My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
2-3 weeks ago.
He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.
Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.
She died 2 weeks later.
GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
on the planet.
I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.
The most difficult thing I've ever done.
If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
is probably ahead for you.
It may just help you quit.
Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
2-3 weeks ago.
He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.
Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.
She died 2 weeks later.
GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
on the planet.
I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.
The most difficult thing I've ever done.
If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
is probably ahead for you.
It may just help you quit.
Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.
Lew
Lew..you lost the wife at that age. Should have had many more years. I or
my wife never smoked or consumed alcohol . My dad smoked for many years and
had heart problems for many years before he died. WW
You're absolutely right on about how tough it is to quit. I quit 8 years a=
go when it was discovered I had a substantial blockage in my left carotid. =
Quitting a 40-year habit was a bitch. The docs did a roto-rooter on the ca=
rotid and haven't had any problems there since. However, I was diagnosed w=
ith a modest bit of emphysema this year. Nothing that's slowed me down, bu=
t sooner or later that likely will kill me.
It seems like we need to get slapped upside the head to learn anything in t=
his life, especially when we're young and immortal. =20
Larry
On Friday, September 19, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC-5, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>=20
> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
>=20
> was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
>=20
> 2-3 weeks ago.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> She died 2 weeks later.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
>=20
> however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
>=20
> on the planet.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The most difficult thing I've ever done.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
>=20
> about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
>=20
> is probably ahead for you.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> It may just help you quit.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Lew
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:50:36 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>Good trick as tobacco was unknown except in the western hemisphere until
>the Spanish took it back to Europe.
>Six hundred years ago they didn't have a clue as to what caused disease.
>Leeuwenhoek didn't even discover microrganisms until the late 1600s.
Sorry, but that's a naive viewpoint. There's ample examples of
ingesting substance into the lungs throughout history that showed the
dangers of inhaling various substances.
The Chinese smoked. North American Aboriginals smoked. And even your
Europeon and English inhaled coal dust giving rise to black lung
disease. Societies and various histories were well aware of the
dangers of inhaling undesirable substances.
Do you really believe nobody in various societies were aware of where
of the what caused a number of illnesses?
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:16:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
>>clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
>>you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.
>
>There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
>Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
>round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.
If that is the main criteria, then most every pleasurable activity is
addictive. Sex, roller coaster rides, playing with puppies,
On 09/20/2014 05:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3 [email protected]:
>>
>>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>>
>>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>>
>>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>>
>> My condolences, Lew.
>>
>> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
>> unfiltered Lucky Strikes -- and continued until he was 46, when he
>> finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about three months before
>> his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held
>> on for about seven months before he passed.
>>
>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>> continuing to market this killer weed.
>
> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
> here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
> have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
> than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
> about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
> smoking.
>
For sure!
My next older brother just passed away from lung cancer at 70. Never
smoked, but work construction all his life doing demo and remodels. We
both worked for our dad in the 60's and we never heard of dust masks or
the like. Many jobs remodelling schools, barracks etc. I haven't work
construction since then (except for adding on to one house and building
another), but I have a non progressive case of scaring of the lungs. I
sure as hell wear a dust mask in the shop now when doing any dust
raising work.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>
>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
--------------------------------------------
"Bill" wrote:
> I'm very sorry to learn of your loss, Lew.
-----------------------------------------
My kids appreciate your thoughts about their Mom.
Lew
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
> anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
> never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
> cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
> Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
> monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
------------------------------------------------
One thing is for certain, smoking is a self afflicted action that is
known to bring on lung diseases.
Man controls whether he starts to smoke or walks away.
Lew
"Bill" wrote:
> How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
> because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
> warning?
----------------------------------------
Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
Coca Cola.
Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a dispenser
on test.
If you wanted a Coke, it was there for the taking.
Didn't take long to pick up 5 pounds I didn't need.
Took longer to take it off after stopping drinking that free Coke.
Today it's pretty easy to spot the Coke/Pepsi (sugar) sucking
addicits.
They are the ones with an extra 30-50 pounds hanging on their
hips and a quart cup with a straw sticking out of it they are sucking
on
as they walk down the street.
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
> with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
> thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even
> six
> hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
> disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
> effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
> years.
>
> Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
> still been very obvious.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The first Surgeon General's report outlining the hazards of tobacco
that I remember was 1963.
The tobacco lobby spent a tidy sum suppressing it.
Warning labels came later.
Lew
Update:
That should read:
... 30-50 pounds/hip hanging on their hips...
60-100 pounds total.
Lew
-------------------------------------------
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
>> because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
>> warning?
> ----------------------------------------
> Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
> Coca Cola.
>
> Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a
> dispenser
> on test.
>
> If you wanted a Coke, it was there for the taking.
>
> Didn't take long to pick up 5 pounds I didn't need.
>
> Took longer to take it off after stopping drinking that free Coke.
>
> Today it's pretty easy to spot the Coke/Pepsi (sugar) sucking
> addicits.
>
> They are the ones with an extra 30-50 pounds hanging on their
> hips and a quart cup with a straw sticking out of it they are
> sucking on
> as they walk down the street.
>
>
> Lew
>
>
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>> continuing to market this killer weed.
>
> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
> anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
> never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
> cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
> Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
> monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
------------------------------------------------
Had forgotton about a friend who has a friend with stage 4 lung cancer
and has
never smoked a day in her life of 70+ years.
As this is being typed, have been told hospice has arrived at her door
step.
When your time comes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Lew
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>>> continuing to market this killer weed.
>>
>> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but
>> does anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who
>> have never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years?
>> Lung cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on
>> the Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much
>> bigger monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
> ------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> Had forgotton about a friend who has a friend with stage 4 lung
> cancer and has
> never smoked a day in her life of 70+ years.
>
> As this is being typed, have been told hospice has arrived at her
> door step.
>
> When your time comes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
------------------------------------------------
Her time came last night.
As had been said before, "When it is your time".
Lew
On 9/24/2014 7:52 AM, jo4hn wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 4:21 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>>
>>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>>
>>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>>
>> My condolences, Lew.
>>
>> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
>> unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
>> and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed
>> with cancer about
>> three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six
>> *weeks*. He held on
>> for about seven months before he passed.
>>
>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>> continuing to market
>> this killer weed.
>>
> My father never smoked, lived most of his life in clean air, drank
> little, in short he was a Midwestern businessman who died of lung cancer
> at age 83. Me? I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like
> a fish, and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera. What
> does this prove? It proves to be somewhat puzzling but nothing else.
> Whatever it is, I am grateful.
>
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
>
;~) It proves that you have not yet lived to be as old as your dad yet.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:15:36 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>True but smoking is something that actually does cause lung cancer and
>can be avoided all together, except in the cases of second hand smoke.
>Smoking also causes heart problems, eye sight problems, skin problems,
>fires, makes you stink, and is a habit that costs you a fortune.
I quit when I was twentyfive. That was thirty years ago. I can
distinctly remember being in the backyard of my house and realizing
that I was tired of the smelly fingers, sore throat and bad taste in
my mouth.
After ten years of smoking it was actually quite easy for me to quit.
People that I've told about my quitting frequently say that I wasn't
addicted to tobacco of I quit so easily
On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>>
>>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>>
>>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>>
>> My condolences, Lew.
>>
>> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
>> and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
>> three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
>> for about seven months before he passed.
>>
>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
>> this killer weed.
>
> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
> recent revelation that they cause cancer.
Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.
In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.
On 9/22/2014 3:52 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Well, it's kind of splitting hairs, but I think that, if
> someone becomes addicted to nicotine, it's physical. But
> not everyone that tries smoking becomes addicted. I recall
> a co-worker who smoked precisely two cigarettes per day,
> one after lunch and one driving home at the end of the day.
> If he was addicted to anything, it was routine, not cigarettes.
>
> John
>
At two a day, it is possible he was not addicted (did he ever stop for a
while?) and lung damage was minimal. Most of us could not do it that
way though.
I know a couple of people that did quit the pack a day habit and after
not smoking for a number of years decided to have just one. They were
immediately back to their old habit.
On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>
>> At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
>> bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
>> easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
>> difficult to get away from it.
>
> I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
> really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
> nurishment it provides - well... maybe...
>
> As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you (especially
> younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.
>
> It's all about addictive properites.
>
What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.
You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.
On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
>> nearly the available evidence that there is today.
>
> Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
> with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
> thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
> hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
> disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
> effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
> years.
>
> Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
> still been very obvious.
>
Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
true sorta watered down the seriousness.
Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
not taken as seriously as they are today.
On 9/21/2014 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
>> because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
>> warning?
> ----------------------------------------
> Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
> Coca Cola.
>
> Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a dispenser
> on test.
>
> If you wanted a Coke, it was there for the taking.
>
> Didn't take long to pick up 5 pounds I didn't need.
>
> Took longer to take it off after stopping drinking that free Coke.
>
> Today it's pretty easy to spot the Coke/Pepsi (sugar) sucking
> addicits.
>
> They are the ones with an extra 30-50 pounds hanging on their
> hips and a quart cup with a straw sticking out of it they are sucking
> on
> as they walk down the street.
>
>
> Lew
>
>
Exactly!
On 9/21/2014 10:00 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>>>> continuing to market this killer weed.
>>>
>>> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
>>> recent revelation that they cause cancer.
>>
>> Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
>> teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
>> warning labels.
>
> I think it was 64 or 65 that the Surgeon General's report
> defintively linked cigarette smoking and cancer. And a
> couple of years after that that warning labels and no TV
> ads were mandated.
>
> But Doug makes a good point - from Joe Camel to the recent
> flood of fruit-flavored cigarettes (which were banned three
> or four years ago) the tobacco companies have gone out of
> their way to attract the young and impressionable.
>
> John
>
And the same of it all is that one day most of the population will have
the same thoughts about McDonalds going out of their way to attract the
young and impressionable. I can almost guarantee you the McDonalds and
like kind fast food restaurants will cut your lives short too.
Pick you poison!
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Doug Miller wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>
>
> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
> continuing to market this killer weed.
I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
smoking.
-- SNIP
-Mike-
[email protected]
I agree Mike. Lost two best friends. One to smoking lung cancer and one to
radiation lung cancer. He worked at a company that used radium or plutonium.
Not sure which one. WW
On 9/21/2014 2:23 PM, Leon wrote:
>> But Doug makes a good point - from Joe Camel to the recent
>> flood of fruit-flavored cigarettes (which were banned three
>> or four years ago) the tobacco companies have gone out of
>> their way to attract the young and impressionable.
>>
>> John
>>
>
> And the same of it all is that one day most of the population will have
> the same thoughts about McDonalds going out of their way to attract the
> young and impressionable. I can almost guarantee you the McDonalds and
> like kind fast food restaurants will cut your lives short too.
>
> Pick you poison!
>
At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a bit
better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can easily
make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very difficult to
get away from it.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770
[email protected]:
> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>
> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
You have my sympathy. My father died of the same thing, altho
he only made it to 73, after many years of very limited mobility.
He too had been a heavy smoker for much of his life.
John
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
[email protected]:
> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>
> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>
> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
My condolences, Lew.
My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.
> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>>> continuing to market this killer weed.
>>
>> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
>> recent revelation that they cause cancer.
>
> Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
> teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
> warning labels.
I think it was 64 or 65 that the Surgeon General's report
defintively linked cigarette smoking and cancer. And a
couple of years after that that warning labels and no TV
ads were mandated.
But Doug makes a good point - from Joe Camel to the recent
flood of fruit-flavored cigarettes (which were banned three
or four years ago) the tobacco companies have gone out of
their way to attract the young and impressionable.
John
>>> On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770
$c3e8da3
>>>>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to
>>>>> market this killer weed.
>>>>
>>>> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"?
Keith, you just reminded me all over again why I have you killfiled. Thanks, asshole, for your
sensitivity and compassion.
>>>> It's no recent revelation that they cause cancer.
No, and none of the events I related are recent, either. He was born in October 1948, started
smoking around 1964, maybe earlier, I don't remember, was diagnosed with cancer in June
1996, and died in January 1997.
Of course you didn't know that, because I hadn't said so. But did you ask? Take the trouble
to learn the facts next time before making more of ass of yourself than you already are.
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:16:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
>>Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
>>round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.
>
> If that is the main criteria, then most every pleasurable activity is
> addictive. Sex, roller coaster rides, playing with puppies,
Two different kinds of addiction. Doctors categorize things
as being physically addictive, meaning the body develops a
dependency on them and there are withdrawal symptoms if it
doesn't get them; and behavioral addiction, where a person is
emotionally dependant on the reward of a particular activity.
Tobacco (nicotine) addiction is physical. Junk food, etc,
are behavioral.
John
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in news:lvpi3g$fkm$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:24:44 +0000, John McCoy wrote:
>
>> Tobacco (nicotine) addiction is physical.
>
> As I said in a previous post, that's true for most people - but not for
> some.
Well, it's kind of splitting hairs, but I think that, if
someone becomes addicted to nicotine, it's physical. But
not everyone that tries smoking becomes addicted. I recall
a co-worker who smoked precisely two cigarettes per day,
one after lunch and one driving home at the end of the day.
If he was addicted to anything, it was routine, not cigarettes.
John
On 9/24/2014 8:52 AM, jo4hn wrote:
>>
> My father never smoked, lived most of his life in clean air, drank
> little, in short he was a Midwestern businessman who died of lung cancer
> at age 83. Me? I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like
> a fish, and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera. What
> does this prove? It proves to be somewhat puzzling but nothing else.
> Whatever it is, I am grateful.
>
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
>
It proves there is always an exception. If you look at hundreds or
thousands of cases, the correlation is there.
May you outlive your father by a couple of decades.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:22:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
>>> bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
>>> easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
>>> difficult to get away from it.
>>
>> I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
>> really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
>> nurishment it provides - well... maybe...
>>
>> As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you (especially
>> younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.
>>
>> It's all about addictive properites.
>>
>
>What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
>clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
>you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.
There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.
>You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
>disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.
Mostly because professionals have their own cats to skin.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
>nearly the available evidence that there is today.
Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
years.
Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.
On 9/20/2014 7:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3 [email protected]:
>>
>>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>>
>>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>>
>>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>>
>> My condolences, Lew.
>>
>> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
>> unfiltered Lucky Strikes -- and continued until he was 46, when he
>> finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about three months before
>> his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held
>> on for about seven months before he passed.
>>
>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>> continuing to market this killer weed.
>
> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
> here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
> have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
> than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
> about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
> smoking.
>
True but smoking is something that actually does cause lung cancer and
can be avoided all together, except in the cases of second hand smoke.
Smoking also causes heart problems, eye sight problems, skin problems,
fires, makes you stink, and is a habit that costs you a fortune.
On 9/22/2014 12:08 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> The tobacco lobby spent a tidy sum suppressing it.
>
> Warning labels came later.
>
>
> Lew
>
>
A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs. sales
of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking, no one
else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling smokes
today. It was a great idea!
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:23:22 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>>>
>>>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>>>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>>>
>>>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>>>
>>> My condolences, Lew.
>>>
>>> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
>>> and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
>>> three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
>>> for about seven months before he passed.
>>>
>>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
>>> this killer weed.
>>
>> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
>> recent revelation that they cause cancer.
>
>Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
>teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
>warning labels.
Oh, good grief. Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" and "cancer
sticks" in the '40s and '50s, maybe earlier. The Surgeon General's
warnings on cigarette packs started in 1966. That's 48 years ago. I'm
62 and can't remember a time when it wasn't a topic that wasn't in the
forefront of the public conscience. Both grandfathers died from
smoking and none after smoked. No, smoking causing death is not a
recent revelation.
>In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
>on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.
And "Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health" was printed in
bold lettering on every pack. Life (and death) is about choice.
Hopefully it will stay that way.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:53:46 -0700, Gramps' shop wrote:
> You're absolutely right on about how tough it is to quit. I quit 8
> years ago when it was discovered I had a substantial blockage in my left
> carotid. Quitting a 40-year habit was a bitch.
The addictiveness apparently varies. I quit 17 years ago after a minor
heart attack and it wasn't very difficult. I did ask my cardiologist if
I could have one cigar a month and after muttering he allowed that
couldn't hurt me much :-). A friend of mine quit just because he got
irritated at the price and also did it easily. Both of us had smoked
since we were teens. I'm now 77 and he's 85.
But everyone else I know that quit had a heck of a time, just like you.
Doug Miller wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3 [email protected]:
>
>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>
>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>
>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>
> My condolences, Lew.
>
> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
> unfiltered Lucky Strikes -- and continued until he was 46, when he
> finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about three months before
> his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held
> on for about seven months before he passed.
>
>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>
> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
> continuing to market this killer weed.
I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
smoking.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>
> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
I'm very sorry to learn of your loss, Lew.
Bill
>
> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>
> Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
> was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
> 2-3 weeks ago.
>
> He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.
>
> Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.
>
> She died 2 weeks later.
>
> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>
> I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
> however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
> on the planet.
>
> I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.
>
> The most difficult thing I've ever done.
>
> If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
> about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
> is probably ahead for you.
>
> It may just help you quit.
>
> Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.
>
> Lew
>
>
"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
> > recent revelation that they cause cancer.
>
> Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
> teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
> warning labels.
Not the specific hazards, no but even in the 40s cigarettes were
frequently referred to as "coffin nails".
There is no doubt that they are not good for you but I'm firmly convinced
there is a genetic factor to illnesses derived from them. This has
nothing to do with tobacco but a good buddy died about 20 years ago of
stomach cancer. He was in his early 60s. His three brothers also died in
their early 60s of the same thing. Can't be coincidence, not in my mind.
> In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
> on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.
Still is, isn't it? On the web too :)
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Leon wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 7:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
>> anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
>> never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
>> cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
>> Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
>> monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
>>
>
> True but smoking is something that actually does cause lung cancer and
> can be avoided all together, except in the cases of second hand smoke.
> Smoking also causes heart problems, eye sight problems, skin problems,
> fires, makes you stink, and is a habit that costs you a fortune.
As I said - I agree. My comment stems from our involvement with Lungevity
(after my wife's sister died of lung cancer), and what we have come to learn
about lung cancer. Though cigrettes still are the biggest contributor, most
people do not realize that there are so many other causes - many not yet
well understood. This is a far more complex problem than just smoking.
While the largest percentage of cases would go away if there were no
cigarettes in the world, there would still be alarming numbers of people
succumbing to lung cancer.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
> bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
> easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
> difficult to get away from it.
I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
nurishment it provides - well... maybe...
As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you (especially
younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.
It's all about addictive properites.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
>>> bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
>>> easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
>>> difficult to get away from it.
>>
>> I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
>> really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
>> nurishment it provides - well... maybe...
>>
>> As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you
>> (especially
>> younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.
>>
>> It's all about addictive properites.
>>
>
> What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
> clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
> you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.
How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold because
caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the warning?
>
> You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
> disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
>> because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
>> warning?
> ----------------------------------------
> Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
> Coca Cola.
>
> Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a dispenser
> on test.
>
> If you wanted a Coke, it was there for the taking.
>
> Didn't take long to pick up 5 pounds I didn't need.
>
> Took longer to take it off after stopping drinking that free Coke.
>
> Today it's pretty easy to spot the Coke/Pepsi (sugar) sucking
> addicits.
>
> They are the ones with an extra 30-50 pounds hanging on their
> hips and a quart cup with a straw sticking out of it they are sucking
> on
> as they walk down the street.
But, were they given, or were they owed, a fair warning?
>
>
> Lew
>
>
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> > Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and
> > not
> > nearly the available evidence that there is today.
>
> Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
> with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
> thousands of years of smokers was there.
Good trick as tobacco was unknown except in the western hemisphere until
the Spanish took it back to Europe.
> Sixty years ago, or even six
> hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
> disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
> effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
> years.
Six hundred years ago they didn't have a clue as to what caused disease.
Leeuwenhoek didn't even discover microrganisms until the late 1600s.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
>>> bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we
>>> can easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
>>> difficult to get away from it.
>>
>> I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but
>> it is really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As
>> for the nurishment it provides - well... maybe...
>>
>> As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you
>> (especially younger people), it is very difficult to get away from
>> it. It's all about addictive properites.
>>
>
> What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
> clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
> you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.
>
> You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
> disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.
Good call - saying your statement was stupid was a poor choice of words.
I'll retract that statement if you'll allow.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Do you really believe nobody in various societies were aware of where
> of the what caused a number of illnesses?
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Leon wrote:
> On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
>>> nearly the available evidence that there is today.
>>
>> Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
>> with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
>> thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
>> hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
>> disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
>> effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
>> years.
>>
>> Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
>> still been very obvious.
>>
>
> Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
> pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol
> and smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was
> bad for you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you
> passed out, and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to
> make you go blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight
> than the next, again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings
> did not hold true sorta watered down the seriousness.
>
> Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
> not taken as seriously as they are today.
As the average life expectancy increases, effects and side effects of
smoking become more obvious too.
WW wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
>> continuing to market this killer weed.
>
> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
> anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
> never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
> cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
> Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
> monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
>
> -- SNIP
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
> I agree Mike. Lost two best friends. One to smoking lung cancer and
> one to radiation lung cancer. He worked at a company that used radium
> or plutonium. Not sure which one. WW
Thank you. There are so many other causes of lung cancer - and amidst our
age group - Agent Orange from the days of Viet Nam, which are far more
conclusive in their effects on people today. Then again, there are the less
obvous causes. Cigarette smoking falls somewhere in between. We don't even
really understand the non-cigarette contributors well enough now to make
grand stand proclamations.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs. sales
> of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking, no one
> else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling smokes
> today. It was a great idea!
Are you living in a world different than than the one I am in or is the
above just wishful thinking?
From what I have read, a bit over 40% of the US population smoked in 1965,
just under 20% now which is about what it was in the 20s. And it isn't
hard to find cigarette vendors.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
dadiOH wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs. sales
>> of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking, no one
>> else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling smokes
>> today. It was a great idea!
>
> Are you living in a world different than than the one I am in or is
> the above just wishful thinking?
I think he intended his remarks as *sarcasm*. :)
>
> From what I have read, a bit over 40% of the US population smoked in
> 1965, just under 20% now which is about what it was in the 20s. And
> it isn't hard to find cigarette vendors.
>
>
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> dadiOH wrote:
> > "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >
> > > A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs.
> > > sales of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking,
> > > no one else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling
> > > smokes today. It was a great idea!
> >
> > Are you living in a world different than than the one I am in or is
> > the above just wishful thinking?
>
> I think he intended his remarks as *sarcasm*. :)
Oh.
Never mind.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:52:35 +0000, John McCoy wrote:
> Well, it's kind of splitting hairs, but I think that, if someone becomes
> addicted to nicotine, it's physical. But not everyone that tries
> smoking becomes addicted. I recall a co-worker who smoked precisely two
> cigarettes per day,
> one after lunch and one driving home at the end of the day.
> If he was addicted to anything, it was routine, not cigarettes.
OK, I think you described it better than I did. For example, I quit
smoking a carton or more a week after I had a heart attack 17 years ago.
Only problem I recall was the habit of reaching for my shirt pocket every
time I picked up a cup of coffee :-). But one might consider a heart
attack more motivation than most people have.
After that I limited myself to one cigar a month for 10 years - had no
problem sticking to that although I did allow an extra on my birthday.
After that, when I reached 70, I decided I could allow one a week with no
major downside - still sticking to that but I may give up that pleasure
if the prices keep going up.
A little arithmetic shows that when I was smoking that carton plus, my
lungs were inhaling smoke 20%-25% of the time. In comparison, my weekly
cigar works out to 0.03% of the time. Not a major source of contaminants.
Believe me, I'm not touting smoking. If you don't, don't start. If you
do, quit. Most people *do* get addicted so don't try my process unless
you're sure you're not.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:52:52 -0700, jo4hn wrote:
> I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like a fish,
> and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera.
And if you grew up in the midwest,you probably had a coal furnace in a
neighborhood full of coal furnaces - I can still remember the fumes :-).
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:52:52 -0700, jo4hn wrote:
>
> > I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like a fish,
> > and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera.
>
> And if you grew up in the midwest,you probably had a coal furnace in a
> neighborhood full of coal furnaces - I can still remember the fumes :-).
Remember the black when you blew your nose? :(
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > "Mike Marlow" wrote:
> >
> > > I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
> > > > continuing to market this killer weed.
> > >
> > > I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but
> > > does anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who
> > > have never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years?
> > > Lung cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on
> > > the Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much
> > > bigger monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
> > ------------------------------------------------
>
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
> > Had forgotton about a friend who has a friend with stage 4 lung
> > cancer and has
> > never smoked a day in her life of 70+ years.
> >
> > As this is being typed, have been told hospice has arrived at her
> > door step.
> >
> > When your time comes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Her time came last night.
>
> As had been said before, "When it is your time".
>
>
> Lew
Sorry, Lew...
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
On 9/20/2014 4:21 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
> [email protected]:
>
>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>
>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>
>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>
> My condolences, Lew.
>
> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
> and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
> three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
> for about seven months before he passed.
>
>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>
> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
> this killer weed.
>
My father never smoked, lived most of his life in clean air, drank
little, in short he was a Midwestern businessman who died of lung cancer
at age 83. Me? I smoked cigarettes and pipes for 30 years, drank like
a fish, and at age 75, have clear lungs, liver, and other viscera. What
does this prove? It proves to be somewhat puzzling but nothing else.
Whatever it is, I am grateful.
mahalo,
jo4hn
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:56:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770
>$c3e8da3
>>>>>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to
>>>>>> market this killer weed.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"?
>
>Keith, you just reminded me all over again why I have you killfiled. Thanks, asshole, for your
>sensitivity and compassion.
You certainly haven't changed. A conversation with anyone you
disagree with is impossible. Please keep me killfiled. I wouldn't
want you to hurt yourself and you'll live longer.
>>>>> It's no recent revelation that they cause cancer.
>
>No, and none of the events I related are recent, either. He was born in October 1948, started
>smoking around 1964, maybe earlier, I don't remember, was diagnosed with cancer in June
>1996, and died in January 1997.
Cigarettes were *WELL KNOWN* to cause cancer at least as far back as
WWII.
>Of course you didn't know that, because I hadn't said so. But did you ask? Take the trouble
>to learn the facts next time before making more of ass of yourself than you already are.
You haven't stated any facts, only anecdotes.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:08:12 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>The first Surgeon General's report outlining the hazards of tobacco
>that I remember was 1963.
>The tobacco lobby spent a tidy sum suppressing it.
>Warning labels came later.
No argument there Lew. Public/Comerica admittance concerning the
dangers of tobacco are a more recent thing. That doesn't for one
second take away from the very obvious dangers attached to smoking for
decades and centuries before that.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:33:53 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/22/2014 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:14:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
>>>>> nearly the available evidence that there is today.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
>>>> with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
>>>> thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
>>>> hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
>>>> disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
>>>> effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
>>>> still been very obvious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
>>> pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
>>> smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
>>> you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
>>> and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
>>> blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
>>> again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
>>> true sorta watered down the seriousness.
>>
>> Teenagers not listening to their parents is nothing new.
>
>DOH!
>
>The fact is
>> that this information *was* in the general populations for at least
>> decades before the Surgeon General's report.
>
>BS
It's *not* BS. "Cancer sticks" and "coffin nails" were part of the
lexicon in the 40s and 50s, if not before. People *knew* cigarettes
caused death.
>Parents *were* warning
>> their children of the dangers and even forbidding smoking. I know.
>> Mine were (in the 50s and 60s) and theirs were three decades before
>> that.
>
>right~
Fact. Perhaps yours didn't. Sue them. ;-)
>>> Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
>>> not taken as seriously as they are today.
>
>Well no shit~! That is exactly what I have been saying all along.
>
>Teenagers ignoring the warnings whether the warnings were as serious
>then as they are today.
The warnings were just a serious though perhaps the government didn't
constantly nag us. The information (that tobacco caused illness and
death) has been generally known for at least a couple of centuries.
On 9/19/2014 7:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>
> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>
> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>
> Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
> was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
> 2-3 weeks ago.
>
> He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.
>
> Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.
>
> She died 2 weeks later.
>
> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>
> I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
> however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
> on the planet.
>
> I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.
>
> The most difficult thing I've ever done.
>
> If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
> about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
> is probably ahead for you.
>
> It may just help you quit.
>
> Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.
>
> Lew
>
>
My condolences, Lew.
I finally quit seven years ago.
It was a pure-D bitch to quit after 30 some-odd years.
I'm 65 now and have COPD problems, of course.
But my wife pushes me out the door to exercise.
Of all the foolishness in this brave new world, I had to get
PERMISSION from my doctor to join a gym!
Shakespeare had a good idea - "First we kill all the lawyers".
On 9/21/2014 11:07 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:23:22 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>>>>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>>>>
>>>>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> My condolences, Lew.
>>>>
>>>> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
>>>> and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
>>>> three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
>>>> for about seven months before he passed.
>>>>
>>>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
>>>> this killer weed.
>>>
>>> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
>>> recent revelation that they cause cancer.
>>
>> Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
>> teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
>> warning labels.
>
> Oh, good grief. Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" and "cancer
> sticks" in the '40s and '50s, maybe earlier. The Surgeon General's
> warnings on cigarette packs started in 1966. That's 48 years ago. I'm
> 62 and can't remember a time when it wasn't a topic that wasn't in the
> forefront of the public conscience. Both grandfathers died from
> smoking and none after smoked. No, smoking causing death is not a
> recent revelation.
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today. For that matter
coffee was considered and frowned upon for kids too. Similar hazards,
stunted growth, developmental hazards. Darn fewer young adults smoke
today than they did 45~50 years ago and the is mainly because of the
more publicized studies.
Do you eat fast food or drink alcohol? Shame on you?
>
>> In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
>> on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.
>
> And "Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health" was printed in
> bold lettering on every pack. Life (and death) is about choice.
> Hopefully it will stay that way.
Tell that to a thirteen year old in 1966.
It was eventually printed on every pack but not before the mid 60's. My
mother smoked and it was a topic that was talked about when the "May" be
hazardous to your health label was added. It was not totally unlike the
warning labels on gasoline pumps warning about leaded fuel being a
hazard to your health.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:45:38 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
>>>> bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
>>>> easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
>>>> difficult to get away from it.
>>>
>>> I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
>>> really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
>>> nurishment it provides - well... maybe...
>>>
>>> As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you
>>> (especially
>>> younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.
>>>
>>> It's all about addictive properites.
>>>
>>
>> What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
>> clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
>> you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.
>
>How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold because
>caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the warning?
Why don't you pick on coffee?
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
>[email protected]:
>
>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>
>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>
>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>
>My condolences, Lew.
>
>My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
>and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
>three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
>for about seven months before he passed.
>
>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>
>I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
>this killer weed.
How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:24:44 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:16:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
>>>Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
>>>round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.
>>
>> If that is the main criteria, then most every pleasurable activity is
>> addictive. Sex, roller coaster rides, playing with puppies,
To some degree, yes. To some degree everyone is different. Some have
very serious addiction to such things. Some will become addicted to
just about anything, as you allude. AIUI, the endorphin connection to
food is connected through insulin, also a very potent hormone.
>Two different kinds of addiction. Doctors categorize things
>as being physically addictive, meaning the body develops a
>dependency on them and there are withdrawal symptoms if it
>doesn't get them; and behavioral addiction, where a person is
>emotionally dependant on the reward of a particular activity.
No, not really. Endorphin addiction is as real, and very similar to
heroin addiction, for example.
>Tobacco (nicotine) addiction is physical. Junk food, etc,
>are behavioral.
There are many dietary professionals who will disagree with you.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/21/2014 11:07 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:23:22 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
>>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
>>>>>> heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> My condolences, Lew.
>>>>>
>>>>> My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
>>>>> and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
>>>>> three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
>>>>> for about seven months before he passed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> GOD DAMN TOBACCO.
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
>>>>> this killer weed.
>>>>
>>>> How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
>>>> recent revelation that they cause cancer.
>>>
>>> Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
>>> teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
>>> warning labels.
>>
>> Oh, good grief. Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" and "cancer
>> sticks" in the '40s and '50s, maybe earlier. The Surgeon General's
>> warnings on cigarette packs started in 1966. That's 48 years ago. I'm
>> 62 and can't remember a time when it wasn't a topic that wasn't in the
>> forefront of the public conscience. Both grandfathers died from
>> smoking and none after smoked. No, smoking causing death is not a
>> recent revelation.
>
>Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
>nearly the available evidence that there is today. For that matter
>coffee was considered and frowned upon for kids too. Similar hazards,
>stunted growth, developmental hazards. Darn fewer young adults smoke
>today than they did 45~50 years ago and the is mainly because of the
>more publicized studies.
Baloney. As I said, I just turned 62 and the warnings have been
around a lot longer than I have. My parents would have been 100
recently, and enough dangers of smoking were around when they were
kids to not go there. Their parents, perhaps not so much.
>Do you eat fast food or drink alcohol? Shame on you?
No, I don't much like fast food (I do enjoy full service restaurants,
though) and gave up all alcohol almost ten years ago. ...but that
doesn't mean I eat a perfect diet (not by a long shot).
>>> In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
>>> on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.
>>
>> And "Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health" was printed in
>> bold lettering on every pack. Life (and death) is about choice.
>> Hopefully it will stay that way.
>
>Tell that to a thirteen year old in 1966.
My parents did. I didn't smoke, nor did any of my siblings. It *is*
possible to fight marketing. Because someone didn't isn't the fault
of the marketers. The warnings *were* there.
>It was eventually printed on every pack but not before the mid 60's. My
>mother smoked and it was a topic that was talked about when the "May" be
>hazardous to your health label was added. It was not totally unlike the
>warning labels on gasoline pumps warning about leaded fuel being a
>hazard to your health.
As I said, 1966 but the issue was known at *least* decades before
that. It shouldn't have taken a warning from the government to
convince people it was dangerous. It didn't.
On 9/20/2014 11:06 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
>> anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
>> never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
>> cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
>> Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
>> monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
> ------------------------------------------------
> One thing is for certain, smoking is a self afflicted action that is
> known to bring on lung diseases.
>
> Man controls whether he starts to smoke or walks away.
>
> Lew
>
>
This is, of course, completely true.
But there can be more to it.
I started smoking in basic training - basically peer pressure
to "be a man". The first puff did me in.
And in the generation before me, EVERYbody smoked - at least the
men. Common cover for bad breath? But I've heard the cigarettes
themselves were quite different then.
But now? Anyone who smokes is a damned fool.
That's for sure and certain.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:14:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
>>> nearly the available evidence that there is today.
>>
>> Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
>> with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
>> thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
>> hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
>> disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
>> effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
>> years.
>>
>> Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
>> still been very obvious.
>>
>
>Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
>pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
>smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
>you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
>and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
>blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
>again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
>true sorta watered down the seriousness.
Teenagers not listening to their parents is nothing new. The fact is
that this information *was* in the general populations for at least
decades before the Surgeon General's report. Parents *were* warning
their children of the dangers and even forbidding smoking. I know.
Mine were (in the 50s and 60s) and theirs were three decades before
that.
>Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
>not taken as seriously as they are today.
That's a completely different issue. The fact is that it was known to
be a dangerous habit and people *chose* to do it anyway.
On 9/22/2014 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:14:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
>>>> nearly the available evidence that there is today.
>>>
>>> Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
>>> with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
>>> thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
>>> hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
>>> disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
>>> effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
>>> still been very obvious.
>>>
>>
>> Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
>> pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
>> smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
>> you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
>> and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
>> blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
>> again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
>> true sorta watered down the seriousness.
>
> Teenagers not listening to their parents is nothing new.
DOH!
The fact is
> that this information *was* in the general populations for at least
> decades before the Surgeon General's report.
BS
Parents *were* warning
> their children of the dangers and even forbidding smoking. I know.
> Mine were (in the 50s and 60s) and theirs were three decades before
> that.
right~
>
>> Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
>> not taken as seriously as they are today.
Well no shit~! That is exactly what I have been saying all along.
Teenagers ignoring the warnings whether the warnings were as serious
then as they are today.
>