Chen 1
Brady Chen
Professor Guenzel
ENC 1102
18 April 2013
Is It Really Worth It?
Suppose there has been a trending activity, popular not only with the young but also the
old and everything that falls in between. Peer pressure and social status has spread it like a
wildfire, gaining a mass following worldwide. Not only is this activity extremely pleasurable but
it also portrays elegance and fashion. In comes a brilliant scientist, during the turn of the century,
radically deeming it harmful not only to the actor but also its audience. Now the question is,
knowing this activity is extremely harmful to both ourselves and those around us, would you still
conduct this act? The reasonable, logical, and rational answer is no. Given, peer pressure and
social status contributes to its ceaselessness, with a strong will, one can always overcome.
However that is not the case with smoking. Those who wish to stop are constantly drawn in like
moths to fire, aware of their own demise but trudging on nevertheless. Smoking causes an
average of 443,000 deaths per year within the United States alone, compiling more deaths than
those cause by HIV, illegal drugs, alcohol use, vehicle accidents, suicides, and murders
combined (CDC). Tobacco smoking is detrimental on multiple levels, causing negative effects
on both physical and mental status. Chemicals within cigarettes not only affect the lungs but also
the brain and other vital organs.
Imagine inhaling air polluted by thousands of mysterious chemicals, although willingly,
that is exactly what smokers do. Without question, a majority of doctors and researchers are
aware of the toxic chemicals and perceive smoking as hazardous and harmful. Two of these
Chen 2
researchers are Kazutoshi Fujioka, an Analytical Chemist with over twenty years of experience,
and Takayuki Shibaomoto, an Environmental Toxicologist who has published multiple articles.
Together they composed a research paper titled, “Determination of Toxic Carbonyl Compounds
in Cigarette Smoke,” highlighting the deadly chemicals within tobacco cigarettes. Cigarettes
companies such as Marlboro, Camel, and Winfield neglect their users, failing to include both
active and inactive ingredients. In truth, Dr. Fujioka and Professor Shibaomoto uncovered over
3000 organic compounds found in cigarettes, many of which are potent carcinogens such as
polycyclinc aromatic hydrocarbons, N-nitrosamines, and Dioxins (Fujioka & Shibamoto 53).
These chemicals have been proven to cause biological complications due to their ability to bind
to nucleic acid, the main composition of DNA and RNA, which are the basic building blocks of
life (53). Each of these chemicals are harmful in their own way. Acrolein, for example is known
to be a “toxic volatile organic compound.” Tested on rats, those exposed to 4.0 ppm (parts per
million) Acrolein die within the first 11 days (52). These chemicals found pose serious health
risks for those inhaling them.
Many of these health risks can be observed and tested. With several publications,
Medical Doctor, Satoshi Kitamura, researched the effects of smoking on the lungs through
multiple experiments. He published his findings in a report titled, “Effects of Cigarette Smoking
on Metabolic Events in the Lung.” After a plethora of diverse trials, using 23 healthy human test
subjects, he concluded several results. Dr. Kitamura found that “cigarette smoking induces
bronchoconstriction, thus decreasing peak flow, FVC, and FEV 1.0,” (Kitamura 285). This result
shows a strong correlation between the intake of chemicals from cigarettes and constriction of
the airways within the lungs, thus decreasing the maximum speed of exhaling. This often leads to
shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing. Smoking does not only affect respiration it also
Chen 3
“results in suppression of protein synthesis by pulmonary tissue” (294). In the lungs, chemicals
such as carbon monoxide can be misidentified as a protein inhibitor, thus impairing the structural
composition. This will further render the lungs prone to infections of bacteria and viruses.
Dr. Katamura also discovered “cigarette smoke increases the activity of aryl hydrocarbon
hydroxylase,” a chemical that metabolically activates the carcinogenic effects of benzo(a)pyrene
(288). As benzo(a)pyrene becomes active the lungs begin to suffer at a molecular level, first
damaging the DNA, then moving on to protein and causing a chain reaction. This cancer causing
chemical will eventually lead to respiratory complications and premature death. These
complications not only apply to the users but also those around them through passive smoking.
Much against their own will, those affected by passive smoking or second-hand smoking
have similar, and sometimes more severe symptoms than active smokers. Coming from a family
that constantly smokes, I have firsthand knowledge and experience when it comes to the
perspective of secondhand smokers. However my experiences along will not suffice as evidence
for the views of a whole group. Instead we will use the research of Akinori Nakata, a senior
researcher at NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), and his team.
Published in the paper “Active cigarette smoking, secondhand smoke exposure at work and
home, and self-rated heatlh,” Nakata and his team gathered a total of 2558 workers, ages ranging
from 16 to 83. In their experiment, each subject was to conduct a self-assessment on their health
regarding levels of smoking, whether active or passive (Nakata et al. 651). Those who were
“lifetime non-smokers occasionally exposed to SHS (secondhand smoking) at work had
significantly increased odds of suboptimal SRH (self-rated health) compared with lifetime nonsmokers unexposed to SHS” (654). These secondhand smokers rate their health as poor or very
poor, well aware of the harmful effects of smoking and its consequences. The results show that
Chen 4
lifetime non-smokers would prefer to avoid contact with chemicals within cigarette. Those
constantly exposed to tobacco smoke, either through work or relatives have been shown to have
an increased rate of respiratory and sensory irritation symptoms, cardiovascular disease, and lung
cancer (654). The negative effect of passive smoking not only affects adults but also
adolescences and infants.
Children that cannot defend themselves are subjected to the will of their parents.
Exploring the depths of smoking, Kenneth William Ernest Denson, a researcher that has
published several papers on tobacco smoking, uncovered the negative effects of secondhand
smoking and how it affects the younger generation, such as infants, children and adolescents. He
reported his findings in an article titled, “Passive smoking in infants, children and adolescents.
The effects of diet and socieoconoimc factors.” It has long been acknowledged that there is a
strong correlation between mothers that smoker through labor and lower birth weights. This is
not, however, a direct effect of chemicals within the cigarette. Through Denson’s research, he
discovered that smokers “have a lower intake of the antioxidants B-carotene, vitamin C, and
Vitamin E as well as polyunsaturated fat and fibre, and higher intakes of total and saturated fat
compared to non-smokers”(526). This result proves that mothers that smoke through labor do not
gain the average amount of nutrients needed, because of the low intake of these vital vitamins
and minerals it could negatively affect the fetoplacental circulation. Although low birth weight
can be mitigated by consuming vegetables and fruits, smoking has been proven to cause
placental abnormalities, thus causing the infants to have a higher risk of developing respiratory
infections, bronchitis, and in some severe cases, sudden infant death syndrome (527). Growing
up, children that are constantly exposed to fumes of toxic chemicals may develop asthma, hay
fever and eczema (529). With all these negative side effects, why do smokers continue to smoke?
Chen 5
At this day and age it can be assumed that most, if not all, smokers understand the
consequences of cigarette smoking, or do they? Going back to the work of Akinori Nakata,
results presented that heavy smokers had the same Self-rated Health as those who are lifetime
non-smokers not exposed to secondhand smoking, optimal (Nakata et al. 654). Perhaps smokers
do not fully comprehend the results of their actions. Questioning this belief Sabine Glock, a
research assistant at LCMI (Language, Culture, Media, and Identities) Research Unit, and her
team conducted several experiments which included and manipulated a 2 x 2 x 3 warning label.
Their work and results published in the paper “Beyond fear appeals: Contradicting positive
smoking outcome expectancies to influence smokers’ implicit attitudes, perception, and
behavior,” presented a new light on the viewpoint of smokers. In her experiment she gathered a
sample of thirty smokers with an average age of 21.82 years, presenting them with pictures of
people smoking as well as a positive and negative word. Results showed that those presented
with the warning label smoked an average of 8.32 cigarettes as opposed to those not presented
with a warning label, smoking an average of 10.04 cigarettes (Glock 550). The aftermath shows
that smokers who are provided with a warning label associate smoking with a positive outcome
less, thus causing them to smoke less. This is a result of the contradiction in which they believe
smoking will result in a positive outcome due to advertisement and society. Although some
smokers retract when seeing a health warning, there are others who are well aware of their
actions but still continue.
Why do people smoke even though they are aware of the backwash that follows?
Two of the major factors are stress and nicotine. Associate Research Professor at Arizona State
University, Michael Todd, connected the relation between stress and smoking in his paper titled
“Daily Processes in Stress and Smoking: Effects of Negative Events, Nicotine Dependence, and
Chen 6
Gender.” He gathered a total of 51 individuals, conducting a 14-day trial where the participants
must fill out a DDS (daily data sheet) four times a day. In these daily data sheets individuals
must rate their stressful events on a scale from 0, being not stressful, to 6, extremely stressful as
well as the number of cigarettes smoked and urges to smoke. Professor Todd found that “nicotine
dependence was positively related to average number of cigarettes smoked but not to urges”
(Todd 35). Nicotine is a chemical that enters the body and defuses within the bloodstream
reaching the brain within ten to twenty seconds after inhalation. After entering the brain it opens
pathways that release dopamine, a natural neurotransmitter that control the brain’s reward and
pleasure center, thus causing the individual to crave more. This is however only one component
of the addiction to cigarettes. In Professor Todd’s research, “participants report[ed] more events
and higher overall levels of perceived stress also reported relatively more urges” (Todd 31).
Those who smoke show signs of increase stress levels to a particular event than those nonsmokers. This in turn affects their urge to smoke more; a table presenting the results will be
included below. Nicotine and stress make smoking virtually impossible to quit once started,
however treatment has improved over time, allowing for a swift recover for those of a strong
will.
Chen 7
All in all, the research presented before you describes the three view points on smoking,
those of professional doctors, passive smokers, and active smokers. Although these viewpoints
may differ in their opinion on the subject, they all agree on one point: smoking is detrimental not
only to our health, but also those around us. Hidden in these tiny cigarettes are thousands of
deadly compounds, harming us on a molecular level. Stress and nicotine dependence keep the
smokers coming back. This chain reaction may lead to complications within the organs and
eventually cancer and death. Coming from a family that smokes, I have lost a close relative to its
deadly grasp. My loss is but only one of the many loved ones that have been torn away. Now the
question is, is it really worth it? I leave that decision in your hands.
Chen 8
Works Cited
Denson, K. W. (2001). Passive smoking in infants, children and adolescents. the effects of diet
and socioeconomic factors. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 74(8), 525-532. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004200100258
Fujioka, K., & Shibamoto, T. (2006). Determination of toxic carbonyl compounds in cigarette
smoke. Environmental Toxicology, 21(1), 47-54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tox.20153
Glock, S., Unz, D., & Kovacs, C. (2012). Beyond fear appeals: Contradicting positive smoking
outcome expectancies to influence smokers' implicit attitudes, perception, and behavior.
Addictive Behaviors, 37(4), 548-551. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.032
"Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.
Kitamura, S. (1987). Effects of cigarette smoking on metabolic events in the lung.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 72, 283-296. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/77652665?acco
untid=10003
Nakata, A., Takahashi, M., Swanson, N. G., Ikeda, T., & Hojou, M. (2009). Active cigarette
smoking, secondhand smoke exposure at work and home, and self-rated health. Public
Health, 123(10), 650-656. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2009.09.006
Todd, M. (2004). Daily processes in stress and smoking: Effects of negative events, nicotine
dependence, and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors : Journal of the Society of
Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 18(1), 31-39. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/71721037?acco
untid=10003