So let me get this straight - I claim that people say X, I'm told I'm attacking strawmen. I quote, source, and cite actual people saying X, and I'm told that I'm wrong because they're smarter than me? Isn't that a logical inconsistency?
M.C. wrote:Yes, it's because health professionals are liars, not that the tobacco lobby is incredibly powerful.
One could just as easily say that many health experts attacking tobacco are in the employ of pharmacuetical companies - since Big Pharma profits more from their nicotine alternatives
every time Big Tobacco loses. Of course, the correct solution is to rigorously investigate each individual cite for funding sources, but who wants to do that?
I've not claimed that smoking is healthy. There are proven, solid, statistically significant links between emphysema and smoking, and smaller but statistically significant links to various cancers. What I am saying that health professionals are overstating the risks, governments are using the profesionally stated risks to infringe on liberties, and that this is wrong.
Look back at the original article. 'Smoking causes genetic damage within minutes of inhaling.' This is fearmongering, pure and simple. If you know a smoker, you know that within minutes of inhaling, they did NOT suddenly grow an extra arm or die from cancer in the next few days.
Another recent story of similar phrasing making the rounds is polonium-210 in cigarettes
. Yes, it's true that polonium-210 can now be detected in measurable quantities in cigarettes. This is not because they are more harmful than they were yesterday. It's because we've got better equipment and can actually measure it to statistically significant figures above background noise.
Many things in life can kill you. If we react to things out of fear without weighing the relative risks and rely on people providing poor information, we will make poor choices.