Don’t Let the Smoking Police In (And Don't Lick Barbie)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081507/content/01125111.guest.html.guest.html ^ | August 15, 2007 | Rush Limbaugh

[mbraynard]

What was your position in this discussion? I am taking it you were winning hence the people started getting all ad hominem.

[Madame Dufarge]

Lighten up, Ed.

[takenoprisoner]

RUSH: The New York City council is preparing a new ban on smoking by parents in cars. “A City Council member of Queens and chairman of the council’s environmental protection committee, James Gennaro, said he is planning to introduce a bill later this month that would ban smoking from cars carrying minors.

---

It’ a behavioral modification bill which will make it legal for some low life creeps to stick their filthy little greasy fingers into the violator’s wallet to take what they want.

No, I don’t believe parents should smoke in cars with windows up. Who does that anyway? I don’t smoke alone in my car with my windows up.

All nanny bills encroaching upon freedom should be voted on by the public at large.

What’s the population of NYC and it’s burroughs? 16 million or so? And 50 people get to decide their fate? Seems a bit lopsided to me.

[Raycpa]

The right to abuse your child vs. the right to feed your addiction.

A conundrum.

[Eric Blair 2084]

You didn't read my reply. All of them show a relation -he didn't read them anyway. And none appear to have been done on children. I cited studies that showed a relationship. Also, go read my first post at 43 and see that even the tobacco companies admit it. Speaking of abuse, what are you doing to your cat?

First of all, what me and my consenting adult cat do in the privacy of our own home is none of your damn bidness! :-)

Secondly, Philip Morris and their attorneys have so many side motives that it is impossible to explain it to you in less than 9 hours. Let's put it this way:

Third, if you don't read all of this, at least wait 45 minutes before replying to me and make it look like you did.

Get on the bus Junior, you are going to school.

1993 ASSIST Study (American Stop Smoking Intervention Study) : Let's start from the beginning. If you need proof that high tobacco excise taxes, smoking bans, and systematic state sponsored discrimination are designed to COERCE smokers into quitting and nothing else, just read the anti-tobacco playbook.

"Over a decade of research by the National Cancer Institute has shown that the most effective way to reduce smoking rates is to decrease public tolerance of tobacco use through changes in policy, accompanied by media and educational programs."

"Changing the public acceptance of tobacco use will require policy change, a critical ingredient of societal change."

"The recent release of the EPA report on ETS provides the necessary justification to potential opposition, i.e. restaurant owners, small business owners, and smokers for requiring workplaces to eliminate the health hazard of ETS in the workplace."

Let's take a closer look at the bogus EPA report. Frankly, every American should be outraged and scared that our Government (who work for us) would let one of their agencies issue deliberate lies....

The United States Federal Court Decision by Judge Osteen: Read the whole thing for yourself here.

If you'd rather watch a Discovery Channel special on the African Dung Beetle before reading a legal opinion, than the Readers' Digest Cliff Note version will do.

Excerpts from Judge Osteen’s July 18, 1998, 90 page-plus Memorandum Opinion appear below:

a.) On page 73 Judge Osteen specifically referenced EPA’s use of a 90 percent confidence level in place of the customary 95 percent:

“The first contention is EPA switched, without explanation, from using standard 95% confidence intervals to 90% confidence intervals to enhance the likelihood that its meta-analysis would appear statistically significant. This shift assisted EPA in obtaining statistically significant results. Studies that are not statistically significant are "null studies"; they cannot support a Group A classification. See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 312 (5th Cir. 1989) ("If the confidence interval is so great that it includes the number 1.0, then the study will be said to show no statistically significant 'association between the factor and the disease."). EPA used a 95% confidence interval in the 1990 Draft ETS Risk Assessment, but later switched to a 90% confidence interval. Most prominently, this drew criticism from IAQC's epidemiologist, who was also a contributor to the ETS Risk Assessment: The use of 90% confidence intervals, instead of the conventionally used 95% confidence intervals, is to be discouraged. It looks like a[n] attempt to achieve statistical significance for a result which otherwise would not achieve significance.” (Underline added.)

b.) On page 72 Judge Osteen’s conclusions included a statement that EPA cherry-picked data:

“EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines. See ETS Risk Assessment at 4-29 ("These data should also be examined in the interest of weighing all the available evidence, as recommended by EPA's carcinogen risk assessment guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1986a) (emphasis added)). Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act. The Act states EPA's program shall "gather data and information on all aspects of indoor air quality.”

c.) On page 60 Judge Osteen concluded that it was possible EPA adopted different methodologies for each chapter based on the outcome desired:

“The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter. This possibility is most potent where EPA rejected MS-ETS similarities to avoid a "cigarette-equivalents" analysis in determining carcinogenicity of ETS exposure. Use of cigarette-equivalents analysis may have lead to a conclusion that ETS is not a Group A carcinogen." It is striking that MS and ETS were similar only where such a conclusion promoted finding ETS a carcinogen.” (Underline added.)

Color coded summary of results of every study ever conducted on Second Hand Smoke, proving there is no risk : Golly gee willikers, how could these studies and the biggest one ever done (see next link) NOT make it into the Surgeon General report? See "Idiots Guide to Socialism Above"

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 by James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat: This was the longest and most thorough study ever done on ETS. It was originally funded by the precursor to the American Cancer Society in the 60's. When they realized a few years ago that the results were not what they wanted to hear, they abruptly cut off funding for the study. Enstrom and Kabat had to go to the tobacco companies to finish their research. A fact that the Smoke Nazi's are quick to pounce on in order to discredit their research. Of course, the fact that much of the "research" that claims ETS is harmful is funded by pharmaceutical companies is irrelevant.

The Report WHO didn't want you to see: Apparently this study that was commissioned by the World Health Organization proving there is no link between ETS and cancer, accidentally fell behind a secretary's desk or ended up in the wastepaper basket next to the overturned coffee grinds.

Mayor Bloomberg Exaggerates Secondhand Smoke Risk Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.; Amercian Council on Science and Health

"Who exactly are these 1,000 New Yorkers whose deaths Mayor Bloomberg claims will be prevented by his legislation? If, as we suspect, he is referring to deaths caused by exposure to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars, the estimate of 1,000 deaths prevented is patently absurd. Our best estimate of the number of deaths prevented is somewhere between zero and a hypothetical ten to fifteen. There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant."

The Surgeon General's Report Blows Smoke Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.; Amercian Council on Science and Health

The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke:It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.

[Sue Perkick]

Seatbelts go both ways. They can save lives & sometimes they are the problem. While I belted mine in, I wasn’t especially giddy when it became a government mandate.

And CPS is a joke. In many places it’s a very broken system. If they’re going to “baby snatch” it better be for a good reason. They generally can’t find their own behind with both hands & a map. These situations should be handled case by case and not with the broad brush (or iron fist) you want to use. Otherwise we’re going to wind up like other countries interfering in their citizens lives by removing children who are overweight. If that’s the way you want to live try another country. There are plenty of them. I firmly believe the government has NO business interloping into the private lives of its citizens.

This whole “for the children” blathering is nothing more than a mantra used by liberals to shut down any argument that isn’t in line with their own agenda.

Get out of our living rooms. Get out of our cars. Get out of our lives. It’s our obligation to raise our children. It’s yours to raise your own. People with your mindset need to mind your own business. You would be surprised how busy that will keep you.

[takenoprisoner]

“Preventing children from being poisoned by their stupid parents is the reason government exists.”

I don’t think so. If govt existed to protect children, it would not allow them to be murdered now would it?

[Radix]

"What was your position in this discussion?

I know what my position is.

I think that my post concerning the fact that smoking should be OK anywhere no matter how stupid an endeavor it actually is, is was what got me into some odd reflection of what a serious dialogue should be.

[Radix]

"Your intellect could use a tune-up though."

I suppose that one will not be available out here yakking with the likes of such as yourself.

[Eric Blair 2084]

The right to abuse your child vs. the right to feed your addiction. A conundrum.

I don't smoke in the house or in the car with my children. Ask me why Ray. I dare you.

[familyop]

"Is that really practical in places with lots of heat or cold?"

I'm at high, dry altitude and don't know for sure. It's always nice up here. :-)

[Raycpa]

Let me guess.

You don’t want them to have the same enjoyment you have from smoke until they get older?

[Just another Joe]

A - they aren't about children. B - they show exposure IS dangerous. You didn't read them. Game over.

A - They're studies on how ETS effects a human body
B - They show no statistical relation to cause.
I'v read more of them than you've counted so far.

If the game is over it's because you've surrendered.

It's apparent that you know nothing about how to read studies, nothing on how to rate causal or casual relationships from an epedemiological viewpoint, and can only rely on someone else to tell you what the results mean.

Go exercise your brain and learn something about what you want to talk about.

[takenoprisoner]

“The right to abuse your child vs. the right to feed your addiction.

A conundrum.”

The child is addicted to sugar and the dad to nicotine.
While both are addictive, either may, or may not, lead to health problems. Genetic factors must be known.

another conundrum

[Drango]

So where do you want to draw the line on when the state can interfere or can't

Isn't it fun on FR. Newt Gingrich lead a cultural revolution by pointing out that as conservatives we should care about kids graduating who can't read their diplomas and children having babies. But if you mention smoking and kids, the addicts mock you.

[Raycpa]

Your child’s health reduced to a coin flip like gamble? The odds for most kids is to not have any lasting effect but sometimes it does.

Do you feel lucky?

[mysterio]

Would you be opposed to the government "going after your favorite demon" by passing a law that made it illegal to expose children to Marijuana smoke?

Expose them how? You mean smoking it in a house where children are present? No, I probably wouldn't support the passage of a law that barred consumption of marijuana from houses where children lived.

But since you have decided to use "for the children" examples to pad your argument with emotion, I'd like to ask you a question : what is the number one cause of death for children?

[mysterio]

Yes, conservatives have always stood for the right for abortion on demand. Right.

Smoking in a car with kids is the same as abortion? You have gone off the deep end. I'm not surprised. Anti-tobacco zealotry does not lend itself to well structured logical arguments.

Sounds similar to something I've heard before... 'segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation fo-evah!'

When you can participate in a logic based debate, ping me again.

[Raycpa]

Abortion followed by car accidents caused by adults trying to light their smokes?

[Doe Eyes]

But since you have decided to use "for the children" examples to pad your argument with emotion

Isn't this thread about smoking in car with children present?