If smoking just caused lung cancer that would be one thing. Most smokers never get lung cancer, they develop and die from cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder.
Both my parents are lifelong smokers from their early teens and were a year or two apart in age.
My mom died of lung cancer at 54.
My dad is still going strong at 77 and smokes Camel unfiltered.
Humans are weird.
Regardless, you don't want to die from lung cancer. It is pretty horrible. Your body attacks itself, fluid collects in the lungs, it is painful, and you basically drown from within. Your only option is high doses of morphine and one day you just don't wake up. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
That's probably a bit too simplified; if you're a smoker and get lung cancer at 65 then it's very conceivable you would have lived longer if you never smoked (not certain: lots of things can cause lung cancer). It's even more clear-cut with things like asbestos.
There is a huge and very strong correlation between less smoking and lower lung cancer rates. You claimed otherwise, that's what I was referring to. Of course some people still get it without smoking.
The majority of smokers don't get lung cancer either. Just because it thankfully didn't happen to you, doesn't mean it isn't something that happens to people regularly.
This is interesting, but dangerous. Smokers make up 90% of lung cancer deaths [1]. At some point you have to acknowledge that smoking definitely does something to influence lung cancer.
reply