Smoking Gene

Remove all ads!

Scientists have discovered what they are calling a smoking gene. There are several noteworthy effects. People who have this gene (especially people who have inherited a copy from both parents and thus have two copies of the gene) are more likely to smoke, smoke more cigarettes per day than smokers without the gene, have a higher rate of lung cancer than smokers without the gene, and have a much harder time quitting than people who don't have the gene. In all cases, people with one copy of the gene showed a lesser response to these factors than those people with two copies, but were still at greater risk than people with no copies of the gene.

The scientists were divided on the risk of lung cancer. There was some disagreement as to whether or not the gene itself increased the risk of lung cancer, or if smokers with the gene got lung cancer more because they tended to smoke more cigarettes per day than smokers without the gene.

While the researchers are quick to point out that the gene doesn't make you smoke (there are lots of people who have two copies of the gene who don't smoke, and conversely there are smokers who have no copies of the gene), the research does seem to indicate that your genes can predispose you to smoking.

A general quesiton: I notice that a lot of non-smokers get really ticked off by a smoker in their presence. If there is indeed a genetic link for this, does it change your view regarding smokers? The individual is still ultimately culpable for his/her decision to smoke, but it appears that some people may have the deck stacked against them.

Also - would some smokers now qualify as research subjects for gene therapy?

 

I would be suprised if the same gene lended both a greater rate of addiction and a greater weakness to cancer from it, but it's hardly impossible.

As to your questions:
1.) Not at all, though I'm generally not terribly offended so much as slightly bothered by it. In the end, though, it is their choice, and quitting aids have to be cheaper than the cigarettes.
2.) Sure, and it may even help pay for those expensive quitting aids!

 

Strangely, that never bothered me. Taken to excess, it will cause discomfort, and I will either excuse myself or seek some other solution, but generally I was tolerent of their addiction. I doubt this finding would give them any quarter from the more militant non-smokers. Their addictions still spew toxic, airborne pollutants. People that didn't tolerate it before still have the same reason to be pissed off about it.

***This is NOT an attempt to hijack this thread. I only bring this up to make a point. I repeat: This is NOT an attempt to hijack this thread***

In Mormonism, there is a doctrine somewhere that suggests that our accountability before God is linked to what we were given to start with. Some clemency therefore would be given at the Judgement seat.

Where this enters this discussion, is that we should go easier on these smokers if they attempt to excercise control of their addiction. This means that they still should abide restrictions on where or when they can smoke, and try to excuse themselves from those that would be offended by their habit.

I think that they would...

 

We are not created equal so I guess with smoking as in many other things some people start the hand with a straight flush while others have what the masons in Simpsons called "the royal mix" ie nothing at all.

 

I don't object to smokers, I did object to people smoking in my vicinity in pubs and restaurants when it directly effected me - making me cough, making my clothes smell etc. But this wasn't an issue if proper ventilation was provided.

Fortunately I don't have to worry since the smoking ban.

 

I was skeptical of this as well, but I can see why some scientists are believe this may be true. As it turns out, even among people who have never smoked, the incidence of lung cancer is higher in people with the gene than without it. Note: Only true when comparing non-smokers to other non-smokers. People who don't smoke have a much lower incidence of lung cancer compared to smokers, irrespective of genetics.

 

Not in the slightest are my feelings about smoking changed by this. Tossing a butt in the street is still litter, and smoking outside of designated areas is still rude and selfish. I still think that tobacco should be available only under a prescription that can be obtained only by enrolling in a smoking-cessation program.

 

No, not at all. People can still make an informed decision. The realities of smoking are widely known, and the gene's impulses are hardly sufficient to compel someone to smoke.

On the second question, I would be greatly in favour of anything that helped people to quit their addiction, or to avoid it in the first place. I must admit I haven't bothered to look into how gene therapy would help but if it could I don't see why not.

 

Ultimately it is still that person's choice to smoke. Genes might give you a predisposition to be addicted to tobacco but it is still your choice to smoke in the first place. It's the same as most drugs - you can only get addicted to them if you start them in the first place.

Ultimately my view on smoking remains the same as before I read that article. If I choose to be in a place where there is smoke (for example, about a month ago I visited a traditional Persian restaurant where you could still smoke a Shisha pipe) then I have no problem with smoking. My objections come when I have no choice. This is thankfully much better with the smoking ban, although I am still forced to endure wafts of stale smoke just from outside. At the end of the day it has to be your choice to inhale smoke - not the person's next to you.