The world is truly upside down.
Posted on 02/15/2005 8:24:48 AM PST by SheLion
Do people who enjoy smoking have any rights? Increasingly, the answer is no. It is essential to keep in mind that smoking cigarettes, cigars, or pipes is an entirely personal choice. No one is required to smoke. Millions voluntarily stop smoking every year. People have been smoking, and enjoying tobacco products for a very long time, but now they have been demonized and ostracized.
Using the power of government, to tax, smokers are being ripped off at every level. Recently, New York City sent letters to 2,300 residents giving them thirty days to pay the taxes on the cartons of cigarettes they had purchased over the Internet. It's the law.
A single pack of cigarettes in New York City comes with a state tax of $1.50, a city tax of $1.50, and a federal tax of 39 cents. A pack of Marlboro cigarettes will cost you $7.00. A ten-pack carton will cost you more than $55.00. Purchased at an international airport's duty-free store, the same carton retails for just $16.00.
There are few, if any, people who do not know there is an element of risk involved in the decision to smoke. There is risk involved when any American gets into his car and goes anywhere. Driving kills over 40,000 Americans every year. It is the price we pay for the mobility, and other benefits cars and vehicles provide. There is, in fact, risk in every human activity, including the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages and even the simple act of eating.
The U.S. engaged in a hugely failed experiment, called Prohibition, to stop people from drinking alcoholic beverages at their favorite saloon. It took a Constitutional amendment to end it. For many years now, the same thinking that imposed Prohibition has been at work to achieve the same outcome with smoking.
It is un-American in the most profound sense of that term. In a nation founded on the individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, preventing people from the enjoyment of smoking runs contrary to the inherent right to enjoy this lifestyle option if you want.
Consider, however, some events in 2004. The first worldwide antismoking treaty - the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) - was ratified, and is now in effect. It is yet another example of the United Nation's intention to control every aspect of the lives of everyone on planet Earth. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is the lead organization in America, and it has promised to "now concentrate on enforcement efforts."
During 2004, six nations imposed a no-smoking ban. Among them were Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. These nations are notable for their liberal, i.e., socialist political agendas. Here in the U.S., so-called "nonsmoker's rights" became law in Idaho, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. At the local level, thirty-two jurisdictions passed comprehensive workplace smoking laws in 2004, along with "less comprehensive smokefree workplace laws."
There's more. Eleven States, including Virginia, where historically tobacco was the crop that encouraged its establishment and growth as an American colony, substantially increased their cigarette taxes. Consider the example of New York City, and multiply it by other cities and states, cashing in, while at the same time, banning smoking, indoors and out. That is obscene.
Now imagine a similar level of taxation on a candy bar, a cup of coffee, or soft drink. Think it can't happen? Think again.
ASH has big plans for 2005. It plans to "take advantage of a new ruling which now makes it possible for sensitive nonsmokers to sue states which do not provide them with reasonable protection from tobacco smoke pollution."
These suits will eventually cost taxpayers millions, draining vital financial resources from serious needs such as infrastructure improvements. ASH will push for more and more bans, on people who smoke outdoors on beaches, and elsewhere. In California, it is already against the law to light up on the beach.
Let's say you've just bought a condo, or moved to an apartment. ASH intends to encourage and assist lawsuits by apartment dwellers who object to neighbors smoking in their own apartments. In the name of protecting children, ASH will pursue laws that ban parents from smoking around their children, by getting courts to issue orders to ban smoking in custody cases, or by a foster parent, or in a car, while driving children anywhere.
All this is happening in the "land of the free, and the home of the brave," as well as around the world, where the U.N. antismoking treaty bans any advertising for tobacco products, requires health warning labels similar to those on products sold in the U.S., bans any secondhand smoke in workplaces, public transport, and indoor public places.
It empowers a vast law enforcement program against smuggling, and there will be smuggling, leading to cartels that rival illegal drugs. There's more, but the ultimate objective is to eliminate smoking anywhere on the face of the Earth.
This is pure fascism - using the power of the state to deny this simple pleasure from being enjoyed anywhere. And, when the national and global antismoking campaign is successful, these same people will turn their attention to banning the consumption of meat, fish, cookies, candy, potato chips, soft drinks, or anything else they decide you should not enjoy.
Do smokers have any rights? Apparently not.
The world is truly upside down.
That's how I read it.
In 1998 the link made by the EPA Report in 1993 between secondary smoke and cancer was thrown out in a federal court because the statistics were bent to support a predetermined conclusion and normal scientific guidelines were ignored. Practical Implications
Court Findings
A Federal Court has ruled that the EPA wrongly classified secondhand smoke as a Group A (known human) carcinogen.
as for the who report:
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?dp=d18%7Cd29%7Cp104
The WHO report has been debunked. I am looking for that article. The WHO doesn't talk about this anymore.
You are going to have to explain your car anology. I can't quite follow it.
As for the asthma, maybe, while smoking is going down, more poor people with less insurance are smoking. Their kids get asthma.
Im sorry shelion, are you saying the 1998 who report is debunked, or the WHO correction of the myths surrounding the report has been debuked. I just posted the WHO's response.
Smoking Does Not
Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*Smoking Does Not
Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*
By: James P. Siepmann, MD
Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)
When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."
Click here for complete article
But what about the CDC?
Read my post #130. It includes both the WHO and the CDC.
and this is BS too?:
World Health Organization (WHO)
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph on Active and Passive Smoking
A monograph issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The report, which reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer, both active smoking and secondhand smoke exposure, estimated that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke are 20 to 30 percent more likely to develop cancer. The IARC issued a press release about the findings and also posted summaries of the findings online.
This monograph superceded a report released in 1998 by the WHO, linking lung cancer to secondhand smoke exposure. Big Tobacco's local allies sometimes claim that this report concluded that secondhand smoke is not harmful. Nothing could be further from the truth. Internal tobacco industry documents reveal plans to manipulate the findings of the 1998 WHO report out of fear that the report could have a significant impact on public opinion and smokefree policy efforts.
The WHO issued a press release in 1998 informing the public that tobacco industry misinformation about WHO's position on secondhand smoke should not be believed.
Asthma
Asthma is not caused by smoking.
The reason asthma develops in one person and not another is not well known. Asthma tends to run in families, but not always.
People with asthma have extra-sensitive airways that overreact to certain environmental elements such as:
When the airways are exposed to these stimuli, the linings of the airways react by becoming inflamed and swollen. They become "twitchy," meaning that the muscles surrounding the airways tighten and cause the airways to narrow.
Asthma is characterized by episodes of shortness of breath (SOB), tightness in the chest, wheezing and cough, or a combination of the above.
"Pure" asthma can be treated effectively because the changes to the airways can be reversed in most instances. However, if there is a component of emphysema or chronic bronchitis to the asthma condition, the changes cannot be reversed.
For more information about asthma, please refer to the Canadian Lung Association Asthma Resource Center.
Symptoms decline when families fight allergens at home
Debris from cockroaches and dust mites, fungus spores, pet dander, noxious chemicals. . . . These are a few of the things that can make the typical home a dangerous place for people with asthma.
Respiratory Infections, Not Air Pollution, Pose Winter Health Threat for Children with Asthma
Although particulate air pollution has been blamed for a wide variety of negative health effects, a three-year study of asthmatic children in Denver, published in the November Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, indicates that it does not lead to significant worsening of asthma during the pollution-heavy winter months. Upper respiratory infections, however, were associated with a significant decline in lung function, asthma symptoms and asthma exacerbations.
"In our study, wintertime air pollution had no significant effect on asthma exacerbations or lung function," said Nathan Rabinovitch, M.D., a lead author of the study and pediatric allergist at National Jewish Medical and Research Center. "Upper respiratory infections, however, doubled the chances that a child would suffer an asthma exacerbation and more than quadrupled the odds that a child would suffer asthma symptoms."
The study monitored 41, 63 and 43 elementary school children during three successive winters in Denver, Colorado, when particulate pollution is worst. The children, aged 6 to 12 years, were mostly urban minority children with moderate to severe asthma. Dr. Rabinovitch and co-investigator Erwin Gelfand, M.D., Chairman of Pediatrics at National Jewish, monitored several health outcomes in the children, including asthma exacerbations, visits to emergency rooms and hospitalizations. They also monitored the children's lung function, medication use, asthma symptoms, and whether they had upper respiratory infections.
The researchers correlated those health measures with daily variations in six air pollutants: particulates less than 10 microns in diameter, particulates less than 2.5 microns diameter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and ozone. In general pollutants were comparable to levels found in most large American cities.
As expected, the raw data did show worse health associated with high pollution days. But when the researchers controlled for potential time-related confounders, such as upper respiratory infections, the correlation disappeared on almost all measures. Higher carbon monoxide levels were marginally associated with increased use of rescue medications (odds ratio: 1.065) and daily symptoms were marginally associated with ozone levels (odds ratio: 1.083).
"It is well known that upper respiratory infections can cause problems for people with asthma, but the air pollutions results were a surprise," said Dr. Gelfand. "We believe that careful monitoring of the children allowed us to filter out confounding factors that would have mistakenly suggested a significant health impact of air pollution."
The researchers are not ready to write off the effects of air pollution during summer. For one, children may be exposed to higher levels of air pollution in the summer because they spend more time outside. Also, ozone, a known respiratory irritant, rises to much higher levels during the summer and may pose more of a problem than particulate pollution in the winter. Next summer Drs. Rabinovitch and Gelfand will begin a study of the health impacts of ozone on children with asthma.
"We believe this is good news for parents of children with asthma," said Rabinovitch. "Instead of worrying about air pollution they can focus their efforts on preventing and treating the real wintertime threat to their children's health - colds and other respiratory infections."
http://www.nationaljewish.org/news/particle_pollution_rabinovitch.html
November 9, 2004
As to the car analogy, try thinking about it. All these lung cancer sufferers have ridden in cars, therefore riding in cars is associated with lung cancer, therefore riding in cars causes lung cancer.
"As for the asthma, maybe, while smoking is going down, more poor people with less insurance are smoking. Their kids get asthma."
Oh, I get it. As smoking is going down, asthma rates are going up because of increased smoking. Hmmmmmmmm. The better conclusion is that poor people get asthma, therefore we should ban being poor. How about just moving directly into Marx's dream......Methinks you need to lay off the koolaid.
What is the acceptable exposure level to SHS? At what exposure level does SHS become dangerous? How many PPM's does it take to pose a risk?
You can believe what you want but with the war on the smoker's today from the highly paid professional anti-smokers, I tend to believe the true Doctor's and researchers.
If what the anti's say is true, we would all be dead long before this.
The anti's can twist and turn words in the way they want the reports to come out. What is really sad is the general public believes them.
Personally, I'd rather keep on digging deeper and not believe what they are spewing today against smokers and smoking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.