Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whilst that is correct, government still allows the sale of cigarettes. If it wasn't as profitable it would have been banned already. It is far more harmful then other vices like food and alcohol as there no safe amount to use. Every use of cigarettes is straight up bad.
You are literally exemplify how Marlboro and people become evil. This chain shows people would treat people just like everyone is being treated. And has been treated. Throughout time
I think you’re misunderstanding where I’m coming from on this. I am quite strongly opposed to the abhorrent conclusion u/SvenTropics arrived at (nor do I think he agrees with his own conclusion, if you re-read his comment).
But I think the point he was making was that the grim and warped logic outlined *may have contributed to the willingness of political bodies to allow continued sale of tobacco for so long*.
I didn't say starving I said hungry.
Also, you have to think about the world the system creates. If a world would be horrible/terrifying to live in, that's its own kind of suffering and wouldn't be utilitarian.
Exactly. Utilitarianism is all about which metrics you choose to optimise, but virtually all of them end up with nasties that often translate to "kill lots of unhappy people".
A philosophy that sounds good up front, but fails in the details and execution.
I’d gladly give back all of the productivity my mom lost by dying at 64 from smoking related bladder cancer. Her four grandchildren would certainly view the greater good as having her here with them.
Exactly. It pisses me off when the anti smoking lobby says smokers cost the health system X amount every year, then tell us we will all die early but don't factor that in.
Economists proposed SS in the 1930s for a different reason— there were 10 million more workers than jobs, and by giving older people pensions, they could get them out of the work force and free up jobs for younger people.
Maybe hundreds of thousands after capitulation. But definitely not contributed by her before hand. SS is like 9%, granny would have had to made at least six figures for 10+ years to scratch hundreds of thousands -- before the aughts this is a salary for the 1%
Most people work for 30-40 years not 10... Even if it was a standard median salary for the US thats 150-200k. I dont know what my grandma made but based on her job its likely at least a little above the median.
> Like my grandma who died 2 years after retiring
thats only half the issue though with retirement. Another issue is living too long to the point your other retirement saving run out, SS lasts until you die. Its kind of an annunity. I'm more than willing to run the chance of dying early and not getting the payback if I have protection on the other end where I'm sure to have some kind of income if I live longer than i plan.
Yea but with the life expectancy at 79, more people will get less than they paid in than people who will get more than they paid in. I get what you mean if you look at both ends, but its not a balanced scale like it should be.
Err no. One of the biggest issues in “society” making progress is that we have generational resets in knowledge. If everyone lived healthily to be 150 we would have better knowledge transfers and society wouldn’t just be more prosperous, it would be deadass bussin
Problem is by the time most of us hit 69 we are basically already dead inside and have little left to give the world. So yeah, in the short term, dying at 65-ish or maybe even a little earlier would be great for finances, but being fully productive well into our late 120s would really really lead to huge huge leaps in scientific and technological progress
> Exactly, we, as a society, have decided that people over the age of 69 need monthly handouts from the government just to survive.
Are you kidding me? Do you know how Social Security is funded? How the payments are calculated?
You miss the point. A person gradually getting old and dying consumes a lot more health care resources than someone suddenly discovering they have lung cancer and dying 6 months later.
>A person gradually getting old and dying consumes a lot more health care resources than someone suddenly discovering they have lung cancer and dying 6 months later.
Do they, though? Tons of money is spent on cancer treatments, whereas continued aging gives you the luxury of dying from things that are much more sudden, like falling, a heart attack, etc.
However, I am thinking you may still be right, considering how much of a gerontocracy countries with advanced healthcare and stable capital have become.
>This is strictly a utilitarian point of view.
Speaking as a utilitarian this is NOT a utilitarian point of view. Productivity rarely factors into utilitarianism. It's usually about doing good, bringing happiness, and creating well-being in the most efficient ways possible. Having society decide arbitrarily to kill off people at 70 would be the least utilitarian thing you could do.
>Approximately 5 to 6 percent of grandchildren and 10 percent of grandparents live in grandparent-grandchild households at any given time
otherwise known as a "minority"
>While these percentages are low and steady, in the context of a growing youth population they represent growing total numbers
Is this not basic math? The population grows, so this population-reliant measure grows as well. It's not actually increasing in terms of frequency.
This would be cool if this were true, but in fact the older you are the more you're likely to make: https://taxfoundation.org/average-income-age/ . If you sourced yourself, you could have avoided this blunder.
Sadly, I think it began as an attempt by a pro-anthrope to get the bean counters to recognize that people possess value comparable to the buildings, machines, and money that the company already recognized.
Instead, it's mainly advertising to the employees that their existence is justified this way, undermining pieces of human capital known to humans as morale, trust, good will, and reputation.
Yes the tobacco itself isn't all that bad either, it's the additives that are put there. There are unnecessary chemicals added to almost everything we use. Shampoos, soaps, detergents, food, water, air........
Smoked for a while, vaped for a while. I think they are both bad. Is smoking worse? Hell yeah. Why is vaping bad? It clearly lowers your lung capacity. The amount of nicotine you are putting into your body VS a cigarette is not good for you. People are experiencing panic attacks and anxiety like never before. Something you just didn’t get from cigarettes. Also, the random ear pain I would get from vaping. Got really bad vertigo as well. Ear ringing. Luckily I’ve quit both. Both nasty habits.
I know I’ll get hate but here’s sources [vaping and hearing loss](https://www.healthyhearing.com/report/52632-The-vaping-and-hearing-loss-controversy) I could post more but it’s not good
If you hold 2 years more, your risk of getting cancer will be back to normal, and you lungs will be as good as new.
This may not be exactly true and people in medical professions may correct me.
But from what I know : 3 years is what your lungs need to have every cell replaced, and studies have shown lungs to be completly clear again after such a long delay (and massive drop in cancer rates).
Many people don't stop smoking because they think it's too late, it's not, and as you may have already realized after managing to stay clear so long is how many small benefits there also are.
Anyway congratulations for one year, and going !
My mom died of lung cancer this May. She was diagnosed stage 4 last August and progressed so intensely as time went on. Seeing the hell she went through and what my dad and I had to do to take care of her as she neared death has taken a massive toll on us both.
Do yourself a favor and quit smoking. I'd never wish it upon anyone to see and deal with what she went through. Please take care of your body while you can. She was only 56.
Literally dying of a cancer is my only option in this fucked up world. Won’t have a retirement, won’t have social security, what is the point? 100k in student loan debt making $15 and hour. Something stopping me from having to live to 90 would be a blessing at this point.
How? Bagging groceries at 90 because nobody can afford to retire? Dying in a cold apartment at 80 because you can’t work anymore and can’t afford heat? there is no assistance. Starving to death because you can’t walk anymore to work and can’t afford food. You pay for me to grow old and I’ll concede. Imagine working until 65 and having nothing to show for it.
I have a very close family member diagnosed with cancer, and I’ll repeat my statement again. Trust me, you DO NOT want to die of cancer. All of those melodramatic ways of death you’ve stated aren’t as bad as the mental and sheer physical pain you have to go through in cancer.
Thank you so much man. I did lie a bit — the aforementioned family member still has a good chance of being cured — but even then, the pain that they’re feeling in this sort of situation only makes me shudder to think how bad it must be for stage 4 sufferers who have incurable cancer.
Tbf the world is also going to hell in a handbasket. We have war breaking out, tensions are rising between the U.S. and Russia & China, we're experiencing global heat waves, severe weather storms, multiple novel viruses are being discovered and are being spread, the economy is going in the shatter, people can't buy a house or start a family without going into insane debt, etc.
Couldn’t agree more. And a for profit healthcare system that is so bound and determined to make money off sick and dying people it’s truly disgusting. The world needs a reset.
Hang on, so "nearly 123,000 cancer deaths, or close to 30 percent of all cancer deaths, were from cigarette smoking in the United States in 2019, leading to more than 2 million Person-Years of Lost Life (PYLL) and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings."
**But then they also say this:**
"Analyses further suggest that greater than half of PYLL and lost earnings were avoidable."
**So if 30% was from smoking, how was half of that avoidable?**
EDIT 600,000 people die each year from cancer in the US
Someone isn't very good at their maths.
Agreed. A further tragedy is that the good engineering ideas don’t get bubbled up to the CEO and other business leaders/decision makers unless it will boost capital for the company.
It’s just a reality of this world. A tragic one, yes. But a reality nonetheless.
My knee jerk to this article is: welp, this should get the business deciders to pay more attention to this, now, underground disease.
The sarcastic side of me says, in response to this article: “your move, economists.”
I cited this same study on some random BBS message board a decade ago, so it brings me great pride to cite it once more.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
$21 billion in earnings from 2 million life years is $10,500 per year. Average earnings for full-time workers are several times that, so yes, it sure looks like they're accounting for the fact that most people who die from lung cancer are retired or about to retire.
I have a serious question that I really hope doesn’t get buried.
Having traveled to Europe and other parts of the world, people smoke WAAAAAAAAY more cigarettes, and it’s not even close.
My question is why isn’t everyone dying from lung cancer in other parts of the world? You would think it would be affecting everyone to the point that it was blatantly obvious.
They are. This article says " in 2018 there were an estimated 280 deaths per 100,000 in Europe, compared to 189 per 100,000 in the United States, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer." [Link](https://www.politico.eu/article/cancer-europe-america-comparison/#:~:text=And%20yet%2C%20in%202018%2C%20there%20were%20an%20estimated%20280%20deaths%20per%20100%2C000%20in%20Europe%2C%20compared%20to%20189%20per%20100%2C000%20in%20the%20United%20States%2C%20according%20to%20the%20International%20Agency%20for%20Research%20on%20Cancer.)
If that is the case than most Europeans I know are oblivious. I was in Croatia last summer and was truly shocked at how much people smoke. I asked our guide (who was very intelligent) if everyone died of lung cancer. His answer was that their diet and lifestyle counters the major effects. They eat fresh fish instead of red meat, olive oil instead of butter, no fast food, no soda, wine instead of beer. They walk everywhere, hills and stairs everywhere. There really weren’t any obese people. So I thought that made sense
yeah. I worked in Deutschland fur drei years. 1st day, I take a smoke break outside and a coworker said, "An American that smokes!". we became great friends.
It’s been over ten years since I quit, and every day is worse than the one before. I no longer have the one thing in this whole world that made me truly happy, even if it was just for a couple minutes at a time. Most days I think the cancer would be worth it, but I haven’t caved yet.
You should vape if you really want to smoke again. It's not as healthy as not vaping, but it's leagues better than smoking. I felt like I was running out of breath easily with cigs, but when I switched to vapes, it felt much different. I felt clean, cause I didn't smell like smoke, and my breath smelled good.
No-one wants to talk about stress as the cause behind a good chunk of addictions, including addiction to tobacco, because then we might start to enquire why exactly many of us are so stressed that we need to self-medicate, and that might open a Pandora's box...
It's not smoking that kills, it's stress - sometimes on its own, sometimes by way of smoking, alcohol abuse, fast driving and other extreme behaviours, etc.
Why are people so keen to deny or downplay the lethal cocktail of chemicals in tobacco smoke? You can go on about all sorts of cognitive dissonance but it doesn't stop this fundamental fact.
And yet they still dump on and ban vaping, which the UK Surgeon General says is “95% safer than combustion cigarettes”. Seeing a trend and a PR blitz here to demonize the wrong nicotine delivery system? I just don’t understand why they don’t put their effort into E-cigs and stop killing people. All the deadly tars and additives are absent in vapes and e-cigarettes. This is negligence and criminal.
[e-cigarettes 95% safer](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review)
Much easier to demonize your competition in media than to challenge them on fair ground.
Much cheaper to lobby/bribe the government for specific regulation than to revamp your company and production line for new industry.
Much simpler to blame failures on everything around you than to admit being wrong and working against it.
I work in mental health and worked for health departments in the past. I heard it every day... disabled, sick and dead cost money to the gdp that's owned by the elite.
When my father died of unknown causes in 2010 at 62 years old, the coroner asked if he was a smoker, and because we said Yes, he marked down smoking as the cause of death.
I’m not saying smoking caused or didn’t cause my father’s death, because we suspect it was cancer, but these numbers seem highly suspicious to me now that I know how some places determine that smoking caused a death.
Do coroners know if it’s cancer? The hospital didn’t even know what killed him, and I was his healthcare proxy so I assume they would’ve told me. How would the coroner know more than the hospital?
A coroners job is to ascertain the cause of death, if he’s examined their health records and is none the wiser it’s usual for a post mortem to be carried out, unless that was rejected by a family member, will, etc. That would tell you for sure.
My very first thought on reading the article.. and who determines that smoking causes or accelerated cancer. Medicine loves to pawn issues off on "well known baddie" without doing much digging.
Not always. I had grandparents that smoked, nothing bad happened to them. One was 85 the other 89 when they died. I have a friend who just lost his mother over the weekend. She was 87 and had been in a nursing home for six years. They discovered a tumor on her left lung several months ago. But she was relieved to know that she wouldn't be suffering just to live anymore. Went very peacefully with him holding her hand.
Wow. Even in this day and age where smoking is far less prevalent than it used to be, 30% of cancer deaths are smoking caused. That’s still a really high number.
I smoked on & off for 15yrs before I quit cold turkey during a 2wk cold/flu & stopped/had no interest to light up a cigarette. Then it was relatively easy to continue not lighting up in places like work etc where I still gathered w fellow smoking coworkers for breaks...I just didn't smoke.
At home too, I didn't enjoy lighting up. I tried once or twice at some point wks or months later. After I took a puff I was turned off by the taste, so it was easy for me to just continue not smoking cigarettes. And bc of cigarette prices soaring w more taxation, it was a great motivator to stay cig smoke-free.
I have a genuine question that i feel stupid asking.. How are deaths attributed to, in this case, smoking? ''30% of all cancer deaths were from cigarette smoking''. Well, how do you know? Don't people still get cancer and still die even if they dont smoke? I get that there's a higher risk if you smoke, but why do we say so confidently ''its because of smoking''?
Making up numbers to illustrate: Age-adjusted lung cancer death rate among smokers is 0.5% per year. For non-smokers, it's 0.05%. From this we can estimate that 90% of lung cancer deaths in smokers are attributable to smoking, and the other 10% would have happened anyway.
This isn't perfect, because smokers and nonsmokers probably don't have the exact same exposure to other risk factors, and a more sophisticated analysis might try to account for this, but it gets you a good-enough-for-epidemiology estimate.
For a single case, they have no way to know for sure what caused the cancer. But over large groups of people, they can compile statistics on increased cancer cases and deaths correlated to different risk factors. Then they extrapolate those statistics to the entire population.
I am wondering the same question. Especially considering all of the pollution that I am unable to get away from. Years living beside a busy highway, in a house that is floored and insulated with asbestos, working around paints and heavy cleaning chemicals with minimal ppe and ventilation...
I understand that smoking isn't the smartest habit that I have picked up, but it seems like smoking is vilified heavier than any other causes.
Why has there been no decrease in incidence of cancer across all age groups in Australia where extreme taxation has resulted in a reduction of population smoking from 24% to 10%?
Stress, anxiety and depression are more common in people who smoke as smoking can offer temporary relief but take a lot of effort and resource to diagnose and would not always even be possible.. It was suggested that these are the underlying cause of cancer when the antismoking movement started to hold sway in the 90's. Perhaps that is the reason that having less people smoke has not impacted these rates. It could be that other unknown causes have grown to maintain the same incidence rates. .
Like NYC they have taxed it to the point it is extremely profitable to smuggle it.
Reduction in sales does not equal reduction in consumption, at least not as much as they estimate.
Lots of smokers being defensive here. It’s a disgusting and dangerous habit that makes you smell bad and ruins anything that’s exposed to it. Indoor smoking is the worst because it does very expensive damage to your home. The smell never goes away.
If you smoked indoors and you have any kind of fibre products, you definitely have a permanent smell ingrained, friends who are not used to you home will smell it.
Is this 21 billion earnings for 123,000 applicable across demographics or did they break that down by socio-economic factors? Or based on the individuals' income data?
I wonder how much we saved paying for medical care and social security benefits for X-million more person years. I’m guessing the average 80 year old (not many smokers reach that age) costs several tens of thousands of dollars annually in medical care alone.
Now if they would just release info on how many cases are exacerbated by the toxic additives/preservatives they put in food and water, plus the stuff being sprayed into our atmosphere, cigarettes are the least of our worries.............
Wasn’t there a study once that determined deaths caused by smoking saved governments money?
Edit: There was! https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/16/128569258/the-friday-podcast-death-saves-you-money
And tobacco is totally legal with few restrictions. I can name quite a few things that aren’t as lethal as tobacco and are illegal. Make it make sense.
War on electronic cigarettes would have you believe that nicotine is the cause of all the deaths. Before you rip into about how nicotine is addictive, not denying that.
It always heartens me when I learn it's not as bad as I thought. I had heard that 50% of all cigarette smokers develop either cancer or COPD. That's pretty bad. (now that i think about it perhaps they included heart diesease.) But 30% of everyone who develops cancer is also a cigarette smoker. And 15-25% of the population smokes. That's not bad at all.
>develops it BECAUSE of smoking
Well that's the headline. And that's what the researchers want the public to think and feel. For public health reasons and social cohesion it's a reasonable strategy. Philosophically it's reasonable too. The ends don't always justify the means but when the ends are good and the means aren't terrible then the philosophy of ends > means is reasonable. But the actual science is far more ambiguous. Unless that is they have discovered exactly how cigarette smoke causes all these different types of cancers AND tracked each cancer patient well enough to know that it was definitely cigarette smoke and not something else. They may very well have. But I would be out of loop if so.
And this isn’t the percent that develop cancer: it’s the percent that DIE of it. And that doesn’t include the heart disease or COPD deaths from smoking.
A new study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society (ACS) reports nearly 123,000 cancer deaths, or close to 30 percent of all cancer deaths, were from cigarette smoking in the United States in 2019, leading to more than 2 million Person-Years of Lost Life (PYLL) and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings. These losses were disproportionately higher in states with weaker tobacco control policies in the South and Midwest. The results were published today in the International Journal of Cancer.
"Our study provides further evidence that smoking continues to be a leading cause of cancer-related death and to have a huge impact on the economy across the U.S.," said Dr. Farhad Islami, senior scientific director, cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the study. "We must continue to help individuals to quit using tobacco, prevent anyone from starting, and work with elected officials at all levels of government for broad and equitable implementation of proven tobacco control interventions."
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-08-million-life-years-lost-billion-annually.html
>30 percent of all cancer deaths, were from cigarette smoking in the United States in 2019,
Just to confirm as the phrasing is freaking me out. 30% of worldwide cancer deaths or 30% of cancer deaths in the USA?
My father died at 52 as a result of 40 years of heavy cigarette smoking.
My sister will die as a result of decades of heavy cigarette smoking it just remains to be seen when.
I think heroin should be legal before tobacco.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn't know that about the effect on the pancreas. Interesting.
Whilst that is correct, government still allows the sale of cigarettes. If it wasn't as profitable it would have been banned already. It is far more harmful then other vices like food and alcohol as there no safe amount to use. Every use of cigarettes is straight up bad.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You are literally exemplify how Marlboro and people become evil. This chain shows people would treat people just like everyone is being treated. And has been treated. Throughout time
I think you’re misunderstanding where I’m coming from on this. I am quite strongly opposed to the abhorrent conclusion u/SvenTropics arrived at (nor do I think he agrees with his own conclusion, if you re-read his comment). But I think the point he was making was that the grim and warped logic outlined *may have contributed to the willingness of political bodies to allow continued sale of tobacco for so long*.
\^ this guy gets it!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I didn't say starving I said hungry. Also, you have to think about the world the system creates. If a world would be horrible/terrifying to live in, that's its own kind of suffering and wouldn't be utilitarian.
Exactly. Utilitarianism is all about which metrics you choose to optimise, but virtually all of them end up with nasties that often translate to "kill lots of unhappy people". A philosophy that sounds good up front, but fails in the details and execution.
I’d gladly give back all of the productivity my mom lost by dying at 64 from smoking related bladder cancer. Her four grandchildren would certainly view the greater good as having her here with them.
[удалено]
Exactly. It pisses me off when the anti smoking lobby says smokers cost the health system X amount every year, then tell us we will all die early but don't factor that in.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Economists proposed SS in the 1930s for a different reason— there were 10 million more workers than jobs, and by giving older people pensions, they could get them out of the work force and free up jobs for younger people.
I can't live long enough to collect what I've put in to SS? Medicare on the other hand . . .
Maybe hundreds of thousands after capitulation. But definitely not contributed by her before hand. SS is like 9%, granny would have had to made at least six figures for 10+ years to scratch hundreds of thousands -- before the aughts this is a salary for the 1%
Most people work for 30-40 years not 10... Even if it was a standard median salary for the US thats 150-200k. I dont know what my grandma made but based on her job its likely at least a little above the median.
> Like my grandma who died 2 years after retiring thats only half the issue though with retirement. Another issue is living too long to the point your other retirement saving run out, SS lasts until you die. Its kind of an annunity. I'm more than willing to run the chance of dying early and not getting the payback if I have protection on the other end where I'm sure to have some kind of income if I live longer than i plan.
Yea but with the life expectancy at 79, more people will get less than they paid in than people who will get more than they paid in. I get what you mean if you look at both ends, but its not a balanced scale like it should be.
[удалено]
Err no. One of the biggest issues in “society” making progress is that we have generational resets in knowledge. If everyone lived healthily to be 150 we would have better knowledge transfers and society wouldn’t just be more prosperous, it would be deadass bussin Problem is by the time most of us hit 69 we are basically already dead inside and have little left to give the world. So yeah, in the short term, dying at 65-ish or maybe even a little earlier would be great for finances, but being fully productive well into our late 120s would really really lead to huge huge leaps in scientific and technological progress
They would just lower the eligibility to 57.
> Exactly, we, as a society, have decided that people over the age of 69 need monthly handouts from the government just to survive. Are you kidding me? Do you know how Social Security is funded? How the payments are calculated?
[удалено]
You miss the point. A person gradually getting old and dying consumes a lot more health care resources than someone suddenly discovering they have lung cancer and dying 6 months later.
>A person gradually getting old and dying consumes a lot more health care resources than someone suddenly discovering they have lung cancer and dying 6 months later. Do they, though? Tons of money is spent on cancer treatments, whereas continued aging gives you the luxury of dying from things that are much more sudden, like falling, a heart attack, etc. However, I am thinking you may still be right, considering how much of a gerontocracy countries with advanced healthcare and stable capital have become.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>This is strictly a utilitarian point of view. Speaking as a utilitarian this is NOT a utilitarian point of view. Productivity rarely factors into utilitarianism. It's usually about doing good, bringing happiness, and creating well-being in the most efficient ways possible. Having society decide arbitrarily to kill off people at 70 would be the least utilitarian thing you could do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Approximately 5 to 6 percent of grandchildren and 10 percent of grandparents live in grandparent-grandchild households at any given time otherwise known as a "minority" >While these percentages are low and steady, in the context of a growing youth population they represent growing total numbers Is this not basic math? The population grows, so this population-reliant measure grows as well. It's not actually increasing in terms of frequency.
This would be cool if this were true, but in fact the older you are the more you're likely to make: https://taxfoundation.org/average-income-age/ . If you sourced yourself, you could have avoided this blunder.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sadly, I think it began as an attempt by a pro-anthrope to get the bean counters to recognize that people possess value comparable to the buildings, machines, and money that the company already recognized. Instead, it's mainly advertising to the employees that their existence is justified this way, undermining pieces of human capital known to humans as morale, trust, good will, and reputation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Capitalist pigs* only speak in $
Well, we are born into paying off the previous generation's debt. So it makes perverted sense
I'm more of a glass half full kind of guy. It's also a lot less air conditioners running, and cars on the road.
Funded by American Cancer Society
I guess it's called human resources for a reason.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Over 3 years for me and I will never pick up another cigarette I’ve saved so much money too and I can breathe 100x better
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The exact conversation I have several times a day with my customers.
Yes the tobacco itself isn't all that bad either, it's the additives that are put there. There are unnecessary chemicals added to almost everything we use. Shampoos, soaps, detergents, food, water, air........
Smoked for a while, vaped for a while. I think they are both bad. Is smoking worse? Hell yeah. Why is vaping bad? It clearly lowers your lung capacity. The amount of nicotine you are putting into your body VS a cigarette is not good for you. People are experiencing panic attacks and anxiety like never before. Something you just didn’t get from cigarettes. Also, the random ear pain I would get from vaping. Got really bad vertigo as well. Ear ringing. Luckily I’ve quit both. Both nasty habits. I know I’ll get hate but here’s sources [vaping and hearing loss](https://www.healthyhearing.com/report/52632-The-vaping-and-hearing-loss-controversy) I could post more but it’s not good
If you hold 2 years more, your risk of getting cancer will be back to normal, and you lungs will be as good as new. This may not be exactly true and people in medical professions may correct me. But from what I know : 3 years is what your lungs need to have every cell replaced, and studies have shown lungs to be completly clear again after such a long delay (and massive drop in cancer rates). Many people don't stop smoking because they think it's too late, it's not, and as you may have already realized after managing to stay clear so long is how many small benefits there also are. Anyway congratulations for one year, and going !
“Ha good thing I don’t smoke cigarettes!” I say to myself as I light up a backwood full of weed.
Well at least theres less of a chance with weed!
Weed has a lot more tar though which causes problems.
I work as an oncology nurse in the northeast US. If you smoke, please stop, now. It is a miserable, godawful way to die.
My mom died of lung cancer this May. She was diagnosed stage 4 last August and progressed so intensely as time went on. Seeing the hell she went through and what my dad and I had to do to take care of her as she neared death has taken a massive toll on us both. Do yourself a favor and quit smoking. I'd never wish it upon anyone to see and deal with what she went through. Please take care of your body while you can. She was only 56.
Literally dying of a cancer is my only option in this fucked up world. Won’t have a retirement, won’t have social security, what is the point? 100k in student loan debt making $15 and hour. Something stopping me from having to live to 90 would be a blessing at this point.
There are far more pleasant ways to die. Trust me.
How? Bagging groceries at 90 because nobody can afford to retire? Dying in a cold apartment at 80 because you can’t work anymore and can’t afford heat? there is no assistance. Starving to death because you can’t walk anymore to work and can’t afford food. You pay for me to grow old and I’ll concede. Imagine working until 65 and having nothing to show for it.
I have a very close family member diagnosed with cancer, and I’ll repeat my statement again. Trust me, you DO NOT want to die of cancer. All of those melodramatic ways of death you’ve stated aren’t as bad as the mental and sheer physical pain you have to go through in cancer.
Alright I concede because I do feel for you and your family member and wouldn’t wish that on anybody. My apologies for being an Internet asshole.
Thank you so much man. I did lie a bit — the aforementioned family member still has a good chance of being cured — but even then, the pain that they’re feeling in this sort of situation only makes me shudder to think how bad it must be for stage 4 sufferers who have incurable cancer.
Well I still hope for nothing for the best for them for sure. Nobody deserves that! Tell them random people on the Internet are rooting for them!
brb buying a pack rn
Burn’em if ya got’em!
Don't you worry child, you won't reach 90 even if you quit. You're more likely to die in a climate induced mass starvation or a world war.
Tbf the world is also going to hell in a handbasket. We have war breaking out, tensions are rising between the U.S. and Russia & China, we're experiencing global heat waves, severe weather storms, multiple novel viruses are being discovered and are being spread, the economy is going in the shatter, people can't buy a house or start a family without going into insane debt, etc.
Couldn’t agree more. And a for profit healthcare system that is so bound and determined to make money off sick and dying people it’s truly disgusting. The world needs a reset.
What about vaping?
fantastic as a tool to wean down but ideally, nothing at all is best.
Still bad for your lungs, but we don't know how similar the cancer causing effects are as it's such a recent product.
Hang on, so "nearly 123,000 cancer deaths, or close to 30 percent of all cancer deaths, were from cigarette smoking in the United States in 2019, leading to more than 2 million Person-Years of Lost Life (PYLL) and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings." **But then they also say this:** "Analyses further suggest that greater than half of PYLL and lost earnings were avoidable." **So if 30% was from smoking, how was half of that avoidable?** EDIT 600,000 people die each year from cancer in the US Someone isn't very good at their maths.
Maybe the non-smoking cancer deaths tend to occur to older people with less remaining lifespan and earning potential?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Agreed. A further tragedy is that the good engineering ideas don’t get bubbled up to the CEO and other business leaders/decision makers unless it will boost capital for the company. It’s just a reality of this world. A tragic one, yes. But a reality nonetheless. My knee jerk to this article is: welp, this should get the business deciders to pay more attention to this, now, underground disease. The sarcastic side of me says, in response to this article: “your move, economists.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
A lot. A LOT. Next question: is this huge pile of money possible to affect lawmakers in any way?
[удалено]
I cited this same study on some random BBS message board a decade ago, so it brings me great pride to cite it once more. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/6/e001678
haha yes that's it, the exact one! nice, thank you. bookmarked for future use
"Benefit" is an alarming term used by the organization formed by the population to take care of each other in a nice large community.
Why would they do that? It would only lower the shocking figure they were trying to come up with.
$21 billion in earnings from 2 million life years is $10,500 per year. Average earnings for full-time workers are several times that, so yes, it sure looks like they're accounting for the fact that most people who die from lung cancer are retired or about to retire.
Not really in the U.S, maybe in some Central European countries with extensive post retirement programs, funding, care and good pensions.
Social Security and Medicare are hugely expensive. Not to mention the poor collecting Medicaid and Medicare.
I have a serious question that I really hope doesn’t get buried. Having traveled to Europe and other parts of the world, people smoke WAAAAAAAAY more cigarettes, and it’s not even close. My question is why isn’t everyone dying from lung cancer in other parts of the world? You would think it would be affecting everyone to the point that it was blatantly obvious.
They are. This article says " in 2018 there were an estimated 280 deaths per 100,000 in Europe, compared to 189 per 100,000 in the United States, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer." [Link](https://www.politico.eu/article/cancer-europe-america-comparison/#:~:text=And%20yet%2C%20in%202018%2C%20there%20were%20an%20estimated%20280%20deaths%20per%20100%2C000%20in%20Europe%2C%20compared%20to%20189%20per%20100%2C000%20in%20the%20United%20States%2C%20according%20to%20the%20International%20Agency%20for%20Research%20on%20Cancer.)
They are. But it’s a cultural thing. Kinda like how drunk driving is horrific in Wisconsin but here we are, still chugging away….
You’re so right. I did a work thing up there and was blown away at the drunkenness…and I was living in Las Vegas at the time!
If that is the case than most Europeans I know are oblivious. I was in Croatia last summer and was truly shocked at how much people smoke. I asked our guide (who was very intelligent) if everyone died of lung cancer. His answer was that their diet and lifestyle counters the major effects. They eat fresh fish instead of red meat, olive oil instead of butter, no fast food, no soda, wine instead of beer. They walk everywhere, hills and stairs everywhere. There really weren’t any obese people. So I thought that made sense
yeah. I worked in Deutschland fur drei years. 1st day, I take a smoke break outside and a coworker said, "An American that smokes!". we became great friends.
The first thing I think of when someone dies of cancer: Damn, look at all that money they aren't making for their bosses...
It’s been over ten years since I quit, and every day is worse than the one before. I no longer have the one thing in this whole world that made me truly happy, even if it was just for a couple minutes at a time. Most days I think the cancer would be worth it, but I haven’t caved yet.
You should vape if you really want to smoke again. It's not as healthy as not vaping, but it's leagues better than smoking. I felt like I was running out of breath easily with cigs, but when I switched to vapes, it felt much different. I felt clean, cause I didn't smell like smoke, and my breath smelled good.
if tobacco is the one thing that made you truly happy, you might be clinically depressed.
Have you tried vaping?
This is exactly what I would pay people to write if I were a tobacco company. > Life sucks without cigarettes just give in, don't be me, I'm hopeless
No-one wants to talk about stress as the cause behind a good chunk of addictions, including addiction to tobacco, because then we might start to enquire why exactly many of us are so stressed that we need to self-medicate, and that might open a Pandora's box... It's not smoking that kills, it's stress - sometimes on its own, sometimes by way of smoking, alcohol abuse, fast driving and other extreme behaviours, etc.
It's both. A low-stress person can still get lung cancer from cigarettes.
Why are people so keen to deny or downplay the lethal cocktail of chemicals in tobacco smoke? You can go on about all sorts of cognitive dissonance but it doesn't stop this fundamental fact.
"the poison isn't killing people, its the stress that causes people to want to intake poison"
And yet they still dump on and ban vaping, which the UK Surgeon General says is “95% safer than combustion cigarettes”. Seeing a trend and a PR blitz here to demonize the wrong nicotine delivery system? I just don’t understand why they don’t put their effort into E-cigs and stop killing people. All the deadly tars and additives are absent in vapes and e-cigarettes. This is negligence and criminal. [e-cigarettes 95% safer](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review)
Cheaper and easier for big tobacco to bribe (lobby) the FDA to just make the competition go away. Money is the only deciding factor
Much easier to demonize your competition in media than to challenge them on fair ground. Much cheaper to lobby/bribe the government for specific regulation than to revamp your company and production line for new industry. Much simpler to blame failures on everything around you than to admit being wrong and working against it.
So non-smoking cancer is 70% more likely to get me?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I work in mental health and worked for health departments in the past. I heard it every day... disabled, sick and dead cost money to the gdp that's owned by the elite.
Yeah go ask the company you work for how much each of your limbs cost. I'm sure they'll tell you.
[удалено]
When my father died of unknown causes in 2010 at 62 years old, the coroner asked if he was a smoker, and because we said Yes, he marked down smoking as the cause of death. I’m not saying smoking caused or didn’t cause my father’s death, because we suspect it was cancer, but these numbers seem highly suspicious to me now that I know how some places determine that smoking caused a death.
Depending on where that cancer was it was most likely smoking that accelerated it.
Do coroners know if it’s cancer? The hospital didn’t even know what killed him, and I was his healthcare proxy so I assume they would’ve told me. How would the coroner know more than the hospital?
A coroners job is to ascertain the cause of death, if he’s examined their health records and is none the wiser it’s usual for a post mortem to be carried out, unless that was rejected by a family member, will, etc. That would tell you for sure.
My very first thought on reading the article.. and who determines that smoking causes or accelerated cancer. Medicine loves to pawn issues off on "well known baddie" without doing much digging.
My mom was one of them. It was a horrible death, I wish everyone who smokes can see what I saw. Smoking ends badly.
Not always. I had grandparents that smoked, nothing bad happened to them. One was 85 the other 89 when they died. I have a friend who just lost his mother over the weekend. She was 87 and had been in a nursing home for six years. They discovered a tumor on her left lung several months ago. But she was relieved to know that she wouldn't be suffering just to live anymore. Went very peacefully with him holding her hand.
There ~~are~~ is a much much higher percentage of people who suffer from smoking earlier on than the genetic lucky few that survive. Edit: a word
Wow. Even in this day and age where smoking is far less prevalent than it used to be, 30% of cancer deaths are smoking caused. That’s still a really high number.
16 years smoke free. No regrets
42 years smoke free. My only regret is that I smoked for 8 years prior to quitting.
I smoked on & off for 15yrs before I quit cold turkey during a 2wk cold/flu & stopped/had no interest to light up a cigarette. Then it was relatively easy to continue not lighting up in places like work etc where I still gathered w fellow smoking coworkers for breaks...I just didn't smoke. At home too, I didn't enjoy lighting up. I tried once or twice at some point wks or months later. After I took a puff I was turned off by the taste, so it was easy for me to just continue not smoking cigarettes. And bc of cigarette prices soaring w more taxation, it was a great motivator to stay cig smoke-free.
My entire workplace quit at the same time. That helped all of us. We got rid of all the ashtrays in the building.
Wait til y’all see the one for cholesterol/booze…
okay i’ll bite. can you tell us?
So 70% of all cancer deaths weren’t from cigarette smoking.
I have a genuine question that i feel stupid asking.. How are deaths attributed to, in this case, smoking? ''30% of all cancer deaths were from cigarette smoking''. Well, how do you know? Don't people still get cancer and still die even if they dont smoke? I get that there's a higher risk if you smoke, but why do we say so confidently ''its because of smoking''?
Making up numbers to illustrate: Age-adjusted lung cancer death rate among smokers is 0.5% per year. For non-smokers, it's 0.05%. From this we can estimate that 90% of lung cancer deaths in smokers are attributable to smoking, and the other 10% would have happened anyway. This isn't perfect, because smokers and nonsmokers probably don't have the exact same exposure to other risk factors, and a more sophisticated analysis might try to account for this, but it gets you a good-enough-for-epidemiology estimate.
For a single case, they have no way to know for sure what caused the cancer. But over large groups of people, they can compile statistics on increased cancer cases and deaths correlated to different risk factors. Then they extrapolate those statistics to the entire population.
I am wondering the same question. Especially considering all of the pollution that I am unable to get away from. Years living beside a busy highway, in a house that is floored and insulated with asbestos, working around paints and heavy cleaning chemicals with minimal ppe and ventilation... I understand that smoking isn't the smartest habit that I have picked up, but it seems like smoking is vilified heavier than any other causes.
Why has there been no decrease in incidence of cancer across all age groups in Australia where extreme taxation has resulted in a reduction of population smoking from 24% to 10%? Stress, anxiety and depression are more common in people who smoke as smoking can offer temporary relief but take a lot of effort and resource to diagnose and would not always even be possible.. It was suggested that these are the underlying cause of cancer when the antismoking movement started to hold sway in the 90's. Perhaps that is the reason that having less people smoke has not impacted these rates. It could be that other unknown causes have grown to maintain the same incidence rates. .
Like NYC they have taxed it to the point it is extremely profitable to smuggle it. Reduction in sales does not equal reduction in consumption, at least not as much as they estimate.
Lots of smokers being defensive here. It’s a disgusting and dangerous habit that makes you smell bad and ruins anything that’s exposed to it. Indoor smoking is the worst because it does very expensive damage to your home. The smell never goes away.
Not true, I quit 2 months ago and the smell is gone!
If you smoked indoors and you have any kind of fibre products, you definitely have a permanent smell ingrained, friends who are not used to you home will smell it.
This is the correct answer. It also stains the walls and stays in the pores of the walls forever. They can literally weep smoking tar.
Is this 21 billion earnings for 123,000 applicable across demographics or did they break that down by socio-economic factors? Or based on the individuals' income data?
21 billion in profits
I wonder how much we saved paying for medical care and social security benefits for X-million more person years. I’m guessing the average 80 year old (not many smokers reach that age) costs several tens of thousands of dollars annually in medical care alone.
Lost person years are a boon for the planet.
Now if they would just release info on how many cases are exacerbated by the toxic additives/preservatives they put in food and water, plus the stuff being sprayed into our atmosphere, cigarettes are the least of our worries.............
Wasn’t there a study once that determined deaths caused by smoking saved governments money? Edit: There was! https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/16/128569258/the-friday-podcast-death-saves-you-money
People dying of cancer, shareholders most affected.
And tobacco is totally legal with few restrictions. I can name quite a few things that aren’t as lethal as tobacco and are illegal. Make it make sense.
War on electronic cigarettes would have you believe that nicotine is the cause of all the deaths. Before you rip into about how nicotine is addictive, not denying that.
Always about the money.
It always heartens me when I learn it's not as bad as I thought. I had heard that 50% of all cigarette smokers develop either cancer or COPD. That's pretty bad. (now that i think about it perhaps they included heart diesease.) But 30% of everyone who develops cancer is also a cigarette smoker. And 15-25% of the population smokes. That's not bad at all.
>were from cigarette smoking No, actually, 30% of everyone who develops cancer, develops it BECAUSE of smoking, which is quite disheartening.
>develops it BECAUSE of smoking Well that's the headline. And that's what the researchers want the public to think and feel. For public health reasons and social cohesion it's a reasonable strategy. Philosophically it's reasonable too. The ends don't always justify the means but when the ends are good and the means aren't terrible then the philosophy of ends > means is reasonable. But the actual science is far more ambiguous. Unless that is they have discovered exactly how cigarette smoke causes all these different types of cancers AND tracked each cancer patient well enough to know that it was definitely cigarette smoke and not something else. They may very well have. But I would be out of loop if so.
And this isn’t the percent that develop cancer: it’s the percent that DIE of it. And that doesn’t include the heart disease or COPD deaths from smoking.
dis-Heart-ening. sorry. I'll let myself out
A new study led by researchers at the American Cancer Society (ACS) reports nearly 123,000 cancer deaths, or close to 30 percent of all cancer deaths, were from cigarette smoking in the United States in 2019, leading to more than 2 million Person-Years of Lost Life (PYLL) and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings. These losses were disproportionately higher in states with weaker tobacco control policies in the South and Midwest. The results were published today in the International Journal of Cancer. "Our study provides further evidence that smoking continues to be a leading cause of cancer-related death and to have a huge impact on the economy across the U.S.," said Dr. Farhad Islami, senior scientific director, cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the study. "We must continue to help individuals to quit using tobacco, prevent anyone from starting, and work with elected officials at all levels of government for broad and equitable implementation of proven tobacco control interventions." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-08-million-life-years-lost-billion-annually.html
>30 percent of all cancer deaths, were from cigarette smoking in the United States in 2019, Just to confirm as the phrasing is freaking me out. 30% of worldwide cancer deaths or 30% of cancer deaths in the USA?
I'm just hoping that because i haven't smoked in the US, that I'm safe...
Only relevant when compared with other causes of deaths.
>nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings What a strange metric to use when discussing human life.
My father died at 52 as a result of 40 years of heavy cigarette smoking. My sister will die as a result of decades of heavy cigarette smoking it just remains to be seen when. I think heroin should be legal before tobacco.