Are the dangers of smoking overblown?

No. But do what you want, it will be good for natural selection

Weed? If anything, it's not acknowledged enough. The smoke does seriously irritate your lungs. Not like tar of cigarettes, but any small particles in your lungs will irritate it. Not just from the paper, but from the plant material as well. Vaping it is okay I guess. Nothing wrong with pure THC.

>>7915693
>There's really no legitimate problems with being addicted to a substance.
Enjoy your additional unnecessary expenses.

>>7915740
non-autists refer to those sorts of expenses as luxuries, anon.

>>7915693
No.

But by all means, stain your respiratory tract brown - it's not like flesh keeps its colour in the grave anyway.

>>7915750
You wouldn't call gas a luxury.

Any substance that you need to periodically consume is an expense.

>>7915693
Yes

The correlative link between smoking and cancer is weak at best and no causal relationship has ever been demonstrated

Worst thing that will happen is hypertension from being on a stimulant all the time

>>7915760
No, you're wrong.

>>7915740
Only some people have brains that get addicted easy. People who aren't like this a superior. So the weakening of addiction prone people is beneficial to the human species.

>>7915758
expense incurred by choice as opposed to by necessity is luxury

This is really simple for non-autists, anon

>>7915763
No, you're wrong.

>>7915760
>The correlative link between smoking and cancer is weak at best and no causal relationship has ever been demonstrated

I seriously can't believe you're still here.

>>7915760
>The correlative link between smoking and cancer is weak at best and no causal relationship has ever been demonstrated
>being in denial this deep

Kek almost feel sorry for ya there faggo

>>7915768
I'm not though, smoking causes cancer and has been known to for a hundred years.

I don't understand what you're getting out of telling lies on the internet.

>>7915765
You're insane and inane
>>7915767
Addictions constitute a necessity

>>7915770
>>7915771
wow look at all that lack of refutation, you sure told me

>>7915774
such a causative link has never been demonstrated and the correlation between the two is so weak as to be laughable, sorry

it must be nice to be simple-minded and believe whatever advertising tells you

>>7915781
>Addictions constitute a necessity
kek. nope.

>>7915786
2deep4me
I guess I'll have to be wrong then

File: 1433692007580.gif (2MB, 250x158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x158px

>>7915782
>>7915786
>01:32:50
>01:33:51

File: ehw0t.png (29KB, 407x137px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 407x137px

>>7915792
I'm sorry, was there something you wanted to say?

>>7915798
>5s_in_mspaint.jpg

>>7915801
>being_this_delusional.rar

>>7915782
>wow look at all that lack of refutation, you sure told me

I'm not going to put in the effort to defend something that is common knowledge because your scarf-wearing, fedora tipping, hipster ass has a physiological need to dispute ANYTHING that is mainstream, regardless of what common sense and reason may say.

>>7915782
>look at all that lack of refutation

You were refuted in the first ten threads you made you fucking faggot.

Hey, remember when you said you were leaving forever?

File: 1457401016076.png (29KB, 407x137px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 407x137px

>>7915792
No, I'm Spartacus !

>>7915806
I think you meant to reply to >>7915760

>>7915808
>mainstream beliefs are irrefutably true by nature
like geocentrism?
spontaneous generation?
creationism?

today's mainstream is tomorrow's "well we sure were dumb to believe that" as often as not. If you're putting your faith in what mouthpieces say based on how "mainstream" what they are saying is, you're probably not cut out for science. Sorry.

>>7915818
>third_grade_response.cbz

>>7915821
I don't believe that filetype would be particularly useful for encoding such data

>>7915819
False equivalence

>>7915819
> argues against centuries of knowledge and research solely because everything mainstream and common knowledge is bad and wrong
> equates it to questioning geocentricism and creationism

You're like one of those flat earth faggots that says "I won't believe anything you say until I see it with my own two eyes in real life!" And just ignore the mountains of easily accessable evidence.

>>7915826
>False equivalence because I said so :^)
lolnope

>>7915847
>centuries of knowledge
>regarding cigarette smoking and cancer risk
[pre-1817 citation needed]

>>7915723
>I guess

id bet you do a lot of that

>>7915850
Ever since tobacco was discovered in the new world people have been saying it's bad for your lungs. We didn't actually get proof until the late twentieth century. Where's the proof that it WON'T fuck up your lungs? Oh right there is none.

I think your vape's done charging.

>>7915869
>Ever since tobacco was discovered in the new world people have been saying it's bad for your lungs
nope

>We didn't actually get proof until the late twentieth century
we didn't ever get proof of it actually

>>7915870
http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2010/10/19/early_anti-smoking_advocate/

>Absolutely fascinating: According to an article in the British Medical Journal, King James I of England was an early anti-smoking advocate. Published anonymously in 1604, but then credited to the king, his Counterblaste to Tobacco (above) stated that smoking was a:

>. . .custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, daungerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomlesse.

>Comparing smoking to the smoky fires of hell is pretty strong stuff, but, as the BMJ’s Wendy Moore points out, his advice would go unheeded for centuries.

>>7915887
>a blog
wow what an authoritative source you got there

modern forgeries of historical documents or artifacts have never ever been created to support agendas, no sir, that has never once happened

the shroud of turin doesn't exist

File: dale gribble.png (679KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 900x900px

>>7915693
>thousands of peer reviewed studies find out just how bad smoking is for you
>perhaps one of the worst things you can do as it gives you just about every problem under the sun
>some autist doesn't want to listen and continually makes the same exact thread

Pic related it's you

>>7915693
No, smoking is one of the worst choices you can make health-wise. I mean, if you think the benefits outweigh the increased morbidity, go for it.


>>7915760
>The correlative link between smoking and cancer is weak at best and no causal relationship has ever been demonstrated
As opposed to the correlative link between your posts and cancer, which has been strongly substantiated, and the causal relationship is well understood.

>>7915927
op here
im obviously baiting faggot

>>7915723
No, I don't do any drugs. Very light alcohol at most.

>>7916006
Meant for
>>7915854

It is but you'll never get people to treat it like anything other than superstitious voodoo. Smoker lungs get transplanted unadversly so there is a great deal of unfairness on the anti smoking part.

>>7915693
No, smoking is degenerate.

I know, let's ask the Marlboro Man... Oh, he died of cancer? Must be a coincidence. Let's ask the previous Marlboro Man...dead from cancer? huh...What's that now? 4 Marlboro Men dead of cancer? Something fishy is going on here. Maybe someone's poisoning them...

>>7915760
What about heart disease? Your heart doesn't get as much oxygen with your lungs coated in tar. Negatively impacts blood circulation in general too. Even if what you're saying is accurate about cancer per se, it still can't be overblown the idea of knowingly weakening probably the most incredible bodily organ there is. It'll pump for 80 years constantly and yet the act of smoking is like consciously trying to fuck with it.

I should know, I smoke myself, and sometimes (rarely) I'll go for a run to feel at least a bit healthy. I can feel it man. And I'll add, humans iirc are evolved to be long distance, endurance type runners. Anything that fucks up a natural ability so bad like this cannot be discouraged enough.

>>7916121
>I should know, I smoke myself, and sometimes (rarely) I'll go for a run to feel at least a bit healthy. I can feel it man

anecdotal evidence aka not proof of anything

>>7915887

did people in England centuries ago get paid by the e, or what?

>>7916121
Not to mention nicotine increasing blood flow and hardening veins. I stopped smoking a year ago and switched to vapes. I only buy supplies from places that post lab results of all their juices (they also sell hardware at cost (!!)) but I still know that it isn't good for me, just better than smoking cigarettes.

The nicotine really helps during those 12 hour days when the only way you can take all the classes you want and still get extra time in the lab and with TAs (the good ones) is by just getting all that shit done from 9 to 9 twice a week. Without my relaxing vape breaks I'd break. Also helps during long study sessions. It keeps hunger at bay and sharpens focus.

I'll keep vaping, but I've throughly researched all the negatives, and keep my consumption of nicotine down to 3mg per ml 6 ml a day. The harm from cigarettes was just awful in comparison.

>>7916136
>nicotine increasing blood flow and hardening veins
lol, that does not happen

>>7916140
It increases heart rate, without a doubt.

>>7916140
Oh and increased heart rate can cause damage. Consistent nicotine use will slowly damage your cardiovascular system, without any of the benefits that an increased heart rate due to exercise would offer.

>>7915693
Lungs were meant for air, not smoke. End of discussion, senpai.

>>7916168
lol that is laughably false

your body can't tell the difference between increased heart rate from exercise and increased heart rate from smoking

>>7915758
Gas is absolutely a luxury. If you've ever had to go without, you realize how fortunate you are to have access to cheap gas (unless you don't, in which case life is probably harder for you)

>>7916739
Gas is in no way a luxury when you live in an area that has terrible/no public transportation (as seen in something like 85% of the US). That shit is entirely necessary

>>7915693
What does someone gain from smoking cigarettes?
Really, not only is highly detrimental to your health, it's also fucking pointless.

>>7916768
it actually does provide cognitive benefits, the mentally ill don't smoke accidentally. There are better methods but these are the most consumable.

>>7916720
>increased heart rate with mom of the benefits of exercise

You can't just smoke and say you exercised. You aren't using muscles and bone when you smoke. You strengthen neither. Why am I bothering with you? There's loads of information you can find on this.

>>7916857
Fucking swipe. You get what I mean.

>OP has never heard of Hill's Causation Criteria

>>7916857
>increased heart rate from smoking is different from increased heart rate from exercise
wew lad

>>7915760
>weak at best
AHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>7915906

getta' load of this shill 'ere

>>7916131

worth chuckling

>>7916747
Gas is by definition a Luxury. It's unnecessary and only purchased by those with the disposable income to purchase it. Those without the DI will walk bike or use public T.

>>7917425
Gas is by definition not a luxury in many areas and you're fucking retarded if you think
a) public transportation is viable or even exists everywhere
b) walking or biking double-digit miles one way to get somewhere is feasible

>>7917425
Cars are luxury items, gas is a necessity/dependency that comes with owning the luxury.

>>7917738
>Gas as fuel is a necessity because I am willing to ignore the thousands of years humans spent on the planet before automobiles existed.

I bet you think the internet is a necessity as well.

>>7917785
>I think that the layout of human settlement is exactly the same in the post-automobile world as it was before automobiles

I bet you think the paleo diet is a good idea as well

>>7917790
So by your logic an automobile is also a necessity as gas without a vehicle is useless. Keep trying to justify your own entitled opinion though.

>>7917804
>automobiles aren't a necessity for anyone anywhere because in my densely populated urban environment public transportation is viable and destinations are close enough to walk/bike
>i'm going to call you entitled and completely miss the irony
ok stepfam

>>7917828
Where do you live/work that REQUIRES you to have a car? Is there NO OTHER OPTION? Is it illegal to walk or ride a bike where you live? Have all forms of public transport been destroyed?

The only thing I can think of that REQUIRES a vehicle is if you are a truck driver, or some other sort of transportation work. You are seriously deluded if you think I NEED A CAR AND GAS BECAUSE I GOTTA GO TO WALMART.

>>7917843
>what are rural areas? those don't exist
>what are spacious suburbs? those don't exist
>if it's not illegal, walking/biking double-digit miles is a feasible choice
>public transport exists and is viable absolutely everywhere
>my limited view of the world is reality
wew lad

>>7917843
You think it's a luxury to have a car when it would take 2 hours by public transit for some to get to work via bus?

>>7917166
Yeah, you don't get the benefits of exercise from inhaling nicotine. Why is this so hard to understand?

>>7917843
MODS: You see this?
THIS is the level of shitpostery that's been running around our board.

PLEASE clean it up.

When anons don't know how to use manual drive but are too poor to afford a car with an automatic. >>7917843

File: 1373268960473.jpg (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

>>7915760

You're so wrong, I hope you die of lung cancer.