rkzenrage

I am serious, and no study has ever shown a direct link between it and cancer.
No risk of cancer has been shown of higher than 8%. The EPA was called on the carpet and one gentleman was fired and charges were considered for making it a class A carcinogen, which it should not be due to it not meeting any of the criteria of that classification.
I do not deny it is bad for you, I simply state that there has never been a study that shows a direct link between smoking an cancer. An increased risk is not the same thing.
Cooking fumes create a higher risk than cigarette smoke.
People ignore a lot of common sense data because it flies in the face of their propaganda brainwashing and feel-good "look-over-here" legislation. It makes them uncomfortable when they realize that France, Greece and Japan have the lowest lung cancer rates and the densest smoking populations. They don't like to hear that smoking is down by over 75% in the west but lung cancer is up over 65%.
Hmmmm... but we don't think about all the other toxins... all the other things we KNOW cause lung cancer. Things our government did to us, like atmospheric and ground atomic and nuclear testing.
It feels good to blame big tobacco for killing Tha' Duke, not everyone dying on the set of that One Shoot that was rained on by atomic ash downwind from a test... most died of lung cancer... must have been a coincidence, though only about half smoked.
All that asbestos out there... just a coincidence... that we live longer and are now exposed to more care exhaust and asphalt fumes, coincidence, that northern Europeans get lung cancer just as part of the natural aging process and we are liver longer, coincidence?... all these things are proven, unlike tobacco... but we can point the finger at Them... so we do.
Just ask all those 90 year olds out in the smoking section tragically dying from their tobacco habit at the local nursing home, they'll tell ya'.