Quote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JUSTINHAUSER:
Wow wow wow wow, wowee wow, wow. Fine, ban smoking, ban the sale of smokes. But, then who and what will you blame lung cancer on? Or do ya'll think it will go away when smoking goes away?
And what about all those folks who have never smoked, and have spent very little time around those who have, but still get lung cancer? Is it really from the VERY limited exposure to smoke? I seriously doubt it.
Or...or...what about all the people who do smoke, and never get cancer? Is this some sort of miracle?

But after smokes are gone, it won't be long before we're bailin' hay with hydro-eco-slowmo-mobiles, and eating salad five times a day, waiting for the re-reruns of I love Lucy. Ban cars, ban perfumes and hairsprays, ban all cleaning products, especially bleach, ban diet soda it has what amounts to embalming fluid in it. Why is one more or less dangerous than another?

We all agree that smoking is unhealthy, but until someone can show me that it is undeniably more harmful than half the crap we consume/ingest then leave me the hell alone. I don't buy that second hand smoke is any more harmful than the chemicals I ingest sitting next to the Italian guy on the bus, who is wearing a gallon of "Cool Water" cologne. And as far as I'm concerned that's more bothersome to me than the smell of a cigarette.
At the end of the day, I don't like people telling me how to live my life. Or making me feel like a second class citizen because I make different choices than you do. </font>


Less than 2% of smokers who have smoked thirty years or more develop lung cancer and less than half of those die. So you have over a 98% chance of not getting cancer from a lifetime of smoking and over a 50% chance of not dying from it if you do. There are also plenty of doctors who dispute smoking causes cancer at all.