🚀 go-pugleaf

Jon Krueger (jpk@firefly.incog.com) (Jon Krueger) wrote:
> > Oh really? 50 THOUSAND NON-smokers killed mostly by lung cancer
> > from ETS? Please, let's see THAT data!

> It's not a secret.  Nothing has kept you from it.

> However, before I do your homework for you, you'll have to state
> your claim.  You have shifted it.  Are you willing to stand by
> your original claim, that there is not one single scientific
> study supporting 50,000 deaths from secondhand smoke?

As opposed to pseudo science? Yes.

> > but your billions in medical costs just aren't so.

> Wish it were true.  If only the facts would change themselves
> to fit what we want -- we'd solve all our problems with denial!

Legislation will also solve all our problems. Why just make a
law and the random chaos found in the universe will vanish.
Poof -- in a puff of smoke...

> In fact, they're not "my" costs; they're mine and yours and
> all of ours.  We all pay.  The myth that "smokers pay for
> themselves" would be grisly enough if true; it happens that
> it's been dispelled.  For a first approximation, just
> total up one lung cancer death, or one emphysema death.
> Very few such individuals pay their costs themselves.  Third
> parties pick up the tab; which is to say, we all pay.  

So you're saying that non-smokers don't cost a dime when they
die - you haven't addressed my contention that non-smokers do
not die much, if any, cheaper than smokers - and that we should 
all do our patriotic duty and stay as healthy as we can in order 
for insurance companies to maximize their profits for the good
of all?

> (This of course is cold comfort to those actually doing
> the dying.)  Then add in the lost productivity at work,
> extra sick days, health care needed; it adds up fast.

As one anti-smoker here pointed out, nearly all alcoholics smoke.
Of course blaming absenteeism on their smoking is politically
convenient. And lost productivity? From people dying 5 years
earlier? 

:
> > "The Taxes of Sin", JAMA:261:11:1604 (1989)

> Also known as the RAND study.  It's been debunked elsewhere.
> Funny that you should cite JAMA on economic analysis, though.

An updated version of it, yes. Oh, it's been debunked? Well, that
was certainly easy. 

> But even funnier: it was you, just two days ago, who
> engaged in bashing of JAMA and the AMA.  You found them
> political and untrustworthy.  Such were your views when
> their analysis didn't suit you.  Now it seems they're an
> authority to be listened to.  Really, you'll have to decide
> where you stand here.

Oh my. Well, put me back in the "political" category. There.
(Gosh, you believe that JAMA would never publish something
unsupported and here they've been "debunked". Now I don't
know where you stand.)

> > Do you really think that people just ascend into Heaven when their
> > time is up if they're not exposed to smoke?????

> Ah yes, also known as they "hey, you gotta die of something"
> argument.  Charming.  I assume that its proponents don't mind
> if I kill them; they were going to die anyway.

EH?

> In fact, most of us like to live longer, healthier lives,
> and to breathe clean, safe air.

Yes. Just WHO is buying all those twinkies, vodka, and motorcycles
anyways!? 

> We'd like to live to see our grandchildren, maybe even get
> to know them.  It's not unheard of.  But fewer of us exposed
> to cigarette smoke, firsthand or secondhand, will get to do it.

Right. Your brief exposure to cigarette smoke in restaurant, bar, 
or sidewalk will kill you and make sure you never see your grandkids.
Can you drag cute, furry creatures into this somehow too?? 

Hey, I hear that the chlorine in water is killing people who take
showers. You DO want to see those grandkids, don't you? 

> Having our health ruined and lives shortened by exposure to known
> toxics and carcinogens isn't justified in our minds by "hey,
> everyone's gotta go sometime."

YOU, a non-smoker, are being killed by MY smoking? And we've never
met. Amazing.

> We'd like to lead active, enjoyable lives for as long as possible.

Mouse in your pocket?

> Having to give that up so the tobacco industry can make more
> $billions isn't a very convincing argument for most of us.

Uh huh. Worrying about a possible .000001% increase in premature
death is pretty healthy. Unless you're worrying about me? (Thanks
but no thanks)