Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Rich or poor, man or woman, Scots figures prove smokers die earlier

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 February 2009
SMOKING matters more than money and class in determining how long you will live, researchers have found.
Smokers from the highest social class are more likely to die earlier than non-smokers in the lowest class.

Smoking also wipes out the longevity advantage that woman normally have over men.

The findings came from a study involving more than 15,000 men and women in Paisley and Renfrew.

Carried out over the course of 28 years, the findings are reported in the online edition of the British Medical Journal.

The researchers found that a well-off professional who smokes has a far lower survival rate than a non-smoking low-paid worker of the same sex.

Among both men and women, smokers of all social classes ran a much higher risk of dying early than non-smokers from the lowest social classes. "In essence, neither affluence nor being female offers a defence against the toxicity of tobacco," said the researchers, led by Dr Laurence Gruer, director of public health science with NHS Health Scotland.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 February 2009 9:47 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/02/2009 00:48:32


And!!, ONE AND ONE, MAKE TWO!!

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows these things!

But there's 'Old Aunt Mary' who "Smoked" like a 'Trouper' and live until 134!!

More 'Anti Smoking' Propaganda!

Just 'Lay-Off'!, anyone for a 'roll-up'?? :)
While we hope all this Nonsense, 'rolls-away'!

2

Tartan Viking,

18/02/2009 09:30:28
NEWSFLASH....Bears sh*te in woods.
3

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/02/2009 09:37:38
What is the point in this article?
4

Colin Gee,

Banff 18/02/2009 11:45:10
Nothing new here.

I would, however, like to see the full study. That way we will know what confounders they employed. The last statement regarding the "toxicity of tobacco" is blatant anti-smoker speech and it is fraudulent and disingenuous.

Did they, for instance, factor in any of the following:

Diet, Education, Exercise, Local (industrial) Pollution, Radon, Asbestos, Sick Building Syndrome, Vehicle Emissions, Laser Toner, Alcohol Intake, Drug Use (legal and illegal) etc etc etc etc?

The answer, sadly, is "Probably not". My guess is that the researchers only looked for a link between early death and smoking. Surprise, surprise, they found one!

The statement "smokers die earlier" is mysterious as well. How much earlier? A minute? A week? A month? A year? Why didn't they give us that figure?

The study will be badly flawed. They all are.

Having it published in the BMJ does not carry the confidence it once did. So don't be taken in by that. Their peer-review process is badly corrupted.

5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/02/2009 13:17:45
Colin,

You've hit the nail on the head.

In science, it is not correct to "see how X is affected by Y". The correct approach is to see "IF X is affected by Y, OR NOT".

All anti-smoking "studies" fall into the former category---at least the ones I have read, and that is a great many.

That's why I'm so bitter about the smoking ban. There is not need for it because there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that "passive smoking" exists.
6

english charlie,

18/02/2009 13:23:53
'The researchers found that a well-off professional who smokes has a far lower survival rate than a non-smoking low-paid worker of the same sex'.
Researchers will also find that well-off professionals who drink or are obese have far lower survival rates than non-drinkers and slimmer low-paid workers of the same sex.
7

Aslan,

Edinburgh 18/02/2009 19:18:06
#5

"There is not need for it because there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that "passive smoking" exists".

Maybe not, but it's STILL a foul habit to inflict on non-smokers in an enclosed space. Clouds of foul smelling smoke everywhere.

Next time you're eating in a restaurant, is it OK if I light a small chemical fire in the middle of your table - or break wind in your face repeatedly?

Though not.
8

Tag,

18/02/2009 19:52:53
Colin Gee is being his usual open minded self at # 4
"The study will be badly flawed. They all are."

Only in your world Colin.
9

english charlie,

18/02/2009 20:46:15
#7. Same silly argument from an anti-smoker.
10

David from New Mills,

Ever fug free Pleasantville. 19/02/2009 18:32:07
#9. chas.w.
Same fatuous response from a pro-smoker.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.