posted on Nov, 26 2003 @ 08:51 AM
No assumptions were made, I just quoted what you said. You keep trying to drive this moral and social responsibility issue, but it is flawed. In
society, each individual has his/her own morals and each differs. Having a peaceful society is dependant on the respect of each individuals' morals.
That's where choice comes in as explained before. Social responsibility is dependent on each individual following the LAWS of society. So stop
confusing "morals" with "social responsibility". This is the last time that I will address YOUR stance which is grossly varying from your assigned
position on Tobacco Prohibition. Is this supposed to be some sort of distraction tactic, because if so, you need to rethink your strategy.
So, let's talk about second hand smoke or ETS. You mentioned the WHO, in the 1998 US court ruling Judge William Osteen ruled against the
Environmental Protection Agency, in a case claiming secondhand smoke was dangerous, stating that the WHO ran a multi-million-dollar study dedicated to
proving that passive smoke causes cancer and came up empty. I know what your thinking, 1998. Long time ago. Well, I guess it's kind of like the
current US administration is doing, keep telling the people that Iraq has WMD and pretty soon they start to believe you. I won't be surprised in 5
years when someone still argues that Iraq has WMD. When research is carried out on ETS there are certain factors that are not included in the
calculations. It is the same with the costs of healthcare, in which estimates are exaggerated. In NONE of these so called studies are the natural
occurrences of diseases, blamed on secondhand smoke, taken into consideration. These results are twisted in a way to support the movement for Tobacco
Prohibition. Here's an example from an article that was in a Cincinnati Newspaper. "BREAD - 1)More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread
eaters. 2)Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests. 3)More than 90 percent of
violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread. 4)Primitive tribal societies that have no bread, exhibit a low occurrence of cancer,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis." So, do you think we should make the sale of bread illegal?? It is very easy to gather
statistics, but if you are not being unbiased the results are erroneous.
Another example, this time about smoking. Studies claim out of 100,000 smokers, 166 develop lung cancer. Sounds bad huh? What if you were to say that
out of 100,000 smokers, 99,834 did not develop lung cancer? The odds sound good,it is my choice to smoke, so I except the risk. They also fail to
mention that most studies are based on individuals that smoke 25 grams of tobacco a day for about 20 years. So, here is some data for you;
Revisiting the Association between Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk III. Adjustment for the Biasing Effect of
Misclassification of Smoking Habits Peter N. Lee, Barbara Forey, John S. Fry P.N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., Sutton, Surrey, UK Indoor+Built
Environment 10:6:2001, 384-398. "Adjustment for bias due to misclassification of smoking habits reduces the observed relative risk of lung
cancer in non-smoking women associated with smoking by the husband from 1.24 to 1.18. Eighteen percent risk increment …(1.00 = no risk; 1.18 = 18 %
increased risk). Readers must keep in mind that statistical risks smaller than 200% are not even considered by serious science – especially when one
cannot even be sure of what has been measured – as it is always and only the case for passive smoke."
You don't have to go eat dinner in the same place a smoker does and by the looks of the data, it's not going to hurt you anyway if you do eat at the
same place. You have no grounds for making the sale of Tobacco Products illegal.
A gun is only as good as the ammo you're using and you my friend, are shooting blanks.
Tune in tomorrow when I demolish your case on workplace smoking. Have a nice day!