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.

[Protagoras]

It all depends on generics.

Yeah, those no name drugs are the cause of the problem. :-)

[SheLion]

Look at sensitivity training - they're already after free speech, if not thought.

Oh your not going to pin that on ME! I am NOT after Free Speech.

But when like-minded Conservatives come into our smoking threads and bash and trash us, it get's my fur up. And rightly so. I thought being a Conservative meant that a person is for all rights for all people.

How wrong I was.......considering SOME of the people that come into our smoking threads.

Tobacco is still a legal commodity. Remember that?

[Protagoras]

That is my only complaint, when I have been promised nonsmoking & I don't get it.

Sounds like you should never go to that establishment again.

But I'm guessing you want a law to outlaw smoking in private establishments.

Which is precisely the same as outlawing property rights.

[SheLion]

How Smoking Saves Money

The problem is that the health effects of obesity far outweigh the negative effects of smoking. Two Rand researchers, health economist Roland Sturm and psychiatrist Kenneth Wells, examined the comparative effects of obesity, smoking, heavy drinking and poverty on chronic health conditions and health expenditures. Their finding: Obesity is the most serious problem. It is linked to a big increase in chronic health conditions and significantly higher health expenditures. And it affects more people than smoking, heavy drinking or poverty.

Early deaths caused by obesity already are well over 300,000 annually, and are growing. Obesity-related health-care costs have grown to over $100 billion a year and now consume over 6 percent of all health-care spending.

[Argh]

I wasn't trying to pin anything on you, Miss She. I'm with you 100%, interested in maximizing individual freedom.

Isn't it peculiar how the left tries to proscribe smoking everywhere without being willing to try to actually make tobacco illegal...

[azhenfud]

So, how many in this discussion are former smolderers?

I know what Ditter says re: tastes is so - at least is for me. I know my sense of smell is more acute since quitting - but that too took about a year afterwards....

[engrpat]

Don't have to tell me, I smoked for 25 years, quit 10 years ago and was told this morning I have lung cancer and there is little that can be done.
I don't blame the companies, I blame myself for being so arogant and "knew better" than what everyone and my own body was telling me.

[Gabz]

But I'm guessing you want a law to outlaw smoking in private establishments.

That is exactly what the antis all want.

Which is precisely the same as outlawing property rights

Yes, it is.

And in 10 hours and 20 minutes the property rights of private business will be gone in Delaware when the most extensive and intrusive statewide smoking ban in the nation goes into effect.

[azhenfud]

"The lifetime health cost for a smoking man is $72,700 and $94,700 for a smoking woman. For nonsmokers, the cost is $83,400 for a man; $111,000 for a woman."

Okay, we'll concede that fact on one condition. Break those figures down in health cost per year of life attained and see how smokers and non-smokers compare....

[SheLion]

Isn't it peculiar how the left tries to proscribe smoking everywhere without being willing to try to actually make tobacco illegal...

I've said that all along, Argh. If smoking tobacco was like spewing Mustard Gas, they would have banned it 50 years ago. Heck, my own parents told me back in the 50's "IF YOU SMOKE WE WILL KILL YOU!" "SMOKING ISN'T GOOD FOR YOU." That was back in the "50's!!!!"

But the anti-smoking health fanatics of today make it sound like something that was just discovered. And the money they make, well, it's no wonder! The sad thing is: the Tobacco Settlement money that they are funded with is paid for 100% by smokers who pay taxes on cigarettes through the Tobacco Settlement Money. NOT big Tobacco and NOT the Government. The smokers.

[AppyPappy]

I would rather put off death than hasten it.

[SheLion]

I know what Ditter says re: tastes is so - at least is for me. I know my sense of smell is more acute since quitting - but that too took about a year afterwards....

My mother-in-law quit 15 years ago. She said all that stuff is a bunch of hooey. There is no difference for her today in taste and smell then back when she was smoking.

[SheLion]

Don't have to tell me, I smoked for 25 years, quit 10 years ago and was told this morning I have lung cancer and there is little that can be done.

So very sorry, engrpat. But listen. I had cancer twice in my life! If you keep your spirits up, you will be ok! Just keep a positive attitude. Promise me?

[SheLion]

I told you. Most people have their own health insurance.

ALL of us are paying for the uninsured people that are on welfare. But, that's another thread.

The Tobacco Settlement money was supposed to pay for any sick smoker on welfare, should there be any, but the states are using the money to balance budgets. So.......SOMEONE has to pay for the sick uninsured smoker on welfare, when there is any. And that is ALL of us!

[SheLion]

I would rather put off death than hasten it.

Dear Lord,
Please hear my prayer for AppyPappy. He is not a smoker, Lord. Can you please move his number down a little bit, so he can live a longer life?
Thank you, Lord.
Darlene

And do NOT come back at me for making a joke of this. I am very serious.

[metesky]

Entirely up to you, sir. I choose to skate the edge and it's not up to you or anyone else to restrain me from so doing.

[azhenfud]

Numbers aren't everything.

Again, break those figures down in health cost per year of life attained and see how smokers and non-smokers compare.

The increase in costs shown in the NEJM appear only to be in reference to the increased cost of care due to the increased lifespan of those individuals existing to receive those benefits. Those latter years are many times filled with increased medical concerns, whether smokers or non-smokers. More non-smokers, on average, attain those ages, hence the increased costs. They (those at the NEJM) were not advocating smoking nor continuing to smoke....

[Gabz]

There is no difference for her today in taste and smell then back when she was smoking.

I know a lot of people who have said the same thing. Same thing with a sense of smell.

There's a chemical plant, just a couple miles from my house, and even though they are within the limits of emissions there are certain chemicals that I know they are dealing with on certain days because of the smell. Yet many people I know don't smell it - and they're all non-smokers.

[azhenfud]

Abstract

Background. Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.

Methods. We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs -- one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.

Results. Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.

Conclusions. If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs. (N Engl J Med 1997;337:1052-7.)

Source Information From the Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where reprint requests should be addressed to Mr. Barendregt.

[Argh]

Nice cartoon, Miss She!!