Sunday, 16 January 2011

More 'scientific' pressure to change our ways!

"The war on smoking has produced a least one documented result: There is now an exploding black market worldwide for cigarettes."

Dick Puddlecote posts on yet another 'front' that is being opened up in the war against smokers - a post that is well worth reading in its entirety. (and 'entirety', for the lazy ones, includes all the links!)

First, it is worth mentioning that the dangers of second-hand smoke have yet to be proven (Scared to Death, Booker & North, page 270 "Despite their tireless efforts, they had not been able to produce a single, genuinely scientific study that proved beyond doubt that second-hand smoke was actually responsible for killing people.") and yet now they open another 'front' based on third-hand smoke!

It is worth noting that all these 'scientific' studies include, in their pontifications, the words "could", "may", "might", "can" (can implies a possibility, not a certainty), "appeared to be" and "the potential for".I am not interested in all the "can" or "maybe"(s) - I want proof. On the subject of "scientific proof" can anyone point me to an autopsy procedure the proves not just the presence of nicotine, but that that presence actually caused death?

No doubt the content of DP's post will be seized on by ASH and the anti-smoking lobby as a further incentive to impose their unproven ideas on society. To that particular lobby - and all those who let this pass them by on the basis it is not their concern - I say just wait until 'they' decide that one of their pleasures is 'considered' detrimental to health (based, of course, on unproven 'scientific fact'). I cant wait to hear the howls of protest!


Dick Puddlecote said...

Ta for the link, WfW.

Glad you also mentioned the SHS nonsense too. Because that is the premise they begin with.

"It’s long been known that mainstream and secondhand smoke can contribute to health problems"

Err, no it hasn't. The only place where it is uncontested is the computer models of those paid to fabricate the idea.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

My pleasure DP. Obligatory to mention SHS, is it not?

Chris Edwards said...

That argument is a crock of shit! it is likely second hand smoke kills, it has been proven to cause and sensatise to asthma it is an awkward subject,my rights to unpolluted air are the same as those who want to disable themselves with cigarettes so its a bit hard to be fair. Common sense tells me that if the smoke is a health risk it matters not if it is first hand or third hand, it is likely to be less damaging the more diluted by good air it is but harmfull it must be. To argue otherwise it using the same logic as the AGW crowd!

WitteringsfromWitney said...

CE: Not too sure which argument you refer to, theirs or mine?

The effects of second hand smoke have not, rpt not, been proven. You say it is 'likely' so you too are basing your case on probability, not fact. In any event, oen person's right to smoke is equal to another's right not to smoke - it is down to personal choice and neither side should impose their views on the other. In the entertainment industry, be that pub or restaurant, it is up to the provider of those to decide the clientel that he wishes to cater for - it is not up to govt to dictate how he should run his business!