'A stark warning:' Smoking causes genetic damage within minutes after inhaling

Jan 16, 2011
Cigarette smoke damages DNA within minutes after inhalation. Credit: iStock

In research described as "a stark warning" to those tempted to start smoking, scientists are reporting that cigarette smoke begins to cause genetic damage within minutes -- not years -- after inhalation into the lungs.

Their report, the first human study to detail the way certain substances in tobacco cause DNA damage linked to cancer, appears in Chemical Research in Toxicology, one of 38 peer-reviewed scientific journals published by the American Chemical Society.

Stephen S. Hecht, Ph.D., and colleagues point out in the report that claims a global toll of 3,000 lives each day, largely as a result of cigarette smoking. Smoking also is linked to at least 18 other types of cancer. Evidence indicates that harmful substances in termed polycyclic , or PAHs, are one of the culprits in causing lung cancer. Until now, however, scientists had not detailed the specific way in which the PAHs in cigarette smoke cause DNA damage in humans.

The scientists added a labeled PAH, phenanthrene, to cigarettes and tracked its fate in 12 volunteers who smoked the cigarettes. They found that phenanthrene quickly forms a toxic substance in the blood known to trash DNA, causing mutations that can cause cancer. The smokers developed maximum levels of the substance in a time frame that surprised even the researchers: Just 15-30 minutes after the volunteers finished smoking. Researchers said the effect is so fast that it's equivalent to injecting the substance directly into the bloodstream.

"This study is unique," writes Hecht, an internationally recognized expert on cancer-causing substances found in cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco. "It is the first to investigate human metabolism of a PAH specifically delivered by inhalation in , without interference by other sources of exposure such as or the diet. The results reported here should serve as a stark warning to those who are considering starting to smoke cigarettes," the article notes.

Explore further: Informal child care significantly impacts rural economies, study finds

Related Stories

Smokers at risk from their own 'second-hand' smoke

Jan 29, 2010

It is well known that smokers damage their health by directly inhaling cigarette smoke. Now, research published in BioMed Central's open access journal Environmental Health has shown that they are at additional risk from b ...

Avoid the hookah and save your teeth

Nov 08, 2005

Researchers say smoking a hookah is becoming increasingly trendy item in Mediterranean restaurants, cafes and bars -- but it can damage your teeth.

Growing evidence of marijuana smoke's potential dangers

Aug 05, 2009

In a finding that challenges the increasingly popular belief that smoking marijuana is less harmful to health than smoking tobacco, researchers in Canada are reporting that smoking marijuana, like smoking ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 16, 2011
The first article on smokers with the word "inhalation".
Now they should begin to try a definition of those who fume without inhaling. Are they smokers or not?

And maybe one day they can even tell some meaningful results without mixing inhaling smokers, not-inhaling smokers, cigarette smokers, pipe smokers etc.

As long as results on smoking are presented in the usual unspecific way it smells like a political and/or economical agenda.
PTK
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2011
It's simple & to the point, the damage from the chemicals happens quickly after inhaling the smoke
"inhaling the smoke" is merely the start time for the experiment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Jan 16, 2011
So Frajo discounts the article because she did not like the words they used.

It does not say where else in the body that DNA is affected. We do know that smoking does affect and damage reproductive systems as well as unborn children. It damages their brains and nervous systems among other things and causes them to be born addicted. According to the article this might happen more quickly and more extensively than previously thought, and can occur from 2nd hand and residual smoke.
Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
So Frajo discounts the article because she did not like the words they used.

It does not say where else in the body that DNA is affected. We do know that smoking does affect and damage reproductive systems as well as unborn children. It damages their brains and nervous systems among other things and causes them to be born addicted. According to the article this might happen more quickly and more extensively than previously thought, and can occur from 2nd hand and residual smoke.

There has to be a dose dependent effect here,otherwise there would be an epidemic of lung cancer in non-smokers.My co-workers and I get a few minutes of "fresh" air after lunch by standing outside our office building.None of us smokes.The smokers are segregated to a separate area,away from where we stand,but it seems their smoke has a mind of its own,and usually we get to smell it.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2011
Alright, let's stop this argument before it goes pear shaped.

Frajo's point. The article above is worded to state the author's opinion. It is not editorial and it should be as a science article.

Everyone else's point. Smoking is bad for you, wtf Frajo.

Frajo's correct. It should be an editorial article because when this topic is emotionalized it loses it's impact as a science article. It becomes questionable. Just like the climate articles and other such. Less opinion, more actual journalism.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
Obviously, smokers should avoid cigarettes doped by scientist with phenanthrene. ;-)

I suspect this is not a huge problem.
ironjustice
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
The 'agenda' is becoming apparent. Whenever 'something' has been found that would REPLACE prescription drugs the media seems to be all over it. I believe the 'spin doctors' FOR the pharmaceutical industry are BETTER at what they do than the cigarette spin doctors. One might think the cigarette companies would be 'all over' the recent findings of BENEFIT of cigarettes to 'some' of the population and therefore there exists a real possibility cigarettes would be beneficial for others. Anti-anxiety medications are a multi billion dollar industry.
"Cigarette Smoking May Reduce Parkinson's Risk"
"Nicotine may be acting as a treatment for some symptoms of schizophrenia"
dogbert
3 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
ironjustice,

Nicotine is known to prevent or reduce the incidence of sepsis (an immune response to infection where the immune system attacks the body, resulting in multiple organ failure). We don't, however, treat sepsis with nicotine ...
ironjustice
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2011
Quote: Nicotine is known to prevent or reduce the incidence of sepsis (an immune response to infection where the immune system attacks the body, resulting in multiple organ failure). We don't, however, treat sepsis with nicotine ...
Answer: The same could be said for schizophrenia then ? Or any of the other diseases 'treated' with Paxil. Since sepsis is pretty tough to treat maybe you should THINK about trying .. nicotine ?
deatopmg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2011
@ironjustice
Sadly nicotine will never be tried, let alone used, to treat anything, even if it might be the best thing since sliced bread (metaphor), because the Medical Industry and especially sleazy Big Pharma will not be able to make any money on these non-patentable treatments.

This is just more scare propaganda from the anti-smoking Nazis.
dogbert
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
deatopmg ,

It is not so much that the pharmacy companies cannot make money on tobacco extracts (they always find a way to *slightly* modify natural products to obtain a patent), it is that the FDA will never allow the use of tobacco extracts for medical use. Our government has spent too much time demonizing tobacco to ever let anything good come from it.
Bob_B
3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
Who cares? Smoke 'em if ya got 'em. If it is OK for the Speaker of the House, it must be OK, Republicans know everything.

And, again, who cares? Just those that want to rules others lives.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
The same could be said for schizophrenia then ? Or any of the other diseases 'treated' with Paxil. Since sepsis is pretty tough to treat maybe you should THINK about trying .. nicotine ?
They have the same impact chemically, nicotine to a lesser extent than paxil. They release dopamine.
deatopmg
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
@dogbert - good points all!

@Boob B - Doesn't Obama smoke? Grow up!
ironjustice
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
@ironjustice
Big Pharma will not be able to make any money on these non-patentable treatments.

Mannitol would be one of those. Used EXTENSIVELY in Japan but not in the US. Simple sugar.
"D-Mannitol, Inhibits ACE Activity and Lowers the Blood Pressure of Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats"
"70% physicians in China use mannitol or glycerol in acute stroke"
ironjustice
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
The question would be WHY the nicotine is NEEDED by those that DO smoke / anxious / schizophrenia / Parkinson's / Alzheimers' , ADHD .. and is olfactory route the best ? and which is best for which ? Smoking inhibits IBS , ADHD , schizophrenia BUT is ? the IBS and the ADHD using the SAME 'route' or is the ADHD in the brain whereas the nicotine is IN the stomach in IBS ?
CarolAST
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least a quarter of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And those criminals commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

www.smokershistory dot com/SGlies.html
dogbert
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
It is all about control [and money]. The "I don't like what you do and will stop you from doing it" attitude is a large part of the issue. The other part is the money government extorts from the tobacco companies and the taxes they levy on smokers.

That is why the government makes up statistics about smoking deaths -- particularly those about second (and even third) hand smoking deaths. The statistics are based on nothing more that made up figures. They have no association with anything real.

Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Mannitol would be one of those. Used EXTENSIVELY in Japan but not in the US. Simple sugar.
"D-Mannitol, Inhibits ACE Activity and Lowers the Blood Pressure of Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats"
"70% physicians in China use mannitol or glycerol in acute stroke"
Mannitol is a chemical compound used extensively in the US Medical field.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Jan 16, 2011
The 'agenda' is becoming apparent. Whenever 'something' has been found that would REPLACE prescription drugs the media seems to be all over it. I believe the 'spin doctors' FOR the pharmaceutical industry are BETTER at what they do than the cigarette spin doctors. One might think the cigarette companies would be 'all over' the recent findings of BENEFIT of cigarettes to 'some' of the population and therefore there exists a real possibility cigarettes would be beneficial for others. Anti-anxiety medications are a multi billion dollar industry.
"Cigarette Smoking May Reduce Parkinson's Risk"
"Nicotine may be acting as a treatment for some symptoms of schizophrenia"
"Smokers make me want to puke in their face."

-More conclusive science to come-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (48) Jan 16, 2011
The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for....
blahblahblah

SMOKERS make me want to PUKE in their FACE. Whatever it takes to keep you all from befouling the world and making me physically sick, is fine with me. Get addicted to something that doesnt reek and leave droppings all over the place, how about that?

Smokers dont give a shit about anyone but themselves. How can they? Theyre ADDICTS. I mean, they may start to care you know, but then they get that Itch and everybody can go to hell. Like this jackass:
http
://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/im-french-f-you-smoker-on-flight-charged-with-assault-20110112-19n6s.html

-Poor little froggy addict- just had to have a croak- er smoke-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (47) Jan 16, 2011
I think it is instructive to inform people in general and smokers in particular the emotional response their illness can provoke in many non-smokers. I am more than willing to assist in their enlightenment in this respect.
ironjustice
not rated yet Jan 16, 2011

Mannitol is a chemical compound used extensively in the US Medical field.

Actually it is a sugar .. not a 'regular sugar' but a sugar nonetheless ..

"The chemical structure of mannitol allows it to be absorbed more slowly by the body than regular sugars"
milner
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
All,

I must say, that I really did not expect to see the comments here drop to the level of some everyday, ordinary newspaper... comments here, I would expect, should be on a professional level, and devoid of political rhetoric... at least, I could hope.

These comments sound like a bunch of people sitting at the neighborhood bar chewing each other out. Geeze.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
"Nicotine may be acting as a treatment for some symptoms of schizophrenia"


The important words of this quote are: ....MAY....SOME...

I know at least one person for whom daily and plentiful nicotine intake is most definitely not enough to curb the symptoms of his schizophrenia.

FACT: The vast majority of schizophrenics smoke cigarettes and did so before diagnosis and treatment. They subsequently NEEDED actual pharmacological treatment.

It's simple. Regular nicotine administration eases one symptom of schizo symptoms....anxiety; nothing more.

Go peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere, addict and/or shill.
ironjustice
not rated yet Jan 16, 2011
Quote: Go peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere, addict and/or shill.
Answer: Actually the PROPER interjection here would be your describing a study or an observation which speaks to schizophrenics NOT wanting a smoke. You figure schizophrenics on a whole smoked BEFORE schizophrenia and their schizophrenia was CAUSED by the smoking ? That is good. As to your 'wish' for people to stop talking ? Good luck with that ..
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011

Mannitol is a chemical compound used extensively in the US Medical field.

Actually it is a sugar .. not a 'regular sugar' but a sugar nonetheless ..

"The chemical structure of mannitol allows it to be absorbed more slowly by the body than regular sugars"

Sugars are chemical compounds. Due to the structure of mannitol it can pass the blood brain barrier easily. Working as a delivery mechanism for multiple anti-psychotics and other various medicine and testing compounds.
ironjustice
not rated yet Jan 16, 2011
THIS "epidemic" of self injurious behavior could be the fact you cannot smoke in hospitals or jail .. ?

"self-injurious behavior has been shown repeatedly to follow epidemic-like patterns in institutional
settings such as hospitals and detention
facilities"
Mira_Musiclab
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
C'mon Otto, you tend to be a lot more objective than this usually. I can totally respect your disdain for smoking, but you're not going to win too many hearts over this way..

I smoke. Wish I didn't. Deal with a lot of stress and anxiety. Hate to say it, but it does help a bit when having an attack.
Did I start because of it's 'medical value'? Of course not, it's cuz the cool kids did it, and I was an idiot.
Is it serving a purpose now? Sadly yes, and if there was something out there that had the same stress-mitigating effects, I'd gladly try it..

Sensatiionalizing the problem isn't helping. And a lot of what I see getting published is exactly that. We need a way to educate kids about this in a even handed, objective manner. Kids aren't stupid and I see it a bit like the pot-issue. Lie to them, and they won't take any of it seriously...
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
You figure schizophrenics on a whole smoked BEFORE schizophrenia and their schizophrenia was CAUSED by the smoking ?


Nope. Correlation does not imply causation, something conspiracy theorists like you have a hard time with getting to stick in their probably damaged brains.

My peddle comment was rhetorical. I'm not surprised you mistakenly took it literally.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
Kids aren't stupid and I see it a bit like the pot-issue. Lie to them, and they won't take any of it seriously...


Which is why the DARE program was, and sadly still is, an utter failure.
ironjustice
not rated yet Jan 16, 2011
Quote: My peddle comment was rhetorical.
Answer: Your caustic attitude is quite telling.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Answer: Your caustic attitude is quite telling.


Yawn. Not an answer; not even a good response.

I'm not sorry that schizophrenia is an emotional subject for me. I'm not sorry that I put you in your place for treating it so trivially. You deserve every negative comment you get, shill.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
schizophrenia is an emotional subject


One might wonder WHY you would try to quell discussion about nicotine . It would be more of a mental issue with you rather than any problems with the 'science' end of it ? People with schizophrenia commonly get angry when you even mention schizophrenia which WOULD explain your caustic attitude. You should maybe think about having a smoke.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
One might wonder WHY you would try to quell discussion about nicotine .


I don't. I try to quell the asinine theory that nicotine alone could suffice for the most mild case of schizophrenia. Where's your scientific evidence that refutes what every mental social worker in the country knows as fact? If you were to link maryjane and schizo, you might have some semblance of science to back you up, but barely, and again, merely correlation.

You should maybe think about having a smoke.


I do have the occasional smoke, maybe once a month, which is why I was drawn to this article. Maybe you should reflect on how your addiction affects your opinions and/or the ethics of shillery.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Sadly yes, and if there was something out there that had the same stress-mitigating effects, I'd gladly try it..

There is, but I can't recommend it due to my nation's overly restrictive war on drugs.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Oh, and not that I care what ironjustice, or anyone, thinks about me personally, but it's my brother that has schizophrenia. Through him, I know dozens of schizos, with many different symptoms of the disease. They ALL smoke. They ALL say it's to reduce anxiety. NONE of their social workers or doctors recommend quitting. Know why? Paranoid delusions are scary as hell!! They know they can't trust their own thoughts, and that is distressing. For them, there are few alternatives to reduce anxiety without negative interaction with their psychotropic medicine.
ironjustice
not rated yet Jan 16, 2011
If you were to link maryjane and schizo, you might have some semblance of science to back you up, but barely, and again, merely correlation.

They have and the nicotine 'may' be related to the
CB1 receptors . How and why I haven't had time to look.
"These findings are in agreement with results reported with other CB1 antagonists. The combined action of reducing the reinforcing and motivational properties of nicotine and alcohol and the improvement of impulse control supports the idea that the cannabinoid system is a promising target for anti-relapse medication."

Mira_Musiclab
not rated yet Jan 16, 2011
One might wonder WHY you would try to quell discussion about nicotine . It would be more of a mental issue with you rather than any problems with the 'science' end of it ? People with schizophrenia commonly get angry when you even mention schizophrenia which WOULD explain your caustic attitude. You should maybe think about having a smoke.


That borderlined the inappropriate..
Please, be civil.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
"The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud" - Conservative QuackiTard

I take this as proof that smoking also causes brain death before it causes cancer.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
"One might wonder WHY you would try to quell discussion about nicotine" - RepubliTard of Tards

It is all a conspiracy among the worlds medical doctors to establish a one world Socialist government run by the U.N. and which has Lucifer on the seat of ultimate power. Lucifer's first dictate will force you to eat broccoli and bathe at least once a week.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
"I must say, that I really did not expect to see the comments here drop to the level of some everyday, ordinary newspaper... comments here" - Hmmmm

Welcome to American QuackTardville, where everything you don't like is a Commie Gubderment Conspiracy.
Egnite
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
It is the first to investigate human metabolism of a PAH specifically delivered by inhalation in cigarette smoke, without interference by other sources of exposure such as air pollution or the diet.


So now they have determined the dangers of PAH in cigarette smoke (which effects smokers/passive smokers) would it not be more productive for them to determine the dangers with PAH from Diet and Car Fumes/Air pollution (since that effect the majority of us!). I can't see the point in demonising smoking anymore when it's evident there are as harmful PAHs around us from other sources which we have no option to avoid.
Paljor
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
To you people that say it is preventing certain diseases or lessening their effects There is a better way to get nicotine than smoking did any of you ever think of that!

Also think, it may be dampening the effects of the disease BUT it willl almost certainly destroy your lungs, and will probably cause you one if not more cancers. Personally i would rather choose the other diseases and treat them with perscription drugs then smoke to try and cure it.
Mira_Musiclab
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
To you people that say it is preventing certain diseases or lessening their effects There is a better way to get nicotine than smoking did any of you ever think of that!

Also think, it may be dampening the effects of the disease BUT it willl almost certainly destroy your lungs, and will probably cause you one if not more cancers. Personally i would rather choose the other diseases and treat them with perscription drugs then smoke to try and cure it.


Well, some of us can't even afford the prescription drugs we already take. Pouch of rolling tobacco costs only 2 bucks.. Nicorette is something like 14..
Cold reality.. :I

Still, good advice, not flaming you at all..
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Smoking will not only kill you...it'll REALLY kill you BIG TIME...seriously for reals...we're not kidding...genetic damage and stuff...cancer...all that...you might even rise from the dead craving brains after it kills you big time...

Film at 11..
zslewis91
not rated yet Jan 17, 2011
Smoking will not only kill you...it'll REALLY kill you BIG TIME...seriously for reals...we're not kidding...genetic damage and stuff...cancer...all that...you might even rise from the dead craving brains after it kills you big time...

Film at 11..


PAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

rproulx45
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
I hate to be the turd in the soup but can we not make the same claim for sunshine? Sunshine can cause dna damage. The only real problem with smoking is that it makes you feel so darn good, and it really calms down the kids. It takes forty years for cigarettes to kill you, how long are we going to be required to live anyway? Besides, taking out a few of the nag and complain bunch with the deadly, deadly, aftereffects of second hand smoke seems like a very small price to pay for forty years of pleasure and happiness.
damnfuct
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
While nicotine use might have some benefits (which may be recreational, as stated above), there is nothing beneficial of drying, chopping up, and inhaling the smouldering fumes of a plant leaf.

Every time I see an argument against the anti-smoking movement, I change "tobacco" to "crack," "heroin," or some other substance; more often than not, the person arguing is defending their choice or their possibly commanding addiction. Just because tobacco has been around for a few hundred years does not make it more acceptable than other drugs that have been outlawed since then.
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
a very small price to pay for forty years of pleasure and happiness.


I hope that's worth the 5-10 years of abject misery of cancer and/or emphysema and/or heart disease.
I honestly feel sorry for those who consider the mere absence of withdrawal symptoms to be pleasure and happiness. Then again, what do I know? I seldom smoke tobacco. Is it the rush of doing something "bad?"
Paljor
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
And how many years will it take for cancer and other diseases to make your life a living H***! plus the expenses of getting treatment and/or funeral at that age (normaly about age 50.)
ironjustice
not rated yet Jan 17, 2011
"Ability of red cells to synthesize NAD+ from added nicotinic acid"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Jan 17, 2011
C'mon Otto, you tend to be a lot more objective than this usually. I can totally respect your disdain for smoking, but you're not going to win too many hearts over this way..
You can't reason with an addict and talk them out of their addiction. Ottos emotional expression is called social pressure. Smokers- you reek! You make me want to Puke in your Face! Haha, I like that expression. I'll have to use it more often.
I smoke. Wish I didn't. Deal with a lot of stress and anxiety.
Anxiety, tension, fatigue, confusion, etc are all symptoms of withdrawal. There is no 'plus' to tobacco; smokers use it to alleviate their withdrawal symptoms, which are considerable. In this respect nicotine is unique among drugs.

So there's some reasonable argument for you. Did you quit then? Of course not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 17, 2011
Smoking will not only kill you...it'll REALLY kill you BIG TIME...seriously for reals...we're not kidding...genetic damage and stuff...cancer...all that...you might even rise from the dead craving brains after it kills you big time...

Film at 11..
MM- your sense of humor makes me want to PUKE in your FACE!! Ha haaa this is fun
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (48) Jan 17, 2011
A serious note- as animals our sense of smell is very important to us. It is a way of receiving information about others and the environment. Smokers interrupt my sense of smell. It's as distracting as a boom box.

One of the many reasons people take it up may be to mute the sense of smell. Adolescents are becoming aware of all sorts of sexual olfactory cues, many of which may be unwelcome and overwhelming, and the source of social confusion. The strong stench of tobacco reduces their effects. It would help reduce tensions among laborers whose sweat carries pheromones, as another possible example.

I notice that a lot of female homosexuals smoke. This could be a subconscious way of muting conflicting and discomforting social cues.
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

It is amazing how you can spin tales about tobacco masking human pheromones as if a human pheromone has ever been identified.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (47) Jan 17, 2011
Every time I see an argument against the anti-smoking movement, I change "tobacco" to "crack," "heroin," or some other substance
The point is worth making again- there is no high from tobacco other than the relief from the agony of withdrawal. If there was any significant positive effect it would interfere with driving, operating machinery. Ask any smoker if they get high from tobacco. The answer is always no.

'People cannot tell the difference between pleasure and relief from pain.' Epicurus said this a long time ago and it accurately describes the smokers predicament. They think the withdrawal state is the normal one, and they smoke to avoid it. They don't realize that they would feel as 'good' as they do right after the last smoke, ALL the time, if only they could leave it alone.

Put it down and do not pick it up again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 17, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

It is amazing how you can spin tales about tobacco masking human pheromones as if a human pheromone has ever been identified.

So you suspect that, out of all the animals, humans are the only ones who don't respond to olfactory info? Sense of smell is important to mothers and babies. We can tell when someone is afraid or amorous or sick or dirty because we can smell them. We can even sense that people are from different cultures if their diet differs from our own.
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone

-Perhaps I used the word wrong, perhaps not. Pheromones are only one group of cues animals use. Like when dogs sniff each others butts you know -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 17, 2011
From the wiki article:
"According to the researchers, this research suggests a possible role for human pheromones in the biological basis of sexual orientation. In 2008, it was found using functional magnetic resonance imaging that the right orbitofrontal cortex, right fusiform cortex, and right hypothalamus respond to airborne natural human sexual sweat."
dogbert
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

Saying it multiple times does not make it so. Human beings are not insects and no human pheromone has ever been identified.

This does not mean that there are no human pheromones, but it does mean that presuming their existence absent any evidence is not in the least a scientific conclusion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 18, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

Saying it multiple times does not make it so. Human beings are not insects and no human pheromone has ever been identified.

This does not mean that there are no human pheromones
I was trying to point out that we humans use all our senses, and have evolved doing so. Sense of smell is an important way of gleening info about other people, and much of this occurs on a subconscious level. Smoking is like throwing sand in my eyes. Arf?
presuming their existence absent any evidence is not in the least a scientific conclusion
But I presented the speculative evidence of researchers per the wiki article, as far as pheromones are concerned.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
They don't realize that they would feel as 'good' as they do right after the last smoke, ALL the time, if only they could leave it alone.

Put it down and do not pick it up again.
As a smoker I can say this is the most accurate depiction of addiction to tobacco. In my opinion of course.
Skultch
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
there is no high from tobacco other than the relief from the agony of withdrawal.


Not 100% true. It's only true for those who have developed a dependence, which is probably 99% of smokers. I get a 2 minute "buzz" every time I smoke a cig. Maybe it's the CO asphyxiating me???? It's still not worth it, but it is a fact.
rproulx45
4 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
RE:I hope that's worth the 5-10 years of abject misery of cancer and/or emphysema and/or heart disease.
*****
that's only if I choose to fight it, you never know, I might get run over by a tobacco truck. It turns out that non-smokers have as high a death rate as smokers...100% and as for my lungs, I wasn't really planning to use them forever anyway. Look, I understand, you don't like smoking, fine, but I do, so please quit charging me extra for smokes and in return I won't bill you for the hospital cost. By the way, if the smoking is supposed to kill me by age 50, should I consider the years past 50 that I've lived as an extra special bonus?
Skultch
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
...you don't like smoking, fine, but I do, so please quit charging me extra for smokes and in return I won't bill you for the hospital cost.


I couldn't care less if you or anyone else smokes. Half of my friends smoke every day. I guess, indirectly, I am responsible for your higher prices, but you can't speak for all the other ER visitors without insurance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 18, 2011
there is no high from tobacco other than the relief from the agony of withdrawal.


Not 100% true. It's only true for those who have developed a dependence, which is probably 99% of smokers. I get a 2 minute "buzz" every time I smoke a cig. Maybe it's the CO asphyxiating me???? It's still not worth it, but it is a fact.
I get a buzz from hyperventilating before I start running. I get a buzz from running. Im not sure how to compare that with the buzz from legitimate drugs, or with what youre talking about. I get a buzz when I stand up too fast. Anything like that?

Of course maybe you have developed a dependence which nags you more or less every day, but not enough to quench it all the time. Tobacco causes permanent, irreversable nervous system damage. I was probably born with it. Your occasional buzz may be the alleviation of this + O2 deprivation from the CO? Who knows.

Smokers dont smoke to get high but only to get normal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 18, 2011
I wasn't really planning to use them forever anyway. Look, I understand, you don't like smoking, fine, but I do, so please quit charging me extra for smokes and in return I won't bill you for the hospital cost. By the way, if the smoking is supposed to kill me by age 50, should I consider the years past 50 that I've lived as an extra special bonus?
And how many of your friends never made it? How do you compare your weak and sedentary lifestyle with the vigorous, healthy one you could have had? Be honest now (with yourself.) Take a deep breath and hold it. Can you do that? What does it FEEL like? What do you think you have DONE to yourself?

Breathing is the most important thing we do. You have seriously impacted your ability to BREATHE. Dont you think there is some part of you that feels deeply -ashamed? Resentful? Disappointed? -because of this? That this part of you becomes fearful and anxious every time you prepare to light up another one? Can you feel that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 18, 2011
Oh skultch I see you already mentioned CO. I missed that.

As to rproul, my 80 yo aunt finally quit, about a month before she died from it. Horrible cancer. My mom didnt make it past 45. My stepmom had a miscarriage- thats one life quite probably preempted by smoking during pregnancy.
http
://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/26348949/detail.html

My dad quit cold turkey while he was in the hospital recovering from his 2nd heart attack, most likely smoking-related. He had 2 back operations; smoking is a leading cause of back problems because it restricts blood and nutrient flow.
http
://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/umbackpain_smoking.htm

My mom always smelled like a trashbin- arent moms supposed to smell pleasant? How does this affect bonding and recognition between mother and child, a childs appetite, not to mention 2nd hand smoke damage?

So my family has seen the whole range. I would just like to know what is the fucking POINT of it all? What a waste. What a crime.
Paljor
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
I coulden't agree more Otto. That was the general idea I was trying to get them to realise in my earlier posts.
Skultch
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
...I get a buzz when I stand up too fast. Anything like that?


I would call it "light headed," but I'm not sure if that means the same thing to both of us. It could be lack of O2, or chemical reaction; not sure. It feels different than standing up too fast, or altitude (I should know, living at 11k'+), or endorphine buzz. It's a "dirty" buzz, and only in the head. I wouldn't call it a "high." It's nothing like alcohol or a cannibinoid, like THC. It might not be the nicotine, but some other poison in cigs.

Permanent, low-level dependence? Could be. Every time I see someone smoking, I want one. I think I will be addicted for life, and all it took was half-a-pack-a-day for a couple months, during the Iraq war 6 years ago. I guess I just have enough will power not to bum one, 99% of the time. I never buy my own. :P
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2011
As for me I'm on and off.

Started when I was 14 and smoked until I got into the service. I couldn't run five miles every morning and smoke though. Some could, I couldn't so I quit for as long as I was in. Started up again because the ex-wife smoked and they were always just kind of there. Off and on again for the next 10 years.

Just recently picked it up again. I guess that means I never really quit :) but once I decide to it's honestly never a problem...I just quit.

I need to just quit again.

Oh and Otto, dude, you need to get over this fetish of puking in faces. I'm not one to judge usually, but puking in faces? Really?
frajo
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
It's only true for those who have developed a dependence, which is probably 99% of smokers.
You think pipe smokers are less than 1%?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 18, 2011
Oh and Otto, dude, you need to get over this fetish of puking in faces. I'm not one to judge usually, but puking in faces? Really?
Just searched youtube. Many examples. Sorry, no links. Will have to think up more original epithet. Would rather be good than original.

I tell you, sometimes ultra-liberal left-winger anarchists make me want to PUKE in their FACE tho... Oh hi frajo-
Skultch
not rated yet Jan 19, 2011
It's only true for those who have developed a dependence, which is probably 99% of smokers.
You think pipe smokers are less than 1%?


I think smokers who smoke less than once per month are less than 1% of total smokers. I guess even them (myself included) are still mildly dependent, but it's not the same. No withdrawal that I can tell. Then again, my cravings are generic and lots of different things satisfy them. I love craft beer, the occasional mixed drink, as well as opiates and THC for chronic back pain. I fit well in Colorado. :)
Blakut
not rated yet Jan 22, 2011
Well, i can tell you this, as a smoker i know that i'll always be able to make a fire if i need to, cause i'll always have a lighter and something to burn.

Weird thing is sometimes i smoke every day, but sometimes i just don't feel like smoking for more than a week or two.
Scientifica
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
Didn't Obama's wife secretly plant marijuana out in her "garden?"