Every once in a while, some famous person will die of lung cancer, and in the attending hooplah over the great man’s death, there will be the inevitable criticisms of his life — maybe if he hadn’t smoked, he wouldn’t have contracted lung cancer.

And it’s true! According to the American Cancer Society, 8 in 10 of all cases of lung cancer are contracted as a result of cigarette smoke. The remaining two cases are generally caused by (and here’s a shocker) smoke from some other kind of tobacco product.

Yes, there are other causes. Of course, the most heinous is second-hand smoke, but asbestos and radon are known factors, greatly enhanced by — you guessed it — smoking. Unsurprisingly, smoking similar weeds like Marijuana can also cause lung cancer. Also, if you breathe in

  • uranium
  • arsenic
  • vinyl
  • chloride
  • nickel chromates
  • coal products
  • mustard gas
  • chloromethyl ethers
  • gasoline
  • diesel exhaust
you might just end up with Lung Cancer, though you’re greatly more likely to if you — once again — smoke. And, of course, survive the experience.. I mean, if you’re breathing mustard gas, you’ve got worse problems than lung cancer.

If you’re getting radiation treatment (for another cancer) to your chest, there’s a slight chance you might contract lung cancer, once again greatly increased if you smoke. Personal and family history may increase your risk, if you smoke, as may certain dietary choices. Also, there is a nigh-insignificant chance that you got lung cancer from smog or a previous lung-related ailment.

So, yes, there is a small chance that you did something else and got lung cancer from that, but the chances are greatly in favor of smoking as a cause of lung cancer. If you have it, you very  probably smoke(d).

So why do I hear people calling things like the above “crap?” It’s all true, damn it. The whole point of this anti-smoking rhetoric is to drive home into your puny little brain the concept that smoking kills people.

Millions upon millions of dollars of public money have been spent in an attempt to educate you and STILL you don’t get it. It’s not about what you enjoy. It’s not about what you have a right to do. Smoking is disgusting and dangerous and evil.

Stop it.

And, no, addiction is not an excuse. Oh, it’s a fair excuse for continuing to smoke. What’s it’s not an excuse for is failing to try. Many smokers give lip-service to the idea of quitting, then they go and have a smoke. If you’re honestly and seriously trying to quit, I will support you. If you’re using addiction as an excuse, you get what you deserve — a massive battery of negative health effects, a massively increased risk of lung cancer, and a shrinking list of places you can go without being shunned by civilized people. You disgust me.

If you are considering taking up smoking or have recently done so, you’re stupid. Go breathe diesel exhaust or mustard gas and save the rest of us the trouble and expense of putting up with your sorry stupid ass for the rest of your disgusting miserable life. Or quit. I’d settle for that, I suppose.

But seriously, what the hell are you thinking? Did the media saturation campaigns somehow fail to reach you? Did you miss that smoking is not only disgusting and impolite but unhealthy and potentially lethal not only for you but also for your friends and family? I mean, seriously — what the hell is your excuse?

10 thoughts on “

  1. Cozmicaztaway

    *grins* Seyla! I can’t even stand people smoking around me, although with one of my friends you can’t really get away from it either.. and apple tobacco is decently good, but.. yeah, smoking’s just dumb.

  2. BobRichter

    As excuses go, “because I feel like it” is pretty damn lame.

    Enjoy smoking, do you? Well, *I* enjoy running through elementary schools shooting everyone in sight. If only we could get rid of those darn anti-murder idiots!

    By the way, Chunga? Very funny, but could you please move that cigarette to the clearly-labelled, well-ventilated smoking area in the back? Thank you.

  3. Neko_Bijin

    Smoking is evil?  More evil than, say, not showering and shaving daily?  Or are we talking driving-too-slow-in-the-fast-lane evil?

    Why can’t they ban ugly people?  Looking at mangled physiognomy is much more unpleasant than inhaling smoke, and probably just as unhealthy.  My eyes need relief!

  4. BobRichter

    Yes, more evil than not showering and shaving daily — that has no demonstrable long-term or short-term health effects on the people around you. Hell, even for sheer unpleasantness, you’d have to fail to shower for weeks to accumulate the kind of stench that smoking will give you in seconds. What really kills me is that *that* is considered impolite, while it’s asking a smoker to stand downwind that is often seen as rude (while lighting up next to the door is apparently some kind of sacred right.)

    Far beyond even driving too slow in the fast lane. Driving slow in the fast lane never gave anyone cancer — cigarette smoke, and second-hand smoke demonstrably have. This is more along the lines of “driving the wrong direction on a crowded street” evil.

    Smoking is a choice. Being ugly is not. Smoking is unhealthy, being ugly is not. Not to put too fine a point on it, Neko, but you’re deliberately trivializing a serious issue.

  5. Neko_Bijin

    No, you’re trivializing the concept of evil to stretch the word to encompass a minuscule statistical increase in risk to passers-by.  Furthermore, as the numbers currently stand, that increased statistical increase in risk stands at… zero.  You might believe that you’re getting cancer from passing through a billowing cloud of cigarette smoke, but the numbers just don’t pan out.  If some day a risk associated with second-hand smoke is fnally quantified, it will be much less than the risk involved in, say, walking outside in platform shoes.  Evil?  Perhaps.

  6. BobRichter

    At what point did I ever start talking about risks of cancer from walking through a cloud of smoke? No such comment was made in the blog entry, nor have any of my following comments touched on such a thing. Casual contact with cigarette smoke was never once mentioned.

    Once walking through a cloud of smoke probably won’t cause lung cancer — though it can. Ultimately, the particle of smoke that started the cancer that killed what’s-her-name, the long-time non-smoker from down the street started in somebody’s ciagrette. Does the fact that there’s no way to determine whose cigarette it was somehow morally clear the smoker from the irresponsibility or willful negligence that lead to her death?

    Is killing people for pleasure evil, Neko? Because that is what we’re talking about here. If you find that issue to be morally trivial — well, I suppose that’s your business. Just don’t be telling me mine.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *