If you smoke until you're 30 and then quit; you'll live as long as never-smokers

I don't agree that smoking is only harmful after the age of 30. Just because a piece of paper says so doesn't make it true, never mind that it's a newspaper and not a peer reviewed paper. Even if it was a peer reviewed paper I would be sceptical.

Newspapers tend to jump at the most tiny pieces of scientific evidence of things that they think would be controversial/interesting to people and either misinterpret it or just site a really ****ty paper in the majority of the cases.

Really though? I haven't smoked since before Christmas and it was a few weeks before then - I've never smoked habitually - but I always found it quite pleasant. I like the smell and the taste of it, though I understand that some people don't. The pleasure people get from smoking is not just about addiction...

I'd advocate changing the system so that people pay for their own self-inflicted illnesses.

It's not a newspaper, it was a study by the most influential scientists in the area and involved a 1.2 million person sample!

Then why have you only cited newspapers?

I don't have a subscription to the medical journals that publish the papers as I'm sure most people on TSR don't. If you read the newspapers, they all cite the journals and researchers involved - where do you think the newspapers got the story? Do you think the BBC have labs of their own?!

Most big studies are free for people to read on the internet. Also most of the people on this forum are students, so they should have access to online journals through their athens account or through their halls/library broadband.

Anyway, none of the newspapers cited the article, they just mentioned which journal it was published on. Also, they don't need to have their own lab but they might want someone who is actually a trained scientist to report on it because mostly they misreport because they interpret the article how they want to interpret it (wrongly mostly).

Edit: also, the newspapers themselves say that WOMEN are the ones who have less risk and that they'll live NEARLY as long as non-smokers, so I guess you're doing a bit of a misreporting on the second sources too.

The article is here
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61720-6/abstract

You seem to have a strange stance on this, I must say.

Edit: also, the newspapers themselves say that WOMEN are the ones who have less risk and that they'll live NEARLY as long as non-smokers, so I guess you're doing a bit of a misreporting on the second sources too.

I don't agree that smoking is only harmful after the age of 30. Just because a piece of paper says so doesn't make it true, never mind that it's a newspaper and not a peer reviewed paper. Even if it was a peer reviewed paper I would be sceptical.

Newspapers tend to jump at the most tiny pieces of scientific evidence of things that they think would be controversial/interesting to people and either misinterpret it or just site a really ****ty paper in the majority of the cases.

True, but that's not an argument against those people who smoke in their teens/early twenties and then do quit. It seems that those who do so will be no different to those who have never smoked.

OP, 30 isn't this magic number. It doesn't mean everyone that quits at that age will have no health problems ****ing hell don't be so gullible.

3)It isn't just a matter of quitting once you get to 30. It is highly addictive and most people who smoke for a long time don't ever really get over the addiction. If your betting your health on your ability to quit your probably going to lose.

If anyone here is stupid enough to test this theory, be my guest...

But remember one thing - Cancer, Bronchitis, Asthma, Emphysema, Stroke, Fertility Issues, Coronary Heart Disease & Peripheral Arterial Disease that smoking causes or is linked too are not limited to 30+ year olds... if you think smoking for 10-15 years will not affect you in the future because you stop at 30... you seriously need a reality check.

It was a study where 1.2 million people put this to the test, and 97% of them were fine.

If you cannot read what the study says and realise what that adds up to, you need to go back to school. The whole reason the study has been published is despite what people think, smoking for 10-15 years for 97% of people, will not affect them in future. That is why its interesting. In 97% of cases, if they stop smoking at 30, those symptoms will be avoided.

I read it, you just have no idea how bias studies can be... where is the research posted publicly? I could not see it, therefore until its analysed & replicated by multiple medical authorities & posted publicly for their methodology & analysis procedures to be seen; its totally criticisable...

Also for the record, there are 7000000000 (7 Billion) in the world; so 3% of 7000000000 is `210000000` ... Meaning 210000000 people would die just through smoking alone... 3% does not sound like a lot until you have real numbers in front of you... this of course is assuming everyone in the world smokes, which they don't; however you get the drift.