|
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
diel@spim.com wrote: > In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>> and never in front of our son. >>> >>> Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >> >> *ahem* >> >> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>> >>> In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>> that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>> to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>> Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>> back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>> already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>> strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>> >>> DAS >> >> cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >> tobacco in a pipe. >> >> See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >> to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >> has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >> going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's >> bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by >> us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >> wants to be around other smokers. >> It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. It's just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason to believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot work. In California, bartenders typically had the same problems as two-pack-a-day smokers before the laws were changed. Now, not only are bartenders healthier, but there is also even significant improvement in the lungs of bartenders who smoke. > I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from > fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? Those are not good for you either. Wood smoke is highly carcinogenic. The builder of my home could have put in a media room and even thrown in the equipment for the cost of the fireplace, chimney, and gas lines (that's for lighting the wood fire.) Also, fireplaces are not very efficient ways to heat a home, especially when you have a furnace on anyway. They suck air up the chimney, and much of that is air that you paid to heat. I suppose I could convert my fireplace to gas logs, but right now I hardly use it at all. I don't know of specific studies on incense, but I'm sure there are some. What people miss is that you don't need studies to show many things. When I was growing up, there were no studies on second hand smoke. Yet, people who were around smokers ended up with red eyes, coughs, headaches, stomachaches, etc. It should not have been hard to figure out that if somebody came near me with a cigarette and it made me cough that my body did not like it. It should not have been hard for a smoker to figure out on the day he started that his body didn't like it either. I grew up being told I had hay fever. I took medicine for my allergy. Yes, I had an allergy, but it was to a poison, not to a growing plant. I was told that getting headaches at the end of the day was just a normal part of life. That's what aspirin was for, and everybody used it regularly. I also thought that coughing was normal. I knew that people coughed a lot when they were sick, but I also thought that coughing was something that people normally did occasionally on a daily basis as a way of reacting with the environment. Having clothing that needed washing at the end of the day was normal too. It didn't matter if it still looked clean, or never came in contact with anything dirty. It was understood that if I went to any affair, I would have to get my suit dry cleaned the next day. How anybody could believe that smoke could impregnate everything around it, stink up rooms, clothing, cars, and anything it contacted, turn ceilings brown, and cause obvious symptoms in people who don't smoke, but not be harmful is a sure sign of how people can delude themselves. |
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message > news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com... > >>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P >> >>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes have >>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study proving >>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to smoking, >>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other >>influences. > > > I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much > relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the well > known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now by millions > of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the absurd > negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups against diesel > engined cars. > It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as much > particulate pollution as a single cigarette. > > Huw > > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons. |
Re: CHOKE on this!
Huw wrote:
> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message > news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com... > >>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P >> >>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes have >>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study proving >>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to smoking, >>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other >>influences. > > > I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much > relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the well > known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now by millions > of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the absurd > negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups against diesel > engined cars. > It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as much > particulate pollution as a single cigarette. > > Huw > > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons. |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Who cares? It goes through the on-board cleaning-up process.
DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:dayDd.198$KJ2.165@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net... > Wonder if the same can be said about biodiesel aroma refined from used > deep fat fryer oils! LOL > > -- > ~Philip. > > Dori A Schmetterling wrote: >> Next time you fry your bacon just lean over and take a deep >> breath...and get a nice lungful of nitrosamines, which are reckoned >> to be carcinogenic... >> DAS >> >>> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from >>> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? >>> -- > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Who cares? It goes through the on-board cleaning-up process.
DAS -- For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:dayDd.198$KJ2.165@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net... > Wonder if the same can be said about biodiesel aroma refined from used > deep fat fryer oils! LOL > > -- > ~Philip. > > Dori A Schmetterling wrote: >> Next time you fry your bacon just lean over and take a deep >> breath...and get a nice lungful of nitrosamines, which are reckoned >> to be carcinogenic... >> DAS >> >>> I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from >>> fireplace or pit), cooking smoke ect.? >>> -- > > |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Hagrinas Mivali wrote: > diel@spim.com wrote: > >>In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>>"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>>news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>> >>>>Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>>and never in front of our son. >>>> >>>>Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>> >>>*ahem* >>> >>>HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>> >>>>In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>>that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>>to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>>Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>>back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>>already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>>strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>> >>>>DAS >>> >>>cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>>tobacco in a pipe. >>> >>>See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>>to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>>has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>>going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's >>>bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by >>>us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >>>wants to be around other smokers. >>> > > > It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. It's > just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some > patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason to > believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are > being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot > work. No No No, a thousand times no! Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? Or they can choose not to work in a bar. If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in a perfume factory. Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Hagrinas Mivali wrote: > diel@spim.com wrote: > >>In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>>"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>>news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>> >>>>Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>>and never in front of our son. >>>> >>>>Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>> >>>*ahem* >>> >>>HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>> >>>>In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>>that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>>to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>>Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>>back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>>already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>>strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>> >>>>DAS >>> >>>cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>>tobacco in a pipe. >>> >>>See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>>to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>>has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>>going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have smoker's >>>bars, where you can smoke all you want without being stigmatized by >>>us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as everyone present >>>wants to be around other smokers. >>> > > > It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other smokers. It's > just that most patrons present want to smoke. There's a difference. Some > patrons will have gone because their friends went, but there's no reason to > believe that bartenders and waitresses want to be around smokers. They are > being told that they must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot > work. No No No, a thousand times no! Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? Or they can choose not to work in a bar. If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in a perfume factory. Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Ken Weitzel wrote: > Hagrinas Mivali wrote: >> diel@spim.com wrote: >> >>> In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>>> >>>>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>>> and never in front of our son. >>>>> >>>>> Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>>> >>>> *ahem* >>>> >>>> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>>> >>>>> In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>>> that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>>> to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>>> Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>>> back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>>> already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>>> strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>>> >>>>> DAS >>>> >>>> cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>>> tobacco in a pipe. >>>> >>>> See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>>> to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>>> has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>>> going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have >>>> smoker's bars, where you can smoke all you want without being >>>> stigmatized by us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as >>>> everyone present wants to be around other smokers. >>>> >> >> >> It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other >> smokers. It's just that most patrons present want to smoke. >> There's a difference. Some patrons will have gone because their >> friends went, but there's no reason to believe that bartenders and >> waitresses want to be around smokers. They are being told that they >> must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot work. > > No No No, a thousand times no! > > Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work > in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? I did finish my sentence. If there is a job available, they cannot have it if they do not want to be around smoke. You should have been able to understand that from the context. > > If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? A dislike for booze or it is effects (whatever that means) does not cause them physical harm and is not relevant. The government has no obligation to protect workers from something they merely dislike. > Or they can choose not to work in a bar. Why should they have to make that choice? If the job is available, they should have the right to take it if they are qualified, and should not be subjected to unreasonable health risks. If I advocated that the asbestos laws are stupid and people should just work somewhere else if they don't want a contaminated workplace, I don't think I'd get much support. But cigarette smoke is more harmful than asbestos. People should get the same protection when it comes to smoke as they do for any other poison or substance that causes cancer. > > If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any > degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. Any state OSHA will have rules protecting them from these. They must be vented to the outside, and should not exceed certain levels. If anybody had to work in a garage where exposure to those fumes was a serious issue, you could expect that garage to be closed down, and the owner either sued or jailed, depending on the extent. > If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in > a perfume factory. Perfume is not a substance that has been shown to cause cancer. It is not something that causes problems for people in general. If the concentations in a factory were high enough to cause problems for most people, it would have to fix the problem. This cannot be compared to cigarette smoke, which is harmful to everybody. > > Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to > be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the > rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? Wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out why, and I'm tired of explaining the obvious. |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
Ken Weitzel wrote: > Hagrinas Mivali wrote: >> diel@spim.com wrote: >> >>> In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, >>> "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >>>> >>>>> Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >>>>> appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home >>>>> and never in front of our son. >>>>> >>>>> Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >>>> >>>> *ahem* >>>> >>>> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >>>> >>>>> In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned >>>>> that our (UK) government is going the North American way by trying >>>>> to impose a near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. >>>>> Luckily there are two years for consultation and I hope they will >>>>> back off. Measures to protect workers in smoky establishments are >>>>> already being taken on a voluntary basis and this can be >>>>> strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >>>>> >>>>> DAS >>>> >>>> cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry >>>> tobacco in a pipe. >>>> >>>> See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able >>>> to go out and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone >>>> has to inhale that crap with them, so they're discouraged about >>>> going out. In Arizona(I left there in June), they now have >>>> smoker's bars, where you can smoke all you want without being >>>> stigmatized by us smoking Nazis. I think that's a good idea - as >>>> everyone present wants to be around other smokers. >>>> >> >> >> It's not true that everybody present wants to be around other >> smokers. It's just that most patrons present want to smoke. >> There's a difference. Some patrons will have gone because their >> friends went, but there's no reason to believe that bartenders and >> waitresses want to be around smokers. They are being told that they >> must put up with a threat to their life or they cannot work. > > No No No, a thousand times no! > > Finish your sentence, please. .... they cannot work > in a smoking environment. Very different, eh? I did finish my sentence. If there is a job available, they cannot have it if they do not want to be around smoke. You should have been able to understand that from the context. > > If they dislike booze or it's effects, they cannot work? A dislike for booze or it is effects (whatever that means) does not cause them physical harm and is not relevant. The government has no obligation to protect workers from something they merely dislike. > Or they can choose not to work in a bar. Why should they have to make that choice? If the job is available, they should have the right to take it if they are qualified, and should not be subjected to unreasonable health risks. If I advocated that the asbestos laws are stupid and people should just work somewhere else if they don't want a contaminated workplace, I don't think I'd get much support. But cigarette smoke is more harmful than asbestos. People should get the same protection when it comes to smoke as they do for any other poison or substance that causes cancer. > > If they dislike/distrust engine exhaust fumes to any > degree at all, they cannot work in a garage. Any state OSHA will have rules protecting them from these. They must be vented to the outside, and should not exceed certain levels. If anybody had to work in a garage where exposure to those fumes was a serious issue, you could expect that garage to be closed down, and the owner either sued or jailed, depending on the extent. > If they're allergic to perfume, they cannot work in > a perfume factory. Perfume is not a substance that has been shown to cause cancer. It is not something that causes problems for people in general. If the concentations in a factory were high enough to cause problems for most people, it would have to fix the problem. This cannot be compared to cigarette smoke, which is harmful to everybody. > > Darn, guess my smallest grand daughter is never going to > be able to work. Allergic to peanuts. I guess the > rest of the world will have to outlaw peanuts, right? Wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out why, and I'm tired of explaining the obvious. |
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com... > Huw wrote: >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message >> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com... >> >>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P >>> >>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes have >>>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study proving >>>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to smoking, >>>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other >>>influences. >> >> >> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much >> relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the >> well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now by >> millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the >> absurd negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups >> against diesel engined cars. >> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as much >> particulate pollution as a single cigarette. >> >> Huw > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly > carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons. And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean. Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-( Huw |
Re: CHOKE on this!
"Marvin" <physchemNOSPAM@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:10ttmm42p9mrnbd@corp.supernews.com... > Huw wrote: >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message >> news:a8ednSr7ioherUHcRVn-oQ@rogers.com... >> >>>Let me light up a cigarette before I read the article. :P >>> >>>The sad part is that smokers (myself included) KNOW that cigarettes have >>>very dire consequences on ones health. Creating yet another study proving >>>that won't help. Educating adolescents is the only solution to smoking, >>>because they are the most vulnerable to peer pressure and other >>>influences. >> >> >> I think you miss the point, which is that diesel exhaust is so much >> relatively cleaner than cigarette exhaust. This doesn't highlight the >> well known fact that cigarettes are a nasty habit tolerated until now by >> millions of non smokers whenever they socialise, but it highlights the >> absurd negative press about particulates directed by pressure groups >> against diesel engined cars. >> It turns out that it takes about 3.5 modern diesel cars to create as much >> particulate pollution as a single cigarette. >> >> Huw > But in diesel exhaust, the particles are most often coated with highly > carcinogenic polynuclear hydrocarbons. And the cigarette smoke is not? Equally carcinogenic I mean. Directly inhaled for maximum targeted efficiency:-( Huw |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:MbWdnfHKysU5i0PcRVn-tg@giganews.com... > > > WickeddollŽ wrote: >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message >> news:kf-dnZO1ldem_EDcRVn-3w@rogers.com... >>> Full_Name wrote: >>> [snip] >>>> >>>> My brother a smoker since his teens tried to stop using every >>>> method, patch, gum, hypnosis, cold turkey 3+ times, behavior >>>> modification and then Zyban. Zyban was amazingly effective for >>>> him. After the second day on the >>>> product he couldn't even light up it made him feel so ill. He was >>>> so happy that he'd finally found something that worked. >>>> >>>> It did have some "minor" side effects, he couldn't sleep, felt >>>> jittery & he had tremors. He was on Zyban for about 2 months before >>>> he committed suicide at 38 (the first ever in our family). A >>>> doctor had prescribed Zyban and monitored the dose. >>>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> I have looked into Zyban myself, and had considered taking it in >>> order to quite smoking, but did not for exactly the reason you >>> mentioned. It has horrible side effects in some people. While it >>> works for most people, if you are one of the unlucky ones then you >>> are in trouble. >>> >>> Cosmin >> >> Wellbutrin is another alternative, but let me give you a tip if you >> want to try it (Has way fewer side effects): Wellbutrin is usually >> authorized by insurance companies only as a depression drug. So, not >> that I'm telling you to lie, but, if you're feeling down because you >> can't quit smoking or your life isn't going well, be sure to tell the >> doctor... >> > > Wellbutrin and Zyban are the same drug. It's a mild antidepressant that > doctors discovered had a side effect that made smokers dislike cigarettes. > It's covered by insurance companies for depression, and sold under the name > of Zyban for smoking cessation. It's not clear if Zyban caused any of the > side effects. Smokers get jittery when they quit. Some even get depressed. > An anti-depressant should not make it worse, but since people who take > antidepressants are often depressed to begin with, and could become more > depressed without the drug, it makes sense that they could become more > depressed with the drug too (although possibly less so.) While it's > possible > that Zyban caused the effects, it has not been established. I was only pointing out that docs prescribe Wellbutrin, but I haven't seen in prescribed in a very long time. I'm sure t the reason is that Zyban isn't prescribed more often is that it was advertised as a smoking deterrant. I've never seen it prescribed for depression. I haven't seen a doc give a patient Zyban in quite a while. I'm a triage nurse (usually for Family Practice docs), and I haven't called in Zyban in several years. > > Arguing that it's better to keep smoking than to risk side effects from > Zyban is like arguing that seatbelt usage is bad since you might roll over > into the ocean and lose a few seconds getting your seatbelt off. It > ignores > reality. You are statistically much more likely to die from complications > of smoking than from complications of Zyban. > > We're in agreement there :-) Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
"Hagrinas Mivali" <remove.to.reply@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:MbWdnfHKysU5i0PcRVn-tg@giganews.com... > > > WickeddollŽ wrote: >> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message >> news:kf-dnZO1ldem_EDcRVn-3w@rogers.com... >>> Full_Name wrote: >>> [snip] >>>> >>>> My brother a smoker since his teens tried to stop using every >>>> method, patch, gum, hypnosis, cold turkey 3+ times, behavior >>>> modification and then Zyban. Zyban was amazingly effective for >>>> him. After the second day on the >>>> product he couldn't even light up it made him feel so ill. He was >>>> so happy that he'd finally found something that worked. >>>> >>>> It did have some "minor" side effects, he couldn't sleep, felt >>>> jittery & he had tremors. He was on Zyban for about 2 months before >>>> he committed suicide at 38 (the first ever in our family). A >>>> doctor had prescribed Zyban and monitored the dose. >>>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> I have looked into Zyban myself, and had considered taking it in >>> order to quite smoking, but did not for exactly the reason you >>> mentioned. It has horrible side effects in some people. While it >>> works for most people, if you are one of the unlucky ones then you >>> are in trouble. >>> >>> Cosmin >> >> Wellbutrin is another alternative, but let me give you a tip if you >> want to try it (Has way fewer side effects): Wellbutrin is usually >> authorized by insurance companies only as a depression drug. So, not >> that I'm telling you to lie, but, if you're feeling down because you >> can't quit smoking or your life isn't going well, be sure to tell the >> doctor... >> > > Wellbutrin and Zyban are the same drug. It's a mild antidepressant that > doctors discovered had a side effect that made smokers dislike cigarettes. > It's covered by insurance companies for depression, and sold under the name > of Zyban for smoking cessation. It's not clear if Zyban caused any of the > side effects. Smokers get jittery when they quit. Some even get depressed. > An anti-depressant should not make it worse, but since people who take > antidepressants are often depressed to begin with, and could become more > depressed without the drug, it makes sense that they could become more > depressed with the drug too (although possibly less so.) While it's > possible > that Zyban caused the effects, it has not been established. I was only pointing out that docs prescribe Wellbutrin, but I haven't seen in prescribed in a very long time. I'm sure t the reason is that Zyban isn't prescribed more often is that it was advertised as a smoking deterrant. I've never seen it prescribed for depression. I haven't seen a doc give a patient Zyban in quite a while. I'm a triage nurse (usually for Family Practice docs), and I haven't called in Zyban in several years. > > Arguing that it's better to keep smoking than to risk side effects from > Zyban is like arguing that seatbelt usage is bad since you might roll over > into the ocean and lose a few seconds getting your seatbelt off. It > ignores > reality. You are statistically much more likely to die from complications > of smoking than from complications of Zyban. > > We're in agreement there :-) Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
<diel@spim.com> wrote in message news:diel-BB978F.03381207012005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com... > In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >> > Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >> > appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home and >> > never >> > in front of our son. >> > >> > Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >> >> *ahem* >> >> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >> > >> > In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned that >> > our >> > (UK) government is going the North American way by trying to impose a >> > near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. Luckily there are >> > two >> > years for consultation and I hope they will back off. Measures to >> > protect >> > workers in smoky establishments are already being taken on a voluntary >> > basis and this can be strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >> > >> > DAS >> >> cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry tobacco in >> a >> pipe. >> >> See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able to go >> out >> and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone has to inhale >> that >> crap with them, so they're discouraged about going out. In Arizona(I left >> there in June), they now have smoker's bars, where you can smoke all you >> want >> without being stigmatized by we smoking Nazis. I think that's a good >> idea - >> as everyone present wants to be around other smokers. >> >> Natalie > > I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from fireplace > or pit), cooking smoke ect.? > -- > Good question. I'm sure none of it is good for us Natalie |
Re: OT - Re: CHOKE on this!
<diel@spim.com> wrote in message news:diel-BB978F.03381207012005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com... > In article <345q1pF46qf2aU1@individual.net>, > "WickeddollŽ" <wickeddoll1958nofeckingspam@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:41dd9696$0$16589$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com... >> > Yes, I never dated a smoker. Kissing a stale ashtray is not very >> > appealing... My wife smokes very little, then mostly not at home and >> > never >> > in front of our son. >> > >> > Did you say you're an ex-smoker...?... >> >> *ahem* >> >> HELL NO :-) Just tried to date one >> > >> > In fact I enjoy an occasional cigar myself and I am very concerned that >> > our >> > (UK) government is going the North American way by trying to impose a >> > near-blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. Luckily there are >> > two >> > years for consultation and I hope they will back off. Measures to >> > protect >> > workers in smoky establishments are already being taken on a voluntary >> > basis and this can be strengthened, perhaps even with legislation. >> > >> > DAS >> >> cigars stink very badly, IMO, but I do like the smell of cherry tobacco in >> a >> pipe. >> >> See, the big fight here in the U.S. is that smokers want to be able to go >> out >> and have drinks and smoke. The problem is that everyone has to inhale >> that >> crap with them, so they're discouraged about going out. In Arizona(I left >> there in June), they now have smoker's bars, where you can smoke all you >> want >> without being stigmatized by we smoking Nazis. I think that's a good >> idea - >> as everyone present wants to be around other smokers. >> >> Natalie > > I wonder about other smoke, such as incense, wood smoke, (from fireplace > or pit), cooking smoke ect.? > -- > Good question. I'm sure none of it is good for us Natalie |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:08 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands