Talk:Tobacco smoking/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Withdrawal and reenforcing addiction

I tried to put the following into the nicotine patch article, but it was removed within minutes:

Nicotine is a relatively easy drug to quit. As far as I know, not one person has ever died from nicotine withdrawal. Moreover, nicotine dependency is short-lived. Nicotine is completely out of the body in 48 hours. At that point, physical cravings cease. Anyone who can go 48 hours without a cigarette stands a really good chance of quitting. Nicotine is highly addictive, however. Any small amount, even from second-hand smoke, will immediately reenforce nicotine addiction - resetting the clock back to 48 hours. The nicotine patch will guarantee that the addiction clock is reset back to 48 hours every time it is used. Logic might suggest that one cannot end nicotine addiction by taking nicotine. Unlike heroine or alcohol withdrawal, you cannot die from smoking cessation. Therefore, a step-down program would appear to be unnecessary, and fails as a quitting aid in a great many cases.

Perhaps the best method to fight cravings is exercise which causes the body to produce its own endorphins. These endorphins in turn negate many of the effects of withdrawal.

It seems likely that the cigarette industry would love to convince everyone that it is impossible to quit smoking. That way, people would not ever try to quit. Short of this, the next best thing would be to convince everyone that it is very difficult to quit smoking. Then people will give-up trying more easily.

How can this information be included in the article? Or is this article monitored by the advertising agencies and public relations firms for the patch sellers and the cigarette companies?

Nicotine Endorphin Link

Nicotine artificially stimulates endorphin production in the body. What smokers crave are the additional endorphins. Quitting smoking removes the artificial endorphin stimulant. After years of having this stimulant, upon quitting smoking, and only for a short time, the body will actually produce fewer endorphins without the stimulant than in a non-smoker. That's why it feels so terrible to quit. For a few days, the body will have much less endorphin production than is normal in a non-smoker. In other words, it is not that the body has fewer endorphins than is usual for a smoker, the body has fewer endorphins than for a non-smoker. In any case, if the goal is to increase the amount of endorphins to a normal long-term non-smoker's level, why have nicotine replacement therapies at all? Have endorphin replacement therapies. The easiest way to stimulate endorphin production is with exercise. Taking a long, fast walk or jog when withdrawal symptoms get bad. This will significantly increase endorphin production and lesson those withdrawal symptoms. This therapy is easy and absolutely free. Years ago I knew of a doctor who gave endorphin injections to help smokers quit. Either way, both of these endorphin based therapies do not entail using an addictive substance. My personal preference is for moderate exercise, as it has only beneficial effects.

A true Scientific study of effects of smoking is impossible.

What most people fail to realize is that a truly Scientific study of the effects of smoking is impossible due to many other mitigating factors, namely diesel particulate matter and other highly toxic pollutants that every test subject is breathing in. (The majority of the Studies are conducted in big Cities, not in small towns where pollutants are less occuring.) Any test subject is, on a daily basis, bombarded by these dangerous and unhealthy particulates and pollutants. For it to truly be objective scientic analysis, the test subjects would have to be isolated for the appropriate time, so as the other contaminants not factoring in.

Also of major note is, it is a fact that the rise in cancers, skyrocketed after the industrial pollution. If one were truly neutral on this subject, (which is what Wikipedia is all about) they would have to agree. Should there be a section in this ariticle about the above, is the difficult question. Please note, before I get attacked as "big tobacco", I am only interested in clearly seeing an issue at hand.70.137.145.125 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)MMH.

And of course, the pollution of the big cities affects only smokers. Let me remind you that 80% of the lung cancer patients are smokers and that "cigarette smokers have a lifetime increased risk for head and neck cancers that is 5- to 25-fold increased over the general population." (from Head and neck cancer)

About pollution and cancer: pollution sure is responsible for many cases of cancer, but before the industrialization, cancer was common as well, it's just that medicine was not advanced enough to know what disease they have.

Also, most of the cancers happen in older people and the increasing rate of cancer is also an effect of the increasing life expectancy. In the middle ages, life expectancy was something like 40 and even now, it's rather unlikely you'd develop cancer before 40. bogdan (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to attack you as 'big tobacco', but your post casts doubt both on whether you've read the studies cited in the article and on whether you understand the nature of scientific research.

The diesel particulate matter article you mention cites four studies, two from a public health journal and one from an industrial medicine journal. One study looks at the effects of diesel particulate matter on "underground miners", two on truck drivers, and one on workers in what sounds like a diesel factory. To suggest this specific, inconclusive, small-scale research looking at putative effects on those exposed to massive doses of dpm has any bearing whatsoever on the vast body of cited evidence connecting smoking in the general population - who have trivial exposure to dpm - with a host of illnesses is absurd.

You also claim that most studies are conducted in cities, not small towns, while failing to name a single study which sourced its participants from urban settings. The British Doctors Study is a fine example of a massive, longitudinal study which sourced its participants from every corner of the British Isles - and confirmed the same links in all of them regardless of location. You're wrong to claim most studies involve urban participants and wrong again to suggest that's important.

The reason for this is the fundamental problem with your post. You claim that the 'bombardment' of "test subjects" with dangerous pollutants invalidates research (this is a classic appeal to unspecified confounding variables, incidentally, and the worst sort of cry-wolf pseudoscience). The trouble with this claim is of course that cohort studies have compared smokers to non-smokers and established differences in disease patterns; both groups have equal exposure to any unspecified pollutants you care to mention.

Finally, you claim that cancer was common prior to industrialization - the lung cancer article outlines just how rare the disease was prior to the advent of widespread smoking. The reference is Witschi, PMID 11606795. Nmg20 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Health Benefits??

Well for starters there are no health benefits in smoking. Loss of weight is a side effect of smoking but some people think that losing weight is the main reason for smoking. I would like to suggest to change the health benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.89.241 (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are health benefits and they have been correctly labeled in the article, with the corresponding scientific references. So I am not understanding why you started this thread ?70.137.145.125 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)MMH.

Archive talk

IS someone available to archive this talk page? The previous archive has 16 sections this has well over 20. I think a number of editors have pointed out that the article is mostly info on Health effects and Ad/Ban info. As these subjects already have main pages, the bulk of this info should go there. I'd like to archive the talk page (but on top of not having ever done it before, it needs concensus) in order to start summarizing info in these sections and c&ping the info here so that we might collectively start working this info into the other two main articles. Any ideas? Phyesalis (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the risk! I think now's a good time, as there are no really hot discussions. Nmg20 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nmg20, you have my enduring gratitude. Sweet. I saw this just a bit too late to get started tonight, but I'll start tomorrow. Thank you! Phyesalis (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Paring down

The sections "Health effects" and "Effects of the habit on and industry on society" need to be pared down and summarized as this is effectively the parent page for tobacco smoking. They both have great info which could be used on the correlating daughter page. I'm going to start pulling a lot the text; I'll c&p it here.

Health effects

I've started with this section. If we pull and paste it here, we can start to add it to the other articles. Here we go:

Health risks:

• A 50 year study of over thirty-thousand British physicians showed that nonsmokers lived about 10 years longer than smokers. For those born between 1920 and 1929 the standardized mortality rate between the ages of 35 and 69 for nonsmokers was 15% and for smokers was 45%, three times as great. Claims that personalities of smokers account for these differences are not convincing in light of the fact that the heavy smokers were about 25 times more likely to die of lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the nonsmokers. Another source claims smoking is responsible for 87% of lung cancer deaths.

Carcinogenity

• The primary carcinogens are the pyrolysis products of tobacco leaves. Any partially burnt material, tobacco or not, contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, particularly benzopyrene. The mechanism of their carcinogenity is well-known: oxidation produces an epoxide, which binds to DNA covalently and distorts it. Tobacco smoke also contains various carcinogens other than polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, such as traces of radioactive elements. Smoking is therefore an significant source of ionizing radiation.

This cannot simply be deleted. Mentioning the carcinogens itself is essential to show that carcinogenity is not merely anti-smoking propaganda or "telling you not to smoke", but there is real conclusive evidence for a mechanism of how tobacco causes cancer. --Vuo (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco disease

• Smoke from tobacco grown with phosphate fertilizers contains polonium 210. Polonium 210 is an emitter of alpha particles, which cannot penetrate skin and are harmless outside the body, but destructive when present in the lungs. Some researchers have estimated that polonium 210 carries a cancer risk of 4 per 10000 smokers, while others have estimated the mortality rate to be 18 per million.

• Smokers have a 26% risk of developing COPD.>

The chronic cough associated with smoking is largely due to paralysis of the small hairs which sweep mucus and debris out of the lungs (the mucociliary escalator) and up the windpipe to the back of the mouth, from where they are swallowed. Impairment of this system means that mucus collects in the lung bases, and the "smoker's cough" is an attempt to clear this. It cannot be treated, but tends to resolve if the smoker can quit.

Passive smoking

• Passive smoking has long been known as a risk to the health of people with conditions such as asthma, but as recently as the early 1990s few people believed that it was a killer which had the same effect on non-smokers as it did on smokers. British entertainer Roy Castle, who died of cancer in 1994, blamed his illness on spending years playing the trumpet in smoky jazz clubs.

• In June 2006, U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona called the evidence of the effects of passive smoke "indisputable" and said "The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a health hazard that can cause premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults.". Passive smoking is one of the key issues that have led to introduction of smoking bans, particularly in workplaces.

• The composition of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is similar to fossil fuel combustion products that contribute to air pollution, and has been shown to be responsible for indoor particulate matter (PM) levels far exceeding official outdoor limits.

• A presentation at the American Thoracic Society's 2007 conference suggested that children of smokers who show no signs of respiratory problems may still be experiencing damaging changes in their airways.

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS

(merged with second hand smoke - didn't really need its own section in the parent article)

• Tobacco smoke reduces the delivery of oxygen to the fetus through the presence of carbon monoxide, cyanide, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Nicotine and other substances in tobacco smoke cause reduction in placental blood flow, creating further reductions in oxygen delivery as well as reductions in nutrients to the unborn baby. Secondhand smoke exposure during pregnancy produces twice the risk of low birth weight babies. Smoking is the single largest modifiable risk factor in intrauterine growth retardation.

Somatic effects

• Nicotine acts as an agonist that binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor sites in the brain and body. Some of these neurons influence respiration, heart rate, memory, alertness, and muscle movement.

• Nicotine's effect in the body results in desensitization of acetylcholine receptors in the brain and body— a physiological response to excess stimulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. This desensitization can become problematic when a smoker stops smoking, as lower levels of acetylcholine receptor stimulation can affect respiration, heart rate, memory, alertness, and muscle movement until the receptors are resensitized or restimulated.

• It can be difficult to quit smoking due to the withdrawal symptoms which include insomnia, irritability, anxiety, decreased heart rate, weight gain, and nicotine cravings. The relapse rate for quitters is high: about 60% relapse within three months. In addition, nicotine users typically do not associate the aversive properties to nicotine as these develop long after the positive associations have been made.

• A component of both somatic and psychological addiction is the lowering of reward thresholds associated with nicotine use. Studies from The Scripps Research Institute have shown that acute and chronic nicotine use lowers reward thresholds, sensitizing this neurocircuit. Though nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are being desensitized, the body compensates for the compensatory mechanism by up-regulating the number these receptors. The reason for this is not known, though research has suggested that the functionality of NACh receptors is so essential to the body and brain, that it is preferable to have excess stimulation than insufficient activation. As a result, relapse after abstinence can cause an immediate spiral to a physical and psychological state prior to abstinence, even after months of being clean. This would be as if the abstinence never occurred, and might help to explain the high incidence of relapse.

Health benefits

• Other Alzheimer's studies, however, challenge these epidemiological studies on methodological grounds. A prospective Rotterdam Study found that the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is more than double for smokers as compared to non-smokers and the Honolulu Heart Program (a longitudinal cohort study) also found more than twice the risk for Alzheimer's disease among medium and heavy smokers as compared to non-smokers.

• Though the negative correlation between smoking and Parkinson's disease is recognized, the causality has not been established. The relationship may be artifact (observational) based on clusters of behavioral and personality differences in the pre-Parkinsonian population versus the smoking population.

All material removed was either overly specific or unreferenced. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's also lose:

"For instance, recent studies suggest that smokers require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)." - it's really small-print and quite technical.

?"Smoking appears to interfere with development of Kaposi's sarcoma," - is "data-yard.net" a reliable source on this?

"breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene," - forces is not a reliable source. Can we find another source here?

"In mice, studies have shown nicotine can reduce the amount of DOI-induced head twitches (meant to model tics) related to Tourette's Syndrome." Who cares about mice?

Thoughts? Nmg20 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I didn't take anything from health benefits because in light of the sheer volume of health risks, it seemed a small amount of info. But this is not to say that I think it all should stay. I agree - mouse data has no place in a general article on smoking (same for other overly technical discussions/debates). As far as sources, in an article like this, I think sticking to quality sources for scientific info is a must. Perhaps we can find better sources for the breast cancer and Kaposi's, but I have no problem with removing the info until that time. Phyesalis (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a note about the decrease in appetite. I think this one was really overdue. Shark Abuser (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The decrease in appetite is not necessarily beneficial (it is so only for some of the overweighted people), and should not be listed as "beneficial".

The other beneficial effects are probably artifacts: as smokers die on average ten years before non-smokers, only the more sane and robust smokers are observed (because being still alive), and are compared also with the not so sane and robust non-smokers, giving the illusion that smoke has some beneficial effects. Hence for a claim of a beneficial effect, a scientific and very reliable evidence is required, and most of the stuff cited here is not.

Laurusnobilis (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Effects of the Habit

Anyone want to have a go for it? Phyesalis (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I summarized the "gateway theory" and moved the info to a new stub, Tobacco and other drugs, and yes, I know it's a terrible name. Also took out genetic info and moved it there too, since it also applies to the opposing model of correlation (too tiny for its own section in an article of this length). Phyesalis (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nooooo! I'd delete the stub if you feel the relevant info would fit in Gateway drug theory? Nmg20 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I don't have a problem with that, I just didn't want to go barging around. And the gateway page needs a lot of work. It has little of the opposing model's info - wasn't sure if it was a good idea to start changing the scope - seemed like maybe there should be a parent for "Gateway" and the correlative model that split off into daughters of each. Is this a bad idea? Phyesalis (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Effects on the heart

For reference, the section is:

Smoking contributes to the risk of developing heart disease. All smoke contains very fine particulates that are able to penetrate the alveolar wall into the blood and exert their effects on the heart in a short time.

Inhalation of tobacco smoke causes several immediate responses within the heart and blood vessels. Within one minute the heart rate begins to rise, increasing by as much as 30 percent during the first 10 minutes of smoking. Carbon monoxide in tobacco smoke exerts its negative effects by reducing the blood’s ability to carry oxygen.

Smoking tends to increase blood cholesterol levels. Furthermore, the ratio of high-density lipoprotein (the “good” cholesterol) to low-density lipoprotein (the “bad” cholesterol) tends to be lower in smokers compared to non-smokers. Smoking also raises the levels of fibrinogen and increases platelet production (both involved in blood clotting) which makes the blood viscous. Carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin (the oxygen-carrying component in red blood cells), resulting in a much stabler complex than haemoglobin bound with oxygen or carbon dioxide -- the result is permanent loss of blood cell functionality. Blood cells are naturally recycled after a certain period of time, allowing for the creation of new, functional erythrocytes. However, if carbon monoxide exposure reaches a certain point before they can be recycled, hypoxia (and later death) occurs. All these factors make smokers more at risk of developing various forms of arteriosclerosis. As the arteriosclerosis progresses, blood flows less easily through rigid and narrowed blood vessels, making the blood more likely to form a thrombosis (clot). Sudden blockage of a blood vessel may lead to an infarction (e.g. stroke). However, it is also worth noting that the effects of smoking on the heart may be more subtle. These conditions may develop gradually given the smoking-healing cycle (the human body heals itself between periods of smoking), and therefore a smoker may develop less significant disorders such as worsening or maintenance of unpleasant dermatological conditions, e.g. eczema, due to reduced blood supply. Smoking also increases blood pressure and weakens blood vessels.

Much of this should be moved into the specific article (Tobacco and health), while leaving a few essential summarizing sentences in place. The fine particulate effects should be cited (I don't doubt that it's true). Any cardiovascular disease experts? --Vuo (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in citing how early the link between tobacco use and heart disease was postulated? I'm reading an issue of "The Corvallis Gazette" from 1866 for a paper, and it contains an article describing a doctor's new theory of a link between the two. I don't know, of course, if this is the earliest mention of such a connection, but it seems to predate the smoking/lung cancer connection by 50 years or so... Sarichkaa (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

--Any scientist worth his salt knows, in order to fully study any subject, mitigating factors have to be isolated. Due to Diesel and Gasoline exhaust emmissions as a known cause of Heart problems, this poses somewhat of a problem would one not agree? Link: Diesel Exhaust Increases Clot Formation. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=85094 ~~Martin M. Haffner.~~

That's just silly. Modern diesel engines run over-stoichiometric and the problem is more about nitrogen oxides. Meanwhile, inhaling, on purpose every second hour, smoke from smoldering organic matter, and there's still chutzpah to claim that diesel engines cause it? --Vuo (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced indeed

Currently this article reads like a dated pamphlet from an anti-smoking crusade revved up with some more recent research results. The history of smoking has been abandoned and removed altogether, including this nice (public domain!) image of Audrey Hepburn. I really wonder why. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia, not some short-lived campaign material. <KF> 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, despite personally being against smoking, I see a need for neutrality in this article just as any other article on Wikipedia. The only neutral section of this article is the short one regarding methods of smoking. I agree with the above that the History of Smoking section be reinstated to give more of a generalised background rather than a outlawing of smoking. What are everyone else's views? Cyclonenim (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The health effects are the main issue in the public mind, so I suppose that is reflected in the makeup of the article. However, the amount of text on that aspect gives an unbalanced view of the overall subject - even though the material within these sections is perfectly NPOV. 128.252.171.209 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Demonrats want to raise taxes on cigarettes further so they employ people like the CDC to produce propoganda. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is on such a personal anti-smoking Nazi crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.19.16 (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiight. Just for info, "unbalanced" in the section heading was meant to apply to the article. Nmg20 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• The propaganda and other remarks need references and need to be presented with a neutral point of view. Simply making accusations is not helpful. Calm down, study the Wikipedia article guidelines, especially about neutral point of view and references and then try to insert such items in a factual way instead, according to guidelines. UB65 (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Move request

I think the article should be moved to Nicotine addiction since you can also get it from snuff, chuwing tobacco and patches. // Liftarn (talk)

Opposed. Nicotine addiction suggests a specific relation to the drug itself and its effect on the body. I'd support the combination of this article into Tobacco however, as that could combine snuff, chewing tobacco, patches and smoking all into one (because they all essencially produce the same effects). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclonenim (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am still opposed to the move, however I now believe Tobacco Smoking should remain separate from Tobacco and Nicotine Addiction because of its significantly different consequences (such as lung cancer). Cyclonenim (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking and gangrene

In this diff I removed the statement about gangrene, mostly because the original source had no mention of it that I could tell). The info was restored with this source. Consider this source which states "The death of tissue that defines gangrene begins when a section of the body loses its blood supply. It is often the result of a serious accident in which an arm or leg is crushed. Less commonly, it follows an internal blockage, such as a clogged or obstructed artery." No mention of smoking. However, it does mention later on in another section, "Severe cases of scleroderma and Raynaud's may cause a total lack of blood supply to the extremities. When this happens, necrosis (death of tissue) and gangrene may set in, sometimes making it necessary to have the affected part(s) amputated. Gangrene sets in more frequently among scleroderma patients who smoke or use caffeine, because such substances further constrict blood vessels." It does not say that smoking causes gangrene, or that gangrene is a general effect of smoking. The wording of the statement in the article as it stands seems misleading. Any suggestions? Phyesalis (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like something which is physiologically possible (with loss of blood supply due to atherosclerosis and a clogged artery from presumably a piece of it being thrown off into the periphery) - but practically highly unlikely. It also sounds ridiculous (smoking and what?) and so without a decent reference I agree with the cut. Nmg20 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I removed it and some info on amputation that wasn't in the cited source. Some minor rewording. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

In the 1950s, manufacturers began adding filter tips to cigarettes to remove some of the tar and nicotine as they were smoked. "Safer", "less potent" cigarette brands were also introduced. Light cigarettes became so popular that, as of 2004, half of American smokers preferred them over regular cigarettes [59], in spite the fact that the idea of a "safer" cigarette is a myth. Cigarettes that offer "low tar and nicotine" cause the smoker to smoke more or to inhale more deeply to get the same level of nicotine. According to The Federal Government’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), light cigarettes provide no benefit to smoker's health.[60][61]

I don't agree with this. Two reasons: firstly, the reason that cigarettes are dangerous to health is that they contain various substances hazardous to health. If a filter removes some of these, the smoker must, by definition, be consuming less per cigarette and therefore the cigarette (in comparison to a filterless one) must be safer. The words is "safer" - I'm not suggesting that a filter makes a cigarette risk-free, but it must be comparatively safer.

Secondly: The amount of tar and nicotine in a cigarette of a specific type is a fixed percentage (within various tolerances). You cannot get any more tar and nicotine out of a cigarette than that which is present, it doesn't matter if you inhale deeper or not. In my experience, people who smoke "light" cigarettes are consuming less nicotine, because when they try a regular strength cigarette they instantly feel the difference and generally say things like "this is too strong for me". If it was true that a light cigarette gave as much nicotine as a regular one, then the habitual "light" smoker would not notice any difference.

I can also confirm that in the days when I used to be a smoker, I always smoked "Light" cigarettes, and when I occasionally tried a regular strength one, even taking very small puffs, I noticed the difference in strength, to the extent that I actually felt nauseous.

So yes, its clearly untrue that using filter tips or "lights" is an inherently safe practise, but it must logically be safer than NOT using filter tips or smoking "strong" cigarettes. SimonUK (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Research agrees with you Simon - filters DO reduce tar and nicotine and certainly provide some mitigation of health risks. --Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You may very well be right - but unless you come up with studies which demonstrate this, it's POV and unsourced information, and so can't go in the article. You think that filters make cigarettes relatively safer: can you provide links to published data demonstrating this? Can you do the same for your claims about inhaling? I've no wish to engage in an argument about these details on the talk page - but it's not hard to see how your claims could be wrong. If, for instance, let's assume exposure to 5 units of the "various substances hazardous to health" results in a disease-causing process within the body. If a normal cigarette exposes you to 50 units, you are above that level. If a filtered cigarette exposes you to half that - 25 units - you're still well above the level at which a disease process is initiated - and the risks to health would be identical.

In summary, interesting though your post is, your own experience and your own opinions are not appropriate for adding to the article. If, however, you or User:Mrtobacco can provide links to the "research [which] agrees with you", great. Nmg20 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also there have been studies that have shown that unlike the "puffing machine" or "per cigarette" tests, observation of actual smokers shows that they drag more deeply and smoke more when smoking cigarettes with less nicotine, which can obviate some or all of the purported benefit. (See, e.g., [1]). Your own anecdote shows that this can be true; you were more confortable smoking "lites" and when you went back to regulars you found them harder to smoke. Therefore it does not logically and necessarily follow that low nicotine cigarettes are healthier; it is logically at least possible that this unconscious "deep puffing" could result in worse outcomes. NTK (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I don't agree with anything you have said, but I will not comment any further because there is clearly no point in trying to penetrate your agenda with anything vaguely scientific and/or logical. Kind regards SimonUK (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for yours - but may I suggest your refusal to engage with the task of finding any independent, peer-reviewed, respectable science to back up your ideas about smoking makes your attempt to take the scientific and logical highground is ill-judged? Nmg20 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is some research that the filter tip reduces particulate matter by up to 40% or more, though this may not make it necessarily "safer".Chido6d (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

These could help. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kabat GC (2003). "Fifty years' experience of reduced-tar cigarettes: what do we know about their health effects?". Inhal Toxicol. 15 (11): 1059–102. doi:10.1080/08958370390228547. PMID 12955615. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Text "1B69BA326FFE69C3F0A8F227DF8201D0" ignored (help)
• Pollay RW, Dewhirst T (2002). "The dark side of marketing seemingly "Light" cigarettes: successful images and failed fact". Tob Control. 11 Suppl 1: I18–31. PMID 11893811.
• Thun MJ, Burns DM (2001). "Health impact of "reduced yield" cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence". Tob Control. 10 Suppl 1: i4–11. PMID 11740038.
• Wynder EL, Muscat JE (1995). "The changing epidemiology of smoking and lung cancer histology". Environ. Health Perspect. 103 Suppl 8: 143–8. PMID 8741774.

Tax vs. externalities

From the article "Due to the high taxation, the price of an average pack of cigarettes in New Jersey is $6.45, which is still less than the approximated external cost of a pack of cigarettes."

Although I support antismoking measures and tobacco taxation (and am a nonsmoker myself), I feel this is a misrepresentation of the sources. For instance, even the source that claims a $41 internalized cost per pack says that "Smokers pay about $33 of the cost, their families absorb about $7 and others pay a little less than $1.50." So it seems that taxes do in fact exceed the cost of smoking to society at large at least, and in some places possibly also the familial cost as well. Alcohol, on the other hand, is not as heavily taxed in America. NTK (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the CDC is owned by the DNC. To expect fact from these people are a joke. The fact is that non-smokers, especially non-smoking white women, cost the government more money than any smoker could dream of costing society because non-smoking white women rot away in a nursing home at the cost of the tax payer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.19.16 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

some quick notes:

The line, "more than the total number of deaths from AIDS, traffic accidents, suicide, murder, fires and accidental poisoning" under 'health risks of smoking' section may be a cute slogan, but it is not really something that should be in an encyclopedia.

the line, "which even by conservative estimates increases mortality rates by 40%" in the same section needs to have the phrase 'even by conservative estimates' removed. The figure is a direct quote of a figure given on page 14 of the sourced study and is based on numerous studies. The added line implies that the figure is much higher and that is inaccurate: it was refering to people who smoke <10 cigarettes a day, and the fact that it is the lowest number looked at does not make it a conservative estimate.

The smoker's attitued section is not something that should be in an encyclopedia. It's simply an attempt to refute a very generic list of things smokers say, or things people think they say. It has practically zero merit. What little info in it that is worth keeping should be merged with other sections, and at the very least it does not deserve its own heading.

the Passive smoking section is poorly worded. The second paragraph starts out saying, "Secondhand smoke is also known to harm children...", but since there is no mention to it harming adults in the first paragraph this seems just in poor taste. Also there are several comments linking SIDs with second hand smoke. SIDs is basically a generic label for unexplained death (even according to your own article-- I checked.). The surgeon generals report focuses on a study that says there was a higher level of certain markers in some SIDs deats, though it offers no explanation of how (and none is currently known) second hand smoke actually leads to SIDs. This leads me to another point about people constantly quoting secondary sources in this article: reference the study, not the short article about it on some news site; and if you do not know enough to understand the study, then you should not be the one writing about it in an encyclopedia. It also does a poor job of quoting the report (and this is a direct quote, it needs to be in quotations). Without context of the studies the outcome is hard to understand, and people are likely to think that exposure to second hand smoke is what is doing it (this is somewhat of a personal objection, but the characterization of exposure in the womb as second hand is not accurate. Exposure of a fetus is far worse and that should be noted, instead the distinction is blured).

The section tobacco and other drugs is just pointless. First, there have been faaaarrrr more than just two theories proposed. Second, none of them have ever been proven to be much of anything. They are theories (and ones based largely, I think, on a lack of first hand knowledge with drug use or knowing someone who was a drug addict. That goes double so for the idea that cigarettes are a gateway drug... that has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen.

What else... back in the passive smoking section: on refrence 25 I did not see any mention of the study in question (also, even though it is a WHO sponsored site, refrencing a site that is designed as a world anti-smoking site for a study like this is not good to do... that is why you use primary sources. Also it says "have been linked to a short-term reduction in admissions for AMI" (why is this AMI? just say heart attack... especially since you never say what AMI is before here that I saw), but this study does not say that. In fact they say, in the study, that this may indicate a link. That is because this was a small preliminary study and any real scientist knows these are hardly definitive. One short term study does not make a fact... so the language here (and quite frankly the entire line) seems poorly worded and at the least needs to be changed.

That should do it for now. I do not really have the time to give this a real good reading over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.249 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of what you say is very reasonable: thank you. I have made some of your proposed changes (they should all be obvious from my edit summaries). I have not changed:

(1) the "total number of deaths" line; I don't agree at all that it has no place in an encyclopaedia - however, having read the two supporting references, they are far from great and need replaced. I've tagged them accordingly.

(2) the smoker's attitudes section is short and relatively uncontroversial. It needs a couple of citations, and I've added requests. However, it isn't really about smoker's attitudes at all, and the information in it would fit naturally into the psychological effects section further down. Any objections to my moving it there?

(3) Can you be more specific about your issues with the wording in the passive smoking section? On SIDS - the cause may not be understood, but the association's there. We don't understand the cause of plenty of things which we nonetheless accept to be the case.

(4) Your comments on the ...and other drugs section are better directed at that article. This one does say "two main theories" (my emphasis), and I don't think it claims they amount to anything.

Nmg20 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Repeated vandalism over the last week or two with any useful edits buried in the morass of nonsense - so I'm requesting semi-protection with a request to review the page for permanent SP status. Nmg20 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Etiology

A team has shown an in-vitro demonstration of how smoke suppresses the expression of FANCD2, which codes for a DNA damage "caretaker" or repair mechanism. The same gene is implicated in Fanconi anemia, which is linked to early cancers.

• Hays Laura; et al. (2008-05-12). "Cigarette smoke induces genetic instability in airway epithelial cells by suppressing FANCD2 expression". British Journal of Cancer. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) cited in "OHSU Cancer Institute researchers pinpoint how smoking causes cancer". Eurekalert. 2008-05-13.

LeadSongDog (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting - thanks. I think we should wait to include it until at least the abstract appears on pubmed, however? Nmg20 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd line in the intro...

" It has been hypothesized that schizophrenics smoke for self-medication.[1]"

What? Why is that in the intro? I'm going to remove that and add something more appropriate if there aren't any objections. Beam 14:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! I moved that line to a more appropriate placement, where the article was already discussing Schizophrenics and smoking. I also added better information to the intro. Referenced and cited of course. I'm the man, ;) Beam 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? where did this come from?

Because of the curing process, the smoke is mild enough to inhale in overdose quantities, unlike cigar, roll-your-own or pipe tobacco.

Excuse me!? What!? Overdose of what exactly? That has to be THE most weasly uncited point of view assertion I've ever seen in the article. Crimsone (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Beyond point-of-view, it's just plain stupid. I'm changing it a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.62.135 (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

List

Where did the article on list of notable smokers go? 77.99.57.229 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

20 year lag time plot

This plot is now quite out of date, does anyone know of a similar image that includes more recent data? 99of9 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for adding information in the Article

Ref. Second picture in the section Carcinogenicity.

The name of that benzopyrene metabolite is called "benzopyrene diol epoxide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espen180 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Added that, thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:51, 26 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Big Tobacco still up to its "health effects are controversial" tricks

Some of the comments found in Wikipedia (tobacco good for schizophrenia?) are difficult to understand other than as an attempt to extend tobacco sellers' decades-old "tobacco might be healthy" controversy-tricks to Wikipedia, and to minimize or obfusticate the causative role of tobacco smoke as a cause of asthma.

Big Tobacco's attempt to create the appearance of health "controversy" wherever it can seems to me to have extended to editing Wikipedia's "Tobacco" and "Smoking" pages, and to deleting mention of Big Tobacco's circumvention of its advertising agreements by product placement in movies from the Product Placement article.

Just as product placement in media such as movies is devastatingly effective advertising because it appears not to be advertising, misinformation planted in Wikipedia is devastatingly effective because those expecting to rely on it expect straight information, and do not expect it to be skewed for the profits of the tobacco sellers.

To the extent that the tobacco sellers succeed in extending the appearance of "controversy" to Wikipedia and depriving a new generation of the information needed to make a fully-informed decision about becoming a tobacco buyer, the tobacco sellers' direct and indirect profits will be huge and worldwide. It's censoring and throwing half-baked, off-topic studies to generate the appearance of "controversy" amount to subtle vandalism, and to the extent these tricky context tamperings are effective, are designed to suggest to impressionable preteens considering smoking -- tobacco seller's favorite marketing group -- that the health effects of tobacco use are, after all, in doubt.

Tampering with Wikipedia to dilute the fact that tobacco costs are far higher than the price per pack should be viewed as a call to Wikipedians familiar with the science on the issue to ensure that

(1) the science and facts needed to evaluate tobacco's risks and costs in context, and the insidious marketing strategies of tobacco sellers, are not allowed to be quietly deleted from the relevant pages,

(2) that tobacco sellers' smoke screen of off-topic implications that tobacco use might be healthy is addressed by full factual context, and

(3) that health professionals realize that there is a continuing need for vigilance in guarding the pages where potentially profitable young customers for Big Tobacco will come looking for presumably-accurate information -- that making sure that information is reliable -- not jimmied to increase sales -- is an ongoing public health issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.209 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The part about beneficial effects of smoking should be checked as possible advertising for tobacco companies. Laurusnobilis (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've vetted it, the information is legitimate and in fact better than a number of sources I've been going through. The existence of effects other than the numerous adversities is not a surprise, and I believe that this was an effort towards having a neutral tone (WP:NPOV). The issue remains, however, on having sections that are inherently polarized or non-neutral, benefits is an example — and should be written in the context of the most relevant section, and not by it self. This is partially complete in the main article Health effects of tobacco and I'm trying to synchronize the main article with this one. This is not an easy article, in fact it's one of the hardest I've ever worked on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV "paring down" by censoring disadvantages of smoking should be reverted

When the fact is that tobacco smoking is the most addictive delivery of a deadly carcinogen that also depletes the addicted's budgets and poses a welter of additional health and social costs on the addict and society, how is censoring this highly salient information from the main article "NPOV?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.205.92 (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If the excuse for removing health information from this page is that another page or pages exist, those pages should be linked directly under the title of the article, which otherwise, stripped of health information, reads like a tobacco company ad.

There are links for this page, however you need to specific on which edit should be reverted. If you find something in the histories, post the perma-link and so that it can be looked at. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlock this article

Tobacco flacks got in first, wrote an article that flogs smoking as "pleasure", omits all mention of costs, profits, product placement in movies and otherwise. They started taking out factual information on health because it could be found elsewhere (without linking or mentioning where elsewhere was, even though there are WP entries on point). When actual information relevant to the dismal cost/benefit equation of smoking began to intrude, they got it locked down in basically ad-copy format. It needs to be unlocked and rewritten in a factual, non-advertising manner with the salient but censored information restored.

I'm sorry, but this article is indefinitely semi-protected for vandalism; and I believe it would be unwise to leave such a serious target open. You can nonetheless request an unprotect at WP:RPP. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New???

Ahem...Hi! I noticed that is a new type of cigarette in Malaysia. It is made up of plain paper, rolled up with a little bit of cotton as the filter. It contains no tobacco and it is mainly used by less wealthy individuals. The "ingredients" are:

1. Paper
2. Cotton
3. Glue (for sticking the rolled-up paper together)

It seems like DIY cigarettes. Would it be worthy enough to put a new section/article about it? Please answer here and on my talk page too... Thanks!--Mark Chung (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Paper, cotton, glue, and no tobacco? So what exactly is being smoked? Equazcion •✗/C • 10:54, 24 Jan 2009 (UTC)

well if smokingis so bad why dont just band it and stop production?

If there is an article and it's relevant to this article, then sure. Though the ingredients seems to suggest the article smoking instead. 07:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

In the Cigars section, there is a typing mistake, "Staets" instead of "States".

 Done ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite to BMJ on why people smoke (because addicted -- want and try to quit but can't)

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/335/7609/37?fmr

"Cross sectional studies show that most smokers in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States report that they want to stop and intend to stop at some point.1 The rate of attempts to stop is high—78 attempts per 100 smokers per year in the UK—with many smokers making several attempts in a year.2 Nearly half of all smokers expect not to be smoking in a year's time,3 but only 2-3% actually stop permanently each year.3

The most common reasons smokers give for smoking are stress relief and enjoyment,4 but the main reason is nicotine dependence. Nicotine acts in the midbrain, creating impulses to smoke in the face of stimuli associated with smoking.5 Consequent changes in brain chemistry also produce "nicotine hunger" when a smoker goes without nicotine. A third mechanism underlying nicotine dependence is nicotine withdrawal: unpleasant mood and physical symptoms that occur on abstinence and are relieved by smoking.6 7 Nicotine dependence is the main reason that most unassisted quit attempts fail within a week.8 We give evidence based recommendations and new treatment options for healthcare professionals to increase the success rate of these attempts. Most evidence for treatment comes from randomised controlled trials summarised in the Cochrane reviews for tobacco dependence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.203.231 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits that I can't make

There's a link to "Preacher" that needs to be changed to "Preacher (comics)". Since this article is protected against anonymous edits, someone else will have to do it. 66.232.165.24 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the following line needs to be re-written:

"Similarly, cigarette smoking activity has been shown to follow distinct circadian patterns during the waking day, with the high point usually occurring shortly after waking in the morning or going to sleep at night."

While technically correct, this sentence (on first reading) seems to suggest that people smoke quite a lot after going to sleep at night...maybe change it to "or shortly before going to sleep at night." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.19.57 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Sorry I couldn't fix this earlier, I was on break and despite this article being highly visible,[2] it doesn't receive that much editor traffic. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Two spelling-errors I noticed in the introduction. First alinea: "German scientists formally identify the link between smoking and lung cancer in the late 1920s leading the first ant-smoking campaign in modern history."
Should be: "German scientists formally identify the link between smoking and lung cancer in the late 1920s leading the first anti-smoking campaign in modern history."
Second alinea: "The active substances trigger chemical reactions in nerve endings which hightens heart rate, memory, altertness,[10] and reaction time.[11]"
Should be: "The active substances trigger chemical reactions in nerve endings which hightens heart rate, memory, alertness,[10] and reaction time.[11]" --Jcoppo (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Celestra (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In "Consumption" under "Passive Smoking", so called "third-hand" smoke is referenced. This has never been proven, and has received criticism from doctors. Only ASH has made these claims - it is, in my opinion, inappropriate to leave as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.251.246.88 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island, not New Jersey, now has the highest state cigarette tax.

Here is the link:

http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=14349 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.67.95 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RE Physiology and oral absorption of nicotine

The physiology section describes the mechanism of absorption through the alveoli, but doesn't explain anything about absorption through capillaries in the mouth, when the smoke is not inhaled (such as in pipes or cigars). Dazalc (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for catching that. :) It's actually has to go through the mucous membranes in the mouth before it gets into the blood stream. Anyways, I found two studies. This one goes through the rate of absorption (kind of wish they could have integrated a regression to figure out a total, but the sample size looks too small :P)[3] This one goes through how the high alkalinity of the nicotine smoke allows for higher absorption through the mucous membranes in the mouth.[4] ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Update on Turkey

Turkey is also one of the countries that have recently banned smoking in public place, inc. bars and restaurants. The article seems to lack this fact. Also, the argument that "a minor can easily go and buy tobacco from the store, because their parents send them" can easily be applied to countries other than China and Turkey. Growing up in Norway, my parents always sent me to buy them tobacco, not so long ago. :) --88.242.233.111 (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Smoking in Public Places

I have heard it said that legislation of smokning in public places emanates from the EU, but in fact it seems that this is covered by the legislation of member states. Is that so? Ausseagull (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)