Radix wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 12:19 pm
Exactly. So it's not simply the case that smoking is dangerous. It's only dangerous for the weak.
Genetics isn't the only predictor. If you define "weak" as having a genetic predisposition, you won't know you have that until you smoke and the lung cancer appears. And there is no test for predisposition.
Smoking is always dangerous. The human body is simply not meant to tolerate repeated inhalation of hot toxic gasses.
Lung cancer is not the only danger of doing so; it can also cause emphysema, cardiac disease, stroke and more. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statis ... /index.htm
Radix wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:45 pm
Do they actually test for such things in an autopsy?
Understand what? Why the smokers I know don't get sick?
...Yes, and in living people too.
And yes, if you were educated in the scientific method, you would understand why your individual anecdotal evidence of smokers not being "sick" does not mean an overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence is wrong, it just means your personal experience is a extraordinarily narrow slice of the population and is not indicative of the wider pattern.
dharmacorps wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 8:14 pm
And yes, if you were educated in the scientific method, you would understand why your individual anecdotal evidence of smokers not being "sick" does not mean an overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence is wrong, it just means your personal experience is a extraordinarily narrow slice of the population and is not indicative of the wider pattern.
Irrelevant. As long as there are smokers around me who make my life miserable and who don't get sick, it doesn't matter what happens to all the other smokers.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
In my experience, stopping smoking cold turkey can be challenging due to withdrawal symptoms and the sudden change in routine. It's often helpful to have a transition strategy or alternative in place.
For me, switching to vaping was a helpful step in quitting smoking. I chose to use Zero Nicotine Vape Plant products, which I found helpful because they provided the experience of smoking without nicotine. This allowed me to gradually wean off my dependency on nicotine while still maintaining the physical habit. The Zero Nicotine Vape Plant options are affordable, too; I usually get them on sale for around $10. This approach has been practical and less risky for me than other methods I've tried.
Perhaps a psychological impact (for
some people). If there is an impact on
the body, it may be a kind of "transition"
like before having an unhealthy lifestyle
and then trying a healthy lifestyle. Ofc at
first time it will be difficult for many people.
I choose other: psychological impact
Gwi: "There are only-two Sakaṽādins: Theraṽādå&Ṽibhajjaṽādå, the rest are
nonsakaṽādins!"
"The hook's in deep,
There's no more time
So you can struggle in the water,
Be too stubborn to die,
Or just let go and be lifted
To the sky, sky, sky..."
While someone is addicted but not fully chemically dependant they seem to give all kinds of reasons as to why smoking could be okay.
But when the chemical dependency and full addiction finally sets in, and the cigarettes have won, they have a solemn lie placed within themselves that they can't quit, so then with no personally perceived danger to their habit they will tell you how smoking is bad and they need to quit smoking, but rarely will they, because the chemicals are in control.
I assure you, the quitting of smoking is the absolute best choice for a smoker, +20, 40, 50 or 60 years on your life added. Imagine the good things you could do for the Dhamma. It could be the difference between the animal realm and Arhatship.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin. -Dhammapada.
Radix wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 12:19 pm
Exactly. So it's not simply the case that smoking is dangerous. It's only dangerous for the weak.
Genetics isn't the only predictor. If you define "weak" as having a genetic predisposition, you won't know you have that until you smoke and the lung cancer appears. And there is no test for predisposition.
Smoking is always dangerous. The human body is simply not meant to tolerate repeated inhalation of hot toxic gasses.
Lung cancer is not the only danger of doing so; it can also cause emphysema, cardiac disease, stroke and more. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statis ... /index.htm
The actual danger is Dr Berg. Why the obsession with preserving the body? Also a great many people who develop lung cancer have never smoked. My father was a clean eater and never drank and lived quietly, was a teacher, fit as anything, early 70's had 3 strokes, so don't be foolish and get caught up in the world - Dr Berg is but one piped piper.
The less greed, aversion, and delusion you have in your mind, the less you inflict them on other people.