Why Anti-Smoking Groups Providing Inaccurate Health Information is Unethical

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | March 17, 2006 | Michael Siegel

[SheLion]

So as we stand today, the claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases heart attack risk among nonsmokers is a conservative one. Now we're down to 20 minutes. Does any anti-smoking group care to go for 10 minutes? Anybody? Anybody?

Pretty soon, no reliable research is going to be believe just because of these unethical groups spewing forth lies and misinformation.  Pretty sad, IMHO.

[SheLion]

[SheLion]

Ping!!!

[Smokin' Joe]

Actually the greatest reason making outlandish claims about the harm a substance does is that it diverts resources from other areas where they might be put to better use.

If every dime sent to propagate the lies of the tobacco control people had been spent doing basic cancer research instead, who knows what might have resulted?

Causes might be moot, for there might be a cure.

Instead, treasure greater than the net worth of small notions is pi$$ed away in drives for ever increasingly encroaching legislation, regardless of whether the point of diminishing returen was passed long ago or not.

We all get ripped off, smoker and non smoker alike when fundamental liberties are taken away by an increasingly intrusive government, but that sting is intensified when this is done under false pretenses.

Sadly, under it all, it is not about tobacco, but control. The methodology learned in this venue will be readily applied in others.

[babygene]

I've smoked them all my life, and I aint dead yet...

[Mogollon]

Inhalation toxicologists have shown that 2nd hand smoke does not cause heart attacks and/or cancer period. This is just more hype from the same types that push global warming.

[satchmodog9]

Limbaugh always speaks of a WHO study on second hand smoke. Rush claimed it found no conclusive evidence about second hand smoke dangers or something to that effect.

[RandallFlagg]

This sounds a lot like the, "It's not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge that matters," that the left uses.

And some Freepers agree with it. Sad.

[lesser_satan]

bump for later

[RandallFlagg]

Yep. Dated in 1998.

[Hand em their arse]

DITTO!!!

[SouthTexas]

There is no use since everyone knows that tobacco kills. Thing is, it's a scientific fact, a 100% certainty, that if you even TOUCH a smoker, you will die.

[fanfan]

So now if a non-smoker has a heart attack it's my fault?

If they arrest me for murder by smoking, at least I'll get good dental care, 3 hots, and a cot, etc.

[SheLion]

Limbaugh always speaks of a WHO study on second hand smoke. Rush claimed it found no conclusive evidence about second hand smoke dangers or something to that effect.

Yes.  I have that WHO study. 

[Free_SJersey]

This goes well beyond anti-tobacco statistics and research; it's spreads across the spectrum of issues. Perhaps the concept of telling the truth should be taught in preschool

Statistics are marvelous things and if you need something to support any theory, you can design a statistical model to support it.

The other problem is the gullibility of people and the reticence to question.

(by the way, I just found out that 98% of mass murderers drank milk as children. What's that tell you?)

[SheLion]

Thing is, it's a scientific fact, a 100% certainty, that if you even TOUCH a smoker, you will die.

Where is your sarcasm tags???

[RandallFlagg]

Actually, it's absolutely true. The smoker thing is incidental...

"If a man is born, it is a certainty that he will die." Kwai Chang Caine

[satchmodog9]

do you have a link? I would love it if you do.

[Kimmers]

OK I am not a health researcher but I really cannot figure this one out.

I was born in 1956, so I grew up in the era of smoking smoking everywhere.

Compared to now, there are fewer people smoking and our environment is cleaner than ever.

I know there is an increase in asthma in children, maybe there is another factor in this disease other than environmental/smoking.

My $.02, I do not smoke but is just another example of the libs trying to suck the fun out of life.

[SouthTexas]

LOL, I've almost given up trying to get people to understand that all agenda based science is bogus. Sad thing is this is probably next on the anti-smokers agenda.

So is it sarcasm, or an early warning? ;)