Were you aware that 80% of smokers don't get lung cancer?

No, i wasn't aware but i'm not suprised. I happen to not be a smoker, so i've honestly never done much research on it, but i have wondered. The anti-smoking campaign is really troublesome to me.

I don't think that those type of facts will deter any anti-smoking laws in the works, though. It seems to be a social issue, and it has become overwhemling popular to hate smokers.

Some people are more susceptible to lung cancer from smoking than others. And some who smoke smoke more than others. And some smokers inhale more deeply than others. Finally, there is a difference between cause and effect, and cause and a probability of an adverse consequence, such as lung cancer developing in a smoker. The cigarette manufacturing companies tried to say that if smoking causes lung cancer, then everyone who smokes should get lung cancer. But the lung cancer research scientists responded that there is also something known as a relationship between some cause and the probability of developing lung cancer, and lung cancer falls into the latter category. There may well be genetic factors, as well, that relate to susceptibility -- those who are more susceptible to developing lung cancer because of their increased hereditary risk are much more likely to get lung cancer than someone who did not inherit those factors that genetically increase the risk. At present, we have no good or inexpensive way to determine who is more likely to develop cancer with risky behavior, but there are probably several genes, maybe more than a dozen, that increase the risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke. I do not personally view the anti-smoking feeling as hysterical. There is a very solid foundation in clinical research that has been duplicated repeatedly. If we know -- and we absolutely do know -- that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer, then doesn't it make sense to make a good effort convince smokers to stop and non-smokers not to start? I've read the clinical articles over the past forty-five years, and I am absolutely convinced that there is a very close relationship between smoking cigarettes and the development of lung cancer. I wish my younger brother had the same convictions. He smoked a pipe -- it seemed as though it was all the time -- and he inhaled the smoke! He died June 15, 2008 of lung cancer at the age of 63. I know something from this loss that cannot be out in research papers, and I do my level best to get my patients to stop smoking. If you are a smoker, what can I do so that the last cigarette you lit before reading this is the last cigarette you ever light? I just want you to know that this is beyond an scientific conviction for me -- it is a deeply personal and emotional campaign -- I want my brother back -- the #1 Corvette Master Show Judge in the United States and one of the leading hospital design architects in this country -- I want him back. So, you see, there is the scientific angle, and for me, an emotional one too.

I dont think research involving cancer or smoking will ever cease until we find a cure... and we will need several cures for all the diseases smoking causes. SO that isnt coming to a halt anytime soon.

As far as anti-smoking campaigns... do you think they are going to let some random statistic stop them from trying to intervene in people's lives? No.

So I dont get your question. A dummy could have answered this question the same way I did.

It wont have any effect on the campaigning, because hundreds of thousands of people die each year from lung cancer and diseases caused by smoking. If the people stop dying, then you can expect some change in campaigning.

That's All great for the 80 % but what about the 20 %? That is MORE than enough for me...plus with second hand smoke smokers are transmitting the likely hood of lung cancer to their children who may just carry this gene...DON'T SMOKE...This info won't change anything about The Anti-Smoking Campaign nor should it!

Are you aware that 100% of smokers show some lung damage on pulmonary function tests?

Both Cancer and COPD are painful, stressful, terrible diseases that makes the patient suffer.

I know that means that 20% do get cancer - that's 1 in 5. I also know that 100% of smokers smell bad.

So if those same persons chose not to smoke, they would be less likely to get cancer. That seems to still be the same premise though, that smoking can lead to cancer.

Were you aware that it is a common misconception that cancer is the most common long term consequence of smoking? You should be more concerned with COPD.

you might not get cancer, but there are other lung diseases that are just as devastating (COPD, COLD, emphysema, etc)

Thanks, a lot for educating.