WHO: 1 Billion killed from Tobacco by 2100

[stig]

OK this is a bunch of $%&@#!!! The website for the American Cancer Society says that lung cancer killed about 160,440 people in 2004 and that the most common cause of lung cancer comes from cigarette smoking. ABout 87% of cancer deaths are related to smoking. That being said, 160,440 multiplied by 100 gives us 16,044,000 and 87 percent of that = 13,958,280. Second hand smoke accounts for 3000 deaths per year (again all information from the same site) so that would be another 300,000 deaths over 100 years bringing us to the year 2100, total 14,258,280. Now even if the next ten forms of cancer and smoking related illnesses were to bost the same numers we are still a long way from a Billion that's 1,000,000,000. Now i'm not saying that 14,258,280 is a small number but I'm thinking that the billion number might just be a little exagerated or someone made an honest mistake and carried a decimal plae a bit to far to right before submitting these numbers. Just my

[gamayrouge]

How come they don't mention how many people died as a result of alcohol? I'm sure the # is a lot greater.

[kjjm4]

Probably not from alcohol consumption. Maybe if you count fatal accidents involving alcohol, but I doubt the numbers that die from illness related to alcohol abuse are as high as the numbers that die from diseases related to smoking.

[Youngsmoke]

I hate to beat an old stick, but...

I have never, in my life, known anybody who has died from lung cancer under 80 years old. I swear on everything holy.

However, I have had 2 relatives die of breast cancer.

It just makes me think how reliable these statistics are. They are also so vague that it makes me sick.

[Cheeto]

Originally Posted by Youngsmoke

I hate to beat an old stick, but...

I have never, in my life, known anybody who has died from lung cancer under 80 years old. I swear on everything holy.

However, I have had 2 relatives die of breast cancer.

It just makes me think how reliable these statistics are. They are also so vague that it makes me sick.

There are so many other variables that are never looked at when coming up with smoke related statistics. Like past family health, other environmental carcinogens and pollution in the air, even the definition of a "smoker" can't be agreed upon.

Yes, burning a weed an breathing in the smoke is unhealthy. But it's certainly not the only factor out there. And us cigar and pipe smokers are affected even less

[Pat1075]

What pisses me off is this is used as reasoning to tax us more because we are "harming ourselves and others" while we are being segregated more and more from the greater population on a daily basis with smoking bans. But even in the places where you are still lucky enough to still have smoking sections in bars and restaurants they are against cigar and pipe smokers.
The taxes that are imposed are insane where I live its 70% of MSRP on cigars forcing retailers to cut into their profit if they want to make any sales. Most of the time the tax money isn't even used for anything related to lung diseases or the things the lung association claims to be the problems that our second hand or even first hand smoke causes for that reason. Additionally these are regressive taxes a way to tax those with less money after those elected said they were going to cut the taxes for low income familys. This usually being the case for cigarettes. But then again I'm just pissed As I get taxed every day wether its on my cigar, my pack of cigarettes, or my pipe tobacco.