WHO: Smoking kills 5 million every year

[onehandle]

Source: AP

LONDON – Tobacco use kills at least 5 million people every year, a figure that could rise if countries don't take stronger measures to combat smoking, the World Health Organization said Wednesday.

In a new report on tobacco use and control, the U.N. agency said nearly 95 percent of the global population is unprotected by laws banning smoking. WHO said secondhand smoking kills about 600,000 people every year.

The report describes countries' various strategies to curb smoking, including protecting people from smoke, enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, and raising taxes on tobacco products. Those were included in a package of six strategies WHO unveiled last year, but less than 10 percent of the world's population is covered by any single measure.

"People need more than to be told that tobacco is bad for human health," said Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's Tobacco-Free Initiative. "They need their governments to implement the WHO Framework Convention."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_smoking_report

[endless october]

1. another effective idea :

make the Allen Carr method the official strategy.

the first thing smokers do when you tell them it's bad is light up another cigarette because it stresses them out.

traditional techniques got the smoking rate down to 20 percent. that last 20 percent is going to require a different strategy. use the Carr method.

[wtmusic]

2. All cartons and packs sold in the EU look like this

[proteus_lives]

17. And has smoking gone down in the EU?

[LeftishBrit]

29. Yes, by quite a lot at least in Western Europe (still high in Eastern Europe)

Not clear how much of the decline is caused by the warnings on cigarette packets: regulations on where you can smoke, that make smoking more inconvenient; increasing social disapproval of smoking; and the high prices of cigarettes may all have rather more to do with it.

[Psephos]

20. Maybe we can put those kind of labels on cars, alcohol, and bathtubs

Stepladders. BBQ grills. Electric blankets. Fried chicken. Basements in granite country. Tanning parlors. Peanut butter with its aflatoxins. And of course on any cellphone capable of texting. Once there are labels everywhere, like telephone-pole wires, they will simply disappear from our consciousness.

I think that smokers already understand that smoking is a major health risk. Those labels are for the satisfaction of "concerned" busybodies. Seems to be a trend.

[wtmusic]

25. Smoking kills 10x as many people as die in car accidents every year

It's warranted. Whether people who already smoke understand or not, maybe people who don't, don't.

[slackmaster]

3. Mixed feelings

It's unfortunate that some people choose to poison themselves to death, but if they are adults making an informed decision, I'm not sure I have a problem with it.

[dmallind]

4. ...and the 600,000 nonsmokers they kill annually along with themselves? NT

[Altoid_Cyclist]

5. This is the link that I give to people who deny the dangers of second hand smoke.

It's a link to the report by the Surgeon General and contains a lot of information.

I know that some people will refuse to believe that there is a connection to SHM and health consequences, but I just put it out there and let them form their own conclusions.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

[hayu_lol]

6. Alcohol kills brain cells...

I strongly suspect that some posters are regular drinkers.

Heavily tax and then ban all alcohol products meant for internal use.

How many drunk drivers kill not only themselves, but others by 2nd hand alcohol consumption.

Used to be that Americans used to mind their own business. Not any more.

How many die, world wide, due to alcohol abuse?

[dmallind]

11. Alcohol only kills THE DRINKER'S brain cells. No second hand booze!

And no drunk driving deaths do not qualify as an analogy. It is impossible to smoke without emitting ETS. It is very possible and in fact very much the norm to drink without driving, let alone without killing people while driving.

And since you ask alcohol kills about 100K in US. I don't have WHO stats on it but that is about 22% of smoking deaths here so should be comparable. NONE of them are second hand beer breath deaths.

Attempted parallels to smoking ALWAYS fail - bcause nothing else legal kills others who do not choose to partake as a certain and unavoidable consequence of an individual's bad habits. Smoking alwasy causes ETS. Drinking very rarely causes drunken driving deaths (70% of which incidentally are the driver themselves - killing others by drunk driving even in MADD exaggerations is about 6K a year - and remember this is not an unavoidable part of drinking)

[Igel]

30. Drunk drivers. . .

Out of control spouses. Increased rate of accidents apart from driving.

Once had a friend who, while drunk, decided the appropriate thing to do was punch out the panes of a louvered window. Of course, the glass fell from the second story down to the sidewalk. It was the same one who, while drunk, thought it would be really cool to check out the fire extinguishers by blasting people in the face.

You don't want to be blasted in the face by a chemical fire extinguisher.

The analogy fails because of degree.

It also fails because so much of the death toll from smoking are late in life.

[dmallind]

33. No it fails because it's not an analogy

Drunk driving is not an unavoidable, consistent byproduct of drinking.

Spousal abuse is not an unavoidable consistent byproduct of driniking.

Since 67% of the population drinks, this is inarguable (if it wasn't of course inarguable from mere logical inferencce).

Second hand smoke is an unavoiadable, consistent byproduct of smoking. Unless you can find a way to stop smokers exhaling, this won't even be an analogy at all.

[Alexander]

14. Who advocated banning smoking, or anything, for that matter?

[salvorhardin]

31. No. It doesn't. Alcohol does not kill brain cells.

That's an old myth originating with the original temperance movement.

The idea that alcohol kills brain cells has long been promoted. The early temperance writers made this assertion and also insisted that the alcohol in their blood could cause “drunkards” to catch fire and burn alive. This combustion argument against drinking was dropped long ago but many anti-alcohol writers continue to promote the idea that even moderate drinking causes brain cells to die.

Scientific medical research has actually demonstrated that the moderate consumption of alcohol is associated with better cognitive (thinking and reasoning) skills and memory than is abstaining from alcohol. Moderate drinking doesn’t kill brain cells but helps the brain function better into old age. Studies around the world involving many thousands of people report this finding.

Of course, years of alcohol abuse can cause serious neurological damage, including Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. Harm can be done to message-carrying dendrites on neurons in the cerebellum, a part of the brain involved in learning and physical coordination. But even in such extreme cases, there’s a lack of evidence that alcohol kills brain cells.

However, abstinence after chronic alcohol abuse enables brains to repair themselves, according to new research involving rats.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1103162109.html

[slackmaster]

12. Smoking is not permitted in workplaces or bars or restaurants where I live

The danger from second-hand smoke is minimal here. I'd like to see more bans like we have.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. Cancelled out an unRec. Kicked it, too. N/T

[bamacrat]

8. Time to legalize weed. It kills 0 each year. 0.

Get people who enjoy the act of smoking to switch to this non lethal, better smelling, better tasting, make you feel better alternative. And it has been shown that THC inhibits cancer cell growth.

[WriteDown]

9. As long as its not smoked in bars...

or anywhere where I may get 2nd hand exposure. Otherwise, I'll SUE. :)

[bamacrat]

26. Fine by me.

[onehandle]

18. Inhaling burning matter is detrimental to your health no matter what it is. nt

[bamacrat]

27. True, but people smoke way less weed than they would cigarettes.

Also nothing in weed is toxic like tobacco, or addictive for that matter.

[WriteDown]

28. Everything is toxic.

Even water.

[Ian David]

10. Cigarettes make a great gift for your Republican friends. n/t

[beyond cynical]

13. A little natural selection based population control.

Stupid people always seem to find a way to harm themselves.

[Ian David]

15. Merry Christmas, Republican Friends, Family and Neighbors!

[The Straight Story]

16. Of course, if you smoke and die they will say you died from smoking- no matter the real reason

Have to inflate those numbers for the sheeple. And is that 5 million out of 6+ billion?

[onehandle]

19. Yeah, like those climate scientists cited in those emails. They inflated the numbers for Al Gore.

Just like 'Big Global Warming,' there's an agenda in 'Big Not Smoking.'

[dmallind]

21. Yep - segmentation and statistically significant divergence are just figments

...of the imagination of CDC researchers "in it for the money".

[LanternWaste]

23. One death is a tragedy...

"And is that 5 million out of 6+ billion...?"

"One death is a tragedy. Millions of deaths are a statistic..."
J.S.

[laughingliberal]

32. Lol! That's' true. Not everyone who smokes dies of it

My grandfather started smoking at 12 and smoked until he died of unrelated causes at 102. No measurable lung or heart disease. In fact, that's pretty much the story of all the family which came before me. Almost all smokers. All the smokers long lived-90's or better. Not one case of lung cancer or emphysema among them. No significant heart disease. Only one exception in the family. Maternal grandmother who never smoked, had hypertension, and died of a cerebral hemorrhage at 46.

That said, it's not the best thing a person could do to their health.

I smoke. I never smoke around a non-smoker unless they follow me to a secluded spot I am heading for to smoke. I tell them I am going to smoke. If they follow me there, it's on them. Point is I never subject others to my smoke but I have plenty of busybodies who feel entitled to let me know how they feel about my smoking even though none of them would know I smoke if I didn't tell them. So, if I'm not inflicting my smoke on them, should they be inflicting unasked for opinions or health advice on me? Why is this their business?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

22. Thinning the herd.

:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

24. So. The world is still over-populated.