Which is more harmful?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If the vast majority of smokers were people who only smoked a cigar once in awhile, smoking wouldn't be such a problem. But that's not the case.

So far, I have yet to hurt anyone through my lack of moderation in drinking (other than the janitor in my old dorm I suppose).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does your own liver in a few decades time count?

[Alcon]

If the vast majority of smokers were people who only smoked a cigar once in awhile, smoking wouldn't be such a problem. But that's not the case.

So far, I have yet to hurt anyone through my lack of moderation in drinking (other than the janitor in my old dorm I suppose).

And there are plenty of people who smoke alone and don't hurt anyone but themselves.

If alcoholism were such a problem, I doubt you'd support a ban anyway.  Considering you're the fellow who said you'd proudly sell alcohol on an Indian Reservation.  'Cause it's awesome, right?

[David S]

If by "more harmful" you mean "more people have died from it", then tobacco is "more harmful", but overuse of both is linked to a large plethora of cancers and other undesirable conditions.  Neither are particularly healthy.

And if you include deaths by drunken driving in the category of "deaths due to alcohol", it's a real contest as to which has killed more people.

Quite true and alcohol has destroyed more far families than cigarettes. Drunks beating up their wives and kids, and losing their jobs,  are things that don't happen as a  result of cigarettes.

[WalterMitty]

If by "more harmful" you mean "more people have died from it", then tobacco is "more harmful", but overuse of both is linked to a large plethora of cancers and other undesirable conditions.  Neither are particularly healthy.

And if you include deaths by drunken driving in the category of "deaths due to alcohol", it's a real contest as to which has killed more people.

Quite true and alcohol has destroyed more far families than cigarettes. Drunks beating up their wives and kids, and losing their jobs,  are things that don't happen as a  result of cigarettes.

while i agree that alcohol can destroy families and careers, i dont buy the wife beating.

alcohol does not make someone beat their wife.  alcohol lowers your inhibitions.  but wife beaters are likely prone to violence even while sober.

[Ebowed]

You can't for cigarettes, because you'll eventually get addicted.

Do you have proof for this assertion?

There are literally millions of people who smoke socially (at parties, and the like), and will never become addicted.  Dumbass.

When was the last time someone had one too many cigarettes and gave their kid cancer with second hand smoke?

Don't smoke around your kids then.  Duh.

Let's not kid ourselves, tabacco breaks up families too, however, this is a not a let's leave and come back later, its a you're dead from smoking break up.  If you handle alcohol correctly it is not very harmful at all.

I agree alcohol isn't harmful if handled correctly.  I'm just questioning BRTD's (and yours') silly assertion that alcohol is always, entirely, less harmful than tobacco.

[John Dibble]

while i agree that alcohol can destroy families and careers, i dont buy the wife beating.

alcohol does not make someone beat their wife.  alcohol lowers your inhibitions.  but wife beaters are likely prone to violence even while sober.

Walter, there are people out there who are not violent when sober but are violent when drunk. Yeah, there are those who would beat their wives when sober (and let's face it, those beatings will be worse and more frequent when alcohol is involved), but there's also those that won't. Alcohol affects some people more than others, after all.

[Gabu]

The difference is you CAN eat a donut once in awhile. You CAN have a drink once in awhile. You can't for cigarettes, because you'll eventually get addicted. Which is the only reason people smoke anyway, they smoked in high school because they actually thought it was cool (even though I remember that one was far more likely to get picked on FOR smoking rather than for NOT smoking) and got addicted as a result.

The question is "which is more harmful?", not "which is more addictive?".  To answer that question, the only relevant facts is the number of deaths that are linked to the substance in question.  What is not relevant is things like "well, if you do it in moderation you'll be fine".  True as that may be (though it's probably equally true of cigarettes), it's irrelevant, because an awful lot of people don't do it in moderation.

You're welcome to consider an idealized world where everyone drinks only in moderation all you want, but any conclusions you'll reach from examining that world will be totally unrelated to anything found in the real world.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You can't for cigarettes, because you'll eventually get addicted.

Do you have proof for this assertion?

There are literally millions of people who smoke socially (at parties, and the like), and will never become addicted.  Dumbass.

If they start smoking on a regular basis, they will become addicted.

The majority of smokers are addicts. The majority of alcoholic drinkers are not. Tobacco is a an addictive substance as well, no one is immune to it, while alcohol is only addictive to certain people.

The difference is you CAN eat a donut once in awhile. You CAN have a drink once in awhile. You can't for cigarettes, because you'll eventually get addicted. Which is the only reason people smoke anyway, they smoked in high school because they actually thought it was cool (even though I remember that one was far more likely to get picked on FOR smoking rather than for NOT smoking) and got addicted as a result.

The question is "which is more harmful?", not "which is more addictive?".  To answer that question, the only relevant facts is the number of deaths that are linked to the substance in question.  What is not relevant is things like "well, if you do it in moderation you'll be fine".  True as that may be (though it's probably equally true of cigarettes), it's irrelevant, because an awful lot of people don't do it in moderation.

You're welcome to consider an idealized world where everyone drinks only in moderation all you want, but any conclusions you'll reach from examining that world will be totally unrelated to anything found in the real world.

Not drinking in moderation as I said though is not necessarily harmful. Don't get behind a car wheel and you'll just end up puking a lot an passing out and feeling lousy the next morning.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What exactly do you think that "drinking in moderation" is?

[Gabu]

Not drinking in moderation as I said though is not necessarily harmful. Don't get behind a car wheel and you'll just end up puking a lot an passing out and feeling lousy the next morning.

Not necessarily harmful (in the short term)?  Yes.  Has been known to be harmful in thousands of cases every single year?  Yes.

The fact of the matter is that removing the alcohol from the equations of drunk driving, cirrhosis, cancers related to alcohol consumption, and other such problems, will remove the problems themselves.  Thus, it is not unfair to say that alcohol caused those problems.  That alcohol does not always cause such problems, and that in some cases the problems were also due to poor judgment (such as driving while drunk) is irrelevant.  You asked "which is more harmful?"  These are some of the kinds of harm that alcohol causes.  You are arguing something entirely different than the subject of this topic.

And alcohol's lesser addictive qualities to cigarettes is also irrelevant.  You can argue that the problems due to alcohol are due to poor choices one makes, but the same could be argued about cigarettes (the poor choice in that case being starting to smoke in the first place).  They're all about poor choices; the only difference is when the choices were made and what the choices were.  And it's not as if being addicted means that you are then bound to smoke for the rest of your life.  People can and do quit smoking every year; thus, not quitting could also be counted as a poor choice people make.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What exactly do you think that "drinking in moderation" is?

I'd say not getting to the point where you are too intoxicated to drive.

Not drinking in moderation as I said though is not necessarily harmful. Don't get behind a car wheel and you'll just end up puking a lot an passing out and feeling lousy the next morning.

Not necessarily harmful (in the short term)?  Yes.  Has been known to be harmful in thousands of cases every single year?  Yes.

The fact of the matter is that removing the alcohol from the equations of drunk driving, cirrhosis, cancers related to alcohol consumption, and other such problems, will remove the problems themselves.  Thus, it is not unfair to say that alcohol caused those problems.  That alcohol does not always cause such problems, and that in some cases the problems were also due to poor judgment (such as driving while drunk) is irrelevant.  You asked "which is more harmful?"  These are some of the kinds of harm that alcohol causes.  You are arguing something entirely different than the subject of this topic.

And alcohol's lesser addictive qualities to cigarettes is also irrelevant.  You can argue that the problems due to alcohol are due to poor choices one makes, but the same could be argued about cigarettes (the poor choice in that case being starting to smoke in the first place).  They're all about poor choices; the only difference is when the choices were made and what the choices were.  And it's not as if being addicted means that you are then bound to smoke for the rest of your life.  People can and do quit smoking every year; thus, not quitting could also be counted as a poor choice people make.

Just wondering, are you just playing devil's advocate or did you actually vote for alcohol?

Here's an analogy I'll give to the type of argument you're using: Cars have killed more people than nuclear weapons. Thus cars are obviously more harmful than nuclear weapons.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah, here's proof tobacco is worse. Thanks Canada:



http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/label-etiquette/graph/citydies-villemeurt9_e.html

[7,052,770]

Ah, here's proof tobacco is worse. Thanks Canada:



http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/label-etiquette/graph/citydies-villemeurt9_e.html

Dear tobacco apologists:
Checkmate.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ah, here's proof tobacco is worse. Thanks Canada:



http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/label-etiquette/graph/citydies-villemeurt9_e.html

playing devil's advocate here, but:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't you being a hypocrite?

Anyways, I dont think each substance's respective addictiveness is irrelevant. I think if something harmful is addictive, it makes it more harmful. It takes a lot of alcohol consumption to become addicted, and not so much for cigarettes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gabu was arguing that even if alcohol can be used responsibly that doesn't mean anything if it's killed more people than tobacco. But if tobacco has killed more there isn't really an argument. I agree with you on the addiction point too.

[Beet]

Smoking is more harmful from the perspective of both the individual and society, for different reasons. From the individual's perspective, you are much more likely to become addicted to smoking. From society's perspective, more years of life in the aggregate are lost to smoking than alcohol. Both are susceptible to causing harm to others (second-hand smoke and impaired judgment) although the latter can be argued as quantitatively worse because it can be sudden and unavoidable. For these reasons, smoking is generally regulated more strictly than alcohol (with the exception of driving), and a smaller proportion of the population smokes.

It is interesting to note that there is a controversy over the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S. In 2004, the CDC reported that 400,000 excess deaths were caused by poor diet and lifestyle in 2000, up from 300,000 in 1990. In that same year the number of excess deaths caused by smoking was about 435,000. The CDC later revised their numbers to 365,000 by poor diet and lifestyle. However, in recent years the rate of smoking has been declining obesity rates have been rising, so it is possible that the two measures crossed one another at one point or will soon. The CDC continues to maintain that smoking is the leading preventable cause of death, using data from 1997-2001.

[Gabu]

Ah, here's proof tobacco is worse. Thanks Canada:



http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/label-etiquette/graph/citydies-villemeurt9_e.html

In looking it up, yes, it is apparently true that there are more deaths due to smoking than to alcohol.  So if that's your only metric, then yes, smoking is more harmful.  Although this doesn't include anything relating to homes that have been broken through alcohol - no one has ever beat or abused a loved one because they smoked earlier in the day.

I still don't really know what your overall point is, though.  If something is less harmful than something else, that doesn't make it not harmful.  Burglary is less harmful than murder; should we not worry about it as a result?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's justification basically for why I love alcohol and hate tobacco.

[Gabu]

It's justification basically for why I love alcohol and hate tobacco.

Hitting my toe with a hammer is probably less painful than hitting my face with a hammer.  That does not mean that I like it.

[Beet]

It's justification basically for why I love alcohol and hate tobacco.

Kind of what I expected. Just because you hate tobacco doesn't give you a free pass to abuse alcohol, nor does it make it more healthy.

On this forum, due to demographics, I suspect there are very few smokers but quite a few drinkers. Disdain of tobacco can easily be an excuse to feel superior to (mostly poorer, rural people) when you do not have a good diet/healthy lifestyle (see above), or as a young person engage in risky behaviors while drinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4232703.stm

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Put it this way, overuse of either is very bad.

My father was a heavy smoker and died at 46.

I hate hate hate hate smoking, most people can drink safely - I don't think any such thing exists for smoking.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Tobacco - alcoholic drinks have benefits.  Tobacco isn't going to help you.