The public has been blasted for decades with propaganda regarding the dangers of smoking and how chemicals contained in cigarettes are harmful to your health. But, have these anti-smoking zealots also told you about the poisons in your food?
Category: Health Issues
If you are employed and are a smoker, you might discover your boss has found another way to pick your pockets. A growing number of employers are requiring workers who use tobacco to pay higher insurance premiums.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington-based research group has found that 4 out of 5 of the nearly 1,000 sunscreen lotions analyzed offer inadequate protection from the sun or contain harmful chemicals. The biggest offenders, the EWG said, are the industry leaders: Coppertone, Banana Boat and Neutrogena.
The American Cancer Society and others have been telling the American people lies about second hand smoke for so long… that people now believe the lies. Wake up and put a stop to this nonsense.
How harmful is smoking to smokers? Public health advocates who claim one out of every three, or even one out of every two, smokers will die from a smoking-related illness are grossly exaggerating the real threat. The actual odds of a smoker dying from smoking before the age of 75 are about 1 in 12. In other words, 11 out of 12 life-long smokers don’t die before the age of 75 from a smoking-related disease.
Is second-hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco or smoking bans? The research used to justify government regulation of second-hand smoke has been powerfully challenged by critics, including Congress’s own research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3. Science writer Michael Fumento and others have documented how the threat of secondhand smoke has been greatly exaggerated.
All you anti-smoking fanatics out there will hate this story…
CNN recently reported about a study where researchers say there is a genetic link to smoking addiction as well as higher rates of lung cancer if you do smoke. This may explain why people who smoked for years never get lung cancer while others who only smoke for a short time gets the dreaded disease.
US pharmaceutical companies have long known that the potential market for their products is limited by the finite number of sick people; so they have turned to the healthy for further expansion of their markets, using exploitative, fear-inducing advertising techniques.
There’s no doubt that smoking is bad for your health, but is it reason enough to give up smoking?
The answer, according to a general consensus by health officials everywhere is a resounding “yes.” Never smoking is one of the best things you can do for yourself, but stopping smoking (even after years of dependency) is next on the list. But how can you quit smoking cigarettes after the years of smoking? And is quitting smoking even worth the effort?
According to three medical doctors writing in the journal Medical Hypotheses, giving up smoking can kill you. The doctors were “struck by the more than casual relationship between the appearance of lung cancer and an abrupt and recent cessation of the smoking.” In 182 of the 312 cases they treated, habitual smokers of at least a pack a day for at least a quarter-century developed lung cancer shortly after they gave up smoking.
In July 2006, The Heartland Institute published Please Don’t Poop in My Salad–a collection of essays and presentations written by Heartland President Joseph Bast during the past several years concerning taxes and regulations imposed on tobacco and its consumers.
On October 3, 2007, President Bush vetoed H.R. 976, a bill passed by Congress that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) program by $35 billion because he believed the bill would “federalize health care”, expanding the scope of SCHIP much farther than its original intent.
It was my general understanding that insurance companies charged its customers a premium for insurance policies which they in turn reinvested to cover the eventual payouts. The more efficiently they did that, the more money they made.