Let's talk about smoking for a minute. I don't smoke and never have. Probably never will unless I'm on fire. And there's nothing that can ruin a good dinner faster than somebody lighting up in a booth nearby.
But.
There's some fundamental dishonesty going on in the camp of the anti smokers,and it's resulting in some very bad law.
Let's look at the numbers with a little bit of reality.
According to the CDC, for 2007
Hmmm. What about the other 99%?
We'll get back to them in a minute. First, let's see where they get all these scary numbers, like smoking will increase your risk of death by lung cancer up to 10 or 20 times.
The CDC tells us that roughly 36% of deaths due to smoking are cancer related, and of those, 78% are lung cancer deaths.
1000(deaths due to smoking)X 0.36(percentage of smoking related deaths due to cancer)X 0.78(percentage of cancer deaths that are lung cancer)=281 lung cancer deaths due to smoking per 100,000 people.
We need one more piece of information. The average lung cancer rate among the non smoking population is about 16 deaths per 100,000 people. ( average of men 17.1 and women 14.7)
281 (lung cancer deaths in smokers)/16 (lung cancer deaths in non smokers)=18.
This means that smokers are 18 times more likely to die of lung cancer than non-smokers.
Ok, so the scary commercials are right. But only partially. The initial risk of lung cancer, 16 per 100,000, is so low that multiplying it by 18 still means that 99,719 smokers will not die from lung cancer.
Hardly compelling is it?
"But Rich, what about all the other smoking related deaths that aren't cancer? Won't that change the numbers?"
Yep. But now we're back to those 99,000 smokers out of 100,000 who aren't dying from it each year. (Incidentally, these numbers include deaths from secondhand as well as primary smoke.)
The truth is that smoking does not result in death for the vast majority of those who smoke, yet you will never hear that during any debate on smoking laws.
In order to fully understand the risks associated with a behavior, you have to know two things. You have to know the increase in the risk, which the anti smokers are really good about, but you also have to know the baseline risk, which the anti smokers are very quiet about.
The problem for the anti-tobacco side is that the baseline risk is so low that if they publicized it, they would lose all traction. Or do you think the anti-smoking bans would have passed if the anti smoking warriors banners said
And that is what bothers me. By giving people only half the information they need, they are manipulating them through fear, while pretending to inform them.
Whaddafuxup?
Posted by Rich at July 13, 2008 10:01 PM | TrackBackRich, as a staunch anti-smoker and one time President of Student's for a Smoke-free Campus (UT Knox), I feel obligated to address your math and issue of statistics regarding these smokers. My personal research has shown that 100% of all smokers die.
Posted by: Doug McCaughan on July 14, 2008 1:19 PMMy problem with smokers isn't that they are really killing themselves. It is that they may increase MY chances of lung cancer and that it smells so horrible clinging to the fabric of my clothes due to close proximity. Not all smokers are bothersome though.
I just dislike the ones that go outside to smoke next to the doorway. I dislike the ones that walk in front of you on the sidewalk allowing their smoke come your way. Then there are the ones that smoke in crowds assuming that they aren't bothering anyone. You can forget the inconsiderate one that lights up while standing right next to you without asking if it is ok.
No, smoking may not be deadly as some of the anti-smoking groups say. That doesn't exempt smoking from being a public health problem. One tactic is for them to tell people statistics to try and shock people into not smoking. Another is to politely ask them not to smoke in public. Which one do you think will have more of an affect on people?
Posted by: Isaac on July 14, 2008 4:38 PMIsaac, is it ok to lie to people in order to get them to to change their behavior? Even more importantly, is it ok to use those lies to coerce them into changing their behaviors by passing laws?
As for the dangers of second hand smoke, you accept a greater risk each time you go out onto the interstate.
Doug, 100% of all smokers die, but only 1% of them die from smoking. That's the missing piece of the puzzle.
Posted by: rich on July 14, 2008 8:36 PMI wouldn't call it lying. I would much rather call it ways of presenting the truth. You can show statistics in a binary perspective on anything.
That is like saying this:
According to the OKU website, car accidents kill around 40,000 people a year.
In 2003, there were 1961615667 licensed drivers in the US. I am using a number from 2003 because I can't find a more recent one. It will serve to prove my point though due to the number probably even going up with population increase.
If you look at those numbers, a person has less of s chance of dying in a car accident than smoking a cigarette. Does that mean that you are going to tell me that it is ok to go out driving without my seatbelt? I know you wouldn't because you are the on that taught me how to drive.
Like I said, statistics can be interpreted in different ways. That is what makes them so powerful when arguing. To call them lies is somewhat of a stretch unless the deliberately give the wrong numbers. Your figures are just as valid as their's You just chose to present them in a different fashion.
Posted by: Isaac on July 17, 2008 2:42 PMRich they have to lie to them and treat them like children because they are doing something so childish that it deserves that type of action. Not one good thing can happen to the human body if you smoke. Bad things happen if you do. Pretty simple to me.
Posted by: Vince on July 19, 2008 4:14 PMHi Rich,
Here is what you aren't considering...smoking kills people over time. 90% of smokers won't die THIS YEAR due to smoking, but they will eventually die and it will most likely be due to smoking when they do.
If someone just started smoking this year, its unlikely that they will die because of smoking this year. They could die due to other causes (i.e. some other medical condition, freak accident, etc.) However, as they have smoked for longer periods of time, their likelihood of death increases and the likelihood that it is due to something smoking related increases.
Posted by: Manish on July 28, 2008 3:25 PM