Who started?

The great debate began in the late 1960's with the release of the surgeon general's report on tobacco use.  It has expanded from there

I've always felt that the insurance companies funnel money to "the American Lung Association" to keep the war against tobacco going strong! I'm sure they'll be after "fast food" next : )

Best,

D.Perry

The Sherlock Holmes Pipe Club of Boston... "Keeping The Smoking Lamp Lit Since 1991" www.shpcboston.org

The battle over tobacco really seemed to get ramped up after the fraudulent "Stanford Study" on second hand smoke that was allegedly done in the 90's.  Since then, the battle seems to have really intensified.

Jay

It'll likely keep raging until the anti's get what they really want and tobacco's all but outlawed or simply taxed to the point where it's nearly unaffordable! (like in Canada!)

Best,

D.Perry

The Sherlock Holmes Pipe Club of Boston... "Keeping The Smoking Lamp Lit Since 1991" www.shpcboston.org

*nearly*? What do you mean *nearly*?

Sorry, some bitterness may have made it across there...

Walter Williams addressed the second-hand smoke debate today in Jewish World Review.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams041107.php3

Dated 04/11/07, this article points out how studies get skewed, and the public is deceived.  Our FDA and EPA do it all the time.I remember when I voluteered in a cancer ward, where people who were terminal could not be administered, because it was deemed experimental by the FDA.  Though that particular drug might have shortened the lives of these patients who were only given 6 months, the FDA would not allow it to be administered because it might shorten the 'quality of their lives'.  The World Health Organizations study, which Williams sites in his article, actually found that children growing up around second-hand smoke had less lung problems than those living with nonsmoking parents.  Check out this site:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

Myths abound in this society, and the mainstream media promotes them.  Worse yet, the general public swallows it.  Devastating news is always better than good news.  It seems the general public is even more superstitious than the same group was during the middle-ages.  But it might be worse, there could be an agenda.... if they succeed at banning smoking, what could be next?  Perhaps the global warming scare is actually to eliminate the use of fuel, except by those who really need it... I will leave you to draw your own conclusions as to who they are.

There are alot of other carcinogens out there that aren't even being reported on.  Like the benzine that is used to product gasoline.  That is just one.  Funny how rates of lung cancer over the decades have followed a curve almost directly following the curve of increased gasoline use over the decades.  So the question is, does science exist to serve humanity, or is it just a tool to be used by a current social agenda?  I have my opinion, and based on what I have seen, and now what I have said, should be obvious.

Matt

http://mestonepipes.com

I like Walter Williams - he writes in a few other publications I read regularily. He always has very 'level-headed' opinions on a variety of subjects from racial issues to politics and more.

Funny how rates of lung cancer over the decades have followed a curve almost directly following the curve of increased gasoline use over the decades. So the question is, does science exist to serve humanity, or is it just a tool to be used by a current social agenda?

Exactly what I think. It's amazing that these increased percentage rates of people developing cancer (of all sorts) directly follow our increasing industrialization and sprawling expansion. Hell, drive through Atlanta sometime. The signs over the interstates warn you in no uncertain terms NOT TO GO OUTSIDE on some days. The pollution is just that bad.

As far as science goes.. it only wants to prove the truth, whatever that is. Statistics.. now THAT'S a tool that can push an agenda.

Caydel.... Glad I am not the only one who has heard of him, and appreciate his reasoning ability.  =)   What do you think of Thomas Sowell, another economist I consider great?

Matt

http://mestonepipes.com

I get the impression that we read the same magazines. Thomas Sowell is also brilliant, again, a regular contributor to the Western Standard, one of my favourite magazines...

I tend to think not so much of this as some grand plan, but a simple case of follow the money. Concern about smoking started legitimately enough, but then it became institutionalized. That is, various groups grew with sizable staffs of paid employees, whos job it was (and is) to stamp out smoking. Once a particular battle was won, no one was going to say, OK we got what we wanted, lets disband and find something else to do. They would simply find another aspect of the crusade to follow, to sustain funding and thier income. First it was warnings on tobacco products, then pushing for additional taxation, then smoking bans, and so on. Once an entity forms of this size, it's not likely to go away.
The current young generation is the first in history to have a shorter life expectancy than thier parents, even though smoking rates have declined, (The reduced life expectancy is due largely to poor diet/obesity). Because this hasn't yet grown into and "anti" group, at least not nearly the size of the anti smoking lobby, it hasn't caught hold as a great cause, so smoking remains the number one fight with regards to longevity and health.

that in the late 1950's with over ten years of increasing cases of cancer being diagnost that were escalating along with the rate of nuclear wepons testing the government needed a scape goat, something sellable to take the focus off of radioactive material being spewed into the earths atmosphere. The SG was just a pawn pointing the finger to an industry that since it's inception has had a movement in place against it. Like all movements money is always at the root of the matter. Yesteryear it was how can you spend more on tobacco than you give to the church and today it is greedy Big Biz. Having learned it lesson from the probition of alcohol the zealots were more effectively manipulated into providing a culprit the government was not liable for.

SHS was the coup de grace, the art of misdirection carried out more effectively than Chris Angel. To this day, noone questions how cancer cases could continue to rise by 50% percent from 1960 when cigarette smoking had decreased by 50%.

Some day this will all come out and will undoubtedly be the single biggest hoax ever portrayed upon the public.

I would have no problems with having this whole thing plastered all over the media as a hoax tomorrow. Heck, today at the 6 o'clock news would work as well.

Misdirection, deception and hidden agendas right and left are getting really old.

Way to go, Slartie! Come on

you guys ... seriously ...