Progressive One

Smoking causes about 3 in 10 cancer deaths nationwide, according to the latest figures.
BY KAREN KAPLAN
Cigarette smoking can be blamed for at least 167,133 cancer deaths in the U.S. in a single year, according to a new report.
That’s more than the total number of people who will attend the first four games of the World Series in Cleveland and Chicago. It’s also more than the entire population of Salem, Ore.
These are only the deaths due to the 12 categories of cancer that the U.S. surgeon general blames on smoking (a list that comprises cancers of the lung, trachea and bronchus; the oropharynx; the esophagus; the larynx; the stomach; the bladder; the kidney and ureter; the pancreas; the cervix; the colon and rectum; the liver; and acute myeloid leukemia).
The National Cancer Institute says smoking also causes cancers of the mouth and throat.
And that’s just cancer. Smoking is also responsible for nearly one-third of deaths due to coronary heart disease, and it can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, among other ailments, according to the surgeon general.
The new national estimate on smoking-related cancer deaths in 2014 comes from researchers at the American Cancer Society. They used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to tally the death toll in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
For each state, they combined statistics on the prevalence of current and former smokers — broken down by gender and age group — with statistics on the degree to which cigarettes are to blame for various kinds of cancer deaths.
What they found was wide variation in the proportion of cancer deaths that can be traced to cigarette smoking. It ranged from a low of 16.6% in Utah (where smoking is eschewed by Mormons, the majority of the population) to a high of 34% in Kentucky. The average for all states was 29%.
Seven of the states in the top 10 were in the South: Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama and Oklahoma. (The other three were Alaska, Missouri and Nevada.) Not coincidentally, 95% of tobacco grown in the U.S. is produced in Southern states.
The researchers drew a straight line between the tobacco industry’s influence and the “weaker tobacco control policies and programs” in the South, resulting in a higher prevalence of smoking there. For instance:
• Among the 21 states with anti-tobacco spending that is less than 10% of the amount recommended by the CDC, eight are in the South (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia).
• Among the 14 states with the fewest restrictions on indoor smoking, nine are in the South (Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma).
• The average cigarette excise tax in “major tobacco states” is 49 cents, compared with an average of $1.80 in other states. Taxes that make cigarettes more expensive are among the most effective anti-smoking policy tools available, the study authors noted.
Demographic factors are also at play. Americans who never attended college are up to four times more likely to smoke than Americans who are college graduates — and residents of the South tend to have less education than people in other parts of the country.
In addition, African Americans — a group for whom 27.2% of cancer-related deaths can be blamed on smoking — are more likely to live in the South, while Latinos — for whom 19.8% of cancer deaths results from smoking — are underrepresented there.
The analysis revealed a significant gender gap in tobacco’s contribution to cancer mortality. Nationwide, 34% of cancer deaths in men were due to smoking, compared with 23% of cancer deaths in women.
That gender gap is a reflection of the fact that smoking has historically been more prevalent among men than women, but those figures could converge in the future, the study authors wrote. Indeed, they noted that in South Dakota, Montana and Arkansas, the prevalence of smoking is already higher in women.
After Utah, California had the second-lowest percentage of cancer deaths related to smoking, at 25.5%. However, due to the state’s huge size, it was home to the most victims (57,547 in 2014 alone).
The results were published online last Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The researchers found plenty of shortcomings in states’ efforts to reduce smoking. Only one state — North Dakota — meets the CDC’s target for funding anti-tobacco programs.
Instead of lamenting this fact, the researchers focused on the “potential to avert many more premature deaths” by implementing some basic policies. Among them:
• States could discourage smoking by raising cigarette taxes. The World Health Organization recommends that taxes account for 75% of the total price of cigarettes, and none of the states (or the District of Columbia) currently meets this goal.
• Only one-third of states have laws that prohibit smoking in all public places. The other two-thirds of states could join them.
• Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Vermont are the only states with Medicaid programs that provide “comprehensive coverage” for smoking cessation services. The rest of the country could follow their lead.
With 40 million Americans still smoking cigarettes, there’s still work to do. In a commentary that accompanies the study, a trio of public health experts say the 10 states with the highest proportion of smoking-related cancer deaths should be a priority for stronger anti-tobacco policies and funding.
Government action can make a real difference, they wrote.
In New York City, they noted, measures that banned smoking in bars and restaurants, raised the cigarette excise tax from 8 cents to $1.50, and made nicotine replacement patches free to those who wanted them reduced the number of smokers there by about 140,000.
But in most parts of the country, anti-smoking efforts have stalled. The federal government could try to jump-start the process by withholding tobacco control funds from states with “weak” policies, the trio suggested.
This, they note, is how the feds persuaded states to raise the legal drinking age to 21. karen.kaplan@latimes.com  

Progressive One

Not coincidentally, 95% of tobacco grown in the U.S. is produced in Southern states.

Progressive One

Demographic factors are also at play. Americans who never attended college are up to four times more likely to smoke than Americans who are college graduates — and residents of the South tend to have less education than people in other parts of the country.

jeff smith

well I smoke and don't care if you like it or NOT. how many people die from the fumes they breath at work? painters , cleaners , factory workers . all of these people smell fumes of solvents , degreasers and other chemicals all day long. what kind of study has ever been done on how many of these people die because of their job? you people tax me to death. I pay enough in income taxes. then you put higher taxes on my smokes , on the alcohol I drink , on the fuel I buy and let insurances exploit the F--- out of me . there will come a day when I die . well guess what boo boo there will be a day when you and every one that is living will die. we all do that, that is just the last stage of living, we DIE. I have smoked for 50 years , leave me and the rest of us who smoke and or drink alone. maybe there should be a tax on knuckle heads , who want to tax every body else for what they do. they put taxes of smoking and drinking to help pay the expenses that the hospital had that weren't getting paid . well every one is now, sense the socialist in the white house forced his will down our throats , suppose to have insurance , to pay their own way. so all of your over barring taxes should be eliminated , and bring the cost of smoking and drinking back down to reality.

mcmlx

The government will eventually tax the air we breathe.
And the tobacco producers are getting kickbacks from the ever increasing taxes. Gasoline and alcohol included.
It's win/win for them and lose/lose for us.

Progressive One

Nobody cares about smokers, non-smokers just don't want to breathe your shit. I was at a bistro once where no one else was smoking and then one guy next to me was. I asked him very politely to give us a break.....he told me to flip off.....so when I left to walk out...I walked by his table and almost shitted on myself cutting the hardest fart I could in both of their faces. I was younger and didn't mind fistcuffs then. My reasoning was that one good favor deserves another. If I breathe your smoke it is okay for you to breathe mine. I voted for the $2.00 tax on cigarettes...i hope CA gets like NY where a while back a pack costs $12.00....I tell that to my smoking friends. Fortunately most places are non-smoking. I remember when one could smoke on airplanes.fortunately I did not have to fly then........I wish they were $10,000/pack. I had some neighbors who wanted to smoke in the house, the parents didn't even smoke and there were babies in a crib. I gave them the blues. It is not about people smoking, it is their right. It is about not imposing that shit on others. yes, people die but you can suffer from emphysema and suffer a lot of years or live to be 103 like my Grandma with your faculties and no suffering.it is about the quality of life while one is here.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Did you see any research into how many cancer deaths can be attributed to air pollution? Food additives? Other environmental exposures? Of course not. Now why, I wonder? The answer is simple - no one wants to hear it and no one wants you to know.

The new tobacco taxes were to be earmarked for smoking succession efforts and to pay for the increased costs of treating tobacco related injuries. Smoking succession efforts are a cheap pamphlet and free patches - and that's it. That's about 250 billion dollars worth of tobacco tax so far - to pay for 1 million dollars worth of patches and paper. Where did the rest of the money go? It certainly didn't go into the healthcare system did it.

So, people start asking questions about where all that money went, what do you do? You draw up research that shows the incredible dangers of tobacco and explain how expensive it is to society, that's what you do. You don't even need to explain how you're misusing the money - because it's coming from the evil people using that devils product.

Progressive One

Okay...I guess adding another carcinogen hurts nothing. here is a shopping list.enjoy.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/?gclid=CjwKEAjwtNbABRCsqO7J0_uJxWYSJAAiVo5L4N_rhaWRAbo-ztUGNu6ZqyX14Wuf4wHVLUlC0dA2fRoCCXPw_wcB

Progressive One

2nd hand smoke phucks people up who don't even use the damn things..that and fire hazard was the reason they stopped smoking on airplanes..read about the flight attendants.

mcmlx

And when my grampa was raising tobacco, the end product was pure.
Now, the filters themselves are full of carcinogens.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

They stopped smoking on airplanes, because Reagan, specifically C. Edward Koop the SG, threatened the airlines exemptions if they didn't. Don't you get it? The stop smoking campaign began BEFORE the research was done, research paid for by the Gov. - to prove that their stance was correct. It is called "directed research", in which the research entity is given to understand what result is expected - or funding stops.

The sugar industry paid for research showing sugar was safe and healthy. The food additive industry funded research that showed that food additives were safe, findings the FDA eventually debunked. The oil and gas industry pays for research which shows that fracking is benign. Get the picture?

Research conducted overseas, where no government pressure is brought to bear, shows only a modicum of incidences of smoking related illnesses - that cannot be attributed to, or partially attributed to - other environmental exposures. You can certainly believe whatever the Government tells you - if you really want to.

mcmlx

Absolutely.

Progressive One

I think 400,000+ people have cigarette-related illnesses a year.

443,000 Americans die of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/adultsmoking/

mcmlx

Government propaganda to achieve government control.

Progressive One

Not medical records? Okay.........they make it hard for me to breathe as a non-smoker.....don't see how ya'll do it..............