@alan fraser said:
It has nothing to do with keeping people in 'mud huts'.
It has everything to do with tobacco companies switching their focus to 3rd World countries who are too poor to resist...after smoking restrictions were introduced in the West.
Link.
I'm sorry Alan, but I think it has everything to do with 'mud huts'.
And while it is probable that 98% of lung cancer 'may' caused by smoking, other factors caused by nitrosamines and acrylamides come into play. These can be from frying bacon, cooking chips or even drinking beer. Actually, all the things the British Food Standards Agency love to hate, and love to preach to us what and what not to eat or smoke.
But what you haven't taken into account is that I was talking about smoking tobacco replacement therapies such as gum, pills and vapourisation. With 'vaping' there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any carcinogenic risks involved. So with that, why are we stopping Africans from harvesting tobacco for alternative enjoyment?
@alan fraser said:
Roy Castle's death due to secondary inhalation is not 'coincidence'. It was a proven fact and was a major factor in the establishment of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. The fact that Herbie Hancock has survived is down to luck and genetics...as in the case of my grandmother who smoked profusely into old age. My grandfather on the other hand...a burly longshoreman who used to roll his own...died in his 50's weighing only 6 stone (84 lb)
It was a proven "fact"? Where?
In the case of your own parents and my grand parents don't you see any paradoxes? Your grandfather being a "longshoreman" who died in his 50's? What from smoking? Or perhaps via the passing of tonnes and tonnes of other environmentally hazardous chemicals and substances later found out to be highly detrimental to human health?
While there are many reports that clearly show that smoking can be highly detrimental to your health (I, for one have already given up, and feel so much better for it too), there is still very little evidence to show that passive smoking actually causes cancer. In the case of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, I completely unsurprised that there is an emphasis on any kind of smoking causing cancer because by their very nature, the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation are a charity, and charities need to survive by attracting funders, and if you argue that disease caused by passive smoking hasn't really a leg to stand on, then you are going to turn away many possible investors? It would also be interesting to know who that list of investors are as well. (ASH or the WHO maybe?)
My basic gripe, and don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of smoking- but I've seen so many great businesses go down the pan because the smoking ban has had the opposite effect rather than the desired one, my basic gripe is being nannied by the state to be told what I can think and what I can't in the name of "The Science", where actually there is very little science/evidence to support the claim.
