Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
freezin, we could bat it around all day about the effects of smoking, but as I put above, cui bono?
|
Cuts both ways, foreverwar.
Quote:
|
Who do I trust less? The Tobacco companies, who stand to gain custom and revenue if the negative health aspects of smoking (active and passive) are nay-sayed or put into doubt, or Government, Public Health Authorities, or researchers? Why would Governments legislate to diminish revenue (taxes from the producer and consumers)? Why would researchers (whose work is peer-reviewed) risk their reputations?
|
You've made it pretty obvious that you trust the official line. I trust NONE of the parties involved. The case has not been proven, but it seems very dodgy to me that the official line is that it has been. It appears the anti-smoking faction has won the propaganda war. I can't see that it is anything else in the light of the way these studies are conducted. (The tobacco companies accepted smoking is bad for health many years ago. So forget the strawman.)
Governments know they can make up the revenue from other sources - they are doing it now. And researchers are not risking their reputations, they're going with the flow.
Quote:
|
Anyhoo, this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-topic - my personal view is that smoking should not be allowed in cars where children are present; whilst I hope most people would be considerate of their children's health, and any potential risks to it, there are always some who don't give a damn, or are unthinking.
|
It's only way off topic if we accept that passive smoking is harmful to health. I think I've made it clear that I don't until it is proven. You do, and therefore this is a valid line of debate in the issue of whether smoking should be banned in cars carrying children.
There are those who wouldn't give a damn if the case were proven, there are also those who see the passive smoking debate as a hoax.