How much more dishonest are smokers compared to non-smokers?

Question

There is every correlation, I am a non-smoker and somebody who smokes without a cigarette is physically dangerous after a while

Notice how I didn't ask "Are smokers more dishonest than NON-Smokers"

Answer 1

The only person a smoker is dishonest with is themselves. They smell, their second hand smoke stinks, and they are putting their own longevity at risk (which is their choice). There is no correlation otherwise. I'm glad I finally quit lying to myself.

Answer 2

I don't smoke but there isn't any evidence to support one being more dishonest then the other. But as I have learned over the last 10 hours. Americans make their decisions based on preconceived notions rather then the facts. So I guess this is a question designed to let the two sides bash each other.
I would have to say non smokers are sneakier, banning smoking is pretty sneaky. I don't want someone blowing smoke in my face, but if they want to smoke in their own car it should be their right.

Answer 3

If you are referring to the belief, prevalent among non-smokers, that you are somehow being killed by the lorryload by secondary smoke, then I assume you are not familiar with the epidemiological studies that purport to show this, otherwise you would know who is being dishonest.

A typical study into the effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) runs like this:

Choose a group of people exposed to ETS, for example non-smokers who are married to or cohabit with smokers. Choose a control group, in this case non-smokers who are married to non-smokers.

Step 1: Compare the incidence of lung cancer in the study group with the incidence in the control group. Find that there is no difference. Scratch your head a bit, since this is obviously the wrong answer, then start cutting your sample down.

Step 2: Take out of the study those non-smokers who have been living with smokers for less than 20 years. Oh dear - still no effect. Scratch your head some more.

Step 3: Brainwave! Take out of the study all those non-smokers whose partner has not (a) given up smoking in the last ten years or (b) started to smoke within the last ten years.

You are now down to a subsample of very few people. If you are very lucky, you will find an effect. Indeed, one metastudy found that in 37 investigations of this kind, as many as 7 found a positive effect. If you are unlucky, you will find that the incidence of cancer is higher in the control group, but this is simply because statistically the results could go either way. Don't despair, just tear up your results and start again. Tearing up your results also helps to make sure that the body of studies forms a self-selecting sample - heaven forbid that anyone should publish any negative results and contaminate the body of evidence!

If you have a positive result, it is extremely unlikely to be statistically significant, since no-one has come up with one that is yet. So whatever you do, do not publish any confidence intervals or final sample sizes (since this would allow people to calculate confidence intervals, and you don't want them to see how poor your results are). And don't worry that your effect will be only a fraction of the level generally accepted by epidemiologists as ground for concern - there is so much prejudice against smoking that you can safely shift the goalposts (as an example of this, in WHO studies the risk of lung cancer from drinking whole milk is 8 times the risk from living with a smoker. The conclusion is that milk is not a cause for concern, but ETS is).

Now comes the fun part. Assume that the tiny effect you found applies to everybody, not just the small subsample you ended up with. Never mind that from Step 1 you know this is not true, do it anyway! This is smoking we are talking about, and nobody is going to accuse you of being dishonest - the end, after all, justifies the means.

So you can start multiplying a tiny effect that only applies to a small subsample in a minority of studies to the general population! What fun! - and there are more dishonest things you can do along the way, but don't worry, nobody will challenge you! For example, in calculating the number of people killed at work through ETS, you can apply your tiny effect to the population 16+ instead of the population of working age (as one recent Australian study did). Never, ever, apply the figure to the population of working age in employment, since this would bring the numbers down. And never, ever, attempt to account for the fact that people change jobs in their lifetime and are unlikely to have the same exposure to ETS throughout their working lives.

As a final resort, should anyone question your perfect application of scientific principles, you can accuse them of being in the pay of tobacco companies. Never mind that the funding for your research came from pharmaceutical companies (yes, the people who make nictoine patches, gum, lozenges and whatever else), nobody will think that odd.

I think I know who is more dishonest.

Answer 4

This question could only be asked by a non smoker.

I assume you are referring to smokers buying tobacco products from people who have bought them from abroad.

Its not the smokers that are at fault, it"s that greedy Chancellor and his abortive tax rates.

I suppose you do all your shopping at the corner store, not at the supermarket where you can obtain the cheapest price?

Any difference?

Anyway, come the 23/11/06 with the pending European ruling on tax on tobacco products and alcohol, the whinging non-smokers will have to dig deep into their pockets to pay the extra tax Gordon is going to loose.

We have subsidised you lot for far too long.

Get used to higher taxes, they are on the way!!

Answer 5

There is no correlation between cigarette smoking and honesty. To suggest otherwise is patently absurd. Tobacco use has no bearing whatsoever on any person's ability to be honest or dishonest. It's the person, not the tobacco. Tobacco use gets blamed for enough things. Let's not slap "dishonesty" on it as well.

Answer 6

I think you might find a correlation, but remember that that would not imply any causality at all. It's more likely to be a socio-economic thing than anything to do with smoking.

If you selected a sample adjusted for socio-economic groupings, I guess you'd find no correlation whatsoever.

Answer 7

Well, I learned when I was waiting table in college, smokers are by far better tippers.

So being that, and they saw that I was doing honest hard work, and they left me nice big tips, I'll have to say smokers.

And to back up my findings I say this: When's the last time you saw GW Bush firing up?

Answer 8

That really is a silly question! You might just as well ask the same of footballers and rugby players!
Do you REALLY think smoking has any effect on ones` ability to tell the truth?

Answer 9

how does being a smoker relate to how honset you are? i think thats the most silly question ive seen on here so far

Answer 10

I am as pure as the driven snow, I should know as I smoke, as for non smokers I do not trust them as we all should have our little vices.