Who smokes?

Aggieboy

Pic - Graham Watson

dilemna

Crapaud wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

bompington wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

I smoke. I've come to realise that I'd have stopped some years ago if it wasn't for the anit-smoking lobby. It seems that I'm what they call 'reactant'.

Arrange the following words into a well known saying:

nose your to face cut spite off your

Feck them!!!

I'm not sure you used all of the words there Crapaud

There's some truth to what Bompington says, Bobbinogs. However, everytime I've tried to stop I'm bombarded with stop smoking ads which immediately makes me think of a smoke. That's the short answer.

The longer answer is the tactics used by the likes of ASH. I strongly object to the lies, demonisation of smokers, and the social apartheid they engender and encourage. It's politics, not health.

You've probably noticed the war against obesity and alcohol. They're using the same tactics and vocabulary, ie passive drinking, passive obesity. The first shots have been fired in the war against salt. Remember, it's all for your own good, but it's only a matter of time until they find something that you do that they'll want to proscribe. Cycling on the roads, for instance, or helmets or hi-viz.

So those now suffering with obesity and the drunks are all former smokers forced to give up?

Crapaud

dilemna wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

... You've probably noticed the war against obesity and alcohol. They're using the same tactics and vocabulary, ie passive drinking, passive obesity. The first shots have been fired in the war against salt. Remember, it's all for your own good, but it's only a matter of time until they find something that you do that they'll want to proscribe. Cycling on the roads, for instance, or helmets or hi-viz.

So those now suffering with obesity and the drunks are all former smokers forced to give up?

No.

northernneil

markyone wrote:

I dont smoke, the only time i do is when i am in bed with a female and i am on fire

markyboy2005

Only after sex......







......so I voted No in your Poll!

gethmetal

Smokin Joe wrote:

CarbonCopy wrote:

I drive past a university on the way to work every morning and it shocks me that the amount of talented.educated peaple stood outside smoking.You would think with all those brains they would know whats good for them.I`m thick as two short planks and i know it`s just wrong.

It depends whether your philosophy is to try and eek every last minute out of your existence or just enjoy the ride.

We'll all be dead for billions of years when our time comes, a few either way isn't going to count for much.

I like your thinking, Smokin' Joe.

Thanks to everybody who responded. I was interested to find out what proportion of cyclists were smokers, and I have to admit the number is higher than I would have guessed.

bexley5200

hate the smell of it every morning im woken up by the bloke next door smoking by my window yuck

RDW

Smokin Joe wrote:

It depends whether your philosophy is to try and eek every last minute out of your existence or just enjoy the ride.

We'll all be dead for billions of years when our time comes, a few either way isn't going to count for much.

I suspect it doesn't look that way to someone in their fifties with lung cancer. Half of all regular smokers die early, losing around a decade of life on average. But half of those (a quarter of all smokers) die prematurely in middle age, losing perhaps a couple of decades of life. When you factor in the poorer health of the survivors, are smokers really enjoying the ride more or less than everyone else?

bianchimoon

Crapaud wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

bompington wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

I smoke. I've come to realise that I'd have stopped some years ago if it wasn't for the anit-smoking lobby. It seems that I'm what they call 'reactant'.

Arrange the following words into a well known saying:

nose your to face cut spite off your

Feck them!!!

I'm not sure you used all of the words there Crapaud

There's some truth to what Bompington says, Bobbinogs. However, everytime I've tried to stop I'm bombarded with stop smoking ads which immediately makes me think of a smoke. That's the short answer.

The longer answer is the tactics used by the likes of ASH. I strongly object to the lies, demonisation of smokers, and the social apartheid they engender and encourage. It's politics, not health.

How I hate this argument, the headvin the sand pretence that it doesn't affect other people, I don't care if people want to gamble with their own health or life, what I do care about is that me and my children can go into a pub or restaurant and have a meal without breathing in that cr@p, one of the saddest experiences I've had whilst cycling was a car drawing up next to me at a junction and the woman wound down the window to ask directions, there were three children sat in the back ages from 6 months to about 8 years of age the smoke (no that's to polite , the carcinogens that billowed out of the window when she opened it made me take a step back, I was totally shocked at how someone could be so selfish and crimanally irresponsible to their own children defies belief

You've probably noticed the war against obesity and alcohol. They're using the same tactics and vocabulary, ie passive drinking, passive obesity. The first shots have been fired in the war against salt. Remember, it's all for your own good, but it's only a matter of time until they find something that you do that they'll want to proscribe. Cycling on the roads, for instance, or helmets or hi-viz.

bianchimoon

How I hate this argument, the headvin the sand pretence that it doesn't affect other people, I don't care if people want to gamble with their own health or life, what I do care about is that me and my children can go into a pub or restaurant and have a meal without breathing in that cr@p, one of the saddest experiences I've had whilst cycling was a car drawing up next to me at a junction and the woman wound down the window to ask directions, there were three children sat in the back ages from 6 months to about 8 years of age the smoke (no that's to polite , the carcinogens that billowed out of the window when she opened it made me take a step back, I was totally shocked at how someone could be so selfish and crimanally irresponsible to their own children defies belief

Sorry last post didn't work properly

deptfordmarmoset

I smoke, but I find I'm able to cycle for longer and longer distances without even thinking about lighting up. It's now about 25 miles into a ride that I feel the need to stop for a roll-up and several cups of tea. It'll sound pathetic to non-smokers, but I was pleased with myself for having just one on a 50 mile ride yesterday. And even more pleased that I didn't spend any of the riding time thinking about tobacco - so for a few hours yesterday I was pretty much a non smoker.

However, I may be developing an addiction to diesel particulates...

Frank the tank

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I smoke, but I find I'm able to cycle for longer and longer distances without even thinking about lighting up. It's now about 25 miles into a ride that I feel the need to stop for a roll-up and several cups of tea. It'll sound pathetic to non-smokers, but I was pleased with myself for having just one on a 50 mile ride yesterday. And even more pleased that I didn't spend any of the riding time thinking about tobacco - so for a few hours yesterday I was pretty much a non smoker.

However, I may be developing an addiction to diesel particulates...

Being a non-smoker it had never occured to me that cyclists who smoke think conciously about not having a smoke and also stopping for a "fag break" mid ride.

Daft but true.

deptfordmarmoset

Frank the tank wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I smoke, but I find I'm able to cycle for longer and longer distances without even thinking about lighting up. It's now about 25 miles into a ride that I feel the need to stop for a roll-up and several cups of tea. It'll sound pathetic to non-smokers, but I was pleased with myself for having just one on a 50 mile ride yesterday. And even more pleased that I didn't spend any of the riding time thinking about tobacco - so for a few hours yesterday I was pretty much a non smoker.

However, I may be developing an addiction to diesel particulates...

Being a non-smoker it had never occured to me that cyclists who smoke think conciously about not having a smoke and also stopping for a "fag break" mid ride.

Daft but true.

Smoking is an odd and - daft but true - it's a truly daft addiction. It's not so much that smoking affords any great satisfaction, more that the addicted smoker feels tormented by the idea of withdrawal or of being prevented from smoking. Because I have developed that kind of dependency, I will nearly always take a couple of pre-rolled cigarettes with me when I go out (obviously I'm not a competitive cyclist) as a sort of insurance in case of the need getting to me.

There's a point on most rides that I think about having a break just like anybody else. For me, there's probably at least three things working together there - the need for a rest, caffeine which I take in tea form and, while I'm stopped, I'll have that roll-up because somehow that gets included as part of having a break.

Gradually, though, I find I can go further without even thinking about it. If I forget to smoke, and forget to think about smoking, for the small amount of time that it lasts, I feel like I'm a non-smoker. A cynic might say I want to be a non-smoker without having to give up. Or wanting to have my cake and smoke it. All I can really say is that when I'm out for a ride I smoke less - which in itself can't be bad.

Smokin Joe

Very rare that I take a cigarette out on a ride, only if it is an all dayer. When I raced I used to enjoy a smoke after the finish, back in the day you'd often find a few racers lighting up afterwards.

I remember at the Skol Six in the early seventies seeing some of the riders smoking in their trackside cabins, Peter Post was one IIRC. The indoor riders reckoned it acclimatised them to riding in the smoky atmosphere.

Crapaud

bianchimoon wrote:

How I hate this argument, the headvin the sand pretence that it doesn't affect other people, ...

What head in the sand pretence? It's a myth that second hand smoke has any serious effect. It's one of the deliberate scaremongering lies and propaganda put about by the anti-smoking zealots. It's a deliberate attempt to set smokers and non-smokers against each other.

Smokin Joe wrote:

... I remember at the Skol Six in the early seventies seeing some of the riders smoking in their trackside cabins, Peter Post was one IIRC. The indoor riders reckoned it acclimatised them to riding in the smoky atmosphere.

In the early days of competitive cycling, smoking was considered a performance enhancing drug - it releases sugars from the liver (IIRC).

finchy

Crapaud wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

How I hate this argument, the headvin the sand pretence that it doesn't affect other people, ...

What head in the sand pretence? It's a myth that second hand smoke has any serious effect. It's one of the deliberate scaremongering lies and propaganda put about by the anti-smoking zealots. It's a deliberate attempt to set smokers and non-smokers against each other

I think it's more the case that the link hasn't been proven rather than that the link has been disproven.

I can't believe that anyone would even think about taking the risk with their own child's health.

RDW

There's plenty of evidence that second-hand smoke causes illness and death:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/health ... vesmoking/
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/health ... w/#Passive

Bikehawk

Non smoker, tried it once when I was younger to try look cool 8) and lost my lunch not very cool :oops: . Grew up around smokers but never bothered. In Ireland it's illegal to smoke in any pub, resturant etc. So now you see smokers gathered together sheltering from the elements in the outdoor smoking area.

plowmar

Thankfully, after many attempts, stopped 25 years ago. Hardest thing was going out for a drink in smoky atmosphere.

Never taken fags out on a ride, as wasn't riding when smoking, but had to have a cigarella (sic) before running half marathons. A good cough clears the lungs doesn't it.

Given I was on 30/40 a day I cannot work out how much I have saved myself or done things I couldn't have afforded previously.

Crapaud

John, there are so many research papers over a number of years that you can find one to just about fit any position you want to take on SHS. There are papers that show SHS causing cancer in men, but not women and having a slight, but not statistically significant, benefit for children. The vast majority hover around zero.

The WHO report - one of the largest research projects ever undertaken - gave a relative risk of 1.16: not statistically significant.

Another, the Enstrom & Kabat (2003) paper, 0.97.

Christopher Snowdon posts a good summary on his blog here. It's a very good site and everything is backed up with sources so you can make your own mind up.

If SHS and cancer hasn't been proved yet then there's probably no connection.

Also worth a listen are the ...

[url=http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/david-goerlitz-winston-man.php]Goerlitz tapes[/url] wrote:

David Goerlitz is a former actor and model from New York. Between 1982 and 1988 he was the 'Winston Man', appearing in 42 billboard advertisements - more than the Marlboro man. In 1988, he publicly denounced the tobacco industry and joined the emerging anti-smoking movement. He has spent the last 21 years working in schools as a public speaker, encouraging kids not to start smoking.

RDW

Rather than reading a selective blog from a journalist with an obvious agenda who wants to flog more books, I'd suggest checking out more reliable sources like these:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... obacco/ETS
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/t ... index.html
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/sec ... _smoke/en/

There's a clear scientific consensus that secondhand smoke is harmful and kills. There is no conspiracy here.

DCowling

I quit 27th Jan last year
I had smoked around 20 a day for 20+ years and thought I would give it a seriopus attempt.
I still get pangs of nicotine lust but have managed to avoid it, even in drunken stupors and when I go out for a ride I still come home with a greatr feeling knowing that I woyuld not have been able to achieve it whilst still smoking.
I still have a massive understanding to those whole still smoke as it took me several attempt over several years to quit BUT I will try and coerce / plead with youngsters not to do it.

finchy

Crapaud - my point was that children should not be exposed to the risk, especially in enclosed environments such as cars.

It's also extremely unpleasant for children - when I was younger both of my parents smoked (although they both quit over 20 years ago), and I can tell you that it was really nasty sitting in a car with 2 smoking adults. Unfortunately many parents could not give a crap about their child's discomfort.

Fat Head

Take the odd crack pipe.

acebobby

Fat Head wrote:

Take the odd crack pipe.

Its amazing the amount of crack some people fit down the back of their tight cycling shorts!

Crapaud

RDW wrote:

Rather than reading a selective blog from a journalist with an obvious agenda who wants to flog more books, ...

While I don't especially like using blogs to back up my arguements, when it comes to passive smoking that's pretty much all there is. I wasn't refering specifically to the blog, but the links included where you can make up your own mind from the evidence presented. Did you read it or does it not fit with your own closed minded agenda? I don't ecpect you to agree with me, but it'd be nice if you read and explained why it, and I, are wwrong.

RDW wrote:

... I'd suggest checking out more reliable sources like these:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... obacco/ETS
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/t ... index.html
http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/sec ... _smoke/en/

There's a clear scientific consensus that secondhand smoke is harmful and kills. There is no conspiracy here.

I'd suggest opening your mind rather than soaking up whatever you're told. 3 or 4 years ago I'd have looked at the links you posted and thought nothing else about it. In digging a bit deeper there is indeed a conspiracy.Ask Dr Michael Siegel ...Have the tobacco police gone too far? '

I'VE been called a traitor," says Michael Siegel, a public-health doctor at Boston University in Massachusetts. "It's been a character assassination." This treatment seems surprising as, reading Siegel's CV, you'd think he was a poster boy for the anti-smoking movement. He regularly publishes research on the harmful effects of passive smoking and has testified in support of indoor smoking bans in more than 50 US cities.

Despite these credentials, Siegel has come under fire from colleagues in the field of smoking research. His offence was to post messages on the widely read mailing list Tobacco Policy Talk, in which he questioned one of the medical claims about passive smoking, as well as the wisdom of extreme measures such as outdoor smoking bans.

Unfortunately, the article is, now, mostly behind a paywall. The next bit is copypasta from a post I made ages ago:

New Scientist wrote:

Siegel's case is perhaps the most clear-cut example of a disturbing trend in the anti-smoking movement. There are genuine scientific questions over some of the more extreme claims made about the dangers of passive smoking and the best strategies to reduce smoking rates, but a few researchers who have voiced them have seen their reputations smeared and the debate stifled.

New Scientist wrote:

On the other hand, in some parts of the US, particularly California, the anti-smoking movement has grown so strong that smoking bans outdoors and in private apartments are in force in a few places, and being considered in more. These measures are at least partly based on disputed medical claims, so it is vital their accuracy be determined. But questioning the orthodoxy seems to be frowned on. "It's censorship," says Siegel. "We're heading towards scientific McCarthyism."

New Scientist wrote:

But Siegel has his defenders. "It is sobering and scandalous to think, if Mike is correct, that our field now is guilty of the same junk science long perpetrated by the tobacco industry," says Alan Blum, director of the Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.

You could also have a read at The Godber Blueprint, as it's become known.

The contemporary antismoking crusade has manipulated/altered psychology and social/economic/cultural/political structures the world over. One of the manipulations instrumental in its ‘success’ is avoiding scrutiny by smearing anyone that dares question antismoking policies and methods. By its beliefs and tactics, antismoking conducts itself like a cult. The antismoking industry is now so large and mainstream that questionable, inflammatory claims are produced with high regularity. There are so many such claims working to an agenda that it is impossible to keep up with scrutiny.

The current antismoking crusade has a clear beginning and framework. Rather than try to keep abreast of a myriad of questionable claims, it is wiser to consider what the antismoking framework has been from the outset, and to consider it by antismokers’ own words. Provided below are excerpts from antismoking conferences and manuals. By this information, the public can then properly judge the basis and nature of the contemporary antismoking ‘movement’.

bompington

And of course, Big Tobacco doesn't have any conspiracies of its own...
It's enlightening to read about how many of the negative studies were funded (indirectly, of course) by the tobacco industry, or how their documented tactics include boosting the libertarian case for smoking.
You might think that a "reactant" might react against all the tobacco industry manipulation and propaganda equally as much as that of the anti-smoking zealots: but then the balance is kind of tipped if you're an addict too, isn't it?

mcj78

Aggieboy wrote:

Pic - Graham Watson

He's getting his money's worth out of that one

I smoke about 20 per week - don't mind standing outside for a cigarette, it's the lack of choice I find insulting, don't see why pubs, clubs & restaurants couldn't decide for themselves if they were to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. The only non-smoking pub I knew of (pre ban), didn't last very long at all - which quite surprised me, as for years militant non-smokers had been demanding the filthy habit be outlawed in bars, clubs etc. yet when someone actually put it into practice, no-one went there...

Personally I'd be interested to see a comparison of the pollutants inhaled through smoking "x" number of cigarettes per week V commuting "x" miles per week through heavy urban traffic, anyone?

J

Crapaud

Bompington, you're not wrong about the tobacco industry's manipulation and propaganda and it's the mantra of the antis whenever anyone speaks out - they're tarred and feathered with the stain of the tobacco industry. However, you could say the same about the anti lobby's funding; they've got themselves in hock to big pharma, not coinsidently the makers of NRT. Much of the junk science is funded via the antis and pharma, both of which clearly have an agenda.

Despite what you might think, I value good science highly and if it came out in favour of health risks that warrented bans and restrictions I wouldn't object. I can find none from the antis, only hyperbolic claims of the health risks and propaganda: if it was as bad as they say they wouldn't need bans, denormalisation and coercion, folk would give up anyway. I've not come to my conclusions without looking at it closely

If I'm wasting my time posting links let me know and I won't bother.

bianchimoon

Crapaud wrote:

Bompington, you're not wrong about the tobacco industry's manipulation and propaganda and it's the mantra of the antis whenever anyone speaks out - they're tarred and feathered with the stain of the tobacco industry. However, you could say the same about the anti lobby's funding; they've got themselves in hock to big pharma, not coinsidently the makers of NRT. Much of the junk science is funded via the antis and pharma, both of which clearly have an agenda.

Despite what you might think, I value good science highly and if it came out in favour of health risks that warrented bans and restrictions I wouldn't object. I can find none from the antis, only hyperbolic claims of the health risks and propaganda: if it was as bad as they say they wouldn't need bans, denormalisation and coercion, folk would give up anyway. I've not come to my conclusions without looking at it closely

If I'm wasting my time posting links let me know and I won't bother.

Ok without wishing to be inflamatory, say for arguments sake you were in a public place and i had a little atomiser/spray bottle containing minute traces of: Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide: DDT, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Formaldehiyde, Methoprene, Methyl isocyanate, Polonium amongst others (since you value good science you won't argue that these are NOT chemicals in cigarette smoke?, and every now and again i sprayed a little in your direction, you wouldn't object? No - ok then i spray it in the vicinity of your children, still you don't object because of course no one's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it will harm you or your children