Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/31/2005 12:03:08 PM EDT
I'm sitting here watching an old woman die. She has lung cancer. She's taken a severe nose dive in the last few days. She couldn't get out of the wheelchair this time, and now she's stuck in it. She talks nonsense some of the time due to her oxygen-deprived, ravaged lungs.

Speaking of oxygen, she has to have it shut off to smoke, which she still does.

I'm in utter disbelief. How can an addiction that clearly is causing her death still be so important?

I'm torn between feeling sorry for her and feeling that she is getting exactly what she deserves.

What a sad situation.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:04:40 PM EDT
she knows she's going to die anyway, so why bother stopping. I dont have any sympathy, they know what they are doing. and I dont care if they do it or not
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:04:50 PM EDT
How old is she?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:06:31 PM EDT
69
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:23:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
she knows she's going to die anyway, so why bother stopping. I dont have any sympathy, they know what they are doing. and I dont care if they do it or not



Quote of the day

"she knows she's going to die anyway"
indeed.

It's rather an inevitibility for all of us isn't it. One of my favorite authors died of a sudden heart attack a few years ago while he was........ exercising at a Gym in California. Just like him to run off and do something ironic like that.

Cancer is caused by carcinogens. There are carcinogens in lettuce, apples, almonds and just about everyting else we consume. The likelyhood of getting cancer is also largely based on an individuals genetic makeup. There have been smokers that have lived beyond the age of 100 and non-smokers that have died of Cancer before they aged beyond their teens without ever having smoked or suffered signifigant exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:36:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:
69



Old enough,...... It wasn't so long ago that the average life expectency of a person was less than 50. With exercise, eating right and avoidance of abohorant behavior it is estimated that one can extend ones life about ten perhaps twenty years but then the older we get the more likely dementia is to set in.

If you live to the ripe old age of say, 95 what good is it if you can't recognize your own wife or children for the last 15 years?

Death is never pretty but sometimes it is welcome.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:39:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:Cancer is caused by carcinogens. There are carcinogens in lettuce, apples, almonds and just about everyting else we consume. The likelyhood of getting cancer is also largely based on an individuals genetic makeup. There have been smokers that have lived beyond the age of 100 and non-smokers that have died of Cancer before they aged beyond their teens without ever having smoked or suffered signifigant exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.





The link between smoking and cancer has been proven to be pretty strong.

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:42:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By sysop:Cancer is caused by carcinogens. There are carcinogens in lettuce, apples, almonds and just about everyting else we consume. The likelyhood of getting cancer is also largely based on an individuals genetic makeup. There have been smokers that have lived beyond the age of 100 and non-smokers that have died of Cancer before they aged beyond their teens without ever having smoked or suffered signifigant exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.





The link between smoking and cancer has been proven to be pretty strong.




and the link between eating, drinking, and breathing is even stronger. who cares? if you dont want to do it, dont.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:44:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By sysop:Cancer is caused by carcinogens. There are carcinogens in lettuce, apples, almonds and just about everyting else we consume. The likelyhood of getting cancer is also largely based on an individuals genetic makeup. There have been smokers that have lived beyond the age of 100 and non-smokers that have died of Cancer before they aged beyond their teens without ever having smoked or suffered signifigant exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.





The link between smoking and cancer has been proven to be pretty strong.





Indeed but not as strong as some make it out to be.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:48:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:
69



Old enough,......



Okay, I'll go shut her oxygen off.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:48:52 PM EDT
I think the link from cigarettes to heart disease is VERY apparent.

HH
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:59:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By sysop:Cancer is caused by carcinogens. There are carcinogens in lettuce, apples, almonds and just about everyting else we consume. The likelyhood of getting cancer is also largely based on an individuals genetic makeup. There have been smokers that have lived beyond the age of 100 and non-smokers that have died of Cancer before they aged beyond their teens without ever having smoked or suffered signifigant exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.





The link between smoking and cancer has been proven to be pretty strong.





But it does seems to be a trigger, the Genetic trait is the bullet. Pull the trigger on an empty gun and it doesn't go bang.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:09:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
she knows she's going to die anyway, so why bother stopping. I dont have any sympathy, they know what they are doing. and I dont care if they do it or not



Quote of the day

"she knows she's going to die anyway"
indeed.

It's rather an inevitibility for all of us isn't it. One of my favorite authors died of a sudden heart attack a few years ago while he was........ exercising at a Gym in California. Just like him to run off and do something ironic like that.

Cancer is caused by carcinogens. There are carcinogens in lettuce, apples, almonds and just about everyting else we consume. The likelyhood of getting cancer is also largely based on an individuals genetic makeup. There have been smokers that have lived beyond the age of 100 and non-smokers that have died of Cancer before they aged beyond their teens without ever having smoked or suffered signifigant exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.





Of coarse we are all going to die some day. Yes, people who don't smoke get cancers. But HOW MANY people die each year as a result of smoking? My mother and father both smoked, my mother maybe three quaters of a pack a day, my father 1.5 packs a day. My mother developed pnemonia, was admitted to a hospital and was dead within a week at the age of 54. Here lungs were so damaged, they were too weak to fight off the infection. Doctors said an average person her age could easily survived the pnemonia. My father, he lived longer, 56. He developed emphyzema at 53 and it killed him at 56. Niether of them developed cancer, they did not live long enough to get it, buy smoking did kill them.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:11:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By sysop:Cancer is caused by carcinogens. There are carcinogens in lettuce, apples, almonds and just about everyting else we consume. The likelyhood of getting cancer is also largely based on an individuals genetic makeup. There have been smokers that have lived beyond the age of 100 and non-smokers that have died of Cancer before they aged beyond their teens without ever having smoked or suffered signifigant exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.





The link between smoking and cancer has been proven to be pretty strong.





Indeed but not as strong as some make it out to be.




You cannot be serious!
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:14:50 PM EDT
Smoking will kill you folks. It's not exactly news.

How in this day we still sell tobacco, I do not know. Other than perhaps the government collects a bunch of money via taxation. But that's leads to another set of questions......



Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:34:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By palmer:
Of coarse course we are all going to die some day. Yes, people who don't smoke get cancers. But HOW MANY people die each year as a result of smoking? My mother and father both smoked, my mother maybe three quaters of a pack a day, my father 1.5 packs a day. My mother developed pnemonia, was admitted to a hospital and was dead within a week at the age of 54. Here lungs were so damaged, they were too weak to fight off the infection. Doctors said an average person her age could easily survived the pnemonia. My father, he lived longer, 56. He developed emphyzema at 53 and it killed him at 56. Niether of them developed cancer, they did not live long enough to get it, buy but smoking did kill them.



I am sorry for your loss.

I don't recall having said smoking was good for you or that it did not introduce other threats. The woman in question was said to have been dieing of Cancer not pnemonia or emphyzema.

But truth be told one does not have to have been a smoker to die of pnemonia or emphyzema.

How many times do doctors use smoking as a convenient excuse for an individuals death and we eat it up like candy.

Was your mother or father a painter or did they work in the pest control industry or some other proffession that exposed them to fumes from toxic chemicals on a regular basis? Did they live as most of us do in a large city in which the air is constantly polluted with Carbon Monoxide from tens of thousands of cars not to mention industrial air pollution? What about their hobbies? It's all very easy to point to tobacco and call it the culprit but there are many factors that must be considered. One just can't assume that because someone died and they were a smoker that the tobacco use was the single contributing factor to the death.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:36:02 PM EDT
You are right....and I don't want to talk about it anymore than that.

But I will say this. I wish I put a smoke in my dad's coffin when he died, because I know he would have wanted one.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:37:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 1:38:19 PM EDT by JasonC]

Originally Posted By Jack19:
Smoking will kill you folks. It's not exactly news.

How in this day we still sell tobacco, I do not know. Other than perhaps the government collects a bunch of money via taxation. But that's leads to another set of questions......






yup, and the government also subsidizes the tobacco industry to keep their cash flow coming in. It's all about $$$. Makes me sick...
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:39:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jack19:
Smoking will kill you folks. It's not exactly news.

How in this day we still sell tobacco, I do not know. Other than perhaps the government collects a bunch of money via taxation. But that's leads to another set of questions......




So does alchohol and the government collects a tidy sum from that industry too. There are lots of things that are legal that will kill you.

A few years ago read a story about this guy in the UK that died because he was obsessed with body odor. He covered his entire body with deoderant.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 2:59:43 PM EDT
The links between cancer and smoking are all anecdotal. Correlation does not prove causation. I think we should demand verifiable scientific proof before we go taking more rights away from American captives. Give our tyrants time. They will eventually take every single right we have. Just a matter of time.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:07:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
The links between cancer and smoking are all anecdotal.



What the hell is it with the idiotic psuedo-science in this thread?

Smoking cigarettes greatly increases your chance of developing lung cancer. There is no doubt about that statement. NONE. Nor is there any scientific doubt that smoking cigarettes greatly increases the risk of heart disease, emphysema, and other health issues.

Stop with the stupid comments. If you want to smoke, that's fine, and I'll join you with a cigar, but don't try to pretend that it is anything but bad for you. (Cigarettes, of course, being the worse.)
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:08:06 PM EDT
I just quit a few weeks ago. I wasn't really addicted, hadn't even smoked that much, but stopped because it didn't really do anything for me.

That said, people who want to smoke, its not my business, let them do what they want to do. Leave them alone.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:08:39 PM EDT
She's now talking about dead relatives - actually, she's talking to them.

Are they coming to get her?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:09:35 PM EDT
My neighbor had lung and brain cancer and smoked right up to the end. Treatment was hopeless, and she didn't have much time left--so she continued to puff away.

It was sad to see that. I always joke that we're all gonna die from some form of cancer, but it's undeniable that we can prevent some illnesses.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:13:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
The links between cancer and smoking are all anecdotal.



What the hell is it with the idiotic psuedo-science in this thread?

Smoking cigarettes greatly increases your chance of developing lung cancer. There is no doubt about that statement. NONE. Nor is there any scientific doubt that smoking cigarettes greatly increases the risk of heart disease, emphysema, and other health issues.

Stop with the stupid comments. If you want to smoke, that's fine, and I'll join you with a cigar, but don't try to pretend that it is anything but bad for you. (Cigarettes, of course, being the worse.)



Owning a gun greatly increases your chance of being shot as apposed to an individual who does not own a gun. Is owning a gun bad for you?

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:16:02 PM EDT
It doesnt seem so bad, she lived to an old age, sooner or later something else would have killed her, so what if it was a little sooner because of smoking.

It was her choice, we all make our own.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:16:52 PM EDT
Cigarettes: The most powerful drug

The state just raised the tax by $.75 a pack starting tomorrow.

I'll let you know.


GM
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:16:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SoCalJBT:


I'm torn between feeling sorry for her and feeling that she is getting exactly what she deserves.




I don't know about "getting exactly what she deserves." We've all done something that could have killed us on the spot. Doesn't mean we deserved it. It's going to happen to all of us, but a painful death isn't anything to think someone deserves. (excepting murderers and child molesters and such)

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:21:49 PM EDT
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known.

Unless someone has personally kicked the habit, they really have no idea how difficult it is (and why some people keep smoking)



I think compassion would be in order rather than contempt.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:22:04 PM EDT
My grandfather is an alcoholic, he drunk alot of beer when he was younger, and he still drinks alot of beer.

He has an enlarged liver and whatnot, but he is also about 70, when you get that old and have problems from a life time of doing whatever there is really no point in stopping, be it smoking or drinking.

We arent meant to last forever, or at the very least the technology isnt there yet.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:25:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
The links between cancer and smoking are all anecdotal.



What the hell is it with the idiotic psuedo-science in this thread?

Smoking cigarettes greatly increases your chance of developing lung cancer. There is no doubt about that statement. NONE. Nor is there any scientific doubt that smoking cigarettes greatly increases the risk of heart disease, emphysema, and other health issues.

Stop with the stupid comments. If you want to smoke, that's fine, and I'll join you with a cigar, but don't try to pretend that it is anything but bad for you. (Cigarettes, of course, being the worse.)



Owning a gun greatly increases your chance of being shot as apposed to an individual who does not own a gun. Is owning a gun bad for you?




What is your point? We are talking about smoking; if you want to demonstrate that firearms ownership is a dangerous thing, do it elsewhere.

Why do people always try all sort of childish little tricks when confronted with the statement: Smoking is bad for you? It is, you know, and no amount of trying to lead the conversation astray will change that.

Hey, keep smoking. I know I will. (Cigars, though; quit cigarettes a while ago) Just be aware of what it's doing to you, and stop with the stupid attempted redirection when someone throws a little fact your way.

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:31:40 PM EDT
What a filthy habit. I can't for the life of me understand why people smoke!!!!
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:54:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
The links between cancer and smoking are all anecdotal. Correlation does not prove causation. I think we should demand verifiable scientific proof before we go taking more rights away from American captives. Give our tyrants time. They will eventually take every single right we have. Just a matter of time.



Enough correlation from a wide variety fo studies does prove causation. It is not just statistical studies, but studies of the effect of particles in smoke on lung tissue, etc. Do you work for the tobacco industry, by any chance?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:54:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 3:58:14 PM EDT by soccermike7]
i dont know if anyone has survived lung cancer - its at least a very very small %. that is nasty stuff. the longest people ever really live is approx. 5 years. lung cancer is death. stopping smoking now wont change that, so why should she stop? might as well get your kicks instead of attempting to go through withdrawl in such a weakened state.

granted, i have a 'serves you right' line of thought too, but at that point she might as well smoke. it'll make things a little less painful.

Edit: and as for the correlation between lung cancer and smoking. no, there is no 'hard' evidence to support that. there is nothing that says smoking will cause lung cancer BUT approx. 80% of lung cancer patients are/were smokers.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 3:57:15 PM EDT
I watched the same thing years ago. I was there to write up the report of a 65 year old or so man(life long smoker) who died of Lung cancer. Hit him all of a sudden, one week later after diagnosis, he expired. Funny thing is, the grieving family(all 30 of them) were outside puffing away on cigarettes as they wheeled him out to the hurse. No shit, about 30 folks were all outside at the same time smoking. It was classic. They were pretty much White trash Dumbasses.

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:06:48 PM EDT
Actually I despise the smell of cigarette smoke. Cigarette smokers are usually selfish, obnoxious and rude. Not to mention below average intelligence. But, all these hollow arguments are meaningless. The assumption that two events that occur simultaneously must be related is the first mistake in logic that the anti-gunners make. The arguments sound good but don't hold water. There are no scientific studies that definitively link smoking and cancer. None. There can be no argument about that.

However, I will join you in a fine Cuban anytime...had a Montecristo #2 last night. To repeat; We should not allow our elected tyrants to take away any right whatsoever based on junk science. Sugar, candy,etc. will be next....just watch.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:32:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:

Originally Posted By palmer:
Of coarse course we are all going to die some day. Yes, people who don't smoke get cancers. But HOW MANY people die each year as a result of smoking? My mother and father both smoked, my mother maybe three quaters of a pack a day, my father 1.5 packs a day. My mother developed pnemonia, was admitted to a hospital and was dead within a week at the age of 54. Here lungs were so damaged, they were too weak to fight off the infection. Doctors said an average person her age could easily survived the pnemonia. My father, he lived longer, 56. He developed emphyzema at 53 and it killed him at 56. Niether of them developed cancer, they did not live long enough to get it, buy but smoking did kill them.



I am sorry for your loss.

I don't recall having said smoking was good for you or that it did not introduce other threats. The woman in question was said to have been dieingdying of Cancer not pnemonia or emphyzema.

But truth be told one does not have to have been a smoker to die of pnemonia or emphyzema.

How many times do doctors use smoking as a convenient excuse for an individuals death and we eat it up like candy.

Was your mother or father a painter or did they work in the pest control industry or some other proffessionprofession that exposed them to fumes from toxic chemicals on a regular basis? Did they live as most of us do in a large city in which the air is constantly polluted with Carbon Monoxide from tens of thousands of cars not to mention industrial air pollution? What about their hobbies? It's all very easy to point to tobacco and call it the culprit but there are many factors that must be considered. One just can't assume that because someone died and they were a smoker that the tobacco use was the single contributing factor to the death.




Thank you


Nor do I recall stating that you did.


Yes, I read what SoCalJBT's wrote. I was informing the rest of the people reading this thread of the effects smoking can have on a persons life and death, for educational purposes.


Ofcourse, but it helps to have strong lungs, not smoke damaged lungs.


Not the single factor, but a major factor.


BTW, my mother was a housewife/mother. My father was a Pilot.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:50:04 PM EDT
And this weeks thinking outside the box award foes to 10mmFan.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 6:26:23 PM EDT
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I didn't even get to argue with anybody about the average age of these alleged "cigarette victims"! And people don't think anymore. We hear something and if it passes the sniff test and our preconceived notions we accept it. We hear it again and it is by God a fact!! Most people don't realize that no matter how strongly we believe something the fact remains; we could be wrong. 99.9% of what we think we know somebody told us. How much do we actually, logically, scientifically provably know?

I'll ask for the millionth time; when did the last human in America die of old age? And who benefits when what people die of can be 'blamed on' or said to be 'caused by' something?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 6:33:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 6:43:16 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
The links between cancer and smoking are all anecdotal. Correlation does not prove causation. I think we should demand verifiable scientific proof before we go taking more rights away from American captives. Give our tyrants time. They will eventually take every single right we have. Just a matter of time.



Enough correlation from a wide variety fo studies does prove causation. It is not just statistical studies, but studies of the effect of particles in smoke on lung tissue, etc. Do you work for the tobacco industry, by any chance?


Well if the links are that strong then riddle me this…

In the early 1960 about 75% of the population smoked…

Now less that 25% of the population smokes…

So if the links to smoking and cancer ect. are so absolute there should have been a reduction approaching 75% in said diseases…

There ain’t been… not even close… a small if any reduction.

How come?

And do not say second hand smoke that will not fly, cutting smoking rates to one third their previous levels would also cut second hand smoke exposure correspondingly.

It ain’t just smoking, it may be smoking and something else but it ain’t just smoking.

Explain this obvious inconsistency in the smoking causes everything theories…

And I don’t smoke and don’t work for a tobacco company… I can do simple math though and something ain’t right.

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 6:34:20 PM EDT
I recall reading of a study once suggesting that if tobbacco (or all nicotine containing products for that matter) were to be made illegal overnight, we'd have smokers acting more like heroin addicts. IE a pack of ciggs that used to cost 4 to 10 dollars depending where you live now costs 20+ dollars, if you cant afford it through conventional means, like gainful employment, the only thing left to do is steal car stereos and pawn them, etc etc. Take it for what its worth but I could see this happening, considering some people barely afford what they smoke now and wont quit even though it takes a cut out of their pocket. How would they react if the price suddenly quadrupled or more? Quit smoking? I think not.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 6:39:53 PM EDT
It's Global Warming!!!!!!! Oh no, we are all going to die Same junk science.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 6:54:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Well if the links are that strong then riddle me this…

In the early 1960 about 75% of the population smoked…

Now less that 25% of the population smokes…

So if the links to smoking and cancer ect. are so absolute there should have been a reduction approaching 75% in said diseases…

There ain’t been… not even close… a small if any reduction.




Adjusting for population growth, here are the numbers.

Population 1960: 180,671,158 75%=135,503,368

Population now: 296,767,837 25%=74,191,959

How does that stack up against cancer numbers?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 7:17:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By goodmedicine:
Cigarettes: The most powerful drug

The state just raised the tax by $.75 a pack starting tomorrow.

I'll let you know.


GM




A couple of place here today raised them a day early..............$41.99 a carton, that was a $14.00 increase per carton They are taxing the tax too
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 7:41:51 PM EDT
This is all getting to me. Excuse me, folks, while I go have myself a smoke.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 7:46:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 10mmFan:
Actually I despise the smell of cigarette smoke. Cigarette smokers are usually selfish, obnoxious and rude. Not to mention below average intelligence. But, all these hollow arguments are meaningless. The assumption that two events that occur simultaneously must be related is the first mistake in logic that the anti-gunners make. The arguments sound good but don't hold water. There are no scientific studies that definitively link smoking and cancer. None. There can be no argument about that.



Yeah, some mysterious thing is causing the higher ratio of certain diseases in smokers and it's definitely not the shit they put into their lungs. I don't care if people smoke, either. But to suggest that the correlation between cigarette smoking and the many diseases that smokers have a higher incidence of does not exist is just ridiculous.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 7:57:43 PM EDT
Tobacco will be illegal one day. So will alcohol. Sweets will be restricted....underaged will be prohibited from buying candy. There probably is not much that will not be over-regulated/taxed, sued out of business or made illegal at some time in this poor doomed countries future. I don't think for one second that our tyrants are going to sit on their hands for the next 100 years. What good could those crooked bastards possibly do? What good have they done????

They are just about through shredding the constitution. Private property rights were wiped out by tobacco legislation. First ammendment? Forget it.

Our precious second ammendment......you can start the countdown now.

Our kids and possibly their kids will remember "the good old days".

I'm seriously thinking about sneaking an illegal toilet into the country just for the Hell of it!!
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 7:59:11 PM EDT
Cancer isn't the only thing or the worst thing to happen to a smoker. Smoking causes heart disease and other circuatory problems, that's why smokers are slower to heal from surgery and such. A friend of mine said when she smoked she would frequently get the raynouds thing in her fingers. It hasn't happened once since she's quit.

Smokers also have a higher rate of connective tissue things like tendonitis and stuff. I only made this connection recently. We get these kind of problems working in the lab using our hands and fingers a lot but I had recently noticed that the heavy smokers never get better. They take a lot longer to heal from any surgery they may need as well. This is just my observation, maybe one of the docs here have other observations.

I smoked for awhile when I was young and quit, I knew it wasn't something I could do forever, I don't even know why I did it. Then I picked up the habit later on in life, a few smokes with beer. No matter how few beers I had my whole body ached the next day, it was wierd. I'll bet I didn't smoke a pack a month but I could sure tell when I quit.

My dad was a heavy smoker, he smoked cigars like most folks smoke ciggarettes. He had the usual excuses, you have to die someday, blah blah blah. I would rather be dead than live like my dad did in his last decade of life. He had emphazema and eventually quit smoking but the damage was done. There was no quality in his life. He could barely walk because of leg cramps and could hardly finish a sentence without gasping for breath. He died at 72, but he was suffering long before that.

But no, he did not get cancer.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:09:24 PM EDT
Take 10 girls , The smoking lamp is lit if you don't have one bum it from your squad leader. We had cigs in our c rats!!! Smoking is MR JONES everything else is wannabe.
Top Top