Posted on 12/16/2005 10:57:51 AM PST by kingattax
Well, then, since we actually have an open mind, most of us, please do tell us what "scientific" study supports your opinions. Be creative. No one has yet been able to find a non-discredited study that links second hand smoke to anything.
Linking SHS to mental disease in opponents doesn't count!
If they can stop people from smoking in their own homes 'for the children,' then they can regulate what people eat, drink, watch, listen to, etc. etc in their own homes 'for the children'.
Sorry about your mother. Your father sounds like gold.
That's true. We can find studies that say a lot of things are harmful. Do you want the government telling you that you can't have ding dongs in your home if you have children? Do you want them to control what video games you can have, what DVDs and CDs you can purchase, or what channels you can have access to?
The most expensive costs are the result of AIDS and the walking whales (heart disease).
_____________________________________________________-
I should have said "among the most expensive..." AIDS---probably not the most expensive but up there among the worst offenders. Nevertheless, the number one cause of coronary heart disease is still smoking, not fat...which I'm sure is a close second.
From the AHA: cigarette smoking is the leading cause of heart and blood vessel problems among Americans."
And I would imagine that there are probably more
"whales" waddling around that smokers these days...so in terms of just numbers- more people incur heart disease from fat issues than from smoking.
Your other jab speaks volumes. What I object to is smokers doing their exhaling into their kids' faces/lungs. Kids get more upper respiratory problems...just adding to their misery. Look up the stats in the AMA.
But it's ok for gays to adopt kids, right? jeez, i'd hate to see that "right" taken away...
My point would be that your family has crummy genes.
I don't believe that public policy should be based on your family's crummy genes.
Or is there another point I might have missed?
Have you missed the obvious? This thread is about second hand smoke.
Should we give a liver to an alcoholic who need a transplant?
It's funnier than "petty" if it's imaginary.
No matter how strongly you believe it.
Not really. The bigger the deal I made out of it, the more rebellious the activity might seem.
Doesn't mean you can't enforce rules on that sort of thing, including the fact that he can't have them before he's 18.
They don't stay teenagers forever, and cigarettes are expensive.
Invitations to respond aren't required, sport.
I don't feel that my desire to not have my health harmed by second hand smoke is petty.
So, don't go places where people are smoking.
What about the dangers of poor diet, or of taking kids in cars on the freeways, or of watching junk on TV, or eating food cooked on Teflon, etc.?
I don't see where a Nanny state will lead to anywhere good in the long run; other than a place where no one can think for themselves.
So... what's killing all the non-smokers then?
I need to find out, so that I can go out and be a nosy busy-body too.
No thank you; my IQ is too high to tolerate that, and/or the AHA.
It would be like asking PETA for support of the undeniable benefits of animal protein as food.
"Anyone smoking in the presence of others is contributing the other person's discomfort and health consequences and this is true especially for children who have no say in what is forced upon them."
Environmental tobacco smoke effects have to be dose related.
until the tobacco natzies can can point to a study that shows a specific dose of environmental tobacco smoke that is causative of cancer, they can eat my smoke.
"Cigarettes caused the cancer"
How do you know this? Could it not have been radon?
"radon" is the biggest scam to ever come down the pike, aside from tranferable CO2 credits. What a gyp.
Ahh excuse me. But what good is the placenta then? It weeds out of the poisons, etc before they get to the baby.
and lost labor, efficiency problems, etc
This has never been proven, and even if it were true, unless you are the employer it is of no concern to you.
not to mention causing harm to those who have no say in being exposed to the smoke.
What harm?
I posed the following question earlier to another poster - would you care to address it?
Increased relative risks (RR) in epidemiology below 200% are considered statistically insignificant, and quite possibly just due to chance within the studies. Using an increased risk for lung cancer (since we are discussing smoking) would you be more inclined to worry about a 65% increased RR or a 19% RR from the ingestion and/or exposure of 2 different substances? Remember, both increased RR's are statistically insignificant and could just be due to chance.
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.