Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smoking ban adverts to be investigated
Morning Advertiser ^ | 4/12/07 | Iain O'Neil

Posted on 04/20/2007 7:45:23 AM PDT by ZGuy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Too bad this is in the U.K. only. The similar U.S. ads are pathetic, but I'm sure will never be called to task.
1 posted on 04/20/2007 7:45:23 AM PDT by ZGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
According to Rush, who got a copy of the World Health Organization report on second hand smoke, there hasn't been one person harmed by second hand smoke anywhere (at the time, they had been searching for the elusive "victim" for 7 years). According to the report, second hand smoke did help asma patients, though.
The report wasn't widely publicized because the results were politically incorrect. The press refused to report on it. It was just quietly buried and conveniently forgotten.
2 posted on 04/20/2007 7:55:04 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; SheLion; Just another Joe

Puff ping.


3 posted on 04/20/2007 8:02:22 AM PDT by CSM ("Americans only want the word freedom. The practice of freedom disgusts them." - mysterio 3/30/2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

Often, those who are blatantly outspoken about the dangers of second hand smoke from tobacco are the same people who support the politically correct second hand smoke from marijuana.


4 posted on 04/20/2007 8:04:47 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ...

Nanny State Ping.........

It would be great if something like this could be done in the US, but it seems that the so-called media watchdog groups, and even th regulatory agencies, are on the bandwagon and blithely let the anti-smoker lies pass for truth.


5 posted on 04/20/2007 8:12:44 AM PDT by Gabz (I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz57 and french-fried potatoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
... there hasn't been one person harmed by second hand smoke anywhere ...

... second hand smoke did help some asthma patients ...

Even though I'm not a "ban smoking everywhere Nazi," I can't buy either of those statements.

Second hand smoke could precipitate asthmatic attacks in asthmatics sensitive to it. So those asthmatics should avoid exposure, and smokers around them should likewise be sensitive to their needs, especially parents of children with asthma. Kind of like people with diabetes avoiding sugar-concentrated foods, and parents of children with diabetes being responsible and knowledgeable about their needs.

6 posted on 04/20/2007 8:14:56 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
At eh time of it's release, the WHO study was the largest one ever done on SHS. All of the findings showed there was no significant increase of risk from passive smoke exposure.

FORCES International has a huge archive of information in regard to WHO and it's war are tobacco smokers. It can be found here.

7 posted on 04/20/2007 8:19:52 AM PDT by Gabz (I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz57 and french-fried potatoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Second hand smoke could precipitate asthmatic attacks in asthmatics sensitive to it. So those asthmatics should avoid exposure, and smokers around them should likewise be sensitive to their needs, especially parents of children with asthma.

Along those lines, strong perfume can do the same thing. Out law perfume.

8 posted on 04/20/2007 8:20:28 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics; ZGuy; Gabz; SheLion
According to the report, second hand smoke did help asma patients, though.

Anyone else notice the marked increase in childhood asthma since the start of smoking restrictions, or am I mistaken?

9 posted on 04/20/2007 8:39:31 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CSM; Just another Joe; Madame Dufarge; Cantiloper; metesky; Judith Anne; lockjaw02; Mears; ...

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

July 1, 2006

The Surgeon General showed up very regal looking to provide a press release rehashing the tired old argument that secondhand smoke is deadly and must be banned. And with his next statement:

Separate "no smoking" sections DO NOT protect you from secondhand smoke. Neither does filtering the air or opening a window.

It seemed a feable attempt to pre-empt any action short of a total smoking ban.....as if to confirm that pro-smoking ban activists' credibility in the public is failing miserably.

Well I am sorry to report that the American Cancer Society conducted air quality testing at several smoking venues which prove the Sugeon General flat out wrong.

 

 

Take a look at the above table, do you see the 20 reading? It represents a restaurant with an enclosed (separate) smoking area. And the 20 is actually 20 nanograms, a nanogram is 10 (-9).

So......let me put a number to that nanogram for you: 0.000000020 of a gram/cubic meter was the secondhand smoke concentration for the restaurant with the enclosed smoking area. Which is 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for the secondhand smoke measured airborne component. Thus the American Cancer Society destroys the Surgeon General's and RWJF (Nicoderm) funded James Repace argument that seperation and ventilation don't work.

The Surgeon General can stomp his feet, and scream at the top of his lungs...like a little Napoleon "....because I said so....." all he wants. But it doesn't change the facts........and the facts show he is telling a bold faced lie to the American public.
Read


10 posted on 04/20/2007 8:43:27 AM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Smoking wasn't even listed in this report.

Cold air and exercise trigger asthma


11 posted on 04/20/2007 8:48:19 AM PDT by SheLion (When you're right, take up the fight!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Why not ban noise and strobe lights because of epileptics?


12 posted on 04/20/2007 8:50:57 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanks for the ping!


13 posted on 04/20/2007 9:03:48 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Too bad this is in the U.K. only. The similar U.S. ads are pathetic, but I'm sure will never be called to task.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic.
The ads here in California are just as hyperbolic and fraudulent.
I wonder if there is any way, legally, to force the U.N World Health Organization to release the most massive, longest and most thorough study of second hand smoke, the basis for the laws sprouting like weeds worldwide.

Discussion of that study, as opposed to the fraudulent compilations of the carefully-selected data from hundreds of other studies used as the basis for legislation.

A careful review of all the data in any competent court will prove that the "studies" being used are simply a compilation of a very few incompetent reports repeated endlessly.

14 posted on 04/20/2007 9:07:41 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Thank you for your unsupported opinion.

A modest suggestion: Would you not learn something from the UN WHO report which was suppressed? It was compiled by experts in the medical field, immunologists, researchers and other scientific experts in their field.

Why should anecdotal evidence and neuroses drive laws?

Just a suggestion.

15 posted on 04/20/2007 9:13:17 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
There was a house fire here in Louisiana, which killed, IIRC, 4 people. The fire department concluded that the fire had been caused by cigarette.

For statistical purposes, the antismokers included the 4 deaths as smoking related.

16 posted on 04/20/2007 9:16:45 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
In the building where I work there is major construction interior underway (renovation) with dust and fumes everywhere throughout the building and in the ventilation system. Meanwhile the idiot owner dosen't even want smokers anywhere near the building.

This is the kind of wackiness we are dealing with today.

It probably is safer to leave the buiilding to go out and have a smoke than to sit in your cubicle and inhale the construction fumes!
17 posted on 04/20/2007 9:52:57 AM PDT by cgbg (We eight-eight flops of horse manure. We have tenure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
Dear Overeaters,

You're next in line.

Sincerely,

Smokers
18 posted on 04/20/2007 10:03:20 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy

Oh, every darn time I see one of those “The Truth” or “InfectTruth” ads, I just want to scream — and I am not even a smoker. They’re just annoying beyond belief.


19 posted on 04/20/2007 10:09:15 AM PDT by Malacoda (A day without a pi$$ed-off muslim is like a day without sunshine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Why not ban noise and strobe lights because of epileptics?

I don't support government-enforced bans in general, and noise and strobe lights do not, to the best of my medical knowledge, precipitate epileptic seizures.

You must have misinterpreted what I posted: As a general principle, I'm advocating placing responsibility on the individual (or his parents, if a child) to avoid second hand smoke if he wishes to do so, not advocating the use of the power of the nanny state to protect him. I'm also advocating for the right of a private property owner to install any kind of smoking or no smoking policy he wishes in the premises that he owns.

20 posted on 04/20/2007 11:02:20 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson