Sunday, October 12, 2008

The Douglass Report from Dr. D

I agree fully on the quote on why isn't smoking outright banned if it DID cause cancer? Me knows me wouldn't wanna sell cancer-causing products to anyone.

Of course, I neva believed smoking causes cancer to begin with. Otha ingredients possibly causing it....yeah I can see that. But a cig with 100 percent tobacco can NOT be deadly to put in my mouth.

Even a cig with 100 percent tobacco and the mint flava ain't as deadly as antis making it sound. Antis say I'll die sooner than most cig smokers cause I smoke menthols, and menthols have crystal glass in em.

That's nothang but a scare tatic to make me feel bad as a Black smoker. But I ain't new to hearing scare tatics. Based on that logic, I should be dead already really. LOL!!!


http://www.douglass deardrd_index. html

Q:I've read before that you don't think second-hand smoke is
dangerous. How can you say that, with all of the evidence out there
proving that it's harmful to your health?

A: Here are the four main points about tobacco smoking I've been
making for years, and will continue to make until I get some
satisfactory answers:

There are piles of studies and research on BOTH sides of the tobacco-
as-health-hazard argument. A lot of it is inconclusive in its
findings. But you'd never know this from the presentation of the
issue in the smarmy mainstream media or among the politicians angling
for another tobacco tax or some other form of regulation. They show
us only the research that paints the most alarming picture - no
matter how flawed its methodology or how biased its authors. What
this means is that the average American couldn't make a truly
informed decision about whether or not to smoke even if he or she
wanted to. I don't think this is right.

If smoking really DOES cause cancer and disease, is it really
tobacco's fault - or is it all the toxic junk manufacturers add to
keep it fresh longer, lighting easier, tasting minty-fresh, or
whatever? Is anybody researching this? Here's a better question: If
studies found that smoking pure, unadulterated tobacco were safe,
would we even hear about it?

Think about it this way: Are the beef, cheese, and potatoes that form
the raw ingredients of a fast-food meal what makes it deadly? No,
it's the hormones and antibiotics in the cattle, the refined flour in
the buns, the sugar in the ketchup, and the trans-fats in the fry-oil
that make it harmful. Why should it be any different for cigarettes?
If simply smoking tobacco killed, why weren't the Indians wiped out
by lung cancer? We need to look at this.

If it can be proven that smoking really does cause cancer, why hasn't
it been banned outright along with asbestos and red dye #2? This
means one of two things: First, that there really isn't enough
evidence to damn smoking conclusively - only enough to hold tobacco
companies for ransom in huge court settlements (almost all of which
went straight into the pockets of states, not individual "victims")
and regulate tobacco until it's nothing more than a cash cow for the
government. Or second, that there IS enough evidence to damn tobacco,
but the government is willing to tolerate a large number of deaths if
a carcinogen is profitable enough. Either way, it's about money in
the revenuers' pockets, not your health or freedom.

My last major point about the mainstream's viewpoint on smoking is
the most important of all, in my opinion. Here it is:

This is a FREE country, or at least it used to be. One of the great
benefits of living in a free country is that you can live your own
way - even if it's a little riskier than what's optimum. This goes
across the board, not just for smoking.

If we don't want to wear our seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, why
should we be required to? If we want to gorge ourselves on junk food
(arguably a far greater mass murderer than cigarettes have ever been
proven to be), we should be able to without the Los Federales
interfering - and without our court system entertaining lawsuits from
people who can't control their appetites.

It's about basic freedoms to do what we choose instead of what some
paternalistic government decides is best for us.

Bottom line: We've all heard the risks some say are associated with
smoking - this information has been mandated by the feds. But beyond
this, the ball's in our courts as individuals. The government should
have no right to glean billions in tobacco lawsuit settlements if we
choose to smoke. And by the same token, the media should have no
right to withhold from us the whole truth about the tobacco debate (I
use this term loosely). We should be told ALL the facts, so we can
choose what's best.

It just isn't the government's - or the media's - job to protect us
from ourselves.

No comments: