In the episode about passive smoking, Penn & Teller are bent to defend those smokers who are not allowed to smoke at indoor public spaces. All this in order to defend and promote the freedom of will of each person.
Would't it be much more convenient to defend and promote healthy living for us all?
I love this show but that episode was very lame and poor in purpose and context.
What do you guys think? Tell me your opinions please.
Pann and Teller have since recalled much of their opinion on second hand smoke, now believing second hand smoke is dangerous. However, they still believe the government shouldn't be allowed to make laws banning smoking in bars, believing it should be the choice of the bar owners.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ognCoYA1_FY
The Giant Paw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUB6PgwVoCA
Thanks a lot Jimmy!!!! I didn't know this!
share[deleted]
I say big business is well served by the second hand smoke debate. If the American people and the EPA are focused on the idea that second hand smoke is a big danger, they are likely to overlook the even bigger threat posed by industry and the automobile. If you believe that a nearby smoker is a greater threat to your health than the car you drive, you have been duped.
shareConstantly being in rooms with cigarette smoke is a health risk. It won't kill you immediately like a car crash can, but it does increase risk of cancer. That is a fact, and there is no way around it.
shareNot nearly as big a risk as breathing an atmosphere full of car exhaust and industrial pollution. But I realize some people are just fixated on cigarette smoke.
shareNot nearly as big a risk as breathing an atmosphere full of car exhaust and industrial pollution.
Secondhand smoke (or ETS) is a very serious form of indoor air pollution. For example, in the US secondhand smoke causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year, compared to less than 100 lung cancer deaths per year from traditional forms of outdoor air pollution.
I've lost a great deal of respect for the WHO. It sounds like they have an agenda. How can they prove that the alleged 3,000 second smoke cancer deaths wouldn't have occurred if they had only breathed polluted air?
shareThey can't - it's junk science.
Correlation is not cause, and the WHO's own study contradicted their policy stance.
I didn't agree with the episode very much. There may be some true facts in their debate, but I think they pick and choose the details they want to share to make their points sound more valid (like we all do).
---
I'm just expressing my opinion.
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.