Smoking., Habit forming, or not? |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
Smoking., Habit forming, or not? |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Jake - The Unholy Trinity / Premiscuous Poeteer. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 1,272 Joined: May 2006 Member No: 411,316 ![]() |
I've been debating this question in my head for a while. Do ciggarette cause an addiction or is it merely just a habit?
If it were addicting, wouldn't you be addicted to it the first time you smoked? It doesn't have to be drastic, but a slight addiction. I feel that it is just a habit because you have to keep doing it. It's like biting your nails. You keep doing it out of habit. Does anyone agree? Or not. Haha. |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Jake - The Unholy Trinity / Premiscuous Poeteer. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 1,272 Joined: May 2006 Member No: 411,316 ![]() |
I guess. I've heard that most people who actually get lung cancer are non smokers.
How do you explain those that have been smoking their entire lives and are still alive without cancer or anyother disease that is associated with smoking? |
|
|
*mipadi* |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Guest ![]() |
How do you explain those that have been smoking their entire lives and are still alive without cancer or anyother disease that is associated with smoking? Diseases are dependent on a host of factors, not a single source (i.e. you won't get cancer just because you are exposed to a certain element), although the rates of lung cancing in smokers does point to a direct correlation. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Jake - The Unholy Trinity / Premiscuous Poeteer. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 1,272 Joined: May 2006 Member No: 411,316 ![]() |
Diseases are dependent on a host of factors, not a single source (i.e. you won't get cancer just because you are exposed to a certain element), although the rates of lung cancing in smokers does point to a direct correlation. But correlation isn't causation. Just because it's correlational doesn't mean that it causes it. |
|
|
*mipadi* |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Guest ![]() |
But correlation isn't causation. Just because it's correlational doesn't mean that it causes it. Yes, I am aware of that. The point about correlation was just to show that there is a direct connection between lung cancer and smoking. There are numerous other connections as well—so numerous that most medical professionals agree that smoking causes lung cancer, or is a major contributor. Not having immediate access to medical literature, though (and not having the time to tediously look the information up) means that I don't have any citations stating that smoking causes lung cancer, although the prevailing documentation does indicate this is true. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |