# Smokers do not die younger

How many times have you seen this? -

SMOKERS DIE YOUNGER

I though it would be an interesting exercise to put it to the test.

Now I smoke for pleasure, not for science, so I am disinclined to rack up my smoking levels to see if I die any younger. Seeing as I don’t know what my normal life expectancy is, it would be a pointless exercise anyway.

Instead, I decided to look for life expectancy figures for counties around the world. Having found that, I looked for the percentage of daily smokers in each country. These figures are readily available, so I had my raw data.

The variation in the percentage of smokers is quite large, ranging from Canada at 17% through to Austria at 36.3%. A marked difference like that must show a corresponding inverse life expectancy?

So what would I expect to find when correlating these two tables? Well, naturally I would expect that the higher the percentage of daily smokers would correspond with the lowest life expectancy. That is after all what they have been drumming into us?

I plotted a graph where the red line is the percentage of smokers and the blue line is life expectancy -

Ouch! Not very convincing, is it? What that graph is telling me is that there doesn’t seem to be any correlation?

I must have done something wrong.

I tried again.

This time I plotted The percentage of smokers [in red] against life expectancy [in blue] -

At last! A bit of a result? There seems to me a very slight correlation there all right? The red line does seem to follow the trend of the blue?

But hold on! What’s this? If that is true, then it would appear that smoking rates and life expectancy are directly related, whereas conventional ‘wisdom’ would have us believe that they should be inversely related? The graph is hinting that the more you smoke, the greater your life expectancy? Nah!! That can’t be true?

I will give the Antis the benefit of the doubt and will say that the red line shows no trend at all.

So what is my conclusion?

Simple.

There is sweet fuck all relationship between life expectancy and smoking.

In other words,

SMOKERS DO NOT DIE YOUNGER

#### Smokers do not die younger — 10 Comments

1. Now do the same with the Japanese, if you can find the raw data. Don’t worry about it though it has been done and guess what. The Japanese have the highest smoking rate among males of anywhere on planet Earth and the lowest lung cancer rate of same. They also have one of the worlds longest life expectancies. Well known facts, totally ignored.

2. Heretic – I had heard that about the Japanese.  To be pedantic, Austrians have the highest figure [Japan comes fourth on my list, with Greece an Hungary up there too], and Austrians have a pretty healthy lifespan too.  A lot higher than Ireland or the UK.  And as for America leading the way – they have the second lowest rate of smoking, yet are way down near the bottom when it comes to life expectancy.  As I said above – there is no relationship whatsoever.

David – That is quite some toy.  I will have to play around with it a bit but those graphs could be very interesting!

• why dont smokers die yonger than non smokers?????????????

• You sound surprised John?  The simple fact is that there is no reason why they should.  You will hear stories about “Uncle Fred who died in his forties, after smoking sixty a day” but there as many stories abut “Auntie Jane who smoked like a chimney ’til her death at 101″

The Anti-smoking mob through all their propaganda would have you believe that all smokers are heading for an early grave, but the figures in the post above just don’t support that claim.

3. The Japanese picture is interesting on two points.
First, I believe they prefer their smokes to come from the tobacco leaf only, so the ribs, stems and other shit get left out of their cigarette production (and reimported back to the States!)
Second, until recently, the entire country was ‘diesel-free’, on the orders of their last emperor who disliked diesel, the reasons for which I haven’t a clue. The Oxford researcher Kitty Little believed that diesel is the arch-culprit for lung cancers.

4. Have you ever wondered why this rampant anti-smoking campaign started at all?
Why is someone spending so much money in order to make people stop smoking?
Having in mind the level of this global campaign, are there any naivee people still
thinking that officials are concerned for our health? I was very suspicious (for me, whenever
officials start to “push” some “truth” my brain automatically starts to suspect, I can’t gulp
anything they are “pushing”, especially if that has been “proved” by some kind of “research”).
So, to my mind came the idea that maybe nicotine has some other properties which they are
trying to hide from public? So, I have started to do some research on the internet, and I have
found interesting data. I am still in the process of finding “another point of view” so I will not
claim anything, but the idea is very interesting… I think we should start questioning many
“truths”, “values” and “ideals” that we are constantly fed by media. What’s the agenda?

Sorry if not being very clear, English is not my native language.
Regards to all smokers