... sorry, I didn't mean to 'bold' my last sentence. That should have been a 'paragraph' break.

In conclusion ... a small circle of friends who like to 'social smoke' cigarettes once in awhile dosen't even dent the millions of those who are addicted to nicotine. Get real ...

And I have a hard time trying to understand why you try to compare 'apples to oranges' with the poor diet theory. They are two completely different issues. Yes, poor diet causes massive health problems, another proven medical fact ... but what does that have to do with what smoking cigarrettes does to people? Both are equally destructive if abused.

But ... I grow weary of running this treadmill with you, and getting nowhere.

So let's just end it here ... and get on with our lives.

Sorry aberdeen but your thoughts on obesedy are not founded. Sure Obese people tend to have more heart attacks and cases of diabeties than a person with a good diet. The 3 top causes of death are heart disease, cancer and stroke. All of these are side effects of inhaling smoke. Arteries that harden are not caused by over-eating. Lung cancer is not from over-eating. If you have a poor diet and smoke then your risks increase. But, like Slim says you can not compare the two.
If you think you are not addicted to one of the most highly additive drugs around then maybe you are not. You do not smoke when you are sick is not proof. Your posts sound like you are in denial. If you ever crave nicotine physically or mentally then you are addicted. Nicotine does not sustain life. Food does. That is why you can't use those examples.
My reason for not smoking cigarettes: When I was a teenager I dipped snuff. One day I took a dry can of Copenhagen and rolled a cigarette. I have never touched a cigarette since. Good Luck!

okay we disagree to disagree. But I maintain that my current intake of cigarettes, which is fluent from 0 a day to 5 a day does not pose a significant health risk to me in itself. If I can't compare to food, what about alcohol. At least you admitted that is someone quits smoking for a year or for 20 years, they aren't addicted anymore. But the common thought is that once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic and one drink will cause a person to resume old habits. That seems pretty hardcore, but yet most people can enjoy alcohol without getting addicted. If you have one or two drinks a day Slim I wouldn't call you an alcoholic, in fact this is starting to seem very healthy to do. My dad smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 20 years, then met my mom and quit instantly, cold turkey. And now 40 years later I wouldn't say he is addicted to nicotine and is in perfect health. My point is addiction effects people differently, genetics seems to be a big factor. Most people can't quit cold turkey, some can, and some never get addicted in the first place. It isn't a simple all or nothing proposition. Also Get Your Own, obsesity does lead to heart attacks and diabetes.

aberdeen -- only a doctor that is licenced to practice medicine can determine if your 5 cigarette a day habit is having an adverse effect on your health. You are only assuming that they are not having an effect on your health, because you won't know until it hits you.

... and with your 'disagree to disagree' comment, you just showed me that you can't (or won't) agree on anything.

Do me a favor ... and look up the word 'denial' ...

As I will agree with many of the statements you made, you can't deny that cigarettes (tobacco) is still one of the major heath risks to the majority of our population. To just turn a 'blind-eye', and jusify that there is no risk involved because you know of exceptions to that fact, just shows your ignorance ... or more precisely, your arrogance.

I'm through with this ... you can have the last word(s), and I promise I will not comment on this again.

I grow weary of beating my head against a brick wall ...

I will look up denial but for your convenience I include the definition of addiction as you have been abusing the term to fit your outlook. I also said my habit varied from 0 a day to 5 a day at the most, interesting how you jump on the five and make that the amount I smoke and ignore the 0, that sums up how you have dishonestly carried on this discusstion. You have been absolutely inflexible and stubborn in this post, you refuse to concede any points and in fact seldom answered any of my points directly instead using personal attacks of denial and ignorance. Again I think this is because you are too emotional over the subject to have a give and take. I conceded many points, ie nicotine provides a rush to the brain, that the habit is dangerous if abused and addictive if abused, but you still cling to the all or nothing proposition.

ad·dict Pronunciation Key (-dkt)

n 1: someone who is so ardently devoted to something that it resembles an addiction 2: someone who is physiologically dependent on a substance; abrupt deprivation of the substance produces withdrawal symptoms v : to cause (someone or oneself) to become dependent (on something, esp. a narcotic drug)

ad·dic·tion Pronunciation Key (-dkshn)
n.

Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.

The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.

1: being abnormally dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (especially alcohol or narcotic drugs) [syn: dependence, dependency] 2: an abnormally strong craving

Slim, by reading these definitions, I don't know how you can sit there and tell me I'm as addicted as a two pack a day smoker, and the my habit is compulsory and that I am abnormally dependent, as I wouldn't be able to stop when sick and on average there are two days I week I don't smoke at all and don't feel withdrawal. The last definition is the best I think, being abnormally dependent on something that is physically habit forming, such as cigarettes. People who smoke a pack a day are abnormally dependent on the drug. But you just can't accept that there are many people out there that can enjoy the habit without becoming compulsive and ardently devoted to it.

I agree this can't be taken any further, especially since you are determined not to have a give and take discussion about it.

I know I said I wouldn't respond anymore to this, but I want to make a few things clear. I don't know where you got the idea that I said you were addicted. I never made such a claim ... and I have not been dishonest at all in this discussion. I also (in a previous post) admitted that I agreed to many of your statements.

Nicotine is addictive ... and that is the only point I was trying to make this entire thread. Smoke a pack or two a day for awhile, and you will see.

Addictions can be broken ... as many people have experienced, including your father.

Sorry if you think I made personal attacks on you by just using 'pointed' words to get my thought across, they were not intended to be personal ... just well chosen words I thought fitting. Thinking that you are arrogant, is just the impression I get from you.

Also, I'm not emotional about this issue at all, just stating well known and long standing facts ...

Are we done now?

If this is where you got it, "nicotine is highly addictive, and just because you only smoke a 'couple' a day doesn't mean you are not addicted."

This statement wasn't meant to imply you peronally. When I said you ... it was in the context of 'you' meaning the general population.

Sorry if you read more into what I meant, and took it personally ... but now I understand why you defended your position so strongly.

I promise this will also be my last response. I am not an arrogant person, I just felt like I was being lumped into the same category as a two pack a day smoker. My habit if you want to call it that is much different and not consistent. I realize that the point you were trying to make all this time but what I didn't understand you were trying to make, is that the chemical nicotine in itself is addictive, that we agree on and wasted a lot of time without this being clear. I guess my two biggest points are that it is possible for someone to enjoy a cigarette, without being addicted or becoming addicted. The question is when has it become an addiction, and I feel it becomes an addiction when it meets the criteria I used this morning on addiction, this holds true for alcohol, etc.

My second point is that it is my opinion that moderate smoking isn't necessarily harmful, but again how much is too much is very murky. Even heavy smokers after they quit eventually their bodies begin to heal themselves unless irreversible cancer has set in. I confess I am very defensive about this as I am often in societly lumped with a two pack smoker, especially with insurance, even if I only smoked a cigar a day and nothing else, most insurance companies would lump me in the same category as a heavy smoker. Finally my insurance agent put me down as a social smoker and even eliminated the cigarette part as he told me he personally thought the amount of cigarettes I smoke isn't a problem. And other than that I take very good care of myself.

I suppose for all the harm they have done cigarettes have become a very stigmatized product and not easy to enjoy this product as a recreational device.