Researchers have found a link between education and life expectancy. Life expectancy in the US has been on the rise in recent decades, but the numbers are disproportionate. On average, those who continued education beyond high school have a life expectancy of 82. Those with 12 or less years of schooling have an average life expectancy of 75.

So what do books have to do with life span? Nothing really. Researchers attribute the difference to lifestyle. People with less education are more likely to have a lower income which can lead to subsequent health-related issues such as poor housing, crime, or lack of medical insurance. In addition, researchers feel tobacco usage may account for the discrepancy in life expectancy.

Source

First we were getting shorter, and now it appears that -- compared to other countries -- we're losing ground in life expectancy as well. Though our life spans are actually longer than ever, citizens in 40 countries around the world have life expectancies that are longer than Americans. The U.S. recently slipped to number 41 on the list, down from number 11 just twenty years ago. Countries whose citizens have longer life spans include Japan, Jordan, Singapore, and most of Europe.

So why are we, despite the fact we're one of the wealthiest nations, slipping down the list? Experts have a few opinions:

• 45 million citizens without health insurance
• one of the highest rates of obesity in the world
• racial disparities
• a shockingly high infant mortality rate, compared to other industrialized nations

Whether this information will affect policy or not remains to be see, but health experts say that if we worked toward four goals: reducing tobacco use, controlling blood pressure, reducing cholesterol and regulating blood sugar, we could make a lot of progress toward improving the health of our citizens.

Source

Should the FDA regulate tobacco and nicotine levels in cigarettes? Right now, cigarette makers and other tobacco manufacturers are free to use the nicotine levels they want (that's the part that forms a physical addiction).

Would the country be best served by having the product of a private industry regulated by the government? Opinions are bound to be all over the table on that one, and they should be.

It appears pretty clear to me that curbing tobacco use us a main concern for some agencies these days. While I'm a non-smoker, the right of smokers to smoke in private is a freedom that should continue, even with reduced and/or controlled nicotine levels. Is smoking heading toward oblivion? Hardly.

Source

The pressure from some groups for the U.S. government to regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco is finding a foe in the current chief of the Federal Drug Administration. The head of the FDA stated government regulation of tobacco would cause smokers to light up more and inhale more deeply as an indirect result.

Not sure where that data came from or how those stats were measured and compiled, but the FDA chief stated that if the FDA reduced nicotine levels in cigarettes, people would tailor their smoking habits to maintain current levels of the addictive drug. There is probably a portion of that which is true -- but how does one know?

Truth is, nobody knows -- the only way to see if to lower the nicotine levels and see how smokers react. It's anybody's guess and for those addicted to the drug known as the cigarette, they'll keep puffing away for now.

Source