Talk:Tobacco smoking/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Merge

The section "Methods of consumption" has been renamed and its subsections merged for the following reasons:

1. Length — each subsection consisted on average less than one paragraph with the exception of Pipe and Hookah; expansion is unlikely since a large degree of the responsibility of explaining each method of consumption is exported to the main article.
2. Overemphasis on non-essential points, the title and scope of this article is the practice or habit, subsections begin loose focus on this point and begins emphasizing the specific method of consumption.
3. Non-smoking type of consumption is not within the scope of this article, and may in fact be contradictory to the definition. It may be mentioned, however a section of its own places undue weight.
4. This section may be discussed in its own article (link provided), compatible under WP:SPINOFF and WP:SIZE.
5. A list, similar to that of Tobacco, coupled with prose providing background and linkage maybe the best solution.
6. No information was lost, much of the content may be found in the linked articles.

I'll add the demographics section, which would add background to the section Consumption, later — Prevalence of tobacco consumption is the source article. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Misspell Errors

Consumption

Methods

For more about the production of the argicultural product, see Types of tobacco, Cultivation of tobacco, Curing of tobacco, and Tobacco products

Gerrit Dou Image

The image of Gerrit Dou's self-portrait added by Tokerdesigner is good picture although I don't believe it's appropriate in the lead. Could you please explain (1) how this image is relevant and (2) where it would be appropriate, besides the fact that it's a picture of someone smoking? Of course the latter would be more important to an edit to the article. I would imagine it most appropriate in the section "History", but seems to be full. What is your take? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolute Statements in the Introduction

I changed the last paragraph of the introduction from

"During the early stages, smoking provides pleasurable sensations and thus serves as a source of positive reinforcement. After an individual has smoked for many years, the avoidance of withdrawal symptoms and negative reinforcement become the key motivations."

to

"Usually during the early stages, smoking provides pleasurable sensations, serving as a source of positive reinforcement. After some individual have smoked for many years, the avoidance of withdrawal symptoms and negative reinforcement become the key motivations."

I feel that smoking is a highly personal decision and that people smoke for many different reasons. Are people who only have a cigarette once in a while when out with good friends drinking really "avoiding withdrawl symptoms"? even if they have been repeating this behavior for years? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

smoke is good for you and you should try it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.25.162 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The history of smoking dates back to as early as 5000–3000 BC when the agricultural product began to be cultivated in South America Umm, I dont think America was discovered in 5000-3000 BC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.233.105 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

God how thick am yam? America existed before the scum that ruined it now arrived. 22:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

New (meta-analysis) studies, linking smoking with genetics

Hi, I came across these:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n5/abs/ng.573.html#/ http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n5/abs/ng.572.html#/ http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v42/n5/abs/ng.571.html#/

But don't have the time to add them to the article at the moment.

Can someone else try it ?

Talgalili (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1957 book as historical resource

The BMJ review says:

To smoke or not to smoke being the question of the day, Sir Compton Mackenzie's latest book, Sublime Tobacco (Chatto and Windus; 21s.), may well be regarded as the apologia of a lifelong addict. It has been written, the author says, "as a token of gratitude for the immense benefit I have received from tobacco and in complete certainty that I have not derived from it the slightest harm." This is a well-documented and illustrated history of tobacco. tohacco-smoking, and the tobacco trade from its introduction into Europe from America to its present position as an important source of revenue, both public and private. The text contains many quotations, ranging from James I's Counterblaste to Tobacco of 1604 to eighteenth-century rhymed advertisements and the anti-tobacco campaign of Dr. Solly in 1857. As a prologue Sir Compton relates the history of his own smoking life, from his first cigarette at the age of 4 1/2, through a variety of pipes, cigarettes, and cigars, to his present unrepentant addiction.

BrainyBabe (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "Smoking is the most common method of consuming tobacco, and tobacco is the most common substance smoked. The agricultural product is often mixed with other additives[9] and then pyrolyzed." Really? Pyrolysis is chemical decomposition at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. This would be a neat trick for any smoker to achieve without suffocating (humans, even smokers, require oxygen to live), not to mention requiring a lot of fancy equipment to first deplete the working fluid (i.e., atmosphere) in the vicinity of the tobacco product to be consumed of oxygen and then find a way (not involving combustion, as you've just depleted it from the vicinity of the tobacco) to raise the tobacco product's temperature to where it will begin to pyrolyze. I think the word you're looking for here is burned, not pyrolyzed, to produce smoke, a byproduct of combustion - hmm, wonder if that's why they call it smoking and not pyrolyzing...Wiki strikes again. Hi-yo, Silver! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article still uses this word. If I was a registered user I might try to change it. 74.2.191.66 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC) UNSIGNED

Use of Tobacco as Medicine

Can anyone find the source that suggests higher rates of tobacco smoking in schizophrenic people? It doesn't have to be a medical reference to the effectiveness of self medication, just an article that notes the phenomenon. Any other medical uses of smoking should be noted; like the tobacco billows delivered anally in the wild west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs)

I think the schizophrenia page already has a source which supports higher rates of addictive behaviors in this group. Lesion (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A review study from 2012 from the Center for Health Science, Menlo Park; for the potential neuroprotective effects of nicotine for parkinsons, the conclusion is it warrants further study. Wouldn't native american use of tobacco as medicine be important to add to the article as well to achieve NPOV? So until the clinical trials on cigarettes reach phase 4 in 10 years, cigarettes can't be prescribed by a physician correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs)

The Quik review is interesting and might be useful at Nicotine and/or Parkinson's disease if it's not already there, and maybe here. The interesting relationship is between nicotine and Parkinson's, really, not so much just tobacco smoke in general. I can't see how you'd possibly come to the conclusion that based on that paper you could support a mention of Native American use of tobacco for medical uses, as that review doesn't mention it at all. Is there a different source you're proposing for that content? I also don't see any use of that review article to support any sort of article content concerning physicians prescribing cigarettes. It may come to pass that nicotine patches may be prescribed for Parkinson's, but there's absolutely no support for the idea that they'd be prescribing cigarettes. Cigarette smoke contains hundreds of compounds besides nicotine, I can't possible imagine there would ever be a day physicians will be prescribing them for Parkinson's. Zad68 00:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor use of references

I couldn't continue to read this article after checking the sources for the following claim:

"The active substances trigger chemical reactions in nerve endings which heightens heart rate, memory, alertness, and reaction time."

The referenced study comprised sixteen male smokers which is a pathetically small candidate pool and in no way representative of the human species. There was also no control of non-smokers, so the above claim only applies to male smokers who are presently experiencing withdrawals from nicotine which easily accounts for poor performance prior to the re-administration of nicotine. The study in no way relates to the claims made and indeed the study clearly states that no significant impact on memory was measured in direct contradiction to the claim the above statement makes. I would say this statement is not only misleading but also dishonest as someone (probably a smoker) took the time to find a study which though it doesn't support the statement in the least looks to the casual reader "scientific" enough to not trigger the BS alarm.

The following would be more accurate:

"The nicotine in tobacco is physically addictive. Shortly after nicotine reaches the bloodstream via the lungs it begins to leave the bloodstream. As this occurs there are measurable impacts on heart rate, memory, alertness, and reaction time (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060821215918.htm). Further doses of nicotine administered through smoking, patches or nicotine gum can reverse these withdrawal symptoms temporarily(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2498936), or approximately three weeks of abstinence cause virtually all withdrawal symptoms to vanish completely and permanently. (ISBN 978-0-9744864-8-2.) 202.89.181.178 (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The toxicity of smoking

"Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism." — from the Wiki article on "toxicity" The Wiki artcle on the health effects of smoking offers plenty of evidence and makes it abundantly clear that tobacco smoke has a fairly high degree of toxicity. In short it's toxic. Tobacco for personal use is a toxic substance. Any article covering and aspect of tobacco production and use should make it clear that it is raised by and large for personal use, as so used is toxic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cigarette smoking

Smoking especially of cigaretts is one of the most common and important aetiological factors for bronchogenic carcinoma . This ahs been proved by various epidemiological studies and animal experiments.The risk of getting carcinoma is directly proportional to the quantity of tobacco consumed. It has bee shown that cigarettes contain many carcinogens which act either as initiators or promoters. Radioactive substance,carbon, polonium , and contaminants like arsenic and nickle have additional effects

It appears the that the real damage to lungs is caused by the particular phase of cigarette smoke . It is particulates which deposits on the carina between the dividing bronchi and bronchi oles, the common sites for the cancer . The gaseous phase may reach far into the alveoli. The influence of alveolar cancer is not higher to the smokers due to less carcinogenic effect of gaseous phase compared to the particulate phase. The direct toxic effect of smoking damages the mucocilliary apparatus and promotes infection, with recurrent cell desqumation and regeneration cycles. Thus chronic bronchitis caused by tobacco consumption i often complicated later by lung cancer.

Many retrospective and prospective studies have led to the following conclusion. 

1)The risk of dying from bronchial carcinoma increases with the extent of smoking and is highest for those who smokes cigarettes only. this risk decreases with filter tipped-cigar.If smoking is stopped it takes 15years fro a heavy smoker to equal the risk that a non-smoker faces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.27.94 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's a specific Wikipedia page on health effects of tobacco for this sort of material. Your contribution may be even more welcome if you can work on the English and provide appropriate references.Hypocaustic (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverse smoking

Not sure if this is the appropriate place, but consider adding content explaining what reverse smoking is please. Apparently it is common in south east Asia, and is a high risk from of smoking that is associated with unique medical conditions. Lesion (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Methods of consumption

An electronic cigarette is not a method of consuming tobacco. Duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.159.44.223 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's addiction

"During the Great Depression Adolf Hitler condemned his earlier smoking habit as a waste of money,".

Wasn't he forbidden to smoke by doctors because of his lungs who underwent gassing during WW1 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.120.156 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

W L Dudley

I don't think he had a clue of the nicotine, but often credited as the first to publish on the dangers of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoking was William Lofland Dudley. Not sure where in history to put more scientific matters; it's health but not quite 'public' health. Cake (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Radioactivity in tobacco and positive health effects link

I think two new additions need to be made to this article. First, most smokers do not know that farmers make tobacco radioactive by using cheap sulfur fertilizers containing polonium-210. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html

It also should should mention positive medical aspects of smoking like how schizophrenics use it to self medicate, lower alzheimers incidence and any other pertinent information. I believe a link to this article would work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco

Abotnick (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Effects on health

Shouldn't tobacco page be less green? Now it looks like being vegan... dunno... some smoker lungs pictures and so on... just beacause health effects is the most scientific thing one can say about tobacco...? And actually tobacco induces alzeimer, doesnt cure it (just in response to that guy who talked about good health effects)--131.175.28.130 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Smoking in India >75 % as per picture ?

It is 33 % per another wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.17.175 (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tobacco smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121112124840/http://books.google.com/books?id=&printsec=frontcover&dq=Smoking,+health+and+personality to https://books.google.com/books?id=&printsec=frontcover&dq=Smoking,+health+and+personality

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Is tobacco smoking addictive?

If it is, the intro should say so. Currently, it states this:

After an individual has smoked for some years, the avoidance of withdrawal symptoms and negative reinforcement become the key motivations to continue.

...which strikes me as a strangely roundabout way to say:

After an individual has smoked for some years, he or she becomes addicted.

GregorB (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually this describes physical dependence. Addiction is positive reinforcement. Dependence is negative reinforcement. Sizeofint (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

NIDA says nicotine is addictive:[1]

Most smokers use tobacco regularly because they are addicted to nicotine. Addiction is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and abuse, even in the face of negative health consequences. It is well documented that most smokers identify tobacco use as harmful and express a desire to reduce or stop using it, and nearly 35 million of them want to quit each year.

If that's so, it should be spelled out clearly in the intro. GregorB (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, nicotine causes both dependence and addiction Nicotine#Reinforcement_disorders. I'm not opposed to a statement saying as much so if you want to add something go ahead. We just don't want to mix up these concepts. Sizeofint (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

History

Walter Raleigh article says Raleigh was "well known for popularising tobacco in England," but gives no details. There must be sources for this. Sca (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

French Inhale

The French inhale page redirects here but there is no mention on the page of what that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.231.228 (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tobacco smoking/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 04:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the large amount of uncited content this article is a long way from meeting the WP:Verifiability criterion of good articles, and therefore is eligible for quick-fail. The nominator does not appear to be a major contributor to the article. Please make sure that all content is cited to reliable sources (WP:MEDRS for biomedical information) before renominating. Thanks. buidhe 04:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"The most genotoxic cancer causing chemicals in cigarette smoke"

Why is that table included? It is based on a single paper by Cunningham et al. All references given for the chemicals listed are primary sources (contrary to WP:MEDRS), and most only show mutagenic effects in mice, rats, or cell cultures. It's a big leap from observed mutagenic effects in animals and cell cultures to claiming these are "cancer causing chemicals". Some of the chemicals aren't classified as carcinogens by the IARC, EPA and other organisations.

• the first one listed, acrolein, is quite bad, but:

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has not classified acrolein as to its carcinogenicity. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that acrolein is not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans. The EPA has stated that the potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined based on an inadequate database. source

IARC classification: group 3 (The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans). source

• Or take Acrylonitrile, which has a PEL TWA in the US of 2ppm and a recommended exposure limit of 1 ppm. That REL (a level that NIOSH believes would be protective of worker safety and health over a working lifetime) is the equivalent of the acrylonitrile from about 500 cigarettes per day.
• isoprene, a gas produced by most plants, and by humans. The isoprene article even states it is the most abundant (measurable) hydrocarbon in exhaled breath of humans. A (non-smoking) adult weighing 70 kg exhales 17 mg, or the equivalent of 18 cigarettes, per day.

Perhaps (depending on how genotoxicity is defined) these chemicals are indeed the "most genotoxic chemicals", but most readers will interpret that as "the ones that cause the most cancers" (since that is what the text also claims: "... identify the most carcinogenic compounds in cigarette smoke"), and that is by no means established medical fact. The table is more likely to confuse and misinform readers than anything else. There's no reason why Cunningham's A novel application of the Margin of Exposure approach" should figure so dominantly in the article. Unless people can provide reliable secondary or tertiary sources supporting Cunningham's ranking, the table should be removed. I notice that nitrosamines otoh aren't even mentioned in the article... Prevalence 02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I deemphasised this source by turning the table into prose. Fences&Windows 15:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)