posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:30 AM
if we actually look at the claims regarding smoking and health, there are a few things that don't add up.
i hear all the time that x amount of people die in a year due to smoking related diseases, like heart disease or lung cancer or whatever but its never
made clear how many were actually smokers, so i really don't know how much smoking increases my chances of getting these diseases. if there was a
large statistical difference between smoking and not smoking then surely this would be highlighted.
also, the claims seem pretty circumstantial, tobacco contains carcinogens, fair enough, but so does pretty much everything else. water these days
contains carcinogens. how is it possible to single out smoking as the main cause of any smoking related disease. for that matter, i can't see the
logic in claiming that passive smoking is bad for you. how many parts per million is a safe level of carcinogen resulting from tobacco? don't tell me
0, thats ridiculous, even radioactive particles have a safe ppm level.
okay, so it can't be good for you exactly, but there is a safe level, if the claims made by the anti-smoking lobby were realistic then we would all
know the answers to these questions, we don't, which smacks of propaganda to me.