Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>Well, this explains a lot:
Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
Now that doesn't mean 50% of smokers are mentally ill.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
stupid to smoke.
Does that mean the other 50% of cigarettes are smoked by the stupid?
Apparently, it does.
>-----
>
>Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted - BMJ
>July 16, 2008
>
>Lisa Hitchen
>
>Violence and aggressive incidents were cut by almost half when a smoking ban
>was introduced at one English acute psychiatric hospital.
>
>In data yet to be published, but seen by the BMJ, investigators at Harplands
>Hospital in North Staffordshire examined all recorded episodes of violence
>and aggression that staff experienced. They compared all incidents a year
>before the introduction of a smoke-free hospital policy in April 2006 with
>those in the year after. Harplands, like other hospitals, introduced a
>partial ban so that staff and patients could still smoke in designated
>areas outside the hospital.
>
>The findings come as the Department of Health introduced a complete ban on
>smoking in all psychiatric hospitals in England from 1 July.
><snip>
>
>BMJ 2008;337:a735
>
>--
>Bob Broughton
> http :// broughton.ca/
>Vancouver, BC, Canada
>"Given that tobacco is legal, its users are not drug addicts."
>- Robert Wagner, June 6, 2008
In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>Well, this explains a lot:
Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
Now that doesn't mean 50% of smokers are mentally ill.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
stupid to smoke.
Does that mean the other 50% of cigarettes are smoked by the stupid?
Apparently, it does.
>-----
>
>Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted - BMJ
>July 16, 2008
>
>Lisa Hitchen
>
>Violence and aggressive incidents were cut by almost half when a smoking ban
>was introduced at one English acute psychiatric hospital.
>
>In data yet to be published, but seen by the BMJ, investigators at Harplands
>Hospital in North Staffordshire examined all recorded episodes of violence
>and aggression that staff experienced. They compared all incidents a year
>before the introduction of a smoke-free hospital policy in April 2006 with
>those in the year after. Harplands, like other hospitals, introduced a
>partial ban so that staff and patients could still smoke in designated
>areas outside the hospital.
>
>The findings come as the Department of Health introduced a complete ban on
>smoking in all psychiatric hospitals in England from 1 July.
><snip>
>
>BMJ 2008;337:a735
>
>--
>Bob Broughton
> http :// broughton.ca/
>Vancouver, BC, Canada
>"Given that tobacco is legal, its users are not drug addicts."
>- Robert Wagner, June 6, 2008
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
On 17 Jul 2008 16:16:53 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
>Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>>Well, this explains a lot:
>
>Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
Where did you read that? Let me guess .. a research report sponsored by TFK or CDC,
written by Dr. Stanton Glantz, published in NEJM. Am I close?
>NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
>stupid to smoke.
There you have it, the definitive word .. on black-and-white thinking.
The technical name for this logical fallacy is Morton's Fork. Look it up.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
On 17 Jul 2008 16:16:53 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
>Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>
>>Well, this explains a lot:
>
>Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
Where did you read that? Let me guess .. a research report sponsored by TFK or CDC,
written by Dr. Stanton Glantz, published in NEJM. Am I close?
>NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
>stupid to smoke.
There you have it, the definitive word .. on black-and-white thinking.
The technical name for this logical fallacy is Morton's Fork. Look it up.
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
In article <p9uu74hrd34pqq010cmsrmo66hms3rnq4q@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2008 16:16:53 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
>>Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, this explains a lot:
>>
>>Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
>
>Where did you read that? Let me guess .. a research report sponsored by
>TFK or CDC,
>written by Dr. Stanton Glantz, published in NEJM. Am I close?
Seems like it's from the Harvard Medical School.
But I misspoke. *Almost* half of cigarettes are smoked by the
mentally ill (44 percent).
It's not likely it was financed by the tobacco companies.
We would have seen only by court order. But, you know, they
must market to the mentally ill. Think about that next time
you see an ad for cigarettes.
Hope that people don't start thinking of all smokers as
mentally ill. (And don't be a smoker when the percentage
hits ten) Smokers may start to be treated as such.
>>NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
>>stupid to smoke.
>
>There you have it, the definitive word .. on black-and-white thinking.
>
>The technical name for this logical fallacy is Morton's Fork. Look it up.
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
Tell that to the mayor. I'm convinced there are other reasons.
Like yours, for example. You don't have much of a future ahead
of you (less even because you smoke), so what's the use of
changing anything?
When you were younger the barrier was fear--fear that you
would be different as a nonsmoker. Truth is the typical
former smoker is different in one and only one way--he
doesn't smoke.
In article <p9uu74hrd34pqq010cmsrmo66hms3rnq4q@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2008 16:16:53 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
>>Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, this explains a lot:
>>
>>Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
>
>Where did you read that? Let me guess .. a research report sponsored by
>TFK or CDC,
>written by Dr. Stanton Glantz, published in NEJM. Am I close?
Seems like it's from the Harvard Medical School.
But I misspoke. *Almost* half of cigarettes are smoked by the
mentally ill (44 percent).
It's not likely it was financed by the tobacco companies.
We would have seen only by court order. But, you know, they
must market to the mentally ill. Think about that next time
you see an ad for cigarettes.
Hope that people don't start thinking of all smokers as
mentally ill. (And don't be a smoker when the percentage
hits ten) Smokers may start to be treated as such.
>>NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
>>stupid to smoke.
>
>There you have it, the definitive word .. on black-and-white thinking.
>
>The technical name for this logical fallacy is Morton's Fork. Look it up.
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
Tell that to the mayor. I'm convinced there are other reasons.
Like yours, for example. You don't have much of a future ahead
of you (less even because you smoke), so what's the use of
changing anything?
When you were younger the barrier was fear--fear that you
would be different as a nonsmoker. Truth is the typical
former smoker is different in one and only one way--he
doesn't smoke.
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
On 17 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <p9uu74hrd34pqq010cmsrmo66hms3rnq4q@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 17 Jul 2008 16:16:53 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
>>>Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, this explains a lot:
>>>
>>>Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
>>
>>Where did you read that? Let me guess .. a research report sponsored by
>>TFK or CDC,
>>written by Dr. Stanton Glantz, published in NEJM. Am I close?
>
>Seems like it's from the Harvard Medical School.
>
>But I misspoke. *Almost* half of cigarettes are smoked by the
>mentally ill (44 percent).
22% of Americans have a mental illness.
http :// www .wrongdiagnosis,com /m/mental_illness/prevalence.htm
"Mentally ill people are roughly twice as likely to smoke cigarettes as those without
mental illnesses, "
http :// www .no-smoking.org/nov00/11-22-00-1.html
9% of people are mentally ill nonsmokers
8% of people are mentally ill smokers
13% of people are non-mentally ill smokers
This is misleading because the clinical definition of mental illness is quite different
from the common coloquial definition of crazy. Here is the distribution of illnesses among
the 22% of the population called mentally ill:
Anxiety 90%
Depression 75%
Phobia 47%
Obsessive 10%
Personality 9%
Bipolar 9%
Schizophrenic 6%
Psychotic 1%
Eliminating the first group, less than 5% of smokers have serious mental illness.
Do you have a study on the mental health of antismokers?
>It's not likely it was financed by the tobacco companies.
>We would have seen only by court order. But, you know, they
>must market to the mentally ill. Think about that next time
>you see an ad for cigarettes.
I've read that all ads assume the consumer is a 12 year-old.
>Hope that people don't start thinking of all smokers as
>mentally ill. (And don't be a smoker when the percentage
>hits ten) Smokers may start to be treated as such.
"DSM-IV-TR), delusional disorders are marked by nonbizarre false beliefs with a plausible
basis in reality. Formerly referred to as paranoid disorders, delusional disorders involve
erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, somatic, or persecutory themes."
>>>NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
>>>stupid to smoke.
>>
>>There you have it, the definitive word .. on black-and-white thinking.
>>
>>The technical name for this logical fallacy is Morton's Fork. Look it up.
>> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
>
>Tell that to the mayor. I'm convinced there are other reasons.
>Like yours, for example. You don't have much of a future ahead
>of you (less even because you smoke), so what's the use of
>changing anything?
>
>When you were younger the barrier was fear--fear that you
>would be different as a nonsmoker. Truth is the typical
>former smoker is different in one and only one way--he
>doesn't smoke.
You weren't like this when you smoked. You became like this after you quit .. perhaps as a
result of quitting. I don't want to take that chance.
On 17 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <p9uu74hrd34pqq010cmsrmo66hms3rnq4q@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 17 Jul 2008 16:16:53 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <g5lca9$b08$1@venn.venn.bc.ca>,
>>>Robert Broughton <rbronews2@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, this explains a lot:
>>>
>>>Fifty percent of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill.
>>
>>Where did you read that? Let me guess .. a research report sponsored by
>>TFK or CDC,
>>written by Dr. Stanton Glantz, published in NEJM. Am I close?
>
>Seems like it's from the Harvard Medical School.
>
>But I misspoke. *Almost* half of cigarettes are smoked by the
>mentally ill (44 percent).
22% of Americans have a mental illness.
http :// www .wrongdiagnosis,com /m/mental_illness/prevalence.htm
"Mentally ill people are roughly twice as likely to smoke cigarettes as those without
mental illnesses, "
http :// www .no-smoking.org/nov00/11-22-00-1.html
9% of people are mentally ill nonsmokers
8% of people are mentally ill smokers
13% of people are non-mentally ill smokers
This is misleading because the clinical definition of mental illness is quite different
from the common coloquial definition of crazy. Here is the distribution of illnesses among
the 22% of the population called mentally ill:
Anxiety 90%
Depression 75%
Phobia 47%
Obsessive 10%
Personality 9%
Bipolar 9%
Schizophrenic 6%
Psychotic 1%
Eliminating the first group, less than 5% of smokers have serious mental illness.
Do you have a study on the mental health of antismokers?
>It's not likely it was financed by the tobacco companies.
>We would have seen only by court order. But, you know, they
>must market to the mentally ill. Think about that next time
>you see an ad for cigarettes.
I've read that all ads assume the consumer is a 12 year-old.
>Hope that people don't start thinking of all smokers as
>mentally ill. (And don't be a smoker when the percentage
>hits ten) Smokers may start to be treated as such.
"DSM-IV-TR), delusional disorders are marked by nonbizarre false beliefs with a plausible
basis in reality. Formerly referred to as paranoid disorders, delusional disorders involve
erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, somatic, or persecutory themes."
>>>NYC Mayor Bloomberg says, you either have to be crazy or
>>>stupid to smoke.
>>
>>There you have it, the definitive word .. on black-and-white thinking.
>>
>>The technical name for this logical fallacy is Morton's Fork. Look it up.
>> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_Fork
>
>Tell that to the mayor. I'm convinced there are other reasons.
>Like yours, for example. You don't have much of a future ahead
>of you (less even because you smoke), so what's the use of
>changing anything?
>
>When you were younger the barrier was fear--fear that you
>would be different as a nonsmoker. Truth is the typical
>former smoker is different in one and only one way--he
>doesn't smoke.
You weren't like this when you smoked. You became like this after you quit .. perhaps as a
result of quitting. I don't want to take that chance.
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
In article <3dqv74d6tn958m48qeb2u4njcs88lkcqvi@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>Tell that to the mayor. I'm convinced there are other reasons.
>>Like yours, for example. You don't have much of a future ahead
>>of you (less even because you smoke), so what's the use of
>>changing anything?
>>
>>When you were younger the barrier was fear--fear that you
>>would be different as a nonsmoker. Truth is the typical
>>former smoker is different in one and only one way--he
>>doesn't smoke.
>
>You weren't like this when you smoked. You became like this after you
>quit .. perhaps as a
>result of quitting. I don't want to take that chance.
I was a willing victim when I smoke. I parrotted the tobacco-
industry lies just as you do. I made up reasons (rationalizations)
to continue smoking just as you do. I obviously sounded
idiotic to nonsmokers just as you do.
It became apparent to me when I reached the chain-smoking
stage (just as you have) that I was having a problem. Maybe
others could smoke now and then but I was severely addicted.
I had tried to cut down but found it impossible. The only thing
left was to quit entirely. But there was a catch: If I changed in
any way, i.e., if I could no longer do things the way I was
used to (drinking, for example), the deal was off. I would
keep smoking forever.
After a few failed attempts I succeeded getting to the other
side of the addiction. I had broken the cycle of craving
and relief. Even before I quit, I realized I wasn't getting
anything from smoking. The only benefit was going to the
tobacco companies.
I found nothing changed. I just didn't smoke. I could
go out with the gang on Friday evenings to shoot pool
and down a few beers. I could do that and everything else
without having to have a fix.
I had put it behind me. I no longer envied nonsmokers because
they didn't have to smoke and I didn't pitied smokers because
they did. I was convinced some people could control their
smoking. I couldn't. But that was the past. End of story.
Then some four years later, a friend gave me the Bennett
article from Science 80 magazine. You've read it several times.
I realized nearly all smokers were just like the way I used
to be. Very few could take it or leave it. Nearly all were
addicts who could not control the drug. Those who said they
could were lying. Those who claimed smoking calmed them
were mistaken by the illusion of pleasure which is merely
relief of craving caused by the drug itself.
As the years went by and restrictions on smoking increased,
the loud protestations by smokers made obviously the hold
the drug had on them. Then came the tobacco company's
internal memos. It was all a fraud to part the stupid or
crazy from their money.
Why anyone today after all we now know can continue to believe
the lies about smoking astounds me. How stupid or crazy can you be?
Obviously very.
But the point is quitting didn't make me anti-smoking. It was
discovering what the fraud was all about and Big Tobacco's
documents--things you already know. You would be just
as anti-smoking as I am if you weren't under the spell
of the drug that does nothing but addict.
Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
have.
There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
In article <3dqv74d6tn958m48qeb2u4njcs88lkcqvi@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 17 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>Tell that to the mayor. I'm convinced there are other reasons.
>>Like yours, for example. You don't have much of a future ahead
>>of you (less even because you smoke), so what's the use of
>>changing anything?
>>
>>When you were younger the barrier was fear--fear that you
>>would be different as a nonsmoker. Truth is the typical
>>former smoker is different in one and only one way--he
>>doesn't smoke.
>
>You weren't like this when you smoked. You became like this after you
>quit .. perhaps as a
>result of quitting. I don't want to take that chance.
I was a willing victim when I smoke. I parrotted the tobacco-
industry lies just as you do. I made up reasons (rationalizations)
to continue smoking just as you do. I obviously sounded
idiotic to nonsmokers just as you do.
It became apparent to me when I reached the chain-smoking
stage (just as you have) that I was having a problem. Maybe
others could smoke now and then but I was severely addicted.
I had tried to cut down but found it impossible. The only thing
left was to quit entirely. But there was a catch: If I changed in
any way, i.e., if I could no longer do things the way I was
used to (drinking, for example), the deal was off. I would
keep smoking forever.
After a few failed attempts I succeeded getting to the other
side of the addiction. I had broken the cycle of craving
and relief. Even before I quit, I realized I wasn't getting
anything from smoking. The only benefit was going to the
tobacco companies.
I found nothing changed. I just didn't smoke. I could
go out with the gang on Friday evenings to shoot pool
and down a few beers. I could do that and everything else
without having to have a fix.
I had put it behind me. I no longer envied nonsmokers because
they didn't have to smoke and I didn't pitied smokers because
they did. I was convinced some people could control their
smoking. I couldn't. But that was the past. End of story.
Then some four years later, a friend gave me the Bennett
article from Science 80 magazine. You've read it several times.
I realized nearly all smokers were just like the way I used
to be. Very few could take it or leave it. Nearly all were
addicts who could not control the drug. Those who said they
could were lying. Those who claimed smoking calmed them
were mistaken by the illusion of pleasure which is merely
relief of craving caused by the drug itself.
As the years went by and restrictions on smoking increased,
the loud protestations by smokers made obviously the hold
the drug had on them. Then came the tobacco company's
internal memos. It was all a fraud to part the stupid or
crazy from their money.
Why anyone today after all we now know can continue to believe
the lies about smoking astounds me. How stupid or crazy can you be?
Obviously very.
But the point is quitting didn't make me anti-smoking. It was
discovering what the fraud was all about and Big Tobacco's
documents--things you already know. You would be just
as anti-smoking as I am if you weren't under the spell
of the drug that does nothing but addict.
Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
have.
There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>have.
>
>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know, it would be
irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>have.
>
>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know, it would be
irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
> >become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
> >because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
> >have.
> >
> >There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
> >and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
> >things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
> >for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>
> Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>
> You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know, it
> would be
> irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
You are playing Russian Roulette with your life. Is the joy you think
you get from smoking really worth all the cost and pain that might
befall you? Talk to any smoker who's been diagnosed with a smoking
related disease such as lung or throat cancer, or emphysema. Then ask
yourself if that is the kind of future you really want to risk for
yourself by continuing to smoke.
In a cost-benefit analysis, the risks involved with smoking far outweigh
any perceived benefits, not to mention that you are literally burning
your money away by smoking.
In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
> >become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
> >because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
> >have.
> >
> >There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
> >and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
> >things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
> >for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>
> Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>
> You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know, it
> would be
> irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
You are playing Russian Roulette with your life. Is the joy you think
you get from smoking really worth all the cost and pain that might
befall you? Talk to any smoker who's been diagnosed with a smoking
related disease such as lung or throat cancer, or emphysema. Then ask
yourself if that is the kind of future you really want to risk for
yourself by continuing to smoke.
In a cost-benefit analysis, the risks involved with smoking far outweigh
any perceived benefits, not to mention that you are literally burning
your money away by smoking.
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:34:11 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>> >become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>> >because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>> >have.
>> >
>> >There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>> >and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>> >things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>> >for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>>
>> Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>>
>> You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know, it
>> would be
>> irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
>
>You are playing Russian Roulette with your life. Is the joy you think
>you get from smoking really worth all the cost and pain that might
>befall you? Talk to any smoker who's been diagnosed with a smoking
>related disease such as lung or throat cancer, or emphysema. Then ask
>yourself if that is the kind of future you really want to risk for
>yourself by continuing to smoke.
According to Bruce's scientific facts, 400,000 people died from smoking in 1990, 19% of
the total deaths that year. About 23% of the adult population smoked. After adjustsing for
childhood deaths and cigar/pipe smokers, it turns out that every single cigarette smoker
died from tobacco. Smoking protected them from auto accidents and cuckolded husbands. Of
Darwin Award winners, every single one was a nonsmoker
At first, I didn't believe it either, but one can't argue to scientific facts.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:34:11 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>> >become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>> >because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>> >have.
>> >
>> >There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>> >and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>> >things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>> >for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>>
>> Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>>
>> You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know, it
>> would be
>> irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
>
>You are playing Russian Roulette with your life. Is the joy you think
>you get from smoking really worth all the cost and pain that might
>befall you? Talk to any smoker who's been diagnosed with a smoking
>related disease such as lung or throat cancer, or emphysema. Then ask
>yourself if that is the kind of future you really want to risk for
>yourself by continuing to smoke.
According to Bruce's scientific facts, 400,000 people died from smoking in 1990, 19% of
the total deaths that year. About 23% of the adult population smoked. After adjustsing for
childhood deaths and cigar/pipe smokers, it turns out that every single cigarette smoker
died from tobacco. Smoking protected them from auto accidents and cuckolded husbands. Of
Darwin Award winners, every single one was a nonsmoker
At first, I didn't believe it either, but one can't argue to scientific facts.
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
School Marmy Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
>
> You are playing Russian Roulette with your life. Is the joy you think
> you get from smoking really worth all the cost and pain that might
> befall you? Talk to any smoker who's been diagnosed with a smoking
> related disease such as lung or throat cancer, or emphysema. Then ask
> yourself if that is the kind of future you really want to risk for
> yourself by continuing to smoke.
>
> In a cost-benefit analysis, the risks involved with smoking far outweigh
> any perceived benefits, not to mention that you are literally burning
> your money away by smoking.
Your point? Other than gratuitous patronizing, what is your purpose?
Doofus.
TBN
School Marmy Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@DOOFUS,net > wrote:
>
> You are playing Russian Roulette with your life. Is the joy you think
> you get from smoking really worth all the cost and pain that might
> befall you? Talk to any smoker who's been diagnosed with a smoking
> related disease such as lung or throat cancer, or emphysema. Then ask
> yourself if that is the kind of future you really want to risk for
> yourself by continuing to smoke.
>
> In a cost-benefit analysis, the risks involved with smoking far outweigh
> any perceived benefits, not to mention that you are literally burning
> your money away by smoking.
Your point? Other than gratuitous patronizing, what is your purpose?
Doofus.
TBN
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
On Jul 19, 5:17 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
> >become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
> >because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
> >have.
>
> >There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
> >and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
> >things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
> >for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>
> Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
In your case, all three, asswipe. And I'll "emend" it to include
"dishonest".
On Jul 19, 5:17 am, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
> >become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
> >because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
> >have.
>
> >There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
> >and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
> >things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
> >for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>
> Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
In your case, all three, asswipe. And I'll "emend" it to include
"dishonest".
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
Mincing Babs Broughton <rbrone...@SASHAY.ca> wrote:
>
> In your case, all three, asswipe. And I'll "emend" it to include
> "dishonest".
So bii-itchy! LOL!
Mincing Babs Broughton <rbrone...@SASHAY.ca> wrote:
>
> In your case, all three, asswipe. And I'll "emend" it to include
> "dishonest".
So bii-itchy! LOL!
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>>have.
>>
>>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>
>Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>
>You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know,
>it would be
>irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
If it's not stupid, crazy or no future, what is it?
Cowardice?
In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>>have.
>>
>>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>
>Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>
>You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know,
>it would be
>irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
If it's not stupid, crazy or no future, what is it?
Cowardice?
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
On 19 Jul 2008 23:54:40 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>>>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>>>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>>>have.
>>>
>>>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>>>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>>>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>>>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>>
>>Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>>
>>You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know,
>>it would be
>>irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
>
>If it's not stupid, crazy or no future, what is it?
Hedonism.
>Cowardice?
What's that?
On 19 Jul 2008 23:54:40 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>>>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>>>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>>>have.
>>>
>>>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>>>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>>>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>>>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>>
>>Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>>
>>You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know,
>>it would be
>>irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
>
>If it's not stupid, crazy or no future, what is it?
Hedonism.
>Cowardice?
What's that?
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
In article <ka35841k2e0mpdodgpabcrn4ap3p8oa3i7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 19 Jul 2008 23:54:40 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>>>>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>>>>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>>>>have.
>>>>
>>>>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>>>>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>>>>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>>>>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>>>
>>>Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>>>
>>>You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know,
>>>it would be
>>>irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
>>
>>If it's not stupid, crazy or no future, what is it?
>
>Hedonism.
After all this time you're still under the delusion
nicotine addiction is pleasure. Amazing. Why can't you get it?
More evidence for "stupid."
The drug does nothing but cause you to use more. The only
people enjoying your drug addiction are the executives, employees,
and stockholders of the tobacco companies.
>>Cowardice?
>
>What's that?
Steve said it best:
"In a nutshell, though, the one thing that drives a smoker to smoke is fear.
Fear that life will never be the same without tobacco and fear that they
will constantly spend the rest of their lives pining for a cigarette and
feeling deprived or miserable because they cannot have one.
Hell, some even have the fear that they will become a different person or
their personality will change, and many women smokers fear they will put on
weight.
Some have a fear that they will never enjoy a drink, food or any social
occasion ever again.
But the worst thing of all is the fear that they will lose their confidence,
their crutch, and never feel quite right or empowered in any given situation
without nicotine.
This is the most ironic part of all - it is nicotine alone which is sapping
their confidence to start with, as it becomes a crutch or tool for people
who are increasingly fooled into believing they have no willpower or
determination, simply because they cannot stop smoking or because they
believe that smoking increases their confidence.
Fear, which is part of the mental withdrawal process, can become highly
illogical, and is an extremely powerful and debilitating emotion."
In article <ka35841k2e0mpdodgpabcrn4ap3p8oa3i7@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 19 Jul 2008 23:54:40 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <01m384p6v38dhhlhq34mifkn8cg4ihql68@4ax,com >,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On 18 Jul 2008 15:28:35 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sorry, Robert, I don't buy it. You're not worried you would
>>>>become anti-smoking. You just don't see any reason to change
>>>>because the change would be for the future--a future you don't
>>>>have.
>>>>
>>>>There are short-term benefits of quitting like expense
>>>>and that smokers' cough you've got and a lot of other little
>>>>things but apparently they mean little to you. The big payoff
>>>>for the quitter is a longer, healthier future. One you don't have.
>>>
>>>Emend the slur to 'smokers are either stupid, crazy or have no future.'
>>>
>>>You don't know about my future, you're guessing. Even if you did know,
>>>it would be
>>>irrelevant as a generalization applied to all smokers.
>>
>>If it's not stupid, crazy or no future, what is it?
>
>Hedonism.
After all this time you're still under the delusion
nicotine addiction is pleasure. Amazing. Why can't you get it?
More evidence for "stupid."
The drug does nothing but cause you to use more. The only
people enjoying your drug addiction are the executives, employees,
and stockholders of the tobacco companies.
>>Cowardice?
>
>What's that?
Steve said it best:
"In a nutshell, though, the one thing that drives a smoker to smoke is fear.
Fear that life will never be the same without tobacco and fear that they
will constantly spend the rest of their lives pining for a cigarette and
feeling deprived or miserable because they cannot have one.
Hell, some even have the fear that they will become a different person or
their personality will change, and many women smokers fear they will put on
weight.
Some have a fear that they will never enjoy a drink, food or any social
occasion ever again.
But the worst thing of all is the fear that they will lose their confidence,
their crutch, and never feel quite right or empowered in any given situation
without nicotine.
This is the most ironic part of all - it is nicotine alone which is sapping
their confidence to start with, as it becomes a crutch or tool for people
who are increasingly fooled into believing they have no willpower or
determination, simply because they cannot stop smoking or because they
believe that smoking increases their confidence.
Fear, which is part of the mental withdrawal process, can become highly
illogical, and is an extremely powerful and debilitating emotion."
Re: Psychiatric patients less violent when smoking restricted
On 20 Jul 2008 18:55:07 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>Steve said it best:
>
>"In a nutshell, though, the one thing that drives a smoker to smoke is fear.
>Fear that life will never be the same without tobacco and fear that they
>will constantly spend the rest of their lives pining for a cigarette and
>feeling deprived or miserable because they cannot have one.
>Hell, some even have the fear that they will become a different person or
>their personality will change
YOU are evidence that smoking cessation can change personality.
>, and many women smokers fear they will put on
>weight.
>Some have a fear that they will never enjoy a drink, food or any social
>occasion ever again.
>But the worst thing of all is the fear that they will lose their confidence,
>their crutch, and never feel quite right or empowered in any given situation
>without nicotine.
Sounds like you're talking about alcohol. Smoking isn't a confidence crutch
>This is the most ironic part of all - it is nicotine alone which is sapping
>their confidence to start with, as it becomes a crutch or tool for people
>who are increasingly fooled into believing they have no willpower or
>determination, simply because they cannot stop smoking or because they
>believe that smoking increases their confidence.
It's opposite nowadays. There's so much pressure on smokers that continuing takes
confidence and determination.
In the 14 years you've been reading this newsgroup, you've seen antis, not smokers,
demonstrate insecurity and lack of confidence repeatedly. The evidence disproves Steve's
assertion.
>Fear, which is part of the mental withdrawal process, can become highly
>illogical, and is an extremely powerful and debilitating emotion."
You're right about that. Irrational fear of second hand smoke gave tne anti movement a lot
of popular support. It's responsible for smoking bans passing with 60-65% of the popular
vote.
Unfounded fears tend to forgotten easily, as they are replaced by others. Government,
do-gooders and advertisers are constantly trying to frighten people with made-up risks.
For instance, acrylamide, the recently discovered carcinogen in french fries and potato
chips, was a hot topic just last year. Global warming might be another example of mass
hysteria.
On 20 Jul 2008 18:55:07 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>Steve said it best:
>
>"In a nutshell, though, the one thing that drives a smoker to smoke is fear.
>Fear that life will never be the same without tobacco and fear that they
>will constantly spend the rest of their lives pining for a cigarette and
>feeling deprived or miserable because they cannot have one.
>Hell, some even have the fear that they will become a different person or
>their personality will change
YOU are evidence that smoking cessation can change personality.
>, and many women smokers fear they will put on
>weight.
>Some have a fear that they will never enjoy a drink, food or any social
>occasion ever again.
>But the worst thing of all is the fear that they will lose their confidence,
>their crutch, and never feel quite right or empowered in any given situation
>without nicotine.
Sounds like you're talking about alcohol. Smoking isn't a confidence crutch
>This is the most ironic part of all - it is nicotine alone which is sapping
>their confidence to start with, as it becomes a crutch or tool for people
>who are increasingly fooled into believing they have no willpower or
>determination, simply because they cannot stop smoking or because they
>believe that smoking increases their confidence.
It's opposite nowadays. There's so much pressure on smokers that continuing takes
confidence and determination.
In the 14 years you've been reading this newsgroup, you've seen antis, not smokers,
demonstrate insecurity and lack of confidence repeatedly. The evidence disproves Steve's
assertion.
>Fear, which is part of the mental withdrawal process, can become highly
>illogical, and is an extremely powerful and debilitating emotion."
You're right about that. Irrational fear of second hand smoke gave tne anti movement a lot
of popular support. It's responsible for smoking bans passing with 60-65% of the popular
vote.
Unfounded fears tend to forgotten easily, as they are replaced by others. Government,
do-gooders and advertisers are constantly trying to frighten people with made-up risks.
For instance, acrylamide, the recently discovered carcinogen in french fries and potato
chips, was a hot topic just last year. Global warming might be another example of mass
hysteria.
