is smoking unhealthy for you?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
We have a phrase for qutting and then starting up again repeatedly. It's "not quitting".

No worries, though. Lung cancer is frequently not a long term problem. It is often only a short term problem.

[/ QUOTE ]


Back-to-back winners!

[XxGodJrxX]

Actually, I wonder if little smoking, like what the OP is describing, really has real long-term effects. IF somebody only smokes in social settings, let's say three or four cigarettes a week, is that enough to really damage somebody's health? I think most people would agree that smoking ONE cigarette would not have any long term effects, and smoking a million would have long term effects. When do long term effects from smoking actually start?

[kutuz_off]

Short-term effects turn into long-term effects in the middle of your 3254th Marlboro cigarette.

You realize that second-hand smoke has been found to cause lung cancer, right? Do you think smoking directly is more or less damaging?

[MCS]

I remember reading that frequency matters as well as quantity. Like it would be much worse to smoke one cigarette every single day than to smoke thirty in 24 hours one day per month.

[Gobias Ind.]

Real, true chain-smokers might look at you and call you a phony. They also may cut you off knowing you truly don't 'need' it. You casual smoker, you.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
does the pope [censored] in the woods?

[/ QUOTE ]
Does a bear wear a funny hat?

[wdcbooks]

Cigarettes aren't really addictive. I only shake and feel like throwing up when I haven't had a cigarette for several hours for completely unrelated reasons. I must have low blood sugar.

Short term smoking turns into long term smoking. It did for me, and for every other person I know who smokes. There is really no reason to even start.

[XxGodJrxX]

I've personally never smoked a cigarette before. With that said, I know people that have smoked casually in social situations, and do not have "long-term" smoking addictions (unless they are smoking in secret I suppose). Some, even most, people develop a long-term smoking habit this way, but that does not mean that everybody does, or that OP will.

Also, the claim that "second-hand smoking has been proven to cause lung-cancer" is dubious at best. I'd like to see ONE person which can be definitively shown to have gotten lung cancer solely from the effects of second-hand smoke. This topic was covered on Penn and Teller's "[censored]", which showed that there is not any such study that shows that second-hand smoke causes cancer. That does not mean that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, but don't run around preaching that "it's been proven".

[KOTLP]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the claim that "second-hand smoking has been proven to cause lung-cancer" is dubious at best. I'd like to see ONE person which can be definitively shown to have gotten lung cancer solely from the effects of second-hand smoke. This topic was covered on Penn and Teller's "[censored]", which showed that there is not any such study that shows that second-hand smoke causes cancer. That does not mean that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, but don't run around preaching that "it's been proven".

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like someones been reading too much Steven Milloy.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the claim that "second-hand smoking has been proven to cause lung-cancer" is dubious at best.

[/ QUOTE ]