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

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

[Gabz]

Of course you know I expect nothing less from such common lowlifes.

[Gabz]

You're right, it's not vile....YOU ARE VILE.

[DJ MacWoW]

You're right, it's not vile....YOU ARE VILE.

He also can't read.

[Triggerhippie]

Your interest is solely controlling someone elses behaviour. And I see you live in Florida where euthanasia for profit is big. Why not add murder for entertainment.

Behaviour, huh? (British or Pretentious?...) Whatever...

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. Cost effective entertainment. That's what I'm all about.

[mwernimont]

I am pleased you have found our website. Please feel free to explore the other facts that we've compiled after nearly 2 years of research regarding the smoking ban agenda.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/case-against-smoking-ban-laws.html

Mark Wernimont a.k.a. marcus aurelius
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

[Gabz]

There's that as well :)

[Gabz]

Howdy Mark!!!!!

I'm familiar with your stuff from Doc Siegel's blog.

Welcome aboard!!!!!

[Triggerhippie]

Wow. Ad Homenem (that means 'against the man') attacks. You must feel very strong in your beliefs.

[djf]

What I can't figure out is that all of these places paid for licenses. There were terms and conditions when the license was issued.

Now the state just comes along and willy-nilly changes the rules?

Some of these folks might have invested their life savings in trying to get an establishment going.

And now they can kiss it goodbye because the government wants to change things?

Whether a person is a smoker or not, to change the game after it started is fraud. And I think a jury would have to agree.

[SheLion]

When the USSG published, he very carefully stated that he was publishing a "scientific" report, and not promulgating a rule. Thus, according to the appellate decision in the EPA case, his finding cannot be challenged in court, no matter how fictional they are.

In phase II of this con job, local governments all over the place will cite his finding as the basis for promulgating new rules, thus accomplishing the same effect - further restrictions on smokers.

This is a planned strategy, IMHO. And the blatant dishonesty makes me ill.

Here's some more:

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.

When the USSG published, he very carefully stated that he was publishing a "scientific" report, and not promulgating a rule. Thus, according to the appellate decision in the EPA case, his finding cannot be challenged in court, no matter how fictional they are.

In phase II of this con job, local governments all over the place will cite his finding as the basis for promulgating new rules, thus accomplishing the same effect - further restrictions on smokers.

This is a planned strategy, IMHO. And the blatant dishonesty makes me ill.

Here's some more:

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.

[Gabz]

Actually I feel very strongly about people who espouse hurting/killing others for entertainment.


BTW, proper spelling should be involved if you are going to deign to give definitions of latin terms the majority of us already know..........

[shield]

LOL...

[Triggerhippie]

Too true, Ad Hominem... Sorry.

[SheLion]

I guess the surgeon general has ignored the 39-year study that shows the passive-smoking problem to be a lie: http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html.

Once again, it comes down to having a "personal problem."  I read somewhere that his x wife smoked, and he hated it and hated her!

So, he is just taking that hate out on the rest of the U.S. smokers.

And since he is wearing his all important zoot suit, he thinks that alone will give him the power to sway the people.

I'm afraid this is just going to show him for what he is.  A COMPLETE IDIOT NOT WORTH OUR TAX DOLLARS!

I guess the surgeon general has ignored the 39-year study that shows the passive-smoking problem to be a lie: http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html.

Once again, it comes down to having a "personal problem."  I read somewhere that his x wife smoked, and he hated it and hated her!

So, he is just taking that hate out on the rest of the U.S. smokers.

And since he is wearing his all important zoot suit, he thinks that alone will give him the power to sway the people.

I'm afraid this is just going to show him for what he is.  A COMPLETE IDIOT NOT WORTH OUR TAX DOLLARS!

[DJ MacWoW]

Behaviour, huh? (British or Pretentious?...)

Wow. Ad Homenem (that means 'against the man') attacks.

You can dish it but can't take it?

Too bad you want to just agitate and not really debate.

Bye.

[SheLion]

Again, as they say, this has never been about tobacco control, it has always been about people control.

You got it!

[patton]

See the thing about not making new rules? That is why the appellate court let it stand.

Disgusting.

[SheLion]

We are the healthiest population on the planet! Why do we need a Surgeon General anyway? What is he a General of?

Not to mention how Fox News has been reporting all week that the United States is going through a population explosion.  So, if there are 3 hundred million people in the U.S., how on earth are we to believe that smoking and second hand smoke is killing everyone?

I know a lot of those people are illegals, but hey!  THEY smoke TOO!

(And there are huge doubts that this jerk isn't even a DOCTOR!)

[FredZarguna]

Smokers don't care for the most part and are inconsiderate. That's why ya gotta make a law. That's ridiculous. There's no limit to the number of things that other people do that annoy me. Should there be a law outlawing scooter-carts in the Wal-Mart because the people driving them are morbidly obese, clueless, and run into other people? Or should the store provide what its customers want? One of the reasons I go across the street to the Target is that they don't provide motorized carts.

Hotels, bars, restaurants and other public accommodations which want to make money from an exclusive smoking clientele, a non-smoking clientele, or a mixed clientele should be able to do so. I was addicted to tobacco for 25 years and share all of your revulsion to it, having quit over twelve years ago. But my preferences, or even the obnoxious inconsideration of most smokers isn't a reason to plant another forest of laws.

[SheLion]

In a way, smokers are like welfare recipients... If you want to kill yourself that's fine, but don't saddle the rest of us with your medical bills.

Good grief.  Not another "blow hard!"  When did YOU crawl out from under your rock??!!

Smokers pay MORE then their fair share to cover ANY medical bills if and when they ever get sick!  Where have you been? 

Also:

If smoking makes health care more costly then health care cost should be at their lowest historical rates since the 50's, since smoking has decreased per capita since then.

Blame all the illegals in this country making your health care insurance go up!  Oh yes!  The lawmakers are blaming smokers because they are sweeping the illegals under the rug.  But WE are paying for THEIR health care, and don't you forget it!