[Kizzume]

Quote by: Technosoul $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Non tobacco polution was not taken into account. It was a study designed to show links between smoking and a disease, not a study to show the link between non-tobacco polution and a disease. A simular study would in fact show a possbile link between cancer and fossil fuel exposure if that was the objective. Or if the study was done to show all the possible links to a disease. The satistics would then show a wide assortment of potential canidates that "might" cause cancer. And not just physical links to outside factors, but also genetic links and phychological links. The study involving smoking only proved that people who have cancer, for the most part, also smoked or were around someone who smoked. The same as they were around low-level stress, car polution, and a lot of other things, in the majority of cases. Focused studies have produced a multitude of potential links, which were peer reviewed and published, and reported on the news. How can you claim that such is not the case? Somehow when you read my postings you seem to skip over the factural and common sense explanations that I elaborated on. And of course, you then claim that I am doing the same thing. This has resulted in a stalemate relative to this debate and not a checkmate. (chess anology). Again, smoking as a cause is not a proven fact relative to science, and is in fact debatable just like it is possible to debate about pot being harmful. The difference is that not a lot of people smoke pot and so a large study (using stats) would not show a strong link relative to the over-all population. Just like working in a coal mine is not something that most people do, but if you did a study just on people who mine coal then you would find that many of them have health problems. However if you did a large study of everyone then breathing coal dust would not be concidered as a major link, via statistics. However the reason I compared pot smoking to cigarette smoking is to demonstate and to make a point that the anti-tobacco movement has a lot in common with the anti- pot movement. To prove that historical evidence supports my theory about brainwashing the poblic, meaning that the the conspiracy I spoke about is not a theory, but a fact. One worth sticking too. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ end of two part repley.

What would be proof for you? What form would the proof have to be in for you to believe it? This seems like trying to prove the existence of God to a die-hard atheist, it's seeming that you're needing proof that is impossible to give.