These researchers were paid, therefore their results are not reliable.

Its called "questionable cause" fallacy. One has not shown to be linked to the other.

I love this statement:
"Earlier this month, an International Agency for Cancer Research report said smoke-free policies are extremely effective at reducing smoking rates, exposure to secondhand smoke, and smoking-related heart disease."

If tobacco didn't exist and was introduced on the market today, it would immediately be banned.

I'm sorry, but a lot of the rhetoric from the pro-smoking side is just typical addict self-justification.

And yes, I smoke, and am trying to quit. Wish I'd never started. I don't blame anyone but myself, but that doesn't mean I'm going to condemn more generations to cancer, emphysema and heart disease. Want personal responsibility? Every smoker has to sign a waiver refusing any publicly-funded medical treatment or disability payments in the event of a smoking related illness. THAT'S personal responsibility.

Want personal responsibility? Every smoker has to sign a waiver refusing any publicly-funded medical treatment or disability payments in the event of a smoking related illness. THAT'S personal responsibility.

Posted by argh

Which leads to my biggest concern about Universal Healthcare.

The moment we can legitimize a national interest in what people do with their own bodies, aka "I'm paying for it", is the moment we're going to start seeing a lot more assaults on personal liberty.

What we eat,drink, smoke, how much we exercise and even how much sleep we're getting can all be held up to public scrutiny in the name of nationalized medicine.

You and I both know there won't be an opt-out clause for bad habits, instead it'll be either illegal, or carry a hefty monetary burden. Either way it'll now be the government's business.

That worries me...

Are you kidding?

Employers are already forcing employees to quit smoking in the name of reducing health insurance premiums.

Everytime someone makes the "personal choice" to poison their body with tobacco and develope a smoking related illness the cost of treatement falls on society whether it be through health insurance premiums, medicare or medicaid payments or just people who get treatment in the ER and never pay.

Using "assault on personal freedom" as an excuse to rail against universal care is a reach at best.

Employers are already forcing employees to quit smoking in the name of reducing health insurance premiums.

I'm sure as well how many employers enjoy finding a constant stream of their work force crowding the building entrances smoking.

These researchers were paid, therefore their results are not reliable.

Posted by 726 at 2008-08-01 02:37 PM

How is their research not reliable?

Questionable? maybe. But you can't come to the conclusion that it is unreliable, based on whether they were paid or not.

Just a question. How many researchers are out there doing unpaid work?

Must make it hard to pay the bills.

"Grant funding, etc... very political."

Posted by OohRah at 2008-08-02 10:00 AM | Reply

What utter horseshit.
But consider the source.

"Grant funding, etc... very political."

Posted by OohRah at 2008-08-02 10:00 AM | Reply

What utter horseshit.
But consider the source.

Posted by Zatoichi

Hahaha. Consider the source who calls it horseshit.

"Grant funding, etc... very political."

Posted by OohRah

"What utter horseshit.
But consider the source."

Posted by Zatoichi

Yeah, ZAT....grant funding, etc.!

"In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers."

"Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science."

"The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe."

Anyone who supports this smoking ban fascism but doesnt see the same problems with drinking needs to be bashed with a freaking brick.

OH and I am certain that 15-80% of all Global warming science studies are total FARK.

75-80% *

Smokers say the darndest things.

Yellow science? If you mean that gaggle of paid white lab coats skewing the data at Philip Morris, then I'd agree with you. Over 400,000 Americans a year die as a direct result of smoking tobacco. 400,000 a year.

If you want to stop smoking, stop smoking.

By the logic used in this article you can say that any policy put into effect in Scottland in March 2006 is responsible for the decrease in heart attacks.

As an American I have a god given right to self induce a heart attack. After all, Cheney told me I have the same right to drive a Hummer and shoot my hunting buddies in the face.

What we eat,drink, smoke, how much we exercise and even how much sleep we're getting can all be held up to public scrutiny in the name of nationalized medicine.

What is more expensive? Dealing with cigarette related health issues or a larger very elderly population (+80)?

I have no idea what the answer is, but, ethics aside for the moment, I imagine promoting preventive health care for the young saves society money, but it will eventually create a larger very elderly population in the future who will need all kinds of expensive geratric medical care.

I am sure the actuaries at large insurance companies have calculated all of this out.

PAX

I don't care if heart attacks went down to zero the government has no business telling adults what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.

I don't care if heart attacks went down to zero the government has no business telling adults what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.

Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

True, as long as they smoke in their house and never in public. I don't want to see it or smell it, and that should be MY right.