OFF: smoking etc.

[flossbac]

> So why are smokers not dying at 3-4 times the rate they are, since they
get
> second hand
> smoke from EVERY cigarette they smoke, plus the smoke they inhale directly
> (which while
> filtered, is still several times as dense as second-hand smoke- even after
> exhalation-) PLUS
> the second hand smoke from the bevy of smokers many of these people tend
to
> run with?
>
> The war on tobacco is like the war on drugs.  A tactic to serve the few,
> while drawing
> attention away from the real issues facing the world.
>
> Why haven't they banned sugar, cholesterol, fat, etc?


Well, for a start, smokers ARE dying at a much higher rate than the
non-smoking population, usually due to the diseases directly caused by
smoking:  cancer of the lung, pharynx, stomach, esophagus, and mouth;
hypertension; stroke; heart attack; congestive heart failure, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease.   These illnesses appear in smokers at a rate
which is multiples of that of non-smokers.  Note that it has never been
suggested that non-smokers don't also get such diseases, or that smokers
sometimes don't die of their habit, but statistically speaking, if you
smoke, you are radically increasing your chances of developing one of these
illnesses.  Aside from the healthcare burden for the smoker, the whole
healthcare industry expends billions of dollars annually treating people who
could have prevented their sickness if they had only used a little sense.

As for the war on tobacco being "a tactic to serve the few"-- that just
sounds like some generic paranoia/conspiracy theory to me.  I don't think
there are many people silly enough to suggest that smoking is good in any
way whatsoever, so I say let's just treat it with the disdain it deserves or
even outlaw it.  Nicotine (otherwise used as an insecticide) is highly
addictive, so it's no surprise that people get a little nutty over their
desire/rights to smoke, but I think we can all pretty much agree that it's a
vile habit with no rewards for anybody.  Couldn't we all just decide to do
away with it?  Seems sensible enough.

Regarding the banning of the other food ingredients you mentioned.... sugar
has no harmful effects whatsoever, so there's no need to discuss it.
Cholesterol and saturated fats, in excess, can certainly be deleterious to
one's health (unless the idea of atherosclerosis and its complications is
appealing to someone), but the difference between these and smoking is
twofold.  Firstly, the body requires fat in the diet, although usually not
in the kinds of quantities the typical american eats.  This is why north
america has such a high rate of circulatory disease.  Nicotine is not needed
by the body for survival.  Secondly, fats are not addictive (there is no
withdrawal effect).  Nicotine withdrawal, however, produces intense
psychological craving and definite physical withdrawal symptoms.  Thus we
have a world of people who know all the dangers of smoking but somehow,
don't feel any desire to quit.  After all, we know there is not a single
reason to smoke, other than the usual sort of teenagerish "looks cool" etc.
reasoning.  If heroin or cocaine were available at every corner gas station,
just like cigarettes, we would have just as large a problem with those drugs
as with smoking.  This is not due to any particular moral weakness, but
purely due to the addictive properties of said substances.

Now leaving my soapbox....
your friendly pharmacist,
John Majka