Virtually every nanny argument can be turned around to demand people eat at home:
People eat at restaurants because they think it's cool.
It's not, but all the advertising makes them think it is.
Eating out is unhealthy. You have no control over the quality
Restaurant portions are far too large, and are therefore unhealthy.
Restaurant food contains far too much fat.
Chefs routinely put additives in food to alter the taste.
People think they're hungry, but they're really just addicted to food. Eating just satisfies that addiction. If they'd just stop eating, they'd be uncomfortable for a couple of days, but then the hunger would go away. (Ask anyone who fasts regularly.)
Most foodies started their addiction they were children.
Many restaurants market directly to children.
DAVE HITT - The
SMOKERS, NOT TOBACCO COMPANIES, TAKE THE BRUNT:
Look, the tobacco companies are/were a legal industry and did
nothing any different than any other legal industry does. They answered
to their shareholders and it was their job to sell their product. People
have known since the 1600's that tobacco can be dangerous to one's health.
When I was a kid in the 50's, we called them 'cancer sticks,' and 'coffin
nails.' In the late 1800's and for the first two decades of the twentieth
century, 14 states prohibited the sale and use of
Right now the pharmaceuticals are doing the same thing and they are no better than Big Tobacco. There's Big Money in them thar smoking cessation products, and no one lets ethics stand in their way. Now you have anti-tobacco crusaders in positions of power, like Gro Harlem Brundtland of the World Health Organization who has the stated goal of a tobacco-free world, and the Clinton administration, who just wants all the dollars possible before tobacco goes away.
You don't see that by making the tennis players and cowboys
The REAL enemy is anyone who is willing to twist the truth to his own ends to enable him to trample all over anyone's rights. Be they gun owners or smokers or drinkers or gamblers (I don't drink either, or gamble).
You think "today's rules are reasonable." Probably because you
don't know what those rules entail. Here in California, smoking is banned
in all restaurants, all bars, all workplaces, many outdoor parks and beaches,
many sidewalks, many apartment buildings and condominium
Yes, people have lost custody just because they smoke. On the
You needn't "switch sides" to support those who are truly being
hurt by the War on Tobacco; not the tobacco companies, the smokers. We
don't support Big Tobacco, either. They have thrown us to the wolves with
We are not victims of Big Tobacco; we are victims of a government out of control and a multinational anti-tobacco movement funded with our own dollars. We are adult, thinking, taxpaying citizens who deserve the same dignity and respect anyone else is afforded.
SPINNER - Smokers
JUST TO LIVE:
Cancer really is the bogeyman of our age, and it achieved its
Then the buffoons came up with all sorts of causes which could
And worse still, our fears are undifferentiated. There are
METERS NEVER BREAK?:
Ex-Smoker in Recovery Reports: Life saved: 1 week, 45 minutes.
How did your meter come up with this amusing little "statistic"?
& COMMON SENSE DON'T MIX:
In 1950, the Japanese health system was still pretty much devastated by World War II. Many of the deaths attributed to TB and to pneumonia/bronchitis were probably misdiagnosed cases of lung cancer. Thus, the apparent increase in lung cancer between 1950 and 1979 may well be non-existent.
In any event, recent news stories tell us that the life expectancy of a Japanese at birth is now, incredibly, more than 90 years. Yet, Japanese men still have the highest rates of smoking of any country in the world for which we have good figures. Common sense tells us that lung cancer is caused by something that people inhale. Common sense, however, does not always mix very well with science.
In the animal experiments, which are still going forward, nobody
has been able to induce lung
cancer in an animal by forcing them to inhale tobacco smoke. Dr. Bill
Fields sent me an old study, which I posted here, in which experimenters
claimed to have induced lung cancer in a certain percentage of hamsters,
In science, however, a single study doesn't prove anything. It's
too easy for experimenters to "kid themselves" or to "kid" the outside
world, as Auerbach did
Unfortunately, when an experiment doesn't work, it often goes
Meanwhile, the situation is further complicated by two recent
Still further complicating the picture are animal studies with
specially bred rats (F344 rats), in which experimenters claim to have induced
lung cancer by
Dave Hitt hit the nail on the head when he posted that the true cause of lung cancer, when and if it is discovered, is likely to be a complete surprise - something that nobody ever expected.
LARRY COLBY - In Defense
THE WORLD IS FULL OF 'EM:
We are all idiots in some fashion or another. Bungee jumping
ONE WAY ONLY:
Anti-smokers have no interest in accommodating smokers in any way whatsoever. They do not practise tolerance or contemplate compromises. The phrase "live and let live" means everything the antis are not. Antis have been documented to have hysterical fits in the presence of fake (plastic) cigarettes. They routinely claim a sense of smell for their own which rivals that of a bloodhound. But that is not the worst: the worst is that they claim to have The Truth. They, and only they, know what is best for you, and they will ride roughshod over your lifestyle, your habits, your pleasures and your rights to enforce this vision. Think of the Catholic Inquisition killing people to save their souls, and you get an understanding of the anti-smokers' mindset. They will not accept smoking zones because they want the whole world to be smoke-free. And once they have succeeded with your stogie, they will come after your brandy, your RV, your steak and any other pleasure in your life.
PERSONS OVER 18 NEED NOT APPLY:
The world is made up of more than just children. Heck, I
was one of
"LIFE" - DEAL WITH IT:
I think these antis (of all persuasions) have a certain type of
personality which is incapable of dealing with the disappointment of finding
out that the world is not fair, that we are irrational
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS:
Smoking is a "bad habit". A vice. It serves no great Social purpose, it simply gives pleasure to the smoker. Is this a reason to regulate it? Is it grounds to hound the tobacco companies into bankruptcy?
In the hysteria over cancer and other health issues associated
with smoking the public has lost sight of a few things. It is none of the
government's goddamned business to nag the citizenry into good health.
It is none of the
Regulation and Litigation of the tobacco Crusade are all leading in one direction. A ban. Such a ban will undoubtedly have about the same effect on smoking in this country that Prohibition had on drinking.
ANYBODY'S BALL GAME:
I think the figures given here are for any one year of life.
About 7% of all deaths in the U.S. are caused by lung cancer - the figure varies a little, depending upon whether we are talking about primary lung cancer, standing alone, or whether we include other cancers of the intrathoracic organs.
This means, however, that about 1 in 14 Americans will eventually
die from lung cancer. What we do *not* have is scientific evidence that
a larger proportion of
Beyond that, however, the studies were so full of holes (discussed
in my book) as to prove nothing. They
treated ex-smokers as if they were current smokers. There is strong evidence,
in the case of the cancer society studies, that the
LARRY COLBY - In Defense
GROW UP & GET OVER IT:
What some people appear to lack is what is commonly known as "maturity". Life happens. Shit happens. Things happen, good or bad, and they do not have to have a reason. Growing up means being able to accept this. Only children pout, stamp their feet and shout "NO". The universe does not care that this is an inconvenient moment for you to get run over by a bus. Nor does it care that this week's lottery was won by a millionaire. Fate is random; there is no guiding principle or mysterious agency which determines what will happen, and for what reason. There is only chance. Maturity means accepting this. Maturity means accepting that shit happens and your only chance is to play the percentages without compromising your enjoyment/appreciation of life. You play the percentages by looking left and right before crossing the street, not by never crossing the street or demanding that traffic lights are installed wherever you happen to wish to cross the street.
Living a good life does not mean worrying about what will happen or doing everything possible to influence events beyond our control, it is an attitude. How I deal with what does happen is more important than desperately hopping about this way and that, trying to avoid the oncoming headlights of Life. We are going to be hit, there's no way of avoiding it.
Accept this and you will have a much happier life. Promise.
WHO'S BETTER THAN WHO:
And like it or not, the proportion of asthma sufferers in society
is just a tiny fraction of the population, and that number is absolutely
dwarfed by the number of smokers. If numbers make right, as you seem
to be implying,
Do I believe this? No. But it certainly is directly derived from what YOU have stated. If people with allergies to perfume are in insignificant numbers compared to people with asthma, and therefore should be ignored, then the fact that asthma suffers are in insignificant numbers compared to smokers must meant that asthmatics should be ignored. This conclusions follows directly from what YOU have said.
MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG:
When the Surgeon
General's Report was first issued in 1964, the cancer societies solemnly
assured smokers that if they'd just quit smoking, their lungs would
LARRY COLBY - In Defense
PROVE IT OR MOVE IT:
Most if not all of us are sensible enough to admit that smoking
increases the risk of respiratory illnesses and cancer. The statistical
inference is quite strong enough to make it a foolishness not to seriously
consider the adverse health implications.
So, yes, excessive smoking probably does do harm and increases
the likelihood of contracting certain diseases. But no, Second-Hand
The anti-smoker/anti-smoking zealots are only in it for control. Power and control. They have so little of both in their own puny lives that they feel the pathological, desperate need to control others ... in everything, not just the smoking issue. I suspect most of the Aunties were emotionally and/or psychologically abused in their formative years, perhaps being told to 'shut up' too often, perhaps being told how worthless they are, perhaps being totally ignored, perhaps being picked on by their classmates, etc.
Now, as 'adults' (using the term only chronologically), they're
They're on the outside looking in. They know it and hate
it so they
Bottom line is, they're masochistic ... why else would they hang
THEY'LL TAKE A MILE:
When laws were passed demanding restaurants have separate smoking and non-smoking sections, most of us weren't happy with the government intrusion but figured we were finally finished with the argument. The nannies could keep whining but no one would pay attention now that a reasonable solution had been adopted. Silly us. Approximately three seconds after the laws went into effect the nannies were clamoring for even more restrictions. And a quick visit to the ASH site will show you what they really have in mind - they intend to take children from smoking parents and get smokers evicted from their apartments. So much for smoking in your home.
Recent moves have been made to require that cigarettes be
But still, it appears, on the surface, to be a reasonable request.
Because we've learned our lesson. We know, based on their
Remember that next time a smoker appears to be unreasonable.
It is a meta study, a study of studies, the easiest kind of study to fake. They are an attempt to get meaningful data out of questionable studies by pooling the results. Meta studies are so unreliable and prone to fraud they should simply be ignored as the fiction they are. But for the sake of argument, let's forget that fact, and look a bit closer at the study, shall we?
First off, the conclusions: "Each year, among American children, tobacco is associated with an estimated 284 to 360 deaths from lower respiratory track illnesses and fires illnesses by smoking materials, more than 300 fire related injuries, 354,00 to 2.2 million episodes of otitus media, 5,200 to 165,000 tympanostiomies, 14,000 to 21,000 tonsillectomies and/or adenoidectomies, 529,000 physician visits for asthma, 1.3 to 2 million visits for coughs, and for children under than 5 years of age, 260,000 to 436,00 episodes of bronchitis and 115,000 to 190,000 episodes of pneumonia."
Pretty scary numbers. But look again. Consider the *range* of them. Somewhere between 354,00 and 2.2 million? What kind of precision is that? 14,000 to 21,000? And so on - the ranges are ridiculous, and show just how goofy the numbers are. Note, of course, the careful use of the word "estimate," just once. Meaning "guess."
But those are trivial concerns, compared to the other problems with the report.
In each pool of studies, the relative risk (RR) was significantly
less than the 2.0 required for a result to be significant. For instance,
One of the most difficult problems with epidemiology in general is confounders. For instance, people in lower income levels have shorter life spans than people in higher income levels. Blacks tend to die younger than whites. Smoking is more common among those in lower income levels. It is also much more prevalent in the black community across all income levels. Therefore, when studying mortality rates, it is vital to account for both income level and race. Imagine the difficulty of trying to come up with a correct adjustment when these two factors are combined, as in lower income blacks. But if you don't do it, and do it correctly, the numbers are meaningless.
That is a very simplified example. In real life, the number of confounders are huge, and calculating just one of them incorrectly can have an enormous impact on the accuracy of the data. When examining smoking issues and children, for instance, a partial list of the confounders includes age, allergy, breast feeding, compliance with medications, crowding, day care and school attendance, education, ethnicity, family size, gas heating and cooking, gender, maternal age, maternal symptoms of depression, parental allergies, parental respiratory symptoms, prematurity, race, frequency of visits to a physician, residence location, type of residence, and socioeconomic status. Most of the studies used in this meta study did *not* take all these things into account. And the study itself displays this disclaimer:
"Because the individual studies that were combined by meta-analysis
use a variety of methods, it was not possible to make adjustments for
In other words, the very nature of this study means they can not
account for even a few of the factors that might skew their data. Therefore,
the study is completely worthless.
It hadn't occurred to me to check the credentials of the
doctor or the group that funded the study. But his name popped up
while I was
So not only is the study *seriously* flawed, it was funded by
Now, can *anybody* with an IQ in the double digits still take it seriously?
DAVE HITT - The
PRIMITIVE MEDICINE CALLS FOR SECOND OPINION:
"Diseases" such as gastroenteritis and pneumonia and bronchitis
LARRY COLBY - In Defense
CHOOSE YOUR WEAPON:
The polonium theory postulated that tobacco, in and of itself,
was harmless; that the danger (if there was one) came from adulterants
in the tobacco. Therefore, if the tobacco companies knew that there were
adulterants and failed
As to benzo(a)pyrene, it is not, in and of itself, a carcinogen.
It has to be metabolized in the liver and the metabolites are carcinogens.
People who eat char broiled steaks and burgers and other burnt foods consume
huge quantities of
LARRY COLBY - In Defense
We've tried that [Compromise]. It didn't appease
them. Instead, it infused them with a sense of power. "Look,
we forced smoking and non smoking sections, now let's
eliminate smoking sections entirely!"
Reasonable proposals don't work, because they are beyond reason.
They are blinded by their seething hatred, propelled by their need to feel
superior to their betters, driven by a religious fury. Reasonable
DAVE HITT - The
THE JOY OF LIVING:
Some of us realise that the chances of that are not really affected
If I move into the countryside to get away from the pollution,
And in the meantime I'd be obsessing about my health, sucking
enjoyment out of all I do.
CARING BY THE UNCARING:
If anyone in Canada (as well as in the rest of the world) has
First, fascism is not a political doctrine; it is a mental CONDITION.
Second, fascism DOES NOT respect the legal system, courts and
magistrates. It USES them as instruments of its agenda.
Third, the fascist state does not care for logic, reason, compromise,
understanding, and truth. All that is subject to the misguided
Fourth, public opinion in the fascist state is not something to
be respected, or listened to in its variegated expressions.
Resistance to all of the above is to be dealt with decisively,
Have we described the anti-smoking state so far? Only force can break the back of fascism -- and it takes a lot of force. Although fascism's "ideology" takes many shapes and manifests itself in many ways (physical health is always a prominent preoccupation), it has very little to do with ideals, for this term is used to coat emotions of insecurity, fear, and contempt for individual choice and independence.
So, the fight goes on. It is either freedom OR state-imposed "health."
ANNA - The
Smoker's Club, Inc.
NO HARM INTENDED:
All these statistics can show is a *possibility*. Nothing
Apart from that, since when is the burden of proof on the accused?
And even if incontrovertible evidence were to turn up tomorrow,
what then? Ban tobacco? Where is the limit? Why demand
"NO" harm? Nothing on Earth, absolutely nothing at all, poses no risk at
all. Can we ban everything? Medically speaking, there are far better
The fact is that there is risk in all we do. We have to
If you decide for yourself that you do not wish to smoke, that
WARN ME BUT DON'T FORCE ME:
ENJOYMENT IS NEVER A WASTE
Remark: Actually, I'm pretty sure anxiety and depression may come from an addicted person realizing how much money they are literally turning into smoke!
Some are necessities for some, or maybe not. Some are pleasures
Who are you to criticize anyone's choice of a pleasure, necessity
ANNA - The
Smoker's Club, Inc.
IT'S GOOD WHEN THE LIES FIT THE ENDS! (NOT)
I still have to encounter a non-smoker whoREALLY believes that
passive smoke hurts people, for example. They realise that walking in the
streets is often worse. But that is irrelevant: that
If you have moral integrity, you don't buy them anyway. If you
don't have that integrity, and I give you the guarantee that you will get
away with it, you will buy those goods. I use this stupid example to illustrate
the point. The corrupt few make a product (antismoking "science", or
So, the fault is not just of the antismokers, but mainly,
GIAN - FORCES INT'L
Fact, the Surgeon General's report on smoking specifically said that smoking wasn't addictive.
Fact, the Surgeon General's report on smoking contains "data" from people who never responded to a survey.
Fact, basing your "study" on a mail out survey , as one study included in the Surgeon General's report on smoking did, asking someone what they *think* about the smoking habits of *other* people that they know makes the "data" second hand anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is shaky, at best. You claim it's worthless, and thus nearly every study on smoking would also be worthless. ESPECIALLY the Surgeon General's report on smoking, which did NO ACTUAL scientific work at all! It was a meta-study, that is a study of studies, already containing second hand anecdotal evidence making it THIRD HAND anecdotal evidence.
Oh yeah, by the way:
FACT, *the actual specifically stated conclusion of the Surgeon General's report on smoking,* a study biased to find harmful effects, was that the evidence was STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT! In other words, could have been due to pure chance.
Fact, to give you something to think about regarding the nature of statistical studies, you can't tell if a die is true by rolling it twice.
Fact, nicotine itself is not addictive. You can find this expounded on at many ANTIsmoking web sites. It is toxic. There is a difference. Arsenic, for instance, is nonaddictive. It is toxic. No one gets addicted to arsenic, although it saves many lives when used properly, just as nicotine can be so used.
Fact, even anti-smoker's who believe that tobacco is addictive have to hypothesize about why, since they know that nicotine ISN'T addictive. Unlike cocaine and heroin NO mechanism of tobacco addiction has ever been found.
Fact, if nicotine were addictive, and made anything you said the incoherent ravings of a junkie, all of the population that imbibes french fries with ketchup on them would be in the same boat. You haven't had any french fries or ketchup lately, have you nicotine junkie?
Fact, the Surgeon General's report specifically pointed out that there were certain benefits to smoking.
Fact, the Surgeon General's report specifically said that there was no apparent risk to smoking cigars or pipes.
Fact, several reports used to show the dangers of cigarette smoking ALSO show a PROTECTIVE effect against cancer in pipe smokers. Sometimes by a factor of ten.
Fact, the above means that a pipe smoker's chances of getting cancer are statistically just about as good as a cigarette smoker's, or a NON smoker's.
Fact, no mechanism for smoking causing cancer has ever been found. No laboratory experiment has ever been able to produce lung cancer in mice *specifically bred to be susceptible to cancer* by subjecting them to SMOKE.
Fact, there is no way to tell from examining lung tissue, even malignant lung tissue, whether it's source was a smoker or not.
Fact, the EPA's study on SHS was a pack of statistical fabrications and outright lies. That isn't just a characterization of it. It's a finding of fact by a Federal judge. The EPA responded by ignoring the judge and going forward with imposing illegal laws on the populace. This makes the EPA's credibility on ANY matter about that of a retarded hamster.
SELL, SELL, SELL:
Cars kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, and maim
and injure countless more victims. You will not find any car industry
ad mentioning these facts in the interest of consumer information and enterprise
honesty. You might also find it interesting to dig into
Alcohol is an addictive substance causing more misery, suffering,
Junk food is a major contributor to heart disease. Do we
Who enforced the sale of dolphin-friendly tuna -- the companies or the consumer?
How many American living rooms are furnished in tropical hardwoods, and do the manufacturers tell you how many acres of irreplaceable rain forest had to die for you to leave coffee rings on the dining table?
Tropical fruit is produced with the aid of extremely badly paid
Where is the Exxon marketing campaign admitting responsibility for liberally coating the Alaska shoreline in crude oil? Where are the press releases by Shell admitting to collaborating with the Nigerianmilitary junta in the violent suppression of local tribes and human rights activism?
Do please go through your home and inspect your property for goods made in China. When you bought that pair of sneakers, did Nike make you aware that they were made by child labour? When you bought that set of screwdrivers, did Home Depot alert you that it was made in the People's Republic of China by political prisoners in forced labour camps?
How many parents are driven nuts by their kids to buy them the
latest and assuredly expensive fad in toys, movie spin-offs
and street wear,
Tobacco companies stuck to the laws and did nothing more and nothing
less than any other company in business today. The last time I saw
a Joe Camel ad, btw, was in an adult magazine (European edition of Playboy,
to be precise -- good articles) which by any criteria is not the ideal
place for ads with a teenage target audience. Their advertising
and marketing campaigns most assuredly stayed within the
Here are some economic truths you might wish to ruminate upon:
For the record, most of us in here do accept that smoking cigarettes
And where this spirit concerns tobacco, our position is clear.
What we dispute is the slanted and tainted evidence presented in support
of this theory. What we fight is the utterly intolerant fanaticism
of anti-smoking organisations. What we deplore is the mindset of
totalitarian behaviour control which denies any balanced discussion.
CAN'T WIN FOR LOSING:
Isn't it amazing how anti-smokers pick and choose? When a legal
decision goes against them, the judge must be corrupt. When
it is in their favour, it's a famous victory and proof that the system
works. When Big Tobacco says something you don't like, they must be lying
through their teeth; when they confirm your prejudices, they are quoted
as irrefutable proof. When scientists claim to find evidence against smoking,
they are sterling fellows and deserving of the Nobel
Prize, but when they fail to find such evidence, they
must be in the pay of Big Tobacco and to
PRESENT FOR DUTY:
For example, the Bureau of National Affairs reports that 95% of companies banning smoking reported no financial savings, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found no connection between smoking and absenteeism.
SPINNER - Smokers
AGING IS A HEALTH RISK:
In a 1995 study by Dr. Gary Strauss, described in
my book, 59% of his lung cancer victims were NOT smokers at the time
their cancers were diagnosed. This
Lung cancer, overwhelmingly, is a disease of old age. It begins
to become significant in the age cohort 55-64, and steadily increases as
the age cohort
LARRY COLBY - In Defense
THE MASTER OF YOUR DOMAIN:
For me, the essential argument is one of freedom. People
can argue all night and all day over the dangers or otherwise of smoking,
and I think, in time, those dangers will be widely understood to have been
over-rated.. however, even if the danger were *greater* than that which
has been historically (and, more recently, hysterically) promoted, are
we to sit idly by and have our lifestyles dictated to us by health fascists?
Are we to place physical well-being above mental and emotional well- being
because we are *told* that we must? Indeed, in the final analysis,
should we not have the right (as Dave Hitt, I think, has said
The question is... to whom do our lives belong?
I'LL DECIDE WHAT'S BEST:
The Political Echelons of all societies have always attracted
the type of people who seem blinded to the notion that individual choice
We may have come, indeed, to the point where our nanny governments are no longer legitimate and should be scrapped.
DON'T SAVE ME, SAVE YOURSELF:
Too many so-called scientists have simply sold out to the gov't
grant givers, or to their own hidden prejudices. With respect to smoking,
in no other area have so many WEAK studies been produced, and then been
touted as the latest "proof" that smoking is the greatest evil on earth.
They argue "consistency" with similar studies -- yes, they are ALL consistently
WEAK! ALL would be rejected outright in ANY other area. A hundred or a
thousand WEAK studies do not combine into ANYTHING with any strength --
they combine into a consistently
And it's not some conspiracy theory; gov't's and agencies are agreed on these things. Free birth control for everyone. Abortion is a right (and in China, a DUTY). A smoke-free world by (fill in the date). There really ARE plans, and the purpose is to turn the masses into good, healthy, obedient, and STUPID little proles.
The antis "feel" greatly and furiously, of course; we see and
hear their hatred and lies every day. Feelings are very real, but utterly
separate from truth and
Meanwhile, the gov't nods its collective head and says "It's
working. The people are at each others' throats, thanks to our manipulation,
and WE shall be
As Churchill said about the Brits' ability to decipher German code, "The truth is so precious, it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." With the gov't, the truth is that it funds endless crap studies to divide us, extort money, accumulate power and control our lives. The lies are that they "care," and that it's "for the children." With antis, the truth is their hatred; the lies are the meaningless "scientific" studies that prove nothing other than their desperation for justification. And BOTH prove that science is now politicized and utterly unworthy of trust.
TAKING IT PERSONALLY:
The anti smokers start from the belief that inhaling smoke is
unhealthy. Sound enough reasoning, however one looks at it. Then they try
to apply science
Smokers start from the belief that smoking gives them more than it takes. Perhaps a shaky bit of reasoning, but a very personal and therefore largely unarguable one. Then they look at the anti smokers attempts to make "science" prove otherwise. They see the exaggerations and dismiss the whole thing. That isn't science either.
1) Many, if not all, of the foundational "Smoking studies" do contain serious procedural flaws.
2) When quoting statistics on smoking the anti smokers are much given to exaggeration. This plays well to the fearful, but undermines their arguments with the skeptical.
3) It is fairly plain that the "scientific"
case against SHS has been political from the start. The epidemiological
case, even "cherry picking" the data, is far from persuasive, and the quantitative
case keeps turning up exposure levels of less than a cigarette per day
at the highest believable
All the "science" in the world will not change the fact that this is an essentially religious argument. The Liberal left, having scorned all traditional Religion for decades, has taken up (among other things) the worship of "health". Nothing can stampede them faster than the assertion that something is "healthy" ... or "unhealthy". the popularity of Oat Bran in the '80s and the Alar scare come to mind.
Anti smokers are "health" worshipers. They
will not see that smoking is a pleasure for some people, and that some
pleasures are worth an attendant risk. Their advocacy of their position
bypassed any relation to objective truth some decades ago. Their studies
are flawed, and often deliberately mendacious. This doesn't mean that,
in a larger sense. they are wrong. Inhaling smoke very
Fanaticism is obscuring whatever real information the anti smokers may have. Stubbornness is leading smokers to ignore even fairly clear data.
The combination isn't good.
COMMON SENSE LACKS ETHICS:
What sort of argument is "Everyone with common sense knows..."?
Five hundred years ago, everyone with common sense knew that the earth
is flat and that Jews kill Christian babies. One hundred years ago,
common sense told you that the Wright Brothers were lunatics for thinking
that their plane could fly. Fifty years ago, people refused to believe
what the Nazis were doing at Auschwitz because common sense told them that
no one could be that inhuman. Hell, some people still
Smoking is a vice and increases the risk of irreparable harm to
the smoker's body. The argument rests in a negative. The assumption
of anti-smoking activists and respective legislation is that the sensible
thing to do is to avoid anything that might harm a person, i.e. exercising
the instinct of self-preservation. To which I answer that all activities
HATE IS HATE:
I've heard similar arguments from Klansmen, insisting that those being lynched brought it on themselves. The more I see of anti-smokers, the harder it is to tell them from racists. Even their arguments are the same - right down to "they're dangerous to be around" and "they smell bad."
DAVE HITT - The
SURRENDERING RESPONSIBILITY IS COSTLY:
It is my considered, totally unprofessional and extremely subjective
opinion (and you are welcome to quote me) that we have seen something of
a revolution in the last fifty years. Only nobody seems to know about
it. This is a revolution in the social arena. Previously there
used to be a clear understanding and acceptance that with every right there
came a duty. Each privilege had to be paid for with some sort of
responsibility. But in the last fifty years or so, this awareness
of balance has shifted. We no longer see the duties and
The most vehement anti-smokers are ex-smokers who quit for somebody else's reasons, not their own. They have to demonize the weed in order not to be seduced by its lure.