Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My brother is starting to smoke
- Thread starter TSE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yes, let's recommend illegal activities
That's just a technicality that demonstrates the hypocrisy of this country..... it will be as legal as alcohol one day.
Also, the poster did recommend that the brother be 21+, so it's not like he's recommending to for a minor.
One day, yes and I would support it
But in the meantime, it is plain foolish to recommend illegal activities...
Tell him in no uncertain terms that he's being a dumbass and that you're concerned about him...but in the end, there's only so much you can do--it's his life, and his decision. Hopefully if he has a girlfriend, she disapproves...this will really help. Also try the angle of that many girls think that smoking is a major turnoff.
Cannabis is not illegal everywhere, and most countries that list it as officially illegal have varying degrees of tolerance towards responsible adult use of the substance; ymmv depending on where you choose to live. Aside, one tends to consume less cannabis than tobacco per average dose, and cannabis is much more frequently vaporized as opposed to smoked compared with tobacco, thereby making it less harmful with extended use. Cannabis also has other qualities including pain relief and appetite stimulation, making it suitable for medicinal applications where tobacco is not. It is an inebriant however and should be regulated and taxed as such; current criminalization of cannabis in certain industrialized nations is a relic of early 20th century propaganda.
When a law exists that is nonsensical and hypocritical, it is best to not follow blindly.
If you would support it when it becomes legal, perhaps the American thing to do (well, the democratic thing to do) would be to voice your opinion to help speed/further along a change.
Actually, it IS a fact that second-hand smoke is a pollutant, that affects the health of non-smokers, and that it's an irritant to people that don't smoke. Those aren't opinions, they're facts. And as I said, I don't care if you or anyone else smokes, as long as it's only affecting you and not others. Yes, I think it's a selfish habit, one that tells me that a person cares more about short-term pleasure than living longer. But it's your choice, not mine.
I don't think that's an overreaction. I'm not saying it should be criminalized like others here. I'm not saying that smokers shouldn't be able to buy tobacco. And I think the health insurance has its own ways of making smokers pay for their higher costs, so no further action is necessary on that front. I also think that the lawsuits against Big Tobacco were a senseless money grab by governments that didn't stop anyone from smoking.
And I already did my part to help the OP in my first post on this thread. The thread went in other directions after that.
And that stress is caused by their addiction. Non-smokers don't have that stress to begin with.
As to the other arguments.... No, smoking is not about "minding your own business". I mean, others have to suffer the effects of smoking as well. Our neighbour smokes, and the smoke is often carried over to our apartment, making our lives miserable. Yeah, it's his home and all that. But what he does in his home carries over to our home. If he can smoke so that the smoke does not carry over to our apartment, the sure, smoke your lungs out!
People should have the right to smoke, as long as they don't bother other people. Your right to smoke should end where non-smokers lungs begin. Yes, it really should be that simple.
Is that treading on smokers liberties? Maybe. But on the same logic, it could be said that laws that prevents me from attaching electrodes to the genitals of people I see on the street against their will is treading on my liberties. Sometimes we need to limit liberties of some in order to maximize liberties for everyone.
Smoking is bad for your health. It gives NO benefits. None at all. So why exactly should smokers have the right to expose non-smokers to their habit?
I think you may have misunderstood Duke's point and are confusing stress with addiction based craving/trigger. Most addictions are simply the result of maladaptive coping skills. We all (smokers and nonsmokers) experience stress, but we choose different ways to cope with it. This fact is also what makes your claim of no benefit inacurrate as well. Smoking provides a payoff for those who smoke. This coupled with the physical addiction to nicotine is what makes it such a difficult habit to break. A good program or therapist will help those with an addiction identify the benefit they get from participating in that activity and develop new coping skills to break the cycle of addiction in which they are trapped.
I agree with your overall sentiments, but saying that smoker's stress is caused by their addiction, that nonsmokers don't have stress, and that smoking has "NO benefits. None at all" is simply not true.
I never said that non-smokers don't have stress. Of course they do. They just have less that smokers do. We all are under stress sometimes. But in addition to those normal stress-situations, smokers also face the stress their addiction causes to them. And that is something non-smokers do not have. If smoking reduces their short-term anxiety, then it's obviously about satisfying their addiction, as opposed to properly dealing with a stress-situation. They cause the stress to themselves, and then they congratulate themselves for "coping" with that stress...
And sure, smoking MIGHT have some miniscule benefits. But fact is that those benefits are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the drawbacks smoking causes. It's like removing your eyeballs gives you the benefit of not being blinded by sunlight anymore...
^ I think your signature says it best. "Consider getting some education" about how addictions truly work. I apologize as I'm not usually this blunt/direct and I don't intend to offend, but you are coming across in your communication like an authority when in truth you are simply giving an uneducated opinion on the subject.
I wouldn't worry about him smoking. As long as he quits by age 30 or so, there's really nothing to worry about.
i dont allow myself to date anyone who smokes..for what that is worth.
I was once talking to a girl in this club. very cute, funny, etc. I turn around to look at some other girl or something i forget and then look back and she starts smoking. I then said i had to use the bathroom, and never came back.
I was once talking to a girl in this club. very cute, funny, etc. I turn around to look at some other girl or something i forget and then look back and she starts smoking. I then said i had to use the bathroom, and never came back.
Thanks for this... It's been a while since I updated my insaneforumposters.txt archive.
Uh-huh. So addiction does not cause stress? It does not cause anxiety?
There's nothing insane in my post. It might annoy some smokers, but that's their problem, not mine. Their habits are stupid, and their arguments are even more stupid. Or are you seriously going to claim that smokers right to spread toxic smoke is greater than non-smokers right to not be exposed to that smoke? Or how smoking is a good thing? Or some other BS like that?
By that logic: my right to attach eletrodes to your genitals is bigger than your right to not have that done to you.
Maybe, but do you disagree with the assessment? What if I'm a cutter? That's dangerous and self-inflicted. You want to know the only two differences? More people smoke than cut and smoking harms other people around you.
I know what you're getting at, but people who don't smoke do know the ropes. We don't smoke because we know how terrible it is.
Are you serious? We're too excuse smoking just because other people also raise insurance costs? All else being equal, smokers directly affect the insurance costs of non-smokers. All else being equal, obese people directly affect the insurance costs of the non-obese. Just because another problem exists doesn't nullify the one in question.
Although, I can't really take your posts seriously. This is coming from the guy who tried to cite that smokers don't raise insurance rates because his mom has been a smoker her whole life and she hasn't used any more medical services than anyone else.
You ask how this is wrong? Polluting ones lungs is worse than not polluting ones lungs, all else being equal. That's also ignoring the fact that quitting by after smoking for 10+ years is a lot harder than never starting to begin with.
@usingpond: You've handled yourself pretty well in this thread. That's why it's so sad. I don't give random pity to people and there's absolutely no way you'd want any. I wouldn't if I were in your position. All I can say is that I lost my grandfather to emphysema, an absolutely horrendous death that saw him live out his final years in a wheel-chair with oxygen tubes in his nose.
Did I mention he quit 25 years before he died?
How else do you expect non-smokers to view smokers? With casual indifference? Many of us have been affected by you smokers, whether it's air pollution that harms us or the emotional toll of seeing a loved one die an excruciating death. No, you won't get casual indifference, and you shouldn't expect it. We've all been affected.
The lung tissue regenerates itself over time, so after you quit you are right back where you started within a few years. As for quitting, it's not that hard once you (as opposed to someone else trying to force quitting on you) really make up your mind to quit, regardless of how long you've been doing it, and the OP's brother can't very well "never start to begin with" because he's already started.
In reality, smoking is bad for you but the hazards have been a bit overblown, especially in this day and age where you really can't smoke inside...anywhere. So if the OP's brother decides to smoke for a few years, it's not the smartest thing in the world but it's not a life and death decision at this point.
First of all, I initially responded to your post to clarify that Duke mentioned that smoking is caused by stress. He was simply pointing out that, though not the only impetus for smoking, often people pick up the habit as a way to deal with stress. As I pointed out before, you appear to be talking about the cycle of addiction and the resulting mental and physical cravings that can result with the use of an addictive substance. These are two separate things. Does nicotine addiction lead to physical cravings which people often describe as "stress, anxiety, or nic fits"? Yes. However, these symptoms of the addiction are entirely different from the individual's personal motives for smoking which can be distinctly different for each individual.
The OP's question is based on his concern for his brother and he is seeking advice on how to deal with that. All I hear you talking about is "rights". When we start focusing more on "rights" then we do on people then something is wrong. No one here is arguing that smoking is good for you or a good thing for society. It's a fact that we can't make decisions for others and it's definitely hard to watch people you care about make destructive choices. I'd encourage you to start looking at people for who they are and seek ways to understand them as opposed to simply categorizing individuals based on a choice they make that you don't like and then writing them off. Relationships and genuine human interaction is what truly encourages people to change not judgment, force, or overwhelming factual evidence.
This is the second time you've used this analogy. It still doesn't make sense and is a gross misunderstanding of the issue and the legalities involved. Aggression doesn't make your point any stronger.
The OP should send his brother to a grandparent or family friend who doesn't smoke. Anything over 5days with company like that, away from his immediate social group, will force him to find a sneaky opportunity to go off outside and smoke. This deviousness often has physiological effect and can reduce the 'relaxation' and 'de-stress' of the cigarette as the smoker will be feeling for vacating the house.
This worked for me when I smoked cigarettes. It didn't for my older brother, he was still irritable and subsequently doesn't visit the parents for longer than 24 hours now. (Mind you that may be the 'other substance' calling)
This worked for me when I smoked cigarettes. It didn't for my older brother, he was still irritable and subsequently doesn't visit the parents for longer than 24 hours now. (Mind you that may be the 'other substance' calling)
