[Zagadka]

Mike Pence, The US Vice President-Elect, Has Said He Doesn't Believe That Smoking Kills

extra_large-1478802381-cover-image.jpg (34.07 KiB) Viewed 890 times

Mike Pence, the vice president-elect of the US, has said he doesn't believe smoking kills people.

He made that case in an op-ed article published in 2000 and has made no public effort to update his position since.

"Time for a quick reality check," Pence wrote. "Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer."

Those statistics are questionable to the point of being ludicrous, largely because we keep discovering new ways that smoking is deadly. Those statistics would still be worrisome, however. About 40 million people smoke in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One out of every three current smokers dying from a smoking-related illness would therefore translate to about 13.3 million people dead. One out of 10 smokers developing lung cancer means 4 million sick people.

Here are the facts

Smoking kills 480,000 people every year and shortens the life of an average user by a decade.
That makes it the leading cause of preventable death in the US.
The pain is felt particularly sharply in poor communities; 26.3% of people who live below the poverty level smoke.
Encouraging people to quit smoking is a public-health priority. Smokers who quit before turning 40 can begin to turn around their risks of early death.
Pence added the caveat "news flash: smoking is not good for you," which further raises the question of why he felt the need to write a piece in the first place downplaying tobacco's dangers.

To be clear: The year 2000 was a while ago, but it also came 36 years after Surgeon General Luther Terry published his 1964 reports on the link between smoking and cancer.

Pence was selected to be a stable, mainstream running mate to Donald Trump, and to settle the nerves of the Republican Party — apparently despite Trump's expressed wishes. Now he's just one of the many reasons people who care about science and health are terrified of Trump's impending presidency.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/mike-pence-the-us-vice-presidentelect-has-said-he-doesnt-believe-that-smoking-kills/

[Beren]

What's wrong with smoking? It doesn't kill, it's cool.

[Rugoz]

He said that back in 2000 when it apparently still paid off to be a bitch of the tobacco industry.

[Beren]

He said that back in 2000 when it apparently still paid off the a bitch of the tobacco industry.

It was a completely reactionary and evil thing to do even then.

[One Degree]

Mike Pence, The US Vice President-Elect, Has Said He Doesn't Believe That Smoking Kills

What is your point? Did you want to begin a debate about smoking? Or, is this just a mindless criticism with no purpose? Many people were backed into a corner to defend smoking because of the anti-smoking group taking it into the realm of confronting freedom of choice and even what you should be allowed to do in your own home.
There were other principles involved in the debate that required people to defend smoking.
Little things like why should I quit smoking in public when you see no problem with a million cars being jammed into a small area gave sufficient cause to defend the position against the health risks.

[XogGyux]

Welcome to the parallel universe where:
No evidence exists that smoking is bad.
Evolution is a fake.
Climate change is the will of god.
Being gay is a choice that can be "fixed" with conversion therapy.
Creationism is real!
3 things that can kill humanity, ourselves, religion and a very large meteorite. This guy covers 2 of them, all we need is that he closes NASA for the trifecta! (lets be real, he will be the actual president)
We will be back to our lead in paint and gas, ozone depleting chemicals and cigarette smoking everywhere days in no time!.

What is your point? Did you want to begin a debate about smoking? Or, is this just a mindless criticism with no purpose? Many people were backed into a corner to defend smoking because of the anti-smoking group taking it into the realm of confronting freedom of choice and even what you should be allowed to do in your own home.
There were other principles involved in the debate that required people to defend smoking.
Little things like why should I quit smoking in public when you see no problem with a million cars being jammed into a small area gave sufficient cause to defend the position against the health risks.

You can defend part of something without defending EVERYTHING that is wrong with what you defend. You can defend your right to smoke and your right to do so in your private property/open areas (so long consideration for unwilling people, such as children are taken into the debate). Defending smoking as a reactionary strategy is just stupid/careless/amoral/etc.

[One Degree]

You can defend part of something without defending EVERYTHING that is wrong with what you defend. You can defend your right to smoke and your right to do so in your private property/open areas (so long consideration for unwilling people, such as children are taken into the debate). Defending smoking as a reactionary strategy is just stupid/careless/amoral/etc.

He is a conservative Republican in a conservative state that has the highest smoking rate in the nation. Did you expect him to commit political suicide.

[XogGyux]

He is a conservative Republican in a conservative state that has the highest smoking rate in the nation. Did you expect him to commit political suicide.

Do you expect me (or us) to forgive him now or ignore what he said before because his idiocy is a result of personal interest, greed for power and money? There are many things he could have done. He could have done the right thing and honor the truth and deal with the consequences or at the very least he could remain shut in the topic and offer no comments as the rest of his flock does when they know that they cannot say the truth because of political backslash. The fact his state has the highest smoking rate is a reason for him to come against it not a reason to endorse it. In what kind of warped reality do you live?
I don't understand why you defend/rationalize this.

[Rugoz]

He is a conservative Republican in a conservative state that has the highest smoking rate in the nation. Did you expect him to commit political suicide.

Eh what?

He could have said smoking is awesome and worth a reduced lifespan.

[Beren]

I don't understand why you defend/rationalize this.

Because you don't have the all superior Trumpish state of mind that would enable you to reach such high levels of morality, knowledge, and consciousness.

[XogGyux]

Because you don't have the all superior Trumpish state of mind that would enable you to reach such high levels of morality, knowledge, and consciousness.

Oh sure, pussy grabber supporters' morality.

[One Degree]

In what kind of warped reality do you live?

The one where you are not allowed to take a stance contrary to the accepted norm without being met with comments like yours above. I am not interested in revisiting a smoking debate that has already been decided by society. That is the main reason I criticized this threads existence. It has no purpose.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

As far as I know, if you quit smoking before reaching 40 years, your risk of dying from a smoking-related illness isn't much higher than that in the general population.

So how deadly smoking is seems to depend on how old you are and if you are younger than 40, whether you will stop smoking by around 40.

[XogGyux]

The one where you are not allowed to take a stance contrary to the accepted norm without being met with comments like yours above. I am not interested in revisiting a smoking debate that has already been decided by society. That is the main reason I criticized this threads existence. It has no purpose.

On the contrary. You are allowed to take stance on anything you want, you can defend Hitler for all I care. You will simply receive criticism as for any other stance you might take. The difference is the stance in this case is completely ridiculous so the criticism is overwhelming. Enjoy your delirium of prosecution.

[Rugoz]

The one where you are not allowed to take a stance contrary to the accepted norm without being met with comments like yours above.

Pence obviously knew smoking kills.

He pretended to be ignorant such that dumb-ass Americans feel he's one of them.

[One Degree]

On the contrary. You are allowed to take stance on anything you want. You will simply get criticism as for any other stance you might take. The difference is the stance in this case is completely ridiculous so the criticism is overwhelming. Enjoy your delirium of prosecution.

Thank you, I will as a person who has smoked for 57 years with no ill health effects. Science still does not know enough about cancer to justify half their claims about smoking. I am happy my kids will grow up without smoking because it is a needless addiction, but your methods and ignoring existing smokers in your usual hurry to accomplish your goals were malicious an unworthy of any compassionate person, so take your moral high ground and shove it.

[Beren]

As far as I know, if you quit smoking before reaching 40 years, your risk of dying from a smoking-related illness isn't much higher than that in the general population.

Sure, smoking doesn't kill as long as you quit smoking until 40. If you can.

[XogGyux]

Thank you, I will as a person who has smoked for 57 years with no ill health effects. Science still does not know enough about cancer to justify half their claims about smoking. I am happy my kids will grow up without smoking because it is a needless addiction, but your methods and ignoring existing smokers in your usual hurry to accomplish your goals were malicious an unworthy of any compassionate person, so take your moral high ground and shove it.

Of course it does. The fact that some people (like yourself) ignore it does not mean the community is not certain of the effects. This is what party politics does to people, you are rejecting fact in order to try to defend the indefensible. Lightning strike kills, a few people that are struck survive do you see a conflict here? No. The fact is not everyone reacts in the same way at the same time. You are at increased risks, that is a fact and if you have smoked for that long (assuming what half a pack/1 pack per day?) chances are you are a COPDer. You seem to be the kind of person that goes to the doctor after 60 years of smoking, they get diagnosed with cancer or COPD and then they say "well doctor you are wrong, it was not the cigarette, I know this because I smoked for 59 years without any problem and it is now after so many years of smoking that I actually have a problem, therefore it is not the cigarette"

Sure, smoking doesn't kill as long as you quit smoking until 40. If you can.

Even that is untrue. Smoking can contribute even prior to 40y of age. It is just less likely than if you smoke for 50y, 60y or all your life. Setting the limit at 40 is just an arbitrary way to limit smoking time to ~20 years (assuming you started in your late teens) and since you were able to quit that also makes the assumption you were not a heavy smoker to begin with (presumably heavier smoker would have a harder time to quit) so in other words, it is a "false" limit.

[One Degree]

COPDer.

Nope, and I smoke one and a half packs a day. My lungs are just fine. It even surprises me when my doctor tells me that every year.

[XogGyux]

Nope, and I smoke one and a half packs a day. My lungs are just fine. It even surprises me when my doctor tells me that every year.

Good for you, quit while you are ahead is the only thing I can tell you.