The death of this hypothetical woman might have been related to her smoking or might not have been. Lots of non smokers die of heart failure. Nor are all sickly people smokers, not all asthmatics have smoking parents and not all spouses of smokers die of cancer. All true. And the data - and the media - do not say that all smokers will get those diseases, or that all people who get those diseases are smokers. They merely say that the chances of getting those diseases are so much higher if you smoke, that smoking is a very bad idea.
Driving after drinking too much will almost certainly do you no harm. You will, in all likelihood, make it home alive and safe. But the chance of doing yourself or someone else damage is so much higher that it is illegal to drink and drive. Because as a society we believe that the harm caused by drinking and driving - even though it's relatively rare, even though most people who drink and drive are perfectly fine - is not something we want to tolerate. We believe that the inconvenience of combatting drinking and driving (having to take cabs, have designated drivers, paying cops to do road checks) are worth it, for the harm they prevent.
As a society we have decided that the overall harm of smoking to all of us (more sick days, higher rates of cancer, yadda yadda) is bad enough that we want to do something to reduce smoking. We raise taxes on cigarettes, let insurance companies charge smokers more, ban smoking in public buildings, etc.
Global warming? In North America we have decided that it's not that big a deal. So we say the data isn't sufficient or clear enough, we point out that Katrina and Wilma could have been just as bad even without climate change (true), we point out examples of droughts or bad fire seasons or odd warmings or migration pattern changes that all happened before climate change was an issue (and there are many)... and we steadfastly ignore the signs that say that there are more and stronger storms now, ice caps are receding much faster, etc etc.
I'm perfectly aware that my mother, and her husband, might have died of cancer even if they'd never smoked a single cigarette in their lives. I know Chris' grandfather lived to a ripe old age even though he smoked like a chimney. I don't therefore decide smoking can't be as bad as the studies say. Statistics are about general trends. And while they can be misleading, and can be manipulated, and can be just plain wrong, when you have a whole bunch of studies almost all pointing in the same direction and almost all saying pretty much the same thing, maybe it's time to take them seriously instead of waiting for them all to say exactly the same thing, with 100% certainty. Because that is never going to happen.
It's like continuing to smoke until you can be shown, with 100% certainty, that you, personally, will die of lung cancer that was caused by your smoking. You can do it, but you'll just look like a bit of an idiot when/if you do get lung cancer and try to say, "But there wasn't any really conclusive proof that it was dangerous!"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-12-18 05:12 am (UTC)All true. And the data - and the media - do not say that all smokers will get those diseases, or that all people who get those diseases are smokers. They merely say that the chances of getting those diseases are so much higher if you smoke, that smoking is a very bad idea.
Driving after drinking too much will almost certainly do you no harm. You will, in all likelihood, make it home alive and safe. But the chance of doing yourself or someone else damage is so much higher that it is illegal to drink and drive. Because as a society we believe that the harm caused by drinking and driving - even though it's relatively rare, even though most people who drink and drive are perfectly fine - is not something we want to tolerate. We believe that the inconvenience of combatting drinking and driving (having to take cabs, have designated drivers, paying cops to do road checks) are worth it, for the harm they prevent.
As a society we have decided that the overall harm of smoking to all of us (more sick days, higher rates of cancer, yadda yadda) is bad enough that we want to do something to reduce smoking. We raise taxes on cigarettes, let insurance companies charge smokers more, ban smoking in public buildings, etc.
Global warming? In North America we have decided that it's not that big a deal. So we say the data isn't sufficient or clear enough, we point out that Katrina and Wilma could have been just as bad even without climate change (true), we point out examples of droughts or bad fire seasons or odd warmings or migration pattern changes that all happened before climate change was an issue (and there are many)... and we steadfastly ignore the signs that say that there are more and stronger storms now, ice caps are receding much faster, etc etc.
I'm perfectly aware that my mother, and her husband, might have died of cancer even if they'd never smoked a single cigarette in their lives. I know Chris' grandfather lived to a ripe old age even though he smoked like a chimney. I don't therefore decide smoking can't be as bad as the studies say. Statistics are about general trends. And while they can be misleading, and can be manipulated, and can be just plain wrong, when you have a whole bunch of studies almost all pointing in the same direction and almost all saying pretty much the same thing, maybe it's time to take them seriously instead of waiting for them all to say exactly the same thing, with 100% certainty. Because that is never going to happen.
It's like continuing to smoke until you can be shown, with 100% certainty, that you, personally, will die of lung cancer that was caused by your smoking. You can do it, but you'll just look like a bit of an idiot when/if you do get lung cancer and try to say, "But there wasn't any really conclusive proof that it was dangerous!"