Jman, whether it can be nailed down and carved in stone or not for most many decades smokers the anecdotal evidence combined with the real numbers like percentage of population that are smokers is compelling. For those who have witnessed the decline in overall health in themselves and others and also experienced the change after quitting smoking either cold turkey or vaping or whatever means worked for them the difference is dramatic.
So going by the numbers, 20% (I believe this is on the low end) of the adult population are smokers. In the US that would be somewhere around 40 to 50 million folks. The near half a million deaths number widely reported to be associated with smoking would be about 1 in 100 each year or near certainty if you smoked for 100 years. I smoked for almost 40 years myself and where my health was heading before switching to vaping left me with no doubt smoking was killing me.
I would concede that a lot of the data is skewed in favor of the scare crew with deaths often counted smoking related even if the cause is vague. Irregardless of what the number really is smoking does reduce both quality and length of life and quitting smoking can make for changes in both of those. As far as anyone knows at this point vaping is at minimum orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking so if you can reduce those numbers by tenfold then it should receive every bit of support we can muster without regard to what those actual numbers are.
For me you could have ended it with the below and it would say the same thing. Some may argue that many things kill and that is true and thats what harm reduction is all about, we are always going to do things that are not wholly compatible with living from driving a car to living in a city filled with smog. Doing what can be done to reduce the potential harm from those things just makes sense.
Diseases linked to it kill.
Mostly responding to the parts I bolded.
For me, the idea that anyone has smoked for 40 years is fairly significant point that is tough to reconcile with "this will kill you." By this sort of standard, lots of things "kill." I think a good example would be working / a job. One might say, it depends on the job. But that would lead me to my other significant point that it would (greatly) depend on how much one is smoking. If it were stated as "consistently abusive smoking will drastically impact your health," that would read as more accurate than going with "smoking kills." Or even "smoking harms." I don't think moderate smoking is 'completely harmless,' but also cannot think of anything on planet earth that is 'completely harmless.' If you can, I'd like to know about it.
In my own experience, abusive smoking by me, family members, friends and then people I've heard about has in almost all cases led to debilitation of their (or my) health. It would seem foolish to suggest otherwise. But equally foolish, IMO, to downplay all pros for smoking and prop up a significant con of harm that is not balanced with umpteen other things that cause or correlate to harm (arguably all things).
Prior to existence of eCigs, I honestly thought moderate smoking was not possible for me. Yet, I've seen friends who could do it, or heard of people that have done it. Heard of people who were 100+ years in age and still smoking. So, smoking for 80+ years and 'not killed yet.' I humorously wonder if centenarian who smokes and dies at 113 years old if a) that is premature death and b) is death by smoking? To think of that in a serious way, humors me even more.
Now with existence of eCigs, I wonder if abusive smoking is still possible for majority. During this grand transition period we are in, it sure as heck seems like it is possible to keep on with abusive smoking. But given my experience where I thought it simply not possible for me, and now I am the moderate smoker for not weeks or months, but years, it really seems like the playing field has changed. Dramatically.
Cessation from smoking can be wonderful. I know from experience. But the pros that come from nicotine and can be had from moderate smoking / regular vaping, aren't way off / dramatic difference from going cold turkey. It is so rare that people even consider pros with regards to smoking, and yet I think it is reason #1 (2, 3 and 4) why people continue smoking. With reason #5 being addiction / willpower. As the pros are so significantly downplayed while the 'smoking kills' meme is so routinely propped up, it is beyond the notion of '
data is skewed in favor of the scare crew.' More like data is entirely lopsided to only consider the scare crew's position and only viable option from that camp is cessation (or die).
Anyway, I really do appreciate your post, as it didn't come off to me as all that contentious while striving for sense of balance which I was compelled to speak to. As I usually am. Seems like the "abusive" part of "smoking kills" is routinely left off and thus the lack of obvious balance, I find, is all too easy to poke holes in. And enjoyable as well.
