7) i’m in my mid 20s, so the health risks aren’t looming large yet. i can quit later.
Um—I’m afraid I have to tell you that “later health effects” are not caused by smoking later in life. They are caused by smoking early in life… and then getting older (whether or not you quit).
You can improve your chance of recovering from the damage you are doing by quitting right now.
As a frequent health-campaign in Aus tells us “every cigarette is causing you damage”
This is true, but I’ve also read studies that within 24 hours of quitting smoking, there are already noticable health benefits and lowered risks of problems, which continue to get better the longer the time has elapsed. I’m not arguing that smoking between the ages of 15-18 & 20-27, as I have done, will have no effect, but if I quit while I’m still young—I probably have a few years left where one way or the other won’t matter too much—then by the time I reach an age where heart disease, lung disease, cancer, stroke, etc. are more likely dangers for me, my lungs will have had a decade or so to recover and hopefully that will be enough. I’ve gotten a few grey hairs already, and a few wrinkles, so I know that the time to quit will be soon, but I don’t know if I’m ready to do it just yet. The last time I quit (for an entire year, cold turkey), it was because I got tired of the way I smelled and didn’t want to smell like that anymore. I only started up again because I had friends who smoked (who have since moved away). I think if I can get into that headspace again, where I really don’t want to smoke and am tired of it, then I will be able to quit easily, whereas if I’m just doing it because of knowledge of health risks in the distant future—that’s not immediate enough to make it easy.
As far as pregnancy goes, I think that as long as I quit at least a year before I’m planning to get pregnant, the fetus will be okay. My grandmother was encouraged by her doctor to smoke during pregnancy to calm her nerves. (This was in the early 1960,s I believe, and I’m fairly certain the effects of smoking were known to doctors at that time, but i dont know) The kid was born weak and sickly with all sorts of allergies that none of his siblings shared. He survived, and it could have been much worse than allergies, but it was still a bad thing.
Just because quitting smoking will allow your body to heal some of the damage, doesn’t mean it will allow your body to heal all of it, even in 10 or 20 years.
I think you (pthalo) have misunderstood what the “over time” thing is all about.
You chance of cancer starts out low—you may start out with, say, a 1% chance of getting cancer—but that still means it’s possible for you to get cancer with your very first cigarette… over time that chance will go up. It still means that even after you quit—it could be too late. You could already have cancer.
After you quit, the chance that you will develop cancer after that point will go down… but if you already have cancer—then you already have it. Even if you quit and stay clean for he rest of your life.
On top of that is the other damage that you are causing to yourself. Destruction of the lung tissue, scar-tissue do due heat-damage of the lips and throat. Also—you know those wrinkles you’re getting? Your skin is being damaged due to reduced oxygenation. Cigarettes are known to prematurely age the skin… and that damage doesn’t grow back either.
These may well heal somewhat after you quit (to a certain extent)… but will never go away completely. As AdeleneDawner says—you will never get back to how you were before the cigarettes
“but if you already have cancer—then you already have it. ”
While this is essentially a tautology, it is also not exactly true.
Some cancers (last time I checked there were over 200 discrete types) are failures of the autoimmune system (maybe all are) and by “getting healthy” you might trigger and immune response that cleans up a smaller mass.
Not that I’d want to bet on it, but I do plan on starting to smoke again when I get to the age where it’s good effects now matter more than the bad effects later.
:)
Certainly an interesting strategy… I myself wouldn’t make that bet—firstly, the probability of a positive effect seems (without me actually bothering to research, mind you) to be orders of magnitude lower than that of a negative outcome (even in late age) - also how old is old enough?
But I can see that it might be appealing. Kind of a fire-with-fire strategy.
First off there are mild stimulant effects to smoking.
Also nicotine (IIRC, or one of the other chemicals in smoke) is a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor.
Finally it is an appetite suppressant (probably a side effect of the stimulant thing) as I age certain injuries (modulo The Singularity) will catch up with me and the arthritis will make my current level of exercise difficult to impossible.
And lastly smoking will annoy the living f out of all those nanny state mutherfrs who’ve been pissing me off for the last 20 years and seem intent on doing so until I die—hopefully with a cigar in one hand, a scotch in the other.
Ah—well that is an entirely different kettle of utility. ;)
While (as previous stated) I would not make the same choice… I respect your right to choose to take the risk for your obvious pleasurable returns. I totally grok being contrarian for the fun of it ;)
Um—I’m afraid I have to tell you that “later health effects” are not caused by smoking later in life. They are caused by smoking early in life… and then getting older (whether or not you quit).
You can improve your chance of recovering from the damage you are doing by quitting right now.
As a frequent health-campaign in Aus tells us “every cigarette is causing you damage”
This is true, but I’ve also read studies that within 24 hours of quitting smoking, there are already noticable health benefits and lowered risks of problems, which continue to get better the longer the time has elapsed. I’m not arguing that smoking between the ages of 15-18 & 20-27, as I have done, will have no effect, but if I quit while I’m still young—I probably have a few years left where one way or the other won’t matter too much—then by the time I reach an age where heart disease, lung disease, cancer, stroke, etc. are more likely dangers for me, my lungs will have had a decade or so to recover and hopefully that will be enough. I’ve gotten a few grey hairs already, and a few wrinkles, so I know that the time to quit will be soon, but I don’t know if I’m ready to do it just yet. The last time I quit (for an entire year, cold turkey), it was because I got tired of the way I smelled and didn’t want to smell like that anymore. I only started up again because I had friends who smoked (who have since moved away). I think if I can get into that headspace again, where I really don’t want to smoke and am tired of it, then I will be able to quit easily, whereas if I’m just doing it because of knowledge of health risks in the distant future—that’s not immediate enough to make it easy.
As far as pregnancy goes, I think that as long as I quit at least a year before I’m planning to get pregnant, the fetus will be okay. My grandmother was encouraged by her doctor to smoke during pregnancy to calm her nerves. (This was in the early 1960,s I believe, and I’m fairly certain the effects of smoking were known to doctors at that time, but i dont know) The kid was born weak and sickly with all sorts of allergies that none of his siblings shared. He survived, and it could have been much worse than allergies, but it was still a bad thing.
Just because quitting smoking will allow your body to heal some of the damage, doesn’t mean it will allow your body to heal all of it, even in 10 or 20 years.
Yes. I agree.
I think you (pthalo) have misunderstood what the “over time” thing is all about.
You chance of cancer starts out low—you may start out with, say, a 1% chance of getting cancer—but that still means it’s possible for you to get cancer with your very first cigarette… over time that chance will go up. It still means that even after you quit—it could be too late. You could already have cancer.
After you quit, the chance that you will develop cancer after that point will go down… but if you already have cancer—then you already have it. Even if you quit and stay clean for he rest of your life.
On top of that is the other damage that you are causing to yourself. Destruction of the lung tissue, scar-tissue do due heat-damage of the lips and throat. Also—you know those wrinkles you’re getting? Your skin is being damaged due to reduced oxygenation. Cigarettes are known to prematurely age the skin… and that damage doesn’t grow back either.
These may well heal somewhat after you quit (to a certain extent)… but will never go away completely. As AdeleneDawner says—you will never get back to how you were before the cigarettes
The best chance for you is to quit immediately.
“but if you already have cancer—then you already have it. ”
While this is essentially a tautology, it is also not exactly true.
Some cancers (last time I checked there were over 200 discrete types) are failures of the autoimmune system (maybe all are) and by “getting healthy” you might trigger and immune response that cleans up a smaller mass.
Not that I’d want to bet on it, but I do plan on starting to smoke again when I get to the age where it’s good effects now matter more than the bad effects later.
:) Certainly an interesting strategy… I myself wouldn’t make that bet—firstly, the probability of a positive effect seems (without me actually bothering to research, mind you) to be orders of magnitude lower than that of a negative outcome (even in late age) - also how old is old enough?
But I can see that it might be appealing. Kind of a fire-with-fire strategy.
First off there are mild stimulant effects to smoking.
Also nicotine (IIRC, or one of the other chemicals in smoke) is a serotonin re-uptake inhibitor.
Finally it is an appetite suppressant (probably a side effect of the stimulant thing) as I age certain injuries (modulo The Singularity) will catch up with me and the arthritis will make my current level of exercise difficult to impossible.
And lastly smoking will annoy the living f out of all those nanny state mutherfrs who’ve been pissing me off for the last 20 years and seem intent on doing so until I die—hopefully with a cigar in one hand, a scotch in the other.
Ah—well that is an entirely different kettle of utility. ;)
While (as previous stated) I would not make the same choice… I respect your right to choose to take the risk for your obvious pleasurable returns. I totally grok being contrarian for the fun of it ;)
I know I’m not supposed to upvote contrarianism, but it’s just too hard to resist. Please use this comment to downvote my lack of willpower.