Slashdot Mirror


Smoking Is Even Deadlier Than Previously Thought

HughPickens.com writes Who still smokes?" as Denise Grady reports at the NYT that however bad you thought smoking was, it's even worse. A new study has found that in addition to the well-known hazards of lung cancer, artery disease, heart attacks, chronic lung disease and stroke, researchers found that smoking was linked to significantly increased risks of infection, kidney disease, intestinal disease caused by inadequate blood flow, and heart and lung ailments not previously attributed to tobacco. "The smoking epidemic is still ongoing, and there is a need to evaluate how smoking is hurting us as a society, to support clinicians and policy making in public health," says Brian D. Carter, an author of the study. "It's not a done story." Carter says he was inspired to dig deeper into the causes of death in smokers after taking an initial look at data from five large health surveys being conducted by other researchers. As expected, death rates were higher among the smokers but diseases known to be caused by tobacco accounted for only 83 percent of the excess deaths in people who smoked. "I thought, 'Wow, that's really low,' " Mr. Carter said. "We have this huge cohort. Let's get into the weeds, cast a wide net and see what is killing smokers that we don't already know." The researchers found that, compared with people who had never smoked, smokers were about twice as likely to die from infections, kidney disease, respiratory ailments not previously linked to tobacco, and hypertensive heart disease, in which high blood pressure leads to heart failure. "The Surgeon General's report claims 480,000 deaths directly caused by smoking, but we think that is really quite a bit off," concludes Carter adding that the figure may be closer to 540,000.

12 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. just ban it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it is so bad then why not ban tobacco? The problem with tobacco is that it is so widely available, making getting off the stuff so hard. I certainly would not visit a dealer to get illegal baccy.

    The reality is that governments are addicted to the tax income. 11 billion a year in Australia.

    1. Re:just ban it by 72beetle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reality is that governments are addicted to the tax income. 11 billion a year in Australia.

      Oh, it's not just tax income. Consider the hit to social programs and public services if all the smokers (10-20% of the population, generally) stopped dying early. Having a significant percentage of the population suddenly living 10 years longer gets really expensive really fast.

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    2. Re:just ban it by johnlcallaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah .. then we can ban alcohol. And Big Macs. And soda. Yeah .. that's the ticket. Let's put our health in the hands of the US government. Why don't we just remove all personal choices that slightly affect other people and let the government decide what's best for us. My mother died at 82 of a stroke. From what I can tell, she didn't spend any more on healthcare than lots of elderly people. Everyone dies eventually, and with today's practices, many suffer at the hands of extreme medical procedures because their insurance pays for it. Bring back caps on treatments and stop forcing non-profit hospitals to treat the terminally ill for free and a lot of these costs go away. Funny how making people responsible for their own debt can reduce the impact on society of such costs.

      The reality is that many people enjoy smoking. I smoke cigars 3-4 times a week. It's very relaxing to sit outside and read with a cigar instead of being glued to the TV. Sure .. I could read without it. But I enjoy it. I enjoy a cigar or two when I'm out sailing. Or riding my motorcycle.

      So .. to all those that want to ban cigarettes .. go fuck yourself. If you don't like it, don't smoke. Walking through a cloud of smoke outside is no more dangerous than driving to work for most people, so don't even start on that.

      And don't give me all the bullshit about increased medical costs. If you weren't such a hypocrite, you'd also want ban marathon running and dozens of extreme athletic practices that drive up your medical costs. Then motorcycle riding. And cars.

      The problem is, those that want it banned don't smoke, so it doesn't affect them. They are just self-righteous, selfish, useless idiots. They have no problem with taking things away from other people but would fight tooth and nail if the government took something away from them 'for their own good'.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    3. Re:just ban it by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah .. then we can ban alcohol.

      Yeah, that worked really well last time....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:just ban it by ChuckDivine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nearly a century ago in the United States we tried the full scale prohibition of alcohol. It was a disaster that in some ways is still harming the country.

      We have been trying a War on Drugs for some decades now. It was via Slashdot that I learned that back in the 1990s the politically and socially conservative National Review had come out against the War on Drugs, describing it as a failure that was harming the country.

      Oh -- I don't smoke. I never have. I have even seen the harm heavy smoking can do to people. My wonderful Uncle John died from a heart attack at 65. What would I do though? Try to help the people like Uncle John with their problems rather than engage in another disaster like Prohibition of Alcohol or The War on Drugs.

      --
      "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
    5. Re:just ban it by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consider the hit to social programs and public services if all the smokers (10-20% of the population, generally) stopped dying early.

      Painfully facile. Smokers use no social programs and social services as they are going through treatment? Because chemo, surgeons and cancer drugs are free?

    6. Re:just ban it by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why don't we just remove all personal choices that slightly affect other people

      slightly? Blowing poison gas into the air I breathe is not "slightly". Neither is the fact that zigarette smoke smells so badly, when you've been in a room with some smokers for even half an hour, you can wash all your clothes and shower yourself.

      "Slightly" is when a guy on the train smells badly. Smoking is on a different level.

      The reality is that many people enjoy smoking.

      All addicted people rationalize their addiction. It is, in fact, one of the points that differentiates an addiction from a simple preference.

      The problem is, those that want it banned don't smoke, so it doesn't affect them. They are just self-righteous, selfish, useless idiots.

      You can smoke everywhere where it doesn't affect me. As soon as you're in public, and you light up, you're an antisocial asshole. It really is as simple as that.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  2. Smoke weed every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't waste your time on tobacco when there's medicinal herb with much better health benefits and much better side effects too!

    1. Re:Smoke weed every day by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cannabis smoke contains many of the carcinogens as tobacco smoke and can lead to some of the same afflictions.

      Mostly not, as shown by UCLA study.

      The fact that someone has associated the term "medicinal" with cannabis means that someone needs to go to jail for crimes against humanity.

      The fact that we're making plants with medical value illegal and telling lies that they have no medical value is a crime against humanity. This action has probably harmed as many human lives as any other in history, due to both primary and secondary effects — both of which were wholly intentional.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Re:Make them pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Smokers already pay a higher premium, numbnuts. And if you want a law change to mandate pricing on people's behavior, then it better include clauses for alcohol consumption, unprotected sex and not praying. Because there are plenty of peer-reviewed studies that show those affect health in a negative fashion too.

    Now, if you read what I just wrote and said to yourself, "yeah, that makes sense" then I've got a shiny 12" dildo you can shove up your self-righteous ass.

  4. Re:Good by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wrong question. The question should be "Who wants others to live forever?" Because that's the actual problem we're facing today: We're getting too old. It would be less of a problem if we got old and stayed healthy (it would still be one, but a lesser one), but we get old and spend the last decade or so as dependents, some even longer than that. If you now factor in childhood, you get about 30 years of lifetime per person where people are a burden rather than a boon for society. That's a third of a person's life, if we're really generous. The half of it if we feel less generous.

    That's not going to work out, people. What we used to have is people who needed 15-20 years of nurturing and education, then spent about 40 years productively and maybe had 5 or 10 years left where they were more or less healthy enough to at least be no burden (or if they were we had those funky 50s style ataractics that kept feisty gramps in a stupor 'til he finally croaked). Today we keep our kids unproductive 'til they are well into their 20s (because of the all important college education the cost of which you'll never in this or any lifetime recover), work 'til they're like 60 (if that) and then spend another 20-30 years dependent on drugs and care. Fuck that "half your lifetime being productive if you're not generous", it's half your lifetime that you're productive if you are generously speaking.

    And you want people to stop smoking? To stop drinking? To eat healthy? Fuck that! Let them smoke, snort, shoot and gobble down anything they want. The less healthy, the better! Yes, terminal lung cancer is quite care intensive, but it's terminal! It's one year of intensive care instead of 10+ years of hogging that respirator.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:Productivity is in the eye of the beholder by jemmyw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what is productivity? Are you productive if you work in an office selling insurance? Or writing software used by people in other offices to support people in yet further offices? When we talk about leading a productive life we don't tend to think of that in terms of worker productivity. I don't know how that relates to the above posts, but it doesn't make me feel that happy.