(no subject)
Dec. 6th, 2009 01:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sathorhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779270/
If you are a smoker, and are interested in knowing about harm reduction techniques, you may want to examine the article linked above.
This is the -only- correctly referenced article I have seen, period. I see plenty of websites scattered across the web that claim if you're going to use tobacco, you might as well smoke - it's either quit or die. This is simply not the case from an empirical standpoint, and as the article points out -even the medical community still pushes the idea that smokeless tobacco is as harmful, if not moreso, than cigarettes- even when -all of the empirical data collected over the past fifty years says otherwise-.
This is absolutely -amazing-. What else are they lying about?
The first thing that comes to mind is that the cigarette companies have been paying off the medical discipline to say this to keep people smoking.
There is a more horrifying thought; however.
Why try to really end smoking at all? From a government's standpoint, people are making a natural choice to, on average, die far younger and by proxy reduce the population -but keep the total wealth the same-.
There's a similar idea that shows up in the 007 movie Goldfinger, which suddenly made me realize just how useful mass genocide must appear to incredibly poor countries.
If you are a smoker, and are interested in knowing about harm reduction techniques, you may want to examine the article linked above.
This is the -only- correctly referenced article I have seen, period. I see plenty of websites scattered across the web that claim if you're going to use tobacco, you might as well smoke - it's either quit or die. This is simply not the case from an empirical standpoint, and as the article points out -even the medical community still pushes the idea that smokeless tobacco is as harmful, if not moreso, than cigarettes- even when -all of the empirical data collected over the past fifty years says otherwise-.
This is absolutely -amazing-. What else are they lying about?
The first thing that comes to mind is that the cigarette companies have been paying off the medical discipline to say this to keep people smoking.
There is a more horrifying thought; however.
Why try to really end smoking at all? From a government's standpoint, people are making a natural choice to, on average, die far younger and by proxy reduce the population -but keep the total wealth the same-.
There's a similar idea that shows up in the 007 movie Goldfinger, which suddenly made me realize just how useful mass genocide must appear to incredibly poor countries.
