Hey all,

I go to a singing group (that puts on shows to raise money for cancer charities) but bar 3 of us, everyone smokes. Bit ironic, eh?

So I was just wondering, how many of you are smokers - if any at all - and how does it affect your singing voice?

that is ironic...

I don't smoke, but then again I don't sing, well not properly....

can't imagine it can be GOOD for your voice, people who've smoked for years n years tend to have more gravelly voices don't they...??

There is an interesting article in The Singer magazine this time about how smoking and alcohol are both big 'no no's when you sing. Might dig it out later if anyone is intested.

And no, I don't smoke - can't see the point!

QUOTE

How Many Of You Are Smokers

less than one of me


M

QUOTE (freda_bloogs @ Feb 4 2005, 05:14 PM)

how many of you are smokers

i'm not.....or else i won't be able to pass my grades....

Not me - at least, not actively!

I've read various interviews with singers who have suddenly discovered a few extra high notes after giving up the evil weed.

Im such a pure and innocent young thing! never smoked probably never will waste of time health and money imagine how much money a smoker would save in year if the didn't smoke?

never smoked never will.

smokers can't sing. it makes them cough.

I have been known to smoke stuff - even tobacco - and it's reflected in my singing.

I think I'd do much better at smoking than singing, probably change my moniker to rasping-din.

Smoking is THE MOST DREADFUL thing for your voice - it totally decreases your lung capacity and limits your repetoire - Bel canto singing is OUT.

If you only do it for fun - then fine - But if you really love singing and care about your voice - you shouldnt smoke

A good voice is a gift - You cannot make it. Cherish it

I don't smoke. My flute teacher does, though! That's ironic too! She always has to go out between lessons and smoke a cigarette. I don't know how she has enough air to be able to play properly!
It's seems very idiotic to me!

QUOTE (july @ Feb 5 2005, 02:34 PM)

It's seems very idiotic to me!

To me too! I did some some singers (good ones) at school who smoked, always thought they were insane. How their voices will have survived over the years...

The point is, July, that while smoking obviously affect ones lungs (so does just about everything one eats affect one's entire health) the air you breath "naturally" - well, nice if you live in some pollution-free part of the country - is hardly better than smoking.

I worry, I worry endlessly, that as smoking is now blamed for every respiratory and coronary ill, it diverts attention from perhaps dozens of other things that impair our lungs and health, fine dust particles, chemicals, wood and cement dusts, spores, you name it.

It's almost the same hysteria as Onania, 200 years ago attributing all human ills to "naughty thoughts", if I may be circumspect.

If you've recently flown into Heathrow from France on a sunny day, you see London covered in this great brown dome of filth. That's what Londoner's breath. No doubt the same in other big towns. Filth.

And I can tell you that when I've worked in places like The City, the ONLY WAY to get anything like fresh air is to smoke a filter cigarette because the filter gets all the filth and everything out of the air before it gets into your lungs.

A joke. You may think so but there is that hidden truth - do you know the half about what you're breathing.
At least singers stand a sporting chance - they know HOW to breathe. I've sat on trains and breathed in a relaxed deep way while the person next to me takes maybe 16 to 20 shallow gasps to my one breath. They're the people who need targeting - the ones who don't know how to breath.

I'm not pro-smoking but I am for getting behind propaganda to find out what the "truth" is. Sure, smoking impairs a singing voice, but things simply aren't as they're presented to the public.
I have to make the point. Thanks for bearing with me.

That's very interesting, Rhapsodin...
I'm sure there's some truth in it!
However, I live on the outskirts of Berlin, which is so famous for all its trees, so I only breathe the bad air when I go in to town. I hope I'm okay then !

QUOTE

I'm not pro-smoking

Could've fooled me!

So what you're saying is that you're breathing in all this filth from the air...and topping it off with cigarrette smoke?

I'm not for (pro) or against smoking. People must make their choices. I wouldn't want to interfere.

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Feb 5 2005, 06:10 PM)

People must make their choices. I wouldn't want to interfere.

Well said, Saint Rhapsodin!

I have been breathing in enough pollutants into the lungs already. The air quality in some places in Hong Kong aren't really desirable. Personally I would avoid travelling to these parts of the city. Smoking would cause even more damage to my system.

People should only smoke if they keep their most valuable musical instrument in the chimney.

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Feb 5 2005, 06:10 PM)

I'm not for (pro) or against smoking. People must make their choices. I wouldn't want to interfere.

Actually your post made a lot of sense.

I've lived in (central) Paris, New York and London, and London is the worst so far pollution-wise (surprisingly given the amount of wind we get) with Paris next and NYC cleanest (Except for July/August which is horrible because of the humidity and lack of wind). I totally agree that the ambient pollution is as bad as average smoking for your lungs. Try breathing through a thin paper tissue in town on a non windy day and look at the colour it turns.

I am also a recent, twice over ex-smoker (though was never a pack a day - just a social "crapoteur" which in French means you don't inhale or inhale very little of the smoke) and have never found it to affect my voice so far. I also know for a fact that some of the Met singers in NYC are at least occasional smokers (Dmitri H for one, as well as a Russian mezzo whose name escapes me: a good friend of mine and our Russian singing teacher regularly spot them at this very Russian bar in NYC, smoking and slugging back the vodka!).

Heavy smoking for a long period of time will give you chronic bronchitis. Living in the city will give you chronic rhinitis. Doing both could give you lung cancer, but since I lost a very good, long-term real smoker friend to that particular evil about a month ago, I have decided I would quit for good this time around. That's the plan anyway.

Statistically only about half of lung cancers affect smokers. So where does the other half stem from? Car exhaust and the various other pollutants floating about thanks to human activity, including driving cars and manufacturing and burning forests in SE Asia.

Doctors off the record will tell you that if you keep consumption to under 5 a day you are not "medically" considered a smoker.

Just my two cents.

QUOTE (lafrog @ Feb 6 2005, 05:08 PM)

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Feb 5 2005, 06:10 PM) I'm not for (pro) or against smoking.   People must make their choices.  I wouldn't want to interfere. Actually your post made a lot of sense. I've lived in (central) Paris, New York and London, and London is the worst so far pollution-wise (surprisingly given the amount of wind we get) with Paris next and NYC cleanest (Except for July/August which is horrible because of the humidity and lack of wind). I totally agree that the ambient pollution is as bad as average smoking for your lungs. Try breathing through a thin paper tissue in town on a non windy day and look at the colour it turns.

I agree that there are plenty of pollutants in the air anyway... doesn't make me want to add to the pollutants in the air I breathe - or that those around me breathe me not smoking may not protect me from air pollution, but at least I'm not voluntarily filling my lungs with concentrated crud several times a day! Seem to me more of an argument to clean up air pollution rather than to not encourage people to give up smoking...

QUOTE

Statistically only about half of lung cancers affect smokers. So where does the other half stem from? Car exhaust and the various other pollutants floating about thanks to human activity, including driving cars and manufacturing and burning forests in SE Asia.

...but do add passive smoking to your list...

Friend of my mum's has awful emphesema from having smoked most of his life up till now. He has trouble climbing stairs or even sometimes walking along the flat. Even talking on the phone wears him out, and he has an oxygen cannister at home. It may not be entirely smoking (how could we prove it either way) but it has a lot to do with it, and if I was even tempted, seeing the state he's in would put me off

Cleaning up other air pollutants would do a good deal for the quality of air we breathe and our general health, but adding to those pollutants by smoking isn't going to improve things, is it...? & it is also very well saying "it's people's choice", but smoking in public doesn't just affect the person with the fag in their hand... and parents smoking at home affects the children in that home. What about the non-smoker's choice to breathe clean(er) air? It's a lot more complicated than "each to his own" when the activity affects everyone within 10 feet....

In Sociology, we had this sheet and one of the paragraphs was how more children now have asthma, ezcema, hayfever etc because of pollution in the air. I have forgotten the statistic but it has definitely increased :-\

*nod* I've heard the same.

I think the increase in childhood asthma and such is not down to the ill effects of smoking.Take into consideration the obsession we have in keeping our houses clean with these products provided by the big companies and the additives in our food.

Do we keep our houses too clean? Does a little bit of dirt do us good? Quentin Crisp...that delicious old queen...said that after 4 years the dust doesn`t get any worse!He lived into his nineties.

Tobacco was introduced by Raleigh in the 1500s sometime...he ultimately received the chop for treason and I think it was King James 1 that despised tobacco????

Isn`t it true that the govt handed out free tobacco to our troops in the World Wars? Is it not also true that smokers singlehandedly support the running of the NHS by paying tax?

Do you think it`s all govt propaganda and what`s the latest fashion in what`s bad for us?

My parents smoked and my mum smoked throughout her 2 pregnancies. Both my bro and myself do not suffer from asthma.My late Uncle (a doctor) lived on 2 bottles of whiskey and 40 fags and died when he was 89.

I tend to go with GB Shaw`s assumption...unproved or not...you can do what you like to excess just so long as you have big arteries!

My A level history teacher...the head of history... once said I may not get my exam in European and Economic History,but I would definitely get an A in useless information.He was stumped for words when I mentioned what I knew about Napoleon and ended up having a giggling fit

PS Have any of you read Henry V111 King and Court by Alison Weir? If you think smoking is disgusting you will have your eyes opened reading this.

Lets also not forget the smog in the 1950s....

There is a lot of propaganda that goes on in this world and I don`t fall for it.

Off for a quick puff now and some booze.

QUOTE (GuestWho! @ Feb 6 2005, 07:06 PM)

PS Have any of you read Henry V111 King and Court by Alison Weir? If you think smoking is disgusting you will have your eyes opened reading this.

I really don't think it would make me think smoking was pleasant.

Actually I've read quite a lot about the Tudors.

I think if you read Nicki's post properly you'll notice she said the rise in asthma was due to pollution, not smoking.

The tobacco taxes finance a lot of the NHS. A lot of NHS treatment is for smoking-related diseases.

Sorry you've just failed to convince me.

QUOTE (sarah-flute @ Feb 6 2005, 09:57 PM)

Sorry you've just failed to convince me.

I wasn`t trying to convince you of anything.Just passing an opinion.

Oh yeah, I should add my 89 year old grandmother who was a smoker since she was 17 or so (pack a day lady if ever there was one) is still alive, but suffers chronic oxygen insufficiency and has the oxygen bottle in her bedroom etc. But she has only been like that for about 5 years, before that smoking had not affected her in any significant way. Again, not that this proves much....just that some slip through and some don't and why take chances?

Pollutants (and things we don't even think about) in the air are probably responsible for a whole lot of bad things we don't yet understand (using regular laundry detergents for example: they stay on your skin and get into your system: how scary is that?) and on a daily basis probably a lot worse than passive smoking. I've tried to switch to organic products lately....

Ah well - bottom line, I believe people can take their chances with their own lives as long - as they dont take others with them. Respecting non-smokers' right not to be "smoked in" I think is fair, as is respecting those who do wish to smoke's right to bury their lungs in grey gunk.....

QUOTE (GuestWho! @ Feb 6 2005, 10:03 PM)

QUOTE (sarah-flute @ Feb 6 2005, 09:57 PM) Sorry you've just failed to convince me. I wasn`t trying to convince you of anything.Just passing an opinion.

lol... yeah that comment was a little tongue in cheek on my part, I hope I made that clear!

oh and totally agree about our obsession with cleanliness these days - forgot to say in my last post - I suspect it's got a lot to do with the rise in allergies etc.

QUOTE (lafrog @ feb 6 2005,10:13 PM)

just that some slip through and some don't and why take chances?

why take chances indeed! I do realise that some people enjoy smoking... but you generally have to learn to enjoy it, no? few people enjoy their first cigarette... I could be wrong *shrug* and if you've been smoking for a long time it's extremely hard to give up... the habit is part of your life, never mind the addiction to nicotine...

the things ex-smokers say though are often telling... my dad always said he didn't realise how vile it was and how much it affected his sense of smell, and of taste, and his general health, till he gave it up.

QUOTE (lafrog @ feb 6 2005,10:13 PM)

Ah well - bottom line, I believe people can take their chances with their own lives as long - as they dont take others with them. Respecting non-smokers' right not to be "smoked in" I think is fair, as is respecting those who do wish to smoke's right to bury their lungs in grey gunk.....

well put...

Far be it from me to profess who should smoke, and who should not. Maggiemay do you? Did not understand your cryptic reply! Not that it matters !!!

QUOTE (Silver pianist @ Feb 6 2005, 10:21 PM)

Maggiemay do you?

i say she doesnt

Doesn't actually matter. Main thing is that people realise how absolutely pointless it all is. Hope my children have got the message!!

I *think* maggiemay was literally answering the question, as in, out of all the hers, less than one of them (0) smoke! which begs the question how many of her there are but hey you don't have to be crazy to post here but it *helps*...

agree about the pointless thing... might as well roll up fivers and smoke them - might be more healthy...?

QUOTE

Maggiemay do you?

No.
I have some bad habits but smoking isn't one of them.
(real coffee, chocolate and ...... but you don't want to hear about all my vices).

QUOTE

I *think* maggiemay was literally answering the question, as in, out of all the hers, less than one of them (0) smoke! which begs the question how many of her there are but hey you don't have to be crazy to post here but it *helps*...

good for you Sarah! I think you got it.
Yes, I was choosing to slightly misinterpret the question "how many of you smoke" by saying less than one of me (or should that be fewer than one of me??!) smokes.

On a good day neither of me smokes. I think.

M x

QUOTE

I have some bad habits but smoking isn't one of them. (real coffee, chocolate and ...... but you don't want to hear about all my vices).

Oh honey, SURE we do...

QUOTE

QUOTE I *think* maggiemay was literally answering the question, as in, out of all the hers, less than one of them (0) smoke! which begs the question how many of her there are but hey you don't have to be crazy to post here but it *helps*... good for you Sarah! I think you got it. Yes, I was choosing to slightly misinterpret the question "how many of you smoke" by saying less than one of me (or should that be fewer than one of me??!) smokes. On a good day neither of me smokes. I think.

Probably "fewer"... uh... but I wouldn't want to stake my life on it.

None of me smoke either. I should probably be worried I "got it" MaggieMay...!

QUOTE

None of me smoke either. I should probably be worried I "got it" MaggieMay...!

LOL

M

QUOTE (Silver pianist @ Feb 6 2005, 10:29 PM)

Doesn't actually matter.  Main thing is that people realise how absolutely pointless it all is.  Hope my children have got the message!!

But masses of things we do are pointless on the same baseline.

Think about the catering industry - restaurants where we take our friends, business associates and prospectives....just to watch each other eat dead bodies across the table. Well, its true, isn't it?

Cosmetics - what, £80billion industry in the UK - for what? To turn oneself into a false front.

Most of what we do is pointless but we come up with some weird internal logic to justify our nonsense little rituals. Just think about the institution of "work" and what that entails to stop us really becoming what we were meant to be?!?!?!

My earlier point and GuestWho's are about how you can't trust the way statistics are presented - most people are arguing from an emotive position based on propaganda.

Statistic: About half those who die of lung illnesses are NOT smokers.
Statistic: The larger proportion of smokers DO NOT die of lung cancer.
Fact: Smokers pay for the NHS several times over.
Fact: Smokers live on average 4 years less than non-smokers and this is 4 years care + pensions they will not encumber society with.
Fact: If everyone stopped smoking now, income tax (or some other tax) would have to go up by 2 1/2 - 3p in the £.

This is why KIDS don't care about starting. It's why kids don't care about starting on other drugs. Because their parents and parents' sources of information have no credibility. I've seen a guy in a pub really arguing his anti-drug credo to younger people...with a pint in one hand and a fag in the other. Does he think kids can't see through his stupiduty?

Kids can see that the politicians and hysterical anti-smokers use statistics like a drunks do a lamp-post - to prop them up rather than for illumination.

Like the famous statistic that people who wear gold watches die younger. Hopefully no one here would blame the watches. Instead they know there are intermediate factors at play.

So as long as we dont pretend that smoking is the end-all of lung illness. It is being used to divert attention from other things that may ultimately be far worse harbingers of cancers.

And as an ex-smoker like lafrog, I know it affects my "singing" (such as it is) - lops about a 3rd off my upper reaches.

It's a difficult argument. A non-smoker cannot preach the up-side of a cigarette. I admit enjoying a cigarette but explaining it to a non-smoker is like trying to explain
good sex to a celibate cleric.

R

QUOTE (maggiemay @ Feb 6 2005, 10:46 PM)

Yes, I was choosing to slightly misinterpret  the question "how many of you smoke" by saying less than one of me (or should that be fewer than one of me??!) smokes.

Don't worry Sarah, after my inner pedant (and the pedant reading from behind me too!) had said fewer we found it quite an amusing pedantic interpretation of the question too!

My thoughts on smoking are that I am amazed that in this country we put the right for people to 'do what they want to their bodies if they like it' above the right of the general public, as well as the babies and young children of smokers, not to breathe in (any more) carcinogens and not to be put at unnecessary risk of disease. I have no objection to people smoking if they want to so long as they don't do it near anyone else; but I think any law forbidding smoking around children would be almost impossible to police (may bring about some interesting manslaughter cases though...).

QUOTE

we found it quite an amusing pedantic interpretation of the question too!

or should that be amusingly pedantic ??



M

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ Feb 7 2005, 12:54 PM)

I am amazed that in this country we put the right for people to 'do what they want to their bodies if they like it' above the right of the general public, as well as the babies and young children of smokers, not to breathe in (any more) carcinogens and not to be put at unnecessary risk of disease. Â

WHAT!?!?
PURLEEEZZE You're crazy! ! ! ! THIS country? You have almost NO personal freedom in the UK - less now than you did fifty years ago - and that was when you could get hung for committing suicide!!!! Good old britain, the sump of europe!!! It's the big corporations that can do what they like with your body/ies.

Well, go tell your argument to all those drivers, corporations, builders (asbestos, remember) communications giants, energy companies who PUT the carcinogens in the air and water for profit, all those Am*****ns who slash forests for short term profit. etc etc the farmers who spray your foods with poisons. etc etc

And it's sheer naivety to ask why what you claim happens. Pedant is right. And you don't read others' posts. I already told you - if everyone stopped smoking, taxes would have to go up by about 2 - 3p / £ if on the income tax. Hahaha - d'you think that's politically acceptable? Now, let's look at a REAL problem: Booze. I've seen the results, indeed watched...binge drinking. Um, you don't get quite the same social effect from chainsmoking!!!! Get your priorities sorted out, please!!!

IS there a carcinogen in tobacco?

Get some in, my dear, get some in! Next time you see a motorist, tell him that thanks to his little bit, humanity has got about 50 years before REAL suffering starts; and stop poisoning children, stop making up half-baked excuses that let you pretend you aren't.


Hahahahaha....

I could feel that argument coming back as I was writing it, still it's worth it to get my first PURLEEEZZE .

You do have a point but I would suggest that perhaps some of having and driving cars has a little more value to society than someone having a cigarette because they like it, I know again it's possible to argue the contrary but I can argue the worth of transport, I cannot argue a single possible worth for a cigarette (admittedly I've never had one)... When the smoke is being blown into the face of a child or the cigarette held over a pram I can't help but feel it's a little unfair and unnecessary.

I actually heard that the government make a loss on smokers and the tax on cigarettes does not cover the NHS costs caused, however I was just told this by someone and don't know how reliable their statistics are....

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Feb 7 2005, 01:17 PM)

Now, let's look at a REAL problem: Booze.   I've seen the results, indeed watched...binge drinking.  Um, you don't get quite the same social effect from chainsmoking!!!!  Get your priorities sorted out, please!!!

Again I don't drink (can't see any logical reason to do so; that's alcohol by the way, obviously I do consume fluids in order to stay alive...) but I have no objection to people drinking alcohol if they want to, it does no harm to anyone else. I do, however, object to binge drinking that causes crime both through the damage and injuries caused and the fact that the tax payer has to fund the police to sort out the problem... However for those that drink and cause no problems to anyone else that's their choice and that's fine, nothing to do with me.

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ Feb 7 2005, 01:39 PM)

When the smoke is being blown into the face of a child or the cigarette held over a pram I can't help but feel it's a little unfair and unnecessary.

I don't know many adults who do that. And, yes, as you've never smoked you will not appreciate the upside. No use talking about self-indulgent and stuff - that's what consumerism is about and exactly 99.99% of us all are "guilty" if at all.

QUOTE

I actually heard that the government make a loss on smokers and the tax on cigarettes does not cover the NHS costs caused, however I was just told this by someone and don't know how reliable their statistics are....

Yes, you need to look at the figures. They're available. Tobacco revenue more than covers NHS let including smoking related ailments. This, you see, is how propaganda causes loss of credibility.

QUOTE

However for those that drink and cause no problems to anyone else that's their choice and that's fine, nothing to do with me.

Whasshh tha' you shay?

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Feb 7 2005, 01:55 PM)

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ Feb 7 2005, 01:39 PM) When the smoke is being blown into the face of a child or the cigarette held over a pram I can't help but feel it's a little unfair and unnecessary. I don't know many adults who do that.

Come and walk around Glasgow....

Come to London. You don't need smokers. It's around you and you can't escape.

.'.

QUOTE (Rhapsodin @ Feb 5 2005, 03:02 PM)

The point is, July, that while smoking obviously affect ones lungs (so does just about everything one eats affect one's entire health) the air you breath "naturally" - well, nice if you live in some pollution-free part of the country - is hardly better than smoking.

Urmmmmmmmmmmm yes there are pollutants in the air but there is no getting away from it smoking causes serious lung damage and the air that you breathe "naturally" is a lot better than smoking. Also don't forget somking is a major cause of heart disease and throat cancer as well. It also causes your skin to age faster, and reduces your bank balance quite considerably.

I don't smoke - used to though and am now so glad that I have given it up - I am a free woman my life is no longer controlled by fags..... Also I am not some sort of "reformed smoker" I don't care if people want to smoke that is entirely up to them. Nor does it bother me if I am around smokers from time to time, although my clothes smell afterwards (god they must have smelt like that all the time ). However, if when I took up smoking all those years ago I knew then what I know now I would never have started in the first place and wasted all those years increasing the profits of the tobacco companies.

QUOTE

the air that you breathe "naturally" is a lot better than smoking.

I distinctly remember being shown a slide (during one of those educational anti-drug things they show you in school) of smoker's lungs and a city-dweller's lungs, they both looked black compared to the "normal" pink lungs (which they did not say how you got - living in the Shetlands?)

QUOTE

Also don't forget smoking is a major cause of heart disease and throat cancer as well.  It also causes your skin to age faster, and reduces your bank balance quite considerably.

As is/does alcohol, methinks....

Lucia - I always hated the side-effect of smelly smokey clothes and hair but that this also applies to some pubs and restaurants - you walk out smelling like a fry-up!!!

QUOTE

when I took up smoking all those years ago I knew then what I know now I would never have started in the first place and wasted all those years increasing the profits of the tobacco companies[

I knew then what I know now about smoking; I did not know about the other "stuff" in the air, the water, the soil - which I find a ###### of a lot more scary as far as the general public health is concerned. Think about what you put into your mouth every day: all the pesticides used in agriculture, the multiple chemical additives (stabilizers, colourings, flavourings etc) in our food, the over-processed gunk that increases the profits of multinationals like P&G and Lever and Nestle (and their shareholders of whom many of us may be - the irony of the system I suppose)

Not that this has anything anymore to do with smoking and singing...To get back on topic, I'd say smoking is not neutral on the voice but does not necessarily have imediate dire consequences, and these will vary according to the individual (allergic tendency or not for example) and what they sing.

After all, how many of the greats of the past used to smoke (say, pre 1970 or even 1980)?

I still think that breathing polluted air is probably better for one's lungs than breathing polluted air that has been mixed with fag smoke...

for the record, I do agree with those who think drinking is just as pointless as smoking.

once again, people are free to smoke - fine - but those of us who don't and who don't want to smoke passively should be free not to have to... I do totally back the arguments for lowering the other gazillions of carcinogens that corporations are allowed to pollute the air with (and actually I don't have a car...) but I don't see that as an argument for parents polluting their children's air... and yes, I've seen people smoke, heavily, with their friends (also smoking) with their tiny kids in the prams next to them breathing all sorts of rubbish. If people want to fill their lungs with even more junk than is already in the air then feel free... but I'd rather they didn't fill mine with it too, thanks.

Rhaps: you think we have no personal freedom? ever been to Russia? Even now... (or parts of Israel... or China, though that's second hand from friends who've been, not from personal experience...)

I'm curious... I realise that people who regularly smoke find it pleasurable, but did you actually enjoy your first fag, any current or ex smokers? I've never met anyone who did... it's a learned pleasure as far as I'm aware... but I'd be interested if anyone did honestly enjoy their first cigarette.

Yes I agree it's not that smoking means you'll never be able to sing well... it's unlikely to have a positive influence though. Surely can't help with lung capacity, even if it doesn't affect tone etc...?

QUOTE (lafrog @ Feb 7 2005, 04:08 PM)

knew then what I know now about smoking; I did not know about the other "stuff" in the air, the water, the soil -  which I find a ###### of a lot more scary as far as the general public health is concerned. Think about what you put into your mouth every day: all the pesticides used in agriculture, the multiple chemical additives (stabilizers, colourings, flavourings etc) in our food, the over-processed gunk that increases the profits of multinationals like P&G and Lever and Nestle (and their shareholders of whom many of us may be - the irony of the system I suppose)

Yes it's true there are pollutants in the air, yes alcohol does play are part in damaging your heart and liver if you binge drink. Drinking sensibly does not damage you health, smoking "sensibly" (is there such a thing?) does. Yes there are lots of pesticides and additives in food not to mention salt and sugar etc... in processed foods. Yes big corporations have got a lot to answer for eg Nestle and powdered baby milk in the third world, so have the tobbaco companies. All of these things are true but we have to breath air and we have to eat, we don't have to smoke. What ever you say there is no getting away from it smoking seriously damages your health and shortens you life. We've all heard about "granny" or whoever who smoked till she was 99 and was perfectly healthy but there are thousands of grannys, grandads, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children who die of smoking related diseases every year who don't make it to a grand old age. One of the reasons, and there were many, I gave up smoking is because I didn't want my children to be visiting me in hospital say 10 years down the line when I would be dying from lung cancer. Watching somebody suffocating to death is not very pleasant although I could have been "lucky" and just had a massive hemorrhage and died quicker.

QUOTE

you walk out smelling like a fry-up!!!

At least smelling of a fry up doesn't damage your health. Although eating lots of fried food does. Especially if it is fried in saturated fat or even worse hydrogenated fat - all those trans fatty acids. Sorry I'm getting carried away.



To get back to the topic smoking I should imagine is not very good for your voice. Thinking back to when I smoked I quite often woke up in the morning and my voice would be "gravely", Something I don't have a problem with now. Nor do I suffer from bad coughs anymore or feeling lousy first thing in the morning.

QUOTE (Lucia @ Feb 7 2005, 05:27 PM)

We've all heard about "granny" or whoever who smoked till she was 99 and was perfectly healthy

- and remember the reason those stories get repeated is because they considered unusual - if all smokers lived to a ripe old age - or more smokers than non-smokers - when those stories got told everyone would go "so?"

On a related note - I'm sure I've heard drinking does no good for one's voice either... anyone know how true that is?

QUOTE

Don't worry Sarah, after my inner pedant (and the pedant reading from behind me too!) had said fewer  we found it quite an amusing pedantic interpretation of the question too!

lol!

Lucia, I have looked into this.. not thoroughly but as well as I can within a reasonable time and I learned that the biosphere is now beyond redemption. It's been like that for nearly 20 years. Smoking has not done that. Concorde and supersonic flight have done huge harm with CFCs to the ionosphere so now we can't go out in the sun anymore without risk of skin cancers or covered in creams.

I have recently changed to organic foods, especially apples, pears, carrots and potatoes and if you knew the grot that gets into them, you would and you'd never feed a child with non-organic things or tinned or bottled baby foods. I looked at some published research and the tests that "prove" non-organic stuff is absolutely safe are.....crazy. They test things in isolation mostly, not in the combinations we ingest. Our bodies contain about 500 chemicals that have no business being there. Who knows what ills they facilitate? But I read an article that claimed that while we know about 60% of cancers are 'caused' by the environment, sorting out what does what is probably impossible now.

I know that smoking cannot help but if you don't mind me saying you are perhaps blinded by the anti-smoking lobby there's nothing wrong with that, it shows that it's working. But I favour the argument that while smoking is being blamed for every lung and heart disease, other potential harms are escaping public notice, clearly in the interest of profit.

We trust too much. We believe what we're told because they're government, because they are a voice of authority. Or we are supposed to. I don't believe a word of it.


.'.

QUOTE (sarah-flute @ Feb 7 2005, 05:37 PM)

QUOTE (Lucia @ Feb 7 2005, 05:27 PM) We've all heard about "granny" or whoever who smoked till she was 99 and was perfectly healthy - and remember the reason those stories get repeated is because they considered unusual - if all smokers lived to a ripe old age - or more smokers than non-smokers - when those stories got told everyone would go "so?"

My Uncle,as far as I`m aware existed, and I met him on numerous occasions.

A distant relative of mine (maternal side) is Hugh Mather,concert pianist and doctor,based in London. If you ever care to hear him perform and meet,ask him to verify my story.


Have some very bad news. We lost a wonderful lady piano teacher on Saturday. I`m gutted and been in tears all day.She would have been 60 next month.

QUOTE (Neon-lights @ Feb 7 2005, 06:07 PM)

I have recently changed to organic foods, especially apples, pears, carrots and potatoes and if you knew the grot that gets into them, you would and you'd never feed a child with non-organic things or tinned or bottled baby foods.  I looked at some published research and the tests that "prove" non-organic stuff is absolutely safe are.....crazy.  They test things in isolation mostly, not in the combinations we ingest.   Our bodies contain about 500 chemicals that have no business being there.  Who knows what ills they facilitate?  But I read an article that claimed that while we know about 60% of cancers are 'caused' by the environment, sorting out what does what is probably impossible now.     I know that smoking cannot help but if you don't mind me saying you are perhaps blinded by the anti-smoking lobby there's nothing wrong with that, it shows that it's working.  But I favour the argument that while smoking is being blamed for every lung and heart disease, other potential harms are escaping public notice, clearly in the interest of profit. Â

No you are quite wrong I am not blinded by the anti-smoking lobby, although I do agree with what they say. From my own experience though I smoked for over 20 years. I started when I was in my teens and quickly got "hooked" and when I first tried to give up found that it wasn't that easy. I gave up several times during those 20 years including both times that I was pregnant but went back to it. I know that sounds really stupid to go back to smoking and it is but it really sucks you in (no pun intended). When you smoke you get this belief that life without the next ciggie will be unbearable. Anyway I have finally given up for over four years now and consider myself to be a non smoker. I am certainly not one of those "reformed smokers" I just wouldn't want any one to fall into the same trap as me. When I was in my teens serious illness wasn't something that I ever thought about, that was for the future when I would be "old". However, being old soon creeps up on you, if you can count a well preserved 41 old . I certainly don't go around moaning about people who smoke and saying what a disgusting habit it is. When ever I see a smoker I just think "thank goodness that's not me".

One good thing that did come out of me giving up smoking is, not only an imrovement in my health, but with the money I was able to save I was able to make up the balance for my new piano - a far better way to spend the money.

I also agree with your argument about organic food and processed food. I don't always buy organic but I buy very little processed food and make all our meals from scratch including bread, cakes and biscuits. I am lucky that I have time to do this so can make this lifestyle choice. The more processed foods you eat the less control you have over what you eat.

I also agree that there are lots of potential harms in the enviroment done in the name of profit that affect our health, these are things that we have no choice over. All we can do is try to influence these things by drawing attention to them and protesting against them. The thing is with smoking is that we can make that choice not to smoke and my advice as an ex-smoker would be if you don't smoke don't make the choice to start.