In my packet of tobacco is a white label on which is written in large letters blacks that smoking kills, I get the same message through the mass media, in all the possible variants and every day. Suponiamo I want to do an electrical repair, and widening out to touch a wire. If someone tells me "¡Do not touch that wire, it has the power and you can slaying, "I thank him. But if it's half-hour cable handle the same message that causes me a different effect. I observe the other end of the cable to see if someone, perhaps the same person who tells me, he plugged in, I get to touch the cable and nothing. Then ask more information all'avvertitore not required, for example, ask him how he knows that I am faced with an imminent risk. If that I answered that, from statistical point of view, touching electrical wires causes death in 70% of cases, I conclude that it is a fool or he likes to joke in bad taste. Obviously I am not convinced.
This is the reaction of smoker against the interminable (and expensive) anti-smoking campaign: disbelief, bewilderment and, finally, the suspicion of being a victim of a cruel joke. He knows he is not dead, despite the fact that smoking for a long time, and this is his first criterion of truth. He looks a bit 'around, among friends, acquaintances and relatives. He discovered that many of these smoke or have smoked, without falling dead, and this is his second criterion of truth. Finally, reflecting on the construction of the sentence and discovers that there is the rub. The package should be written "Some researchers believe that smoking may increase the risk of contracting the disease."
To things right there should also be a space for researchers who take the opposite view, but it's too much to ask in these times in which they tell you that eating meat is bad, then that is fine, and then again it hurts, and then the same dance of conflicting statements about the carrots, margarine, butter, wine, beer, and hundreds of other consumer products. No one bothers to organize information in connection with the bombing of a rational scientific debate. The shape of the misleading words "smoking kills" is what made me doubt the scientific seriousness of the anti-smoking prohibition. It's a trick worthy of an ideologically motivated propaganda, an activist who despises the truth and take only his cause, perhaps also typical of certain advertising assault. Certainly not the affirmation of a scientist.
"Outrageous!" insists that the dittino. "A life of dissipation and still showing pride." It is significant that this kind of moral defect uses as a synonym for the word "clear", meaning "spreccare, mar", "fade, dissolve," but also "evaporating, resolved into vapor, such as tobacco smoke, in fact. His is a philosophy of saving and greed: to spend is a sin, is considered virtues. People sifatte do well to refrain from smoking, if they did they would refuse to expel the smoke, and end up bursting like a toad. 