Your mates vape. Your boss quit smoking. You promised to quit in 2019. But how will Big Tobacco give it up? The world just might not be ready for a major tobacco company unveiling a campaign to get all its customers to quit smoking. "Staggering hypocrisy," cried Cancer Research UK responding to Philip Morris International's four-page ad in the UK's Daily Mirror in October. "If Philip Morris really want to help people stop smoking, the …
Tobacco companies always remind me of the John Grisham book 'The Firm'. There's a discussion in there about the company's patents. One of them is for a device to allow narcotics to be taken easily and in a packaged form (I may have some of the details wrong, while since I read the book). Just a shame that JG didn't coin a snappy name for the device like Vaper.
Well, if "John Grisham" was actually "Iain Banks" and "The Firm" was titled "The Business" you'd be right.
The patented device in question was a disposable one-shot package designed to deliver a measured standard dose of [something] nasally, looking forward to the day cocaine would be legal. Of course patents expire after a time so patenting such a device and not having cocaine sales and use become legal shortly thereafter (by lobbying, bribery or just buying assorted legislatures) is pointless.
here come the health nazis with their controlling chant of "its for your own good"
Given I work somewhere that used to have 10 smokers and now has 8 vapers (2 quit completely) , I would sing the praises of the vapers for the facts that I dont have to breathe second hand smoke, nor have clothes that stink of smoking, and dont have to clean cigarette butts off the floor.
Plus the fact that those vapers are now getting their insect posion kick without as much risk of lung cancer, heart disease and other health problems associated with smoking.
But thats not good enough for the health nazis because with a sort of healthy alternative to smoking, they'll lose their power (unless theres another health problem they can try and kick with banning.. sadly banning booze ends really badly (see USA 1920-1933)) because the phrase you have to remember with those people is
from C.S.Lewis
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
It is vital that we go back to the good old days of determined ignorance and lying about the effects of tobacco. Smokers pay a hefty tobacco tax and the cost of their end of life treatment is more than made up for by their short short life span. As long as there is a reasonable balance between smoking and non-smoking areas, non-smokers can avoid the smell and take an unfair share of the NHS budget during their abundant retirement years.
Ban the research! Cheaper nicotine and a lack of reliable data on the health consequences mean more taxes (on other people) and better NHS care (for me)! My grandfather lacked the endurance to move himself from his wheel chair to the loo because he smoked so much. This is a fate I happy to inflict on others because I am far more evil than a health nazi.
Interesting you mention C.S. Lewis. Hw of course, was a born-again Christian and, like most converts, much more pious than the standard variety. He believed that there was such a thing as universal morality, naturally a Christian morality. Believing in a universal morality is a necessary first step to imposing it on everyone.
"But thats not good enough for the health nazis because with a sort of healthy alternative to smoking, they'll lose their power"
The issue is not that vaping is less lethal than smoking -- it is -- but that you don't want people going from non-smoker to vaper, as that's a retrograde step. Selling vapers with cartoon characters on them and in many different flavours is exactly the old-style cigarette advertising, designed to hook children.
CS Lewis was not a born again Christian (a term which refers to certain evangelical denominations) but a very mainstream Anglican. If you read what he had to say on universal morality his argument for it was that there were certain things that almost everyone (regardless of religion or culture) agreed on (e.g. murder is wrong).
The point is what you are entitled to impose on others. I am very glad we impose our morality on these and murderers. Saudi morality says it is OK to send rape victims to jail for adultery, behead gays for sodomy, and torture people to death for following the wrong religion - if I could "impose my morality on them" by stopping them doing it I definitely would.
It is interesting that secular governments who do not have a philosophical basis for universal morality, from Europe to China, are so interested in controlling people. The underlying problem is not a belief in universal morality (especially when that goes with a belief in the importance of personal moral choices) but a patronising belief that the people in charge know what is best for everyone else. They rarely discuss the basis of their morality but it seems to be a vague "greatest good of the greatest number" which naturally leads to "the end justifies the means" which takes us back the the Nazis.
"The issue is not that vaping is less lethal than smoking -- it is -- but that you don't want people going from non-smoker to vaper, as that's a retrograde step."
You missed the entire point... and you tried to cover it with a strawman. If teens start vaping instead of smoking ciggs, that's not retrograde. It isn't at all uncommon to create another, different, problem when you solve one. As I see it the problem is that teens lust after adulthood and adult behavior... and you're acting like a symptom is THE problem. Ultimately, If you can reduce harm, you should...
Plenty of other unhealthy FLAVORED things are sold to adults all the time... don't give me that designed for kids crap, adults buy toys for themselves now. Time to stop acting like people grow out of liking things that taste good and are colorful.
but that you don't want people going from non-smoker to vaper, as that's a retrograde step
Why is it that a few non-smokers indulging in a little low-grade nicotine is a retrograde step? By whose moral judgement and with what public authority has this been agreed? I don't vape, I don't really like the assorted scents produced by them, but they are far more tolerable than secondhand smoke, and if non-smokers want to try it, good luck to them.
Given the assorted problems facing most developed countries, I'd argue that those who regard non-smokers trying vaping as a retrograde step have lost all sense of proportion. And talking of proportions, best estimates suggest that more people take illegal drugs than vape, and about half of them are taking class A drugs. Solve that problem first, then alcohol misuse, then homelessness, then poverty, then mental health support, then social care, then the affordability of health care etc etc. Then, when you've fixed that little lot, you can come back and try and persuade everybody that a few casual vapers are a threat to society.
Why is it retrograde? Because nicotine is highly addictive. It's probably as addictive as meth. When I was a teen I smoked, and stopped when I was 19 as I was chasing a girl (whom I later married) who wouldn't go out with a smoker. Stopping was extremely hard to do and I'd only been at it for a few years. It's been over 30 years since I smoked and I'd LOVE to pick up the habit again. Every time I smell a lit cigarette, it's like smelling a bit of heaven. Were I not still married I might be tempted to pick up the habit again.
Of course, when I smell a smoker who isn't actively smoking I'm glad I don't smoke anymore And yes, smokers do reek. And no the smoker can't smell it themselves, nor can they smell it on others. Despite that, it's tempting to start smoking again.
“Nazis” really?
That little 'epithet' has been around a while, it might even be common parlance. I think it's meant to be more 'comic' Nazi than real, it does after all belittle, both "Nazis" and the low grade wanna-be potential oppressor.
Personally, I found all such ciggy stand-ins a barely adequate substitute for the real thing, but just enough to stand in for the habit. I don't think it's anywhere near half as addictive.
And teens are going to find something disproved of to latch onto as a part of rebellion.
"That little 'epithet' has been around a while, [...]"
Previous generations used the term "little 'itler" for petty officials and such controlling people.
A similar prior word was to call someone a "martinet" - named for Jean Martinet and his severe military drill discipline.
Nowadays they might be called a "micro-manager".
Previous generations used the term "little 'itler"
Ah, yes I barely remember that one - I bet we'd no one incensed on someone else's behalf over the use of 'itler' to describe someone, oh the shock, the horror, it's too harsh, their life is over etc.
The same types, no doubt stand with 'righteous indignance' for harshest penalties for other mistakes of the human condition.
“Nazis” really?
You disagrees with someone so you compare them to a genocidal dictatorship who attempted to exterminate and entire ethnic group? That makes you at least as bad as the people you are trying to deride with your exaggeration of their intentions.
As an American I find that very amusing right about now for some reason. I won't go on about it though. Carry on :)
"And how's your National Front doing, then?"
Pretty shit. It's one of the smaller far right groups. The EDL and BNP are more of an issue, and they are still pretty minor.
While the UK cops might not be armed, they do seem to manage to do their jobs when policing protest groups, and are quite happy to prosecute the violent protesters from either side of the political spectrum.
But in America, you'd better not be a lefty. Since then if you get stabbed, you'll get prosecuted for causing affray and having a dangerous weapon (skateboard). Because clearly antifa is worse than the fascists :)
"But they do dress ever-so smartly though."
I've always imagined that there must be a special circle of Hell reserved for people like this:
Their pit will always be at the ideal temperature, with perfect air quality and superb non-reflective lighting.
After the daily, two-hour safety briefing, the damned spend the rest of the day sat in personalised orthopaedic chairs at correctly sized desks, checking piles of perfectly filled in forms. Hot, but non-scalding, beverages of their choice are served regularly with any spills evaporating before they reach the non-slip, anti-static flooring.
The wearing of hi-vis vests and other safety equipment is mandatory, even though any slight hazards have already been marked with the appropriate warning signs.
During the regular breaks, some of the damned will be dragged gently led by demons to a relaxing chair massage, or to have their work obsequiously praised by a fawning senior manager...
OK, that last one might be going a bit too far.
Plus the fact that those vapers are now getting their insect posion kick without as much risk of lung cancer, heart disease and other health problems associated with smoking.
While vaping may be lest dangerous than smoking it's not without its own risks which is why the regulators have started to look at it more closely. From a public health perspective the success of Juul is alarming because it is creating a whole new class of nicotine addicts. The cardiovascular risks of nicotine may be mitigated by vaping but not eliminated and, over time, imposes significant costs on the economy.
"The cardiovascular risks of nicotine may be mitigated by vaping but not eliminated and, over time, imposes significant costs on the economy."
But what of the social costs of banning something people want even if it kills them (You know who calls cigarettes "cancer sticks" the most? Smokers, showing they don't care)? That's why Prohibition was brought up? Would you trade in Carrie Nation for Al Capone?
"Are you defending addiction? That's why people smoke."
If it's between that and rampant crime, Vulcan logic dictates that it would be much preferable to let people kill themselves. Much less potential for collateral damage. Also, for some the addiction is preferable to reality, and for some taking their hit away is dangerous (alcohol and DTs come to mind).
It's like anything in life. It gets complicated.
"When it comes to public health it is much better to educate and encourage rather than tax or ban but regulation is always an option."
Not if people demonstrate they'd rather declare war on their country than on their vice. Even a government has to pick its fights. That's why the 21st Amendment in spite of all evidence to indicate alcohol would be classified today as a Class 2 Narcotic.
> in spite of all evidence to indicate alcohol would be classified today as a Class 2 Narcotic.
Possibly, but a seriously medically-beneficial one.
Before the PC boys realised they needed to infect the research world, the data was very clear (and remains so, just much much harder to extract from the modern now-required methodological shenanigans):
Chronic daily ingestion of alcohol monotonically INCREASES lifespan, up to 6 units per day.
Lifespan then monotonically decreases again until at 13 units per day, the daily drinker has the same lifespan as a teetotaller.
After that, it starts having negative effects.
These are the results routinely discovered again and again for decades.
To put it another way, you maximise your chances of a long and healthy life by drinking about a bottle of wine a day.
BTW, you can eliminate the liver effects of even flat-out alcoholism by taking Vitamin B supplements. Cirrhosis is caused by Vitamin B deficiency, not alcohol -- it's just that metabolising alcohol means the liver needs VitB to replenish itself.
The BMA actually had a big set-to a few years back about whether they should eliminate the vast bulk of the Cost to the NHS of alcoholism by simply recommending that all alcohol sold in the UK compulsorily have Vitamin B added. The data was unanimously agreed to be "unarguable".
They decided it would "send the wrong message".
Or to put it another way, they regarded their Virtue Posturing at a small but strident minority as being more important than their moral or even professional responsibilities, let alone simple facts.
>The cardiovascular risks of nicotine may be mitigated by vaping but not eliminated
Cancer Research UK certainly don't have a dog in the commercial fight and fund/publish much research which doesn't really support the contention that there is any risk in the quantities of nicotine consumed - many vapes are nicotine free and the most popular lines are 3mg/10ml. The 'throat hit' is provided by PG component not nicotine - and there's 50 years of PG safety data as an inhalant.
> the success of Juul is alarming because it is creating a whole new class of nicotine addicts
One of the most surprising things about vaping's success in smoking cessation is the effectiveness of these relatively small amounts - a heavy smoker would previously have been intaking 80mg a day - you'd have to vape continually to get even a third of that from the highest legal strength of vape. Not contending that nicotine isn't addictive, but it's a mistake to think that nicotine is the only factor in addiction to smoking or to think of tobacco addiction as synonymous to nicotine addiction.
Nicotine also has positive effects on health of course https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Nicotine_It_may_have_a_good_side
"While vaping may be lest dangerous than smoking "
It is. Every study carried out says so. There may be some level of disagreement as to how much safer it is, but most studies state that the risk are estimated to be 1-2% that of smoking. I've not yet seen any reports stating risks higher than 2% and definitely no studies casting doubt on whether vaping is safer by any margin at all.
"Getting into a head-on with an automobile is safer than getting into a head-on with an 18 wheeler. Does that make it logical to get into a head-on with an automobile?"
That's a specious argument more akin to being a choice between smoking cigarettes and smoking a pipe.
All the science currently sees very little risk with vaping and even Public Health England is supporting vaping as an alternative to smoking.
No one is saying it's risk free. But of course, drinking too much water isn't risk free either. It's all a matter of degree, and a head-on with anything is lot higher risk to your health than avoiding the head-on in the first place (however, I do note that you made no mention of the relative velocities of the vehicles so maybe your analogy is also pretty low risk)
Vaping causes drooling dementia in 90 percent of users exactly 20 years after the first or only huff. Possibly. But since it isn't 20 years yet, it hasn't been detected. This is how medical research works: long term effects require long term research.
Oh, it's 30 years if you were just standing next to a vaper. But whichever comes first.
I read (past tense) "MAY be safer...." as being "currently it is classified as safer but it's a new phenomenon, so call us again in 50+ years"
Which is a valid point.
Vaping annoys me a little, but the ones who annoy me aren't the people using it to quit smoking. It's the arseholes you follow on the road who's car makes cheech and chong's look positively 360 degree vision.
NO WAY is that safe
>I read (past tense) "MAY be safer...." as being "currently it is classified as safer but it's a new phenomenon, so call us again in 50+ years"
PG cosolvent vaping (nebulisers etc) has been used in medicine for longer than 50 years - mostly to treat chronic lung disease, asthma, COPD etc.
> It's the arseholes you follow on the road who's car makes cheech and chong's look positively 360 degree vision.
You should worry more about the exhaust emissions which are known to be extremely toxic well below current maximums and see off many tens of thousands each year in UK cities.
"the success of Juul is alarming because it is creating a whole new class of nicotine addicts"
I suspect they would've smoke cigarettes (or worse) instead, had Juul not existed.
Amazingly, people will do things you and others don't want them to, especially when they're young. That's what *PARENTS* are for, to guide them properly before "that" happens [assuming it's something that's TRULY bad, and I have my doubts, as previously stated].
And if vaping is the WORST they do, parents should count themselves LUCKY. In my day it was cocaine and marijuana, rampantly so. I understand that some of the girls were regularly doing lines of cocaine in the bathroom...
Seriously, the control freak health fascists need to back off and mind their own business.
Yes smoking and vaping are bad for long term health, no debate but my problem is not with the smokers and vapers but with the holier-than-thou hypocrites who do worse than the smokers and vapers. (I never smoked BTW). I would turn the question on the hypocrites and tell them they can accuse smokers and vapers of being evil only if they never have done anything wrong. Then let's see how many of the hypocrites are left.
Also I wonder how many of the mouthy idiots support legalizing marijuana but want to ban tobacco products. While not identical medical problems, both do have long term medical issues which is what the anti-tobacco are complaining about. I personally feel both are smoking weed and tobacco are stupid but cannot see why either should be illegal or all the posturing over them. But as above I have done plenty of stupid things in my life so I am not in the best position to hyperventilate over either.
The question is not are some habits bad for you but whether bad habits and dumb actions should be illegal. I say keep it legal and whatever the associated problems with the bad habits or dumb actions are limited to social/medical problems not criminal problems.
Imagine for a moment.
Someone makes a biscuit. It's fat-free, sugar-free, non-damaging.
People start to buy it and eat it a lot.
Now you discover that the people eating it LITERALLY refuse to go without the biscuit. A huge portion of the population are buying the biscuits and refusing to stop ever doing so. When they try, they have to take biscuit supplements that have the addiction of the biscuit without having to pay for the biscuit itself. The government starts funding these supplements because the problem of people spending their pay packet on the biscuits is all-too-common, and despite a tax of many times the actual value of the product, people are still buying the biscuits.
People get cranky when you suggest they give up the biscuits. They can't go more than a few days without the biscuits. Over Christmas they all vow to give up the biscuits but by new year they are all back on them.
The problem with this stuff isn't the health effects (though they are horrendous, devastating, expensive, and both self-inflicted and inflicted on others against their will). It's the addiction.
Caffeine addiction isn't anywhere near as bad. Nor is sugar addiction (sugar tax has ONLY just been considered, and that's because of obesity and availability, not because people spend most of their pay packets on sugar).
Nicotine literally turns you into a mindless child who can't do without a substance that they would never have been exposed to in natural life. I regularly make bets with friends or co-workers who are smokers (or vapers) who claim they can "give it up any time". The longest one lasted a handful of weeks and was so cranky in between that I had to take them to one side and tell them to do something about it - they had an arm-ful of nicotine patches. The shortest one literally latest 24 hours, and lied about it, until I demonstrated that not only had they smoked but that they'd done it directly in my field of vision.
Nicotine turns grown-adults into addicted children about something which has zero health benefits, nutrition or anything else for them - it doesn't even provide a "high"... research shows that "nicotine highs" are really just a return to normal levels of hormones because nicotine withdrawal makes you hormonally substandard.
That smokers are moving to vapes is a start to keeping them alive, and honestly their health is the last thing on my mind. It doesn't stop the expense, or the "skills" of rolling / coils / whatever which they are so proud of. I've witnessed an hour-long conversation over wattage and coils and batteries between two people who previously wouldn't have known a AA from a C cell.
It's also not "friendly" as a habit to others. Your stuff STILL stinks. Ever walked past a Lush? That's what you smell like, constantly. Sure, better than stinking of smoke (my ex could smell if I'd been in my parent's house that day, even without them ever lighting up when I was there), but still obnoxious. I once was in a beer garden eating a meal with 20-30 other people and one guy on a distant table had a vape so obnoxious and sickly everyone complained, moved tables and stopped ordering food because it tainted everything. At one point, a guy LITERALLY disappeared in the cloud of vape in the outside beer garden - walking through it just as the guy exhaled - and he couldn't be seen in the ensuing cloud.
Vaping is still a bad habit, and still can be obnoxious to others. From the smoker's view, it's still a waste of money, addictive, causes mood swings, and is unproven (sorry but inhaling some shite that's going into your lungs, is viscous enough to produce a visible cloud, congeal into a fluid, and that may have been bought from China and mixed with lead paint for all you know is never going to be healthy for you!). Those are your concerns as a smoker, though. From a society part of view, you're still substance-addicted with extreme difficulty to quit, to an expensive habit, that's unnecessary and doesn't actually do anything positive for you above "just not smoking anything".
I didn't think I'd ever say it, but I have more respect for cannabis smokers than vapers. At least they are getting something out of it that's not available elsewhere - and rarely do it in your face in a public restaurant.
[...] and rarely do it in your face in a public restaurant.
On my daily walk round town I often encounter what a friend once informed me is the smell of marijuana smoke. She could even identify the type from the smell.
Not really a problem for me - just as mildly annoying as vape clouds - and less so than cigarette smoke.
A neighbouring house a few doors away uses a particularly pungent variety. Neighbours downwind in the street have to close their windows. If you don't close them in time your house reeks for a while afterwards. It has the same pungency as smoke from a particularly bad garden bonfire.
"Caffeine addiction isn't anywhere near as bad."
Being a fan of both substances for cranking out analytical problems, I can assure you that caffeine withdrawal is considerably worse.
No nicotine after a pack a day makes me cranky. No caffeine after a six cup a day habit gives me migraines without light sensitivity.
Personally I'd be happy seeing booze banned, but I accept that despite it's evils a lot of people need/want it in their life. I used to work in pubs, and while ashtrays were gross, the various bodily emissions of drunks were usually far worse. Never been assaulted by someone who had one too many cigars.
I vape now, since it's much more pleasant for those I have to inflict it on, but you observe the normal social code for these things. Smoking where you eat in public is generally not acceptable. Plus you look pretty damn douchey doing it, so you'd better make an effort to not be a prick. That dude was clearly being one,
"Smoking where you eat in public is generally not acceptable"
Nor is farting. Mine clear rooms. So I don't do them in enclosed spaces or where people are eating. A well ventilated public bathroom is adequate. Except when at home [in which case I'll lift one leg and lean, and laugh afterwards, or maybe poot out 'shave and a haircut' for laughs].
So yeah. So maybe vapes can have an obnoxious smell, like some perfumes, and bad intestinal gas, and your neighbor's dog when he doesn't clean the crap up for a while. But there are no known lingering aftereffects that I'm aware of...
[minor irritations are everywhere]
"No nicotine after a pack a day makes me cranky. No caffeine after a six cup a day habit gives me migraines without light sensitivity."
Caffeine is a tough one to break because, like alcohol, the withdrawal effects can be dangerous. Alcohol withdrawal can lead to DTs which can kill. Caffeine withdrawal can frequently cause hypertensive crises (which is what you--and I---felt in the past): dangerous in themselves.
Caffiene is incredibly easy to give up compared to cigarettes. All you have to do is cut back by a cup per day per week. A 6 cup a day habit is gone in just a few weeks and you won't miss it. I've done it before due to a heart condition, although I'm back to drinking it. I drink 2 cups a day, and can walk by a pot without any urge to pour a cup. On the other hand I gave smoking over 30 years ago and would love to have one right stinkin' now!
"Nicotine literally turns you into a mindless child who can't do without a substance that they would never have been exposed to in natural life"
WRONG. get your facts right. some of your points are 'ok' and the biscuit analogy wasn't bad, but then you went off the rails making claims about nicotine that just are NOT true.
Nicotine exists in some foods. Potatoes are one. Maybe that's why we like them so much!
Also included, eggplant, green tomatoes, and cauliflower. Potatoes are actually the lowest of the 4 in content of nicotine by weight.
[I take it you've never had ANY of those, right???]
Aside from the physical (and possibly psychological) addiction, what's really WRONG with people using nicotine?
[I'm not a smoker, never been one, and probably won't vape. But if it doesn't bother ME or anyone else, why not just let people do what they WANT to do??? If this were ABORTION, they'd be no argument other than "it is her body" that would EVEN be TOLERATED, right? So why not the SAME argument HERE???]
icon, because, facepalm.
"WRONG. get your facts right. some of your points are 'ok' and the biscuit analogy wasn't bad, but then you went off the rails making claims about nicotine that just are NOT true.
Nicotine exists in some foods. "
You may be right, but your point is completely moot. If he had said "your brain would never have been exposed to in natural life" he would have been a hundred percent correct.
There may be nicotine in vegetables, but there exists a thing called the first-pass effect. Blood-flow from your intestines does not enter the general circulation right away (as blood flow from the lungs does), but goes through the portal vein system through the liver first, where a lot of potentially harmful substances are metabolised first. So any nicotine ingested will be mostly metabolised to cotinine and trans-3'-hydroxycotinine and no nicotine will reach the brain. The levels of nicotine in vegetables are in the orders of nano-grams per gram. So to get as much nicotine in the intestine as a cigarette delivers, one would need to eat a hundred kilos of aubergine. Take in account the oral bio-availability of nicotine and in order to get the same blood levels as from a cigarette, you would need to eat 500 kg of aubergine. I would not call that "being exposed to".
And before someone mentions it: chewing tobacco works mainly through absorption of nicotine through the oral mucosa, which is not plumbed into the portal vein system.
Also not plumbed into the portal vein system is the rectum. Nicotine suppositories, anyone?
Icon: because face-palm becomes fail.
> Nicotine literally turns you into a mindless child who can't do without a substance
This is pure fantasy. PC fiction.
Cigarette smokers get cravings if they quit. Pipe smokers and cigar smokers do not, despite inhaling vastly higher amounts of nicotine.
Do not make up fictions. Cigarettes have all sorts of chemicals in them (to get them to burn, to get them to market within a couple of weeks, etc.). Tobacco without these chemicals, and with far higher concentrations of nicotine, does NOT induce the (strawman) behaviour you're inventing.
I remember a conversion with the chief medical officer of an insurance company I worked for. His believe was that smokers were good for the company as they died early and cost the company less money. His target was the obese who cost much due to heart, blood circulation issues. They're bodies got nibbled away slowly from multiple surgeries to stop what was unstoppable and also from treatments like dialysis.
I'm of a mixed view here. I do smoke and am trying to stop. But it's my own damn fault and no one should have to pay for my stupidity. Nor do I want a lingering death. I see my doctor annually and that's about it. I do pay huge insurance premiums to pay for those who end up obese and diabetic. Mixed feelings here.
An early death costs huge in terms of taxes returned over your lifetime, not to mention effect on any children, etc.
The insurers may want you to die early, but the NHS will still have to fund you for treatment, and you won't be paying back student loans, debts, mortgages, taxes that you've been given (e.g. to fund your education, etc.).
"What an insurer wants" is vastly malaligned to "what's good for society".
> The insurers may want you to die early, but the NHS will still have to fund you for treatment,
Fiction. It's actually the other way round: smokers subsidise the NHS.
The NHS acknowleged a decade ago that UK smokers pay at least 4 times what they cost the NHS, via their tobacco taxes. That tax rate has increased sharply since then.
In Australia, it's even sillier. As of 14 years ago, aussie smokers paid 22.59 times what they cost the country as a whole. And that "cost" includes estimates for the numbers of houses burnt down by smokers (seriously).
p72, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf
The aussie tobacco tax rate has increased ludicrously since then (50g tobacco now costs >A$88) as part of another Virtue Parade. So god only knows how much they're now subsidising non-smokers.
"here come the health nazis with their controlling chant of 'its for your own good'"
[my opinion] "They" are control freaks whose fears and general lack of self-confidence take the 'outlet' form of CONTROLLING OTHERS "for their own good", and they seek positions of power and authority in gummint to make this sort of thing easier.
If "they" had their way, for one clear example, butter and meat would have been OUTLAWED years ago, even though NOW it can easily be shown that margarine is WAY worse for you than animal fats could POSSIBLY be [though a high fat low carb 'atkins' diet often results in healthier weight], and elevated overall cholesterol levels aren't the reason behind heart diseases [it's the HDL/LDL ratio], and so on. "Trans Fats" is yesterday's "Poly-unsaturates" which were presumed to be BETTER for you. We are far more enlightened now.
Yeah, "they" were SO wrong, weren't "they" ?
And THAT [along with many other 'health fads' the FOOD NAZIS have pressured us with] brings me to a point regarding nicotine [which naturally occurs in some foods] and it's (alleged?) "harm" for every one/thing that is exposed to it. OK it makes a good insecticide, and will kill you in high enough doses. Like a lot of things.
Has there REALLY been a VALID study that shows how *horrible* nicotine BY ITSELF is? We're talking about shortened lives, horrible diseases [like cancer], loss of limbs, and things like that which are NORMALLY associated with tobacco addiction, and not merely the addiction to nicotine itself.
It's kind of funny how a number of BENEFITS of using nicotine have shown up in a simple online search. I also recall one man who had bad hand tremors until he started smoking [just a little, when the tremors started]. Vaping isn't smoke, and I have seen studies that show how benign they are.
So I have to ask: FOR WHAT REASON are the "health nazis" so AGAINST nicotine usage? What _EVIDENCE_ do they have to support their position?
Or is it, as I suspect, JUST a PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER that these health nazis have, one that drives them to OBSESSIVELY WANT to CONTROL OTHERS!!!
A web site I found, for what its worth, identified 4 positives and 3 negatives for nicotine. One of the negatives was addiction. One was an increase in tumor growth [due to increased blood flow, interestingly], and the other was a study regarding use by "under 25's" and development of the prefrontal cortex of the brain. OK fine. Anything else?
Maybe the 'health nazis' should just TRY TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS. When their lives are 100% perfect, maybe I'll consider what they have to say.
"Or is it, as I suspect, JUST a PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER that these health nazis have, one that drives them to OBSESSIVELY WANT to CONTROL OTHERS!!!"
It's an ADDICTION. They NEED to CONTROL other people. What they NEED is a SAFER alternative. I suggest they should all be sent to recovery centres where they can play Sim City or Farmville 24/7 until they are cured.
Given I work somewhere that used to have 10 smokers and now has 8 vapers (2 quit completely)
You must be one of the lucky ones living in a US smoker state. You could try asking your company to bring its smoking policy up to the late 1970s/early 1980s and have a smoking room if making people smoke outside is a step too far.
Thank you for Smoking is a fantastically biting satire movie on this very subject along with the other disciples of Beelzebub, firearms and alcohol.
If you have not seen it, I strongly recommend you do, a great speech by J.K Simmons in the movie:
"People, what is going on out there? I look down this table, all I see are white flags! Our numbers are down all across the board. Teen smoking, our bread and butter, is falling like a shit from heaven! We don't sell Tic Tacs for Christ's sake. We sell cigarettes! And they're cool and available and addictive. The job is almost done for us!"
Many hospitals ban smoking anywhere on their property nowadays. A big hospital nearby has a large free-standing sign outside the main entrance which spells out the rules about not smoking. People go behind the large sign and out of sight of the CCTV cameras covering the entrance to light up.
I used to work in the research labs up at the hospital and the route in from the carpark was past the limb fitting centre. Before they banned smoking anywhere on the large site you would see literally grey skinned people sitting outside even in the Dundee winter, in wheelchairs with lower limbs missing or ambulatory with upper limb amputations all caused by smoking (deep vein thrombosis causes blockages in limb vessels leading to gangrene so has to come off. They’ve lost a limb or several but there they were so addicted still smoking.
The hospital back then employed people to move on the smokers who congregated outside the main entrance causing you to have to run the gauntlet. They got sick of that so banned smoking anywhere on site, thanks to Scottish govt anti smoking legislation giving them the power to do so.
I've seen one teen vaper follow this path. Vaping > Cigarettes > Rolling tobacco (due to cost). Could this be the plan? Work it in reverse. Increase tobacco smokers via vaping? I'd be interested to see some numbers on this. I also believe that vaping helps some but in my case I just don't find it the same though I'm planning to quit before new year. (this will attempt number 4 billion but I'm not giving up, which sound ironic really.) The reason for that is so that it isn't some new year resolution which you see everyone giving up at some point.
I know one middle-aged guy who went from smoking cannabis (on regular visits to Amsterdam, not at home here in the UK because it's illegal here and he wouldn't do a thing like that honest) to smoking cannabis mixed with tobacco because he liked the extra boost from the nicotine to smoking cigarettes because he got addicted to the nicotine. He still smokes cannabis but he can't afford do do it as much as he used to because he's got a three-packs-of-ciggies-a-week habit to pay for.
Most of the people I know, became addicted to tobacco because it was always mixed with cannabis (in the form of hash) and many started to smoke cigarettes as a result. My belief is that if it hadn't been made illegal, safer forms would have been more easily available (as in the US, where herbal cannabis was more prevalent and less likely to be mixed with tobacco). One only has to look at the states where it has been legalised to see the array of healthier methods of consumption (vaporising, edibles etc).
In the late 1970s one of our IT support customers was a tobacco company. On visiting their site they always offered us free packets of cigarettes***. They were used to the offer being declined as smoking was already noticeably less popular than even a decade before.
It was widely reckoned by their staff that there were marketing plans for marijuana stored in a safe for the apparently inevitable day it would be legalised.
***In order to protect their main cigarette brands - they also registered similar brand names. The registration required them to offer these brands for sale. Each year they produced a limited run and stocked them in a few selected tobacconists. Hence freebies for people like ourselves.
Three years after I quit smoking, I found a long forgotten carton of smokes buried at the bottom of my deep-freeze[0]. I tossed 'em into the trash ... where a friend found them. He was short on funds that month, and asked if he could have them. I nodded, and he took them home. The next day, he looked vaguely green around the gills ... but he finished the carton before the month was out and asked if I had anymore. Ain't addiction ugly?
[0] Wrapped in four layers of Saran and two layers of foil. Addicts do the oddest things.
OMG--really? I might still have my 2 emergency packs of "H&B" sitting in a desk drawer from 25 years ago. Got them as "healthier" replacements for my 2 pack/day Camels. Really preferred Old Gold Straights (unfiltered). Oddly enough I was one of the few people who quit after a session of hypnosis.
With smoking declining in the West (down to around 14 % in America) the tobacco companies have for years being looking for new addicts in Asia and Africa. Recently, however, the Chinese, alarmed by the problems associated with long term smoking, has started clamping down, so this probably means an even stronger push into Africa.
On a visit to China in 1993 we visited a small pleasure park It was noticeable that the prizes on the game stalls were large quantities of cigarettes.
Very similar to the 1950/60s in the UK when at Xmas the tobacco companies packaged cigarettes and small cigars in festive wrappings. Usually these were boxes of 50 to 200 cigarettes. As a child it was normal to buy your father one of these cigarette packs as a present - and your grandfather was given small cigars.
In my youth - cinemas had clouds of smoke highlighting the projection beam. Buses/trains were smoke-filled - as were cafes, school staff rooms, and offices when I started work.
All my immediate family have died from lung cancer - one heavy smoker but the rest were most of their lives mainly passive smokers. As a never-smoker I still have the possibility of that era of passive smoking triggering a potential genetic disposition.
"As a never-smoker I still have the possibility of that era of passive smoking triggering a potential genetic disposition."
I have a similar history - multiple generations on both sides of the family have been killed off by smoking-related cancers.
As a passive smoker, you're probably safe if nothing's shown up a decade since last exposure. Once the chemical effects fade (which takes a few weeks) the remaining cancer risk is down to the radioactive decay of polonium(*) that's built up in a smoker's lungs (it's not usually found in sidestream smoke) - The tobacco companies have known of the radioactivity problem for decades but chose to keep schtum about it.
Yes, really - there's even a USA EPA website about it: https://www3.epa.gov/radtown/tobacco.html
(*) It's clear that the cancer agent ISN'T the alpha particles being emitted, but chemical irritation from the decay products - primarily lead.
"Recently, however, the Chinese, alarmed by the problems associated with long term smoking, has started clamping down"
In my experience _most_ younger chinese regard smoking as a noxious habit that only older people do. Japanese smokers are a rarity these days too (again, something only older people tend to do)
>Big Tobacco like Big Oil will give up their profits when you pry them from their cold dead fingers.
At least oil has practical uses, there is no valid use for tobacco smoking other than to give you cancer, emphysema, COPD, atherosclerosis, a bastard of an addiction to beat etc etc.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46592521
'The Monitoring the Future study, based on interviews with 45,000 students across the country, said this was the largest single-year increase in its 44-year history, surpassing a surge in marijuana smoking in the 1970s.'
See http://monitoringthefuture.org//pressreleases/18drugpr.pdf
Previously mentioned in :
https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2018/12/19/chinese_spam_smokers_with_sms_to_make_them_quit/#c_3681127
"Any chance of giving the total number of teenagers who smoke cigarettes and/or vape and how that total is trending?"
Totally anecdotal but according to my local shopkeeper the number of teenager vapers is increasing rapidly and a good proportion of them move onto tobacco.
Fruit flavoured tobacco products were banned in the 1950-60s across most of the world(*) because they were primarily marketed at children. Fruit-flavoured vapes are being marketed front and centre at young vapers.
(*)Menthol is the odd holdout, on the basis that children dislike menthol. It's now banned in a number of countries anyway.
"(*)Menthol is the odd holdout, on the basis that children dislike menthol."
No, I think it's because too many smokers (especially blacks, IIRC) prefer their cigs with menthol (Newport is the biggest-selling menthol cig in the US, followed by Marlboro Menthol). If they wanted to keep children away form menthol, they'd ban cough drops (menthol is an anesthetic and commonly found in cough drops--including those "natural" Ricola drops).
there is a perfect New years resolution.
Just stop using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Whatsapp etc.
Just think of all that extra time you will have to be
- productive at work
- more socialble to the people in the same room as you
- have more sleep
- have more sex
{not in that order btw}
All of the above a blocked at my home firewall. Christmas day was great as the grandkids had to put their phones away (very iffy 3G signal here and 4G is a pipedream).
We all played silly games and got on as a family. I'm building three more RPi firewalls for my kids to use at their homes.
"Just stop using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Whatsapp etc."
Good luck when it's the ONLY way to get in touch with your family that highly values communication in a world where it's not guaranteed. And no, I can't just "cut them off" because I then get harangued from other family who visit in person.
"They don't value it all that much if they refuse to pick up the telephone (or TDD) and make a simple call. Or even to use email."
That's assuming they have ACCESS to the above and that Facebook ISN'T their e-mail (trust me, go to southeast Asia; Facebook there is more accessible than cell towers--you can use WiFi). Telephone has NO value when there's no access.
Try reading this for starters. The relevant part is under the heading "Why it's hard to say goodbye".
Anyone who did the most cursory of maths following the 2007 UK smoking ban would have noticed a steady decline in the revenue from ciggies (after all, if every smoker had 1 less a day - 7 a week - 31 a month, that's a lot of tax going missing. To say nothing of those that just gave up).
Add to that the increasing healthcare costs of ex-smokers who selfishly did not die at 60 so cost the NHS (and DWP) a lot more, and you have a perfect storm.
I still maintain that had the government of the day been honest and asked non-smokers if they were willing to pay a LOT more tax in order to introduce the smoking ban, it may have been received somewhat differently.
Wait until the decline of the motor car starts hitting. Already there's a generation that isn't learning to drive or own cars.
As I recall, at the time of the first big vaping health-scare, the largest group lobbying for strict regulation / outright banning of vaping and e-cigs was actually Big Pharma, who were extremely concerned about the hit to sales of their nicotine-replacement products. NiQuitin (made by cuddly, loveable GlaxoSmithKline) and the like.
(made by cuddly, loveable GlaxoSmithKline) Yeah, I agree. But, they aren't the worst of the bunch.
I discovered my genetics takes all the fun out of getting fat. Nighttime GERD and all sorts of stomach problems. A gastrologist introduced me to this then-prescription wonder drug called Prilosec, an Acid-pump inhibitor the FDA approved here in the states to help heal ulcers faster. Typical drug regimen for FDA approval was for six months maximum, not years and years as people tend to keep their weight and just fix that symptom..
Astra-Zeneca, One Swiss, the other UK, lords of Prilosec, fiercely protected their cash cow with patent litigation tactics that would impress any Apple Lawyer. They took an off-patent drug and found a candy coating that made it time-release. After that went off patent, "Hey, here's something better: Prevacid!"
Didn't work. I had to switch back as I started having bloody stools (wrong dosage? who knows....)
The worlds largest buyer of pharma is... the US Medicare system.
Before the patents expired, Prilosec was, for me, a $12 a day prescription.
"this doesn't affect me, I don't care what you do." Umm... No.
I have spent years trapped in a cubicle farm surrounded by people with chronic wet coughs from decades of smoking. You get a pass with me if you have asthma. Only way I could escape those ADHD triggers was to get downsized.
Problem solved, thank you for the severance payout.
I'm old enough to remember the 80's when you could still smoke at your desk, as long as you didn't set your trashcan contents on fire...again.
"[...] as long as you didn't set your trashcan contents on fire...again."
Made even worse if the contents are many plastic coffee cups. They burned with lots of black oily smuts drifting in the air.
Not helped by yours truly fetching the pure CO2 extinguisher. Remembered the previous week's training course - and removed the safety pin first. Then put the nozzle close - and blasted the bin's contents high into the air. Fire out - but black smuts drifting down everywhere.
Didn't stop my colleague smoking his pipe - but he was more careful about making sure his match really was extinguished when the sun was shining brightly.
I have probably told both of these stories before, but it's Christmas... :
My dad was a pipe-smoker and in the fire service. He tended to put his pipe in his pocket when he'd finished with it (thinking about it now, he must have had filthy pockets...). Usually, that was no major problem, but there were the times he answered a shout but forgot to knock the pipe out - cue smouldering trousers in the fire appliance...
My first career was as a psychiatric nurse. There were few (if any) patients (or staff) on longer-stay wards that didn't smoke (I didn't, but still went through two packs a week - giving them to patients). There were very few bin fires - cigarettes were hoarded, and tab-ends recycled until nothing was left (cigarette papers were also de rigeur kit in my pocket!) I reckon I saved the NHS a fortune in major tranquillisers and overtime by diverting potentially violent incidents with a well-timed offer of a cigarette (and tea - never forget tea!)
What hits my hot button is to walk into the local One Stop and be accosted by a Sweet Young Thing (about 19-20, dressed inappropriately in order to enhance her salesforce) actively attempting to sell me (and everyone else walking in) vaping products in bright coloured packaging, from a brightly coloured stand, in all sorts of fun flavours - and not paying much attention to the age of the customers she was attempting to entice.
And this isn't hypothetical - it actually happened about 3 months ago - in the UK, in a shop directly opposite a park full of kids with a _very_ popular skating area (and with the shop manager pretty unhappy about being forced to put up with having her there)
Bear in mind that One Stop is a trading brand of Tesco.
Any claim that Vaping products are NOT being sold at new recruits pretty much went out the window some time back.
Whenever “Pro” & “Con” are “On The Stage” [doing whatever “they”do best], “Truth” will “HaveTo Wait Its Turn”. And what happens when The-Waiting” is merely A Game? You know, when The-Wait is, somehow but don’t know how, “infinite” ? Well, then, “Eets Jest Too-Bad, Sweets”. When DemonKrazy is able to masquerade as Democracy, DemonKrazy Running-Amok is then The Reality.
When The Vast Majority within The Human Universe employ “Selfishness” as some kinda Excuse in order to “Gain An Advantage”, “The-Waiting” will be Forever & Ever, Amen ! Name the person who won’t really mind giving, for example, 1% of his “paycheck” to “Whatever”. NOT when said “paycheck” is too small to Balance-Out the Bills. Hands-up those who would like To DisAgree. No wonder when The Vast Majority are “Bribe-able”/”Do-able”, Who-You-Know/”Relativity” is then The-Reality and not What-You-Know/”Reality”.
NOTHING will change when “Selfishness”/”Pro-vs-Con” is Running-Amok. There is only ONE reason for Materialism’s existence and that is to be The Embodiment of Love, which happens when “The-Gifting” is Real. That of offering a “Face” to Love. NOT the love which expects-demands but The Love which is UnConditional. That of “Motherliness”. A quality, even “Animals” are able to-express.
Evil is when Destruction has neither Rhyme nor Reason To Destroy. You know, when “Cruelty loves being-Cruel”, whatever The-Justification. Including The Moment when some Masochist loves being hurt, “jest like zat” ! You know, when Masochism is Running-Amok/Prowling-Around-for-Its-Sadist.
Like it or not, Cruelty happens when Destruction has NO Constructive Elements. This is because “Evil”, aka Devolution, exists.
Energy is The Highest at The-Energy-Creator’s Level. Evolution started at The Lowest [materialised] Energy Level before arriving at The Thoughfully-Processing Human Level. Thereafter, in order to Leap-Ahead-&-be-Beyond, The “First-Born” Human has to realise his “self” first. To Realising one’s reality or what Religion-Religiosity “secretly”/blind-blindedly calls, The Born-Again Human Level.
A Bird is Firstly-Born as An Egg before being “Born-Again”as A Bird. Symbolically, A Human is “Firstly-Born” as The Thoughtfully-Processing Human before being “Born-Again” as The Thoughtlessly-Aware Human. You know, when Serendipity is being able to perceive The ONLY Energy-Creator without having To “Think”/Judge About It or when Judgement is a Mental-Issue of Control-Freakism. That of Thought-Processing [TP] Running-Amok. And isn’t it grand that Control’s real aim to justify Its Moment of Abandonment. You know, when Control-Freakism is merely some form of Abandon-Nuttism.
Hands-up those who imagine that being Abandoned is to enable Chaos to Run-Amok. NOT when Control aims-to become Abandonment at The-End. The Human Universe predicates on Selfishness in order to "Sucessfully Spin”. If so, wouldn’t The Solution to The Problem of Selfishness be implementing The-Innocent to remaining Innocent. If so, why befool “Minors” with Frivolity & Nonsense like “Adulthood”/Ritualism-Licentiousness, “Santa”/becoming-Abandoned, and so forth? You know, promoting Illusion-Delusion as Reality.
It is said that, “If Thoughts are readable like A Book, The Vast Majority of “Adults” will be facing “Jail-Time”. But NOT when “Adulthood” means being able to “BeFriend Yore Wigged-Fellow”, thereby avoiding “Jail-Time”, in addition to recycling The Same Ole Junk All over Again. And Again, ad-infinitum.
There must be NO Outright-Control such that those who are able To-Awaken-To-Reality will be able to do so. In the meantime, Human Societies will be able to do as “they” please, which include being “Good”, “Bad” & InDifferent”. When The Truly Living are able To Breathe, Reality will become “accessible”. It does not matter whether The Relativised/Materialised do what “they” do best, so long as Reality is unemcumbered to continue, Reality will become so.
As such, let “Sleeping Dogs Lie”. Let The Control-Freaks be The Number-Oners/”Nazis”. So long as Reality is not constricted by Ascetism-Licentiousness/Duality-pretending-to-be-Singularity, there will be those who are able to become Real, thereby EnLightening those who are ready to Be EnLightened.
The Vast Majority may know ALL About The Tricks of The Trade of Evil, but so long as they are “Being-Compromised”, Nothing Will Change. So “Vape” away – or whatever Smoking will be calling “Smoking”. Remaining Thoughtfully-Processed is to be dulled by Frivolity & Nonsense – and self-certifying that state as being Real. No wonder another name for Devolution is The-Joker. Try not to Laugh too hard, though, if only because that could be The Last Laugh.
Be conscious and be aware that Addiction is The Moment when The Ability to See is not counterable by The Ability to Counter. Materialism's methodology to countering Addiction is via “Replacement-Therapy”. That of replacing an Addiction with A Higher Form of Addiction. For An Addiction to be really counterable, The-Victim needs to realise Its own reality/”truth” first. You know, when Reality is ONLY possible after realising one’s own reality. Without this essential/fundamental step on The Journey towards Reality, one may be on The Journey towards Turth forever & ever. No matter who says/said what.
> Smoking has been in decline in recent years,
No. Wrong. In the UK, it has been a monotonic linear decline since ~1960. For non-researchers, put your ruler on the peak ~1960, tilt it down sharply, and draw a line. Your line will only be a fraction off the reality. It's that consistent.
Precisely NO anti-smoking "initiative" has had any influence on this progression.
.
Interestingly, tobacco PREVENTS lung cancer, not "causes" it.
It's HOW you smoke it that changes this risk.
.
Re "cause": based on actual DATA (not research estimates), smoking cigarettes increases your annual incidence of lung cancer by only 4.5 times.
To put that in perspective I: dyeing your hair every 6 weeks increases your chance of bladder cancer 32 times. Bladder cancer has ~ the same incidence as lung cancer. Yes, it's now more survivable. But you talk to most people who're "cured", and Quality of Life becomes such an issue that you start getting gungho about voluntary euthanasia.
To put that in perspective II: to put the ABSOLUTE risk of lung cancer in perspective (never wondered why you almost never see any hard figures thrown round? And why the only one which is, is expressed in strictly RELATIVE terms?), and again based on actual whole-population DATA not tiny-sample research proxies:
if you smoke a packet a day of cigarettes, from the day you can first buy them legally to the age of 80, in the UK (where you have a higher chance than average of contracting lung cancer anyway), you have a 1 in 19 chance of contracting lung cancer. Which, with the typical 5yr subsequent lifespan, means you'll die of lung cancer at or over the average life span in the UK.
.
So, not an automatic death sentence at all. In fact, quite a tiny chance of lung cancer considering that level of smoking for that level of time.
And... oh dear lord!... someone can do something they enjoy, all their life, and typically die at or over the average age.
.
To put it another way, the level of anti-smoking hysteria is literally irrational, is not based on fact but rather on virtue-display.
> Interestingly, tobacco PREVENTS lung cancer, not "causes" it.
> It's HOW you smoke it that changes this risk.
To be clear: if you're a non-smoker, you have a 25% HIGHER chance of lung cancer than a pipe smoker.
Likewise, cigar smokers have 6% lower chance of lung cancer than you.
Richard Doll discovered this. And did his damndest to hide it. The government had to force the data out of him. And then discovered he'd hidden a whole heap of stuff.
Richard Doll, to be clear, is the evangelist who kicked off the whole anti-smoking thing and drove it like a demon. His chance for FAME!. He was a doctor who noticed his lung cancer patients were more likely to be smokers than the population average of smokers. He took that ball and ran with it, banged the armageddon drum (standard tactic for status-/attention-needy people bereft of objective justification), and as a result got himself a serious career and serious attention. After the snowball had been rolling for a while he got some serious serious money to do some PROPER large-scale research. After which he declared his triumphant conclusions, then refused to show his data. Instant black flag, never mind red flag. (Not quite as bad as the chap who hijacked the Paris Accord then literally smashed his disk with a hammer to prevent anyone seeing his data, but it's still up there with the classics.)
He found that:
Pipe smokers have 20% lower chance of lung cancer than non-smokers, cigar smokers 6%.
Only cigarette smokers are the ones who have problems.
.
So it's clearly not tobacco which is the problem. It's how you smoke it.
.
An interesting observation: even drinking coffee/tea too hot regularly, sharply increases your chances of mouth&throat cancer. (Ban them!) Something every pipe smoker will tell you is that pipe smoke is not much hotter than ambient by the time it gets to the mouth. I personally strongly suspect cigarettes (which are only barely tobacco: many chemicals added so they burn: tobacco does not burn ; cigarette "tobacco" takes 1-2 weeks to make, pipe tobacco takes 1-2 years) cause problems due to the heat and the chemicals. A blast of scorching air straight into the lungs.
Even then, the risk is startlingly low compared to the hype. Per the NHS's & WHO's simple record keeping of actual incidence rates.
BTW, the WHO finds 25-30% of lung cancer patients are non-smokers. "Interestingly", the NHS declares 10% publicly, but their internal documents state 25-30%. The NHS also presents smoking vs lung cancer charts based on different years/data. The lung cancer data is nearly a decade older than the smoking rate data. Reason? Lung cancer rates in the UK are going UP, whilst smoking rate continues on its monotonic linear decline. "Whoops".
.
Tobacco also cures tuberculosis, interestingly. "Good for the phthisis", as the pipe-smoking 17C boys put it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
