You've been fed lies, or are rationalizing your use of known carcinogens.
Actually, it's the other way around. I'm really surprised to hear this from a moderator on a harm-reduction site. It's hard to know where to start because there's so much information out there. But just think of it in terms of common sense, first. Cigarette smokers are inhaling huge amounts of smoke all day, everyday. Yet it takes decades to kill 70% of them. How long will it take to kill those who don't inhale? A bit longer, wouldn't you think? Poison is in the dose, as Paracelsus said, and contrary to what many assume, it's not the nicotine that causes cancer. It's the smoke.
The claims of the anti-smoker people are becoming more and more absurd. But don't take my word for it:
Here's the blog of a doctor who supports the smoking bans. Yet even he can't stomach the ridiculous claims of the anti-smoker movement.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
Here's the straight dope on the EPA study that was used to support most of the anti-smoker legislation of the last fifteen years:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2554/does-second-hand-smoke-really-cause-cancer
Google is your friend. Learn to read between the lines, because you'll see a lot weasel words. Check out this beauty from the American Cancer Society:
"What are the health risks of smoking pipes or cigars?"
"Many people view cigar smoking as more civilized and sophisticated, as well as less dangerous than cigarette smoking. Yet one large cigar can contain as much tobacco as an entire pack of cigarettes.
Most of the same cancer-causing substances found in cigarettes are found in cigars. And big cigars have as much nicotine as several cigarettes. When cigar smokers inhale, nicotine is absorbed as quickly as it is with cigarettes. For those who do not inhale, it is absorbed more slowly through the lining of the mouth. Either way, nicotine can cause addiction."
Notice how their points are all irrelevant? The anti-smoker movement is not about harm reduction. If it were, they would be encouraging people to switch from cigarettes to less harmful ways of enjoying nicotine. Yet they are attacking the use of e-cigs and snus, which are plainly much safer than smoking.
from Wikipedia:
"For example, some research [4] available today shows that snus use reduces or eliminates the risk of cancers associated with the use of other tobacco products such as "chewing tobacco" (the type primarily used in the United States and Canada, created in a process similar to cigarette tobacco) and cigarettes. It is hypothesized that the widespread use of snus by Swedish men (estimated at 30% of Swedish male ex-smokers), displacing tobacco smoking and other varieties of snuff, is responsible for the incidence of tobacco-related mortality in men being significantly lower in Sweden than any other European country; in contrast, since women traditionally are less likely to use snus, their rate of tobacco-related deaths in Sweden can be compared to that of other European countries."
I could go on and on, but it's late, and you have access to the same info as I do. You just have to look beyond what the obviously biased anti-tobacco movement, and their government lackeys, spoon feed us. Do you accept everything the anti-drug movement says about drugs?
