Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 13 2015, @11:47PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the it's-never-good-news dept.

"Who still smokes?" as Denise Grady reports at the NYT that however bad you thought smoking was, it’s even worse. A new study has found that in addition to the well-known hazards of lung cancer, artery disease, heart attacks, chronic lung disease and stroke, researchers found that smoking was linked to significantly increased risks of infection, kidney disease, intestinal disease caused by inadequate blood flow, and heart and lung ailments not previously attributed to tobacco. “The smoking epidemic is still ongoing, and there is a need to evaluate how smoking is hurting us as a society, to support clinicians and policy making in public health,” says Brian D. Carter, an author of the study. “It’s not a done story.” Carter says he was inspired to dig deeper into the causes of death in smokers after taking an initial look at data from five large health surveys being conducted by other researchers. As expected, death rates were higher among the smokers but diseases known to be caused by tobacco accounted for only 83 percent of the excess deaths in people who smoked. “I thought, ‘Wow, that’s really low,’ ” Mr. Carter said. “We have this huge cohort. Let’s get into the weeds, cast a wide net and see what is killing smokers that we don’t already know.” The researchers found that, compared with people who had never smoked, smokers were about twice as likely to die from infections, kidney disease, respiratory ailments not previously linked to tobacco, and hypertensive heart disease, in which high blood pressure leads to heart failure. "The Surgeon General's report claims 480,000 deaths directly caused by smoking, but we think that is really quite a bit off," concludes Carter adding that the figure may be closer to 540,000.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Disagree) by gnuman on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:34AM

    by gnuman (5013) on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:34AM (#144810)

    The idiots that are not dead yet. I'm sorry, but in today's day and age, if you start smoking anything (including pot) for "recreational use", calling you an idiot should be enshrined in law.

    Then again, people still drink and drive, use "bath salts", crack, heroin, prescription pills. 1% of people in US are addicted to heroin. So I'm not surprised that there are still idiots that pick up smoking.

    http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/scope-heroin-use-in-united-states [drugabuse.gov]
    http://www.caron.org/knowledge-library/statistics-outcomes/heroin-opiate-stats [caron.org]

    According to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an estimated 3.7 million people had used heroin at some time in their lives

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:43AM (#144818)

      The idiots that are not dead yet.

      Excluding cremation, only the living smoke.

      Not everyone who has tried heroin are addicts.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @01:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @01:48AM (#144835)

        I was born only two decades after heroin was banned, and our family pharmacist kept some under the counter for his older patients who used it as a cold remedy. I'm pretty sure I was given some around age 5.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:29AM (#144862)

          did you inject it?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:05AM (#145088)

            The needle is more addictive than the heroin.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:57AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:57AM (#144822) Journal

      but in today's day and age... calling you an idiot should be enshrined in law.

      And having a diet of "fat free, heaps of carbon-hydrates" should be called how?
      (if it's not evident, I'm taking a stab at the "today's day and age" level of knowledge; I'm certainly not saying "smoking is good for you and you are a living proof of a genius for taking up smoking", I know it's not so from my personal experience) .

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 2) by gnuman on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:45AM

        by gnuman (5013) on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:45AM (#144865)

        And having a diet of "fat free, heaps of carbon-hydrates" should be called how?
        (if it's not evident, I'm taking a stab at the "today's day and age" level of knowledge; I'm certainly not saying "smoking is good for you and you are a living proof of a genius for taking up smoking", I know it's not so from my personal experience) .

        There is a huge difference between the two things. Eating calories, of any form, is important if you want to continue living. But smoking, that's the complete opposite. There is no positives. You are bombarded everywhere that smoking kills, yet, people continue to start smoking.

        You can't compare smoking to other risky activities either, like skydiving, or motorcycle racing. Even the guy on youtube that will eat anything, including things like light bulbs, gets more out of that activity than smoking for smokers. Smoking costs you tons of money, costs you your life, your looks, you even smell worse. You are shunned from all public places (at least in progressive countries) and methods of transportation. So, why do people start smoking today??

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @05:20AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @05:20AM (#144871) Journal

          But smoking, that's the complete opposite. There is no positives.

          Wrong. Google for "nicotine depression treatment" and you'll see there's a positive in this. If you consider that the "relief" is delivered 7 seconds after you inhale it [wikipedia.org], you can see why so many people get hooked.

          Can you get the same effect without smoking? Today, yes. It wasn't so about 30 years ago, when I make the mistake to smoke a cigarette after my brother died: in spite of puking my guts out at my first attempt, I was hooked ever since.

          Smoking costs you tons of money, costs you your life, your looks, you even smell worse.

          All true, and don't need to tell me about, but...

          Even the guy on youtube that will eat anything, including things like light bulbs, gets more out of that activity than smoking for smokers.

          Again, not generally true. I'm borderline chronically depressive (not enough to kill myself but, for example, I rarely laugh. Not avoiding others, but again not a very social individual).
          I tried substituting the cigarettes with eCigs: I needed to abandon it, because the nicotine I was taking was increasing over time (happens with any anti-depressant actually). At least, the "classic" cigarette is self-limiting (as it gets one's throat sore from the smoke).

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:24AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:24AM (#145140)

            in spite of puking my guts out at my first attempt, I was hooked ever since.

            Nicotine is the only drug that can make you addicted after literally just one hit. [sciencedaily.com] Nothing else can create addiction or dependency that fast, its unique to nicotine.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Saturday February 14 2015, @01:43AM

      by SGT CAPSLOCK (118) on Saturday February 14 2015, @01:43AM (#144831) Journal

      I'm sorry, but in today's day and age, if you start smoking anything (including pot) for "recreational use", calling you an idiot should be enshrined in law.

      Why's that?

      What's wrong with letting people do what they want? I mean, you'd have a right to be upset if someone were blowing smoke in your face, but I doubt anyone's forcing you to stand near them while they indulge their habits.

      Besides that, it seems a bit reckless to just call people "idiots" because they do something like smoke. It might seem incomprehensible, foreign, and terribly tough to understand to some people, but everyone has their own circumstances. It's entirely possible that some smokers are intelligent people who understand the risks, yet still choose to smoke for one reason or another. Good for them.

      Calling smokers "idiots" kind of has the same feel to it as when non-religious people call religious ones idiots, or when highly religious people threaten atheists with quotes from their religious literature. Pointless hostility doesn't help anyone.

      Disclaimer: I don't smoke, but I used to.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @02:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @02:58AM (#144842)

        I guess my problem is the guy who comes in, lights up, and stinks the place up with his fumes. About as welcomed as someone who comes in and decides this would be a great time to burn his trash.

        Then when they have enjoyed their smoke, they consider dropping the spent butt on the ground for someone else to pick up.

        This kind of stuff makes me consider a smoker a lower-class individual.

        Same as poor personal hygiene where one fails to bathe or wash his garments, thinking his personal body odors should be tolerated, even if he smells of feces.

        One of the great marketing efforts of the day is convincing women, who have been traditionally very concerned with their appearance, that smoking is sexy. Maybe we should also market a car for women with the exhaust pipe poked through the front of the car as the centerpiece of the bonnet. Extra points for having it belch black smoke. Promote is as beauty and elegance for the women who will believe anything the marketer says. Now, your face can have the same appeal as the back end of a diesel bus!

        (posting anonymously for damned good reason. This is my honest take on it, and it will NOT set well with those who are under the illusion its OK to have others tolerate them stinking up the place. )

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:40AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:40AM (#144850) Journal

          I guess my problem is the guy who comes in, lights up, and stinks the place up with his fumes. About as welcomed as someone who comes in and decides this would be a great time to burn his trash.

          Then when they have enjoyed their smoke, they consider dropping the spent butt on the ground for someone else to pick up.

          This kind of stuff makes me consider a smoker a lower-class individual.

          Interesting transition you've done here: from one guy, to they then to any and all.

          If you did it unintentionally, maybe you should pay attention to your thinking process, it seems like you are missing a lot on the part of critical side of it

          If you did it intentionally, you may show some talents for cointelpro, but it's a too low level for the needs of today's time.

          One on top of the other, seems you are smart enough to post AC... it shows your willingness to protect your karma (like it's somehow valuable) above demonstrating a personal conviction.

          (I'll be modding it as a troll, for the reasons shown above)

             

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:26AM (#144859)

            I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand about it. "the guy" is clearly referring to individuals who do such things.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:47AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:47AM (#144867) Journal

              Look, mate... I'm a heavy smoker... You don't know me, as far as I know, we never met. You don't know to which lengths I'm going to avoid my habit be a nuisance to others, but you consider me a "lower class individual", right?
              And you persist in doing it, even if I'm pointing out the faults in your view (demonizing a class of people for the misbehaviour of a few).

              There, I spelled it for you as clearly I could.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
              • (Score: 2, Interesting) by redneckmother on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:59PM

                by redneckmother (3597) on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:59PM (#145008)

                I'm a smoker, too. I roll my own with OCB papers (no glue or filter) and shag-cut Virginia tobacco.

                I live on a small ranch, and provide a butt can for my smoking visitors. My rule here is that EVERYONE picks up cigarette filters, spent ammo shells, and any other trash. If there's no trash can nearby, put it in a pocket until one is handy. When outdoors I stay downwind of nonsmokers whenever possible, and wouldn't THINK of lighting up in a nonsmoker's building or home.

                Yeah, I know I "stink", but I try to keep it to myself.

                I know smoking is bad for me - I had a quad bypass eleven years ago, reconstructive neck surgery three years ago (smoking accelerates bone degeneration), and I probably face more surgery in the next year or two. I don't want to live forever, and I enjoy my smokes. If people don't like me, I leave them alone.

                Realistically, no person should expect more than eight more minutes of life. Choking kills; most people will be seriously brain damaged after four minutes with no air. After eight minutes, there's nothing anyone can do. A grizzled old Army Sergeant made sure I knew how to help a choking person, even to the point of performing a tracheotomy with a pen knife, scissors, nail clippers, ballpoint pen, stick, or any other sharp object I might carry or (quickly) find or make. Quote: "If I choke, and you're nearby and don't do something, I'll haunt the living shit out of you."

                A dear friend went to a doctor a few years back. The doctor examined him, and told him he needed to give up smoking and drinking beer. His response was, "Figger the bill, doc - we're done!"

                --
                Mas cerveza por favor.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:16PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:16PM (#145026)

                > I'm a heavy smoker... you consider me a "lower class individual"

                That's how stereotypes work. You may speak impeccable English, you may have gone to top schools, you may have perfect manners, and you may be wealthy. However, if you smoke a lot of people will look down on you. Unfair perhaps, but that's how it works.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:26PM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:26PM (#145029) Journal
                  And it's Ok to accept stereotypes, eh? Because they're so efficient in eliminating the need to think and makes so much easier the brainwashing.
                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:50PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:50PM (#145038)

                    I'm not saying it's ok. I'm saying they exist. I'm sure you fall into the trap yourself occasionally.

        • (Score: 2) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:28AM

          by SGT CAPSLOCK (118) on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:28AM (#144861) Journal

          I guess my problem is the guy who comes in, lights up, and stinks the place up with his fumes. About as welcomed as someone who comes in and decides this would be a great time to burn his trash.

          That does sound like a pretty genuine problem, but I'm kind of left wondering like, what kind of establishment are you talking where people can just walk in and light up? I'm not asking sarcastically or anything, just wondering.

          I live in the USA, and as far as I know, it's a pretty common law (I'm thinking maybe even federal? I'm not sure) that smoking can't be done indoors (as far as businesses and such are concerned) except under particular circumstances. For instance, mom-and-pop shops that specialize in selling tobacco products, and maybe some bars (although I've been to plenty of bars and I notice more and more often that smoking is not allowed in them either).

          Aside from that, maybe you're talking about an open air garage for automotive work? In that case, I'd ask the customer or whomever to put it out, to exit the garage, or ...etc etc. If it's not a business at all and is actually your residence; well, that's a bit odd.

          Then when they have enjoyed their smoke, they consider dropping the spent butt on the ground for someone else to pick up.

          Now I'm even more curious about what country/type of place you're talking about! Haha. I see this in parking lots sometimes, but I've never seen it in a house or a business (again, in the USA).

          This kind of stuff makes me consider a smoker a lower-class individual.

          I wonder about the statistics of it though. I've never seen the situation you describe, and I've been around a lot of smokers. These people you're talking about sound like they're low-class altogether, and I don't think it has to do with their smoking. If they have such disregard for other people that they simply walk up to you and light up, completely finish a smoke despite your obvious disdain (and probably the law), and then just litter the ground with their spent cigarettes, then... ...yeah, that's odd...

          Why not walk away, complain to them, complain to someone higher up, etc?

          Same as poor personal hygiene where one fails to bathe or wash his garments, thinking his personal body odors should be tolerated, even if he smells of feces.

          I've never been around this kind of person either. Random thought, but - are you talking about some part of an abandoned transit system deep underground filled with miscreant hobos that you found by accident? This is getting weirder and weirder.

          One of the great marketing efforts of the day is convincing women, who have been traditionally very concerned with their appearance, that smoking is sexy.

          Some men think that it's hot when women smoke. I don't, but some do.

          • (Score: 1) by VanessaE on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:29AM

            by VanessaE (3396) <vanessa.e.dannenberg@gmail.com> on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:29AM (#144887) Homepage Journal

            I'm not the person you were replying to, but I'll jump in anyway. :-P

            Now I'm even more curious about what country/type of place you're talking about!

            Bars aside (obviously), indoor smoking is common in casinos, and I'm not talking about Vegas or Atlantic City, either.

            Why not walk away, complain to them, complain to someone higher up, etc?

            If you just walk away, you're being deprived of the thing you were there to enjoy in the first place. What right does someone who can't control their smoke have to force you to move?

            If the smoker is someone you know, they'll probably be nice enough about it and put their cigarette out, but if they're some stranger, half the time they'll ignore you, or tell you to go jump in a lake (to put it mildly). If they're nasty enough, it might earn you a more violent reaction.

            Complain to someone higher-up and that higher-up will usually just ask YOU to move (because chances are, the other patron is probably within their rights to smoke).

            That's been my experience (well, minus the violent response).

            Since it's simply impossible to control where the smoke goes, and person-to-person interaction is too likely to end up as a person-to-person conflict, the only solution is to outright ban smoking inside or near buildings where the general public is expected to routinely spend time (bars aside, since it's kinda expected there).

            are you talking about some part of an abandoned transit system deep underground filled with miscreant hobos that you found by accident?

            I have, on more occasions than I care to remember, ended up next to some horrible-smelling people, but they weren't what I'd call hobos. Just average working-class clean-looking people going about their day. Unwashed clothes have no excuse unless you're homeless though (wash your stuff in the sink with hand soap if you have to), but health conditions can easily lead to nasty smells.

            (anything calling smokers "lower-class")

            I hope no one takes offense to this, but I agree with that sentiment, with the proviso that it applies only to the aforementioned light-up-anywhere-they-can, toss-the-butts-on-the-ground types, because frankly, they DO make life worse for non-smokers. Thankfully, there aren't that many of those people left, but they do still exist. Were they already lower-class to begin with? Maybe, but that doesn't mean they have to exemplify it with their cigarettes.

            I have no problem with people who smoke in designated areas, who behave in a polite and civilized manner with their smoking, and who put their spent butts out in the proper place.

            Disclosure: I do not use tobacco in any form. I've lost two members of my family directly to diseases caused by their tobacco use (lung cancer followed by a heart attack for one, and cancer of the throat for the other). Two more were smokers who died of cancers that can't clearly be attributed to smoking.

            • (Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:54AM

              by anubi (2828) on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:54AM (#144905) Journal

              As a kid, I had asthma. Tobacco and sulfur would trip it off big-time.

              Often, a smoker would determine whether or not I would have to endure a bout of it.

              As a kid, I was powerless. If a smoker wanted to sentence me to this, I did not have much of a say in the matter.

              I often could not leave, as the smoker was sometimes my dad's friend or a family member. It was hard to ask a smoker to please take it outside, and even then he comes back into the house, his clothes reeking of it.

              Even my dad would defend the rights of the smoker, as he obviously did not want a confrontation.

              Me? I just avoided any place they smoked. My main problem was my workplace, which in the 60's, was rife with smokers. There was usually a dozen smokers in every business meeting, which I did my best to breathe as slowly as possible and not have a bout of asthma on the job. Even then a business meeting was often followed by several days of congested respiration.

              --
              "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:29AM

        by ilPapa (2366) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:29AM (#144863) Journal

        What's wrong with letting people do what they want? I mean, you'd have a right to be upset if someone were blowing smoke in your face, but I doubt anyone's forcing you to stand near them while they indulge their habits.

        This is an interesting point. One thing that anyone who starts smoking today can NOT claim is that they were not adequately informed of the risks. As long as they're not expecting other people to pay their health care costs for this risky behavior, it's their choice.

        The problem comes when the doctor tells them they've got a spot on their lung and their care over the last year of their life costs a half-million dollars to the other people in their insurance group or the taxpayers. I'm not advocating making smoking illegal, but I don't see anything wrong with a little peer pressure and social censure.

        --
        You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:22AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:22AM (#144878) Journal

          As long as they're not expecting other people to pay their health care costs for this risky behavior, it's their choice.

          The problem comes when the doctor tells them they've got a spot on their lung and their care over the last year of their life costs a half-million dollars to the other people in their insurance group or the taxpayers...

          Oh, don't get me started.

          Because I'm a smoker, I'm paying 20% more on my premiums for private health insurance and income insurance (in case I'm can't work due to illness). Which means each 5 years I'm not dying of cancer or hearth diseases because of smoking, I contribute with 1 year to the healthcare of others (including those which with cancer without being smokers). Keeping into account that if one acquires a smoking-induced cancer, one's life expectancy is around 5 years (for a stage 1 lung cancer [about.com], bad luck if detected in more advanced stages), then in 25 years I already paid for my costs and, for the rest of them, and I'm sponsoring the non-smoking population (hint: I'm a smoker for 30 years)

          In addition, I'm paying excises on the cigarettes I smoke: from a pack of 40-ies costing me $31, $18 [smh.com.au] are excises. Guess what? Those taxes amount for $6.42B [tobaccoinaustralia.org.au] in 2012... wonder how much of them were injected back into the health system?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:12PM

            by ilPapa (2366) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:12PM (#144958) Journal

            Because I'm a smoker, I'm paying 20% more on my premiums for private health insurance and income insurance (in case I'm can't work due to illness). Which means each 5 years I'm not dying of cancer or hearth diseases because of smoking, I contribute with 1 year to the healthcare of others (including those which with cancer without being smokers). Keeping into account that if one acquires a smoking-induced cancer, one's life expectancy is around 5 years (for a stage 1 lung cancer [about.com], bad luck if detected in more advanced stages), then in 25 years I already paid for my costs and, for the rest of them, and I'm sponsoring the non-smoking population (hint: I'm a smoker for 30 years)

            That's because you live in one of those sensible countries with the universal health care. Where I live, the distribution of health care costs to those who live unhealthy lifestyles are not nearly as rational.

            --
            You are still welcome on my lawn.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:02AM

          by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:02AM (#144883) Journal

          Interestingly, since smokers tend to decline quickly once they become unhealthy, they tend to cost less than non-smokers. They also pay all those excise taxes that supposedly offset healthcare costs but somehow find their way into the general budget. Then there's the higher health insurance premiums. If all of that was based on statistical costs rather than being punitive, smokerts would get a discount on their health insurance.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:27PM (#144935)

            Have you seen any studies supporting this? It's an honest question, I'd be interested in seeing those.

          • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:07PM

            by ilPapa (2366) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:07PM (#144955) Journal

            Interestingly, since smokers tend to decline quickly once they become unhealthy, they tend to cost less than non-smokers.

            Have you seen any data suggesting that the last year's health care of a smoker's life tends to be less expensive than the last year of non-smokers? If that's true, then I'm going to see if I can get my mother-in-law to take up smoking.

            --
            You are still welcome on my lawn.
            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:31PM

              by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:31PM (#145012) Journal

              As far as I can tell, the last year is about the same. It's the 10 years before the last year that are vastly different.

      • (Score: 2) by gnuman on Saturday February 14 2015, @05:23AM

        by gnuman (5013) on Saturday February 14 2015, @05:23AM (#144872)

        I'm sorry, but in today's day and age, if you start smoking anything (including pot) for "recreational use", calling you an idiot should be enshrined in law.

        Why's that?
        What's wrong with letting people do what they want?

        More specifically, I should have said that "idiots" should apply to people that start smoking today (last 10-20 years?), not 30+ years ago, in the age of ignorance about smoking.

        As you may have noted, I have not indicated legality of smoking. I have no problems in people doing whatever they want to do, as long as it doesn't affect me. But it does not make said activity any more rational. As for comparisons of smoking to anything else, I can't find any.

          * smoking can't compare with religion, or even weird cults. Those at least have social aspects.
          * smoking can't compare with other risky activities, like motorcycle racing, or sky diving. Those don't kill you, unless you crash.

        Maybe cutting yourself is like smoking? No idea, but that activity seems to have about the same amount of positives - none. Although it is cheaper than smoking and some call cutting "art".

        I can't find *anything* positive thing about smoking. There is no positives about smoking from media (in most nations, at least). It is really incomprehensible to me why people would even try smoking today. Is it only peer pressure?? As a former smoker, maybe you can answer that.

        PS. A few times, when I walk outside a respiratory hospital, there are always people there, out on the sidewalk, in wheelchairs. Doesn't matter how cold it is. They are smoking, some through a tube in their trachea. Some with oxygen concentrators (disconnected and beeping). It is a really sad and pathetic sight. So yes, I do have some strong feelings about smoking.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:31AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:31AM (#144848) Homepage Journal

      In the US and Canada, Schizophrenics smoke twice as much as the average population. This leads the Canadian Mental Health Association to offer smoking cessation classes, but when I was a CMHA member I didn't observe many of my fellow members availing themselves of it.

      I expect schizophrenics start smoking because it eases their anxiety, but persist in smoking because it gives them something to do. It's quite common for the mentally ill to be provided for with free housing, free food, free medical care and disability pay, but they're not given any really meaningful ways to spend their time - hence my own refusal to accept any of that - I was just a couple of days ago offered free housing, but turned it down.

      I know many, many mentally ill people who really have nothing better to do than watch TV all day, or surf the web. I expect that, and their mental illness makes them more susceptible to the advertising that drives the tobacco industry.

      (I myself have Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder [warplife.com], somewhat like being manic-depressive and schizophrenic at the same time. Among the ways I overcome my illness is by working as a coder.)

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:03AM

        by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:03AM (#144909) Journal

        There has been excitement recently as nicotine was found to treat the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Some are of the opinion that schizophrenic smokers are knowingly or unknowingly self-medicating.

        Rather than quitting, they should probably go on the patch long term.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:17PM (#145043)

          schizophrenic smokers[...]should probably go on the patch long term

          This has me wondering several things.
          Is it -only- the nicotine that is the treatment?
          Could this be done via Vapes where the substance isn't burned but only vaporized with the minimal heat needed?
          I would think that what is drawn in from the Vapes cartridge can be much better controlled than using Philip-Morris' products.
          This way (as with The Patch), the patient wouldn't get the "tars", ammonia, etc.

          Is Vapes juice with nicotine legal|regulated?
          Is that more affordable than The Patch|nicotine gum|whatever?

          -- gewg_

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:30AM

            by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:30AM (#145144) Journal

            Vaping would be a perfectly good route as well. Very likely it would also be cheaper and more enjoyable for the patients. Psychiatrists would probably be more comfortable prescribing the patch for closer dosage control, but in practice it probably only needs to be approximate. After all, nicotine has a long and well-understood safety record.

            Nicotine is perfectly legal in e-juice (at least in the U.S.). It isn't specifically regulated, but is covered under the usual laws about packages containing what they claim to contain and such. It is considerably cheaper than the patch.

    • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:37AM

      by Geotti (1146) on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:37AM (#144881) Journal

      if you start smoking anything (including pot) for "recreational use", calling you an idiot should be enshrined in law.

      These days the hip kids fuck combustion [fuckcombustion.com].

      Why drink and drive? Vape and fly!

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:27AM

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:27AM (#144900)

      The idiots that are not dead yet.

      It's true that smoking is an idiotic life choice, on the face of it. But hear my little story: I smoked for decades. I quit for good about 2 years ago, because I replaced smoking with vaping. My e-liquids contain nicotine. If I vape e-liquids without nicotine, I crave. Therefore, it's pretty clear that I am an nicotine addict, and I need to vape to stay off cigarettes. Believe me, I've tried to quit before - and at least once, I managed to stay off cigarettes for 3 years - but the cravings make every day hell on Earth.

      I started smoking when I was 11. I've read studies that seem to demonstrate that, when you start before a certain age (18 years old I think), exposure to nicotine physically changes something in the brain that makes it much, much harder to quit and stay off cigarettes as an adult. For me at least, that seems to fit: I just can't live well without nicotine.

      Now then, the question is: am I an idiot?

      When I started smoking at 11 years old, I was a kid who wanted to "be cool" like the big kids. Sure at that time, there were anti-tobacco campaigns already, and my parents had warned me. But kids are kids, and kids do stupid things, especially when they're forbidden. Was I an idiot when I was 11? No, I was a kid who did something stupid with life-changing consequences.

      Then from the time I was hooked to the time I quit thanks to vaping, I've made many, many honest tries to quit - and more importantly, stay off. No matter how hard I tried, I always went back to smoking. Was I an idiot? Possibly, but there's something physical in me that *requires* nicotine, and it's just so damn hard!

      I'm not looking for excuses: my smoking - and my current addiction to vaping for the nicotine - is entirely my own fault. But it's too easy to call smokers idiots, implying that they're totally in control of the choice they make to destroy themselves. They're not. At least not entirely.

      It's not a simple Darwin award thing, where you can choose to do something stupid or not, and if you do, you deserve what you get. Addictions are a lot more complex than that. People who call addicts idiots usually have never been confronted to an addiction problem themselves, otherwise they'd know better.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by TheLink on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:21AM

      by TheLink (332) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:21AM (#144915) Journal

      calling you an idiot should be enshrined in law.

      In countries with high tobacco taxes like the UK, smokers should be considered people who are sacrificing their lives for the country. Give the greatest of them Black Lung medals or something ;).

      In those countries the tobacco tax revenue is higher than their load on the country's health and other systems (pension, welfare etc). Most of them die earlier after their most productive years, perhaps they die of something expensive to treat. But many nonsmokers live long after they retire, thus continuing to "withdraw" from the NHS, welfare while not contributing as much, then many of them eventually die of something expensive too (many of them might also need repeated expensive treatments).

      See: https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_treasury-29288 [fullfact.org]
      Cost to NHS about 2-6 billion. Tobacco tax 12 billion. Gross profit to country 6 billion.

      You can also see some numbers here from a different perspective: http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_121.pdf [ash.org.uk]
      But notice in the latter doc they have "loss in productivity due to premature deaths" but they didn't include reduction in costs due to earlier deaths (lower costs from pensions, health care, nursing homes, etc).
      Also "cost to businesses of smoking breaks (£5bn)" - did they factor in the breaks nonsmokers also do, and also the breaks people are recommended to take for health and performance reasons?

      I also disagree with banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and similar places (like many countries are doing). To me why remove choice and waste another opportunity to make more drug money? They should allow pubs and restaurants to allow smoking on-premises if they paid more for the appropriate license (have some economist help figure out the right price). Alternatively they could have a certain number of 3 or 5 year "smoking allowed" licenses for each area and have pubs/restaurants bid for them.

      FWIW I'm not a smoker and I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Pipe/minimally treated tobacco on the other hand often smells quite nice when burnt, so it does make me wonder what sort of crap cigarette companies are doing to or putting in their product (e.g. Diammonium phosphate http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444914904577619413844991748 [wsj.com] ). If the tobacco companies ever sold marijuana the end result might be about as bad for you (I know there are studies[1] saying smoking marijuana isn't as bad as smoking cigarettes but that may change if marijuana gets "cigarettized").

      [1] http://blog.norml.org/2015/01/14/study-long-term-cannabis-exposure-not-associated-with-significant-effects-on-lung-function/ [norml.org]
      http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104848 [jamanetwork.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:04PM (#145065)

        First, the reason it gets outlawed is because of the employees who have to be there every day.
        There are folks like musician Eddie Rabbitt who didn't smoke but died of lung cancer.

        3+ decades ago when I was going out dancing 4 and 5 nights a week, I would come home and cough up the nastiest looking shit.
        (I have never smoked.)
        Those of you who impose your nasty choices on others can go straight to Hell.

        Not soon enough, but eventually, California's legislature saw fit to ban this assault on others.
        There was an exemption for PRIVATE clubs.
        Some places declared themselves as such and made a low barrier to becoming a "member".
        Mostly those were small joints with limited clientèle anyway.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 1) by TheLink on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:15AM

          by TheLink (332) on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:15AM (#145246) Journal
          Nobody is forcing them to work there. Bans impose a choice on others. My proposal gives people a choice - crank the licence price up, or reduce the quantity available for auction and there'll be more nonsmoking places.

          Then smokers can go work in the smoking places if they want, or people who feel the risk is acceptable.

          p.s. who was forcing you to go dancing in places filled with smoke?
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:33PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:33PM (#144936) Journal

      Dude I may no longer be a smoker (Thank the Chinese deity of the guy that invented vaping!) but your behind BETTER be backing up those smokers...why? Because we have a section of the government that have realized that while "big brother" is harder to sell, Big Mommy taking your freedom (and your money) as they babyproof your life and fix your boo-boos? A HELL of a lot easier to sell the public!

      Just don't forget the old "first they came for the communists" because that is how it works, they target somebody that the majority doesn't like and then the net just gets wider and wider. Remember there are politicians that have used the exact same arguments used against smokers to say that they should be able to hit you with a huge tax if you want a double cheeseburger, that you are a fucking child that can't be allowed to buy a large drink, and they ALL use the exact same arguments that they used against smokers!

      In times like these you had better support the ones you don't like, I don't care if they are smokers, if they are fat, hell I would argue that you have to fight for the constitutional rights of the ones you fucking despise like the Pedos and the terrorists, even if you have to gag while doing so...why? Because they used the laws they passed against the perv to make a teen girl sending a pic of her tits to her BF a life sentence, complete with lifetime police monitoring (how is that NOT cruel and unusual punishment?) and they used the laws passed to go after bombers to listen to YOUR phone calls and monitor who YOU talk to!

      Remember that any law they pass against somebody you don't like? Sooner or later that law will have grown like a tumor until it can be used ON YOU. Never forget that.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:40AM

        by tathra (3367) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:40AM (#145151)

        but your behind BETTER be backing up those smokers...

        i don't give a fuck what people do in private, but "smoker's rights" end where the air i breathe begins. smoking (including vaping) should be banned everywhere in public because i'm sick of inconsiderate assholes poisoning me every fucking day against my will. with any other drug, actively dosing somebody against their will is a crime, why is it not the same for nicotine? same for public intoxication and public consumption, its a crime with alcohol so why not nicotine?

        people should be free to do whatever they want in private, but they should not have free reign to poison everyone around them against their will.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:02AM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:02AM (#145184) Journal

          Because every single law they use against him? WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. Every single fucking one! Remember when they passed all the laws that were SUPPOSED to be against child rapists, the laws they use now to bust some guy that pisses on a bush? Remember the laws they passed that was SUPPOSED to be used against violent Jihadists, the law that is NOW USED to record every call log of every cell INCLUDING YOURS?

          If you honestly believe that somebody smoking in a fucking park, surrounded by fucking fresh air is gonna affect YOUR ass, with all the fucking cars belching shit, the crap in our food and water, if you think that guy is worth giving the already repeatedly shown to be abusive as fuck government MORE power just to keep from offending your ass? Then I'm sorry but you do not deserve to be free, you deserve to live in a country where the state is God. But don't worry,for as long as the people are so fucking apathetic they won't get off their Kardashian watching behinds for anything that doesn't personally affect them? Then that is EXACTLY what you are gonna get. Tell me do you think we have more freedoms or less than our grandparents? Our parents? I may have thought she was an uber-bitch but there is one thing Ayn Rand fricking nailed and its because guys like you will stand up and cheer for it as long as its not aimed AT YOU..

          "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it. . . There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:07PM

            by tathra (3367) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:07PM (#145290)

            Because every single law they use against him? WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

            just like how DUI laws are used against people who aren't driving impaired, and public intoxication laws are used against people who aren't intoxicated, and how open container laws are used against people who don't have open containers of alcohol in public?

            oh wait, they're not, are they?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:12PM (#145708)
            Holy shit, your incorporation of uptalk into writing is annoying. Commas, not question marks.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:36AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:36AM (#144813) Journal

    diseases known to be caused by tobacco accounted for only 83 percent of the excess deaths in people who smoked.

    claims 480,000 deaths... the figure may be closer to 540,000.

    48/54=88.89%.

    “I thought, ‘Wow, that’s really low,’ ” Mr. Carter said.

    I don't think "really low" means what you think it means. It means you discovered:

    • 12.5% more cases in comparison with your older baseline; Or
    • that 11.1% cases from the newer baseline were previously ignored.

    This letting aside "correlation is not causation" (like the hypothesis "depressive/poor people tends to have poor health - less attention to/capacity for personal care - and also smoke more [bbrfoundation.org]")

    (disclaimer: I'm a heavy smoker)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:38AM (#144815)

    Is it as bad as anti-smoking ads?
    The ads were so bad they almost made me want to smoke.

    • (Score: 4, Flamebait) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @01:10AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @01:10AM (#144829) Journal

      The ads were so bad they almost made me want to smoke.

      I suggest you to resist the urge.

      If you feel you almost can't, try buying some iGadgets that you don't need as a substitution therapy: you'll look as cool as a smoker (a devil-may-care person, doing something for no practical purpose) without the health and financial penalty of smoking addiction (I'm wasting in smoke between approx $2000 a year).

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @10:57PM (#145062)

      The one where the cigarette in the guy's mouth droops was effective.
      Tying smoking to erectile dysfunction got the attention of a bunch of guys.

      The PSA I remember as particularly stupid was the egg in a frying pan.
      "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"

      Yeah, idiot.
      If you were trying to make a point, why wasn't the egg SCRAMBLED?
      ...and you forgot to mention that several drugs that are now banned were once used medicinally (some for millennium).

      I get so tired of my gov't lying to me.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by GungnirSniper on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:42AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:42AM (#144817) Journal

    If I don't smoke, I won't get free ten minute breaks every two hours to go outside.

    • (Score: 1) by dime on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:14PM

      by dime (1163) on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:14PM (#144998)

      Work at a decent company. I can't think of a reason why a company wouldn't allow a worker to get up and walk 5 minutes an hour. Studies have shown this:
      http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/09/09/2018204/3-short-walking-breaks-can-reverse-harm-from-3-hours-of-sitting [slashdot.org]

      It seems logical that companies being invested in their workers' health (to the tune of a thousand a month from health insurance) would happily sacrifice 5 minutes an hour to have workers feel better from taking 5 minute walks. I notice more productivity coming from myself as well as my fellow employees after a brisk walk. I think any management that would be against this is living in the past.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:28AM (#145099)

        No smokers really take 5 or 10 minute breaks though. The time between getting up and sitting back down at your desk is more like 20-25 minutes.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:44AM

      by tathra (3367) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:44AM (#145153)

      If I don't smoke, I won't get free ten minute breaks every two hours to go outside.

      if smokers take a break, i always take that break too, i just don't smoke on it.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:18AM (#144857)

    I suspect there's an unstated connection/analogy between TFS and the drive to legalize marijuana use in as many of the United States as possible, if not the entire country through a change in Federal law.

    Legalization in a couple bellwether states (Colorado, Washington), might even be a good thing, as it gives users a legal outlet (they can move to one of those states) and it gives us experience with the pros and cons, in the various aspects including health effects, law enforcement and illegal immigration from Mexico, economic effects, public costs (or savings), etc.

    The trouble is that NORML and others are pushing to legalize pot in many more states before the returns come in from CO and WA. There are studies suggesting that sustained recreation use of pot may lead to long term neurological damage [drugabuse.gov], but with the usual caveats that more studies are needed. And of course the pro-pot lobby has no problem dismissing these studies as poorly designed, small sample size, contradicted elsewhere, etc.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:39AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:39AM (#144864)

      The harm that marijuana causes (which is some, but I'm not sure how much) is irrelevant to whether or not it should be legalized. As "the land of the free and the home of the brave," government thugs have absolutely no business deciding that people can't put certain drugs into their bodies for recreational purposes. It's outright unconstitutional for the federal government to ban drugs, despite ridiculous interpretations of the commerce clause by authoritarian courts. Freedom is more important to me than any 'safety' the drug war brings (I'd say it causes more harm, but I'm ignoring that to make a point), but apparently that's a controversial opinion in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Even most people who are "anti-drug war" seem to like to focus on the fact that the drug war isn't working and causes more harm than it solves, and for that, they are missing the point of freedom entirely. This same mentality leads to government thugs molesting people at airports, mass surveillance, DUI checkpoints, and a host of other unconstitutional and freedom-violating policies.

      And of course the pro-pot lobby has no problem dismissing these studies as poorly designed, small sample size, contradicted elsewhere, etc.

      I usually wait until there's overwhelming scientific consensus, rather than citing every study that reaches a conclusion I agree with like many people seem to like to do (no matter what side they take). Scientific consensus is a check on quackery and human error. Studies need to be sufficiently replicated before people declare that the matter is settled.

      It never stops amusing me when I hear one news website cite this new study and claim that it proves X, only for another study to come out later that contradicts that. They won't cite the new study though, because it reaches a conclusion they disagree with. Leave that to the other biased news websites who are biased in a different way.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:59AM (#144868)

        You sound like a fundamentalist libertarian, who would have no problem with kids smoking crack cocaine or shooting heroin because the prohibition is "slavery". Or (not sure you're cool with this, but it's consistent with your position) billionaries building coal plants in the middle of a big city because they own the property.

        We live in a modern society. People do not have unlimited individual rights.

        • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:35AM

          by Geotti (1146) on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:35AM (#144880) Journal

          People do not have unlimited individual rights.

          But they should, as long as these rights stay within their boundaries and away from the freedoms and rights of others. Like a right to a safe environment (re coal plant).

          Or to put it in simpler terms:

          Who the fuck are you to decide what I should do? [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:39AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday February 14 2015, @09:39AM (#144918)

          You sound like a fundamentalist libertarian

          No, just someone who cares about the constitution and fundamental liberties. Do not make the mistake of believing that only a "libertarian" would care about such things. I just firmly believe that the US should strive to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" rather than just pretending it is and violating people's freedoms in truly heinous ways.

          People do not have unlimited individual rights.

          No one said anything about unlimited. Unlimited individual rights would mean the right to murder, which I do not believe is a right.

          I do, however, believe that we should set a very high bar before we decide to create laws, and I also believe the government should follow the constitution. This standard would eliminate the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, the drug war, and a number of other awful things. Indirectly affecting other people should not be enough to prohibit something for everyone, and a federal prohibition is simply unconstitutional, and therefore intolerable.

          If people want to harm themselves with drugs, then so be it. If this indirectly affects me at times, the cost is well worth it.

        • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday February 21 2015, @09:03PM

          by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Saturday February 21 2015, @09:03PM (#147891) Journal

          Modern society or not, if the underlying enforcement mechanism for malum prohibitum "crimes" is violence, you don't live in a free society. Such a society is literally a slave state, though modern masters are much more generous with privileges than those traditionally thought of as slavers.

          The only alternative that I'm aware of is one that is based upon the consent of the individual, which is what the USA was ostensively supposed to be (and factually initiated as such, using representatives elected by individual voters).

          (You may find it helpful to read my first two journal [soylentnews.org] entries [soylentnews.org] before debating the point further.)

      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:53AM

        by tathra (3367) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:53AM (#145158)

        I usually wait until there's overwhelming scientific consensus, rather than citing every study that reaches a conclusion I agree with

        the problem* with Schedule 1 drugs is that studying them is banned, because they're schedule 1; even with zero evidence supporting that they have "no valid medical use", any studies to prove or disprove it are outright banned. pretty much every non-biased schedule 1 drug study from 1970~2005 or so was done outside of the US (there weren't that many of them); its only very recently that schedule 1 drug studies which didn't have their conclusion determined beforehand have been permitted. not like it matters though because the drug laws aren't based on medicine or science, but racism and propaganda.

        * "problem" depends on your viewpoint - they were intentionally designed that way so that they couldn't be proven to be safe or have a valid medical use.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:06AM (#144884)

    Some of us like also to do something else with out peckers than pee...

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:57AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:57AM (#144893) Journal

      Some of us like also to do something else with out peckers than pee...

      For a while. May come as a surprise to you, but let me say, if you don't smoke, you are likely to spend more than half of your life using your pecker to just pee [webmd.com]:

      The research, published in the August 2003 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, shows that ED is common among older men and sexual function sharply decreases after age 50.

      So, 50 - 12y childhood = 38 years of active sex life. Live more than 76 years and that's a likely result.
      Die younger because of smoking and... whoohoo... what a good percentage! (large grin)
      (Thanks God for the blue pill and it's relatives, smoker or not, one can deal with it).

      Granted, the quoted article shows that the causes stay mainly in the physical condition, but... after a while, why bother?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0