Re: OT:Promises.Promises

Les Cargill wrote:

"Don't care for it" is not a valid reason to use the force of law on
it. Well, unless you have narcissistic personality disorder.

Horsecrap, society prohibits lots of behavior in public on the grounds it is
merely objectionable. Trying walking into your favorite restaurant naked
some time and see how long it takes the cops to arrive. Stand on a counter
in a dept. store and make a speech outlining your political views, notice
those same cops show up.

Second, the Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke makes your
claim a non-starter.


Here's one of the more concise critcisms:

Written by a guy who has been an employee of the tobacco industry for
decades! Golly, is it just possible that someone who is on their payroll
perhaps shouldn't be considered a reliable, objective source?

You *CAN'T* use those sorts of fuzzy categorization metghods
and claim it as "fact". It's pseudoscience.

It's heavily peer-reviewed, it's accepted by the medical community, you're
whistling past the graveyard trying to pretend otherwise. Again:

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

"The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report
of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health,
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22
national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters
were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30
independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers'
comments."

And:

"Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen
(cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has
concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen."

All these people are fools, or political hacks? If their work is so sloppy,
why aren't *credible* scientists (as opposed to employees of the tobacco
industry) refuting it? What motivates all these supposed crooked
scientists? We know what motivates the tobacco companies, profits, so what
leads respected scientists to submit false data, are they all whoring for
research grants by telling the govt. what it wants to hear?

Even if you forget the stats on long-term exposure, the measurable
short-term effects are striking:

"The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of
exposure to secondhand smoke.
Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become
stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow
velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing
the risk of a heart attack.


Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and
damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper
airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more
asthma attacks in children who already have asthma."

And so on and so forth. You're defending the indefensible. Brave effort old
chap, but continuing to pretend tobacco isn't harmful is a fool's errand,
nobody but other tobacco addicts is listening.


.

Loading