| Subject: |
|
Smoking bann |
| Name: |
|
Thomaslaprade |
| Date Posted: |
|
Dec 22, 07 - 3:37 AM |
| Email: |
|
snowbirb@tbaytel.net |
| Instant Messenger: |
|
 snoking bann |
| Website: |
|
http://hp://smokersclubinc.com, wwwwww.illinoissmokersrights.com |
| Message: |
|
My take on Second Hand Smoke
I've never smoked in my life. The only time I ever put a cigarette in my mouth is to light them by puffing on it so I could then remove the filter and place the cigarette on the fuse of an M80 as a makeshift timer back when I was young and childish. All in all, you can call me a non-smoker.
As a matter of fact, I hate smoke. I hate the way it smells, the way it permeates my clothes, the way it seems to make my eyes water, and, well, basically, I hate the very concept of smoke. Anyway, there are many reasons to hate second hand smoke.(SHS). Now, as much as I hate SHS, I also hate the battlecry anti-smokers use against SHS, that it is dangerous to non-smokers' health and gives you cancer.
What does that mean? It means this rant speaks in favor of smokers. This rant is probably going to get a lot of anti-smokers angry, but it doesn't bother me at all. I'm hoping that, despite this rant making anti-smokers angry, it would also many of them think, that, perhaps, there is more truth to what I'm writing than what they have been taught by so many in society.
I've had many debates with people about SHS smoke, most of them ending with similar results, the people getting angry at me and simply dismissing me. Gee, nothing seems to solidify one's belief like the casual dismissal of anyone willing to argue against you.
It seems odd, that I, a person that hates the very concept of smoking, would speak in favor of smoking in this instance. However, because I'm always in a never ending quest for knowledge, I've checked into the effects of SHS and realized that the facts indicate that the effects of SHS have been grossly exaggerated.
Most people believe it's common knowledge that second hand smoke causes cancer. You can basically walk up to some random person and ask them about what the dangers of SHS are, and they will probably tell you it will give you cancer. Even though it seems like common knowledge, as a person who would always question everything, I came to question that very belief. From my point of view, the authority of the many (the millions in this case) doesn't necessarily outweigh the reasoning of one.
The main battlecry of anti-smokers is 'I don't care if you smoke. I care when you're imposing the risks of your smoking upon me through your second hand smoke'. However, have you guys every taken a step back and wondered if that battlecry actually holds any water? To see if what they say is actually true?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did a study on the effects of SHS back in 1993. The study told of how approximately 3,000 non-smokers die from lung cancer which is attributed to SHS. That result was basically the catalyst that opened the floodgates for anti-smokers to scream for regulations against smoking.
Here's something you might find interesting. In 1998, the United States Federal Court threw out those test results, stating that it 'cherry picked' its data and that it didn't follow scientific procedures to come out with an objective result. Basically, the EPA lied about their results and the Federal Court found out and threw out those results. In a sense, to refer to SHS causing cancer is basically referring to test results thrown out in courts.
When the results of the EPA came out back in 1993, the public believed it. Afterall, why shouldn't we believe the EPA? This is the same association that regulates the food we eat. Then again, this is also the same EPA that claimed the air around the post-9/11 World Trade Center was breathable so workers could go back to ground zero to start cleaning up the debris and are now suffering from respiratory problems several years later. Anyway, because everyone believed what the EPA said, anti-smoking groups now have a battlecry and have been using this battlecry before the Federal Court finally came in and threw out those findings.
Did that do anything? No. Why? Because the damage has been done. For the 5 years from when the test results were announced to the time it was thrown out in court, we have been bombarded with the belief that SHS causes cancer. This belief has been instilled upon us that SHS is dangerous for us. Basically, even though evidence shows that SHS is statistically insignificant, this belief has been instilled upon to such an extent that we most likely refuse to believe otherwise. Bottom line is that the Federal Court's intervention came too late. The damage was done.
The damage that has been done is no different than, say, the Michael Jackson case. Even though he was acquitted of charges that he molested that boy, people still consider him a child molester. Think of it, the prosecution could not prove that he molested that boy, but people are still convinced otherwise, believing that the prosecution didn't do a thorough enough investigation. To all the people that believe this, it's too bad they weren't on the prosecution's team because it seems like they knew |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com
