backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by PitViper007.. on Jun 30 at 12:36 PM


A new study shows that smoking tobacco cigarettes, like consuming alcohol, can lead to severe brain damage, though the mechanism is different. The study also suggests that second hand smoke exposure can also lead to brain damage.  (Source: The New York Times)

Perhaps that Guiness World Book Record for most cigarettes smoked wasn't such a good idea, now that the brain damage smoking tobacco causes is known...  (Source: Guiness World Book of Records)
Move over alcohol, brain damage has a new buddy

New research is set to be published in the July issue of the Journal of Neurochemistry that looks to offer yet another damning medical argument against smoking and allowing second hand smoke in public locations.  The new report finds that Tobacco smoke contains a compound which can cause brain damage.

The new study examined NNK, a procarinogen.  NNK is a toxic derivative of nicotine produced when the chemical is cured in preparation for use in cigarettes.  NNK is not found in other smoked drugs, such as cannabis.

Before the study it was thought that the compound could be damaging to the body, but it was unclear how damaging it was.  In the study, performed by Debapriya Ghosh and Dr Anirban Basu from the Indian National Brain Research Center (NBRC), it was found that the compound caused white blood cells in the central nervous system to attack healthy cells causing severe neurological damage.

Unlike alcohol or other forms of drug abuse, the drug does not impact brain tissue directly via oxidation or receptor damage.  Rather, it triggers an inflammatory immunological response that is believed to lead to Multiple Sclerosis and other brain diseases.

Both with in vivo, in mice, and in vitro tests, the researchers discovered that the compound elevated proinflammatory signaling proteins, proinflammatory effector proteins and other stress related proteins, and increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines, which act as molecular messengers between cells.  These factors led to increased activity by microglia, the brain's white blood cells responsible for attacking intruders.

The microglia turned on healthy cells, due to the increased level of these compounds.  States Professor Ghosh, "Considering the extreme economical and disease burden of neuroinflammation related disorders, it is extremely important from a medical, social and economic point of view to discover if NNK in tobacco causes neuroinflammation.  Our findings prove that tobacco compound NNK can activate microglia significantly which subsequently harms the nerve cells.

While most studies have focused on health threats from smoked tobacco, NNK is also present in chewing tobacco, helping make a stronger case against its use.  NNK is present in 20-310 nanograms in cigarettes, but is also can be present in concentrations as high as 26 nanograms in smoke filmed rooms.  This report adds more evidence that second hand smoke may damage non-smokers' health.

Concludes Professor Ghosh, "This research sheds light on the processes that lead to nerve cell damage in those who smoke cigarettes or consume tobacco products on regular basis."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Record Picture
By MonkeyPaw on 6/25/2009 4:55:21 PM , Rating: 5
In defense of the cigarette smoke, one could argue that the man in that picture already had brain damage, even before puffing on that big mama-jama.




RE: Record Picture
By Regs on 6/25/2009 5:01:23 PM , Rating: 3
I use to smoke, so I can ...maybe relate. Your blood gets saturated with toxic gases like carbon monoxide and cuts off the oxygen to all your organs including your brain.

A week after I quit, I noticed my eye sight got better, my anxiety lowered, started sweating less, and I was able to think more clearly.

I don't think people need scientific evidence of how bad smoking is, except for maybe the youngsters thinking about taking up the habit out of peer pressure. People smoke because their life isn't what they think it should be and looking for an escape. You could paint the box black with a skull on it like a pirate flag, and they'd still smoke it if they thought their life is down in the tubes.


RE: Record Picture
By rdeegvainl on 6/25/2009 5:16:15 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do.

He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!"

You fucking dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarrets that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm"

Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, ok!? They're a drug, we're addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*


-Denis Leary.


RE: Record Picture
By Radnor on 6/26/2009 8:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
As a smoker, can you give this man a 6 ?


RE: Record Picture
By callmeroy on 6/26/2009 8:25:22 AM , Rating: 4
First, as one who has more stand up comedy and comedy songs on his Ipod than real music....that was a good bit -- I have that whole Denis Leary special on my Ipod....

Second, I understand the addictive nature of cigarettes once you start --- what I don't understand is *WHY* folks start in the first place. I mean it is just stupid silly to me....I mean what's attractive about smoking? It's not like it tastes good and if you think its cool to smell like smoke you are very strange.

I mean drinking -- while also extremely bad for you --- at least makes more sense to me why people start....because there are some tasty alcoholic drinks out there and well if you are thirsty it does help with that too.


RE: Record Picture
By Spookster on 6/26/2009 9:58:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
by callmeroy on June 26, 2009 at 8:25 AM First, as one who has more stand up comedy and comedy songs on his Ipod than real music....that was a good bit -- I have that whole Denis Leary special on my Ipod.... Second, I understand the addictive nature of cigarettes once you start --- what I don't understand is *WHY* folks start in the first place. I mean it is just stupid silly to me....I mean what's attractive about smoking? It's not like it tastes good and if you think its cool to smell like smoke you are very strange. I mean drinking -- while also extremely bad for you --- at least makes more sense to me why people start....because there are some tasty alcoholic drinks out there and well if you are thirsty it does help with that too.


Curiosity and peer pressure. Only problem is that it only takes a few cigs to get hooked. I started when I was probably 14 and smoked for 15 years before I was finally able to break free. It does change your brain chemistry and affects the way you think. Smoking that first few cigs is like joining a cult that brainwashes you. The cigarettes take over your life and you find yourself rearranging your daily schedule around when you can smoke a cigarette. As a kid I knew they were probably bad but as like me any warnings on the pack aren't going to stop most people. Education might help and more involvement from parents and schools reinforcing how bad it can be might help.


RE: Record Picture
By mindless1 on 6/26/2009 5:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your post reads a lot like you are making excuses for something you do. Putting alcohol in a drink does not make it more tasty than the same drink less dilluted, or dilluted with something else like water.

Drinking alcohol does not help when you are thirsty, only in the short term would it feign this effect and do a poor job of it compared to same drink without the alcohol, and if you let the alcohol get into the body in a thirsty, dehydrated state, then you get what man knows as a hangover later so it takes even longer to rehydrate and balance electrolyte levels again than just drinking the non-alcoholic beverage.

I'm not suggesting nobody should drink, as with many things it is a personal choice. Rather it is not a matter of enhanced taste and alcohol itself degrades the sense of taste temporarily, or at least the perception of it.


RE: Record Picture
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/26/2009 5:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
Drinking alcohol does not help when you are thirsty, only in the short term would it feign this effect and do a poor job of it compared to same drink without the alcohol...

That is very true, however it does help to have a drink with Alcohol when I thirst to get drunk.... ;P


RE: Record Picture
By Fritzr on 6/28/2009 6:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
Long day of hard labor? Grab a beer to quench your thirst...
Bad water? Watered wine, beer & ale are just thing!
Had a long hard day at the office? Pour a brandy or a good whiskey and relax.

Just some examples of real world reasons that people look to beer first as a beverage of choice. The first is cultural conditioning, the second is common sense...alchohol can disinfect the water.
The third is cultural conditioning again. When grownups want to relax they need a snifter of brandy, a good whiskey or maybe a glass of a decent wine to help them unwind.

#1 & #3 are not good reasons to drink, you can relax just as easily with tea, mate, coffee and other nonalcholic drinks, but that isn't part of the mainstream max profits culture. Premium coffees are encroaching, but until the book publishers, movies and TV start pushing them, nonalchohol options will remain a conscious choice.

Then add advertising intended to convince people that "drink" means alchohol. When people are conditioned to buy "hard" (contains alchohol) drinks because "soft" (no alchohol) drinks are only for kids, you are going to see a lot of people buying alchohol for a refresher simply out of habit. The kids of course now want the alchohol because that is a "grownup drink".

On top of that is the profit margin on alchohol sales. The people selling a selection will bias their offerings to push the alchohol since there is normally a much higher profit percentage on those items.


RE: Record Picture
By MrPoletski on 6/28/2009 8:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Putting alcohol in a drink does not make it more tasty than the same drink less dilluted, or dilluted with something else like water.


Ever tried alcohol free beer?

Seriously, it'll change your life, you'll be pouring alcohol in everything you drink for ever more just to get the taste out of your mouth.


RE: Record Picture
By Chocobollz on 6/26/2009 5:13:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I mean drinking -- while also extremely bad for you --- at least makes more sense to me why people start....because there are some tasty alcoholic drinks out there and well if you are thirsty it does help with that too.


Then you're different than me. I myself couldn't even smell the smell of alcohol. Don't know why but it makes me dizzy and having a bad headache so I've never get drunk in my entire life. I could only drink maybe a couple sips and after that I will feel very sick. And also, tobacco makes you feel sharper and awake while drinking makes you feel tired and uncomfortable, so I myself can't really understand why peoples likes to drink so much? Because drinking makes you lost your consciousness. I know it can help when you have problems (especially for alcoholics) but I would rather stay sharp and think about the problem, so I'm smoking.

quote:
I mean what's attractive about smoking?


I would asks the same question to you. What's attractive about drinking (and get drunk)? When you get drunk, you'll most of the time.. vomiting.... and embarassing yourself. I would say that's absolutely not an attractive things to see. And you'll get a little weird and makes some noise and even got a a fight on a bar because of it. Do you really consider those things as attractive??

I know both are bad for our health so we should avoid those. I myself are a smoker and already smoke for 8 years but of course I want to quit. Wish me luck ok? :-)


RE: Record Picture
By proneax on 6/27/2009 1:54:03 AM , Rating: 3
What is the appeal? Alcohol is a social lubricant, its cheap and temporary, easy to stop using, easy to use without endangering those around you.

The same is not true of cigarettes. They're expensive, both immediately and for long-term health. They're addictive and hard to quit, they're detrimental to the health of those near you, they're unattractive.


RE: Record Picture
By QueBert on 6/27/2009 3:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
they're unattractive to you. You still see models posing with cigarettes from time to time. And not too long ago (a few decades at most) you would see a lot of the Playboy playmates with them. There is definitely something sexy to many men about a female who smokes. If you don't believe me go on bing.com and look got smoking fetish videos, there are tens of thousands. It might be horrible for your health, but I an a lot of other men find females who puff to be totally hot.


RE: Record Picture
By PitViper007 on 6/30/2009 12:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
To each their own I guess. I can see a beautiful woman take a puff of a cigarette, and it just turns me right off. But like I said, to each their own.


RE: Record Picture
By tmouse on 6/29/2009 8:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
easy to stop using, easy to use without endangering those around you


In moderation absolutely should be added to this sentence. There are probably a lot more people who have been hurt or killed by people who do not know when to stop drinking than by second hand smoke. I am a cancer researcher and outside of some asthmatic reactions in young infants from families who are heavy smokers the second hand research is scientifically sketchy at best. I'm not defending smoking in any way but much of the 2nd hand data has been overblown by orders of magnitude, case in point this article, the research has no connection to second hand smoke, it is extremely unlikely the immunoeffects observed in the study could be observed in people exposed to second hand smoke.


RE: Record Picture
By tmouse on 6/29/2009 8:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
because there are some tasty alcoholic drinks out there and well if you are thirsty it does help with that too.


Actually it dehydrates you and is probably the worst thing to do if you are thirsty.


RE: Record Picture
By adiposity on 6/26/2009 12:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
From this I take: warnings are not going to discourage (many) smokers from smoking. Well, I think that's clearly true. But what about non-smokers? Most smokers starts out as a non-smokers.

-Dan


RE: Record Picture
By JakLee on 6/26/2009 2:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most smokers starts out as a non-smokers.

Most? I thought all. At least I have never met one that didn't start out as a non-smoker. I have seen people smoking IN hospitals (though not recently) but never actually light up for the babies or pass over a smoke to a newborn.


RE: Record Picture
By mindless1 on 6/26/2009 4:55:16 PM , Rating: 3
Many do start out as smokers, even if they don't physically have a cigarette stuffed in their mouth. From the moment of conception either the mother or father smokes enough that in today's well-sealed homes, the smoke is perpetually inhaled to the point where the chemicals are present even if not inhaled in a sudden high concentration enough to cause a nicotine rush.

The pregnant mother, then the child while growing up in that home, inhale far more passive smoke per day than someone getting it for an hour 2nd hand in a restaurant, even before restaurants had separate sections and air handling systems.

Ultimately the components of the smoke are in the unborn and born childrens' bloodstreams, and to some extent deposited in the lungs though fortunately with lower concentrations than a smoker has the lungs can clean themselves out a bit.


RE: Record Picture
By BadAcid on 6/25/2009 5:16:43 PM , Rating: 5
Going that far, I think it would come full circle to "advertising to children" with a Pirate - brand cigarette. Set sail for flavor! Now with less TARRRR


RE: Record Picture
By BladeVenom on 6/25/2009 7:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
They have Black Death cigarettes with a skull on the label. Is that close enough. :)


RE: Record Picture
By Samus on 6/25/2009 8:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
No Cure For Cancer was in my oppinion the greatest comedy skit ever. Nobody can top it, because its completely relevent even 20 years later.


RE: Record Picture
By initialised on 6/28/2009 4:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You could paint the box black with a skull on it like a pirate flag, and they'd still smoke it
They did that in the 90's, the brand was called death, they came in black or white packets, they were big with goths.


Hmm.
By NuclearDelta on 6/25/2009 5:24:40 PM , Rating: 4
Might as well try for my first -1 comment. Humm. Ah, this may work:

"I suppose this revelation explains why some smoker advocates think it's reasonable that they have the right to smoke anywhere and its others that must get out of their way."




RE: Hmm.
By xti on 6/25/2009 5:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
I miss having a marlboro with a beer here in Austin at a bar :(

but people can still spill their drinks on me.


RE: Hmm.
By Spoogie on 6/25/2009 7:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
Is this some kind of analogy? Proof of brain damage.

Smoke in the air gets into the lungs of those in close proximity, while alcohol someone else is drinking does not make its way into your stomach.


RE: Hmm.
By tjr508 on 6/25/2009 9:07:08 PM , Rating: 4
Alcohol is a thousand times worse for those around the consumer. Violence and accidents top the list.


RE: Hmm.
By Lord 666 on 6/25/2009 11:25:48 PM , Rating: 5
Along with ugly fat girlfriends and unwanted kids.


RE: Hmm.
By callmeroy on 6/26/2009 8:29:02 AM , Rating: 3
lol...you make me laff.....

funny how the right amount of alcohol can turn a "5" looker into a perfect "10"....lol....


RE: Hmm.
By proneax on 6/27/2009 1:56:15 AM , Rating: 3
yes because everyone who has a drink with dinner suddenly becomes violent and aggressive, causing physical harm to those around him/her.

Whereas, everyone who has a smoke with dinner does suddenly create 2nd hand smoke which is dangerous to thouse around him/her.


Don't give a damn!
By pequin06 on 6/25/2009 10:33:06 PM , Rating: 4
Just living will give a person brain damage.
There's something toxic in everyting. It's all about moderation.
Anti-smokers need to pull the stick out of their a$$.
If they want to dictate how people live their lives, go play a Sims game.




RE: Don't give a damn!
By Hakuryu on 6/26/2009 12:06:32 AM , Rating: 4
Really.

First an article was published that said coffee drinking was good for your prostrate, then another was published condemning coffee for its adverse health effects.

I smoke, and even before the big 'anti-smoker' movement I knew it was not good for me. My mother died of lung cancer from smoking (and my grandfather), and I just might be on the same track to oblivion. The problem is I like it. There is nothing better than a smoke with a coffee (so I'm probably double-damning myself).

The point is everything can kill you. Don't ever touch a cigarrette and the chemicals in your insulation may kill you. Don't ever smoke, live in a treehouse and eat organic food and a snake might kill you. Anything and everything is harmful once you make it out of the womb... live and be smart and don't tempt fate like me (dont smoke).


RE: Don't give a damn!
By HotFoot on 6/26/2009 12:59:17 PM , Rating: 3
My favourite is the stress from fear and worry over all these things is the most likely to kill you of all.


RE: Don't give a damn!
By pequin06 on 6/26/2009 3:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's enough to drive someone to smoke :P


RE: Don't give a damn!
By Starcub on 6/26/2009 4:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is everything can kill you.

Proof that smoking causes brain damage: thank you.


RE: Don't give a damn!
By proneax on 6/27/2009 2:07:07 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone cares if you smoke or intends to dictate how you 'live your life'.

However,
1.) We have the right to observe your stupidity by making fun of you.

2.) Never enroll in medicare or medicaid. If you choose to smoke, you should choose to pay for your related health expenses.

Other than that, feel free to light up like a chimney all you want, as long as you stay away from me an my tax dollars.


Economic costs
By Danger D on 6/25/2009 5:18:25 PM , Rating: 5
Some economists recently determined that if everyone stopped smoking, the economic impact of the thousands of unemployed researchers would cripple our economy.




RE: Economic costs
By just4U on 6/26/2009 7:55:36 AM , Rating: 3
Hell .. the revenue generated would put a serious dent in government taxes around the world if everyone just up and quit.

Still, I find this all so much fluff. I say that governments are NOT serious about people quiting until the ban the retail sale of cigarettes. Sure, it will tick alot of us (who smoke) off but 95% will not pick up the habit again. the other 5% well.. they'd grow their own.

Governments won't do that. Why? Because it's one of their cash cows and they are NOT SERIOUS about wanting people to quit.. They just want more money so they tax the hell out of it.


I'll make this short and sweet.
By Techno Pride on 6/26/2009 7:40:45 AM , Rating: 4
I read somewhere that if alcohol beverages are to be taken off the shelves, the police force's workload will be reduced by 20%.

Naturally, the people who give a long hate speech about smokers will never approve this. Why? Because they drink.




By jimbojimbo on 6/26/2009 11:02:12 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, it worked just like that during the prohibition era. Right.


WOW!!!!!
By dragonbif on 6/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: WOW!!!!!
By rdeegvainl on 6/25/2009 5:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
RTFA

quote:
Unlike alcohol or other forms of drug abuse, the drug does not impact brain tissue directly via oxidation or receptor damage. Rather, it triggers an inflammatory immunological response that is believed to lead to Multiple Sclerosis and other brain diseases.


RE: WOW!!!!!
By codeThug on 6/25/2009 5:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
so skin up a bifta and sava the flava

--- AliG


RE: WOW!!!!!
By PhoenixKnight on 6/26/2009 9:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the article before you commented, or just the title?


Smoking pilots
By bildan on 6/25/2009 6:06:14 PM , Rating: 1
The thing I can't understand is that while pilots have to endure periodic medical exams that, depending on the certificate they hold, covers a lot of arcane medical conditions some would consider minor, yet smoking isn't one of them. A smoker can walk out of a doctors office with a 1st class medical certificate, which lets him fly an airliner, with enough carbon monoxide in his blood to severely incapacitate him.

So, would you fly with a smoking pilot or seek the services on any professional who smoked? One way or another, don't smokers fail a basic intelligence test?




RE: Smoking pilots
By Jimbo on 6/25/2009 10:39:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A smoker can walk out of a doctors office with a 1st class medical certificate, which lets him fly an airliner, with enough carbon monoxide in his blood to severely incapacitate him.


If he were severely incapacitated I don't think any pilot would be walking out of a doctor's office.

Chuck Yeager used to smoke more than two packs a day, would you say he's unqualified to fly?


RE: Smoking pilots
By mindless1 on 6/26/2009 6:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
You can't understand it because you have "learned" false facts from unreliable sources and/or pulled it out of yer arse.

The most dangerous condition with pilots is being overworked, which with an adequate co-pilot is less danger than equipment failure.

Therefore even if your guess were true, the ground mechanics and maintenance managers plus policy makers are the largest risk.

You fail a basic intelligence test because you fail to grasp you have been serviced fine your entire lifetime by people who smoked, that you simply didn't realize smoked.

If on the other hand you were depending on a buddy in Vietnam to carry you across miles of jungle, you'd then be more concerned about the negative cardiovascular and breathing problems during intense activity.


Nicotine and Imagination
By Strandwolf on 6/25/2009 6:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
A number of writers smoke/d during composition. Faulkner, Hemingway.... Those that quit complained that words and fanciful notions useful in writing, esp. fiction, were harder to come by after stopping with the tobacco.




RE: Nicotine and Imagination
By TSS on 6/26/2009 7:00:33 AM , Rating: 1
i can shed some light on that. and the awnser is pretty simple.

i smoke cannabis on a regular basis, once every 4 hours, but i don't smoke tobacco in between. however, in periods where i was quitting/slowing down the habbit i have. my first use of tobacco without cannabis came half a year after i started using cannabis, and it revealed something astonishing to me which clarified immediately why people smoke, and smoke so much when they do.

after smoking weed, you get stoned for about 2-3 hours. after smoking Hashish, you get high for about 2-3 hours and when smoking just tobacco, you get more high then a good hashish joint, but for about 15 minutes at most.

and there you have it. i'm willing to bet that anybody smoking a cig is just as wasted as any cannabis user, but for a shorter time, which is why smokers have a tendancy to keep smoking more. the feeling is very much the same.

heh for me this study is one more reason to stick to grass ^^ same feeling as smokes, longer effect, with all the taxes just about cheaper, and now one more harmfull chemical compound it does not contain.


RE: Nicotine and Imagination
By myhipsi on 6/26/2009 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is so utterly false, it isn't funny.

Cannabis and nicotine are two completely different drugs with completely different pharmacologies. Nicotine is classed as a stimulant (like coffee, cocaine, amphetamine to name a few). Cannabis is in it's own class. The effects of the two are worlds apart.

Duration and onset has to do with how the liver processes the drugs and their individual half lives. Smokers tend to smoke more because the effect of nicotine wears off within about an hour of smoking, and there's physical withdrawal with nicotine which encourages repetition. Cannabis' effects on the other hand last for about 3 hours with no physical withdrawal, so there is not as much motivation for repetition.

Too compare these two drugs is to compare apples and oranges.


what a load of crap
By cgrecu77 on 6/26/2009 9:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
this so called research is.

40 years ago, the vast majority of americans were smokers. One would expect to see a much higher than usual percentage of brain damaged people in that demographic group, which doesn't exist.

Which is an obvious proof(or at least makes it extremely likely) that smoking DOESN'T trigger brain damage.

So this research is kind of similar to saying that "Getting out of your house could kill you due to falling bricks". Yes, it's possible and no, it almost never happens.

Why are we wasting research dollars on such meaningless topics is beyond me. We already know that smoking is very bad for your health. Find a cure for cancer instead, do something useful, don't waste your time and our money.




RE: what a load of crap
By technoburg on 6/27/2009 12:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
It is backed up by other research. You your self admit that it is dangerous to one's health. You want us to pay for a cure to something that could be prevented in the first place? How lame! Prevention is 99.9% of the cure. Don't do the behavior that leads to deleterious health and there will be no need to find cures for things like aids, lung cancer, liver cancer, mouth cancer, throat cancer, stomach cancer, etc. These are all lifestyle choice diseases that people chose to get as a consequence of their behavior and one of main reasons why health care costs are skyrocketing - up over 9% this year alone!


RE: what a load of crap
By robinthakur on 6/29/2009 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
You're an imbecile of the lowest order. When you say AIDS I assume you mean HIV, and in what possible way would people who caught HIV through no fault of their own make a lifestyle choice? Your homophobia and bigotry shine through your post, moron. Likewise there are people who get lung cancer who have never smoked in their lives and others who are pre-disposed to congenital cancer. As you would tritely say, you are LAME!


I don't give a rat crap if you smoke or not
By jimbojimbo on 6/26/2009 10:58:47 AM , Rating: 2
But the second I have to inhale the crap, it completely pissed me off. Smoking should be completely banned in all public areas, especially sidewalks. Either that or let me spray mace into a smoker's face as I have to walk or run by them.




By mindless1 on 6/26/2009 6:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
SIDEWALKS?

You are insane. Spray mace? Get checked for rabies.


Cigarettes and the FDA...
By concerned1 on 6/26/2009 3:38:46 AM , Rating: 1
Now that legislation which puts control of the tobacco industry squarely in the hands of the FDA has been put into effect, the FDA should now, upon receiving the list of ingredients in cigarettes (which up to now has been a very closely guarded secret), should BAN ALL substances from cigarettes that are addictive in nature (like nicotine), or any additive that in any way could cause harm to the user or those around him/her. Once the addictive substances are removed, people will gradually lose interest in tobacco products, and the scourge of tobacco will soon be behind us.




RE: Cigarettes and the FDA...
By technoburg on 6/27/2009 12:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Regulate it out of existance!


Concentration?
By omglol on 6/26/2009 8:54:07 AM , Rating: 3
Jason,
26ng is not a concentration, it is a mass. A concentration is an amount of something per an amount of something else. One could say the concentration of this compound is 26ng/m^3 or 26ng/kg of air in a smoke filled room. However, the concentration cannot simply be 26ng since a "room" is not a recognized standard measure of anything.
tldr: chemist wants to know 26ng per what?




By Starcub on 6/26/2009 4:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
I would have skipped over reading this article except I wanted to know if my tax dollars were used to conduct this study. Ya never know with the people that we have in office today.


How could they tell?
By Shadowself on 6/25/2009 6:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
I always believed that someone had to have brain damage to even start smoking! With the baseline of brain damage before starting how could they tell how much more brain damage smokers get?




Quality
By tjr508 on 6/25/2009 9:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but is also can be present in concentrations as high as 26 nanograms in smoke filmed rooms.


So we use nanograms as a unit for density now?
Is it nanograms per room? Per big room?

There's also that "is also can be."




Flawed Study
By Goty on 6/25/2009 11:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I hereby assert that this study is flawed in light of the fact that they didn't first consider the brain damage someone must already have suffered to put them in a state where they would WANT to take up such a disgusting habit.




Calling all cars!!
By RandallMoore on 6/26/2009 12:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
This just in: Water is wet. I repeat, Water is WET!




So what you are saying is...
By The Keith on 6/26/2009 4:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new study examined NNK, a procarinogen. NNK is a toxic derivative of nicotine produced when the chemical is cured in preparation for use in cigarettes. NNK is not found in other smoked drugs, such as cannabis.


..its safer to light up a joint?




Already present....
By Xponential on 6/26/2009 5:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the brain damage is already there before someone starts to smoke :)




"President Obama has Brain Damage"
By kfonda on 6/26/2009 6:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
"President Obama has Brain Damage"

Shouldn't that be the title of this article?

<just kidding> please don't report me to Janet Napolitano




By s d on 6/26/2009 8:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
cannibis ... who the hell cares about that!

why is it always when tobacco questions arrise the nuts come out of the closet endorsing hemp?

soot is soot!

the real issue for this article to address is tomatoes!

my understanding is that tomatoes ALSO contain nictotine; therefore, it is equally important that at what concentration does NNK occur in each unit of fruit.




Toast
By Aeonic on 6/26/2009 9:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
I stopped paying attention to these kind of studies the day they said toast causes cancer. Fine. I'm going to get cancer and die early. It should hopefully happen before the brain damage kicks in. And, now that I've accepted that, these studies have no effect on me, and I'm free to do as I choose. Who's laughing now, eh? *cough*

I actually don't smoke. And I know it's extremely bad for your health. Everyone does. However, we all die. Some who die young live a fuller life than some guy who lives in fear of doing anything unhealthy and lives to be 100. 100 years of grey plain oatmeal, routine, and bed by 8. Screw that. Quality over quantity.




By jimbojimbo on 6/26/2009 10:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
Brain damaged or stupid.

Never lend a smoker money. They'll just burn it away.




Probably BS
By elgoliath on 6/26/2009 3:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
I figure this will be along the same lines as second hand smoke- there is no evidence that second hand smoke leads to cancer.




Meh, doesn't matter anyway . . .
By blueboy09 on 6/26/2009 7:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
People who smoke will still keep on smoking as long as they have nicotine in it. It's what drives the tobacco industry, and will continue regardless of whether Obama restricts ingredients in cigarettes.




Tobacco and Politics
By technoburg on 6/27/2009 12:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
This article tells it like it is! It explains why smokers are inconsiderate and rude. Their brains have been damaged. I guess PBHO started to realize this when he signed the tobacco bill and appointed/anointed the smoke bloke to become the tobacco czar. He himself is an avid smoker and that may explain his mental state in which he does things or says things. Wonder if Joe Byden is a smoker or boozer too? Or Nancy Polosi, Slobbering Barny Frank or Chris Dodd or any of those other jokers and clowns that lead us into this financial debacle. We know Teddy Kennedy and George W. Bush were/are alcoholics. If I recollect from history President Ulysses S. Grant was one hell of a boozer too! Looks like substance abuse goes with the territory as far as politics goes. It certainly affects people's judgment as evidenced by history and current events.




By KaTaR on 6/25/2009 6:46:58 PM , Rating: 1
Cmon Michael,

You boys at the Hearland Institute need your help! Get on your computer and feed us some 'science' that says the opposite!




BS...BS....BS
By RoberTx on 6/25/2009 8:25:19 PM , Rating: 1
This article is BS and no I don't smoke.




This is true
By KeithP on 6/25/09, Rating: 0
Liberal Mental Defect
By mikefarinha on 6/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Liberal Mental Defect
By ClownPuncher on 6/25/2009 6:06:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I simply cannot afford people taking more of my money because they have they can't think straight and come up with all these goofy ideas.


Derp.


RE: Liberal Mental Defect
By Strandwolf on 6/25/2009 6:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like the massive subsidies doled out to tobacco farmers?


RE: Liberal Mental Defect
By OblivionMage on 6/25/2009 11:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because they have they can't think straight

clever troll is clever


No true need for a study.
By Woodsy on 6/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: No true need for a study.
By Jimbo on 6/25/2009 10:32:52 PM , Rating: 1
Woodsy, you sound like one of those PeTA / Vegan zealots that endlessly go on about the evils of meat eaters.

Some of the most ambitious, driven, and intelligent people I have met in the financial industry smoked like a furnace and showed none of the traits you claim.

To those that know better, it looks like you are just talking nonsense to justify your own weird beliefs.


RE: No true need for a study.
By Woodsy on 6/26/2009 1:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
I was stating an observation I have made. I am sure there are plenty of people who are able to live a normal life and be successful as a smoker and be an exception to the rule. Just like there are people that rise up from a catastrophe and come out smelling like a rose, there will always be exceptions of varying degrees when confronted with an issue. I know many smokers that have lived a full life and have done more than I could hope for with my life. What my observation was that it does in fact reduce the mental strengths of a person. I see this on a daily basis, having worked with many people who smoke, and the vast majority of my friends are smokers since they are in the music business or working in an office environment where there tends to be more smokers, and the music business has its drug culture. I also have many family members who smoke as well. After years of experience with people, I can definitely say that smoking does in fact hinder people mentally as well as physically. They tend to be stressed out more easily and lack patience, especially at times when they have a craving. This is common knowledge.
I see you want to label me with what group you think I belong to in order to paint me into groups that some of the posters may dislike, and therefore apply bias to me based on your label. Which you probably have succeeded at, instead of making your own observations like sentence two in your reply. You could be a politician for your ability to slander. Now I could paint you into certain groups based on your comments, but instead I will actually focus on the issue instead of target what group you may or may not belong to.
I highly doubt its a "weird belief" to understand that a smoker tends to be erratic when they have not had a butt in a long time, and therefore be unable to focus or cope with stress as easily as a non smoker. This is a well understood behavior with smokers. Now its been studied that there is in fact brain damage associated with smoking, I am sure its not a stretch to discern what kind of effects on behavior this potential brain damage could create. I would not be surprised if there is a study in later years that can identify what behavioral aspects occur in smokers. I am sure this kind of follow up study could occur once its common knowledge that the brain is in fact damaged by smoking. However this leads me to my title that really a study should not be needed, drugs cause people mental harm and this I am 100% sure of.


RE: No true need for a study.
By myhipsi on 6/26/2009 11:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
Your sweeping generalizations sound like they're coming from some "Just say No" government run anti-smoking campaign.

You really want to know why people smoke and do drugs despite the health risks? So they can deal with self rightous, presumptuous, know-it-alls like you, who judge a whole subsection of society based on your narrow view of the world.

Grow up and realize that people just want to be happy. If that means having a smoke or drink to break up the monotony, then so be it. Brain damage be damned.

quote:
drugs cause people mental harm and this I am 100% sure of.


I'll reiterate with a twist. People like you cause mental harm, and this I am 100% sure off.

PS. I smoke cigarettes and cannabis, and I drink on occasion. I also have a cheeseburger from time to time. According to you, I suppose I should be drooling all over the keyboard by now.


RE: No true need for a study.
By robinthakur on 6/29/2009 11:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
Whilst I was going to rate you down as you have a bit of a stuck up air about you, I concede some of your points are true. Since I quit smoking, my mind feels sharp again and I can apply myself to things now which I would have gotten distracted from before by wanting to smoke a cigarette. That and breathe properly. When I used to take a deep breath, I felt like the oxygen wasn't being absorbed instantly, which was probably true. Now there's a nearly no delay between breathing in and the Oxygen being absorbed, which is great and lets me swim for miles longer than I used to!

To be honest, if you consider all the drugs that are contained in cigarettes, the fact that any of them cause brain damage is hardly surprising. The fact that this is not widely reported is more surprising and it speaks volumes about how the billions of pounds of revenue the government gets from Tobacco products is causing them to drag their heals on legislation. I think the big drive for nicotine replacement products are a completely stupid idea also. Its not stopping the addiction, and nicotine is extremely poisonous! Anyone who's smoked while wearing a nicotine patch can attest to how sick too much nicotine makes you feel...


RE: No true need for a study.
By choadenstein on 6/26/2009 9:52:45 AM , Rating: 5
List of Notable Smokers:

Barack Obama
Albert Einstein
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Robert Oppenheimer
Edwin Hubble
Winston Churchill
Franklin D Roosevelt
Bill Clinton
King Hussein of Jordan
John F Kennedy
Gerald Ford
George Orwell
Oscar Wilde
Jean-Paul Sartre
JR Tolkien
J.K. Rowling
CS Lewis
James Dean
Demi Moore
Keith Richards
Elizabeth Taylor
Sophia Loren
Kate Winslet
Luciano Pavarotti
John Wayne
Mel Gibson
Russell Crowe
Frank Sinatra
Robbie Williams
Marilyn Monroe
John Lennon
Al Pacino
Robert De Niro
Eddie Van Halen
Vincent Van Gogh
Jeanne Calment, the world’s oldest ever person who died aged 122, only quit smoking aged 117
Alfred Hitchcock
Pablo Picasso
Che Guevara
Aaron Spelling
David Bowie
Johnny Depp
Joaquin Phoenix
Joseph Stalin
Jennifer Aniston
Brad Pitt
Angelina Jolie
Ben Affleck
Kate Hudson
Goldie Hawn
Colin Farrell
Sammy Davis Jr
George Harrison
Audrey Hepburn
Lyndon B. Johnson
Leonard Nimoy
Jimmy Page
Sean Penn
Richard Pryor
Frank Zappa
Fidel Castro
Joan Collins
Bill Cosby
Danny De Vito
Sigmund Freud
George Gershwin
Ulysses S. Grant
Saddam Hussein
Samuel L Jackson
David Letterman
Pope St. Pius X
Pope John XXIII

list\

Lack of ambition, willpower? narrow-minded, lack drive?

You're an idiot.


RE: No true need for a study.
By jimbojimbo on 6/26/2009 10:56:10 AM , Rating: 1
That list makes no sense. First off your first name makes it sound like it's a list of reasons never to smoke! Then most of the rest are actors. So what makes an actor so great that they're a great influence because they smoke?


RE: No true need for a study.
By choadenstein on 6/26/2009 11:28:58 AM , Rating: 4
Barack Obama, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Robert Oppenheimer, Edwin Hubble, Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, King Hussein of Jordan, John F Kennedy, Gerald Ford, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, Jean-Paul Sartre, JR Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, CS Lewis, Keith Richards, Luciano Pavarotti, Frank Sinatra , Robbie Williams, John Lennon, Eddie Van Halen, Vincent Van Gogh, Jeanne Calment, Alfred Hitchcock, Pablo Picasso, Che Guevara, Aaron Spelling, David Bowie , Joseph Stalin, Sammy Davis Jr , George Harrison, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Page, Richard Pryor , Frank Zappa, Fidel Castro, Sigmund Freud, George Gershwin, Ulysses S. Grant, Saddam Hussein, Pope St. Pius X, Pope John XXIII

Non-Actors: ~43 (39*)
(*the 4 underlined people are not actors, but have been in a significant amount of movies and might be considered actors)

Bill Cosby, Danny De Vito, Audrey Hepburn, Samuel L Jackson, David Letterman, Leonard Nimoy, Jennifer Aniston, John Wayne, Joan Collins, James Dean, Demi Moore, Elizabeth Taylor, Sophia Loren, Kate Winslet, Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Marilyn Monroe, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Johnny Depp, Joaquin Phoenix, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Ben Affleck, Kate Hudson, Goldie Hawn, Colin Farrell, Sean Penn

Actors: ~29 (* 33 - see above)

43 v. 29 = Most of the rest are NOT actors.
(* or 39 v. 33).


RE: No true need for a study.
By technoburg on 6/27/2009 12:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ronald Regan was left off this list on purpose or by accident? He was an actor and appeared in cigarette commercials too advocating the use of cigarettes!
However this was before he joined the Repugnican Party and started getting into politics.


RE: No true need for a study.
By mindless1 on 6/26/2009 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously the list includes actors because they are the most popular due to Americans spending so much time watching TV in the pre-popularized web era.

If the list were instead the top 100 scientists of the last century would as many people recognize the names beyond the first 10 or so? What if the list were the top 100 worldwide leaders?

Nobody is saying they're a great influence BECAUSE they smoke, rather it is evidence against the commmon misconceptions that people use to randomly judge each other instead of focusing on their own mistakes however simple they might be (like yours that this list somehow supposed that makes them a great influence or a need to divert the topic on this inappropriate tangent).


RE: No true need for a study.
By Chaser on 6/26/2009 11:05:29 AM , Rating: 1
Funny how most the people on your list were around when tobacco advertising was like this (from a KOOL ad in the 60's):

"Does winter make your head feel stuffy? Steam-heated rooms parch your throat? Heavy smoking 'brown' your taste? Then you've three extra reasons for changing to KOOLS.
They're mildly mentholated. Light up and feel that instant refreshment. Smoke deep; the choice Turkish-Domestic tobacco flavor is all there. Smoke long; your throat and tongue stay cool and smooth, your mouth clean and fresh.
Change to KOOLS. It's a change for the better."

You don't have Yul Brynner on your who made this commercial from his death bed pleading for people not to smoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNjunlWUJJI

Yeah. Anyone that surrenders control of their body and sells their health off towards non smoking tobacco exec profits is acting like a complete idiot.


RE: No true need for a study.
By choadenstein on 6/26/2009 11:15:36 AM , Rating: 4
You and the poster above you clearly missed the point of the rebuttal.

OP Said:
quote:
You can clearly see in a smoker the lack of ambition, the lack of willpower, and stubbornness, this just finally proves my idea that smokers brains are deeply effected by the chemical toxins involved. Clearly smokers are some of the most stubborn, narrow minded people, with a lack of drive, its almost like the toxins over the years cause them to be less of what they could really be, achieve less than they were once capable of. It makes them stubborn in daily activities, I work in an office and notice that they are usually slower to adapt, and are slower to learn.


The OP was saying that smokers lack drive, ambition, willpower, etc... My response had nothing to do lung cancer or other health concerns. The list was meant to represent the fact that smokers do not inherently lack or lose the certain positive personality traits due to smoking.

Also, the list is far from all actors. There are half-a-dozen US presidents, over a dozen heads of state, inventors, scientist, authors and even a pope or two.

Reading - it's fundamental.


RE: No true need for a study.
By Starcub on 6/26/2009 4:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
As someone who spent a few years waiting tables at various restuarants, I can vouch for the stubborness trait in smokers. In addition, there are skin complexion and vocal quality differences. Everyone knows that smoking causes all kinds of bad things.

Really, your list is rediculous. Someone could just as easily put together another list of people who don't smoke. And before about 50 years ago, it was the norm for people to smoke 'cause they didn't know what they do now.

Honestly, do you people get paid for making up stupid arguements to sell rediculous ideas? Are you folks trying to start a hit count race with this site?

My dad let me take a puff on his cigarette when I was about 6 and I gagged. Never smoked at all until I went to college, and even then only a few times to try a cigar and a joint. I would have liked to smoke more joints, but I had no trouble quiting after about two -- same with gambling.Quite frankly, I don't see what's so complelling about cigarettes, or why people claim it's hard to quit. I think there is a serious lack of self control in such people.


RE: No true need for a study.
By proneax on 6/27/2009 2:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
agreed. In my experience, those that start smoking have a lack of self-esteem, are depressed, are uneducated or lack self-control.

No-one in his/her right mind chooses to become addicted to cigarettes. If you believe you have made this conscious choise, you are delusional due to your addiction or have some other serious issues.

Want to feel a high? Go run 2 miles, go to the gym. It feels great and improves your health instead of destroying it.



RE: No true need for a study.
By technoburg on 6/27/2009 12:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
You left out one: Ronald Regan


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki