DHTML Menu / JavaScript Menu Powered by Milonic
Already a member? Sign In

Village Journals help
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.

A smokers visit to the doctor.


I'm sure a heavy smoker knows that when he walks into a doctors office he is about to get 'That Talk' about his smoking habits.
Well this one Pakistani man decided to make a boring routine talk interesting.

Man walks in to the office stinking of smoke.
Dr:How much a day do you smoke?
Man: I don't smoke.
Dr: But you smell of smoke.
Man: I dissolve tobacco in water and rub it on my skin . It keeps the skin healthy.
(Dr at this has decided to ignore the last comment)
Dr: Have you ever thought of, or tried to quit smoking?
Man: Whats the point the day of judgement is about to
come any day.

True story.
 

Add Comments

 
Add
 

  Comments on this journal

Login to find out (April 29, 2006 at 8:30am)
Lol LM.Nice Joke.... A hypnotherapist for smokers, thats really interesting. I wonder what his success rate it. Maybe he needs to advertise him self to the GPs. That way we can refer pts....ofcourse only if he really works.
 
Login to find out (April 29, 2006 at 8:20am)
Saha...I knew you would come out with the stats..... People who die of heart attacks usually have multiple dis. at the same time. For example High cholesterol (due to fatty food) , Hypertention or Diabetics .
So yes the rate of death due to MI (heart attack)is higher than Lung Cancer , but there are multiple factors causing those MIs ,not JUST fatty foods. Smoking causes vascular disease thus is also included in as a cause of MI. Smoking does not only cause Lung cancer but also and cause COPD's and like I said before vascular disease as well. So it is hard to to come up with solid numbers to compare fattty foods with smoking.
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 12:45pm)
lol...well that is like saying...I may smoke and it may mean a 75% likelihood of deterioration of my health but if someone sticks there head underwater for long enough its 100% certain they will drown aha so there! ...(ie the other statistic is irrelevant!) ....whether its getting fat or whatever ....

Anyways ...yep a never ending argument ...I'd like to end this on an old joke I used to say when i first started cuttting down on smoking ....

friends : hows the cutting down to quitting going ?
me : great ...I only smoke after sex now ...
friends : cool
me : yep I'm down to 15 a day ......!!

boom boom!

hmm...ok ..I think that joke comes across much better when you tell it in person !!! :P
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 12:39pm)
By the way, kids, don't smoke! It's not cool and it's not clever. But it can be nice after a good meal, with the sunset painting your riverside restuarant a russet red.

Seriously, I'm not arguing it does no harm (that would be monkey talk!) - I'm arguing the risk is the same as many other things we enjoy doing. Like getting fat.
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 12:34pm)
Z, that model is indeed a proof not an investigation. Since all the other variables but one were assigned null values, can you guess which variable will have an effect, kids? Can ya?
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 12:31pm)
I guess I'm arguing along the lins of the final viewpoint you mention - the overall expectancies. Tobacco (or rather the tar it produces) is carcinogenic and so bad for your health. Proven. Agreed. A diet of food cooked with a lot of fat or ghee leads to coronoary issues and is bad for your health. Proven Agreed. Lots of calories and little exercise lead to heart disease and is bad for your health. Proven. Agreed. Being born black in America cuts your life expectancy. Proven . Agreed. These all seem like 'yeah, and?' statements to me.

So yes, I'm arguing that the only way to make sense of risk is to comapre it to other things with risky outcomes. You simply cannot calculate risk ina vacuum. Well, you can but the result is meaningless. So you need at least two events to assess risk meaningfully - and it turns out that smoking is of equal risk to obesity.
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 12:14pm)
Well...you dont get many (if any) scientific studies that factor into account every other possible eventuality ..how many times you seen a study about the likelihood of someone obese suffering a heart attack factored in with comparing it with the likelihood of a non obese persons chance of being run over by a bus ? ... *: . The bus part is irrelevant ...its whether or not being obese is healthy or not is whats is important .... same with smoking bud .... and to get that kind of data its the basic obese/non obese smoker/non smoker comparisons that are relevant ...taking into account any other factors that are relevant to smoking/obesity and removing those that are irrelevant ... you wouldnt get a good obese/non obese study if the person was obese and a smoker too many irrelevant variables ...unless you were doing a how much more likey are you to snuff it early if you are obese and a smoker survey ... :)
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 12:05pm)
talking science? ok, lets assume there are 10 variables, and 2 humans. 9 of the 10 variables can be constant (lets say, same value, 50, for both the human subjects)

{for all i=1 to 2,
for all j=1 to 9,
var. = 50;
}

Variable no. 10 can differentiate the effects of smoking on the human subjects. Assuming the more commonly held view of the effects of smoking by the world (i.e., it adversely affects health, which we represent as a penalty of -10), we come up with the following two equations:

v = 0;
v = -10;

Thus it has been now scientifically proven that all other factors being the same, the introduction of a tobacco-laden ingestive material deteriorates health.

Ofcourse this is considering the premise that ingesting tobacco is bad for your health .. which also has been proven in another scientific study. But then isnt that what we were tring to prove here? ....wow...

(H)
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 11:54am)
But taking all the other factors out is not the scientific way! You control for other factors, you don't ignore them! Otherwise you get a very skewed sense of reality - where the truth is just what you're testing for!
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 8:37am)
well....not if you take everything else out of the equation (the proper scientific way to do this!) ..... smoker versus non smoker..whats the stats that the smoker is more likely to die a horrible and early death suffer from a whole host of other smoking related afflictions, and affect all those around them including their own offspring ....... ??
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 8:27am)
A gree totally, LM - but then no amount of stats will save a dying non-smoker either so we're all in the same boat...!
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 8:23am)
ermmm.... as an ex smoker I used to say all the same kind of things ....but end of the day as i realised I was just kidding myself.... the hospital wards are full of people dying of lung cancer that used to say the exact same things too .... its easy to say it now whilst healthy but once its too late its too late, no amount of stats are gonna save a dying smoker .... its easy to say well its my choice and not anyone elses business, but it is ...passive smoking, the death of a partner/father/mother/close relative/ friend, children of smokers are likely to suffer from asthma and just suffer generally and take up smoking too .....

If anyone is interested I have the number of a recommended hypnotherapist in London..haven't used him myself but I have a friend that smoked 40 a day saw him once and hasnt touched a fag since ..(and its been a good few years) ......
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 6:14am)
i didn't have a ferrero rocher yesterday so have my time without chocolate too! but hey, u also like your chocs too!
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 5:46am)
And anything you find it difficult to give up can be described as an addiction. So girls could you h=give up chocolate today? No? Then you're addicted. I on the other hand can go for days without smoking (because some days I just don't feel like a smoke). I submit you are therefore more of an addict than me!
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 5:40am)
OKay, just checked my figures and I'm slightly out. They're pretty level pegging.

In the US (1990 figures), tobacco accounts for about 435,000 deaths, or 18.1 percent of the total. Poor diet and physical inactivity (obesity) were close behind and rapidly increasing, causing 400,000 deaths, or 16.6 percent.

If the trend continues, it will overtake deaths from smoking by 2010.
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 5:35am)
Actually Hrao, heart disease is a bigger killer than cancer. More people actually die of fatty foods than smoking.
 
Login to find out (April 28, 2006 at 5:05am)
yes fatty food is really bad hence i'm trying to cut down on all my kabobs!
 
Login to find out (April 27, 2006 at 8:34pm)
thats the funniest part they actually make u wanna light up
 
Login to find out (April 27, 2006 at 6:29pm)
lol so that movie makes you stop smoking but gets u started on stocking up on calories eh
 
Login to find out (April 27, 2006 at 6:05pm)
u people have to watch "THANK YOU FOR SMOKING"

the movie is hilarious and done so well that it actually makes sense and is funny at the same time.

am not saying it makes u wanna smoke but it sure makes u wanna get some popcorn and icee coke