Illegal in Arkansas to Smoke in a Vehicle With A Minor? (What was that about a free country?)

June 2, 2006

[MACVSOG68]

What makes the single riskiest activity to our children a "straman?"

Hmmm. Let me guess. The creation of an exaggerated situation designed to get me to move to that one, and invalidating my thesis? Of course vehicles are risky. Which explains why most governments enact laws to reduce the risk both to safety and to health. The argument should concentrate on whether this law among the tens of thousands is somehow outside the purview of the state.

[MACVSOG68]

Ah, taking your logic to it's conclusion is considered a "strawman." Interesting, you aren't willing to abide by your own position. Of course, when you lack principles, emotions rule your life.

Let's see. In this thread the pro smokers have likened this to the Nazi atrocities, linked it to D-Day at Normandy, and labeled anyone who could substantiate why the state might be interested in the health of children as pure evil. Others argue that unless you can make vehicle travel 100% safe, you have no place enacting laws designed to do just that.

I see you point about principles and emotions.

[MACVSOG68]

Yes, those were absolutely strawmen designed to see if you could find a single reason why this law in quesion somehow proves your point of the inviolate privacy of the vehicle as personal property. They were identified to demonstrate that your thesis that a state cannot regulate conduct inside this personal property is false.

[MACVSOG68]

Why don't you go to DU with your liberal brethren. Did you get your ass kicked one too many times when you were a kid?

Wow, looks like your still doing some big time ass kicking! Boy that argument won them all, even the Nazi and Normandy ones. "If you don't agree with me, you have no place at FR".

As bad as DU is, I can find far more intelligent statements there than the one you just made.

[CSM]

In #76 you said: "But hopefully not free to put our children into harm's way."

In this post you say: "Of course vehicles are risky."

As a result, is it not fair to say that you do not want children put into harms way at any time, resulting in them not being allowed to be transported in motor vehicles? Or are you willing to accept some levels of risk? If it is the later, should the state make the decision or should the parents decide? Should the answer to that depend on the degree of risk? Or should we leave it to the emotional whims of folks like you? Or to the emotional whims of folks like Hillary?

Be very careful in these answers.....

[CSM]

And the smoke gnatzies have likened tobacco use to murder, rape, child molestation, etc.

What's your point?

[SheLion]

GET LOST WINDBAG!

[MACVSOG68]

As a result, is it not fair to say that you do not want children put into harms way at any time, resulting in them not being allowed to be transported in motor vehicles?

I don't recollect trying to say that or even insinuate that in any way. It is not the job of the state to ensure that all activities are risk free. It is the job of the state to identify addressable risks and to enact laws that reduce them. If the law goes to far or infringes on real rights, then there are cures for that.

Or are you willing to accept some levels of risk? If it is the later, should the state make the decision or should the parents decide?

I think I answered that. The evidence in the case in point was sufficient for the state to determine that direct health risks could be averted by a rather simple law. No, one cannot always depend on the wisdom of parents as news stories each day illustrate. And any parent who would drive a car around with it full of smoke, and with children in it obviously have demonstrated their lack of wisdom. Parents have an obligation to keep their children out of harm's way, but fail regularly.

Should the answer to that depend on the degree of risk? Or should we leave it to the emotional whims of folks like you? Or to the emotional whims of folks like Hillary?

No, we should leave to folks like the two caught in Mexico yesterday selling their kid, or the ones who feel their parental rights extend to packing marijuana in their kid's backpack, or chaining up their kid. Sound stupid. So is throwing Hillary's name in this and personalizing it with me. It's not about me. It's about Arkansas. I have simply stated that I can see what evidence the state looked to when enacting that law. If you cannot keep on that subject, I'm not really interested in an undefined philosophical discussion of parental rights and obligations.

Be very careful in these answers.....

I know, I'm aware of the dangers of countering emotions with facts.

[MACVSOG68]

And the smoke gnatzies have likened tobacco use to murder, rape, child molestation, etc.

What's your point?

Uh, that there's more than one kook on this thread? I don't recollect the state using those as the reason for the law, but they could well have, and if so, it should definitely be challenged.

[CSM]

"The evidence in the case in point was sufficient for the state to determine that direct health risks could be averted by a rather simple law."

Actually, the evidence in the case was not sufficient and the Judge made the appropriate decision. However, you threw out the court's decision based on the Judge's previous address.

Do even understand the "studies" you reference? They are not studies at all. They are computer models of manipulated data derived from specific studies. Any study that did not reach the desired conclusion was not built into the computer models. As a result, you get the desired skewing of data to support a specific agenda.

Joe gives a great summary of the data used.

---

Hey Joe,

Can you provide us with your summary? Thanks.

---

"So is throwing Hillary's name in this and personalizing it with me."

Which would be precisely why I included Hillary's name in a DIFFERENT sentence. The seperation of points of views should have indicated to you that it was a seperate standard that would be applied. However, with the rest of your knee jerk, emotional responses, I'm not surprised you reacted the way you did.

[CSM]

"I don't recollect the state using those as the reason for the law,.."

Actually, the reason was that there is some unmeasured risk that exposure to SHS is a danger. Well, given that standard we can mandate a bunch of different parenting techniques that will now be required. That is the point of those of us on the individual liberty side of this argument.

That you can't see that is another issue altogether.

If you would have taken the time to read the WHO study in full, you whould have seen that children raised in homes with SHS exposure have a slightly smaller risk factor in encountering future lung diseases, as well as asthma or allergies. It might just work like vaccinations. In addition, it is a fact that the highest per capita smoking population in the world (Japan) is also the lowest per capita lung and heart disease population in the world.

Based on these two well established facts, why don't we legislate that people smoke around children? These correlations would certainly imply that exposure to SHS is healthy for children. Why not mandate it?

[Raycpa]

Now, in addition to being an anti-smoker, you admit to being a racist. Let me explain, you have clearly stated that you think any smoker that does not support bans is stupid. Now you openly admit that you think "older black males" fall into that catagory.

All smokers are stupid. Does that make me racist?

[CSM]

"All smokers are stupid."

Well, we certainly know your standards. I would certainly consider Winston Churchil, Einstein, Ronald Reagen, Clint Eastwood, Douglas MacArthur, Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger to be some rather intelligent folks. But go ahead and live in your world of redefined terminology.

[MACVSOG68]

Actually, the evidence in the case was not sufficient and the Judge made the appropriate decision. However, you threw out the court's decision based on the Judge's previous address.

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring to the Arkansas decision to enact a law.

Do even understand the "studies" you reference? They are not studies at all. They are computer models of manipulated data derived from specific studies. Any study that did not reach the desired conclusion was not built into the computer models. As a result, you get the desired skewing of data to support a specific agenda.

Naw, I ain't smart like yew. So EPA has tossed out all studies showing anything they didn't like? As I guess did WHO, and all the rest? But then, your studies included anything remotely showing the possibility that SHS may be the cause of any diseases before reaching their conclusions? Okey....

I understand now why none of you here would even look at any of the data or links I provided. Obviously they are invalid, so why waste the bandwidth.

However, with the rest of your knee jerk, emotional responses, I'm not surprised you reacted the way you did.

Thank you. One thing I noticed about this thread and all you folks here. You are not emotional, nor do you make knee jerk responses. You are respectful of others and you are willing to engage in meaningful discussions of the issue. My hat's off to you. All I can do in scream in seven inch letters, talk about "first they came for the Jews", use Nazis and Normandy to illustrate my points, and tell anyone who disagrees with me they are a bunch of liberal socialists and most especially evil and should just go back to DU. I will try and clean up my act. Thanks for the advice.

[Raycpa]

Even smart people have stupid behavior.

[MACVSOG68]

Actually, the reason was that there is some unmeasured risk that exposure to SHS is a danger.

So the EPA's studies are all completely devoid of "measurement"? They are all just subjective assumptions? Wonder where all those numbers came from then?

Well, given that standard we can mandate a bunch of different parenting techniques that will now be required.

This is a parenting technique? I thought it was one of thousands of laws involving safety and health while in a vehicle. I had no idea it was that extensive a law.

That you can't see that is another issue altogether.

Yup. Told ya b'fore, I caint figger a lot of things. Had bad parental techniques while growing up.

If you would have taken the time to read the WHO study in full, you whould have seen that children raised in homes with SHS exposure have a slightly smaller risk factor in encountering future lung diseases, as well as asthma or allergies.

Didn't think it would take nearly this long for someone to point out that cigarette smoke is actually healthy for you. Good one.

Based on these two well established facts, why don't we legislate that people smoke around children? These correlations would certainly imply that exposure to SHS is healthy for children. Why not mandate it?

Sure, sounds good to me. After all, if guns can be mandated in the home, why not cigarettes? You may have just uncovered the greatest conspiracy ever.

[CSM]

"But then, your studies included anything remotely showing the possibility that SHS may be the cause of any diseases before reaching their conclusions?"

Actually, some do and some don't. Taken as a whole, the result is that the relative risk factor changes with exposure to SHS is not significant enought to warrant government meddling. However, if you toss out any segment that does not fit a pre-determined outcome, then you could argue for government mandating that no exposure to SHS is required, or you could argue for government requiring exposure to SHS.

As an aggregate, all of the studies taken together, would warrant that no legislation is warranted.

---

"Thank you. One thing I noticed about this thread and all you folks here. You are not emotional, nor do you make knee jerk responses. You are respectful of others and you are willing to engage in meaningful discussions of the issue. My hat's off to you. All I can do in scream in seven inch letters, talk about "first they came for the Jews", use Nazis and Normandy to illustrate my points, and tell anyone who disagrees with me they are a bunch of liberal socialists and most especially evil and should just go back to DU. I will try and clean up my act. Thanks for the advice."

Is this rant an attempt to project certain behaviours onto me and my posts? Much like the projecting of certain outcomes to all children?

[CSM]

"Even smart people have stupid behavior."

Are you amending your position that "all smokers are stupid" into a position that smart people sometimes participate in activities that you think are stupid?

If so, why do you think your standards are the standards that society should follow? Did you stumble upon a burning bush in the desert?

[Just another Joe]

I think this is what you are asking for.

Here's the list of studies and their associated risk findings.

Keep in mind that most epidemialogical studies discount a risk percent if it is lower than 2.00 and most researchers would like to have a risk percent of 3.00 or more before associating a cause.
I count 94 studies that have statistics associated and 14 that have a risk of 2.00 or more.

TABLE I

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NONSMOKERS MARRIED TO SMOKERS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Number of lung cancers	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 1	1981	USA	F	153	1.18	(0.90 - 1.54)
Chan	1982	Hong Kong	F	84	0.75	(0.43 - 1.30)
Correa	1983	USA	F M	22 8	2.07 1.97	(0.81 - 5.25) (0.38-10.32)
Trichopoulos	1983	Greece	F	77	2.08	(1.20-3.59)
Buffler	1984	USA	F M	41 11	0.80 0.51	(0.34-1.90) (0.14-1.79)
Hiramaya	1984	Japan	F M	200 64	1.45 2.24	(1.02-2.08) (1.19-4.22)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	24 12	0.79 1.00	(0.25-2.45) (0.20-5.07)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	134	1.23	(0.81-1.87)
Lam W	1985	Hong Kong	F	60	2.01	(1.09-3.72)
Wu	1985	USA	F	29	1.20	(0.50-3.30)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F M	94 19	1.50 1.80	(0.90-2.80) (0.40-7.00)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	32 15	1.00 1.30	(0.37-2.71) (0.38-4.39)
Brownson 1	1987	USA	F	19	1.68	(0.39-6.90)
Gao	1987	China	F	246	1.19	(0.82-1.73)
Humble	1987	USA	F M	20 8	2.20 4.82	(0.80-6.60) (0.63-36.56)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	86	1.64	(0.87-3.09)
Lam T	1987	Hong Kong	F	199	1.65	(1.16-2.35)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	70	1.20	(0.70-2.10)
Butler	1988	USA	F	8	2.02	(0.48-8.56)
Geng	1988	China	F	54	2.16	(1.08-4.29)
Inoue	1988	Japan	F	22	2.25	(0.80-8.80)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	90	1.08	(0.64-1.82)
Choi	1989	Korea	F M	75 13	1.63 2.73	(0.92-2.87) (0.49-15.21)
Hole	1989	Scotland	F M	6 3	1.89 3.52	(0.22-16.12) (0.32-38.65)
Svensson	1989	Sweden	F	34	1.26	(0.57-2.81)
Janeric	1990	USA	F M	144 44	0.75 0.75	(0.47-1.20) (0.31-1.78)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	90	2.11	(1.09-4.08)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	144	1.13	(0.78-1.63)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	417	0.70	(0.60-0.90)
Liu Z	1991	China	F	54	0.77	(0.30-1.96)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	431	1.00	(0.80-1.20)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	62	1.60	(0.80-3.00)
Liu Q	1993	China	F	38	1.66	(0.73-3.78)
Du	1993	China	F	75	1.09	(0.64-1.85)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	651	1.29	(1.04-1.60)
Layard	1994	USA	F M	39 21	0.58 1.47	(0.30-1.13) (0.55-3.94)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	162	1.66	(1.12-2.46)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	67 39	1.08 1.60	(0.60-1.94) (0.67-3.82)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F M	185 72	1.10 1.10	(0.72-1.68) (0.60-2.03)
Sun	1996	China	F	230	1.16	(0.80-1.69)
Wang S-Y	1996	China	F	82	2.53	(1.26-5.10)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	135	1.11	(0.67-1.84)
Cardenas	1997	USA	F M	150 97	1.20 1.10	(0.80-1.60) (0.60-1.80)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F M	53 18	1.58 1.58	(0.74-3.38) (0.52-4.81)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F M	242 62	0.93 0.93	(0.66-1.31) (0.52-1.67)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	105	1.30	(0.70-2.50)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F M	89 35	1.20 1.20	(0.74-1.94) (0.57-2.55)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed. In the Swartz (1996), Jöckel-BIPS (1997) and Nyberg (1997) studies, relative risk and confidence interval data were reported for the sexes combined. These data were separated based on the respective number of cases by sex, assuming the same relative risk for each sex.

TABLE II

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NONSMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN THE WORKPLACE

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	0.68 3.27	(0.32-1.47) (1.01-10.62)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.93	(0.55-1.55)
Wu	1985	USA	F	1.30	(0.50-3.30)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.63 1.61	(0.17-2.33) (0.39-6.60)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	1.19	(0.48-2.95)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	1.18	(0.70-2.01)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.91	(0.80-1.04)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	1.70	(0.69-4.18)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	1.10	(0.90-1.60)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.79	(0.61-1.03)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.39	(1.11-1.74)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	1.23	(0.74-2.06)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.15 1.02	(0.62-2.13) (0.50-2.09)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F & M	1.50	(1.00-2.20)
Sun	1996	China	F	1.38	(0.94-2.04)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.89	(0.46-1.73)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	2.37	(1.02-5.48)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	1.51	(0.95-2.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	1.10	(0.40-3.00)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F & M	1.60	(0.90-2.90)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE III

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN CHILDHOOD

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Correa	1983	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.91	(0.74-1.12)
Wu	1985	USA	F	0.60	(0.20-1.12)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F & M	no statistically	significant association
Gao	1987	China	F	1.10	(0.70-1.70)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	0.55	(0.17-1.77)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	1.00	(0.40-2.30)
Svenson	1989	Sweden	F	3.30	(0.50-18.80)
Janarich	1990	USA	F & M	1.30	(0.85-2.00)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	1.28	(0.71-2.31)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	0.85	(0.65-1.12)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.80	(0.60-1.10)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	1.70	(1.00-2.90)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	0.89	(0.72-1.10)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	0.98	(0.66-1.45)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F	1.63	(0.91-2.92)
Sun	1996	China	F	2.29	(1.56-3.37)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.91	(0.56-1.48)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	1.05	(0.50-2.22)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	0.95	(0.64-1.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	0.80	(0.40-1.60)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE IV

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN NON-HOME/NON-WORKPLACE SETTINGS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	1.42	(0.75-2.70)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.61 1.55	(0.29-1.28) (0.40-6.02)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.59	(0.43-0.81)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.50	(1.19-1.89)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.22 1.39	(0.69-2.15) (0.67-2.86)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

[Raycpa]

Are you amending your position that "all smokers are stupid" into a position that smart people sometimes participate in activities that you think are stupid?

No, just clarifying how they are stupid.