Quote:
Quote by: Technosoul  Oh well, the idea is to scare people so they do not blame those other industries, like them guys who make gasoline for your car. Or those airplanes for the military. Or blame those who tested A-bombs out in the open back in the 1940s and 1950s when the cancer illnesses first became a major concern.
You see, you showed me no real science, just made claims and expect me to take their word for it, like we did when they said Saddam had WMDs and bio-chemicals in his backyard.
Question authority. |
Quite right. I'm not saying smoking doesn't have detrimental effects - of course it does. The problem, however, is that cigarettes have become the catchall-beall-endall with respect to cancer-causing substances, while completely ignoring all others (as Technosoul indicates).
Put a person in an enclosed garage with 50 people smoking, and put another person in an enclosed garage with a car running - who's going to die first? From the result, what conclusion could one draw about the toxicity of the substances involved?
Car exhaust, pesticides, industrial plants and their pollution, chemically and genetically engineered foodstuffs, unclean water, flouride, etc., and their cancer-causing substances all get ignored because hey, we've found the one and only cause of cancer, right? Does anyone really believe that if cigarettes were abolished and no one smoked, that cancer would be eliminated from the face of the planet?
As long as we continue to make cigarettes the scapegoat and ignore all other cancer-causing entities, we'll continue to delay finding the *real* causes of cancer in order to affect a cure. 'course, it requires an extreme leap of human faith to believe our US government actually *wants* to cure cancer in order to have a healthier population - plenty of evidence to suggest they prefer a diseased-ridden, medicine-dependent society - it's FAAAARRRR more profitable.