"Big Smoke" Infiltrated...

[mosesbotbol]

People find smoke offensive and will try to manipulate science to reach their own conclusion. Such BS.

My dad was talking about this same phony science (in terms of passive smoke) 25 years ago. This is nothing new. It's a witch hunt against tobacco. Certainly smoking is probably not good for you, but what the hell is these days?

[357]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

People find smoke offensive and will try to manipulate science to reach their own conclusion. Such BS.

My dad was talking about this same phony science (in terms of passive smoke) 25 years ago. This is nothing new. It's a witch hunt against tobacco. Certainly smoking is probably not good for you, but what the hell is these days?

To your point...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507528/posts

Despite the claim of anti-smoking groups that scientific studies unanimously have shown that secondhand smoke is killing thousands from lung cancer, the truth is that the vast majority of such studies failed to find any statistically significant link.

The arguments of anti-smokers are sometimes ludicrous. They claim that smoke contains 4,000 poisons and carcinogens, but a 2005 California EPA analysis found only 405. Not only that, the average American diet contains about 10,000 poisons and carcinogens. Perhaps Chicago should ban food instead of tobacco.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

Certainly smoking is probably not good for you, but what the hell is these days?

Bacon.

[taltos]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Bacon.

and Stoli