Is there any research that shows a relationship between a persons level of education and smoking?
449573
Education is a component of socioeconomic status (SES), which in turn is a large predictor of health behavior choices.  \n\nSome models posit that the stress associated with low SES leads to behaviors to reduce that stress: namely, smoking, drinking, and overeating.  Thus, the poor are doubly cursed: they have few resources, and they engage in behaviors that lead to poorer health.\n\nOther observers believe that low SES has a direct impact on health (the so-called 'relative deprivation' theory).  \n\nMost health researchers believe that smoking cessation promotion, while worthwhile, is not likely to improve the health of the less well educated.  This is an aspect of the 'fundamental cause' theory that suggests that the poor will always be less healthy than the affluent, because the affluent will always be better able to translate resources into health.
953307
I took a look, and noticed on the kids section the following, which said that passive smoking caused:\n\n"Increased risk of coronary heart disease. \nA 10-30% increased risk of lung cancer for non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking over long periods of time."\n\nThis is complete nonsense. There is no scientifically verifiable evidence linking passive smoking with either coronary heart disease or lung cancer: on the contrary, the largest study ever conducted with a sample of over 35,000 non-smoking spouses of smokers, by scientists from the Universities of Califonia and New York, found that there was no statistical evidence ot suggest these non-smokers (in a study which ran from 1959 to 1998) suffered greater mortality rates than non-smokers generally from either coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or any level of exposure.\n\nSince when did the Roy Castle Foundation engage in blatantly misleading, scaremongering propaganda?
140595
Does having facial piercings make people more likely to smoke cigarettes.
303758
It is my opinion that tobacco companies don't influence young people to smoke - other young people do.  (No, I don't work for any tobacco companies.)
595218
There is good evidence that religiosity is inversely related to levels of education, so probably, yes.
605545
Criterion for testing: people who didn't smoke got lung cancer just like smokers.  Turned out that these people that didn't smoke but got cancer anyway, lived or worked with smokers or inhaled second hand smoke from their living environments.\n\nProcedure: statistical analysis of thousands of patients that had cancer.
138119
The 'hazard ratio' of anything (death included) is virtually the same concept as the relative risk. For example if smoking causes lung cancer in 5/10 ppl (50%), but 1/10 nonsmokers get lung cancer (10%), then our 'hazard ratio' or relative risk of getting lung cancer for a smoker = rate in smokers/rate in nonsmokers(controls)\n       = 50% / 10%\n       =5.\nOr smokers are 5 times as likely as nonsmokers to develop lung cancer. Hope that helps:)
799601
No, I have a problem with a lot of people but not smokers...!\n\nPoor peeps, being victimised because they're exercising the human right to control what they do to their own bodies.
450271
How about the effect of possibly not having a father sooner, rather than later. Also, as the child grows it is always more difficult to convince children/young adults not to smoke when their parent(s) smoke.\nFinancially, put the smoking money into a bank account for the child's college education.
246915
personally, I haven't. My mother, however, did to quit smoking. I suppose it depends on the person and situation but it worked amazingly for her.
424585
Nonsmokers have some serious issues with "control" when they start talking about not smoking outside. Just walk around the smoker huddled next to the ash can, it's really not that difficult. If he's not huddled next to the ash can do that silly fake cough thing, that will show him. Sigh.
171731
There's really no way to tell unless he goes to a doctor. Some people can start smoking at age 10 and live to be 100...it all depends on your body.
385981
I read a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that stated that pot contains chemical compounds which actually inhibit tumour growth. A long term analysis of pot smokers apparently showed much reduced cancer rates over long term cigarette smokers.
719306
Why don't you try an ethnographic study of a group trying to quit smoking.\n\nYou could take a video camera to a smokers support group and interview people- make sure they know it's for a class project. You might be able to get family members outside the meeting or in the meeting.\n\nFor the project, write up your experience, the answers you recieved, and if you have to do an oral presentaion you have the video. \n\nGood luck!
266021
I haven't seen any studies, but I suspect that light smoking, like any other vice, is not that harmful to you. The figures about how every cigarette shortens your life by such-and-such time is based on the average lifespan of fairly heavy lifetime smokers compared to lifetime non-smokers. It's kind of like the average lifespan of a lifetime non-drinker vs. someone who's putting away a fifth of Jack Daniels every day. Light, infrequent drinking probably doesn't have a single negative effect on one's health. The biggest danger is that light smoking often leads to heavy smoking, where there are significant health risks.
612919
of course it is.it causes lung cancer,heart disease,bronchitis,emphysema.trust me cos it's all in my bio. book. smoking contains tar,nicotine & carbon monoxide which contribute to all of these diseases at some point.cheers!
1159619
Setting aside the argument over whether caffeine is more addictive than nicotine (and research suggests nicotine is FARRR more addictive than caffeine - even moreso than heroin or cocaine)...\n\nThere is a plentitude of medical literature that proves a significant correlation between smoking and the development of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and adverse cardiovascular events, such as stroke. Smoking also hastens the progession of existing disease, and it has long been known that smokers recover significantly slower than non-smokers after surgery. \n\nIn short, there is not much that can be stated with absolute certainty in medical science. One thing that can be stated with near certainty however is the fact that smoking kills, hastening the death of millions.\n\nOn the other hand, although caffeine might be addictive, there are no studies that really correlate caffeine intake with adverse health outcomes. In addition, there are promising studies that show certain health benefits correlate with the intake of certain caffeinated beverages such as teas and coffees. \n\nBy contrast, nearly every study in which smoking is considered a variable shows an increased incidence of adverse outcomes among smokers.\n\nTell your friend to consult the New York Times Health section, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the New England Journal of Medicine.