Abstract
Smoking and nicotine addiction is one of the issues that has been widely discussed and blogged globally. There are several divisive issues with regard to the effects smoking and how the problem should be dealt with globally. The public health officials use empirical evidence to prove that smoking causes problems like lung cancer, sexual impairment, and depression. The cigarette manufacturers on the other end oppose the idea that smoking can be directly linked to any of the three mentioned problems. The responses to such issues include various empirical studies trying to prove the health implications of smoking. This paper proves that smoking causes lung cancer, sexual impairment, and depression. Research has observed that there exists a causal relationship between nicotine and depression. Empirical evidence indicates that lung cancer is more prevalent among men, which is in tandem with the observation that smoking is also more prevalent among men than among women.
Health Implications of Smoking
Smoking, which is widely used in reference tobacco smoking, is one of the issues that has been widely discussed globally. Several divisive issues focus on the effects of smoking and how the problem should be dealt with globally. From the narrowest perspective, the exchange of words on the effects of smoking has majorly been between the government agencies charged with the roles of overseeing public health (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). On the other side of the rift, there are the cigarette manufacturers who would never want to hear that cigarette smoking is linked to any negative implications on human health even if they themselves to imprint warnings on the cigarettes packaging. However, in between the two antagonists on the issue of smoking, there are the smokers or the public whose health is in one way or another affected by the abuse or use of tobacco. These are the people who get divided along the lines of whether or not they should stop smoking when. It is the masses that do enjoy the feeling of smoking, if that can even be thought of at all. Additionally, it is this same public that has to bear the effects of cigarette smoking if at all what the empirical findings indicate about smoking is true. In other words, this paper looks at the arguments and counterarguments offered for and against cigarette smoking. The paper will focus on three important possible effects of smoking with the central argument being that cigarette smoking actually does lead to depression, lung cancer among other cancers, and also impairment of sexual abilities. Firstly, however, the paper will briefly explain the central issue that leads to the debate on effects of smoking and one, which is widely used in defense of the arguments and counterarguments herein provided.
The central issue in the arguments for or against smoking relates to the concern of addiction. The addictive properties of cigarette smoking are related to the presence of nicotine in tobacco and this is present in tobacco irrespective of how it is consumed. Notably, the discourse on whether smoking is addictive ends with a rather terse agreement between all parties engulfed in the fires of this problem. The only difference is the observation that tobacco processers or cigarette manufacturers tend to refute the observation that the smokers are hooked to the drug and this is why they will not stop smoking just because there is a warning printed on the packaging of cigarettes (Picciotto, & Kenny, 2013). In other words, the manufacturers tend to argue that the pleasure and the arguably elusive benefits of smoking are the factors that keep the smokers on the cigarette despite the many compelling campaigns against smoking from the medical field and the government agencies. In light of this information, this paper will go ahead and focus on the three issues of lung cancer, depression, and impairment of sexual abilities based on one assumption, which is that all readers do agree about the addictive properties of cigarette smoking (Picciotto, & Kenny, 2013).
One of the major divisive issues with regard to smoking is the observation that cigarette smoking causes depression. Researchers have in the past made bold observations that cigarette smoking causes depression. This conclusion was reached after several empirical studies observed that the level of depression cases was higher among the smokers as compared to the non-smokers (Luger, Suls, & Vander Weg, 2014). This observation negated the general views about smoking as a stimulant and instead indicating that smoking actually caused dependence to the extent that one had to smoke in order to get rid of the stress and depressions. However, research has observed that there exists a causal relationship between nicotine and depression and this is because for the smokers, the deprivation of smoking links as the direct cause of depression among the smokers (Goodwin, Prescott, Tamburrino, Calabrese, Liberzon, & Galea, 2013).
Other than the above mentioned link between smoking and depression, the second explanation offered by researchers in the explanation to how smoking cause depression is the possibility that nicotine and smoking in general cause neurotransmitter changes in the brain. The neurotransmitter changes then increase the risk of the smoker to abuse tobacco and as a consequence, the smokers tend to me more likely to suffer from depression than the non-smokers. In other words, there are empirical studies simply indicating that the abuse of tobacco is simply a risk factor in the issue of depression and this is one of the reasons why the smokers exhibit more likelihood to suffer from depression than the non-smokers (Goodwin, Prescott, Tamburrino, Calabrese, Liberzon, & Galea, 2013).
The findings on the link between depression and nicotine are however controversial. It is on this basis that the manufacturers and some smokers actually argue against the scientific observations. Firstly, the use of nicotine as a mood lifter is one of the observations with some level of scientific backing (Hughes, Stead, & Lancaster, 2014). According to studies, the administration of nicotized cigarette to depressed and stressed smokers leads to positive moods for the smokers. This I as compared to the administration of denicotized cigarettes to the same sample. The studies reveal that firstly, nicotine and not any other element in the cigarette is linked to depression. Secondly, the observation also indicate that the administration of nicotine to the smokers provides the only instance of attempting to prove the link between smoking and depression. From scientific findings however, the mere observation that nicotine uplifts the mood of the depressed smokers does not necessarily mean that nicotine does not cause depression. This is because the addiction to the abuse of tobacco is the cause of depression by itself and that the deprivation of nicotine to the addicts happens to be the major cause of depression whereas, it is highly unlikely that nicotine would be observed to lift the moods of depressed non-smokers (Goodwin, Prescott, Tamburrino, Calabrese, Liberzon, & Galea, 2013).
The manufacturers of cigarettes including the British American Tobacco company have for long argued for the benefits of smoking as a way of refuting the possibility of smoking being linked to depression. Firstly, the manufacturers indicate that positive feelings associated with smoking happen to be the major reason why the smokers enjoy the cigar. This then means that it difficult to prove that smoking leads to both positive and negative feelings and emotions and since the latter cannot be proven, then it is not possible to link smoking to depression and other such conditions that are associated with negative emotions. Secondly, the manufacturers bank on the weaknesses of empirical research. So far, the studies have not been able to produce definitive evidence on the link between depression and nicotine. Instead, all current empirical studies indicate that the findings are suggestive meaning that there remains a lot of room to prove that there exists an actual causal relationship between smoking and depression and this should be one of the basis for refuting the link between the two variables. Lastly, the manufacturers argue that there has not been any studies proving that depression actually causes depression to non-smokers or rather, that the administration of nicotine to the depressed non-smokers has the likelihood to lift their moods. Notably, there are ethical concerns linked to the possibility of administering nicotine to non-smokers and this understanding makes it difficult to test the element among the non-smokers (Moolgavkar, Holford, Levy, Kong, Foy, Clarke, & McCarthy, 2012).
Considering the counterarguments that the manufacturers advance in defense of the position that smoking causes depression, there are several observations that would credibly discredit the counterarguments. Firstly, the statistical findings being suggestive does not provide enough grounds for proving that smoking does cause depression but at the same time, the manufactures have not conducted any empirical studies to disapprove the suggestive studies. Secondly, the manufacturers do not put into consideration the fact that smoking is addictive and it is for this reason that the argument about nicotine addiction and depression emanates. Consequently, the manufacturers lack the moral ground to discredit statistical findings on the observations that smoking cause depression and it is based on this backdrop that this paper asserts the position that smoking actually causes depression (Pesch, Kendzia, Gustavsson, Jöckel, Johnen, Pohlabeln, & Wichmann, 2012).
The second major concern is the observation that smoking causes lung cancer among other cancers, especially in the mouth and in the neck. The observation is because there are more observed cancer related deaths among the smokers as compared to the non-smokers. This alone indicates a direct link between lung-cancer and smoking. Secondly, empirical evidence indicates that lung cancer is more prevalent among men, which is in tandem with the observation that smoking is also more prevalent among men than among women. The relationship between the two variables in the sentence above could be assumed to be spurious but rarely do such coincidences take place in life and arguably, therefore, smoking does actually cause cancer. On the third observation linking lung cancer to smoking, CT scans of the smokers and the non-smokers indicate that the lungs of the smokers are more rigid and hence more prone to cancer as compared to those of the non-smokers. The rigidity is associated with the carbon and smoke deposits in the lungs and there is scientific evidence supporting the observation that the rigidity is highly linked to cancer (Moolgavkar, Holford, Levy, Kong, Foy, Clarke, & McCarthy, 2012). Fourthly, empirical evidence indicates that though the specific carcinogenic element in cigarettes is not identified expressly the mere fact that the cancer is more common among smokers supports the observation that smoking is one of the key risk factors for lung cancer. Lastly, there are observations that the passive smokers or people who are non-smokers but closely associate with smokers are also at a high risk of contracting cancer. Consequently, these observations indicate that there exists a positive relationship between lung cancer and smoking and though there may be other factors that cause the lung cancer, the presence of the smoking element increases the risk hence the concern.
There is a lot of opposition to the idea that smoking causes cancer. It basically comes from the manufacturers of tobacco and in their counterarguments to the idea, they assert the position that there is no scientific evidence that any particular element in cigarettes does cause cancer. In fact, the manufacturers also argue that to date, there is no single known cause of lung cancer (Pesch, Kendzia, Gustavsson, Jöckel, Johnen, Pohlabeln, & Wichmann, 2012). This is because there are multiple suggested causes of lung cancer most of which emanate from the environment and most of which are not linked to cigarettes in any way. This then means that research cannot in any way directly link lung cancer to smoking. Additionally, the manufacturers also indicate that lung cancer like many other cancers have multiple causes and therefore it is difficult to say which of the elements does cause cancer (Moolgavkar, Holford, Levy, Kong, Foy, Clarke, & McCarthy, 2012).
According to the manufacturers, the companies do test the cigarettes with live mice. The testing takes place in highly controlled environments and the concentrations of nicotine are usually higher than the human body can handle yet the specimens are small. However, the company has never identified any carcinogenic element in the tobacco and consequently, there is no proof that smoking actually cause lung cancer. In response to this argument however, it is important to note the fact that there are multiple risk factors associated with cancer and these include genetic alterations in the body and this consequently increases the risk of contracting cancer. Therefore, the mere observation that no carcinogenic elements are observed does not necessarily mean that smoking does not cause cancer. This is because the epigenesis possibly linked smoking increases the risk for contracting cancer. Secondly, the elements could be in small elements that are difficult to identify under normal circumstances (Moolgavkar, Holford, Levy, Kong, Foy, Clarke, & McCarthy, 2012).
The last argument is that smoking impairs sexual ability. According to research, there is a strong link between erectile dysfunction or impotence. This link is associated with majorly with men. Statistics indicate that the men who used more than 20 cigarettes daily had 60% risk of sequal impotence. About 15% of the smokers, both past and present smokers, suffered from erectile dysfunction. There is also empirical evidence that 30% of all smokers are at risk of sexual impairment (Harte, & Meston, 2012).
Considering that women also smoke, the research indicates that sexual impairment problems run across both genders (Wincze, & Weisberg, 2015). This is because of the hormonal implications of smoking. However, the observation of the problem among women is minimal simply because of the physiological differences between men and women. The mere fact that the problem is also observed in women helps in supporting the idea that smoking causes sexual impairment considering that it would be difficult to prove the case if it were only observed among men (Cao, Yin, Wang, Zhou, Song, & Lu, 2013).
The industry does present counterarguments against the suggestion that smoking cause sexual impairment. Firstly, the manufacturers argue that there are no hormonal changes that are directly linked to smoking. Sex is highly related to hormonal functions and since smoking does not cause hormonal imbalance, then there is no proof that smoking impairs sexual abilities. The other counterargument advanced by the industry is the observation associated with the fact that sexual inabilities are directly associated with general body weakness. There is no proof that smoking leads to general body weakness and consequently, there is no proof that any element in tobacco actually leads to sexual impairment. However, these arguments do not in any way indicate the substance in arguing that smoking does not cause sexual impairment hence the conclusion in favor of the former perspective (Cao, Yin, Wang, Zhou, Song, & Lu, 2013).
In conclusion, this paper addressed the health implications of smoking. The paper focused on three major implications, which include the link between smoking and depression. Secondly, there is the problem of lung cancer and the observation that smoking increases the risk of contracting lung cancer. Lastly, smoking is also linked to causing sexual impairment problems. While there are several counterarguments offered by the industry against the link of smoking to the above-mentioned problems, the counterarguments do not offer any empirical support hence leading to the conclusion that smoking causes all the three problems herein explained.
References
Cao, S., Yin, X., Wang, Y., Zhou, H., Song, F., & Lu, Z. (2013). Smoking and risk of erectile dysfunction: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis. PLoS One, 8(4), e60443.
Goodwin, R. D., Prescott, M., Tamburrino, M., Calabrese, J. R., Liberzon, I., & Galea, S. (2013). Smoking is a predictor of depression onset among National Guard soldiers. Psychiatry research, 206(2), 321-323.
Harte, C. B., & Meston, C. M. (2012). Association between smoking cessation and sexual health in men. BJU international, 109(6), 888-896.
Hughes, J. R., Stead, L. F., & Lancaster, T. (2014). Antidepressants for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1.
Luger, T. M., Suls, J., & Vander Weg, M. W. (2014). How robust is the association between smoking and depression in adults? A meta-analysis using linear mixed-effects models. Addictive behaviors, 39(10), 1418-1429.
Moolgavkar, S. H., Holford, T. R., Levy, D. T., Kong, C. Y., Foy, M., Clarke, L., & McCarthy, W. (2012). Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975–2000. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 104(7), 541-548.
Pesch, B., Kendzia, B., Gustavsson, P., Jöckel, K. H., Johnen, G., Pohlabeln, H., & Wichmann, H. E. (2012). Cigarette smoking and lung cancer—relative risk estimates for the major histological types from a pooled analysis of case–control studies. International journal of cancer, 131(5), 1210-1219.
Picciotto, M. R., & Kenny, P. J. (2013). Molecular mechanisms underlying behaviors related to nicotine addiction. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 3(1), a012112.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health,17.
Wincze, J. P., & Weisberg, R. B. (2015). Sexual dysfunction: A guide for assessment and treatment. New York: Guilford Publications.
