Without a doubt, smoking is a dirty, disgusting habit that has severe health consequences for both those who smoke, and those who are exposed to second-hand smoke. My Hub is not an attempt to glamorize smoking. Rather, it is written with the hope that people who read it will critically examine that which they are told as fact, but, in reality, has no more integrity than marketing slogans.

The first myth that should be critically examined are the number of deaths attributed to smoking. At least one in 2007 is likely categorized as such. That one was a close friend of mine who died of a heart attack at age 48. He smoked, and his death was attributed in part to smoking. He neglected signs of his impending heart attack for several days, which, in hind sight, cost him his life. The reason I question how much smoking contributed to his death is because his father died at age 49 of a heart attack despite not smoking. Though smoking did not help him in any way, his death was as likely the result of genetic heart disease.

I cannot tell you how many other deaths that are attributed to smoking may actually have other underlying factors that more likely caused the death, but my friend might still be alive if (1) his father did not have heart problems that he passed to my friend through his genes, and (2) if he had recognized that heartburn shouldn't last two days and sought medical attention.

The second myth has to do with the cost of medical problems attributed to smoking. The media likes to report astronomical figures they are given by medical authorities. The premise that you must accept in order for these figures to be valid is that smokers would not get sick and die if they did not smoke. However, non-smokers also get sick and die, so the premise is faulty.

I do not doubt that many cancer-related, heart-related, and respiratory-related deaths are brought on early because of smoking. The question then becomes "was it more or less expensive to treat these ailments ten years ago or today, and will it cost more in ten years than it currently does?" The answer is fairly simple. The price of medical care rises. Therefore, it cost less to die from cancer ten years ago than it does today, and likely costs less to die from it today than it will in ten years. Assuming smoking shortens a life span by ten years, smoking actually saves money in eventual medical costs related to dying.

Smokers are also less likely to survive an illness than are non-smokers. There can be little question that it is less expensive to get sick and die, than to get sick, recover, get sick again, and die.

A third cost factor is that of social security. Presuming a smoker who dies at age 70 would have lived to age 80 had he or she not smoked, there are 120 fewer social security checks paid to the person because he or she smoked.

Finally, there is the factor of revenues derived from sin taxes on cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco. Even if the revenues are insufficient to cover the costs related to health care given to smokers, there are no such revenues that cover the costs related to health care for non-smokers. That notwithstanding, health professionals are less likely to make heroic efforts to save someone who will not quit smoking than someone who does not smoke. Ergo, everything else being equal, smokers do not receive as much medical attention as non-smokers, which reduces the costs further, and leaves money in the coffers for health costs for those who do not pay these taxes.

Again, I am not suggesting that people take up smoking, but, instead, am hoping to inspire critical examination of that which we are told that is simply not true, like many marketing slogans.