It IS Safe to Smoke?

Question

This is the title of a book I bought at an estate sale for $1.00. It is authored by Lloyd Mallan, eminent science writer and editor, who has investigated a wide range of technical reports and has interviewed top ranking research scientists to arrive at the truth about smoking. LIsted are at least 50 top scientists, doctors, chief bio research consultants, and, let's not forget the American Cancer Society. This was published in 1966. Turns out, smoking does not actually cause lung cancer, as long as you use water soaked or cellulose-acetate filters.
AHHHHHHH..... this is just science at it's best. Let's all enjoy a cigarette, and discuss some hard science and oddball religion.

The answers to this question are HYSTERICAL!!!! Some, even more hysterical than the book itself!

For the slow folks - I am a Christian, and I don't believe smoking is healthy.... and I don't believe science is something to put your Faith into.

Answer 1

That's a pretty good argument point, so well done.

In real terms, I don't know that it's a very accurate indictment of science per se. I hate to bring it up under the circumstances, but I see it as closer to those 'Creation: The Facts!' websites.

It's not that hard to cherry-pick quotes from eminent scientists, and mix those up with longer treatises by considerably less eminent oddballs and mavericks - and collate the whole thing into what seems like a concerted attack by Science itself on something or other. The Creationists sites do this.

Who knows what was driving your Safe Smoking guy? Was he looking for popularity based on being controversial? Was he, even then, in the pay of Big Tobacco? Did he really believe his own nonsense? Some combination of all three, perhaps?

In any case, scientific truth is a delicate, Grail-like creature. It can only be found by the pure in heart. If you try to use science for perverted ends, you'll probably succeed for a while. This moron did it, but his words are now dust. Creationists are trying to do the same, but ultimately they'll fail because what they're proposing simply isn't the case.

But thanks for a clever and amusing argument.

CD

Answer 2

AHHHHHHH..... this is just science at it's best. Let's all enjoy a cigarette, and discuss some hard science and oddball religion.

I love a Pall Mall with my religion, but Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should.

They knew it was bad even then, but people would buy anything if a doctor told them it was okay, and was smoking in an ad. Doctors were more revered back then than anyone - "Hey honey, the doctor in the ad is smoking Luckies, I think I will too! After all, if the doctors say it's okay..." If a doctor went on tv and said that nuclear fisson would clear up acne, they would have waited in line to get nuked.

Answer 3

You can say what you want but some people smoke cigarettes every day, year after year and don't die of lung cancer while other people who have never smoked cigarettes do get lung cancer and die. Even though statistics show that people who smoke "increase their risk" of contracting lung cancer those statistics don't take into account other factors that might increase the likelihood of someone being more susceptible to illness.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating cigarette smoking. But what I do seek to do as a Christian is to see things as they truly are and not fall for inaccurate statements that do not represent the absolute truth. If smoking "caused" lung cancer, then all people who smoked would GET lung cancer. All that can be said for sure is that smoking SEEMS to increase one's chance of contracting lung cancer and so people who are concerned about this possibility should refrain from smoking.

Answer 4

Weed has been prevalent for its sources to therapy some ailment and help combat discomfort for extremely long situations in the past, even regardless of the undeniable fact that it is no longer risk-free to smoke and that i do no longer motivate to smoke it because of the fact long term consumer will adventure heavy injury to the suggestions and different part consequence additionally stumbled on including annoying and no longer able to sleep at night.

Answer 5

Yes, smoking is very bad for you and it does cause cancer and makes your lungs black in color, not to mention it is a dirty and filthy habit. It makes your cloths, hair and hands always have that cigarette smoke smell to them, not to mention smokers breath. Unless a person always smokes outside, their walls and ceilings of their homes always have that yellow color from the smoke on them and it is a hassle to clean it all the time, and the list goes on, etc. I use to be a smoker years ago (Marlboro 100s) and glad I quit.

Answer 6

Since it was published in 1966, there have been hundreds of additional studies done on smoking, all with improved technology. You might want to look for some updated information before you pull out your lighter...

Answer 7

That's the amazing thing with Science it has the ability to correct itself when it is wrong, and the grace to admit its own mistake.

Unfortunately many people that have blind belief in a theological doctrine cannot do this when facts fly in the face of their faith.

Answer 8

Yeah!!! I love smoking! But research might have improved since 1966 :(

Answer 9

How does one get lung cancer if they've never smoked? That's what I want to know ... 'cause I know lots of people who have and so I'm not convinced smoking causes cancer, I don't give a flip what anyone says .... if someone who does not smoke can get it, how can it be attributed to smoking?

I say, when your number is up, your number is up ... regardless of how healthy (or "unhealthy") you live.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Answer 10

Just go visit your local hospital and look at what the smokers are going through, they are usually the ones having limbs amputated so they can stay alive