You know what drives me absolutely batshit?

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVA...=29524&pid=1556

Then there is James E. Enstrom, a cancer research rogue at UCLA. He claims that most research about second-hand smoke reflects the efforts of a vast disinformation campaign that perverts data with hyperbole. Enstrom might be a credible source -- if his research wasn't funded by Philip Morris. A timeline compiled by Jon Krueger, a contributor for tobacco industry watchdog tobacco.org, reveals that Enstrom incessantly begged the tobacco industry for money to support his research. J.R. Reynolds and Philip Morris, over a span of 25 years, gladly obliged, providing more than half a million dollars.
But the difference between studies conducted by the University and researchers like Enstrom is that the University's research probably won't produce data in support of the tobacco industry.


I call bullshit. No, I believe that Enstrom might be funded by Philliip Morris. What I call bullshit on is how it is wrong to accept money from Phillip Morris because of their vested interest in their agenda, but it is NOT wrong to decide public policy based on anti-tobacco funded studies, pharma studies, and government studies. ALL with also a vested interest in their agenda.

Anti-tobacco has an agenda. If you believe this is a health issue, then tell me why tobacco is not banned? And why is anti-tobacco, supposedly so worried about everyone else's health (including forcing smokers to quit) not asking for the ban of it's use, sale, and manufacture? You are aware of how much funding they get to "prove" tobacco is naughty naughty?

Pharmaceautical studies--Did you ever wonder, if nicotine is so dangerous a drug that you can't smoke it, and you can't chew it...why can any 8 year old walk into Wal-Mart and buy nicotine patches and gum? There is nothing against the law about a child buying this stuff. In fact it's encouraged. Ah, I see, kids shouldn't do the evil nicotine unless Pharma sells it. Ah, I see. And umm..how much money do you make again for pushing your products as a "stop smoking" aid when it's been proven that only 24% of those that quit smoking do so with NRT? And wait, how do the rest quit again? Ah, cold turkey...wow...funny how cigarettes are as "addictive as heroin" but heroin users can't seem to jump that ship without more help than a fuckin' patch huh? And who keeps telling you that you'll NEVER succeed quitting cold turkey? Aww...that would be those disinterested Pharma companies huh? No agenda there...

And let's go to goverment--Naughty naughty government, who not only receive (each state) MSA money (that's master settlement) but also receive..hold on, let me check that--14.7 billion dollars to the state of Texas for suing cigarette companies, then let's include the 1.00 tax hikethis year estimated to bring in 986 million dollars

And according to that site smokers cost $10 billion a year to care for. So even IF, IF they were actually using the money to cover smoker's health care (which they aren't,more on that),we're still paying about 5 million more (and if you think the cost of that lawsuit isn't being passed on to the consumer, that's smokers, you're a goddamned idiot). But what they are actually doing with that money is get ready

balancing the state budget and funding education. Yeah, I know that last link says it will fund tobacco education. No it won't. Ricky Perry stated very clearly that it's to fund schools. And in the meantime, the non-smokers see a nice school property tax cut. No vested interest there, huh?

So, umm..where's the hypocrisy? Oh, you bet your sweet ass I call BULLSHIT...

By the way, you better hope I don't quit smoking, or Texas will crash and burn..

I support your child's education, I buy by the carton.