The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 hmm. not a bad choice. letting a disease help people change their minds, doesnt always work but its effective in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 hey, most smokers have the impression nothing bad is going to happen to them anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 true, but I have a friend who is trying to quit right now because his father has cancer.(my friend is 41 years old as of two days ago) so far he has cut down to only have taken his last cigaret last month(december 5) and plans on not smoking this year(hopefully) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 see, for the chances of not developing cancer between a smoker and non-smoker, if the smoker has quit, then around 10 years after his last cigarette, his chances will be almost the same as a non-smoker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 true, but it also depends on how many packs were smoked per day/month and the size of the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 as well as the brand. Different cigarettes have different strengths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 true, forgot to mention that. the smokeless cigarettes are the most dangerous of the cigarettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 true' date=' forgot to mention that. the smokeless cigarettes are the most dangerous of the cigarettes.[/quote'] actually I didn't know that. Why so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 the smoke tat is supposed to come out is forsed to stay in the cigarette causing the person using the cigarette to inhale the smoke when they puff on it. it was on the news a long time ago and that is all I can remember from the brodcast about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 that's even worse. You'll get lung cancer the fastest that way (though it'd also make you learn better the fastest too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 it also saves the people around you when you are smoking because they cant breathe in the smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 yeah, the 2nd hand smoke may be less harmful than first hand, but it'll give you cancer just the same once you've inhaled it for too long (it's the reason why some people initially were confused as to how non-smokers were getting lung cancer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 true, the second hand smokers get off on the bad side when it comes to smoking. the ones who inhale the smoke around them also get the tobacco on their face causing achne, or wrincles, or even very dry flaky skin. they also get the worse part in the lung cancer category because they inhaled the smoke containing tar. there are other things but I'm not going to talk about them at the moment because my brain is getting tired of repeating everyting over and over again to people(I talk about it in my town with the smokers and non smokers all of the time and I get tired of it, sorry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 true' date=' the second hand smokers get off on the bad side when it comes to smoking. the ones who inhale the smoke around them also get the tobacco on their face causing achne, or wrincles, or even very dry flaky skin. they also get the worse part in the lung cancer category because they inhaled the smoke containing tar. there are other things but I'm not going to talk about them at the moment because my brain is getting tired of repeating everyting over and over again to people(I talk about it in my town with the smokers and non smokers all of the time and I get tired of it, sorry)[/quote'] when you have family members who smoke, you get a bad end of it already. Many of my friends do their best to avoid the second hand smoke, but you can't avoid it indefinately. Fortunately it takes VERY much inhalation for the effect to kick in. As for the regular smokers, they'll think differently on the day a hole needs to be put into their throat for them to breathe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 couldnt have said it any better myself. I wonder if "everyone" that smoked could completely stop smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 well some people DO have the will power to quit right on the spot you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Prince_of_Death Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 yes I know that. but can everyone in the world, that smokes, completely stop smoking for good by the end of the week(atleast), at the end of the year(atmost)? off topic: I need to get off so my uncle can pay some bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 not without some form of inspiration they can't. Most people don't have such willpower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sick4u Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 ITT: The same two people that killed Debates are copying the first thing their Google searches tell them. We don't need to get rid of smoking, simply because the reasons to are flawed and varied and are merely based upon how Global smoking has become. You might say smoking pollutes, I'll tell you that we should then get rid of the Meat-Processing Industry as well. You might say smoking causes personal harm, I'll tell you that we should then get rid of sharp objects, cleaning agents, Alcohol and Ragnarok's ability to post as well. You might say smoking causes extremely minor side effects to those constantly around the smoke, I'll tell you that if they were stupid enough to consistently be within the radius of a smoker, then they would probably deserve it. Live and let live. Most smokers accept that what they're doing is doing damage, but they're also knowledgeable enough to know that the damage they're doing won't take a drastic effect for a considerable amount of time. So, knowing this, why don't you tell me, why is it you people want to get rid of smoking again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 ITT: The same two people that killed Debates are copying the first thing their Google searches tell them. We don't need to get rid of smoking' date=' simply because the reasons to are flawed and varied and are merely based upon how Global smoking has become. You might say smoking pollutes, I'll tell you that we should then get rid of the Meat-Processing Industry as well. You might say smoking causes personal harm, I'll tell you that we should then get rid of sharp objects, cleaning agents, Alcohol and Ragnarok's ability to post as well. You might say smoking causes extremely minor side effects to those constantly around the smoke, I'll tell you that if they were stupid enough to consistently be within the radius of a smoker, then they would probably deserve it. Live and let live. Most smokers accept that what they're doing is doing damage, but they're also knowledgeable enough to know that the damage they're doing won't take a drastic effect for a considerable amount of time. So, knowing this, why don't you tell me, why is it you people want to get rid of smoking again?[/quote'] what they think is a long time usually lasts longer in their heads rather than reality you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2sick4u Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 ITT: The same two people that killed Debates are copying the first thing their Google searches tell them. We don't need to get rid of smoking' date=' simply because the reasons to are flawed and varied and are merely based upon how Global smoking has become. You might say smoking pollutes, I'll tell you that we should then get rid of the Meat-Processing Industry as well. You might say smoking causes personal harm, I'll tell you that we should then get rid of sharp objects, cleaning agents, Alcohol and Ragnarok's ability to post as well. You might say smoking causes extremely minor side effects to those constantly around the smoke, I'll tell you that if they were stupid enough to consistently be within the radius of a smoker, then they would probably deserve it. Live and let live. Most smokers accept that what they're doing is doing damage, but they're also knowledgeable enough to know that the damage they're doing won't take a drastic effect for a considerable amount of time. So, knowing this, why don't you tell me, why is it you people want to get rid of smoking again?[/quote'] what they think is a long time usually lasts longer in their heads rather than reality you know Most people consider 10-20 years a rather long time. Stop trying to be Mr. Psychological whilst ignoring everything logical in your posts. You assume you know what all people want, feel and how they'll react. Shut up, you have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willieh Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 funk you. Smoking doesn't hurt anyone. Second hand smoke is a myth. Smoking around infants; yes it's bad. Smoking around adolescents and adults won't hurt them. Prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 f*** you. Smoking doesn't hurt anyone. Second hand smoke is a myth. Smoking around infants; yes it's bad. Smoking around adolescents and adults won't hurt them. Prove me wrong. You REALLY think inhaling the smoke a smoker exhales at an older age is harmless? Why would it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 f*** you. Smoking doesn't hurt anyone. Second hand smoke is a myth. Smoking around infants; yes it's bad. Smoking around adolescents and adults won't hurt them. Prove me wrong. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 And now, GTFO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrekstasy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 I know (this is totally serious): We take all the people who smoke, but won't stop, and put them on an island.We butcher up all the tabacco industries.We destroy all cigarettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.