Hot smoke in general causes cancer. Wood smoke (from fireplace, bonfire, etc.) is more carcinogenic per unit than pure (non-cigarette) tobacco smoke. There's a stronger link between regular wood fireplace use and cancer than there is between moderate pipe/cigar use and cancer.
So moderate (not heavy like Grant) cigar and pipe smoking ought to be regarded as within the realm of acceptable risk, especially given the enjoyment and mental benefits that result.
But if we're going to discuss carcinogens, a lot of other things ought to be considered too. For example, why isn't alcohol, a known carcinogen, considered socially taboo compared to pipe smoking? Why are burning wood fireplaces considered "a nice touch" when the second-hand smoke from them is far more dangerous than that from an outdoor cigar user nearby?
I agree with your line on personal conclusions. I think it is fair to come to a personal conclusion on acceptable risk, given the balance between risk and personal enjoyment, but I do not necessarily think that it is equally fair to come to this same conclusion for others.
"I'm curious - you believe wood fireplace use is an acceptable risk?"
Personally I believe that the benefits of a wood fireplace and the benefits of moderately smoking tobacco mixed with cannabis outweigh the downsides - for me. But I do not believe my personal choices are the right ones in general.
(also woodfire .. there are quite different types)
“Consistent data from all identified cohort and case-control studies indicate a significantly elevated risk for oral and pharyngeal cancer associated with cigar use, with evidence of a dose-dependent relation. Coupled with biologic mechanisms that likely are very similar to those involved in cigarette-related carcinogenesis, the available evidence strongly supports the conclusion that cigar use is a cause of cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx.”
This is one of many negative health effects from cigar consumption, including overall mortality, cardiovascular disease, lung, bladder, and head/neck cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and periodontal disease risk. You can evaluate your own risk, but tobacco consumption seems like there is no “safe” amount of consumption according to broad literature reviews.
"Medically safe" and "acceptable risk" are very different terms with different meanings.
The medical establishment also says there's no safe amount of alcohol use, but that doesn't stop people from (rightly, I believe) enjoying a beer or glass of wine every now and then.
The medical establishment's obsession with harm/risk reduction to the extreme is hazardous to human flourishing, in my opinion. We all have to come to terms with our eventual death to make the most of the life we have. I think the medical establishment is more motivated by insurance policy profits than by a desire to promote human flourishing.
Joy and friendship and enjoyment and gratitude (etc.) are far better for our well-being than minimization of harm.
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to never smoke cigars. I just think that it is fair to make the point that cigars are not necessarily entirely safe, even if the relative risk for lung cancer is less than for cigarettes. I didn't even necessarily even make this point, as with my previous comment, I simply made two separate statements, and you came to a possibly implied conclusion yourself.
Regardless of the safety of cigars, I fail to see the logic behind how the idea that the relative risk of wood smoke compared to cigar smoke is supposed to convince anyone that cigar smoke should seem safe, considering that wood fires are no longer commonly used to heat homes in the developed world. Indoor smoke from heating and cooking has been well-established as a carcinogenic risk, but people not using wood to heat nor using smoke-point inducing temperatures when cooking, do not regularly expose themselves to these risks.
Also, I never claimed that alcohol did not increase carcinogenic risk. I make no position on that. However, given the proposition that alcohol is a carcinogen, then as cigars use is not mutually exclusive to alcohol use, and as smoking cigars incurs some carcinogenic risk, then for users of cigars and alcohol, cigar use would be an additive risk along with the risk incurred by alcohol use.
> I fail to see the logic behind how the idea that the relative risk of wood smoke compared to cigar smoke is supposed to convince anyone that cigar smoke should seem safe
It's not so much a logical argument as an emotional one (though it is a true statement). So much of the public opposition to tobacco is emotional, not logical. So that's where at least some of the discussion needs to happen. Sometimes the best way to put something in the proper perspective is to make a comparison to a more familiar thing.
I grew up believing tobacco use was one of the worst possible sins against God, and that lighting wood in the fireplace was a relaxing, enjoyable thing to do. So at least for me, the argument was helpful to put things into perspective.
Cigars and pipes are more nuanced and far less harmful (especially because of the chemicals that aren't added, and the fact that you don't inhale)