[Gabz]

And you know this how?

[Don W]

Correct me if I'm mistaken Ichabod1, but I think he was referring to the way the nannies will blame smoking for a death if there is any remote possibility that the person was exposed to tobacco at any point in their lives. See my comment HERE.

It's similar to the demonization of driving after a couple of beers: at first it was "alcohol-CAUSED" accidents, but when the number of accidents dropped, they had to move the goalposts, so it became "alcohol INVOLVED". "Alcohol caused" means the driver was unequivocally over the legal BAC limit (though THAT standard is constantly moving too), whereas "alcohol involved" simply means that there was booze in one of the vehicles!

Say you stop off on the way home a pick up a bottle of wine for dinner. Then, after putting the bottle in the trunk, you get t-boned by a blue-hair in a Buick. Neither of you has a drop of alcohol in your system, but there is booze in one of the cars VOILA! "ALCOHOL INVOLVED!"

If you look closely, you'll see that it is the same group of people pushing both these agenda.

[ichabod1]

Oh, YEAH, I was referencing the tendency to add people to the “smoking related” category if they smoked, no matter what they died of. Not meaning any disrespect to Shelion at all - I miss her terribly on these threads.