Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are you a smoker?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Are you a smoker? (Page 11)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12

Author

Topic: Are you a smoker?

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 04-22-2010 12:51 PM

I don't dispute cigarette's are very deadly and that more people die from smoking related illness every year than alcohol related illness/crashes. However what I am curious about is with the cancer statistics do they take into account other factors like if someone smoked and worked in an asbestos factory, or chemical plant? How do they choose what caused the cancer when there are competing factors? What if it was 50% smoking and 50% the toxic smoke spewing plant next door? Do they count it as half a smoking death or does smoking take all the blame?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-22-2010 01:14 PM

Jonathan, it sounds like you are trying to imply that you are better than me because I did not attend Pytlak's funeral. Your thinly veiled insults pointed at me also seem to imply the same thing. You are the one who is being judgmental, Jonathan. You seem to have a very big problem with me. I am not insulting you personally, but you are attempting to personally attack me. You are the one taking the low road here. Just come out and state what's really on your mind.

And no, road construction does not give you an excuse to speed and endanger other people's lives.

For the record (and off topic), I hate funerals (and "visitations" are right out). I like to remember people when they are alive. Funerals do not help me emotionally nor are they a good way for me to say goodbye. They may help others and that is fine, but they are certainly not for me. That does not make me a cold-hearted bastard or anything.

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 04-23-2010 03:19 PM

Bobby - We are in agreement then on part of your post. My whole point was, like you said, a lot of other variables to have to be considered. We do eat poorly. We are fat. We live less healthy lives than other countries. Our squares may indeed be mixed with more garbage. Where we disagree is that despite all these variables, the focus goes right back to the smoking as being the evil entity. Everything that goes into our body contributes to our balance of physical and mental health.

There is a whole other argument that smokers actually generate far more money than they cost, but that's getting off topic. The short summary is - years of smoking a highly taxed product contributes far more in tax dollars than the tax money spent on tobacco related illness by uninsured patients. It's an interesting argument, albeit a little dark.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-23-2010 03:57 PM

quote: Chad Souder
Where we disagree is that despite all these variables, the focus goes right back to the smoking as being the evil entity.

Smoking is the most obvious and most simple element to remove from the equation and the one element whose removal is going to give the most positive result.

quote: Chad Souder
The short summary is - years of smoking a highly taxed product contributes far more in tax dollars than the tax money spent on tobacco related illness by uninsured patients. It's an interesting argument, albeit a little dark.

Those tax dollars aren't covering the costs of treatment to uninsured, under-insured and post retirement age patients (receiving medicare and medicaid funding for their treatment). Hospitals absorb a great deal of losses from unpaid bills as well. All of this is contributing to the runaway cost inflation of health care in the United States.

Also, I've heard the arguments the cigarette industry puts more money into the American economy than what it costs the country from its negative aspects. Every major cigarette manufacturer is also heavily involved in the food business and other businesses. It's easy to inflate their numbers.

Then there's the moral point. Cigarettes are proven to be a dangerous and even deadly through long term use. If cigarettes were not physically addictive I wouldn't have quite as negative an attitude towards them as I do. The vast majority of cigarette smokers can't simply quit smoking whenever they feel like doing so or smoke only on rare occasions. Not only do the cigarette manufacturers know this, they have been proven guilty of increasing the addictive properties of their cigarettes to make it even more difficult for smokers to quit. That's fucking evil. Fuck those companies. After all, that's what they're saying to their customers.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 04-23-2010 04:01 PM

quote: Chad Souder
Sure, it's just one guy. His name just popped into my head. But if you're saying genetics can prevent cancer, then genetics can also accelerate it along with a multitude of other variables.

No shit. There are lots of things that go into it. But if you look at the whole group of smokers vs the whole group of non-smokers, lung cancer appears in a larger percentage amongst the smokers. Now, unless you're saying that people who were already prone to getting cancer are somehow more likely to start smoking, smoking would be linked to it.

quote: Chad Souder
There are oodles of people who get cancer, including lung cancer, that never smoked and weren't around second-hand smoke.

There are oodles of people who get liver diseases that never drank alcohol, therefore alcohol isn't related to liver disease.[/sarcasm]
Regardless of what, exactly "oodles of people" really means, statistically people who smoke are more likely (percentage-wise) to get lung cancer than people who do not. Yes, some people still develop cancer without it, but that is absolutely an implication that they aren't related.

quote: Chad Souder
Bobby - We are in agreement then on part of your post. My whole point was, like you said, a lot of other variables to have to be considered. We do eat poorly. We are fat. We live less healthy lives than other countries. Our squares may indeed be mixed with more garbage. Where we disagree is that despite all these variables, the focus goes right back to the smoking as being the evil entity. Everything that goes into our body contributes to our balance of physical and mental health.

It might have something to do with the fact that we are looking at lung cancer. See, obesity is linked to cancers of the breast, endometrium, colon, kidney, esophagus and stomach. But not much at all for lung. Smoking increases your risk for lung cancer more than being fat does.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-23-2010 05:40 PM

quote: Randy Stankey
George Burns may have smoked a lot of cigars in movies and on TV but we don't know how much he actually smoked in real life.

Yes we do. (Well, we old farts do.) I remember him talking about it on the Tonight Show once -- it's one of my favorite bits of video.

Carson: You smoke a lot of cigars, don't you?
Burns: I smoke between eight and ten of these a day, and I usually have a glass of wine with lunch and dinner.
Carson: What does your doctor say about that?
Burns: He's dead.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-23-2010 08:21 PM

I wonder how many dead smokers stayed faithful to their habits with encouraging words along the lines of "George Burns smokes a lot and is really really old, that means I'll live a really long time too even if I keep smoking."

They could use George Burns for that rationale or the legendary, unnamed friend of a friend's brother's uncle's father in law's sister's brother who lived to be 100 and smoked 5 packs a day.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-23-2010 09:00 PM

If you read that article about George Burns linked above, you'll note that he says he never inhaled on a cigar.

Of course you can still get all kinds of nasty stuff from cigars and cigarettes even if you don't inhale. I think the bottom line is just crazy luck for a lot of people.

My dad smoked like a chimney from age 12 until he died at 77, and he drank about 15 beers a day. Did he die from lung cancer or liver failure? Nope -- pneumonia.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-23-2010 10:32 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Those tax dollars aren't covering the costs of treatment to uninsured, under-insured and post retirement age patients (receiving medicare and medicaid funding for their treatment). Hospitals absorb a great deal of losses from unpaid bills as well. All of this is contributing to the runaway cost inflation of health care in the United States.

100% on the money. The cost to the healthcare system of smokers is astronomical. Even those with insurance are driving up the premiums of non-smokers. If you could wave a magic wand and immediately stop all smoking in the US you would probably see AT LEAST a 25% reduction in health care spending (once enough time has passed for the people who have smoked to be weeded out so to speak).

Personally I don't understand why somebody would want to smoke knowing the health risks. Especially since cigarettes smell like crap and stain everything with tar. Even really poorly educated people can't be stupid or oblivious enough not to know how bad smoking is for you.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-24-2010 12:49 AM

Yet they do it anyway because they think it is cool.

I feel like rolling up on one of the smoking teens standing front of Lawton High School and slapping him in the teeth with a sledgehammer for his blatant, retarded, costly stupidity. But it wouldn't do any good. All of his fucking retarded idiot friends would smoke even more out of spike. And I would go to jail. So screw all that. Nevertheless, anyone under the age of 30 or perhaps even 40 has no excuse whatsoever to smoke. Might as well load a 1911 model .45 semi-auto handgun and play a little "Polish Roulette." Same difference.

At any rate, anyone who willfully chooses to begin smoking in this day and age is a fucking idiot. There is NO legitimate defense for the smoking industry. It is a scourge of society regardless of anyone making any profit from it. Every smoker I know wants to quit but cannot quit because he or she is hooked -all thanks to the magical ingredients those cigarette companies load into their "coffin nails."

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-25-2010 01:36 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Every smoker I know wants to quit but cannot quit because he or she is hooked

I don't think I buy that. They might say they want to quit, but they really, deep down inside, at the bottom of their being, love to smoke.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-25-2010 02:15 PM

I've known several smokers that had no desire to quit and quite enjoyed it. This particularly true of the pipe and cigar smokers. I've also known some cigarette smokers that enjoyed it too.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 04-25-2010 03:05 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't think I buy that. They might say they want to quit, but they really, deep down inside, at the bottom of their being, love to smoke.

Could that be because the nicotine in tobacco causes increases the neurotransmitters relating to the brain's reward system? And could it be compounded by the fact that tobacco smoke has monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which means that the breakdown of those neurotransmitters is inhibited?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-25-2010 03:49 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
Could that be because the nicotine in tobacco causes increases the neurotransmitters relating to the brain's reward system? And could it be compounded by the fact that tobacco smoke has monoamine oxidase inhibitors, which means that the breakdown of those neurotransmitters is inhibited?

I dunno. I asked Dad once why he didn't quit smoking and he said "I enjoy it too much." He didn't mention neurotransmitters or monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 04-25-2010 04:43 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I asked Dad once why he didn't quit smoking and he said "I enjoy it too much." He didn't mention neurotransmitters or monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

And didn't I say that those are involved in the brain's reward/pleasure system? You can't say "It's not the drug; they just enjoy it too much" when the drug itself modulates their enjoyment.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 12

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.