Let’s say we set up an experiment. Two test subjects are each given 7,300 cigarettes to smoke over a 20-year period. They must and may only smoke all of the cigarettes given. They must eat the same, exercise the same, etc. etc.
Test Subject A smokes 20 cigarettes a day for one year, then does not smoke at all for the following 19 years.
Test Subject B smokes 1 cigarette a day for 20 years.
When the test is over, who’s health is likely to be better?
Since health implications are measured in “pack years”, there would be no difference, as both subjects would have smoked 1 pack year.
One pack year has minimal impact. I’ve heard that the most dramatic effects occur around 20 pack years.
My bad. The info I stated was culled from another GQ thread:
Corellation of risk with number of cigarettes smoked
I’m in no way qualified to answer this, but I say Test Subject B is in the worst shape. Long term exposure is always bad.