Title: The effects of smoking have been exaggerated
In my essay I explain the effects of smoking and put forward the theory that the effects of smoking have been exaggerated and link this to the scientific evidence that no deaths have ever occurred because of second-hand smoke.
The effects of smoking have been exaggerated because lobby groups want smoking to be banned completely. They wish to impose their will on the nation and are achieving this goal through outright lies and scare tactics. They are using the fears of the American public to push their agenda and it is working.
Smoking tobacco does have negative effects and does increase the chances of illness, but over eating kills more people in America than smoking ever has since its invention, and yet there are not bans on fatty foods. People are not told to eat fatty foods outside and people are happy to give them free healthcare and give them disabled benefits if they are morbidly obese.
There are too many smokers in this world to assume that it is a truly deadly habit. If this were the case, then there would not be so many people in their late 80s that have smoked all their lives. People that smoke would surely die considerably early and yet a massive amount of people live well into their 80s despite spending most of their life smoking.
There has never been any real and scientifically proven evidence that second hand smoking kills people. Cases of lung cancer that are supposedly linked to second-hand smoke seem to have left out the harmful effects of other smoke in our atmosphere, airborne toxins, vehicle fumes, asbestos, unsanitary conditions, mold spores, smog and air pollution. People jump to the conclusion that lung cancer is caused by smoking–when lung cancer may strike anyone. Plus, lung cancer has hundreds of causes, many of which are in our atmosphere and homes right now, so to assume that lung cancer is due to second hand smoke is specious at best–and outright moronic at worst.
Anti-smoking groups have done such a good job at scaring the general public that smokers are now discriminated against in a massive way. They are made to sit outside and smoke instead of having rooms made for smoking, and they are treated with disdain by doctors and people in our society. Can you imagine the uproar if tomorrow we started having African American people sitting outside instead of inside and if they were treated with disdain by doctors and people in our society?
There is no link between secondhand smoke and deadly disease. Assuming that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer is holding back medical progress. They are blurring the issue and lowering the amount of research that goes into the harmful effects of other smoke in our atmosphere, airborne toxins, vehicle fumes, asbestos, unsanitary conditions, mold spores, smog and air pollution. One likes to assume that people are reasonable, but one cannot ignore empirical evidence. If lobby groups are going to claim that smoking is a death sentence, then they need to explain how so many people are able to smoke without ever getting ill and are able to smoke and live into and past the age of 80.
aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], and metals), or both on the cardiovascular system (see Figure 3-1 for summary). Those studies have yielded sufficient evidence to support an inference that acute exposure to secondhand smoke induces endothelial dysfunction, increases thrombosis, causes inflammation, and potentially affects plaque stability adversely. Those effects appear at concentrations expected to be experienced by people exposed to secondhand smoke.
Data from animal studies also support a dose–response relationship between secondhand-smoke exposure and cardiovascular effects (see Chapter 3). The relationship is consistent with the understanding of the pathophysiology of coronary heart disease and the effects of secondhand smoke on humans, including chamber studies. The association comports with known associations between PM, a major constituent of secondhand smoke, and coronary heart disease.
Overall, the pathophysiologic data indicate that it is biologically plausible for secondhand-smoke exposure to have cardiovascular effects, such as effects that lead to cardiovascular disease and acute myocardial infarction (MI). The exact mechanisms by which such effects occur, however, remain to be elucidated.
Characteristics of smoking bans can heavily influence their consequences. Interpretation of the results of epidemiologic studies that involve smoking bans must account for information on the bans and their enforcement.
Secondhand smoke should have been measured before and after implementation of a ban, and locations with and without bans should have been compared. Studies that include self-reported assessments of exposure to secondhand smoke cannot necessarily be compared with each other unless the survey instruments (such as interviews) were similar.
The comparability of the time and length of followup of the studies should be assessed. For example, the impact of a ban in one area may differ from the impact of a ban in another solely because the observation times were different and other activities may have occurred during the same periods. In comparing studies, it may be impossible to separate contextual factors associated with ban legislation—such as public comment periods, information announcing the ban, and notices about the impending changes—from the impact of the ban itself. The committee therefore included such contextual factors in drawing conclusions about the effects of a ban.
Interpretation needs to consider the timeframes in the epidemiologic evidence, for example, the time from onset of a smoking ban to the mea-