Misadventures of the 10lees

ha ha... took the cake! I get it... One might say that obese people can have their cake and eat yours too!

Or... Don't show a pie chart to an obese person.. they might eat it.

I think that the 20% smoking rate is pretty good - but to quote 'House' - Everyone lies - and I'm sure there's a few liars in that survey. :) Smoking is an addictive behaviour - it's not enuf that the nicotine is involved - it's that the oral fixation thing is going on.
Let's bet - how much you want to BET THAT Gab will smoke - AH COME ON NOW. She will - she's always got her hand, finger or clothes or anything handy in her mouth. Maybe it's the braces that are causing her pain - SHE WILL SMOKE SOMEDAY.
And you know who smokes? - that's right - your cousin Sabrina - the one who scratched her nose and cheek while sucking her thumb - she's never gotten over the dang oral fixation. And all the Tobasco sauce in the world didn't cure her.
:)
Your Dad was just 4 months away from Skoal when he died and he WAS MISERABLE without the nicotine running thru his system. He was drinking WAY too much. A man at the ski lodge told me: when someone gets off of nicotine they usually hit really hard the other thing that's an addiction - ergo: alcohol. :( Love you and use your recycler on your car when a smoker is around - that's what I do. :)

I think people should mind their own damn business. But then, I'm one of the people who shouldn't be shown a pie chart.

AND I'M NOT SORRY, EITHER.

I'd rather be fat for the rest of my life than have the borderline eating disorder I had in high school. If all I can manage is extremes, then I'll take the one that makes me a little less nuts, thank you very much.

Mom, yes i agree that 20% isn't bad, that is my main whole point. Can we really expect less than 20%? Granted, the article points to European countries that have done it - but they most likely have a slower pace of life than most Americans.

Mmmmm, cake. I am all for personal choices Lo, and none of us can really throw stones. Has everybody forgotten we have to die of something? Granted, lung cancer isn't pleasant, but it's a choice.

Ah - your g'ma has dementia b'c of smoking - you know that starving herself for oxygen caused way BIG problems.
My comment on the 20% is that we have more smokers than that - just drive down the street and take a sniff. RECYCLE!!
I was raised with a smoker and I married a smoker - what was I thinking - oh yeah - he quit about 1 year or more into the marriage.

I used to be VERY sensitive to smoke and am less so now. It's a sign that your liver isn't feeling well to have such a bad reaction to the sniff of it. ;)
Ah well - I HATE SMOKERS! :)
And yesh - you have to die of something!

Ten do you remember when we drove thru Canada - man there was SMOKE everywhere - couldn't get away from it.
Montana is another place - everyone seems to smoke. Ah the wild west - ok - i'm done ranting. :)

Sorry but I just had to rebutt the note about dementia. It is not caused by smoking, and there is absolutely no evidence for this. Dementia has many causes, such as a stroke, Alzheimers, or a head injury, but smoking is not one of them.

yeah... if you have a beef against smoking, that's fine. i have plenty of beefs against stuff my friends and family do, but i choose not to harass them about it. i'm as much at fault as anyone else for bad habits. life is too short to get so upset about things i dont choose to surround myself with.

I wish I could find the article I read on it, but there have been recent studies that links smoking to your risk of developing Dementia. Smoking decreases the amount of oxygen that reaches your brain and over time it can increase your risk of dementia. If I find the article I will post it, they are making new findings all the time and if you are doing something bad for yourself then you are going to have complications of some sort at some time.

My main point was that yes, people should be educated and provided aid to quit smoking, but I don't believe that we, as Americans, should allow our tax money to be spent educating perfectly consenting ADULTS on the ills of smoking. Educate children and teens, and even young adults, but once you reach 25 you will have heard at least a few times that smoking is bad for you and I consider it irreponsible to spend money on you telling you it is bad. Figure it out for yourself and I will spend my money helping poor children eat, get health care, and put away child abusers. That would be a better use of our money.

Ya - T - let's not be so socialist.

I have to agree they should spend all the money on educating teens. Who the hell starts smoking after they turn 18 you would have to be a freaking moron. And yes this from a smoker.

I come down hard on the side of less government intervention (for instance even though I wear my seatbelt, I hate seatbelt laws), but smoking is a different animal. Unlike obesity, smoking has profound consequences for those around the smoker. I worked for the EPA in Washington, DC in the indoor air quality division dealing with second hand smoke issues. The medical issues are huge -- especially for children whose lungs are still developing. The science is uncontroverted and very strong. I think more gov't intervention on this issue is a good thing -- but to be fair, I didn't read the article that set you off so I may be way off here. :)

So, sorry to rant myself, but this is an issue I take personally. :)

PS I don't smoke or eat hamburgers. :)

no hamburgers??!! how is that possible? i dont understand! :o)

hey jess, i totally agree with protecting people from second hand smoke and limiting where to smoke. I was arguing against educating people either should already know or are unreasonably dumb, I just don't think we should pump tax dollars towards people who are smoking DESPITE the health risk. They already have reasons to quit, but they aren't quitting (for whatever reason). I'd even agree with spending money on helping people quit - but don't educate people who already know.

Just to clarify, the article didn't state exactly whom the current prevention efforts are targeted towards and also it didn't say where new dollars should be put. The only thing that mentioned adults was a quote from the executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Kids being the key word there. Most likely he was generalizing. What I got out of the article was that if the smoking rate decrease has stalled than clearly more prevention is needed. I would agree with that and I think it goes without saying that kids should to be the target of the efforts. I say we let the health plans continue to pump money into the quitting efforts (and let the government handle prevention) since it is in their best interest to have their clients as healthy as possible.