I'm guessing you missed the photos of her smoking also - while pregnant.

Heap on a little more judgement there Bob...

Way to show compassion for your fellow man in their time of need. You may be hanging with the goats a bit too much there Bobby.

sounded pretty compassionate to me. The only judging Bob was doing was against the insidious tobacco industry who continues to lure in people to get addicted to their deadly product.

I was cured (no such word as remission...sounds like you're waiting for it to return) of Hodgkins about 7 years ago. On a yearly check up, I was getting out of my car, and noticed an elderly couple getting out of theirs. Mind you this was in front of the Cancer Treatment center...

Both had a lit cigarette hanging out of their mouths, and both were carrying an oxygen tank.

I hate that the world was deprived of George Burns, who never could quit the habit. He died too young, and left the world a less joyful place.

yea, bob, can you be a little more holier than thou?

addiction is a bitch...something you've obviously never had to deal with and something you dont have the first clue in understanding.

The addiction to nicotine is second only to heroin, and still tobacco is still legal?

But we are the land of the dead and free.

Mickey Mantle became a hopeless alcoholic and had a liver transplant. Did that stop him from drinking. No. He somehow managed to replace someone else on the list and got a second liver transplant and soon died. My grandfathers were told to stop their drinking and they both killed themselves with drink. Michael Douglas wants to kill himself, sobeit.

Julio, it's not necessary to make things up. Mantle received a liver transplant at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, on June 8, 1995. Prior to the operation doctors also discovered he had inoperable liver cancer known as an undifferentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, further facilitating the need for a transplant.

Mantle died on August 13, 1995 at Baylor University Medical Center with his wife at his side.

And what caused the liver disease? And why was he able to get two liver transplants? If he was in that bad a condition, then the doctors would not have given him a second liver? Read the whole story. Usually when there is some sort of abuse, or poor chance of successful long term transplant a recipient is denied.

Heavy drinking was the reason for the cirrhosis that was found. The drinking was not suggested as a cause of the liver cancer.

However, he only got one liver transplant, not two as you indicated. He lived about two months after that operation.

Mantle was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver and hepatitis C. He got the liver one day after he was diagnosed. The cancer was found after he was operated on. Many people believe he got special treatment for being Mickey Mantle and jumped the waiting list.

I hate that the world was deprived of George Burns, who never could quit the habit. He died too young, and left the world a less joyful place.

Good Lord, freedman, George Burns was 100 y.o. when he died. We should all be so lucky to live so long.

I just love all of the socialists who blame everybody for everybody else's vices and failures. What causes such a violent logical twist in their brains? Are they fed socialism inducing drugs along with their indoctrination in the public schools? LMAO.

As for Mantle, they claim there was absolutely no favoritism at all. When they placed the tissue typing, etc. of the liver they had in the computer, his name supposedly came up. You've have to read Mantle's story to know what exactly transpired. There's a lot more to it than stated. As for SMOKING, which is the topic of this post, I had a 4 pack a day Kool filter habit. I started smoking at 13 or so and quit at 51 after a near death experience due to a perforated duodenal ulcer. I quit cold turkey the day that I was admitted and never looked back. No one was more addicted than me, but my will to live was stronger than my nicotine addiction. I know a lot of people that can't. I worked in a hospital for 6 1/2 years. I knew a few doctors that smoked---still do, nurses also. I've seen people with trach tubes inserted smoking. People carrying air tanks still smoking. The first year is kind of funky. Food tastes funny and you're sucking in air that you hadn't in awhile. All of the sudden smoking starts smelling bad and you know you've got it licked.

I remember when doctors hawked cigarettes on TV. Smoking was a rite of passge and you were considered a man. Smoking is more addictive than heroin and it is very difficult to break the habit. I worked in oncology for years and the patients would smoke while they were receiving treatment. Many actors used cigarettes as a prop and it was in vogue to smoke. I would not wish this addiction on anyone.

And if you read the data, cigarette companies deliberately made the nicotine content stronger and more recently ads have been targeted to kids. I smoked for about a year, in my twenties but was fortunate to quit because smoking gave me insomnia and tachycardia. I like my naps.

Anyone who is trying to quit, I wish you well, Like I said, quiting smoking is more addictive than heroin.

For years the tobacco industry spokesmen said that tobacco was not addictive. For years the tobacco industry spokesmen said that cigarettes did not cause cancer, the research was flawed. For years the tobacco industry marketed their products to the young. They lied, they obfuscated, they hid the truth. We have people in this country who have been sentenced to life in prison for selling marijuana, yet the executives of these billion dollar tobacco companies walk the street. WTF???

I was as addicted as anybody could be to nicotine 17 years ago. I quit because I didn't want to die and I didn't want my kids growing upwith a dad too WEAK to overcome addictions. It was tough, horribly tough, welcome to Earth.

Sac up Douglas. Otherwise no sympathy.

You'll still be worse and far more dirty, stupid and evil than any one person could ever be.

leelee - uh, doesn't your post make you as judgemental, dirty and evil as you accuse Rancher Bob of being?

What they don't teach in basic biology classes is that there are nicotinic receptors in plasma membranes of certain neurons throughout the body. The nicotine molecule is very similar in shape to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which affects many bodily functions, including breathing, heart rate, learning and memory. Acetylcholine in turn also affects other neurotransmitters that have influence over appetite, mood, and memory. When nicotine gets into the brain, it attaches to nerve cells in places where acetylcholine would, creating the same effects. Nicotine is addictive because it is tied to brain chemistry and causes changes that can be perceived as pleasant, which is why it is so difficult to stop smoking.

Also smoking does affect others. It is an addiction for everyone in the room. My parents both smoked but all eight of their children were exposed to the smoke as well. Ironically none of us smoke.

He'll quit smoking eventually, one way or another. Everyone does.

Who cares? If he smokes, let him smoke. The man already has 3' in the ground and another 3' to go. He knows his days are limited here on earth, so let him indulge in his pleasure of smoking.

I just love all of the socialists who blame everybody for everybody else's vices and failures. What causes such a violent logical twist in their brains? Are they fed socialism inducing drugs along with their indoctrination in the public schools? LMAO.

Ignorance trumps even you.

Dr. Hulda Clark

You don't have to die with cancer.

Were cigarettes still pushed big among the American conscripts in Viet Nam?

Start here for the history lessons of the "PAY BACK" to the tobacco companies.

Jeffrey Wigand

Well, perhaps Catherine has now stopped? But last time I was at a function, in her company, she was happily puffing away!!

I was as addicted as anybody could be to nicotine 17 years ago. I quit because I didn't want to die and I didn't want my kids growing upwith a dad too WEAK to overcome addictions. It was tough, horribly tough, welcome to Earth.

Sac up Douglas. Otherwise no sympathy.

...he has children who will end up without a father because of his selfish behavior.

Given his age when this second family was born, the children probably would have ended up without a father anyway. That's something that responsible parents should take into consideration when an old geezer marries a much younger woman and decides to start a new family.

I worked as an oncology nurse for years. As I said in my previous post; nicotine is more addictive than heroin. Some of my patients would be getting chemo, in one hand and smoking a cigarette with the other. Too bad we can get the tobacco industry, to do advertising for healthier life styles. They certainly did very well, with their cancer sticks.

ABC: No one of any age is guaranteed any number of years on this earth--something responsible parents should always consider of any age...even the insufferably sanctimonious ones who lecture others.

Smoking is how we keep the population in check in this country. Where else can you sell something that we all know will kills us. As long as there is a profit to be made anything goes. I guess that is why they wont legalize Pot. It will take away from smoking and the profits.

Even though I believe Smoking Pot should be Legal, I'm not so Stupid as to believe that Smoking Pot doesn't come without the same Health Risks as Smoking Cigarettes, Lung Cancer, Emphysema, Oral Cancers, Etc! Unlike Sanctimonious Ass-Holes like ABCzyx, I used to Smoke Cigarettes until I quit over six years ago and I still partake of Pot from time to time! To quit Smoking Cigarettes is probably the hardest thing I ever did and as far as having children late in life, I turned 44years old fours days before my son was born, that event provided a powerful incentive for me to quit Smoking Cigarettes!

Actually, cancer, smoking, and its treatment cures opportunities to live longer, and some more than other methods to better experience your mortality.

But it isn't pointless to stop poisoning your family and anyone who comes near you. And who said he was at that point?

And yes it does change people's behavior when they watch someone waste away...not all the time, but it can. I know more than one person who stopped smoking after seeing a relative dying from cancer.

He's in Stage 4 esophogeal cancer. That means it has spread to all four quadrants of his body. Short of a miracle, his condition is terminal. Whether he still smokes or not is moot.

Not a Socialist: stage 4 cancer does not mean it has spread to all four quadrants of your body. Any cancer that has metastacized (spread beyond the original site) is considered stage 4, but true stage 4 is determined by biopsy only, and takes many factors into consideration. Also to the poster that said all stage 4 is incurable except for Hodgkin's: you are also wrong, I know people who had stage 4 diagnosed 20 years ago who are still alive and cancer-free. Head and neck cancers are treatable and also have a decent rate of cure, even stage 4. You people should not post what you don't know, please think of someone who may be newly diagnosed that may read something like this and think they are doomed already.

twodog: when I was in nursing school 30 years ago, we were taught that cancers are graded in stages. Stage 1 was above the diaphragm on one side, stage 2 was above the diaphragn both sides, stage 3 and 4 were below the diaphragm. With advanced diagnostics, this method may be dated and no longer used, but I don't think I'm far off the mark. Wikipedia concurs with me. We were also taught that because they are viruses, cancers are never really 100% killed, but rather go dormant. And if a person is lucky, it remains that way.

To Twodogsloving; your statement below has a couple of incorrect statements. For one, while biopsy can help define the stage based on clear or positive maginis its the imaging techniques that play a significant role which determines the stage using cat, pet, and mri scans and also thru surgery. A biopsy determines the type or subtype of cancer, the grade, the rate of division, how well or poorly differientiated the cancer cells are. Physical exams, imaging procedures, laboratory tests, pathology reports, and surgical reports provide information to determine the stage of the cancer

And no not all cancers that metastacized is considered stage 4.

liver cancer can be stage 4 and still remain in the liver.

Not a Socialist - not all cancers are caused by viruses. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer estimated that in 2002 17.8% of human cancers were caused by infection, with 11.9% being caused by one of seven different viruses (Parkin, Donald Maxwell (2006). "The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002". International Journal of Cancer 118 (12): 3030. doi:10.1002/ijc.21731).

I don't know all the data that you folks are talking about. This I do know. Cancer moves through the body in three ways, blood, bones, lymph nodes. If Douglas has a speck of cancer anywhere else is his body, they didn't get it all and it's moving. That would almost certainly be terminal in time. My father lost 1 kidney to cancer and within a year or two it got the other. Of course, that was terminal. My step father lost a piece of 1 lung to cancer, within months they found a spot on his other lung, within 6 months he was dead. It was just reported that lung cancer is 85% terminal. When the pain gets real bad, they'll give you morphine, as much as you want. You're not going to live so it doesn't matter. I, as well as many others, have made and saw some gut wrenching decisions made. BUT when there's no hope, maybe, it's better to let go?

ABC: 17.8% of cancers may be CAUSED by infection, but the cancer itself is a virus, NOT an infection. Infection is bacterial. You are comparing apples to oranges and my statement stands: Cancers are viral, which sometimes go dormant, but often do not, and reappear later on in some other part of the body.

Followtheyellowbrickroad is correct. Unless EVERY cancer cell is eradicated at the time of surgery/chemo/radiation, the liklihood of it migrating to another part of the body is great.

Cancer is not a virus. It is the body's OWN cells whose cell division has run amock and are multiplying at a much greater rate than is normal and become capable of spreading to sites other than the point of the cancer's origin. Benign tumors involve rapid cell growth, but do not spread. Cancer has many causes, including infection by some viruses, inherited gene mutations, and exposure to carcinogenic chemicals or radiation.

Viruses are microbes which are NOT part of the host, which can infect host cells, sometimes causing disease. Some viruses do cause cancer, but that doesn't mean cancer IS a virus.

Not a Socialist - you stated that you studied nursing 30 years ago. I recently received my doctorate in pharmacology. There have been massive new medical discoveries in the past 30 years. It is a known fact that not all cancers are caused by viruses. Update your knowledge base and bring yourself into the 21st century.

Not a Socialist - According to the National Cancer Institute, "cancer is a term used for diseases in which abnormal cells divide without control and are able to invade other tissues. Cancer is not just one disease but many diseases. There are more than 100 different types of cancer."

Viruses cause some cancers by causing genetic changes in cells that make them more likely to become cancerous. These cancers and viruses are linked: Cervical cancer, Primary liver cancer, Lymphomas and the Epstein-Barr Virus, T cell leukaemia, HPV also probably leads to oropharyngeal cancer and non melanoma skin cancers in some people.

If you are basing your statement that all cancers are caused by viruses on information that is 30 years old, you might as well be using leeches for cures.

ABCxyz,

Not a socialist isn't saying all cancers are caused by viruses, but that cancer IS a virus, which makes her(?) statement even more incorrect. And I'm pretty sure they weren't teaching that 30 years ago in nursing school, either.

Sandy - Thanks for your insight. Now that you state it the way that you do, the comment made by Not a Socialist seems even more bizarre. I've never, ever heard of cancer referred to as being a virus, although certain forms can be caused by viruses. Cancer is uncontrolled cell growth, which has nothing to do with being a virus. Some theories speculate the some cancers are pre-programmed into our DNA. It's true that certain viruses can reside in a dormant state in our bodies for years and then reactivate. The virus that causes chicken pox can resurface decades later as shingles. Viruses that cause cold sores can be reactivated by stress. However, the fact that cancer can return at a later date doesn't mean that it is a virus. Not a Socialist must have gone to a nursing school located above a barber shop.

LOL.

BTW, it is now accepted among oral pathologists that some oral cancers are attributable to HPV. That still doesn't make those cancers viruses, it just means they are caused by viruses.

I do seem to recall from my genetics class a theory that viral infections, even ones that have no known association with particular cancers, can predispose to cancers, because the viral DNA basically splices itself into the host DNA, leading to replication errors. That would still be cancer with a viral etiology, though, not cancer synonymous with virus.

Sandy - gross on the HPV and oral cancers.

The study of viruses and their life cycles, if they can be called life cycles since some scientist question whether viruses should be classified as a true life form, is so interesting, especially the retroviruses. Prions are even more bizarre. Still, I have never, ever heard anyone state that cancer is a virus.

Me neither, until now.

Viruses I have pretty much accepted as a form of life, even if it means tweaking the traditional definition of "life form". Prions just defy classification. Maybe we need to entirely overhaul the definition of life, or ask for help from the philosophy department.

Just reread one of Not a socialist's posts in which s/he stated that infections are bacterial, not viral. Absolutely no understanding of microbiology, and that can't be blamed on an out-of-date education. The existence of viral infections has been known to medical science since well before 1981.

Sandy - my thoughts exactly, about Not a Socialist and her notion that infections are bacterial and cancer is a virus. Maybe she was never trained as a nurse but posing as one on Newsvine? Who knows. It's startling that anyone who was trained within the past 30-40 years would think that way.

A quote from Wikipedia (OK, not always the most reliable source of quality info, but probably all right for this purpose):

Since Dmitri Ivanovsky's 1892 article describing a non-bacterial pathogen infecting tobacco plants, and the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus by Martinus Beijerinck in 1898,^[2] about 5,000 viruses have been described in detail,^[3] although there are millions of different types.

So, 1892 gives a reference as to how long we have known about viruses. I never heard of prions until 2005, when I took a microbiology class. I had taken several biology classes in the mid-90s, but prions were never mentioned. I figured that I've consumed enough beef by 2005, that if I'm going to contract Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, I already have it. A friend's daughter stopped eating beef when she learned about Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, but I don't know if that really helps at this point.

As for whether viruses should be classified as life forms, that is a difficult question. I guess the more and more specific we become about what constitutes life as research techniques become more refined, the more blurry the line between life and inert matter becomes. Like you suggest, it might take a philosopher and scientist working together to develop the perfect definition of life. In the meantime, viruses are certainly fascinating when viewed under magnification. A Hollywood special effects team couldn't create a more bizarre creature than the ones that nature made.

I thought I remembered that the existence of viruses was postulated and confirmed around the turn of the 20th century, but was too lazy to look for links. Thanks. Prions were mentioned briefly in my college and dental school courses. I graduated from college in 1996 and dental school in 2001.

I don't worry too much about beef. It's been years since the last outbreak of mad cow disease, and I think we know enough about the feeding practices that lead to its spread to avoid them. I also think farmers took enough of a financial hit from the last scare to adhere to better practices, both for public health and their own interests.

I really think we will need to refine our definition of life continually, both to accomodate discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, and possibly to accomodate innovations in artificial intelligence.

it's called an addiction for a reason. you can't just stop.

Oh, but you can if you want to! It took me 12 years of stopping/starting back, but finally I found success 11 years ago. I never want to have to go through that again!

Fresh air is wonderful to breathe in deeply and to exhale with ease!

Smelling better is good, too!

Takes some people longer than others. Studies confirm for some reason it is more difficult for women to quit smoking. I could tell you a lot about the physical and mental battle. Everyone is not the same and their triggers are not the same. My battle to quit was a lengthy one, but I was successful.

I do not listen to those who say "just quit" or "you're being selfish," or "you don't care about your family" because those people don't know chit. It's not their battle. It's personal and its hard. I'm glad I won my battle and have great empathy for those still struggling.

My two sons have never smoked for many reasons, but one may have been witnessing their mother crying at the kitchen table because she did not want to buy cigarettes, but could not sleep. The crying was because at that time she knew the battle was lost.

If you are trying, and fall off the wagon, just get back on. My doctor always told me to keep trying and eventually I would make it. Sure glad I believed him cause it was damn tough!

When I quit smoking, cigs had just hit $1.75 a pack. I watched a guy buy 3 packs of Pall Mall Gold at $7.78 a pack. Literally, your money is going up in smoke. For those of us who had it bad, as in 3-4 packs a day, not only would we be killing our self, we'd die broke. How can you afford it? Our government taxes the hell out of smokes because they know that we can't quit. If everybody up and quit, they'd have to find some other tax revenue quickly, but the way they work---maybe not (joke)? If there was ever a bond between people, we can look at each other and know what we all went through.

My dad quit smoking cold turkey after smoking for 60 years.

Congratulations to you. I smoked 3 packs a day for 21 years and quit cold turkey. It was rough the first 3 weeks & then for a few years I had nightly dreams that I was enjoying cigarettes. I started in the military in the 1960's because if you smoked you got smoke breaks, if you didn't smoke you had to keep working. Back then, cigarettes & tattoos were encouraged by the lifers. But, that's OK , that's the way it was, and some good/bad memories and some good old lifer friends.

Even in civilian life, going outside to have a cigarette was a way to "stand down" -- switched to online solitaire but it didn't have a community

I quit a 30 year, 2.5 pack a day cold turkey 8 years ago. It was one of the hardest things I've done in my life.

My grown , still smoking son came to visit me last week and i needed to put something in his car. When i smelled the smoke inside, the pull to have one myself was incredible! If they haven't been there, they have no idea how hard it is.

I think you need to look up "absolutely" and "impossible," because you are using them wrong.

Back then, cigarettes & tattoos were encouraged by the lifers.

Don't know what branch you were in bur I don't recall anyone in the military back in the '60s encouraging me to smoke or get tattooed. Smoked to packs a day for about 40 years. Quit cold turkey lasted 2 yrs. Went back for 2 yrs joined stop smoking clinic quit 2 more years. smkoked again for 2. Finally went to a behavior modification spec. got "hypnotized"(?) I think, haven't smoked since '89-'90. It aint easy and all the self righteous judgmental hypocrites aren't doing a bit of good.

izzybar

You don't recall being encouraged to smoke in the 60's? Do you need a safe to fall on you to get it? What holiday meal did you eat on the base that didn't come with a little 4 pack of cigarettes? Seconds if you asked for them. Or was that just the navy that did that. All this talk of how tough it is to quit is BS. I quit hundreds of times- no problem. Actually I did quit for good in 1971. A LCDR

embarrassed me into quitting.

Airlines gave the 4-packs away to soldiers and civilians alike. I was given some on a Delta flight when I was 14 years old!

I quit hundreds of times- no problem. Actually I did quit for good in 1971.

I was a weakling like you all I needed is a whiff of smoke to get the craving. And yea, I also quit about forty times a day, between smokes 2 packs a day. And I did not get a pack of fours from '60 to '63 to my recollection. And you know what you can do with your arrogant tone, right?

I have quit several times, often for over a year at a time, but I always end up going back. It really is a powerful addiction that is never truly gone, and I'm a firm believer that "just one" is one too many. I have known people who were ex-smokers for many years that also had "just one" and were back to smoking regularly in no time. It is a curse.

Don't ever give up trying, because one day you will finally have had enough of it and will stick it out. I bought 2 packs at a time for years from gas stations for much more money than getting a carton at the grocery store, because I was always going to quit on Monday, or Friday, or whenever. I finally did it and Aug 9th will be 17 years without a cigarette. My only regret is that I didn't do it sooner, but at least I finally did it. Don't ever stop trying!

How about this? When I was trying to quit smoking (I was in college), I would buy a pack of cigarettes, take a couple out, and break the rest of the pack. When I had smoked the cigarettes I had kept, I ended up taking the rest of the cigarettes out of the garbage (my own garbage from my dorm room, fortunately), and taping the cigarettes together to smoke them.

I finally quit once, then I started working with a woman who fully enjoyed her cigarettes, and watching her enjoy them got me started again. However, I couldn't stand the taste anymore, and had to eat something or brush my teeth after smoking. Needless to say, it wasn't too hard to quit that last time. I took up bicycling instead. I've never wanted a cigarette since, although I still enjoy the smell of cigarette smoke if it's not too strong.

Definitely true. Absolutely true.

Not to mention the example it provides! Role model - not!

I'm asthmatic and while my asthma is usually exercise-induced, the one thing that will trigger me no matter what is secondhand smoke. I used to bus everywhere, and nine times out of ten there was someone smoking in the bus shelter or at the bus station. I usually stood back where I couldn't breathe it, or kept an eye out at the station so I could avoid it, but I did have one close call where I was hurrying to catch another bus, ran right by a couple of guys puffing away and didn't notice, took a huge breath just as I passed them and collapsed coughing. It's a good thing I had my inhaler with me...I shudder to think of what would have happened had I not. Having breath instantly sucked away like that is a terrifying feeling. I obviously have never even imagined beginning to smoke, and I have a very, very low tolerance for those that do. I grew up in a non-smoking household, and my mother would tell stories of how hard her dad tried to quit (he, like so many others of his generation started while in the service). It finally took a heart attack for him to stop, and when he did he quit cold turkey. However, his health was poorer from then on out and he died of a double stroke at 67. I can't help but wonder if his life would have been prolonged had he not smoked for 40 years.
Smoking is a disgusting, addictive and ultimately very harmful habit. I do feel compassion for those who have gotten so far in that it's very difficult for them to quit, however that compassion is tempered by an anger at those who smoke blatantly in public. If you want to slowly kill yourself, fine. But don't take me with you!

Maybe he can switch to the nicotine gum around the family.

Minnesota got some of that tobacco settlement a while back. I guess now instead of using it to encourage young people never to get started, they are going to use it to patch up the debt. That money's been burning a hole in their pockets and now they feel they've got a reason to nab it. Politicians! grrrr!

Using tobacco settlement money for the general fund is the norm except in a few States. Using social security funds for the general fund is the practice of the American national government. Politicians know they can spend your money better than you can because they consider the voters fools.

They should have used some of the tobacco settlement money to assist smokers who wanted to quit. And I'm not talking about TV commercials which is what many of the states did. What is a commercial to someone fighting a smoking addiction???

They could have had non-smoking retreats for a 5 to 10 day stay located at least 50 miles from any town and convenience store! The could have paid for those expensive patches and gum.

Funny how states got money while the people hopelessly addicted and dying got nothing. They couldn't even win against the tobacco giants in court.

Any teenager who wants to start smoking cigarettes today would be a complete fool given the information out there on the destructiveness and addiction tobacco causes.

I don't want to stop. I've been smoking for 48 years! Can you understand that? If you want to quit, good for you, but for those who dont want to quit, like me, good for us. Can you understand that?

very hard for the addicts to admit they have a problem, and even harder to quit once they do because it's a physical addiction. It's a shame too, because even if they've convinced themselves they don't want to quit, they are still harming those innocents around them by continuing.

Good for you ethel-3828905. I was a long time smoker too. I'm glad you are cancer-free after your chemo. I hope I don't develop it. I worry sometimes since I smoked a long time.

What.....?

Wrong??
Yes many other ingredients, but nicotine is a well-known addictive chemical.

Duh?

I have a cousin who smokes, but rolls his own (doesn't buy commercial cigarettes). He says that he doesn't crave cigarettes like he used to and that the few times he's smoked a 'regular' cigarette since he started rolling his own, it has given him a headache and made him feel ill. So yes, I think a lot of the 'addiction' is the additives and the fact that they use tobacco that has been engineered to have higher levels of nicotine (the people handling it have to wear protective gear because it is so strong). Get a clue people, big tobacco isn't trying to help you, they want you to buy their product until the day you die and will do whatever they must to ensure that.

As a former 2 pk a day for 40 yrs smoker....I can hardly breathe now due to my former jobs and ciggies...only way i could quit was surgery it altered my brain somehow. trick is don't pick one up again or your lost. BTW oxygen is much more expensive than the butts were......stop now choking to death is a bummer way to die

So sorry -- been there

I'm sorry for your loss and what you endured. Thank you for sharing...you never know what will make a difference to someone.

Society has a vested interest in reducing/eliminating smoking. The costs are enormous. Im tired of paying inflated health care costs due other peoples lifestyle choices....smoking, obesity, and drugs.

Why don't you add in red meat, alcohol, jay walking, breathing the freaking air our society has created, fast food, fried food, salt, high fructose corn syrup, pesticides in our "fresh" produce, not exercisiing and sitting at a desk all day, driving dangerously ... shall I go on. Jeeze, it is so pathetic how everyone blames the obvious and doesn't focus on what is truly causing most cancers today. Wake up! Smoking is bad for your health, and most everyone knows it, but there are plenty more things lurking out there that are causing cancer and health problems. Smoking, obesity and drugs are such an obvious blame. Read a little bit... it might do you some good.

yup -- it has to be about yourself -- sad what we addicts are not motivated by those who love us -- but true.

IT is our business because cigerettes foul up the air even more and our lungs!! I'm tired of smelling some else's cigerettes even when I'm in my own house! I hate it when parents smoke right in the faces of their children. We are going to end up paying for the medical care these people will need. I'm tired of seeing people who are too weak to give this crap up. Maybe insurance companies should have rules where no smoker will be insured. Maybe that would wake up a few people. Then again, maybe not.

Burning leave are very bad for the lungs. I thought I heard somewhere that burning leaves are worse than smoking, but I'm not sure about that. That's one nice thing about living in the city-you don't have to put up with heavy leaf smoke hanging in the air on a warm, stagnant spring or fall day. Too bad it's not illegal. (I live in Wisconsin)

leelee

Please tell us all what is causing most cancers today?? Work those reading skils my friend http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/

leelee

Your comment is irrational. Sure, lots of thing cause cancer and other death, but it is not logical to take action to stop the most 'obvious causes'......maybe need to think just a little bit....

George Harrison, We miss you. Why'd you have to be such a tobacco fiend?

not going to pay for anything. Republicans will force default.

The article is about him smoking, but thanks for sticking a little politics in there.

always happy to oblige

bwahaha~ the republicans will force default. Ummm ... who passed a bill... and who threatened to veto it? The Demo's will be the ones forcing the default. Yup.

ComradeChaos

You're already paying for others- you're just too dumb to know it. Hospitals

add the cost of treating non paying patients to the price they charge insurance companies and self pay people.

I guess I fell out of the banana boat somewhere. I thought the deal was that everybody was going to have to pay their own way, unlike now, where uninsured just use the emergency room for a clinic.

susankay does not want to pay for anything. She's fine with me footing the bill for her and kids.

Susan, to tell you the truth, I don't really mind. I hope you are blessed and in good health. But, should you become sick, and even though you refuse to pay for anything - I still want you to receive good care. I'm happy to check a box on my tax return to that effect.

Don't kid yourself; if you have health insurance, you have been paying for the healthcare consequences of other people's poor habits for many years. However, even if you have very healthy habits, others might have been paying for the consequences of your poor genetics.

A full 25 percent (for women), and 20 percent (for men), of lung cancer cases are among people who have never smoked.

If you are going to post such statistics please provide a citation for the study you are referencing.

Sure. It's from George Mason University's stats collection.

http://tinyurl.com/3dtc2xa

Risk of lung cancer varies by state. In Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming - between 26 - 60 people out of every 100,000 will develop lung cancer.

In Alaska, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Washington the risk increases - between 60 - 66 people out of every 100,000 will develop lung cancer.

The risk goes up again if you happen to live in Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont. Here the risk is that 66 - 75 people out of every 100,000 will contract the disease.

The highest risks are in Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Here between 75 - 98 people out of every 100,000 people will contract lung cancer.

Put in context, out of every 100,000 people in Missouri, for instance, 99,902 people will never contract lung cancer. It's a fairly rare disease, and generally strikes in older age groups.

Mr. Douglas is a few fries short of a happy meal if he does this...his life has just been cut in half.

Mike is already 67 years old. How much longer did you suppose he'd live if he did quit smoking now and, what kind of quality of life would he have if he survived the cancer he already has? Let him live and love living while he's still here.

Also, not everyone wants to live to be 100 years old, or even 90 years old except perhaps those who are afraid of death and dying.

I've been smoking a pack a day for 29 years now; I started when I was 13 years old. I get chest xrays every so often and the radiologists are often surprised to learn that I've been smoking so many cigarettes for so long. And I don't plan on quitting either. Smoking a cigarette is one of the few pleasures I can count on in this world and nothing you or any other non-smoker or even ex-smoker can say would change my mind.

Charle 7834,

How old is Michael Douglas Father?

Freedman1, cancer a rare disease??????

Here are some numbers related to cancer in the United
States.

1 in 3 people in US will be diagnosed with cancer in their
lifetimes

Country total population 315
million

Cancer survivors 12
million

People diagnosed with cancer yearly 1.5 million

People who die from cancer yearly 550,000

Every 10 years that goes by approx 15 million people will be
diagnosed

If 70 years goes by (little less than ave. life expectancy)
that is 105 million people diagnosed or one third of US population.

There are about 7 to 8 million people who have not been
diagnosed walking around with cancer

Now you can see why 1 in 3 people get diagnosed with cancer

The statement was related to lung cancer.

Lung cancer is a fairly rare disease.