Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

members.iinet.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#11

Post by elai »

patrickas wrote: post #9
damienkatz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but are the claims true? Have studies failed to show stopping smoking doesn't help you live longer? And the Japanese _are_ fairly heavy smokers yet have very long lives. That's not to say I don't thinking smoking is really bad for you. It's an addictive drug, reduces lung capacity and I've known people being treated for emphysema in their 30's etc. But the article makes some interesting claims about how politica…

I think the claims are true, but the headline and content is a bit over dramatized. Here are the studies, you can draw your own conclusions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1573365 "The subjects were 1445 male smokers, initially aged 40-59 years" ... 20 years later "total mortality was 7% lower" for people who stopped smoking (7% is barely significant given the sample size) And also http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/s…

How about people who start smoking in their teens, and then stop in their early/mid twenties? The effects of quitting smoking then would probably far more beneficial than a smoker who's been smoking for 30 years and then quits.

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#12

Post by prat »

There is no doubt that there is propaganda on both sides. First, the govt taxes a pack of cigarettes at the rate of 85% over the actual cost of production, distribution and advertising with profit margin included. Since it is harmful for you, we will make you pay more for it - but we won't ban it because we want to give you the freedom of choice. On the other hand, the article goes on great length describing studies trying to find correlation between life expectancy and smoking, debunking the govt's claim along the way; However, it steers clear from talking about the high association found between lung cancer and smoking. Even if lung cancer deducts only a few months from your life, it still is a cancer and has effects OTHER than causing early death.

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#13

Post by tokenadult »

jawngee wrote: post #7
lkrubner wrote: post #6

At this point I think it is well known that quitting smoking doesn't have much health benefit. I think it is exaggeration to call this a "scandal". I recall this was talked about on television a lot back when Peter Jennings died - he had quit smoking many decades earlier, but he still died of lung cancer. However, here is the important fact: smokers die of lung cancer at a higher rate than non-smokers. The above essa…

Well to be a contrarian, nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder. Consider it a cheap SSRI. It also makes you look cool which can score you dates which can lead to sex, and that's a healthy cardiovascular exercise. sarcasm

nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder

Citations, please? I have the best regarded textbook on bipolar disorder

http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Rec...

at hand as I type this, and there is no recommendation of nicotine for any patient there. I'm quite sure that "mood stabilizer" is an incorrect characterization of the drug effect of nicotine. Nicotine has very harmful effects on the personalities of long-term users. I've seen too many examples in the previous generation to recommend it to anyone in my generation.

One study on harm of smoking:

Socioeconomic Status, Smoking, and Health: A Test of Competing Theories of Cumulative Advantage # Fred C. Pampel and Richard G. Rogers # Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 306-321

One study on personality factors interacting with nicotine use:

Nicotine dependence, psychological distress and personality traits as possible predictors of smoking cessation. Results of a double-blind study with nicotine patch

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#15

Post by nkurz »

lkrubner wrote: post #6

At this point I think it is well known that quitting smoking doesn't have much health benefit. I think it is exaggeration to call this a "scandal". I recall this was talked about on television a lot back when Peter Jennings died - he had quit smoking many decades earlier, but he still died of lung cancer. However, here is the important fact: smokers die of lung cancer at a higher rate than non-smokers. The above essa…

At this point I think it is well known that quitting smoking doesn't have much health benefit.

I don't think this is true. In fact, this strikes me as a lie (not an error) on two fronts: there are health benefits, and there are widely believed to be health benefits.

Here's what looks like the official US line: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessati...

"The immediate health benefits of quitting smoking are substantial"

"Quitting smoking reduces the risk of cancer and other diseases..."

"Quitting smoking substantially reduces the risk of developing and dying from cancer, and this benefit increases the longer a person remains smoke free."

The Australian government (this is an Australian paper being referenced) seems to take a similarly strong line, and has a version of tobacco packaging warnings with the simple tagline "Quitting Will Improve Your Health": http://www.health.gov.au/internet/quitnow/publishing.nsf/Con...

"Quitting smoking at any age has short and long term health benefits. Quitting will reduce the risks for diseases caused by smoking and will help to improve your health in general."

If the government is lying about these facts, then this would be a scandal. But this really isn't the 'scandal' referred to in the title of the paper. From the closing paragraph: "But smoking is really a secondary issue. The primary issue is the integrity of science. This has no use-by date. When the processes of science are misused, even if for what seems a good reason, science and its practitioners are alike degraded."

The point of the paper is the using misleading statistics and cherry-picked data to prove a point, even if this point is certain to be true, even if it can be established by other means, is a scandal. Apologizing for this practice by rationalizing that "everyone knows" only compounds the problem, and makes their point even sharper.

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#16

Post by jawngee »

tokenadult wrote: post #13
jawngee wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to be a contrarian, nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder. Consider it a cheap SSRI. It also makes you look cool which can score you dates which can lead to sex, and that's a healthy cardiovascular exercise. sarcasm

nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder Citations, please? I have the best regarded textbook on bipolar disorder http://www.amazon.com/Manic-Depressive-Illness-Disorders-Rec... at hand as I type this, and there is no recommendation of nicotine for any patient there. I'm quite sure that "mood stabilizer" is an incorrect characterization of the drug effect of nicotine. Nicotine has…

Abstract Updated findings on the relationship between nicotine and depression are presented. Clinical and preclinical research on nicotine use and depression suggests that nicotine may have some properties in common with antidepressants. Updated findings involve the comorbidity of smoking and major depressive disorder (MDD), the influence of depression during withdrawal on failure to quit smoking, the course of MDD without nicotine and the neurobiology of smoking and depression.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/101v75rn12174k61/

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#17

Post by JulianMorrison »

Personally I don't smoke, never have, and consider it an expensive way to gamble with your life. (They might cure cancer, they might invent cloned lungs, are you feeling lucky, punk?)

But truthfully, the reason I wish people would stop smoking is not from altruistic concern for them, and not for any personal fear - I just think it stinks. It's as foul as farting and has much less excuse.

Just stop, please.

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#19

Post by chrischen »

jawngee wrote: post #7
lkrubner wrote: post #6

At this point I think it is well known that quitting smoking doesn't have much health benefit. I think it is exaggeration to call this a "scandal". I recall this was talked about on television a lot back when Peter Jennings died - he had quit smoking many decades earlier, but he still died of lung cancer. However, here is the important fact: smokers die of lung cancer at a higher rate than non-smokers. The above essa…

Well to be a contrarian, nicotine is a mood stabilizer in people with depression and bipolar disorder. Consider it a cheap SSRI. It also makes you look cool which can score you dates which can lead to sex, and that's a healthy cardiovascular exercise. sarcasm

Nicotine reduces stress, and a low stress life can probably increase your general health.

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#20

Post by hga »

damienkatz wrote: post #4
maxklein wrote: post #2

That page is on a website offered for free from an ISP. That's the universal home for all conspiracy theories nuts.

Yes, but are the claims true? Have studies failed to show stopping smoking doesn't help you live longer? And the Japanese _are_ fairly heavy smokers yet have very long lives. That's not to say I don't thinking smoking is really bad for you. It's an addictive drug, reduces lung capacity and I've known people being treated for emphysema in their 30's etc. But the article makes some interesting claims about how politica…

Based on a variety of things including an statement by my favorite professor, I think it's not so much that smoking is deadly by itself, but smoking and most anything else is, e.g.:

He said smoking in the context of a city's pollution was very bad, that e.g. Kansas wheat farmers had problems related to the wheat farming but were otherwise OK (he was an M.D. and smoked, BTW, took lots of Vitamin A and so on and he'll turn 90 next year...).

It's well established (to my satisfaction, at least) that radon is mostly dangerous in the context of heavy smoking (which after all is where the initial study came from, of uranium miners).

The risks of smoking and lots of things like birth control pills are well established.

I'd also note that there's going to be genetic variability here that will make smoking much worse for some fraction of the population.

(On the other hand, as someone with severe allergies, I'm not entirely unhappy with the results of the US crusade against smoking....)

Post reply on HN