380,000 U.S. deaths yearly due to smoking

Death attributable to smoking is declining, with 200,000 such deaths anually for U.S. men, and 180,000 for women, researchers said.

[HowzBoutDat]

Lightbulb Moment wrote:

I'm not the brightest bulb in my mamas closet.

It's a fact!

[Need A Light]

Anybody keep count on how many researchers died or are they just make believe people by the numbers ????

[Hugh Jass]

Make Puffers Suffer wrote:

<quoted text> Anybody else think this is a dumb question?

Did you mean "this" or "that"?

Actually, your answer probably wouldn't affect mine much.

[Hugh Jass]

Yeah, it seems like smokers benefit from the variation in number-crunching.

It's been what, though, nearly 50 years since the push against smoking began in earnest, and ~35-40 years since the SHS-driven movements really began here, though they didn't really hit stride until closer to 20 years ago.

The smoking rate dropped most dramatically about 20-25 years ago, didn't it?

Given that many of the smoking-attributed deaths involved chronic disease and some that often take decades to manifest, we should be about due to see a reduction there.

It will, perhaps, be interesting to see if/when there is a plateau in such deaths to echo the plateau in smoking cessation when so many governments cut funding for the smoking-cessation efforts that were working so well.

I suppose, though, that someone will find a way to massage the data and make it go away, if there is.

[Tobacco Cologne]

Tobacco kills 380,000 and counting, Merck kills 88,000 with VIOXX but no criminal charges or prison sentences. Anyone else who kills or is an accessary does life in prison.

[ItsAFact]

Florida has sink holes.
Winnapeg has a stink hole.
Reference above post numbers 1, 3, 5, 8, 9.

[Need A Light]

ItsAFact wrote:

Florida has sink holes.
Winnapeg has a stink hole.
Reference above post numbers 1, 3, 5, 8, 9.

Dam right that is a fact and not enough researchers to count em!

[Tobacco Stinks]

There's something we see too much of, ItsAFart and NeedsAMint. Two LAOOZERS in a row.

[Hugh Jass]

Cough Up A Fkin Lung wrote:

380,000 less smokers? Cool. More fresh air for decent folk, cool too.

I suspect the effects of SHS are included there as well. If not, then there probably is no real drop.

[confederate1989]

Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute's wesbite, Cato.org . This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

You might also find this study of interest. It examines carcinogens in cigarette smoke and finds them insufficient to be a cause of cancer. Last sentence is the key one:

there is little reason to be confident that total removal of the currently measured human lung carcinogens would reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers by any noticeable amount.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/584...

[confederate1989]

Cough Up A Fkin Lung wrote:

380,000 less smokers? Cool. More fresh air for decent folk, cool too.

Proof baby Proof! That government SAMMAEC computer pumping out fake deaths has got to be worn out yet.........it keeps pumping the same numbers every year and they never go down yet you claim smoking rates have been halved since the 1960s! Theres just as many smokers today as there was then the reduction was created by using population growth of non-smokers thru the years to CREATE a reduction in actual smokers..........nothing could be further from the truth!

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one!

[Hugh Jass]

And when Oregon's death certificates validated the numbers the computers were predicting? Oh, why, then the tobacco industry lobbied like never before to prevent anyone from taking a look at the numbers for SHS exposure in the same pragmatic manner.

If you and yours fight so hard to keep it from happening, you can't rationally point to the fact that it hasn't happened as a fault of OURS.

[Need A Light]

Hugh Jass wrote:

And when Oregon's death certificates validated the numbers the computers were predicting? Oh, why, then the tobacco industry lobbied like never before to prevent anyone from taking a look at the numbers for SHS exposure in the same pragmatic manner.
If you and yours fight so hard to keep it from happening, you can't rationally point to the fact that it hasn't happened as a fault of OURS.

What were the computers churning out at Johnson & Johnson before they got into this big fraud case.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/jnj-...

[Hugh Jass]

Take it to the J&J forum. It's not relevant here.

[Smell like a skunk carcas]

Hugh Jass wrote:

And when Oregon's death certificates validated the numbers the computers were predicting? Oh, why, then the tobacco industry lobbied like never before to prevent anyone from taking a look at the numbers for SHS exposure in the same pragmatic manner.
If you and yours fight so hard to keep it from happening, you can't rationally point to the fact that it hasn't happened as a fault of OURS.

Its an often used strategy. In Canada they don't keep track of vaccine injuries or autism, and voila they can fein ignorance and say what vaccine injury, what autism? Or what second hand smoke deaths?

[HowzBoutDat]

I Smell like a skunk carcas wrote:

<quoted text> Its an often used strategy. In Canada they don't keep track of vaccine injuries or autism, and voila they can fein ignorance and say what vaccine injury, what autism? Or what second hand smoke deaths?

Sho 'nuff!

[confederate1989]

Hugh Jass wrote:

And when Oregon's death certificates validated the numbers the computers were predicting? Oh, why, then the tobacco industry lobbied like never before to prevent anyone from taking a look at the numbers for SHS exposure in the same pragmatic manner.
If you and yours fight so hard to keep it from happening, you can't rationally point to the fact that it hasn't happened as a fault of OURS.

Oregon huh! How about a tad more on that so we can get a picture of the absurd claims your making. The ACS got tobacco related added to certain death certificates as a means of creating more propaganda! let alone FAKE SHS DEATHS!

[Need A Light]

Research says maggots prefer non smokers. Interesting !

[Need A Light]

Fools wrote:

<quoted text> Don't call smokers maggots...they are vermin dude.

I did'nt call smokers maggots they are nice decent people.
Do you know any decent people or have you always been this way?

[Hugh Jass Jr]

confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oregon huh! How about a tad more on that so we can get a picture of the absurd claims your making. The ACS got tobacco related added to certain death certificates as a means of creating more propaganda! let alone FAKE SHS DEATHS!

Hugh is always pulling stuff like that out of his Hugh Jass
He doesn't worry about backing it up - just states it!!

I have heard that the ACS is now "encouraging" some doctors to include SHS as a contributing factor (I can't back that one up either - but at least I'm man enough to admit it)

I's say it's about time they manipulated some new "Magic Numbers" - that 440,000 garbage was starting to get embarrasing to them!

Liars and scum!!

I have noticed that ALL they really have left anymore - is complaining about how everyone stinks!! pretty pathetic huh??