Smoking Cigarettes Will Kill You

[Sanslines]

Change in cigarettes more dangerous to lungs?

Higher levels of chemical linked to certain type of lung cancer, study finds

WASHINGTON - It may be riskier on the lungs to smoke cigarettes today than it was a few decades ago — at least in the U.S., says new research that blames changes in cigarette design for fueling a certain type of lung cancer.

Up to half of the nation's lung cancer cases may be due to those changes, Dr. David Burns of the University of California, San Diego, told a recent meeting of tobacco researchers.

It's not the first time that scientists have concluded the 1960s movement for lower-tar cigarettes brought some unexpected consequences. But this study, while preliminary, is among the most in-depth looks. And intriguingly it found the increase in a kind of lung tumor called adenocarcinoma was higher in the U.S. than in Australia even though both countries switched to so-called milder cigarettes at the same time.

"The most likely explanation for it is a change in the cigarette," Burns said in an interview — and he cited a difference: Cigarettes sold in Australia contain lower levels of nitrosamines, a known carcinogen, than those sold in the U.S.

That's circumstantial evidence that requires more research, he acknowledged.

But anti-smoking advocates are citing the study as Congress considers whether the Food and Drug Administration should regulate tobacco, legislation that would give the agency power to decide such things as whether to set caps on certain chemicals in tobacco smoke.

Smokers once tended to get lung cancer in larger air tubes, particularly a type named "squamous cell carcinoma." Then doctors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30804744#) noticed a jump in adenocarcinoma, which grows in small air sacs far deeper in the lung. Initial studies blamed introduction of filtered, lower-tar cigarettes. When smokers switched, they began inhaling more deeply to get their nicotine jolt, pushing cancer-causing smoke deeper than before.

Burns' study, presented at a meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, took a closer look. He compared smoking behaviors of different age groups over four decades — how much they smoked, when they started, when they quit — and how cancer-risk changed.
The risk of squamous cell carcinoma stayed about the same over those years, Burns found. But adenocarcinoma rose. It makes up 65 percent to 70 percent of newly occurring U.S. lung cancer cases, but no more than 40 percent of Australia's lung cancer, he said.

While the nation's total lung cancer cases have inched down as the number of smokers has dropped in recent years, the study suggests an individual smoker's risk of getting cancer is higher.

It's well known that cigarettes differ from country to country, because of different tobacco crops grown locally and smokers' varying tastes. Nitrosamines are a byproduct of tobacco processing and levels vary for several reasons, including differences in curing practices.

Australian cigarettes contain about 20 percent of the nitrosamine content of U.S. cigarettes, making the chemical a prime suspect, concluded Burns, who has been scientific editor of several surgeon general reports on tobacco.

That doesn't rule out a role for deeper inhaling, cautioned Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society: "There's several strong suspects in the lineup. They may have acted in combination."

Philip Morris USA spokesman David Sutton called the study speculative and hard to evaluate until it's published in a medical journal, something Burns plans to do.

Still, Philip Morris, which supports FDA tobacco regulation, began taking steps with its growers in 2000 that have yielded "significantly lower" nitrosamine levels in recent years' supplies, Sutton said.

Be careful in assuming lower-nitrosamine cigarettes are less lethal, said Dr. Neal Benowitz of the University of California, San Francisco, a well-known tobacco expert. Lung cancer is only one of tobacco's many risks — it causes heart disease (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30804744#) and other killer diseases, too.

"If you reduce someone's (lung cancer) risk by 10 percent, that's not really meaningful for an individual," he said. "The goal still is to get them to stop."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30804744

[FreeinNJ]

I think we need to push more for people to stop smoking then trying to come up with a smoke that does not cause cancer as it will never happen. The world will be a better place for it. We need a full ban state to state on smoking in any place that serves food and it public buildings.

[Sanslines]

Just remember that this is a NO SMOKING forum.

[LamontCranston]

I think we need to push more for people to stop smoking then trying to come up with a smoke that does not cause cancer as it will never happen. The world will be a better place for it. We need a full ban state to state on smoking in any place that serves food and it public buildings. Right on! and alcohol too! Wait.. they tried that. Actually made it an amendment to the Constitution.

How'd that work out? :eek:

Let's make your law, then fast forward though the inevitable organized crime, black markets, jailings, and killings, later repeal your law, then come up with something that may actually work.

Like a HUGE class action suit against the tobacco companies that make the product. We can eliminate their advertising and cripple them with billion dollar settlements for selling lung cancer for decades! Great idea!

Wait... they tried that too. How'd that work out? :eek:

If the states can give up their addiction to the tobacco tax revenue (and really impress me and stop sucking the life-blood of the lower class through gambling addiction with the lottery), then I'll quit too. Meanwhile, I'm sparking this cigar. :D

P.S. i've got sans on my do not read list so I've no idea what he's peddling below. I thought this might be a comedy thread being about smoking in a health and fitness forum, so I peeked in.. ;)

[NudeWil]

Speaking of states with a longstanding "addiction to the tobacco tax revenue":

North Carolina last week took a historic step for a state built on tobacco: It made smoking indoors illegal just about everywhere.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090517/NEWS01/905170348

While I don't appreciate smoky atmospheres, I foresee lawsuits to try to overturn this new law.

[naturush]

So...I dislike laws that tell me how to live. Let's look at something more fun like sex! Studies have found that smoking causes impotents-yuck. Also, personal experience has taught me that food tastes so much better with-out cigs. Better sex and tastier food got me off the smoking habit, and will hopefully will keep my kids from starting!!

[MoonShadow]

As someone who has smoked in the past, I see both sides of this coin. I smoked for 30 years before quitting and I quit not because of my health but because of being treated like a second class individual by employers and businesses and then shoved outside in the cold to have my nicotine fix. I have been a non-smoker for 20 plus years now but I still want to have one now and then. I enjoyed the taste of smoking.

I think smokers do have rights the same as those of us who don't smoke. I think all businesses should have places outside and away from entrances to their facilities where smokers can go and smoke. This total ban on smoking just makes it difficult for smokers and they will leave the premises and go have their cigarettes. I find it cruel actually to force smokers to leave the premises to have their cigarettes. Nicotine is highly addictive and a smoker will need a "fix" during their working hours. Some smokers will get very irritable when not allowed to have their nicotine level kicked up during the day.

Smoking cigarettes is also not illegal but you would think it was the way smoking and smokers are treated. They are people. They are people who happen to smoke but we, non-smokers, just seem to keep making their lives hell. I find it tragic and sad.

As far as lung cancer is concerned, it affects, most of the time those who have smoked strong, higher tar and nicotine cigarettes for 30, 40, 50 years. Smokers who start and quit within a 20 to 25 year period from various studies I have read are in the same ranks of non-smokers with the chance of getting lung cancer. One must note too that half of lung cancer is from smoking. What is the other half caused from?

This is a hot button topic. I see both sides and both sides have legitimate arguments.

And naturush, I agree, in that I highly dislike laws that tell me what I will or will not do especially when it is legal. It is legal to smoke.

[FreeinNJ]

Moonshadow - the reason non smokers want all eateries to have a full ban is because no matter how far away it is from them , if it's indoors we can still smell that terrible smell . For many of us it ruins our meals and wish that not to happen
. I do not believe smoker should have the same right when it comes to this and feel they should take it outside no matter the weather or hold off until they are done eating. If a smoker cannot do 90 minutes without one I think the real issue is not that they need to go outside , but they need get themselves help to cut down and break free from this awful addiction.

[Skinview]

Just for the record, this past Satuday I attended a service for my cousin, who died of lung cancer. He was 54, and a smoker.

[MoonShadow]

Free - I am not talking about smoking indoors as I agree that there should not be smoking indoors of any public facility. We pretty much have that in most states now. I am talking about having places outside of facilities for smokers. Most places now don't even have that anymore.

Yes, it is an addiction but there are worse addictions out there.

[FreeinNJ]

Moon - sorry, as a non smoker my biggest grip is at anywhere I eat. As for outdoors I agree , since the smoke is not trapped it should not be that big of an issue.

[MoonShadow]

Skinview, my condolences for the lost of your cousin.

[notobaccocampaign]

I agree with FreeinNJ have said. we should really push more for people to stop smoking. and there should be a complete ban on tobacco smoking. in this way, smokers will decrease in numbers. support World No Tobacco Day.
On may 31st, we celebrate World No Tobacco Day which has been declared by the World Health Organization. To engage and educate the public about the issues, a free ebook is being given away.Support World No Tobacco Day today! Visit www.TobaccoBook.com for the book's website.

[Fitz1980]

Nicotine is highly addictive and a smoker will need a "fix" during their working hours. Some smokers will get very irritable when not allowed to have their nicotine level kicked up during the day.


That one has always gotten me. As a non-smoker I just find so many smokers to be so damned whiny about their addiction. It irritates me when they expect more breaks during the work day and for me to cover them during this time just because they have this addiction.

That said I don't think that it should be made illegal or anything like that.

[MoonShadow]

I agree with FreeinNJ have said. we should really push more for people to stop smoking. and there should be a complete ban on tobacco smoking. in this way, smokers will decrease in numbers. support World No Tobacco Day.
On may 31st, we celebrate World No Tobacco Day which has been declared by the World Health Organization. To engage and educate the public about the issues, a free ebook is being given away.Support World No Tobacco Day today! Visit www.TobaccoBook.com for the book's website.


Good luck! You can push all you want but remember smoking cigarettes is not illegal. You cannot ban anything unless you make it illegal. There is more education out there about not smoking than not using hard-core drugs which are illegal. The only way you will get more smokers to quit is to make tobacco illegal and then it will become another illegal "drug" used by many but then maybe the same effort about not smoking will then focus on illegal substances. That would be a plus.

[MoonShadow]

That one has always gotten me. As a non-smoker I just find so many smokers to be so damned whiny about their addiction. It irritates me when they expect more breaks during the work day and for me to cover them during this time just because they have this addiction.

That said I don't think that it should be made illegal or anything like that.

I will beg to disagree with you on the breaks. Smokers lose no more time than non-smokers regarding breaks. They also don't ask for more breaks. Smokers will use their time away from their desk to go outside and have a cigarette and then return to their work stations. No one covers for them in most situations and most of the breaks are not that frequent. Non-smokers use up "breaks" at the same rate as smokers only non-smokers are not outside smoking but are in the coffee rooms, the mail room, in the hallways, at another's desk, etc.

[FireProf]

The fact of the matter here is simple...........

Smoking causes cancer and second hand smoke is just as bad. What "Right" does a smoker have to light up, inhale this deadly smoke and then exhale it for everyone around them to inhale it!???

A smokers "Right" to smoke ends at MY NOSE! When it breaches my personal space and jeapordizes my health...they have infringed on MY Rights!

Unless a smoker can contain their smoke within their personal space and not infringe on others who don't want to inhale their deadly smoke, they shouldn't be talking about and insisting on "Rights!"

and.....I smoke cigars! But...I don't do it around other people unless I've ask them if it's going to bother them that I do. At the beach I stand and go away from people to smoke my cigar. At parties I smoke outside away from everyone and downwind so they don't get my drift smoke.

It's not that hard to be considerate of others but the vast majority of smokers don't think that way. They feel they have the same "Rights" as anyone else and that is BS.

FP

[Keith58]

Speaking of states with a longstanding "addiction to the tobacco tax revenue":

North Carolina last week took a historic step for a state built on tobacco: It made smoking indoors illegal just about everywhere.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090517/NEWS01/905170348

While I don't appreciate smoky atmospheres, I foresee lawsuits to try to overturn this new law.

This new NC law becomes effective Jan 1, 2010 - if I have it right.

As one who smoked for 27 years and quit (been 11 years now) and one from NC who farmed tobacco, I can say the crop has almost gone the way of the horse whip industry. I, for one, hate to go into a restaurant and be told the only thing open is a booth next to a trash fire. The door is my friend.

As far as lawsuits, I forsee those will be thrown out of court - even here in the Tarheel State. I predict the same - or more - persons will be suing bar keepers, restauranteurs, and smokers who light up in public places for preservation of their right to clean, smoke-free air.

Regards

[MoonShadow]

It's not that hard to be considerate of others but the vast majority of smokers don't think that way. They feel they have the same "Rights" as anyone else and that is BS.

FP

I disagree, FireProf. Back during my smoking years, I was always considerate of non-smokers but when I smoked, it was the vogue. Everyone smoked when I started smoking. The times changed and now smokers are a minority and most that I know today are considerate of non-smokers. Yes, I agree, there are those who are not but most smokers today try to be considerate of non-smokers. And this notion of rights. Yes, smokers have rights. Smoking cigarettes is NOT illegal. They have a right to smoke.

[Sanslines]

$72.7 Billion: Smoking's Annual Health Care Cost
By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs

posted September 16, 1998


The total cost of caring for people with health problems caused by cigarette smoking -- counting all sources of medical payments -- is about $72.7 billion per year, according to health economists at the University of California.

The figure is almost six times higher than the cost per year of smoking-related Medicaid payments alone, reported last spring by the same Berkeley and UCSF economists.

The new total estimate "translates the adverse health effects (of smoking) into dollar terms, the universal language of decision makers," said the analysis published today in Public Health Reports (http://hav54.socwel.berkeley.edu/faculty/publications/lmiller.html). All payments made in 1993 by Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration medical programs, military medical programs, private health insurance companies and out-of-pocket payments were analyzed for that fraction of illness caused by cigarette smoking. By comparison, the March report counted only the cost of smoking-related Medicaid payments -- $12.9 billion that year.
"I am not surprised by these costs," said Leonard Miller, an economist and professor in the School of Social Welfare at Berkeley, who is first author on the report.

"You expect a figure of this magnitude for the impact of smoking on health care, when you consider that one in five deaths per year is due to cigarette use," said Miller.

Smoking accounted for 11.8 percent of all medical expenditures in the U.S. in 1993, according to the analysis.

The report was co-authored by Dorothy Rice, professor emeritus of health economics at the UCSF Institute for Health and Aging and former director of the National Center for Health Statistics. Other authors are Xiulan Zhang, a Berkeley graduate student, and Wendy Max, associate professor of health economics at UCSF.

"We can now see the tremendous burden of smoking on society," said Rice. "These are very high costs."

She pointed out that the 1993 bill for California alone amounted to $8.7 billion, the highest total in the nation, followed by New York, with $6.6 billion in smoking-related disease costs. Wyoming, at $80 million in 1993, had the lowest expenditure for illness caused by cigarette smoking.
Rice also said that if a proposed financial settlement between Congress and tobacco companies had been reached last spring, it would not have come close to compensating private and public insurance payers for the cost of smoking-related illnesses.

That settlement, now off the boards, would have cost tobacco companies $368.5 billion, paid out over 25 years, in exchange for a cap on future lawsuit liability against the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry pulled out of the negotiations when the proposed settlement rose above $500 billion over 25 years.

But according to the Miller-Rice report, the actual cost of medical care for smoking-related disease in the next 25 years will be an astronomical $1.8 trillion.

"The amount being considered was clearly well below the actual amount that will be spent for the health care of smokers whose health has been damaged by cigarettes," said Rice.

Estimates in the report of "smoking-attributable expenditures" (SAEs) are derived from 11 equations that link smoking history with health in two ways: (1) the likelihood of a prior treatment for a tobacco-related disease (lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and arteriosclerosis); and (2) self-reported poor health. Other calculations then analyzed the impact of self-reported poor health on direct medical expenditures.

Miller accounted for the impact of 11 such factors: age, gender, region of the country, education, income, body mass, seat belt use, smoking history, self-reported health status, previous treatment for tobacco-related diseases and type of medical expenditure. "These are the best federal and collective state data. It's the best we can do at this point to estimate the impact of smoking on health costs in all 50 states," said Miller.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html

[Sanslines]

Does smoking cause cancer?

Yes. Tobacco use accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths in the United States. Smoking causes about 87% of lung cancer deaths. Smoking also causes cancers of the larynx (voice box), mouth, pharynx (throat), esophagus (swallowing tube), and bladder. It also has been linked to the development of cancers of the pancreas, cervix, kidney, and stomach and some types of leukemia. Cigars, pipes, and spit and other types of smokeless tobacco all cause cancers, too. There is no safe way to use tobacco.

If you smoke but don't inhale, is there any danger?

Yes. Wherever smoke touches living cells, it does harm. Even if smokers don't inhale they are breathing the secondhand smoke and are still at risk for lung cancer. Pipe and cigar smokers, who often don’t inhale, are at an increased risk for lip, mouth, tongue, and some other cancers.

What are the dangers of environmental (secondhand) tobacco smoke?

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is also known as secondhand smoke. Passive smoking (inhaling secondhand smoke) happens when non-smokers breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This includes mainstream smoke (smoke that is inhaled and then exhaled into the air by smokers) and sidestream smoke (smoke that comes directly from the burning tobacco in cigarettes). ETS contains the same harmful chemicals as the smoke that smokers inhale. In fact, because sidestream smoke is formed at lower temperatures, it has even larger amounts of some toxic and cancer-causing substances than mainstream smoke.

There is strong evidence that ETS causes serious damage to human health. Each year about 49,400 non-smoking adults die of lung cancer or heart disease as a result of breathing secondhand smoke. It can also affect non-smokers by causing asthma and other respiratory problems, eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and dizziness. Children whose parents smoke are more likely to suffer from asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, ear infections, coughing, wheezing, and increased mucus production. Babies of parents who smoke have a greater chance of dying of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Pregnant women exposed to ETS are at risk for having a low birth weight baby and may also be at risk for pre-term delivery and miscarriage.

Can quitting really help a lifelong smoker?

Yes. It is never too late to quit using tobacco. The sooner smokers quit, the more they can reduce their chances of getting cancer and other diseases. Within minutes of smoking the last cigarette, the body begins to restore itself.


20 minutes after quitting

Your heart rate and blood pressure drop.

<SMALL>(Effect of smoking on arterial stiffness and pulse pressure amplification, Mahmud A, Feely J. 2003. Hypertension:41:183.)</SMALL>



12 hours after quitting

The carbon monoxide level in your blood drops to normal.

<SMALL>(US Surgeon General's Report, 1988, p. 202)</SMALL>


2 weeks to 3 months after quitting

Your circulation improves and your lung function increases.

<SMALL>(US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, pp.193, 194,196, 285, 323)</SMALL>


1 to 9 months after quitting

Coughing and shortness of breath decrease; cilia (tiny hair-like structures that move mucus out of the lungs) regain normal function in the lungs, increasing the ability to handle mucus, clean the lungs, and reduce the risk of infection.

<SMALL>(US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, pp. 285-287, 304) </SMALL>


1 year after quitting

The excess risk of coronary heart disease is half that of a smoker's.

<SMALL>(US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, p. vi)</SMALL>


5 years after quitting

Your stroke risk is reduced to that of a non-smoker 5 to 15 years after quitting.

<SMALL>(US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, p. vi)</SMALL>


10 years after quitting

The lung cancer death rate is about half that of a person who is still smoking. The risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, cervix, and pancreas decreases.

<SMALL>(US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, pp. vi, 131, 148, 152, 155, 164,166)</SMALL>


15 years after quitting

The risk of coronary heart disease is that of a non-smoker's.

<SMALL>(US Surgeon General's Report, 1990, p. vi)</SMALL>


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Questions_About_Smoking_Tobacco_and_Heal th.asp

[FireProf]

I disagree, FireProf. Back during my smoking years, I was always considerate of non-smokers but when I smoked, it was the vogue. Everyone smoked when I started smoking. The times changed and now smokers are a minority and most that I know today are considerate of non-smokers. Yes, I agree, there are those who are not but most smokers today try to be considerate of non-smokers. And this notion of rights. Yes, smokers have rights. Smoking cigarettes is NOT illegal. They have a right to smoke.

and...as a non smoker.....I have rights as well. Why is it, just because smoking isn't illegal, that it is okay for a smoker to exhale harmful smoke into the air others breath???

What is so hard to understand about that? It has nothing to do with a smokers right to smoke. It has to do with a smoker's smoke infringing on and harming others that have the RIGHT not to smell it or inhale it!

I'm always amazed at someone who states that everyone they are aquainted with is a considerate smoker. I'll bet each time before you and your friends lit up you walked around and asked all the non smokers if it was okay for you to lit up and blow smoke in their direction so they could inhale it and have their clothes smell like cigarettes. That is not true and I know you're well aware of it.

I'll give you a scenerio: Smokers; "considerate" smokers decide they want to have a smoke. They leave a bar, restaurant...whatever and go outside. They light up and start smoking. Other patrons begin leaving the same establishment. Do the "considerate" smokers move and smoke downwind, do they extinguish their smokes so's not to offend and be considerate of non smokers? NO, they feel..."I'm outside, I have the right to smoke, it's not against the law." All of a sudden....those "considerate" smokers aren't very considerate anymore. This isn't a fictional scenerio. We've all seen it, witnessed it, been confronted/exposed to it. Everytime a smoker is confronted with this simple fact, they become defensive and spout off about their rights and smoking not being illegal.


The simple fact is there is no way to contain the smoke you breath in and out within your space. Smoking infringes on others who have the same rights not to breath harmful chemicals. YOU have a right and a choice to smoke and damage your well being. YOU DON"T have the right to infringe on my personal space, my breathing air and my rights.

FP

[MoonShadow]

Whew, FireProf, I didn't mean to get you so fired up.

Yes, non-smokers have rights and that is to be in a smoke-free environment and smokers have rights to be able to smoke outside. I see both sides of the argument. I was a long term smoker and now a long term non-smoker.

This is a hot button topic and I have made all the points of opinion about this topic I care to make.

[Keith58]

Yes, smokers have rights. Smoking cigarettes is NOT illegal. They have a right to smoke.

It has been stated, "One person's rights cease at their fingertips. Others' rights begin there." Smokers have exactly zero right to subject anyone else to their smoke.

[Agde]

...
15 years after quitting
The risk of coronary heart disease is that of a non-smoker's.


I get it. So the trick is to stop smoking 15 years before it would have killed you in order to have more time to pursue other vices that have later deadlines. :)

[FireProf]

Whew, FireProf, I didn't mean to get you so fired up.



:D...............well it did fire me up! ;)

I'm fully aware and understandable to everyone having their opinions and their "rights," but can't understand why those with the opinion that smokers have "unlimited rights" just cuz they smoke outside.

Smokers will only "really" see the other side of the story and arguement when they are annoyed, frustrated and angry because someone near "them" has the "right" to do something "legal" but it is offensive and harmful to them

FP....and now I'm off my soapbox. My apologies.

[FreeinNJ]

It has been stated, "One person's rights cease at their fingertips. Others' rights begin there." Smokers have exactly zero right to subject anyone else to their smoke.



you are so right!

[Sanslines]

Another four letter word for smoking: COPD

COPD is an incurable lung condition in which air flow is compromised, making it difficult to breathe. Between 85 percent and 90 percent of all COPD cases are caused by cigarette smoking. You may have heard that quitting allows lungs to “turn pink” again, but the damage done by COPD is irreversible.

The best bet for preventing COPD is to be among the 79 percent of American adults who do not smoke. If you’re among the remaining percentage, about 46 million, try to quit! Never surrender to the idea that COPD is a disease smokers bring on themselves, as if it’s a disease one volunteers for. Kicking the nicotine habit is fiercely difficult, but there is an increasing number of workable programs for quitting.

Every cigarette that you smoke is doing you irreversible harm. Each and every one of them.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/quit-smoking/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100174546&GT1=31020

[raywil]

Addiction of any kind is not good for health be it smoking, alcohol or drugs. Once a person gets addicted to such things then it's very tough to get over it because of the addictive nature of these things. It takes immense will power and dedication to get over such habits. I quit smoking on Chantix though I have tried to do cold turkey on two occasions, but of no use. I have smoked for around 5 yrs with pack a day. Thanks to chantix and the support my family provided me. Best luck to all those who want to give up there habits.

[MoonShadow]

Until cigarette smoking is made ILLEGAL, I will never preach to anyone to quit the habit because I am a non-smoker. First and foremost, it is none of my business if someone smokes. That is their right and their choice.

Most companies today do not allow smoking on their premises and if they do it is in designated areas. Restaurants and bars no longer allow smoking and smokers must go outside and smoke. I think such actions are more than fair to non-smokers and have no complaints about either action. We, non-smokers, have relegated smokers to the outdoors to smoke which keeps them away from us. Then we go further with our pompous and holier than thou comments about smoking as if we are superior. It's rather scary to see the viciousness from some of our mouths about smokers. And truly sad.

[Fitz1980]

Until cigarette smoking is made ILLEGAL, I will never preach to anyone to quit the habit because I am a non-smoker. First and foremost, it is none of my business if someone smokes. That is their right and their choice.


I see what you are saying but just because something is legal doesn't mean I shouldn't encourage people to not do it. I would never want to see it made illegal; but I think that drugs and prostitution should be made LEGAL. Of course if they were I wouldn't start engaging in them myseld nor would it stop me from trying to dissuade friends from getting involved in them.

[maliakei]

That one has always gotten me. As a non-smoker I just find so many smokers to be so damned whiny about their addiction. It irritates me when they expect more breaks during the work day and for me to cover them during this time just because they have this addiction.

That said I don't think that it should be made illegal or anything like that.

There were far too many smoker breaks going on in my previous workplace where the rest of us had to fill in. It hurts production and is unfair to the rest of the group, unless smokers are able to do their fair share of the work, working extra hours (no overtime pay).

I was relieved the day came when the No Smoking laws INSIDE THE WORKPLACE came into effect. All my life it was hard living with smoker relatives. Growing up with all the 2nd hand smoke caused all kinds of problems with bronchitis, pneumonia, colds & sore throats.

Really. Smoking is costly, addictive, ages you faster -- teeth, lungs, skin.. Not worth it!

[MoonShadow]

Okay, got to dispel a misconception.

Smokers taking breaks are not any less productive than the rest of the employees. This is a fallacy. Smokers take breaks long enough to smoke and then go back to their workstations. Those of you who say smokers do not work as much or as hard as non-smokers are stating a mistruth. I have seen both sides of this argument, have been in the workforce longer than most of you have been alive and smoking breaks did not disrupt or reduce productivity among themselves or others. Productivity is affected by those who roam the hallways of work chit-chatting to others or talking over the phone to friends and family, or on their computer instant messaging their friends or family, or shopping on-line. So if you want to really put who is more productive then you have to consider all the non-work related activities all employees do.

Today, everyone has smoke-free work environments which is a plus. Smokers who can still smoke on company property have designated areas - normally outside; some companies even go as far as providing a place with a roof for smokers away from main entrances.

I grew up in a smoking environment as smoking during my youth by adults was the norm. I have had no problems as a result of the smoking. My parents did not die from any smoking-related illnesses and they lived to be in their late 80s. After I left home, I made my own choice whether to smoke or not smoke. Initially, I did smoke and then quit and have been a non-smoker for 30 plus years.

We know that anyone who smokes runs a high risk of smoking-related illnesses; however, it doesn't mean they will all have them. Non-smokers preach this as more of a scare tactic than anything else. But smoking is legal and people have the right and the choice to smoke. I do not go around smoking areas. My friends who smoke do not smoke around me but I do not tell them they cannot smoke. They can and what they normally do is step to a different area of space if outside or if we are indoors they go outside.

And more importantly, I will not treat smokers as if they are second-class people. If I like a person, whether they smoke or not, I like them and will be around them even if I can smoke on their clothing. The person they are means more than whether you can smell if they had a cigarette.

[Navigator]

Smokers taking breaks are not any less productive than the rest of the employees. This is a fallacy. Smokers take breaks long enough to smoke and then go back to their workstations. Those of you who say smokers do not work as much or as hard as non-smokers are stating a mistruth. I have seen both sides of this argument, have been in the workforce longer than most of you have been alive and smoking breaks did not disrupt or reduce productivity among themselves or others. Productivity is affected by those who roam the hallways of work chit-chatting to others or talking over the phone to friends and family, or on their computer instant messaging their friends or family, or shopping on-line. So if you want to really put who is more productive then you have to consider all the non-work related activities all employees do.


I don't think you made your case that smokers are NOT less productive than other employees MoonShadow.

Your argument assumes that smokers get their breaks but non-smokers are unproductive an equal amount of time due to dithering on the computer or phone or in hallways. You're dividing them into two groups with no overlap.

I don't think they divide that evenly into two groups. It's been my experience that smokers take their breaks PLUS they do just the same amount of dithering when they're back at their work stations as most other non-smoking employees.

There are always exceptions of course...but we're talking about averages.

[maliakei]

It depends on the people. Unfortunately, at my workplace the smokers took breaks each hour, leaving me alone to answer busy multi-lines phones. Then again, there were other workers who spent so much time away from their desks, either at the water cooler chatting away.

I was merely saying way back when. I had no choice but to keep quiet at home. Even as much as a cough merely asking to please open the window for some air. Sadly many of my relatives died because of smoking. I NEVER say anything about feeling uncomfortable, rather simply get away from that environment. I loved my family members, it was the smoke which hurt me.

[marko486]

Type in "Study smoking productive" into a search engine and you will find a # that support the theory that they are less productive. I quit 5 years ago and don't really have an opinion. Onion gets the last word though.

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/study_smokers_bad_for_workplace

[MoonShadow]

Navigator, perhaps I didn't prove "my case" so-to-speak, but I know from personal experience that smokers are no less productive than non-smokers. I would love to do a study!

[MoonShadow]

Mark046 - a theory? Theory is not what is truly happening. Studies can be done today to indicate specific results. I would have to look at three entirely different and unbiased studies before I would form any opinion. I am just speaking from personal experience here. Those of you who want an argument over who is more productive go right ahead on as I know from first hand smoking and non-smoking experience that smoking did not affect productivity nor did it increase the number of sick call ins.

The final line is that smoking is a legal behavior. I am not going to preach to any smoker pro- or con-. It is their choice. Live and let live.

[marko486]

Ironically I was looking for a study that said smokers were more productive, using the nicotine high and all, that I recalled reading years ago. No doubt it was sponsored by a cigarette company. I do not want to misuse the term Theory, so let's just say opinion, because that is what you are saying. Personally I would give some some creedence to smokers as slightly less productive on average. This would be my own opinion, having been on both sides, but I also think generalizing when judging individuals is stupid because frankly it is the individual's work ethic that trumps whether or not they are productive much more so. 'nuff said.