Up in smoke?
Despite bans, smoking is on the rise nationallyBy Brad Bauer, bbauer@mariettatimes.com
Article Photos
Fact Box
Smoking facts
U.S. smoking rates rose for the first time in nearly 15 years last year (19.8 percent in 2007; 21 percent in 2008).
Nearly 1 in 5 Americans smokes.
Nearly 1 in 3 Washington County residents use tobacco products.
Southeast Ohio residents earning less than $15,000 per year have a smoking rate of 44 percent and those with less than a high school education use tobacco at a rate of 53 percent.
Source: U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Washington County Tobacco Prevention Program.
Article Links
» On the NetA weak economy is leading people to stress more about their jobs and money, and is likely behind an uptick in smoking rates, according to health officials.
Cigarette smoking and other tobacco use rose slightly in 2008 - the first increase in adult tobacco use in 15 years, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The adult smoking rate has been dropping, in starts and stops, since the mid-1960s, when roughly two out of five U.S. adults smoked. Today, nearly 21 percent of Americans (about 1 in 5) smoke; but local rates are much higher.
"About 29 percent of local residents use tobacco, compared with 23 percent for the state," said Stephanie Davis, director of Washington County Tobacco Prevention Program at Selby General Hospital. "I think we actually saw a dip right after the new taxes (on tobacco) went into effect earlier this year, but they're on the way back up."
About 2.3 percent of adults in the United States used smokeless tobacco as of 2005, the most recent year for which CDC statistics were available.
Health officials were optimistic more and more smokers would be discouraged from lighting up after they imposed a new 62-cent federal tax on tobacco products back in April. There was also speculation the recession might help curb smoking.
Davis said stress and smoking go hand in hand.
"Stress is the No. 1 factor. We've found that 70 percent of people who use tobacco do it in association with stress," she said.
Davis cited a local study that links the risks for tobacco use to money and education. She said southeast Ohio residents earning less than $15,000 a year have a smoking rate of 44 percent and those with less than a high school education have a staggering rate of 53 percent.
"I think the rest of the nation is finally starting to feel some of the stress and financial pressures the people in this area have been feeling for some time," Davis said.
David Morlan, 34, of Marietta, said his family is definitely feeling the pressure of a weakened economy. He said his hours at work were cut from full-time to part-time about six months ago. He was buying a pack of cigarettes Thursday at a local convenience store.
"I smoked before this whole mess started," he said. "I don't know that I'm smoking any more or less.... Maybe a little more, but that's just because I can't smoke that much when I'm at work, and I haven't been there as much."
Prior to last year, U.S. officials had hoped the smoking rate had permanently dropped below 20 percent. In 2007, the rate had fallen to 19.8 percent.
Davis said prior to 2008, the last detailed county tobacco use study was conducted in 2001. She said tobacco use in Washington County changed, but the rates remained the same.
"We found fewer people smoking, but more people using smokeless tobacco," she said. "That's because of increased restrictions on the number of places people can smoke and the smoking bans."
Kevin Murray, 52, of Marietta, said he quit smoking about 10 years ago. He said he's been tempted many times since then to pick up a cigarette. He cited stress from work, financial or relationship problems as the most frequent reasons he wanted to light up.
"Sometimes just being around someone smoking was bad, too," he said. "But every time I thought about it, I just had to think about how hard it was to quit. I must have tried 10 or 15 times before I finally was able to quit."
The Associated Press contributed.
|
geneb7
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-16-09 3:01 PM
|
rocker's response to the Lancet article reads like gibberish. Typical for someone regurgitating tobacco PR. He refused to read the Lancet article. Also typical for someone regurgitating tobacco PR. My guess: PR firms are out "viral marketing," going after tobacco's biggest remaining demographic: the poor, the uneducated, and all those stupid enough to believe anonymous internet denizens.
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-14-09 1:34 PM
|
PWC032096, I agree with you on the smelly perfumes and colognes. Some are so nasty smelling they take your breath lol. There smells that you encounter in a doctors office can be nasty too. Some people smell so bad due to lack of cleanliness, it almost makes you sick. If I was the doctor, I'd tell them to go home, get a bath, and then come back lol.
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-14-09 11:43 AM
|
geneb7, I think your regurgitating anti-smoking nazi hogwash. The IARC study has nothing to do with the World Health Organizations report. And yes the report was SUPPRESSED! Thanks to Victoria McDonald the report was made public. The WHO has nothing to do with the tobacco industry. As far as "viral marketing", anti-tobacco nazis who claim tobacco is responsible for everything from a pimple on your butt to a bad hair day are the viral marketers.
|
|
geneb7
|
|
|
11-14-09 9:41 AM
|
Rocker regurgitates tobacco industry hogwash. That Sunday Telegraph/Virginia MacDonald article is FAMOUS as tobacco-planted nonsense. And the IARC study isn't "suppressed." It's freely available online. Read all about the PR scam here: ***********thelancet****/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02098-5/abstract But THANKS, Rocker. The tobacco industry doesn't have enough people disseminating its BS. It's almost as if "viral marketing" has started to swarm innocent message boards -- like the Marietta Times'.
|
|
PWC032096
|
|
|
11-13-09 2:35 PM
|
....or smoke them funny little cigarettes.
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 2:30 PM
|
the reason they wear the much is because they drink b4 they go to church
|
|
PWC032096
|
|
|
11-13-09 2:27 PM
|
Well outlaw07, I can empathize with you. Some people are sensitive to smoke than others, and smokers really should be conscientious about smoking around other people. My biggest gripe, personally, is with people who go to my church and wear a gallon of perfume / cologne. I've had to exit the church early on several occasions.
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:51 PM
|
pollen does not bother me.. thanx for ur concern tho
|
|
Harleyrider
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:45 PM
|
outlaw07. you have an illness. I am sure pollen does wonders on your asthma too. Does that make pollen bad?
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:44 PM
|
It always amazes me that we have people whining about smoking and second hand smoke. What about fumes from nail polish and nail polish remover? Or how about hair spray fumes? Or fumes from car exhaust you breath every day? These are far more worse than second hand smoke. Some fumes like nail polish can fry your brain even!
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:39 PM
|
hmm i have asmtha buddy tell me smoking aint bad ill show u my hospital bill cuz my parents smoked around me
|
|
PWC032096
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:38 PM
|
Ya'll make me wanna smoke. Be back in 5...
|
|
Harleyrider
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:32 PM
|
This is not about health cost. Please explain how smokers make up 1/3 the population that they did 20 years ago, yet health care costs have skyrocketed. It makes no sense. Less people are in fact smoking now, yet the costs have risen. Makes no sense.
|
|
Harleyrider
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:30 PM
|
outlaw07, that is what you believe and it is fine. I can easily say that smoking is good for you. My Grandfather was 96 when he died, and he smoked every day. He cooked with bacon grease too. He did not die of lung cancer or a heart attack.
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 1:13 PM
|
well personally i kno second hand smoke does hurt you.
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:56 PM
|
outlaw07, this study was SUPPRESSED by the anti smoking nazis. Thanks to a concerned reporter from the UK Telegraph the study was made public. Do you want to know the truth about second hand smoke or do you want to believe all the lies you have been told? No i wouldn't believe any study that says muslims won't attack us. But thats a different story sorry.
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:45 PM
|
well if the who studied muslims wouldnt attack our country again would u believe it
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:30 PM
|
Lol it was a study on second hand smoke by the WHO (World Health Ogranizatio) the UK telegraph reported it. It hasnt got anything to do with the UK.
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:23 PM
|
well heck the britsh has universal health care should we do that too. o and the british police does not carry hand guns should we turn ours in too.
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:22 PM
|
findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:21 PM
|
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:19 PM
|
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exp
|
|
rocker
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:18 PM
|
outlaw07, if your referring to second hand smoke, read this. Source: UK Sunday Telegraph Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent Dateline: March 8, 1998 The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:09 PM
|
just a waste in time trying to help people quit. they are to dumb to realize its hurting the people around them more than its hurting them
|
|
outlaw07
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:09 PM
|
just a waste in time trying to help people quit. they are to dumb to realize its hurting the people around them more than its hurting them
|