The Benefits of Smoking Actually Outweigh the Risks ( Take 2 )

I'll take the full BOP.(sentences w/ underline used to quote con)As to the first segment of my opponent's second paragraph, I would have to ask - how are these numbers gathered? How do we know for absolute certain that these deaths were "caused" by smoking, and not some exterior force? When a smoker dies from a disease in the hospital, it is protocol for the doctors to record the death as being "caused" by smoking, regardless of whether or not the disease itself was actually caused by smoking at all. This creates a fallacious statistical conclusion as the 'Detection Bias'. "Detection bias occurs when a phenomenon is more likely to be observed for a particular set of study subjects. For instance, the syndemic involving obesity and diabetes may mean doctors are more likely to look for diabetes in obese patients than in thinner patients, leading to an inflation in diabetes among obese patients because of skewed detection efforts."[1] So, as for the numbers being provided by my opponent, I would be interested in seeing the experiment executed to provide these evidences.The problem of lung cancer:Here is the real scoop on the association of lung cancer with smoking: as for the Surgeon General's reports on smoking causing lung cancer, the actual results of the experiments themselves are astounding. Consider the results of experiments on animals done "between 1964 and 1982", which were meant to "educate" smokers to stop smoking: "Prior to the writing of the [Surgeon General] Report, numerous experiments had been conducted, attempting to induce lung cancer in laboratory animals by painting their lungs and trachea with cigarette tars, forcing the animals to inhale vast quantities of tobacco smoke, etc. All of these experiments failed, miserably! Consequently, at page 165 of its Report, the Committee was obliged to concede that "Bronchogenic carcinoma has not been produced by the application of tobacco extracts, smoke, or condensates to the lung o r the tracheobronchial tree of experimental animals with the possible exception of dogs". The phrase "possible exception of dogs" related to a single experiment, of which the Committee wrote that "this work has not yet been confirmed. To this day, it remains unconfirmed and it remains true, to this day, that despite hundreds of experiments18, nobody has been able to induce a single cancer in lab animals by exposing them to ordinary tobacco products or smoke."[2] But wait, there's more: Other researchers attempted to induce lung cancer in lab animals by using nasty combinations of industrial strength carcinogens. They used mixtures of ozonized gasoline and mouse-adapted influence viruses; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, directly applied to the lungs of rats; mixtures of benzo(a)pyrene and iron oxide dust; radioactive cerium; and beryllium oxide. Even with these noxious brews, the results were not entirely successful. For one thing, some of the experimenters reported "distant metastases", i.e., tumors occurring in sites far from the lungs (which makes me wonder whether the "treatments" had simply weakened the animals' immune systems to the point at which cancers were springing up spontaneously throughout their bodies). Moreover, not all the animals got sick. For example, two out of ten rhesus monkeys injected with beryllium oxide developed cancers but 8 did not"[2] The problem of emphysema: The evidence is equally sketchy concerning the link between smoking and emphysema, as my opponent has claimed. In fact, a study prior to 1973 had shown that the disease occurs genetically. "Some time subsequent to 1973, a genetic cause of emphysema was discovered. In an article in...Grolier's Encyclopedia, Howard Buechner, M.D., explains that a significant number of the people with the disease lack a gene that controls the liver's production of a protein called alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT). This protein controls or degrades an enzyme called neutrophilelastase, produced by the white blood cells. When the enzyme is left unchecked, it destroys alveolar tissue."[3] The correlation between emphysema and lung cancer, therefore, is moot. Even if the correlation existed, it would still be multifactorial, and therefore moot - for multiple sources of the very same carcinogenic substances found in cigarettes are found outdoors everyday! I quote it thus: "DIRECT MEASUREMENT read-outs from BC AirCare laboratories indicate that vehicular emissions 1995 in the Vancouver's Lower Mainland amount to 324,500 tons, or 2 pounds per person per day. How does that compare with 0.5 millionth of a gram per cubic foot of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a normally ventilated room[?]."[4] A simple walk around the city during the winter can reveal the pollutants each of the city's citizens are breathing. Take a glance at the blackened snow on the side of the street, and you'll see how the city's polluted air is literally turning snow, which was once white, a charcoal black. For reference, I invite my opponent and the voters to take a look at the photograph provided below: (Mmmmmm, see that beautiful blackened snow? You're breathing that!) The problem of bronchitis: "Bronchitis has hundreds of inflamatory causes, i.e.: cold temperatures, allergies, and alcohol. Smoking (even inhaled in substantial doses) plays an infinitesimal role in bronchitis. Far more important is the body structure: a slim, non smoking individual with a small chest is exposed to a far greater risk of bronchitis than a heavy smoker with a large chest."[5] Heart attacks?: "For many years, anti-smoking activists have insisted that smoking "causes" heart attacks. In truth, there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim. As early as the 1950's government scientists began conducting studies ... to assess the "risk factors" which lead to heart attacks and stroke. Early on, they identified three such risk factors: Smoking, high blood pressure and cholesterol. As the years have gone by, however, other researchers have identified still other risk factors. Taking estrogen pills has been identified as a risk factor in women 36 . Male pattern baldness has been identified as a risk factor in men 37 . Vitamin and mineral deficiencies have been blamed for heart attacks, as well as eating fatty foods and drinking too much alcohol. There are other obvious risk factors: 100% of all heart attack victims breathed air during the time prior to their heart attack. 90% drove automobiles. 95% paid income taxes." (sorry Mr. President, the doc says I can't pay income taxes anymore because it puts me at risk for heart attacks!) Statistical arguments moot at best: This goes back somewhat to what my opponent was mentioning earlier about smoking causing "100 million deaths in the 20th century", but statistics, sadly, are not a good basis for belief. A good explanation for this can be seen here: Greg, in this video, discusses statistics and the flaws involved with them. I would like to quote him saying "statistics and...corrolary data are...the second weakest form of imperical data to rely on" (he says this at about 8:48). As for smoking, consider this: let's say a smoker lives in an old house (also once owned by a smoker) for ten years and develops negative cardiovascular effects. This smoker goes to the hospital, stays for a month, then passes away. The doctor operating on the smoker states that the death was caused by smoking, and this smoker's death is then added to the death tally which anti smokers continue to tout left and right. However, three months later, a house inspector inspects the smoker's house, and discovers that the walls were actually painted with lead, which has also been known to cause negative cardiovascular effects. So, the smoker's death may not have even been a result of the cigarette smoking at all! That said, I challenge my opponent to refrain from statistical arguments. Avoiding "toxic chemicals" futile: "Those are just a few of the deadly chemicals smokers inhale each time they take a drag." A drag of what, the outdoors? According to my sources, the pollutants we breathe in each time we step outside includes, but is not limited to: -Nitrogen Dioxide -Carbon Monoxide -Lead -Sulfur Dioxide -Arsenic -Asbestos -Benzene (petrol additive) -Dioxin -Methane -Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) [6] Although it is true that some of the chemicals my opponnent mentioned may exist in trace amounts in cigarettes, chances are, you've already consumed them. "Cigarette butts contain hazardous chemicals such as cadmium, arsenic, and lead that are partially filtered out during smoking. But when the butt is discarded, these chemicals leach into the environment contaminating our waterways and land."[5] Oral health: Perhaps choosing to brush your teeth more often would be an arguably better way to take care of your oral health than to refrain from smoking alone? Life expectancy: See Round 1. COPD: The cause for COPD is unknown. [3] ED/Impotence: This is contrary to historical evidence. As my opponent pointed out, cigarette smoking had its heyday in the 1950's; but what did we also have in the 1950's? The baby boom! "There is absolutely no proof of that, of course. Smokers have been reproducing successfully for thousands of years. The most famous "lovers" were (and are) smokers." [Source 6, Round 1] Proof: (Sex symbol and smoker Marilyn Monroe.) (Clint Eastwood: The face of ED? Such talk is nothing but blasphemy.) ETS: May actually protect the health of others [Source 6, Round 1] [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.lcolby.com... [3] - http://www.lcolby.com... [4] - http://www.forces.org...[5] - http://www.cleanup.org.au...[6] - http://www.infoplease.com...