I wholeheartedly agree on this. I believe that the statistics cited in every tobacco study is exaggerated beyond belief because the criteria used is not transp

I wholeheartedly agree on this. I believe that the statistics cited in every tobacco study is exaggerated beyond belief because the criteria used is not transparent. What is the criteria for "secondhand smoke exposure"? With many other scientific studies being tampered to show favored results, why not these tobacco studies? I believe these studies are tampered and the primary beneficiary are the insurance companies because if they can classify an insuree as a smoker, they can claim that the individual is negligent of their own health and therefore the policy is null and void. If they want to run studies this way, I suggest we review the effects of alcohol on the individual and the psychology of the family that surrounds the individual.