Quiz

The number of deaths that have ever been recorded world wide as being due to passive smoke is: none. It is completely impossible for medical science to rule out all possible lifetime factors in a persons death. The numbers quoted by anti smoking groups for passive smoke deaths are completely made up which is why you will often see figures quoted like 3000 deaths per year but never 3027 or 2946. In actual fact the science demonstrates overwhelmingly, as is shown further down this page, that no-one has ever died from passive smoke.

For every study on passive smoke that shows it to be a risk there are six that show it isn't. The anti smoking propaganda will frequently tell us of "the overwhelming scientific evidence". However, there are considerably more studies that show no risk and from even the small minority of anti smoking studies that do show a risk not one of them can show that risk to be any greater than that of drinking 4 cups of coffee per day. Even if we look at only the worse anti smoking study and completely ignore all the others you are still more likely to be harmed by your morning coffee than by your smoking friends; hardly "overwhelming" evidence against passive smoke is it?

The two largest studies ever conducted on passive smoke that were commissioned by the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation covered hundreds of thousands of people over many decades; both showed absolutely no risk from passive smoke. The American Cancer Society removed funding from their study as soon as preliminary results showed there was no risk and the World Health Organisation covered up their study until it was exposed by the Daily Telegraph.

The anti smoking movement claims that 80% or more of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. But studies by other researchers has shown that a bare minimum of 50% of lung cancers are caused by other things. Clearly some of these researchers are wrong because over 130% of people can't be dying of something; unless of course we are expected to believe that some people are dying twice!

In a post mortem, a smokers lungs are no different to a non-smoker's. During the past 25 years we have all seen the anti smoking photos of black lungs; this is complete propaganda, a pathologist cannot even tell whether someone was a smoker or not from an examination of the lungs.

The committee that advised the British Government on smoking bans was made up of 16 people; including 14 that were connected to the pharmaceuticals industry or the anti smoking movement. The bias of this committee was bordering on criminal; The anti smoking movement have been waging a hate campaign against smokers in the UK for the past three decades and their friends in the pharmaceutical industry profit to the tune of millions from ineffective nicotine replacement therapy everywhere that smoking bans are introduced. The recommendations of this committee were a foregone conclusion.

70% of all cancers cases occur in non-smokers. The anti smoking movement is fond of stating that almost a third of cancers occur in smokers in an effort to suggest that smoking is a major factor in the nations growing cancer burden. We know this is a meaningless statistic because just under a third of the population smokes anyway and no other factors like diet and exercise are accounted for but it's fun to turn their own statistical manipulation back on them by pointing out that more than two thirds of cancers occur in non-smokers.

Smokers cost the National Health Service nothing extra. It has been widely reported that smokers cost the Health Service £1.3 billion pounds per year extra in the treatment of smoking related diseases, this is complete nonsense. Firstly, numbers of smoking related diseases are made up so necessarily therefore the cost of treating them is made up also. Secondly the statement makes the assumption that if a person didn't smoke they would never get ill and thus wouldn't cost the health service anything. Clearly ridiculous! Whatever a persons lifestyle choices are they eventually get ill and the same percentage of those people will require medical care. The only thing that can be truthfully stated is that those who live an unhealthy lifestyle may cost the health service sooner but certainly not that the cost will be 'extra'.

British smokers contribute £13 billion to the treasury in stealth taxes each year. Having seen in question 8 that smokers cost the Health Service nothing the stealth tax on cigarettes can only be viewed as a form of backdoor taxation upon almost a third of the population. With £13 billion at stake, (a figure that has only ever risen and will continue to rise with anti smoking activity) it is not difficult to see why the Government actively supports the vilification of smokers.

The 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study that has been used to impose many smoking bans around the world was criticised by many scientists and a U.S. Judge for: all of the things listed in the question. This study has been heavily criticised in scientific journals and over ruled in a U.S. federal court for cherry picking data, altering scientific standard, publishing the results before the study was even started and failing to account for bias. Despite all of this it has been used by Governments, special interest groups and advisory committees including here in Britain as evidence against passive smoke for the purpose of forcing smoking bans.

When the huge Oak Ridge Laboratories tested the difference in air quality between the none smoking section of a ventilated bar and a completely none smoking restaurant they found that the air quality in the bar was no different at all to the air quality in the completely none smoking restaurant. The anti smoking movement claims that ventilation is ineffective with one anti smoking campaigner who has a reputation of being as 'mad as a hatter' claiming that it would take "hurricane force winds to remove smoke from a bar". This again is nonsense; ventilation is widely used in hospitals, disease centers, chemical plants and thousands of industrial areas. Relatively inexpensive ventilation units can remove 99.7% of all airborne pollutants making indoor air 'better' than outdoor air; this knowledge alone completely negates the need for any indoor smoking ban.

A glass of normal tap water contains more Benzene than a cigarette. In recent years there have been more and more adverts scaring us with the contents of cigarette smoke. What none of those adverts tell you is that every one of those chemicals is present in the environment in greater quantities from other sources or that chemicals from smoke are all thousands of times below known and published safe levels in even the smokiest environment.

Adolf Hitler's Government was the first to vilify smokers, promote stealth taxes, lie about the effects, ban advertising of tobacco and smoking in public places and raise the age of buying tobacco. In fact the denigration of smokers today is an absolute carbon copy of the Nazi tactics on this issue; everything from statistical fraud, advertising bans, lies and the state supported victimisation of smokers has been copied by the modern anti smoking movement.