As a former lobbyist for one of those public health groups that apparently deserves your scorn, let me just add that the major objections that our groups had to smokeless tobacco was the suggestion that it was a healthful alternative. (Not for nothing, but two of my supervisors and I are Jewish; some of us had relatives killed by real Nazis.)

Secondly, the science behind second-hand smoke is thorough and accurate; the only people who dispute this have an axe to grind.

Here’s the report on second-hand smoke from George W. Bush’s Surgeon General, Richard Carmona: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

Third, the warning labels on smokeless tobacco products are not the same as the warning labels on cigarettes. There are four:
* WARNING: This product can cause mouth cancer.
* WARNING: This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss.
* WARNING: This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes.
* WARNING: Smokeless tobacco is addictive.

Which of these warning labels do you find silly?

The facts are: smoking, especially if you smoke a lot, raises your risk for lung cancer.

Chewing tobacco raises your risk for mouth cancer.

Smokeless tobacco, while not completely harmless, is a whole lot safer than smoking or regular chaw. That’s according to science and not the silly warning lables.

The “science” behind second-hand smoke is largely bunk. The risk of cancer from second-hand smoke is virtually non-existent according to the actual science, which is routinely ignored by the tobacco-Nazis and media.

No, smoking a lot isn’t good for you, but some of us occasional cigar smokers also run 10k’s and half-marathons. Everything in moderation.

And I know genetics plays a role, but George Burns lived longer than Jack LaLanne. Just saying.

You chew tobacco you will get sick from it

Both of the above facts have been proven over and over and over again through the years.

Any one who DOESN’T know that by now is by definition too dumb to reach in any case

Next question