Puff, Puff, Bash - The smoking ban is based on an agenda of lies.

Philadelphia City Paper Net ^ | June 29, 2006 | Michael J. McFadden

[gondramB]

>>Statistics clearly show that speaking english doubles your lung cancer risk.<<

That's funny. not remotely accurate. But funny.

[gondramB]

>>Statistics clearly show that speaking english doubles your lung cancer risk.<<

Just to give a little better answer - there are different types of lung cancer. Americans and Chinese, particularly Chinese women have fairly high rates of lung cancer from causes other than cigarettes.

The Japanese only began to serious smoke cigarettes in the 1950's. Since then Japanese lung cancer rates have gone up by 1000%.

In addition to smoking there are other environmental factors and non-modifiable risk factors. Nonetheless smoking clearly causes cancer in many people.

I believe this is a risk human can take if they want and the government should not interfere.

That's a different question as to whether people are allowed to use the drug in way that it gets on people who do not consent. Smokers clearly have no right to go into public spaces and force other people to use the drug too - even in small quantities any more than aspirin uses would have the right to put aspirin in people's drinks in a bar.

[Graymatter]

Should we let the anti-smokers get away with lying about the science?

Absolutely not. I'd go further and say we shouldn't let them drag science into the debate, but they always will. It's a civil liberties issue and I wish we could keep it on that plane.
Smoking bans are going to be as successful as the law that spawned speakeasies in the 1920's. Successful at diminishing respect for the law and whittling away at the concept of property rights and increasing the number of criminals.
Alice's Restaurant comes to mind. (Q: What are you in for, kid? A: I'm a litterbug.)
Waste of taxpayer loot, waste of law enforcement officers. Increased power to the nanny state.
Nevertheless, smoking is an unwholesome habit and we have bigger and more urgent battles. Like gun ownership. Governor Rendell is again trying to outlaw guns in Philadelphia.
Let's have that fight. At least we won't be diverted by totalitarians saying, you're an addict and you stink like a gun. ;)

[jmc813]

I trust Pres. Bush, I trust his surgeon general.

You should never trust politicians...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657740/posts

[palmer]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to imply that anti-anti-smoking detracts from the campaign against gun control. There is only so much time in the day so I suppose you could have a minor point. But I would also think that the cigarette odor could also help mask the smell of gunpowder; if I were a smoker I'd be less nervous getting pulled over.

[Graymatter]

The anti-smokers keep trying to turn it into a debate about smoking. That's where their strength is. From a health and hygiene standpoint, smoking's mighty hard to defend. Addiction's mighty hard to deny.
We have to deal with the social atmosphere in which we now find ourselves. And right now, privacy for people doing unwholesome things is practically exclusive to homosexuals and patrons of abortion clinics.

[Graymatter]

Great assortment of keywords. Should I add YELLOWBIRD or would that be too obscure you think?

[mugs99]

That's funny. not remotely accurate. But funny.

It's funny and accurate. The statistics game can be played from many angles. Statistics show that breast cancer rates have increased as smoking has decreased...But, let's put all of this in perspective.

Before the end of the year deadly hospital infections, those contracted by otherwise healthy individuals while hospitalized for even routine procedures, will claim over 100,000 lives. As the fourth largest killer of Americans, these hospital infections kill more people each year than AIDS, breast cancer, and traffic accidents combined.

Inhaling second hand smoke is safer than visiting your local hospital. I think the medical profession needs to clean up its own act before condemning smokers.
.

[gondramB]

>>Inhaling second hand smoke is safer than visiting your local hospital. I think the medical profession needs to clean up its own act before condemning smokers.<<

Staph infections are a big problem as are medical errors. If medicine killed that many people without saving 20 times more medicine as we know it would likely be banned. Fortunately most people recognize smoking nicotine cigarettes as a choice people should be able to make as long as they don't force others to use the drug too.

[mugs99]

Fortunately most people recognize smoking nicotine cigarettes as a choice people should be able to make as long as they don't force others to use the drug too.

Are you being forced to enter a bar where people are smoking?
.

[tiki]

So why didn't you ask the establishments that you patronized to go non-smoking? Why make it a law, businesses will do what seems to be for the best interest of the bottom line.

I'm a smoker and so far they haven't been able to pass a smoking ban in our county. My favorite restaurant is non-smoking. I don't think they did it to punish me but to please some of their other customers. That is freedom at work, they have a choice, I have a choice and I still choose to patronize their business because I love their food.

What we don't need is villianization of every behavior that offends someone. I really am very allergic to many perfumes, I have never gone on a campaign to eliminate perfume. I remove myself from the problem as best I can and go on with my life.

[gondramB]

>>Are you being forced to enter a bar where people are smoking?<<

Nope but its out in public and the public has the same right to restrict second hand smoke that they would have to someone putting a legal drug in everybody's drinks in that bar.

I oppose the regulation of smoking in the home, car or private clubs on constitutional grounds - right to privacy and all that.

[Richard Axtell]

This whole issue, second hand smoke in particular, logically can lead in several unexpected directions, depending on just how you "take" this ruling. If the state officially becomes our "keeper" and literally takes over pro actively the issue of an individual citizen's personal health, then all disease inducing behaviors will eventually be banned.

As I am sure that this entire raft of nonsense is really just more PC driven leftist behavior control, this will not follow out its logical conclusions in every direction. I guarantee that despite the statistically obvious threat homosexual practices are to a male human being's health, they will never be outlawed.

So, this argument regarding science and health is specious, unless it can be positively proven that smoking injures or threatens the health of the unwilling bystanders who do not participate in the behavior.

That is what is being falsified. Witness the latest study by the Surgeon General... ""Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard," Carmona said. "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces" — and by smokers voluntarily not puffing around children.

Supposedly, this is the latest word on the subject..."It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke, the most comprehensive federal probe since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers."

This "science" whether factual or not, isn't going to lead to a complete smoking ban, unless and until the enormous revenue, more than the tobacco companies make, in cigarette taxes somehow is replaced with other revenue streams, or diminishes to the point of insignificance. The government gains the most from continued tobacco use, and that is why this is just more PC broughlaahdoo. This may seem obvious, as it does to me, but it seldom comes up in discussions on this subject.

[mugs99]

This may seem obvious, as it does to me, but it seldom comes up in discussions on this subject.

I think it's obvious that government will prohibit smoking, same as drugs, in the near future. The support for adding nicotine to the list of illegal drugs just isn't there yet. Nicotine must be added within the next decade to keep the law enforcement/prison industry growth rate up. They'll find other things to tax...fat, sugar etc. to replace the tobacco taxes.
.

[Richard Axtell]

"They'll find other things to tax...fat, sugar etc. to replace the tobacco taxes."

You must mean some other "they", as our government has a much easier time finding ways to perpetuate taxes than they are willing to wean themselves from the revenues tobacco brings them... approximately 156 billion $ since 1993. They are not going to suddenly place onerous, confiscatory taxes on food substances that cannot be separated from the most common and popular foods consumers buy, and which support whole food industries that generate their own vast tax revenues already.

The Federal government continues to subsidize tobacco farming to the tune of millions... "Tobacco Subsidies in United States totaled $528 million from 1995-2004." Is that a sign that they will prohibit smoking any time soon? The Feds are investing in a cash crop. This is a fraud, and many people are fooled by it, thus we see the same kind of political demagoguery displayed every election cycle, yet the status quo is as solid as ever.

[mugs99]

This is a fraud, and many people are fooled by it, thus we see the same kind of political demagoguery displayed every election cycle, yet the status quo is as solid as ever

Good point. But what happens when the tobacco nazis demand tobacco prohibition?
.

[SheLion]

WARNING, Mr. B...from loooong experience certain people have NOOOO sense of humor... ;)

And from having you on my list for a long time, I wouldn't expect anything less from you! FELLOW FREEPER!!! heh!

[SheLion]

Case in point...#14 & #15....

BTW...I LOVE that quote...works for me!!!

Kiss my patoot, ok?  You know nothing about me and my sense of humor.  Your a suck up!  He will love it.

Enough already.  Get your teeth out of me!  I have very long claws!

[SheLion]

No problem.

[SheLion]

Sometimes it is hard to remember things that would be obvious are meant jokingly in normal conversation aren't so clear online.

Thank you!