Yep, the whole secondhand smoke fraud has perpetuated the anti-smoking zeal to make smokers miserable.
How is it a fraud?
Yep, the whole secondhand smoke fraud has perpetuated the anti-smoking zeal to make smokers miserable.
It's not just an addiction, it's a pleasure. And I thoroughly enjoy my tobacco. My smoking hurts no one. As for ruining it for everyone else, I don't believe everyone is as sensitive as you assert. Second hand smoke is harmless, and most people don't care if it's in their environment.
Your point regarding automobile pollution is a good example of how silly the panic over second hand smoke has become. This world offers far greater dangers than anything a cigarette can produce.
What amazes me most is that anti-smokers are quite happily inhaling exhaust fumes and think nothing of it.
I have the right to smoke. I do not have the right to force it on others in an enclosed space.
How is it a fraud?
Most people wouldn't care, but because of the ETS scare, more people are making an issue out of it. Keep in mind that smoking was once a very sociably acceptable activity, and no one gave a rats ass about second hand smoke, but now that it has been labeled as a toxin, every nanny on the planet has taken a stand against it.
Junk science that produce skewed results, supported and perpetuated by the anti-smoking zealotry that has always taken issue with smoking.
Stay out of the discussion if you disagree so strongly. I think I've proven that past studies have been hindered by subjective analysis, and I don't see any reason why we should put faith in any other study that's touted by the anti-smoking agenda. Hell, they cite studies that can't be investigated or subjected to review, all of which makes them that much more questionable.
I have the right to smoke. I do not have the right to force it on others in an enclosed space.
Most people wouldn't care, but because of the ETS scare, more people are making an issue out of it. Keep in mind that smoking was once a very sociably acceptable activity, and no one gave a rats ass about second hand smoke, but now that it has been labeled as a toxin, every nanny on the planet has taken a stand against it.
I have the right to smoke. I do not have the right to force it on others in an enclosed space.
Stay out of the discussion if you disagree so strongly. I think I've proven that past studies have been hindered by subjective analysis, and I don't see any reason why we should put faith in any other study that's touted by the anti-smoking agenda. Hell, they cite studies that can't be investigated or subjected to review, all of which makes them that much more questionable.
Junk science that produce skewed results, supported and perpetuated by the anti-smoking zealotry that has always taken issue with smoking.
It sounds like you made up your mind. Would you believe any study that found evidence for second-hand smoke? There are not any researchers out there who are completely unbiased on the issue. So of course they find what they want to find. Just like people doing research on the validity of ESP. If you don't believe in it you can't see evidence of it, if you do believe in it you can.
I'm sure plenty of people didn't like it, but they had no evidence that it was harmful. Now they do. You're also talking about a time when there was no real evidence that smoking itself was harmful. There was a time when insulation for your home was made of asbestos, there was a time when watch dials were painted with radium. When these things were discovered to be hazardous, substitutes were found.
Stay out of the discussion if you disagree so strongly. I think I've proven that past studies have been hindered by subjective analysis, and I don't see any reason why we should put faith in any other study that's touted by the anti-smoking agenda. Hell, they cite studies that can't be investigated or subjected to review, all of which makes them that much more questionable.
I think it's reasonable to question the motivations of those who are producing the study. The question is how far they have fudged the numbers in their effort to make an issue out of the data. Another problem is whether or not they disclose the the details of their study to the general public. Currently I'm trying to find more details concerning the Cancer Prevention Study II, which was conducted by the American Cancer Society. I cannot dig up any specifics on the study, and I find that to be very frustrating.
In general, I think it's a good thing not to take any proclamation at face value.
None of that has the slightest impact on this :
When there is a reasonable alternative, I think you have every right to smoke. Nobody forces nonsmokers to patronize a particular bar or restaurant, nor are they required to stand next to a smoker. Be honest, the whole SHS hysteria has gotten out of hand.
The only thing you've proven is that you think you should be able to smoke when and where you like, and to hell with anyone who doesn't like it. By your reasoning, the entire medical establishment has conspired to deprive you of your "right" to smoke as you please. Their motivation? Probably just doing it to piss you off. I have to wonder if you truly believe that tobacco is harmful at all?
You might want to check out confirmation bias.
I'll participate in any discussion I care to.
Concerning forcing it on people in enclosed spaces, there is no reasonable alternate.
If every bar & restaurant allows smoking, nonsmokers, including children, essentially can't participate without it being forced on them.
Concerning nonenclosed spaces & my apartment, it has gotten out of hand.
What the heck do you think you mean by "Be honest"?