MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:if they say it's a good idea to ban smoking in a public place for the health and safety of others (especially the employees) then, I'm going to take their word over yours.
Oh fuck...he "went there."
OK MGO, same as the last several times this came up --
Quote or link ONE
scientific study that shows that secondhand smoke is hazardous to human health.
One.
Or, you could list ONE person who was definitively diagnosed with an ailment directly caused by secondhand smoke.
One.
Or, you could name one person in the history of mankind whose death was definitively caused by secondhand smoke.
One.
I'll tell you what...since I kind of like you, in a strictly non-gay-inetrnet-way, I'll help you out and save you some time...
There isn't one.
Not one of any of the above.
You'd think there would at least be
one scrap of scientific evidence for such an insidious threat to humanity...yet there isn't.
Not one example of any of the above. The ONLY evidence ever provided for this political-talking-point is purely anecdotal, and no
responsible scientist would do anything but be overcome with fits of laughter at the methodolgy used to come up with it.
Yet, for some odd reason, people want to cite phantom health statistics as a reason to
pass legislation to control their neighbor's behavior.
So, starting to see that this issue is purely the work of the talking heads, and not the scientists?
I doubt that anybody is going to argue that smoking cigarettes is good for you(except in the case of Alzheimer's patients...you DO realize that's generally a disease of nonsmokers, right?), but the same methodolgy that the anti-smoking lobby/fascists use to trump their cause also shows us that people who smoke half a pack of cigarettes a day or less have a
very slight increase in risks of "smoking related illnesses." Yet, people somehow warp those "studies" to say that while half-packers have a
slight increase in risk,
nonsmokers who breathe secondhand smoke have their risk increased by a factor of elenteenbuhzillion times over.
C'mon. Let's get the politics out of it, and quit
lying about things.
And speaking of "smoking related illnesses" -- you DO realize that the
vast majority of NONSMOKERS die from "smoking related illnesses," too....right? Tell me you knew?
And you might even want to look into this yourself -- do a search and see which developed countries have the highest life expectancy. Now, do a search and see which countries have the highest percentage of smokers.
WELL HOW ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!
Here's a link, if it's easier --
http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages2.htm
Or, you can visit any of thousands of websites that will all quote those same figures.
If smoking is the overriding factor here, why are those results what they are? Japans' life expectancy has increased dramatically at a rate and time that their rate of smokers has gone up dramatically.
How can that be?
Oh, probably because the anti-smoking lobby is full of complete bullshit.
Two people I know have died of, or are currently dying of lung cancer. Take a guess what the relevant commonality they share is?
Yup, nonsmokers.
As people live to be older, guess what? More and more people die of things like lung cancer, heart didease, stroke, and a host of other ailments. And here's a newsflash...those are ailments of old-age, not neccessarily "smoking related illnesses." To call something that more nonsmokers die from than smokers a "smoking related illness" is just a bit dishonest, wouldn't you say?
And it's certainly not something we should be basing babysitting-type legislation on, I think any
responsible citizen would agree. It's kind of like compling data as to which members of Army convoys(or as my friend who used to ride on them called them, "RPG target practice for Arabs") were wearing seatbelts when they were killed on the hiway in Iraq to determine seatbelt safety -- it's just plain dishonest.
