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

[Madame Dufarge]

"You people?"

How about this? "You people" who presume to address adults as if they were children yearning for your guidance try to live your own lives.

"We people" will try to conceal our revulsion at your meddling personalities and your undeserved sense of superiority.

Can't we all just get along?

[mbraynard]

Do you also oppose awarding custody or permitting adoption/foster home placement of children with homosexual couples?

Wholly different subject. I don't mind answering but that seems like thread jacking.

Where the state has an interest in determining the placement of children, married, heterosexual couples have precidence over single people and homosexual couples. That is because children need the polarity of a mother and a father and the stability that comes with marriage.

But I'm not sure why you ask - were you trying to trap me or something?

[mbraynard]

Where did you hear that 'studies' are against any 'lastig physical harm?' Asthma is not 'lasting' harm depending on how you define it.

Here is what Phillip Morris has to say about 2nd hand smoking:

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.

Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others.

Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.

Further, studies?

• The much maligned WTO report
• US Surgeon General's Report - George W's SG, btw
• CA EPA's study
• The IARC's study showing it's a carcinogen

Ok - now personal - when around smokers in the evening at an event, I am SICK for the next two days. And I'm an adult.

[mbraynard]

Do you feel the same way about the assault on child pornographers, parents who use heroin, and drunk drivers?

[mbraynard]

So preventing children from being subjected to toxic substances is putting them in chains?

Do you see that, even for a libertarian, the purpose of government is to prevent people from doing stupid and evil things that harm others? Just because their your children doesn't get you an ok to abuse them.

[mbraynard]

you know nothing about the Constitution and the legal tradition of the country

It sounds like you're a moron. Because this is about a state and city law. And since there is nothing in the ten amendments that would prevent a city or state from preventing child abuse, I suppose you're out on your keester.

I don't know the particulars in your case, but isn't it better for the child who old enough to talk to tell his or her parent that the smoke is bothering him or her, rather than to have a stranger from a government bureaucracy intervene.

Oh? That solution works so well all the other cases of child abuse that result in CPS taking children away. WHY DIDN'T I REALIZE the solution is just to have the three year old simply ASK his parents to stop lighting up in the car. Or to not beat him so much. Or to not keep him in the closet. Or to not starve him. Etc.

If a child needs to ASK their parent not to do this, the evidence is already enough that the parent is a GD moron, too, and I'm sure that you and said parents can discuss your dillusions about what is and isn't in the constitution.

[mbraynard]

And it's even worse than that when the state takes the kids and/or locks the parents up for child abuse.

Probably. However, there is a practical limit on what the state can do. It is pretty easy, however, to let cops start writing tickets for parents smoking in cars with children. Hopefully enough of a deterrent to stop parents from lighting up. No need to take kids away in this case.

[mbraynard]

I agree with your choice totally. I opposed the DC ban on smoking in public establishment - though I personally benefit from it tremendously and can go out in the evenings to clubs now.

[MEGoody]

if you're going to fund everything with tobacco, you're going to have to make sure the product can be used after it's purchased.

I presume Rush knows that 'our representatives' would just impose taxes on some new thing in order to fund their addiction to our money.

[NCLaw441]

You posted: I almost agree with you, but here is the problem: where does it end?
***
I am not sure where I come down on a law regarding smoking parents in closed vehicles with their children, but government is called upon to draw lines all the time. It is just a question of where to draw those lines. I don’t think anyone objects to a law prohibiting subjecting children to pornography in the home, or beating children with electric cords in the home. And almost everyone, on this thread at least, would say that government should not prohibit religious education of children in the home. The question is, where does smoking in the home or in a closed vehicle fall along the spectrum?

[mbraynard]

so what are you going to say if the government decides that Christian values are hateful "mind poison" and children should be protected from parents who stupidly adhere to them?

You are making the argument that a government that has the power to do a resonable action X may also do Y, where Y is similar to X but is an unreasonable action.

This isn't about what a city or state government has the power to do and this is hardly the time or place to pitch your battle. Hell - they OWN 1/3+ of your working life through taxes. And you're going to get your panties in a wad over the government preventing people from poisoning their kids with carcinagins?

BTW - the government also takes children away from heroin addicted parents. DID YOU KNOW this means they can also take children away from parents who pray?

[mbraynard]

I agree with you up to a point, and that point is WHO is defining what is poisonous...some people would say having a Bible openly displayed in your home where children could see it is abuse. Be careful what you wish for.

Right. And some people would say that having heroin addicted parents should have their children taken away. It cuts both ways. As a democracy you have to fight, personally, for what's right. And wasting time and energy on what is so clearly a losing and wrong battle (smoking in cars with minors) endangers your ability to combat the scenario you describe.

[mbraynard]

See post 43 for proof. This is not the battle you want to fight. These are not the droids you are looking for.

[mbraynard]

I almost agree with you, but here is the problem: where does it end?

In practice - or where SHOULD it end?

Parents who let their minors play in the streets late at night. Parents who are drug addicts. Parents who physically abuse their children (and how much is too much - just a spank? Or bleeding? Or contusions? Or 'abortions'?)

Look - there isn't a super-clear line here. Even Ayn Rand admitted that when it comes to minors. In practice, it comes from democratic consensus (I know we don't like that term, but that's where it comes from in practice). But the reality is that lines HAVE to be drawn somewhere. I make a good case in post 43 that they should be drawn here.

[mbraynard]

Having a child in a car is dangerous too. How many kids are killed in car crashes every year? Should we ban that too?

Would you argue that we should UNBAN drunk driving? Because it's not always dangerous and as long as no one gets hurt, it's a victimless crime, right?

[mbraynard]

All the way down? I’m mildly inclined to agree though I’d like to see it studied. I still think you get a lot of carcingen because the real problem isn’t what comes out of the cigarette but what is exhalled from the user.

[TigersEye]

That has crossed my mind. It’s a Catch-22 though. If I quit they lose the revenue, as you say, but they win in driving me out of enjoying a relatively harmless habit. Quitting would be a submission to the tyranny of the know-better-than-you-what’s-best-for-you socialist types. The tax-’em-every-which-way-but-loose types won’t skip a beat when tobacco revenues begin to fall either.

[mbraynard]

What about drinking adult beverages in a car with a child? That’s already outlawed by the fascist nanny state. Ready to fight that one?

[Just another Joe]

Asthma is not caused by smoking. Asthma can be exacerbated by smoking or by being around smoke, of ANY type not just tobacco smoke.

Here's a list of studies and their associated risk findings.

Keep in mind that most epidemiological studies discount a risk percent if it is lower than 2.00.
I count 94 studies that have statistics associated and 14 that have a risk of 2.00 or more.

TABLE I

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NONSMOKERS MARRIED TO SMOKERS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Number of lung cancers	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 1	1981	USA	F	153	1.18	(0.90 - 1.54)
Chan	1982	Hong Kong	F	84	0.75	(0.43 - 1.30)
Correa	1983	USA	F M	22 8	2.07 1.97	(0.81 - 5.25) (0.38-10.32)
Trichopoulos	1983	Greece	F	77	2.08	(1.20-3.59)
Buffler	1984	USA	F M	41 11	0.80 0.51	(0.34-1.90) (0.14-1.79)
Hiramaya	1984	Japan	F M	200 64	1.45 2.24	(1.02-2.08) (1.19-4.22)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	24 12	0.79 1.00	(0.25-2.45) (0.20-5.07)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	134	1.23	(0.81-1.87)
Lam W	1985	Hong Kong	F	60	2.01	(1.09-3.72)
Wu	1985	USA	F	29	1.20	(0.50-3.30)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F M	94 19	1.50 1.80	(0.90-2.80) (0.40-7.00)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	32 15	1.00 1.30	(0.37-2.71) (0.38-4.39)
Brownson 1	1987	USA	F	19	1.68	(0.39-6.90)
Gao	1987	China	F	246	1.19	(0.82-1.73)
Humble	1987	USA	F M	20 8	2.20 4.82	(0.80-6.60) (0.63-36.56)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	86	1.64	(0.87-3.09)
Lam T	1987	Hong Kong	F	199	1.65	(1.16-2.35)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	70	1.20	(0.70-2.10)
Butler	1988	USA	F	8	2.02	(0.48-8.56)
Geng	1988	China	F	54	2.16	(1.08-4.29)
Inoue	1988	Japan	F	22	2.25	(0.80-8.80)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	90	1.08	(0.64-1.82)
Choi	1989	Korea	F M	75 13	1.63 2.73	(0.92-2.87) (0.49-15.21)
Hole	1989	Scotland	F M	6 3	1.89 3.52	(0.22-16.12) (0.32-38.65)
Svensson	1989	Sweden	F	34	1.26	(0.57-2.81)
Janeric	1990	USA	F M	144 44	0.75 0.75	(0.47-1.20) (0.31-1.78)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	90	2.11	(1.09-4.08)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	144	1.13	(0.78-1.63)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	417	0.70	(0.60-0.90)
Liu Z	1991	China	F	54	0.77	(0.30-1.96)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	431	1.00	(0.80-1.20)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	62	1.60	(0.80-3.00)
Liu Q	1993	China	F	38	1.66	(0.73-3.78)
Du	1993	China	F	75	1.09	(0.64-1.85)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	651	1.29	(1.04-1.60)
Layard	1994	USA	F M	39 21	0.58 1.47	(0.30-1.13) (0.55-3.94)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	162	1.66	(1.12-2.46)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	67 39	1.08 1.60	(0.60-1.94) (0.67-3.82)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F M	185 72	1.10 1.10	(0.72-1.68) (0.60-2.03)
Sun	1996	China	F	230	1.16	(0.80-1.69)
Wang S-Y	1996	China	F	82	2.53	(1.26-5.10)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	135	1.11	(0.67-1.84)
Cardenas	1997	USA	F M	150 97	1.20 1.10	(0.80-1.60) (0.60-1.80)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F M	53 18	1.58 1.58	(0.74-3.38) (0.52-4.81)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F M	242 62	0.93 0.93	(0.66-1.31) (0.52-1.67)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	105	1.30	(0.70-2.50)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F M	89 35	1.20 1.20	(0.74-1.94) (0.57-2.55)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed. In the Swartz (1996), Jöckel-BIPS (1997) and Nyberg (1997) studies, relative risk and confidence interval data were reported for the sexes combined. These data were separated based on the respective number of cases by sex, assuming the same relative risk for each sex.

TABLE II

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NONSMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN THE WORKPLACE

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	0.68 3.27	(0.32-1.47) (1.01-10.62)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.93	(0.55-1.55)
Wu	1985	USA	F	1.30	(0.50-3.30)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.63 1.61	(0.17-2.33) (0.39-6.60)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	1.19	(0.48-2.95)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	1.18	(0.70-2.01)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.91	(0.80-1.04)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	1.70	(0.69-4.18)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	1.10	(0.90-1.60)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.79	(0.61-1.03)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.39	(1.11-1.74)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	1.23	(0.74-2.06)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.15 1.02	(0.62-2.13) (0.50-2.09)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F & M	1.50	(1.00-2.20)
Sun	1996	China	F	1.38	(0.94-2.04)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.89	(0.46-1.73)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	2.37	(1.02-5.48)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	1.51	(0.95-2.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	1.10	(0.40-3.00)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F & M	1.60	(0.90-2.90)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE III

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN CHILDHOOD

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Correa	1983	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.91	(0.74-1.12)
Wu	1985	USA	F	0.60	(0.20-1.12)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F & M	no statistically	significant association
Gao	1987	China	F	1.10	(0.70-1.70)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	0.55	(0.17-1.77)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	1.00	(0.40-2.30)
Svenson	1989	Sweden	F	3.30	(0.50-18.80)
Janarich	1990	USA	F & M	1.30	(0.85-2.00)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	1.28	(0.71-2.31)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	0.85	(0.65-1.12)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.80	(0.60-1.10)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	1.70	(1.00-2.90)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	0.89	(0.72-1.10)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	0.98	(0.66-1.45)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F	1.63	(0.91-2.92)
Sun	1996	China	F	2.29	(1.56-3.37)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.91	(0.56-1.48)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	1.05	(0.50-2.22)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	0.95	(0.64-1.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	0.80	(0.40-1.60)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE IV

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN NON-HOME/NON-WORKPLACE SETTINGS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	1.42	(0.75-2.70)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.61 1.55	(0.29-1.28) (0.40-6.02)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.59	(0.43-0.81)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.50	(1.19-1.89)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.22 1.39	(0.69-2.15) (0.67-2.86)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

[TigersEye]

ROTFLOL You make it sound like non-smokers will never get sick and die.