This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

New Study: No amount of smoking is safe

2»

Comments

  • edited August 2010
    And in the end, there's always a good chance you'll be hit by a car and all that healthy living was for naught.

    So, enjoy life. Live a little.
    Yep. Missed the point. *Holds up his sign, "Egg the dumbass."*
    Post edited by KaiserNeko on
  • Congratulations on missing the point.
  • Remember Kirkegaard: ""I shall certainly attend your party, but I must make an exception for the contingency that a roof tile happens to blow down and kill me; for in that case, I cannot attend."
  • RymRym
    edited September 2010
    Hmm...

    So, the smoking rate in the US is about 1/5. As in, 1/5 of the population smokes. Yet, more than half of U.S. children ages 3 to 11 are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes.

    If 1/5 of the nation smokes, and 1/2 children are exposed to smoke in the home, then are families with smokers in-house disproportionately breeding?

    Smoking is predominant among low-income people, and also correlates with low IQ, as well as fewer total years of education, according to many studies. All three of these also correlate to larger average numbers of children. It's an interesting circle of correlation.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited September 2010
    So, the smoking rate in the US is about 1/5. As in, 1/5 of the population smokes. Yet, more than half of U.S. children ages 3 to 11 are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes.

    If 1/5 of the nation smokes, and 1/2 children are exposed to smoke in the home, then are families with smokers in-house disproportionately breeding?

    Smoking is predominant among low-income people, and also correlates with low IQ, as well as fewer total years of education, according to many studies. All three of these also correlate to larger average numbers of children. It's an interesting circle of correlation.
    Or your numbers are off.

    Or take it this way, if one in five people in the US smoke and you are a family of 4 there is a good chance one of you smokes.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • you are a family of 4 there is a good chance one of you smokes.
    And it's guaranteed if you're a family of 5, statistics tells us so.
  • Smoking is predominant among low-income people, and also correlates with low IQ, as well as fewer total years of education, according to many studies. All three of these also correlate to larger average numbers of children. It's an interesting circle of correlation.
    I would first like to introduce a quote by the band Flagpole Sitter:

    Been around the world and found
    That only stupid people are breeding
    The cretins cloning and feeding
    And I don't even own a tv


    Now on to a more statistical look at things: NCCP: Basic Facts About Low-Income Children

    Summary: Being poor sucks.
    Average life expectancy is much higher in cities than in the boonies.
    Where is the study? I've done a comparative cadaver dissection and city air pollution alone had a noticeable negative effect on the lungs. City life also increase stress. Stress reduces life expectancy. You can argue about the quality of life, but living in a city doesn't increase your life expectancy.
  • Stress reduces life expectancy. You can argue about the quality of life, but living in a city doesn't increase your life expectancy.
    I would guess that living in a city correlates with wealth, which correlates with long life and happiness. An equally wealthy person living in the wilderness would likely live longer I'd wager.
  • edited September 2010
    I would guess that living in a city correlates with wealth, which correlates with long life and happiness.
    I disagree and so does this article on Urbanization that I don't particularly trust: Linking Population, Poverty and Development
    Urbanization of poverty

    Poverty is now growing faster in urban than in rural areas. One billion people live in urban slums, which are typically overcrowded, polluted and dangerous, and lack basic services such as clean water and sanitation.
    I trust this CBS article a bit more thought: Will more people like in cities?
    Rapidly growing cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are often seen as presenting among the world's most intractable problems in terms of improving health. This is especially so their for low income citizens, whose tenements and squatter settlements are among the world's most life threatening living and working environments. Rapid urbanisation may even be considered to be "a problem." But rapid urbanisation is usually associated with economic success...
    Not all cities are NYC. The projects ain't the best but are significantly different then a South African urban slum.

    That same tide of wealth NYC is riding right now may cause an influx of people then the city can support. Thuse causing it's eventual implosion. OR something like that...

    Summary: Rich people have it great wherever they go. Poor people live in cities too and it sucks.

    Side note: Few Asian smokers try to quit: study... Lets hope this doesn't catch on with American Otaku.
    Post edited by Wyatt on
  • Summary: Rich people have it great wherever they go. Poor people live in cities too and it sucks.
    I was making ready to post on this, but the police chief called me back. DAMN HIS TIMELINESS!
  • edited September 2010
    Summary: Rich people have it great wherever they go. Poor people live in cities too and it sucks.
    I do like being "rich." Being able to pay for basic necessities kicks ass.

    EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

    Depressing read.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • edited September 2010
    Scrym are getting dangerously close to "stupid indignant person" country with their anti-smoking obsession. People smoke. People always will smoke. Get over it.

    As far as the implications that only stupid, poor people smoke and that Scrym is way too smart and certainly way too WEALTHY to allow their smart, young, wealthy alveoli to ever become besmirched with demon second hand smoke . . . do you really want to be those guys? Really?

    A gentleman never lords his wealth over his friends. Perhaps you're going for a roundabout "Let them breathe smoke" reference? You're not quite as arrogant as 18th century French aristocracy, but you're on your way.
    Stress reduces life expectancy. You can argue about the quality of life, but living in a city doesn't increase your life expectancy.
    I would guess that living in a city correlates with wealth, which correlates with long life and happiness. An equally wealthy person living in the wilderness would likely live longer I'd wager.
    What if someone just basked in the reflected glory of your vast wealth and god-like wisdom and knowledge? Could they then expect to live longer, happier, wiser, wealthier, more smoke-free lives?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • No, I'm worried more that the people most likely to smoke are possibly also those most unable to afford either it or health care. It's a powerful addiction: someone over the poverty line with children who smokes is spending substantial portion of their income on the habit, which is painfully difficult to break, harming their own children (likely more from the reduced total income than from the smoke). Smoking expenses appear to be, by and large, non-elastic due to the supremely addictive nature of the habit, whereas less physically addictive vices, hobbies, or forms of entertainment can more readily be cut back when one's money situation becomes dire.
  • edited September 2010
    A gentleman never lords his wealth over his friends.
    I would call Rym and Scott Many things, But Not Gentlemen.
    No, I'm worried more that the people most likely to smoke are possibly also those most unable to afford either it or health care.
    I can afford healthcare.
    It's a powerful addiction: someone over the poverty line with children who smokes is spending substantial portion of their income on the habit, which is painfully difficult to break
    You're goddamn right - I'm cutting down at the moment, in preparation to quit entirely, and it is really goddamn hard. Admittedly, there are things to help you quit smoking, but I'll be honest, most of them don't help that much, and are vastly unpleasant.

    image
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited October 2010
    image

    1915
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited October 2010
    and?
    image
    We made a lot of mistakes in the past.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • We made a lot of mistakes in the past.
    But we were right about smoking all along.

    Or are you saying that smoking is in fact just fine for us?
  • So it's all those things then?
  • So it's all those things then?
    Seems about right.
  • So it's all those things then?
    Seems about right.
    Well, demonise away, see how far it gets you.
  • Well, demonise away, see how far it gets you.
    I haven't had to deal with the disgusting smell of smokers in my personal life, and barely in my public life, for many years. It's working quite well, and I plan to continue.

    /No one we are friends with in meatspace smokes.
    //One person did a little, but quit and stayed well the fuck away when smoking happened
  • My Aunt taught me to say "Smoking is a dirty and disgusting habit" when I was 3, and I would go over to her boyfriend and say that. It doesn't work so well now that I am grown up. If I say it now, people just think I am a nagging person and not cute.
  • Scott, what point are you trying to make with that sign? Smoking has (almost) always been condemned by churches and religious authorities, ever since it was brought over to Europe. In fact, Bartholome de Las Casas (who chronicled Columbus' later missions to the Americas) probably started the trend of condemning tobacco smoking as sinful and anti-Christian.

    In 1604, King James I wrote, "The habit of smoking is disgusting to sight, repulsive to smell, dangerous to the brain, noxious to the lung, spreading its fumes around the smoker as foul as those that come from Hell." (in latin, of course)

    As for smokers with kids, I wholeheartedly agree with you guys that they should either quit, or at the very least not smoke in or near their households. In my opinion, smoking near children is morally repugnant.
  • Didn't we know this 10 years ago?
Sign In or Register to comment.