Well, whaddyaknow, turns out that a rise in obesity is one of the costs of government-sponsored attempts to make smoking tobacco less appealing. Swings and roundabouts. Acording to Chris Snowdon, a study* published in this week’s British Medical Journal reports that non-smoking women are twice as likely to be obese as smokers and three times as likely to be seriously lardy.
True, obesity is not quite as dangerous as smoking but that’s a matter of perspective. If you look at the matter from the Treasury then obesity may well be the greater problem. Since the pressure on health costs can only increase in years to come (that’s one consequence of an aging population) fat is a graver problem than tobacco, not least because there are fewer diseases that cut off the cost of fat quite as abruptly (ie, quickly and cheaply) as they do with tobacco.
Some of the results of this study – a single study, I grant you – are remarkable. Non-smokers in the highest social classes actually have higher rates of obesity (13.3%) than smokers in the lowest social class (13.1%). Some of the old ads were right: smoking really does help keep you svelte. Secondly, that we should sometimes remind ourselves that the laws of unintended consequences apply to so-called “public health” projects too.
Finally, as Chris Snowdon points out, there’s an obvious tool that could be used to help “combat” obesity: sweet Lady Nicotine herself –
That, you will agree, is nicely put.[S]ince nicotine is an aid to maintaining a healthy weight, why are alleged health campaigners banning products like snus and e-cigarettes which not only get people off cigarettes but could control their weight as well? If smoking and obesity really are the two greatest public health threats of our time, doesn’t that make ultra-low risk nicotine products the penicillin of the age?
*Obviously you shouldn’t expect the BBC to spend much time reporting this study. UPDATE: Actually, that’s not quite fair. The BBC’s report is here.
Comments