American Cancer Society catches the Surgeon General in an outright lie...

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | July 1, 2006

[SheLion]

And conservative "smoker's rights" advocates are coming down firmly on the side of public rudeness and vulgarity.

Well, excuse me, but being a gal, I have never been a rude smoker nor have I ever displayed public vulgarity!  So I take great offense in that statement.

You can not lump a group of people because of one bad seed.  Most smokers I know are polite and don't make a big deal out of smoking.

[RandallFlagg]

No one talked about murder, so don't be a drama queen.

Funny, your post #30 seems to have vanished. Did you erase it, or did another reader hit, "Abuse," on you?

I'm in favor of 1 in 1000 cigarettes being laced with poison.
Smoking poison-laced cigarettes would be entirely voluntary.
My other 'Modest Proposal' is for Coliseum-style executions for death-row inmates. Sell tickets, concessions, and TV rights. Feed the remains to the Zoos and the Alligator Farm.

So, you have a desire to be, "Entertained," by watching the deaths of the innocent and the convicted?
I was going to ask you if you were in the right forum, but it hit me again: You're a tobaccophobic. This is rather commonplace for folks who feel these things.
Arguing would be pointless.

[CSM]

"The smoke makes nonsmokers' hair and clothes stink. Smokers don't care for the most part and are inconsiderate. That's why ya gotta make a law."

Ah, I see, we need a law because some people end up with clothes that stink.....What a wonderful use of government guns. Let's just cancel all private property rights so no one will be offended, after all it is for the common good.

Do you also support Kelo?

[CSM]

"Second-hand smoke isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it's a politeness/rudeness issue. And conservative "smoker's rights" advocates are coming down firmly on the side of public rudeness and vulgarity."

Do you support legislation shutting down all restaurants that use Rudeness as their niche market? An example would be "Dick's Last Resort."

[Mr. Jeeves]

Do you support legislation shutting down all restaurants that use Rudeness as their niche market? An example would be "Dick's Last Resort."

That makes no sense - no one is forced to go to Dick's Last Resort. Being forced to inhale second-hand smoke (analogous to sitting in a room full of tobacco chewers with no spittoons) is an entirely different matter.

[CSM]

Who is forced to enter any restaurant that allows smoking?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Still Thinking]

IMHO, the situation is actually even more benign that shown in the chart. Nicotine, other than being addictive, is not particularly harmful, but is probably more easily dispersed in air than tar and other heavy particulates in the smoke, which is where I understand the actual danger is. Measuring nicotine concentrations was probably an intentionally dishonest approach on the part of the antis to make it look as bad as possible, and it STILL comes out looking almost harmless when even minimal precautions are taken.

[SheLion]

IMHO, the situation is actually even more benign that shown in the chart. Nicotine, other than being addictive, is not particularly harmful, but is probably more easily dispersed in air than tar and other heavy particulates in the smoke, which is where I understand the actual danger is. Measuring nicotine concentrations was probably an intentionally dishonest approach on the part of the antis to make it look as bad as possible, and it STILL comes out looking almost harmless when even minimal precautions are taken.

Well, I have to wonder about anyone who outright disputes the findings of the WHO and the ORNL second hand smoke research!

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"But where does this Taliban-like anti-smoking campaign come from? It can't really be this stuff about second-hand smoke. The famous 1992 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study showing a causal relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer was so roundly debunked as junk science (even by other federal agencies) it was finally declared "null and void" by a federal judge. Sure, second-hand smoke can be annoying, and it can't be healthy, but if you relegate smokers to their own enclosed space _ say a bar or a separate part of a restaurant where people, including staff, only go of their own free will _ who can object?

DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter.  This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.

The Illinois Clean Air Act, banning smoking in public and government buildings and on public transportation has been in effect for over 15 years.  This is not an issue about smoking in public buildings....it is about removing the rights of private businesses...restaurants and bars and smoking outdoors.