Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (189080)	6/11/2006 5:06:59 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Any moron who looked a the autopsied lungs of a lifetime smoker could draw the relevant conclusions on the health effects of smoking." I really think any moron that didn't just blindly follow his peers (like I did) could have figured out that sucking any kind of smoke down into your lungs couldn't be good for you. Although you might get away with doing it once or twice in an unavoidable circumstance, to make it a habit supported by addiction is a folly of the highest order. That the government legitimized and protected the criminals that sold the disease for so long is another major unpunished crime.

To: neolib who wrote (189080)	6/11/2006 5:46:22 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

based on the evidence finally being sufficiently good to convince reasonable people is laughable. Do you laugh at Neils Bohr who disputed Einstein's theory on the photoelectric effect, even though by 1922 Einstein's theory was backed by a ton of experimental evidence? There is a strong emotional attachment to the perceived truth, and even "reasonable" people act strangely when their perception of the truth comes under attack. Typically, historians make scientific advances look like some sort of amicable discussion between people in the "know". In reality scientific progress is usually highly illogical, and yes there are always the "tobacco companies" (disbelievers) who fight any new advance tooth and nail. Sometimes the disbelievers are right. Cold fusion, if it exists, still has a lot of work in it to be of any scientific value, never mind practical value. The big money amongst the hot fusion crowd sure didn't like the idea though. It's too easy to conveniently forget how strongly the various sides can make an argument after it is all over. Your idea that it was "obvious" that there was a clear cancer link looks a little less compelling when you watch any 1950's film. The people smoking don't seem awfully aware of the risks they were taking. Just ask Yul Brynner en.wikipedia.org

To: neolib who wrote (189080)	6/11/2006 10:09:16 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Anti-smoking efforts were well underway in the 1800's. This had more at the time to do with the same puritan ethics that opposed drinking than a purely rational analysis of health effects, though those were certainly evident (all one needs to do is look at long time smokers.) I read an interesting book on the "War on Tobacco" a few years back that made this point. What is fascinating about the cigarette industry is that it was arguably the first use of genuinely sophisticated public marketing, and this was in the 19'th century. The tobacco industry played an important role in American economy from the earliest days.