Second hand smoke versus the truth

 Understand that I am not a smoker and think it causes death in some cases.  But the argument against "second hand smoke" is one based in hysteria,  not fact.   Here is a fact:  a one pack-a-day habit is [potentially] a 30 year death.  That's why lung cancer is not a disease of the younger adult,  typically.  


No one will ever convince me that second hand smoke is as harmful as actually smoking a cigarette. Its a silly idea,  one that should insult the intelligence of us all.  Several years ago, here in California,  there was an anti-smoking campaign that claimed the tobacco habit to be more addictive than cocaine.  Anyone know how many cocaine addicts kick the habit?  About 3%.  And cigarette smokers?  There are 50% few smokers, today,  than 30 years ago.  Some municipalities have banned smoking in their parks,  not because they are tired of picking up the butts  (a good reason,  btw),  but because of their fear of second hand smoke.  

In fact,  a habit of less than 7 cigs a day will not kill you before you die of old age.  Actuarial charts prove this point.  There used to insurance advertisements that made this very point,  until  government watchdogs told them to "stop" with that kind of talk.  

Look, smoking is bad for your health,  but why make up stuff when the truth is all that is needed? 

2 comments:

  1. This argument reminds me a lot of the global warming argument. Regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by man the fact remains that pollution is damaging to people. And most preventable pollution is caused by carbon emissions, so why bother with the global warming argument and go straight for the dangers of pollution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right on, right on, right on. At least, with global warming, we could deal with more concrete research results than the fantasy of a predictable weather forecast.

    ReplyDelete