You’re correct that there’s insufficient evidence to categorize nicotine as an oncogene, but there’s pretty solid evidence (just from a cursory glance at the very same Wiki article you’ve cited from) that it’s a tumor-promoter, and that it hastens the so-called EM-transition, which among other things makes cancer therapies less effective and metastatic tumors more common.
So, in summary, there’s no hard evidence that nicotine will give you cancer sui generis, but there’s pretty solid evidence that nicotine is thoroughly contraindicated if not dying of cancer is up there on your list of priorities.
Pointing to George Burns as an argument for the safety of tobacco is a little like pointing to Keith Richards for the safety of drug abuse. In terms of escaping consequences, these guys are lottery winners. Just how lucky do you think you are?
As we speak, my Aunt is dying a slow and horrible death from emphysema brought on by many years of smoking. She is 70. You might think “Well, 70! That’s a long life!” And it is. And I am certain her many health problems and slow suffocation from COPD over the past 25 years has made it* seem* a lot longer. She may well live another year. It will not be a good year.
But I do not blame tobacco companies. We choose for ourselves. Nor do I support any of the horrific taxes on cigarettes. I am a former smoker. IMO, you should be able to destroy yourself in any way you choose without government interference. But let’s not kid ourselves. Anyone who tries to argue that it’s safe is either lying to us, or to himself, or is willfully ignorant.
I do. They lied to us, they covered up that smoking kills for decades.
And altho I do agree we can all chose whatever style of handbasket you wanna go to Hell in, you are not allowed to force others along on your trip. Second hand smoke kills 50000 Americans a year. More than guns. More than drunk drivers.
Did you believe them? If someone tells you an unbelievable lie, a lie refuted by readily available and sometimes unavoidable evidence, do you have to accept blame for buying it?
They started putting warnings on the packs in 1965. Congress mandated it. How long does the word have to be out for *Congress *to get involved?
The taxes are still not enough to recover the costs that governments spend on smokers, and the harm they cause to the nation. So hardly horrific – still a great bargain for smokers.
For example, about 1/4 to 1/3 of fires are caused by smokers. So taxes on cigarettes should cover that much of the Fire Department expenses. But that’s way more than the total tobacco taxes. To say nothing of all the other costs smokers impose on the state.
Habitual smoking is pretty bad for you, as is now well understood. Is it the worst? If you live in Beijing, your lungs might be exposed to other pollutants. My grandfather smoked 3 packs per day and lived to age 98. I’ve seen people get lung cancer in their 20s and die in their 30s obviously not everyone is equally susceptible or unlucky.
Smoking adds insult to injury in cases where there is an environmental exposure.
I’ve heard a claim that 90% of coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (Black Lung) is actually caused by smoking and that non-smoking miners (if you can find any) are unlikely to be stricken. I’m not sure if there is good proof of this statement, but the concept is sound. Smoking impairs the mucociliary clearance system. IIRC, it is true that the effects of smoking and asbestos are more than additive.
Thats valid. I was operating under the assumption that smokers had higher mortality and lower life expectancy, but morbidity was compressed at the end of life.
I do wonder to what degree the health effects of smoking are due to smoking itself, and not low socioeconomic status. Smoking is positively correlated with low socioeconomic status.
However smoking didn’t start becoming split by SES until the last few decades, and I’d assume many of these studies were done when people of all SES groups smoked at roughly the same rates.
Actually I’m pretty darn sure that there is conclusive scientific data supporting the claim that nicotine is not an oncogene. Although I suppose that if you smoke so much that nicotine has incorporated itself directly into your DNA you’ve probably got bigger things than cancer to worry about.
My maternal grandfather was a non-smoking miner, although he lived at a time when second-hand smoke was hard to avoid. However, he mined for about 25 years and did not get black lung disease (although he still qualified for the benefit, just because he mined at a time when some safety measure was not available).
He lived to be 83, and was in extraordinary good health, except for his last year, because he had had a minor stroke. He also had a good deal of hearing loss, because miners’ hearing was not protected back when he worked in the mines.
FWIW, he worked for a unionized mine in the north, and made a pretty good living. It wasn’t like the impoverished lives of the unorganized miners in the south at the same time.
I’m working at my synagogue preschool right now. The mean income necessary to afford the preschool is pretty high, and I’ve never seen any parents smoking in carpool lane, none of the parents never smell of smoke, and none of the kids’ stuff ever smells of smoke. We have our share of the usual allergies that seem to be so prevalent now: gluten, peanuts, dairy, egg, and have the snowflakes whose parents want them to have fresh fruit only (no canned), or organic milk, but we don’t have a single asthmatic kid.
I wonder if growing up in a non-smoking home gives children advantages that can continue to widen the SES gap, like higher birthweight, fewer days of school missed for respiratory ailments, parents who don’t waste resources on increasingly expensive cigarettes, parents who are less subject to moodiness due to fluctuating blood-nicotine levels-- I could think of more if I tried, but I have to go somewhere.
here in the UK a pack of 20 costs about £9.60. So smoking a pack daily for say 50 years costs £175,200 (about $218,720.) I’d much rather have the money, thanks. :smack:
In all fairness, I’ve seen evidence that because smokers tend to die younger than non-smokers their medical expenses and pension costs are reduced to the point that smoking is a net economic benefit to the economy. Here’s a link to an article.
And that’s just in medical costs. Add in the cost of an extra decade of social security benefits and you’re looking at a bonanza. Smoke 'em if you got 'em kids, pay into social security until you’re 67, then drop dead.
A doctor once told me, years ago, when I was still a smoker, that smoking might not take years off my life (although, on the other hand, it might), but it would almost certainly make the last ten years of my life miserable.
That was the most effective anti-smoking pitch I’d ever heard, and it did work (eventually).
Huh, interesting. I spent a couple of years in medical school in Denmark (made the switch to engineering roughly 2 years in because the prospective career didn’t suit plans re family at all) and oncogenous agents were consistently referred to with the same spelling as oncogenous genes. It had never even so much as begun to occur to me that there would be a difference in the spelling of the two in English.
The Wikipedia article makes the following two statements based on that report (footnote 19)
This seems at odds with your formulation that “there’s no firm evidence linking nicotine to human cancer”. The Wikipedia article instead says that “there’s inadequate research to show that nicotine itself is associated with cancer in humans”, which is a shade different. In any event, talking about the relative cancer risks of skin patches vs. smoking would surely indicate that there was some risk of cancer from each, or why even bring it up?
In any event, search for Nicotine Cancer Risk brings up numerous reports:
There are disclaimers in there such as “may” cause cancer and the like, but that shows hat more work needs to be done. It’s certainly not exculpated.
This study claims that nicotine doesn’t cause cancer directly, but accelerates its growth, if that makes you feel better:
A Swedish doctor I worked for repeated points he’d heard in medical school:
[ul]
[li]Lung cancer generally strikes after someone has made most of their contributions to society[/li][li]The treatment course is rather short–so, not very expensive[/li][li]As a result, society is freed up from paying pensions & other benefits[/li][/ul]
I believe that he didn’t fully agree. Anyway, lung cancer was not his area of specialization…
This jibes with reports (in the 90’s IIRC) that tobacco companies pitched pro-smoking programs to Eastern European nations on the premise that it would save governments money overall through decreased pension costs.
