Re: SHS [was: Article]
- From: Mickey <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 23:12:22 -0500
On 5/1/2012 8:55 PM, Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
On 2012-05-01 22:12:42 +0000, Mickey <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:Next you'll be telling us the study on second hand smoke showed no
evidence AT ALL to support their current campaign to eliminate it;
IOW, nothing had a relative risk greater than random chance.
Hey, given that this is the case (objective fact, not open for
discussion), what do we suppose *IS* the CDC's beef with the tobacco
industry?
Let's even try to do it without too much "they're mean, hateful,
spiteful little people" stuff -- is there any honest-to-goodness
legitimate beef that they might have? Like, why =WOULDN'T= the
government want 66% of the population smoking a pack a day and paying
taxes up the wahzoo?!?!
In order to allow the vicious level of taxation, first smokers need to be demonized, dehumanized, and made into "other". You know, "them".
Then no one says a word when they raise taxes on tobacco by 1300%, or whatever the screw du jour is.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SHS [was: Article]
- From: Tom S.
- Re: SHS [was: Article]
- References:
- Article
- From: Bart Goddard
- Re: Article
- From: Mickey
- SHS [was: Article]
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Article
- Prev by Date: Re: SHS [was: Article]
- Next by Date: Re: Article
- Previous by thread: Re: SHS [was: Article]
- Next by thread: Re: SHS [was: Article]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|