24 lies made by 'thetruth' anti-smoking commercials

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
25,744
3,043
280
Earth
The Truth Is A Lie

Selected favorites -

"=> Lie #5
Antismokers claim that nonsmokers are being "poisoned" by tobacco smoke.
This claim is fully refuted in Appendix B.
I call this claim a lie."

As Maureen O'Hara attests, dying at 95 having spent a good chunk of her life working in old Hollywood where just about everyone smoked, second-hand smoke is NOT more dangerous than firsthand smoke. Undoubtedly get more damage breathing in car exhaust than the occasional smoking source.

"=> Lie #14
Antismokers claim that the studies indicting secondary smoke as a cause of lung cancer are "unanimous and unequivocal." A quick look at Appendix A quickly shows the falsehood of this claim.
I call this claim a lie."

As with claims of this sort, there's no objective way to verify it. You'd have to be able to show how every smoker develops lung cancer and that smoking, and not the other several hundred carcinogen sources are what finally started cancerous cell replication. Obviously that's impossible.

"=> Lie #19
Antismokers claim that if you smoke around pregnant women you are killing their babies.
There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to back this claim up. While there is a reasonable basis for claiming that heavy maternal smoking itself can significantly increase the frequency of medical conditions that might harm a fetus, there is no sound basis for concern about casual exposure to secondary smoke. As far as I have been able to determine, there is not even any reasonable basis for concluding that working or living on a regular daily basis in a smoking environment causes any measurable increase in conditions that could kill a developing baby. To claim that an individual who lights a cigarette in an area with a pregnant woman without first asking is guilty of anything beyond lack of consideration is clearly false.
Antismokers claim that smokers are killing the babies of pregnant women with their smoking.
I call this claim a lie."

If this were in ANY way true, most of us shouldn't be here since as recently as the 70s pregnant women smoked, and were breathing in secondhand smoke.
 
I'm actually a "pro smoking" person (and I also quit about 10 years ago) - but I already had thread / rant about that....
 
I'm actually a "pro smoking" person (and I also quit about 10 years ago) - but I already had thread / rant about that....

I'm not pro-smoking in the sense that if someone doesn't I suggest they should start, I just know it's not NEARLY as dangerous as anti-smoking types claim.
 
I'm actually a "pro smoking" person (and I also quit about 10 years ago) - but I already had thread / rant about that....

I'm not pro-smoking in the sense that if someone doesn't I suggest they should start, I just know it's not NEARLY as dangerous as anti-smoking types claim.

well I don't do that either... I should have said "pro-smokers" or "for smokers rights"... did not use the right phrase..... (Mr. Literal... I think you knew what I meant...) it's early....
 
I'm actually a "pro smoking" person (and I also quit about 10 years ago) - but I already had thread / rant about that....

I'm not pro-smoking in the sense that if someone doesn't I suggest they should start, I just know it's not NEARLY as dangerous as anti-smoking types claim.

well I don't do that either... I should have said "pro-smokers" or "for smokers rights"... did not use the right phrase..... (Mr. Literal... I think you knew what I meant...) it's early....

Didn't mean to convey you did, was expanding on my own position, not attempting to explain your's. :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top