4 ms·

I think this makes light of the fact that lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the world. Every year millions of people die. Millions. And this

I think this makes light of the fact that lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the world. Every year millions of people die. Millions. And this is just one way cigarettes have negative impact. I’ve heard doctors say that we would need far fewer hospitals in the U.S if it wasn’t for all the negative effects of smoking.

StreamBright 8y ago
Implying lung cancer can happen because of smoking. In fact air pollution and a bunch of other things cause lung cancer too.
- Puer 8y ago
  > Implying lung cancer can happen because of smoking. In fact air pollution and a bunch of other things cause lung cancer too. This is one of the most disingenuous comments I've ever read on HN.
- dontreact 8y ago
  In the US, 75% of those who die of lung cancer are smokers. This is exactly the toe of misinformation promoted by the tobacco execs were talking about. The link between lung cancer and smoking is extremely well established.
- ishi 8y ago
  There is no doubt that smoking can cause lung cancer. "Smoking is by far the biggest preventable cause of cancer. Thanks to years of research, the links between smoking and cancer are now very clear. Smoking accounts for more than 1 in 4 UK cancer deaths, and 3 in 20 cancer cases." https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/how-smoking-causes-cancer https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
austenallred 8y ago
It’s an absurd comparison by any measure
fisherjeff 8y ago
I would note that they’re not comparing the effects of the two businesses, but rather the PR decisions made under fire. Not that I necessarily agree that the comparison is completely apt, but it’s certainly a much closer one.
- dontreact 8y ago
  The frustrating thing is that tobacco execs are still around. And that there is no hedging or context given so it’s pretty easy to come away with the impression that it’s something more broad than just the PR tactics. In fact I think that’s pretty open to interpretation.
gus_massa 8y ago
We all are going to die, and people prefer to put their dying relatives in hospital just in case they can be saved. So the amount of hospitalized people will not change too much if someone makes lung cancer disappear completely. People will die from other reason, like a heart attack, other cancer, aneurism, ... So banning cigarettes will make people live longer (that is a good thing) but it will not change too much the number of hospital rooms needed.

StreamBright 8y ago

Implying lung cancer can happen because of smoking. In fact air pollution and a bunch of other things cause lung cancer too.

Puer 8y ago
> Implying lung cancer can happen because of smoking. In fact air pollution and a bunch of other things cause lung cancer too. This is one of the most disingenuous comments I've ever read on HN.
dontreact 8y ago
In the US, 75% of those who die of lung cancer are smokers. This is exactly the toe of misinformation promoted by the tobacco execs were talking about. The link between lung cancer and smoking is extremely well established.
ishi 8y ago
There is no doubt that smoking can cause lung cancer. "Smoking is by far the biggest preventable cause of cancer. Thanks to years of research, the links between smoking and cancer are now very clear. Smoking accounts for more than 1 in 4 UK cancer deaths, and 3 in 20 cancer cases." https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/how-smoking-causes-cancer https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...

austenallred 8y ago

It’s an absurd comparison by any measure

fisherjeff 8y ago

I would note that they’re not comparing the effects of the two businesses, but rather the PR decisions made under fire. Not that I necessarily agree that the comparison is completely apt, but it’s certainly a much closer one.

dontreact 8y ago
The frustrating thing is that tobacco execs are still around. And that there is no hedging or context given so it’s pretty easy to come away with the impression that it’s something more broad than just the PR tactics. In fact I think that’s pretty open to interpretation.

gus_massa 8y ago

We all are going to die, and people prefer to put their dying relatives in hospital just in case they can be saved. So the amount of hospitalized people will not change too much if someone makes lung cancer disappear completely. People will die from other reason, like a heart attack, other cancer, aneurism, ... So banning cigarettes will make people live longer (that is a good thing) but it will not change too much the number of hospital rooms needed.