> I think they're referring to your original claim that tobacco smoke, without additives, doesn't cause cancer.
Once again I am being attributed something that is not mine. It is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, and I stand by the science which claims (i.e. it is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General) that pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.
Smoking tobacco that is not infused with more than 300 known carcinogens does not cause cancer. No one is saying smoking is healthy, only that the cancer rates of natural tobacco smokers are non-existent, no higher than the general population. They'll just have to deal with that fact, that they've been lied to in order to protect Big Tobacco's cash cow and methods of making cigarettes intentionally more addicting to drive it. Natural tobacco, in comparison, has a fraction of the amount of nicotine as what's in national brand cigarettes and thus is in comparison far less addictive.
I honestly don't care. I just think it's interesting that most people believe tobacco causes cancer so strongly, and they're provably wrong. It's what they put in cigarettes that causes cancer, and I don't know how anyone can call that tobacco.
Once again I am being attributed something that is not mine. It is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, and I stand by the science which claims (i.e. it is not my claim, it is the claim of the US Surgeon General) that pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.
Smoking tobacco that is not infused with more than 300 known carcinogens does not cause cancer. No one is saying smoking is healthy, only that the cancer rates of natural tobacco smokers are non-existent, no higher than the general population. They'll just have to deal with that fact, that they've been lied to in order to protect Big Tobacco's cash cow and methods of making cigarettes intentionally more addicting to drive it. Natural tobacco, in comparison, has a fraction of the amount of nicotine as what's in national brand cigarettes and thus is in comparison far less addictive.
I honestly don't care. I just think it's interesting that most people believe tobacco causes cancer so strongly, and they're provably wrong. It's what they put in cigarettes that causes cancer, and I don't know how anyone can call that tobacco.