THE patronising letter from Dr Mackay (South China Morning Post, June 12) was self defeating in its content and does not merit a reply. However, I would like to put the more balanced letter from John Blackburne (Post, June 14) into context.
I totally agree that cigarette smoking can be offensive to non-smokers and that there is a growing but not overwhelming - other than in volume - body of evidence that suggests that cigarette smoking is not conducive to good health and that smokers may well be more susceptible to respiratory and other ailments.
As long as the research is subjective and is based upon ''doctored'' data which is what I tried to illustrate in my ''family anecdote'' then all objective witnesses must hold some reservations about the validity of the current research.
As I stated in my original letter (Post, June 10) current statistics are based on the deaths of generations who are or have been smokers. To be genuinely valid, a clinically objective report would have to be based upon a comparative study of a similar generation who have never smoked but have been exposed to all the other pollutants that poison the atmosphere.
I am not trying to suggest that one pollutant justifies other pollutants, but am merely suggesting that until all the evidence has been considered objectively it is premature to single out cigarette smoke as the prime cause of premature death.
I would like to conclude by stating once again that I accept that cigarette smoking is offensive and is not conducive to good health. I certainly would not encourage a non-smoker to take up the habit but at the same time please permit me to doubt very much if non-smoking is going to guarantee any greater lifespan.
