[Scott F.]

How are smokers treated in Mexico? Alcoholics are left to die...

Whats the matter? Can't handle a simple conceptual debate? Do you have to resort to innuendo because of your inability to think and reason on your own accord?

...maybe you are best off steering clear of the conversation

[Scott F.]

You know what?

I better stop posting here. This is absolutely going to end up in a flame war.

Sorry fellas, I'm done.

[Folsom]

Scott I'm not sure why you're saying that. It's an honest question. I don't appreciate your reply, as I'm not representing myself to be passing judgement on reasons that people do consume tobacco. In fact you might be surprised at how I view the choices.

 

[macrojack]

Here goes one opinion from one ex-smoker.

With the body of evidence available, and the high profile that evidence is given, I cannot see a cigarette smoker as anything less than a protracted suicide. Surely these individuals are fully aware of what they are doing to themselves and they choose to do it anyway.

Wishing you could quit is nonsense. It takes some guts, in light of the successful campaign to convince everyone how difficult it is, but anyone can do it by simply making a decision to do so. When I quit I deliberately left an open pack right on the television. They were in the room with me the whole time. No one was keeping me from lighting up except me. I had learned about my "triggers" and had made a firm decision to override the impulse when it struck. This I did, all the while reminding myself that I had already gone through the worst part and did not want to have to cover that ground again. And it was true. I learned in retrospect that the hardest thing about quitting was choosing the day to begin.

[Russell Dawkins]

Carcinogen is in reference to something that damages DNA I believe. However while nicotine may not do that, cellular death can influence other attributes that are related to cancer. 
Are you talking about AGE's ?

This is my notion of the definition of carcinogenic: "a substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue."

I don't know what AGE stands for (even after googling it).

[Folsom]

This is my notion of the definition of carcinogenic: "a substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue."

I don't know what AGE stands for (even after googling it).

Causing cancer requires DNA mal-scription, or RNA (as I understand). Essentially something goes awry that's the information for designation, and will signal for more production endlessly.

Pre-cancerous things differently in that they make the potential greater, but don't explicitly have any affect on DNA/RNA, or signalling. For example AGE's may either provider cancer cells with an attachable site, influence a system that prohibits cancer, block a system that works against cancer, or provide something for metabolism in replication. I'm not sure anyone knows at this point. But it's not a carcinogen per say. There's just a prevelance of it with cancer.

In mice they've discovered cancer will break off and float around, sometimes for awhile, before it runs into a site where it sticks and continues its activity. As far as I know it's not clear what makes it stay at a site, but perhaps AGE's are a possibility as they don't easily scrub out of the body.

AGE stands for advanced glycation end product. Yes, you have more s you age,  . Smoking directly increases them. They have an affect on cellular reception, organs, skin, etc.

From person to person the tolerance for types of AGE sources and affect vary. Slow acytaltion doesn't appear to have problems from AGE dietary affects from red meat, but in a fast person they can be devastating. The same is partially true in reverse too, with some things, but it's not nearly as significant as far as I'm aware.