4 ms·

Smoking is a morbid fascination and an affirmation of our mortality. But it's hard to grasp that significance until you've witnessed an eighteen month battle wi

by wehriam 16y ago

Smoking is a morbid fascination and an affirmation of our mortality. But it's hard to grasp that significance until you've witnessed an eighteen month battle with lung cancer. It's a slow and painful death. To be clear, if you smoke there is a very strong possibility you will die tethered to an oxygen machine, wearing a diaper, and unable to swallow.

wehriam 16y ago
The article should also mention the significant impact on public health systems. Smoking carries external costs.
- _delirium 16y ago
  On the other hand, it significantly reduces costs for public pension systems--- the decrease in smoking leading to higher male life expectancy (slowly approaching traditionally higher female life expectancy) is one of the major factors in the insolvency of various pension schemes. (There are other factors, of course, like declining birth rates and improving health care, but pension funds would be in better shape overall if more people were heavy smokers.)
  - endtime 16y ago
    I appreciate the objectivity of your comment, but that's money I'd sort of be okay with not saving.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too. It's mostly a counterargument to the "smokers are a burden on society" argument. I think if you added up the various effects, a smoker is close to neutral as a burden on the public purse, compared to a nonsmoker.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    The fact that we can have these sorts of discussions is the best argument against having public health or public pension schemes.
jawngee 16y ago
Not that I'm suggesting that you smoke - because I most certainly am not - but I'm wondering what sort of illusions one might hold about how painless their death might be if they did not smoke? If you look at the top 20 types of deaths in the United States, nearly all of them are painful. The only certainty is that by smoking you are almost insured of it - supposing a stroke or aneurysm doesn't take you out. I'm honestly not trolling, I've always felt it curious when people tell me that smoking results in a painful death, leaving me wondering how they think they are going to be going out of this world. Natural causes? Not likely.
- jbellis 16y ago
  Well, it's a mixed bag. Top causes of death in the US, 2009: Heart disease: 631,636. From what I have read, heart attacks are painful but usually over with quickly. Living with a pacemaker or heart surgery can suck but I'd definitely take that over lung cancer. Cancer: 559,888. Notably, includes other smoking-related cancers (esophageal, pancreatic, etc) besides just lung. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119. Again, over with quickly if it kills you. It's when it doesn't kill you and leaves you half-paralyzed that it sucks. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583. "80% to. 90% of all patients with chronic lower respiratory disease have a history of smoking." Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599. No idea how this generalizes. Probably "not as bad as cancer," overall. Diabetes: 72,449. Unusually non-painful, for something that kills you, although some of the side effects are a bitch (e.g., going blind). Insulin shots or IVs to try to control blood sugar levels are also fairly non-painful as medical intervention goes. Alzheimer's disease: 72,432. I'd take lung cancer, if I had to pick.
- Psyonic 16y ago
  What's more natural of a cause than a heart attack or cancer? Aren't they essentially assured given enough time?
swah 16y ago
"Very strong possiblity" ? Where is the data?
- j_baker 16y ago
  Do you happen to work for Philip Morris?
  - swah 16y ago
    Do you happen to work for UN? No, serioulsy. It's bad enough if smoking increases your chances of having a lung cancer by 10% or something, but I can't believe 95% percent of the smokers will have a painful death. So, no need to makes bad things worse than they are.
    - mvp 16y ago
      Death - painful or not - is far off. Most smokers that I know suffer everyday with some sort of problem with the lungs or throat and which they don't admit to non-smokers.
      - dmm 16y ago
        Death is not far off for any of us. Life and death are two side of the same coin. They cannot exist apart.
dgabriel 16y ago
Smokers know the risks (come on, everybody knows the risks), and generally don't care. As the following article states, the mentally ill smoke a lot. It's likely a combination of self-medication and deliberately self-destructive behavior. If tomorrow seems overwhelming, then some hypothetical future illness is just not on the radar. Then there are others who get a kick out of flouting social convention. It's antisocial social behavior... http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa112300a.htm http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa112300a.htm

by wehriam 16y ago

wehriam 16y ago

The article should also mention the significant impact on public health systems. Smoking carries external costs.

_delirium 16y ago
On the other hand, it significantly reduces costs for public pension systems--- the decrease in smoking leading to higher male life expectancy (slowly approaching traditionally higher female life expectancy) is one of the major factors in the insolvency of various pension schemes. (There are other factors, of course, like declining birth rates and improving health care, but pension funds would be in better shape overall if more people were heavy smokers.)
- endtime 16y ago
  I appreciate the objectivity of your comment, but that's money I'd sort of be okay with not saving.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too. It's mostly a counterargument to the "smokers are a burden on society" argument. I think if you added up the various effects, a smoker is close to neutral as a burden on the public purse, compared to a nonsmoker.
- hugh3 16y ago
  The fact that we can have these sorts of discussions is the best argument against having public health or public pension schemes.

jawngee 16y ago

Not that I'm suggesting that you smoke - because I most certainly am not - but I'm wondering what sort of illusions one might hold about how painless their death might be if they did not smoke? If you look at the top 20 types of deaths in the United States, nearly all of them are painful. The only certainty is that by smoking you are almost insured of it - supposing a stroke or aneurysm doesn't take you out. I'm honestly not trolling, I've always felt it curious when people tell me that smoking results in a painful death, leaving me wondering how they think they are going to be going out of this world. Natural causes? Not likely.

jbellis 16y ago
Well, it's a mixed bag. Top causes of death in the US, 2009: Heart disease: 631,636. From what I have read, heart attacks are painful but usually over with quickly. Living with a pacemaker or heart surgery can suck but I'd definitely take that over lung cancer. Cancer: 559,888. Notably, includes other smoking-related cancers (esophageal, pancreatic, etc) besides just lung. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119. Again, over with quickly if it kills you. It's when it doesn't kill you and leaves you half-paralyzed that it sucks. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583. "80% to. 90% of all patients with chronic lower respiratory disease have a history of smoking." Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599. No idea how this generalizes. Probably "not as bad as cancer," overall. Diabetes: 72,449. Unusually non-painful, for something that kills you, although some of the side effects are a bitch (e.g., going blind). Insulin shots or IVs to try to control blood sugar levels are also fairly non-painful as medical intervention goes. Alzheimer's disease: 72,432. I'd take lung cancer, if I had to pick.
Psyonic 16y ago
What's more natural of a cause than a heart attack or cancer? Aren't they essentially assured given enough time?

swah 16y ago

"Very strong possiblity" ? Where is the data?

j_baker 16y ago
Do you happen to work for Philip Morris?
- swah 16y ago
  Do you happen to work for UN? No, serioulsy. It's bad enough if smoking increases your chances of having a lung cancer by 10% or something, but I can't believe 95% percent of the smokers will have a painful death. So, no need to makes bad things worse than they are.
  - mvp 16y ago
    Death - painful or not - is far off. Most smokers that I know suffer everyday with some sort of problem with the lungs or throat and which they don't admit to non-smokers.
    - dmm 16y ago
      Death is not far off for any of us. Life and death are two side of the same coin. They cannot exist apart.

dgabriel 16y ago

Smokers know the risks (come on, everybody knows the risks), and generally don't care. As the following article states, the mentally ill smoke a lot. It's likely a combination of self-medication and deliberately self-destructive behavior. If tomorrow seems overwhelming, then some hypothetical future illness is just not on the radar. Then there are others who get a kick out of flouting social convention. It's antisocial social behavior... http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa112300a.htm http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa112300a.htm