The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated

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?

"A lot of people can smoke without repercussions.......some can't. It all depends on generics."

If you cannot differentiate between "genes" and "generics", how can you be trusted to know word one about the dangers of smoking?

"A lot of people can smoke without repercussions.......some can't. It all depends on generics."

It very well may be true that because of some's stronger immune system, their bodies are more tolerant. But what right is it of a smoker to decide whose body is more tolerant by subjecting them to second-hand smoke? Don't get me wrong, I smoked for twenty-three years and truly enjoyed every one - except the last one...

God Bless You!!!! I think you are too cool.

You know, I am not some idiot that believes smoking is good for us. I know the dangers of smoking. I know the dangers of fast foods. I know the dangers of not wearing seatbelts, and I know the dangers of drinking and driving.

But, if smoking was the MUSTARD GAS the anti's would like everyone to believe it is, they would have banned it and pulled it off of the market 50 years ago.

And RED MEAT is legal, but 23 million Americans wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole!

Maybe to turn attention away from the real risks?

You know, we lose more people on snowmobiles every winter. Young and old. Didn't matter one bit if they smoked or not.

I meant the promotion and celebration of homosexuality. Homosexual life style shortens live much more than cigarette smoking (moderate cigar and pipe smoking prolongs life slightly).

""The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs."

Sigh. Tell that to all the folks in my waiting room.

Tell them to roll their own. It is much less costly."

Since I’m an oncologist and my patients all have cancer, don’t you think a comment like that would be considered a tad cruel?

You get no argument from me. If smoking is really as dangerous as the claim, it ought to be outlawed yesterday

Exactly. It's not "good" for us, but what is today? Can you name anything that doesn't come without a Government warning?

But the well-funded anti-smoking health groups want everyone to believe that smokers are puffing our MUSTARD GAS. We ALL know that isn't true!

I am absolutely against prohibition, and the demonology of smokers. It's neoprohibition run wild. That said:

As a physician there is NO DOUBT that smoking is extremely harmful. It ABSOLUTELY results in more heart disease, more lung cancer, more throat cancer, almost all cases of emphysema, peripheral vascular disease, increased incidence of bronchitis, increased incidence of sinusitis. Smoke if you want to, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's harmless. You may be lucky and live to a vigorours 90, but you sure aren't playing the odds if you smoke.

Tell that to my daughter who lost her grandfather to smoking last year. My father was 60 years old when lung cancer destroyed his lungs and took his life.

So sorry for your loss.

At least she got to know her grandfather. As for me, well, I lost my grandmother when she was 42. She was full of cancer and never smoked a day in her life. I never got to know my grandmother.

How mad would you be, if after your food had been served the restaurant owner said "no smoking" when you had been promised a smoking table? That is what happens, in reverse to non smokers all the time.

Well, I still say it should be left up to the owner of the business, and not Big Brother. I'm sure there are plenty other restaurants in your area where you aren't bothered by people smoking.

If you cannot differentiate between "genes" and "generics", how can you be trusted to know word one about the dangers of smoking?

I'm sure there are plenty of tobacco eduation out there. Everywhere we turn, there is some ad or TV ad that shouts DO NOT SMOKE! It still all comes down to individual choice.

People weigh the good and the bad, then decide if they want to take the risk. Everytime I eat a greasy burger, I think "Oh wow, what is this doing to my heart and cholesterol??!!"

"Oh get real. Your dreaming. Most of the smokers across the US aren't PAYING into the state coffers any longer. So......when that money runs out from the smokers.....guess who they will be coming after???? hehe!"

Don't know what you pay for a pack of smokes, but you know how much actual tobacco is in that pack of twenty? Farmer John might get $1.25-$1.40 per pound of leaf and there is a minute fraction of a pound in a pack. I had heard (and may be subject to correction) about eighteen cents creates that pack, inclusive of the tobacco, foil, paper, cello, dyes, (optional "filters"), and all. Last I observed, $3.15/pack paid for Floor Sweepings brand. So where's the rest going????

Smoking is not good for you. I would rather have a smoker
working for me than a Prozac or Zoloft chemical affected person. When a smoker grabs a cigarette I know that he or she is still functioning the same after the cigarette. I do not know any such thing about someone ingesting chemicals to cope. Nobody can explain to me how tobacco is any worse than these pills used long term. Someone needs a cigarette to relax? So what. I do not smoke and I see a link to slamming smoking while drug companies push all sorts of drugs to cope. Smoking bad, chemical coping acceptable..............

But what right is it of a smoker to decide whose body is more tolerant by subjecting them to second-hand smoke?

It’s been proven that non-smokers who work around second hand smoke, smoke the equivalent of 6 cigarettes a year. Not hardly a life-threatening situation.

A Federal Court threw out the EPA’s Study on second hand smoke. It was slanted and bias. Our own Government ORNL Labs in Tennessee put forth a study that second hand smoke is not the killer the anti-health fanatics would like the general public to believe. So, if our own government couldn’t prove second hand smoke is a killer, are the anti’s saying that our government committed fraud?

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.

Can you even FIT a million cigarettes into a 20' x 20' x 9' room?

Let's see.

It will require a 2" diameter x 6" area for each cigarette to be lit and smoked, assuming the smoking machine is invisible. volume required = pi * 1^2 x 6 = 18.85 in^3. Multiply x 1,000,000 = 18,850,000 cu. in. required to smoke 1,000,000 cigarettes.

volume of room in cubic inches = 240 * 240 * 108 = 6,220,800.

OK, so I'm practicing engineering without a license.

It looks to me that it is physically impossible to generate enough carcinogen to get cancer.

I meant the promotion and celebration of homosexuality. Homosexual life style shortens live much more than cigarette smoking (moderate cigar and pipe smoking prolongs life slightly).

Oh Lord! That's another day and another thread! hehe!

Oh, but you can be homosexual and spread disease BUT MY GOD DON'T YOU DARE SMOKE! ugh!

And in this day and age, I wonder how many prissy noses go into restaurants and bars and sit next to a diseased person. Yet, they give the evil dagger looks to someone who is smoking. Go figure.

Since I’m an oncologist and my patients all have cancer, don’t you think a comment like that would be considered a tad cruel?

It's an inside joke! You know? My oncologist was a sweetheart. He sure wasn't so up tight as you. I'm lucky AND grateful!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.