Slashdot Mirror


Leonard Nimoy: Smoking Is Illogical

An anonymous reader writes "My boyhood hero, actor Leonard Nimoy, has developed lung disease. To those still smoking and in the grips of marketing induced denial, he says 'quit now.' Small acts of goodness make the universe a better place."

401 comments

  1. Re:Beta is illogical by dale.furno · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Also, Why so many short submissions? Is slashdot trying to dilute the FUCK BETA?

  2. LOOKS LIKE ALICE COOPER CIRCA 1977 !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No More Mr Nice Guy !!

  3. two spock quotes come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.
    --Spock in 'Errand of Mercy'

    Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shipload of illogical humans.
    --Spock in 'I, Mudd'

    1. Re:two spock quotes come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I Am Not Spock"

      - Leonard Nimoy (Title of his autobiography, 1975)

    2. Re: two spock quotes come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am Spock, Leonard Nimoy, 1995

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/142335835X

    3. Re: two spock quotes come to mind by master5o1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He is both Spock and not Spock at the same time?

      What is this, some sort of Schrödinger's Cat joke?

      --
      signature is pants
    4. Re:two spock quotes come to mind by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      It's hard to reconcile the fact that those Spock quotes emanated from the same guy who sang that Bilbo Baggins song.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re: two spock quotes come to mind by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      "I Am Not Spock"
      - Leonard Nimoy (Title of his autobiography, 1975)

      I am Spock, Leonard Nimoy, 1995

      He is both Spock and not Spock at the same time?

      If you look carefully, there's a twenty year difference.

    6. Re: two spock quotes come to mind by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      If you'd research a touch, the first book title was his opinion of himself and the second a light-hearted response to fans' reactions to the first. When I was young and infatuated with the character (before both books) I wrote him a fan letter and asked if he found the role to be 'rubbing off' and his response was no, it was only a role.

    7. Re:two spock quotes come to mind by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      To use the verb sang in reference to Mr Nimoy's voice is - highly illogical. This goes twice for Shatner.

    8. Re:two spock quotes come to mind by mcgrew · · Score: 1
    9. Re:two spock quotes come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Suffering severe delusions of adequacy, Mr. Spock groped melodies as effortlessly as someone trying to pick up dimes with a catcher's mitt."
          -- from the Golden Throats 2 liner notes

    10. Re: two spock quotes come to mind by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      No it's a Schrodinger's Le-matya joke.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    11. Re: two spock quotes come to mind by gitfiddler · · Score: 1

      Schrödinger had a dog

      --
      .sig
    12. Re: two spock quotes come to mind by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Oh right. I might be thinking of Pavlov's Cat.

      --
      signature is pants
  4. Seriously - GTFO by sidevans · · Score: 0, Troll

    How the hell is this even news?
    Smoking causes lung cancer?
    Do you think we're all that fucking retarded that we didn't know that?

    However - My Grandfather died of lung cancer in his 80's, and he NEVER smoked.

    As a smoker and 15 year user for Slashdot - let me just say you guys fucking suck hard these days - I've tried hard to not care with all the politics and beta shit going on - but this kind of story is just bullshit - I hope /. remembers its history one day...

    --
    I'm not signing anything
    1. Re:Seriously - GTFO by fyngyrz · · Score: 0

      The singular of "data" is not "anecdote."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought Mr. Data was single. Did he get married? I know he is fully functional but I didn't see a ring on his magic finger.

    3. Re:Seriously - GTFO by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly! Why would Slashdot ever carry a story about Leonard Nimoy? Wasn't he in some westerns, like Gunsmoke and The Virginian? Anything else that we should know about? Did he ever travel? Any famous treks to relate that nerds would care about?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Seriously - GTFO by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Better link for The Virginian. The doctor with him looks familiar too, good old DeForest Kelly, another old hand in the Westerns.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:Seriously - GTFO by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the well is drying up, because people are sick of beta or the arguments about beta, nobody is submitting any real stories.
      So they are left with these useless stories.

      The social oriented market segment that Dice is seemingly courting seems to be the only segment left.
      All the tech and nerd types have left the building.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true, angry drug addict confronted with reality (as all smokers are drug addicts).

      My sister is just like you. Cancer-stick addicted and terribly angry if you even just suggest to get help to get rid if your/her addiction.

      Get help.

    7. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck Data.

    8. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Deathlizard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering that he is sort of an icon to nerds and is dying of a recently announced disease, I would considering it newsworthy.

      Although I doubt that smoking is the main reason he has COPD now considering he stopped smoking so long ago, but it may have been a contributing factor. He was an avid Photographer, and if he did a lot of darkroom work, he could have contracted the disease from breathing in the Caustic Developer Chemicals.

    9. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can get lung cancer having never smoked and never been around anyone who has. Using lung cancer to say smoking is bad is like saying thinking or using beta causes brain cancer.

      Do you think we are stupid?

    10. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true, angry drug addict confronted with reality (as all smokers are drug addicts).

      My sister is just like you. Cancer-stick addicted and terribly angry if you even just suggest to get help to get rid if your/her addiction.

      Get help.

      Why should she? Freedom means free to make bad choices the one who needs help is you. Let people make their own decisions good or bad, Help only when asked and try to guide but Never! Never impose your ideals of whats right and wrong on another.

    11. Re: Seriously - GTFO by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      You do realize that many people, while possibly addicted to smoking, continue to do so because they want to, they enjoy it. When you tell them to get help or to quit, you are actually telling them not to do something that is legal and they enjoy.

      What I'm getting at is the anger is not from the conviction, it is likely from someone saying you can't do what you enjoy doing. Imagine if your family members constantly berated you over using the internet or whatever it is you enjoy because of hyped up claims about how bad it is for you despite no apparent signs of the damage until it some distant future. You would eventually get angry too.

    12. Re:Seriously - GTFO by hey! · · Score: 1

      He does not, so far as we know, have cancer. Read the summary or the article. Nimoy has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), one of the other bad things that can happen to you as a result of smoking.

      It's your choice to smoke, of course, but COPD is an unpleasant disease and quitting would halve your chances of developing COPD and delay the onset of crippling symptoms if you do develop it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Seriously - GTFO by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nimoy didn't get lung cancer, he got COPD.

      Smoking does heavily increase your chance of getting lung cancer but it's not the sole cause of it. Smoking does make you far more likely to suffer from one or more of a very large array of nasty illnesses during your lifetime. It also reduces your life span significantly.

      Quit smoking if you care at all about the risks of illness and disability that smoking causes. Or accept that you are a nicotine junkie and that you are lying to yourself about your habit because you can't face withdrawal.

    14. Re: Seriously - GTFO by 1s44c · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why should she? Freedom means free to make bad choices the one who needs help is you. Let people make their own decisions good or bad, Help only when asked and try to guide but Never! Never impose your ideals of whats right and wrong on another.

      Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to harm other people. Drug addicts do harm other people. This is why most drugs are illegal unless proscribed, because they harm far more people than just those taking them.

    15. Re:Seriously - GTFO by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      you can get lung cancer having never smoked and never been around anyone who has. Using lung cancer to say smoking is bad is like saying thinking or using beta causes brain cancer.

      Nimoy has COPD not lung cancer. Smoking isn't the sole cause of lung cancer, it's a HUGE risk factor but not the sole cause. Smoking also causes a bunch of other really debilitating diseases.

      Do you think we are stupid?

      Not sure. That argument sure is stupid.

    16. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can get lung cancer having never smoked and never been around anyone who has. Using lung cancer to say smoking is bad is like saying thinking or using beta causes brain cancer.

      Do you think we are stupid?

      The probability of getting lung cancer having never smoked is way way way smaller than the probability of getting lung cancer having smoked for several years, a decade, or your entire life. So yes we can say that lung cancer is statistically speaking a consequence of smoking. Anyone who denies this is just plain fucking stupid (or paid by the tobacco industry).

    17. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is fully functional, so that can be accomplished.

    18. Re: Seriously - GTFO by sumdumass · · Score: 3

      Not true. I smoked for several years and quit for a little over a year and started smoking again. People like the smoke sensation entering their lungs, they like the relaxation afterwards and they like the way smoking steadies the hands and increases dexterity slightly. When I went back to smoking, I had absolutely no withdraw effects but I went back because I liked it. I only quit smoking (cold turkey) to get in a girls pants and she stuck around after I started back up despite being dead set against it when we first met.

      I still smoke today because I enjoy it. If you do not smoke, I guess you will never understand but you have it all wrong. Sure there is addiction, but there is also other positives about smoking that people like and enjoy much the same as people who like to drink alcohol or toke on some weed or even do other drugs occasionally. All that can be done without addiction and is often done because people enjoy it.

    19. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly*, smoking negatively impacts your quality of life before you develop any of those debilitating diseases. Smoking reduces fitness, causes decreased sense of smell and taste, has unattractive cosmetic consequences after only a few years and causes significant expenses in addition to the cost of the cigarettes through renovation requirements and higher failure rates of electronics because of smoke residue.

      *: More importantly because smokers often subscribe to "live fast, die young". They often feel a high priority on the here and now.

    20. Re:Seriously - GTFO by maynard · · Score: 2

      TFA says he has COPD - Cardio Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder. This is essentially emphysema and congestive heart failure. The disease is terminal. My father died from this disorder, so I've seen it personally. Not a nice way to go (not that any of them are).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Still, Nimoy said that he'd quit smoking thirty years ago. While it's possible the smoking is a contributory factor, COPD is also commonly diagnosed in those who've never smoked. And Nimoy is an old man.

      Of course I wish him well and hope he is cared for by the best doctors available.

    21. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drug addicts only harm other people when they actually harm other people. If you want to make a bunch of tenuous claims as to what harms someone else then we can add a bunch of other tenuous claims:

      • * your language harms other people
      • * your sense of style harms other people
      • * your music harms other people
      • * the length of your grass harms other people
      • * etc.

      Most drugs cause more harm to other people because they're illegal - which means that those addicted will pursue a higher level of crime to feed their addiction.

    22. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is why most drugs are illegal unless proscribed

      Some are even illegal while they're proscribed!

    23. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1
      What gets my eyes rolling the most is this sort of thing:

      To those still smoking and in the grips of marketing induced denial...

      It really indicates how stupid the writer thinks everyone else is, that despite an endless barrage of information about the deleterious effects of smoking from family, friends, doctors, news programs, newspapers, magazines, sitcoms, movies, cartoons, graffiti, puppet shows, and government literature that somehow the little indirect marketing (tenuously through movies and TV) somehow overrides our ability to make an actual informed decision.

      "Denial" is used as a weaselly way to undermine any volitional behaviour which a writer personally disagrees with, and is then used as a justification for maintaining their belief regardless of claims to the contrary.

      Personally, I quit and am happy as hell that I did. That doesn't mean I was unaware of the effects, or romanticized smoking, or didn't enjoy it. I did enjoy it, and immediate gratification seemed a fair trade off for the inevitable future outcome. It was a personal/philosophical value decision, and it was no worse than the position I hold now, it's just not the position I happen to hold any more.

      FUCK BETA

    24. Re: Seriously - GTFO by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      With the exception of incidents of violence many of which have as much to do with the drugs be expensive and illegal in the first place, and DUI which would still be illegal even if the drugs weren't this is a bs. Drug addicts mostly harm other people who put themselves in harms way.

      Your failure to recognize someone who is "out of control" whatever the reason drugs or otherwise isn't good company to keep, makes you at least partly responsible if you come to harm. Life is hazardous if you are in a dangerous situation extricate yourself or accept possible consequences rather than trying to tell others what to do.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    25. Re:Seriously - GTFO by anubi · · Score: 2

      I have also seen Leonard Nimoy on the old "Sea Hunt" TV series ( Lloyd Bridges ) and "Highway Patrol" ( Broderick Crawford ). Old black-and-white TV of the 50's and early 60's. I really enjoy those old shows - when it was about acting and not so much special effects. Those old stars are what made Hollywood so special. Even to this day, I enjoy seeing re-runs of *some* of the old 50's shows ( however, I feel most of them were crap - no different from today ).

      I just kept getting cognitive dissonance, as they usually had Nimoy playing the bad guy... and all the time I kept seeing him as Spock. Star Trek was by far my favorite TV series of all time.

      My condolences to him and his family. His acting career brought a lot of us into technological interests. The only person that ranked beside Leonard in my book was James Doohan ( Engineer Montgomery Scott ).

      Both were role models to me.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    26. Re: Seriously - GTFO by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      So does sugar and fat, since YOUR eating might hurt MY wallet when you can't afford healthcare so from now on you will ONLY eat what we approve of.

      Its for your own good citizen.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    27. Re:Seriously - GTFO by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The odds of a smoker getting lung cancer is about 12%.

      The odds of a smoker getting one of any number of serious lung diseases is a bit over 50%.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    28. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Most non smokers are still subjected to passive smoking, which can also cause lung cancer... Even if your grandfather never smoked, how much time did he spend inhaling smoke produced by others?

      That's actually the reason so many of us have a problem with smoking. We don't care what substances you want to consume as thats your choice, but by smoking in public you are taking away our choice not to.

      It also seems utterly ridiculous to send most of it up into the air, there are far more efficient ways to consume drugs which don't impose on those around you.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    29. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes...yes. drug addicts dont harm anybody. tell that to the junkie who broke my car windows and stole a bunch of stuff including my GPS, radar detector, jacket, combat knife, insurance paperwork, car repair paperwork and caused $2000 worth of damage to the car. also tell his next victim to be stabbed by my ex combat knife how he/she feels.
      its all our fault, right ?

    30. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Borg453b · · Score: 1

      It's your life - but the denial is strong:

      - Your excuse: Smoking causes lung cancer.. -but- you can get lung cancer without smoking.. therefore I might as well smoke. (Staying on topic: It's illogical).
      - Your complaint about the post - Translation: Please don't make me feel worse about it, than I already am.


      I have my own patterns I try to break..

      .. but to me smoking is packaged slow-death; coated in a level addiction that makes you tell yourself: I don't want to give this up.

      What's worse, the slow death or the fact that it makes you lie to yourself?

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    31. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Smoking does harm to anyone who's physically close enough to inhale the fumes...
      At least someone who's injecting heroin, snorting cocaine or taking pills etc doesn't directly harm anyone by such actions.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    32. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Bert64 · · Score: 0

      Tell me, when you smoke, do you do it in private / entirely away from non smokers, or do you do it in public where others may inhale the fumes?

      I suffer from very bad asthma, and inhaling smoke can easily trigger an attack (not just tobacco smoke, other kinds of smoke too), this is not "some far off time" but rather a risk of serious and immediate health problems which i face every day.
      When it was legal to smoke in bars here, i would simply avoid any establishment which allowed smoking. Now people smoke in the street and i have to be very careful where i go, if someone walking infront of me is smoking it can often cause me severe breathing difficulties and i generally have to cross the street to walk past a bar now (since everyone stands outside to smoke).

      Also enjoying smoking is worse than addiction in many ways...
      Enjoying something which knowingly harms others is abhorrent, while enjoying something which you know is harmful basically amounts to self harm - and people get put in mental hospitals for this.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    33. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no personal attachment to smoking - I've done it on and off in the past, but never enjoyed it enough to lead to addiction - but second hand smoke isn't nearly so dangerous. I won't claim that it presents no risk of harm, because that doesn't seem likely, but it probably won't do any damage to you if you're outside and not standing extremely close to the smoker, or in the "path" of the smoke/wind.

      But regardless of the potential risk of second hand smoke, it borders on trolling to claim that it is more likely to hurt other people than heroin, cocaine, or various pills. The relatively low chance of someone becoming ill from second hand smoke cannot even be compared to the risks of the more "desperate" addictive drugs with more extreme withdrawal effects. Anything that is as "wonderful" and physically and psychologically addictive as coke or heroin can easily do far more harm to your loved ones than smoking is ever likely to do. Obviously this may be less obvious when applied to someone who uses cocaine extremely rarely on special occasions vs. someone who chain smokes everyday in a closed room with their elderly parents and children and pets and pregnant wife. But it is basically undeniable that the psychological addiction of any truly enjoyable psychoactive drug, along with the desperate physical addiction that some produce, is far more likely to lead to harm to family or friends (even if the harm is simply your untimely death) than the low risk of cancer due to second hand smoke.

    34. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that junkie would be a thief either way? Or perhaps the risk of extreme legal punishment and lack of affordable treatment, paired with a horrible addiction, makes theft seem like the only option?

      Yes, it is certainly possible that you were robbed specifically to get a fix for someone without a conscience who has no desire to ever improve his life, but it is difficult to firmly and entirely blame it upon drugs. There are plenty of drug addicts and alcoholics who are more trustworthy than other people without drug problems. Crime and immoral behavior exists in all segments of society.

      Also your knife would likely be pawned or sold to an individual rather than used in a violent robbery, and this is even more true of a serious addict.

    35. Re: Seriously - GTFO by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      While it is true that drug addicts may harm other people, merely taking drugs does not harm other people. If they do go on to harm other people, then go after them for *that*, not for taking drugs.

      This is why most drugs are illegal

      Want to know why they're illegal? Because of people like you who despise freedom and enjoy surrendering it if you believe you'll obtain more safety. Hopefully you enjoy getting molested at airports, because people with your mentality are to blame for that.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    36. Re: Seriously - GTFO by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      It really indicates how stupid the writer thinks everyone else is

      Not everyone is stupid, but the number of people who are even remotely intelligent is absolutely minuscule.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    37. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollox!

      You are terribly wrong.
      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

      Stop spreading BULLSHIT. Smokers harm all people around them. All of them.

    38. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also enjoying smoking is worse than addiction in many ways...
      Enjoying something which knowingly harms others is abhorrent, while enjoying something which you know is harmful basically amounts to self harm - and people get put in mental hospitals for this.

      OK, enough of this personal attack already. Damn, I'm not even a smoker, and I'm offended at your line of reasoning that smoking runs along the lines of "self harm", leading to mental hospitals.

      If anything, mental hospitals should be targeting the ignorant and stupid. Society would be far better off.

      As far as your fucking self-harm comment, I can walk down the city street and induce self-harm simply by breathing the heavily polluted air.

      By the way, I hope you're "enjoying" your computer. The 17-year old Chinese kid who worked 20 hours that day assembling them I'm sure appreciates your "abhorrent" behavior.

    39. Re:Seriously - GTFO by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      Zombies of the Stratosphere.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    40. Re: Seriously - GTFO by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      That's right! Blame the victim.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    41. Re: Seriously - GTFO by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight: you , one person, have "health issues". Then you bitch about how it was easier to avoid smoke just by not going to bars that allow smoking. Not only that but you then have the temerity to bitch that people are smoking outside of the bars now - the situation you and all the other morons who can't think ahead wanted when you took the choice away from the owners of the establishments - and you want society to conform to your "needs".
      Not only that, but you admit that "any smoke" causes the same affects, maybe we should outlaw campfires, cooking with oil, any types of fireworks and hell while we are in denial stupid outlaw land make a law against forest fires.

      That's akin to me saying that seeing someone not smoking makes me depressed - we should have a law requiring everyone to have a cigarette / cigar / pipe so I don't get depressed and maybe think about killing myself...

      TL:DR - Go up and slap some sense into your idiot lawmakers that take the choice to allow / disallow smoking in the establishments they own from said owners, because believe me, smokers don't want to have to go outside and listen to all the whiners walk past.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    42. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cough cough... Alcohol....cough cough... drunk drivers

    43. Re: Seriously - GTFO by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if drugs were legal and treated like tobacco and alcohol, they wouldn't be so expensive and hard to get and there wouldn't be as much need for that kind of crime...

    44. Re:Seriously - GTFO by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

      Well, you took away our choice. When we could still smoke in bars you very rarely saw anyone smoking on the street, and the streets remained cleaner since the bars / ETC. had ashtrays all over. Do you think the people smoking outside want to be standing in the cold / rain / heat / snow?

      You also took away the establishment owners choice, if you really didn't agree with smoking you should have done it the capitalist way, take your business to a place that CHOSE to not allow smoking. You did not do that, you chose the dictatorial way, just telling everyone who disagreed with they are wrong, that you knew better than them, and that they aren't allowed to live and or run their business as they want.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    45. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to hear about your father, but you are mistaken about COPD. It is Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. COPD patients are classified as "pink puffers" (emphysema) or "blue bloaters" (chronic bronchitis); both informal classifications describe the patient's presentation/symptoms.

      Congestive heart failure is not in the definition of COPD (nor is any other cardiac disorder), though nothing precludes a person from having COPD and CHF concurrently.

      COPD is not a death sentence.

    46. Re:Seriously - GTFO by maynard · · Score: 1

      You're right about my error with the definition and I'm no physician so I'll defer. But it was certainly a death sentence in my family. Still, if survival is possible I wouldn't wish death on anyone who suffers from it to prove my point.

      It was bad. He became dependent on prednisone and inhalers to breath. And, well, if you've ever seen bloating and weight gain from prednisone you'd know what he went through. And the prednisone caused secondary infections from impaired immune function. He was dependent on an oxygen concentrator, which required bottled oxygen to be available in the event of a power failure. And a trip to the ER if the bottle emptied.

      He described COPD as like downing in slow motion.

      Any doc whose seen this before would know the story.

      Anyway, of course, none of this I'd wish on Nimoy or anyone else.

    47. Re: Seriously - GTFO by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      You mean the device was engineered to meet written functional requirements?

      There's a difference.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    48. Re:Seriously - GTFO by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Quit smoking if you care at all about the risks of illness and disability that smoking causes. Or accept that you are a nicotine junkie and that you are lying to yourself about your habit because you can't face withdrawal.

      Or, start using electronic cigarettes. You can keep the enjoyment of nicotine, (which is not harmful), without inhaling smoke, (which is harmful). If you really enjoy tobacco, there are other forms of tobacco that are much, much less harmful and better tasting: cigars, pipe smoking, and snus or chew. And they are far less harmful because you're not inhaling huge clouds of smoke into your lungs, all day, everyday. Pipe smokers, for instance, have the same mortality rate as non-smokers. Oh, those warnings that say these other tobacco products aren't safer alternatives to cigarettes? The government lies to us sometimes.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    49. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know the thief was a junkie?

    50. Re:Seriously - GTFO by alfredo · · Score: 1

      He was in Futurama.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    51. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man is 82 years old. I don't smoke, drink excessively, have a risky job, or subject myself to dangerous situations unnecessarily, and I will be happy if I can make it to 82.

      You're going to die of something, someday. It is inevitable. It's not like we're talking about a tragic case of someone who smoked 4 packs a day and died at 35 here.

    52. Re:Seriously - GTFO by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      Let's hope that his level of COPD is something he can live with comfortably. If not help may be on the way as medical breakthroughs seem to be increasing in effectiveness for those with enough money to get the best care. Entertainers can be real life savers as people who are suffering often survive due to some pleasant entertainment while they wait to heal. We owe these people a lot more than most people realize.

    53. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by your "taking pills" quote I figure you're totally oblivious to the harm prescription drugs cause when it re-enters the water supply after the user pees it out.

      I don't like cigarette smoke either, but I think the real reason you have a problem with it is because you can see it and smell it, so you have something definitive to point your anger towards. Your reaction is totally disproportionate to the damage it causes, and there are far worse things to worry about. I'm willing to bet that second hand smoke, as you described it, is totally insignificant compared to every day pollution from industry, cars or volcanoes for that matter.

    54. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      He is a musician.

    55. Re:Seriously - GTFO by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      Or, start using electronic cigarettes

      Electronic cigarettes are about a million times better than the regular kind. However isn't it better not to be chemically dependent and to not suffer the mood swings and chronic withdrawal pains?

      I see plenty of smokers. They don't enjoy smoking, they enjoy being without the withdrawal symptoms for a short while.

    56. Re:Seriously - GTFO by gander666 · · Score: 1

      My mother died of COPD related effects. The last week of her life, she was in the hospital on a breathing machine. The thing that really got me was that every single one of the nurses/technicians who worked in the pulmonary ward would go out every hour for a smoke. They see the endgame every single day, and they still choose to light up.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    57. Re:Seriously - GTFO by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      I have also seen Leonard Nimoy on the old "Sea Hunt" TV series ( Lloyd Bridges ) and "Highway Patrol" ( Broderick Crawford ). Old black-and-white TV of the 50's and early 60's. I really enjoy those old shows - when it was about acting and not so much special effects. Those old stars are what made Hollywood so special. Even to this day, I enjoy seeing re-runs of *some* of the old 50's shows ( however, I feel most of them were crap - no different from today ). I just kept getting cognitive dissonance, as they usually had Nimoy playing the bad guy... and all the time I kept seeing him as Spock. Star Trek was by far my favorite TV series of all time. My condolences to him and his family. His acting career brought a lot of us into technological interests. The only person that ranked beside Leonard in my book was James Doohan ( Engineer Montgomery Scott ). Both were role models to me.

      He doesn't have CANCER. He has COPD. My father has it as well as a few other elderly folks I know. It is painful to watch them struggle to take a breath when that condition flares up....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    58. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drug addicts only harm other people when they actually harm other people. If you want to make a bunch of tenuous claims as to what harms someone else then we can add a bunch of other tenuous claims:

      • * your language harms other people
      • * your sense of style harms other people
      • * your music harms other people
      • * the length of your grass harms other people
      • * etc.

      Most drugs cause more harm to other people because they're illegal - which means that those addicted will pursue a higher level of crime to feed their addiction.

      Exactly. To anyone who thinks this isnt true, prove that there was more drug related crime when heroin and coke were otc. Thr government prohibition of these drugs drives the price up, which leads to crime, which then leads people to ask the government for more laws to solve the problem government caused in the first place.

    59. Re:Seriously - GTFO by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      No, he mostly wasn't in Futurama, just his perserved head

    60. Re:Seriously - GTFO by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      I think it's a mtter of 'you reap what you sow'.

      The Dice folks felt that the majority of the readers don't comment, so comments aren't that important.

      What they failed to recognize is that the commenters are the community that drove the site all these years.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    61. Re:Seriously - GTFO by alfredo · · Score: 1

      good enough for me.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    62. Re:Seriously - GTFO by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      You're always gonna be dependent on *some* chemicals, whether you like it or not. The important part is just knowing which ones you actually are dependent upon. Don't fool yourself into thinking that gluten or caffeine are any less addictive or any better for you in the long run than nicotine.

    63. Re:Seriously - GTFO by sidevans · · Score: 1

      What's worse, the slow death or the fact that it makes you lie to yourself?

      I choose to smoke and I'm aware its bad for me. There is no denial... I also choose to have a good diet and exercise - why? Death rates for obese people are climbing. You are less likely to be obese if you're a smoker, and nicotine improves memory.

      Considering that ~65% of the American population is overweight or obese, you don't need to be a genius to figure out those fat fucks will start dropping like flies in the next 20 years. I'll take my chances with smoking thanks....How about we get celebrities saying "Hey you fatass trekky - stuffing your face with sugary processed food is illogical" or "not exercising is illogical"

      Furthermore, Nimoy never said "Smoking Is Illogical" on Twitter and it wasn't referenced in the news article.

      This isn't news, it some anti-smokers opinion. If I want opinions I will read Fox News...

      --
      I'm not signing anything
    64. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Second hand smoke is extremely harmful, the smoker has a filter but those nearby don't...

      And i explicitly said "directly harm"... someone sitting in front of me injecting heroin or snorting coke isn't having any immediate effect on me. If he later goes and robs someone because he's desperate for more drugs that's an indirect side effect, and while addiction to drugs is certainly a cause of crime there are other causes too.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    65. Re: Seriously - GTFO by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Tell me, when you smoke, do you do it in private / entirely away from non smokers, or do you do it in public where others may inhale the fumes?

      I smoke anywhere I like outside of where I'm legally barred from doing so or the owner/proprietor has made a no smoking a policy. If someone doesn't like it, they can hang out around someone else.

      I suffer from very bad asthma, and inhaling smoke can easily trigger an attack (not just tobacco smoke, other kinds of smoke too), this is not "some far off time" but rather a risk of serious and immediate health problems which i face every day.

      I'm sorry to hear your health is not so good. I'm glad you have been able to take precautions and get around smokers enough that you can still be alive today and on the internet acting like a pompus ass the world should revolve around though. NO seriously, I am glad you are coping with your illness and are alive.

      When it was legal to smoke in bars here, i would simply avoid any establishment which allowed smoking. Now people smoke in the street and i have to be very careful where i go, if someone walking infront of me is smoking it can often cause me severe breathing difficulties and i generally have to cross the street to walk past a bar now (since everyone stands outside to smoke).

      Funny thing. A bar I used to go to a lot used to be always crowded. My home state passed a no indoor smoking in public law and the night when it took effect, the bar was about empty. I sat there drinking a beer and occasionally going out to the designated smoking area and when I came back in one of the time, I noticed a table of about 4 or 5 girls that had came in while I was out. They were talking about how great it was going to be that they didn't go home smelling of smoke, they didn't have to breath those stinky cigarette fumes any more. One of them proudly proclaimed that she helped working with the political group that pushed the smoking measure onto the ballot and how they got out the vote. One of them was busily working her phone trying to figure out where everyone was at- they had become accustomed to meeting their friends and the normal inflow of cheery people at this bar. Finally, I heard her say one person was at another bar where there was a roofed outdoor room and they could smoke on that patio. She said another was at another bar which decided to ignore the nonsmoking altogether. The bar tender and I stood there listening to all this thinking so that's where everyone was. Then all the sudden, these girls got up and decided to go to the other bars where people were still able to smoke. They even told us they were going to the other bars but might be back. So the bartender and I did what any decent respectable person would have done and talked about how fucking stupid those girls were.

      So you get what you want and then all the sudden find out it creates more difficulties or situations you do not like. Now you are harping about the result of what you wanted as if you had nothing to do with any of it.

      Also enjoying smoking is worse than addiction in many ways...
      Enjoying something which knowingly harms others is abhorrent, while enjoying something which you know is harmful basically amounts to self harm - and people get put in mental hospitals for this.

      Says the guy who has medical problems and wants everyone around him to change rather then deal with his own life.

      Here is the problem with people like you. You can avoid smokers, you can avoid people who drink, you can almost always avoid drug users, all you have to do is change your behavior and your wished can come true. But don't be surprised that when you want to change someone else' behavior that it comes back to bite you in ways you never intended. Don't be surprised when they become angry or even violent around you because that is raw simplistic natural tendencies.

      Now you can sit there and loo

    66. Re:Seriously - GTFO by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Nimoy didn't get lung cancer, he got COPD.

      Smoking does heavily increase your chance of getting lung cancer but it's not the sole cause of it. Smoking does make you far more likely to suffer from one or more of a very large array of nasty illnesses during your lifetime. It also reduces your life span significantly.

      This, a lot of people dont get the difference between the cause (should really be called the trigger) and the main contributing factor.

      To fall back on the good old /. car analogy, the cause of the crash was the driver lost control, the main contributing factor was that the driver was drunk.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    67. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Mr Data - the original Real Doll TM

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    68. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Have you been standing downwind form smokers - that's a serious cough you have there...

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    69. Re:Seriously - GTFO by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Why would Slashdot ever carry a story about Leonard Nimoy? Wasn't he in some westerns, like Gunsmoke and The Virginian? Anything else that we should know about? Did he ever travel? Any famous treks to relate that nerds would care about?

      Well, he was a TV star. So when he was trekking around the Wild West doing those westerns you list, I suppose we could say he was a star trekking.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    70. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you get what you want and then all the sudden find out it creates more difficulties or situations you do not like.

      So let me get this straight... you saw a few idiotic girls talking nonsense, and you decide to equate them with the poster you're responding to, as if he would respond the exact same way. Hint: That only happened in your imagination.

    71. Re: Seriously - GTFO by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      Don't be surprised when they become angry or even violent around you because that is raw simplistic natural tendencies.

      Not that I disagree with your overall point, but violence is no solution. That only shows they're mere barbarians.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    72. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. I smoked for several years and quit for a little over a year and started smoking again. People like the smoke sensation entering their lungs, they like the relaxation afterwards and they like the way smoking steadies the hands and increases dexterity slightly. When I went back to smoking, I had absolutely no withdraw effects but I went back because I liked it. I only quit smoking (cold turkey) to get in a girls pants and she stuck around after I started back up despite being dead set against it when we first met.

      I still smoke today because I enjoy it. If you do not smoke, I guess you will never understand but you have it all wrong. Sure there is addiction, but there is also other positives about smoking that people like and enjoy much the same as people who like to drink alcohol or toke on some weed or even do other drugs occasionally. All that can be done without addiction and is often done because people enjoy it.

      total bullshit

    73. Re:Seriously - GTFO by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Or, start using electronic cigarettes. You can keep the enjoyment of nicotine, (which is not harmful), without inhaling smoke, (which is harmful).

      Not true. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictive agent, and that can often be harmful. In some people/situations, it could also be therapeutic.

      While it is true that vapers do not inhale smoke, research has been showing much higher levels of nicotine in vapers than smokers. I am not an MD, and this is not my field, but I would expect vaping to be much more harmful in some circumstances.

      I would argue that vapers simply enjoy inhaling, and don't particularly care about the nicotine. I would advise them to switch to 0% nicotine juice until the long-term health impacts are fully understood.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    74. Re:Seriously - GTFO by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      That's because not lighting up doesn't prevent the endgame. My partner's Father, a fit and healthy man who never smoked a day in his life, died of cancer. What can you do? You're going to go from something, and not smoking is no guarantee that what you go of won't be extremely unpleasant.

    75. Re: Seriously - GTFO by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      No, I saw a few idiots and mentioned a story about them. People bitch cry and complain, then when they get their way, they seek out what isn't their way. But the only thing relating to the original poster was the bitch cry and complain.

    76. Re: Seriously - GTFO by Patch61 · · Score: 1

      I just LOVE when stupid people use a stupid argument. If the smoke has already run through a filter on a cigarette, then it has already been filtered. Geez, man... grow a brain before posting. Plus, it has actually been filtered a second time, by being run through a set of lungs that have removed even more of the contaminants.

  5. Illogical by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're 82, Leonard. Holding yourself up as an example of the ravages of smoking after reaching the age of 82 is illogical. Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical. Go with grace.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Illogical by dale.furno · · Score: 2

      Implying he doesn't inject large sums of money into his veins to keep himself alive

    2. Re:Illogical by umdesch4 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think he's gotten both parts of "live long and prosper" done by now.

    3. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try telling that to my friend who is 46 and has the same condition as Spock. He needs oxygen 20 hours a day. He smoked from the age of 12 and like Mr Nimmoy, gave it up years ago but the damage has been done. He won't live to see the year out.

      I see all those young people smoking (mostly women) and feel sad for them. They know it kills yet the don't care one iota and carry on.
      I smoked for a year and gave it up to buy a new car. I never returned and boy am I thankful yet I have some damage to my lungs. I stopped more than 40 years ago.

    4. Re:Illogical by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're 82, Leonard. ... Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical. Go with grace.

      Let's see if you feel the same way if and when you reach the age of 82.

    5. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF, I thought he was already dead for a few years?

    6. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Refusing to accept that man wasn't meant to fly is illogical. Stay on the ground. How can the raging technophiles on Slashdot suddenly be such conservative anti-science luddites when it comes to lifespan? Yeah, all of a sudden you're all about limits. Why is that?

      Shouldn't the entire species also go with grace when it reaches its limits? You know, as opposed to the grand visions of the species colonizing the universe and being forever an ape that lasts a few decades before completely falling apart?

      No, no, that's different. Space is the Holy Manifest Destiny of the species, but only if we keep aging and dying like we did a thousand years ago. No technology must be developed to extend youth.

      Uncomfortable yet? Or only your pithy little statements are the truth??

    7. Re:Illogical by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0

      You're 82, Leonard. ... Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical. Go with grace.

      Let's see if you feel the same way if and when you reach the age of 82.

      If I can gaze upon my grandchildren and die with quiet dignity, that would be just perfect. Like my grandfather before me, who developed gangrene in his feet and decided to reject an amputation, and accept that his time had come in his 60s.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    8. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I wont, even though I do now. But when I am 82 I will be illogical, it's called getting old.

    9. Re:Illogical by zidium · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You should check out http://www.realityshifts.com/ for a possible explanation.

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    10. Re:Illogical by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      My mom did before 82.

      For many, living just becomes increasingly miserable-- especially if you have a chronic condition as she did.

      She was very orderly about it, maintained a "death" board, made sure her wishes for cremation- and who would inherit what was clear.

      A lot of people are able to go. Perhaps Nimoy feels he still has more to say, he has money to do things with, he's not ready to go yet.

      A lot depends on your general health, happiness, and even finances. And, of course, you religious outlook.

      I'm not religious- but it brought my mom a lot of piece. And I honored that by having her firebrand of a baptist preacher at her wake.

      I suspect I'll be ready. I already had cancer in 93 and I was ready then if it came to it. I was just very lucky- they discovered the cure for my type of cancer in 1991.

      If your number is up, then it's time to go.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gangrene at 60? Sounds like you have some defective genes in your family shrub.

    12. Re:Illogical by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Gangrene at 60? Sounds like you have some defective genes in your family shrub.

      Can't really see any point in sticking around any longer. Why would you want to?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    13. Re:Illogical by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're 82, Leonard. Holding yourself up as an example of the ravages of smoking after reaching the age of 82 is illogical.

      Refusing to acknowledge what science teaches us about disease is illogical and yet you are holding yourself up as an arbiter of logic.

      Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical.

      There is no logic to dying before necessary if he can still do productive work or enjoy life.

      Go with grace.

      What an interesting contract to your words in this post and this post. It is almost as if you don't really mean it. You seem to lack empathy. Isn't there a word for that?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:Illogical by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      Refusing to acknowledge what science teaches us about disease is illogical and yet you are holding yourself up as an arbiter of logic.

      Who said anything about what science has discovered about disease? All science can say is, 'if you smoke, your risk of lung cancer is increased'; it cannot determine whether that risk is worthwhile.

      I'd argue that the risk is worthwhile when it comes to cigars and pipes, and not when it comes to smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, jsut as the risk of eating grilled meat is well worth it.

    15. Re:Illogical by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I can kinda agree with going out with grace. When I'm 82, I want to go out by a method of my own choosing. COPD isn't exactly my first choice when picking how to exit this world.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    16. Re:Illogical by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're 82, Leonard. Holding yourself up as an example of the ravages of smoking after reaching the age of 82 is illogical. Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical. Go with grace.

      His problem is that 'grace' isn't really one of the features of COPD. First the coughing starts. Then you begin to experience difficulty breathing and shortness of breath. These become more severe until you can't maintain adequate O2 saturation without supplemental oxygen. Then they become more severe until you can't maintain adequate O2 saturation with supplemental oxygen. Then you die. Available treatments are largely aimed at easing the symptoms, and rarely effective in halting the disease's progression.

      It's hardly the worst (there's a lot of competition); but a long, futile, struggle to breath isn't a pretty exit. If he's really lucky, something else will kill him fast and first.

    17. Re:Illogical by jafac · · Score: 1

      COPD is actually pretty bad, and there isn't a whole lot that having a ton of money can do. Maybe a heart/lung transplant. But at 82, that's a pretty rough surgery.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    18. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, all of my grandparents died at or before the age of 65; my best friend died at age 35. I have no desire to die, and know the pain the death of loved ones can cause, but when I see people treat mortality at an old age as anything other than an expected part of life -- much less a gift to have lived so long -- I have to think those people have been spoiled by their good fortune.

    19. Re:Illogical by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      If he's really lucky, something else will kill him fast and first.

      But he shouldn't make it too obvious, or we'll crucify him for being a coward who took the easy way out.

    20. Re:Illogical by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      I hope everyone you know realizes what an awful person you are and you die alone and miserable.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    21. Re:Illogical by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Let's see if you feel the same way if and when you reach the age of 82.

      My mother was treated for cancer in her '80's. The cancer was (temporarily) defeated, but she lost her quality of life. Afterward, the cancer treatment, she regretted opting for treatment instead of palliative care. When the cancer came back, she opted for palliative care.

      My father (approaching 100) told me years ago that he felt that he had done everything that we wanted to do and did not fear death.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    22. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friend is genetically defective. It's sad, it happens, the world turns.

      I wouldn't say he is genetically defective if he started heavy smoking at 12 his lungs wouldn't even have even grown to full size. This combined with a high tolerance and large qualities of smoking would lead almost anyone to die young. My grandfather however started at 12 but he was only smoking maybe 2-3 cigars a week. He lived to 100 yrs. But he was never a heavy smoker. He also had a health diet.

    23. Re:Illogical by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm given to understand that his intrinsic human worth and dignity require no less...

    24. Re:Illogical by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Your friend is genetically defective. It's sad, it happens, the world turns.

      Because everyone who gets something really nasty as a result of smoking deserves it? That's addict's reasoning, anything to justify the drugs.

    25. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started smoking at 16. I didn't even give a thought to lung cancer or COPD. I knew that they happen, and they would almost certainly happen to me. The reason I didn't worry about the harm from smoking is because I expected to die suddenly before I was 30. At the time I had pretty much untreatable congenital chronic heart failure. By the time I was 16, I expected I could die from my heart giving out any day.

      But in this day and age, with decent surgeries, effective medications, and the proper lifestyle changes, I have the possibility of living to 80. I still haven't stopped smoking, and don't really "want to stop" so I haven't tried quitting since I was in my 20s. I regulate the number of cigarettes I smoke, and have been smoking less than a pack a day for the last 20 years. I expect I'll die slowly of COPD, or the big C will show up at a doctor's visit soon. And I'm starting to think I should have been more of a risk taker young. Then I might have gotten out of my nearly certain slow, painful decline.

    26. Re:Illogical by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      My father didn't fear death at 76 from lung cancer, and he didn't assign blame to others for his smoking. If I have the good fortune to live so long with the better part of my mental faculties in working order I will not wallow in excuses and blame when whichever of my many vices and faults catch up with me.

      Not everyone clings to life with claws and teeth, ready to squander every last shred of dignity to catch the next episode of Jeopardy.

      Sounds like you probably will though.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    27. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he lies

      So does your mom when she tells you she loves you.

    28. Re:Illogical by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Where did you get hold of the guy's medical history? I mean, you obviously wouldn't try to diagnose a hereditary genetic disease based on a single sentence from a stranger on Slashdot, would you? That would be a really dumb thing to do, so that can't be it.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    29. Re:Illogical by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I want to die peacefully in my sleep - like my grandfather.

      Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    30. Re:Illogical by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Can't really see any point in sticking around any longer. Why would you want to?

      Not sure if serious or troll.

      On the off chance you're serious, I think you lack imagination. There are many things I wish to do, far mor than I could manage in a lifetime. Why give up at 60? There's so much more fun to be had.

      And given your UID, chances are you're now decently over half way through your life if you plan on giving up at 60. Have you realy done half of everything worth doing?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    31. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're widely reviled, Beta. Holding yourself up as an example of modernising the site after engendering such hatred is illogical. Refusing to accept death at such wide resentment is illogical. Go with grace.

    32. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because our next life will be the fruits of our love and dedication in this life?

      Why so much fear for something which is so integral to life?
      I'm not against extending life, however, I am against ignorance of what comes next. It's been thoroughly documented that people do have experiences both after this life and before this life.

    33. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man wasn't meant to fly? Excuse me? So, what was man 'meant' to? The answer to that question belongs to the realm of religion and has nothing to do with logic. In fact, limiting our achievements due to some vague assumption about even more vague 'limits' that shouldn't be trespassed, is the very definition of illogical.

      Nature shows us flying is possible, convenient and desirable. Acquiring the means to do it, is as logical as it can be.

      About our 'destiny' (another term devoid of logic), well, even if we triumph over illness and age, limiting our expansion to a single place (be it a town, a continent, or a planet) is illogical, since the security and stability of those places are well beyond our control and, in fact, there are many records of past disasters that could very well impede our self-preservation.

      The case that extending youth has a negative impact on our species is weak. Extending our lifespan has little impact on natural selection in an evolutionary scale (and even then, it merely delays it), and evidence shows overpopulation and other side effects can and will be controlled. On the other hand, extending the lifespan of individuals is very desirable. Who knows what a 300-years old Einstein, afflicted with no illness or decay, could have contributed to our sciences? In the extreme case we completely triumph over illness and death, making us immortals, nothing prevents us to self-improve ourselves as time passes by, following similar principles to natural evolution. I have little doubt a civilization capable of the former is entirely capable of the later.

      In other words, there is nothing in your post to make anybody uncomfortable, except perhaps for those who are scared by sacred books and TV preachers.

    34. Re:Illogical by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I will consider myself happy if I die of a lung condition at 82. Because that will mean, well, that asthma and my lousy pancreas won't kill me off before that!

      Having said that, I sure hope he gets better.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    35. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're 82, Leonard. Holding yourself up as an example of the ravages of smoking after reaching the age of 82 is illogical. Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical. Go with grace.

      What a fucking asshole.

    36. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vulcans live for over 200 years. Turn in your geek card.

    37. Re:Illogical by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. A person reaching age 82 in good health has something like ten years on average of life expectancy. If you're looking death in the eye, ten years is a looooong time.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    38. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COPD doesn't necessarily kill you right away. It can just make your life miserable for the last years of your life.

    39. Re:Illogical by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      > Let's see if you feel the same way if and when you reach the age of 82.

      Logic and feelings usually are not compatible. Otherwise religions wouldn't exist.
      How he feels is irrelevant when talking about logic.

      Haven't you watched Star Trek ?

    40. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real men with lung cancer slug a Bromptons cocktail, get a feel from some 18-yo babe ... and die. Your useless life is of no interest to any. If you really really really want to do better ... then read Thucydides recount of Pericles oration over the bones of young Athenian hoplites. Join Army rangers . Kill and die.

    41. Re:Illogical by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Except that he says he developed lung disease even after he quit smoking 30 years ago. RTFA and don't try to be too clever.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    42. Re:Illogical by fatphil · · Score: 1

      No, he tells you a fictional story, not necessarily of his own composition, when you ask him too.

      Why is that a positive trait when the requester and recipient is a child at bedtime, but not a positive trait when the requester and recipient is an adult?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    43. Re:Illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical.

      Accepting death at any age is what is illogical, not the reverse. My mom's 85 and bowls every week, she should just lay down and wait to die like her dad did when he was forced to retire? That's not just illogical, it's stupid.

    44. Re:Illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, he's right. Most people's smoking don't leave any noticeable symptoms at all until after middle age. My great uncle started smoking at age 12 and stopped at age 82, died at age 94. But like the guy dead at 40 he was in the long tail, and not normal. Most smokers have breathing problems by age 60. Also, he might have lived another ten years if he'd never smoked. The guy in the above comment probably wouldn't have made it much past 60 if he hadn't smoked, but it certainly would have been worth it.

    45. Re:Illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Apologies, but your grandpa was a coward and his decision was horribly illogical. I'm in my 60s and I have plenty to live for.

    46. Re:Illogical by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Telling a story is not at all the same thing as acting a part. When telling the story you do not (as an actor does) need to convince the recipient that you are indeed (if the actor is good) *are* the character. That is lying. It is benign lying, but it is lying. It is also the very same talent that is used to maliciously convince someone you are someone else. The intent of the deception is the why you were seeking.

    47. Re:Illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Can't really see any point in sticking around any longer. Why would you want to?

      It looks like insanity runs in your family. I turn 62 in April and retire this month. For the first time in my life I'm FREE. I can do anything I want.

      Your deathwish is crazy, you should seek professional help.

    48. Re:Illogical by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Vulcans said it to everyone, so it's not a reference to a specific life span. Your turn to turn in the card.

    49. Re:Illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I have no fear of death, since I experienced it once. I know what's coming and it isn't the least bit scary. Now, my grandma said "I don't know why anybody wants to live to be a hundred, it ain't no fun being old." But she was 95 and in a wheelchair when she said that (she did live six months short of a hundred years) after outliving all her friends, 3 of her 4 children, and 2 husbands.

      If you're healthy, a death wish is not sane.

    50. Re:Illogical by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It kind of amazes me that people are so afraid of death. It's not like you're going to avoid it. Everyone takes that ride, why fear it? Don't seek it, surely, but why the terror of death itself? Fear being mangled by a lion or splatted by a truck? Sure, I get that, but that's the fear of the pain, not death itself. Ibid dragging on with some disease.

      I've never understood this in people on a personal level. I understand they don't know what to expect on death, but I don't get the terror of dying. And don't fob the old religious people know what to expect thing, as religious people tend to exhibit this fear as much or more (with some exceptions) than anyone.

      Just don't understand this about people. And yeah, I'm an older guy now and I still feel this way.

    51. Re:Illogical by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My father didn't fear death at 76 from lung cancer, and he didn't assign blame to others for his smoking.

      Well, he should have. He took too much on himself. The tobacco industry knew about the dangers and willfully misled the populace, which is why they share the blame. No, really, not just in court, although that's happened too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Illogical by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I write my own fiction and fantasy, thank you very much.

    53. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you do, doesn't mean he did. We all live our own lives and make our own choices.

    54. Re:Illogical by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      How old school of you. There is no reason to surrender at 82 and with increasing abilities of modern medicine most of us will probably last to well over 100 years of age.

    55. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How someone feels is not the point, this is about logic. At 82, he's already way past the statistical life expectancy for someone born in the 1930s. COPD is just one of the diseases that come with age. I don't know if it's reasonable to blame it on past smoking, especially if he hasn't smoked for 30 years.

    56. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is how you feel how come you're still around? What's the point?

    57. Re:Illogical by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wishing miserable death on someone, haven't you just sunk to his level?

    58. Re:Illogical by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must hate comedians. Most of their stories are embellished or made up as well. And analogies are all lies as well, made up stories with a message, like those evil parables.

      Must suck to go through life with such an odd moral compass.

    59. Re:Illogical by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope, the friend is genetically normal. It's people like George Burns that are genetically defective (yes, it's a "defect" even if beneficial).

    60. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just jealous of actors because they can lie convincingly, which is what you desperately wish you could do. Do I need to remind you why?

    61. Re:Illogical by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      If you're going to quote Jack Handey, then give him credit.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    62. Re:Illogical by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      This.

      Both of my parents died of complications from smoking, even though they quit decades earlier.

      Fortunately, they discouraged their children from starting, and none of us did.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    63. Re:Illogical by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Refusing to accept death at 82 is illogical.

      Accepting death at any age is what is illogical, not the reverse. My mom's 85 and bowls every week, she should just lay down and wait to die like her dad did when he was forced to retire? That's not just illogical, it's stupid.

      Not really, your mum is lucky to be 85 and still in good health, most people, even in western countries are suffering a variety of ailments by that age.

      The question is not as black and white as you and the GPP make out. Is is illogical to accept death if you're 85 and still in good health (I.E. are able to function without daily assistance), is it illogical not to accept death if you have a debilitating illness (such as chronic arthritis, where every movement is painful and your spend your life on a cocktail of pain relievers which are fighting a losing battle with the arthritis)? Even these are very black and white examples but it does demonstrate that the there is a lot more to the argument than you think.

      Personally I think that we should be able to choose when we want to go. To accept death is not illogical at all if you feel that the time is right. A lot of people who've lived very fulfilling lives accept that their time has come to an end with grace, OTOH you get people who regret their entire lives and cling to whatever shred they have left.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    64. Re:Illogical by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the entire species also go with grace when it reaches its limits? You know, as opposed to the grand visions of the species colonizing the universe and being forever an ape that lasts a few decades before completely falling apart?

      I wasn't going to log in, but you made me: Crocodiles and sharks are both VERY old as a species. They have evolved but they have stayed recognizable. You seem to be claiming that the human race must die for evolution to continue or else the human race will stay as it is. Forever and ever. Amen.

      While dolphins and pigs may be "smart" they do not have intelligence like humans do. None of the other animals are quite like us. Our intelligence should indeed be seeded throughout the universe. Our bodies will evolve. Our intelligence may grow to be even more unique.

      It should not be remarkable to you that any species wishes to continue itself.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    65. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish there was a -1 absolutely retarded mod, just for you.

    66. Re:Illogical by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks! Never knew where that came from. It's still a crackup. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    67. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What an interesting contract to your words in this post [slashdot.org] and this post [slashdot.org]. It is almost as if you don't really mean it. You seem to lack empathy. Isn't there a word for that?

      Is that a "tu quoque" AND an ad-hominem within three sentences? From the well-known 'cold fjord?' I AM AGHAST, AGHAST I TELLS YOU!

    68. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though you are a treasonous traitor, you are correct here.

    69. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your number is up, then it's time to go.

      "When you reach your peak it's time to die" - GG Allin

    70. Re:Illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      is it illogical not to accept death if you have a debilitating illness

      I agree that not accepting death under permanently debilitating conditions is illogical, but the original thread started when someone said something to the effect that people over 80 should just accept death no matter their health. That's worse than illogical, it's downright stupid. Half of all people who live to sixty are still alive at 90. I have a 95 year old uncle that Mom says looks 70.

    71. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone clings to life with claws and teeth, ready to squander every last shred of dignity to catch the next episode of Jeopardy.

      Sounds like you probably will though.

      It doesn't sound like that at all, because the grandparent poster did not say anything of the sort, and you know it.

      Strawman arguments are lies.

    72. Re:Illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abnormal, maybe, but not defective.

  6. For someone who said "live long" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    not supporting life extension is also illogical. Space fans really need to get their priorities straight, it's highly unlikely that any Star Trek-level of technology will ever happen, so if you want to explore the immense void out there, you'll have to live longer, a LOT longer. So never mind just quitting smoking; we'll need a serious, global, universal project to really understand life processes and extend youth.

    1. Re:For someone who said "live long" by TheP4st · · Score: 2

      Supporting exponential population growth is illogical. Short clip with David Suzuki discussing the very real threat overpopulation pose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    2. Re:For someone who said "live long" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming progress towards life extention won't trigger more and more social discussions is illogical. But who needs the arts, right?

  7. Some personal responsibility before you die? by mi · · Score: 1

    in the grips of marketing induced denial

    It is not my fault! Marketing made me do it!

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Some personal responsibility before you die? by zidium · · Score: 1

      What all these sites suiciding has taught me: Don't leave design in the hands of the faye!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    2. Re:Some personal responsibility before you die? by dmbasso · · Score: 2

      As if marketing don't exploit your brain. Ever hear of "supernormal stimuli"? This post has some interesting info for you: http://ciotti.quora.com/Was-Yo...

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    3. Re:Some personal responsibility before you die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, I'm afraid to click it. Does it have that "supernormal stimuli" you mentioned?

  8. Is it even possible by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Is it even possible to be in 'marketing denial' at this point? Hasn't everyone had it pounded into them that smoking is bad, second hand smoke is bad, and now we even have third hand smoke? Is it really possible to live in the US and not understand the problems of smoking?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re: Is it even possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes a when a real well know person makes it real. That is also marketing.
      No that smoking makes you sex it makes you dead.
      Nice that he feels the needed to give back to the fans.

    2. Re: Is it even possible by narcc · · Score: 1

      Gene Ray? Is that you?

  9. Too bad if your children are VHEMT members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Deciding not to breed is the best decision any human can make. Grandiose sentiments be damned.

    1. Re:Too bad if your children are VHEMT members by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Deciding not to breed is the best decision any human can make. Grandiose sentiments be damned.

      I so wish I could cut your throat and watch you bleed out on the soil.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Too bad if your children are VHEMT members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deciding not to breed is the best decision any human can make. Grandiose sentiments be damned.

      I so wish I could cut your throat and watch you bleed out on the soil.

      You're amusing. The fact that you disagree with him by demonstrating the worst possible human traits is building his case.

    3. Re:Too bad if your children are VHEMT members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your parents must have hated you before you were conceived.

    4. Re:Too bad if your children are VHEMT members by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I so wish I could cut your throat and watch you bleed out on the soil.

      This is your reaction to someone disagreeing with you? I really hope you have never managed to breed. That would certainly be for the benefit of humanity. Even if you accept the dubious notion that breedig is a good idea, your polluting of the gene pool with aggressive nutcases certainly won't improve things.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Too bad if your children are VHEMT members by Dominare · · Score: 1

      Even if you accept the dubious notion that breedig is a good idea, your polluting of the gene pool with aggressive nutcases certainly won't improve things.

      Depends on your point of view. The GOP needs those votes.

    6. Re:Too bad if your children are VHEMT members by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I so wish I could cut your throat and watch you bleed out on the soil.

      That's because you're afraid he's right, and you're too immature to deal with that. That's the only reason anyone ever reacts in such a manner.

  10. When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Perhaps in the distant past smoking marketers claimed smoking was safe, but I never saw any sign of that... they simply make smoking glamorous while glossing over the dangers, but it's not like they actively hide the dangers.

    Nor is it the case that any person who smokes does not know the danger at this point. There are millions of sources telling you smoking is bad. People do things they know are bad for them for whatever reason; that will never stop and it's unfair to blame marketing for human nature.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by nbauman · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Perhaps in the distant past smoking marketers claimed smoking was safe, but I never saw any sign of that... they simply make smoking glamorous while glossing over the dangers, but it's not like they actively hide the dangers.

      Was 1977 the distant past? I know lots of people who used to write for womens' magazines, such as Ms. They got half to 3/4 their advertising from cigarettes, and they wrote about every every cancer except lung cancer. They depicted women smoking cigarettes as glamorous. And Ms. magazine directed itself to teenage girls, and gave them a model of how to act.

      Now, those same teenage girls who became addicted to cigarettes because Ms. magazine told them it was cool, are now getting lung cancer and all the other cigarette-caused diseases, like the COPD that Nimoy has.

      Nor is it the case that any person who smokes does not know the danger at this point. There are millions of sources telling you smoking is bad. People do things they know are bad for them for whatever reason; that will never stop and it's unfair to blame marketing for human nature.

      When you have people in cigarette marketing who spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how to get people to smoke cigarettes even though it's bad for them, and succeed, then I think it's fair to blame them for getting people addicted on cigarettes.

    2. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Was 1977 the distant past?

      Still didn't claim it was safe, just didn't tell you it was dangerous.

      I sure knew at that point smoking was bad, which was why I never even tried it.

      When you have people in cigarette marketing who spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how to get people to smoke cigarettes even though it's bad for them, and succeed

      I think it's reaching to claim marketing has succeeded in that regard. You have no idea if that person would have smoked anyway without the marketing; it seems very likely to me that MOST smokers would have been smokers without marketing simply because most are introduced to (or pushed into) smoking by friends.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Until forced to stop, they not only claimed that it was safe, they claimed it was good for you. It reduced stress and improved digestion you see.

      That was some time ago, but Nimoy is 82, so...

    4. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by narcc · · Score: 1

      they claimed it was good for you. It reduced stress and improved digestion you see.

      I've run across those ads before. So ... were those claims true or not?

    5. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by sjames · · Score: 2

      It's fairly uncontroversial that smoking was not safe. There is some evidence that nicotine can help with irritable bowel syndrome, but for most it doesn't seem to do much for the digestion (and smoking is a hell of a way to take nicotine). It may have helped with stress.

      There is evidence that nicotine can help the negative symptoms of schizophrenia with far less side effects than approved drugs, but again, smoking is a hell of a way to take nicotine.

    6. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      You just described marketing induced denial. Sure its bad for you, but look at all the other people not quitting, join our community with a shirt - all that.

      There are other sources for denial, but marketing is still powerful. And messages from earlier in life can still be strong in the later years.

      Induce is a word, it has meaning, and at least one of those is appropriate here.

    7. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Was 1977 the distant past?

      Still didn't claim it was safe, just didn't tell you it was dangerous.

      I sure knew at that point smoking was bad, which was why I never even tried it.

      When you have people in cigarette marketing who spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how to get people to smoke cigarettes even though it's bad for them, and succeed

      I think it's reaching to claim marketing has succeeded in that regard. You have no idea if that person would have smoked anyway without the marketing; it seems very likely to me that MOST smokers would have been smokers without marketing simply because most are introduced to (or pushed into) smoking by friends.

      It's true that one reason people start smoking is because their friends smoke. But the tobacco companies knew that they people were also more likely to start smoking if they were exposed to an advertising blitz.

      The tobacco companies spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars advertising in womens' magazines. In the free market system, a company does not spend money unless they think it will help them sell more of their stuff. They also had product placement in movies and TV, where glamorous celebrities would smoke their cigarettes.

      They didn't just spend the money; they monitored their sales after every marketing campaign to find out what works and what doesn't work. They hired marketing experts, and psychologists, and anybody else who could help them figure out what would boost sales.

      After the tobacco lawsuits, the tobacco companies had to deposit all the documents that came out in the lawsuits in a public archive. There are tobacco company documents in there that archive that describe this.

      It's true that people knew (in a general way) that smoking was bad for you, but they didn't realize how bad. I didn't realize how bad it was until I read the Surgeon General's Report in 1964.

      A lot of people thought, "I'll get lung cancer, but by that time they'll have a cure for it." That wasn't the half of it. First, there is still no cure for lung cancer. You get one round of chemotherapy, you get a few months to a year, the cancer comes back, you get another few months to a year, and you're dead. Second, lung cancer is only about 10% of the cigarette-related deaths. COPD, which is what Nimroy has, is almost entirely caused by smoking in this country, and kills even more people, and also has no cure.

      And as the tobacco archives show, the tobacco companies published articles claiming that cigarettes weren't that dangerous. A lot of people fell for those lies.

    8. Re:When did marketing ever claim otherwise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father, who is 91, once commented to me that his mother told him not to smoke because it was "bad for you". I don't think it takes/took a genius to figure that out. If you are dumb enough to smoke and NOT know that it is bad for you then you are pretty stupid and I feel sorry for anyone who cares about you

  11. Not logical to ignore the warnings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would someone ignore all the warning signs and stumble blindly ahead on a path to certain doom?
    When others who did the same all shared the same fate?
    When trusted community members spoke up and said "were asking you to stop because we care?"

    Why would anyone ignore all of the clear warning signs of impending death?

    1. Re: Not logical to ignore the warnings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because 90% of humans are stupid + 9% retarded void of any logic and mentally very weak.

      Because cancer-sticks are just like any other drug. (And much worse than MJ or alcohol)

    2. Re:Not logical to ignore the warnings... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Why would someone ignore all the warning signs and stumble blindly ahead on a path to certain doom?

      Because nicotine is addicting.

      Just like heroin or cocaine, except more so.

    3. Re:Not logical to ignore the warnings... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Why would someone ignore all the warning signs and stumble blindly ahead on a path to certain doom?
      When others who did the same all shared the same fate?
      When trusted community members spoke up and said "were asking you to stop because we care?"

      Why would anyone ignore all of the clear warning signs of impending death?

      Cigarettes are either a stimulant, or a depressant, depending on dosage. Which means, if you're tired or depressed, it will fix that, and if you're anxious and upset, it will fix that too. It will increase your emotional equilibrium, and make you cool.

      Cigarettes increase the quality of life of those that smoke them. That's why people do it.

      If you don't understand now, it's because you're refusing to do so.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Not logical to ignore the warnings... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Oh, and they help keep you from getting fat too.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re: Not logical to ignore the warnings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Cigarettes don't do that. You (as an addict) THINK they do that when in reality you need them to feel normal. Just like a heroin addict needs its next injection to feel normal and not anxious.

    6. Re: Not logical to ignore the warnings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. I've tried to take up smoking several times in my life, and have never experienced the stimulant, depressant, or emotional equilibrium effect. Cigs are an absolute waste of time, and the only psychological effect I noticed was that they piss off everyone who is unfortunate enough to be able to smell them.

    7. Re: Not logical to ignore the warnings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are barking up to the wrong tree. Or you don't know how to reply properly or to whom.

    8. Re:Not logical to ignore the warnings... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      So Slashdot's beta is addictive? I don't think so...

      --
      That is all.
    9. Re:Not logical to ignore the warnings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi ShieldW0lf,
      Your repitition of the stimulant / depressant false data makes me suspect a SCN background? I used to be very much like you, a mind is an excellent servent and a terrible master. You should work on right brain / left brain balance, truth is emotion's only purpose is not the manipulation of others...

      Oh and your first instict might be right, cigarettes are not as bad for as us as the medicines they are weaning us onto from them, but in their current incarnation, radioactive growing environment included, cigarettes are highly carcinogenic and only a fool would consume them

  12. Spock was a smoker? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Was he out of his vulcan mind?!

    1. Re:Spock was a smoker? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Was he out of his vulcan mind?!

      No, Spock was sleeping in Obama's brain . . . who was also a smoker, but stopped . . .

      . . . if you have the faith to believe him . . .

      "If you like your cigarettes, you can keep them."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  13. 82 years old by Kohath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Leonard Nimoy is 82 and he probably has a few more years ahead of him. Was he planning on living to be 1000 years old?

    Smoking has pluses and minuses. News flash: people like to smoke, just like they like drinking alcohol and using other substances. Ask a heroin user whether he likes heroin -- he loves it. So it's not illogical to take heroin, but it's a choice that can have a negative long-term effect.

    If you're already 82, like Leonard Nimoy, you might want to try smoking. Or heroin. The benefits are immediate. And you probably won't live to experience the consequences.

    1. Re:82 years old by dale.furno · · Score: 1

      So, I'll see you and Leonard at the Dumpsters behind Comic Con then?

    2. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMOKING HAS PLUSSES????????

      Seriously? You truly are fucking dumb. Slashdot Beta dumb. Smoking has no positives at all.

    3. Re:82 years old by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Leonard Nimoy is 82 and he probably has a few more years ahead of him. Was he planning on living to be 1000 years old?

      Smoking has pluses and minuses.

      If he didn't have COPD, he'd probably live another 5 or 10 years longer than whatever he's got.

      COPD is one of the more painful ways to die. It's like breathing through a straw.

    4. Re: 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smoking has nothing positive whatsoever. Smokers have to smoke to feel like non-smokers do 24/7.

    5. Re:82 years old by EvilSS · · Score: 5, Funny

      Smoking has pluses and minuses.

      Such as???

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:82 years old by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      He's already at the point where he can't walk distances. So this diagnosis is really really late in the game for him.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    7. Re:82 years old by hey! · · Score: 1

      If you've already developed COPD, as Mr. Nimoy has, then you *will* experience the costs of continuing to smoke, even at the age of 82. So there are negatives.

      Also, at the age of 82 you probably don't give a damn about looking cool any more, so the biggest plus for a teenager doesn't apply.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:82 years old by Kohath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People have been smoking tobacco for about 1000 years now. Why do you think they started doing that? How far up your own ass would you have to be to deny even the possibility of a pleasant neurochemical effect?

      Here's a quote an article:

      This chemical enters the blood and after about seven seconds, it enters the brain, affecting exactly the same dopamine receptors, giving the brain the message that a rewarding activity has just been performed. Smokers report a feeling of calmness and mild euphoria when they have a puff of a cigarette.

    9. Re:82 years old by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If he didn't have COPD, he'd probably live another 5 or 10 years longer than whatever he's got.

      "Probably" indicates more likely than not. Do you have any statistics to indicate that an average 82-year-old male without COPD is "more likely than not" to live to 90 or 95? I don't think you do.

    10. Re:82 years old by narcc · · Score: 2

      There must be something good about them. It's not like every teen who tries out a filter-tip instantly becomes addicted. I know a few people who only smoke occasionally, often going weeks or months between cigarettes.

      They must get something out of it. Why would they bother otherwise?

    11. Re: 82 years old by narcc · · Score: 1

      So ... why did they smoke until they became addicted? What do you think happens anyway? "Wow, this does nothing for me! Better keep at it until I'm addicted!"

      Try thinking before posting.

    12. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tobacco plant is basically a parasite preying on humans.

    13. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smoking has pluses and minuses.

      Such as???

      For example, people who smoke tend to die earlier and more suddenly than non-smokers. This reduces the load on the healthcare system.

      Also, it is a cognitive enhancer and keeps away flies.

      Finally it's less offensive than beta

      HTH

    14. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pluses: It's a fantastically mild sedative with about the same effects as a good cup of chamomile tea.

      Minuses: The most addictive drug regularly used. Destroys your sense of smell and taste. Massively increases risk of cancer. Secondary negative health effects. Costs a lot of money. Negative social effects.

      Logical, right?

    15. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      PLUS: You die sooner, and so your exposure to Slashdot Beta is reduced.

    16. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Smoking is addictive. What that means is that the effect you describe only exists for a short while and then turns into the opposite. Smokers feel the need for a cigarette because the absence of nicotine causes them stress, and smoking then merely returns them to their normal state, but requires increasing doses to have any "positive" effect. People have smoked tobacco and used other drugs for the same reason which makes people smoke today: An undeniable initial high followed by addiction. Are a few weeks of "positive" influence on your mood worth a lifetime of addiction with purely negative consequences? The answer to this question characterizes people.

    17. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This chemical enters the blood and after about seven seconds, it enters the brain, affecting exactly the same dopamine receptors, giving the brain the message that a rewarding activity has just been performed. Smokers report a feeling of calmness and mild euphoria when they have a puff of a cigarette.

      That same reaction happens with any type of addiction: food, pornography, video game, smoking, sex, etc.. It's what makes breaking an addition difficult.

    18. Re:82 years old by Kohath · · Score: 1

      My grandmother is 95-years-old. If she wanted to start smoking or start taking drugs for the "undeniable initial high", should I tell her not to? Do you think she'll regret it 20 years from now?

    19. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been smoking tobacco for about 1000 years now.

      exactly. they were smoking TOBACCO for about 1000 years
      in the age of mass-consumerism, people were convinced to smoke CIGARETTEs
      and it's been all downhill since then

    20. Re:82 years old by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      You can make some interesting connections sharing a cigarette. That's about all.

    21. Re:82 years old by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The other people -- puritans? -- on this thread were trying to deny the pleasant effect exists at all. Just because something pleasant can become addictive doesn't mean it was never pleasant.

      Someone "logical" would weigh the benefits (pleasure) against the costs (addiction) rather than taking an extreme puritanical approach.

    22. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She'll regret it after a few weeks. Well, maybe not. Smokers have a fantastic ability to rationalize and ignore the detrimental effects of smoking. In some ways she will be worse objectively though. She'll become short of breath quickly, and given the usually already diminished fitness at that age, this effect will be quite noticeable. She'll also lose what little sense of smell and taste is left at her age. It would be prudent to steer her away from that self-destructive path. If she has never been smoking, she's probably wiser than you though, so no worries.

    23. Re: 82 years old by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

      So ... why did they smoke until they became addicted? What do you think happens anyway? "Wow, this does nothing for me! Better keep at it until I'm addicted!"

      Try thinking before posting.

      Peer pressure and social contagion. Youngsters see older people smoking and feeling good about it (the older ones being addicted, and really liking it), and there you have it.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    24. Re:82 years old by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The high goes away pretty quickly as your brain adapts, though nicotine remains a mild stimulant. After that, you mainly just get the relief of feeding the addiction - you go into withdrawal pretty quickly once you're addicted. In addition, it's psychologically addictive as you get used to the relief, and associate it with the physical act of smoking. Thus quitting is very hard, even with nicotine replacement therapy, and why most who try to quit fail, repeatedly. Nicotine is supposedly as hard to quit as heroin.

      Personally, I've switched to vaping from e-cigs. The same stress relief my brain associates with the physical act of smoking, a much lower dose of nicotine* (similar to caffeine in its effects) without all the tar, benzene and the many other carcinogens from combustion. Better to quit outright of course, but this is a workable half-way house for now, and much cheaper to boot.

      * I've scaled down the amount of nicotine in the liquid to much lower than I started with.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    25. Re: 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Initially nicotine gets you high, but once you're addicted, you're just fixing to feel normal. The stress it relieves is entirely brought on by it's own withdrawal symptoms.

    26. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In traditional chinese medicine tobacco is prescribed for age related complaints. This means that those who start smoking at a relitively advanced age get all the medical benefits for about 30 years before the know downsides kick in. By this time they're dead (statistically) anyway.

    27. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMOKING HAS PLUSSES????????

      Seriously? You truly are fucking dumb. Slashdot Beta dumb. Smoking has no positives at all.

      And the B3 vitamin is... nicotinic acid

    28. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I've switched to vaping from e-cigs. The same stress relief my brain associates with the physical act of smoking, a much lower dose of nicotine* (similar to caffeine in its effects) without all the tar, benzene and the many other carcinogens from combustion. Better to quit outright of course, but this is a workable half-way house for now, and much cheaper to boot.

      * I've scaled down the amount of nicotine in the liquid to much lower than I started with.

      Not if the UK and various other Governments have their way.

    29. Re:82 years old by morcego · · Score: 1

      Leonard Nimoy is 82 and he probably has a few more years ahead of him. Was he planning on living to be 1000 years old?

      Smoking has pluses and minuses.

      If he didn't have COPD, he'd probably live another 5 or 10 years longer than whatever he's got.

      COPD is one of the more painful ways to die. It's like breathing through a straw.

      I will back this argument with a family case.

      My grandfather is 91. Smoked for most of his life. He now has emphysema, and we fear he will not see another year.
      Except for his lungs his health is perfect. He could easily live another 10 years. Not even "normal" problems like cholesterol, blood pressure or anything. Perfect health at 91. Except for having lost 80% of his lung capacity because of smoking.

      Watching him is one of the main reasons I quit smoking 2 years ago. Just in time, according to my pneumologist, to avoid lung damage (my long are still considered normal, but were closing in on borderline).

      --
      morcego
    30. Re:82 years old by alfredo · · Score: 1

      I have tried many substances to alter my consciousness, but only one of those drugs hooked me. I had a three pack a day nicotine habit. I had to go cold turkey. It was a miserable experience, but worked. Clean since 1973.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    31. Re:82 years old by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Nicotine does have some nootropic "smart drug" capabilities. Using nicotine therapy products (gum, e-cig...) instead of cigarettes would be far more healthy tho.

    32. Re:82 years old by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Straight up! Getting high or drunk is for cowards who can not deal with life. Society needs to get a lot less tolerant about abuse of substances. If you feel a need to get high or drunk and are not satisfied with the normal joys of life get help. It is not the action of use of a substance that is the problem it is the desire that is the real issue. The same is true of people like those who molest and kill children. The courts make a joke of it all. Obviously if you have a desire to molest or kill children you are insance. It is a person's desires and not their actions that define mental illness in the anti-social types.

    33. Re:82 years old by nbauman · · Score: 2

      If he didn't have COPD, he'd probably live another 5 or 10 years longer than whatever he's got.

      "Probably" indicates more likely than not. Do you have any statistics to indicate that an average 82-year-old male without COPD is "more likely than not" to live to 90 or 95? I don't think you do.

      Yes I do. I went to a few medical conferences on COPD. COPD is the third biggest cause of death in the U.S. It gets a chapter in every introductory medical textbook, like the Merck Manual and Harrison's, and there are a lot of medical journal articles on it. I remember seeing a chart of the lung function of a healthy individual compared with one with COPD over the course of their lifetimes. At the bottom of the chart was a line indicating the minimum oxygen capacity you need to survive, and the people with COPD hit that line a lot faster than the people without COPD. It looked like they hit the line 10 years earlier. Correcting for age, it would be about 5-8 years at age 80. Every pulmonologist knows this.

      An otherwise "healthy" 80-year-old has a life expectancy of another 5 or 8 years. If they're at the end stage of COPD, where they need oxygen as Nimoy does, they're lucky to last another 6 months or a year.

    34. Re:82 years old by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      So it has the same pluses as huffing paint. Awesome.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    35. Re:82 years old by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Smokers have a fantastic ability to rationalize and ignore the detrimental effects of smoking.

      That must be another one of the pluses they are talking about.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    36. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How far up your own ass would you have to be to deny even the possibility of a pleasant neurochemical effect?

      Now that you mention it, tobacco was quite popular as an enema.

    37. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there are no positives. Gotchca.

    38. Re:82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it's advantageous to behave in a seemingly illogical manner, even going against one's apparent best interests, so that other people wouldn't always be able to predict your actions and take advantage.

    39. Re:82 years old by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Ask a heroin user whether he likes heroin -- he loves it. So it's not illogical to take heroin, but it's a choice that can have a negative long-term effect.

      Actually, you'll find that most heroin users will answer with "I need it".

      Same with a smoker when you take away their smokes, they only "need" one.

      Hardcore alcoholics are the same. The difference is that a lot of people who drink have no problem quitting. Heroin and tobacco on the other hand have noticeable withdrawal effects on all users. The average drinker has no withdraw symptoms, the average smoker, not so. Knowing this in advance, as well as the negative impact on your health, it's extremely illogical to start smoking, let alone to continue it but much like Heroin addicts, smokers rarely think logically about their habit.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    40. Re:82 years old by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Personally, I've switched to vaping from e-cigs. The same stress relief my brain associates with the physical act of smoking, a much lower dose of nicotine* (similar to caffeine in its effects) without all the tar, benzene and the many other carcinogens from combustion. Better to quit outright of course, but this is a workable half-way house for now, and much cheaper to boot.

      I quit over 10 years ago using the old fashioned method. It wasn't pleasant but I haven't had a smoke in over a decade so I wish you luck.

      Switching from tobacco to e-cigs is a huge step forward for any smoker, even if you never kick the habit you will have a lot of positive health benefits from not breathing in all the other chemicals that are contained in commercial cigarettes (benzine, acetate and about 5000 others).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  14. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    yup - they're diluting and modding down our efforts in an attempt to make the situation look less dire for the casual reader.
    RIP slashdot.

  15. Yeah Yeah by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    We got this from Yul Brynner in 1989. Should have listened to him then, Skippy. Anyway, like the South Park cheerful smoking song goes, "If it gives me cancer when I'm 80 I don't care, who the hell wants to be 90 anyway?" I guess the answer to that one must be "Leonard Nimoy."

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Yeah Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You mean you don't want to live to see the next episode of Swamp people?!? Or the next arrest of Justin Bieber???

      Nimoy was lucky to make a few bucks and live outside the bubble. Whether he dies now or later, he will regret it. Duh.

      Nihilism doesn't even begin to cover it.....

    2. Re:Yeah Yeah by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In any case it's preferable to die quietly in your sleep of quickly from a heart attack than slowly and in pain due to lung disease.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Yeah Yeah by DoninIN · · Score: 1

      Everyone dies, but I'm saving it for last. Don't smoke do whatever you can to encourage others to not smoke. Really not only are the health consequences devastating the power of the addiction is intense, some of you haven't quit, or haven't gotten fully addicted yet don't believe me. But I'm 47 I've smoked maybe ten years or so in my life, quit several times, have been currently been quit for several years, but I still struggle with it sometimes. I could start tomorrow, hell tonight, and be back at it for however long it took to quit again. Really don't smoke, stop now don't reply with some BS about willpower or choice. Look at the statistics count up the corpses do you imagine that you're really so far superior a being to all those who couldn't quit? Don't take that chance. Quit.

    4. Re:Yeah Yeah by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And I think that's Nimoy's message. Not "I want to live forever" but rather "I was stupid back then, and ultimately it cost me. Don't be stupid. Learn from Grandpa."

      Unfortunately when he was young, the dangers were not so well known. And there are still kids who can't or won't learn from grandpa.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Yeah Yeah by phorm · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember a similar quote from "Third Rock from the Sun"

      "Smoking will cuts years off of your life"

      "Yes, but those are off the end of your life, and those years suck anyhow"

  16. escape fatality by sixtuslab · · Score: 1

    I switched to ce4, stopped my asphyxia + I can smell again === =)

  17. We hear you... sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why is it when I open up Slashdot, I get the Beta page?

    Clearly we need to take this to EVERY OTHER DICE PROPERTY UNTIL THEY STOP PUSHING THIS CRAP OUT.

    1. Re:We hear you... sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're a moron who can't figure out how to click Classic?

      Too bad you posted anonymously. You could have put your posting history on your Dice resume.

  18. What do you expect? by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 0

    70% of the comments over the last few days have been nothing but 'Fuck Beta' or 'Slashcott' garbage. I'm mostly indifferent about the beta, but if all the 'Slashcott' idiots leave when the new layout is live to all, I welcome it. Fewer stupid comments.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    1. Re: What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to dice.com to masturbate there, you fucking moron. These stupid commenters you are refering are the ones who built this site. Fuck you, and FUCK BETA.

    2. Re:What do you expect? by anubi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only will there be fewer stupid comments when these guru types leave... there will also be fewer of the gems these guys also leave. If I wanted social chitchat - I would go to facebook. Try asking a technical question over there.

      It will be a lot easier to destroy Slashdot than it was to build it. I just really hate to see it go. I just lost my other favorite site, TheOilDrum, not too long ago. Sure, there are other similar sites, but they are not the same. It was like having my favorite watering hole burn down.

      There is only one Slashdotter I know personally, the rest of you I only know by your presence here, yet in a way I feel I am among peers and friends here. You have been very generous to help me when I had problems, as well as give me sanity checks when I go overboard. I do not want to see this go away.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    3. Re: What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you aren't. It's painfully obvious most of you people come from 4chan, and probably not even from /g/.

    4. Re: What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a bunch of anonymous fucking cowards that built this site. But it is a bunch of anonymous fucking cowards that are slowly driving the nails into its coffin.

  19. +1 Funny by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points for this.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
  20. Vaping by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

    Yeah, a lot of people are moving to personal vaporizers as cigarette replacements. A a nic-free vaper myself, it's something I actively encourage agreeable smokers that I see to do. It's a lot healthier and far cheaper in the long run.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
  21. Re:Beta is illogical by Frobnicator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I bet the /. beta team are all smokers.

    It isn't logical to completely destroy the essence of a popular website just to try to extract some extra money from it, but destroy it in the process.

    Kinda like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs just so you can try to extract the eggs quicker. Sorry, but you may find the essence of the site dies in the process.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  22. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Becoming addicted to a drug that doesn't even get you high and whose only effect is to annoy everyone around you is pathetic.

  23. Electronic cigarettes by Frankie70 · · Score: 2

    I use something like this -> http://i.imgur.com/ciomNzs.jpg

    Only nicotine - none of the tar or any other 500 chemicals which burn in a cigarette.

    1. Re:Electronic cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use something like this -> http://i.imgur.com/ciomNzs.jpg

      Only nicotine - none of the tar or any other 500 chemicals which burn in a cigarette.

      Yes. Ain't it funny that they wasted all that time and money adding those 499 chemicals, when all they really needed to keep you hopelessly addicted, was just one.

      There are far healthier options to vaporize.

    2. Re:Electronic cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of those 500 or so chemicals, how many are natural to tobacco and how many are additives from the manufacturers?

    3. Re:Electronic cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too. but it broke within a month, and before that, leaked like crazy. any tips?

    4. Re:Electronic cigarettes by DoninIN · · Score: 1

      You know I hope in the long run we develop some sort of program to deter people from starting nicotine in any form, while also encouraging the lapsed quitter to deflecting his or her relapses to e-cigs or vaping because while I doubt that it's wonderful for your health I can't see how cutting out tar, carbon monoxide and burnt paper can make anything worse for you.

    5. Re:Electronic cigarettes by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      I had to try a few different ones before I found ones that worked for me. To get the proper 'smoking' feeling - which to me is as addictive as the nicotine - I had to go to a beefier variable voltage battery. As long as the thread is compatible (510 or ego) you can pair pretty much any battery with any head, and the head is the more important bit to get right, though you do need variable voltage/wattage to get the best out of em. Plus you can always use an adapter if necessary.

      I'm currently rocking the new joyetech C2 emode head/tank - it uses a standard 510 thread. Only really 'sputters' a little when at the very last few puffs, though like all atomizer/clearomizers I've tried, you do need to blow it out into a tissue every once in a while. No leaks yet! It's also known as the electron-S. The official emode battery is ok, but I prefer my cheap lavatube knockoff, though it is a bit big to carry around, so I use the lavatube at home and the emode goes in the car with me.

      There's the small joyetech ecom that uses the same C2 atomizer, so should be good, but not tried that yet. The C2 atomizer inside the head itself lasts me about 2-3 weeks before it needs cleaning; a few cleans then it needs replacing outright (you keep the rest of the tank)

      Before I switched to this one, I used the kanger T3S (ego thread) that was pretty good. The coils needed cleaning about once a week. My wife uses a chinese variant that has dual coil and very warm smoke; the K3 DCS only available from totallywicked, but it's the only head that seems to work for her. Prone to cracking though with certain liquids. She uses my old batteries, the relative thin ego-c twist. It's pretty decent, and a good step up to variable voltage, but does tend to stop working a bit too quickly for my taste; we've had to buy several replacements over the last year, so it's cheaper in the long run to get a proper variable voltage battery compartment with replaceable batteries, if you don't mind the size.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  24. 82 by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    If you gonna live till 82, you gonna develop any disease you can possibly develop.

    1. Re:82 by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Barring heart attack or buses, you need to wake up, because we're *all* going to live to 82, probably 92. And most of us will still be in good health in our 80s.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:82 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your body may be in good health, but you will be experiencing a severe cognitive decline. If you don't die from cardiovascular disease or cancer dementia is what is going to turn your brain into swiss cheese and kill you. The final 10 years of your life you will be soiling yourself and won't know your own name. I don't count that as living. Unfortunately where not even close to finding a cure for dementia.

    3. Re:82 by u38cg · · Score: 1

      No. One thrid of people over 95 have *some* level of dementia; only a fraction of those are severaly demented. The number doubles, roughly, for every five years of age.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    4. Re:82 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 80 year olds I've met are mostly pretty healthy people.

  25. Marketing Denial!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who blames their smoking habit on marketing is a blithering moron. Blithering. Moron.

  26. brainwashing is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nimoy is Old Spock. If you want to brainwash the new generation of Star Trek fans, pay Zachary Quinto to say smoking is illogical. But dumb impressionable kids don't even care about Star Trek. If you really want to stop kids from smoking before they start, the logical choice of mouthpiece is Katy Perry. Everybody listens to Katy Perry. That's why they call her Katy Perry.

  27. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, you think beta is bad? The current layout is terrible.

    I wish they would go back to the 1997 layout. Clean, simple, straightforward.

  28. Re:Beta is illogical by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    She's dead Jim., Dice filling the pipe with Slashvertisements (because they thought they could get paid for Slashads AND for regular ads) has killed the revenue, they took a complete writedown on the site already. Frankly at this point all one can do is move to Alt when its ready because Dice considers /. a BRAND and by "rebranding" they think they can make it into another Digg/Gawker/Fark. Hell the comments section might as well have "powered by Disqus" for all the ripping off they did.

    As for TFA, as someone who smoked for 30 years and tried everything,patch,gum, pills, the only thing that worked was the "Ego style" ecigs, the ones with the separate tank and the 510 threading. Thanks to those I've been cigarette free for going on 3 months and have gone from a 30mg to 24mg to 18mg, although I'll probably stay on 18 a couple months as I tried 11mg in a VG and couldn't tell I was smoking the thing, maybe an 80/20 PG to VG will let me drop below 18Mg.

    But as TFA shows the sad thing is you WILL get COPD, doesn't matter how long ago you quit as you WILL get it if something else don't get you first. So if you are quitting do it because you don't want to be smelling like smoke or be out of breath, because if you have smoked more than a couple of years you might as well accept COPD is in your future regardless.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  29. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We get it, shut up now and stop spamming.

  30. Re:YO YO YO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nigga fags love to be keepin it real. Real dumb!

  31. I've seen nothing but beta the last week... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been redirected at all times to the beta site for about a week now and the amount of 'fuck beta' and 'slashcott' is really annoying. This site used to be more than the sum of the visitors. Nowadays all the empty complaining and profanity adds up to basically yet another glimpse of the american fondness of the word 'fuck'. The wolf of Wall Street recently set a new world record to cater for that american fondness, btw, snatching the record from another american movie (Pulp Fiction).

    Leonard Nimoy has a lung disease that will kill him, but it isn't cancer. If he takes the opportunity to say something about the disease to the press and explain that it most likely was caused by smoking, then he should get at least a few respectful responses to that. All he gets now is techno-vomit by people frustrated by change.

    Stop diluting my news (for nerds) with your anonymous barfing and let me get some of the intelligence that Slashdot is known for, OK?

    1. Re:I've seen nothing but beta the last week... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr "I am annoyed because people are expressing what they want instead of giving me what I want."

      tl;dr What is hypocrisy?

      captcha: preempt. At least the captcha system's still funny.

    2. Re:I've seen nothing but beta the last week... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      What he said...

  32. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As for TFA, as someone who smoked for 30 years and tried everything,patch,gum, pills, the only thing that worked was the "Ego style" ecigs, the ones with the separate tank and the 510 threading. Thanks to those I've been cigarette free for going on 3 months

    What? Quitting is easy!

    I've done it lots of times.

  33. denial of science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet science cannot say without any doubt that it does cause cancer.

    And look at the number of other things that could be causing lung cancer, vehicle emissions, asbestos (commonly used for the brake pads on your vehicle) , coal emissions, fire retardants which are used on/in everything), smog, chlorine gas from in your shower, I could go on...............

    Oh yeah Prescription drugs cause numerous forms of cancer, and other disease. But we can't talk about that...

    No one in my family that smoked died of lung cancer, but smoking does take it toll on the rest of your body. Mostly hardening of blood vessels.... Some died from other forms of cancer, and the rest of natural causes.

    This must be Obama's new health plan and the Federal governments attempt to control what they can control, figuring it would save the health care system money. And I point back to prescription drugs, and the toll they take on peoples heath, but we make sure we these remain part of your daily diet.

    Only on the internet do you find denial or people with hardline beliefs, and refuse to only take what someone says into consideration.

  34. Death is just a part of life by mendax · · Score: 2

    Our friend Leonard Nimoy is probably feeling very mortal these days. So would you if you were 82 years old. I hope he enjoys every day he has left, spending as much time as he can spoiling his grandkids and telling Zachary Quinto more about the Zen of Spock.

    One of the things I learned in a certain Twelve Step program I've worked the steps in for many years is that death is just another part of life, only the final part, and one that comes to everyone at some time or another. There is not much point in being concerned about the how and when of that final moment in this existence. It just wastes energy and brain cycles that can be better spent on other endeavors. While I do have plans for the future, never want to retire, and my fondest wish is to drop dead at my desk at work, I will accept when it's my time to go. I will probably be disappointed in some ways since there are some things I want to do in life, but that's just human.

    And since it seems to be obligatory these days, FUCK the BETA, it really is bad.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  35. Smoke e-cig instead by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    E-cigarettes gives you the fast, abundant and finely controlled nicotine intake, with the experience of breathing hot air and satisfying the "nipple sucking" primordial reflex.
    They really give everything a cigarette user needs, and are cheap, especially in countries with high taxes on tobacco.. while like 95% of the toxicity just goes away. No more tars and whatever crap.

    So, don't hesitate.. Do it immediately!
    It's even something of a Star Trek thing. Star Trek had that fake alcohol which makes you drunk without poisoning you : no hangovers (intoxication), passing out (overdose), headache. (crap alcohol does this. Note that by drinking good or decent beer and red wine I can get high alcohol intake without headaches and with less brain damage, but I don't kid myself, it's most probably still harmful)

    1. Re:Smoke e-cig instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek had that neato automatic fire suppression that would put out your cigarette if you tried to smoke it. And no need for ashtrays! The ship can clean itself. Now stay off the comms. They're for official ship business. The Cap'n is expecting an urgent summons from a senior officer any second now to tell him to come see something that is just too awesome to be described over the comms.

    2. Re:Smoke e-cig instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, im replying as AC since im too lazy to log in to /.

      I quit smokes in 2 days with my vape gear. I used some simple Kanger brand batteries and Kanger mini Protank II tanks. I used 24mg nic juice - it was pretty strong stuff so I ordered some 18mg juice. That was also a bit too strong so after a week I got some juice from a good juice maker and that was 12mg.

      Roughly: 24mg juice is similar to an unfiltered cigarette. I do know some folks that are years into vaping and still use 24mg stuff, its what they prefer.
      18mg is similar to a Marlboro Red or Camel Filter. Thats my brand of smokes.
      12mg is similar to a Marlboro Light, this is the level of nic I use lately, but I've also gotten some 6mg bottles to try out in gear that will deliver stronger flavor and higher nic in a Drip Atomizer will not be a good vape.

      I'd get cravings for a cig once in a while, but I would just vape my head off and in about 10-15 mins (the time it takes to adjust your blood/nic level with vaping) they would go away.

      Vaping has worked quite well for me, I enjoy the action of it - its quite similar to smoking but with much less poisons (cig smoke includes things like Polonium-210 and Radon, plus thousands of other chemicals).

      Vape juice has 4 things in it typically: Propylene Glycol, Vegetable Glycerine, flavoring, and nicotine.

      There are many places to find juice online, the e-cigarette forum (ECF) has lots of discussion about vendors.

      I also took the time after about a week to learn how to rebuild my Kanger coils with my own Kanthal A-1 wire, and I used sterile cotton balls from CVS. Recently I moved on to using hemp fiber for wick material. I dont use silica wick or xc-116 (ceramic, but I dont trust it).

      I could list a lot of vendors I use, but I am not here to advertise for them. I am here to simply point out that for me, vaping worked very damn well. I was ready to stop smoking and I did it very fast.

      I am now piling up materials to make my own e-juice too, the premium vendors charge a lot for a 30ml bottle ($15-25) but you can make your own for pennies per ml. 7L of the basic materials (pg/vg) was about $50 shipped - I chose to get good pv/vg base - dont go to Tractor Supply or Wal-Mart and buy their pg/vg since you are not getting stuff thats going to make *good* juice.

      Is vaping safe? I am not sure. But compared to smoking its a hell of a lot less risky.

      Looking back, I wish I'd started vaping years ago when I was reading about it on ECF and looking at YouTube videos about it. But at least now I know what to do and the gear is better than ever. There is more info out there about this now than ever before and more vapers and online/b&m stores too.

      If anyone is curious, please hit up the ECF - its not perfect - but they are helpful and can point out where to find basic starter gear. DO NOT go blow $50 or more on a simple 600mah battery + a tank, because thats $15 dollars worth of gear. Dont get ripped off....many new vapers have had this happen to them.

      Another important element is juice: you need to find flavors you like and can vape all day (i swap often, since I have a lot of bottles to choose from now), but to start...2-3 flavors and 2 tanks, 2 batteries...then you are set for a while. There are hundreds if not more vendors of juice online.

      There are other resources too: vapers.tv has broadcasts from dozens of different folks and there are discussions about all the aspects of vaping: new folks are very welcome and are helped with tons of info.

      Best of luck to everyone - I hope this post influences even one person to look into vaping - I am going today and picking some nic base and some LDPE 30ml bottles so I can make juice for my friends locally...they dont have money to blow on juice so I'll just PIF (pay it forward) them some homemade stuff from recipes I find online (got a ton of em, and have a lot of folks to ask about specifics too).

      Ok, now that I look back on this I'd like to mention one ne

    3. Re:Smoke e-cig instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even something of a Star Trek thing. Star Trek had that fake alcohol

      I'm taking three points off your geek card for making a reference to synthohol, instead of the Benzites.

      Benzites were vaporizing before, err, after, it was cool.

      Oh, and, fuck Beta.

  36. Re:YO YO YO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I AINT NO NIGGA FAG YOU HO ASS BITCH. IM WHITE SO GO PINK SOCK YER MOM. BITCH. HO.

    sHIT. NIGGA DONT EVEN HAVE A NAME EXCETP FAGGITY ASS 'ANNONIMUS COUWARD.' PUSSY.

    NIGGAS BE FRONTIN WHEN THIS WHITE SHIZNIT MOVES INTO THEIR BASS NOTES.

    YO WE GONNA TALK ABOUT TECH SHIT OR WHAT? YOU BITCHES DOWN WITH ALPINE? MTX 12S OK OR KICKERS? CAN YOU GET GOOD SPEAKS AT THE BABYMOMMA MART? (THE PLACE WITH THE PREGGO BLACK BABES LATE AT NIGHT..THEY PUT OUT FOR THE RIGHT SHIT BRAAZZZZ)

  37. Re:YO YO YO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are the white niggas always the loudest fags?

  38. Re:YO YO YO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iGNORE THE CHILD M0LESTING FaTHER FUCKING D1CE LoVING MeXI-ARAB GYPSY FaG OP.

  39. Don't fall prey to the BETA BORGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please post this to new articles if it hasn't been posted yet. (Copy-paste the html from here so links don't get mangled!)

    On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design. Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

    If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this in a new tab. After seeing that, click here to return to classic Slashdot.

    We should boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.
    We should boycott slashdot entirely during the week of Feb 10 to Feb 17 as part of the wider slashcott

    Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
    Commentors - only discuss Beta
      http://slashdot.org/recent - Vote up the Fuck Beta stories

    Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.

    -----=====##### LINKS #####=====-----

    Discussion of Beta: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=56395415

    Discussion of where to go if Beta goes live: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=submission&id=3321441

    Alternative Slashdot: http://altslashdot.org (thanks Okian Warrior (537106))

    1. Re:Don't fall prey to the BETA BORGS by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Wait, they are Borg? That means, resistance is futile?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  40. Smoking is illogical? Mini philosophical analysis by dogganos · · Score: 1

    Logic is a path to follow in order to reach a predefined purpose.
    Smoking can't be illogical per se. Facts cannot be illogical and indeed, people do smoke.
    Now, here, in declaring that smoking is illogical, the contemporary capitalistic dominant value system is implied, defining as purpose the 'long live (and be productive...)' doctrine. But if somebody takes pleasure in smoking and the purpose he has define for his life is to dive in pleasures, then smoking is perfectly logical. The possibility of cancer is the price he accepts to pay in order to maintain his values and purposes.

    That being said, people who impose their smoke on others are antisocial moronic douchebags.

  41. something Spock would say by stenvar · · Score: 1

    That's something Spock would say to Uhura. You know, "singing is illogical", "fun is illogical", "kissing is illogical", "sex is illogical". Many things we humans like to do are "illogical", but we generally do them anyway, often because they are enjoyable, and sometimes because a lot of illogical risk taking propels humanity along as a whole.

    There are many things that shorten you life, and at age 82, Nimoy really can't complain about his life span. I think a better reason to quit smoking isn't necessarily health, it's that it's a dirty and smelly habit that gets in the way of other fun-but-illogical activities, like kissing.

    1. Re:something Spock would say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many things that shorten you life, and at age 82, Nimoy really can't complain about his life span.

      82's nothing remarkable these days... considering the large number of people in my family that have lived into their 90s, I would complain.

    2. Re:something Spock would say by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, almost every male born in the same year as Mr Nimoy in North America had been dead for five years or more

  42. Re:Smoking is illogical? Mini philosophical analys by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Logic is a path to follow in order to reach a predefined purpose.

    I think implied in Nimoy's statement is the goal of "live long and prosper" as the primary purpose in life, and from that point of view, smoking is illogical. If you adopt the "have fun and don't worry" purpose, smoking is not illogical.

    Now, here, in declaring that smoking is illogical, the contemporary capitalistic dominant value system is implied, defining as purpose the 'long live (and be productive...)' doctrine.

    You people can't make up your minds, can you? At times you condemn the "contemporary capitalistic dominant value system" as hedonistic, materialistic, and consumption oriented; and now you condemn it for causing people to be long-term focused health nuts.

    FWIW, in my experience with both systems, capitalism wants you to have fun, while socialism and communism try to force you to be productive in various ways and prevent you from enjoying illogical things. Both, however, prefer you drop dead right after retirement.

  43. Influental actor by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Leonard Nimoy is probably one of the most influental actors the last century. He may not have intended to be, but that's how things are - you can't control every aspect of your life - accept what you have become. As a person that have a rather iconic status he can reach more people than many others. He has at least not abused his position in life given by his characterization of Spock, which means that people will listen when he do say something.

    The sad thing here is that the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a very slow and agonizing thing to experience - you know that you eventually will die from it. Cancer is another high risk for smokers. Of course people can die from lung cancer or COPD anyway - but smoking increases the risk considerably. Be it passive smoking or active - it increases the risk.

    I'd rather die quickly than have a slow agonizing death.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  44. It's 2014. by Seumas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It has been at least suspected that smoking caused cancer for about one hundred years, now.
    It has been widely known, including the Surgeons General warning, for at least fifty years.

    I am long past the point of having any concern for people who can't kick the smoking habit or are ill from it (other than simple human sympathy for anyone suffering, of course). Unless you are at least 70 years old, today, there is no excuse for you to have any real smoking problems. You know it is going to kill you, today. You knew it would kill you, when you started. We are almost to the point where anyone with even the slightest "well, I didn't know back then" excuse for smoking is dead.

    Anyway, this is sad news. I know that Nimoy is in his 80s. I know he has lived a full life. However, I have been dreading his passing. As many people my age likely have, I've a mental list of older guys whose passing I'm sure to be alive for and who are going to really gut me. He's one of the guys on that list.

    1. Re:It's 2014. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It has been at least suspected that smoking caused cancer for about one hundred years, now.
      It has been widely known, including the Surgeons General warning, for at least fifty years.

      Yeah. And even in the nineties, you still had "skeptics" running around denying the link between smoking and cancer. Kinda like what they're now doing with CO2 and climate change.

  45. Beta is illogical by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

    I agree

  46. Re:Beta is illogical by deviated_prevert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    " But as TFA shows the sad thing is you WILL get COPD, doesn't matter how long ago you quit as you WILL get it if something else don't get you first. So if you are quitting do it because you don't want to be smelling like smoke or be out of breath, because if you have smoked more than a couple of years you might as well accept COPD is in your future regardless."

    Negative thinking is a large part of what causes the addiction to be so difficult to break. Beat me it feels good syndrome. IT IS NOT true that you are doomed even if you quit. Also the only attitude to take is that you will be tempted for the rest of your life to smoke. The difference is that you need to make a habit out of not smoking. Don't get all sweated up there is no doubt that in the first week after quitting it will be difficult, such is the nature of the drug. Another misconception about tobacco is the fact that it calms your nerves. THE BULLSHIT fact is that it is essentially a speed ball concoction, at first the carbon monoxide brings you down as does the reduction of 02 in your blood stream. Yes it calms your nerves and the nicotine acts initially as a sedative as well, but the fact is that then after about 4 minutes it actually increases your heart rate and in reality nicotine is a form of speed as well. Most people are not aware of these facts and think that they are actually settling their nerves by havin' a butt. BUT IT IS A LIE, and you fool yourself into believing the soothing tones of the Marlboro Man lighting up on horseback.

    Remember dada, dada dada, --dada, dada dada. As Yule Brynner rides off into the sunset. The tobacco companies up in Canada actually own part of one of the largest drug store chains, they did not suffer, but their victims do every day.

    DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT and roll over and play dead, it can be beaten. Besides the more you try to quit the more you will learn how not to smoke and also reduce the insult to your body. But don't be negative to others about quitting it is just plain wrong and I am sure Mr. Spock and even the Marlboro man would agree.

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  47. Re:Smoking is illogical? Mini philosophical analys by dogganos · · Score: 1

    Your 'can't make up your minds' statement makes it appear as if the "contemporary capitalistic dominant value system" can't be at the same time hedonistic, materialistic, and consumption oriented AND making people 'long-term focused health nuts'. At the very least, obsessing with your health makes you buy a shitload of diet complements and fantasize that all the problems caused to your body by stress will be relieved, leaving you free to enjoy life. I'm not the one to be held accountable for the inherent capitalism contradictions.

    As I'm not a communist either, I will sure agree that it forces you to be productive, but it would be missing the elephant in the room if you denied that also capitalism forces you to be productive. Although the nature of 'forcing' changes a little: In the one case you are forced with real force, where in the other case you are pointed to the cheese in the mousetrap, which is the wealth that one person out of 1000 achieves through capitalism.

  48. Stopping smoking by aslashdotaccount · · Score: 0

    I was a smoker of 10 years before I quit in September 2011. To anyone who'd like to know how, I stopped cold turkey one day and didn't look back - plan was to stop so my wife and I could have a baby in a few years (which happens to be this year btw :) ). One very helpful part of the process was avoiding everything that I associated with smoking. So, for about three months I stopped having coffee with mates, taking breaks at work (instead of which ordered lunch in), meeting clients outside office premises and other habits conducive to smoking. And, most importantly, I regularly took a multivitamin and kept a mild antibiotic at hand for the occasional flu.

  49. What about Europeans? by durgledoggy · · Score: 2

    What about Europeans and people from other parts of the world where tobacco products can't be marketed, cigarettes and nicotine products have to be hidden from view? People still smoke, people still start smoking. No marketing happening to them though. All the current evidence suggests that hiding tobacco products and banning smoking in certain places is not stopping people smoke nor reducing the number of new smokers.

    Besides, what ever happened to people doing what they enjoy? Some smokers do feel trapped sadly, but not all. Many do it because they enjoy it.

    1. Re:What about Europeans? by u38cg · · Score: 0

      There is mixed evidence on cessation rates. There is unequivocal evidence on inception rates.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:What about Europeans? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      What about Europeans and people from other parts of the world where tobacco products can't be marketed, cigarettes and nicotine products have to be hidden from view? People still smoke, people still start smoking. No marketing happening to them though.

      You've still got the old fashioned way, peer pressure. Even advertising depended on a large number of people applying gentle pressure to others to begin smoking.

      All the current evidence suggests that hiding tobacco products and banning smoking in certain places is not stopping people smoke nor reducing the number of new smokers.

      Citation needed, I'd put good money on your source being flawed (or outright lying).

      Actually the number of new smokers are decreasing. Especially in Australia where there is a ban on cigarettes advertising but they don't need to be hidden from view (they are in lockable cabinets, not sure if this is law or just the fact that a pack of smokes is very attractive to shoplifters).

      4125.0 - General Indicators, Australia, Jan 2013 - Smoking

      Besides, what ever happened to people doing what they enjoy? Some smokers do feel trapped sadly, but not all. Many do it because they enjoy it.

      What about others who don't want be subject to the acrid smell of cigarettes? They don't just feel trapped, they are trapped. Which is why they had to fight back with harsher laws. Smokers are in the situation they're in because they're inconsiderate and irrational.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  50. Re:Beta is illogical by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Uhhh...you didn't actually READ my post before you ran full speed to that soapbox, did you? Gotta give you credit it WAS an epic rant. Except...I quit 3 months ago, so all the "Don't give up!" crap? Kinda pointless.

    And its not being "negative" to face reality, unless you consider somebody with 2 broken legs as being "negative" when they point out they can't walk. anybody who tells you that your body "will magically heal itself" after years of abuse? Blowing smoke up the wrong end, and I don't care WHAT you were abusing, be it drugs or booze or smokes. the body is capable of fixing a lot of things but its not invulnerable and its been proven repeatedly that as little as 3 years of smoking is enough to do permanent damage that all the "you can do it!" lectures in the world won't fix.

    Still props on an epic rant, I'll be sure to blow some smoke rings with this ecig in your honor. Oh and yes I know I've just switched from one to the other but without my nicotine I'm a right bastard and would rather not throw away my current relationship, thanks.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  51. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm here to read relevant comments.
    I'd like to be able to read relevant comments in the future too, that's why I mod the FB posts up.

  52. It's not just when you die, it's life quality by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    The problem with smoking is it doesn't just shorten your life, it can make your life miserable.

    Imagine how horrific it is to be SICK all the time, gasping for breath, always wondering if tomorrow will be your last and almost hoping so because living with a with pain, sickness and a struggle for breath is just so awful.

    Smoking not only causes you to die, it causes you to die horribly in a lot of cases.

    --PM

  53. Re:Smoking is illogical? Mini philosophical analys by stenvar · · Score: 1

    At the very least, obsessing with your health makes you buy a shitload of diet complements and fantasize that all the problems caused to your body by stress will be relieved, leaving you free to enjoy life. I'm not the one to be held accountable for the inherent capitalism contradictions.

    There is no "contradiction". Liberty means you have the freedom to make poor choices, and the wealth created by capitalism means you can indulge in those poor choices. But the poor choices you make are yours, nobody else's. Capitalism and advertising don't force you to make poor choices.

    In fact, if you really "obsess with your health", you don't buy any of that crap, you buy the cheap and healthy foods that cost less than ever before, and you save tons of money too.

    but it would be missing the elephant in the room if you denied that also capitalism forces you to be productive

    Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything. You can work half time on some low-end job and still live better than most of the rest of the world, or the way most people did a century ago. The reason you feel "forced" is because of greed, gluttony, and envy.

    where in the other case you are pointed to the cheese in the mousetrap, which is the wealth that one person out of 1000 achieves through capitalism

    That's not being "forced", that is simply you giving in to your greed. Greed, envy, gluttony, and all those other vices were recognized human failings long before capitalism even existed. Again, if you give in to your vices and bad impulses, capitalism will carry you all the way to hell in a comfortable Lexus. Under less capable economic systems, you'd simply not have the option of indulging your vices, but that's hardly preferable.

  54. Re:Beta is illogical by tpstigers · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until the beta goes official and all you asshats storm off in a tizzy. Good riddance.

  55. Forget crack and heroin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More people try and get addicted and fail to kick tobacco than any other drug known. It is personal, most of family slowly dying and suffering to this evil. I struggle in this question of freedom and free will and the "needle" and the damage done. I am remind for that Hoyt Axton song, delivered such passion by Steppenwolf:

    "If I was President of the land,
    I declare total war on the Pusher man,
    I'd stab him if he stands,
    I'd shoot him if he runs,
    I'd kill them with my Bible, my razor, and my gun!"

    "GAWD DAMN, THE PUSHER"

  56. So I just tried beta a second time to give it a se by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 0

    Yeah I just tried beta a second time to give it a second chance and there is still way to much white space on here to make this pleasant. Also what looks like a tile bar near the top is giving me Windows 8 fidgets and I'm not enjoying this experience. Would someone please reformat the beta site and reinstall regular /. and just fix it so that it doesn't auto-mod everything on the fly but lets you have some sort of conformation when moderating? That's all I think that really needed fixed.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  57. Beta Problem #2 by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    Why do my comments disappear after I hit submit for them? I scroll down and can't find them. I finally did several more comment loads and found what I posted. At least with the original site I saw my post appear in the comment section.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  58. Re:Beta is illogical by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this is the average quality of future stories, I don't need a beta to keep me away.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  59. Re:Beta is illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Looks like some moderators are participating in the protests by modding on topic comments "offtopic".

    As to quitting smoking, it depends on your genes and when you quit. My mother and her husband quit 30 years ago when he developed emphysema, he died from pretty much all his organs shutting down last year, Mom's only now starting to get COPD at age 85, but all but three of her twelve siblings are alive and in their nineties.

    Generally, though, they say if you quit before you're 40, by the time you're 50 your lungs will be as healthy as a 50 year old who never smoked. And the more you smoke, the more damage there is to the lungs.

    If I get COPD it will probably be from reefer, all smoke is bad for your lungs. But at least pot doesn't cause cancer.

  60. Smoking cases more than lung cancer and COPD by olddoc · · Score: 1

    Everyone thinks of lung cancer and COPD/Emphysema. I work as an anesthesiologist and I can tell you one of the biggest problems smokers get is disease of the arteries. They get heart attacks because of blocked coronary arteries. They get strokes because of blocked carotid arteries. They get peripheral vascular disease (PVD) which means legs that become painful when walking due to lack of oxygenated blood. Combine smoking with diabetes and you are guaranteed to have vascular problems in life! So don't imagine coughing up blood and dying of lung cancer, don't imagine COPD and needing oxygen to slowly walk 100 feet. Think of blocked arteries to the brain and strokes, think of blocked arteries to the feet and gangrenous toes, think of blocked coronary arteries and getting your chest sawed open to bypass them. Think of blocked arteries to the penis and (Sorry I can't even bear to think of this!) Smoking is bad mm'kay

    --
    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  61. Re:Smoking is illogical? Mini philosophical analys by dogganos · · Score: 1

    Whereas you technically are right, you underestimate the force of the social paradigm. Of course, you are 'free' to act otherwise, but then if that was practiced by the majority, capitalism would collapse. Because it is an economic system which capitalizes on the vices you mentioned.

  62. Impotence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smoking is also one of the top causes of impotence in men.People are so focused on cancer that they forget all of the other problems smoking causes.

    Over the long term, it's 100% certain that smoking will reduce your quality of life in some way: cancers: lung, throat, mouth, etc ..., impotence, reduced cognitive function, emphysema, clubbed fingers, and on and on and on ...

    1. Re:Impotence by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Over the long term, it is certain that everyone, unless they meet with an accident or one of the less common diseases, will die of cancer, heart attack, or stroke. You will not die of old age. Choosing not to smoke may delay the inevitable, but will not prevent it.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  63. Pity no one read the article by gijoel · · Score: 1

    It says right there in the first sentence that he stopped smoking 30 years ago. I guess some people got swept away by their righteous smugness.

  64. Re:Beta is illogical by LVSlushdat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But as TFA shows the sad thing is you WILL get COPD, doesn't matter how long ago you quit as you WILL get it if something else don't get you first. So if you are quitting do it because you don't want to be smelling like smoke or be out of breath, because if you have smoked more than a couple of years you might as well accept COPD is in your future regardless.

    I don't know about that.. I smoked in my early 20s, during the 8 years I was in the Army, and for about 2 years after I got out, for a total of about 10 years. One day, I reached into my shirt pocket, by habit, to grab a cigarette, and I had an epiphany.. I asked myself.. "WTF are you doing to yourself???" I wadded the nearly full pack up and threw it away.. All of my friends smoked heavily and when I told them "I QUIT!", they laughed and said "nah, you'll be back..." .. Well, here I am, 40+ years later, and I've not had another cigarette since... Thanks to the "cold turkey". In fact, the smell of burning tabacco so revolts me, I get sick to my stomach when I have to negotiate the flocks of smokers puffing away outside many stores/coffee shops today.. In my last physical, last year, nothing about any COPD or emphysyma or .. (shudder) cancer... Guess I'm the exception...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  65. Re:Beta is illogical by stoploss · · Score: 1

    But as TFA shows the sad thing is you WILL get COPD, doesn't matter how long ago you quit as you WILL get it if something else don't get you first. So if you are quitting do it because you don't want to be smelling like smoke or be out of breath, because if you have smoked more than a couple of years you might as well accept COPD is in your future regardless.

    Yes, COPD is a serious disorder, but my concern with labeling it as inevitable (or worse, labeling it "terminal") is that it isn't universally true and it may cause people to avoid treatments or courses of action that might help their quality/quantity of life.

    For anyone reading this at risk for COPD, read this. Lung function decline varies widely in COPD, and in many cases COPD may not progress at all. However, left untreated (or worse, if people believe that it doesn't matter if they continue to smoke once diagnosed) then the outcomes will be worse.

    People can live for decades with high quality of life after a COPD diagnosis. Yes, COPD can be terminal, but it is much more likely to be so if you give up.

    If someone is a former smoker, consider this to be encouragement to exercise *now* to improve your cardiovascular health. Even if you do develop COPD in the future, you will have built up a reserve of better than average lung function. Also, note that high BMI (obesity) is the strongest predictor of rapid lung function decline in COPD, so... draw the obvious conclusion.

  66. Re:Beta is illogical by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    The 1997 layout didn't even have threaded commenting.

  67. Support by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    Hairy, admit to yourself that you have not quit consuming nicotine. If anything you have moved on to the pure drug. Hardly a progressive step.

    Your positive future involves the word QUIT. Your negative future involves that river in Egypt.

    Someone tries to support you, you call it a rant, and totally miss what they are saying. Epic indeed.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prohibitionists fucking creep me out. In their twisted universe, once you have done the impure deed, your body has been defiled and nothing can ever redeem you. It's just this complete moralistic nonsense that, in the case of alcohol and drugs, has created two epic crime waves, and in the case of cigarettes, has frustrated millions of peoples' efforts to cut back or quit.

      Shut the fuck up, you pathetic prohibitionist fucktards. You're just a bunch of obsessive freaks who are addicted to your own sanctimonious bullshit. You don't know a damned thing about how the body works, how the mind works or anything, and if you did you'd see what miserable human beings you are.

    2. Re:Support by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Hairy, admit to yourself that you have not quit consuming nicotine. If anything you have moved on to the pure drug. Hardly a progressive step.

      Why? What are the negative side effects of e-cigs?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Support by Eythian · · Score: 1

      He's not smoking. There's no smoke. There's no tobacco involved at all. That's where the health issues come from.

      Nicotine is about as bad for you as caffeine in coffee (which are both bad for you when you have too much, but otherwise not very harmful.)

      And on that note, you did notice the bit where he said he's using less over time anyway, right?

    4. Re:Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off your high horse and explain to the guy why smoking tobacco products is the same thing as consuming nicotine. Unless you think people shouldn't consume caffeine, then there is no reason a pure form of nicotine is as harmful as a cigarette. Nicotine itself is just a stimulant but tobacco is the actual harmful substance.

      captcha: pariah

  68. Re:Beta is illogical by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    If you want to save your lungs, you should try a vaporizer instead of reefers - more efficient use of material and virtually no particulate matter to cause damage. Takes a bit of getting used to, though as the hit is quite different.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  69. I quit drinking, started smoking. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    I quit drinking, started smoking - five years ago. I'm 32 now - I don't know anyone who had started smoking so late, as in not one cigarette before.

    You gotta manage your vices and people should have the freedom to so. I'll stop smoking when/if I get married. your friend started smoking at 12 and THAT'S PRETTY FUCKED UP.

    And if I drank, my body would get totally fucked up and I'd be lucky to survive to 40 as a wreck.

    and you want to know who benefits most from the strict tobacco advertisement rules? fucking big tobacco of course. you can't even show the packs in the shops anymore so you cannot ask for some new brand, people just buy the brand they bought last week or what someone they know smoked. so the established tobacco brands are really the big winners, since there can not be a new camel or marlboro anymore since you can't tell people that hey I'm producing this new tobacco brand.

    Furthermore, nobody would smoke just to look cool, I mean fucking nobody would do that for longer than one night. it's the nicotine and co2 man - it works, it's just not marketing bullshit. maybe leonard would have spat on shatners face many times if he hadn't smoked.

    but why smoke tobacco? it makes easier to get on with life. better than popping pills too.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  70. People Don't Enjoy Addictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Exceptionally serious health effects" are irrelevant to the question of enjoyment. Many people enjoy high-risk activities for a variety of reasons.

    Your blanket statement about drug addictions is a dramatic oversimplification. For example, millions of caffeine addicts can't be accurately characterized as "suffering... only to feel relief when they are high".

    It's safe to say that at least some people who are addicted to nicotine may (gasp!) actually enjoy the effects of the substance they're addicted to.

  71. Erm, this is where people are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I smoke whenever I feel like it, which usually adds up to me smoking a few cigarettes twice per week, usually during breaks at university. I don't smoke while studying and I don't generally smoke while out, except when I go to the pub.

    Smoking is enjoyable and fun, if done in moderation. See, the thing is, like any other drug, moderation is the key to avoid medical complications.

  72. HA by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

    I love the beta, it lets me hide all of your whining, bitchy comments about beta.

  73. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Switching to an ecig is not quitting. That's like saying you've kicked your oxycontin habit by going to heroin. What you've done is kicked it up a notch.

  74. Not advocating smoking here but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not advocating to smoke here and have never smoked myself (well only puffed in Jr high school because I thought it made me look cool), but my folks smoked all their lives. The mother died at 77 (as best as we could calculate - she wouldn't reveal her age). This was rather old for her family. The doctor said that her lungs were about the size of grapefruits from having smoked so long. The father died at 89, his family was long lived. There were three things that they continuously did that I am sure added many years to their lives and kept them disease free.

    1. We made and ate chocolate fudge almost every week.
    2. They drank several cups of coffee during the day.
    3. They would sit down and have a high ball everyday at 5 pm. It usually consisted of a large jigger of tequila, scotch, or whiskey.

        If you can't stop smoking, have at it.

  75. "Marketing induced denial" by bloggerhater · · Score: 2

    This isn't a direct quote from Nimoy. It's insulting.
    Anyone who has ever smoked knows the true grips of nicotine addiction.

    Nimoy was a long time smoker. Don't wait to quit. Get help. Most states offer free cessation aids including gum and patches.

    Off topic: /., please ban the beta spammers. I'm totally ok with you blocking entire IP blocks to accomplish this until things quiet down. Let the ignorant bandwagon jumpers whine about censorship. It's petty and wrong that the rest of us suffer.

  76. Why are the images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the beta appearing squeezed on my browser?

    Can't your developers figure out how to crop an image and retain the aspect ratio?

    Really!

  77. And if you quit now, in 30 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you too will have lung disease! YIPPEE!

  78. Nope he is just the Fucking BETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really fucking BETA

  79. Re:Smoking is illogical? Mini philosophical analys by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Of course, you are 'free' to act otherwise, but then if that was practiced by the majority, capitalism would collapse. Because it is an economic system which capitalizes on the vices you mentioned.

    Sorry, but that's complete bullshit. Capitalism (by which I mean free market economies with free movement of capital) is value neutral, it just efficiently supplies what people want, whether it's diet products, bloody movies, hookers, space travel, or a clean environment. Capitalism won't "collapse" if people all of a sudden reduce their consumption or start investing in socially more valuable pursuits. Capitalism is holding up a mirror to society, and you apparently don't like what you see.

    Personally I think, not only are you wrongly blaming the engine for where the driver is taking the car, you also underestimate how vicious, intolerant, selfish, and greedy people used to be; our society has become much better over the last century. And the more free market a society has been, the more progress it has made on social and environmental issues.

  80. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you know what the word "we" means. *I* am NOT worried about Dice killing slashdot. I just don't care. There are a other websites. Quit whinging and get over it already.

  81. Re:Beta is illogical by ultranova · · Score: 1

    But as TFA shows the sad thing is you WILL get COPD, doesn't matter how long ago you quit as you WILL get it if something else don't get you first. So if you are quitting do it because you don't want to be smelling like smoke or be out of breath, because if you have smoked more than a couple of years you might as well accept COPD is in your future regardless.

    This is true of for every human and for every possible cause of death. Something will get you, sooner or later. However, quitting smoking decreases the odds of it being "COPD" and "sooner".

    Think of it this way: Slashdot is going to die one day. Does that mean it should simply go ahead and switch to Beta?

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  82. Re:Beta is illogical by rubycodez · · Score: 0

    speaking of dilution, it'd be hard to dilute beta with its absurd amount of white space

    FUCK SLASHDOT BETA

    FUCK THE "WE HEARD YOU" BANNER - NO, YOU'RE NOT LISTENING

  83. pity you didn't think by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    so he smoked into his 50s

    he now has a disease common to people who smoke most of their lives

    very likely his smoking caused his problem, it's a near certainty

  84. Re: Beta is illogical by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1

    Takeaway from that article - you may lucky if you are a Japanese ex-smoker non-progressor. I tell my patients that lung function declines with age regardless of smoking history, however the decline is faster in active smokers. (Yes I am a pulmonary/critical care doctor IRL)

    --
    Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
  85. Let's imagine by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    Let's imagine we are referring to someone addicted to ethanol.

    This person proudly announces they have moved to pure ethanol gelcaps.

    Need I continue?

    --
    I come here for the love
  86. Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered why Spock and his fellow Vulcans never said "rational" occasionally instead of abusing "logical".

  87. Re:Beta is illogical by Tough+Love · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't you offer feeback on the changes? I did, and next thing I see is those exact issues being acknowledged. Now that there is a proper news article to comment on, I do not see how disrupting unrelated articles is in any way useful. Quite the contrary.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  88. Quit smoking ... by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

    ... live longer and prosper.

    --
    licet differant, aequabitur
  89. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all bitching about beta is like bitching about moderation or karma-whoring. This would not be /. without those things it would be... well some other bullshit... Also I think there's enough feedback, although there's been plenty of feedback and it's overwhelmingly of the fuckbeta, or perhaps the "gee beta is more like pre-pre-alpha 'cause the things that make /. /. are horribly broken, although the overall visual look is just nifty, or sucks or whatever as long as it's green and white it's all good to me.

  90. Re:Beta is illogical by Zaelath · · Score: 1

    The drama is most people who give up with an "aid" fall back to smoking within the first six months.

    You definitely get a benefit from switching from cigarettes to ecigs, but you're not quit, and if you did quit it would be just as bad as from cigarettes. I've seen similar reports of people that had their doctors tell them they should consider their nicotine replacement therapy life-long medication.

    I didn't use any aids this attempt purely on the basis that I've found they're replacement and have no effect on the eventual cessation at the end of their use, so I got that hellscape out of the way immediately instead of in a few months time.

    I wasn't nearly as cranky as I thought I would be, I'm usually crankier on the aids... and 12 months in I don't feel like a smoker any more, albeit I still occasionally want one, but it's mostly when the topic is discussed like now ;)

    If it helps at all.. what I found was that the craving for nicotine had replaced all other cravings, so when I was tired I'd think I wanted a smoke, and when I was really tired I'd chain smoke. I think most smokers would resemble that remark... the food/drink triggers are more subtle, but the "it's late, I really need a smoke, so I guess I'll go to the store at 2am" shit is really obvious.

  91. who here would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like to donate a lung to Leonard Nimoy? I'm sure the fanboys will start to fight over whose lungs he gets

  92. Re:Beta is illogical by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    I don't become "cranky" I become the most cold blooded vicious son of a bitch you ever met, more than happy to tell you why your very existence is a waste and the world would be better of without you in it...what do you think happened to my last long term relationship? She begged and begged me to quit..well she got her wish, she left in tears after just 3 weeks of attempting to be around me.

    Thanks to nicotine my senses stay a little dulled and that is a good thing, trust me. Even my own mother, who has COPD and begged me to quit when she did? Left a carton of smokes on my doorstep after being around me for 2 weeks without. Some people get cranky, you get cranky, I become bloodthirsy, vindictive, and will happily tear you a new asshole, BIG difference.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  93. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I get COPD it will probably be from reefer, all smoke is bad for your lungs. But at least pot doesn't cause cancer.

    Keep telling yourself that. The tobacco smokers used to think that too until there was enough research to prove otherwise. The same will be true for pot.

  94. Re:Beta is illogical by Zaelath · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, NRT sounds a better long term strategy then.

    I only discovered I was capable of quitting because the government started to get stupid about the amount of tax they wanted to punish 15-20% of the community with since it's a nice elastic market and they could pretend it was a health initiative.

    As an aside; however, they've finally managed to find the elastic point for a lot of people, either quitting or buying chop-chop. They upped the tax 25% in 2010 and got a 19% increase in revenues, then put it up again and got a 19% reduction in revenues. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that wasn't 30% of the smokers quitting...

  95. Re:Beta is illogical by Petfish · · Score: 0
    I, like you, tried all sorts of methods of giving up. Hatred for government ultimately worked.

    Cigarettes are, in this country at least, taxed all to hell and back. So I said fuck you, government, you aren't attacking middle eastern shitholes with my tax money. That, and Zyban, were enough to get me through.

    Been years without cigarettes now. And at no point did I feel wonderful beyond belief, but I accept that my health is much better now and I KNOW that shit would have killed me.

    They attacked the middle east anyway, but I no longer smoke. Your motivation may vary.

  96. Gastritis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I get sick to my stomach when I have to negotiate the flocks of smokers puffing away outside

    The name for that it is "gastritis". Nicotine is stomach acid inducer.

  97. lab & tyd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (my) Life is overrated, therefor I smoke

  98. No more ciggys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sir have just changed my life. Such passion and deep words, the imagery was just phenomenal. I don't know if anyone could match the persuasion skills that you have. No more cigs for me

  99. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anon because I've blown 4 mod points on this story (so far). I'm NoImNotNineVolt, and I'm not hiding behind anonymity.

    I modded up all the "fuck beta" posts at the top (underrated) to counter some of the flamebait mods. I don't believe taking an active role in discussing the preservation of the slashdot community is flamebait. I also modded the opposing posts down (offtopic) because I believe they're not adding anything of value to the conversation. These posts truly were offtopic, in that they didn't have anything to do with the story and they didn't really add anything meaningful to the discussion about the changes slashdot is going through right now.

    Regardless of how you or I feel, the beta that is being pushed on us may very well be indicative of the general direction Dice is pushing slashdot in. I think slashdot is a valid place to have a discussion regarding whether or not Dice and the community see eye to eye on this. I think that this discussion is both more important than and relevant to any given story that may find its way to the front page. I believe that this is a discussion that ought to be had, regardless of how Dice decides to proceed, regardless of what the final outcome is.

    To those of you that don't care to see this discussion unfold, I apologize. It should be over in a week or so, so don't worry. You'll have your exclusively story-focused commentary back shortly. I understand that it's a mildly annoying inconvenience to have to sit through this shit. Get some perspective, though. It's not like your family just got hauled off to a concentration camp. It's just one of your favorite glorified weblogs suffering from a temporary drop in SNR.

    To those of you fighting to keep the discussion above -1, let's keep at it.

    For my "on-topic" comment, I'd just like to say that smoking cigarettes is terrible. I've been smoking for roughly half of my life. The stupidest thing I ever did was start back up after quitting for 2 years. Last year I managed to stop for two months. This year I plan on trying again, hopefully with greater success.

    Also, fuck beta.

  100. I saw them smoking on Paramount tour by peter303 · · Score: 1

    A highlight of the Paramount tour was to pass by the Star Trek stages (not that you would ever see them). We happened to pass by during a film break. And many of our favorite actors were puffing away just outside.

  101. vulcans live for about 300 years by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Sarek was already a mature adult when he became first Federation Ambassador in the 22nd century. And he died two centuries later in the 24th century in a Next Generation episode.

    Hopefully Spocks human genes dotn shorted his life too much.

  102. The Bandwagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leonard Nimoy's statement makes no sense. He quit smoking thirty years ago, not soon enough in his estimation and it did no good - that is, if smoking caused his current lung dysfunction. The anti-tobacco bandwagon is based on irrational hatred of smokers and smoking, and it is pc to climb on board. Don't insurance companies lower rates for those who quit smoking? I would wonder why they would do that, particularly when there are people who quit after decades of smoking - as if quitting cancels out damage that could be solely attributed to smoking. And then there are the people who smoke for 60+ years while sadly watching their non-smoking friends die.

  103. Re:Beta is illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    I did, in topics about beta, and I emailed them. I'd be fine with beta if I could ignore it, but the problem is they're running full speed ahead with getting rid of classic.

    Just tried to get to the altslashdot site, got a 404.

  104. Re:Beta is illogical by Soulskill · · Score: 1, Informative

    As we said a few days ago, we're slowing down the rollout. And we aren't "getting rid of" the classic site any time soon.

  105. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought that the reason pot doesn't cause cancer was because of the quantity of smoke. While a tobacco user smoking 2 packs per day isn't unusual, not many people smoke 40 joints each day.

  106. Re:Beta is illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Thank you for that. I'm hopeful you guys will fix it.

  107. Re:Beta is illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I would if I knew where to get hash oil. My friend's son had one, I quite liked it but he has trouble getting oil, and he's in the St Louis area, Springfield's only 110k people.

    And there's the legal angle, here in town it's like a traffic ticket, not even a misdemeanor for small amounts. They're a lot harder on hash.

  108. And also just in... by echen1024 · · Score: 1

    The sky is blue. More at 5 o' clock from your local news leader.

  109. Re:Beta is illogical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Beta

    Beta is like aids; you get it by being beta-fucked. Therefore being beta-fucked is illogical.

    Off topic!?! That is highly illogical. The reply was posted under an Off Topic thread. Therefore, an off topic reply to an off topic post would be on topic.

  110. Re:Beta is illogical by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    A decent vaporizer can handle hash or grass. I recommend the Arizer Solo - it's not cheap, but pays for itself over time through more efficient usage (and no tobacco if that's how you make reefers).

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  111. Smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gosgog:

    One of you yoyo's made the statement Smoking has pluses & minuses. So what are the Pluses??? I smoked back when, as much as three packs a day, tried Pipes, loved cigars & quit cold one day....never looked back! In retrospect I cannot think of ANY PLUSES! Just a total waste of Money & BAD for your health. Some booze is actually good for you! All the rest including funny cigarettes, cokaine, heroin, lsd etc, etc. are merely garbage escapisms. So ya gotta problem, use the substance...got news for you dumbass...the problem is still there next day!!
    Gonna be 81 this month, planning on making it into the 90's and enjoyed most every minute so far! An the lady's 40 years younger too. No, I'm not rich either!

  112. Re:Beta is illogical by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I'll try that. As to tobacco, I never did like blunts.