Talk:Tobacco smoking/Archive 4

message: I think [putting] "citation needed" all over this article is ridiculous. Everybody who has been inside a smoke shop has seen artistically carved pipes and has heard the end of a pipe referred to as a bit. I think these "citation needed" markers should be removed.
: I've removed the "citation needed" for pipes being artistically carved, but it wouldn't hurt to cite a source for the end of a pipe being referred to as a "bit." --Lord Galen 10:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--a lot of the "citation needed" markings are associated with what is considered "common knowledge" or linked to arther articles that can be found on wikipedia. After reading the article, I've noticed many POV and stylistic, as well as grammatic issue, though my opinion is that the overabundance of "citation" requirements is an overcompensatory product, and is counter productive. DPham4 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I'm doing a project on smoking, and the other day the thought hit me that one of the reasons why smoking is so prevelant might be related to sexual selection. It's a well known fact that many young people start because they perceive smoking as cool. That might be particularly so for young men. It is not unreasonable to think that the fact that smoking is dangerous contributes to its pereceived "coolness". If so, is it too far-fetched to say that smoking might be related to some kind of sexual selection phenomenon? A person that is smoking is exposing himself to something known to be dangerous. Presumably, only people in good health would be able to afford such a handicap. I have tried googling it but so far without luck but perhaps someone here has heard about this angle? To me it seems pretty obvious. I would also appreciate hearing other peoples thoughts on this. Maybe I'm taking the wrong search approach since smoking is just one instance of a general phenomenon where slightly dangerous things are perceived as being "cool" possibly due to a sexual selection phenomenon and perhaps no one cared to write about this particular instance.
Nevertheless, my hypothesis has some support in statements made to me in interviews with smokers and why they started smoking. I've also found several references to statements to the effect "I unfortuneately don't have the health to be a smoker etc.". I've also found traces of some of the above thoughts in various literature and particularly clearly expressed in texts written by people with a smoking fetish. I can elaborate on some of these findings if anyone are interested.
One person I've talked to have argued agains the hypothesis on the grounds that smoking was also "cool" hundreds of years before it was known to be dangerous. One possible argument against this is that while it hadn't been proven to cause lung cancer until 50 years ago it was certainly speculated not to be healthy long before. The literature contains several instances of doctors speculating about the unhealthy effects, and about parents trying to discourage their children from smoking on health grounds etc. There's also something obvious unhealthy about it since people quite often cough or feel bad the first few times they smoke. However, a perhaps even more plausible argument is that smoking originally was considered attractive because only the richest could afford it. Later when it became cheaper, it was picked up by the working class wanting to look like the richer. When smoking turned out to be dangerous it was seen as attractive for than reason!
If the hypothesis is true it is a difficult public health issue to tacle since the more information is put out about how bad smoking is the more interesting it might become. On the other hand, sexual selection would probably not favor individuals involved in extremely high-risk behaviour and the person considering starting smoking in order to gain the benefits of sexual selection should on some level be aware of this too. Mike81 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a very good hypothesis. Since it has become widely known that smoking is unhealthy numbers of smokers have dropped, not increased. Sexual selection can explain why women are attracted to wealthy men, but I don't think it's very good at expalaining smoking. Rebellion and peer pressure would be better explanations, and addiction being the key to continued smoking. Richard001 09:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so...for one thing, if it was the case, you would have to see an increase over time of populations becoming less susceptable to the dangers of Tobacco - that would be the only way to test the hypothesis that the ability to engage in the act of smoking was perceived as a sign of health in the individual. On top of this, smoking doesn't cause many problems in young people at their sexual peak, only later in life when people have, for the most part, dropped out of the mating pool. So there would be no discernable indications to the selector that the young smoker was healthier over the course of a lifetime. Thirdly, children born to smokers (women smokers) have lower birth-weights and sometimes even mental problems and respiratory ailments which would probably make them *less* attractive as mating material. How it might work is tied to older smokers. We know that populations of older men who have children with significatly younger women, over time, increase the longevity of the population as a whole...so maybe it would have to be a study focusing on all those sexy smoking septuagenarians and the Lolitas who love them. Which doesn't sound fun. Saudade7 23:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. To another point you make -- for a long time in the United States military (WWI and WWII, it was suggested that men smoke, especially in Hospitals, etc. because it was thought to kill certain germs. So that use of smoking wouldn't be seen as reckless, more the opposite. Saudade7 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smoking and sexual selection?

message: It states "In New Zealand and Australia smoking is banned in all public places, including bars and restaurants." While i cannot speak for New Zealand The statement is misleading for Australia as there are a: the different states have their own anti smoking legislation and b: not all public places are smoke free - something along the lines of "And In Australia new legistation severly curtails smoking in public" would be more appropriate
: Exactly,
As far as New Zealand goes, there is NO blanket ban on smoking outdoors here, it only applies to the interiors of workplaces, bars and restaurants.
Smoke-free parks have been mooted here, but who is going to police that?.Trumpy 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smoking Bans

message: Deleted that little "they are very good for you" comment? What was that?
- Gnome 58.165.115.225
: That would be wp:vandalism.  --Nephtes 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snide Remark 

message: The article was change to become more neutral, well-cited, accurate, and well-written. It is not yet good enough to become a Featured Article but is good enough to be listed as a Good Article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: I have archived all the past discussions for this page. Please go to Talk:Tobacco smoking/archive1 to read them. Thanks. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to top - you should always place an archive somewhere easily visible so people are aware that there has been more discussion than is currently present. Richard001 09:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I have re-nominated this page as a Featured Article. It was greatly improved since its original nomination. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: It has never been shown that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. The studies done that say this were thrown out of a US court for being skewed and flawed. All warnings, such as the Surgeon General's Warning are based on these articles and are thus also flawed.
Please watch : "Second Hand Smoke/Baby Bullshit." Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Showtime. 21 February 2003. Even if you disagree with their tactics and attitudes, Penn and Teller have done their research very well.
--The Talking Sock talk contribs  13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment is factually correct.  But the issue, unfortunately but not atypically, is more complex than Talkstosocks implies.  First, the EPA report to which he's referring to was *partially* vacated by the court; specifically, the parts referring to cancer.  The rest of the report, which claimed links between 2nd hand smoke and other lung diseases such as emphysema, still stands.  Second, it's worth mentioning that the judge who made the decision was a former tobacco lobbyist, and in many people's opinions, should have recused himself because of his dubious impartiality.  I'm not getting into the issue of whether or not this justifies smoking bans. --Nephtes 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enh, I guess this argument has been had already, many times over...--The Talking Sock talk contribs  17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Smoking 

message: A user proposed to short the history section. I think it's the best section of this article and  very informative. Perhaps it's not necessary to summarize it, I don't know yet. But, if we go for a summarization process then it's best to create a main article "Tobacoo smoking history", so all this incredible information does not get deleted. Loudenvier 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a History of Tobacco Smoking main article. I think I missed it in the first removal I´ve done... We could talk if it's best standing as an stand-alone article or be merged into Tobacco Smoking. If the artcile is reaching the threshold for article size then I would back-up the separate articles, if not then I'm against it, since there's no place better suited to host the History of Tobacco Smoking than the articl on Tobacco Smoking itself. Loudenvier 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm too lazy these days... The article already is beyond the threshold for a good article size. So I think it's best to have a separate article for the history section. We now have to be carefull to let the most important information on the main article Tobacco and only the details for the History article. Loudenvier 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The "it's bad for you" material makes up perhaps a quarter of the article, and historical info is already in there - sections 3 and 4. The majority of the history of smoking is covered in the article on that, just as the majority of the health effects of tobacco smoking are covered there. I'm strongly against any attempts to bias the article away from the health effects. Nmg20 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarization of history section 

message: GoOdCoNtEnT, it would help me to know why you raised the flags on the article, since I'm monitoring it for GA at the moment. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 08:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, citations have to be re-written. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is still on the GA disputes page, but it was submitted on the 4th of august, are these problems still extant? Homestarmy 13:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for new flags 

message: Please feel free to work on the concerns in my hold comments and the flag explanation and renom when ready. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failed; Hold expired. 

message: I think that the Package Warning section should mention the Surgeon General warnings that the US requires on cigarette packages.  Is there some reason this isn't included?
:I have added the link to the main article that reviews warnings in various countries.  There are often complaints that material in these articles is too US-centric, and this case the UK warning is more representative in both size and content to warnings I have seen in a dozen or so countries I have visited.  The UK warning is more typical globally than the US labeling which goes into the minutia of what government agency issues the warning.Badocter 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Package Warnings 

message: I have heard that what is inhaled is not really smoke but vapors from the heated tobacco. Steve Dufour 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inhales the smoke?

message: There are some serious issues with accuracy in this article which I am disappointed were never caught by anyone. Amazingly, in this article, it credits an increase in the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain with the effects of nicotine. The information seemed suspicious to me, and to my dismay, I found that the source that was cited did not mention this at all! In fact, as nicotine binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain, it has an "antagonistic" effect, meaning that it inhibits function of these receptors, which is the exact opposite of what acetylcholine does. This alone almost made me want to put out a NPOV on this article and when I saw it was almost a featured article I thought I had better put this notice in here to make sure you correct the factual inaccuracies.
:Good point, I was just editing pages on some nicotinic insecticides where they mention how they don't affect the acetylcholine systems. Gzuckier 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, nicotine does affect acetylcholine systems, but in the opposite way that acetylcholine affects them. Flying Hamster 01:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned below, Nicotine is an agonist for the nicotinic acetylechonline receptors, but interestingly enough it binds to the NACH recepters in the Central Nervoues System more readily than those in the PNS. As for the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, it's actually the same affect more drugs of abuse illicit. DPham4 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acetylcholine

message: I have been informed by a few sources that a burning cigarette does so at 1000 degrees, is this true? also if you dont inhale the smoke, but keep it in your mouth are you more likely to catch mouth cancer?
It burns 1500 degrees F (860 C)-- just seven inches from your trachea! 
Here's where the public would be served by offering the persistent smoker info about an overlooked option: a mini-toke utensil with a long flexible extension tube.  The tobacco (or alternative herb) burns less hot to start with, and the gases have a longer way to go, and cool down, before reaching you.
Because the tobacco companies, with their huge tax payments, have won the subservience of legislators, there are "headshop laws" to selectively suppress any smoking method safer than overdose cigarets-- usually on grounds that it could be or is a "cannabis utensil".  So perhaps this article should remind users who want to try a miniaturizing utensil to get a letter from their congressman authorizing them to do so for tobacco purposes.Tokerdesigner 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burning temperature 1000 degrees F.--Is this true?

message: Are they always fiddling with the article? and why was the studies link section deleted?--I'll bring the food 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes unfortunately. I've a few articles on my watchlist that tend to be subject to vandalism and tests, and I'm afraid this is one of them :( Crimsone 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: anon twit

message: smoking is not hard to quit at all its all in your mind. like i know this one girl her boyfriend had been smoking his hole life and she told him if he did not quit it ways over and he quit he said that once he took his mind off of it.it was really easy and i think that people should thing about it because their kids might start smoking to and to be turthful with you i am only 13 years old and yes i did try it and  i did do it for about a mouth and i feel so bad because i would get on to ever one around me and now ever time some one smokes around me i start coffing and they had to go out side because it hurt my throt really bad and I DONT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOU.
:Urm.--I'll bring the food 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and a similar thought from myself also. Crimsone 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is that ironic...? WP:NOR covers why the above should not be let anywhere near the article. Nmg20 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  smoking  

message: In the first paragraph it says "Tobacco smoking, usually referred to as "slutting"," is this correct, the term slutting. Shouldn't it be smoking? 
If you look at the history of the page you see people(some logged in and other not) changes the term the whole time(Or at least thats what I think I see with my limited knowledge of the wiki software :P)
I also googled for "smoking slutting" and found some websites that claims smoking is called slutting or reference to smoking as slutting.
I'm going to leave it at the moment as is, because I like calling the people at work that smokes "sluts" :P. But I do feel we need to change it to the correct word.
Regards,
Openhazel 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slutting" or "smoking"? 

message: I think that the "health risks" section is spaghetti-like to read. Sectioning or enumerating the diseases would help readability. I would suggest: COPD or "tobacco disease", cancer, cardiovascular effects, effects of particulate matter on lungs, other. --Vuo 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do: sectioning health risks 

message: Are you fucking kidding me? This article is pure propaganda garbage!
Seriously, how can that happen on wikipedia?
I don't smoke, I never did, and I don't intend on doing. Still, I find it incredibly frustrating to see people preaching their thoughts and forcing them onto others.
What the hell is up with all the countless sections on "arguments against smoking" from all religions? What the hell is that supposed to mean? To scare the christian/jew/muslim/whathefuckever smoker out of smoking?
I am all for asserting the health risk of smoking. But that's certainly not the case here. The anti-smoking creed is systematicly enforced in every fucking paragraph. Every fucking image is anti-smoking (at least the subtitles make them so). Every section too. Even the "benefits from smoking" is anti-smoking, when it redundantly reassure the reader inumerous times that "the danger far outweight the benefits" (as though that's not done enough throughout the whole article).
Seriously, this is the most POVed article I've ever seen here. My not being a smoker and still have got pissed at it should tell you how much it is so.
Please, do an objective article. Talk about the cultural aspect and history of smoking, for crying out loud. Talk about the history of the smoking industry. And, yes, talk about the health risk, but without preaching it, and confine it to ONLY ONE section, because that's enough!
As for all the redudant propaganda garbage, it seems they have their own articles already. So put them on "see also", for fuck's sake! This article is already too big as it is, anyway!
By the way, I advise all the check out the articles on cannabis smoking and Cannabis (drug) and contrast with this one to seem how much POVed it is.
What would you all think if I added a section with arguments from all religions against pot smoking? That would be crazy POV preaching, wouldn't it? Exactly.
:I entirely agree, as a quite well read and well informed smoker, I was very disapointed to see the content of this page. It is certainly biased, and inacurate both in stated fact and omission. The result is a calling into question of 'any and all' content on the Wikipedia site. I had up until finding this article, found Wikipedia to be an excellent learning and reference source. I have added a few excellent sources of contrary information, in the 'Smokers' rights sites' section which may help provide for a more balanced article. JohnSmithW 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think it's a good idea to start working on the article to add "pro-smoking" material. Two wrongs don't make a right — two opposite biased opinions side by side don't make a neutral point of view. I would focus on the propagandistic, unscientific wording ("Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals"). The real risks of tobacco smoking shouldn't be concealed in "anti-smoking arguments" and the real acceptance of tobacco around the world shouldn't be concealed in "pro-smoking arguments". These are facts that you can color to argue for a point of view, but on Wikipedia, you must not do so. --Vuo 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I whole-heartedly agree. I explain further in the other section here talking about this. EDIT: Vuo, you seem to have missed the point. Nobody is advocating a side-by-side comparison of the benefits and risks. You're putting words in peoples mouths. Re-read the article yourself. The point is that again and again, in every paragraph, across the entire page, everywhere I read garbage about the health risks of smoking. There's more to smoking then that. The health risks should be confined to one section, albeit a large one, and the rest of the article should discuss things neutrally. Seriously, even many articles on hard drugs are more neutral then this. Are people incapable of talking about smoking without blurting out a health risk five seconds later? Harpalus 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never seen such a rediculous article in all the time I've been reading Wikipedia, I thought this article was supposed to be about Tobacco smoking, not all this other looney rubbish.
The fact of the matter is that this article is purely biased in the Anti-Smoking lobby's favour this article needs serious editing and fixing up to even bring it back to some respectability, let alone NPOV.Trumpy 14:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article lacks a differentiation in the health effects of cigarette vs. pipe/cigar smoking.
Even the original Surgeon General report (Smoking and Health - 1964) and subsequent reports (The Health Consequences of Smoking - 1967 as well as the ’68 and ’69 supplements) as well as other studies show a significant difference in health effects between the methods of consuming tobacco. I am new to the Wikipedia experience so am not sure how to modify the article (or if I even should).  However, I would suggest that in order to keep with your NPOV policy, such distinctions should be noted.  Bey3 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiating health related effects between Cigarette and pipe/cigar smoking 

message: Is it possible for a man to smoke 100 cigarettes a day? If it is possible, how long will  such a man live?
:My grandfather reputedly smoked at least 100 a day for decades. He had an appalling smoker's cough, retching every morning with a build up of phlegm on his chest. He stopped smoking one day when he saw an anti-smoking advert in which a bin full of blackened lungs was emtied onto a table. He lived for another 25 years or so after that, eventually dying peacefully at the age of 70-something.
:The problem, (so I am told by my sister, who is a doctor), is not that smoking kills - that's just a slogan - but that smoking can be extremely hazardous to the health of a significant percentage of the population. My grandfather was lucky not to be one of that significant percentage who suffered serious side effects such as lung cancer, so he could smoke hundreds of cigarettes for years and just end up with bad phlegm. He was also lucky that he could just turn his back on the habit when he wanted. Others would die of lung cancer within just a few years if they tried the same and be unable to give up no matter how much pain they were causing themselves. GDallimore (Talk) 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the question of the possibility 

message: it's my first time to use this site for search. it started with me searching for the word 'smoking' and ended up with me readin an interesting racism paragraph about islam and  hash.
i'm a muslim living in the middle east and never saw anybody smoking hash!
i think a good encyclopedya should be based on facts, reliable sources and references, not western movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.251 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 March 2007
:The statement you're referring to is In Muslim countries, where cannabis products smoking occupies a social niche analogous to that of alcohol drinking in the West, hookahs are sometimes loaded with hashish or opium. The statement should be more precise, but it's not racism. In some Muslim countries, there is a tradition of smoking cannabis, but this sweeping generalization should be corrected. More interesting is this: why it is racist to say someone smokes cannabis?  --Vuo 07:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I originally put in the "Judeo Christian" heading because I couldn't think of a better term. -Amatulic 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: The smokers attitudes sections seems way out of line. A Page on tobacco smoking should not be biased one way or the other. This section makes assumptions that smokers usually have no regard for their health, and gets even more extreme correlating smoking tobacco to traffic violations, cheating in school etc.
I should be mentioned that some smokers do not thoroughly consider long term risks of smoking, but relating it to fatalism and total loss of control is absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.104.16.14 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smokers Attitudes 

message: I came to this article to see what percentage of people smoke, and that information doesn't appear to be there.  — Chameleon 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it's almost impossible to determine. What counts as a person who smokes? Having smoked once? Smoking habitually? Smoking, but only when others are present? DPham4 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many people? 

message: Why is this section just as long as the main article? If we are going to use summary style the whole point is to get the information from the daughter article and present it in a more concise form. Both this article's 'summary' and the main article are 27kb of text (in terms of the main body), this one being slightly longer, which is an unacceptable situation. The health effects article is long enough, so this article needs to cut down to at least half its current size or it may as well stop pretending it's summarizing and just merge it all here. Richard001 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Health effects

message: In respect to your post about how Tobacco smoking is not only in the Americas - please recall that the Tobacco Genus is Native to the Americas and that Tobacco Smoking is a custom that comes from the Americas.
Your removal of content is wholely unwarranted and should not be done again.
--Mrtobacco 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE AMERICAN CONTENT 

message: I've made some edits to the taxation section, as follows:
* Added citations for UK average price and black market. Changed figures on black market cigarettes as percentage of cigarettes smoked to match source
* Added additional source for cigarette costs by state in the US
* Removed claim that "The average price in New York City has exceeded $7 per pack". My source contradicts this, and it would be wrong to leave the claim in when it is clearly contradicted by the previous statement
* Removed claim that "Some nations are reluctant to increase tobacco taxes because they fear the reduction of tobacco tax revenues and increase in smuggling, thus reducing the small amount of money they take in and increasing difficulties in funding anti-smoking campaigns". Have been unable to find any source for this statement, and I believe the vague nature of the statement will make a valid source difficult if not impossible to find
I was unable to find sources for either the Australian or South African price claims.  --Careless hx 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to taxation section 

message: How can you spot an editor who is a complete amateur?
I've just corrected one little part of the section on costs for society. You read it, and back to back he puts two peer-reviewed studies, one supposedly putting the cost at $7 per pack, the other at $41 per pack. If that were true, it would mean that the peer-review system is an utter and complete trash. So, you smell that something doesn't add up, and in fact you find it (I won't go into the detail, but the first source is not even peer-reviewed, it's instituional, which is very different). The two numbers quantify two different things, something the editor forgot to mention.
But my next thread is what I really want to talk about in a minute. Crosswords-level editors of this page, it seems, really want to show how NOT to present neatly the dangers of smoking, making sure everybody will be confused one third of the way through the article. What a service for Wikipedia and society. --Gibbzmann 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please amateur editors stay out of Wikipedia! No matter how good and nobel your intentions are.