Cigarettes are addictive just like scratch tickets and tv. Don't be a slave to anything.

I have always though smoking was a red-herring for 90% of children and 60% of adults in USA being infected with SV-40 through the Polio Vaccine between 1955 and 1963. I could be totally wrong, but I have had similar thoughts to your post.

And what they couldnt blame on smoking they added second hand smoke as the other cause. They will come up with something related to smoking should the two they list as dangerous fail to do what they want. I have no idea what their end game is but I have been suspicious for some time.

Here is the info from the CDC, before they took down the page.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110307094146/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm

You should also check out "The Orgins of Aids", it's an interesting theory, it ties in well with the whole SV-40 issue.

Remember that cancer is random, smoking increases the chances of getting some cancers but you can still get it but never smoke in your life or smoke 20 a day from 20 to 80 and not get (though there would be other effects).

Some treatments are designed for giving people a bit longer life expectantcy, if they think they will not get better, though it sucks what happened to your Uncle :(

As for why people do it still even though they know the risks that is the same for most things, hardcore drugs, alchohol, people always think that they won't be affected and people generally start smoking in their teen years (same for drugs and drink) as it is seen as 'cool'

If you want to find out more about smoking related cancer deaths try some other countries' cancer societies, Britain I would imagine to be good, they have a big presence here and we have the NHS

Also did you know that the first research to prove smoking was bad for your lungs and health were nazi scientists, hitler didnt smoke or drink and was a vegetarian interestingly enough

I think smoking is considered so bad simply because it stinks. Alcohol is fairly effective at causing various cancers, but most people don't even know that.

Yeah, around 4% of cancers in the west, which in the UK (just googled it) is about 12,500 cases of alcohol cancer each year.

Probably right, the smell is disgusting

Im currently trying to quit smoking. So thanks for reminding me. (Haha)

Uhm, yea ive always been suspicious of these points you have. I mean, there IS a mountain of evidence that smoking can cause cancer. Thats not something im going to debate right now.

But, as far as cancer TREATMENT, well, ive always been suspicious of the cancer treatments. Like you said, a lot of folks die from the treatment itself, not the cancer. Plus, whenever you have an incredibly lucrative business founded on the people most in need, and it makes you a billionare, im gonna be highly suspicious. Cancer has become a business nowadays...

Plus, you hear about all these "natural" treatments, like weed, which have some very convincing evidence that they can treat cancer better, faster, more efficiently, and more safely, than chemo. And then you hear that these things are illegal because of an unconstitutional war on drugs, and other highlybsuspect pieces of legislation and politcal roundabouts, where all parties opposed to the naturals make a shit ton of money, and i get super suspicious, critical, and bitter. There is definately something being squandered by the dollar signs in their eyes.

Unfortunately, itll be hard to know for sure because of the political stranglehold around our populace's necks.

Just remember – cigarettes are far easier to quit than they make them out to be.

WARNING – CIGARETTES ARE HIGHLY ADDICTIVE

there is no way you're going to give them up, so don't even try

Honestly, it mostly just comes down to whether, deep inside your psyche, you really want to quit them. If you do, just go cold turkey, throw away your last pack and don't buy any more. Then monitor your physiological state as you withdraw.

"Am I feeling so bad right now?"

The answer is never yes. It's psychosomatic! You expect cravings, so you feel them. If you believe that cigarettes aren't actually addictive, you realise that the unusual feeling of quitting is just breaking a habit, like, stopping biting your fingernails or something.

I almost began arguing with you about how addictive itbis and how hard it is to quit. Almost. But then i realized what you wete saying.

Ive tried quitting dozens of times. Mainly because my wife absolutely hates it. It was the hardest thing to do, and onky ever lasted a few days.

Then one night my friend and i had a bonfire like the good ol days with a case of beer and some cigs, and we both decided, out of nowhere that that was the last night we were gonna smoke.

This time i quit for myself, because I wanted to. And its been almost a month now, and its never been this easy before. So you make a valid point in the fact that you first have to want to quit... Otherwise you are lying to yourself and setting yourself up for failure.

However, withdrawal is a motherfucker, and they psychological effects were profound in the beginning two weeks. Now, not so bad. So the addiction thing, thats pretty legit, imo and in my experience...

EDIT you also make a good point about the psychosomatic aspect of it...

EDIT 2 have you ever smoked and tried to quit?

Yes, I had been trying to quit for ages, trying to cut down the number I was having each day in the hope that one day it would be zero, using nicotine gum and inhalers, etc.

No luck. Well, I did cut down, but it was a constant battle, and when my willpower wavered I was back up to my normal rate feeling guilty.

Anyhow, I read on the stop smoking subreddit that people had been having luck with a book called "Allen Carr's Easy Way to Stop Smoking". I got hold of it and started reading. In the first few pages, he guarantees that by the end of the book you'll simply stop smoking. It also mentioned that nicotine is far less addictive than it's made out to be.

At that point, I thought "why do I have to read this book to stop smoking if it's mostly psychological and nicotine isn't that addictive anyway?" and I stopped right then.

In the following days, determined to see if the withdrawal really wasn't anything at all, I monitored my state, and really, it was never that bad. That's when it occurred to me that we're being lied to about cigarettes. They are a little bit addictive, but compared to drugs that are actually addictive, it doesn't compare.

So, I quit smoking for about 6 months. I was going well, but then the stresses of my life saw me smoking joints pretty regularly, which I would put "just a bit" of tobacco in. After a few weeks, I realised I was craving tobacco again and caved. I don't mind though, because I know it's easy to quit. Soon as I catch a break from my current vicissitudes I'll do it again, and it'll be easy again.

Im not refuting you, but i do want to clarify some differences.

When you get carcinogens on your skin, it might increase your risk of cancer, as you body can absorb bad shit through the skin. But when we smoke, that shit goes straight into your lungs and directly into your bloodstream. Sure, when we breathe in polluted air we will do the same. But polluted air is still greatly titrated with quality air; its not as concentrated nor as direct. Thus, smoking, from my point of view, is a much greater risk.

Now, just because there are faults in the logistics of the cancer-smoking reports, doesnt negate the other cases. We cant throw out all the apples in the batch because some of them are bad.

Its okay to be skeptical, and to guard your trust. But, in doing so we must also avoid shutting out the legit evidence as well...

I think we are constantly surrounded by cancer causing stuff and it's pinned on smoking

I think we agree on the big things, (like 3rd hand smoke is a silly notion). But the details is where we differ, i think.

The nicotine patches do get absorbed through the skin, as many other chemicals do. But the difference is speed of absorption. Patches take a few minutes to kick in, while smoking takes about two or three seconds.

As for the constiuent chemicals in wood smoke vs cigarette smoke, i cannot say which is worse because i dont know. But, even when yiu are at a bonfire, you arent direct inhaling pure smoke (unless the wind blows in the right direction) like you do when you smoke cigarettes. And, not as often. Thats all im saying. Im not discreditting your points, just making the claim that smoking cigarettes causes more direct damage more often and allkws for the carcinogens to be absorbed much faster and more efficiently.

But i think you hit the nail on the head with the exaggeration part. I meam third hand smoke? This is the first ive heard of that actually...

The thing people seem to forget about vaping.. Is that you don't quit.

You replace it. With a "safer," "healthier" alternative.

Yet most people who make the switch end up downing an asston more nicotine than they would be smoking regular cigarettes.

Personally, I hate people who rave about how they "quit" smoking thanks to their e-cig, which may as well be a fucking pacifier.

if someone is tells me something is unquestionable, I immediately question it.

I think I remember if you look at a map of lung cancer rates in the US and compare it to population density it lines up quite nicely (the implication being that living on the east coast is more strongly associated with lung cancer than smoking....)

Well the stats on disease are also bias. 70% of lung cancers are in nonsmokers. Well then 70% of smokers who have cancer may indeed have got cancer from other means...gasoline is highly carcinogenic. Yet if you smoke and get cancer it is 100% the smoking that did it. Statistically this is false.

70% of lung cancers are in nonsmokers.

Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively.

Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.

interesting, haven't heard that before & there could be some truth to it, one can only guess how much money they're making enough money,

maybe cigarettes were made the scapegoat (when people start to get sick, they had to come up with an answer) - besides diet which some people say is culprit, i would guess that the men in other countries have a healthier diet,

also the changes to food (preservatives, GMO, etc), chemicals in water, cell phones, wifi, stress, (i'm gonna throw in chemtrails because i believe they are adding chemicals to the air), i've no doubt cosmetics is suspect too, and i know that mammograms aren't needed as often now,

edit: if smoking isn't the cause of cancer; something is-- Probably PESTICIDES

also consider:

Published: July 9, 1987

ALBANY, July 8— A study issued today by the New York State Health Department says that children with leukemia or brain cancer are more likely than healthy children to be living in homes where the exposure to the magnetic fields generated by electric power lines is high.

In addition to the higher incidence of childhood cancer, the study suggests that exposure to a magnetic field causes behavorial changes in laboratory animals.

Researchers were quick to note that they could not explain the higher incidence of cancer and that the study did not establish a direct cause-and-effect link. Other variables not measured by the study could be factors in the development of cancer, for which the incidence among children is 1 in 10,000 each year."

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/09/nyregion/study-cites-incidence-of-cancer-near-power-lines.html

it would be good if someone could do a study, about this in the US (yeah, good luck with that), there is too much money to be made off illness, can't have people living to a healthy old age.

Im not refuting you, but i do want to clarify some differences.

When you get carcinogens on your skin, it might increase your risk of cancer, as you body can absorb bad shit through the skin. But when we smoke, that shit goes straight into your lungs and directly into your bloodstream. Sure, when we breathe in polluted air we will do the same. But polluted air is still greatly titrated with quality air; its not as concentrated nor as direct. Thus, smoking, from my point of view, is a much greater risk.

Now, just because there are faults in the logistics of the cancer-smoking reports, doesnt negate the other cases. We cant throw out all the apples in the batch because some of them are bad.

Its okay to be skeptical, and to guard your trust. But, in doing so we must also avoid shutting out the legit evidence as well...

The thing people seem to forget about vaping.. Is that you don't quit.

You replace it. With a "safer," "healthier" alternative.

Yet most people who make the switch end up downing an asston more nicotine than they would be smoking regular cigarettes.

Personally, I hate people who rave about how they "quit" smoking thanks to their e-cig, which may as well be a fucking pacifier.

Just remember – cigarettes are far easier to quit than they make them out to be.

WARNING – CIGARETTES ARE HIGHLY ADDICTIVE

there is no way you're going to give them up, so don't even try

Honestly, it mostly just comes down to whether, deep inside your psyche, you really want to quit them. If you do, just go cold turkey, throw away your last pack and don't buy any more. Then monitor your physiological state as you withdraw.

"Am I feeling so bad right now?"

The answer is never yes. It's psychosomatic! You expect cravings, so you feel them. If you believe that cigarettes aren't actually addictive, you realise that the unusual feeling of quitting is just breaking a habit, like, stopping biting your fingernails or something.