Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote:

>I smoked cigarettes from age 20 to 28 . . .

"Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do not,
and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
--William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.

"Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated
in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear that ex-cigarette
smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do inhale."
--Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998

http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

Bruce Watson wrote:
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote:
>
>> I smoked cigarettes from age 20 to 28 . . .
>
> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do
> not, and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
> --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
> School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>
> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
> serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
> monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels
> demonstrated in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear
> that ex-cigarette smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do
> inhale." --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
>
> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm

Yes. Almost all cigar smokers inhale some smoke, but there's a big
difference between accidently inhaling some of the smoke and intentionally
drawing it into the lungs like I did with cigarettes.

Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I accidently inhale a
full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my socks off.

bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

In article <6bakgqF3b6tn0U1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote:
>>
>>> I smoked cigarettes from age 20 to 28 . . .
>>
>> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do
>> not, and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or cigars."
>> --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard Medical
>> School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>>
>> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs. Also,
>> serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to carbon
>> monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels
>> demonstrated in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear
>> that ex-cigarette smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do
>> inhale." --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
>>
>> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm
>
>Yes. Almost all cigar smokers inhale some smoke, but there's a big
>difference between accidently inhaling some of the smoke and intentionally
>drawing it into the lungs like I did with cigarettes.

You're saying these two physicians are liars?

>Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I accidently inhale a
>full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my socks off.

Cigar smoke is thicker and gags more readily than cigarette
smoke but, as an ex-cigarette smoker, you inhale more than
the cigar smoker who never smoked cigarettes.

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <6bakgqF3b6tn0U1@mid.individual,net >,
> btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>> Bruce Watson wrote:
>>> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I smoked cigarettes from age 20 to 28 . . .
>>>
>>> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do
>>> not, and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or
>>> cigars." --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard
>>> Medical School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>>>
>>> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs.
>>> Also, serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to
>>> carbon monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels
>>> demonstrated in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear
>>> that ex-cigarette smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do
>>> inhale." --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
>>>
>>> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm
>>
>> Yes. Almost all cigar smokers inhale some smoke, but there's a big
>> difference between accidently inhaling some of the smoke and
>> intentionally drawing it into the lungs like I did with cigarettes.
>
> You're saying these two physicians are liars?

No but their statements are annecdotal and not based on scientific studies
to the best of my knowledge.

I know they've never done a study on me so they woudln't know for sure
whether I inhale or not.

>
>> Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I accidently
>> inhale a full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my socks off.
>
> Cigar smoke is thicker and gags more readily than cigarette
> smoke but, as an ex-cigarette smoker, you inhale more than
> the cigar smoker who never smoked cigarettes.

Never having smoked cigars as a previously total non-smoker, I suppose
that's possible but I don't believe it to be the case. I don't believe
anyone else knows it for sure either.

Have there been any actual studies which tried to measure the degree of
inhalation of cigar smoke by pre- versus non- cigarette smokers?

Intuitively it would make sense that those who had inhaled cigarette smoke
would be more likely to inhale cigar smoke but that doesn't necessarily make
it true, particularly in all cases.

bernie






--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

In article <6bd87cF377dp2U1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <6bakgqF3b6tn0U1@mid.individual,net >,
>> btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>>> Bruce Watson wrote:
>>>> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape,net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I smoked cigarettes from age 20 to 28 . . .
>>>>
>>>> "Virtually, all cigarette smokers inhale, even those who say they do
>>>> not, and they continue to do so when they switch to pipes or
>>>> cigars." --William Bennett, MD, is associate editor of the Harvard
>>>> Medical School Health Letter, Science 80, September/October 1980.
>>>>
>>>> "Recall that carbon monoxide is only absorbed through the lungs.
>>>> Also, serum carboxyhemoglobin levels accurately reflect exposure to
>>>> carbon monoxide. Given the elevated serum carboxyhemoglobin levels
>>>> demonstrated in ex-cigarette smokers who smoke cigars, it is clear
>>>> that ex-cigarette smokers, even though they report no inhalation, do
>>>> inhale." --Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D., 1998
>>>>
>>>> http :// www .cigargroup,com /faq/health/ncifaq.htm
>>>
>>> Yes. Almost all cigar smokers inhale some smoke, but there's a big
>>> difference between accidently inhaling some of the smoke and
>>> intentionally drawing it into the lungs like I did with cigarettes.
>>
>> You're saying these two physicians are liars?
>
>No but their statements are annecdotal and not based on scientific studies
>to the best of my knowledge.

Your knowledge is lacking.

>I know they've never done a study on me so they woudln't know for sure
>whether I inhale or not.

Let's do a study right now. Do you inhale?

>>> Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I accidently
>>> inhale a full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my socks off.
>>
>> Cigar smoke is thicker and gags more readily than cigarette
>> smoke but, as an ex-cigarette smoker, you inhale more than
>> the cigar smoker who never smoked cigarettes.
>
>Never having smoked cigars as a previously total non-smoker, I suppose
>that's possible but I don't believe it to be the case. I don't believe
>anyone else knows it for sure either.
>
>Have there been any actual studies which tried to measure the degree of
>inhalation of cigar smoke by pre- versus non- cigarette smokers?
>
>Intuitively it would make sense that those who had inhaled cigarette smoke
>would be more likely to inhale cigar smoke but that doesn't necessarily make
>it true, particularly in all cases.

Denial.

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

Bruce Watson wrote:

>
>> I know they've never done a study on me so they woudln't know for
>> sure whether I inhale or not.
>
> Let's do a study right now. Do you inhale?

If you define "inhale" as intentionally drawing the smoke into the lungs by
taking an inward breath.....absolutely not. (see previous explanation
below).

>
>>>> Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I accidently
>>>> inhale a full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my socks off.



--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

In article <6bfniaF3bmrsiU1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>
>>> I know they've never done a study on me so they woudln't know for
>>> sure whether I inhale or not.
>>
>> Let's do a study right now. Do you inhale?
>
>If you define "inhale" as intentionally drawing the smoke into the lungs by
>taking an inward breath.....absolutely not. (see previous explanation
>below).
>
>>>>> Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I accidently
>>>>> inhale a full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my socks off.

In the 1950s when the first public warnings on the possibility
of lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking were in the news,
he asked a couple of his friends if he inhaled. He drew in a puff
and blew it out. His friends said he didn't inhale.

He didn't inhale that time. Smokers are gifted at rationalization.

At the time, it was believed many cigarette smokers didn't inhale.
Lung cancer would not apply to those. We know now the cigarette
was engineered for the specific purpose of inhaling and deeply.

A decade later, after a routine physical examination, medics
found a suspicious spot on his lung. On that advice he quit
smoking cigarettes. It was very difficult for him. But he succeeded.

Nicotine, however, has a way of defeating the strongest of
people. He started smoking cigars. He rationalized cigars
would be safer. He said the same things you do. He claimed he
wasn't addicted, he could refrain from smoking anytime someone asked.
But it didn't quite work out that way. He smoked the same number
of hours as he did as a cigarette smoker and, according to the
two doctors I quoted, obviously inhaled.

Can you identify with any of the above?

Two decades later he noticed a swelling on the back of his
shoulder. It was a swollen lymph gland. He had terminal
lung cancer. He lasted less than a year. He was in just
the first 4 years of a well deserved retirement. He was 66.

Don't let that last paragraph apply to you.

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

Bruce Watson wrote:
> In article <6bfniaF3bmrsiU1@mid.individual,net >,
> btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>> Bruce Watson wrote:
>>
>>>> I know they've never done a study on me so they woudln't know for
>>>> sure whether I inhale or not.
>>>
>>> Let's do a study right now. Do you inhale?
>>
>> If you define "inhale" as intentionally drawing the smoke into the
>> lungs by taking an inward breath.....absolutely not. (see previous
>> explanation below).
>>
>>>>>> Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I
>>>>>> accidently inhale a full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my
>>>>>> socks off.
>
> In the 1950s when the first public warnings on the possibility
> of lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking were in the news,
> he asked a couple of his friends if he inhaled. He drew in a puff
> and blew it out. His friends said he didn't inhale.
>
> He didn't inhale that time. Smokers are gifted at rationalization.
>
> At the time, it was believed many cigarette smokers didn't inhale.
> Lung cancer would not apply to those. We know now the cigarette
> was engineered for the specific purpose of inhaling and deeply.
>
> A decade later, after a routine physical examination, medics
> found a suspicious spot on his lung. On that advice he quit
> smoking cigarettes. It was very difficult for him. But he succeeded.
>
> Nicotine, however, has a way of defeating the strongest of
> people. He started smoking cigars. He rationalized cigars
> would be safer. He said the same things you do. He claimed he
> wasn't addicted, he could refrain from smoking anytime someone asked.
> But it didn't quite work out that way. He smoked the same number
> of hours as he did as a cigarette smoker and, according to the
> two doctors I quoted, obviously inhaled.

> Can you identify with any of the above?

Not really.

I know I inhaled cigarettes, that's why I finally quit.

You're two doctors may know tendencies but they don't know me.

I know that I don't inhale based on my previous definition.

I know because I don't experience the shortness of breath, the hoarseness of
voice, and other symptoms I experienced before I quit cigarettes. My
physician (although he doesn't approve of cigar smoking) says my lung
elasticity is excellent for my age and that having not smoked cigarettes for
over 20 years my lungs are "like I hadn't smoked at all).

Am I at risk...of course, particularly for oral/esophogeal cancers, but it's
at a level I choose to accept for the enjoyment cigar smoking provides me.



Statistics and probabilities are great for group studies but for me as an
individual there are two probabilities that I'll contract cancer....0 % or
100 %.

I'm pulling for the first one.





>
> Two decades later he noticed a swelling on the back of his
> shoulder. It was a swollen lymph gland. He had terminal
> lung cancer. He lasted less than a year. He was in just
> the first 4 years of a well deserved retirement. He was 66.
>
> Don't let that last paragraph apply to you.

Thank you. I hope that it won't.

bernie...I know the "well deserved retirement" part won't :-)



--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

In article <6bnf5mF3cc7efU1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>> In article <6bfniaF3bmrsiU1@mid.individual,net >,
>> btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>>> Bruce Watson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I know they've never done a study on me so they woudln't know for
>>>>> sure whether I inhale or not.
>>>>
>>>> Let's do a study right now. Do you inhale?
>>>
>>> If you define "inhale" as intentionally drawing the smoke into the
>>> lungs by taking an inward breath.....absolutely not. (see previous
>>> explanation below).
>>>
>>>>>>> Believe me, I know the difference. I can tell it when I
>>>>>>> accidently inhale a full puff of cigar smoke..,it knocks my
>>>>>>> socks off.
>>
>> In the 1950s when the first public warnings on the possibility
>> of lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking were in the news,
>> he asked a couple of his friends if he inhaled. He drew in a puff
>> and blew it out. His friends said he didn't inhale.
>>
>> He didn't inhale that time. Smokers are gifted at rationalization.
>>
>> At the time, it was believed many cigarette smokers didn't inhale.
>> Lung cancer would not apply to those. We know now the cigarette
>> was engineered for the specific purpose of inhaling and deeply.
>>
>> A decade later, after a routine physical examination, medics
>> found a suspicious spot on his lung. On that advice he quit
>> smoking cigarettes. It was very difficult for him. But he succeeded.
>>
>> Nicotine, however, has a way of defeating the strongest of
>> people. He started smoking cigars. He rationalized cigars
>> would be safer. He said the same things you do. He claimed he
>> wasn't addicted, he could refrain from smoking anytime someone asked.
>> But it didn't quite work out that way. He smoked the same number
>> of hours as he did as a cigarette smoker and, according to the
>> two doctors I quoted, obviously inhaled.
>
>> Can you identify with any of the above?
>
>Not really.

How much, really?

>I know I inhaled cigarettes, that's why I finally quit.
>
>You're two doctors may know tendencies but they don't know me.

They know ex-cigarette smokers. You're one.

>I know that I don't inhale based on my previous definition.

My dad convinced himself he didn't inhale. His friends told him so.
What more proof did he need?

>I know because I don't experience the shortness of breath, the hoarseness of
>voice, and other symptoms I experienced before I quit cigarettes. My
>physician (although he doesn't approve of cigar smoking) says my lung
>elasticity is excellent for my age and that having not smoked cigarettes for
>over 20 years my lungs are "like I hadn't smoked at all).

But you know otherwise.

>Am I at risk...of course, particularly for oral/esophogeal cancers, but it's
>at a level I choose to accept for the enjoyment cigar smoking provides me.

And lung cancer.

>Statistics and probabilities are great for group studies but for me as an
>individual there are two probabilities that I'll contract cancer....0 % or
>100 %.
>
>I'm pulling for the first one.

But your behavior is encouraging the second.

>> Two decades later he noticed a swelling on the back of his
>> shoulder. It was a swollen lymph gland. He had terminal
>> lung cancer. He lasted less than a year. He was in just
>> the first 4 years of a well deserved retirement. He was 66.
>>
>> Don't let that last paragraph apply to you.
>
>Thank you. I hope that it won't.

I hope it doesn't either. But you're working on it.

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

Bruce Watson wrote:
.
>
>> Am I at risk...of course, particularly for oral/esophogeal cancers,
>> but it's at a level I choose to accept for the enjoyment cigar
>> smoking provides me.
>
> And lung cancer.
>

Not according to any scientific/meical studies I've found

bernie..actual studies not anecdotal or "meta-studies"

--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: => Trucking Smokers will just have to Suck It! <=

In article <6bq2v0F3c8r57U1@mid.individual,net >,
btorvik2 <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote:
>Bruce Watson wrote:
>.
>>
>>> Am I at risk...of course, particularly for oral/esophogeal cancers,
>>> but it's at a level I choose to accept for the enjoyment cigar
>>> smoking provides me.
>>
>> And lung cancer.
>
>Not according to any scientific/meical studies I've found

The selective blindness of a nicotine addict in denial.

As an ex-cigarette smoker, you inhale.

Inhaled tobacco smoke causes lung cancer.