Are they serious...50 years of progress cuts smoking rates in half

[DustyZ]

This just really got me, there is no end to all of the BS being put out there.

Part of the article claiming this are what has contributed to the success of having people stop smoking.

How?
“(With) taxes, strong smoke-free laws and fully funding state tobacco prevention programs,” says Dr. Mariell Jessup, president of the American Heart Association. “These measures can reduce the number of adult smokers to less than 10 percent of the population in 10 years.”
Also, raising the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21 would go a long way to stopping kids from ever getting addicted in the first place, the Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids and other groups agree.
“We do it with booze yet we don’t do it with cigarettes, when cigarettes kill about 10 times more people than alcohol does,” says Dr. Michael Fiore of the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention.
Smoking is often just another marker for social and economic disparities, Fiore adds. “Fewer than 10 percent of college graduates smoke,” Fiore points out. But 35 percent of people who never graduated from high school do.
“Two things will solve this issue over time and eliminate tobacco use. One is hard-hitting public policy. At the same time, we need the ready availability of treatments for smokers.”

Here the entire article: 50 years of progress cuts smoking rates in half  — but can we ever get to zero? - NBC News.com

 

[MorpheusPA]

Alcohol isn't addictive to most people, but it does impair judgement and motor skills, leading to major problems up to and including death for the person and for others.

Nicotine is addictive to most people, but doesn't impair judgement or motor skills. To date, there are very few nicotine-related deaths on books. Said usage has never killed anybody else.

I fail to see the parallels myself, but perhaps I'm too sensible. I'm also not a Prohibitionist, nor am I particularly worked up about minor addictions like nicotine (sans the cigarette, of course) and caffeine.

 

[rothenbj]

They also haven't used the same methods to determine alcohol related deaths. Sure you can die of heart disease as a smoker, but you can also die of heart disease as a drinker. Then you have Cirrhosis, Dementia, Depression, High blood pressure and Diabetes. Now use the standard of considering anyone that had more than 99 drinks in their lives as a drinker and consider all mortality in any of the drinking associated diseases as being a direct result of alcohol. Add in all the deaths resulting from accidents to the mortality count and you have a pretty strong case against drinking. Confounding factors need not apply.

 

[Kent C]

Blowing Smoke About Tobacco-Related Deaths | Cato Institute

 

[Vocalek]

I'm not sure why our government is breaking its arm to pat itself on the back. I recall hearing somewhere that the original goal for adult smoking for Healthy People 2010 was 10%, but was adjusted upward when it became obvious they could not possibly make it. In this historical document, the goal is set at 12% for 2010. ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/Datasets/DATA2010/Focusarea27/O2701a.pdf

That didn't work out so well: "The percentage of adults aged 18 and over who were current cigarette smokers (objective 27-1a) decreased 12.5% between 1998 and 2008, from 24% to 21% (age adjusted), moving toward the 2010 target of 12%. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hpdata2010/hp2010_final_review_leading_health_indicators.pdf

See how they had to settle for 21% working out to "moving toward the 2010 target" of 12%?

Is that like aiming for a 3 minute mile, changing the goal to a 4 minute mile, and considering yourself to be moving toward that target when you cut your time from 8 minute to 7 minutes?

The baseline for Healthy People 2020 is based on 2008 current smoker stats of 20.6. The goal for 2020 is....... tada.....12%. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/healthy_people/toolkit/pdfs/hp-presentation.pdf

And our 2020 goal for running the mile is..... 4 minutes. Hey! We've made it all the way down to 7:40 already. We're on our way!

Anyone have a feeling of deja vu all over again?

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

If they would give e-cigarettes a chance they might beat their 2020 goal, the ANTZ would be POed but those who actually cared about our health would be partying.

Never happen, requires use of something that is uncommon in DC, common sense.

 

[Rickajho]

"Smoking is often just another marker for social and economic disparities, Fiore adds. “Fewer than 10 percent of college graduates smoke,” Fiore points out. But 35 percent of people who never graduated from high school do.
“Two things will solve this issue over time and eliminate tobacco use. One is hard-hitting public policy. At the same time, we need the ready availability of treatments for smokers.”

That has to be the most unabashedly patriarchal piece of clatrap I've read in... about 5 minutes. It's truly amazing this "gotta manage the 'po people" mindset is still so unashamedly pervasive in what - in theory - should be a progressive country.

 

[DC2]

That has to be the most unabashedly patriarchal piece of clatrap I've read in... about 5 minutes. It's truly amazing this "gotta manage the 'po people" mindset is still so unashamedly pervasive in what - in theory - should be a progressive country.

Hmmmmm... managing the people... I've never heard it put that way before.

Rings true. Definitely scary. Not what I want my government to do.
Not what I want the mainstream media to participate in.

Guess I'm too late to object, given that is what is happening all around us.

 

[AgentAnia]

Hmmmmm... managing the people... I've never heard it put that way before.

Rings true. Definitely scary. Not what I want my government to do.
Not what I want the mainstream media to participate in.

Guess I'm too late to object, given that is what is happening all around us.

Managing the people = social engineering. Been going on for years (though w/ somewhat more subtilty than recently, or maybe we're just paying more attention... I think the British call it "nudging"?)

 

[RosaJ]

I don't think the "good doctor" lives in the same planet as the rest of us! The arrogance of thinking that "they" can control the whole American population.

 

[Rickajho]

Yeah, this is what they gotta resort to now since that whole eugenics things proved to be so downright tasteless. But subtle? Hell no. She didn't exactly say "Only the dumb ones smoke" - but she said it...

 

[AgentAnia]

Yeah, this is what they gotta resort to now since that whole eugenics things proved to be so downright tasteless. But subtle? Hell no. She didn't exactly say "Only the dumb ones smoke" - but she said it...

Do you remember the study that said that because the number of smokers in mental health facilities was higher than in the general population, it proved that smokers were mentally ill? I read it last year, but unfortunately didn't bookmark it. Anyone remember that?

 

[rothenbj]

Managing the people = social engineering. Been going on for years (though w/ somewhat more subtilty than recently, or maybe we're just paying more attention... I think the British call it "nudging"?)

It's not managing the people, more like herding the sheeple.

 

[Fulgurant]

The alternative title just didn't have the same ring to it: "30 years of progress cut smoking rates in half, then 20 years of corrupt stupidity accomplished absolutely nothing worthwhile, but who wants smoking rates at zero anyway?"

What's striking about the history of the anti-smoking movement is that almost all of the success for which tobacco control takes credit took place before most of the intrusive social-engineering measures started. Education solved the problem to the extent that it could be solved -- or to put it another way, an informed public cured itself to the extent that it wished to cure itself. What remains is a fundamental (and likely willful) misunderstanding about human nature: tobacco control experts believe that people who still smoke are either too stupid to make their own decisions, or sooo addicted to evil tobacco that they have no power to make their own decisions.

What they cannot or will not understand is that using tobacco isn't a joyless process. We (human beings) don't make day-to-day or even long-term decisions solely on the basis of health. We like using tobacco. Of course that doesn't mean that a lot of us wouldn't like to improve our health, but it is counter-productive to dismiss the fact that we also, at least on some level, wish to keep smoking.

For poorer people, people in high-stress/low-reward jobs, smoking is one of the few pleasures consistently available. That's why regressive sin taxes aren't fair or reasonable. Poor people are perfectly capable of reading the Surgeon General's Warning blazoned on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. Since when did advocating for the masses require looking down on them?

 

[DC2]

One "like" is not enough for that post, but it's all I got...

 

[Kent C]

What remains is a fundamental (and likely willful) misunderstanding about human nature: tobacco control experts believe that people who still smoke are either too stupid to make their own decisions, or sooo addicted to evil tobacco that they have no power to make their own decisions.

....as they sip their cocktails. .... or lattes.

Nice post.

 

[Sundodger]

Alcohol isn't addictive to most people, but it does impair judgement and motor skills, leading to major problems up to and including death for the person and for others.

After reading the entire link, I must agree. The well intentioned Dr. needs to seek out some help, before he has an influence on our health choices. ;-(

 

[Orb Skewer]

What next ? fat peeple ?

Oh wait.

BBC News - Can anti-smoking tactics solve obesity crisis?

 

[Vocalek]

The alternative title just didn't have the same ring to it: "30 years of progress cut smoking rates in half, then 20 years of corrupt stupidity accomplished absolutely nothing worthwhile, but who wants smoking rates at zero anyway?"

What's striking about the history of the anti-smoking movement is that almost all of the success for which tobacco control takes credit took place before most of the intrusive social-engineering measures started. Education solved the problem to the extent that it could be solved -- or to put it another way, an informed public cured itself to the extent that it wished to cure itself. What remains is a fundamental (and likely willful) misunderstanding about human nature: tobacco control experts believe that people who still smoke are either too stupid to make their own decisions, or sooo addicted to evil tobacco that they have no power to make their own decisions.

What they cannot or will not understand is that using tobacco isn't a joyless process. We (human beings) don't make day-to-day or even long-term decisions solely on the basis of health. We like using tobacco. Of course that doesn't mean that a lot of us wouldn't like to improve our health, but it is counter-productive to dismiss the fact that we also, at least on some level, wish to keep smoking.

For poorer people, people in high-stress/low-reward jobs, smoking is one of the few pleasures consistently available. That's why regressive sin taxes aren't fair or reasonable. Poor people are perfectly capable of reading the Surgeon General's Warning blazoned on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. Since when did advocating for the masses require looking down on them?

I just read a study report that confirmed my suspicion that scare tactics don't work very well in motivating smokers to quit.
A qualitative study of lung cancer risk per... [Nicotine Tob Res. 2014] - PubMed - NCBI

Nicotine Tob Res. 2014 Feb;16(2):166-73. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt133. Epub 2013 Sep 2.
A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.
Park ER, Streck JM, Gareen IF, Ostroff JS, Hyland KA, Rigotti NA, Pajolek H, Nichter M.
Author information
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Cancer Society recently released lung screening guidelines that include smoking cessation counseling for smokers undergoing screening. Previous work indicates that smoking behaviors and risk perceptions of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants were relatively unchanged. We explored American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)/NLST former and current smokers' risk perceptions specifically to (a) determine whether lung screening is a cue for behavior change, (b) elucidate risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, and (c) explore postscreening behavioral intentions and changes.
METHODS:
A random sample of 35 participants from 4 ACRIN sites were qualitatively interviewed 1-2 years postscreen. We used a structured interview guide based on Health Belief Model and Self-Regulation Model constructs. Content analyses were conducted with NVivo 8.
RESULTS:
Most participants endorsed high-risk perceptions for lung cancer and smoking-related diseases, but heightened concern about these risks did not appear to motivate participants to seek screening. Risk perceptions were mostly attributed to participants' heavy smoking histories; former smokers expressed greatly reduced risk. Lung cancer and smoking-related diseases were perceived as very severe although participants endorsed low worry. Current smokers had low confidence in their ability to quit, and none reported quitting following their initial screen.
CONCLUSIONS:
Lung screening did not appear to be a behavior change cue to action, and high-risk perceptions did not translate into quitting behaviors. Cognitive and emotional dissonance and avoidance strategies may deter engagement in smoking behavior change. Smoking cessation and prevention interventions during lung screening should explore risk perceptions, emotions, and quit confidence.