Posted on 11/26/2002 4:58:07 AM PST by SheLion
Too much is made of the 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. We're told these chemicals are so harmful that they are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. Untold in this "war on tobacco" is that each of the plants we consume consists of an equally daunting thousands of chemicals many of which are recognized poisons or suspected cancer-causing agents.
Cayenne peppers, carrots and strawberries each contain six suspected carcinogens; onions, grapefruit and tomato each contain five -- some the same as the seven suspected carcinogens found in tobacco.
High-heat cooking creates yet more dietary carcinogens from otherwise harmless chemical constituents.
Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling.
Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole.
Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab.
That's one problem with the anti-smoking crusade. The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs.
An in-depth analysis of 400,000 U.S. smoking-related deaths by National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute Robert Levy identified a disturbing number of flaws in the methodology used to estimate these deaths. Incorrectly classifying some diseases as smoking-related and choosing the wrong standard of comparison each overstated deaths by more than 65 per cent.
Failure to control for confounding variables such as diet and exercise turned estimates more into a computerized shell game than reliable estimates of deaths.
Marimont and Levy also found no adjustments were made to the costs of smoking resulting from the benefits of smoking -- reduced Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, less obesity, depression and breast cancer.
If it were possible to estimate 45,000 smoking-related Canadian deaths as some health activists imagine -- and Marimont, Levy and other respected researchers think it is not -- then applying an identical methodology to other lifestyle choices would yield 57,000 Canadian deaths due to lack of exercise and 73,000 Canadian deaths blamed on poor diets.
If both the chemical constituents of tobacco smoke and the numbers of smoking-related deaths are overstated -- and clearly they are -- how can we trust the claim that tobacco smoke is harmful to non-smokers?
The 1993 bellwether study by the Environmental Protection Agency that selectively combined the results of a number of previous studies and found a small increase in lung cancer risk in those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke has been roundly criticized as severely flawed by fellow researchers and ultimately found invalid in a court of law.
In 1998, the World Health Organization reported a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smokers.
Despite these invalidating deficiencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization both concluded tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers.
One wonders whether the same conclusions would have been announced if scientific fraud were a criminal offence.
When confronted with the scientific uncertainty, the inconsistency of results and the incredible misrepresentation of present-day knowledge, those seeking to abolish tobacco invoke a radical interpretation of the Precautionary Principle: "Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activity should not proceed."
This unreasonable exploitation of the ever-present risks of living infiltrates our schools to indoctrinate trusting and eager minds with the irrational fears of today. Instead of opening minds to the wondrous complexities of living, it opens the door to peer ridicule and intolerance while cultivating the trendy cynics of tomorrow.
If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now?
Eric Boyd of Waterloo has management experience across a wide range of sectors.
With the quality of most restaurants and the yuppie scum take-over of most decent working mans' bars, it's barely worth going out anymore anyway.
Even places that tout themselves as top flite serve the same bland crap in only slightly variable phoney "atmosphere".
We could probably get a thread of it's own out of that.
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
After all, no one should deny other people's right to fart as much as they want. In the privacy of their home or in specially-designated public spaces, such as restrooms.
I'm a bit confused, my freedom loving fellow poster?
I owned a small, very popular, small restaurant. As luck would have it many of my patrons were politically correct, government employed, self aggrandizing, self righteous, non smoking, pseudo christian, busybody pigs. The restaurant was popular because the owner loved his business to the point of cooking much of the food himself. That same cook smoked. Every 60 to 90 minutes he paused to step out back for a quick smoke. Some of those self righteous pukes got wind of this practice. They proceeded to do the only proper, responsible, government response. They notified the local health department, they, intern, notified the owner cook. He was admonished for said activities, warned of the dire consequences, and directed to stop illegal activities.
The owner cook, sold the beautiful, small restaurant of 20 years, very quickly.
Presently he drinks and frolics, his former customers, smoking and non smoking, are searching for a beautiful, Epicurean delight they are likely not to find.
Welcome to America.
-Golder
Pity, isn't it?! The smoking bans are choking our nation's economy and so many businesses have folded...........and people lost jobs, or had hours cut back, all because of these asinine smoking bans.
Why don't people wake UP??!!
Pity, isn't it?! The smoking bans are choking our nation's economy and so many businesses have folded...........and people lost jobs, or had hours cut back, all because of these asinine smoking bans.
Why don't people wake UP??!!
Nervous mouse. hehe!
HOLY CRAP!! I read this whole damned thing without noticing the date!! Thought it was a new one. Oh, well. 8^D
I fell off my seat as well.
Check post #378. Why oh why lilmamma18 felt compelled to resurrect this thread is beyond me! This is from 2002. Can you believe it????
The information still holds true today, but my Gawd! She needs to move ON!!!!!
Actually, this thread was one of the best yet, sorry I missed it the first time around.
You are one angry lady !
Wow !
So Dr. Luv. . .Tell me something. . . he quotes all these things about arsenic and other chemicals -- but in reality isn't there a difference between consuming these things and letting the body digest and purge them . . . as opposed to inhaling them where they sit in the lungs and, well turn them attractive shades of black?
I didn't really understand the blackness of a smoker's lungs until I went to the Body Worlds exhibit. www.bodyworlds.com
After seeing that, I can't imagine anyone putting a cigarette in their mouth.
I found your post most interesting,especially the part where the doctor said that your situation was not uncommon.
I was a severely asthmatic child and started smoking at 17,the asthma left 3 years later,never to return.I am now 73 and still smoke.
Teddy Roosevelt's asthma was treated by smoking cigars and he had the best doctors in NY.
We have less smoking today and more asthma.
It's a mystery to me.
"If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now? "
That might give lilmammal something to do for a couple of months.
PING!!! Just a quick note that I am listening and appreciate you vigor!!!!!!!!
Do you drive an automobile?....DUH!!!! UHHHHH!!?!!! Do you breathe in the toxic chemicals of the man-made materials in your car...home...public stores etc? +Do you have wall to wall carpeting? House...New...Old? Do you live among trees and other pollin producing plants? Are your cupboards ( and other FAKE wood products) ALL wood or do they have fiber board that contain formaldehyde (formalin)...Gee...even dust, pets....I would just love to hear how clean and pure you are...and you daughter's only problem is your husband? You may have something to do with it as well!
RIGT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ha! Ha! I should learn how to spell, I'll try again...RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OLD Canned NUTS...Rancid as well.
Two posts, two, in 10 1/2 months on FR. One the first day she registered and this one. Check out the first one, it's practically a book!
She is either a heavy drinker or is deficient in the mental department. Looks like a plea for attention, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.