Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Do you smoke?
And btw, asking which is the worse for health is just idiotic. You have to compare smoking with non-smoking.
By the way making assesments over 1 ironical post in sokker freestyle forum is considered as decent intelligence and the best part is you didn`t get it ;)
By the way Albert Einstein was a smoker , Winston Churchill too and several American presidents including the latest one. Calling a person idiot because he or she smokes is just riddicules. By that standard we can call everybody idiots and that was what my ironical post was aimed at. It really shouldn`t be so difficult to understand sir Rubinho.
(edited)
By the way Albert Einstein was a smoker , Winston Churchill too and several American presidents including the latest one. Calling a person idiot because he or she smokes is just riddicules. By that standard we can call everybody idiots and that was what my ironical post was aimed at. It really shouldn`t be so difficult to understand sir Rubinho.
(edited)
And btw, asking which is the worse for health is just idiotic. You have to compare smoking with non-smoking.
You must be kidding right?
Let me write it out for you sir Rubinho
Non-smoker-non-drinker vs smoker
Non-smoker-non-drinker vs drinker
Getting hammered every day is way-way worse than smoking every day. Getting hammered 1 in 7 days definately shortens your lifespan, but if you do it 1 in 7 days does it shorten it more than smoking pack of cigarettes every day. ON AVERAGE!
Got it now ?
(edited)
You must be kidding right?
Let me write it out for you sir Rubinho
Non-smoker-non-drinker vs smoker
Non-smoker-non-drinker vs drinker
Getting hammered every day is way-way worse than smoking every day. Getting hammered 1 in 7 days definately shortens your lifespan, but if you do it 1 in 7 days does it shorten it more than smoking pack of cigarettes every day. ON AVERAGE!
Got it now ?
(edited)
Well Sir Davy the Great, what is the point of knowing what is the worse, getting drunk once a week or smoking a pack every day? Will you chose which one you'll continue doing?
Not really. Comparing alcohol to tobacco is what's ridiculous here. The body can breakdown alcohol quite easily if drunk in moderation, although heavy drinking is obviously harmful to the liver. Smoking in moderation is not the same, as the effects cannot be reversed by the body. On a societal level, smoking is also more harmful. More people will smoke (both moderately and heavily) each day than drink, although often the two go hand in hand. But whereas when you drink, the only person harmed by the alcohol is yourself, when you smoke it is not uncommon for you to be in the vicinity of others (sometimes non-smokers) - passive smoking as has been alluded.
It is also believed drinking small amounts of red wine etc. can bring health benefits (especially to the heart). There is nothing beneficial about smoking.
It is also believed drinking small amounts of red wine etc. can bring health benefits (especially to the heart). There is nothing beneficial about smoking.
perspective, sir rubinho... perspective.
Great post,
although this part of your post is littlebit off imo :
But whereas when you drink, the only person harmed by the alcohol is yourself, when you smoke it is not uncommon for you to be in the vicinity of others (sometimes non-smokers) - passive smoking as has been alluded.
if you make comparisons between the effects of these two and start counting negative effects of smoking to others, then you shoudnt count out the negative sides of alcohol and how it affects others.
still i was talking about heavy drinking and on average how great are the negative effects of getting hammered 1 day a week, how much does it shorten your lifespan.
Let me give you a example:
Lung lifespan on average is 120 years, its sayed that 1 year of smoking reduces lung lifespan 1 year on average. So if you smoke for 20 years youll lose 20 years of your lung lifespan even if you quit.
How much does 1 night of heavy drinking affect our bodies on average
Its pretty simplistic approach obviously i know, but im a littlebit curious to know that.
(edited)
(edited)
although this part of your post is littlebit off imo :
But whereas when you drink, the only person harmed by the alcohol is yourself, when you smoke it is not uncommon for you to be in the vicinity of others (sometimes non-smokers) - passive smoking as has been alluded.
if you make comparisons between the effects of these two and start counting negative effects of smoking to others, then you shoudnt count out the negative sides of alcohol and how it affects others.
still i was talking about heavy drinking and on average how great are the negative effects of getting hammered 1 day a week, how much does it shorten your lifespan.
Let me give you a example:
Lung lifespan on average is 120 years, its sayed that 1 year of smoking reduces lung lifespan 1 year on average. So if you smoke for 20 years youll lose 20 years of your lung lifespan even if you quit.
How much does 1 night of heavy drinking affect our bodies on average
Its pretty simplistic approach obviously i know, but im a littlebit curious to know that.
(edited)
(edited)
tried it few years ago, didn't make me feel good at all (not like sokker :D), so I never try again
How do you quantify the negative effect of alcohol on others though? At a guess I'd say drink driving and drunken assault (or anything else caused by alcohol) is less prevalent that passive smoking. Speaking for myself, I only know one person who has crashed their car as a result of drink driving, and none who have been convicted of assault (let alone actually committing assault). On the other hand, I know many, many people who smoke, and I have unfortunately inhaled their smoke passively on numerous occasions.
You make a good point about heavy drinking. If one person began heavy drinking, and another heavy smoking at the same time, the drinker would probably die earlier. But like I said, for the drinker the toxin itself is only harming them, whereas for a smoker they cannot contain the toxins spreading into the atmosphere (and often others' lungs).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that smoking (IMO) has a bigger effect on society than drinking.
You make a good point about heavy drinking. If one person began heavy drinking, and another heavy smoking at the same time, the drinker would probably die earlier. But like I said, for the drinker the toxin itself is only harming them, whereas for a smoker they cannot contain the toxins spreading into the atmosphere (and often others' lungs).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that smoking (IMO) has a bigger effect on society than drinking.
Doctors can confirm that Alcohol is the DIRECT cause of some illnesses. They cannot prove that smoking is the DIRECT cause to anything. I understand that breathing fumes can't be healthy for your lungs of course, but there is no proof the cigarettes directly cause cancer.
80% of people with lung cancer are smokers. Coincidence?
millions of people smoked for 50-60 years and lived to their 80's 90's....coincidence?
Where did you get this from? Smoker's cough is a direct consequence of smoking that everyone can see with his own eyes when he knows how to use a microscope (the tar of the cigarettes adheres to the cilia in your trachea which subsequently are not anymore able to transport mucous out of the airways => cough).
There is also direct experimental evidence that smoking causes cancer. Cigarettes contain the radioactive isotope polonium 210, and radioactivity undoubtedly causes cancer. Also other ingredients like nicotine (as well as alcohol btw) were also show to induce cancer in cell lines.
The fact that some people can smoke 2 packs a day, live 90 years and not get cancer is no prove for anything. Cancer can mainly occur due to your genetic background and sheer randomness. But smoking definitely has a significant impact.
It is actually cynic, but we need you smokers;-)! European countries who fight very aggressively against smoking shot in their own leg, since it was quite nicely shown that smoking allows us to maintain our health systems. Smokers die significantly younger and faster (cancer or heart failure, which also occurs at higher frequency for smokers, is a lot faster and cheaper than suffering from Alzheimer's and being in a nursing home for years). If now suddenly all people would stop smoking, our health costs would explode (there are nice studies about that).
Btw, it was mentioned by someone that smoking is no beneficial effects, but this is not true. Smoking significantly lowers the risk to develop Alzheimer's disease. But of course, this is no reason to start smoking from a medical point of view, since the negative effects are overwhelming...
There is also direct experimental evidence that smoking causes cancer. Cigarettes contain the radioactive isotope polonium 210, and radioactivity undoubtedly causes cancer. Also other ingredients like nicotine (as well as alcohol btw) were also show to induce cancer in cell lines.
The fact that some people can smoke 2 packs a day, live 90 years and not get cancer is no prove for anything. Cancer can mainly occur due to your genetic background and sheer randomness. But smoking definitely has a significant impact.
It is actually cynic, but we need you smokers;-)! European countries who fight very aggressively against smoking shot in their own leg, since it was quite nicely shown that smoking allows us to maintain our health systems. Smokers die significantly younger and faster (cancer or heart failure, which also occurs at higher frequency for smokers, is a lot faster and cheaper than suffering from Alzheimer's and being in a nursing home for years). If now suddenly all people would stop smoking, our health costs would explode (there are nice studies about that).
Btw, it was mentioned by someone that smoking is no beneficial effects, but this is not true. Smoking significantly lowers the risk to develop Alzheimer's disease. But of course, this is no reason to start smoking from a medical point of view, since the negative effects are overwhelming...
