If he were to teach a course on the scientific method, Seth Roberts might assign The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking as his first reading:
Above all has been the repeated and world-wide directive that smokers should quit and live longer when every controlled trial without exception has demonstrated this claim to be false.
Is there anything that can be said with certainty about the health and life expectancy of smokers and non-smokers? The evidence indicates little difference. One important fact often causes confusion: an agent can be a certain cause of death and yet have the effect of extending life. Smoking could be a major cause of lung cancer or even the only cause yet also be associated with long life. The Japanese are amongst the heaviest smokers in the world. They also live the longest. The Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment smoked for a hundred years before dying at 122 as the world’s oldest ever person.
The resolution of this paradox lies in the simple fact that most agents have both good and bad effects on health and life expectancy and it is the net result which is of primary importance. This simple but crucial fact is often ignored or forgotten by medical researchers. Coffee causes pancreatic cancer says the newspaper article. Perhaps it does, but if it has a bigger and beneficial effect on heart disease then those who drink coffee may well live longer than those who don’t. Hormone replacement therapy may increase the incidence of certain cancers yet still have overall a beneficial effect.
It may now be apparent why there is such a general belief that smoking is dangerously harmful. There are three reasons. First, studies which in any other area of science would be rejected as second-rate and inferior but which support antismoking are accepted as first-rate. Second, studies which are conducted according to orthodox and rigorous design but which do not support the idea that smoking is harmful are not merely ignored but suppressed. Third, authorities who are duty-bound to represent the truth have failed to do so and have presented not just untruths but the reverse of the truth.
In fact, there are many studies demonstrating the therapeutic effects of smoking and nicotine.
(Hat tip to Aretae.)
As an on/off smoker this is a topic of longstanding interest to me.
Inhaling any kind of burning organic matter (coal, dope, diesel/gas, tobacco, barbeque fumes) is not good; the central questions of “What” and “How Much” and “How Long” are far, far more important than an imbecilic obsession with the boolean “Do you smoke?” (Yes: you’re evil. No: you’re virtuous.)
[One good resource. For those interested in tobacco preparation and history.]
I smoke organic and non-additive, roll-yer-own tobacco at home. (Frustratingly, I find morons simply assume I believe this makes it “healthy”. Nope. Smoking organic anything is not healthy per se; it’s simply that no pesticides and no additives (e.g. asbestos) make for a less toxic assault.)
Having done multi-year quits multiple times, I’d like to share two things I’ve noticed. One, quitting pure tobacco is an order of magnitude easier than quitting commercial box cigarettes. Two, I feel I need/want much less pure tobacco than commercial tobacco (4 a day versus 30+ a day).
Oh, and it tastes a lot better. Mmm, mmm good.
I don’t personally smoke, but I have noted before that the nicotine in cigarettes is largely harmless, even if cigarettes aren’t, and that smokeless snus seems remarkably safe. E-cigarettes are another option, but — gasp! — they’re not regulated.