digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Still Smoking? Watch This! watch!

metacafe.com — This is a video that they should be showing to kids...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • newman1320, on 11/21/2007, -15/+23Wow! This is truly an amazing video. Why would someone smoke after seeing this?
    • wiifm69, on 11/21/2007, -6/+3I wonder how they knew that the tar product tasted bitter? Blind test?
    • Maxtrosity, on 11/21/2007, -5/+36the same reason you can't stop masturbating
      • ChromaVita, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7What negative effects does masturbating have?
        • uberlord, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Loss of social life? But that wasn't his question.
        • darnit, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6you want a smoke afterwards?
          • ChromaVita, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Being the person who asked the original question, I dictate you the winner. Congrats.
        • TheCasablancan, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Loss of vision and abnormal hair growths.
        • GetShorty, on 11/21/2007, -0/+11Dead kittens.
      • JimmyIkon, on 11/21/2007, -6/+2Harry palms
    • tricks574, on 11/21/2007, -3/+21Because most people don't chain smoke 400 cigarettes in 3 hours
      • capiCrimm, on 11/21/2007, -1/+17you haven't met my grandma.
        • thumperings, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5I have, and you used to have a red phone in your room. Don't question it.
      • TheCasablancan, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3True, but over a year, that's nothing. My Dad smokes maybe 6 cigs/day. 6*365= 2190 cigs/year at 18mg of tar ea. is roughly 39.5 grams of tar. I think that's around an ounce and a half.

        It's a ***** lot. I'd rather he smoked weed if he was going to continue smoking as much as he does.
        • thumperings, on 11/21/2007, -5/+4well 50% of the smoke goes elsewhere. SO it's only 20 gram of tar anything under 21 actually cures cancer and diabetes.
          • aussieNickuss, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5"anything under 21 actually cures cancer and diabetes" - BS.
        • aussieNickuss, on 11/21/2007, -1/+36 smokes a day is a light smoker. Many smoke in excess of a pack a day. That's 7300/year for a 20 pack a day, and 10950/year for a 30 pack a day.
    • Shadowsaint, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4because you can
    • tanside, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5i'd say cause their addicted.
      • aussieNickuss, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4*they're* - oh and you have to voluntarily smoke enough to develop an addiction, so it is still choice.
      • heynoop, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4yes, it's because they're addicted and they have absolutely no say in deciding whether to quit or not. lets remove all personal blame and place it on 'addiction'
        i'm a smoker. i smoke because i choose to. i take the blame for it, and i say every other smoker should start doing so as well, and stop perpetuating this pathetic mentality.
    • pAq6Swad, on 09/16/2008, -1/+5Stopping that addiction is ***** hard. That's why.
      • aussieNickuss, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Why start it?
      • thumperings, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2I'm terrible at math, so when I was 30 in the winter of 1999, I decided to quit for the millennium, while visiting a girl i met over in Sweden. . I like nice round easy to remember dates for touch stones or landmarks... err what's the word I'm looking for .. you know in regards to time... Long story short, I quit because It would have been too much of a drag to mess with the whole "quitting for the millennium" thing .
    • themastersb, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3The guy in the video should lern 2 gramer.
      • lime148, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6He speaks English better than you speak Japanese.
    • ambo33, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1How many people REALLY smoke cigs with 18mg of tar?! That's why you mostly see people smoking "Lights" which contain anywhere from 6-8mg of tar. Nowhere NEAR 18mg of tar each. On top of that, most cigs have these things called filters. These don't even have filters and they are 18mg of tar! Could he find any more ***** cigs for his "experiment"? /rant
  • gbarberi, on 11/21/2007, -5/+39I'm so glad I quit. This is almost as effective as the "gross you out into quitting " commercials"
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=lEc-Rsv9pMc
    Strangest thing... Metacafe has ads popup on the bottom of the videos. I got three: What I think was Netflix, AT&T wireless, and then finally (just when I'm looking at the black water), an ad for American Spirits cigarettes. The irony.
    • Flame500, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9Adblock FTW!
      • jpt62089, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3It's possible to block those ads? Tell me how! Pleeeeeeasseee!
        • tcpip4lyfe, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Use firefox and the adblock extension. I haven'tseen an ad for months.
  • biglife, on 11/21/2007, -7/+27good point, a little too long
    • macbookpromat, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10There are also discrepancies. His system does this test with a perfect no smoke wasted drag. No I don't know if you've ever seen a smoker, but they barely ever smoke the whole cigarette in one shot, and even then not all the smoke would enter the human body. Another fact is that smoke contains quite a bit of carbon, so what he's having you believe here is that in 400 cigarettes, your lungs are black when in fact it would take a whole lot more than that because you are expelling quite a bit of carbon. I don't smoke nor do I defend it.
      • uberlord, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Only 400 cigarettes to maintain an addiction? I didn't realize carbon had anything to do with it either, nice catch. But if you're addicted to smoking, you'll smoke well over 400 in a year, probably closer to 1,000
        • KanchoBukkakeku, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6if you smoked half a pack (10) a day you would hit 1000 in 100 days. so for a mild smoker it would be more like 3500 or something a year, and if they smoke a pack double that, and so on.

          I quit smoking for good in late july and my lungs still hurt on occasion. Glad I quit, kinda wonder how long it will take to ***** the damage.
          • Jasna2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1You can drastically speed up the healing process with good supplements. Standard Process is a company that has very good "whole food" products. Congrats on quiting.
        • MrMongoose, on 11/21/2007, -2/+0Roughly 15 years, depending on how heavy of a smoker you were:
          http://www.highlighthealth.com/diseases-and-condit ...
  • CannibalTom, on 11/21/2007, -9/+24This is why you're supposed to use fresh clean bong water for every use.

    I would have preferred to see the guy drink the water.
    • wiifm69, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10The ultimate 'fear factor' episode.
      • ahoyhoy, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2... because it's pretty much assured death.
    • JigsawX, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3True story i knew a guy Who did drink the Bong Water......OK really i did :)
  • Remccs, on 11/21/2007, -7/+5imagine drinking that water too... ugh.
    • ahoyhoy, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5I imagine it would be a lot like dying
  • iPissExcellence, on 11/21/2007, -10/+6smoke lose, smug wins.
  • humanabyss1, on 11/21/2007, -17/+69Thats why i only smoke weed :)
    • LittleDas, on 11/21/2007, -16/+7The stuff's still bad for you, but at least it isn't addictive.
      • callmeTroy, on 11/21/2007, -20/+8uhh... yes it is
        • uberlord, on 11/21/2007, -5/+6No it's not, and smoked properly there's no tar either
          • thumperings, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2or smoke ...if you use the vapors
        • tanside, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5you would have to be referring to vaporizing, which isn't smoking.
        • M4tt3r, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3I'd go a week with out smoking before I'd go a week without a coke, a dr. pepper, an aspirin, or the internet.
      • tanside, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9it may not be physically addictive, but i have become very dependent, and have pretty harsh mood swings if i haven't had any in 12 hours or so, but if i can go say 72 hours i'll get over it, so its temporarily addictive.
    • wazzledoozle2, on 11/21/2007, -18/+3Smoking it is still bad for you, if not worse because the lack of filters.

      Cooking with weed ftw.
      • ahoyhoy, on 11/21/2007, -9/+2There are little added chemicals into pot (depending on who you get it from), so, it rarely contains this much tar.
        • CrazyDave303, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2If you have smoke you have tar, end of story. And the last time I looked burning ANY plant material made smoke.
          • CrazyDave303, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3Some times I think people on dig hate science more the Christians down south.
      • YKKonMyZipper, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5weed dose dose not have the the same cancer causing chemicals in it. It is true that it dose have a high tar content but that is in fact not what gives you cancer. If you can always get organic weed, most people will use cheaper fertilizers that giver higher yields but lack the quality & THC count of organic weed.
      • CrazyDave303, on 11/21/2007, -5/+4Weed has way more "tar" then tobacco, and I call BS on the organic weed thing having a noticeable less amount. But I have not read any studies on this so I could be wrong(can you prove your right?). And why would you want to filter out any thing? If you wanted to stop stuff going in to your lungs STOP smoking it, what every it is. Filters are the stupidest marketing concept in the world. Also when it comes down to the amount of tar you take in, most people don't smoke as much weed as a tobacco user would smoke cigarettes. On plus side for weed is the THC cause the cells to die when damaged, so they don't go on to being cancerous. This has been the latest finding when dealing with this paradox.

        Also bongs are mostly a waist of time, other then cooling the smoke coming in to your lungs, the THC is absorbed in to the watter faster then the tars are. This is why a vaporizer is the best for you. Now only if I can find a vaporizer that fast and easy for single tokes. I don't like getting stoned but pot really helps my asthma and manage the pain from bronchial spasm.
        • jvnane, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1whatever excuse you need to smoke is fine as long as your still tokin up
        • CrazyDave303, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0I've almost made it through a gram of hash in the past 2 months... hahaha but yea,,, I still want to find a good vape for small amounts.
      • CodeCobalt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Eating weed has actually been shown to be very bad for your stomach.

        "compared to smoking pot, there are greater risks of unpleasant side effects that may result from eating marijuana.

        It's common to feel nauseated or physically uncomfortable after ingesting marijuana"

        http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/6155.html
    • CodeCobalt, on 11/21/2007, -6/+11It does still contain tar, and potentially other poisions. Although weed is generally considered not as harmful as cigarettes, this is mostly due to the fact that most people don't smoke as much pot as cigarette smokers, smoke cigarettes. I believe a typical bowl contains 4 times the tar as a cigarette, possibly due to the lack of a filter?
      • CrazyDave303, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2I've heard a bit higher... but that's not as important as the fact Pot has more then cigarettes. And people can claim "organic" weed having no tar all they like, also I can also claim the LSD makes me fly, and MDMA lets me read people's thoughts.
      • Cowfrommars, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1THC hasn't been proven to have any real negative effects, and, obviously, contains no tar. If weed were legal, they would definitely sell pure THC.
        • CodeCobalt, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1It it has carbon in it (organic) and it is somehow burnt, it will leave tar residue.
    • thrallie, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4It's called a vaporizer. And a really good one can get you high very quick, maybe not as good as a bong but with good weed you will get ***** up. Oh, and since it's vapor there is no harmful chemicals.
      • ath1337, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3amen!
        • alperea, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2They already invented the Va-poo-rizer. In that Jack Black movie.
      • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2So you're saying chemicals present in Marijuana do not get transferred via water vapor in a vaporizer? Interesting....
        • CrazyDave303, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Not as much as the chemicals created when you burn the plant. Also vaporizing uses a much lower temperature then burning so there will be a big difference in witch chemicals evaporate.

          The trick is to heat things up to just the boiling point of the THC.
    • ledmonkey, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Helllllllll Yeah!
    • KillerLettuce, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9So is that all it takes to gain Diggs around here, is to mention drugs in a positive light?
  • brentinkc, on 11/21/2007, -4/+17Can it do joints?
    • CPoe, on 11/21/2007, -3/+16I hope not, id rather smoke 400 Js then let a bottle do it for me...
    • LaerrusFish, on 11/21/2007, -3/+9Mention anything about weed and get instant diggs
      • MrMongoose, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2Same thing with standup comedians, start making jokes about weed and you're instantly funny!
    • BlazinEurasian, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3That would cost a fortune.
  • Rockout, on 11/21/2007, -1/+16It's also the missing ingredient in kryptonite.
  • KingMoses, on 11/21/2007, -41/+31Then again, smoking being bad doesn't justify banning it from bars and restaurants and taking away people's freedom.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 11/21/2007, -17/+21Totally agree: freedom first, then lectures. If people choose to smoke, they're usually not complete dummies - they know cigarettes costs them money.
    • a5tr0cr3ep, on 11/21/2007, -21/+30Once you violate someone else freedoms ie. second hand smoke, you for go your own personal freedoms.
      • Smight, on 11/21/2007, -10/+19As opposed to violating a property owners right to allow smoking on their property. What about the smokers freedom to smoke at a a bar that allows smoking?
        We should outlaw tofu in restaurants because the sight of it makes me ill.
        • a5tr0cr3ep, on 11/21/2007, -7/+17if you knew anything about the policy in question you would know that its not a property issue it is a public health issue. b/c these properties are open to the general public the obligation is to the grater good. with your logic the same bars could exclude black people b/c its their property and they can do what ever they like
          • Smight, on 11/21/2007, -5/+6Open to the general public does not mean OWNED by the general public.
          • jizzypop, on 11/21/2007, -5/+7open to the general public does mean they have to follow certain regulations though. for instance, all public places must be handicapped accessible, just because its privately owned doesnt mean the business can just say ***** the handicapped this is my property.
          • Smight, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5Why don't they force the humane society to kill all their cats?
            They are open to th public and many people are deathly allergic to cats.
          • MrMongoose, on 11/21/2007, -6/+5Restaurants and bars have to obey health codes and regulations already.Couldn't banning smoking be considered a public health ordinance? Just go smoke yourself to death outside you ***** crybaby.
          • a5tr0cr3ep, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5smight -
            "Why don't they force the humane society to kill all their cats?
            They are open to th public and many people are deathly allergic to cats."

            what you are doing here is taking an example to exageratting state to obfuscate the argument. you know as well as i that your example of cats is by no means related to the issue at hand.

            however i will humor you. Deaths from Anaphylaxis: at least 400 deaths in USA (this is all allergic reactions not just cats so i am trying to help your numbers)
            deaths from smoking = 440,000 deaths each year and more than 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking.
            perhaps this is why we let the cats live
          • CodeCobalt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1A bar, restaraunt, hotel, bowling alley, ANY venue not owned or operated by the government are NOT open to the general public. The owner of such an establishment has the right to refuse entry and/or service of their establishment. In this same respect, they have the choice to conduct anything lawful inside their building. Smoking inside of a building is 100% legal, smoking in a public establishment is not.

            If someone is in the hospitality industry and does not like smoke, they need to seek a job at an establishment which prohibits smoking. Otherwise it is simply a hazard of work, which the staff should be moderately compensated for with health insurance.

            As I have stated earlier if smoke is something that bothers you, as the owner to change to non smoking, if the owner feels that decision would be profitable, they would gladly switch to non-smoking. The government has no right to tell one what they can do on there property as long as it doesn't effect the people outside of the property. and an establishment with proper filtration and ventilation would have relatively no impact on the environment, especially compared to the pollution caused by motor vehicles.
        • FortyCaliber, on 11/21/2007, -11/+8What about your kid? You have forced them to smoke too. You have infringed on their right to NOT smoke... and you've made it further wrong by not showing or telling them about any different lifestyle.
    • kevinwiz, on 11/21/2007, -14/+22Yes it does. You should not be able to do something that harms other people in public.
    • Logikos, on 11/21/2007, -11/+19Yes it does. Freedom is only acceptable up to the point where it takes away somebody else's freedom. Hospitality workers should not have to work in smoke filled environments that put them at risk.
      • rancidpony, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1"Yes it does. Freedom is only acceptable up to the point where it takes away somebody else's freedom. Hospitality workers should not have to work."

        Fixed that last sentence for you.
    • callmeTroy, on 11/21/2007, -13/+1no, you fool! the point of this is to show that smoking causes death quicker than living without smoking. its got nothing to do with freedom and all that crap laws, bars, restaurants and hallaboo. people smoke cause it is what you call "fit it" method, i smoke, cause people smoke, its cool, so why not, its a drug, i like the nicotine, it relaxes me, blah blah blah blah... it kills eventually...
      • capiCrimm, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4psh, their just going to laugh at you like when I proposed banning cars and knives. Ignorant baboons! I all hope you drown in your sinks! Then maybe you'll learn.
    • CodeCobalt, on 11/21/2007, -4/+17While second hand smoke is dangerous I believe people should be allowed to smoke outside (some places are trying to ban it everywhere but your home), and that buildings such as airports and sporting venues should have well ventilated smoking areas. As for bars and resteraunts, the government telling them that they cannot allow smoking in THEIR building, is complete *****. An owner of an establishment is the one to make the decision whether it is smoke free, has a smoking section or not.

      If someone does not like the smoke they can discuss it with the owner, i'm sure if enough people complain about the smoke, the owner will gladly now allow smoking if thats what will be more profitable. If you don't like the smoke, you don't have to enter someone else' establishment.
    • mossblaser, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Technically, smoking is not a human right: this is because smoking causes other people problems and harm. Think littering of millions of cigarettes left on streets, second hand smoke in bars, unpleasant smelling buildings, etc. etc.
  • brindon, on 11/21/2007, -36/+29The anti-smoking Nazis strike again. Smoking has been around a long time. It is refreshing after a long day at the job. That is so typical. It's my body, it's my apartment, I can do what I want. Don't like smoke - move!
    • NJScoundrel, on 11/21/2007, -15/+7Yeah.... I think I saw you on Jerry Springer.
    • biochem, on 11/21/2007, -12/+9what if major companies said the same thing? "dont like being poisoned by crap from our smoke stacks? move out of the country"
      smoke in your own house, i dont give a damn. but if you smoke near me i should have the right to sue you just like we have the right to sue major companies who pollutants harm us.
      • TheCasablancan, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7I find it interesting that your first course of action is to sue a person instead of moving up wind or just asking a fellow not to smoke around you. It's not like smokers find puppies to blow smoke at for spite. I don't mind being courteous to you if you're courteous to me.

        Don't be a bitch about it.
        • biochem, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2i wouldnt actually sue them. i was making a point.
          and most smokers i know are very courteous around others.
  • popothebright, on 11/21/2007, -4/+10No. I use a vaporizer.
    • callmeTroy, on 11/21/2007, -14/+3You mean vaPOOrizer?
      • Roryking, on 11/21/2007, -12/+1strangely enough, only stoners are dumb enough to think that movie was funny
      • Neodeusx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Anime's pretty retarded too, there I picked on your interests.
  • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -8/+20People should have gotten the message a loooooooooooong time ago
  • TheNik, on 11/21/2007, -37/+16STOP TELLING ME TO STOP SMOKING. I WILL SMOKE IF I GOD-DAMNED FEEL LIKE IT. And as long as that stupid ***** with the thick glasses and the afro is telling me I shouldn't I shall.
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 11/21/2007, -9/+6Good riddance!
    • callmeTroy, on 11/21/2007, -9/+5then die of cancer
    • TheNik, on 11/21/2007, -6/+13I don't see how anyone could show animosity towards someone for merely wanting to pursue personal liberty. Who are you all to judge me based upon what I ingest? Who are you all to tell me what I can and cannot put in my lungs? You have absolutely no authority, nor should you try to act with a false vail of such, to control what I do. When the smoking that I do in my own home harms you or your family maybe you will have a leg to stand on - otherwise maybe you all should just ***** off.
      • FoxOrian, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5You were almost on the right track there, the beginning of your comment was pretty rational.
      • sexybobo, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2I don't see how anyone could show animosity towards someone for merely wanting to pursue personal liberty. They have the freedom to say what ever they want. who are you to tell them not to do something.
        Any one else read this guys comments and start laughing he is telling people to stop telling him to stop doing something.
      • JohnyD, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Depends if you live in my country and are covered under free medical care... paid for by myself and everyone else. If that's the case then you absolutly should not be allowed to smoke as well as the government should absolutly not be allowed to sell you smokes.

        If you signed a waiver giving up your free medical care (theoretically... if you were living in my country) then I wouldn't give a damn if you smoked. It's your life to do with as you please.
  • evanstapler, on 11/21/2007, -6/+17Much better than the average "stop smoking" video.
  • yobrodude, on 11/21/2007, -6/+2i feel better about one or two cigs a day, my body has time to use its "calorie" to clean out, hahaha...what the hell do you think he means by "calorie"?
    • callmeTroy, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3it means enegery, body fuel to clean ya lungs. n00b
  • BurningApple, on 11/21/2007, -9/+22Stolen from:
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/914475/still_smoking ...
  • compgeek, on 11/21/2007, -11/+6glad I never started smoking dear god this vid makes me sick
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 11/21/2007, -18/+73yeah I ***** get it. I know its bad for me. Leave me alone.
    • ahoyhoy, on 11/21/2007, -31/+6Okay, then when you get cancer, don't bug your family for sympathy.
      • Tenlow, on 11/21/2007, -4/+24so the fact that someone is dying is made non tragic by the factors that lead to their death? You've obviously never dealt with death in any form.
        • Pake, on 11/21/2007, -17/+8Self-inflicted death that can be avoided should not create sympathy for said person.
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -8/+110:1 odds say everyone that dugg this post is a smoker. Just sayin'....
    • Koookie, on 11/21/2007, -1/+14No you don't ***** get it. You don't know it's bad for me too. Leave me alone.
    • Henko, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4But you obviously don't get it! You're driving up taxes, costing lives and hurting others. When you or other smokers require care and somebody else don't get the health care they need because of long queues and lack of money, you are hurting them DIRECTLY. When single moms pay their health insurance, they're paying for your egoism because you DO cost money when your health fails. These costs are calculated into our insurance fees. When you are treated for cancer it's everybody else who DON'T get sick who pays. What a ***** waste of money and human life you are causing. Have you ANY idea how much the tobacco industry is costing your country yearly? Have you ANY idea of what pain suffering and death it is causing in poor countries being raped for this industry? Your ignorance is nauseating. And you think you deserve to be left alone. Go back to school.
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3I am well aware of the cost the I place on society. I am also aware of the 70% tax that I pay on cigarettes that doesn't go to health care in my state to cover these people that I am hurting. I am aware that while I was told that they tax increase of smokes in my state was going to go to teacher salaries and health care coverage (something which I supported), it was instead diverted to the general fund half-way though the year to fix a budget deficit. Don't talk to me about taxes. Don't talk to me about health insurance. I am a white, single, mid-20s male with a pre-existing medical condition that caused me to go into bankruptcy because I couldn't afford health insurance. I pay While "single Mom" wasn't smart enough to not have a baby she couldn't afford, she still gets tax credits and lower insurance as well as title 9. All of which I am helping paying for. The real world is a bitch. Smoking helps me cope.
        • Uranium118, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2We should forgive you for polluting the air and intoxicating other people because you have a ***** life? Yeah, I didn't think so, stop smoking, you disgust me as much as fat people.
        • Henko, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1That was the most egoistic ***** I've ever read. And that sad attempt of trying to get some kind of pity just made the ***** scale tip over. Trying to manipulate people with pity in a discussion is the trademark of a sociopath - just like blaming others for your faults and grasping for the smallest opportunity to raise yourself above others.
  • brodycrider, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6I've always wondered what Bernie Mac's lungs looked like.
  • danthemayun, on 11/21/2007, -11/+36OMG this proves everything, after 400 cigarettes smoked at a super high speed with tons of extra variables I'll have enough tar to take out of my lungs and patch up a hole in my driveway, I'm quitting instantly

    something i watch in the media will def change my opinions man
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -3/+9It illustrates how many cigarettes you smoke over time. At 20 smokes per pack, that's only 20 packs. At a pack a day that's less than a month's worth of smoking. How many years have you smoked? It adds up.
    • Harbinger67, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6Exactly. This 'test' is ***** because when you smoke, your lungs don't absorb all the smoke that enters them, unlike the water in this test. Same goes for the guy blowing smoke through a napkin and all those other videos.
      • Jessejb, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5Exactly what I was thinking... I personally abhor smoking. But come on what's this guys ***** crusade about? Make your own decisions and don't worry about what some else wants to do with their life UGH.
  • genepooldesign, on 11/21/2007, -16/+33Stop driving cars with gasoline engines and I'll stop smoking. Thanksbye.
    • georgetds, on 11/21/2007, -7/+9I gather you don't drive yet?
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -4/+3So diluting a small bit of CO gas into the ENTIRE atmosphere is somehow equitable now with you directly sucking Phillip Morris' exhaust pipes directly into your lungs with hardly any dilution at all?

      The poison is in the dosage dude.
      • thecrazyd, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2Cars affect everyone around, and are kind of hard to avoid, especially if you live in an urban area. Cigarettes affect me, and people who are too stupid to move away from me if they mind second hand smoke.
      • arcooke, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3You COMPLETELY missed the point. He's talking about 2nd hand smoke harming other people. Non-smokers whine when they can smell a cigarette anywhere near them, as if it's an instant death sentence.. but yet it's perfectly fine to drive down a busy highway with the windows rolled down breathing in countless gallons of burned gasoline every day.

        To each his own.. in other words, mind your own ***** business.

    • BlazinEurasian, on 11/21/2007, -4/+4Thats like saying stop cutting down the rainforest and I'll start eating broccolli.
    • cyberwarriorx, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2The difference is gas, etc. powered cars are a necessary evil. What necessary purpose does smoking serve again?
  • tanside, on 11/21/2007, -7/+19WTF!?! how about doing that with a filtered cigarette?? You don't have to be a scientist to see how bad smoking can be, but you have to remember that our lungs are pretty good filters themselves. People need start growing their own tobacco, at least then there won't be any fillers, it would be kinda interesting to smoke a cigarette that didn't have the extra crap the cigarette company's put in them. i guess people forget how the US was founded, and that we at least owe a little respect to the plant that helped form the USA.
    • quiznos, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5American Spirits don't have added chemicals, but those are very dry and harsh. Camel Turkish Royals FTW.
      • tanside, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3yeah, i've heard that, but personally i don't smoke anyways, i just hate how sensationalized things can get.
      • Nat3r, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1naw Kamel Reds :)

        i used to roll my own, too powerful to smoke constantly
      • heynoop, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1American Spirits FTW. I don't find them dry or harsh really, especially the lights. The 'normal' cigarettes make me worse off than American Spirits anyway. I stopped having that awful morning smoker's cough after I switched.
    • podalirius, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4our lungs are not good filters. besides, cigarettes are detrimental to the mucocilliary escalator, which is the main means of removing pollutants from the lungs. several of the ingredients in cigarettes hyperactivate the escalator in the short term and completely destroy it in the long run. so, not only does smoking expose you to pollutants, it also inhibits your ability to deal with them.
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3However you want to justify it to yourself dude.
    • Cowfrommars, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Er, I'm pretty sure they were filtered cigarettes (they have filters in them).
      • tanside, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1i'm pretty sure after seeing the directors cut that they use non-filtered cigarettes (green box) and then filtered ones to do the experiment.
  • marioae, on 11/21/2007, -6/+20This video is making me feel funny. I kinda feel like I need a cigarette.
    • LaerrusFish, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4I smoked one right after the video
      And I roll my own. I go through a pouch in a week and a half now that I can roll them small.
      I even bummed a light cigarette from someone the other day and it made my head spin.
  • mrmod, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7I agree with what your saying but more so, it's hard to quit. A lot of fat people are constantly asking for clemency in their battle against being obese. We don't have people showing them millions of heart attack victims (or pictures of themselves naked).
    The point is, grossing people out, showing them what they already know; it doesn't help all that much. How about offering support to people that are trying to quit? "What would help?" Really? You want to help, thanks man, I appreciate it! (Truly). Well, first, don't remind me how bad it is. All smokers know that. Offer something else to do, pull the person away for a drink, girls- make out with the guy (smokers kiss better). If you can engage (addict) them/me to something else, you've got a good start.
    Smokers, keep your obviously addicted selves away from other smokers. ...You can't resist them. Anyway, there's my trolling for the month.
    • xruntime, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Really? Smokers kiss better? Where'd you get that from?
  • nublet, on 11/21/2007, -7/+4ok, i'm officially scared.
  • brodycrider, on 11/21/2007, -1/+23Your house looks like ***** meth lab!!!
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3Yes because establishing a controlled environment for rendering colloids down to their essence is a practice completely exclusive to manufacturing methamphetamine.

      Kill yourself.
  • nuclearwasted, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4Dude, I always told people my bong was healthy, here's proof!
  • AllSt4r, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Those paragraphs in beginning and end flash so fast only Chuck Norris can finish reading them
    • emomakesmecry, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Christopher Walken could do it too.
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1There's this thing called a pause button. It's only a click away.
  • M4tt3r, on 11/21/2007, -3/+11I wonder how much car pollution we breathe in every day, and how that effects us. As people like to use the 2nd hand smoke defense (which has been shown to be statically irrelevant.... 25% increase... from 10,000 to 12,500 out of 1 million is not a relevant increase) then I will use the "well you drive your car around which I have to breathe burning oil, and when I think of burning oil and side effects I can't help but think of "Gulf War Syndrome", since after all we are going off emotions and no actual facts. Right.
    • DemonWasp, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1And how about those of us who avoid driving? I walk to work, bike to anything further, and if I'm going to another city it's on a bus. I realise it's not the most comfortable way to travel, but it's cheap, easy, and avoids traffic.
      Also, I'd actually say that 25% increase is pretty substantial, and ask you where you got that figure (I'm honestly asking here).
  • sugarkang, on 11/21/2007, -7/+44things to keep in mind:
    1) every single person that smokes knows that its bad for them.
    2) most people who have been smoking for several years want to quit.
    3) people who continue smoking while regretting it do so because they are hopelessly addicted.
    4) addiction is a highly irrational force that often beats out rationality.

    the truth in this video is skewed. yeah, nobody is debating how bad cigarettes are. but the visual impact of basically two entire cartons of cigarettes and leftover tar is sensationalized. imagine two toilet bowls: the first one has one ***** in it. the second one has 400 ***** in it. well duh, the second one is going to look absolutely horrible.

    back to my original point. yeah its ***** bad. but lets just put things into perspective here.
    • hyaena, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5sanity has no place on digg. shame on you
    • harvested, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10400 really isn't that much, a pack a day smoker would chuff that down EVERY 16 days.
      • MinaSulo, on 11/21/2007, -2/+216 days? How the hell did you get that? A pack contains 20 cigarettes, so that would be EVERY 20 days. According to your math, a pack contains 25 cigarettes, which may be true where you live or what you get. In that case, sorry for being an ass, but the usual pack contains 20 cigarettes.
        • harvested, on 11/21/2007, -0/+34 days, hardly important, but yeah, in Australia we have packets of 25.
    • drizzlelicious, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1At least, this will keep people like me from ever getting close to smoking. Not that I ever intended to in the first place
      • thecrazyd, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2So, this video is good for making people who would never smoke anyway, never smoke. At least it has some use.
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2So you're saying most smokers only smoke one cigarette in their entire lifetime and not 400? 400 cigarettes is sucked down by the average smoker in a hair over 2 weeks dude.
      • sugarkang, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0no dude. i'm saying there's a difference between cumulative effect spread over time vs. all at once. no one smokes 400 cigarettes in one sitting. a pack a day smoker would take 20 days to smoke 2 cartons. 400 cigarettes spread over 20 days isn't going to kill a person. 400 cigarettes in 5 minutes will. like i said before, no one is disputing how awful cigarettes are. but there's a difference between sensationalism and the reality of things.
    • shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I watched my mother die of lung cancer and I still can't kick it.
  • Kronos6948, on 11/21/2007, -0/+20Dennis Leary said it best...You can have cigarettes called Cancer, and smokers will still suck them up like there's no tomorrow. Nothing pisses a smoker off more than when you tell them that they should quit and then start spouting off reasons why. If anything, you make them smoke more. I learned that the hard way.
    • anti_hax0r, on 11/21/2007, -7/+1Exactly, Darwinism at work.
      • Eleo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Except smokers generally live long enough to pass on their genes...
    • fenris6644, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Actually what Leary said was: you could have cigarettes that come in a black pack with a skull and a crossbone on the front called "Tumors" and smokers would be lining up around they block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these *****' things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as ya light up!"
  • joker10687, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3That is pretty sick... What I wanna know is: How does he know it's "bitter"???
    did you taste IT?
    • MazeKaz, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Because tar in general taste like rainbows and gummy bears, right?
  • LOLSteelBullet, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Good thing my lungs aren't plastic and filled with that much water or that chemical reaction could actually occur.
    • podalirius, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3your alveolar sacs are filled with water, just like the bottle--dumb dick
  • braves322, on 11/21/2007, -4/+3buried because its been on digg for like 2 months and I'm tired of seeing it
  • TheNik, on 11/21/2007, -5/+10I don't see how anyone could show animosity towards someone for merely wanting to pursue personal liberty. Who are you all to judge me based upon what I ingest? Who are you all to tell me what I can and cannot put in my lungs? You have absolutely no authority, nor should you try to act with a false vail of such, to control what I do. When the smoking that I do in my own home harms you or your family maybe you will have a leg to stand on - otherwise maybe you all should just ***** off.
    • abktw2, on 11/21/2007, -7/+1I agree. As long as it is only harming you. Oh but wait what about the tax dollars I contribute towards the care of people who have destroyed their health with cigarettes and cannot afford to pay their own medical bills. Then i would say I have a leg to stand on. Consider what your habit costs non-users.
      • TheNik, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7Maybe people should watch the distracted drivers driving in their lane during a thunderstorm. Or the airplane that crashes into their house. Or the cancer they get hereditarily. Or the stroke they suffer from stress.
      • rossinio, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_brief ... Have a look at this. Even if you hate/love smoking you can't argue that smokers cost the NHS in the UK max £1.7bn and generate tax revenue of £8.9bn. That means the overall bonus to tax revenue is ~£7.2bn, which funds a lot of non smoking health services etc. (NB: this only really counts if the government wisely reinvests the money entirely in the NHS, which it probably doesnt).
        Even if you account for losses due to missed work etc.. smokers still produce a hell of a lot of tax revenue, something most people just gloss over.
    • LaerrusFish, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5Screw you, meat eater, carb junkie, don't tell me what you put in your body is not going to give you medical problems some day.
      According to your logic, we should all be on a strict diet, exercise twice a day and probably do group jumping jacks together at work in the morning.
      • LaerrusFish, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1sorry that was intended for abktw2 below
        • abktw2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Ya absolutely. But a healthy balanced diet would work with 30 minutes of vigorous exercise a day. And some companies are now requiring their employees to exercise during work to help reduce the cost of the insurance rates they pay. And screw you is a little harsh and an ad hominid attack. Lets focus on the issue eh buddy.
    • georgetds, on 11/21/2007, -5/+2I take it you only smoke in your own home?
      • shotgunefx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3I take it you only drive your car in your garage?
    • cyberwarriorx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1It harms me when I have to buy your house and clean up that nasty *****. Or when I buy your nasty electronics or fix your tar-filled computer. Just because your own freedom is so important, it doesn't mean we should have to suffer because of it.
    • abaybas, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1You make it sound like smoking is a freedom, when you know damn well that you are just hopelessly addicted to it. You can rationalize it all you want, but you know damn well that it's not really you, but it's the addiction that's making up all the excuses.

      This is the worst kind of excuse for smoking. This is the exact excuse that smoking companies want to push with images of cowboys smoking in the fields.

      I don't care what you do with your life, but I advise you to be able to admit to yourself that you have an addiction.

      Also, next time, think twice before regurgitating corporate propaganda onto younger generations.
  • hurlothrumbo, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5These are the types of titles that makes me want to keep lighting up. Yeah, I know it's bad for me, thanks. Just show me the damn video without the implicit commentary.
    • bingo000, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1If that still makes you wanna smoke, then you deserve whatever is coming to you, no sympathy!
  • mikev, on 11/21/2007, -3/+8I'm annoyed by all the people who are constantly telling us smokers about how bad it is and we're gonna get cancer. We don't live under rocks and know the downsides of it.

    Truth be told, I don't care. You live once and die anyways. :)
    • bingo000, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1Its not the same if you die with a killing painful disease rather than if you die naturally. And no killing yourself with poison is not natural!
    • NeonElixir, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2That's fine and all. But you're helping to kill everyone else as well. That smoke has to go somewhere...
    • chewbacca77, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5True, but you could also use that rationale to play on a freeway.
    • xruntime, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1So you might as well make it last as long as possible, no?
  • NikoKun, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2These things don't apply to the reality of how smoke interacts with your lungs... Yes smoking is bad... but this kind of stuff just doesn't apply in any useful way.
    • bingo000, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1Sure the smoke knows a detour out of your ears!
  • dagr8tim, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7Unscientific. You would have to suck on a cig from the time it was lit, till it was down to the filter. How much smoke and tar doesn't enter your lungs because you are holding it? How much tar is still suspended in the smoke when you exhale?

    I'm not saying smoking is alright (I'm glad I quit nearly 4 years ago). But this video is little more than a side show attraction.
    • thejoker86, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1those ciggerettes didnt even have filters.
      • a5tr0cr3ep, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2he idea behind the filter was to screen out tar and nicotine to make the cigarette "safer." By the 1960s, filter cigarettes dominated the market.

        You can see this effect continuing even today. The brands of cigarettes that are "ultra low tar and nicotine" use a technique that involves tiny, invisible perforations in the filter. As smoke flows through the filter, quite a bit of air flows through the perforations and mixes in with the smoke. With each drag, the smoker receives a lot of air and much less smoke, and therefore less tar and nicotine.

        The problem with filters is that they don't actually produce the intended effect of "less." Smokers have a reason for smoking: Their bodies need nicotine. It's a physical addiction, as discussed in How Nicotine Works. Smokers will inhale the amount of smoke necessary to get the dose of nicotine their bodies need. Several of the pages in the links below talk about conscious and unconscious steps smokers take to thwart filters and get nicotine.
    • a5tr0cr3ep, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2lets say that the experimenter gave perfect conditions and that increased his precipitate... i would like to ask you would half that amount be ok, what about 25% of what he had... where do you draw the line of "wow thats a lot of crap to put into my lungs" and an acceptable amount?
    • xruntime, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1The vaccum is no different, tar is still in the smoke that goes through the vaccum.
  • LaerrusFish, on 11/21/2007, -5/+10Why is it when people feel the need to tell me how bad smoking is while they hit the fast food twice a day, drink a mega monster drink and probably eat chips and junk food at home.
    You don't want to smell my smoke, fine. . I'll gladly go outside, even across the street, but please don't tell me I'm killing myself when you know darn well you put plenty of junk into your own system every day.
  • vwvan, on 11/21/2007, -1/+8can you recycle the tar to make more cigarettes?
    • skyshock1, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Step 1.) Dig up all the dead bodies
      Step 2.) ????
      Step 3.) Profit!!!!
      • EmperorAwesome, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1If they came out with a brand of cigarette that was blended with the ashes of dead people - y'know what? I'd try it.
  • mets91, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1coffee?
  • eleece722, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised no one has commented on this guy's horrible spelling!
    • eleece722, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Nevermind, he seems to be foreign to English, so I guess we can give him a break.
  • brownmajik, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1haha, someone just copied this guy: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/930479/still_smoking ...
  • tanside, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3this is, and will always be a sore subject.
  • Unclickable, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2http://yuxt.com/olga/Smoking_Kills
  • chuckbergeron, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1I dunno, can I trust a video where the author uses double-exclamation (!!) points and says "Totally 400 cigarettes..." ?
  • chuckbergeron, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10Quitting smoking just prolongs the inevitable. It's all about your view on life.
    • empraptor, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3It's also about addiction and whether you are going to pay out the nose for it now and then later as you die a painful and unsightly death.

      I'm all for you dying early if that's what you want. But don't smoke that ***** around me.
      • thecrazyd, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Then ***** move.
        • empraptor, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Sure I'll consider that option if it is convenient for me. But if you are a smoker do be considerate and smoke where it will not harm others.
      • antongranik, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1No, you soon ***** die. :)
    • Rojahon, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3If you want to smoke go ahead, but that's a lame excuse. Just because it's inevitable doesn't mean you can't want to extend your life. Doing something you know is killing you is just a long drawn out act of suicide. So, if you really don't care about being alive then there are more efficient ways of killing yourself. If you want to live, however, smoking is unjustifiable.
      • chuckbergeron, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1That's what I'm saying Rojahon, dig a little deeper. "It's all about your view on life." Do you want to enjoy what you have in the moment, and live shorter or avoid hazards and live longer? Aside from the astounding negative effects, smoking can be both relaxing and a very social activity. Just as alcohol is fun in moderation. What we put into our bodies should be our own right.
    • abaybas, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Breathing also just prolongs the inevitable. You are right though, it is all about your view on life.
  • Shadowsaint, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4This IS an issue about liberty, not smoking.

    If you don't LIKE what is going on in a private establishment, then don't go.

    Do all the strip clubs that you don't go to offend you too? Want to shut don everything you don't enjoy so NO one can enjoy it?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.