I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Secondhand smoke kills." This has been someting that anti-tobacco campaigns across the world have been using to deny smokers their rights. However, there is no scientific evidence to prove that secondhand smoke poses a health threat. Data proving that smokers themselves are exposed to threats to their health are hardly creditable. This causes you to ask, "If that statement is true, than why do anti-tobacco campaigns exist?" The answer is simple. There's big money to be had in these campaigns, simply because anti-smoking campaigns are funded by pharmaceutical companies to promote their own quit-smoking products. Additionally, if people feel that smoking has made them ill, they'll simply buy more of their pharmaceuticals. It's that simple. Ban smoking, and we'll turn to "tobacco replacement items." We won't stand for it. It is time for all of us to realize that we are being cheated and lied to.

Don't let them take YOUR rights! Get involved now.

For more information, e-mail
[email protected]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden I won't even comment on the content. I can't bring myself not to comment on the fact that this person can't write.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511 Come on now Hillary we aren't ALL English majors! :lol: But yea, even I could do better! I would hope so...

Originally Posted by amber That's fricking BS, and that's coming from a *mild, now* smoker. My parents used to smoke in the house with me all when I was growing up. I was in so many sports, and ran around so much, and lived in a smogless town - yet - I developed exercise asthma....And even though I had to run all the time for sports, I wasn't a good long distance runner...however...as soon as I moved out of the house, I took up running as excercise and suddenly had no real problem running three miles six days a week. So...Bullsh**!!!! LAME!!!!! EVIL!!! *this public service announcement brought to you by a smoker* :wavey: *Although I don't deny the evils of pharmeceutical companies, I just think in this case it really doesn't apply like they're saying it does.

Originally Posted by GateandGarden This causes you to ask, "If that statement is true, than why do anti-tobacco campaigns exist?" The answer is simple. There's big money to be had in these campaigns, simply because anti-smoking campaigns are funded by pharmaceutical companies to promote their own quit-smoking products. Additionally, if people feel that smoking has made them ill, they'll simply buy more of their pharmaceuticals. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by GateandGarden Yeah, we aren't all English majors but I'm pretty sure most of us (you included) could do better. We could certainly proofread it and pick up on the "than" that should be a "then" if we knew lots of people were going to see it!!! (I'm just anal, I suppose).

Originally Posted by GateandGarden Yeah, I also have a low opinion of pharmeceutical companies but not in this case. When I was reading it, I really couldn't believe it when I got to the part about how smoking isn't a risk to the smokers at all. I really didn't think anyone was still saying such things. Like Victoria said, who needs lungs?

Originally Posted by amber It's ridiculous that that is even being advertised...is it because it's the south, and the south relies heavily on tobacco crops? Is it because the tobacco people are rich enough to buy that kind of propogandick (yes, I made that word up) crap??? Either way, I abhorr the lies.