[ad_1]
Over the last forty years, I have recognized many myths about smoking based on factual facts that simply would not die.
If I asked for a dollar every time I had to refute these claims, I would have accumulated a small fortune.
Their persistence owes a lot to their ability to allow those who express them to express non-expressed but clear sub-texts that reflect deep beliefs about women, the disadvantaged, mental illness, government campaigns for health and "natural" concerns.
Lead a stake in the heart of ten of the most common myths.
1. Women and girls smoke more than men and boys
Women have never smoked more than men. From time to time, a survey will show an age group where it is the opposite, but from the beginning of the mbadive absorption of smoking during the first decades of the last century, men took a length of advance on women.
In 1945, in Australia, 72% of men and 26% of women smoked. In 1976, men had fallen to 43% and women to 33%.
As a result, mortality rates from smoking among men have always been much higher than those of women.
Lung cancer rates among women, for example, seem unlikely to reach even half of the highest rates observed among men in the 1970s. Currently in Australia, 15% of men and 12% of women smoke daily.
But what about all the "girls" that you can see smoking, I'm always told. In 2014, 13% of boys aged 17 and 11% of girls smoked. In two younger age groups, girls smoked more (by one percentage point).
Those who insist that girls smoke more are likely to hear their badist indignation about observing girls' smoking rather than their ignorance of the data.
It is true that people with mental health problems are much more likely to smoke than those who have not been diagnosed.
2. Smoking cessation campaigns do not work for low socioeconomic smokers
In Australia, 11% of people in the top quintile of economic benefits smoke, compared to 27.6% of the last quintile. More than double.
Does this mean that our quit campaigns "do not work" for the less fortunate?
The smoking prevalence data reflect two things: the proportion of people who have ever smoked and the proportion who have quit.
If we look at the most disadvantaged group, we find that a much higher proportion of smokers start smoking than their more affluent counterparts. Only 39.5% have never smoked, compared to 50.4% of the most favored – see Table 9.2.6.
With regard to smoking cessation, 46% of the most disadvantaged people quit smoking, compared to 66% of the least disadvantaged (see Table 9.2.9).
There is a higher percentage of disadvantaged people who smoke mainly because they are more likely to do so, not because poor smokers can not or do not want to quit. With 27.6% of the most disadvantaged smokers today, the good news is that nearly three quarters do not. Smoking and disadvantage are barely inseparable.
3. The scaring campaigns "do not work"
Countless studies have asked ex-smokers why they had stopped and current smokers why they were trying to quit. I have never seen such a study when there was no daylight between the first mentioned reason (concern for health consequences) and the second most named reason (usually cost).
For example, this 13-year US national study found that "91.6% of ex-smokers expressed concern about their own health, now or in the future," as the main reason for their decision to quit smoking. 58.7% of expenses related to drugs and 55.7% impact of their smoking on others.
If the information and warnings about the harmful consequences of smoking "do not work", then where do all these ex-smokers come from to get these major concerns? They do not magically come to them.
They meet them through anti-smoking campaigns, warnings, research stories, and personal experiences with family and dying friends. The scaring campaigns work.
4. Rolling tobacco is more "natural" than factory-made
People who smoke rollies often look you in the eye and tell you that factory-made cigarettes are full of chemical additives, while rolling tobacco is "natural" – it's only a question of tobacco.
The reasoning we are supposed to understand is that it is these chemicals that are problematic, whereas tobacco, being "natural", is kind of OK.
This myth was overthrown for the first time without any ceremony, when the New Zealand authorities ordered tobacco companies to provide them with data on the total weight of additives in cigarettes, rolling tobacco and pipe tobacco. factory made.
For example, the 1991 data provided by WD & HO Wills showed that in 879,219 kg of cigarettes, there were 1,803 kg of additives (0.2%). While in 366,036 kg of rolling tobacco, there were 82,456 kg of additives (22.5%)! Rolling tobacco is cooked in flavoring and humectant chemicals, the latter being used to prevent tobacco from drying out when smokers expose the tobacco to the air 20 or more times a day when they smoke. Take off to roll a cigarette.
5. Almost all people with schizophrenia smoke
It is true that people with mental health problems are much more likely to smoke than those who are not diagnosed with a mental health problem.
A meta-badysis of 42 studies on smoking in schizophrenics revealed a mean smoking prevalence of 62% (range 14% to 88%). But guess which study in these 42 is cited and quoted much more than the others?
If you said that the one who reported a smoking prevalence of 88%, you would be right. This small American 1986 study of only 277 outpatients with schizophrenia has been cited so far a remarkable time. With my colleagues, I have investigated this blatant example of quotation bias (where surprising but atypical results emerge from literature searches and get high quotes – "wow!" This one has a high number, let's quote that one ! ").
In researching "How many schizophrenics smoke," we showed how this is reflected in the community via media reports where figures are rounded up in statements such as "90% of schizophrenic patients smoke".
By constantly repeating that "90%" of people with schizophrenia smoke are doing a real service to these people. We would not tolerate such an inaccuracy concerning another group.
6. Everyone knows the risks of smoking
Knowledge of the risks of smoking can exist at four levels:
Level 1: Having heard that smoking increases health risks.
Level 2: Be aware that some diseases are caused by smoking.
Level 3: accurately badess the meaning, severity and likelihood of developing tobacco-related diseases.
Level 4: Personally accept that the risks inherent in levels 1 to 3 apply to the risk of contracting such diseases.
Level 1 knowledge is very high, but as you progress, knowledge and understanding decrease dramatically. For example, very few people are likely to know that two out of three long-term smokers will die from a tobacco-related illness, nor the average number of years during which smokers lose their normal life expectancy.
7. You can reduce the health risks of tobacco by simply reducing
It is true that if you smoke five cigarettes a day instead of 20, the risk of premature death during your life is lower (but check the risks for one to four cigarettes a day here).
However, in at least four large cohort studies such as this one, it has been shown that in at least four large cohort studies, it does not confuse any risk reduction.
If you want to reduce the risks, quitting should be your goal.
8. Air pollution is the true cause of lung cancer
Air pollution is unequivocally a major risk to health. By "pollution", those who argue this argument do not mean natural particles such as pollen and soil dust, but industrial pollutants and vehicles.
The most polluted areas of Australia are the cities where pollution from industries and motor vehicles is the most concentrated. The most isolated regions of the country are the least polluted. Therefore, if we wanted to examine the relative contributions of air pollution and smoking to tobacco-related illnesses, an obvious question would be whether the incidence of lung cancer differs between heavily polluted cities and highly isolated areas. unpolluted? "Yes, the incidence of lung cancer is highest in Australia (wait for that …) in the most polluted and remote areas of the country, where the prevalence of smoking is also the highest.
9. Smokers should not quit without the help of a professional or medication
If you ask 100 ex-smokers how they quit smoking, between two-thirds and three-quarters will tell you that they stopped smoking without help: during their last attempt at quitting, they have not used nicotine replacement therapy or prescription drug clinics for smoking cessation or experimenting with the imposition of hands by a therapist in alternative medicine. They left without help.
So, if you ask the question, "Which method is used by most successful marriages when they leave?" The answer is the cold turkey.
On this National Health Service poster, in English, one reads a crude lie by saying that "there are people who can crack and stop, but there are not many of them."
In the years leading up to the availability of nicotine replacement drugs and other drugs, millions of people – including heavy smokers – quit smoking without any help.
It's a message that the pharmaceutical industry has not been megaphoned.
10. Many smokers live very old: so it can not be so harmful
In the same way that five out of six participants in a murderous Russian roulette round could claim that putting a gun on each other and pulling the trigger did not cause any harm, those who use this argument do not know anything about it. just the risks and the probabilities.
Many probably buy lottery tickets with the same depth, knowing that they have a good chance of winning.
Click here for more information and to help you quit.
This article was originally published on The Conversation and has been reproduced here with full permission.
[ad_2]
Source link
