Talk:Chain smoking

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Addictions and recovery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of addiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Addictions and recoveryWikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryTemplate:WikiProject Addictions and recoveryaddiction and recovery articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Please do not vote for this article to be moved to Wiktionary. A lot can be said about chain smoking—just think of how people's attitude to smoking has changed. Today, a true chain smoker will have to live the life of a recluse, whereas 50 years ago or so you were allowed to smoke in public buildings, cinemas, offices, classrooms, hospitals, taxis, restaurants, etc. etc. All this and a lot more should/could be added. <KF> 00:17, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you. Please don't move this to the Wikitionary. This is much more than a dictionary entry. Canjth 18:37 8 August 2006

Which country is this referring to? It's worded to suggest that the '20 minutes' is scientific! Davidjamesgill 01:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"smoking does not relieve stress"

I've cut this section from the article, as it's not really relevant to chain smoking specifically. If it's true, it'd be great in the cigarette article, or nicotine, or tobacco, but it's not necessary here. I'd also question the factual accuracy of it, as "relieving stress" can be pretty subjective, and that's a very unscientific technical explanation of nicotine in the bloodstream. The section as I cut it, and the section as it was initially written follow.

However, smoking does not actually relieve stress. Cigarette smoking is actually stressful for the body. The "relief" a smoker feels from smoking a cigarette after a stressful event is caused by replenishment of nicotine levels in the bloodstream. ^{[citation needed]} This replenishment is needed because stress results in nicotine being drawn from the blood at a quicker rate. ^{[citation needed]}

It should be noted that smoking does not relieve stress however, infact cigarette smoking is a stressful event on the body. The "Relief" a smoker feels from smoking a cigarette after a stressful event is in reality nicotine levels being replenished into the bloodstream because of the fact that the stressful event caused nicotine to be drawn from the blood at a faster rate. And may cause death.

icydid 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

The above notwithstanding, this should be moved to Wiktionary. Much could be said here, but almost all of it would apply to cigarettes generally rather than chain smoking. Societal attitudes towards chain smoking are likely not that much different than those toward smoking. More importantly, the dearth of sources on this topic will make it virtually impossible to create a quality article, although a decent dictionary definition is possible. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I completely agree with you there, Savidan—in fact, I think the article is a fine example of Wikipedia’s ability to shine the spotlight on minutiae, even as it stands. For example, I’ll step in to defend the paragraph on the gradual disappearance of chain smoking as Bloomberg laws come into effect; this doesn’t quite apply to smoking in general. Though as you say, the article could use some references, and as a whole it could probably be merged into a subsection of smoking. —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have a fine ability to "shine the spotlight on the minutiae." However, what ultimatley differentiates the minutiae which become great articles from those which become cruft and original research-y is whether or not there exists a substantial base of literature from which to draw. Although "chain smoking" gets a few hundred hits on Google Scholar, it is used them almost exclusively as a term of art for someone who is a heavy smoker. Hence, the content here will become repetitive with the generic content on cigarettes. The only thing which is specific to "chain smoking" itself is the idea of lighting a new cigarette with an old one but there are not enough verifiable and notable facts to be stated about this practice itself which do not belong elsewhere instead.

The famous chain smokers paragraph is a good example. There really is not verifiable source which could confirm the fact that these people actually lit a cigarette with another cigaratte. List of smokers would be a more appropriate place for such a thing, although the very concept is prone to abuse from vanity and heresay. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celbs

there was a big section I took out, no proof! Its been tag from 06! Seth slackware 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed more than just the celebs who were tagged. At least one of the chain smokers was properly referenced as such...Rousseau H. Flower (see article for citation). I'm restoring that one. Aelffin 03:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 packs a day?

In said list appear, among others, John Lennon and Joseph Goebbels.

Though a photo of Lennon with new nerdy glasses and smoking a cigarette appeared in Village Voice in November 1980, this article is the only claim I have ever seen that he smoked 100 a day-- appears improbable.

In an interview from his last weeks Lennon appeared to be dropping names-- such as Burt Reynolds, a member of Sinatra's Rat Pack (notice the rhyme with cigaRET PACK). It seemed that Lennon, after a summer of not messing in the Presidential campaign, hoped to ingratiate himself with the new administration, which as we know pushed the War On Drugs and was fervently pro-tobacco and anti-cannabis.

It turned out John didn't get to the Inaugural Ball, which was hosted by Frank Sinatra. A photo shows the Reagans seated on thrones, with Frank kneeling toward Nancy, evidently singing some Republican anthem. Ron looks on approvingly.

"Will you still need me when I"m 64?" Do the math-- John was exactly 60 DAYS + 4 Decades of age when the asshole shot him. Four (4) days later, December 12, 1980, Frank Sinatra turned 65. Sinatra was quoted as saying of John, "He was a gentle soul."

Oh yes, something happened December 8, 1963-- exactly 17 years before the killing of Lennon and 16 days after the killing of Kennedy (how do they do it?). Frank Sinatra Jr. was kidnapped and subsequently ransomed, generating headlines but since mostly forgotten.

In January 1981 Sinatra Sr. received a personal endorsement from Reagan to acquire a share in a Los Vegas gambling institution.

   --Uh, this is Wikipedia, not a conspiracy theory forum for people with mental issues. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.232.74 (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking 100 cigarettes a day "appears improbable", yet Frankie and Ronnie killed John with numerology? Over a share in a "Los" Vegas "gambling institution"? Magmagoblin2 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, Dr. Goebbels

Though this article lists him among chain-smokers, 5 packs a day, Toland (Adolf Hitler 1974) mentions two packs a day. One website mentions he had to hide this from the Führer. I do not know if Toland meant American-style packs of 20 or European-style packs of 10. In any case, even if it took nonsmoker Adolf to invent the Big Lie, it took pack(?)-a-day Goebbels to administer the Big Lie.Tokerdesigner (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette packs in Germany traditionally contained 20 cigarettes. During the 1990s, vending machines started to dispense cigarette packs with 19, 18, and later 17 cigarettes, because cigarettes had become more expensive, and the machines only accepted 1, 2, and 5 mark coins. Currently, you can buy cigarette packs with 17-25 cigarettes inside. Smaller packs are forbidden, probably to discourage children from smoking — people who make laws have no idea how much money today's kids have. This was not the case during Goebbels' time, you could even buy single cigarettes back then. But a "pack" was always 20 cigarettes. ––Prorokini (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Chain Smokers

Is the list truly necessary? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the entire list if there is no response of any kind by May 3. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. I think other people would've found it interesting. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I would. It would give a sociological overview of their times, status, etc, in other words, cultural significance. There are lists of people significant to an article's topic throughout the pedia (Sephardic Jews for instance) & fleshes it out. I tweaked it and put it back. Manytexts (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Causes" section

I realize the entire article needs work, but the "Causes" section comes off particularly badly. Chain-smoking seems more like an activity than a condition, meaning that speaking of its "causes" is a little inappropriate. The info in this section seems legit, but "causes" seems less appropriate than, well, something else; perhaps this stuff could be fit in elsewhere. It's also a little comically misleading to have the first sentence mentioning crack as a major influence, as if smoking crack is the first thing that comes to mind when you consider chain-smoking. Obeliab (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ventilation

I don't see how this is relevant - should perhaps be moved to article for Second Hand smoke?

Please remove Ventilation segment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordforge (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and perspective

I have no refs because I'm busy atm, but 100 a day isn't improbable or implausible or unbelievable. My mother (1970s) was a chain smoker & smoked 100 a day that I knew of. Dad seemed to be in the same league, but I didn't notice how many packs he consumed. And yes, they did light one off the last if and as they felt so moved. They could afford it then but wouldn't now. And they ignored the activists. Why I put this here is to say that in today's politically correct climate, this kind of smoking & its social prevalence seems unreal. We are the aware ones. The ventilation thing is interesting too. DIY housepainters in my parents' circle painted over windows so they couldn't be opened. Passive smoking wasn't at all given credibility among uneducated people, then and now. Just sayin' before anyone dilutes the significance of this phenomenon as addiction. Refs please, maestros of wikipedia Manytexts (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC) PS none of their kids smoked.[reply]

Unreferenced text

Please do not reinsert unreferenced text, especially concerning real persons. This is against major wikipedia policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chain smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference?

I can't find the information mentioned in this article about aversion therapy in the book of James Cocores. can you specify the page or edition?Campylobacter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]