Is tobacco a drug

[sundara]

Is tobacco a drug and what are it's effects because I just put the fumes in the canal and in the mouth not in the lungs.

[David N. Snyder]

http://buddhismatoz.com/s/Smoking.html

Ven. Dhammika and others don't consider it a drug, in the sense of street drugs or prescription narcotics. But it can certainly be addictive and harmful to the body.

There are plenty of monks who smoke in Thailand and some other Southeast Asian nations, but the Sri Lankans seem to be the most opposed to it. For monastics, there is usually no health or maintenance reason to smoke, so it probably should not be considered okay, but for lay people the rules are not so strict.

[Ben]

By not inhaing the smoke you still risk mouth cancer.
Only a fool would continue smoking, given the serious health effects.
The active drug in tobacco is nicotine, while it is not an intoxicant, it is one of the agents within tobacco that will kill you.

Ben

[Jechbi]

Only a fool would continue smoking ...

There are lots of things that only a fool would continue to do.

I applaud those fools who are working on giving up smoking. It's hard. Don't be discouraged.

[clw_uk]

I myself used to be a heavy smoker, i tried many times to quit but the only thing that worked was Buddhas teachings on attachment and sensuality and meditation practice, put together with patience and forgiveness when i failed the fags went, now i dont ever crave them

[Annapurna]

Is tobacco a drug and what are it's effects because I just put the fumes in the canal and in the mouth not in the lungs.

Nicotine is very addictive and damages your heart and vessels, and the tar in cigarattes plus over 140 other toxins cause cancer etc.

If you can help it, don't even start. It's not "chic", it's a stupid, suicidal waste of money.

Some kids try to feel adult by copying the adults' vices, instead of their virtues.

4 of my friends died in the last years, all were heavy smokers:

1. lung emphysema,
2. lungcancer,
3. heartattack,
4. cardiac arrest.

But it's your choice.

[tiltbillings]

Tobacco is self inflicted disease.

[Jechbi]

Tobacco is self inflicted disease.

Lots of things are self-inflicted diseases. Life is a terminal condition.

[Ben]

Tobacco is self inflicted disease.

Lots of things are self-inflicted diseases. Life is a terminal condition.

Absolutely, but one can reduce their disease burden by either not smoking or giving it up.

[Jechbi]

Absolutely, but one can reduce their disease burden by either not smoking or giving it up.

No doubt. For some, it's easier said than done. There's a real backlash of contempt against smokers these days, and I think in many cases it's more complicated than "just say no," as Nancy Reagan used to suggest regarding drugs.

Link to .pdf file: Correlation between smoking and poverty. From that link:

... smoking is more common among poor men (variously defined by income, education, occupation, or social class) than rich men in nearly all countries. ... Why poor people smoke more remains a complex question that requires further research.

Metta

[Ben]

Hi Jechbi
I absolutely agree. Smoking-related illnesses are rapidly becoming the domain of the lower socio-economic groups, certainly in this country and I assume also in the US as well. Continued smoking also becomes a vehicle for continuing poverty. In this country, the federal government is considering increasing the tax on tobacco to make a packet of 25 cigarettes to over $20. So, for those unfortunate to contract smoking-related disease, the many years of cigarette consumption becomes the financial down-payment which is followed by years of the crippling cost (personal and social) of treatment.
So, in my mind, it becomes even more imperative that those who can least afford tobacco and the treatment of smoking-related disease, do what they can to break the addition. And government sponsored health programs should target those sectors of the community.
Like you, I also smoked but I broke the back of addiction by a 12-week program of nicotine replacement therapy. And I recommend the same to any smoker. I just think that it should be fully subsidised by governments who have reaped billions of dollars from tobacco taxes for generations.
Kind regards

Ben

[Annapurna]

... smoking is more common among poor men (variously defined by income, education, occupation, or social class) than rich men in nearly all countries. ... Why poor people smoke more remains a complex question that requires further research.

Poor people have more frustration to compensate. They do it with pleasure.

Smoking is a pleasure, when you're addicted. Before you're addicted,to smoke means you're grown up, and cool. If you don't smoke, people tease you.

Lack of intelligence/education/chances may lead to quick fixes.

Plus, things like smoking or drinking are considered heroic deeds in certain circles.

I know a family of 8, in which all 4 brothers and sisters don't meet on a Saturday night to have dinner somewhere, go to a movie or to dance, but "to drink".

And that's what they do.

A good night out is one where everybody drinks a lot, laughs a lot, and, with the additional courage alcohol brings, perhaps tells some a**holes a thing or two.

[Cittasanto]

who here has actually looked at the actuall statistics?

I seriously doubt anyone has!

most of the figgures are NOT of a significant difference to make the assurtion that smoking causes cancer.

Japan has the longest life expectancy and the highest amount of cigarets per day per person, but fewer smoking related cancers per 100,000 people than in the US, strange.

http://www.smokingaloud.com/death.html

[Ben]

Perhaps you should have a look at this Manapa:
http://www.quit.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=7484

[BlackBird]

The active drug in tobacco is nicotine, while it is not an intoxicant, it is one of the agents within tobacco that will kill you.

Could you please point me to some evidence which supports this, apart from hypothesised links, I am unable to find any which shows that Nicotine is an agent that kills.

Only a fool would continue smoking, given the serious health effects.

Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. The often heard response is: "Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then."
My response to this is that surely, such an excellent man as Ajahn Mun would have known the health effects of smoking cigarettes.

Having read your link Ben, all I can see is more correlation, I cannot see any causation.
Manapa's link is worth a good read.

Hope you all have a great day!
Jack

[Ben]

Hi Blackbird

In the 19th Century, Nicotine was the poison of choice by assassins as it was, then, undetectable.

7.2 Toxicity
7.2.1 Human data
7.2.1.1 Adults
The mean lethal dose has been estimated to be 30
to 60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) (Gosselin, 1988).
7.2.1.2 Children
The lethal dose is considered to be about 10 mg
of nicotine (Arena, 1974).
7.2.2 Relevant animal data
Dog: oral LD50: 9.2 mg/kg
mouse: oral LD50: 3.3 mg/kg (RTECS, 1985-86)

Main risks and target organs
Nicotine is one of the most toxic of all poisons and has a
rapid onset of action. Apart from local caustic actions, the
target organs are the peripheral and central nervous systems.
Nicotine is also a powerfully addictive drug.


Inhalation
Smoking causes coronary and peripheral vascular disease,
cancer, chronic obstructive lung disease, peptic ulcer
and reproductive disturbances, including prematurity.
Nicotine may contribute to tobacco related disease, but
direct causation has not been determined because
nicotine is taken up simultaneously with a multitude of
other potentially harmful substances that occur in
tobacco smoke and smokeless tobacco

9.4.1 Cardiovascular
The overall effect on the cardiovascular system leads to
tachycardia, peripheral vasoconstriction and elevations
of blood pressure with an attendant increase in the work

of the heart. Nicotine may induce vasospasm and cardiac
arrythmias. Tolerance does not develop to the
catecholamine-releasing effects of nicotine.

Nicotine could contribute both to the atherosclerotic
process and to acute coronary events by several
mechanisms. Nicotine could promote atherosclerotic
disease by its actions on lipid metabolism and
coagulation by hemodynamic effects and/or by causing
endothelial injury.

Nicotine may act by releasing free fatty acids,
enhancing the conversion of VLDL (very low density
lipoproteins) to LDL (low density lipoproteins),
impairing the clearance of LDL and/or by accelerating
the metabolism of HDL (Brischetto, 1983; Gluette Brown,
1986; Grasso, 1986; Hojnacki, 1986.)

Nicotine could affect platelets by increasing the
release of epinephrine, which is known to enhance
platelet reactivity by inhibiting prostacyclin, an
antiaggregatory hormone secreted by endothelial cells,
or perhaps directly (Sonnenfeld, 1980). Alternatively,
by increasing heart rate and cardiac output and thereby
increasing blood turbulence or by a direct action,
nicotine may promote endothelial injury. Cigarette
smoking, most likely mediated by nicotine, facilitates
AV nodal conduction which could result in an increased
ventricular response during atrial fibrillation (Peters,
1987). Nicotine could aggravate peripheral vascular
disease by constricting small collateral arteries and/or
by inducing local thrombosis. Patients with coronary or
peripheral vascular disease are likely to suffer some
increase in risk when taken nicotine. Nicotine could
contribute to the progression of chronic hypertension by
aggravating vasoconstriction either in sympathetic activation
or inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis.

Based on its pharmacological actions, it is likely that
nicotine plays a role in causing or aggravating acute
coronary events. Myocardial infarction can be due to one
or more of these precipitating factors: excessive demand
for oxygen and substrates; thrombosis; and coronary
spasm. Nicotine increases heart rate and blood pressure and,
therefore, myocardial oxygen consumption.

--http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/nicotine.htm#SectionTitle:2.1 Main risks and target organs

[/quote]

Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. The often heard response is: "Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then."
My response to this is that surely, such an excellent man as Ajahn Mun would have known the health effects of smoking cigarettes.

Why? Are you infering the Ajahn lied?

Manapa's link is worth a good read.

It might be a good read, but not one that it is based on evidence.

You have a nice day too.
Ben

[clw_uk]

Reguardless of if it causes cancer or not it still has a negative effect on health, shortness of breath being one of them

[Cittasanto]

Perhaps you should have a look at this Manapa:
http://www.quit.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=7484

Hi Ben I am actually refering to the data part of which is on the site I linked to, not the article on the site, unfortunately I could not find a site with all the papers, but there is data which contradicts other data, and this is another reason why no set of data is perfect.

the original data which pointed to a link between smoking and cancer, actually set out to prove this premis, so an over attribution can of happened, based on the expected or hoped for results by those doing the research, remember data can proove anything you want it to.

plus if smoking was as bad as some research would sugest then it would be illegalised and made unfit for human consumption by the various agencies, unfortunately there are two sets of data which dont add up together so neither can actually be the full story here is an example, the data which sugests that passive smoking is dangerous has been proven wrong, yet passive smoking is used falsly as a way of guilting people into stopping smoking with the incorrect data, is this right (morally) no.

here is another example my father got throat cancer 30 years after quitting, the reason (despite the proven data) was passive smoking, or his former habit, both of which could not of been the case, I have later found out I have a high genetic risk of cancer forming because on that side of the family there is a history of cancer which would suggest so, yet my mothers side has no gentetic link with cancer and are heavy smokers, although it is more likely I will have Arthritis which is already starting.

unfortunately there is no strong link especially when you add sales figures (packets) to the data.

[BlackBird]

Ajahn Mun smoked 4 cigarettes a day. The often heard response is: "Oh, well they didn't know about the health risks back then."
My response to this is that surely, such an excellent man as Ajahn Mun would have known the health effects of smoking cigarettes.

Why? Are you infering the Ajahn lied?

I'm totally confused as to how you can construe what I said as infering that Ajahn Mun lied. Lied about what?

The point i'm making is that:
A) I think Ajahn Mun was a very very wise person
B) He smoked 4 cigarettes a day
C) If it was such a big deal, don't you think someone like him would have kicked the habit?

I don't think we can go so far as to say smoking tobacco is harmless. I think it's harm is over-emphasised.
Finally, I think the demonisation of tobacco smokers, and tobacco is wrong (as is comparing a 'Tobacco defender' to a Holocaust denier, to whom that may concern).

But i'd like to make it clear I'm not angry, got nothing but love for you.

[tiltbillings]

Wow. Tobacco defenders. I am amazed.