I was wondering what the health risks are of smoking one or two cigarettes a day. I’m sure it’s not nearly as healthy as zero cigarettes a day. 
Well, with any injestion of cigarette smoke your risk for certain disease will go up. It’s just a matter of how much.
A smoker who smokes 25 cigarettes a day is at greater risk than one who smokes 2 cigarettes a day, but they’re both at risk for the same things. Lung cancer. Emphasima. Heart attack. Stroke. etc. etc.
If you’re down to only a couple a day…or up to only a couple a day…quit while you can! Those little bastards creep up on you.
Then you’ll be, like, super-healthy!
I used to smoke 2 a day. But it’s tough, cause then on weekend days, you have like 3 or 4. But then you start to crave 3 or 4 during weekdays. Then, every so often, I’d have 3 or 4 on weekdays. But that made it harder to catch that little bit of buzz I was looking for, so sometimes I’d have 5 on a weekend. More if there was a concert or some party or something.
I managed to keep it at or around 2 a day for over a year probably. 5 years later, I was at a pack a day. A couple years after that, 2 packs. It’s not like you have that first smoke and say “Da-amnnnnn, I’m gonna smoke me twenty of these puppies a day!” It sneaks up on you. Hell, I was coughing up thick brown lung patties in the shower every morning, and I thought it was completely normal.
“Normal” is measured by yesterday, or maybe last week, or last month. It’s hard to see “norrmal” over the course of a year or more. Don’t let it sneak up on ya, cause it sucks to quit when you’re addicted to 2 packs a day. I have a buddy who would have maybe 3 a month. He still does. Maybe you could try that, cause you’d have less of a chance of actually ever getting addicted.
I smoke about 3 or 4 a day, but I also run 15-18 miles a week, and I don’t seem to feel any ill effects, as far as I can tell. In the long run, I’m sure it would be better if I smoked 0 per day, but I enjoy the few that I have, and as long as I can still tie my shoes without passing out from exhaustion, I’m not too worried. Besides, I might get run over by a pickle truck tomorrow, and boy, would I be pissed for depriving myself of one of my few pleasures if I didn’t smoke.
My plan is to wait until I’m diagnosed with something fatal and incurable, then go back to smoking all I want! (I quit a few years ago.)
As someone who smoked maybe 2-5 per day for probably two years, and quit about a year ago, it is AMAZING how much better my lungs feel.
When I was smoking - even just a little bit - strenuous exercise could really be a bear. A couple months after completely stopping, my endurance went way up, it became much easier to walk up stairs and such. I’m now in better shape than I have been in years, and I attribute it in good part to stopping smoking entirely.
They say JFK Jr. smoked one cigarette a day just to prove he had control. Um, yeah, whatever …
I have no idea what the health risks are, but as NurseCarmen alluded to, you’re taking a serious risk that your smoking will increase to a level that is clearly dangerous.
Keep in mind that most people who claim to smoke only a few a day are lying.
So true Lucwarm. I think a lot of people don’t realize how much they do smoke.
My mother, however, has ONE ultra lite cig every evening at 630 with her wine. It’s eerily ritualistic. Never more and never less.
This is all very interesting, but does anyone know the answer to the question asked?
I have wondered about this ever since I myself was a light smoker, and I could never find out.
How dangerous is it to smoke 2 cigarettes a day, compared to 15? How long after you give up do your risk factors return close to normal? Is it possible that the reason nobody would ever tell me is that smoking 2 cigarettes a day isn’t actually all that dangerous, but the policy is to discourage smoking completely? Or is it nearly as dangerous as smoking 15?
Well, apart from natural and manufacturing variability, I’d say your risk due to exposure to any toxic chemical in smoke is cut by a factor of 7.5 by smoking 2 rather than 15.
Of course, this may be meaningless if the toxin of interest is harmful at the level that two (of your particular brand of) cigarettes expose you to.
This may be meaningless if the toxin of interest bioaccumulates (builds up in your tissue) over time, or if the effects of two or more toxins have similar effects or even reinforce one another (synergism).
The USEPA, National Lung Foundation, CDC, Red Cross, et al. seem to have plenty of info on toxic chemicals/cigarettes.
My granddad used to light one up in the morning while “using the facilities” put it out halfway through, then finish it after dinner…Lived 87 years.
I would suspect that non-smoking bartenders and wait staff in bars are at greater risk than someone actualy smoking 3 or 4 cigarettes a day.
Well, I don’t have the cite on hand, but I read a book at the library at the University of Florida 4 years ago (while procrastinating) written in the 1970s that dealt with smoking studies (anyone care to go find it?!?!). One section had a graph that claimed that people who smoked 10 cigarettes or less a day had almost the exact same risk of lung cancer as those who didn’t smoke. This amazed me. So yes, there are studies out there, and maybe someone can find us a real cite.
I’d have to agree with Ravenman’s statement:
I don’t know if anyone knows if this is relevant, but I’ve never had a life insurance client test positive for tobacco use when they are simply around people smoking. Can you get the ill effects that are claimed without also getting nicotine? Are there nicotine molecules on the smoke particles? It doesn’t seem that there are, much.
(Not a dig at you by ookpik2 btw)
It’s this kind of ‘anecdote is evidence’ stuff which keeps so many people smoking, despite the dangers, by allowing them to laugh off the gravity of the situation.
I quit 5 1/2 months ago.
I can’t believe I was had by this subtle nicotine trick for so long.
The doctor of a guy I work with told him that smoking less than 10 cigarettes a day does not appreciably increase his risk of anything. Sorry, that’s the best source I have.
(Also, since politics isn’t allowed in GQ, I would think that moralising should not be allowed either. All you folks who posted slippery slope arguments and other BS in this thread should be ashamed of yourselves.)
Better I should say nothing while someone takes up smoking than muck up the forum. My apologies.
TaxGuy, it looks like it is more dangerous the more you smoke
I posted in ATMB (the reason will become clear) some of the data I found.
I’ve found a simpler version, which seems to imply that more than zero cigarettes is harmful
Relative risk of lung cancer in relation to number of cigarettes smoked
------------------------------------------------
Relative
risk
------------------------------------------------
No of cigarettes smoked per day:
0 1
1-14 8.1
15-24 12.7
>=25 25.1
------------------------------------------------
The risk of developing cancer is reduced by stopping smoking and
decreases substantially after five years. Even in those who have smoked for
many years, life expectancy is increased when smoking stops. After 10 or
more years of not smoking an ex-smoker has nearly the same risk as a
non-smoker.