Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Young Men Who Smoke Have Lower IQs 561

Posted by kdawson
from the correlation-is-not-causation dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Science Daily reports on a study that has determined that young men who smoke are likely to have lower IQs than their non-smoking peers. In the study, conducted with 20,000 Israeli Army recruits and veterans, the average IQ for a non-smoker was about 101, while the smokers' average was more than seven IQ points lower at about 94, and the IQs of young men who smoked more than a pack a day were lower still, at about 90. (These IQs all fall within the normal range.) 'In the health profession, we've generally thought that smokers are most likely the kind of people to have grown up in difficult neighborhoods, or who've been given less education at good schools,' says Prof. Mark Weiser of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychiatry, whose study was reported in a recent version of the journal Addiction. 'Because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor. The government might want to rethink how it allocates its educational resources on smoking.' Prof. Weiser says that the study illuminates a general trend in epidemiological studies. 'People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health,' says Weiser. 'Schoolchildren who have been found to have a lower IQ can be considered at risk to begin the habit, and can be targeted with special education and therapy to prevent them from starting or to break the habit after it sets in.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Young Men Who Smoke Have Lower IQs

Comments Filter:
  • Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rossdee (243626) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:22AM (#31732250)

    Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking.

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zumbs (1241138) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:32AM (#31732354) Homepage
      I know a lot of very smart people that smoke. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates one of the points of the article: It isn't just a matter of intelligence whether or not you start to smoke. Social factors such as wealth, educational background and "what my friends do" play a significant role. However, on average, it seems that smokers have a lower IQ than non-smokers. One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by nebulus4 (799015)
        Or a combination of both?!
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mcgrew (92797) *

        I'd almost be willing to bet that the smart people you know who smoke aren't young. Back in the day, 3/4 of adults smoked, as opposed to today, and the health risks weren't as clear to most back then. Hell, when I went to college you could smoke in class; most of my professors smoked, as well as most of the students. nowdays you can't even smoke in a bar.

        • Re:Duh (Score:4, Interesting)

          by moosesocks (264553) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:53AM (#31733206) Homepage

          I know tons of "smart" people who smoke. Most of them do it to cope with stress and anxiety.

          Despite the fact that it kills you, it's apparently a surprisingly effective antidepressant with very few neurological side-effects. Don't forget the cultural aspect too -- everyone smokes down South.

          • Look at the map. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Nerdposeur (910128)

            everyone smokes down South

            As a southerner, I'd like to point out 1) of course we don't all smoke, and 2) while yes, smoking is more widespread in the south, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nevada are all in the top 10. 11, 12 and 13 are Alaska, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

            Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :)

            Check out this map and the table linked at the bottom: http://www.smokefree.gov/map.aspx [smokefree.gov]

      • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by julesh (229690) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:52AM (#31733190)

        One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?

        Actually it can answer it. The study looked at two groups: fresh recruits and vets. We can assume an age difference of at least a few years between them, and the recruits are likely to be young enough that they've only been smoking for a couple of years on average. Therefore if the smoking were causing damage, we'd expect the recruits to show a less pronounced effect than the vets. As the article mentions no difference between the two groups, we can assume no significant such difference exists, and therefore (at least) no evidence for the latter proposition, and potentially evidence against it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by huckamania (533052)

          Still, I think the study is flawed. It is more likely that smokers answered enough questions to "pass", filled in the rest as quickly as possible and left to go have a cigarette. I remember taking the pre-enlistment test and the week of testing during boot camp. Both are a pain and are a test of patience as much as anything. The phrase 'hurry up and wait' comes to mind and the too close face of a drill sgt screaming at recruits to stay off his grass. Fun times.

          Don't know what it says about my IQ, but

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jim_v2000 (818799)
        You could know a million "very smart" people who smoke. It doesn't change the fact that ON AVERAGE, more stupid people are smoking than smart people. God damn...learn something about statistics. Nothing in the article said "ALL SMOKERS ARE STUPID, LOL". It simply said that smokers tend to be less intelligent than non-smokers, on average.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hedwards (940851)
      Smarter people also tend not to enlist in the military to begin with. I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value outside the military where they could be pressed into a job without much required aptitude.

      How it is that people fall for the sorts of lies he was telling me is beyond me, but you do have to account for the biased sampling selection otherwise you get skewed results. Also people who
      • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:01AM (#31732632) Journal
        In a country with essentially universal(except for a particular sect of religious nutjobs, who sponge off the government, breed, and study Torah, while the rest of the citizenry serves in the army, pays taxes, and generally isn't too happy about them) compulsory military service, I don't expect that that is a confounding variable of much concern....

        In countries without such, that'd be a major confound(or, perhaps more likely, give you a fairly strongly bimodal distribution. A subset of the military is extremely bright, kid with the highest SAT scores in my class went to West Point, patriotism or family history of military activity can have a strong influence as well. On the other hand, it isn't exactly news that "volunteer" recruitment tends to be easier in poor economic times, and in small, somewhat depressed, towns where there is fuck-all in the way of alternatives.)
      • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:03AM (#31732652)

        In Israel the army enlists you

      • Re:Duh (Score:4, Funny)

        by addsalt (985163) on Monday April 05, 2010 @09:07AM (#31733332)

        I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value

        At least you figured out why he was after you.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jellomizer (103300)

        Smarter people have more options then dumb people after they leave high school.

        The following are available with a high school deploma.
        Low paying job where you will be struggling for the rest of your life.
        Military where you probably still won't get paid well but at least you get room and board.
        Religious vocation (But still for most major religions you still need to go threw serious schooling (equivalent to a 4 year degree))
        Speciality training where you can get a decent job at a good rate but you are first to

    • Ciggarettes VS.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by carp3_noct3m (1185697) <slashdot@noSPam.warriors-shade.net> on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:10AM (#31732724)
      When I was in the military, especially on combat tours, I ended up smoking an unhealthy amount to help me cope. When I got off the plane this last time, I quit cold turkey, and now when I smell regular cigarette smoke I can barely stand it. (Which just now made me realize maybe I associate it with bad things and its not just the smoke itself) , I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals, and smoke about once a week for enjoyment while drinking a cognac or brandy. I feel it is much more enjoyable (longer lasting, smells better) and is slightly better for my health (mouth cancer yes, lung cancer no), but I digress, I got into pipe tobacco when I joined the university scene and ended hanging out with professors and philosophy students, of whom a large amount smoke pipes. Ok now I have no idea what the point of the post was, mmm, maybe I just have a low IQ. Oh mondays mornings, I loathe you. On a side note, as a formally staunch anti-weed guy (couldn't hold security clearance if you smoked) I now have had amazing success with my PTSD using weed instead of alcohol to self-medicate.
      • Re:Ciggarettes VS.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Lumpy (12016) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:46AM (#31733122) Homepage

        Most people I know who are military smoke because.... It's something to do. I had friends that started smoking in the military because it was the only way to make the daily hurry up and wait tolerable.

        A couple swore they could sight in on a target faster because they smoked.

        • by swb (14022) on Monday April 05, 2010 @10:14AM (#31734176)

          I guy I used to work for who smoked told me that he started smoking because it got him out of work.

          He was working at a machine shop and found that if he took a break with the smokers, his foreman made him go back to to work while the smokers got to keep on smoking. Apparently not working but smoking was "doing something" and not working without smoking was "standing around." He basically started smoking to keep from working.

          I'm guessing its like that in the military, too. A guy smoking is on a smoke break, a guy not smoking is just standing around.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MarkvW (1037596)

          Always carried a book in my pants' cargo pocket whenever hurry up and wait was on the horizon. Gosh. That was a long time ago!

      • by Krahar (1655029) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:49AM (#31733158)

        I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals

        Yep, those chemicals will kill ya'. In other news, I've moved to all-natural plutonium to put in my morning drink.

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thousandinone (918319) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:41AM (#31733052) Journal
      "Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking."

      Actually, I've observed exactly the opposite. While I admit freely that the entirety of my social circle does not amount to a representative sample of the population, most of the nicotine addicts I know (myself included) got started smoking in similar ways.

      For me, it started freshman year in college- attending parties and whatnot. I had a lot of friends and acquaintances who smoked, and would always offer me one, but for the longest time I turned down the offer. It was after coming out of a bad relationship, having far more to drink than was either healthy or reasonable, and then running into the other half of said bad relationship at the same party... Well, I'll spare the details, but it was rather upsetting. Anyways, me being upset and intoxicated (nice combination there!), I was offered a cigarette. This time, I took it- didn't really give a shit at the time. Found that I rather enjoyed the experience.

      Roll the clock forward a year. I'm in the habit of having a smoke now and then when I'm drinking. My line of thinking was something to the effect of: "I know this is bad for me, but I'm doing it so infrequently that the cumulative damage should be minimal if even measurable. I won't get addicted, I have too much willpower for that. And damn it, it feels good!"

      Roll the clock forward another year, and I'm a pack a day smoker. Somewhere over the summer between sophomore and junior year, My drinking and partying became frequent enough that I started getting cigarette cravings when sober. Those of you who have never been addicted to anything can understand addiction only in an objective, clinical way- the subjective experience of it, however, is something you need to experience to understand- though I highly recommend against it.

      That's the falling that most of the smokers I know have had- overconfidence. You think that you're an intelligent person, mind over matter, and all that jazz, but the reality of it is far more difficult than you can comprehend, and you don't really understand it until you're hooked. It's a song and dance that I've seen and taken part in time and time again.

      As an aside, I think that's the major failing with education regarding drugs, both legal and otherwise- I don't know of any way to explain addiction in terms that a kid can truly understand. You can preach about the negative effects all day long, but since when has the average high school/college aged kid been afraid to take a few risks? The legal repercussions? Please, like the average kid's that worried. I believe that the dangers and nature of addiction need to be stressed a LOT more, but as I said, I don't know of any way to explain it in terms that can be understood by someone who's never been addicted to anything.
    • Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking.

      This is too simplistic. EVERYBODY knows that smoking is bad for you. Some just know in more detail.

      My wife had an in medical school for her anatomy class. He showed the students how to dissect a cadaver, and showed them the horrible, shriveled, black lungs of a deceased smoker.

      And then he went outside and took a smoke break.

      My explanation? There's a HUGE difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems; it asks

  • ... is the same true for women?

  • I smoke... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ircmaxell (1117387) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:22AM (#31732260) Homepage
    And I find it easier to think abstractly when I do (I did quit for over a year). Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought. I do honestly find myself more productive when I do smoke. Now, I'm not trying to rationalize it (I hate the fact that I got started again)... Just an observation...
    • by amiga3D (567632)
      There are exceptions to every rule. I'm sure some people who smoke are very smart. After all, smart people often do stupid things.
    • by RulerOf (975607)
      I consume nicotine and high amounts of caffeine on a regular basis. I'm told that it's partially a self-medicating technique observed in people with ADHD.

      Ironically, the medication for said condition makes me want to smoke more frequently...
      • My IQ, on the other hand, is in the 120's or 130's. It's been a long time since I've had a WAIS test though. Always sorta wanted to get another one now that I'm out of school.
    • by catxk (1086945)

      And I find it easier to think abstractly when I do (I did quit for over a year). Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought. I do honestly find myself more productive when I do smoke. Now, I'm not trying to rationalize it (I hate the fact that I got started again)... Just an observation...

      Yes, and in the morning, I don't wake up until I have had my cup of coffee. Funny how it wasn't so back when I didn't drink coffee...

      Point: your smoking addiction lets you function normally when you smoke, but when you do not smoke, you will function worse. A non-smoker functions normally all the time.

    • Re:I smoke... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LtGordon (1421725) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:35AM (#31732388)
      Cigarettes have provided you with an excuse to get away from everything and focus your mind. No offense, but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette. Grab a cup of tea instead.
      • I don't take offense. I hate the habit, so why would I be offended by someone pointing out that it's bad (rhetorical question)?

        but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette.

        When I quit for a little over a year (last year), I did find it easier to think in general (as you imply), but I did find it harder to concentrate on abstract ideas. I've always been one to think about and formulate my own theories on everything (from philosophy to physics to math, etc). Most of them

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought.

      Why do you need to smoke when you take your 5 minutes of contemplation time? Why not just grab some fresh air, or at least wander away from your desk for a bit?

    • When I worked where there were a number of smokers who took their regular smoking breaks, I took a break with them; except that I took a brisk 5-minute walk around a nearby park while they were busy poisoning themselves (and yes, nicotine is a very potent poison, makes a fine anti-tick dip for sheep). Did a great job of clearing my head and letting me get back into the groove for another couple of hours.

    • Re:I smoke... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zumbs (1241138) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:41AM (#31732450) Homepage
      From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.
      • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:22AM (#31732850)

        From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.(emphasis mine)

        My Dad joined the US Navy in '45 (since he was about to be "invited" to join the army). If you smoked, you got a a smoke break every hour. If you didn't smoke, you didn't need a smoke break, now did you? Also cigarettes were free for the sailors -- at least everywhere my Dad was stationed. Philip Morris did his part for the boys. It took Dad 50 years to quit, by which time it was too late.

    • by Bert64 (520050)

      So it's not the smoking itself, rather the fact you take regular breaks... What's to stop you taking regular breaks for other reasons? I find that taking 5 minutes to stand outside in the sun helps me greatly.

      Ironically, i used to work for a company where smokers were allowed regular breaks to go outside and smoke, but non smokers weren't allowed to take equivalent breaks...

  • by somersault (912633) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:23AM (#31732262) Homepage Journal
    Make cigarettes more damaging to health, and let Darwin sort em out!
  • by calibre-not-output (1736770) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:24AM (#31732268) Homepage
    "Hmm, I think I'll set fire to this paper tube full of tar and inhale the smoke, even though countless studies have shown it will give me bad breath, impotence and cancer!" Sounds like a real genius, doesn't it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Zapotek (1032314)
      That's why I tell people to stop smoking cigarettes..smoke mini-cigars instead...
      Hell, if you're gonna do something wrong at least do it right...
  • i'm shocked. cigarretes are known to constrict blood and oxygen flow. i bet people who smoke are limiting the blood and oxygen flow to their brain and this results in lower IQ results.

      it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by MrKaos (858439)

      it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

      I used to joke that cigarettes had vitamin C in them...until I found out they did.

    • by catxk (1086945)

      i'm shocked. cigarretes are known to constrict blood and oxygen flow. i bet people who smoke are limiting the blood and oxygen flow to their brain and this results in lower IQ results.

      it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

      No, you got it wrong. Smoking does not make you dumb, but dumb people start smoking. It's right there in the summary: stupid people make poor choices regarding their own health.

    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

      And it's not just a health problem. Enemy countries are actively buying American tobacco to extract the uranium to make explosive devices with it.

      And, even knowing that, tobacco companies continue to use the uranium aditives because they don't want to lose the massive sells to those enemy countries.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:27AM (#31732292) Journal
    A bit offtopic but I enjoyed the overtly blue-collar ill lit picture [sciencedaily.com] that a site called Science Daily employed.

    An unshaven sun-reddened face focuses all its concentration on a cigarette protruding directly in front of his nose. His lips are pursed as if to indicate that connecting the tip of that cigarette with that flame requires all of his concentration. If his eyes weren't hidden to prevent us from identifying him (or to keep us from identifying with the subject) we might see them as cross-eyed staring down his nose intent to satiate his addiction. His shirt (which is plain white) and knuckles are smeared haphazardly with grease and his skin glistens with a workingman's sweat. Whatever iconography that hangs from his neck (Isreali dog tags? a Star of David?) can only afford a cheap black cord. The subject is off center to the right with the background as a pitch black. Nothing but a single source of light coming from the left.

    It amuses me that the site employs such a suggestive picture of smoking so that it almost screams to be a blue collar, unintelligent, near evil addiction. I understand this image adds to the effect of the article but if ever there was anti-marketing for smoking here it is at a site that claims to be objective in its name. Movies of yore portrayed the beautiful, the rich and the strong smoking. I can walk outside my office building and see well paid people smoking. It's disingenuous to portray it as only a blue collar problem no matter what statistics about IQ say. This only tells me that, on average, low IQs are more likely to succumb to well funded advertising or lack information about smoking. Not that they are any less powerful at breaking an addiction.

    I find smoking abhorrent and disgusting but I also think that it detracts from your goals to say that smoking destroys your beauty when young people can see beautiful celebrities smoking. And I also think that a "Science" site shouldn't have such goals or propaganda baked into its articles (one way or the other).
    • by swb (14022)

      Smoking in the movies of the 40s and 50s is pretty appealing, I'll have to admit. There's two kinds of smoking, though.

      The first kind is the continuous, repetitive chain smoking where everybody seems to have a cigarette going.

      Then there's the kind of social smoking where you wonder what smoking was really like. I can remember a movie where neither character seemed to chain smoke, but instead after a meal the characters retired to the living room for drinks and they each enjoyed a (singular) cigarette take

    • by lxs (131946)

      What's "Ill lit" about that picture? It is nicely lit from both sides, leaving a dramatic dark space so the flame of the lighter will show up nicely even against the white of the shirt. The stylist has done an excellent job of making the model who has only ever broken a sweat in the gym look grimy without sacrificing glamour.

      It is a beautiful stock photo, and a well-crafted piece of commercial art.

      • by matria (157464)

        That is not grime, nor is that a dirty T-shirt. It's s very common type of dyed t-shirt, they come with that streaky look in any color, and the guy happens to have dark skin. I learned at a very young age that black and brown people weren't dirty; the color really doesn't rub or wash off. I have an Indian (as in Calcutta Indian) friend whose skin color and sheen is very much like that.

    • by vrmlguy (120854)

      Hey, I've got a beard almost exactly like that, you insensitive clod!. I'm a Unix admin [sourceforge.net], the black cord holds my SecureID key, and my tee-shirt looks like that after pulling cables beneath the raised floor.

      As for the subject being off-center, haven't you ever heard of the rule of thirds [wikipedia.org]?

  • "People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health..."

    I can't even come up with a good joke for this, they've basically just put all that time and money into finding out that stupid people are more likely to make stupid choices.

    I realise that the plural of Anecdote is not Data but I would think that at some point this connection would be obvious enough in day to day life that a study would be unnecessary.

  • "People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health,' says Weiser."

    Is this followed by a reference: "Stupid is as stupid does" (Gump F., 1994) ?

  • At least on the low side. Those with low IQ tend to have low incomes, though high income does not correlate very well with IQ at all, meaning smart people may or may not do well in life. So since smoking correlates to low IQ and low IQ correlates to low income, it may be true that smoking correlates to low income as the author states in TFS.
    • "In the health profession, we've generally thought that smokers are most likely the kind of people to have grown up in difficult neighborhoods, or who've been given less education at good schools," says Prof. Weiser, whose study was reported in a recent version of the journal Addiction. "But because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor. The government might want to rethink how it allocates its educational resources

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bert64 (520050)

      Smoking does seem to correlate with low income, which is all the more amusing considering how expensive smoking is in some places...
      People with very little money, wasting it all on smoking, and then having insufficient money for food and other basic necessities...

  • Article implies that people with lower IQ are more likely to start smoking. Sounds likely (smoking is not an intelligent decision). Several comments imply that smoking can lower your IQ. Sounds likely too (low-dose daily protracted poisoning by hundreds of different toxins can't do much good). Prevention should take both possibilities into account. If "Smoking will kill you" isn't enough, might "Smoking will fry your brain" be better? Probably not, but worth a try to counter "Smoking keeps you alert".

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Monday April 05, 2010 @07:41AM (#31732448)
    SMOKING BAD!
    BAD SMOKING!

    This message has been brought to you by the Surgeon General's campaign against heart and lung disease, and is intended for viewers with lower IQs. If your IQ is above 95, this was not intended to be condescending in any way.
  • by Civil_Disobedient (261825) on Monday April 05, 2010 @08:08AM (#31732702)

    Lower [eflanger.com] IQ [allposters.com] huh [xanga.com]? Isn't [xanga.com] that [froggynews.net] interesting [xanga.com].

I've never been canoeing before, but I imagine there must be just a few simple heuristics you have to remember... Yes, don't fall out, and don't hit rocks.

Working...