:rolleyes:
This is so absurd I don't know where to begin, so I'll just leave it.

Please make up your mind. If there is no fraud in the American food system, then there is no need to remove Chinese food from it.

That depends on your standard of proof. Can we say that we know with absolute certainty that cigarettes kill? Of course not. Of course, we can't say that gravity is a force inherent to massive objects with absolute certainty, either. Nonetheless, we are able to draw statistical conclusions with very high levels of confidence.

It is true that 100 percent of all smokers die, and most die from smoking related disease. Here are the numbers from the Centers for Disease Control that specify their age at death. Prepare to be surprised.

http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgar...NUALDEATHS.htm

45,000,000 US smokers.... 430,000 smoking related deaths each year. I make that to be less than one tenth of one percent a year.

The risk of smoking is better defined as a shortened life span.... shortened by 10-12 years.

"Obesity and inactivity" mortality numbers are not much different than smokers.... only slightly lower.

I cannot find any numbers on deaths caused by 3rd hand smoke. I am beginning to think they do not exist.

Once again for clarity: it does not matter if they exist. What matters is that the smoking industry has not proven that they do not exist. It is junk science and downright reckless to demand that something ingested be proven harmful before taking action against it. Anytime anyone offers anything for sale, there is and must be an implicit warranty that the item is safe when used as directed.

Smoking has already been proven to be unsafe when used as directed and so it is incredibly irresponsible to suggest that it might be safe to third parties without proof of that claim.

I didn't suggest that, I said I couldn't find any numbers. And, it is not third parties, it is residue on clothing.

For the record, the major causes of preventable death, in order, are 1) smoking, 2) obesity and inactivity, and 3) alcohol.... and there's not a huge difference in the numbers.

Your position, CWT, is that if the Dalai Lama smokes a cigarette in Nepal then somebody in San Francisco is going to die. And that is fact unless I can prove it untrue. Correct?

The thread is not about whether or not smoking causes disease (I think we all agree it does), it is about whether or not the wild claims are based on fact or have they been over hyped to make it sound a lot worse than it really is.

My position is that it requires the use of junk science to claim that anyone is taking that position. No one needs to die for the smoking industry to be in the wrong here. I'm simply saying that until they prove that some one smoking in Nepal will absolutely not kill some one in San Francisco, it is prudent and necessary to assume for legal purposes that it will kill some one. Whether or not it actually will kill anyone is irrelevant to my argument.
Once again for the hard of hearing, I'm not arguing about whether or not smoking causes disease. I'm arguing that the wild claims are coming from the smoking side. The wildest claim of all being that the anti-smoking side needs to prove harm before action against smoking should be taken. Harm has been proven for a long time now. It is up to the smoking side to prove itself to be safe in any given situation (second, third, fourth hand smoke, etc).

My hearing is just fine, and thank you for asking. Obviously you don't like smokers or tobacco companies. That's okay, I don't like anybody very much either.

My problem is not hearing or reading, it is figuring out how to prove a negative that has me stumped. That and your whole argument about exposure doesn't matter.... the mere existence of a nano gram anywhere in the universe results in certain and unavoidable death.

You certainly do have a problem understanding: My argument has nothing to do with unavoidable death. It has to do with the tobacco industry's use of junk science as a marketing tool. For decades, Big Tobacco has controlled the public argument so that nonsmokers have had to prove the negative: that cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other problems didn't occur because of some other pollutant. That was and is the wrong question to be asking, and it is — if possible — even more wrong now that smoking has been proven to cause these diseases.

Agreed..... brain impairment from continuing to ram my head into a brick wall.

Might I suggest that you refrain from inaccurately restating an opposing viewpoint to the point where it is not recognizable? That would eliminate the need to repeatedly revisit the viewpoint.

Unacceptable tone!
 

.
This thread has long since overheated. I really do expect a more civil discussion, even when there is vehement disagreement. Thread closed.

For the future, please bear in mind that condescending posts like the following are unacceptable: