Post: Do you think smoking is Bad for you?
Options
08-08-2011, 06:32 AM
#1
cjmurder123
What do I say here?
The following 11 users groaned at cjmurder123 for this awful post:
08-08-2011, 10:18 AM
#13
Liam
In my man cave
I think that you have seemed to overlook the fact smoking causes several diseases, such as cancer, long-term (chronic) respiratory diseases, and heart disease, as well as premature death. Here's a fact in the US out of the 2.4million deaths annually actually 440,000 die from smoking. This poll is pointless.
The following user thanked Liam for this useful post:
08-08-2011, 10:39 AM
#14
Laney
Ex-Staff
Originally posted by cjmurder123
We had a little argument/discussion in the shoutbox about if smoking is bad for you. I will respect all feedback and explanations.
If you vote yes, explain why.
If you vote no, explain why.
Lets let the community decide Diji :lol:
If you vote yes, explain why.
If you vote no, explain why.
Lets let the community decide Diji :lol:
The answer is yes, but so are other things.
08-08-2011, 03:13 PM
#16
If you're really questioning whether cigarettes are bad for you I fear for your mental well-being more than anything else 
And it doesn't matter if something makes you happy or not, it doesn't make it good. I'm sure jumping off a 200ft building is very exhilarating but that doesn't make it good, now does it?
This thread is pretty pointless, it's just gonna be us non-smokers telling you factually why not to smoke and you addicted lot trying to wrongly justify what you're doing. Dear oh dear.
And it doesn't matter if something makes you happy or not, it doesn't make it good. I'm sure jumping off a 200ft building is very exhilarating but that doesn't make it good, now does it?
This thread is pretty pointless, it's just gonna be us non-smokers telling you factually why not to smoke and you addicted lot trying to wrongly justify what you're doing. Dear oh dear.
The following 3 users say thank you to Clutch Hunterr for this useful post:
08-08-2011, 04:15 PM
#17
E0000B6FAF25838
Nikolai Reznov
Smoking is bad for you, there's no argument. There's a reason there's a Surgeon General's warning right on the box. My great grandfather on my mom's side and my grandfather on my dad's side both died from smoking. My dad wakes up everyday hacking and choking because he's smoked for close to 20 years. And, to be honest, I really don't care about the death rates of smoking because it doesn't have to kill you to be bad for you, being bad for you is the primary debate here, not killing, so that's all I need to prove. Death rates won't prove anything.
The following user thanked Pricey91 for this useful post:
08-08-2011, 05:18 PM
#19
E0000B6FAF25838
Nikolai Reznov
Originally posted by Diji
With that logic, you shouldn't drive, drink pop, take pills, go outside, even breathe. :dumb:
While his statement was a little to broad, his point is valid. The rate of deaths caused by smoking compared with how many smokers there are, far outweighs the death rates for driving, drinking soda, taking pills (for medicinal purposes), going outside, and breathing. This is a weak argument that can only work against that guy's argument, it carries no weight.
Originally posted by another user
how about we all read this before you talk this nonsense.
You must login or register to view this content.
You're looking at a smaller sample of people. Only people who are generally healthy are allowed to smoke, as doctors know that it is dangerous for the human body. Meaning the ill and terminally ill people who can't smoke are tipping the scale, along with children who died before they were allowed to smoke. The sample should be more like smokers vs. people who can smoke but choose not to.
What was their quality of life like? Just because they lived to be that old doesn't mean they were happy with how they were living.
Once again, the numbers are skewed due to the samples used. The sample representing the non smokers also takes children into account, and there are a lot of child deaths.
You must login or register to view this content.
Originally posted by another user
THE SMOKING "VICTIMS" LIVED LONGER THAN THE REST OF US, BY ABOUT 2 YEARS - 71.9 vs. 70.
You're looking at a smaller sample of people. Only people who are generally healthy are allowed to smoke, as doctors know that it is dangerous for the human body. Meaning the ill and terminally ill people who can't smoke are tipping the scale, along with children who died before they were allowed to smoke. The sample should be more like smokers vs. people who can smoke but choose not to.
Originally posted by another user
OVER 70,000, or about 17%, DIED "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 85.
What was their quality of life like? Just because they lived to be that old doesn't mean they were happy with how they were living.
Originally posted by another user
ONLY 1900, OR FEWER THAN O.5 % OF THE SMOKING "VICTIMS" DIED AT AGES LESS THAN 35, WHILE 143.000, OR 8% OF THE REST OF US DIED AT AGES LESS THAN 35.
Once again, the numbers are skewed due to the samples used. The sample representing the non smokers also takes children into account, and there are a lot of child deaths.
The following user thanked E0000B6FAF25838 for this useful post:
The following user groaned E0000B6FAF25838 for this awful post:
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
