Quote:
Quote by: gela  Lol. I was just trying to figure out who you were blaming for what.
So WHO is biased and funded by instutry?
And Industry created the anti smoking campaign to distract people from environmental problems?
I am willing to consider that the anti smoking campaign was exaggerated in order to distract people from bigger issues. But that Conspiracy theory isn't enough to disprove aall the studies done by Universities and Governments. I maintain that smoking contributes to lung cancer, and emphysema.
WHO isn't the only health institution out there. |
Cigarettes are a drug used to combat stress. As with everything some side effects can be noted, perhaps dieing can be linked to a very few rare cases. Be sure to tell your doctor if you are dead.
(just making funnies) Now on to the serious debate.
I would agree that you should not smoke if you believe it is unhealthy, and I would not advocate a law that everyone must smoke, or else.
Fact is that you do not care if it is harmful to other people (your own family excluded) but what you really are prejudice about is the smell and the smoke that other people generate when they smoke (near your self).
You know that the smell of tobacco smoke is not really harmful nor is it a health hazard, none the less you find it repulsive. Therefore the only way you can get rid of that smell is to claim that smoking causes a "long list of illnesses". That need makes you want to believe in those studies and claims, because it is a useful weapon for you in your "war on a smell that you dislike".
But the fact is that all those reports you site have nothing to do with what you really want to attack or eliminate from your life.... the smell.
You could care less if they ban cigarettes in Scotland or not. You are mainly concerned about stopping it where you live and sniff. Right?
The old "kissing an ashtray" kind of complaint.
Another poster here is at least centering his debate around the topic of smell. Claiming that it damages his property. But you are not really limiting your debate to the area that "point of reasoning".
Example: Eating some fat foods might be unhealthy but fast foods smell good, so few people spend hours trying to ban potatos cooked in greese, or Coca Cola. Except at schools and so Coca Cola came out with a new brand of cola with healthy vitimens added. They can add as much vitimen C as you get in orange juice. No one wants an all out ban on Coca Cola and those other brands of soft drinks.
Now I can do a lab experiment. Put some meat in a glass of beer and some meat in a glass of coca cola. The next morning the meat in the Cola would be ate away and the meat in the beer would be well preserved. Aha.. proof. So ban Coca Cola. But that is not happening on a large scale with thousands of people debating such a ban. Because Cola smells good?
Now I did not disprove that all the studies took place. They did take place. I did not prove that all those studies are linked to just one group of people who conspired all the studies.
What I did prove is that studies based on epidemiology cannot be trusted because of the potential for bias, ramdom errrors, and systimatic errors. The data can be minipulated easly with missguided interpretations. It is possible that "they" then conducted thousands of tests using that flawed science so that they can say "they all cannot be wrong". Because they know that a few tests can be shot down for the reasons I stated ( and provided links for ). Abundance does not = quality.
I also object that "we the people" cannot study how each study was conducted, to find out if those studies contained any of the faults common to that kind of science. They never show us that. So we must depend and have faith on those who peer review the study for publication, and the study is peer reviewed by other people who are in that same field of work, by others who make a living doing studies using the science of epidemidology. Not by a 3rd party who is not bias. Of course those doing the peer review would not find fault with their own branch of research and they would want it to be as trustworthy as Sound Science. Therefore the study passes the review and gets published in a medical journal.