Cigar Smokers Are Just As Likely To Die As Cigarette Smokers

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cigar-smokers-are-just-as-likely-to-die-as-cigarette-smokers/ar-AAbAupa

Good thing I don't smoke!! If I'm around smokers, my asthma acts up and gets really bad!! Especially if they want to do it and drive! Then I'll row the window all the way down!!

I hate to break it to you, but non-smokers are likely to die also. LOL

I hear ya. I can't stand being in a smokey room. I don't have asthma, but I get a head ache from the smoke. It also sucks having your clothes smell like an ash tray. Disgusting habit whether cigars or cigs.

I've already fought cancer twice. So I know that I'm not "invincible" like young people think they are. My mid 30's was a nightmare for me healthwise. That's when I fought the cancer twice.

Keep up the fight. I hope you are able to beat the cancer for good.

I was just being a bit of a smartass in my first post. Everyone knows they will die at some point.

Nobody in my family smokes. I guess that is something good that came from Mormonism. Since leaving Mormonism I haven't even tried a cig. Now alcohol is a different story.

Well my yearly check-ups for my cancer each year come back and it's still gone!!

This article is EXTREMELY misleading.

(unverified rumor) everyone dies sooner or later.

I'm an avid cigar smoker and before I took it up, I did a lot of research.

The problem is that there are very few studies dedicated to cigar smoking only. Most of the studies don't distinguish between cigars, pipes and cigarettes. The few that do usually contain a disclaimer that the study's conclusions cannot be applied to cigar and pipe smoking.

A special category are studies financed by big cancer research and prevention institutions. They cannot say anything positive about smoking (which I understand) so they usually give out stern warnings that cigars contain as much tobacco and/or nicotine as a whole pack of cigarettes and that cigar smokers run a 4 to 6 times higher risk of getting mouth and throat cancer.

Both are true, but cigars are not inhaled and smoked a lot less intensely than cigarettes (a puff a minute) and the odds of contracting these cancers are extremely low to begin with (4 times nothing is still not a lot).

One aspect that is never studied is the stress-reducing effect of cigar smoking. Stress being one of the major killers, this deserves further study, imo, but who would conduct such a study?

I'm not saying that cigar smoking is healthy but in my personal lay opinion, the health risks are very low for the average cigar smoker (who smokes maybe one or two cigars a week; I'm an outdoor smoker myself so I only smoke when it's warm and not windy outside).

My only fear is that the anti-smoking nazis, whose livelihood depends on their do-gooding business, will move on cigars since there's nothing more to gain from cigarette prevention. Luckily, most politicians smoke cigars and if not, I'll buy enough to last me a lifetime. Cigars, like wine, get better with age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2015 02:17PM by rt.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A special category are studies financed by big
> cancer research and prevention institutions. They
> cannot say anything positive about smoking (which
> I understand) so they usually give out stern
> warnings that cigars contain as much tobacco
> and/or nicotine as a whole pack of cigarettes and
> that cigar smokers run a 4 to 6 times higher risk
> of getting mouth and throat cancer.

While not cancer, a friend of mine just got diagnosed with emphysema. He was a bit shocked, 'cause he's never smoked cigarettes, but has been a cigar afficionado for some time. He told the doctors, "I never inhale, I just puff!" Then they asked him where he smoked his cigars..."At the cigar bar." You know, where 30 men are sitting around smoking in an enclosed room...oh yeah, second hand smoke IS inhaled :)

Everybody's going to die. Choosing to indulge in something that gives you some pleasure, and which *might* cut some time off your life, seems like a reasonable compromise, and it's certainly none of my business if somebody wants to do it.

I went to a comedy show in LA once -- the comedian came on stage, lit up a cigarette, took a huge drag, and blew out the smoke. Then said, "What, you're not gonna tell me that cigarettes are going to kill me, are you? Well I got news for you: you're going to die, too -- and at least I will have known how fucking great a cigarette tastes before I go!" :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2015 03:59PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Indeed, 4 times a low number may result in a high number in regards to catching cancer.

Here is a good read:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/cigars-fact-sheet



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2015 04:11PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a good read:
>
> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-preventi
> on/risk/tobacco/cigars-fact-sheet

This is a good example of what I mean by "studies financed by big cancer research and prevention institutions".

I understand they cannot come out and say, ok, smoking cigars may not be too bad. It hurts their message and the good work they did reducing the number of people who smoke (I'm all for strict smoking bans in public spaces).

So they publish a lot of duh-statements whithout much context, which get extra credence because of who's saying it:

- Are there harmful chemicals in cigar smoke? Duh.

- The more you smoke, the higher the risk. Duh.

A lot is achieved by "carefully worded" vague statements such as this one:

"Are cigars less hazardous than cigarettes? Because all tobacco products are harmful and cause cancer, the use of these products is strongly discouraged. There is no safe level of tobacco use."

Notice that's not an answer. It's also not true that there is no safe level of tobacco use. The entire field of toxicology is devoted to determining safe levels of exposure to hazardous substances: radio activity, fine particles, NOx, etc.

Another untruth is that cigars are addictive by definition. I know a lot of cigar smokers and while several dozen is still anecdotal, I know of no one who is addicted. Outdoor smokers like myself get through entire fall and winter seasons without any withdrawal symptoms. I'm sure you can get addicted to cigars if you have that predisposition (addiction is largely genetic) but it's not a must. Smoking cigars is not about getting a kick, it's about experiencing a quiet moment of enjoyment and introspection.

Still, I see they updated the fact sheet since I last downloaded it. They included a link to a 248-page monograph about cigar smoking that I haven't read yet, so thanks for the link, MJ.

Yeah, just like Mormon deny the evidence showing TSCC is not true.

The same carcinogen, only more, are present. Yeah, they won't cause cancer because they did not come from a cigarette. Yeah, that is sound science. Where are the studies that show that the carcinogens that cause cancer form cigarettes is safe when coming from a cigar?

What causes cancer with cigarettes would cause cancer from cigars, DUH. Why would ANYONE think different?

So you don't smoke as much, but that is like saying a person that smokes 1/2 a pack a day isn't going to get cancer because other people smoke more.

To me your argument is sounds like:

Arsenic is poison that can kill you.

There are no studies that show that arsenic mixed in applesauce will kill you so we shouldn't assume that arsenic mixed in applesauce is bad for you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2015 07:26PM by MJ.

Like I said in my previous posts, I'm not arguing that cigar smoking is healthy. It's a difficult subject to discuss without being accused of all kinds of things. The reason why it is difficult is because we're talking about risk and probabilities and most people, academics included, don't understand probability,

What makes it more difficult is the way cancer research and public health institutions have framed the issue. A nuanced message doesn't come across so they've chosen the very simple "smoking kills". And it has worked and caused a huge increase in public health, which I think is a good thing.

Having grown up in that mindset, we all think that smoking cigarettes is going to give you lung cancer and kill you. Well, it does - in about 20% of the cases of heavy smokers (slightly higher for males, slightly less for females). That is the actual risk we are talking about.

There are, of course, other risks associated with smoking. My point is the difference between how the message is framed and what the actual numbers are. The official messages are framed like "High% of lung cancer patients are smokers" while the scientists are finding "Low% of smokers get smoking-related diseases and VerlyLow% of the population get these diseases to begin with".

And no, moderate amounts of arsenic won't kill you. There's actually lots of arsenic in our food and water. The FDA doesn't say "all arsenic will kill you, there are no safe levels of arsenic", they simply set a threshold for safe levels of exposure and monitor that.

When I considered taking up cigar smoking, I weighed all the risks as best I could and decided they were acceptable to me. In fact, I am willing to bet that if you had an espresso on a sidewalk cafe in most any town or city, you inhale more harmful substances from the cars passing by than me from smoking a cigar in my garden.

Unfortunately, political correctness will always prevent such studies from being carried out.

As I said, your argument still comes across as:

Arsenic is poison that can kill you.

There are no studies that show that arsenic mixed in applesauce will kill you so we shouldn't assume that arsenic mixed in applesauce is bad for you.

As for the "heavy smokers" argument, as I have also said before, it is like trying to argue that cigarette smoking isn't so bad because smoking 1/2 pack a day isn't like smoking 2 packs a day.

Puff for puff, cigar smoke introduces more carcinogens than cigarettes so puff for puff, cigar smoke would be more likely to cause mouth or throat cancer.

I do like how you moved the goal posts from "no studies" to "message Framed". The message I always got was smoking is bad for you. For the most part it was not limited to cigarettes. Oh, when I lived in areas were chew was prevalent, I saw lots of stuff about chew causing cancer. The message, as I saw it framed was "Tobacco contains things that cause cancer". The message was not limited to cigarettes.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 08:30AM by MJ.

MJ, if it helps you understand what I'm saying, I have no problem stating for the third time that I am not arguing that cigar smoking is healthy. What I am arguing is that it is less unhealthy than cigarette smoking.

Every study shows that the more you smoke, the higher the adverse health effects so yes, smoking one pack a day is less dangerous than smoking two. This is not a fallacy, this is scientific fact and highly relevant to this discussion.

I did not move any goal post from "no studies" to "message Framed". This is your straw man. I said "there are very few studies dedicated to cigar smoking only" and this is true. If you know of any, please let me know because I am genuinely interested.

It's also true that the messages around smoking are framed in the way I pointed out. You confirm this when you relate "the message you always got", which is the message you were supposed to get.

Even in science, it matters who is funding the research and what their goals are. Going back to the article linked to in the OP, my hunch is that the FDA is laying the groundwork for a ban on flavoured cigars. Maybe WestBerkeleyFlats can confirm but then again, maybe not. You can tell from his/her reactions in this thread how politically loaded the subject is.

To back up your claim "[cigar] is less unhealthy than cigarette smoking."?


Your original argument was there were not studies showing the health risks, you are claiming that cigar smoking *IS* less harmful. How do you KNOW this if there is, as you claim, no studies regarding cigar smoking?

Yes, it is hard to follow you when your arguments seem to negate each other.

Oh and AGAIN, to address your "the more you smoke" argument, pleas note where I have addressed that multiple ways and times.

But let us try it another way AGAIN. If a cigarette smoker smokes less than an cigar smoker and does not inhale, likely they would have less risk of contracting cancer than the cigar smoker. IT IS LIKELY NOT THE CIGAR THAT REDUCES THE RISK. As i pointed out, it is how much and how deep the smoke is inhaled.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 07:30PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you have studies to back up your claim " is less unhealthy than cigarette smoking."?

All studies indicate this. For instance, look at figure 2 of the monograph referenced in the link you posted on April 24, 2015 04:07PM. The rates of coronary heart disease, COPD, lung cancer, laryngeal cancer, oral cancer and esophageal cancer are all way lower (the last two being only slightly lower but still lower).


> Your original argument was there were not studies
> showing the health risks you are claiming that
> cigar smoking *IS* less harmful. How do you KNOW
> this if there is, as you claim, no studies
> regarding cigar smoking?

Again a straw man. You keep misrepresenting what I said so I'll repeat it again (at the risk of appearing foolish to expect a different result while repeating the same action):

"there are very few studies dedicated to cigar smoking only. Most of the studies don't distinguish between cigars, pipes and cigarettes. The few that do usually contain a disclaimer that the study's conclusions cannot be applied to cigar and pipe smoking."


> Yes, it is hard to follow you when your arguments
> seem to negate each other.

I think what makes it hard is that you are not reacting to what I actually wrote but to what you think I wrote.


> But let us try it another way AGAIN. If a
> cigarette smoker smokes less than an cigar smoker
> and does not inhale, likely they would have less
> risk of contracting cancer than the cigar smoker.

That would be one of the duh-statements I mentioned earlier. Although I find it odd that you have to propose a cigarette smoker who doesn't inhale to make a point I don't dispute.


> IT IS LIKELY NOT THE CIGAR THAT REDUCES THE RISK.
> As i pointed out, it is how much and how deep the
> smoke is inhaled.

Dude, that's what I have been saying all along, it's the way cigars are smoked which leads to lower health risks:

"but cigars are not inhaled and smoked a lot less intensely than cigarettes"

"the health risks are very low for the average cigar smoker (who smokes maybe one or two cigars a week; I'm an outdoor smoker myself so I only smoke when it's warm and not windy outside)"

"Smoking cigars is not about getting a kick, it's about experiencing a quiet moment of enjoyment and introspection."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 02:30AM by rt.

Sorry, but I DO know people that smoke far less cigarettes than many cigar smokers.

As you claim, it depends how they are smoked, thus with these people cigarettes are less harmful for some than are cigars.

You simply can not say that cigars are always the safer option, because it depends on how they are smoked. If a person smokes fewer cigarettes than they do cigars, it is likely that cigars put them at greater risk.

Dang, you really do seem desperate to rationalize cigar smoking.

You even dismiss your own claim that "cigar smokers run a 4 to 6 times higher risk of getting mouth and throat cancer." to claim that cigar smoking is less unhealthy. More risk, less healthy, yes that makes sense, NOT. Any cigarette smoker that does not inhale (and there are many) would appear to be less likely to contract cancer.

Sorry your blanket statement that cigars are not as bad as cigarettes does not stand up, because it depends on how each product is used, not the product itself.

And there are people that use cigarettes in a way that would make cigars the greater risk.

To blanket claim that cigars are always the lesser risk is simply not true.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 03:11AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You simply can not say that cigars are always the
> safer option, because it depends on how they are
> smoked. If a person smokes fewer cigarettes than
> they do cigars, it is likely that cigars put them
> at greater risk.

I have never said "that cigars are always the safer option". Why do you keep misrepresenting me? Do you do this on purpose or are you just that dense? Here's what I actually said:

"I'm not saying that cigar smoking is healthy but in my personal lay opinion, the health risks are very low for the average cigar smoker"

In the study you (indirectly) linked to, this is expressed as follows on page 8:

"When cigar smokers don’t inhale or smoke few cigars per day, the risks are only slightly above those of never smokers"

The dose-response relationship is well-known in the literature (and to me) and I have never said anything different.


> Dang, you really do seem desperate to rationalize
> cigar smoking.

Not at all, I am very comfortable with my cigar smoking habits, I am aware of the actual risks and I fully expect to die of esophageal cancer someday, as I am in two other risk groups for that as well.


> You even dismiss your own claim that "cigar
> smokers run a 4 to 6 times higher risk of getting
> mouth and throat cancer" to claim that cigar
> smoking is less unhealthy. More risk, less
> healthy, yes that makes sense, NOT.

I agree, the way you misrepresent my position here does not make sense. Maybe you could stop doing that, otherwise this discussion is going nowhere (a feeling I'm getting anyway).


> Any cigarette
> smoker that does not inhale (and there are many)
> would appear to be less likely to contract cancer.

Duh.

> Sorry your blanket statement that cigars are not
> as bad as cigarettes does not stand up, because it
> depends on how each product is used, not the
> product itself.

It stands up precisely because it depends on how each product is used. You are making a case built on anecdotal cigarette smokers who don't inhale the very few cigarettes they smoke, and imaginary cigar smokers who inhale numerous cigars every day.

While both types of smokers probably exist (although I have my doubts about the first category), they do not accurately represent the issue. You not only misrepresent me, you also play fast and loose with the facts.


> And there are people that use cigarettes in a way
> that would make cigars the greater risk.

While you get all excited about these non-inhaling accidental smokers you conjured up in your fantasy world, you dismiss the majority of actually existing cigar smokers who determine the overall finding that cigar smoking poses only slightly elevated health risks if done in moderation and without inhaling.

And you call me a Mormon denying the evidence? You think I'm desparate? What a joke.


> To blanket claim that cigars are always the lesser
> risk is simply not true.

Again a misrepresentation. I have not made such a blanket statement and I have consistently pointed out the importance of dosage/usage in this thread.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I have said what I wanted to say, you can take it or leave it, I couldn't care less.

An avid cigar smoker is almost certainly at more risk than a cigarette smoker that is NOT an avid cigarette smoker.

But hey, stick with your denial of that.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not at all, I am very comfortable with my cigar
> smoking habits, I am aware of the actual risks and
> I fully expect to die of esophageal cancer
> someday, as I am in two other risk groups for that
> as well.


I don't understand why you would choose to subject yourself to something like esophageal cancer, knowingly?

If your habit is "just" a cigar habit even one you thoroughly enjoy, but only do once or twice a week, isn't there something else you could find instead that could be as relaxing for you like meditation or yoga (just as an example,) that you wouldn't be placing yourself in a higher risk pool of getting cancer?

I try not to eat products containing sodium nitrite, for instance, because I know of the health risk associated with consuming that with different cancers.

Finding an alternative substitute that would be healthier for you to enjoy the life you have, and quality not just quantity of years.

Even knowingly taking on the risks of smoking, is that smoking related cancers are not pretty and not something I would wish on anyone.

I tried having a conversation with my mom before she died at the age of 67, about her smoking. She was a nicotine addict of cigarettes, a heavy smoker, and told me she couldn't stop if she wanted to, because she was that addicted.

Whereas someone who only smokes 1-2 cigars a week I should think has a much higher chance of stopping smoking, and getting through it without a lot of withdrawal except for the psychological pleasure it gives you. But then you're smart enough to find something else to take its place!

I know what you do is your business. Not trying to tell you what to do with your life. Only mentioning it because you could change that if you made a little effort.

I helped my dad stop smoking in his later years from letting him know what I thought about it. He finally was able to quit, along with my stepmother. They saved lots of money from quitting, and associated health costs.

I firmly believe his quitting tobacco added a good 10-15 more years with his family, which I am very thankful to have had before he was called to his eternal rest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 08:54AM by amyjo.

amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why you would choose to subject
> yourself to something like esophageal cancer,
> knowingly?

I subject myself to all kinds of risks that are much higher than this every day. The incidence of esophageal cancer is about 4.4 per 100,000. That's less than half the incidence of traffic accident deaths and my mileage is high. My bedroom is upstairs. Look up the number of accidental deaths by falling and you'll take the odds for esophageal cancer any day (they are 10:1). I considered the risks of cigar smoking and found them acceptable.


> If your habit is "just" a cigar habit even one you
> thoroughly enjoy, but only do once or twice a
> week, isn't there something else you could find
> instead that could be as relaxing for you like
> meditation or yoga (just as an example,) that you
> wouldn't be placing yourself in a higher risk pool
> of getting cancer?

Meditation and yoga don't work for me. I could take up fishing but that would only reduce the risk by half in view of the risk of drowning. If you take into account that I have to travel to a fishing spot, it's probably not worth it from a probabilistic view. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass here. Just trying to make clear that life if full of risks and cigar smoking is only a minor one.


> I try not to eat products containing sodium
> nitrite, for instance, because I know of the
> health risk associated with consuming that with
> different cancers.

Your life span and susceptibility to diseases are largely determined by your genetic makeup. There are very, very few environmental and behavioural factors that have been scientifically proven to be able to influence that. Smoking cigarettes is one of them. Inhaling asbestos is another, as is hunger while growing up. Radioactivity. That's about it. Eat and drink moderately and varied, get some exercise and enjoy your life. The rest is bullshit - a multi-billion dollar health business worth of bullshit. We have evolved as survival machines for hundreds of thousands of years. The health industry has got nothing on evolution.


> Even knowingly taking on the risks of smoking, is
> that smoking related cancers are not pretty and
> not something I would wish on anyone.

I know this. I saw my mother die of cancer and held her emaciated hand when she drew her last breath. She was 58, grew her own vegetables, bought most necessities straight from the farms around us and walked the dog for an hour every day. And as a Mormon, no alcohol and no tobacco of course. There are no guarantees.

When my time comes, I'll book an Arctic cruise and jump ship in the middle of the night after my last whisky and cigar.


> Whereas someone who only smokes 1-2 cigars a week
> I should think has a much higher chance of
> stopping smoking, and getting through it without a
> lot of withdrawal except for the psychological
> pleasure it gives you. But then you're smart
> enough to find something else to take its place!

In the cold season, I go without cigars for months on end, not a problem. When people around me have a issues with smoking, I don't, no problem.


> I know what you do is your business. Not trying to
> tell you what to do with your life. Only
> mentioning it because you could change that if you
> made a little effort.

Don't worry about it. I don't.


> I helped my dad stop smoking in his later years
> from letting him know what I thought about it. He
> finally was able to quit, along with my
> stepmother. They saved lots of money from
> quitting, and associated health costs.

I made my killing when I stopped paying tithing. The Cubans, the whisky, the craft beer, it's all peanuts compared to tithing.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 10:03AM by rt.

It's true what we don't know can hurt us.

But to be educated on a matter is likened to a trained driver.

Better knowing so you can make informed decisions, and act accordingly.

Sounds like you've rationalized to yourself for smoking the occasional cigar.

Seriously though, I hope you don't really jump ship on an Alaskan cruise so you won't suffer another kind of death from a lingering illness.

Life is more than work and pleasure.

You sound like you have cultivated a sense of humor too. That should serve you well whatever the circumstances.

Be well.

Well, I hope I don't need to book that cruise just yet. My goal is to make it to 2050 and I have good genes (almost exclusively nonagenarians and centenarians in my family). The real question is whether there will still be an Arctic by then...

I just posted to Facebook about the volcano @ Yellowstone, being the world's largest one ever, should it decide to go off.

Some of my relatives live near there, and I grew up in the shadow of the Tetons.

When it decides to blow it will change the earth's climate, and the entire North American continent from coast to coast will be permanently altered. It's been compared to a nuclear holocaust when that time arrives. Scientists can only guesstimate when that will be. Statistically the odds are 1 in 700,000 years. But that's less than the odds of being struck by lightning too. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/24/us/yellowstone-supervolcano-magma-reservoir-discovery/?iid=ob_article_topstories_pool&iref=obinsite

Hmmm, maybe I'll move there by 2050...

Here, you can use this site for your arctic travel planning ...

http://arctic-news.blogspot.ca/

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 02:44AM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2015 08:25AM by MJ.

I'm a co-author of the paper. There are some issues in how it's presented.

Interesting that you do not say what those issues are.

I get in enough trouble at work as it is. One can fairly easily compare relative risks for cigarette and cigar smoking from ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II) data. Cigar smokers have elevated risks for many conditions. The magnitude of these risks vary by frequency and duration of use and depth of inhalation. Cigarettes are really, really bad for you.

Sounds like cigars, with the same carcinogens, are really bad for you as well.

Yes, cigars are bad for you as well.

I'm with you SII; cannot smoke either or be around second hand smoke. It has been a trigger for my asthma, and just makes me sick period from being around cigarette or cigar smoke.

In fact, any kind of smoke can be nauseating.

Congratulations on your clean bill of health having survived a cancer scare twice.

I smoked as a teenager. I quit smoking for good when I was 19. It was the hardest thing I ever had to do was to stop smoking. I will say going back to the Mormon church helped me quit at the time. The addiction is very powerful, and physical.

Today tobacco makers make tobacco even more addictive than a generation ago. If they can entice the younger generation into smoking it just makes it that much harder for them to quit. And it was hard then.

Now there are nicotine patches and a supposedly safer way of smoking called Vape tobacco. I've heard bad reports about that too, that there are still health risks associated to that.

Considering all the toxins and chemicals contained in tobacco, I'm not surprised that cigar smoking is as unhealthy as cigarette smoking.

Both my TBM parents were smokers for a good chunk of their lives. My mom died of smoking related causes, like her father did.

Most of my siblings, like myself, developed respiratory problems throughout adulthood we can stem directly to having been exposed to second hand smoke for a good part of our childhood.