Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbj1968 | Hacker News Reader

pbj1968

I still remember smoking on airplanes. Towards the end, they used to sequester them and close a curtain as though that protected us. Weird times of the tyranny of the minority. It did make for easy times to get a table during the “first available” twilight period of going to restaurants. One of my elders remarked, “nobody is actually smoking in this section.” Shh!

Habitual smokers were never over 50% in America - look it up.

And 2 out of 3 of them died from causes unrelated to smoking.

So it goes.

View on HN

> Habitual smokers were never over 50% in America - look it up.

Stats on this really only go back to 1965, when pretty close to half of US adults smoked. But that’s 15 years after the link between cancer and smoking was established, it’s after doctors had gone from endorsing smoking to testifying against it, and after the ban on advertising smokings “health benefits”.

I’d be very surprised if less than half of US adults smoked in the early 50s and prior. The only thing I imagine could confound that would be the fact that women were quite a bit less likely to smoke than men were, but even in the earliest statistics available about 1/3 of them did.

2 out of 3 died from causes unrelated to smoking, means that 1 out of 3 died from something that was not able to kill others, except via second hand smoke, which is ignored. There are very few things where we accept 1:2 fatality rates at all.

The bigger issue of course is presenting smoking as being a personal choice. That's only the case if smoking in no way impacts anyone else, which is not the case. Workers in industries where smoking was permitted show many of the symptoms regular smokers get, regardless of their personal smoking habits (70% according to https://www.fightcancer.org/policy-resources/effects-secondh...). e.g. a personal acceptance of choosing to smoke and saying "I accept the risk of smoking related illness" is similar to saying "I accept the risk of driving while drunk" in that it acknowledges the risk of harm to the person making the choice, but disregards the impact of that choice on everyone else.

Only on HN can I read a comment lamenting that we stopped allowing smoking in public places and being like, "it wasn't even that dangerous, it only killed 33% of the people who did it." :)

>> And 2 out of 3 of them died from causes unrelated to smoking.

I mean, OK, 2 thirds didn't die from smoking. But 1 third DID. So basically you're saying that since smoking only killed one-in-three, it somehow wasn't the big deal people made it out to be?

And that's -before- we discuss the non-fatal health issues of the other 2 thirds? Or the health issues of non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke.

I remember the 80's. Smoke everywhere, all the time. On planes, trains, busses - in restaurants, pubs, offices. I do not miss that.

1 in 3 died. Troops landing on D-Day had better odds of survival.

But let's bring this back to me: The stench was nearly unbearable at times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com