Post your snappy comeback

[osirus226]

for the "Oh, Did he/she smoke?"

I've been trying to come up with one for the people who keep asking.

Thanks

[SDianneB]

Only when s/he was on fire.

[Karma1976]

haha exactly.

Q: Did he/she smoke?

A: Of course he/she is a hot sh*t

[Remembering Dave]

sorry for the unpopular reply, but I must be honest. I say, yes he did, and it caused his lung cancer.

studies have shown that most folks with SCLC were smokers.

Dave's oncologist looked him right in the eye at diagnoses and told him his smoking caused his LC.

Of course, there are tons of folks with NSCLC who never touched a cigarette in their life. But that doesn't mean I can't speak the truth about Dave. Hopefully it will save a life. One young man in our IT department here, who knew Dave from a previous life, quit because of Dave's smoking-related lung cancer.

In no way am I trying to give lung cancer a stigma, but the hard fact is, smoking causes lung cancer. It killed my husband. I encourage everyone I come across who smokes to quit.

Karen

[Karma1976]

Of course quit but the stigma is unneeded and hurts this form of cancer for funding. I mean that is the same to say a woman over 35 who never had kids and gets breast cancer they should be ashamed since she put herself at risk...they say it does, why did they not listen. I just hate that stereotype.

Why should anyone care if my dad smoked or not? Does that make him a bad person if he ever did? To me when you ask that question and get a yes answer. It is like a justification. Would it make them say oh, well then I am in the clear...when that is false. We ALL know smoking causes lung cancer..no brainer there, but what ELSE does.

My dad quit smoking 15 years prior to his diagnosis. he had regular check ups and the doctors were good about screening him. My dad also worked at a plant, and all his life lived a block from a well know cancer causing plant. So was it the smoking? Or was it and outside factor? we never had an autopsy done cause we felt it was too intrusive and had been thru enough. BUT i can say yea he smoked he got lung cancer. But is that the only possibility? I will never know until we get some real funding and help.

I understand what you are saying but I think it is really no ones business if they smoked or not. It is only a question to ease their mind that they are not at risk...

[daggiesmom]

One could answer the question "did he/she smoke" with, "yes, from the very first pack of candy cigarettes given to him/her by the friendly man in the candystore.

People ask that question to ease their own minds

"I quit 10 years ago, I'm safe."

Joanie

[Ann]

I can understand both sides of this issue. Like Dave, Dennis was a smoker and I do tell people that he smoked. But...he was also a plumber and had been exposed to asbestos for years when he was a plumber in New York. The doctor was never definitive that the smoking caused the cancer but in his case, I'm sure it was. My standard reply is....yes he did but there are many people that have lung cancer that have never smoked.

As for quick replies....I can't top the reply Diane gave, so why even bother!!!!

[Karma1976]

Agreed!!!

and now I have a craving for those candy cigarettes...anyone else remember puffing on those like they were real cause you wanted to feel cool? OY VE! The gum ones were my favorite cause you could blow smoke off the powder on the gum. Really a bad message to kids.

[Geri]

The next person who asks me if I smoked will hear..........if you don't know me well enough to already know, you don't know me well enough to ask!

I'm sick of being asked that question, it's immaterial for me at this stage of the game - yes I did but quit 2.5 months before dx (no symptoms).

I will now get off my soap box.

Geri

[Connie B]

Does he/she smoke?

Why do you ask??

[Amy P]

My response is Does it matter?

For the first time in the over 4 1/2 years since my Mom was diagnosed I did not get asked the question a couple of weeks ago when someone inquired about the significance of my Breathdeep bracelet. The very nice man said I am so sorry and how is she doing. I nearly hugged him!!!!

[Donna G]

Did you know that you are more likely to get breast cancer if you don't have many children, and/or don't breast feed your children. Do you hear this as a first response to someone getting breast cancer. No.

You hear, "O no, I am so sorry!"I suppose that's all we want also. Instead we get "Do you still smoke?"Donna G

[Andrea]

I just say yes, but she quit 25 years ago.

I can understand people asking b/c I used to be naive and think it was mostly a smokers disease, and probably would have asked the same question.

There are lots of stigmas, like for my mom's bypass, the obvious question--is she chubby, high cholesterol, etc

[MurielK]

FYI - WebMD had an article about drinking wine being related to breast cancer, also. Perhaps those folks should be asked if they are/were alcoholics.

MurielK

[Leslie221]

I loved the "only when he's on fire" answer!

Seriously, though, I'm torn on this issue. I'm almost always asked this question,too. I say, "Yes, I did unfortunately. But smoking may not be the cause. Even people who never smoked get the kind of lung cancer I have. In fact, lung cancer is steadily on the rise in non-smokers! It's something we all need to do something about now!"

It gives people an honest answer and also gives them something to think about.

However, while I think it's fantastic if the current news coverage scares people into quitting or never starting to smoke, I am equally angry people who have no reason to know any better will get a distorted understanding of lung cancer.

I'm going to write a letter to the editor of my local newspaper while there's still a lot of news coverage and just kind of mention the facts. At least I can do that much.

Leslie

[ginnyde]

I had my annual physical 2 weeks ago. My doctor asked if I excercised regularly. My answer was, "No, do you?"

It is the old glass house scenario.

[Lisa O]

We had better be careful about using lung cancer as a tool to get people to quit smoking. All we will accomplish with that approach is to make more people think that lung cancer is entirely preventable, is the fault of the patient is is not worthy of research funding, talent or time. AGAIN, many smokers (the GREAT majority) do not get lung cancer. There is more at play. I have a horrible feeling that if tobacco were to disappear from the world we would not be rid of lung cancer. We have no way of knowing because the research has not been done and won't be while we let the bullies of the world blame the patient. I am sure it would be reduced.... but how many lives are acceptable - and whose?

[SDianneB]

Lisa, you hit that one right out of the park, IMO. My thoughts exactly.

Thanks for saying it so succinctly!

Di

[cathy]

My dad quit smoking 7 years prior to his diagnosis.

He also worked around white gas(I dont even know what that is)

All his doctor seemed to hear was that he was a smoker and told him he quit 50 years too late..

His doctor looked right in my eyes and asked if I keep up on my mammagrams because cancer is genetic..

Sorry I think I am off track, I just respond by telling people its not only a smokers disease, they dont believe me so why bother...

[trishnmiller]

I usually respond by saying, "Are you asking if it's his fault?" because that's like asking an AIDS patient if they are gay. Ignorance is no excuse for insensitivity.

Trish

[nancy c]

Everyone needs to remember--cancer is abnormal cell growth. We all have abnormal cells in our body. Whether they grow or not-is luck?? I don't know. Unfortunately Mike smoked, and he had lung cancer. But, that doesn't mean me or my children, or my nonsmoking mother won't get lung cancer. WE are all at risk of any type of cancer. God bless,Nancy C

[missyk]

I respond with "yes, she did, and quit almost 20 years ago...and thank you for your concern with her smoking habits." with a pleasant little smile. Somehow, my sarcasm just can't be kept down.

[daggiesmom]

I replied earlier, but I want to add something after reading all the responses. I have read that the experts do believe that cancer has a genetic component. Also, if you live long enough, cancer is almost guaranteed to hit you. Your cells, apparently, will start to go crazy after awhile. It just seems logical to me that if smoking were the ONLY reason for lung cancer, then everyone who smokes would get it. In fact, only 10 percent of smokers wind up with lung cancer. Something else is involved here? That only makes sense to me and to the researchers.

I do hope that with Peter Jenning's death and Dana's diagnosis that something good will happen. I heard on the news that many people were on the American Lung Association website today trying to find out about quitting. That alone is a great thing. Maybe, maybe, things will improve.

Joanie

[nancy c]

I totally agree with you. God bless,Nancy C

[osirus226]

Dianne, Yours is great - I think I'll use it!!

One thing that I've noticed. Quite a few people here who have lc or whose loved one has lc also were exposed to some other known cancer causing substance/area. I know the same is true for my mom too. If they start doing more research on finding a cure for lung cancer and possibly finding ALL the causes instead of just linking them all to smoking we will start making some real progress. lets face it probably every one of us has been exposed to some form of second hand smoke whether we wanted to be exposed or not...

One of my favorite websites is www.thetruth.com

check it out if you have a minute, theres some really good information on it. Like this quote:

70 percent of smokers want to quit. Only about 5 percent actually succeed every year. Just food for thought.