Tobacco tales - To smoke or not to???
Now, This is in no way to mean that I support smoking but the truth ought to be known and people have a right
to make an informed choice ...
Lets hear it then .... what Dr. William Douglas
has to say about smoking
Hanging up those who'd hang tobacco out to dry In the last Daily Dose, I clarified a bit about my position on secondhand smoking and disease in response to some readers' comments. I also promised to reiterate my position on tobacco smoking in general in this continuation. This is something I haven't actually done in a few years, so it'll be a chance for me to bring anyone who's recently joined me up to speed on how I feel about smoking and health (and politics, too). Anyway, here are the four main points about tobacco smoking I've been making for years, and will continue to make until I get some satisfactory answers:
There are piles of studies and research on BOTH sides of the tobacco-as-health- hazard argument. A lot of it is inconclusive in its findings. But you'd never know this from the presentation of the issue in the smarmy mainstream media or among the politicians angling for another tobacco tax or some other form of regulation. They show us only the research that paints the most alarming picture - no matter how flawed its methodology or how biased its authors. What this means is that the average American couldn't make a truly informed decision about whether or not to smoke even if he or she wanted to. I don't think this is right...
If smoking really DOES cause cancer and disease, is it really tobacco's fault - or is it all the toxic junk manufacturers add to keep it fresh longer, lighting easier, tasting minty-fresh, or whatever? Is anybody researching this? Here's a better question: If studies found that smoking pure, unadulterated tobacco were safe, would we even hear about it? Think about it this way: Are the beef, cheese, and potatoes that form the raw ingredients of a fast-food meal what makes is deadly? No, it's the hormones and antibiotics in the cattle, the refined flour in the buns, the sugar in the ketchup, and the trans-fats in the fry-oil that make it harmful. Why should it be any different for cigarettes? If simply smoking tobacco killed, why weren't the Indians wiped out by lung cancer? We need to look at this.
If smoking really is provably cancer-causing, why hasn't it been banned outright along with asbestos and red dye #2? This means one of two things: First, that there really isn't enough evidence to damn smoking conclusively - only enough to hold tobacco companies for ransom in huge court settlements (almost all of which went straight into the pockets of states, not individual "victims") and regulate tobacco until it's nothing more than a cash cow for the government. Or second, that there IS enough evidence to damn tobacco, but the government is willing to tolerate a large number of deaths if a carcinogen is profitable enough. Either way, it's about money in the revenuers' pockets, not your health or freedom. Keep reading... My last major point about the mainstream's viewpoint on smoking is the most important of all, in my opinion. Here it is: This is a FREE country, or at least it used to be. One of the great benefits of living in a free country is that you can live your own way - even if it's a little riskier than what's optimum. This goes across the board, not just for smoking. If we don't want to wear our seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, why should we be required to? If we want to gorge ourselves on junk food (arguably a far greater mass murderer than cigarettes have ever been proven to be), we should be able to without the Los Federales interfering - and without our court system entertaining lawsuits from people who can't control their appetites. It's about basic freedoms to do what we choose instead of what some paternalistic government decides is best for us. Bottom line: We've all heard the risks some say are associated with smoking - this information has been mandated by the feds. But beyond this, the ball's in our courts as individuals. The government should have no right to glean billions in tobacco lawsuit settlements if we choose to smoke. And by the same token, the media should have no right to withhold from us the whole truth about the tobacco debate (I use this term loosely). We should be told ALL the facts, so we can choose what's best. It just isn't the government's - or the media's - job to protect us from ourselves. Always smoking out the truth, William Campbell Douglass II, MD
to make an informed choice ...
Lets hear it then .... what Dr. William Douglas
has to say about smoking
Hanging up those who'd hang tobacco out to dry In the last Daily Dose, I clarified a bit about my position on secondhand smoking and disease in response to some readers' comments. I also promised to reiterate my position on tobacco smoking in general in this continuation. This is something I haven't actually done in a few years, so it'll be a chance for me to bring anyone who's recently joined me up to speed on how I feel about smoking and health (and politics, too). Anyway, here are the four main points about tobacco smoking I've been making for years, and will continue to make until I get some satisfactory answers:
There are piles of studies and research on BOTH sides of the tobacco-as-health- hazard argument. A lot of it is inconclusive in its findings. But you'd never know this from the presentation of the issue in the smarmy mainstream media or among the politicians angling for another tobacco tax or some other form of regulation. They show us only the research that paints the most alarming picture - no matter how flawed its methodology or how biased its authors. What this means is that the average American couldn't make a truly informed decision about whether or not to smoke even if he or she wanted to. I don't think this is right...
If smoking really DOES cause cancer and disease, is it really tobacco's fault - or is it all the toxic junk manufacturers add to keep it fresh longer, lighting easier, tasting minty-fresh, or whatever? Is anybody researching this? Here's a better question: If studies found that smoking pure, unadulterated tobacco were safe, would we even hear about it? Think about it this way: Are the beef, cheese, and potatoes that form the raw ingredients of a fast-food meal what makes is deadly? No, it's the hormones and antibiotics in the cattle, the refined flour in the buns, the sugar in the ketchup, and the trans-fats in the fry-oil that make it harmful. Why should it be any different for cigarettes? If simply smoking tobacco killed, why weren't the Indians wiped out by lung cancer? We need to look at this.
If smoking really is provably cancer-causing, why hasn't it been banned outright along with asbestos and red dye #2? This means one of two things: First, that there really isn't enough evidence to damn smoking conclusively - only enough to hold tobacco companies for ransom in huge court settlements (almost all of which went straight into the pockets of states, not individual "victims") and regulate tobacco until it's nothing more than a cash cow for the government. Or second, that there IS enough evidence to damn tobacco, but the government is willing to tolerate a large number of deaths if a carcinogen is profitable enough. Either way, it's about money in the revenuers' pockets, not your health or freedom. Keep reading... My last major point about the mainstream's viewpoint on smoking is the most important of all, in my opinion. Here it is: This is a FREE country, or at least it used to be. One of the great benefits of living in a free country is that you can live your own way - even if it's a little riskier than what's optimum. This goes across the board, not just for smoking. If we don't want to wear our seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, why should we be required to? If we want to gorge ourselves on junk food (arguably a far greater mass murderer than cigarettes have ever been proven to be), we should be able to without the Los Federales interfering - and without our court system entertaining lawsuits from people who can't control their appetites. It's about basic freedoms to do what we choose instead of what some paternalistic government decides is best for us. Bottom line: We've all heard the risks some say are associated with smoking - this information has been mandated by the feds. But beyond this, the ball's in our courts as individuals. The government should have no right to glean billions in tobacco lawsuit settlements if we choose to smoke. And by the same token, the media should have no right to withhold from us the whole truth about the tobacco debate (I use this term loosely). We should be told ALL the facts, so we can choose what's best. It just isn't the government's - or the media's - job to protect us from ourselves. Always smoking out the truth, William Campbell Douglass II, MD
No comments:
Post a Comment