Cigarettes Start Giving You Cancer Within Minutes, Not Years

It doesn’t take years for smoking to start the cancer-making process in your body, but minutes, according to a new study in the Chemical Research in Toxicology.

The study looked at polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are believed to be one of the major likely inciters of cancer in smokers. Researchers looked at how PAH was metabolized by the smokers’ bodies, and found it was quickly transformed into diol epoxides.

These chemicals are mutagenic and carcinogenic, which means they damage and alter DNA and are directly involved in causing cancer. This process only took 15-30 minutes. Which means that death sticks start living up to their name in less than half an hour.

“The results clearly demonstrate immediate negative health consequences of smoking,” wrote the researchers, “which should serve as a major warning to anyone contemplating initiating tobacco use.”

Immediate Consequences of Cigarette Smoking: Rapid Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Diol Epoxides [Chemical Research in Toxicology via BBC]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Alvis says:

    And teenagers will listen to this and not all the other reports of health risks.. why?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      You’re looking for an article about child psychology.

      This one involves biology.

      • Alvis says:

        Responding to “which should serve as a major warning to anyone contemplating initiating tobacco use.”

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          To which effective methods to accomplishing said goal were not discussed nor researched.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          That has nothing to do with teenagers. Plenty of people start smoking in adulthood.

    • NumberSix says:

      It might as a teenager can understand negative effects over the course of a few minutes. They hear “years” and just assume that they can bail out of the habit later with no ill effects.

  2. ALP5050 says:

    “where is that p*ssy cancer?!” -The Russell crowe show

  3. nbaptist says:

    If this is true then how come were not all dead yet?

    My parents both smoked, according to their so call statics nearly everyone on earth should all ready be dead!

    Just another government funded mass histeria media scare tatic!

    Heres a good question those so called experts WHATS REALLY IN OUR DRINKING WATER? Bust then again you don’t really want to know the truth anyway!

    • AstroPig7 says:

      Are you being sarcastic or can you really not read?

    • HighontheHill says:

      Wow, overreact much?

      What is in your water?

      • nbaptist says:

        The list of know carcinogenic substances that are allowed in drinking water makes the list of whats in cigerette smoke look puny!

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Not really sure what a “know carcinogenic substance” is.

        • varro says:

          Then teenagers will go behind the bleachers shotgunning Arrowhead Reds…

        • shizwipe says:

          It’s not how big the list is, but the ppm of each contaminant. With drinking water, the actual amount of carcinogens that a person would ingest is much smaller than than the amount of a person gets from smoking. Also, regardless of the wild chemicals that can be in cigarettes, when you smoke, you are: burning carbon material, creating carbon monoxide and inhaling it. The amount of carbon monoxide alone that you inhale without the chemicals has been proven to lead to cancer. That’s not restricted to cigarettes; if you work in any field where you inhale burned up carbon matter all the time, the risk of lung cancer skyrockets. Also, the amount of carbon monoxide created depends on the temperature at which you are burning the matter. So, even though light cigarettes tout that fact that they have less nicotine, they actually burn at a higher temperature and create more carcinogenic material than regular cigarettes; you actually increase your risk of cancer by smoking lighter cigarettes.

          I agree with Loias; do your research before you open your yapper about how it’s a government conspiracy.

        • redwall_hp says:

          Yeah, you get a boatload of contaminants from crap people have dumped down their drains, too. Prescription drugs and birth control pills, for instance.

          I’m glad I have well water…

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Individual results may vary.

      But the anecdotal results of millions of people combined are what we “statistical data.”

      Also, research cancer. You clearly have no understanding how it works.

      • nbaptist says:

        “But the anecdotal results of millions of people combined are what we “statistical data.” Also, research cancer. You clearly have no understanding how it works.”

        How cancer works is not the problem, the problem is what causes cancer! No one has any real understanding of what causes it, If they did there would be a cure!

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          They do understand what causes cancer, just not cancer is formed.

          Cancer can occur even under normal life experiences. There is no “cure” for cancer. Even if we avoid all cigarettes, alcohol, coca-cola, and ate all organic foods, people would die from cancer.

          Again, do some research.

        • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

          So we don’t know what causes AIDS, either or there’d be a cure, right?

          Or concussions. Or paralysis. Or radiation sickness.

          I mean, there’s no cure for those, we must not know what causes them, right?

          Get an education. Read a book, maybe your grammar will improve. Dumbass.

          • cbutler says:

            I almost went to town on you after your statement when I briefly misread your spelling of “Dumbass”. Lol

        • Powerlurker says:

          The problem with talking about what causes cancer, is that cancer isn’t one single thing. There are hundreds of different cancers that all have different causes and methods of formation. Asking why we haven’t cured cancer is about as meaningful as answering why we haven’t cured disease.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          There’s no cure for the common cold, either, and yet we know exactly what causes that. Just because we know doesn’t exactly mean we know how to fix it. Likewise, just because we aren’t entirely sure doesn’t mean we can’t be confident and take steps to mitigate the risk we know exists. Studies that identify when carcinogens start to harm the body are important because it gets us closer to understanding the interactions between the chemicals and the body.

        • Coyote says:

          The issues isn’t that we don’t know what causes it. The cause of cancer is tissue and cells being damaged by toxic and downright foreign matter entering our bodies. The issue is that EVERYTHING in this world we live in is foreign. There’s also the issue that our bodies evolved to live at most 50 years, and within the past couple centuries we have doubled that, prolonging the lifespan has a tearing effect on our biology and cancer is natural selections way of correcting that.

        • jebarringer says:

          No, Loias is right, you clearly don’t know what cancer is or how it works. You should like you think cancer is one specific thing, when it’s really more of a category. And we do know what causes certain types of cancers; you know when something is classified as a carcinogen? That means that it has been shown to cause cancer.

    • nbaptist says:

      Overreact? NO again it is “Just another government funded mass histeria media scare tatic”!

      If you knew what was in the touted clean water you get from your tap or jut about any tap anywhere in the world today you would ask yourself why are they constantly jumping up and down, hollering and screaming about smoking?

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        “This study was supported by Grant CA-92025 from the National Cancer Institute. Gas chromatography−mass spectrometry was carried out in core facilities of the Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grant CA-77598.”

        Not the government.

        • RvLeshrac says:

          So an organization with a vested interest in the subject sponsors a study of the subject, and pays another organization with a vested interest in the subject to perform the study of the subject.

          I think I’ll wait for the replication.

    • unsmith says:

      ” If this is true then how come were not all dead yet? My parents both smoked, according to their so call statics nearly everyone on earth should all ready be dead!”

      … because the research indicates that the metabolization of carcinogenic byproducts takes 15-30 minutes, not that it will KILL YOU in 15-30 minutes. Also, not everyone who gets cancer dies.

      • says:

        And not everybody who is exposed to a carcinogene develops cancer.

        Why is it that the media always tries to condense the most complex processes and problems down to 1 or 0?

        • Coyote says:

          Because the media has no concept of portions, or that small amounts of carcinogens may actually make you healthier. Of course this statement isn’t backed by any research or studies at all.

          But there is a major issue with media only showing 2 sides of EVERY issue. Never is there a middle ground, if we would realize that not every smoker gets cancer and not every cancer patient is a smoker, there are infinite variables in ones life that determines what diseases, illnesses, injuries we get. But no, either it kills you or gives you a 2 hour erection, because really that’s all anyone ever wants out of life. Or so the media think.

      • Freightshaker says:

        @ unsmith: …”Also, not everyone who gets cancer dies.”
        Well, …they do eventually. No?

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      You remind me of the guy in Dr. Strangelove who obsessed over the conspiracy of the flouridation of water. You’re not as funny as he was though.

    • Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

      Lib’rul. You forgot, Lib’rul.

    • Clyde Barrow says:

      I agree. My uncle, who passed away in 2008, smoked from the age of 13 up to his death at 86 and didn’t die of smoking. This study probably has some merit but it seems to be more tied in with the anti-smoking mantra than stating data that would be substantial and actually be beneficial. Every year there seems to be a new study that comes from new data that makes it more and more dangerous to do something as though we’re all doomed. Enough is enough.

      I view these studies as being highly suspicious:

      1. New study show “this action” is more dangerous that we previously thought.
      2. This study gives the gov’t reason to implement new regulations.
      3. New regulations means more money for the gov’t.

    • jebarringer says:

      Well, to completely blow your ideas out of the water… I’ve actually done studies on tap water, where I analyzed it for every component. This isn’t just “swishing in a test tube”, this is running it through a gas chromatographer using a few different filters, so ANYTHING that’s in it would show up on the spectra. We then compared it to the “official” contents as released by the water authority. Know what? They matched up within error, and absolutely NOTHING unusual / unexpected was found. So yeah, I can say I know what’s in my damn tap water. And based on your gross misunderstanding of that simple topic, I can hardly expect you to grasp the basic meaning of this study. Go back to your tin foil world, little man.

  4. UltimateOutsider says:

    Scary. It won’t change a thing, but scary.

  5. Red Cat Linux says:

    I thoroughly hate cigarette smoking. Aside from the instant allergic misery caused by the assault on my sinuses, I hate the stink, the feeling that I have to fumigate my clothing if I have to spend any length of time in an enclosed space with a smoker. I am the Princess and the Pea in any hotel room that has ever been smoked in. Ever.

    Even I think this study stretches reality vs. science vs. human nature really far. Let’s say their findings are 100% true. People smoke for years without coming down with actual cancer. These same people are not going to read this study and have an epiphany and swear off the stuff and embrace a new smoke free life because of it.

    • redwall_hp says:

      I get a lot of books from the local library. (It’s fairly sizable and pretty much anything I look for, aside from some programming-related books, is available either on location or via inter-library loan.) It’s disgusting how many of the books in the Popular Fiction room smell like cigarette smoke.

      • Laughing-man says:

        Try working in the library AV department on a hot summer day. Cracked open a DVD case and the most repulsive smells will come out. Everything from cheap perfume to beer, urine, marijuana, hobo stench, and tobacco.

    • Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

      Like George Burns….if this study is factual….then that man should have been dead decades ago as his body should have been solid cancer.

  6. APFPilot says:

    “…are believed to be one of the major likely inciters…” does that ever sound like a hedge.

  7. RubyRedJess says:

    News at 11…smoking causes scurvy – ARE YOUR CHILDREN SAFE?

  8. nbaptist says:

    “It doesn’t take years for smoking to start the cancer-making process in your body, but minutes”

    So now for the really big unanswered question:


    Answer: THEIR NOT SURE!

    Just another government funded mass histeria media scare tatic!

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Who’s “NOT SURE” are talking about here?

      Who is “THEIR” and why are we talking about their “NOT SURE?”

      If you’re going to use caps, use proper grammar.

    • SuperSnackTime says:

      “Just another government funded mass histeria media scare tatic!”


      • unsmith says:

        He likes to keep posting that instead of understanding that this study wasn’t funded by the government… it was done by the University of Minnesota.

    • WhoLikesPie? says:

      Are you still posting… seriously, do a tad bit of research into what cancer is and how it becomes an issue within the body then come back and post in all caps. Or just read the third paragraph again. Also, it’s “they’re” not “their” unless you mean that a specific group’s object isn’t sure.

      Please take your uneducated self down a notch and stop with your babel.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      Free Republic is that way. *points to door*

    • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

      Sweet god, who let you out of LGF?

    • Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

      Well, he/she is some what correct. Smoking does not cause cancer…it contributes to cancer. We all have certain amounts of cancer in us from birth to death. I’m not saying smoking is good…just the wording is a bit wrong.

  9. joshwillis says:

    Damn, this post reminds me that I’m almost out of Luckies…

  10. KrispyKrink says:

    This is why I prefer to suck on the tailpipe of my car.

    • Gramin says:

      Aside from possible burns, it’s actually safer to smoke on the tailpipe of your car. Those emissions are significantly more regulated than those that come from smoking.

      • says:

        That may be but modern catalytic converters tend to break particles down even more creating very fine particular matter that gets into the lungs and seems to be one cause for lung cancer.

        There is a reason why the EU put limits on how much fine particular matter is allowed before they require the authorities to call a driving ban.

        Smoking may smell bad, but at least you can easily avoid it because of it. Modern exhaust systems work by and large on: “Out of sight (and smell), out of mind.”

      • evnmorlo says:

        If they’d only regulate the emissions from cigarettes they could make them perfectly safe

  11. Cosmo_Kramer says:

    File this under “duh”? Did anyone ever believe the chemical processes that cause cancer to result from cigarette smoking actually occur years after you start smoking? Obviously that happens while the chemicals are still in your body – immediately after you smoke.

    That doesn’t change the fact that you’re far more likely to get cancer from years of significant smoking than from occasionally smoking a cigarette.

    I think people are likely to misinterpret this article.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      I think you misunderstand. Until this point they have not determine the timeline. Since many people smoke years before cancer emerges, it was theorized it took years. The fact that it takes 30 minutes is a surprise to the scientific community (even if not to pre-cognisant individuals like yourself).

      It’s still breakthrough research.

      • Me - now with more humidity says:

        Or not.

        I seem to recall some “breakthrough” research about vaccines and autism. Until there are more studies to confirm, take it with a grain of salt. And in a few months, there will be a study saying that it takes exactly 2.3 years at x number of cigarettes a day. Might be true in all cases. Might not.

        (BTW, I do NOT smoke cigarettes)

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Isn’t that the definition, or one of them, for breakthrough? It’s breaking ground.

      • unsmith says:

        I think the key word here is “emerges.” Many people have cancer right now and don’t know it. You aren’t termed as “having cancer” until you’ve been diagnosed, and in all likelihood have actually had it and been suffering from it for quite some time.

        So I agree with you that it’s fairly groundbreaking.

      • fortymegafonzies says:

        They’re not saying that cancer develops in a few minutes, they’re only saying that carcinogenic chemicals are produced within that time frame and can be measured in the blood. For a cell to become cancerous, there really needs to be sort of a perfect storm of mutations which disable certain protective mechanisms and over-express reproductive mechanisms — a process that usually takes quite a long time. In other news, grilled meat and veggies are swimming with the exact same chemicals, which result from organic material being burned or charred.

      • DEVO says:

        Reading your posts, you seem like a real mean spirited person.

  12. Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ) says:

    Today is one hell of a red-letter day for Consumerist. We got a post on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

    Let’s see posts on hookers, drugs, and Double Downs and we would have covered everything fun.

  13. Hoss says:

    I can NOT believe I let my subscription to Chemical Research in Toxicology Journal expire.

  14. nutbastard says:

    The odds of a lifelong smoker developing lung cancer is approximately 10 times the rate for lifelong nonsmokers.

    1.4% of nonsmokers develop lung cancer.

    14% of smokers develop lung cancer.


    86% of smokers do not.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Good data to review. Does smoking increase the risk of any other cancers? That would be an important factor.

      • nutbastard says:

        “Smoking… also results in various types of cancers of the larynx or voice box, upper throat or pharynx, liver, stomach, pancreas, mouth, nose, kidney, cervix and bladder and also some kinds of leukemia. Smokers are seven times more susceptible to these cancer types than when compared with non smokers.”

        However these cancers are less common than lung cancer to begin with.

      • RvLeshrac says:

        If you have a 14% chance of lung cancer and a 10% chance of esophageal cancer, that doesn’t mean you have a 24% chance of getting cancer. The incidence rate of each individual cancer doesn’t matter in the slightest, what matters is the *aggregate* chance of *any* terminal cancer.

        • pythonspam says:

          No, but it would mean that your chance of getting neither is 77.4% so your chance of getting at least one of them is 22.6% and your chance of getting both is approximately 1.4%.
          Although to be fair, the only thing I learned in statistics is to not play the lottery when the cash-option jackpot was less than ~$450Mil, because even if there is a single winner, there is still a negative expection of return.

    • Hoss says:

      I think your username says it all

    • denros says:

      Phwew, good thing lung cancer is all smokers have to worry about. Empha-wah?

    • seanhcalgary says:


      Cancer isn’t everything. COPD, poor circulation, inability to walk up stairs without losing your breath, etc.

      Not to mention the addiction. Really? Do smokers really enjoying having their lives dictated by a plant? Giving up your freedom and self control just to avoid withdrawals? That sounds like a horrible life.

      • haggis for the soul says:

        Not to mention the total moneysuck. Imagine what one could do with the price of two cartons of cigarettes a week, as expensive as they’ve gotten. That’s a lot of Double Downs.

        • Saltpork says:

          2 cartons a week?
          That’s 20 packs of cigarettes a week.
          Let’s be nice and round it up to 3. 3 packs a day.
          Most smokers do not smoke that much. 60 cigarettes a day is a lot. To get that into 24 hours you would have to chain smoke all day.

  15. nutbastard says:

    “which should serve as a major warning to anyone contemplating initiating tobacco use.”

    Nobody “contemplates initiating tobacco use”.

    At many points in the average young persons life, they will be offered a cigarette. Some say yes immediately, some hold out for years before trying them, and some never try them at all. But there is no group of people in the world less concerned about their health, and more deluded about how much self control they actually possess than teens.

    No one contemplates it, the situation comes up and you either go for it or you dont, and regardless of which way you go it’s likely that that decision is driven by pure impulse.

  16. rubicthecube says:

    Meh, It’s only my senile years.

  17. El_Fez says:

    But, but – According to this nationwide survey:

    more Doctors smoke Camels than any other Cigarette!

  18. Karenpuppy says:

    Cancer goes with my angst.

  19. seanhcalgary says:

    ITT: Smokers in denial.

  20. JManBrody says:

    I used to develop detectors for PAH compounds, Benzene, EthylBenzene, Toluene, Xylene, benzo(a)pyrene… These compounds are produced by the combustion of plants and such. They are also a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, and just about anything that can burn. Cigarettes cause cancer for the same reason that commuting in a large city does.

    • says:

      Pssst. Cars aren’t a problem, you can’t smell them or see the exhaust so clearly nothing bad comes out of the tail pipe.

  21. says:

    “which are believed to be one of the major likely inciters of cancer in smokers.”

    Is that your writing or theirs? “believed, likely” does not sound like the author really knows anything about it. It reads more like a wild (though maybe educated) guess.

    And yeah, obviously you just need one bit of carcinogene at the right place and the right time and you’re toast.

  22. Draw2much says:

    My friend knew all the health risks and still smoked for years. She even started while still in her teens. Then she decided to be a Funeral Director and went into college for that. When she told me she stopped smoking I ask her why.She said, “Well, I embalmed a smoker* recently. After that, any time I went to smoke, all I could think of was what that person’s innards looked like from years of smoking. I just couldn’t justify the habit.”

    I’ve never gotten into smoking myself. Could never stand the smell. On top of that, most of my family has allergies. Just walking past a smoker will often put them into fits of coughing. :-/

    *Obviously referring to a dead person who smoked while living. :P

    • sprybuzzard says:

      Seriously. We were in the cadaver lab one time and got to compare a smoker’s lungs and a non-smoker’s lungs. Certainly neither looked pleasing being embalmed, but the lumps of black tissue of the smoker’s lungs were disturbing.

  23. ThinkerTDM says:

    It’s amazing how many stupid people there are out there. Cancer is not the thing you have to worry about. It’s the other things, like decreased pulmonary function and blood vessel damage. Cancer is just icing on the cake!
    You ever see someone who smokes try to walk up stairs? Or how cold their hands are?
    Doesn’t really matter to me, as we are all going to die. But smokers will be slow and excruciatingly painful. The more painful the better.

    • says:

      “Doesn’t really matter to me, as we are all going to die. But smokers will be slow and excruciatingly painful. The more painful the better.”

      You may want to go and visit an old people’s home some time. Usually the “healthy” are the ones that have long and painful deaths ahead of them.

      Got a terminal illness? They probably pump you so full of drugs that you’ll be floating TO the pearly gates.

  24. halo969 says:

    Perhaps someone can answer this without resorting to calling me an idiot, because I’m being serious. I live in a townhome between two smokers. I don’t ever smell the smoke, so does that mean it has dissipated enough not to affect me at all? They say second-hand smoke kills, but is that only if you’re close enough to smell it? And what about if you work with someone whose cubicle is directly behind yours and reeks from cigarettes when they come back from a smoke break? Could that affect my health too? I sometimes wonder…

    • says:

      Do you live in the city? You’re probably a higher chance of developing all kinds of illnesses from all the cars and noises around you.

      The “war on the smoker” is somewhat cute when at the same time the way bigger killer (cars, both directly and indirectly) are happily ignored.

      If you’re that worried about second hand smoke, move.

  25. echovictorecho says:

    Good to know it’s not a question of “and if I die of cancer when I’m 80 I don’t care/Who the hell wants to be 90 anyway?”

    Trust this confirmed smoker: anyone who’s been so addicted that they’ve tried and failed to quit wishes they could just go back to the day they first lit up and say “no.” Every cigarette of the half pack a day I smoke I think, “I will regret this one day, and maybe soon.” I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’ve dissected black-lace smoker’s lungs and gone out for a smoke ten minutes later. Addiction overrides rational survival instincts and everything else in the name of a hit.

    I read in a highly scientific Stephen King book that nicotine is four times more addictive than heroin; how addictiveness is supposedly quantified, I have no idea. I believe it. If heroin were as massive and historically central an industry as tobacco, they’d legalize that too.

    In conclusion, this study is fascinating, but I’d be shocked if reading it caused one person quit smoking.

  26. kaltkalt says:

    Bullshit. I don’t care what this “study” says, it’s a load of crap and unverifiable on it’s face. Starts causing cancer within minutes? Absolutely no way to test that, let alone verify it. BULLSHIT. This is faith-based science, no different from intelligent design. Just ignore it. And no, I didn’t say cigarette smoking is safe. So don’t accuse me of saying something I didn’t say.

    Cigarettes MAY cause cancer, and they DO increase the RISK of cancer. That’s it. Any statement more specific than that is junk science.

    • seanhcalgary says:

      No, you idiot, the study says that smoking causes genetic damage within minutes, not cancer. Over time, that genetic damage can lead to cancer.

      • u1itn0w2day says:

        I guess the question to ask can genetic damage be repaired?

        • says:

          Yes, your body does this all the time. If not, we’d all be dying of genetic mutation.

          There is a lot of resilience in the genome. We know roughly as much about that than we know about the causes of cancer.

  27. Jane_Gage says:

    Cancer crops up in the body all the time. Most of the time the cells are programmed to undergo apoptosis, or the immune system weeds them out. But sure, keep sucking on the things.

  28. HogwartsProfessor says:

    I’m glad I quit finally. Although if the zombie apocalypse happened I guess it would be all right to take it up again.

    • EtherealFlame says:

      In that case you can slide me a pack too while we cleaned and loaded our guns while watching the youngins hose the zombie bits off the front porch!

  29. TardCore says:

    Duh. So does laying in the sun, eating meat and dozens of other unhealthy choices we all make.

  30. anduin says:

    well that sucks, while I’ve been sampling in cigars and not cigarettes, this isn’t exactly comforting. I think it’s time to cut back to 1 a week.

  31. edcrowle says:

    Well, I’ve already smoked more than 20 minutes of my life. I might as well continue since I probably have cancer.

  32. Jimmy37 says:

    More hokey “science’.
    The body has built-in cleansing mechanisms that mitigate influences.

  33. DeepHurting says:

    Woah! Wait a minute! Smoking is BAD for you?
    Why wasn’t I told this before!?
    I thought they had vitamin C in them and stuff. (Thank you, Dennis Leary)

  34. Trencher says:

    I call BS on this.

  35. bdgbill says:

    Why are people still wasting time and money researching the negative health effects of cigarettes?

    WE GET IT ALREADY! Your very first cigarette will make your teeth fall out, your lungs go black and your cock permanently soften. You will smell bad and nobody will like you. Smoking is the most uncool thing anyone could possibly do. If you smoke in public you are LITERALLY KILLING THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU. Every smoker wastes enough money every year to buy a Ferrari and a vacation home in Malibu. The children of smokers have no other thoughts than the looming death of their parents due to smoking etc…etc……etc.

    We don’t require any more information on this subject. Go cure Lupus or something.

  36. jenesaisrien says:

    It might be interesting to poll how many of the commenters are smokers, sans judgement, just the facts.
    Could it be that there is a teeny tiny bit of denial/resistance over reaction to the repetitive message about tobacco’s negative health effects? Might feel a bit like nagging or awakening that awful guilt stuff we are loathe to feel. I would include myself in that.