<p>Ok, it seems that I will have to educate you here.</p>
<p>Those studies isolate smoking from all other factors. That is not realistic in the real world because while it may improve a certain condition, it will also cause other health factors that invalidate the advantage seen in the isolated statistical analysis.</p>
<p>Is that clear enough for you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I drink it every day - 100% water, give or take a few minor impurities. ;)</p>
<p>How is this for clear?</p>
<p>You:
</p>
<p>PubMed source #1
</p>
<p>PubMed source #2
</p>
<p>PubMed source #3:
</p>
<p>Look, if you picked a bad source of information, fine. Maybe PubMed is full of crap? Maybe they publish pseudoscience? Whatever. You cannot argue that I have not fulfilled my end of the bargain. Don’t tell me the articles are bad. You told me where to find them.</p>
<p>We can work out a monthly payment plan for my money, if you want.</p>
<p>
Oh snap. You have me there… although I think you know what I meant.</p>
<p>Yes, there is bad science even in PubMed (remember the infamous paper linking immunizations with autism?), but much less of it than on the “internets”. So far, I have not seen any evidence showing clear and defined benefits of smoking (not nicotine, but smoking) for the general population. Correlation does not imply causation - I wish I had bookmarked the PLoS article on such “studies”… Stay tuned, maybe I can find it.</p>
<p>I assume that by “alcoholic” you mean “addictive”, but “addictive” =/= “beneficial”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not the least of which is that many smokers don’t live long enough to develop Parkinsons.</p>
<p>@BunsenBurner:
Still, jsanche32 made a committment and I am going to hold him to it, as a matter of honor. I reject the notion that benefits of nicotine are not benefits of smoking. Smoking is a means of consuming nicotine. Take away nicotine and there’s no cigarette smoking… never would have been. My alcohol analogy is this: people drink e.g. grain alcohol because of the effects alcohol has on the human body. It is not because the act of taking a shot of grain alcohol is a particularly pleasant thing to do, per se. You might enjoy grain alcohol, and you might even have become accustomed to the taste so much that you think you enjoy it. However, the reason you like it is because you know that 3-4 shots into it, you’re going to be feeling really good. It’s something you do with friends (hopefully) and therefore is pleasurable.</p>
<p>@interesteddad:
I didn’t do the PubMed study. Take it up with them.</p>
<p>idad has an excellent point. 
Those must have been some pretty tough folks to begin with if they lived long enough to develop Parkinsons. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never tried and do not feel the need for it. Again, “feeling good” (as in being buzzed)=/= “health benefits”.</p>
<p>I don’t need to “take it up” with anybody. I quit smoking, cold turkey, nearly 3.5 years ago after 38 years of being a slave to nicotine. I don’t need to argue the merits of smoking with a nicotine junkie. I know what it does to you. I steals your life, a little bit at a time, day after day after day, huddling in doorways to stay out of the rain while you get your dope. Putting up with the looks of scorn like a leper. Driving to the store at midnight to get more drugs at a cost of thousands and thousands of dollars a year. The wheeze in your lungs. The inabilty to walk to the mailbox without getting winded, let alone do any real exercise.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for nicotine junkies. It’s a horrible, horrible way to live your life.</p>
<p>Actually, I’m kind of baffled as to why you just refuse to be objective.</p>
<p>This is the logic I’m trying to get across.</p>
<p>Person A has condition X. After smoking in the long-term, condition X improves, but because he has smoked for so long he has conditions Y and Z. (Go search medline for what LT smoking can cause). How is that a pro? You’re in worse health than when you started out.</p>
<p>This is your logic:</p>
<p>Person A has condition X. After smoking in the long-term condition X improves. We have no idea as to whether the LT smoking caused any other health implications. But because condition X improved smoking is considered a pro. </p>
<p>I’m guessing that math/stats isn’t your forte, because you don’t seem to understand the inherent problems with basing your conclusions from a one variable statistical analysis while holding all other variables constant.</p>
<p>^ You never said that I had to find an article that made smoking out to be completely positive. Indeed, this was clear from the context: I have agreed time and time again that smoking is not a healthy activity. Does it have some health benefits? Yes it does, as long as you’re smoking tobacco cigarettes and the tobacco contains nicotine. I don’t feel like assuming cigarettes contain tobacco is such an unreasonable leap of faith.</p>
<p>Apparently, logic isn’t your forte. Here’s your logic:</p>
<p>Cigarettes cure condition X but cause conditions Y and Z.
The drawbacks of getting Y and Z, taken together (or both individually, whatever) outweigh the real benefits of curing X.
Ergo, cigarettes have no benefits.</p>
<p>My logic is this:
Cigarettes cure condition X but cause conditions Y and Z.
The drawbacks of getting Y and Z, taken together (or both individually, whatever) outweigh the real benefits of curing X.
Cigarettes have benefits because they cure X.</p>
<p>Again, I’ll repeat myself. The studies say in no unclear terms that cigarettes have some very specific positive effects. While the studies I have found say that these benefits come from the nicotine, who’s to say I couldn’t find some that say that the smoke itself (e.g., low dosing of carbon monoxide) isn’t good?</p>
<p>Let alone the potential for studies into the psychological benefits (stress, etc.) of smoking. Just give me my money or say you’re sorry.</p>
<p>Also, let’s resist the temptation to make childish, unnecessary comments. Math and statistics aren’t my forte? You don’t know anything about me. I’ll admit that medicine isn’t my forte, but then again, all of this dick weighing is a tangential issue. The real issue is that I can choose to smoke because I enjoy it… and others can and will smoke, because many people find smoking to be enjoyable.</p>
<p>If the end result is not positive, then what exactly is the point?</p>
<p>You’re the one that’s trying to make a case for the virtues of smoking here.</p>
<p>“The real issue is that I can choose to smoke because I enjoy it… and others can and will smoke, because many people find smoking to be enjoyable.”</p>
<p>…which does not prove that it is beneficial for anyone’s health (it only suggests that you cannot ditch the habit), but you seem to equate the two concepts.</p>
<p>Also, study #3 isn’t even done with cigarettes.</p>
<p>They used a transdermal nicotine patch.</p>
<p>**Healthy young adults (N = 40, 50% women) participated in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, repeated measures experiment examining the effects of 7 mg transdermal nicotine or placebo. **</p>
<p>Also, the effects of nicotine are not the same as those of cigarettes.</p>
<p>Cigarettes are much worse for you health wise.</p>
<p>You said that I had to find a study that made smoking out to be a positive. I did that, arguably in three cases. In at least one case - the nicotine one - you can’t genuinely argue that I have not. You can say that you meant the benefits of inhaling the smoke rather than dosing with nicotine, but you didn’t… and the authors clearly state that smoking increases the cognitive functioning of smokers.</p>
<p>Do you disagree that smoking has psychological benefits? Before I try to go find proof of this, let’s ask whether this is really a real question. If smoking has no medical or psychological benefits, why do people do it? If it’s inferior in every way to every other means of achieving similar ends, why would people pay money for it? Is it cheaper? Do you doubt that smokers enjoy smoking?</p>
<p>Addiction is a sad and terrible thing, and although I’m not addicted to cigarettes, I do understand there are people who want to quit but can’t. I think these people should get help, and they do. But for people - addicted or not - who do enjoy it - and I assure you there is at least one - what do you say? The reason I smoke is because I enjoy doing it - it has psychological benefits.</p>
<p>@BunsenBurner: The question of enjoying smoking is a separate one from the health benefits. For those of you who might not have read my earlier posts, the question of medical benefits of smoking is almost a strawman for my position, at this point. My position is that smoking is bad for you - but if you enjoy doing it, go for it.</p>
<p>Sorry, but you cannot compare nicotine patches to cigarettes.</p>
<p>That’s where you are just DEAD wrong.</p>
<p>
The authors state that cigarettes improve cognitive functioning in smokers. Are you saying that I’m making this up, or is it your opinion that they don’t have a right to claim this?</p>
<p>By the way, would you prefer to do cash, check, or money order?</p>
<p>No, what I’m saying is that your assertion that nicotine (via gum and transdermal patches) yields the same health benefits as cigarettes is just plain wrong.</p>
<p>For one, nicotine patches and gum bypass the lungs. Which is something you’ve been completely ignoring. And from were I’m standing is probably the worst part of cigarettes (i…e their effect on your lungs)</p>
<p>So you’re arguing that cigarettes are not effective in delivering nicotine to your body?</p>
<p>Also, answer my question: do the authors not directly say that smoking increases/improves cognitive functioning in smokers? Do you want me to quote where the authors say it?</p>
<p>If you’re low on cash, you can help me with some chores at $20/hr. That’s more than twice what a domestic would make. See, I’m not cruel.</p>