D
Dave Kahn
Guest
"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Two points. (1) Health is a very minor reason for my cycling; transport and fun are what gets me
> in the saddle. (2) So I give up cycling; I'll have achieved what, precisely?
Improved health may not be among your reasons for cycling, but it's a benefit you reap nonetheless.
> I like to point out that smoking is carbon-neutral (unlike driving) and the effluent from my 'few'
> fags per day is several orders of magnitude less toxic to their fellow humans than the pollutants
> arising out of their commute.
There is an argument that the vast quantities of fertile land used to grow tobacco might otherwise
be producing food. However, it's not so much the damage to the environment as the damage to your
health that ought to concern you. That of course is entirely your business and no-one else's. I have
no doubt, however, that healthwise you're better off smoking moderately and cycling than smoking
moderately and not cycling.
--
Dave...
news:<[email protected]>...
> Two points. (1) Health is a very minor reason for my cycling; transport and fun are what gets me
> in the saddle. (2) So I give up cycling; I'll have achieved what, precisely?
Improved health may not be among your reasons for cycling, but it's a benefit you reap nonetheless.
> I like to point out that smoking is carbon-neutral (unlike driving) and the effluent from my 'few'
> fags per day is several orders of magnitude less toxic to their fellow humans than the pollutants
> arising out of their commute.
There is an argument that the vast quantities of fertile land used to grow tobacco might otherwise
be producing food. However, it's not so much the damage to the environment as the damage to your
health that ought to concern you. That of course is entirely your business and no-one else's. I have
no doubt, however, that healthwise you're better off smoking moderately and cycling than smoking
moderately and not cycling.
--
Dave...