Talk:Tobacco smoking/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 28 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

X-ray

That xray is really making the rounds. It's the original from my CP essays on cancer and lung cancer. Gee, I hope it was public domain. I mean, they were playing pretty fast and loose at CP for a while.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 17:51, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Well, that's where I stoled it from to use it for my "user smokes" box. Then when I wrote this article it seemed like a perfect fit. Somewhere along the way, I cropped out a bunch of wasted space. And, yes, you were the original uploader at CP, right? It's a awesome pikcher. human 20:42, 5 December 2007 (EST)

I see no reason for your revert Π. I don't know if you're still online, but if you are I'll refresh here for a bit to see if there's a response. If not, I'm flipping it back. Your revert says "It is not becomming legal get a grip" which....not to be rude makes no sense whatsoever. Assuming you meant illegal, the only place I mentioned that word was in combination with "public indoor smoking" which is true. In many parts of Texas it's illegal to smoke in any building, period. Here in Louisiana, it's illegal anywhere that doesn't get most of their income from alcohol sales. As far as I can see, every edit I made is true information, it's jokey tone aside. And from what I know, jokey tone is encouraged on this wiki.--PitchBlackMind 05:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I really had three problems with your edit. First it did not fit with the reset of the article, the sudden change in voice would leave the reader confused. If you are going to make changes like that please write all the prose so that it flows better. Second, you created a heap of red links to topic which are off mission and so we won't need. Third, I don't much like vagina being used as an insult, even as a guy that makes my skin crawl. - π 05:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pasting the deletions here, there might be something to be saved:

"Due to non-smokers being such blubbering vaginae about this, public indoor smoking is rapidly becoming illegal in many US states, including in bars and concert venues.<ref>Because God forbid you get lung cancer while you annihilate your liver"</ref>

This is actually true, although could be written better. Indoor public smoking in the US is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

Under new header "badass smokers":

"There is however, a long list of smokers who are truly gods among men, including:

• Hunter S. Thompson
• Bill Hicks
• Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
• John Lennon
• George Orwell
• Che Guevara
• Robert De Niro "

All names linked, DeNiro and Vonnegut were red. And come on, Lennon quit long before he croaked. Oh, and who cares who is/was famous and smoked? ħuman 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks (to both of you) for replying so quickly. However, your first suggestion has me confused now. Are you suggesting that any time I edit an article here I'm to rewrite the whole entry? That seems a bit absurd for a wiki. The red links thing makes perfect sense, even if I'm not quite sure what you mean by off-mission. On the third one, you're 100% right. As I was typing that I thought "Is this a little too much?" Definitely should have gone with something less gender specific, that was in poor taste. To the "who cares?" question, it's an odd one to ask. I'm sure if one looked around you could ask that about a section of every article here. Possibly someone who was searching Cigarette smoking might. It's clearly meant to be a good-natured joke anyway! I listed Hitler as the only non-smoker ffs. --PitchBlackMind 05:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The list of famous smokers is a bit weird. Should we also include a list of famous non-smokers? Or should we include a list of famous smokers who have died of lung caner?--Bob^{bing up} 06:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He did, the only person the list was Hitler. Whilst very amusing, it was a little Godwin. - π 06:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Which was the point :). Well and to be a little Ken-esque. --PitchBlackMind 06:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What? No mention of Mother Teresa a non-smoker (If she was I don't know.) On famous smokers suffering lung cancer, The Marlborough Man" springs to mind.--Bob^{bing up} 06:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This link seems to have a few. Meanwhile this one has Yule Brynner speaking.--Bob^{bing up} 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what to do here. One of you said that things could be kept, the other that I should rewrite the entire article if I want to make changes. I suppose I'll just let the dog lie, and move on to another article. --PitchBlackMind 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some random answers and thoughts... 1. "mission" means things that fall in the little list of why we are here on the main page. Odds are we'd never want or need an article on DeNiro. 2. I don't think Pi was saying to "rewrite the entire article", he apparently was concerned that there was an abrupt change in "voice" - I think he meant to write what you were adding so it flowed better? 3. I don't see much point in lists of smokers/non-smokers in general; however, "famous smokers (that is famous because of smoking) who died of smoking-related disease, maybe. 4. The illegal thing, I don't know where Pi was coming from, various levels of indoor smoking have been banned in many, many places (here in NH, it was stores decades ago, workplaces a long time ago, bars last fall...). Heck, there are places (Berkely, Cambridge probably) where public outdoor smoking is touchy. ħuman 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that the default position on public smoking seems to be changing. In the past it was considered acceptable to smoke in any area where it wasn't prohibited. Now it's gradually changing to a default position where you can only smoke in areas where it's explicitly allowed. Personally I think that's a more logical situation - but I understand there are other views.--Bob^{bing up} 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering those Human, I'm much less perplexed now. I see what was meant by the mission point now, and yes, a De Niro article would be ridiculous under that statement (though I'm still surprised there isn't a Vonnegut entry). Most of what I added was meant to be pro-smoking in a purely humorous tone, but perhaps I was the only one who found it funny. I did in many ways hijack the article and totally slant it in the opposite direction, and in thinking about it the next day, realized that was possibly selfish and short-sighted. Maybe I was pissed about the $50 carton of Camels I just bought that was $28 this time last year :D. Anyways, thanks for your help Human. I'm still new at this, so eventually I'll figure out the best way for me to contribute here in support of the mission.--PitchBlackMind 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Should this be Tobacco smoking (generalize) instead? Or is there some way to smoke tobacco without getting any of those adverse effects? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. Is the article cigarette-centric or general enough to just be moved? ħuman 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's valid info for all tobacco. If anything, I think pipe & cigar smoking might actually be worse for you. --PitchBlackMind 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, us ciggie addicts smoke all day long... the pipe/cigar people, I would guess, mostly enjoy a bowl or puff less often. And perhaps don't inhale as deeply so much as savor the flavor. But I could be wrong. I'll move it. ħuman 02:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As an avid smoker of Cigars, pipes, and until about last November, Cigarettes, I can say that cigars are probably worse, pipes a bit better (as they have filters in the stem, if you don't use a filter, these would swap), and cigs are the best. However, Human is correct. I used to smoke 1/2 a pack a day, but have never smoked more than maybe a bowl in the pipe every other day, or at one point 2 cigars a day.. So even though that single puff of the cigarette is much better, the tendency to smoke so much will make it worse in the long run, or even on the daily basis. Of course, if you never put down a pipe/cigar, it will still kill you, maybe even better that the cigarette. Ask Freud. :p Though, since the change was already made to move it, I'm not sure the point of me commenting, other than "Fuck you! I'm commenting!" Quaru (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco deniers?

Aka, the "scientists" at the Tobacco Institute. Anyone want to say anything about them? --Gulik 03:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They are foul scum, unless they can make my ciggies taste better. I used the example of the "New Hampshire Smoker" at astroturf, by the way. ħuman 03:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Section of fail removed

BobM appears to be editing from the Oliver Stone School of Extreme Subtlety. I have removed the apparently attractive nuisance - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have returned the complement. Why make poisoning yourself sound attractive or even funny?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I was about to print it, shred it, age it and smoke it. Oh well. ħuman 10:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So arguing with smokers is like arguing with alcoholics. Unable or unwilling to come to terms with their addiction. I'm not going to get into an edit war. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark on both counts! And why are we arguing? I bet you eat beefburgers! ħuman 10:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I eat almost none and I'm convinced it's a very bad thing. In fact I try to eat very little meat. I also think that the section about smoker's answers in this article was on-mission. Probably the most on-mission thing the article has ever had. But I know where you guys are coming from and I'm not going to edit-war over it. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there. I've added a line which summarises why logic is futile here - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My point is that smokers always point to some other bad thing in order to claim that their activity is not so bad. It's the same as the man being stopped by the cops for speeding who says they should be out arresting murderers. I think it's interesting that the argument is always made and I'd say it's a logical fallicy. I'll look it up when I have time. But I'm not going to get into a fight with you smokers over whether it should be in the article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a fallacy. I'm surprised you get the argument, though - every smoker I know says they know it's bad and keeps right on doing it. I know I do. The one I hear more often is "personal freedom," which is only occasionally not tobacco industry code for "to make money" - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, logic is futile because you're arguing with something that is as addictive as cocaine and delivered like crack. The hit. Imagine trying to use logic against cracksmoking - David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it's futile. I think I made that point already. With the "smokers answers" - look at the comments next to reasons against smoking below.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That was you being tone-deaf to subtlety and the gallows humour of the nicotine addict. If your goal is to convince, this approach may be unhelpful - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! My fault. Got it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm advocating smoking, you're apparently of reducible complexity - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Cool. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Smoking is a delicious, wonderful and socially acceptable way to while away those useless years. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cut elements

For anybody who may be interested the elements which were cut from the article with the comment: "Section of fail removed" were: *The classic smoker's response to any criticism of smoking is the "Ah what about 'X' argument", where "X" is some other randomly chosen bad thing. It's really a [[logical fallacy]] - because the claim that "this other thing is also bad then this thing I'm doing isn't bad" is a form of denialism and it comes up ''every'' time. Damn them. And under "disadvantages of smoking" The fact that the product slowly kills you should probably be enough.<ref>At least it's slow. Car crashes kill far faster.</ref> *It increases your risk of Alzheimer's disease.<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18773-nicotine-tied-to-alzheimers-risk.html New Scientist - Nicotine tied to Alzheimer's risk]</ref> *It damages the health of your friends, family, and especially your children, who have no option other than to breathe your toxic gas.<ref>Only if they are silly enough to breathe while near you, and if you smoke indoors.</ref> *It damages the health of your friends, family, and especially your children, who have no option other than to breathe your toxic gas.<ref>Only if they are silly enough to breathe while near you, and if you smoke indoors.</ref> *It's expensive<ref>So are Rolls Royces</ref>, and as poorer less-well educated people are more likely to smoke it works as a tax on the poor.<ref>As do lottery tickets</ref> *It's expensive<ref>So are Rolls Royces</ref>, and as poorer less-well educated people are more likely to smoke it works as a tax on the poor.<ref>As do lottery tickets</ref> --[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|^{Spring is sprung!}]] 12:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC) :Just removed my section as well. I was lied to by one of my pharmacology lecturers!! So exposure to dirty things ''does'' help with avoiding allergies and asthma, but the effect of smoke particles which also cause this phenomenom are cancelled out by the chemicals in the smoke which force T-cell differentiation down the T2 route (see [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0091674908007288 here]). For reference, this is what I deleted: Paradoxically, exposing very young children to a small amount of cigarette smoke may be beneficial{{fact}}, as it increases the differentiation of T₀ cells into T₁ cells and pushes differentiation away from T₂ cells <ref>[http://immunology.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_little_dirt_may_be_good_for_your_immune_system A Little dirt may be good for your immune system]</ref>. T₁ cells potentiate the immune pathway towards dealing with bacteria and viruses, whereas T₂ cells promote production of IgE, which latches to mast cells and an increased production of which is associated with a variety of autoimmune diseases, notably asthma and allergies <ref>[http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmabasics/a/art_ige.htm IgE and Asthma]</ref>.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bronze?

I like this - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but there is a lot of "jokey" material in there, some of which looks like we're all for smoking, which isn't a good image to have when you're slapping a logo on which is effectively a seal of quality. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this is a pro-smoking article is too stupid to consider - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but is it really serious enough to be bronzed? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the pro-tobacco bit in it. It's written fairly well and has some content and info. Maybe a little clearing up of the weasel wordings and it'll be good enough. ^moral 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why the governments will never ban tobacco use

If tobacco use is banned/marginalised.

There will be a large impact on shops (particularly small shops)

Governments will lose much revenue.

The anti-smoking lobby will be decommissioned - ditto all the quit smoking advisers.

Impact on the printing, packaging and transport industries.

Tobacco farmers and producers will go out of business - so more unemployment/aid to third world countries.

More people will live longer - pensions will far exceed 'tobacco related medical costs.'

No need to climb Iron Mountain to figure. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the first bans will come within a decade. ---62.142.167.134 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason the government will never ban smoking is because it will create a huge black market, just like Prohibition did. Also it's disgustingly illiberal; if people want to drink, smoke, or get high that's their problem. Smoking, drinking, and other drugs should never be banned.--Harvardian (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition, nicotine tends to make people more relaxed and focused: something business owners and managers like from their employees. If you have a smoke you'll be less stressed and focus on you job more. They don't care about long-term health because they don't view their employees as long-term assets; rather, they see them as short/medium-term expendable commodities. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that drugs shouldn't be prohibited. But the question is why they aren't prohibited, not whether or not they should be. Tobacco and alcoholic beverages are more dangerous than a lot of illegal drugs, and tobacco has no medical uses and IIRC, oral ethanol is only useful for stopping methanol poisoning. Snokw (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Second-hand smoke

I'd like to see RW give an actual reality-based assessment of second-hand smoke risk. Hand waving and saying "duh, of course it's bad" is actually really bad science. We also need to acknowledge that early research was cherry picked, and otherwise faulty. This is a good point to introduce the point of "fallacy doesn't mean the argument is wrong", and that researchers should not be so eager to prove their point that they cheat, because then it will cause evidence for later deniers to come along and argue that your good research is wrong. Because everyone knows that no one reads the corrections, they make up their mind and then argue it until they're blue in the face.

Also, a good accounting for how dangerous second-hand smoke is would be good... it's certainly not as bad as blowing asbestos fibers in someone's face. More people certainly die in driving collisions every year than from second-hand smoke effects, and pointing out how important it is to have a rational discussion about risks and not doomsday talk is important. (BTW, smoking itself is certainly dangerous enough to warrant "zOMG IT'S KILING U!!!1" snarky speech... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well a very quick look at official webistes. The national cancer institute in the US claims 46,000 extra deaths from heart disease and 3,000 lung cancer deaths. Meanwhile the European union makes what claims is a conservative estimate of 2,800 in the workplace and 16,400 at home. I didn't get the WHO figures but they are out there somewhere.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is apparently the same risk rate as driving, which no one is calling for an immediate stop to all driving... we weigh the risks involved. There is no "safe amount" of driving... any travel in a vehicle can result in a death. It's about rhetoric, rather than real risk analysis... If I can consent to driving, and in fact, I am exposed to possible death just from walking anywhere near large fast moving metallic killing machines... see? it's easy to make a rhetoric hyperbolic argument for cars as it is for smoking... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

But we try to make cars as safe as possible. We install set belts and air bags. The fact that risk is inevitable does not mean that we should not try to reduce it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

My problem with the shills like Singer, Milloy, et al is that they continue to deny any harm from SHS (well, they are shills). This is now obviously bullshit and I think this is where some of the "ZOMGZ ITS KILLING U!" stuff comes from. When it comes to the precise effects of SHS, I have to defer to someone with actual medical knowledge. However, I do know that a, SHS is not completely harmless as the shills would have us believe, and b, tobacco cos. unleashed massive FUD campaigns to deny any risk from SHS. Doubt is our product. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good reason why I suggested we have a section that is "reality-based" this is interestingly one of the few areas where it seems that there are nuts on both sides of the argument... what Singer is doing is totally exaggerated, but some people arguing against SHS take a total pseudoscientific approach to it as well... saying "I don't care about any evidence or anything... I hate smoking!" Showing how a rational argument is supposed to be made would be awesome. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. I tend to see denialism as worse than "alarmism," but bullshit needs to be called out on both sides of the aisle. However, you and other RWians probably know much more about the reality-based part of the SHS issue than I do -- I'm more familiar with Singer et al's AGW denialism and I've just picked up on the SHS issue on the side because so many of these guys were experts for hire for both tobacco and petroleum cos. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to bump the subject. As a fervent reader of RationalWiki articles, I would love to see more about second-hand smoke. It seems an important subject to broach, and entirely on-mission. I myself know little about the subject(though I'm inclined to assume breathing cigarette smoke without the filter is worse for you than with), and I often come to RW to educate myself. Thank you to anyone kind enough to expand on this.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

IBS and blood pressure

Cites would be excellent. Asserting smoking is good for anything whatsoever is a tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to delete the IBS. Here is one site and here is another which say that smoking makes IBS worse. They don't look like the most official sites, but they certainly suggest that it's s dubious proposition.

And I find it very hard to believe that a doctor would recommend that a patient continue smoking for blood pressure. Wouldn't they be more likely to recommend a safer medicine? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, a search on "Irritable bowel syndrome and smoking" gets multiple hits stating that smoking makes it worse. So I've cut the line:

• Smoking has also been found to help with Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Each person should carefully weigh the risks of smoking against not smelling like shit all the time. Also, try some other medications first.

The original author will need to come back on the blood pressure one.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, doctors usually will prescribe a safer medicine... but if you don't have healthcare, that safer medicine can become more expensive than cigarettes. American healthcare system can suck that bad. I know it's an anecdote, but in college, I knew a woman who had severe Marfan sydrome, and as a poor college student had no healthcare. The real medical alternatives are:

• Volume resuscitation (with Marfan, this wouldn't help... the problem is connective tissue making the heart "weak")
• Blood pressure support (with norepinephrine or equivalent) (expensive, and needles)
• Ensure adequate tissue perfusion (maintain SvO2 >70 with use of blood or dobutamine) (expensive)
• Address the underlying problem (Marfan syndrome is uncurable)

Basically, the risks are significant enough that the Doctor wants to ensure that the patient doesn't do anything that would drop blood pressure, because such a drop may be by an unknown amount, which could drop it low enough that an emergency situation presents. While the doctor certainly could recommend a lot of different choices to ensure that the blood pressure wouldn't become critical if she stopped smoking, but life sucks sometimes, and they can't get people ideal care. True, it's a non-ideal solution, but maintaining the status quo to keep her blood pressure safe was far more important than likely long term damage. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So can you give a cite of a doctor actually recommending smoking?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends, if overall harm reduction means recommending smoking rather than doing nothing, they'll do it. If one option is out of the question, then the next best has to be taken, and so on. This is just how medicine works - or at least has to work, especially if cost becomes debilitating. I can easily imagine that there are many case studies where nicotine or smoking is recommended (it's no different to prescribing morphine derivatives or cannabis or any number of drugs with considerable side-effects), though I'd like to see the PubMed listing for it. ^moral 13:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Put it this way: stuff for this section really needs to be wonderfully well-cited, not just "could be" but "actually is". At least as good as the schizophrenia example - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think requiring everything to be "wonderfully well cited" is a bit of an excessive standard that most articles on RW don't expect. What makes your special pleading for this specific section ok? Because it suggests that smoking might have some valid uses where benefits would outweigh the risks? See, in reality-based dialog we acknowledge harm and acknowledge benefits, and weigh them against each other on an individual basis. We don't say "X is horribly bad in every situation"... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

An individual doctor could conceivably recommend anything. The question is - do doctors regularly recommend that patients with low blood pressure continue smoking? I don't believe it for one moment, it sounds truly bizarre - like something invented by the "Hey! Smoking isn't that bad" lobby.

But if I'm wrong and it happens regularly (or even intermittently) then we should be able to cite it. If we can't then we are just repeating some pseudoscience, like the stuff on IBS that I deleted. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs good citations because it's a remarkable assertion. I've deleted the blood pressure paragraph until there's actually anything citable that encouraging smoking as a treatment is an accepted medical practice (and so far you've provided 0) - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It required good citations to prove that smoking raises blood pressure and therefore might be recommended or used by individuals to raise their blood pressure because they suffer from symptomatic hypotension otherwise? I mean seriously, wtf? Do doctors regularly recommend to schizophrenics that they shoudl smoke? So why do we even have the schizophrenic stuff listed? Have any of you actually checked the assertion that they are "often advised by their doctors to keep smoking"? Because the link used to support that paragraph is about getting them to STOP smoking... There are better drugs to combat the "movment" side-effects of anti-psychotics (I was on an anti-psychotic for a "mood disorder" that I didn't have, and started having twitches, that resulted in them putting me on a second medication to deal with the twitching.) and the link doesn't even say that smoking helps diminish the schizophrenic condition, but rather calms them out. I'd just like to point out from the linked article: "As a result of the high rates, people with mental illness have 30 per cent more heart disease and 30 per cent more respiratory disorders." Yeah, Doctors are just lining up to prescribe this treatment, right? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say that I don't find the anti-psychotic stuff particularly convincing either. As far as I can tell the links suggest that psychotics do smoke rather then they should smoke. I wouldn't object if it disappeared. On the other hand, links suggesting that smoking is a good idea for suffers from IBS or low blood pressure are completely absent.

In the case of IBS everything I can find seems to suggest the exact opposite.

It's difficult to find any comments on the Low Blood pressure/smoking idea. This is surprising because, if it were a recognized treatment, then it would seem probable that somebody somewhere would have mentioned it. Which leaves us with extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the blood pressure stuff again until there's anything more than unsupported local conjecture - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Smoking is known to raise blood pressure. It could be used to raise someone's blood pressure if they needed their blood pressure raised on a regular basis. However, NO ONE considers smoking a recognized treatment for ANYTHING. I reworded the whole section to actually indicate as such. But this still leaves us with the situation that I am not make an extraordinary claim... we already know that smoking raises blood pressure. This isn't some vast puzzle out there that is incomprehensible and something like "ACV cures cancer!" No, smoking raises blood pressure, we know this, and we know it well. The fact that it is worthless as blood pressure raising medication is a result of it being übertoxic not because it wouldn't work. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You could, of course, supply evidence anyone except you has even considered this an idea worth talking about - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is, the claim is not extraordinary... it's already well documented that smoking raises blood pressure. If it raises blood pressure, then it could treat hypotension... it's just a super lethal way to do so. That doesn't make it stop raising blood pressure and being able to treat hypotension with shit tons of lethal side effects. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone on earth except you put "low blood pressure" and "smoking raises blood pressure" together, like, ever? - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

YES! Although I only have anecdotal evidence... but regardless, it has a treatment mechanism that is well known and established. For instance, bleach would be a wonderful antibacterial and antifungal if it weren't for the fact that it is also excessively antipatient. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As that the following rather contentious points have been removed:

• Smoking has also been found to help with Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
• Thus, if someone has critically low blood pressure and is already smoking, they can be directed by their doctor that if they stopped smoking it could be hazardous to their health, and this can actually manage to offset the dangers of cancer from smoking.

I now have no great problems with that section.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the IBS was from a House episode (awesome source, right?) and you guys have totally sufficient information to suggest that it makes it worse. The tone of the low blood pressure was trying to match the tone of the schizophrenic section... of course, once I started reading the references given and it didn't match up, I realized the tone of the whole section needed to change. Pff... doctors recommending smoking for schizophrenics? ... seemed just as crazy as the low blood pressure recommendation... as in, "meh, maybe one could find a doctor here or there, but certainly not advisable by any medical opinion." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting what you say about "House". Did a few searches on that but could only find chat groups quoting it to each other and saying it must be true because it was on "House". One of them did link to this which is probably where the story came from and which was then sexed up a bit for the series. The "House" angle might actually be worth mentioning as an example of why you shouldn't get your medical advice from soap operas.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It'd make for a good gag. Maybe a line or two or just a snarky note. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1967

"The Tobacco Institute believes every thoughtful adult American will want to read every word of this front-page editorial in BARRON'S - one of America's most responsible publications."--ZooGuard (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ref #3

Subject to change depends on the health care expenses incurred (if government pays for health care) due to the consequences of smoking.

When I smoked I thought that this argument was shaky (at best). Yes, smoking kills. But often it kills before those who would otherwise have spent 25 years on Social Security, (I'm in the States), can collect a dime. (Okay maybe they get disability when the CA invades their body for, what? let's us say 24 months...tops). This would save the state $$$ but it came with the price of acknowledging "smoking kills" so that wasn't going to be stipulated to by big tobacco. 01:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Advantages of smoking

Under "advantages of smoking" we find:

• If you smoke, you need no longer pay any attention to the putative health hazards of:
  • Air pollution (that you don't create)
  • Radon leaking up into your house
  • Pesticides in your food
  • Volcanic dust
• Think of it like consolidating a pile of small debts into one big debt. But dumber.

I don't understand if this is meant to be a joke or to be serious. If it's serious it needs references. If it's a joke it's so incomprehensible that it should be removed. If I'm missing the point then it needs to be expanded.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a joke, but I'm agreeing with you here. Removing. Тy^rannis 17:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Joke, but not particularly useful addition. ADK^{...I'll swirl your potato masher!} 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

First, there's nothing about looking cool in the article. Second, the maxim "If she smokes, she pokes" is invaluable and should be included. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. In fact, I remember thinking this was funny when I was looking for information on second-hand smoke here long ago. This joke is a part of my RationalWiki Cherished Memories^TM and I am sad to see it go. BTW, we still don't have much info on secondhand smoke.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that explaining jokes is a difficult process - but why is it funny? It just seems incomprehensible to me. Or is that why it's funny?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's poor logic. Kind of like saying "I'll cut off my leg so I'll never have to worry about stubbing my toe."--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Really? Well I guess that we all have a different sense of humour. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So ... it's come back. As incomprehensible and unfunny as ever.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If your logic is "I don't understand it so it's stupid" rather than "I don't understand it, maybe I'm stupid", then I'm not surprised. You were previously too thick to understand the concept of risks that eclipse other risks in this regard, wanting to put in a didactic rant for others who were also hard of thinking - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wooooooh- relax, max. ^{— Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs}

He's super old. Give him a break.

Don't worry Bob, we took the incomprehensible joke out. If you're still seeing it, it's probably your cookies. Don't worry, they will eventually go away. Now get some rest. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that you're feeling well David. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Would Jesus Smoke for these Reasons?--Tolerance (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, presumably he'd be able to use his omnipotence to give a reasoned response to the question I asked. That is to say - something more than a ranting ad hominem.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you all want to address it or not, but there actually are advantages to smoking tobacco. Like most things IN MODERATION, it has a calming effect on the body, lowers blood pressure, etc. But that's one ciggie after sex type things, not 5 or 10 a day...En attendant Godot 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you got our answer. Don't mind DG. Godot, smoking only relaxes you because nicotine addiction stresses you out.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually Brx, you are wrong. a simple search on pubmed will show quite a few benefits of smoking for a casual smoker. Very little in life is "bad" for you if you are doing it in moderation. Smoking is one of them. For people with chronic asthma, potential allergy related athsma, some forms of cancer, and Parkinsons disease, smoking tobacco is advantageous for the individual. Just like alchol has a host of benefits to adults, if consumed in moderation, from weight loss, to lowering blood pressure, to effecting the clotting of blood, etc., etc. I'm not saying you should or should not have a comment on it. I'm saying "limited smoking has proven (scientifically proven) benefits for many types of individuals. En attendant Godot 21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I pray you'll never join the health profession. Except for Parkinson's, smoking causes all of those. Even in moderation. It doesn't take much of a carcinogen to screw up your cells, and inhaling substances such as, oh, tar, can only serve to stimulate the respiratory immune response (asthma, allergies). Smoking is bad for you, period. There are no benefits to eating ground glass in moderation, because there is no moderation. Eating ground glass is stupid, as is smoking.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are now a medical expert, too? what a joke you are. try reading the articles. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_benefits_of_smoking an entire article just on the bennies. linking to actual real scientific studies, for actual real groups of people. you really should grow up and learn that just cause you think something, doesn't mean it's the only point of view. --GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So ... is the above meant to be a "joke" or not?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What, you expected a talk page to actually answer someone's question? ;-)En attendant Godot 20:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Advantages of Smoking 2

It boosts employment:

• It keeps any number of tobacconist-newsagents and other retailers (and staff therein).
• Tobacco growers and agricultural workers, persons involved in packaging and transporting the tobacco products.
• The 'Quit smoking' industry.

And also

• The government gets much tax.
• Many people die youngers, saving much in the way of pensions.

(Passing reference to The Report from Iron Mountain.) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes as much sense as what's in the article under "advantages" at the moment.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sit back with a cigar and relax a bit - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I hear they are just god aweful for you, but i've always loved the smell of someone smoking cloves. Or a nice pipe. Tobacco is not the hell hole that abolitionists make it out to be. It's one more thing that can be healthy and safe, but rarely is health and safe. oh well. Always hated the smell of nicotine in my roomate's clothes and hair. :-) I am not doing one single productive thing today. not even here. just "talk talk talk". I need my own, personal 90/10 rule. --GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm .. under what circumstances is tobacco "healthy and safe"? When it's growing as a plant I suppose - but under what other circumstances?

See the above section. I get the impression Godot gets her information on Tobacco from 1950's advertisements.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, Brx, i knew you had problems with reading comprehension, but for hecks sake. Pub Med has extensive studies that I linked to, i think, showing that there are advantages to people's health in limited smoking. Just like limited alcohol consumption. The thing about most "radical moves" to demonize anything, is that the facts are pushed hard to make a point. Chain smoking, smoking more than 5 ciggies a day - bad for you. One ciggie? one cigar? not bad for you, and it can relax your lungs, it's proven effective in some asthma cases, etc. Does that mean you should start to smoke? that's your choice. But does it mean that saying "all smoking is bad for you" is just as wrong as saying we should be smoking? yes. I'll get you links, if they are not above.GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_benefits_of_smoking - wiki P's article. I'm sure you think they are full of it too, and living in the 1950s. GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not in the least convincing. A single cigarette is far more nocif than any of those slight beneficial effects mentioned. There is no advantage to smoking, other than "being cool." Smoking kills, in moderation or not. By the way, I especially appreciated the one that said smoking helps to reduce the risk of per-eclampsia. So smoke while you're pregnant, ladies!--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand the concept of a cost-benefit analysis? Just because the costs may vastly outweigh the benefits doesn't make the benefits disappear. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You do know that for the last 300 years, smoking was very common for pregnant women in France, Germany and russia. yet I don't think you see a higher rate of complications in pregnancies. Again, the issue is not that smoking isn't dangerous, it's the way the abolitionist crowd has fully demonized any instance of smoking. There is not compelling evidence that one ciggie or cigar a day causes serious dangers. There is compelling evidence that a home with constant second hand smoke is dangerous. There is compelling evidence that 5 or more cigs a day is dangerous. But like most things in this world, we go from saying "you aught to moderate your habits" to "oh my god it is the biggest evil in the world". GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC) (edit con)

Smoking for its health benefits is the equivalent of sticking your hand into a beehive in the hopes that 1: you will get some propolis out of it, and that 2: you have an open wound in your hand to begin with that might benefit from propolis' antibiotic properties. The benefits only apply to fringes of the population and you will definitely develop problems because of smoking.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Godot - are you seriously saying that there is no problem with smoking while pregnant?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously saying this. The danger of stress can be far worse to holding a pregnancy than light smoking - cutting down vs, the stress of going cold turkey might actually be a better choice for mothrs. But if you look at the facts, yes, fact, not just hype... aspirin is a greater risk to a 1 month pregnancy than smoking - yet there aren't warnings on aspirin; a single drink lowers your chance of terminating a pregnancy, two to three drinks, can harm the child. it's all in moderation. will one ciggie a day harm a pregnancy? I doubt it. Got any studies to show that even extremely moderate smoking is harmful?GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 19:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You're serious about this?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I"m actually very serious about this. I just looked at MOD's web site and followed their links to the studies (at pubmed). The difference between how people think about the dangers, and what the dangers really are, when looked at in real time, is astonishing. LIke i said, if i were pregnant, I'd do everything I could to make my chances for a healthy baby, better. But i do think the US is pretty "at war" with smokers (and no, i do not nor ever have, smoked) in a way that seems to push numbers into the more Wooie area. how do you get to say "smoking increases your chances for a cleft pallate, when there were only 2600 of those in the US last year?" isn't that a **bit** mis advertising? I won't get pregnant cause i just found out today, doing this writing, that my odds of bringing a mentally handicapped child into the world are on in 100 cause i'm over 40, probably closer to 1 in 10. GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: My mum smoked 15-20 a day while pregnant with me, quit while she was having my sister about two years later, and was smoking again with my brother four and a bit years after that. Made fuck all difference to our birthweights, and all three of us have always been in the rudest of health. --Robledo (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that's proof then.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly problematic for anyone wishing to claim that smoking whilst pregnant necessarily harms the unborn child. --Robledo (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to show you all why i get sorta irritated about the media jumping on things, and the US (maybe other places, I don't know) over reaction. Here are some march of dimes statistics about smoking when pregnant.

• Risks to babies in frequent to heavy smokers: Low birth weight, born with cleft palat, premature birth. No deformity or mental issues like you have with alcohol.
• rates of risk: (again, for frequent to heavy smoking) the risk of a child being born with a cleft palate goes up by 10% if you are a heavy smoker. Of course, the odds of you having a child with a cleft palate are very low. 2600 cleft palates per year. So yes, you are more likely to have such a deformity if you are smoking, but your odds, given that there were over 3 million births last year, it's extremely low odds. Smoker or not.
• Rate of risk to pre mature birth. Again, MOD states that it's an increased risk. They of course do not say how much it's increased. A compliation of risks showd that your chance of a premature birth goes from 9.7% for non smokers, to 10.9% smokers. This is an increase. it's clear and real. but is it the level of fear mongering society likes to do?

Compare those risks with (march of dimes) Age - at 40, your chance of having a child born with downs is 1 in 100 (compare to 1 in 6000 for 20 year olds) At 45, it goes to one in TEN. for a very serious mental illness.

Aspirin - at risk women who have suffered more than one miscarriage are strongly advised to avoid aspirin. It has been shown in coloration studies to increase your chance of miscarriage in the first two months by 30 %. (march of dimes)

I'm not saying one should smoke during pregnancy. I"m saying that our current anti-smoking jihad is really a bit over the top. I don't think it's healthy. I simply do not buy that it's nearly as harmful (again, in moderation) as we tend to make it out. Either that, or I am paid by the smoking lobby. but i doubt the last one.GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Maybe I can close this argument with a less antagonistic summary

While certain components of your typical cigarette may have possible therapeutic effects, burning those components and inhaling the smoke causes far more harm than any possible benefit. Additionally, the possible benefits only apply to certain segments of the population: those suffering from particular disorders and those with particular genes conducive to certain disorders. Hence my above metaphor: the chance of receiving beneficial health effects from smoking is slim, and the chance of receiving deleterious health effects are definite. Additionally, the second part of my metaphor considered the possibility that the benefits likely will not apply to the smoker. So smoking to improve your health is like sticking your hand in a bee hive. Sure, you might get some of the anti-microbial properties of propolis, but it's unlikely and far outweighed by the fact that your hand will be thoroughly run through with bee stings; additionally, that's assuming you had a need for an anti-microbial agent. And I stand by this metaphor as being appropriate, informed, and not related to massacring Jews. Hopefully I don't need to explain the context of the previous sentence, as I imagine someone unfamiliar with the other day's debacle would boggle their eyes at it--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Drive by

I'll admit i didn't read it all, but smoking is the ultimate cause behind about 1/5 deaths in the US and the good feeling of having a ciggy,is neurochemically similar to coffee, beer, heroin, in that the good feeling in regular users is really simply the mitigation of withdrawal symptomsrather than some other sort of high. -- -PalMD ^{--goat--the other white meat} 23:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Exactly what I said, except you have some authority on the subject whereas I am a lowly student nursing assistant with an interest in science and a particular interest in skepticism (at least in regards to debunking pseudoscience applied to the real world). By the way, have you glanced at my bit of an article on trigger points? Should be on your talk page. Thanks. --User:Brxbrx/sig 23:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The pleasurable effects of heroin and tobacco are merely the mitigation of withdrawal symptoms? Acetylcholine and the mu opiate receptors would like to talk to you. C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 01:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Preachy & Wussy article

I am not, and have never been, addicted to tobacco, but I have an opiate addiction so am well aware of the dangers of addiction, as well as the beauties of mind altering substances.

However:

I am also aware that a substantial number of smokers (as with heroin actually) are not addicted or even particularly regular. They may have less than a pack in a year. I forget the figures but with smoking you're talking 30% or something of that magnitude.

It's also impossible to objectively say whether smoking is worth it or not. Those of us who are not schizophrenic will never know just how it makes them feel (even if it doesn't work for long).

Finally, I don't come to rationalwiki to be preached at. There are other articles that do get a bit soapboxy (for example the article on conservatives - I've recently read the excellent The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jon Haidt and you should to - you will then understand the biological moral intuitions of conservatives a lot better... the current article effectively just describes how it seems they think (i.e. bizarrely from our lofty liberal perspective but the science explains what's going on far better) but this is ridiculous.

I am aware that this comment is the opposite of eloquent but I am very drunk indeed. ^{— Unsigned, by: 178.16.4.192 / talk / contribs} 02:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, chief, you came here. You don't want us preaching at you about smoking being dangerous, don't come here. Or don't smoke. Or both. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Or, you know, give us some actual hard core numbers. You say "losts of people are not addicted". I'd be curious about that "lots". what citations do you have? Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just google. Here the first result says about 10% not addicted, the second result about 30%. From my observations they seem like reasonable upper and lower bounds to me. 46.226.191.225 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What I get from the first two articles in that some people smoke more than others, and that people who smoke the most are the most heavily dependent. On the other hand people who hardly ever - or occasionally - smoke are the least or not at all dependent. That's a surprise then.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) OK, so 10%-30% of tobacco users aren't regular smokers or nicotine addicted; that still leaves an addiction rate of around 70%-90%, which is still quite a damning statistic when you compare with alcohol, for example, where only about 5%-10% of users are addicted. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So what? Doesn't have any real bearing on my key points and major theme (no preachy-ness please). By the way if smoking were as socially acceptable as drinking I should imagine that there would be a greater proportion of non-addicted smokers; I base that on the way most teenagers smoke tobacco but stop it pretty quickly, mostly because either of the unacceptability of it or of the foolishness of it (once they grow up a wee bit). I think the same is the case in a certain way with other drugs incidentally; pulling a figure out of my bottom I reckon 2/3rds at a minimum of 30 year olds will have taken an opiate but only a small number succumb like me to addiction. And then look at the third (at least) of yanks who are fatties - there is addictive behaviour (in relation to food) going on there. Addiction is very complex and furthermore with an individual tends to be confined to specific behaviours/substances - I have no doubt at all that certain people would never become addicted to cigarettes. Personally I very much doubt I would ever get addicted to cocaine, I've done huge amounts and it's not even that great.

P.S. My previous apology regarding coherence still stands.

46.226.191.225 (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference

Primera y segunda y tercera partes de la historia medicinal, de las cosas ... (1574) by Nicholas Monardes (Spanish, not a translation). I'll see if I can find some anecdotes, though the text is kind of hard to read, and my Spanish isn't that good.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 22:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

PDF file.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 22:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Shisha/hookah tobacco: hidden threat?

So, I just found out today that not only does shisha smoking involve tobacco consumption, but it also (by extension) might a actually be really dangerous. This is gonna sound naive, but I've always been told (by shisha-smoking friends, who probably don't know any better themselves) that it's just flavoured water, and there're no health risks at all, and I've never heard anyone say different. Methinks this warrants a rationalwiki article, or at least a subsection on the tobacco pageTheTalkingToaster (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that if you go to a shisha bar, you're putting something in your mouth, that's probably been in many other mouths without being cleaned, it's no wonder that there's warnings about catching herpes, etc off them. And yes, you're smoking tobacco without a filter - the water really doesn't help. So naturally they're not good for you. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was tobacco in it though, and I don't think a lot of other people do too. I certainly know that none of my friends or family would be bothered if I mentioned I smoked shisha, and a lot of my uni friends smoke it without a care (whereas half of them wouldn't touch a cigarette). It seems that most people are unaware of the dangers, even more educated people, which I find rather unsettlingTheTalkingToaster (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So what did you think you were smoking? And why wouldn't anything to take into your lungs be bad for you? --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't personally smoke it but I know a lot of people who do, and prior to reading that article, wouldn't have said no to a session if I had the money. Also, as I said above a.) everyone I know who smoked it always told me it was like water vapour, which is harmless enough and b.) no one looks down on it like cigarettes, so it seems harmless. Hence, I'm very surprised to find out it could actually be quite dangerous.TheTalkingToaster (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Interesting.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, as a college student you're not gonna chain-smoke Shisha. It's a once-every-one-or-two-weeks thing for anyone who isn't a unwind-with-shisha-everyday-person. Also, it's not quite as hazardous as habitual cigarette smoking in some respects, apparently: http://www.ibtimes.com/hookah-smoke-may-be-less-harmful-cigarette-tobacco-contains-lower-levels-4-toxic-metals-1403676.

However, you must take care and learn how to smoke it properly to reduce some of the other very real health risk factors, like charcoal combustion. Shisha is hazardous in other ways than cigarettes: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/non-tobacco-versus-tobacco-hookah-smoking

Second of all, don't be stupid and go to just any dump for your shisha session, or you run the risk of catching herpes like PsyGremlin said (what types of shisha bars did he go to, I wonder...). Sanitary Shisha saloons give each person a separate plastic disposable mouth piece that comes packaged in a small plastic envelope.

Third of all, there's different types of Shisha. The standard one you should be avoiding (if you don't want nicotine) and the other one that is just "flavoured water" (not really, see above) which is nicotine free. Nullahnung (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even realize there was non-tobacco shisha. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm. So - less arsenic but more benzine.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

e-cigarettes

There is now a reasonable amount of evidence to say that, while e-cigarettes still contain nicotine and are therefore not ideal, they are considerably less harmful than regular cigarettes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28554456 is a decent summary. There's also a lot of evidence that using e-cigarettes make it easier to quit smoking. Personally, I went from 50 a day to zero in about two weeks. In short, they make a good harm reduction strategy but they're not perfect because they still contain nicotine.

Users also tend to naturally take less nicotine since they're having a couple of puffs to shut up the nicotine craving and then leaving it instead of compulsively smoking down to the filter because the damn things are so expensive. The availability of liquids in a range of nicotine strengths also allows users to gradually taper down their nicotine level before moving to 0% nicotine liquids, at which point, you're just huffing flavored steam for the taste and hand-to-mouth habit.

Needless to say, governmental policy on e-cigarettes is being driven by tobacco industry money and scaremongering. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.14.21.167 / talk / contribs}

Well, more by the fact that they're not making money out of taxing it, the fact that anti-smoking groups are in full STOP TRYING TO KEEP SMOKING mode and the real issue that there's a shitload of cowboy ecig companies trying to make cash out of an unregulated market with shoddy products. The tobacco industry isn't really an issue, a lot of them would cheerfully branch out into making ecigs if there's a solid market there and some already are. King Skeleton (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ASH (UK's biggest anti-smoking org) is on record that ecigs are safer than regular cigarettes (http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf). The line about anti-smoking orgs saying "stop trying to keep smoking" is meaningless because ecigs aren't smoking. It's steam, not smoke. The problem with regulation is that people keep saying "sensible regulation" and then, when ecig users ask them to present some, they propose regulating them out of existence.

AFAIR, they already _are_ branching out into ecigs - they are, themselves, those selfsame cowboys raking it in in an unregulated market. Which is something of a tragedy, because with some decent regulation and strong research on how to make ecigs more effective for cessation, they would be a massive boon to public health. As is, they're something of a missed opportunity. Queex (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Big Tobacco own the market in cheap disposables you buy from a gas station, true. But most ecig users are using refillable tanks and liquids from internet stores and how much of them originate from Big Tobacco is much more difficult to measure (anecdotal evidence says not a lot).

By cowboys I more mean the ones buying a box of a thousand blister packs from a nameless Chinese factory which have more harmful chemicals in them than actual cigarettes and hawking them online with spambots. King Skeleton (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

How many people are using those is open to question, albeit extremely difficult to quantify.

I don't think disposable ones have much of a share in the UK, at least I don't know anybody who uses them. Even the re-usable ones tend to use a medium that it's inadvisable to inhalate in stagework, which is where it is most commonly used. Queex (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of things here - Pharmaceutical companies are lobbying for restrictions as can be seen here,]] because they are cutting into their gum and patch sales. Tobacco companies are lobbying for the same restrictions because they just sell expensive disposable electronic cigarettes. They are lobbying for refillable ones to be banned. Big Tobacco's electronic cigarettes (in the unregulated market) do so badly because they're so ineffective compared to the refillable ones that no one company can make any real money on because you can't particularly patent any of it, and so more restrictions would go in their favour both allowing them to have the whole of the market share, and getting fewer people off real cigarettes.90.206.241.43 (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A scientific journal article I submitted to the WIGO a bit ago(Open access). Essentially the point is: your lungs aren't really equipped to handle much of anything besides air, and even drug and ash free vapors are not shit you want to be inhaling. (But, yes, paper and tobacco cigarettes are worse) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is also about issues in the workplace. As should vapes be pushed to the smoking spots, or allowed to be anywhere. Policies generally ban smoking in the office, but since it's another name for it people are trying to push it. With the encouragement of e-cig companies telling people it's just water vapor. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My arse it's just water vapor. I had to ask a coworker to stop smoking his e-cig in the office because the fumes were giving me cravings for cigs - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That could just be the psychological effect of your brain associating the fumes from a cig with addictive nicotine, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Time for a double blind test on pal Gerard. As skeptics, it's the only way to be sure. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, testing on Gerard is in order. It certainly doesn't smell like water vapor to me. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

All things in moderation?

I wouldn't advocate for the encouragement of starting smoking, nor increasing amounts of smoking,
but it's worth noting that the concept of "chipper" smoking (often defined as persistent '<1 cigarette per day' smoking) is consistent with the ideas expressed in The dose makes the poison.

According to an article in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 259:1025, 1988), the Framingham Heart Study found that 10 cigs/day had a relative risk of 1.2.
(20 cigs/day was 1.4, 30 cig/day 1.6, 40 cigs/day 1.9)

On such low levels of cigarette consumption, it could be mathematically assumed that 10 cigarettes per day amounts to a 20% increased risk,
then at 1 cigarette per day it would be a 2% increased risk compared to the control group,
and so on as you keep decreasing the amount you smoke past less than 1 a day.

There are other risks than just heart health, but they seem to follow similar trends at such low levels as less than 1 cig/day.

Could it be said that with amounts less than one per day (say 3-5 per week or less) that the risks are marginal enough not to be a major health concern, but rather simply a risk that one could end up smoking more than that low amount during times of high stress and risk forming a stronger addiction?

A 2% risk associated with 1 cig/day is still a gamble with a very tiny prize, but if you genuinely smoke such tiny amounts as a couple times a week or a few times a month, is it fair to say your health risks are moderately negligible?

Also, it's worth noting that this is based off of just one study, and not even a study targeted specifically towards smoking, so (as with anything that could possibly possibly spread misinformation by extrapolating from insufficient data) take my words with a grain of salt (which I'm sure you will).

Here's a potential chart for smoking amounts:
(keep in mind the the "risk" is a heart condition which could lead to death)
1 per day - 2.0% increased risk
5 per week - 1.4% increased risk
3 per week - 0.9% increased risk
1 per week - 0.3% increased risk
1 every 2 weeks - 0.1% increased risk

Sinclair Sanguine (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A few months after giving up smoking my wife always makes this argument. That just one won't be bad for her because it's a special occasion. And then - well - if one isn't a problem then one more won't be either. Pretty soon she's back to 15 a day.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on the dose-response curve. If it's approximately linear, then occasional smoking would not make much difference. The same if there's a threshold underneath which the body can efficiently cycle the inhalants out and a steep increase in risk beyond that point. IIRC, though, nicotine abusers build up a tolerance over time and use, so it may will be that the first cigarette has the largest marginal increase in risk. Still small in real terms. The real problem is genuinely sticking to that occasional use plan; it seems like a bad risk given how addictive cigarettes are. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mocking nicotine addicts vs. treatment of users other addictive drugs

To preface this, I'm a nonsmoker and I've been a fan of RationalWiki for a while, so I don't want anyone to think I'm just here to complain. I think generally the wiki as a whole does a good job of striking a balance between being informative and humorous. That said, I have some issues with the tone of this article. The article has a consistent mocking and derisive tone towards smokers, as if it was written by someone so personally offended by the thought of someone smoking that they resorted to ridiculing them instead of presenting information in a more rational way.

For example:

• "[smoking] is a foul, unhealthy habit [...]"
• "It is also immensely irritating to non-smokers who may be in the vicinity."
• "Logic doesn't work here. Either they're addicted and know the dangers, they're addicted and in denial or they're in the business and want to keep the money rolling in. "
• The entirety of the sections titled "Advantages of smoking" and "Disadvantages of smoking" are plain mockery.

To contrast, the section entitled "Quitting" is actually quite well written and seems to have the same tone as the articles on other drugs. That is, unemotional and informative while maintaining the wit that gives RationalWiki its charm.

Now, don't get me wrong. Smoking is an unhealthy habit, and it's unpleasant to be around. However, nicotine is a highly addictive drug. Some people simply can't quit, no matter how hard they try. More importantly though, it's a personal choice. Even if you believe that nobody should ever smoke for any reason, that's no reason to be a dick to people who chose to do so. So for the reasons I've listed, I'd like to revise the article and give it a less belligerent tone more in common with the rest of the wiki's articles on drugs.

Cthulhurei8ns (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Link "Zigaretten" in External Links

This is link to a web shop selling untaxed and probably counterfeit cigarettes. Any reason for this? --2.247.250.146 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Citations missing in Quitting

There are three full subsections in Quitting that have no citations. If this isn't resolved soon, I propose removing the section until citations are added. Gerphe (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is nearly 3 years but yes the section does need citations. Also, the section is also important so I don't think it should be removed as opposed to a rewrite. I really want to know where people get the idea that going cold turkey is the best way to quit smoking. This section also feels like medical advice that is inappropriate for a wiki to offer, so we really need a disclaimer for getting help from a doctor. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the section is simply wrong. I personally know people who found cold turkey impossible but found it relatively easy with the appropriate aid.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Effect of naturally occurring MAOIs on nicotine addiction

While I doubt nobody here is going to claim that any form of nicotine ingestion is healthy, the way how this article talks about the addiction potential of nicotine itself is not only obviously biased, but outright anti-scientific. There has been pretty much a consensus in scientific community that while nicotine itself is addictive to some degree, it's other alkaloids in tobacco plant (at least harmala and beta-carboline alkaloids) which act as MAOIs, that make tobacco (including snus etc.) so addictive as it is.

This misinformation is especially harmful in the section about e-cigarettes. While I stress that it's obviously preferable to not inhale anything (aside from air, duh) at all, pharmaceutical grade nicotine has been time after time shown to be way less addictive than you people here claim. I'm not going to correct this article myself, first off because I'm not technically part of the community, and secondly because it would pretty much require a complete rewriting of your arrogant bullshit. Sorry about my aggressive tone, but for a site claiming to be all about rationality, I'm amazed by your inability to do any research before spreading your biased views.

Here is a good starting point, with links to peer-reviewed sources. Also some basic reading on the other alkaloids I mentioned before should be bare minimum to be able to write on the subject with such expertise you ignorantly claim.

With love, a long time reader. ^{— Unsigned, by: 185.11.210.44 / talk} 07:01, 10 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Rename title

This page should just be Tobacco, not tobacco smoking. We have Crack, not Crack Smoking. Sending to the mob for 24 hours of arguments before I move it. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)