What if this had that headline? Wouldn't that seem a little less ominous? A study by the American Cancer Society claims smoking is going to kill 5.5 million people globally. Lung Cancer, Emphysema, and heart disease are the causes listed. The first two I can agree with although, you can get Lung Cancer and Emphysema even if you don't smoke. But, with heart disease, how do they determine what is caused by a lifetime of smoking or a lifetime of 2" Ribeyes? The study continues with these gems (bullet points so reporters can just regurgitate):
- 50 million Chinese children, mostly boys, will die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases.
- Tobacco use will eventually kill 250 million of today's teenagers and children
By "premature" they mean 75 instead of 90, but by putting "die prematurely" and "boys" in the same sentence it sounds more horrific. Then, tobacco use will eventually kill 250 million. EVERYONE ON THE PLANET right now is going to die eventually including teenagers and children. Yes little babies are going to die at some point in the next 100 years.
These are all just numbers, so I wanted to find out the methodology. The initial report is the Tobacco Atlas from the American Cancer Society, but that is just an aggregate of research presented in colorful graphics and incisive one-liners about how we are all going to die of cigarette smoking. The Sources section points you to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008 which is short on health stats and long on control methods world wide. (yes let's track how well we are imposing and interfering in a person's personal health choices, WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU). That report is also an aggregate of research that points you to The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. The runaround turns into one big game of telephone because all of the numbers get rounded off and who cares if a smoker dies 14 or 15 years earlier than average, no one is doing any actual research anyway. They all scream subliminally "People are dying! We should do something! I know, ban smoking!". The last report had a bunch of executive summaries and bullet points so, I gave up. All of these premonitions of a tobacco-hazed wasteland of corpses disguised as real research favor lazy aggregating, snappy graphics, and pointed fearful statements about death. I never did figure out how they counted which cases of heart disease were caused by cigarettes in say, the Congo. I hear the coroners' reports there are kind of dense.
Yes, smoking is bad for your health. You can tell a person why it's bad, but ultimately it's up to the individual. Don't treat smoking like the spectre of the 14th century Black Plague. The counter argument to that is the costs to our society as a whole.
As it turns out, it actually helps us out. If you read this interview with W. Kip Viscusi, a professor of law and economics at Vanderbilt University, you will get to this question:
What are the differences between smokers' cost to themselves and smokers' cost to society?
The other study I've done is looking at the financial ramifications to smoking for the rest of us. These include higher medical costs on the one hand, but lower social security, pension, and nursing home costs on the other hand because smokers die sooner. On balance if you put those together, smokers don't cost us money, but save society $0.32 per pack.
Smokers die earlier, so it saves us money.
This simple logic makes me question the claim that "(t)obacco's total economic costs reduce national wealth in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 3.6 percent." If you look and the abysmal GDP growth rate for the first half of 2009, it is -3.6%. So that would mean:
- Tobacco use will eventually kill 250 million of today's teenagers and children
By "premature" they mean 75 instead of 90, but by putting "die prematurely" and "boys" in the same sentence it sounds more horrific. Then, tobacco use will eventually kill 250 million. EVERYONE ON THE PLANET right now is going to die eventually including teenagers and children. Yes little babies are going to die at some point in the next 100 years.
These are all just numbers, so I wanted to find out the methodology. The initial report is the Tobacco Atlas from the American Cancer Society, but that is just an aggregate of research presented in colorful graphics and incisive one-liners about how we are all going to die of cigarette smoking. The Sources section points you to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008 which is short on health stats and long on control methods world wide. (yes let's track how well we are imposing and interfering in a person's personal health choices, WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU). That report is also an aggregate of research that points you to The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. The runaround turns into one big game of telephone because all of the numbers get rounded off and who cares if a smoker dies 14 or 15 years earlier than average, no one is doing any actual research anyway. They all scream subliminally "People are dying! We should do something! I know, ban smoking!". The last report had a bunch of executive summaries and bullet points so, I gave up. All of these premonitions of a tobacco-hazed wasteland of corpses disguised as real research favor lazy aggregating, snappy graphics, and pointed fearful statements about death. I never did figure out how they counted which cases of heart disease were caused by cigarettes in say, the Congo. I hear the coroners' reports there are kind of dense.
Yes, smoking is bad for your health. You can tell a person why it's bad, but ultimately it's up to the individual. Don't treat smoking like the spectre of the 14th century Black Plague. The counter argument to that is the costs to our society as a whole.
As it turns out, it actually helps us out. If you read this interview with W. Kip Viscusi, a professor of law and economics at Vanderbilt University, you will get to this question:
What are the differences between smokers' cost to themselves and smokers' cost to society?
The other study I've done is looking at the financial ramifications to smoking for the rest of us. These include higher medical costs on the one hand, but lower social security, pension, and nursing home costs on the other hand because smokers die sooner. On balance if you put those together, smokers don't cost us money, but save society $0.32 per pack.
Smokers die earlier, so it saves us money.
This simple logic makes me question the claim that "(t)obacco's total economic costs reduce national wealth in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 3.6 percent." If you look and the abysmal GDP growth rate for the first half of 2009, it is -3.6%. So that would mean:
Production lost in worst recession in 80 years = Production lost from tobacco.
That does seem like it works, does it? It wasn't subprime mortgages, it was cigarettes!
The worst part of this is I don't smoke. I think smoking is bad for your health. I agree with what they are saying. But, I think that when institutions like the American Cancer Society trade on fear and panic, it dims their message. You can inform people, but when your message of health bleeds into a message of behavior control, you have lost your way and my respect.
-K
The worst part of this is I don't smoke. I think smoking is bad for your health. I agree with what they are saying. But, I think that when institutions like the American Cancer Society trade on fear and panic, it dims their message. You can inform people, but when your message of health bleeds into a message of behavior control, you have lost your way and my respect.
-K
