[43north]

After practicing medicine for 36 years this is what I have observed:

*A very few people can smoke like a chimney and exhibit no ill effects. I suspect that this is genetic since most of them provide a history that their parents smoked and lived past 80.

*The majority of people who smoke will exhibit decreased lung function after about 20 years of smoking. If they continue to smoke their lung function will continue to deteriorate.

*Some people have poor lung function regardless of tobacco use. If they smoke it only makes things worse.

If we graphed my statements they would resemble the Bell Curve just like most things in Nature.

All this being said, I am not in favor of anyone using tobacco in any form. Why take the chance?

OTOH, it is none of the gubbmint’s business. If you want to smoke, have at it. Its your life. Just don’t expect me to feel sorry for you when you develop COPD or lung cancer.

[boop]

Yep 43North. I'm a non smoker MD, too. And your statistics are right. I'm sure you've seen the graph of smokers and lung capacity. Some people can "handle" it but there's a subset that REALLY goes down at about 40 pack-years. I think it's the double hit hypothesis, otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge gap in smoking related deaths. The 90 year old still-puffer, vs. Susan Oliver (the green chick in Star Trek) at 50. And then there are the complete mysteries, like Andy Kaufman. He only smoked when he was portraying Tony Clifton. Other than that he was a TM-loving health freak. Dead at 35 from lung CA. Sorry, no sale that it was "second-hand" smoke in clubs that got him. I don't think SHS is necessarily "safe", but if it were THAT deadly, KIDS would have lung CA.

But I still fully support businesses and adults making the decision for themselves. Nobody gets out alive.