Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Smoking Could Contribute To The Development Of Other Disease Later In Life

November 9, 2010 by  

Smoking could contribute to the development of other disease later in lifeLeading a healthy lifestyle may be one way for individuals to improve their overall health. In contrast, people who smoke may be increasing their risk to develop disorders such as Alzheimer's disease or dementia, according to a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

In research conducted at the University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital in Finland, scientists analyzed data from more than 21,000 people who had been previously surveyed between 1978 and 1985. The participants were all between 50 and 60 years old.

The development of dementia and Alzheimer's disease was tracked for more than a decade, beginning in 1994 until 2008.

More than 25 percent of the subjects developed dementia during this time, including 1,136 who were diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Approximately 416 of the participants also developed vascular dementia. The diagnosis of these disorders was compared between the smoking and non-smoking individuals.

Researchers indicated that those who had smoked more than two packs each day during their middle-aged years were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer's later in life.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Smoking Could Contribute To The Development Of Other Disease Later In Life”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Vigilant

    And so we have another case of one study contradicting another. Years ago I recall a study that concluded just the opposite, i.e., that smoking actually reduced the chances for Alzheimer’s.

    • Bus

      That’s because the tobacco kills you before you can get to the Alzheimer’s stage.

  • FlaJim

    In reading all the studies over the years, I can conclude only that smoking may exacerbate pre-existing conditions or tendancies to certain conditions, not that it causes them. How else can one explain one who chain smokes for decades outliving someone else who smokes less than a pack a day?

    My doctor listens to my 57 year old chest each time I’m in for a checkup and always nods approvingly while commenting, “Non smoker, huh?” In fact, I still smoke a pack a day (3 a day for many years) and have done so for over 40 years.

    • 45caliber

      One thing I’ve wondered about for years. When ONLY tobacco was smoked, there were few reports of cancer. But when they started stretching tobacco by adding sugar beet leaves (up to about 50% now) the ONLY testing I’m familiar with has been on tobacco – not the sugar beet leaves.

      I’d really like to see a study on those.

      • Dan az

        Hey 45
        That I didnt know!If you think about it sugar marbelized in the lungs would most diffently have an appearance of say black lung?Interesting dont you think?For my self Ive been a two packer for about 50yrs and the lungs of a maybe 30yr old from all the saw dust over the years maybe that helped?

  • DavidL

    We need to improve our health care system and dramatically reduce its cost! We should stop messing around and go to single-payer national health insurance.

    Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

    Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46.3 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

    The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.
    Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

    Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

    Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

    A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

    • CharlesK

      I believe your plan is what we all just voted against in the recent election.

      • DavidL

        This isn’t the first time our voters chose dumb.

        Please go to the site I gave you. Read the piece, think and learn about the issue, and then help take action to get us there.

        • Dan az

          Dave did you read the part about the feds will be attaching a sales tax on homes that are sold to help pay for this so call health bill?

        • Vigilant

          So now you’re second-guessing the voters. We live in a Republic, son, and we’re supposed to respect the majority’s wishes (except when it comes to Obamacare, cap and trade, enforcement of federal laws in general, etc.).

          As posted before, the PNHP site is as biased as they come and I have no doubt of its leftist funding.

    • 45caliber

      If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until the “free” health care kicks in!

      • DavidL

        There is no free health care. That is self-serving republican BS. Everyone is required to purchase health care so you we don’t have free loaders just going to the emergency room and handing us the bill.

        If you are against the requirement that you purchase health care, are you also against the requirement that you must have car insurance before you can get into a car and drive? SAME THING!

        • JimH

          DavidL, There are some differences in mandatory car insurance and manatory health insurance. It is STATE law, not FEDERAL, that requires car insurance. Also no one is forcing you to own a car. DIFFERENT.

        • Dan az

          What about the illegals getting free health care as they do now but will now have a legal way to receive it still free!

        • Vigilant

          First you say, “Everyone is required to purchase health care so we don’t have free loaders just going to the emergency room and handing us the bill.”

          What an idiotic statement. Why do you think the costs of health care are so high? One of the reasons you’ve just given: because the freeloaders go to the emergency room and hand us the bill. Taxpayers are not wild about the idea of health care costs due to insurers making us pay for the nonpayers as it is; making government the bird dog isn’t going to make those costs go away, it’ll increase them!

          Using your skewed logic, everyone should be forced by the government to contribute to a national shoplifting fund to cover the costs to business and customers of those who steal.

          Then you continue with another cretinous statement, “If you are against the requirement that you purchase health care, are you also against the requirement that you must have car insurance before you can get into a car and drive? SAME THING!”

          Same thing, NOT! You once again use the already discredited analogy that participants in the discussion pointed out months ago.

          Let me put this in 4th grade terms so you MIGHT understand it: Driving is a privilege, not a right; no one forces you to drive a car. If you want the privilege, you abide by the terms of auto insurance. If you don’t want to pay auto insurance, you don’t drive. If you don’t drive, you don’t have to pay for other people’s auto insurance. Is that simple enough, or do you need a course in logic?

          Somehow I expect you’ll need the course.

    • Vigilant

      “Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46.3 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.”

      46.3 million? Did you get that number from the left wing web site you keep posting? Even the Obama administration stopped using that figure months ago when they were caught including the number of illegal aliens in it! It’s closer to 35 million, MANY of whom CHOOSE not to pay for their insurance even though they have the $$$.

      Which means they fully intend to include all illegals under the umbrella of health care, given the first chance they have. In any case, the left was shown up to be liars, any way you cut it. And we’re supposed to believe their pie-in-the-sky promises?

  • 45caliber

    Smoking can contribute to other health problems later in life. Well, so can living.

    I don’t smoke and haven’t smoked in over forty years. But I think these people worrying about someone else’s health to the point of trying to make their choices illegal is going a touch too far.

    • John D

      45 You are so correct. I smoked for over 31 years and before I quit I was smoking 5 packs a day.I was diagnosed with AAMI (age associated memory impairment)in my 50′s,which is a condition that mostly doesn’t start until your 70′s or 80′s. I do not blame the Government or the cigarette companies. It was my own fault, I am sick of the Government trying to protect me from myself. Big Brother needs to get out of my doctors office, my health insurance, my bedroom, my house, my gun locker. Their time is better spent trying to pass laws to get us out of this financial mess we are in. We retain the right to make wrong choices. That is part of freedom.

      • 45caliber

        Actually instead of passing laws to get us out of this mess, they need to repeal many of the laws they have that got us into it in the first place.

        And you, my friend, are living proof that they should mind their own business.

        What really jerks my chain is that they refuse to accept the blame for their own stupid choices. It’s the tobacco company’s fault for them smoking. It is the restaurants’ fault if they eat too much. Etc. But I’ve not seen anyone hold a gun to anyone’s head to make them do it yet.

  • http://com i41

    45, just a lttle to much refinement of the NMCDUP mantra of total government control, over everything in your life, down to what you eat. When Big Mamee, decided to play the food police for everyone. It has always been the socialist democrat party mantra, of government control over your life, down to who lives and dies, even TR, Wilson,FDR and other slugs of liberal presusanion have promoted this perverted crap mindset, down to Onumnutts.

    • 45caliber

      But they know what is best for you and are only looking out for your interests! Right!

      I sometimes wonder when they start trying to ban something for being bad for you if they aren’t trying to compensate for their own bad decisions by trying to blame someone else. Like Flip Wilson’s, “The Devil made me do it!”

      • Dan az

        you know 45 that I saw the test that they used when they said that second hand smoke kills.It was a long time ago but what they did show was the box that they put lab rats in,it was a 2x2x2 plexy glass box with about 100 holes in it with lit cigarettes in them with a vacuum attached to it and in about a second you couldnt even see the mice.When the smoke cleared all there was left was dead mice!Really that was what they used for their experiment.

  • jopa

    I do not know what dementia is nor do I care to know.I would still be a smoker but I can never find my lighter or butts.Good day

    • JimH

      jopa, I forgot where I put mine too. I’ve been looking for 34 years now and I still can’t find them.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        yours must be the same place I lost mine eleven years ago this march!

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    Except for a few cigars in his younger years, my father never smoked. But he died of Alzheimer’s last year. I can appreciate your wanting to inform us of risky products, behavior, etc. However, regardless of how you feel about tobacco, don’t let your feelings or emotions stand in the way of good judgment and common sense. I.e., these lawsuits against tobacco industries are frivolous, trying to pass victims off as duped, when in reality we’ve all known that smoking is harmful for nearly 5 decades!! And liberal/statist politicians talk about protecting children by lashing out at the tobacco and fast food industries.

    I don’t advocate tobacco use. But it’s a free nation, thus individuals should be free to choose which risks to take or not take. The anti-smoking nuts/control freaks don’t appreciate that. They tell us smoking kills 400,000+ Americans a year. HOWEVER, they’re careful not to break down the 400,000 into age groups. I guess it’s because doing so would show a majority of deaths are at an age when people will get the shaft under Obama-care (unless it’s repealed) even if they never smoked!! And very few, if any, deaths are under age 20 or 30, so that discredits their effort to appeal to our emotions by saying they’re protecting children!! LOL!! As we know, car crashes are a leading cause of death among youths. Some deaths could be prevented were it not for the mandated lighter and less safe vehicles due to CAFÉ standards. Given that younger drivers are more accident prone, I bet CAFÉ standards alone kill more youths than the tobacco and food industries. If the liberals/statists really care about kids, why won’t they lash out at the abortion industry, which kills (unborn children) double the 400,000+ figure (adults)?? And what about the millions of kids who die or have died of malaria?? Most of these deaths could be prevented if our leaders would stop catering to the environmentalist wacko fascists and lift the ban on DDT. We know the enviro-fascists have killed far more kids than the tobacco and food industries conbined!!!!!

    I’m also tired of hearing about tobacco killing more than AIDS. First, I lost my (gay) cousin to AIDS when he was only 35. How many smokers die that young?? Second, unlike with tobacco use, it doesn’t take years of risky behavior to become HIV infected and develop full blown AIDS. My understanding is that my cousin made only one error – spending one night with the wrong person who he met in a gay bar. Ask yourself – how many people have died from only one night of tobacco use?????!!!!!

    • 45caliber

      But there are so many humans! We could stand to lose some. At least, that’s what I’ve heard ‘environmentalists’ say. Of course, it has to be someone else.

      It’s like the polar bears. They are really concerned about them dying off from starvation if they can’t run around on ice flos. Many of the bears never bother to go seal hunting. They can do just fine otherwise. My preference would be for those people who are really concerned to go up there and feed them a hand or something to insure the bears remain happy. There are more environmentalists that we could stand to lose than the bears.

  • AZsenior

    As a senior with congestive heart failure who has been through many
    Dr checkups, I am always amused when after being checked out the Dr
    will ask if I smoke. I tell him yes and get the stop smoking speech.
    If the smoking was such a nasty thing, why does he even need to ask me
    that? I quit once for over 7 years then through a very stressful period of losing a great job and selling house in IN and moving to AZ, I took it up again. Had always been a pack a day, or less smoker.

    This study points out that smoking over 2 packs a day seems to be
    the problem. Had to smile at FlaJim’s comments and agree. Hard to
    explain all the people who have never smoked getting lung cancer.

    Many years ago, I stumbled across an obscure website that they said
    exposed the lung cancer from smoking idea. It was started by our very
    own government due to results they started finding from the A bomb
    tests in Nevada. The radiation fallout was much worse for our health
    than they figured on. Lung cancer was starting to show up a lot more
    in the years following and to avoid the blame game and possible law
    suits, it was decided to start the smoking causes lung cancer agenda.
    If you aren’t aware of it, the wind blows from west to east and by
    popping these off in the west, the rest of the US got the doses of

    Agree or disagree, all up to you. Personally with the history of our
    government and other tests they have done to us and our troops, I have
    no problem buying it.

    I think many states talk out of both sides of their mouths. They put
    huge taxes on smokes and fund many programs with the millions they
    make from it and at the same time try to promote no smoking.

    I had also read an article years ago telling people who don’t smoke,
    not to be so happy about what is happening with all the no smoking
    rules being passed. He predicted that when they are done with smokers,
    they could come after things like fast food and other things they deem
    harmful. I didn’t doubt it then, and now look what’s happening in
    Liberalville. No toys in Happy Meals unless it’s certifiable healthy
    food. Salt is the enemy. Soda’s, are under attack. I don’t drink soda
    or eat fries and watch my salt, but who am I to legislate away your
    choice to consume any of these? Welcome to the Nanny state.

    How does that saying go that ends up with When they came for me, there was no one left to protect me. We lose our freedoms a little
    at a time.

    • 45caliber

      Originally, laws were passed to protect you from someone else’s aggression. But they started passing laws to protect you from yourself. The most obvious one to me is the seat belt law. Their justification is that if you have many wrecks (which the seat-belt law doesn’t stop) it will increase insurance premiums for everyone. And everyone MUST have car insurance. But all you hear about is safety.

      So with that one law they have established that they have the right to tell you to buy insurance, which blows the law suits about it in Oblamacare, and gives them to the right to “take care of you”.

      And that means they have the right to determine who you marry, where you can live, and what job you can have.

      • DavidL

        Seat belts save lives. You dispute this fact?

        You disagree with requiring car owners to have car insurance?

        • Dan az

          Actually David I do have a problem with that. If my brother wasnt wearing his seat belt he would still be alive today!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Dan az,
            Back when I was a young squirt, I knew a kid that had a partial head-on accident and his belt kept him from hitting the windshield!! The problem was, it jammed and when the glancing blow sent his car off the road into a swamp, he drowned cause his seatbelt buckle jammed!!!

  • Steve Thompson

    Smoke and mirrors – does anyone seriously believe that Congress is motivated (and individual Representatives and Senators, alike) by anything but their individual desires to increase a power base, increase their personal wealth at taxpayers’ expense… Whether the purported issue is smoking, or pollution, or high finance, or medicine, or insurance, or healthcare, or whatever, no law is passed without fattening the pocketbooks of elected legislators who vote for it.

    I suspect that the individual issues are raised only to engage a segment of the population in the process of increasing their own wealth.

  • Karolyn

    We’re all different. Genetics has so much to do with any diseases we may or may not get. I quit smoking for about 7 years twice. The last time I picked it up again was 5 years ago. I have no other vices and barely smoke a half a pack a day. I am a pretty healthy person except for aches and pains. I believe I will quit again when my life settles down and I’m ready. Otherwise, c’est la view!

    • JimH

      Karolyn, You’ll quit for good the very day smoking kills you.

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    And in addition to my previous comments, we’re now hearing that the FDA wants to force the tobacco industries to put graphic (I’d have to add: Viewer discretion advised!!) images or photos on all cigarette packs and advertisements. While they’re at it, why not also have ads calling for the repeal of Obama-care, or health care reform/deform?? They say a picture paints a thousand words. Imagine seeing the corpses of those who were denied health care due to rationing or death panels, or the long lines at national health centers, or pictures of Britons using pliers to extract their own teeth because they can’t get dental care!! I could go on. Thus this would be a perfect warning message to all the drones, diehard liberal morons and other naïve individuals who are oblivious to what Obummer-care is really like!!

    I heard the Great One comment on this on the radio; suggesting 2 things. 1st, maybe all cars and/or automobile ads should include pictures of the thousands of people who die each year due to the CAFÉ standards imposed on us. 2nd, maybe there should be photos of the millions of children who die in Africa, etc., of malaria, thanks to the ban on DDT…..Now let me add to that – if this law is forced onto the tobacco industry, then why not also require all abortion providers to have posters at their clinics’ front entrances, and photos in their advertising, showing aborted fetuses?? “WHY??” you may ask me?? 1st, abortions (of unborn infants) outnumber tobacco deaths (among adults) 2 to 1!! 2nd, despite all the fear-mongering from the control freaks and ninny-nanny leftwing statists, the fact is that NOT ALL smokers die prematurely or suffer the fate shown on such images. BUT – with abortions – EVERY abortion performed results in the death of an unborn child!!!! Need I say more??


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.