Replies

"If you're too stupid to recognize that on your own, then we have to pass a law to tell you, 'Don't be an idiot, don't smoke with your small kid in the car with you,' " Koretz said.

This statement, itself, is the epitome of stupidity.
Most people are too disengaged or apathetic to care where this is leading. Two observations should be sufficient to validate the absurdity of the movement:

When closer to 50% of adults smoked, the incidence of so-called "second-hand smoke" related illnesses was lower. So, empirically, the assertion fails the reality test.

Second, scientific studies carried on by legitimate non-agenda groups have found flat out that there is no connection between second-hand smoke and the illnesses claimed, specially the absurd "50,000 a year deaths". The largest (by far) such study by the U.N. World Health Organization, incidentally initiated to justify a war on second-hand smoke, done by true scientists, forced them to accept the science conclusion: there is no connection. I fact, they may have made a slight beneficial corelation.

The study was quietly shelved, and details have never been released.

Now, who is the stupid one Mr. Dork Koretz?

"The study was quietly shelved, and details have never been released."

Here is part of it that I found a long time ago in a 'cached' website. It disappeared from the internet shortly after.

"UK Sunday Telegraph...

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."