Sunday, July 1, 2012

No One Deserves To Die of Lung Cancer

 Lung cancer is the deadliest form of cancer, yet it is the least funded.

Where are our tobacco tax dollars going again?

I'm getting a bit tired of being ripped off, how about you?

4 out of 5 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed in former smokers and life long non-smokers.

It's time that we smokers and former smokers demand the funding for cancer research that we deserve (we have already paid for it). If this funding should also benefit life long non-smokers as well, who could stand to lose from the funding of lung cancer research?

There is no need for increased taxation on tobacco, only the need for oversight with regards to current tobacco taxes and MSA payments. Quite simply, we need an overhaul in the way tobacco tax dollars are allocated. Too much money has already been wasted on the pet projects of many a politician and special interest group in every nook and cranny of this land under the auspices of public health for projects as wide and varied as golf courses and balancing state budgets from NY to California. That's our money and we should reap the benefits as a result.

It's also time that we are made aware of safer cigarette alternatives that have already been developed, for it's not the act of smoking that is "bad", but the unfortunate adverse health effects that can follow the act of smoking over a long period of time. How is it that smokers are taxed into oblivion, yet lung cancer remains the least funded form of cancer? Concurrently, how is it the right of anyone to deny smokers  access to  reduced risk products in any form ? A lot of people have been stealing from us in more ways than one. Collectively, there is a  need to inform the public of what has become an institutionalized injustice so that we may bring it to an end.

Indeed, it's time to end the stigma and prejudice associated with smoking and lung cancer once and for all.

Let the fight begin!

No One Deserves To Die of Lung Cancer


  1. "4 out of 5 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed in former and life long non-smokers."

    Smokers, surely? We're all former or lifelong non-smokers!

  2. Lol...I meant former smokers and life-long non-smokers. Let me fix that:-)

  3. "...who could stand to lose from the funding of lung cancer research?"

    Well, where should I begin?

    The major players who would lose out are, of course, the pharmaceutical companies, the drivers and financiers of the smoking bans everywhere. If lung cancer were to be properly researched, it would undoubtedly be found that LC, like all other cancers, is multifactorial, and that smoking plays a relatively minor role when all other factors are taken into account.

    Then there are the legions of charlatans drawing their six figure salaries from the "charities" that are at the forefront of tobacco control.

    Add to that all the government "health departments" who rely on delivering a constant stream of cherry-picked stats and new scare stories about the perils of smoking to ensure the continued existence of their departments.

    And last, but not least, there is the medical establishment, which has pinned its flag to the anti-tobacco mast, and which stands to lose a massive amount of credibility if it is discovered that, in fact, smoking is not the major cause of LC, but that it is, perhaps, diesel particulates, or radon gas, or any of a number of other things.

    How much easier for all concerned to pin all the blame on smoking, and not look for the real reasons. LC research could open a Pandora's box. Best to keep the lid on.

    However, their time is running out, because smoking rates are declining (thanks to their propaganda and denormalisation campaigns), but LC cases are not falling at anywhere near the same rate. Eventually, when they have denormalised smokers into oblivion, and people are still dying of lung cancer, someone is going to smell a rat.