True or False: Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer

[FLExJuice]

I was Googling the average number of puffs/drags per cigarette to make a comparison with e-cigs and stumbled upon an article that claims "Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer." What do you guys think about this? True or False?
Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer | www.SmokingFeelsGood.com

That's right -- science has yet to establish a definite causal relationship between smoking and the development of cancer. Any anti-smoking material that you see where they shoot off some little factoid about how "smoking causes cancer" is simply dishonest. Does smoking increase the risk of some cancers? Are there studies showing strong correlations between smoking and some cancers? Sure. But, at this point in time, it is medically accurate to say that smoking does not cause cancer.
Check out the Wikipedia article entitled Health Effects of Smoking. Pay close attention to the language used -- you'll see terms like "may lead to," "has been associated with / linked to," "there is a strong correlation," "increases risk of," but never has it been conclusively determined that smoking causes cancer.
Finally, buried about halfway through that same Wikipedia article is the following excerpt, essentially admitting that no study has found a definite link between smoking and cancer:
The health effects of tobacco have been significant for the development of the science of epidemiology. As the mechanism of carcinogenicity is radiomimetic or radiological, the effects are stochastic. Definite statements can be made only on the relative increased or decreased probabilities of contracting a given disease; For a particular individual, it is impossible to definitively prove a direct causal link between exposure to a radiomimetic poison such as tobacco smoke and the cancer that follows; such statements can only be made at the aggregate population level. Tobacco companies have capitalized on this philosophical objection and exploited the doubts of clinicians, who consider only individual cases, on the causal link in the stochastic expression of the toxicity as actual disease.[200]
So, while we all know smoking isn't good for you, and we suspect it could contribute to cancer risk in some cases, we can confidently tell our anti-smoking friends and coworkers they are wrong when they throw those "smoking causes cancer" buzz phrases at us.
By the way, I'm not a smoker, but I firmly support the right of individuals to smoke if they so choose.

 

[e-pipeman]

Not really worth taking the chance, is it?

 

[LucentShadow]

That depends upon one's personal understanding and interpretation of the language involved.

I'd go with true. Some heavy smokers grow old and die from causes other than cancer. It is also said that death from cancer is assured for all, if something else does not cause death first.

 

[ClippinWings]

Sounds right.

But only on a semantic level.

I mean, let's be honest... there will never be a human study done on smoking that doesn't have uncontrolled variables(food types eaten during study, environmental impacts, etc.)

So while Semantically "correct"... it's a bit of a stretch from a logic and reason standpoint.

----

Speaking of semantics and logic... the one that has bugged me lately is the ANTZ repeated statement that "There are no studies showing that eCigarettes are safe" (or some variation, there of)

Why does it bother me?

Because there never will be a study that shows that.

Lack of proof doesn't prove. It's one of the basic tenets of Logic. You can't prove a negative.

The burden of proof should, logically, lie in proving they are as harmful as cigarettes... or harmful at all.

However, if you word it the right way, it certainly sounds damning... even if it is actually meaningless.

 

[Mortificant]

Sure, but the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity would like to have a word with you.

 

[e-pipeman]

The inclusion of things like ammonia and benzine in cigarettes make me not want to inhale tobacco any more. I also recall that three days after I had started vaping I could walk twice as quickly. Anecdotal, sure - but I won't return to tobacco.

I also feel that Governments would be unlikely to kill a cash cow without very compelling reasons for them to do so (e.g. it is killing people).

 

[FLExJuice]

Not really worth taking the chance, is it?

I'm with you on that.

Plus the bad smell....and I sure hate seeing smokers toss their butts out the car window.

 

[FLExJuice]

Sounds right.

But only on a semantic level.

I mean, let's be honest... there will never be a human study done on smoking that doesn't have uncontrolled variables(food types eaten during study, environmental impacts, etc.)

So while Semantically "correct"... it's a bit of a stretch from a logic and reason standpoint.

----

Speaking of semantics and logic... the one that has bugged me lately is the ANTZ repeated statement that "There are no studies showing that eCigarettes are safe" (or some variation, there of)

Why does it bother me?

Because there never will be a study that shows that.

Lack of proof doesn't prove. It's one of the basic tenets of Logic. You can't prove a negative.

The burden of proof should, logically, lie in proving they are as harmful as cigarettes... or harmful at all.

However, if you word it the right way, it certainly sounds damning... even if it is actually meaningless.

I was wondering if statements like "smoking causes cancer" even helps our cause to convert smokers to vaping or just cold turkey.

On a different note, I had a talk with a pro body builder and he said many body builders that go into their cutting phase in preparation for a contest will supplement nicotine either by smoking a cigarette or use of nicotine patches, inhalers or pills.

It does bug me when people think nicotine causes cancer.

 

[cmdebrecht]

The language used in the article quoted is typical of medical language. "May lead to" is about as definitive as study-type language can get. There are very few medical conditions that will ALWAYS come about due to habits or behaviors. So even despite all the studies linking smoking to cancer, it is not going to always cause cancer in smokers. Just like overeating is not always going to lead to diabetes or heart attack.

That being said, I know that since I quit smoking I feel a heckuva lot healthier; and I feel better about reducing my risk for diseases said to be linked to smoking.

Statistics can be used to make almost any case for or against a behavior/diet/variable. What we all need to do, no matter what kind of information we are being presented with, is to try to discern the truth therein. This requires logic and careful thought, and avoiding letting our emotions take over our process of understanding. In other words, we have to use common sense when we read and hear information. Sadly, this seems to be lacking in way too many individuals. Sigh.

 

[ScottP]

Analog smoke does contain known carcinogens. However, being exposed to a carcinogen is not a guarantee of getting cancer. Think of it like buying a lottery ticket with the prize being cancer. The more you play (by being exposed), the better your odds of "winning". Personally, I would rather not play at all.

 

[Frankenmizer]

False - smoking tobacco products does cause cancer. That science is proven.

 

[mare ze dotes]

I don't post often, but I have to say.... What?

 

[DC2]

On a different note, I had a talk with a pro body builder and he said many body builders that go into their cutting phase in preparation for a contest will supplement nicotine either by smoking a cigarette or use of nicotine patches, inhalers or pills.

The World Anti-Doping Agency is considering adding nicotine to the list of banned performance enhancing drugs...
Nicotine could be put on list of banned substances - Olympics - ESPN

 

[SissySpike]

I guess it could be true but smoking causes respiratory problems no getting around that. Thats why I switched to vaping. Shortness of breathe during strenuous activitys. That faint weez at night some times hacking up a lung every time I laughed hard. Its all gone now.

 

[ClippinWings]

False - smoking tobacco products does cause cancer. That science is proven.

read that sentence again.

Now consider it is a strictly literal sense(as medical and scientific needs would require)

the correct sentence is "smoking tobacco products MAY cause cancer" otherwise, I'd have cancer... and I don't... there are a lot of smokers who never get cancer.

You must be absolutely certain when speaking in absolutes...

 

[UncleChuck]

I find it odd rates of cancer are increasing white rates of smoking are decreasing.

By the type of logic the government and its agencies use, that right there should be proof positive smoking does not cause cancer.

I'm not saying it doesn't, just saying the government picks and chooses which facts to look at in order to support conclusions they already made. If information doesn't fit their idea they throw it out. That's junk science whether it's true that smoking causes cancer or not.

Personally I believe smoking can cause cancer, but is responsible for only a tiny fraction of the cancers blamed on it. it only recently became acceptable to blame a virus for cancer, I think if we actually increase our medical knowledge we'll find smoking was more harmless than we thought, and other things were far more dangerous than thought. But it's easier and more profitable for the government and medical community to blame the ciggy boogey man and be done with it.

 

[skoony]

lung cancer rates are going up.
not amoung smokers,but non-smokers that dont live with smokers.
ajusted for enviromental and economic factors smokers today dont
get lung cancer at a higher rate than the non smoking population.

so there you go.
regards mike

 

[Forkeh]

Well I don't think it's as simple of an equation as smoking = cancer. Black and white. I think there are other factors at play. Genes for example, I believe play a huge roll in whether or not a smoker will get cancer, environmental factors. How else could you explain someone who's never smoked a single tobacco product getting Lung Cancer? But it happens.

But here's the thing, the big c isn't all smokers have to worry about. COPD, Emphysema, Cardiovascular disease. It's not all about the cancer.

 

[Ryedan]

lung cancer rates are going up.
not amoung smokers,but non-smokers that dont live with smokers.
ajusted for enviromental and economic factors smokers today dont
get lung cancer at a higher rate than the non smoking population.

so there you go.
regards mike

Inrteresting. Can I please see the data on that.

 

[stevegmu]

I read study once that stated 35% of the world's population will get cancer of some sort in their lifetime. Doesn't matter where they live or how they live. Is one more prone to develop a type of cancer if they smoke? Most likely.