Young Men Who Smoke Have Lower IQs

Hugh Pickens writes "Science Daily reports on a study that has determined that young men who smoke are likely to have lower IQs than their non-smoking peers. In the study, conducted with 20,000 Israeli Army recruits and veterans, the average IQ for a non-smoker was about 101, while the smokers' average was more than seven IQ points lower at about 94, and the IQs of young men who smoked more than a pack a day were lower still, at about 90. (These IQs all fall within the normal range.) 'In the health profession, we've generally thought that smokers are most likely the kind of people to have grown up in difficult neighborhoods, or who've been given less education at good schools,' says Prof. Mark Weiser of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychiatry, whose study was reported in a recent version of the journal Addiction. 'Because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor. The government might want to rethink how it allocates its educational resources on smoking.' Prof. Weiser says that the study illuminates a general trend in epidemiological studies. 'People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health,' says Weiser. 'Schoolchildren who have been found to have a lower IQ can be considered at risk to begin the habit, and can be targeted with special education and therapy to prevent them from starting or to break the habit after it sets in.'"

Comments

Duh

[rossdee]

Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking.

Re:Duh

[Zumbs]

I know a lot of very smart people that smoke. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates one of the points of the article: It isn't just a matter of intelligence whether or not you start to smoke. Social factors such as wealth, educational background and "what my friends do" play a significant role. However, on average, it seems that smokers have a lower IQ than non-smokers. One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?

Re:Duh

[nebulus4]

Or a combination of both?!

Re:Duh

[Bert64]

You misread the parent post tho, which states that smarter people are less likely to start smoking... It's not addictive if you've never done it.

Re:Duh

[gid]

In college I used to smoke at bars and parties to meet girls, but I never got addicted curiously enough. Eventually I found out that the only girls I met were other smokers, whom I usually deemed less than desirable so basically I stopped smoking.

It was a good ice breaker tho.

Re:Duh

[hedwards]

Smarter people also tend not to enlist in the military to begin with. I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value outside the military where they could be pressed into a job without much required aptitude.

How it is that people fall for the sorts of lies he was telling me is beyond me, but you do have to account for the biased sampling selection otherwise you get skewed results. Also people who tend to be more intelligent tend to have better opportunities than the military can provide anyways.

Re:Duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I would not expect intelligence to have any useful correlation, positive or negative, with the physiological aspects of addiction(cravings, feeling like shit when you haven't had any, improvement on next dose, etc, etc.)

However, one of the abilities that generally falls into the basket of "intelligence" is the ability to do pattern recognition, recognize correlations, and use them to your advantage. There has been some research suggesting that one of the difficulties that people have in quitting any addictive substance is that, when not subject to craving at that particular moment, they consistently underestimate how tempted they will be in the future. It wouldn't totally shock me if smarter people are better at allowing their rational evaluation("No, whenever I 'have just one at the pub', I end up not stopping") to override the consistent emotional underestimate than less smart people are.

There are, I suppose, a variety of other potential confounding variables. For instance, you'd expect that brighter people, in general, should have a modestly better effort/reward ratio than less smart ones. This could easily result in an upbringing that encourages greater obedience to rules and instructions from others that seem to have a realistic basis.(If your parents tell you that you should be sure to work hard in school, and you do, and get good results, this is encouraging. You obey the instructions, and receive praise and recognition. If you obey the instructions; but aren't sharp enough to garner the richest rewards, you are likely to be less encouraged to do so in the future.) In most contemporary societies, there are a variety of risk/reward tradeoffs available. If you are smart enough(and aren't a member of some particularly despised underclass/race/whatever), you have likely had greatest access to the high end of the "low risk/low reward" strategy pool(and the high end of which is basically the "low risk/medium to good reward" pool, pretty attractive). If you are less smart, you are more likely to be stuck with the "low reward" side of the pool if you choose the "low risk" strategy pool. You might, therefore, be induced to (rationally) choose the "high risk" strategy pool.

More generally, the specific cigarettes case aside, I'd be interested to see some mixture of economic and sociological analysis looking at that question. Are people, in fact, substantially irrational, choosing(if one can be so optimistic as to assume that they do in fact choose), courses of action that are just plain stupid as the emtional and instinctive heuristics of a hunter-gatherer collide with modernity? Or are they actually acting rationally(if not always how we'd like them to), if you look at the rewards on average of various strategies, as compared to their other options?

Re:Duh

[MrKaos]

All things being equal, a dumb person and a smart person should have similar addiction risks. Perhaps here we're seeing that smarter people are less likely to become addicts, or maybe their intelligence is able to override the addictive drive.

My brother, with a degree in Physics and Telecommunications engineering, smokes like a chimney, about a pack a day. Plus he wears patches and chew the nicotine gum. He is well aware of the damage that he is doing to himself. The problem is (I can't remember the slashdot story I reference here) is that it seems to alleviate the symptoms of schizophrenia he suffers. Unfortunately for him smoking seems to be getting more and more of an anti-social practice and I doubt that help that condition.

I personally can't stand the habit, but I realise that marginalising smokers doesn't help them. Despite the fact that this appears to be based in good science I think that most smokers reaction to this news would be to light up so they can cope with the stress of the news. I would like to see smoking handled as a health issue, with incremental taxes on the products driving the prices higher and directly funding health budgets. Those who can afford it could treat the purchase of cigarettes like a good bottle of scotch and those who cannot can have them prescribed by a doctor.

The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.

Re:Duh

[Bloopie]

You are forgetting that some of us smoke because ::gasp:: we enjoy it.

Yeah, but you can't even get to the end of a sentence without gasping. I think I'll stay away from smoking, thank you.

Re:Duh

[mcgrew]

I'd almost be willing to bet that the smart people you know who smoke aren't young. Back in the day, 3/4 of adults smoked, as opposed to today, and the health risks weren't as clear to most back then. Hell, when I went to college you could smoke in class; most of my professors smoked, as well as most of the students. nowdays you can't even smoke in a bar.

Re:Duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In a country with essentially universal(except for a particular sect of religious nutjobs, who sponge off the government, breed, and study Torah, while the rest of the citizenry serves in the army, pays taxes, and generally isn't too happy about them) compulsory military service, I don't expect that that is a confounding variable of much concern....

In countries without such, that'd be a major confound(or, perhaps more likely, give you a fairly strongly bimodal distribution. A subset of the military is extremely bright, kid with the highest SAT scores in my class went to West Point, patriotism or family history of military activity can have a strong influence as well. On the other hand, it isn't exactly news that "volunteer" recruitment tends to be easier in poor economic times, and in small, somewhat depressed, towns where there is fuck-all in the way of alternatives.)

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

In Israel the army enlists you

Re:Duh

[Pharmboy]

When I was young, I always found girls that smoke to be more desirable, ie: if she smokes, she pokes. The friend that originally explained this to me (when I was 18) noticed that girls that smoked had lower self-esteem, and girls with lower self-esteem were more likely to "do things" to get your acceptance. This isn't to say that all girls that smoke will have sex with you, it just says the odds are better, and you spend less time looking and more time doing.

So, if you are looking for a WIFE, then avoid smokers, but if you are looking for a good time, then girls that smoke are a better bet.

Re:Duh

[an unsound mind]

Enjoyment and addiction have little to nothing to do with each other.

You can enjoy something and not be addicted; conversely you can be addicted to something and not enjoy it.

Actually, most of the enjoyment from smoking is gone by the time the addiction sets in. By that time you need a smoke just to feel normal.

Re:Duh

[brian_tanner]

I used to think that too. I suggest you read Allen Carr's book. It's an easy read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Carr

The book has helped myself and several others in our Ph.D program quit smoking. I think you may find that you don't enjoy smoking, but rather you enjoy relieving the physical and psychological symptoms of Nicotine withdrawal. Each cigarette returns you to neutral, and after about an hour your Nicotine levels have dropped and your addicted body makes you uncomfortable so you enjoy having another cigarette and returning back to neutral. The truth is you like having an absence of withdrawal symptoms, ie, of being a nonsmoker.

Probably. So far everyone I know that has read the book has easily quit and has come to understand this perspective. We're not exactly a low IQ bunch. But I could be wrong of course. Couldn't hurt to find out though: at least you'd have a reason to ditch the stink and health problems...

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to enjoy something without being addicted to it? No wonder the rehab thing is so popular nowadays...people are addicted to everything!

Re:Duh

[Pojut]

Again, I smoke at most half a pack a day, and it isn't uncommon for me to go for days without smoking at all (a good example being when we went to visit my fiancee's sister two weeks ago...didn't have a single cig for a week, nor did I ever feel the need for one)

Cigs are one of those things where if I have them, that's great...if I don't, I'm not going to go out of my way to get more.

Re:Duh

[DurendalMac]

Except that kissing a girl who smokes is like licking an ashtray.

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

So, if you are looking for a WIFE, then avoid smokers, but if you are looking for a good time, then girls that smoke are a better bet.

Shouldn't you be busy getting ready for the Masters' Tournament, Mr. Woods?

And just for the record, that Erin you married looks like a total pain in the ass.

Seriously, though, the thing about girls who smoke is true. As disgusting as it sounds, the faint taste of cigarettes and alcohol on a woman's breath is quite arousing. Intellectually, I wouldn't want a girl who smokes (and my wife is a non-smoker) and I never really cared for drunk women, but still...

However, that does NOT mean I'd do Amy Winehouse.

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

licking an ashtray

Is that code for something?

I couldn't find any references to "licking the ashtray" at Urban Dictionary.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

"Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking."

Actually, I've observed exactly the opposite. While I admit freely that the entirety of my social circle does not amount to a representative sample of the population, most of the nicotine addicts I know (myself included) got started smoking in similar ways.

For me, it started freshman year in college- attending parties and whatnot. I had a lot of friends and acquaintances who smoked, and would always offer me one, but for the longest time I turned down the offer. It was after coming out of a bad relationship, having far more to drink than was either healthy or reasonable, and then running into the other half of said bad relationship at the same party... Well, I'll spare the details, but it was rather upsetting. Anyways, me being upset and intoxicated (nice combination there!), I was offered a cigarette. This time, I took it- didn't really give a shit at the time. Found that I rather enjoyed the experience.

Roll the clock forward a year. I'm in the habit of having a smoke now and then when I'm drinking. My line of thinking was something to the effect of: "I know this is bad for me, but I'm doing it so infrequently that the cumulative damage should be minimal if even measurable. I won't get addicted, I have too much willpower for that. And damn it, it feels good!"

Roll the clock forward another year, and I'm a pack a day smoker. Somewhere over the summer between sophomore and junior year, My drinking and partying became frequent enough that I started getting cigarette cravings when sober. Those of you who have never been addicted to anything can understand addiction only in an objective, clinical way- the subjective experience of it, however, is something you need to experience to understand- though I highly recommend against it.

That's the falling that most of the smokers I know have had- overconfidence. You think that you're an intelligent person, mind over matter, and all that jazz, but the reality of it is far more difficult than you can comprehend, and you don't really understand it until you're hooked. It's a song and dance that I've seen and taken part in time and time again.

As an aside, I think that's the major failing with education regarding drugs, both legal and otherwise- I don't know of any way to explain addiction in terms that a kid can truly understand. You can preach about the negative effects all day long, but since when has the average high school/college aged kid been afraid to take a few risks? The legal repercussions? Please, like the average kid's that worried. I believe that the dangers and nature of addiction need to be stressed a LOT more, but as I said, I don't know of any way to explain it in terms that can be understood by someone who's never been addicted to anything.

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

Not only is smoking enjoyable, but it's manly and patriotic.

If not for tobacco, it's quite possible that the USA would not exist today and we'd all still be speaking English.

Re:Duh

[thrawn_aj]

That isn't true at all...how many people do you know who sit there saying they have to quit, it's disgusting, etc while they have a cig in their mouth? I have personally known a number of people like that (all of whom smoked more than a pack a day, btw)

I wouldn't take that too seriously. That's just the socially acceptable way of indulging in a vice. Call it a ritual self-punishment if you will as payment for continuing the vice.

Re:Duh

[Nadaka]

Not all of use are proctologists you know.

Re:Duh

[julesh]

One question that the article does not pose (and can't answer due to its nature) is which is cause and which is effect. Is the reason that smokers have a lower IQ that the people that start smoking have a lower IQ, or does smoking damage your ability to reason logically?

Actually it can answer it. The study looked at two groups: fresh recruits and vets. We can assume an age difference of at least a few years between them, and the recruits are likely to be young enough that they've only been smoking for a couple of years on average. Therefore if the smoking were causing damage, we'd expect the recruits to show a less pronounced effect than the vets. As the article mentions no difference between the two groups, we can assume no significant such difference exists, and therefore (at least) no evidence for the latter proposition, and potentially evidence against it.

Re:Duh

[ffreeloader]

I do believe you're mistaken about this. People first start smoking for different reasons, but they continue smoking because they enjoy it. They become addicted because they enjoyed it and thus began smoking more regularly after their first few experiences with it.

I'm a former smoker and I can guarantee you that I wasn't addicted at my first puff, or even my first few packs. I found I enjoyed it though through more experiences and I began to increase the regularity with which I smoked, yet I still wasn't addicted. I became physically addicted after I kept on smoking for a period of time. And, even after I knew I was addicted I still enjoyed smoking. It took a major paradigm shift in my life to get me to want to stop smoking, and want to break all of my addictions.

If I had not enjoyed smoking, I would never have become addicted. I would also say that most smokers I know enjoy smoking long after they are addicted to it. Why? Most people are addicted long before they realize they have an addiction. What's more, I knew a man who smoked himself to death--he died of emphysema. Long after he knew he was addicted, and knew his emphysema would kill him, he kept on smoking because he liked to smoke, because he got pleasure from smoking. To him that pleasure was worth more than his own life.

The same principles apply with alcoholism. You enjoy the effects of your first few drinks, and so you drink more. Pretty soon you depend on it to feel good. But, the dependence would not have occurred if enjoyment/pleasure from drinking had not preceded it. Once again, the voice of experience as I'm an alcoholic. One that hasn't had a drink in almost 20 years, but one still the same.

What is the conclusion? You cannot deny the correlation between enjoyment and addiction as the pleasure/enjoyment derived from the addictive behavior and/or substance is what keeps the person on the same path until addiction is the result.

Re:Duh

[moosesocks]

I know tons of "smart" people who smoke. Most of them do it to cope with stress and anxiety.

Despite the fact that it kills you, it's apparently a surprisingly effective antidepressant with very few neurological side-effects. Don't forget the cultural aspect too -- everyone smokes down South.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't want a wife that is frigid, but one who can be satisfied by one man.

If you want to get laid, find a woman who wants it and doesn't care who.
If you want to get married, find a woman who only wants it from you.

Re:Duh

[Bigbutt]

My wife smoked and poked when she was younger. She's since given up both :(

[John]

Re:Duh

[addsalt]

I had a naval recruiter after me for the longest time. It was pretty clear that he was angling for people that weren't particularly bright or of much value

At least you figured out why he was after you.

Re:Duh

[bwintx]

"England and America are two countries divided by a common language." - George Bernard Shaw.

Or, as we would say today:
WHOOSH.

Re:Duh

[jellomizer]

Smarter people have more options then dumb people after they leave high school.

The following are available with a high school deploma.
Low paying job where you will be struggling for the rest of your life.
Military where you probably still won't get paid well but at least you get room and board.
Religious vocation (But still for most major religions you still need to go threw serious schooling (equivalent to a 4 year degree))
Speciality training where you can get a decent job at a good rate but you are first to go when the economy goes down.
Start your own company. (But without chances are if you are unwilling to work for an education you may not be too successful at you own job)

The military option isn't that bad of a choice if you don't have what it takes to go threw school.

Now the smarter kids have more options... First they can get a college degree and if they do choose to go to the military they can be an officer which is much better position, as well as many more jobs.

You bet the recruiter is going off of the ones who weren't too bright. If they were on top of things they would know that going to college there would be better options later on. But these kids probably will end up with hum drum lousy life and the military is a better place for them, and give them the kick in the butt they need when they get out.

Re:Duh

[huckamania]

Still, I think the study is flawed. It is more likely that smokers answered enough questions to "pass", filled in the rest as quickly as possible and left to go have a cigarette. I remember taking the pre-enlistment test and the week of testing during boot camp. Both are a pain and are a test of patience as much as anything. The phrase 'hurry up and wait' comes to mind and the too close face of a drill sgt screaming at recruits to stay off his grass. Fun times.

Don't know what it says about my IQ, but I had the highest score for my entire Company, including the Major.

Re:Duh

[jim_v2000]

You could know a million "very smart" people who smoke. It doesn't change the fact that ON AVERAGE, more stupid people are smoking than smart people. God damn...learn something about statistics. Nothing in the article said "ALL SMOKERS ARE STUPID, LOL". It simply said that smokers tend to be less intelligent than non-smokers, on average.

Re:Duh

[thousandinone]

Oh, so you think you can explain addiction in terms that others can understand? You can convey the subjective experience that one could expect without any frame of reference for comparison?

I suppose you believe you can explain color to someone who was blind since birth person as well?

Don't say they are two separate things. We all know that. That doesn't change the fact that there is literally no way to communicate what addiction is like to someone who has never experienced it. I dare you to try.

Even describing it as an overriding compulsion that undermines ones will is merely an objective description. It doesn't communicate anything about what it is like, and does nothing to alleviate the 'I'm smart, I won't get addicted even if I try it, and I can resist it if I do happen to get addicted' mindset that so many have.

But go ahead, tell me what addiction is like and why it's so dangerous, and I'll tell you what you're missing, why you're wrong, and why people aren't going to take your explanation seriously.

I'm waiting.

Re:Duh

[MarkvW]

I read an addict describing fighting an addiction craving as something akin to resisting diarhhea. That scares me.

Re:Duh

[CohibaVancouver]

virtually all smokers have tried quitting and would like to quit.

A lot of smokers I know enjoy smoking - What they don't like is the fact that it's addictive. They'd like to be able to have a smoke after a good meal, or after sex, without suffering terribly on a 4 hour plane ride or having to go outside at work every 90 minutes...

Re:Duh

[Red Flayer]

or you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

No, it's not the same thing. You posted a false deduction as fact without regard to veracity. I knew the *facts* before I posted, whether I gave a citation or not. What you thought to be an obvious fact (that the pancreas is not part of the respiratory system, therefore smoking cannot cause pancreatic cancer) is false, and you posted without bothering to check whether your deduction was, in fact, true. Not only is your deduction false, but it demonstrates your lack of knowledge about physiology -- otherwise you would have known that inhaled substances get into the bloodstream and can affect other systems. You are in no position to be making the kind of ridiculous scathing posts you made.

Since you're too fucking lazy to bother with a quick googling when called out on your ignorance and misplaced cavalierness,

here you go.

Seriously, it's been fairly common knowledge among everyone who is mildly interested in pancreatic cancer for at least ten years that cigarette smoking increases incidence of pancreatic cancer.

I smoke...

[ircmaxell]

And I find it easier to think abstractly when I do (I did quit for over a year). Smoking forces me to take a break from what I'm doing every once in a while, so I get to separate myself from it. Then I get 5 minutes or so of time to contemplate or for abstract thought. I do honestly find myself more productive when I do smoke. Now, I'm not trying to rationalize it (I hate the fact that I got started again)... Just an observation...

Re:I smoke...

[LtGordon]

Cigarettes have provided you with an excuse to get away from everything and focus your mind. No offense, but I'm sure you could achieve the same mental experience without a cigarette. Grab a cup of tea instead.

Re:I smoke...

[Zumbs]

From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.

Re:I smoke...

[sado196]

Take this from a 10 year smoker who's been cig free for 6 years now: You find it easier to think abstractly because when you smoke you are feeding your chemical dependence. That momentary buzz and great feeling when you smoke is you returning to a state just a little better than normal because you've been going through withdraw for the last hour or so between smokes. You think clearer, relax better, and are generally happier because you have just sated your cravings. I smoked for 10 years, and used to think each cigarette helped me feel better and gave me something that was better than everyone else. I'd have a smoke and think straighter, or relax and unwind after a hard day, or just have something to do with my hands. Until you realize that what you consider normal is actually worse than what non-smokers feel is normal, it makes sense to think you're entering a state where things are better than normal. I remember arguing with people who told me this for years until I realized the truth of it about a year after quitting. If you want to think better, try quitting. If you don't want to try or don't want to listen to this advice, you're probably addicted.

Re:I smoke...

[dummondwhu]

Or, (since I'd be forbidden from having a water boiler at my desk) simply take a couple of minutes to make the tea and then walk away somewhere quiet for a few minutes. There are a dazzling number of possibilities for things to do to give oneself a break to clear the mind that don't significantly increase the likelihood of chemo and radiation treatments later in life and that don't cause one to drag around a foul stench in the more immediate point in time.

Re:I smoke...

[simoncpu was here]

Jah, mon! What we need is ganja! Thank you for finally recognizing its beneficial health effects.

I have a cunning plan..

[somersault]

Make cigarettes more damaging to health, and let Darwin sort em out!

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[bmo]

>Make cigarettes more damaging to health, and let Darwin sort em out!

My parents used to smoke Kent cigarettes a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I remembered as a kid that it advertised the cigs had the "Micronite Filter" on each pack.

Years later, I found out that the "Micronite" was blue asbestos.

Yep.

--
BMO

Re:I have a cunning plan..

[Steauengeglase]

They are one step ahead of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette

No surprise here

[calibre-not-output]

"Hmm, I think I'll set fire to this paper tube full of tar and inhale the smoke, even though countless studies have shown it will give me bad breath, impotence and cancer!" Sounds like a real genius, doesn't it?

Re:No surprise here

[Zapotek]

That's why I tell people to stop smoking cigarettes..smoke mini-cigars instead...
Hell, if you're gonna do something wrong at least do it right...

Re:But...

[roman_mir]

what are these 'women' you are talking about?

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[eldavojohn]

A bit offtopic but I enjoyed the overtly blue-collar ill lit picture that a site called Science Daily employed.

An unshaven sun-reddened face focuses all its concentration on a cigarette protruding directly in front of his nose. His lips are pursed as if to indicate that connecting the tip of that cigarette with that flame requires all of his concentration. If his eyes weren't hidden to prevent us from identifying him (or to keep us from identifying with the subject) we might see them as cross-eyed staring down his nose intent to satiate his addiction. His shirt (which is plain white) and knuckles are smeared haphazardly with grease and his skin glistens with a workingman's sweat. Whatever iconography that hangs from his neck (Isreali dog tags? a Star of David?) can only afford a cheap black cord. The subject is off center to the right with the background as a pitch black. Nothing but a single source of light coming from the left.

It amuses me that the site employs such a suggestive picture of smoking so that it almost screams to be a blue collar, unintelligent, near evil addiction. I understand this image adds to the effect of the article but if ever there was anti-marketing for smoking here it is at a site that claims to be objective in its name. Movies of yore portrayed the beautiful, the rich and the strong smoking. I can walk outside my office building and see well paid people smoking. It's disingenuous to portray it as only a blue collar problem no matter what statistics about IQ say. This only tells me that, on average, low IQs are more likely to succumb to well funded advertising or lack information about smoking. Not that they are any less powerful at breaking an addiction.

I find smoking abhorrent and disgusting but I also think that it detracts from your goals to say that smoking destroys your beauty when young people can see beautiful celebrities smoking. And I also think that a "Science" site shouldn't have such goals or propaganda baked into its articles (one way or the other).

Re:inhaling dangerous chemicals lowers IQ?

[MrKaos]

it's not the tobacco since a lot of smart people smoke cigars. it's the extras like uranium, polonium and hundreds of other chemicals that the tobacco companies spray on cigarretes that are really bad for you

I used to joke that cigarettes had vitamin C in them...until I found out they did.

government to rethink education on smoking

[Culture20]

SMOKING BAD!
BAD SMOKING!

This message has been brought to you by the Surgeon General's campaign against heart and lung disease, and is intended for viewers with lower IQs. If your IQ is above 95, this was not intended to be condescending in any way.

Re:Is It Not the Other Way On?

[MyLongNickName]

Hate all you want, but neither the summary nor the article implied in any way that smoking caused a lowering of IQ. In fact, the article went on to say that this correlation indicates that gov't should use this information to adjust the way anto-smoking education should be directed. This indicates that they agree with you -- low IQ's tend to smoke, not the other way around.

So, what you are hating is your predisposition to make assumptions.

Re:IQ correlates to income though

[Bert64]

Smoking does seem to correlate with low income, which is all the more amusing considering how expensive smoking is in some places...
People with very little money, wasting it all on smoking, and then having insufficient money for food and other basic necessities...

Re:But...

[Opportunist]

I think he means the people whose name end in ".jpg".

Tell that to these folks...

[Civil_Disobedient]

Lower IQ huh? Isn't that interesting.

Ciggarettes VS..

[carp3_noct3m]

When I was in the military, especially on combat tours, I ended up smoking an unhealthy amount to help me cope. When I got off the plane this last time, I quit cold turkey, and now when I smell regular cigarette smoke I can barely stand it. (Which just now made me realize maybe I associate it with bad things and its not just the smoke itself) , I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals, and smoke about once a week for enjoyment while drinking a cognac or brandy. I feel it is much more enjoyable (longer lasting, smells better) and is slightly better for my health (mouth cancer yes, lung cancer no), but I digress, I got into pipe tobacco when I joined the university scene and ended hanging out with professors and philosophy students, of whom a large amount smoke pipes. Ok now I have no idea what the point of the post was, mmm, maybe I just have a low IQ. Oh mondays mornings, I loathe you. On a side note, as a formally staunch anti-weed guy (couldn't hold security clearance if you smoked) I now have had amazing success with my PTSD using weed instead of alcohol to self-medicate.

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[Lumpy]

Most people I know who are military smoke because.... It's something to do. I had friends that started smoking in the military because it was the only way to make the daily hurry up and wait tolerable.

A couple swore they could sight in on a target faster because they smoked.

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[Krahar]

I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals

Yep, those chemicals will kill ya'. In other news, I've moved to all-natural plutonium to put in my morning drink.

Re:Ciggarettes VS..

[MarkvW]

Always carried a book in my pants' cargo pocket whenever hurry up and wait was on the horizon. Gosh. That was a long time ago!

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[chrb]

Several years of military service in the IDF is mandatory for young Israelis. After that they are considered lifetime reservists, can be called up for a months service every year, and for an unlimited duration when national security is threatened. This is one of the reasons some Palestinian groups give for targeting Israeli civilians - since every Israeli civilian is also a military reservist, these groups state that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian in the traditional sense.

Re:I found one factor they overlooked

[beakerMeep]

As a dumb smoker, I'm skeptical of the study, but I'm pretty sure military service is required of all citizens in Israel.

The break. That's what got my dad

[Rob the Bold]

From what I hear, it is generally accepted that a 5-15 min break every workhour is healthy for you, as well as for your ability to stay focused. I find that if I'm working on a difficult problem, taking a walk while thinking on it is a good way to get ideas for breaking it. Most people just don't take those breaks for a number of reasons, such as forgetting to do it or fear that a boss may think that they are lazy. Smokers, however, have a regular craving, that reminds them to take a smoking break. And it is (still) more acceptable for a smoker to take a smoking break than it is for a non-smoker to take a similar break.(emphasis mine)

My Dad joined the US Navy in '45 (since he was about to be "invited" to join the army). If you smoked, you got a a smoke break every hour. If you didn't smoke, you didn't need a smoke break, now did you? Also cigarettes were free for the sailors -- at least everywhere my Dad was stationed. Philip Morris did his part for the boys. It took Dad 50 years to quit, by which time it was too late.

Re:Also...

[vertseven]

Perhaps, if you weren't strung out on caffeine and nicotine, your IQ range would be plural and not possessive.

Re:correlationisnotcausation tag

[Goaway]

All the yelling of "correlation is not causation" is pretty much the low mark of intellectual laziness on Slashdot. Most of the time when someone yells that, it actually means "I don't like the results of this research" or possibly "I like to look clever". In this case, I think it means "I only read the headline and I didn't like even that".

Re:Another conclusion from this

[JustNiz]

According to wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
Israel is 34th best with a national average IQ of 94.
IF you're American, don't mock. The US is only 19th best globally with an average of 98.

Re:But...

[natehoy]

I prefer the ones whose names end in ".avi" - they seem more... alive, somehow.

Intelligence vs wisdom

[Nerdposeur]

Smarter people know its not a good idea to start smoking.

This is too simplistic. EVERYBODY knows that smoking is bad for you. Some just know in more detail.

My wife had an in medical school for her anatomy class. He showed the students how to dissect a cadaver, and showed them the horrible, shriveled, black lungs of a deceased smoker.

And then he went outside and took a smoke break.

My explanation? There's a HUGE difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems; it asks "how can I reach goal X?"

Wisdom is a big-picture thing; it asks "what kind of goals are worth having? What is good for me in the long run?" And I think it also includes the willpower to do those things. If you know what's best but don't do it, I'd say that's foolish.

(And of course, we are all foolish in some ways.)

Schoolchildren who have been found to have a lower IQ can be considered at risk to begin the habit

So does having a lower IQ lead to smoking? Or does smoking cause a lower IQ? Or do both result from a worse family environment? Maybe being exposed to second-hand smoke is a risk factor for both, or maybe being exposed to parents who knowingly and daily act against their own best interests stunts a child's desire to reason about the world and encourages them to make foolish, emotional decisions?

Look at the map.

[Nerdposeur]

everyone smokes down South

As a southerner, I'd like to point out 1) of course we don't all smoke, and 2) while yes, smoking is more widespread in the south, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nevada are all in the top 10. 11, 12 and 13 are Alaska, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :)

Check out this map and the table linked at the bottom: http://www.smokefree.gov/map.aspx

Re:Israeli Army recruits and veterans

[Anonymous Coward]

Females who are married or pregnant before the age of enlistment (18) skip IDF service altogether. Most Orthodox Jews aren't required to enlist. Some males are found unfit for service on physical or mental grounds, they never enlist. Able males who are unwilling to enlist on moral grounds trade IDF service for community service in schools, hospitals and rural communities. There are plenty of Israelis who never have and never will wear an IDF uniform.

This is one of the reasons some Palestinian groups give for targeting Israeli civilians...

When you quote bullshit excuses, please be a dear and call bullshit on it right away.

Smoking versus working

[swb]

I guy I used to work for who smoked told me that he started smoking because it got him out of work.

He was working at a machine shop and found that if he took a break with the smokers, his foreman made him go back to to work while the smokers got to keep on smoking. Apparently not working but smoking was "doing something" and not working without smoking was "standing around." He basically started smoking to keep from working.

I'm guessing its like that in the military, too. A guy smoking is on a smoke break, a guy not smoking is just standing around.

Re:This is completely wrong

[AthleteMusicianNerd]

Plus you really can't be that smart(even if your score was respectable) since the label on the package says what you're doing is really stupid, metaphorically speaking. That's like saying the girl in Scary Movie who ran up the stairs when the sign said "Certain Death(pointing up the stairs)" might be smart if she scored high on an IQ test.

Re:Hard to get addicted

[tapanitarvainen]

This goes against all claims that you become addicted very quickly.

Some studies have indicated the tendency to get addicted with nicotine is hereditary (ditto with heroin): some people (around 70% if memory serves) get addicted very easily, others rarely or not at all. Maybe you're one of the latter group.