Posted on 10/17/2006 1:09:34 PM PDT by trumandogz
TUESDAY, Oct. 17 (HealthDay News) -- A new study finds that at least 1 in every 4 smokers will develop progressive and incurable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a much higher risk than previously believed.
COPD is a respiratory disease that results in blocked air flow to the lungs and grows progressively worse.
For this study, published online in the journal Thorax, researchers at Hvidovre Hospital analyzed data on 8,000 men and women, ages 30 to 60. All were monitored for 25 years as part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study.
At the start of the study, all the participants' lungs were healthy and working normally. However, over the course of the 25 years, the lungs of almost all the male non-smokers continued to function normally, compared to 60 percent of men who continued to smoke.
Among women, 90 percent of non-smokers still had healthy lungs at the end of 25 years, compared to 70 percent of smokers.
Overall, 25 percent of the participants developed moderate or severe COPD over the 25 years. Persistent smokers were six times more likely to develop COPD than non-smokers.
During the 25 years, there were 2,900 deaths in the study group. Of those deaths, 109 were directly attributable to COPD, and nearly all those deaths were in people who were active smokers at the start of the study. Only two non-smokers died of COPD.
The study also found a sharp decline in the risk of COPD among people who stopped smoking soon after the start of the study. Over the 25 years, none of these ex-smokers developed severe COPD.
You know what Shelion. I owe you an apology. I really don't have a problem in the world with you, personally or Dufarge, Elk, or anyone else because they smoke. I do however detest the act of smoking. If it hasn't been clear that it's the action I dislike and not the person, then you have my apologies.
I have to believe that Toby's comments were no more offensive than those of the anti-smokers here. It's terrible that a person can't make a personal decision in their lives buy chosing to smoke, without suffering through such attacks from the anti-smoking crowd.
There are all kinds of "legal" addictions. Many people are "addicted" to Pepsi or Coke. I have a girl friend who can't start a day without her can of Pepsi.
Many people are "addicted" to running 10 miles a day, or "addicted" to hard work-outs at the gym.
Many people are "workaholics." Many people are "addicted" to chocolate. And the list goes on. I am sure you can add a lot of legal "addictions" of friends and family that you know.
Smoking has been legal for many years. Many of us grew up in smoking homes. We do not suffer from asthma and many of us are not "sickly" because we grew up around second hand smoke, and are now smokers ourselves.
Whatever happened to "live an let live?" I would no more try to tell anyone what to eat, drink, smoke, etc just because "I" do not agree with it. Hey! What's good for me might not be good for you and what's good for you might not be good for me.
I'm just sick to death of all these nanny's we have when it comes to smoking. I am a grown woman who makes her own choices in this life. Is it anyone else's business? NO!
Thanks for that link! I haven't read this one before!
Hi SheLion
I support your right to chose for yourself. I hope I wasn't coming across as judgemental towards those who choose to smoke.
Me either. That's why I gave up on that one. I assume to know who you are talking about. heh! :)
Well, I accept. But when some anti-smoker (who is supposed to be a fellow friend and FReeper), comes into the Free Republic Smoking Threads and has the urge to bash and trash fellow FReepers just because we enjoy a legal product, you can't blame us for being irate. We are tired of it!
Many times in here, I feel as if I fell through the rabbit hole and ended up in DU hell or worse.........the Yahoo ANTI smoking board. I never go there, btw. Too ugly.
But when my own people in Free Republic trash me, tell me I stink and I am addicted to a filthy habit, I lash out. Mostly from being confused and hurt that someone that is supposed to be on MY side is treating me this way.
I accept your apology. And I hope we can be good fellow FReeper friends from here on out!
Just please..............have a little more tolerance for us. We ARE all on the same side here. :)
Please read my post #468 to Melas. It could go for you as well.
Thanks so much!
It's a shame so many are misguided, but it makes you shine all the more.
Thank you for your very kind comment.
But government is there to help us conform our behavior to the good we already know is the right thing to do. It's not going to help much with a rebellious population that far outweighs the police force in numbers and fierceness to rebel in this or that given way or ways.
= = = =
I didn't realize I needed to make the logic steps more minute. My error.
The above is a statement noting that a police state WILL NOT WORK! I'd have thought that was obvious.
It's always such a delight when assumptions about me are askew by several galactic clusters' worth.
Backing and filling.
Once again, it was not necessary to make assumptions. You chose what you typed, in other words, you blatently chose how to represent yourself. Now that the representation you chose to put forth is seen for what it is you don't like it. If you would like a better representation, then be a little more selective in how you chose to represent yourself.
If it hasn't been clear that it's the action I dislike and not the person, then you have my apologies.
= = = =
imho and personal experience . . . taking great pains to word things strictly in terms of the behavior of smoking or even in terms of the results of the behavior of smoking on unwilling bystander victims . . . . all such makes little difference.
In my experience, the most fierce personhood personally viscious, assaultive, harsh, mean-spirited etc. attacks have always--always originated with the defenders of smoking. I don't know why--probably has something to do with the same psychodynamics that go into so fiercely justifying smoking. And, there seems to be 0.0000000% cando and insight about their doing so.
I also personally care for all individuals I come across. I wish none of them ill. Well, I would be happy for Shrillery to clean cesspools in Siberia but she's a rare case. And, I've been working harder and harder to try and insure that the caring comes across as much as whatever other points I'm trying to make. I do that particularly by talking about the behavior.
Doesn't matter. The shrill hostilities rage and flail about as though I were the devil incarnate anyway.
I understand that perspective.
I certainly don't want big government doing such.
By the same token, I would be upset with someone who claimed to love me and who did not at least a few times to several times [in some cases, many times] try to discourage me from self-defeating, self-destructive behaviors and addictions of any type.
Not caring, hatered, apathy, insensitivity etc. walk on by on the other side of the street.
Not caring. Not love.
And, typically, folks insisting on the right to their own unpleasant behaviors tend to spout things like: "Your freedom to do your own thing stops where my nose begins." But with smoking, that somehow suddenly or no longer applies. That gets annoying and then some.
Many of us have serious respiratory problems which even, in many cases, merely the smell of smoke on a smoker's clothing is sufficient to set us off. I don't advocate forcing smokers to change clothes before going out in public AT ALL. That would be extreme and more than a little silly. But it does give an insight into the problem many of us face. I've met very few smokers with much appreciation for such problems. I'd guess maybe they are a fraction of 1% of all smokers. That doesn't exactly warm the hearts of the unwilling victims.
Thanks for your measured toned post.
I very honestly do not want to bash any FREEPER over any issue.
I have as strong a feelings, however, about the horrors of smoking and their results for many unwilling victims as smokers have in defense of smoking.
But somehow, it seems that smoking and even anti-smoking threads are to treat smoking as a sacred sacrament or face the very viscious hostility of the smokers.
Sorry but I didn't realize that such an authoritarian edict had succeeded in becoming law on FR.
I stand by the assumptions point.
But I do wish to emphasize that while I'm as fierce against smoking and the fallout of it as smokers are in defense of it . . . I wish smokers health and the best of relationships. I'm glad we have every conservative on here possible. I don't consider any of them 2nd class citizens.
I also deplore big government.
I think social norms and social pressures should be enough to govern a long list of misbehaviors--most of the time, mostly, including smoking. When life-threatening issues become involved, I'm more willing for some limited government influence if there's no other way. I consider that a very mild to moderate position on such. It appears that smokers cannot conceive of any limitation on smoking as being mild or moderate.
I don't recall labeling any smoker any of a long list of harsh labels that have been assigned to me virtually from the beginning.
I have labeled smoking BEHAVIOR selfish. I don't know what better term to label a behavior that insists on it's own right at the health destruction, unwilling offense of another. If someone has a better, more PC word, I'll certainly be happy to use it, if it's accurate.
If smokers believe that children and other are still not unwillingly put at risk by selfishness regarding smoke, then I guess we live in very different areas. How can anyone of my perspective talk about such issues KOSHERLY, AGREEABLY? Doesn't seem to me, that there is an acceptable way unless one is championing fairly unfettered, unlimited smoking, hereon.
imho, of course.
BTW, could some smokers point out to me a shining example of a humble smoker's post to me? I think I may have missed it.
If I put a 50 foot long 2 X 12 plank on the ground and offered you $20 for each time you walked the length of it without falling off. How many times could/would you do it?
If I extended the same plank between two 50 story building tops...how many times could/would you walk it and for how much?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.