Comments: Playing With Numbers

The problem is that even if one concedes that smoking causes lung cancer (an essentially inescapable conclusion at this point, I fear), there still remains the bogus assumption at the heart of this second-hand smoke nonsense...ie, that ONLY smoking causes lung cancer.

This is not true. The doctors involved know it's not true, and if you ask them whether they believe it is true, they'll say they don't. And yet their behavior and the assumptions behind their policy preferences are built on that assumption.

They look at the 20% of female lung cancer patients who never smoked, and instead of asking "well, why DID they get lung cancer", they ask "well, how did smoking cause it, if they didn't smoke". Hence the whole "second-hand smoke causes lung cancer" meme that's been used to all but completely kill property rights all over the industrialized world.

In other words, they're no longer searching for the truth, they're searching for evidence that can be used as a weapon against smoking and smokers, while being uninterested in evidence about any contributing factor which has nothing to do with smoking.

Posted by Matt at February 12, 2007 01:29 AM

Aren't all American airports and Domestic flights smoke free? Wouldn't that mean that flight attendants where more likely that most to not be exposed to second hand smoke?

Posted by Phelps at February 12, 2007 01:47 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?