[finn4life]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 01:21)

QUOTE (finn4life @ Tuesday, May 22 2012, 21:15) Smoking doesn't really relieve stress, smokers do feel better after a smoke but that feeling is the equivalent of what you would feel all the time if you didn't smoke This is not true in the slightest. I remember being taught that in PDHPE, but it is an out-an-out lie. Every cigarette I've ever had is relaxing, otherwise I wouldn't smoke them. I could not smoke - or even think about smoking - for weeks, but a smoke would still relax me. What you're implying is that the addiction 'tricks' people into thinking they enjoy smoking.

YEah most smokers i know tell me this.
A smoke may make you feel more relaxed than usual, but you would still feel better most of the time if you didn't smoke.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 09:05)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 01:21) QUOTE (finn4life @ Tuesday, May 22 2012, 21:15) Smoking doesn't really relieve stress, smokers do feel better after a smoke but that feeling is the equivalent of what you would feel all the time if you didn't smoke This is not true in the slightest. I remember being taught that in PDHPE, but it is an out-an-out lie. Every cigarette I've ever had is relaxing, otherwise I wouldn't smoke them. I could not smoke - or even think about smoking - for weeks, but a smoke would still relax me. What you're implying is that the addiction 'tricks' people into thinking they enjoy smoking. YEah most smokers i know tell me this. A smoke may make you feel more relaxed than usual, but you would still feel better most of the time if you didn't smoke.

No I wouldn't? You're basically trying to convince me that smoking makes you stressed all the time, apart from when you're having a cigarette.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 08:26)

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 09:05) QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 01:21) QUOTE (finn4life @ Tuesday, May 22 2012, 21:15) Smoking doesn't really relieve stress, smokers do feel better after a smoke but that feeling is the equivalent of what you would feel all the time if you didn't smoke This is not true in the slightest. I remember being taught that in PDHPE, but it is an out-an-out lie. Every cigarette I've ever had is relaxing, otherwise I wouldn't smoke them. I could not smoke - or even think about smoking - for weeks, but a smoke would still relax me. What you're implying is that the addiction 'tricks' people into thinking they enjoy smoking. YEah most smokers i know tell me this. A smoke may make you feel more relaxed than usual, but you would still feel better most of the time if you didn't smoke. No I wouldn't? You're basically trying to convince me that smoking makes you stressed all the time, apart from when you're having a cigarette.

I'm with Melchior here. Finn, care to provide some evidence to support your point?

[Irviding]

I guess what he's saying is, not smoking would result in generally all around happier and healthier feelings?

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 11:18)

I guess what he's saying is, not smoking would result in generally all around happier and healthier feelings?

I get that, but I don't get the specific association with stress. Why would a smoker who wasn't in the process of smoking be more stressed than a non-smoker?

[finn4life]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 23:51)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, May 23 2012, 11:18) I guess what he's saying is, not smoking would result in generally all around happier and healthier feelings? I get that, but I don't get the specific association with stress. Why would a smoker who wasn't in the process of smoking be more stressed than a non-smoker?

Well call it government brain-washing or whatever but i seem to see that a smoker on average will be more stressed than a non-smoker until they have a smoke all over the place, taught in school, on the news, the newspapers, magazines and of course the internet.

Points out how from the smokers perspective what is being said may seem un-true.

Government website mentions how the effect of smoking is how you would feel normally if you did not smoke


The Reputability of this site is questionable but "For adult smokers, the research shows that the positive mood changes experienced during smoking may only reflect the reversal of unpleasant abstinence effects. "Regular smokers, therefore, experience periods of heightened stress between cigarettes, and smoking briefly restores their stress levels to normal"

This website here mentions how smoking won't really help someone who is stressed, it is like a band-aid, temporarily you will feel better but otherwise it doesn't really help.
http://www.sc.edu/healthycarolina/pdf/facs...ressAndMood.pdf

Also so i didn't get totally biased results i also searched "Smoking makes you more relaxed" "Smoking relieves stress" and these came up.

Illustrates all the reasons smoking (In general) stresses you and why having a cigarette is relaxing

Daily Mail, most smokers mistakenly claim cigarettes relieve stress.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Smoking-Hel...lax?&id=4183523
---
Those sites seem to do an Ok job at explaining it, so either they are right, or it's just a total brainwashing of the whole system and you guys are right, i suspect it meets somewhere in the middle.

I do not make these claims without evidence , because there is an undeniably large amount of it.

Anyway enough with this, this debate isn't about smoking and whether it makes you feel good or not.

This post has been edited by finn4life on Friday, May 25 2012, 00:20

[DeeperRed]

Exactly smoking is like a band-aid, and what are band-aids good for ? small wounds just as to some a smoke can help de-stress over trivial matters. Sure a smoke after being fired isn't going help but to many a smoke after a long days work is a good stress reliever.

I don't smoke myself (fags anyway) but its not hard to understand that it actually does help relive stress when all my friends do it and there well beyond the "doing it to look cool" stage.

[Butters 2011]

The worst thing with a topic like this is the fact it will be mainly biased, but not from everyone.

It's our life though, and yes, we should be able to do whatever the hell we want, even if it means we are slowly killing ourselves in the process. The most that the Government/whoever should do is just warn us about the effects of whatever it is, and let us make our own minds up. Yes, it's annoying to see how much money goes into paying for these habits and lifestyle choices, but the way I see it is, people are also admitted to hospital for stuff that wasn't due to their own doing, and this could cost just as much.

Anyway, will leave this following story in here...kinda relates to the whole 'paying for fat people' etc...

http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC120525...teen-from-house

[Yossarianite]

We can do whatever we want but its better that we stay healthy and hale.
But in process, we shouldn't be trouble to others and in all our actions think about our fellow man.
Smoking leading passive smoking is an example, if do sh*t, keep it to yourself.
Don't spoil others.

[Irviding]

But are we not spoiling others by costing taxpayers billions on our smoking habits?

[Yossarianite]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, May 30 2012, 14:15)

But are we not spoiling others by costing taxpayers billions on our smoking habits?

Thats exacty what my point is.

[Irviding]

I know, but it seems none of us have really proposed a solution, partly because I don't think there is one, at least a clear one.

[nightwalker83]

People whom do stupid things such as smoking, drinking, etc no way! Only those that don't intentionally damage themselves.

[El_Diablo]

this might be relevant to the topic at hand...



woman is already morbidly obese.
now she's engaged and her goal is to become the world's heaviest bride. her fiancee cooks her breakfast, lunch, and dinners. 12-egg omelettes, steaks, mashed potatoes, etc every single day until the wedding. she's trying to consume 13x the recommended daily caloric intake against all of her doctors wishes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...ad-big-day.html

and yes, she's obviously a citizen of the United States (Arizona to be exact).

[Jeeebuuus]

This topic reminded me of this. Funny when it came out but it seems like it could happen one day. I think people, at least in the U.S., are the most obese and unfit in the world and that should change, but I usually side with freedom of choice. In this case its other people choice to live unhealthy lifestyles and everyone else paying for it. I don't think forcing people to live healthier is the answer, that would cause a backlash. The American people know how to protest especially if you take away their Big Macs and potato chips. Forget baseball, a sedentary lifestyle is our favorite pastime.

[Cheat]

I'm aware of being a little bit late to the party, but it is said that it's better late than never... Yeah, anyways, coming from an individualist point of view, I think we all deserve the right to damage ourselves as much as we wish without being interfered by society, government or any other external authority. Of course, it's obvious that obesity et cetera strain the healthcare system, but the way I see it, (some) drugs and cigarettes shouldn't be prohibited in the first place, leading to a situation in which society wouldn't be obliged to "help" those who use them.

I'm not saying that society doesn't do a great job helping those who are obese, addicted to a specific substance or in any other alltogether distressing and unpleasant situation, but I'm questioning the reasons behind those very actions of society's - the harsh truth is that obesity limits working abilities and so does drug addiction and even smoking considering the health damage followed by long-term smoking, leading us to what I personally think is the biggest problem of the mankind; we live in societies which destroy the value of one's life and only see individuals as workers who should be fit to help society reach it's goals, and I think it's extremely morally controversial to "help" people stay healthy and live within the boundaries of society just to pursue this very ideology of byrocracy.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 04:55)

I know, but it seems none of us have really proposed a solution, partly because I don't think there is one, at least a clear one.

There is no solution because there isn't necessarily a problem - at least not an identifiable one. It's impossible to say whether or not vices burden society because it's impossible to test the effects of avoiding vices; ie, if there was no alcohol abuse or overeating maybe there'd be more people in hospital for stress related heart attacks, maybe depression clinics would be a lot more full. Maybe if war veterans weren't doing heroin they'd be running around shooting people. Maybe people wouldn't go to work if they couldn't go to the pub afterward. Maybe vices reduce the cost of healthcare by helping people get through the day.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Saturday, Aug 18 2012, 12:43)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 04:55) I know, but it seems none of us have really proposed a solution, partly because I don't think there is one, at least a clear one. There is no solution because there isn't necessarily a problem - at least not an identifiable one. It's impossible to say whether or not vices burden society because it's impossible to test the effects of avoiding vices; ie, if there was no alcohol abuse or overeating maybe there'd be more people in hospital for stress related heart attacks, maybe depression clinics would be a lot more full. Maybe if war veterans weren't doing heroin they'd be running around shooting people. Maybe people wouldn't go to work if they couldn't go to the pub afterward. Maybe vices reduce the cost of healthcare by helping people get through the day.

Not smoking though. Smoking kills 700,000 people a year and costs billions in taxpayer dollars. I fail to see how that's not an identifiable problem. It got so expensive in Mississippi that the AG sued tobacco companies demanding that they reimburse the Medicaid costs that Mississipi is paying for diseases caused by their product.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Aug 19 2012, 04:08)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Saturday, Aug 18 2012, 12:43) QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, May 31 2012, 04:55) I know, but it seems none of us have really proposed a solution, partly because I don't think there is one, at least a clear one. There is no solution because there isn't necessarily a problem - at least not an identifiable one. It's impossible to say whether or not vices burden society because it's impossible to test the effects of avoiding vices; ie, if there was no alcohol abuse or overeating maybe there'd be more people in hospital for stress related heart attacks, maybe depression clinics would be a lot more full. Maybe if war veterans weren't doing heroin they'd be running around shooting people. Maybe people wouldn't go to work if they couldn't go to the pub afterward. Maybe vices reduce the cost of healthcare by helping people get through the day. Not smoking though. Smoking kills 700,000 people a year and costs billions in taxpayer dollars. I fail to see how that's not an identifiable problem. It got so expensive in Mississippi that the AG sued tobacco companies demanding that they reimburse the Medicaid costs that Mississipi is paying for diseases caused by their product.

But cigarettes help people get through the day. Maybe without cigarettes there'd be more suicides, who's to say. My point is "cigarettes cost the healthcare system x amount of dollars every year" is not a fact, it's an untestable hypothesis.

[Icarus]

Alberta Health Services disagrees with you.

It's obviously going to be hard to nail down an exact number with all the variables involved, but at the end of the day, smoking isn't exactly easy on the health care system and it is going to be cost a certain amount of dollars per year.