My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
2-3 weeks ago.

He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.

Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.

She died 2 weeks later.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
on the planet.

I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.

The most difficult thing I've ever done.

If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
is probably ahead for you.

It may just help you quit.

Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.

Lew

You're absolutely right on about how tough it is to quit. I quit 8 years ago when it was discovered I had a substantial blockage in my left carotid. Quitting a 40-year habit was a bitch. The docs did a roto-rooter on the carotid and haven't had any problems there since. However, I was diagnosed with a modest bit of emphysema this year. Nothing that's slowed me down, but sooner or later that likely will kill me.

It seems like we need to get slapped upside the head to learn anything in this life, especially when we're young and immortal.

Larry


On Friday, September 19, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC-5, Lew Hodgett wrote:
My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.



The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive

heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.



She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.



Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,

was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about

2-3 weeks ago.



He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.



Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.



She died 2 weeks later.



GOD DAMN TOBACCO.



I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;

however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug

on the planet.



I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.



The most difficult thing I've ever done.



If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known

about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what

is probably ahead for you.



It may just help you quit.



Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.



Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
2-3 weeks ago.

He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.

Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.

She died 2 weeks later.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
on the planet.

I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.

The most difficult thing I've ever done.

If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
is probably ahead for you.

It may just help you quit.

Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.

Lew

Lew..you lost the wife at that age. Should have had many more years. I or
my wife never smoked or consumed alcohol . My dad smoked for many years and
had heart problems for many years before he died. WW

On 9/19/2014 7:43 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
2-3 weeks ago.

He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.

Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.

She died 2 weeks later.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
on the planet.

I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.

The most difficult thing I've ever done.

If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
is probably ahead for you.

It may just help you quit.

Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.

Lew



My condolences, Lew.

I finally quit seven years ago.
It was a pure-D bitch to quit after 30 some-odd years.
I'm 65 now and have COPD problems, of course.
But my wife pushes me out the door to exercise.

Of all the foolishness in this brave new world, I had to get
PERMISSION from my doctor to join a gym!

Shakespeare had a good idea - "First we kill all the lawyers".

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

You have my sympathy. My father died of the same thing, altho
he only made it to 73, after many years of very limited mobility.
He too had been a heavy smoker for much of his life.

John

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:53:46 -0700, Gramps' shop wrote:

You're absolutely right on about how tough it is to quit. I quit 8
years ago when it was discovered I had a substantial blockage in my left
carotid. Quitting a 40-year habit was a bitch.

The addictiveness apparently varies. I quit 17 years ago after a minor
heart attack and it wasn't very difficult. I did ask my cardiologist if
I could have one cigar a month and after muttering he allowed that
couldn't hurt me much :-). A friend of mine quit just because he got
irritated at the price and also did it easily. Both of us had smoked
since we were teens. I'm now 77 and he's 85.

But everyone else I know that quit had a heck of a time, just like you.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.

Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3 :

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
unfiltered Lucky Strikes -- and continued until he was 46, when he
finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about three months before
his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held
on for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
smoking.

--

-Mike-

On 09/20/2014 05:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3 :

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
unfiltered Lucky Strikes -- and continued until he was 46, when he
finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about three months before
his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held
on for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
smoking.

For sure!

My next older brother just passed away from lung cancer at 70. Never
smoked, but work construction all his life doing demo and remodels. We
both worked for our dad in the 60's and we never heard of dust masks or
the like. Many jobs remodelling schools, barracks etc. I haven't work
construction since then (except for adding on to one house and building
another), but I have a non progressive case of scaring of the lungs. I
sure as hell wear a dust mask in the shop now when doing any dust
raising work.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Lew Hodgett wrote:
My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

I'm very sorry to learn of your loss, Lew.

Bill




She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

Understand her health had been on the decline for some time,
was on oxygen, and had been to see her doctor about
2-3 weeks ago.

He indicated that there was nothing else that doctors could do.

Best guess was that she might have 6 to18 months left.

She died 2 weeks later.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I have never used any drugs other than alcohol and tobacco;
however, I'm convinced that tobacco is the most addictive drug
on the planet.

I stopped smoking cold turkey in Jan 1978. It was a bear to quit.

The most difficult thing I've ever done.

If you are still smoking in this day and age with all that is known
about the harmful effects of smoking, stop and think about what
is probably ahead for you.

It may just help you quit.

Off the stump until I see the next person smoking.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.
--------------------------------------------
"Bill" wrote:

I'm very sorry to learn of your loss, Lew.
-----------------------------------------
My kids appreciate your thoughts about their Mom.

Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
------------------------------------------------
One thing is for certain, smoking is a self afflicted action that is
known to bring on lung diseases.

Man controls whether he starts to smoke or walks away.

Lew

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

On 9/20/2014 11:06 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.
------------------------------------------------
One thing is for certain, smoking is a self afflicted action that is
known to bring on lung diseases.

Man controls whether he starts to smoke or walks away.

Lew




This is, of course, completely true.
But there can be more to it.

I started smoking in basic training - basically peer pressure
to "be a man". The first puff did me in.

And in the generation before me, EVERYbody smoked - at least the
men. Common cover for bad breath? But I've heard the cigarettes
themselves were quite different then.

But now? Anyone who smokes is a damned fool.
That's for sure and certain.

On 9/20/2014 7:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3 :

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 --
unfiltered Lucky Strikes -- and continued until he was 46, when he
finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about three months before
his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held
on for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does anyone
here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have never smoke or
have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung cancer is much bigger
than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the Lungevity web site and learn a bit
about it. This is a much bigger monster than can simply be blamed on
smoking.


True but smoking is something that actually does cause lung cancer and
can be avoided all together, except in the cases of second hand smoke.
Smoking also causes heart problems, eye sight problems, skin problems,
fires, makes you stink, and is a habit that costs you a fortune.

On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.

In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.

I think it was 64 or 65 that the Surgeon General's report
defintively linked cigarette smoking and cancer. And a
couple of years after that that warning labels and no TV
ads were mandated.

But Doug makes a good point - from Joe Camel to the recent
flood of fruit-flavored cigarettes (which were banned three
or four years ago) the tobacco companies have gone out of
their way to attract the young and impressionable.

John

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
news
On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.

Not the specific hazards, no but even in the 40s cigarettes were
frequently referred to as "coffin nails".

There is no doubt that they are not good for you but I'm firmly convinced
there is a genetic factor to illnesses derived from them. This has
nothing to do with tobacco but a good buddy died about 20 years ago of
stomach cancer. He was in his early 60s. His three brothers also died in
their early 60s of the same thing. Can't be coincidence, not in my mind.

In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.

Still is, isn't it? On the web too

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:15:36 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
True but smoking is something that actually does cause lung cancer and
can be avoided all together, except in the cases of second hand smoke.
Smoking also causes heart problems, eye sight problems, skin problems,
fires, makes you stink, and is a habit that costs you a fortune.

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
my mouth.

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

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:23:22 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.

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
recent revelation.

In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.

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.

Leon wrote:
On 9/20/2014 7:06 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:


I agree with all of the emotion and the facts about tobacco but does
anyone here realize the percentage of lung cancer patients who have
never smoke or have only smoked for a very short few years? Lung
cancer is much bigger than smoking. Spend a bit of time on the
Lungevity web site and learn a bit about it. This is a much bigger
monster than can simply be blamed on smoking.


True but smoking is something that actually does cause lung cancer and
can be avoided all together, except in the cases of second hand smoke.
Smoking also causes heart problems, eye sight problems, skin problems,
fires, makes you stink, and is a habit that costs you a fortune.

As I said - I agree. My comment stems from our involvement with Lungevity
(after my wife's sister died of lung cancer), and what we have come to learn
about lung cancer. Though cigrettes still are the biggest contributor, most
people do not realize that there are so many other causes - many not yet
well understood. This is a far more complex problem than just smoking.
While the largest percentage of cases would go away if there were no
cigarettes in the world, there would still be alarming numbers of people
succumbing to lung cancer.

--

-Mike-

On 9/21/2014 10:00 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for
continuing to market this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.

I think it was 64 or 65 that the Surgeon General's report
defintively linked cigarette smoking and cancer. And a
couple of years after that that warning labels and no TV
ads were mandated.

But Doug makes a good point - from Joe Camel to the recent
flood of fruit-flavored cigarettes (which were banned three
or four years ago) the tobacco companies have gone out of
their way to attract the young and impressionable.

John


And the same of it all is that one day most of the population will have
the same thoughts about McDonalds going out of their way to attract the
young and impressionable. I can almost guarantee you the McDonalds and
like kind fast food restaurants will cut your lives short too.

Pick you poison!

On 9/21/2014 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:23:22 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.

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
recent revelation.

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?




In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.

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.

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.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/21/2014 11:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:23:22 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770$c3e8da3
:

My ex wife turned 77 the first week of August.

The first week of September she died in her sleep of congestive
heart failure and COPD directly attributed to 50+ years of smoking.

She had finally quit smoking about 12 years ago.

My condolences, Lew.

My older brother started smoking when he was about 16 or 17 -- unfiltered Lucky Strikes --
and continued until he was 46, when he finally quit. He was diagnosed with cancer about
three months before his 48th birthday, and told he might have only six *weeks*. He held on
for about seven months before he passed.

GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to market
this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"? It's no
recent revelation that they cause cancer.

Well if you are 60 or older or would have been and began smoking as a
teenager the hazards of smoking were not fully known and there were no
warning labels.

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
recent revelation.

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.

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.

Do you eat fast food or drink alcohol? Shame on you?

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).

In the mid 60's Winston's tasted good like a cigarette should. That was
on TV and everything on the TV was the truth.

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.

Tell that to a thirteen year old in 1966.

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.

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.

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.

On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770
$c3e8da3
GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to
market this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"?

Keith, you just reminded me all over again why I have you killfiled. Thanks, asshole, for your
sensitivity and compassion.

It's no recent revelation that they cause cancer.

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.

On 9/21/2014 2:23 PM, Leon wrote:

But Doug makes a good point - from Joe Camel to the recent
flood of fruit-flavored cigarettes (which were banned three
or four years ago) the tobacco companies have gone out of
their way to attract the young and impressionable.

John


And the same of it all is that one day most of the population will have
the same thoughts about McDonalds going out of their way to attract the
young and impressionable. I can almost guarantee you the McDonalds and
like kind fast food restaurants will cut your lives short too.

Pick you poison!


At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a bit
better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can easily
make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very difficult to
get away from it.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
difficult to get away from it.

I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
nurishment it provides - well... maybe...

As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you (especially
younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.

It's all about addictive properites.

--

-Mike-

On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
difficult to get away from it.

I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
nurishment it provides - well... maybe...

As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you (especially
younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.

It's all about addictive properites.


What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.

You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:22:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
difficult to get away from it.

I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
nurishment it provides - well... maybe...

As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you (especially
younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.

It's all about addictive properites.


What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.

There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.

You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.

Mostly because professionals have their own cats to skin.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:56:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

On 9/20/2014 11:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:541ccda1$0$41770
$c3e8da3
GOD DAMN TOBACCO.

I couldn't agree more. And God damn the tobacco companies, too, for continuing to
market this killer weed.

How about "God damn your brother for poisoning himself"?

Keith, you just reminded me all over again why I have you killfiled. Thanks, asshole, for your
sensitivity and compassion.

You certainly haven't changed. A conversation with anyone you
disagree with is impossible. Please keep me killfiled. I wouldn't
want you to hurt yourself and you'll live longer.


It's no recent revelation that they cause cancer.

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.

Cigarettes were *WELL KNOWN* to cause cancer at least as far back as
WWII.

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.

You haven't stated any facts, only anecdotes.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
difficult to get away from it.

I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
nurishment it provides - well... maybe...

As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you
(especially
younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.

It's all about addictive properites.


What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.

How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold because
caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the warning?


You think my statement was stupid, but I think yours is. Rating
disorders do exist, but addiction is controversial.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:45:38 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/21/2014 6:27 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


At least fast food provides some nourishment and the offerings are a
bit better than 20 years ago. They are also non-addictive and we can
easily make choices. Once nicotine gets hold of you, it is very
difficult to get away from it.

I won't compare the addictiveness of toabacco to anything else but it is
really stupid to state that fast food is not addictive. As for the
nurishment it provides - well... maybe...

As for your closing statement - once fast food gets ahold of you
(especially
younger people), it is very difficult to get away from it.

It's all about addictive properites.


What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.

How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold because
caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the warning?

Why don't you pick on coffee?

"Bill" wrote:

How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
warning?
----------------------------------------
Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
Coca Cola.

Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a dispenser
on test.

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
addicits.

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
on
as they walk down the street.


Lew

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and not
nearly the available evidence that there is today.

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
years.

Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.

wrote:

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
years.

Maybe the proof hasn't been there on a microscope level, but it's
still been very obvious.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.


Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bill" wrote:

How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
warning?
----------------------------------------
Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
Coca Cola.

Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a dispenser
on test.

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
addicits.

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
on
as they walk down the street.
But, were they given, or were they owed, a fair warning?


Lew

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:08:12 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
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.

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.

Update:
That should read:


.... 30-50 pounds/hip hanging on their hips...

60-100 pounds total.

Lew

-------------------------------------------

"Bill" wrote:

How about caffeine/cola. How much more Coke and Pepsi is sold
because caffeine is addictive (I think quite a lot)? Where is the
warning?
----------------------------------------
Early in my career was involved with dispensing equipment for
Coca Cola.

Every time you walked into the lab, you walked right past a
dispenser
on test.

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
addicits.

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 on
as they walk down the street.


Lew

wrote in message

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 13:41:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Like I said, if you are 60 or older the warnings were not there and
not
nearly the available evidence that there is today.

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.

Good trick as tobacco was unknown except in the western hemisphere until
the Spanish took it back to Europe.

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
years.

Six hundred years ago they didn't have a clue as to what caused disease.
Leeuwenhoek didn't even discover microrganisms until the late 1600s.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:16:30 -0400, wrote:




What are those addictive properties? Do they have burger withdrawal
clinics? I'll agree with poor habits lack of taste, but I don't think
you have to go through detox if you don't have fries today.

There are those who would disagree with you. The issue is endorphins.
Junk food, sugar, chocolate, and all, release endorphins (in a
round-about way) and thus are *quite* addictive.

If that is the main criteria, then most every pleasurable activity is
addictive. Sex, roller coaster rides, playing with puppies,