[gela]

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.

No.. I don't care that much about the smell..

I don't care much about laws surrounding smoking.. I just believe that it is unhealthy.

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?

Eating certian things is unhealthy.. but you need to eat to survive.
No matter how much crap is in that food, it still gives you energy. Same goes for liquids.

Smoking is targeted because it is a habbit that no one needs to survive.

Im not saying that eating unhealthy is any worse or better then smoking, Im just saying that they are very different and so people are going to react to them differently.

Why would I go to Macca's and/or have a coke? Because Im hungry/thirsty. Its a normal body function. Why would I have a cigarette? Because Im addicted to a drug in them.

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 have said several times. Every science can contain errors and biased. Epidemiology is no exception.

Im sorry, but the Abundance, coupled with the diversity of studies that have been done do prove it to be true.
Every study can not have the same errors. Theres such a thing as controling the variables, having 'placebos', and having control subjects.
I have said it about 5 times. For them to all get the same faulty results, then they all have to have the same error. This can only happen if the error was deliberate and there was a mass conspiracy.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of scientists out there are perfectly capable of conducting a study. No one is out to 'get' smokers.

The data can be minipulated easly with missguided interpretations.

No it can't.

person 1 did a,d,e and f. No lung cancer.
person 2 did a,b,c and k. He got lung cancer.
person 3 did a,c and k. He did not get lung cancer.
person 4 did b,c, and a. He got lung cancer

Multiply this result by a sample size of about 1000 and there is no room for interpretation.
b contributes to lung cancer. They might be asking the wrong set of questions.. mabe theres action z that is also done by all the lung cancer victims - but it isn't asked. However, the abundancy of studies done ensures that z would have been covered and investigated.

When a study like that is coupled with a study like the following, then it is futher proven to be true:
Let x be a certain number of cigarettes.
person 1 smokes x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 79.
person 2 smokes 1.5 x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 76
person 3 smokes 5x amount per day.
He dies at 68.

Its simple maths, you have a table of results, you graph it, and you will get a pattern.

The only way to 'interpret in wrongly' is to consiously lie about it. That is a conspiracy. That is why a mass conspiracy is the only possible explanation for consistant results like this across a variety of studies.