One often hear it claimed–correctly–that a smoker is much more likely than a non-smoker to die early of cancer (or emphysema, etc.) than is a non-smoker.
But one never hears the odds of a smoker’s dying early as a result of smoking. (For example, and I make up the numbers, a 70% chance for a two-pack-a-day smoker, 40% for a one-pack-a-day smoker, etc.)
My guess is that such figures, which should be easy to ascertain, are withheld for an understandable, though unscientific, reason: scientists believe that a figure that would seem to the scientist and non-smoker to demonstrate the idiocy of smoking would lead the smoker to have a joyous "let's have a smoking party". The two-pack smoker already assumes he's going to die of cancer, so he would be thrilled to find that he has, say, "only" a fifty percent chance of dying as a result of smoking.
Are there any figures for individual smokers?
Almost nobody dies from smoking. People die from smoking related illnesses that shorten their lives. It is 3 or 4 times more likely for a smoker to die of lung cancer than a non-smoker, but only about 30% of smokers will develop lung cancer because smoking is not the only factor involved. Almost every smoker who doesn’t die from something else will have their life shortened by cardio-pulmonary disease. Not scientific, but it’s often said that smoking will take 10 years off your life and that’s not an outrageous figure. The chances of developing many other forms of cancer increase for smokers. It’s not some simple number, but you can count on almost every smoker having their life shortened as a result of smoking.
ETA: Numbers used above are rough, but not far off. There’s a lot of numbers for a lot of specific diseases associated with smoking.
If you look at smokers v nonsmokers, it’s about ten years loss of life-expectancy.
I don’t think I understand your question, though. There isn’t any data “withheld” out of some over-arching concern it will be misinterpreted. Science doesn’t work that way.
Cancer (in particular) related to smoking is a little dose-related, but perhaps not as much as you might think. It’s not as if smoking a little is a BB gun and smoking a lot is a .700 Nitro Express. It’s more like smoking is a .22 short being fired from some distance away. The more you smoke, the higher your chance of getting hit, but even just a few cigarettes a day means you are getting shot at with a potentially lethal projectile, and you could be the person who gets knocked off by 4 cigarettes a day.
It’s not just the risk of dying; it’s the risk of spending what may be decades as an invalid. People aren’t necessarily going to be lucky enough to drop dead of a heart attack at 60; my mother smoked for 40 years and lived to be 84. Of course, she spent the last 15 years of her life chained to an oxygen tank slowly suffocating of COPD (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), but a person who smoked for 40 years living to that age seems to have beaten the odds. I can tell you she didn’t think so.
Both of my parents smoked throughout my childhood. My dad smoked for almost 30 years and my mom smoked for closer to 35 years. One day my dad stopped smoking cold turkey and he lived to be 91 with very few health issues. My mom, on the other hand, died at 76 of complications from lung cancer. Smoking doesn’t mean you will eventually die from lung cancer, but it increases the odds of getting cancer or cardiovascular disease as a result, not to mention respiratory issues such as COPD. I chalk up my dad’s lack of health issues from his long term smoking due to quitting sooner and having good genes more than anything else. He just never got sick.
Huh. I think it’s a good question, or maybe best as two related questions. What’s the positive predictive value (PPV) that a smoker will die relatively prematurely of a smoking related disease? And what’s the PPV that a smoker will experience smoking related increase in years spent disabled or otherwise with significantly decreased quality of life?
Here’s the best answer for the actual op I can easily gain from a quick search:
I don’t have exact numbers for the second question but my WAG is that nearly all smokers who do not die too young to do so will experience an increase in their years living with decreased quality of life and with disability - from diminished lung function, to becoming a heart cripple, to dementia.
Clearly the majority of smokers will, relative to the general population, either die prematurely (and of those most often significantly prematurely) from a smoking related disease, or live with more years of diminished function and capacity.
My ex wife is the only person I know who started smoking as an adult. Around the time we divorced she began, as a 40 year old. A year ago she had pneumonia and died from the complications of her diminished lung capacity. That was only 30 years as a smoker, although she would have lived longer if she did not have pneumonia.
My mother died from smoking related COPD, she was 94 when she died but the last 10 years she was on inhalers and doing breathing treatment everyday. She quit in her early 80’s I believe but waited too long. The funny part was that she outlived her 8 siblings none of whom smoked. I think it is possible that smoking may have some benefits possibly in lowering stress. I doubt they outweigh the harm they cause.
My father had a heart attack at age 43, kept on smoking and had a fatal heart attack at 63. I had a heart attack at age 28, never smoked another cigarette and here I am 53 years later. A sample of 2, so make of it what you will. I have some reason to think we might both have been unusually sensitive to CO because we both had yellow complexions. Mine, at least, turned pink when I stopped smoking.
As with most things human, there is a bell graph of possibilities. At one end are the people who smoked 40 a day since they were an 8yo and live into their 90s, and at the other, people who never smoked but lived with someone who did and died of lung cancer in their 40s. In between are a vast number of individual cases but with the bulk at the lost decade level.
The most recent update to the definitive study that DSeid referenced is Doll & Peto 2004.
These data are certainly not hidden in any way, this is a famous study with open access to all the reports. Contrary to the OPs concerns, the study provides strong incentive to quit smoking, and did so for me. My last cigarette was at age 39, and reading this report helped motivate me. The most important statistic is the effect of quitting. It shows that, if you quit before age ~40 (assuming that you do not quit because you already have a smoking-related disease), then after a few years your risk is almost the same as if you had never smoked. If you quit later in life, your risk still drops substantially compared to someone who continues to smoke.
One thing you should realize is that lung cancer isn’t the only disease that smoking makes more likely. It isn’t even half of the increased causes of death (and hence isn’t even half of the decrease in average lifespans) of smokers. There are many diseases that smoking makes more likely and hence cause the decrease in average lifespans of smokers:
Many people start smoking when relatively young and may become physiologically or psychologically addicted. Although it is now widely known smoking is unhealthy, I’m not sure even heavy smokers assume they will die of cancer or that they would be overjoyed to know the numbers if they smoke less.
Because the numbers are pretty bad, and a new study shows even a few cigarettes a day significantly increase the risk of heart disease.
Smart people in this thread have come up with numbers between 50-67 per cent, as well as a decrease of 10-14 years in life expectancy. A lot depends on how you define heavy smoking and what is being smoked. It sounds odd to me to say that half of smoking related deaths are before age 50 although I have seen this happen many times. I think more smokers are given medicines for smoking related disease (COPD, heart problems, etc) which delay the onset of early death compared to 1951.
Dying of respiratory disease is a pretty unpleasant way to go. I shake my head at the doctors I know who still smoke, who know the risks of stroke and cancer.
My mother died of lung cancer 5 months after diagnosis at age 62. I was diagnosed with severe COPD and forced out of usefulness by it at age 45. 7 years on I am pretty sure Mum got the better deal.
The chances that a smoker will die are 100%. The odds that a smoker will die at a younger age than the expected longevity in his population are calculable. Those are the ones whose life was shortened by some cause, which may or may have teen smoking-related. Cause of death can also be statistically quantified, and smoking has been positively associated with certain illnesses which may cause death.
So the answer to your question lies somewhere in all of those interconnected facts, and it is up the researcher to judge how to weight each factor.
I would suispect the meaning of your question would be people who died younger than average in his demographic, at least parftly because of a disease which is known to be smoking related.
This isn’t actually addressing the OP, but could someone please inform me on whether or not there are any studies showing how smoke it’s self affects the body?
Weed smoke and Tobacco smoke contain a lot of different chemicals, but both produce when heated a white smoke. I know not all smoke is created equally, but does smoke alone have an adverse affect on the human body? Specifically the throat and lungs?
There are many ways in which smoke of all kinds can negatively affect health. Much harm is associated with the fine particulate matter (under 10 and especially under 2.5 microns) present in smoke. Levels of each are followed for air quality purposes as PM10 and PM2.5 respectively and here is an article that explains some of the impacts on PM2.5 which is present in smoke of all kinds and here is a brief coverage specific to wood smoke.
Yes specific chemicals in specific sorts of smoke have specific impacts and risks as well.