I quit when I was twentyfive. That was thirty years ago. I can
distinctly remember being in the backyard of my house and realizing
that I was tired of the smelly fingers, sore throat and bad taste in
After ten years of smoking it was actually quite easy for me to quit.
People that I've told about my quitting frequently say that I wasn't
addicted to tobacco of I quit so easily
Oh, good grief. Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" and "cancer
sticks" in the '40s and '50s, maybe earlier. The Surgeon General's
warnings on cigarette packs started in 1966. That's 48 years ago. I'm
62 and can't remember a time when it wasn't a topic that wasn't in the
forefront of the public conscience. Both grandfathers died from
smoking and none after smoked. No, smoking causing death is not a
And "Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health" was printed in
bold lettering on every pack. Life (and death) is about choice.
Hopefully it will stay that way.
On 9/21/2014 11:07 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today. For that matter
coffee was considered and frowned upon for kids too. Similar hazards,
stunted growth, developmental hazards. Darn fewer young adults smoke
today than they did 45~50 years ago and the is mainly because of the
more publicized studies.
Do you eat fast food or drink alcohol? Shame on you?
Tell that to a thirteen year old in 1966.
It was eventually printed on every pack but not before the mid 60's. My
mother smoked and it was a topic that was talked about when the "May" be
hazardous to your health label was added. It was not totally unlike the
warning labels on gasoline pumps warning about leaded fuel being a
hazard to your health.
Baloney. As I said, I just turned 62 and the warnings have been
around a lot longer than I have. My parents would have been 100
recently, and enough dangers of smoking were around when they were
kids to not go there. Their parents, perhaps not so much.
No, I don't much like fast food (I do enjoy full service restaurants,
though) and gave up all alcohol almost ten years ago. ...but that
doesn't mean I eat a perfect diet (not by a long shot).
My parents did. I didn't smoke, nor did any of my siblings. It *is*
possible to fight marketing. Because someone didn't isn't the fault
of the marketers. The warnings *were* there.
As I said, 1966 but the issue was known at *least* decades before
that. It shouldn't have taken a warning from the government to
convince people it was dangerous. It didn't.
Keith, you just reminded me all over again why I have you killfiled. Thanks, asshole, for your
sensitivity and compassion.
No, and none of the events I related are recent, either. He was born in October 1948, started
smoking around 1964, maybe earlier, I don't remember, was diagnosed with cancer in June
1996, and died in January 1997.
Of course you didn't know that, because I hadn't said so. But did you ask? Take the trouble
to learn the facts next time before making more of ass of yourself than you already are.
Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a dispenser
If you wanted a Coke, it was there for the taking.
Didn't take long to pick up 5 pounds I didn't need.
Took longer to take it off after stopping drinking that free Coke.
Today it's pretty easy to spot the Coke/Pepsi (sugar) sucking
They are the ones with an extra 30-50 pounds hanging on their
hips and a quart cup with a straw sticking out of it they are sucking
as they walk down the street.
Sure, there's more evidence today, but the rest I've got to disagree
with this. The scientific proof has been there. The evidence of
thousands of years of smokers was there. Sixty years ago, or even six
hundred years ago, autopsies were performed. Just as black lung
disease was known for thousands of years, many of the deleterious
effects of smoking has been known and proven for many thousands of
Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.
On 9/21/2014 10:29 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yes but as I have stated three times now, the young teenagers did not
pay attention to "what the parents said". They still drank alcohol and
smoked. I recall the only primary warning was that smoking was bad for
you. And drinking alcohol, and holding your breath til you passed out,
and drinking coffee, and something else that was sure to make you go
blind. Since many of the warnings held no more weight than the next,
again to a teenager, the fact that many of the warnings did not hold
true sorta watered down the seriousness.
Simply stated, the possible side effects of smoking 50 years ago were
not taken as seriously as they are today.
The first Surgeon General's report outlining the hazards of tobacco
that I remember was 1963.
The tobacco lobby spent a tidy sum suppressing it.
Warning labels came later.
A couple of weeks after the warning labels were put on the packs. sales
of cigarettes dropped by 90% and people just stopped smoking, no one
else ever started. Nearly impossible to find a place selling smokes
today. It was a great idea!
No argument there Lew. Public/Comerica admittance concerning the
dangers of tobacco are a more recent thing. That doesn't for one
second take away from the very obvious dangers attached to smoking for
decades and centuries before that.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.