|
If an article is bad for a segment of a population and not the whole population, then the problem resides in the segment and not the article. That's my only point: since coffee is bad for some but not all, coffee is not the problem.
Now a universal detriment such as tar in lungs. No matter what your physiology is: cigarettes are guaranteed to impair it. There is no chart which shows the "pro's" of smoking weighed against the "con's".
Money was a big factor for cigarette companies but the truth eventually surfaced. Coffee has been around far longer. As I've already said, the first English Coffee shop opened in 1653.
So, I maintain we would have heard about it by now if something were truly bad about coffee.
[As a side note I mean to say coffee today is basically the same as coffee from hundreds of years ago. Whereas, smoking from centuries past is much different than what it's become over the past, say, hundred years.
Didn't want to imply coffee had been around longer than smoking tobacco.]
__________________
"...they say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time, a bit later on, when somebody says your name for the last time." - Bansky
Last edited by totem; 05-15-2014 at 08:05 AM.
|