Cigars and the finer things

[windshieldbug]

Well, it's your life, but if you're after a self-destructive and addictive habit, I think narcotics or alcohol would be preferable.

Speaking from experience, driving racecars into mountains and missing by a little isn't much fun, either...

[Adam C.]

Remember too, there are folks who do smoke *in moderation*.

I was having a cigar while on tour recently, something I do once every week or two, and someone said to me "I didn't realize you were a smoker!"

My response was something along the lines of "well, I'm not really, I only do it once in a while, etc". It seems to me that most people, once they see you smoke, assume it's habitual and label you a smoker.

There's alot of connotation that comes with that label I'd rather not be associated with.

[funkcicle]

one more for 'the finer things'

[Joe Baker]

Death by tobacco isn't quick and isn't nice, take my word for it.

A Dallas-area radio talk-show host told of a conversation he had with a doctor he met. The doctor asked if he smoked: yes, he did. "Well," the doctor said, "I hope you get lung cancer." The smoker asked how he could say such a thing. The doctor responded, "Look, if you're a smoker, it's virtually certain that you'll eventually die from either lung cancer or emphysema. Lung cancer will only take a couple of years to kill you, but with emphysema you may linger in pain, unable to catch a decent breath, for ten or fifteen years. You don't want ten or fifteen years like that; so I hope you get lung cancer."

The idiot talk-show host quit for six months -- then started again. I've never been a smoker, so I know I don't really understand the hold it gets on people. Those of you who smoke, I hope you will do whatever it takes to quit; those youngsters of you who don't, PLEASE don't start.
________________________________
Joe Baker, whose father died from lung cancer at the age of 57.

[ThomasDodd]

Death by tobacco isn't quick and isn't nice, take my word for it.

The doctor responded, "Look, if you're a smoker, it's virtually certain that you'll eventually die from either lung cancer or emphysema.

Just ask George Burns about that, to pick a well know cigar smoker.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA ... ,3,00.html

Yep, it'll sure kill you, early! I hope to die early like he did.

Joe Baker, whose father died from lung cancer at the age of 57.

My father died at 55. He smoked as long as I ever knew. Heart attack around 45. Tripple bypass. Died 10 years later when they went in for another bypass. No cancer, not emphysema. No signs of either.

Did the smoking contribute? Maybe, but I'll bet his diet and (lack of) exercise was more a factor.

[Joe Baker]

... it's virtually certain that you'll eventually die from either lung cancer or emphysema.

Just ask George Burns about that, to pick a well know cigar smoker.
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA ... ,3,00.html

Yep, it'll sure kill you, early! I hope to die early like he did.

I put that word "virtually" in there with George Burns specifically in mind. Everybody knows of somebody who is seemingly genetically immune to lung cancer, who smoked for 70 years and died in a hang-gliding accident. Those stories are remarkable because of their rarity. The research is overwhelming that in MOST people smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.

I understand the addictiveness, and I bear no personal condemnation for people who have been unable to break that addiction, but to defend it is foolish. It is a habit that is expensive, offensive to people nearby, is contributive to asthma and other breathing problems among children exposed to it, and almost always damaging to the health of the smoker. What possible redeeming qualities are there to offset the negatives?

To be sure, cigar smokers have a lower incidence of lung cancer than cigarette smokers, but a higher incidence than the public at large and a MUCH higher incidence of cancers in the mouth and throat. Since those cancers often result only in disfigurement, not death, I suppose cigars are better than cigarettes.
______________________________
Joe Baker, who knows Thomas is a smart guy, but that even the smartest guys sometimes don't see things clearly.

[ThomasDodd]

I understand the addictiveness, and I bear no personal condemnation for people who have been unable to break that addiction,

That puts you in the minority. Most nonsmokers are very prone to condemnation. Not as bad a ex-smoker, but not far off.

I'm still not convinced that smoking is addictive in the medical sense of the word. Addiction is accompinaed with tolerance build ups, and the requisite increase in consumption. The withdrawl symptoms for tobacco are not the physical symptoms either. Watch any caffine addict* without there daily dose for a while. Or prehaps a heroin juckie without a fix, if you don't see the difference.

but to defend it is foolish.

I don't "defend" it buy saying it's good. But I don't think it's the evil many believe it to be, or want me to believe it to be.

It is a habit that is expensive, offensive to people nearby, is contributive to asthma and other breathing problems among children exposed to it, and almost always damaging to the health of the smoker. What possible redeeming qualities are there to offset the negatives?

I'll arge the expensive part of that. First, most of the cost of pre-made cigarettes is in takes. So that's artifical price inflation from the government. Since I sledom smoke pre-made cigatettes, I' avoid most of those taxes anyway. I spend less that $20/ month on tobacco and papers. I spend more than that on 2 good bottles of wine (or one bad bottle at a resturant).

As to asthma and and such, citys filled with pollution from automobiles are far more problematic. The days of coal lamps, stoves, and heat had much worse affects than any tobacco product. Or how about a (wood burning) fire place to heat the home?

Nothing irritates me more than to have someone complain when I'm standing outside, while 20 cars are stopped at the light, or standing in a parking garage with diesel busses waiting. They aren't concerned with health issue, just a personal revoltion to a cigarette, cigar, or pipe. Just the tobacco burnning.

To be sure, cigar smokers have a lower incidence of lung cancer than cigarette smokers, but a higher incidence than the public at large and a MUCH higher incidence of cancers in the mouth and throat.

Remionds me. Not often to you her much any more abot tobacco used orally. Chew or dipping. I know many smokers who moved to dipping. It's considered by many to be healther. Go figure.

Where are the "stop chewing" campaign and help-stop products?

* I'm one of those caffine additcts too. I'm much better to be a round when I haven't had a cigarette than when I haven't had coffee. And I drink coffee all day at work, and iced tea when I'm not at work. Which do you think is doing me more harm

[windshieldbug]

Where are the "stop chewing" campaign and help-stop products?

Hey, there wasn't any hockey last year! Can baseball be far behind?

[Dan Schultz]

I said earlier that there's nothing like the opinion of a reformed smoker. One thing's for certain... usless you've had a three pack a day habit, you have no idea what it's like. I quit cold turkey about ten years after smoking for 35 years! I have no lingering health problems. I take no medication whatsoever except for a baby aspirin and a vitamin each day. I had no problems at the time I quit smoking. You know why I quit? Well... it wasn't for health reasons. It was strictly because of the cost of a three pack a day habit. Hell... at today's prices that translates into into HALF the cost of new tuba each year (about $4,000):!:. Now... friends... that's just plain stupid THAT's why I quit. Do I miss it? NO... not one single bit. And a side note is that I may be able to play tuba for another twenty years or more. That's NOT to say that an occassional cigar is bad.... GOOD cigars are expensive. I'm just saying I have better things to spend my money on... like an occasional shot or two of a good single malt!

[windshieldbug]

I'm just saying I have better things to spend my money on... like an occasional shot or two of a good single malt!

I may be weak willled, but I tried to quit too many times! Even got so I was inhaling cigars (you wanna talk about nasty!). Took a coma to get me to stop for good, then I still had to deal daily with just the mental part. But like you say Tinker, more than worth it, and the single malts don't go away!

[ThomasDodd]

I quit cold turkey about ten years after smoking for 35 years!

That's the only way to quit. As I said, I think the "addiction" is all mental. So the only way to quit is to truely no longe want one. Then you can set them down and never touch them. All the other stuff is for people who think they should quit byut really want to smoke (mayby sub-conciously though).

It was strictly because of the cost of a three pack a day habit. Hell... at today's prices that translates into into HALF the cost of new tuba each year (about $4,000):!:.

If I was smoking pre-made cigarettes, it's a little more than a pack a day, about a carton a week. That who $25-30 now? So $1300-1500/year.

I smoke a nice tasting tobacco now that costs much less (~ $20/pound and I buy it by the pound). And by rolling my own I can adjust how much tobacco I use, based on my mood. Somtime abou half what in a per-made, somtimes as just as much. This tobacco doesn't have the additives for stead, even burns that the pre-mades do, so If I set in down, it goes out. Remembo all thouse time you light one, got distracted and looked back to see it had all burn away? Doesn't happen now, and I get distracted easily and often

I'm not suggesting any one smoke, any more than I suggest anyone drink liquor. But if you going to do either, there are different levels of consumption. Su, if you smoke 3 packs of any cigarrette you can get, it the same as drinking rot-gut liquor. But smoking something nice is like a good single malt.

[ThomasDodd]

I have a feeling that you are doing better in the addiction department just by rolling your own. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the levels of nicotine in a Marlboro or Camel is much higher than in what you roll yourself.

Perhaps, but only because I use less tobacco overall. Never seen a nicotine (or tar) study on hand rolled cigarettes. And with so many brands, and the variables in hand rolling, it'd be quite involved. I don't really think they pump-up the nicotine. If they did, I would use more tobacco hand rolling, not less.

Camel, non-filter Nicotine 1.7mg
Camel, full-flavor Nicotine 1.4mg
Lucky Strike, non-filter Nicotine 1.5mg
Lucky Strike, full flavor Nicotine 0.9mg
Marlboro, full flavor Nicotine 1.1mg
Pall Mall, non-filter Nicotine 1.4mg

So If I used the same amount, where would it fall? You can see the tobacco has some effect given the difference in Pall Mall non-filter and Camel filter.

[Chuck(G)]

Perhaps, but only because I use less tobacco overall. Never seen a nicotine (or tar) study on hand rolled cigarettes. And with so many brands, and the variables in hand rolling, it'd be quite involved. I don't really think they pump-up the nicotine. If they did, I would use more tobacco hand rolling, not less.

Camel, non-filter Nicotine 1.7mg
Camel, full-flavor Nicotine 1.4mg
Lucky Strike, non-filter Nicotine 1.5mg
Lucky Strike, full flavor Nicotine 0.9mg
Marlboro, full flavor Nicotine 1.1mg
Pall Mall, non-filter Nicotine 1.4mg

So If I used the same amount, where would it fall? You can see the tobacco has some effect given the difference in Pall Mall non-filter and Camel filter.

It's not straightforward. You could be doing worse than the commercial brands or better:

http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... nnex-l.htm

Also:

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/7/2/168

[ThomasDodd]

So If I used the same amount, where would it fall? You can see the tobacco has some effect given the difference in Pall Mall non-filter and Camel filter.

It's not straightforward. You could be doing worse than the commercial brands or better:

http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... nnex-l.htm

Also:

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/7/2/168

Thanks for the links.

[Joe Baker]

Proof positive that cigarettes are dangerous:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04_pf.html
___________________________________
Joe Baker, who marvels at the stupidity of some people....

[ThomasDodd]

Proof positive that cigarettes are dangerous

Naw, just further proof the stupid people should be forced to wear a sign.

[MaryAnn]

Nothing irritates me more than to have someone complain when I'm standing outside, while 20 cars are stopped at the light, or standing in a parking garage with diesel busses waiting. They aren't concerned with health issue, just a personal revoltion to a cigarette, cigar, or pipe. Just the tobacco burnning.

What is going on there is they are seeing the one thing that they feel they (or you) can control; they can't stop the bus or the car exhaust, but they (you) should be able to stop the tobacco smoke. So they try to control the one thing in the environment that they think they (you) should.

I just love that period of time on an airplane when the "ventilation" system sucks in the jet fuel exhaust...I wonder how that would measure on the health meter.

MA

[elimia]

About once a year when my buddy and I do our yearly backpacking trip, I'll bring along a cigar to smoke that night. I really don't care for them otherwise and don't think I would like it unless I already smelled like sweat and campfire smoke.

Now a nice, rich, well-ground and brewed cup of Sumatra or Yemen Mocha coffee...nothing finer to me.

I do like a nice microbrew once and again, but I'm usually happy with just one. I appreciate a good beer more when I'm not drinking them frequently.