store profit.  We pay 3 or 4 bucks in taxes for 1 buck in product. 

I don't agree with the bans, or with banning smoking in bars either (kind of silly, if you ask me.)  Also don't support taxing the stuff into the stratosphere.

But I do know many smokers, and most (not all), including my relatives, have tried to tell me that all the science is bs, that no one actually knows how risky it is, that the odds really aren't as bad as they seem...etc etc.

There's a crowd out there that's similar to the weed smokers who try to convince you that there are all sorts of medicinal benefits from hitting the bong, or that because marijuana is natural it's actually not so harmful to the health.

That's what I'm responding to when I see an article like this.  It's those folks who take the example of the 100 year old guy who smokes and drinks daily to claim that the behaviors aren't actually that harmful or risky.

[Sergeant Bob]

I didn't see where SS was trying to tell anyone what to do yet, people seem to be getting awfully defensive about it.

No one rationalizes better than a smoker.

[Laurent du Var]

I don't see where scientists get to tell people to
stop smoking because it is bad for their health,
stop eating the overly fat food, stop drinking alcohol,
stop polluting with driving when they can't find a cure for
all those things. So far the development of civilisation has
evolved around improving our environment and now we have to
improve our selfs instead. You don't go to the moon by trying to hold your breath and jump real high you use a scientist who will design a rocket ship for you, no?

You either could say that scientists are at their wits end and don't know how to cure cancer, solve nutrion related problems or save our environment  while keeping the industry and with it  our wealth going - or they just think if you don't change your lifestyle I don't have to find the sollutions, you'll die and still owe me a salary for my unworthy, useless and freedom cutting "work". 

Where does Al Gore get to say that we must stop the global warming as if the Chinese or the Indians would care and doesn't tell us that the scientists
are just showing us our problems and how we must solve them instead of finding a sollution and get of their tax financed behinds ? 
 

[Iain]

These derided scientists spend an awful lot of time looking for the solutions Laurent. Research into cancer is huge. The simple advice about how to avoid some of the avoidable things that might place you in a situation where you need the fruits of this research - it's advice, take it or leave it, but mostly it's good advice.

[Laurent du Var]

Of course it is good advise not to smoke, as well as eating healthy and driving in a safe way. But when advise becomes the law being enforced against you as it is the case with smoking and driving, then I kindly would like to ask to our researchers where are your results ? Instead of finding a cure against lung cancer you'd advise us to stop smoking, instead of making sure our hearts won't let us down we should work out more ? Instead of inventing save cars using less or different fuels we'll hide a police man behind every tree to make your travelling as uncomfortable and expensive as we possibly can ? To come back on topic I've heard that many borderline depressed people seek relief in Alcohol how about we'll advise them to watch Rock Hudson & Doris Day movies instead. And start resarch to producing happy pills that won't  turn you  into low blood pressure zombies ? 

[Iain]

I see a lot of disabled/mentally unwell people smoke (and drink), and it clearly is a form of self-medication.

The crux of your point seems to be though that you don't want anyone telling you not to smoke, which is fair enough. But you also berate them for not looking for the cure (which I will point out again that they are) for your self-inflicted condition. They are looking for the cure, but an ounce is better than a pound (or gram better than a kilo in these modern European times).

[SteveS]

Instead of finding a cure against lung cancer you'd advise us to stop smoking

Do you really believe there aren't people looking for a cure?  Cancer research is very well funded.  In the mean time, telling people that quitting may reduce their risk of lung cancer is reasonable, as is telling people to reduce certain behaviors may help prevent them from contracting HIV.

instead of making sure our hearts won't let us down we should work out more ?

Again, this seems to be reasoanble and prudent advice. 

To come back on topic I've heard that many borderline depressed people seek relief in Alcohol how about we'll advise them to watch Rock Hudson & Doris Day movies instead. And start resarch to producing happy pills that won't  turn you  into low blood pressure zombies ? 

Sounds great.  Better living through chemistry.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Seriously.  We smokers gave up the WHOLE plane.  We tolerately walk x number of feet from the buildings to smoke.  Certain totalitarian cities have banned indoor smoking.  ("For your own good" is the worst evil humanity has ever invented.)  We deal with stupid warning signs on the cigarette boxes.  We PAY for those stupid anti-smoking ads by being bled dry with taxes.   Do you know how much a pack of smokes costs without taxes?   $1.  That includes the store profit.  We pay 3 or 4 bucks in taxes for 1 buck in product. 

I don't agree with the bans, or with banning smoking in bars either (kind of silly, if you ask me.)  Also don't support taxing the stuff into the stratosphere.

But I do know many smokers, and most (not all), including my relatives, have tried to tell me that all the science is bs, that no one actually knows how risky it is, that the odds really aren't as bad as they seem...etc etc.

There's a crowd out there that's similar to the weed smokers who try to convince you that there are all sorts of medicinal benefits from hitting the bong, or that because marijuana is natural it's actually not so harmful to the health.

That's what I'm responding to when I see an article like this.  It's those folks who take the example of the 100 year old guy who smokes and drinks daily to claim that the behaviors aren't actually that harmful or risky.

The science on smoking is pretty good, as far as it goes.  Much of the science seems to have been lost, though, or perhaps concealed. 

Numerous studies have found that you must take a certain minimum amount of tobacco before it can influences your health.  Below that point, your tobacco consumption has no affect on your health, you have literally the exact same risks as a non-smoker.  That break-even point is a lot higher than most people would believe, being between 1 and 2 pack of cigarettes a day or 1 or 2 cigars a day.  Many casual smokers fall well below this point, and yet society still sees fit to nag them and berate them as if they were doing something unhealthy.

So, whenever someone says Smoking Is Bad For You, they aren't telling you the whole truth.  Smoking in large quantity is bad for you.  Smoking in small quantity is not.

[Tallpine]

Big difference between cigars/pipes and commercial cigarettes.

I'm asthmatic and can tolerate pipe and cigar smoke, but cigarette smoke is awful

Maybe the "water of life" is an antidote for the tobacco, and vice versa 

[macpherson]

Every statistic has outliers, like this man.  That doesn't change the widely documented fact that smoking is bad for you, and that people have developed lung cancer, cancer of the gums, laryngectomies, etc from smoking.  I reject the notion that smoking is "really not that bad", do you really think putting that crap in your lungs day after day is going to leave them looking like roses in 20 years?  Some people are more susceptible to cancer than others but that doesn't mean the practice is any safer, it just means they got good genes.  I'm not advocating the unfair treatment of smokers that is happening across the country, especially the taxes, as it's a person's choice to do so, but don't try to convince others that it's not unhealthy.

[Ex-MA Hole]

Macpherson,

I'm wondering, since you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject.  I work in a print shopshop all day.  I breathe in paper dust, chemicals and misc other happy things.

I enjoy a cigar, which is made out of leaves, on the weay home.

Which is more of a threat for long term damage?

Just curious on your thoughts, since you seem to be an expert.

[De Selby]

Macpherson,

I'm wondering, since you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject.  I work in a print shopshop all day.  I breathe in paper dust, chemicals and misc other happy things.

I enjoy a cigar, which is made out of leaves, on the weay home.

Which is more of a threat for long term damage?

Just curious on your thoughts, since you seem to be an expert.

I've been known to enjoy a good cigar too.

But I don't think MacPherson is saying anything too controversial here.  Yeah, in the aggregate, the print shop debris may be worse for you than smoking...but it's not like the smoking suddenly has no effect because of the damage already done by print chemicals.

Getting burned by a hot stove surface will still do damage, even if the part of your body you put on the stove has already been burned by a propane torch.  Same thing with smoking-just because you huffed a pound of asbestos at work one day doesn't mean that subsequent smoking will do no damage on top of the asbestos sniffing.

[De Selby]

So, whenever someone says Smoking Is Bad For You, they aren't telling you the whole truth.  Smoking in large quantity is bad for you.  Smoking in small quantity is not.

Apparently some of the research on this says otherwise:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050922014942.htm

[Iain]

That's junk science SS. Defined as 'science wot we don't like'.