The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated

TheRecord.com ^ | 20 November 2002 | ERIC BOYD

[SheLion]

Too much is made of the 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. We're told these chemicals are so harmful that they are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. Untold in this "war on tobacco" is that each of the plants we consume consists of an equally daunting thousands of chemicals many of which are recognized poisons or suspected cancer-causing agents.

Cayenne peppers, carrots and strawberries each contain six suspected carcinogens; onions, grapefruit and tomato each contain five -- some the same as the seven suspected carcinogens found in tobacco.

High-heat cooking creates yet more dietary carcinogens from otherwise harmless chemical constituents.

Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling.

Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole.

Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab.

That's one problem with the anti-smoking crusade. The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs.

An in-depth analysis of 400,000 U.S. smoking-related deaths by National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute Robert Levy identified a disturbing number of flaws in the methodology used to estimate these deaths. Incorrectly classifying some diseases as smoking-related and choosing the wrong standard of comparison each overstated deaths by more than 65 per cent.

Failure to control for confounding variables such as diet and exercise turned estimates more into a computerized shell game than reliable estimates of deaths.

Marimont and Levy also found no adjustments were made to the costs of smoking resulting from the benefits of smoking -- reduced Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, less obesity, depression and breast cancer.

If it were possible to estimate 45,000 smoking-related Canadian deaths as some health activists imagine -- and Marimont, Levy and other respected researchers think it is not -- then applying an identical methodology to other lifestyle choices would yield 57,000 Canadian deaths due to lack of exercise and 73,000 Canadian deaths blamed on poor diets.

If both the chemical constituents of tobacco smoke and the numbers of smoking-related deaths are overstated -- and clearly they are -- how can we trust the claim that tobacco smoke is harmful to non-smokers?

The 1993 bellwether study by the Environmental Protection Agency that selectively combined the results of a number of previous studies and found a small increase in lung cancer risk in those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke has been roundly criticized as severely flawed by fellow researchers and ultimately found invalid in a court of law.

In 1998, the World Health Organization reported a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smokers.

Despite these invalidating deficiencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization both concluded tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

One wonders whether the same conclusions would have been announced if scientific fraud were a criminal offence.

When confronted with the scientific uncertainty, the inconsistency of results and the incredible misrepresentation of present-day knowledge, those seeking to abolish tobacco invoke a radical interpretation of the Precautionary Principle: "Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activity should not proceed."

This unreasonable exploitation of the ever-present risks of living infiltrates our schools to indoctrinate trusting and eager minds with the irrational fears of today. Instead of opening minds to the wondrous complexities of living, it opens the door to peer ridicule and intolerance while cultivating the trendy cynics of tomorrow.

If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now?

Eric Boyd of Waterloo has management experience across a wide range of sectors.

[Kozak]

Nobody called you a boob. Is it bad to be fat, sure. Is it bad to drink too much of course. Is it bad to not exercise absolutely. Is it a bad idea to drive without your seat belt, yup.

Hey I'm a doctor, not your mommy. I'm just stating a few facts, do with them what you will. You are right, we all die, and much of what ails us is beyond our control, but some things we can have some impact on. Make your choices, and take your chances. Just don't come crying about the injustice of it all when the bets are called.....

[azhenfud]

It's reasonable that mistakes are made. The point I had intended to make was if there were notices posted and observed before entering an establishment, a choice could be made - whether to enter either being non-smoking or designated smoking.
There is no difference to me for a non-smoker to enter a designated smoking area and complain than for a smoker to enter a non-smoking environment and complain.
Do you see this as silliness????

[SheLion]

I don't think that link fittingly supports your statement....

What link is that?

[SheLion]

Inhilation v Injestion... apples and oranges.

Why do I have to go through this again? We all know smoking like a thousand other things in life, is not good for us. And tobacco is legal.

[netmilsmom]

More power to you! Being a social smoker (I will bum a cig from someone when I drink-which is next to never with a 2 and 5 year old) and loving many smokers, I wish America would go to that level of tolerance. It cramps my style when we have to find a restauant that will seat my whole extended family in a smoking section. Most times, half of the family is taking puff breaks outside. Besides, smokers are happier than non-smokers in my realm of reality. Most non-smokers pinch their faces and bellow when things don't go their way. Hard drinking, hard smoking Irish/Poles make for a good party. And there is nothing funnier than a smoker coughing up a rum and coke through his nose on a holiday. (I HAVE done that too!)

[Great Dane]

All of you smokers that are arguing for your nicotine sticks could use the same arguments for legalizing marijuana."

If I smoked pot I would fight, I have enough on my plate fighting fanatic ANTI smokers.

[SheLion]

Just don't come crying about the injustice of it all when the bets are called.....

Kozak, I've lived THIS long! I've served my time. Any day from this day forward is gravy and a blessing. How's that.

[Kozak]

Yeah. So what. There are tons of good solid studies and epidemiologic data that shows the absolute correlation between smoking and increased risk of lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease and emphysema. The numbers are huge, they can correct for diet, exercise, cholesterol, occupation etc etc etc.

Then there is the simple clinical evidence that ANY doctor sees. The vast majority lung cancer patients are smokers. Ditto emphysema patients. Much higher risk of heart disease in same. WE SEE IT EVERY DAY.
Still I believe it's ultimately your choice.

[SheLion]

No. Did you? :)

Did I what?

[Great Dane]

Absolutely. And I tend to exercise it. Like I said, I have no problem with people smoking and drinking whatever they want and as much as they want (natural selection?) for as long as I am not 'forced' to share the experience.

Then we agree, thank you.

I do find it strange that with a lot fewer smokers, the effects of shs seems to increase........ strange indeed.

[beachn4fun]

You are so right! It is all about money. All one has to do is ask themselves this, "If the government were so concerned that cigs would kill you, why don't they make cig makers stop putting those chemicals in the cigs or make safer cigs?" Why is everyone suing the big cig companies but not making them stop producing cigs? Another question is this, "How many deaths per year are caused by alcohol?" I bet there are more alcohol-related deaths per year than there are related to cigs. Yet, does anyone see the government taxing the big alcohol-producers out of existance? Does anyone see people suing the them? And, guess what I believe? I believe that more people will die of cancer that is NOT related to cigs, but related to nuclear waste (athough they don't realize it) from all those years of testing.... even non-smokers!

Keep up the good work!

[azhenfud]

"In fact, he (Bush, sic) has EASED retrictions on GORE'S clean air act."

LOL!. Hence this discussion.

"Eric Boyd of Waterloo has management experience across a wide range of sectors."

"MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE"??

[blackdog]

Do you mean "bioaccumulation" suits? Yesterday Kemper Insurance announced it was dropping municipal liability coverages.The reason they were doing so was because of asbestos, dioxin, PVC, treated wood, and future such claims. Litigants now not even need to show any damage, just exposure. This lets them sue now since it is inevitable they will die and someone needs to pay!

The lawyers, stupid juries, and advocacy groups will have left this country nothing but a dead, unquivering, pile of picked clean bones. Once they pick the country clean, they will become Warlords with their own turf just like Afghanistan.

[netmilsmom]

"Then there is the simple clinical evidence that ANY doctor sees. The vast majority lung cancer patients are smokers. Ditto emphysema patients. Much higher risk of heart disease in same. WE SEE IT EVERY DAY."

If the vast majority of those patients roller skated, would you blame that as well? The majority of the WWII generation smoked. It's hard to find one who didn't. As long as the anti-smokers continue to lay the misconceptions on the younger generations, kids will start smoking and IMO these are the people we should be targeting to never start.

[Jim Noble]

>>If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now? <<

The self-evident truth of this proposition has nothing-nothing to do with the dangers of smoking tobacco which are real and if anything are understated.

If you smoke, and you are a freeper-I hope you quit.

[netmilsmom]

After the lawyers get to the fast food industry, Booze is next

[SheLion]

Then there is the simple clinical evidence that ANY doctor sees. The vast majority lung cancer patients are smokers. Ditto emphysema patients. Much higher risk of heart disease in same. WE SEE IT EVERY DAY.
Still I believe it's ultimately your choice.

Ok Doc. I've got a few for you:

The Death of Medicine

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year

This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

Medical Liars

The American Heart Association Admits It Deliberately Lied To The American Public
Don't Trust Your Doctor!

[azhenfud]

http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/ncarolina.html

NORTH CAROLINA SMOKERS' CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2001

North Carolina smokers comprise only 26.1% of the adult population in the state. Here is what they already pay because they choose to buy a legal product:

Smokers Pay Excise Taxes $ 39,682,700
Smokers Pay Sales Taxes $ 95,238,480
Smokers Pay Tobacco Settlement Payments $138,700,000
$273,621,180

Unless you were referring to the contribution of individual smokers, I don't see how the info reinforces your arguement that their contributions are petty, but I don't wish to get into trivial sparrings....

[netmilsmom]

Again, did you read the article???