Surgeon General Carmona Leaves Post (Dancing in the streets alert!)

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | uly 31, 2006 | KEVIN FREKING

[Ditter]

My parents DID smoke around my brother and me from day one and we DID develop asthma and today at ages 61 and 66 we STILL have breathing problems when we are around 2nd hand smoke.

So there you have it! Some people are affected by tobacco smoke and some aren't.

[383rr]

They don't seem to care too much about "proof". In a lie driven, freedom of choice stealing agenda like this, "proof" is not nessecary.

As a matter of fact, proof would be counter productive, as it wouldn't be what they wanted it to be. Therefore, the lies and propaganda kick in.

Ever see those ignorant debunkify.com billboards?
They say secondhand smoke kills 53,000 people a year.
Do they offer proof? Hell, no. Just lies and propaganda.

They're nothing but whining, sniveling, freedom of choice killing fear merchants.

[SheLion]

The smoking bans that follow will have the stamp of approval of US Congress and President.

Oh really?  The President you say?

They how do you explain his feelings about helping small businesses and not hurting them?  We all know how the smoking bans are killing private businesses from restaurants, bars, taverns and bowling alleys!

 

"The role of government is not to create wealth.
The role of government is to create an environment
in which the entrepreneur or small business or
dreamer can flourish.  And that starts with rule of law,
respect of private property, less regulatory burdens on the
entrepreneur, open banking laws so that all people
have access to capital, and good tax policy."

President George W. Bush
St. Petersburg University,
St. Petersburg, Russia
May 25, 2002

"And that starts with rule of law, respect of private property, less regulatory burdens on the entrepreneur"

[Bigh4u2]

"it says that the amounts are 25,000 times lower."

From the Header at the website:

" American Cancer Society test results for secondhand smoke prove SHS is 532 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations"

[383rr]

Good tagline. I see some of them here now.

[Bigh4u2]

"So there you have it! Some people are affected by tobacco smoke and some aren't."

Most problems are genetically inherited. If you check the genealogy of your family you may find that relatives from the past had these same problems and may have never smoked.

But to say that 'some people are affected by tobacco' just isn't true. Without proof of causation, which does not exist, then you can't qualify the condition without researching other possible effects through heredity.

[383rr]

"respect of private property"

I think that has all but been forgotten around here.

[Eagle Eye]

Lower levels of exposure do not translate into equivalent measures of safety.

25,000 times lower does not mean 25,000 time safer and you are misuing the information when you say it is.

(I'll bet you also think that 160dB is twice as loud as80 dB!)

[Bigh4u2]

"Ever see those ignorant debunkify.com billboards?
They say secondhand smoke kills 53,000 people a year.
Do they offer proof? Hell, no. Just lies and propaganda. "

Truthout.org is all I need to see on those ads to know where their information comes from.

Their heads!

[383rr]

You got that right.

[SheLion]

I would be happy to stay informed. By the way stop by anytime to see, research, or link to any posts I may have on subjects of interest.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

I added you to my puff (ping) list, thank you!

I am very impressed with your Blog.  You have done extensive research on this smoking issue.  Not many in here can argue with you, that's for sure!

Thanks again, and it's great having you on board!

[Bigh4u2]

"I'll bet you also think that 160dB is twice as loud as80 dB!)"

It isn't?

Damn, I need a bigger amp!!

:)

[CertainInalienableRights]

but so far no one has proven that x amount of smoking will produce y type of effects in human

You know, that would be some really useful info for once, if it was available.

I've smoked off and on since college. Lately, I've been doing more than I'd like - some weeks up to a pack a day.

Obviously, that's probably not good for me, although I really can't say I have experienced any negative side effects. I enjoy cigarettes and I am quite careful not to smoke where it would offend or bother non-smokers.

What I don't know, is how bad it is. There's not any information that I've found that helps put a certain level of smoking into perspective. Sure, the health industry's admonition that no smoking is best is an accurate, but nearly useless piece of information. Three packs a day for 30 years is almost definitely a serious health risk. How do you evaluate the risk of any level in between?

For example, is there some level of smoking that your body can "keep up with", purging the harmful substances as they're injested? No idea. If I were to cut back from one pack a day to half a pack a day, would that change my health risk? To what measure - by half, by a quarter, no change? No idea. Is it better/worse to smoke at a low level consistently, or binge ever weekend? No idea. How much do filtered vs non-filtered cigarettes change the equation, or do different brands have any effect? No idea. Are any of the above relevant? No idea.

It seems logical that there is a progressive increase in health risk, that varies by disease, based on the average number of cigarettes per day and the length of time at that level. Putting some concrete numbers on that risk would be a huge benefit to smokers. I have to believe that the data is there after all these years of studies.

[Eagle Eye]

The web page header is incorrect.

So are posters and signs that say second hand smoke causes cancer.

Just because something agrees with your position doesn't mean that it is correct.

Would you please explain to me what the OSHA TLV means without looking it up?

[Ditter]

It all goes back to the allergy gene. My parents came from allergic backgrounds but did not have any allergies themselves. They passed those genes onto their children. You become allergic to the things you are exposed to and we were exposed to a house /car clouded with tobacco smoke our whole young lives. Had we not grown up in tobacco smoke it is likely that it would not cause us problems today.

[Fury]

You write:

"Four ribbons/medals. What about the other five rows?"

I'd suggest you contact the US Public Health Service, as they would have that information.

You can see the US Public Health Service awards at:

http://www.usphs.gov/html/awards.html

[Bigh4u2]

"So are posters and signs that say second hand smoke causes cancer.

Just because something agrees with your position doesn't mean that it is correct. "

Ummm. I'm not sure we have opposing views!?

You stated that it didn't say 'safer' and I was merely pointing out that it did. That's all.

[Eagle Eye]

The plumbing industry has charts that will tell you what will happen if you immerse your hand in hot water. The charts tell you the different effects of temperature and exposure.

At some point you can say that 100% of people who immerse their hand in hot water will suffer nearly identical symptoms and those who don't, don't.

Therefore immersion in hot water for x time causes burns and those who don't have the exposure don't suffer the burns.

This cannot be done for smoking, although the effects of smoking and drinking seem to be synergistic rather than additive. Some people smoke heavily for years with seemingly minor effects.

And typically one that does not smoke has a healthier respiratory system than one who does.

[mysterio]

Awesome. Now let's exile him along with Bloomberg. They can rule statist island together. We'll give them a nice island with lots of rum. They can spend their days lecturing each other about the dangers of drinking.

[mysterio]

Happy puffing.

Hey, thanks.