Quit smoking, live 5 years less

[caramel]

With smoking at an all time low, "the life expectancy for low-income, uneducated white women has dropped by five years over the last quarter century, from 78 years in 1990 to 73 in 2008, according to a 2013 study in Health Affairs."

Lung Cancer Lurks in Worsening Female Health Data | Womens eNews

They come up with a convoluted way to blame it on smoking, yet the data is what it is. Women smoke less and die younger.

Could it be that smoking protects from other ailments? Yes, you'll die from lung cancer, but 5 years later than you would otherwise died form breast cancer or other issues if you were not smoking?

 

[EBates]

According to the ALA not raising Taxes is the cause.
"Authors called 2014 a "disappointing year" because little progress was made to improve lung health. The federal government did not increase federal tobacco taxes or give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration oversight over e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, and no states passed comprehensive smoke-free laws or significantly increased tobacco taxes, the report states."

 

[AndriaD]

I think it probably has more to do with the poor diets that low-income, uneducated people consume -- and nowadays there is a lot more garbage food available for lower prices than ever before. Which is why people get fat; they're trying to feed their body's authentic hunger and needs, but crap food won't do it, so they eat more because their body is still hungry -- a fatal cycle. Truly nutritive food costs a bit more, and it requires some knowledge to identify -- low-income and uneducated doesn't fit that too well. I'm somewhat low-income, but I've spent a lot of years trying to understand nutrition and physiology, so even without a college degree, I've managed to stay within rock-throwing distance of my ideal weight, pretty much my whole life. Nutrition really needs to be a required course in every grade of public school.

Andria

 

[caramel]

@EBates : But wasn't exactly "raising taxes" that directed the "low-income, uneducated" category to other methods of entertainment than smoking, with the outcome of shortening their lifes with 5 years?

How is it moral/ethical/useful from a "public health" perspective to keep doing that or even aggravate it?

 

[AndriaD]

How is it ethical to keep raising taxes with the ostensible goal of "improving lung health" when they use the money for EVERYTHING ELSE? Our gov't is a MASTER of prestidigitation and sleight of hand -- keep us so busy watching the latest Big Thing we don't notice how they are STEALING our money for whatever purpose they wish to put it. Raising taxes doesn't "improve lung health," it just makes poor people poorer and the gov't richer.

Besides which, "improving lung health" can EASILY be accomplished with vaping instead of smoking... and you see how that's going. Given a REAL opportunity to "improve lung health," they're running away as fast as their thieving legs will take them.

Vive le revolution!

Andria

 

[Stubby]

I think it probably has more to do with the poor diets that low-income, uneducated people consume -- and nowadays there is a lot more garbage food available for lower prices than ever before. Which is why people get fat; they're trying to feed their body's authentic hunger and needs, but crap food won't do it, so they eat more because their body is still hungry -- a fatal cycle. Truly nutritive food costs a bit more, and it requires some knowledge to identify -- low-income and uneducated doesn't fit that too well. I'm somewhat low-income, but I've spent a lot of years trying to understand nutrition and physiology, so even without a college degree, I've managed to stay within rock-throwing distance of my ideal weight, pretty much my whole life. Nutrition really needs to be a required course in every grade of public school.

Andria

It doesn't necessarily cost more to eat nutritious food, but it has to be available. Many low income areas are food deserts. When all that is available are 24 hour quick marts and fast food restaurants, and the nearest good sized grocery store is miles away it doesn't make for a situation that lends itself to healthy eating. It takes a good amount of extra effect to get good food in many areas. Easier to just go to the local fast food place or get frozen pizza.

 

[AndriaD]

It doesn't necessarily cost more to eat nutritious food, but it has to be available. Many low income areas are food deserts. When all that is available are 24 hour quick marts and fast food restaurants, and the nearest good sized grocery store is miles away it doesn't make for a situation that lends itself to healthy eating. It takes a good amount of extra effect to get good food in many areas. Easier to just go to the local fast food place or get frozen pizza.

True -- and when you consider that perfectly well-educated often don't read labels, how the heck can you expect under-educated people to try and read print so fine you need a magnifying glass to see it? Also older people -- I learned a while back to ALWAYS keep a spare pair of readers in my purse, just in case I forget my good ones -- nothing goes in my cart till I make sure it doesn't have any number of bad things that I either can't or won't consume -- lots of people won't make the effort.

But if you eat crappy food, you're going to have crappy health -- it's inescapable, and the problems compounds with every year older -- I could get away with all sorts of crap food when I was young; now in my mid-50s, I see a direct and strong correlation between eating junk, and feeling like junk.

Andria

 

[vincom]

it never made sense, raising taxes hurts the poor, the rich couldnt care less.
an addict will do what it takes to get their fix and the govt's solution was to make money off of them and not actually help in getting people off smokes.
that money never went back to the people w/the tobacco addiction.
they have drug rehab centers but no tobacco rehabs.
problem, vaping has helped more people in a short time to quit or to decrease their smoking habit/addiction.
in light of this govts are not getting their estimated tax revenue so hence the war on vaping.
the govt is addicted to tobacco taxes from end users and payouts from big tobacco as they pay for how many cigs are sold in lieu of lawsuits, eg California .
the situation is sic indeed

 

[motordude]

I'm not a female but why such studies are done I don't know. We are not going to live forever.
No where in this article does it mention quality of life. Life has other variables.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I'm not a female but why such studies are done I don't know. We are not going to live forever.
No where in this article does it mention quality of life. Life has other variables.

Quality of life is only use by government entities to justify higher taxes or more regulations.

 

[philoshop]

I'm not a misogynist in any way, but did anyone not stop to think of the downside to 'equal rights'?

 

[Kent C]

I'm with Andria - smoking suppresses appetite -> stopping smoking increases appetite -> low income = less nutritious food -> leading to ailments related to that.

Same for men :- )

 

[AndriaD]

This fits perfectly with my own observation of a good friend of our family. He smoked since his teens; in mid-life, he struggled with his weight, but managed to stay fairly fit, perhaps only a bit overweight -- he had the stocky "fireplug" build, but generally stayed in decent shape. But when he passed age 65, he gave up smoking -- gained more than 50 lbs; less that a year later, suffered a fatal heart attack.

Had he not quit smoking, he might still have suffered that heart attack... but maybe 5 yrs later?

Andria

 

[Kent C]

This fits perfectly with my own observation of a good friend of our family. He smoked since his teens; in mid-life, he struggled with his weight, but managed to stay fairly fit, perhaps only a bit overweight -- he had the stocky "fireplug" build, but generally stayed in decent shape. But when he passed age 65, he gave up smoking -- gained more than 50 lbs; less that a year later, suffered a fatal heart attack.

Had he not quit smoking, he might still have suffered that heart attack... but maybe 5 yrs later?

Andria

Saw a lot of this at the docks during the 80's where the TC were cracking down on smoking and the cig taxes were skyrocketing. There was this one guy whose nickname was 'Lee Harvey' because he kinda looked like Oswald - ie rather skinny, similar eyes - quit smoking and went from about 120 lbs to 250 in about 5-6 years. Same for 'Sniffer' (don't ask :- ) and quite a few others, but not that percentage of gain.

 

[caramel]

[...]But if you eat crappy food, you're going to have crappy health -- it's inescapable,[...]

But if there's such crappy food out there that's capable of shortening your life with 5 years (similar to what Antz claim for smoking), shouldn't FDA crack down on it with equal force as they do for cigarettes? Gory pictures, indoor ban? Designated junk food eating areas? Etc?

 

[AndriaD]

But if there's such crappy food out there that's capable of shortening your life with 5 years (similar to what Antz claim for smoking), shouldn't FDA crack down on it with equal force as they do for cigarettes? Gory pictures, indoor ban? Designated junk food eating areas? Etc?

Why would they ever do that, when they're getting such awesome payoffs from the grocery industry? they keep saying that incidence of asthma is skyrocketing... yet they STILL permit anyone to put sulfites in foods, which can KILL an asthmatic. Asthmatics are already some 25% of the population -- so in effect, they don't care if 25% of the population DIES due to them not forbidding such a lethal ingredient, which serves NO PURPOSE WHATEVER except to keep foods from browning.

They don't give a rat's patootie about anyone's health; it's a huge masquerade, in the quest of MO MONEY -- for them.

Andria

 

[sofarsogood]

Speaking of healthy food, back in the day I had some years of hard physical training. I went to the government RDA's and used a computer program to figure out an optimal diet. It turns out the diet we are designed to run on and be the most fit is very inexpensive, is not many calories and can be quite boring unless you have a strong incentive to stick to it. The hard part is keeping the fat percent low. I'd bet my money that the American diet takes more years off life expectancy than tobacco.

 

[EBates]

Well I missed the part of the story that made dietary recommendations for these "low-income, uneducated white women" or the suggestion of their where to shop for a more healthy diet. Probably oversight on my part, but I definitely heard the mantra 'More Regulation and Taxes'. From our current 'Government' what else would you expect.

 

[DC2]

It only makes sense that the best diet is what we ate while evolution brought us here.
That would be, after all, what our bodies evolved to work with.

So yeah, meat and plants, and some fruit.

It is also of interest that such a diet could be had without any packaged crap.
And without any artificial ingredients.

And you will lose a lot of weight if you try such a diet.
And your good cholesterol will go way up.

EDIT: Assuming of course, you believe that evolution brought us here

 

[caramel]

Another angle: maybe the government is aware that the average life expectancy of the population is trending downwards and once this becomes public knowledge, questions will be asked. So they're engaged in desperate efforts to prop it up by forced quit smoking and other programs that they hope would compensate other factors like poverty, stress, pollution, poor diet, inadequate healthcare etc. 'Cause at some point people might want to know why they have to work more and live less. And "because competition" answer won't hold forever when you express it in years of life instead of wages.