Interesting, the recent tobacco age limit increase in the US from 18 to 21 should help.
* See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13601 fig 1.
If people fail to behave at such a basic level, then democracy should jump in and fix it.
If I’m an adult at 18, let me make adult decisions.
New Zealand has recently banned smoking for anyone born before 2009.
The most surprising thing to me is that they managed to find an n=131,140 of people in the system with enough genetic testing coverage to calculate the polygenetic scores for the smoking models they used. That many people had detailed gene sequencing done and in accessible public databases?
To use your words, the mentally healthy don’t need it
I also quit drinking at the start of this year, on a whim. The effects aren't as pronounced as quitting smoking, but I have much deeper emotional reserves when things get difficult. I have also done more research, and it's scary what even a single drink a week (which counts as "chronic usage" if you are doing you own research) will do to your body.
Medical terminology gets confusing. "Chronic" to a layperson generally means "bad," but medically it merely means "ongoing." The idea that the protective effects of alcohol outweighing the risks are also under increased scrutiny and doubt: the risk of cancer is just too high. There are many ways to deal with a cardiovascular problem, but liver cancer?
At the end of the day you're making desperate deals with yourself - because drinking is definitely enjoyable. Let's assume that the revised Canadian recommendation of 1-2 at most a week was made due to being in the ballpark of the risk of walking out of your front door. Because humans are bad at conceptualizing probabilities, we fail to/don't want to realize that we are now carrying both risks as independent probabilities: P(Living∪Drinking)
Binge drinking (BAC > 0.08, 4-5 drinks) is playing Russian roulette each time. This is what I was doing: 1 6pack a month to get a nice mild buzz. Bad idea.
I am not convinced by the argument that people starting to smoke long before their first mental health hospitalization means anything since mental health problems tend to start long before hospitalization.
Smoking could easily both provide acute relief from mental health issues while chronically making those same issues worse.
> Statistically, Speed and the team found a correlation here, but they couldn’t explain why they noticed what they did.
Correlation between smoking and mental illness has long been recognized. Without meaningful insight into causation or lack thereof, it's not clear to what extent this work contributes, and the quotes in the article suggest a desire to handwave quickly past the question on the assertion that some causative effect is present and "only" needs identifying.
How many years we'll need to gather that knowledge for psychological diseases is beyond me. There are too many variables.
The research's findings are rather useless for the real world application. If someone was informed at early age they're in risk group, either by having history of illness in family or an episode, they're going to be advised to live a healthy life 100%.
I never understand why they allowed everyone to smoke as much as possible. It seemed detrimental to the drug regimens they put people on, and counterproductive, considering nicotine's nature as a stimulant. I noticed that since I moved here in recent years, there has been no opportunity for inmates to smoke. I can't recall the caffeine policies, though.
So smoking onset is measured by behavior initiation but mental illness onset is measured by first hospitalization?
This is just one of the pieces of motivated reasoning evident here.