Light smoking dangerous

September 22, 2005 1:29 AM

Recent research claims that even smoking a few cigarettes a day is dangerous according to Tobacco Control . This is bad news for millions of smokers who have cut-back their daily consumption of cigarettes. It is also contrary to previous research which claimed that light smoking had little impact on health.
posted by bobbyelliott (56 comments total)

You mean, that smoking just a few is as bad as smoking lots. Yay - Now I don't have to worry about how many I smoke. Excuse me while I take a quick fag break.
posted by seanyboy at 1:35 AM on September 22, 2005

It seems every week there is new research which claims the opposite of previous research. I'm starting to immediately ignore anything that starts with "research claims that..."
posted by nightchrome at 1:39 AM on September 22, 2005

What? No 'obvious' tag?
posted by Plinko at 1:39 AM on September 22, 2005

Well one of the things that the media likes to do is take brand new research, prior to its peer review and testing, and tout it as science and law, and Jesus spoketh that eggs are good for you!
posted by Plinko at 1:42 AM on September 22, 2005

Also not good for you: the occasional punch in the face.

Just sayin'
posted by davejay at 1:43 AM on September 22, 2005

I dunno davejay, I know quite a few people who would seriously benefit from a bit of fist-to-jaw action.
posted by nightchrome at 1:53 AM on September 22, 2005

nightchrome: It seems every week there is new research which claims the opposite of previous research. I'm starting to immediately ignore anything that starts with "research claims that..."

Or find science news sources that you trust. This is often a problem of poor reporting of research rather than poor research.
posted by aidanf at 2:05 AM on September 22, 2005

What's wrong with the occasional punch in the face? Does me a world of good, flushes the lymphatic system, releases pent up self hatred.
posted by snoktruix at 3:23 AM on September 22, 2005

If you're an inventor trying desperately to think of something to invent, why not set to work on the cigarette-that-doesn't-harm-you. I think there might be a buck in that. In the meantime, I'll be in the street having a smoke if anyone needs me.
posted by The Ultimate Olympian at 4:01 AM on September 22, 2005

Metafilter: Smoke if ya got 'em.
posted by spirit72 at 4:17 AM on September 22, 2005

"according to Tobacco Control"

Research is *so* much more credible when it's done with a huge chip one one's shoulder!
posted by clevershark at 4:24 AM on September 22, 2005

If this company can get off the ground, they'll provide a reduced / negligible harm cigarette.

And, these have been on the market for a while. Not sure how much harm-reduction is in them, but they're supposedly much better than the regular kind.

Once the nic inhalers go OTC, that will be another decent option.
posted by pandaharma at 5:16 AM on September 22, 2005

Yay. Eclipse is finally in MA. Thakns for the reminder, pandaharma... if I ever fall off the horse again, that's where I'll start.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:29 AM on September 22, 2005

I'll believe it when I ... *hack*... *cough*.... unnggghhh...
posted by r3tr0 at 6:09 AM on September 22, 2005

Always fun to read biased articles in the AM, while sipping on some coffee, and puffing on a smoke.

"Tobacco Control" thinks that small amounts of tobacco are evil.... *snore*
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:19 AM on September 22, 2005

Well, as a quarter pack a day smoker (down from 1 pack) this info at face value sucks. Not that I believe anything that my doctor won't confirm, but even that sometimes is sketchy...

either way, I'd say cutting back obviously doesn't suck for your health, and makes it somewhat easier to quit.

My biggest problem is I actually miss the "Filling" that smoke does in my lungs. Not miss as in pleasurable, but my body misses it and freaks out. Deep breaths just aren't the same... There's nothing in those but air, it's the lack of smoke that keeps me hooked even on only 4-5 cigs a day... :-(

On a more ironic note, last time I landed in L.A., I didn't need a smoke for almost 2 days... Seems smog has the same effect on me. pity that the chemical has such little effect, and the physical habit has me firmly in tow... :-(
posted by DuffStone at 6:26 AM on September 22, 2005

Not smoking can lead to old age, itself a fatal and often debilitating condition.
posted by piscatorius at 6:39 AM on September 22, 2005

Yeah, yeah, yeah....just get to the part that says I can sue.
posted by NationalKato at 6:41 AM on September 22, 2005

DuffStone: I've had good chemical results from the patch, the gum and the lozenges... but I still need 2 or 3 actual smokes a day too.

I wish I'd picked up an easier to kick habit... maybe heroin or something.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:51 AM on September 22, 2005

Metafilter: Does me a world of good, flushes the lymphatic system, releases pent up self hatred.

Metafilter: What's wrong with the occasional punch in the face?
posted by schroedinger at 7:00 AM on September 22, 2005

When an organization is called "Tobacco Control"... it's time once again to drag out John Jonik's Fauxbacco and a represenative cartoon of his.

I don't agree with all of his pro-tobacco zealotry, but he has a point: All the talk about "tobacco" ignores how many carcinogens are added to the product we call "cigarettes," which are then used as the basis for tests implicating a plant leaf.
posted by soyjoy at 7:36 AM on September 22, 2005

Well one of the things that the media likes to do is take brand new research, prior to its peer review and testing, and tout it as science and law, and Jesus spoketh that eggs are good for you!

This paper has already been through peer review.

That's not to say newspapers don't do a terrible job of reporting research. For example, this study found no effect of light smoking on the risk of lung cancer for men, but your average lay person wouldn't figure that out from the article.
posted by duck at 7:39 AM on September 22, 2005

what about controlling for what these smokers ate and drank? did they eat healthily, or mcdonalds every day? did they drink tea and soymilk or whole milk and vodka?
posted by yonation at 7:51 AM on September 22, 2005

A Few Suspect Items:
Compared with those who had never smoked, the men and women who smoked between one and four cigarettes a day were almost three times as likely to die of coronary artery disease.

Why are they being compared to non-smokers? As many of the light smokers are former heavy smokers, there should be two control groups: non-smokers and ex-smokers. I would think that non-smokers who become light smokers would be at less risk than heavy smokers who become light smokers.

The researchers believe their conclusions are accurate, even though they had to estimate the projected impact of smoking one to four cigarettes for five years in those light smokers who had smoked for less time.

What?!???

Anyways, the paper has been accepted for publication but not yet published, so we don't even know the sample size. What we do know is that this was a study done by analyzing data from a previous study; not the cleanest way to do things.
posted by Edible Energy at 7:57 AM on September 22, 2005

Now that all the hardcore smokers have chimed in with their gallows humor, nicotine-honed wit, and blaming-the-messenger dismissals, has anybody found a way to quit without going crazy? I gotta.
posted by digaman at 8:02 AM on September 22, 2005

Now that all the hardcore smokers have chimed in with their gallows humor, nicotine-honed wit, and blaming-the-messenger dismissals, has anybody found a way to quit without going crazy? I gotta.

I'm two weeks into round two of quitting. (Quit in Feb. had a couple in May, couple more in June, a bunch in July and basicly smoked again in August.)

It seems easier this time, mostly because I've learened that I can live without smoking, something that didn't seem obvious on the previous attempt. It's not easy. my wife and I are both about a half inch away from killing each other. (She's quitting too.)

Anyway, going crazy seems to be the price you pay for all those delicious smokes you enjoyed over the years. It seems to be a better price than dying of lung cancer when your 70.
posted by Keith Talent at 8:15 AM on September 22, 2005

where is this "previous research which claimed that light smoking had little impact on health"? as for quitting, change your routine.. a new job or apartment means no smoking, no new habits, no physical addiction.
posted by kcm at 8:16 AM on September 22, 2005

digaman: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.quit.smoking.support

I joined this list in 2002 when I quit, and it really helped. I play piano in a rock 'n roll band, and had so many "habit-connections"... basically there are two ways you are addicted:

1) Phsyical addiction - If you quit smoking for ~ 5 days, your body is no longer nicotene addicted. Then you just have to get past the:

2) Mental addiction - What happens here is you form stong associations between regular occurrences in your life, and having a cigarette with them:
Driving
After Dinner
After Sex - easiest to quit, I just fall asleep ;)
With an Alcoholic Drink
When a friend is smoking

The trick that I used is that once I was able to get through these regular occurences 3 Times without a cigarette, it would get alot easier. It takes ALOT of willpower, and I'll tell you, the reason I quit is because I knew it was killing me, and I wanted to live because it made me so incredibly sad to imagine my wife burying me because of stupid cigarettes.

Once you get past a month, the thought of smoking will disgust you, and the sense of victory will be satisfying. But there is a trap: that sense of victory has come to be associated in your mind with, guess what? a congradulatory cigarette!

Finally, try pretzels, sunflower seeds (but not too much, salt is bad for your heart too), gum, and especially those flavored toothpicks you can get at wholefoods. Helps with the oral fixation. Feel free to email me if you want to talk more, it's my username at yahoo. Good luck to all!
posted by joecacti at 8:57 AM on September 22, 2005

Now that all the hardcore smokers have chimed in with their gallows humor, nicotine-honed wit, and blaming-the-messenger dismissals, has anybody found a way to quit without going crazy? I gotta.
posted by digaman at 8:02 AM PST on September 22 [!]

Taking a suggestion from this AskMe thread, I decided to spend $9.00 on a used copy of The Easy Way To Stop Smoking by Allan Carr. I read the book in about 4 hours on the day I received it, and haven't smoked since. That was in May. I smoked for 12 years, and was up to 2 packs a day when I quit. I had attempted to quit a few times during those 12 years, but the longest I ever made it was perhaps 4-5 days.

Quitting was much easier than I thought it would be. The book really helped me change my perspective, and identified a lot of the little lies that we tell ourselves to perpetuate the addiction.

I visited Europe for my first time during my second week of non-smoking. It was a little tougher than in the States, especially in Paris where it is such a part of the culture, but I made it. I have also made it in Vegas (even while extremely drunk) without smoking. I am still around smokers on a daily basis, and I don't feel awkward or tempted.

The book doesn't work for everyone, but it worked for me (and I was pretty committed to the idea that I would probably smoke until I died of cancer).

If you'd like, email me and I'll send you my copy.
posted by woj at 9:29 AM on September 22, 2005

I should also add that the method outlined within the book does not require you to change your routine (other than not smoking cigarettes) or living situation, create substitutes, take medication, put your faith in a higher power, etc.
posted by woj at 9:37 AM on September 22, 2005

I really think that anyone who kids themselves that smoking any amount of cigarettes - no matter how few - isn't dangerous, seriously needs to start paying attention. Or wake the hell up.

On the other hand, anti-smoking sparts get right up my person.
posted by Decani at 9:39 AM on September 22, 2005

Great suggestions, folks, thanks. Woj, I'll go out and buy that book now. I appreciate the tip!
posted by digaman at 10:26 AM on September 22, 2005

a tangental question in case anyone has had the same question: being a former smoker, I did enjoy it for the same reasons I enjoy a drink every now and then, and I accept the consequences of 2-5 hand-rolled Gauloises/month. but - I'm in the market for life insurance now, and I'd rather not pay double the premiums for being a "smoker". my question is bi-fold, thus: 1) how detectable are single-digit-per-month habits on their screening tests, 2) how/when/why do they do medical tests as opposed to just asking you when you last smoked?

I don't want to cheat anyone, so I'd like to know the full story before I break my few years of nonsmoking consciously.
posted by kcm at 10:35 AM on September 22, 2005

The two people closest to me that have died in the past 10 years died from lung cancer. One was an occasional pot smoker (26 yo) and one was an occasional cigar smoker (62 yo).
posted by shoos at 10:45 AM on September 22, 2005

has anybody found a way to quit without going crazy? I gotta.

I can't quite stay away, but I've sucessfully quit a few times... the patch does a decent job of keeping away insanity in general, but it does nothing for evil bursts.

The gum tastes awful, but kills cravings nicely.

The lozenge isn't so bad (it's like a combination of peppermint and chemical burns), but doesn't really satisfy my urge to inhale smoke.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:53 AM on September 22, 2005

has anybody found a way to quit without going crazy?

Exercise, a lot, every day. I know everyone has heard it before, but this really does help.
posted by darkness at 11:07 AM on September 22, 2005

Research is *so* much more credible when it's done with a huge chip one one's shoulder!

Yeah, the "chip" called being a publication put out by the British Medical Association, whose members are foresworn by the Hippocratic oath to protect the health of the public; research funded by tobacco industry shills representatives is just so much more credible than all that crap put out by "scientists" who believe tobacco smoking (or chewing) kills.

When an organization is called "Tobacco Control"... it's time once again to drag out John Jonik's Fauxbacco and a represenative cartoon of his.

You do realize that "Tobacco Control" is put out under the auspices of the British Medical Journal, don't you? Of course it's going to be against tobacco consumption, seeing as its mission is to combat the deleterious effects of smoking: it may be convenient for smokers to simply assume that anything written in the journal must be biased, but this is as blind and lazy a way of looking things as it would be to dismiss anything written on global warming in the PNAS simply because the National Academy of Sciences has come out in support of the thoery.

If this company can get off the ground, they'll provide a reduced / negligible harm cigarette.

You keep indulging that wishful thinking: the financial health of Philip Morris and British-American Tobacco is riding on the existence of millions of people just like you. We will have achieved cost-effective nuclear fusion long before "reduced-harm" cigarettes ever reach the market: anyone who thinks he or she can regularly inhale burnt matter without inflicting self-damage is living in a fantasy world.

I see that there is one bit of pseudoscience which unites the left and the right on MeFi after all: it's amazing how a craving for nicotine can damage one's critical faculties.
posted by Goedel at 11:10 AM on September 22, 2005

The last time I tried to quit my roomates (a couple together for 1+ year) decided to also. One week into our quit-fest they had broken up and I nearly got into a fistfight with one of them. That is when we decided to take up smoking again. They are still together and I haven't been in a fight with anyone since. Just sayin.
posted by sophist at 12:03 PM on September 22, 2005

Decani : "I really think that anyone who kids themselves that smoking any amount of cigarettes - no matter how few - isn't dangerous"

Wow. This means that cigarettes, are the first non-acutely-lethal substance, that demonstrate a flat dose-response curve. Dangerous, indeed.

Does anyone here have the numbers for smoking-triggered diseases? What proportion of long-term smokers get lung cancer, emphysema..etc? What about short-term?
posted by Gyan at 1:06 PM on September 22, 2005

This is interesting stuff. I like that NicStic thing -- when can we buy those? (I "invented" something like that years ago, to solve an invented problem: I want to do that space tourism stuff, but would also like a smoke with my cocktail. How about a fake cigarette that lets you inhale a nice healthy nicotine mist? It could have Vitamin C, too! Well, I made a sketch, anyway ...)

Am about to attempt quitting for the first time, after a dozen-odd years, to mark one of those Milestone birthdays. Have cut down to 8 or 10 per day with a combination of a) no smoking inside since I bought a house a few years back, and b) daily hikes with the dog (getting a dog helped). Bought a big box of nic gum from Costco. We'll see how it goes. Now just have to come up with a reason to go sit outside under the stars. I love the cigarette breaks ... won't be the same to head out with a piece of gum, but plenty of people have met the challenge.
posted by kenlayne at 1:18 PM on September 22, 2005

Exercise really is a great way to help you quit. I bought a new bike on the day I stopped smoking and increased my running and swimming too. Don't exactly know why it works, but I found I had next to no desire to smoke after puffing hard for a couple of hours.

I'd tried stopping gradually before but it didn't work. Unless you go cold turkey the few smokes you allow yourself become like "treats", creating exactly the wrong pschological effect.
posted by nihotaniwha at 2:18 PM on September 22, 2005

* psychological
posted by nihotaniwha at 2:18 PM on September 22, 2005

I quit a few years ago, after smoking relatively lightly for a few years. I quit at the same time with a couple friends, and that helped enormously. You really do need to break the associations with all of your activities like joecacti said above. But once you go through all of those activities a few times without smoking, it becomes a lot easier. Look at like "practicing not smoking". You've been practicing smoking for years, so you just have to undo all of that practice.

Another point that I hear rarely mentioned has to do with the actual physical effects of smoking - the buzz. Smoking lowers your blood pressure, and slows your breathing, which has a powerful calming effect. When you're withdrawing from that, the body's response is essentially the same as an mild anxiety attack. Any activity which helps you to deal with that anxiety response will help. Exercise, good diet, sleep, etc. are the obvious ones.
posted by jimmy76 at 3:53 PM on September 22, 2005

interesting study. as they say, consider the source... Tobacco Control. wanna bet who funded the study.
posted by brandz at 4:32 PM on September 22, 2005

Any thoughts on pipe smoking?

I'd rather not give up my Vanilla-Rum mix...
posted by craven_morhead at 4:34 PM on September 22, 2005

interesting study. as they say, consider the source... Tobacco Control. wanna bet who funded the study.

I give... who do you think funded the study?
posted by duck at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005

that's easy, just follow the money. tobacco control is big business these days.
posted by brandz at 5:31 PM on September 22, 2005

tobacco control is big business these days.

I'm not arguing (though as pointed out already "tobacco control" is run by the British Medical Association), but really trying to hear who's making money out of reduced tobacco consumption. Seems like just about everybody stands to lose money. Even the drug companies that sell quit-smoking drugs make more selling fertilizer to tobacco companies than they do on those drugs, I've heard.
posted by duck at 5:38 PM on September 22, 2005

my mistake. my last reference to 'tobacco control' was meant to mean a general umbrella-like organization. maybe i should have stated 'anti-smoking lobby' instead.

Even the drug companies that sell quit-smoking drugs make more selling fertilizer to tobacco companies than they do on those drugs, I've heard.

i didn't realize drug companies sold fertilizer. i do know they sell smoking cessation devices like patches and gum and sprays when you try to quit or are unable to smoke (like on planes or in hospitals). the smoking cessation devices are generally $50 a whack. and the prescription meds require a doctors visit.

and naturally, the BBC post states the this particular topic 'requires further study' as do pretty much all published anti-smoking research. this means more grant money and such.
posted by brandz at 6:22 PM on September 22, 2005

has anybody found a way to quit without going crazy? I gotta.

I don't know if you're still reading, digaman, and I don't know if you can buy them in America, but the Nicorette inhalers I used in Australia 5 years ago made quitting child's play.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:13 PM on September 22, 2005

Has anybody found a way to quit without going crazy? I gotta.

Digaman - In all seriousness -

- You might also want to try reading The Confessions of St. Augustine.

I'm not anything like a Catholic - not even a Christian - but I'm for real - this shiznit just works.

As pure philosophy (and as a quite convincing statement of generic 'conversion' from one mode of life to another - e.g. from "Smoker" to "Ex-Smoker") this text motivates one to rethink bad habits at levels that are truly ontologically subversive.

It's working for me as I type (and also suck that damn lozenge, which is far more effective than any communion wafer, I wager - pace Pascal.)
posted by objet at 10:10 PM on September 22, 2005

Goedel,

We actually already have the technology for near harmless smoking. Go into any head shop and look at the vaporizers.

There haven't been any long time studies regarding regular inhaling of tobacco vapor, but I would think the risk of emphysema and heart disease would be reduced to nil, and the cancers would undoubtably go down as well. And there wouldn't be any second-hand smoke to deal with.

The disadvantage of a vapor device is that most of them are designed for use in your bachelor pad and are large and have to be plugged into the wall. There's a few small vapor pipes available but you have to light them every time you take a hit. This isn't really a problem with MJ but with nicotine that would get old very quickly.

The NicStic's are attempting to replicate the vapor tech in a very small battery-powered device which remains 'lit'. The tobacco isn't burned but boiled instead. There's some interesting schematics of the device on their site.

The Eclipse cigarettes, already on the market, have also managed to make a vapor tech that works on a portable basis. Because the flame still touches the tobacco, there's tar in these cigarettes but the tar is approximately 20% of a normal cigarette. Therefore, these cigarettes are safer, at least from the heart / emphysema point of view.

With smoking bans going into effect left and right, the big tobacco companies have every incentive to create a device which could be used in a public place without causing ire.

Also, no company, not even evil tobacco, wants to kill off their existing customers or frighten away new ones. If they can create a product which is appealing to the general population and has health risks approaching nil, then they will do it.

Creating a relatively harmless product will guarantee profits long into the future. The current state of the product will cause it to become more and more marginal as legal and social pressures continue to increase.

If you want a real world example, look at Swedish snus (oral tobacco). Swedish gov't studies have shown that snus users have the same health status as the general Swedish population. There are no increased levels of cancers (in fact, one study I read showed the cancer levels of snus users was lower by .1%), and its mostly invisible when used in public. Other than the product's cost or the desire to no longer be addicted, there's no real reason for a user to give up snus.

American tobacco would love to be in the same position. And they'll find a way to do it. Otherwise, they're doomed.
posted by pandaharma at 12:05 AM on September 23, 2005

I've read that instead of doing as you say, panda, they're more focused on the 2nd and 3rd-world markets, and essentially writing off America.
posted by amberglow at 6:12 AM on September 23, 2005

Very true, about the re-focus on the 3rd world. I had forgotten about that.

Still, I would think the first world markets would be lucrative enough for them to pursue alternate technologies. RJR is already taking a big chance with their Eclipse brand. The tech is already available. All they would have to do is make it attractive, portable, and work on the flavor.

Considering how picky a lot of smokers are about the flavor and texture, the last item is the only thing which would need serious work. The rest of it would be a fairly simple engineering project. I could see recharable cigarettes/vaporizers in an ipod style package selling brilliantly.
posted by pandaharma at 6:29 AM on September 23, 2005

The quitting thing: I used the patch. It works, and you're not going to have as many cravings because your nicotine level is stable. You will gain weight as your metabolism slows down, although excercise helps a bit. And never, ever assume that you can have a smoke if you're sitting with a smoker -- even if you've been two years without a smoke. You'll never be a non-smoker, always a smoker who just isn't smoking.

I've quit three times so far: both times I thought I could just have one. Hopefully this time round is the charm.
posted by jrochest at 4:59 PM on September 23, 2005

Another vote for the patch. Worked like a beaut.
posted by Wolof at 1:24 AM on September 24, 2005