There is an interesting and chilling new study out on smoking. It is well understood that smoking is a leading cause of death. However, the leading study on the morality rate is derived from a 1956 study called the “British Doctors Study” that found a roughly fifty percent mortality rate. A new study however by BMC Medicine has found that the rate is more like 66 percent or two out of three smokers will die as a result of smoking related illness.
The study is huge in size following 204,953 men and women over 45 years old from New South Wales, Australia. The work by the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University found a much higher rate of morality than previously thought. The study also found that smokers tended to come from less educated and less affluent populations, a fact previously found in other studies.
Despite the findings, I remain convinced that such risks should be left to individuals to measure. However, the study reaffirms the dangers of this product. Indeed, it may be unique. Is there any other product that can be sold that is both so addictive and so ultimately lethal?
You know, I quite like rabbits.
Me too. Rabbit in a lemon cream sauce is awesome. Sauteed in wine with tiny pearl onions and a balsamic tinges sauce. Mmmm mmmmm.
That was what you meant? Right.
And there are also prescription meds that are highly addictive and lethal, as well.
You should see how many rattlers we get here every year. Hands off my guns! I don’t want to get bitten while I try to whack off a 4 foot rattler’s head with a blunt shovel – which takes many tries on a thick one, and is inhumane.
Plus hunting provides the ultimate organic food, free of antibiotics, raised humanely, not overcrowded, and spared that horrors of the slaughterhouse.
Max – my point is that cigarettes have no beneficial purpose, but wine and guns do. We already have DUI laws (although some states need to take a firmer stance), and we already have gun negligence laws. I’m pro 2nd amendment, but you are responsible for keeping your firearms away from children, the same as household chemicals, fencing in a pool, etc. Falling into a pool won’t kill you 30 years later, either!
You know, I quite like rabbits. I had one as a pet. Although he did have an impure interest in my slippers . . .
Nick, it’s funny you mention politicians throwing tobacco money down a black hole. You know how I like to criticize tax-and-spend:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article2574799.html
Only a tiny portion of the billions in tobacco taxes actually went for anti-smoking efforts, which was the original intent of the law. The overwhelming majority is used for things such as High Speed Rail.
However, even though only a teeny, tiny percentage goes to prevent smoking, anti-smoking campaigns are termed “underfunded.” What’s worse is that since smoking is declining, so have those revenues, and politicians have an insatiable greed for “revenue”. So they keep trying to hike those tobacco taxes.
The problem I have is I dislike most social engineering practices, and I especially dislike giving politicians access to billions of dollars to spend at their discretion. Do politicians even have discretion? They waste it all, want more, and have a good chance of getting it every time because people tend to vote against tobacco companies and smokers. They’re not even using it for its intended purpose already, and they want more. There is no end to their greed, and they are taking advantage of addicts, in my opinion. Because that’s who pays for it – the nicotine addicts.
Karen S.
JT asked a simple question.
A night of drinking and driving doesn’t kill you 30 years later…
A child rummaging through mommy’s purse finding a gun and pulling the trigger doesn’t kill the child 30 years later…
Silly rabbit, indeed!
Isaac – I prefer the carrot over the stick approach with health insurance. My friend works at a company where her health insurance gives her credit for swiping her card at the insight gym, participating in physical activities, etc. I believe if she accrues a certain number of points it reduces her premium. Of course, I don’t know how they account for people who run outside, ride horses, or engage in other sports where it would be difficult to prove participation.
Because basically even vegans can incur significant health costs if they are not careful to get the nutrients missing in their diet. You have to really know what you are doing to remain healthy on a vegan lifestyle. Lifestyles that contribute to self-inflicted healthcare costs would include:
– high stress jobs
– adrenaline junkies
– athletes
– dangerous jobs like deep sea fishermen, police, or firemen
– those who eat potato chips all day regardless of their weight
– those who are overweight because of diet (rather than metabolic, etc)
– anyone with an eating disorder
– any addict/alcoholic/smoker
– those with nutritional deficiencies in their diet, which is a shocking number of people
– anyone who doesn’t get enough sleep
The list could just go on. I would rather insurance companies offer discounts to those who somehow can prove they live a healthy lifestyle than create anything more intrusive.
Because not very many people live in an optimal state of health. Yes, smoking is egregious to the body, but where would we draw the line?
Nick
You raise an often repeated criticism, that something proposed does not work 100% or perhaps not at all, therefore it is not worth doing. If tobacco was taxed more heavily and the taxes or some of the money was used to offset Medicare costs that would be as appropriate as could be. After 60/65 when smokers are on Medicare some of their costs would be paid for by smokers. This would also make sense for all sorts of crap. Studies show that the poor, those more often than not on Medicaid, are the most affected by garbage food, obesity, etc. If a pack of Twinkies cost $5 and people refused to buy the fruit or granola bars that are subsidized by the taxes from the Twinkies, at least some of their health care costs could be offset by taxes on the crap they refuse to give up.
There is a cause and effect formula in society and society runs better when it is integrated. If you drive and drink and get caught, you pay the price. If you ride a motorcycle in Florida without a helmet, you must post a healthy bond. If you insist on smoking cancer sticks then why not be forced to pay. Regardless of whether or not all or any of the money goes directly to offset the harm done, the higher costs will stop some. Of course not all, but does a solution have to be 100% effective to be implemented? One can argue the nuance but there will always be nuance.
Tobacco was originally smoked pure, with none of the hundred of chemicals and other additives. It was taken at the end of the day and not sucked back without thinking. It would be interesting to be able to compare the harm done by smoking a pipe full of pure and aromatic tobacco occasionally with today’s addictive practice.
Max:
“JT: Is there any other product that can be sold that is both so addictive and so ultimately lethal?
= = =
Yes, alcohol and guns.”
Silly rabbit. There are health benefits from drinking a glass of red wine. You can enjoy an occasional glass of red wine without incurring cirrhosis of the liver. Guns have a beneficial, legal use for self defense, hunting, and target practice. Any negative from guns are either from their illegal use, or negligence, the same as cars.
Cigarettes have zero health benefits.
When I was a kid, everyone of the older generation smoked. It was normal, glamerous and accepted. My father could take it or leave it and could just quit anytime he wanted….which he did for years at a time. I do remember my mother wanting to quit when I was a pre teen and having a great deal of trouble. Fighting the addiction and backsliding the whole way. I thought even then,….“Wow, if someone as strong and determined as my mother couldn’t stop doing something she didn’t want to do….I would never start smoking.”
isaac It is funny how at one time in history the truth is one thing and then it becomes something 180 degrees different.
Yes! and this is why over my lifetime I have learned to not believe very much of anything the so called experts in the government or medical community tell us is true. It changes about every 10 years or so. Butter and coffee and salt are going to KILL YOU!!!!!. Eggs are going to give you a heart attack. Oh wait….now 3 cups of coffee daily are recommended. Now…. Butter is good, better than margarine. Salt is something we NEED, in moderation. Eggs have essential nutrients that help in brain function among other things and don’t contribute to cholesterol problems..
In the 70’s we were all going to DIE from the incipient ice age……that never happened…..and now we are all going to DIE from Global Warming,which hasn’t been happening.
I don’t believe them. They lie and lie and lie. They also don’t know what the F they are talking about.
I have a collection of vintage Sport mags from the 1950’s. Same type cig ads w/ athletes hawking them.
Darren
Years ago, I was renovating an old house and came across a box of Life and other magazines from the 50’s. Camels weren’t just touted as being smoked by more doctors, they were touted as being healthy, relaxing the body for better digestion, etc. Athletes, explorers, and doctors “always made sure they had plenty of Camels”. Cigarettes were advertised as being good for your health. It is funny how at one time in history the truth is one thing and then it becomes something 180 degrees different.
Smokers pay incredibly high taxes on their cigs. Where the hell does all that money go. Wait, never mind, DOWN THE TOILET and in the pockets of pols and govt. workers.
Jim22
Any argument taken to extremes looks foolish. My argument ticks you off ideologically. Reign in the ideology. If the product causes the problems then make the product pay for them. These eccentric arguments that smokers cost less than non smokers because they die earlier make sense when you cherry pick one aspect. Smokers impact everyone financially through health costs. Crap impacts everyone though health costs. Keeping tobacco, alcohol, and garbage food cheap is simply stupid. The solution is to take funds from taxes on bad stuff and subsidize good stuff. Or, is that too Orwellian for you?
By the way most of out peer nations are less obese and healthier. They tax the crap out of crap and subsidize healthy activities and food. Yeah, but they’re not American are they.
Trivia Crack is pretty addictive.
JT: Is there any other product that can be sold that is both so addictive and so ultimately lethal?
= = =
Yes, alcohol and guns.
Merchants of Doubt
http://sonyclassics.com/merchantsofdoubt/
randy – I agree with your comments about the no safe levels of 2nd hand smoke. That part about a stadium was hilarious.
However, in order to determine such a level, they would have to do a human study on second hand smoke, exposing participants long term to a range of concentrations. That would be illegal and unethical, so I actually don’t know a way around that. They could, however, do an animal study on a range of second hand smoke, and extrapolate.
Any second hand smoke studies are done, to my knowledge, on people who are already around second hand smoke, such as living with a smoker.
Nick – it’s true, Vegas is a bastion for smokers. They don’t want to ban smoking in the casinos, because the entire business model is designed around keeping people inside. Some casinos take forever just to get outside because you get wound through all the gaming areas. That’s also why they have everything for everyone . . . inside – shows, gaming, restaurants. It’s possible to not see the light of day for an entire weekend if you don’t visit the pool.
I don’t think the government should get involved in banning smoking. It’s an individual choice. But I do support bans on smoking inside non-residential buildings, because that prevents people from being exposed to 2nd hand smoke.
Everything kills eventually
Nickos, I wonder if there is a genetic predisposition to cancer or protection from cancer regardless if you smoke or not. I once had an 84 year old patient [in the ICU for heart attack] tell me that he smoked for 80 years. I figured he was confused and he told me that he wasn’t confused, that he had started smoking when he was 4. He kept trying to get out of bed because he needed to get back to his farm. That was 25 years ago. He’s probably still alive. 🙂
DBQ…as a long time smoker, as well as military type, I learned early to pick up after myself…nothing irritated me more than those who didn’t do that. So you can now say you know of one former-smoker who was not a “pig.” 🙂