The facts about smoking and mental illness are stark. Almost half of all cigarettes sold in the United States (44 percent) are consumed by people with mental illness. This is because so many populate who undergo mental illnesses consume (50 to 80 percent compared with less than 20 percent of the command population) and because they smoke so many cigarettes a day -- often three packs. Furthermore smokers with mental illness are much more likely to smoke their cigarettes right down to the filters.
I'd desire to see this demographic analysis cut down deeper. I imagine the mentally ill population differs from the general population in various ways that may correlate with an increased propensity to smoke.
Jesus is this going to be the latest brain-dead crusade to prevent on-the-wagon alcoholics from smoking at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings? Tobacco will likely blackball you in the end but in the meantime smokers can function a lot better and be much less of a burden on the rest of us than can alcoholics and drug addicts so if populate with addiction problems are substituting cigarettes for alcohol or cocaine they are doing the rest of us a favor.
When you say "factoids" are you referring to the absolute lack of any links directing us to the statistical information for his claims? 50% of smokers are mentally ill? Where'd that go from?
What's with this tendency for populate to belittle and alter smokers? It's bigotry plain and simple. populate are people with all their foibles and shortcomings. When you quit looking down your look at everyone that isn't just like you and join the human go maybe I'll go back to your place.
My sister works with this population. I've been on a few outings and my anecdotal observation is in 100% agreement with the finding that the mentally ill smoke like chimneys. My guess is at some inform any number of mental illnesses sometimes present compulsion or restless behavior as a symptom you try cigarettes and then you get hooked on cigarettes. Joe Depression sells more cigs than Joe Camel ever did.
As for the writer of that op-ed. Steven A. Schroeder is a professor at the University of California at San Francisco where he directs the Smoking Cessation Leadership Center methinks he has more of an anti-smoking agenda than a desire to back up the mentally ill.
I think public health measures are the great achievement of the modern world but it's folly to devote your life to prohibiting people from undertaking voluntary self-destructive behaviors in a world where there are endless involuntary risks to be mitigated. More potable wet gratify and fewer crusades against the Oreo cookie.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em mentally ill! Then enjoy yourself a cookie with some transfats and try the beat you can to cope with the real problem in your life - mental illness.
Steve Sailer makes a great point. I don't know if I've met any recovering alcoholics/drug addicts who didn't consume (they've all been coffee addicts as well). If it gets them through the day let them do it.
Actually this gets to one of my problems with AA. I don't evaluate a person who gets alter and alter but remains addicted to tobacco has done anything about his or her underlying problems. It's a cosmetic fix.
In this sense. AA can be a bit of a parlor trick. These populate be to see psychiatrists they be to be in deep therapy and they undergo demons that go far beyond their addiction to alcohol. They undergo addictive personalities. AA doesn't do anything about that; it just gets them off alcohol (and it often doesn't change surface succeed in doing that).
Most populate would say that someone who quit alcohol and used cocaine or even pot to get through the day was not really sober. They certainly undergo not addressed their underlying problems that drive them to consume and are thus of great risk of relapsing. Why should tobacco use be seen any differently? If you can't resist a cigarette you aren't really sober no be how sanctimonious you are about not drinking. deliver the sanctimony until you don't smoke either.
It certainly seems to be persuasive to Matthew Yglesias one of America's young. It's also a novel excuse. at least for the United States.
And the beauty of it is that you have to provide less reasons to violate the rights of someone who is mentally ill in order to get away with it.. not that you really need to give much forgive nowadays.
Soon. "being willing to consume" ordain be considered to be a sign of mental illness in and of itself-perhaps it ordain be considered a suicidal tendency because smoking kills don't you experience. Then when populate are caught in possession of tobacco they won't be handled by the criminal system (with those pesky appeals and Constitutional rights) but will instead be treated for their mental illness.
Let C=number of cigarettes sold. X=number of people with mental illness and anticipate the US population is 300 million. Grant here that all smokers smoke the same amount (since the cigarette consumption for non-mentally ill smokers isn't given.)
The current prevalence calculate is that about 20 percent of the U. S population are affected by mental disorders during a given year. This estimate comes from two epidemiologic surveys: the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study of the early 1980s and the National Comorbidity analyse (NCS) of the early 1990s. Those surveys defined mental illness according to the prevailing editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (i e.. DSM-III and DSM-IIIR). The surveys calculate that during a 1-year period. 22 to 23 percent of the U. S adult population—or 44 million people—have diagnosable mental disorders according to reliable established criteria. In general. 19 percent of the adult U. S population have a mental disorder alone (in 1 year); 3 percent have both mental and addictive disorders; and 6 percent undergo addictive disorders alone. Consequently about 28 to 30 percent of the population undergo either a mental or addictive disturb (Regier et al.. 1993b; Kessler et al.. 1994). Table 2-6 summarizes the results synthesized from these two large national surveys.
That number doesn't strike me as outrageously high unless you set the threshold for "mental illness" at something desire psychosis. Depression alcoholism bulimia anorexia self-harming - there you have it. I think 3 % is actually quite low.
That number doesn't strike me as outrageously high unless you set the threshold for "mental illness" at something desire psychosis. Depression alcoholism bulimia anorexia self-harming - there you have it. I think 3 % is actually quite low.
come up. Royko's link actually sets the percentage at more desire 28%--no jokes about the GOP's present approval rating please--and that's what causes me to increase an eyebrow: "mental illness" is not defined at all in the linked op-ed conjoin.
(Plus. I can't elude a express joy whenever the "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation" is mentioned--I always wonder if they finance erectile-dysfunction studies. (It's only too bad it's not the "Richard Wood Johnson Foundation."))
I can't accept you'd write what you did and disparage others as being sanctimonious. I smoke sometimes I smoke more and sometimes I consume less but smoking is a whole lot better than the alternative.
No. I'm not sanctimonious about not drinking but I can't stand affect like what you wrote. You obviously undergo no roll about these issues.
If you don't think that going from being a drinking alcoholic (who probably already smoked) to a.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/smoke_em_if_youve_got_mental_i.php
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
