SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"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.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday February 14 2015, @04:29AM
This is an interesting point. One thing that anyone who starts smoking today can NOT claim is that they were not adequately informed of the risks. As long as they're not expecting other people to pay their health care costs for this risky behavior, it's their choice.
The problem comes when the doctor tells them they've got a spot on their lung and their care over the last year of their life costs a half-million dollars to the other people in their insurance group or the taxpayers. I'm not advocating making smoking illegal, but I don't see anything wrong with a little peer pressure and social censure.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday February 14 2015, @06:22AM
Oh, don't get me started.
Because I'm a smoker, I'm paying 20% more on my premiums for private health insurance and income insurance (in case I'm can't work due to illness). Which means each 5 years I'm not dying of cancer or hearth diseases because of smoking, I contribute with 1 year to the healthcare of others (including those which with cancer without being smokers). Keeping into account that if one acquires a smoking-induced cancer, one's life expectancy is around 5 years (for a stage 1 lung cancer [about.com], bad luck if detected in more advanced stages), then in 25 years I already paid for my costs and, for the rest of them, and I'm sponsoring the non-smoking population (hint: I'm a smoker for 30 years)
In addition, I'm paying excises on the cigarettes I smoke: from a pack of 40-ies costing me $31, $18 [smh.com.au] are excises. Guess what? Those taxes amount for $6.42B [tobaccoinaustralia.org.au] in 2012... wonder how much of them were injected back into the health system?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:12PM
That's because you live in one of those sensible countries with the universal health care. Where I live, the distribution of health care costs to those who live unhealthy lifestyles are not nearly as rational.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:02AM
Interestingly, since smokers tend to decline quickly once they become unhealthy, they tend to cost less than non-smokers. They also pay all those excise taxes that supposedly offset healthcare costs but somehow find their way into the general budget. Then there's the higher health insurance premiums. If all of that was based on statistical costs rather than being punitive, smokerts would get a discount on their health insurance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:27PM
Have you seen any studies supporting this? It's an honest question, I'd be interested in seeing those.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday February 14 2015, @03:07PM
Have you seen any data suggesting that the last year's health care of a smoker's life tends to be less expensive than the last year of non-smokers? If that's true, then I'm going to see if I can get my mother-in-law to take up smoking.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 14 2015, @08:31PM
As far as I can tell, the last year is about the same. It's the 10 years before the last year that are vastly different.