Non-smokers who might someday smoke might someday smoke

Another possibly great possible breakthrough in the ongoing effort to write academic reports related to addiction. The discovery in this report:

Among children who do not smoke cigarettes, the ones who

  1. drink alcohol OR
  2. smoke marijuana OR
  3. have positive attitudes toward smoking cigarettes OR
  4. who have close friends who smoke cigarettes

might themselves some day become cigarette smokers, or they might not. The other children might not become cigarette smokers, but they might.

The study is:

smokingstudynumbersWe do not smoke but some of us are more susceptible than others: A multilevel analysis of a sample of Canadian youth in grades 9 to 12,” Susan C. Kaai, K. Stephen Brown, Scott T. Leatherdale, Stephen R. Manske, Donna Murnaghan, Addictive Behaviors, epub April 21, 2014. The authors, at the University of Waterloo and the University of Prince Edward Island, explain:

“Smoking susceptibility has been found to be a strong predictor of experimental smoking. This paper examined which student- and school-level factors differentiated susceptible never smokers from non-susceptible never smokers among a nationally representative sample of Canadian students in grade 9 to 12…. Students in this study were more likely to be susceptible never smokers if they reported low self-esteem, held positive attitudes towards smoking, used alcohol or marijuana, had close friends who smoked, and came from homes without a total ban on smoking.”

How did the researchers identify which of the children were “susceptible” to becoming smokers, and which were not? Here’s how:

“Only the ‘never smokers’ were eligible to have a smoking susceptibility rating. Susceptibility was measured by asking students: (a) ‘Do you think in the future you might try smoking cigarettes?’ (b) ‘If one of your best friends were to offer you a cigarette, would you smoke it?’ and (c) ‘At any time during the next year do you think you will smoke a cigarette?’ Students responded to these questions on a 4-point Likert Scale. Consistent with Pierce et al. (1996) students who answered ‘definitely not’ to all three questions were considered non-susceptible; the rest were considered susceptible.”

NOTE: At right, here, are some numbers displayed in the study. You might find them to be meaningful.

  • John Davidson Jr

    Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
    http://www.manhealthissue.com/2007/06/epidemiologists-vote-to-keep-doing-junk-science.html
    Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

    Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

    An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
    Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

    Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
    proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
    placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

    Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
    relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
    different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
    perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
    one risk factor, including social factors.

    Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

    But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
    epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
    to epidemiology.”

    But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
    it was public health that mattered!

    we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
    Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
    see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
    the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
    would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

    Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
    after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Slutz and Nutz Implant
    Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
    other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
    of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

    The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
    back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
    corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
    Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
    lives that selective blindness has caused!

  • John Davidson Jr

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!