Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Timon3 996 days ago
> (edit - I may add the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.)

Even 1-4 cigarettes per day is very harmful:

> Results: Adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) in smokers of 1–4 cigarettes per day, with never smokers as reference, of dying from ischaemic heart disease was 2.74 (2.07 to 3.61) in men and 2.94 (1.75 to 4.95) in women. The corresponding figures for all cancer were 1.08 (0.78 to 1.49) and 1.14 (0.84 to 1.55), for lung cancer 2.79 (0.94 to 8.28) and 5.03 (1.81 to 13.98), and for any cause 1.57 (1.33 to 1.85) and 1.47 (1.19 to 1.82).

> Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and from lung cancer in women. Smoking control policymakers and health educators should emphasise more strongly that light smokers also endanger their health.

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315

Cigarettes also happen to create an addiction, which makes it harder over time to stay below 5 cigarettes per day.
1 comments
ttonkytonk 996 days ago
I agree mostly with your last paragraph. I'm surely not trying to encourage a habit I'm grateful to have been able to give up, but I believe 1-4 would significantly reduce the risk of emphysema - sorry, but I don't have much patience for "abstinence-nazis".
link
TheOtherHobbes 996 days ago
Calling people who are against public poisoning for profit "abstinence-nazis" is a very Big Tobacco PR line.

We're talking about a product that is highly addictive, highly profitable, extremely harmful, and has served no useful purpose beyond making a small number of people extremely rich.

If an individual was responsible for this they'd be jailed, and possibly (in the US) executed.

link
ttonkytonk 996 days ago
There's plenty of"public poisoning" going around - sure you haven't profited from some of it yourself?

When will the sanctimonious get off of their high-horse?

link
Timon3 996 days ago
A lower risk in one specific disease is a far cry from "not so harmful".

Do you have any specific studies pointing towards 1-4 cigarettes significantly reducing the risk of emphysema compared to 5+?

link
ttonkytonk 996 days ago
I really don't, but this is my belief as someone who has extensive experience with cigarette culture and has thought about it. You are free to disregard my opinion based on this fact, but I will still contend that if someone only smoked 1-4 cigarettes a day, then there's a reasonable likelihood (though less than 100%) that they wouldn't have any serious resultant health issues.

(edit - and it's my belief that emphysema/COPD is the most serious risk of chronic smoking, where basically the lungs just wear out.)

link
Timon3 996 days ago
> I really don't, but this is my belief as someone who has extensive experience with cigarette culture and has thought about it. You are free to disregard my opinion based on this fact, but I will still contend that if someone only smoked 1-4 cigarettes a day, then there's a reasonable likelihood (though less than 100%) that they wouldn't have any serious resultant health issues.

I guess there is also a chance that if someone smokes 20 a day they won't have any serious resultant health issues, but the study I showed earlier indicates that even 1-4 drastically increases your chance of complications.

> (edit - and it's my belief that emphysema/COPD is the most serious risk of chronic smoking, where basically the lungs just wear out.)

It's possible, but shouldn't you try to find actual evidence for the likelihood of emphysema being much lower with 1-4 cigarettes per day, beyond "cigarette culture" and having "thought about it"?

link
ttonkytonk 996 days ago
No.

(edit - but let me amend my original statement and then I'm leaving it at that: "I may add that I would guess the product probably wouldn't be so harmful if people kept their consumption to under five cigarettes a day.")

link