Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SAN DIEGO, Oct. 1 (UPI) -- California's tobacco control program has resulted in lung cancer rates about 25 percent lower than those in other states, researchers say.
John P. Pierce of the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, director of the Population Sciences Division at Moores UCSD Cancer Center, says California established the nation's first comprehensive Tobacco Control Program in 1989.
That said, I don't really get the point of the OP, except perhaps to pimp California. The dangers of smoking and links to cancer have been known for a lonnnnng time.
If I could have a dollar for every one of these "studies" that were made about smoking,
I'd be a rich man and able to buy the highest quality of tobacco that money could buy.
Whether it is a study of lung cancer statistics, the effects of booze on longevity, PSA ratings for prostate cancer, tea vs. coffee,
melting glaciers, microwaves and brain tumors or just the lives of Snail Darters or Piping Plovers, I've come to understand that every
organization that looks to support a position that they have taken, can be borne out in those readily supplied and often impressive,
statistics.
What impresses me less, is that in spite of this statistical support, the particular object or subject of the study (smoking and lung cancer),
that people still continue to smoke and that the government permits this life threatening practice to go on. Most smokers know the error of their
ways, they are fully aware of the dangers that lie within their cigarette packs but still these studies continue. If we are smart enough to realize,
that by crossing the street against the traffic light, we might be putting our lives in danger, why would we believe, even for a moment that inhaling
carcinogens from a cigarette would not jeopardize us too?
Many "studies" have been done on marijuana too. Contrary to the findings of the lung cancer studies, lung cancer has not been found to be exceptionally
characteristic among pot smokers, in fact, among those studying the issue, there have been little more than assumptions offered rather than cold, hard statistics.
The pharmaceutical industry continually places new and unproven drugs on the market, often these drugs are the products of hastily prepared studies which have
been performed by an industry which has been tailored to directing the consumer to the "relief", offered by these new drugs. I appreciate the concern of these fine
gatherers of data, their efforts are laudable and well intentioned. A bigger part of me has come to understand that if smoking really was a health problem, our great
government would "step up" and take measures, far beyond the profitable taxation of tobacco products and take the same position, respective to marijuana use and
make tobacco use,flat-out, illegal! Yes, if you are interested in seeing the scales balanced, petition the government to act fairly and evenhandedly.
No matter what the reserach reveals, it's always going to be a impossible sell to smokers whose parents were heavy smokers who did not die from lung cancer in the end.
My Dad smoked for 50 years, quit at 66 years old, died at age 96 with Alzheimer's, not lung cancer. My mother never smoked, breathed in all that second hand smoke for 40-50 years, her lungs were clear as a bell when she died at 86, from liver cancer.
This 40+ year smoker (and exposed to 2nd hand smoke from my Dad for years) is still waiting for more convincing research. And, it doesn't help either, having worked in long-term care facilities.
But you simply can't argue with these witch-hunting, tunnel-vision anti-smokers. They'll say my 50-year-smoking Father's Alzheimer's was the result of his smoking. Same with my mother, they'll say it was my Father's smoking that caused the liver cancer. Even if they had died in car accidents, they'd somehow find a way of blaming the smoking on the car accident. Even if they were killed in a tornado!
Not surprisingly, this "research" appears to be a conclusion in search of data to support it. That's quite common in most research which advocates some sort of government intrusion for our "health" or "safety." All they need do is find some sort of correlation, some circumstantial connection, and the push for higher taxes and/or behavior modification laws is on.
Here's the summary conclusion from this "study:"
Background: Declining lung cancer rates in California have been attributed to the California Tobacco Control Program, but may reflect earlier declines in smoking Methods: Using state-taxed sales and 3 survey series, we assessed trends in smoking behavior for California and the rest of the nation from 1960-2008 and compared these with lung cancer mortality rates. We tested the validity of recent trends in state-taxed sales by projecting results from a model of the 1960-2002 data. Results: From 1960-2002, the state-taxed sales and survey data are consistent.
Californians initially smoked more than the rest of the nation, but cigarette consumption declined earlier, dropping lower in 1971 with an ever widening gap over time. Lung cancer mortality follows a similar pattern, after a lag of 16 years. Introduction of the California Tobacco Control Program doubled the rate of decline in cigarette consumption.
Note the qualifiers I've highlighted. In other words, the authors of the study admit they may have underestimated the number of smokers in California because their data is derived from taxed sales data. Those who buy cigarettes on-line or at Indian smoke shops or out of state will not be counted and that number in California is significant. If the actual numbers were known, the relative decline in lung cancer rates would not be as substantial.
Secondly, they went back to 1960 to begin their hunt for smoking rate and lung cancer data. Anyone who lived in California back then can readily attest to the horrendous amounts of dangerous air pollution, especially in the Los Angeles/Long Beach and the Bay Area's, where a majority of Californian's lived. The air then was so full of dangerous toxins that it sometimes appeared brown and usually smelled like rotten fruit. This was before unleaded gas and before stringent enviornmental laws cleaned up the air.
A good bit of that brown cloud consisted of proven carcinogens which citizens inhaled 24 hours a day, yet this study doesn't even bother to mention that the lung cancer rates in the state also declined right along with the reduction in air pollution, prefering instead to attribute it all to anti-smoking regulations. You may call that what you will, but I call that dishonest scholarship.
In the end, it's just another example of skewered "science" in the name of the public interest and will be used as an excuse to once again raise tobacco taxes in California. At one time, the Golden State had among the highest tax rates, but they have not kept pace. The rate now is 85 cents per pack, which is among the lower amounts collected by the states. Now, they'll have an excuse to bump it up substantially and nobody will question the "science" behind it.
For another look at the same subject, take note of the latest death figures from New York City:
While the overall death rate went down, cancer is still among the leading causes of death and the number of "smoking related" deaths declined last year by only just over 1000 people. Yet, New York City has the highest cigarette taxes in the nation at a stupendous $5.85 PER PACK. If increased taxes, anti-smoking laws and strigent enforcement (which NYC has in spades) is the way to reducing lung cancer deaths in California, why isn't it working in New York?
More junk science. But, it's junk science which you California smokers will soon feel in your pocketbook. Count on it. The radical anti-smokers are after your money to balance the state budget and you're in their cross-hairs, thanks to "studies" like this one.
One thing to be thankful for with high cigarette taxes, and the goverment's dependence on the revenue, never, ever will it become illegal.
We smokers may all end up being restricted to only smoking on the roofs of our houses or in the middle of the street, fine! I can deal with that!
Not me. I'm fighting back!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
