"I live for the funk. I'll die for the funk."
- Notorious B.I.G.
And it's possible to shoot a gluttonous amount of heroin and still make it to your 60's, but that doesn't mean it's harmless.
No, it doesn't. But if Keith Richard OD'ed tomorrow, I don't think anyone would blame the government, but rather Richard's reckless lifestyle. (I have no clue if he still uses -- The Rolling Stones is my least favorite band.) Heroin, like smoking, is unhealthy & addictive -- more so, it would seem. If someone used a small dose of heroin once a year for the rest of his life, I doubt it would have any noticeable effect on his overall health.He has apparently chosen to use more frequently, thereby accepting the associated risks. It's the same with smokers. Those who puff three packs daily shouldn't be surprised if they acquire lung cancer. On the other end, those who smoke in only limited amounts can expect to live a normal, healthy life. The government steps in with heroin because people often get addicted after just one dose. The same can't be said for cigarettes.
I'm afraid of the message this photo will send to the children.
Read the whole article before spreading nonsense: she "smoked" 5 cigs a day--WITHOUT INHALING. (Inhalation was a new phenomenon in the 'teens. Its burgeoning popularity--made possible by new types of cigarettes--is one reason lung cancer exploded in the 20th Century.)
geneb5 -- is that true about inhaling being a recent phenomenon? Does that means tobacco users prior to the early 1900s never inhaled? Just curious. If so, maybe elementary school health programs ought to start encouraging students to "smoke responsibly."
Hum. Is it remotely possible to enjoy smoking without inhaling?I've never smoked and so wouldn't know one way or another.But it seems completely irrational to believe that most smokers didn't inhale before the early part of the century, since it seems like there would be no possible enjoyment or benefit derived without it.
I'm afraid of the message this photo will send to the children.Hahahaha.I believe not inhaling increases the liklihood of mouth and throat cancer.
Before the 20th Century, tobacco was quite harsh, and discouraged inhalation. Smoking was also inconvenient in an era when most men worked with their hands (pipes, cigars, roll-your-own) and had no matchbooks.Inhaling became much easier due to the development of flue-cured tobacco, a much lighter strain. "Camel" was the first mass-marketed version, beginning with a massive national campaign in 1913. In the 'teens and 'twenties, there were articles that taught people how to inhale. Inhaling was often mentioned as a new (and possibly dangerous) phenomenon.Dr. Alton Ochsner was a med student at a major teaching hospital in 1919 when he was summoned to observe a patient with a disease so unusual that, he was told, he would probably never see it again in his lifetime--the patient had lung cancer.And indeed, he didn't see another case for 17 years--then, in just a six month period, he saw 8 cases--all ex-soldiers who had picked up smoking with the free Camels the Doughboys had been flooded with in WWI.
Post a Comment