Smokers cost society less than non-smokers.

[livingwill]

There is a lot of data going way back that smokers don't have the same life expectancy as nonsmokers. No one really argues this any more.

[LarryOldtimer]

Since I am almost 74, have smoked non-filtered cigarettes since I was 14, and X-rays show that my lungs are remarkably clear, pfft to that hokum.  There is the same sort of evidence that Zeus is the king of the gods.

I might also add that my measured lung capacity is better than 4.5 liters.  My doctor says that my lungs are clearer than his other patients my age who have never smoked in their lives.  Pfft again.  Believe whatever government hokum you wish to.  Oh yes, in 4 years, the oceans of Earth will be boiling, I hear.

Note:  Scientific method really means that if there is any exception, either the theory isn't right, or it isn't science.

[Willis]

Since I am almost 74, have smoked non-filtered cigarettes since I was 14, and X-rays show that my lungs are remarkably clear, pfft to that hokum.  There is the same sort of evidence that Zeus is the king of the gods.

I might also add that my measured lung capacity is better than 4.5 liters.  My doctor says that my lungs are clearer than his other patients my age who have never smoked in their lives.  Pfft again.  Believe whatever government hokum you wish to.  Oh yes, in 4 years, the oceans of Earth will be boiling, I hear.

Note:  Scientific method really means that if there is any exception, either the theory isn't right, or it isn't science.

I agree with living will. While the risks associated with smoking are exaggerated, there can be no doubt that smoking can kill you. In fact, the tobacco industry's 40-year attempt to cover that up has done tremendous damage to our ability to fend off unnecessary nanny state regulations.

[livingwill]

Since I am almost 74, have smoked non-filtered cigarettes since I was 14, and X-rays show that my lungs are remarkably clear, pfft to that hokum.  There is the same sort of evidence that Zeus is the king of the gods.

I might also add that my measured lung capacity is better than 4.5 liters.  My doctor says that my lungs are clearer than his other patients my age who have never smoked in their lives.  Pfft again.  Believe whatever government hokum you wish to.  Oh yes, in 4 years, the oceans of Earth will be boiling, I hear.

Note:  Scientific method really means that if there is any exception, either the theory isn't right, or it isn't science.

Scientific theory is rarely all or nothing. Much of modern science is probability and has been since Heisenberg.  You aren't CERTAIN to get cancer from tobacco but it is more probable. Whether you have cancer or not matters only to you not the theory. You can do everything wrong and live to 103 or do everything right and live to 7. Those cases would simply be on the far end of a probability curve.

[Richard S Courtney]

Friends:

I remind that in my post to this thread I said;

"This statistical certainty is because there is an important distinction which few manage to understand:  viz.
smoking does not kill but it does increase susceptibility to some diseases."

None have disputed any point in my post but subsequent postings suggest that the points in it have been ignored.

Regards

Richard

[LarryOldtimer]

Smokiing also has substantial health benefits.  Statstically, each 10 years of smoking reduces the probability of contracting Parkinson's disease by 30%.  Just the facts.  Also, older people who smoke are more cognitive, and have a lot more actual brain activity.

Would-be do-gooders decided to demonize tobacco, just as they have demonized lead and mercury.

I could do data-mining, and "prove" about any position I wanted to by using (misusing) "statistics", without any problem at all.  Take a look about you, and it is being done all the time by supposed "scientists", who, BTW, aren't particularly adept or know all that much (or care) about statistics in the first place.

I would suggest that all of you tobacco haters certainly do yourselves any number of things which "aren't good" for you.  Just keep in mind . . . when you allow others to take my freedoms and rights away, or aid in taking my freedoms and rights away from me, it won't be long before you will find that your own freedoms and rights are being taken away from you yourselves . . . all "for your own good", of course! 

I don't care in the least whether you like or not like what I do for my own enjoyment, so long as it isn't doing you any actual harm (and I don't really care whether what I do is mentally "troublesome" to you.)  I haven't had a "keeper" since I was a child, and certainly don't need any now.

[Willis]

I would suggest that all of you tobacco haters certainly do yourselves any number of things which "aren't good" for you.  Just keep in mind . . . when you allow others to take my freedoms and rights away, or aid in taking my freedoms and rights away from me, it won't be long before you will find that your own freedoms and rights are being taken away from you yourselves . . . all "for your own good", of course!  

I have a feeling you will have a difficult time finding "tobacco haters" on a forum like this. Having written many unpleasant things about health nannies, I promise I have no interest in telling you what to do.

There's a difference between admitting something is very dangerous and forcing other people not to use it.

Friends:

I remind that in my post to this thread I said;

"This statistical certainty is because there is an important distinction which few manage to understand:  viz.
smoking does not kill but it does increase susceptibility to some diseases."

None have disputed any point in my post but subsequent postings suggest that the points in it have been ignored.

Regards

Richard

So if a smoker, who is otherwise healthy, contracts lung cancer, it would be wrong to blame his cigarette addiction? Saying that smoking doesn't kill but only increases chances of disease sounds like semantics, Richard.

[LarryOldtimer]

If the smoker had smoked Kent cigaretts with an asbestos fiber filter, it would likely have been the asbestos fibers inhalation that caused the cancer.  The point I am making here is that there were far to many confounding factors to take those old smoking/cancer "studies" seriously.  There are a whole lot of activities which will increase the probability of death sooner than later.  You decide which of these activities you enjoy, and I will decide mine.  I won't rap on your "foolishness" if you don't rap on mine.

Another factoid about probabilities is that while the probability does show the odds of something (hopefully, if done properly), the probability doesn't at all show when it will happen.  Perhaps the probability of my contracting lung cancer is somewhat greater, but at the same time I am doing something, such a rock climbing, which also has a greater probability of early death than not rock climbing.  Which one will happen first?  The one with the lesser probability may well happen first.

Life is finite.  I am not so afraid of death that I would be willing to give up the pleasures of life.  A life without pleasures is a life not worth living, IMHO, even if the pleasures include some probability of my dying sooner than I would if I didn't indulge in a given pleasure.

This nation has become a nation of would-be do-gooders who want to prohibit anything which can be shown to have any hazard to life or limb.  No matter what they manage to prohibit, there is something else always lurking in the shadows which has much the same probability of hazard to life or limb.  I can assure you, that my chances of dying earlier are greater by driving a car than smoking a cigarette.  Of course, driving a car while smoking a cigarette presents a higher probability of death or maiming than driving a car not smoking a cigarette.  Trade-offs, trade-offs.

[Richard S Courtney]

Willis:

I object!

I wrote saying;

""I remind that in my post to this thread I said;

"This statistical certainty is because there is an important distinction which few manage to understand:  viz.
smoking does not kill but it does increase susceptibility to some diseases."

None have disputed any point in my post but subsequent postings suggest that the points in it have been ignored."

And you have replied saying;

"So if a smoker, who is otherwise healthy, contracts lung cancer, it would be wrong to blame his cigarette addiction? Saying that smoking doesn't kill but only increases chances of disease sounds like semantics, Richard."

No!  It is a demonstration that you did not read what I wrote. So, since you clearly are not willing to find it and read it, I copy all of it below.

Richard


Friends:

Before making my contribution here, I declare my personal interest: I am a smoker and I have been for nearly half a century.

I write to provide consideration of two issues.

Firstly, everybody dies but nobody has ever had “smoking” recorded as ‘Cause Of Death’ on a Death Certificate.  But it is a statistical certainty that many people who have died would not have contracted the disease that killed them (e.g. lung cancer) at as early an age as they did if they had not been smokers.

This statistical certainty is because there is an important distinction which few manage to understand:  viz.
smoking does not kill but it does increase susceptibility to some diseases.

Therefore, if there were two identical populations with one of them all being smokers and the other all non-smokers, then the non-smoking population would have a longer life-expectancy.

Simply,
(1)  only those susceptible to a disease will contract that disease,
(2)  some who are susceptible to the disease will contract the disease at an earlier age if they smoke, and
(3)  some who do not smoke will contract that disease.
(4)  some people will die of something else before contracting the disease and, therefore, point (2) means that a larger proportion of smokers will die of the disease because the disease kills some of them before something else does.

The above facts induce considerations that are often presented as being moral issue in the form of;
 â€œIs it right to help ill people who made a choice to accept greater risk of illness?”

But the fallacy of that question is simply demonstrated by presenting similar questions such as;

“Is it right to help injured people who made a choice to accept greater risk of injury;  e.g. by practicing ‘risky’ sports such as rock-climbing or walking along cliff edges?” 
or
“Is it right to help starving people who made a choice to accept greater risk of starvation;  e.g. by failing to grow crops that would survive a drought?” 
or…

All such questions summate to,
 â€œIs it right to help anybody who made a choice that increased their risk of being in their present distress“?

And, according to Judeo-Christian ethics, the only moral answer to that question is,
 â€œAll people in distress deserve help because we all make choices that may turn out to have unfortunate effects.”

So, in fact, the apparent moral dilemma is not a dilemma:  it is an ancient excuse for picking on a minority that, for some reason, is not liked.

Those who present the issue as an apparent moral dilemma know they are wrong, and that is why they also try to present the issue of ‘passive smoking’, but that is another subject.

Secondly, there is the issue of health costs from smoking.  And this issue clearly demonstrates why the apparent moral issue of smoking is a fraud.

The UK established its National Health Service (NHS) in 1948.  And the history of the NHS demonstrates why a smoking population has lower total health costs than a non-smoking population.

The British people value the NHS above almost anything else (this is not the place to discuss the merits of the NHS and I merely state the fact that it is cherished by the British).  In 1948 it was thought that the costs of the NHS would fall with time because the NHS would improve the health of the population, so fewer people would be ill, so costs of treating ill people would fall.

The health of the British population has improved (which is why the British love the NHS) and this improvement has caused NHS costs to escalate.  Indeed, NHS costs continue to escalate because of improving health of the population.

A healthier population lives longer so there are more people to get ill, there are more older people and they are most likely to get ill, and there are more people whose health is such that when they do get ill they survive longer while being treated. These facts each increase overall medical costs (other things also increase costs, e.g. new and more costly treatments, but that is not relevant to this issue).

So, the original expectation was that NHS costs would reduce but this has proven wrong.  It was expected that the health of the general population would improve and this would reduce medical costs: the health of the general population has improved and this has increased medical costs.  In the light of this failure of the original expectation, it is not surprising that several studies of the matter have been conducted by a variety of organisations.  All these studies have each reached the same conclusion;  i.e. lower general health of a population reduces medical costs.

Smoking increases risk of contracting several diseases and, therefore, smokers have lower general health than non-smokers.  Lower general health of a population reduces medical costs.

Simply, on average smokers die younger and take less time to die when they get ill, so on average their medical costs are less than non-smokers.

Richard

[Willis]

I better understand your point, Richard. Thanks for re-posting your comments.