[SheLion]

Liar Liar pants on fire!

[SheLion]

[RandallFlagg]

THANK YOU!!!

And the moron brigade is passing LAWS because of this jackass!

[Triggerhippie]

It seemed a feable attempt

Seriesly?

[SpaceBar]

Physicians and lawyers are in competition to see who becomes the elite class of the new dark age.

[Gabz]

Nanny Statist Smackdown PING!!!!!

[llevrok]

In the court of public opinion -

It's not the facts.
It's the headlines.

[RandallFlagg]

Just to get this in early on this thread but....

Businesses have lost money since the nine-day-old Colorado smoking ban took effect!

[mo]

better question yet...is just WHO the surgeon general is working for.....

[Egon]

Here's what I don't understand:

I recognize that, as a smoker, you have a much greater risk of acquiring a number of conditions that a non-smoker has a much lower risk of. But smokers are breathing in the carcinogens at a much greater concentration for a much longer time period than the people they live with, let alone those of us who occasionally eat with them in a restaurant.

Consider the following statistics from ASH (Action on Smoking and Health):

Time since quitting	Beneficial health changes that take place
20 minutes	Blood pressure and pulse rate return to normal.
8 hours	Nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in blood reduce by half, oxygen levels return to normal.
24 hours	Carbon monoxide will be eliminated from the body. Lungs start to clear out mucus and other smoking debris.
48 hours	There is no nicotine left in the body. Ability to taste and smell is greatly improved.
72 hours	Breathing becomes easier. Bronchial tubes begin to relax and energy levels increase.
2 - 12 weeks	Circulation improves.
3 - 9 months	Coughs, wheezing and breathing problems improve as lung function is increased by up to 10%.
1 year	Risk of a heart attack falls to about half that of a smoker.
10 years	Risk of lung cancer falls to half that of a smoker.
15 years	Risk of heart attack falls to the same as someone who has never smoked.

If this is correct for smokers, what are the timelines like for people that don't inhale directly from cigarettes multiple times a day?

I can buy the fact that prolonged exposure in enclosed spaces can pose health risks (to some extent) for non-smoking family members, but come on! The level of non-smoking deaths we've been quoted don't pass the smell test at all.

I'm not a doctor. In fact, I have no medical aptitude whatsoever. I do know a behavior-modification con-job when I smell one, though.

[DennisR]

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.

[JennysCool]

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

This is nothing more than a 40-plus-year-old social experiment.

[hubbubhubbub]

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

[Dawgreg]

Here we go again. They gotta have a "cause" no matter how stupid it is. I was raised in a home where my parents smoked, our children (both non-smokers) were raised in a home where we smoked and I hate to tell these tobacco "Carrie Nations" of today, but my own grandkids who all live in non-smoking homes have more respiratory problems than we or our children did. Figure that one out. This is a sham, a shake-down but what REALLY bugs me is the gooberment infringing on the rights of business owners......dictating what they can and cannot do in their establishments! Wake up people......this is serious....gooberment here, there and everywhere in peoples private lives. My Hub firmly believes (after dealing with different environmental groups through some new construction at his office), they'll be telling us exactly how to set our thermostats, if we can cut trees on our own property and God know what else in the very near future. It's already happening in some parts of the country now. ENOUGH intrustion already and damn the politicians who cater and pander to these groups.......this JUNK SCIENCE crowd!

[DakotaRed]

Why would anyone assume smoke gnatzies would let something as trivial as truth interfere with their socialist takeover of peoples lives?

[yldstrk]

OK it's not a moral issue. It's ok to smoke. I used to smoke two packs a day. I quit cold urkey when I was 28 because I got to the point I'd rather smoke than eat, I loved it. It was enjoyable. People would say, "Do you feel better?" And I'd say, "Hail no." I felt awful for months, but I knnew it was gonna kill me cos I was hacking and coughing. After quitting I got acne, gained weight, felt awful.

Now, when I am in a smoking hotel room, it smells awful. I hate being around it. Smokers don't really give a hoot if they are bothering people. 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.

[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/

[shield]

LOL...

[marblehead17]

ping

[Mr. Jeeves]

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.

[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.