Activists Promise Fight After Ohio High Court Says Local Agencies Can't Ban All Smoking

AP via TBO ^ | 8/28/02 | Andrew Welsh-Huggins

[Jean S]

Related thread:
Ohio court: Local health boards can't ban smoking

[SheLion]

I'll be back to read this!

[Max McGarrity]

Go, ARNIE! Run the unelected health fascists out of town naked!

[Riverman94610]

Once again the State butts into-excuse the pun-personal behavior.
YET,with all that said,smoking is a filthy little habit that costs 400,000 lives a year and anyone with the slightest modicum of common sense should abstain.And with our health care system on the brink of disaster it would behoove us to not add to the burden by engaging in unhealthy lifestyles.
Many on this board castigate gays for their reckless behavior and rightfully so yet want to defend the tobacco industry.Is there something I am just not GETTING in those messages?

[SheLion]

"As the evidence continues to emerge that secondhand tobacco smoke kills nonsmokers, people are worried about their health," he said. "They're worried about dying from everything from cancer to heart attacks."

Banzhaf refuses to acknowledge that the second hand smoke theory by the EPA in 1993 was thrown OUT of a Federal Court after the Court studied it for 5 years.

In 1998 the link made by the EPA Report in 1993 between secondary smoke and cancer was thrown out in a federal court because the statistics were bent to support a predetermined conclusion and normal scientific guidelines were ignored.

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

I'd like to see what any anti AND Banzhaf would say in response to that question.

Environmental Tobacco Smoke Study

[genefromjersey]

I think we need to pass a law banning the production of body odors-including those of gastric origin-and the transmission of disease germs from one human to another ( or -for the PETA folks - from humans to animals ).

It would greatly benefit America's children, and make a world a more pleasant place to live in.

[SheLion]

yet want to defend the tobacco industry.Is there something I am just not GETTING in those messages?

We are NOT defending the Tobacco Industry. They sold us out! We are defending Freedom of Choice that has always prevailed in America, and we are defending the business owners RIGHT to do with his own business what he wants to do, without Big Government Intervention and the Special Interest Groups that are paid big money to control everyone.

[borisbob69]

Many on this board castigate gays for their reckless behavior and rightfully so yet want to defend the tobacco industry.

We defend our right to engage in something that is legal. Thanks to the do-gooders and busybodies that seem to abound in our everincreasing PC society...we are taxed beyond belief to fund our increased medical costs and to pay for anti-smoking advertising aimed at young people.

When gays are singled out for unjust taxation...then maybe the argument about their impact on health care costs will get a sympathetic ear from those of us currently paying for whatever the state decides (it) needs the tobacco tax surplus to fund!

[Riverman94610]

Yes,but what gays do is perfectly legal here in Calif but their behavior costs the taxpayers billions of dollars of every year!
I am FOR freedom of choice but I want the public to have the intelligence to make the sort of choices that are in their best interests.
Lung cancer and emphasima are in no one's best interests.

[Riverman94610]

Yes,but what gays do is perfectly legal here in Calif but their behavior costs the taxpayers billions of dollars of every year!
I am FOR freedom of choice but I want the public to have the intelligence to make the sort of choices that are in their best interests.
Lung cancer and emphasima are in no one's best interests.

[SheLion]

I am FOR freedom of choice but I want the public to have the intelligence to make the sort of choices that are in their best interests. Lung cancer and emphasima are in no one's best interests.

We do live our lives in our best interest. It's not up to anyone else how to tell others how to live their lives.

Tobacco is has been a legal product for hundreds of years. If it's so bad for us, why didn't they ban it years ago?

Alcohol isn't good for you either, but I don't see anyone taxing it to high heaven, and trying to blow it out of restaurants and bars. Wonder why that is.

[Jaidyn]

Next, these people will be trying to dictate what foods we will be permitted to serve in bars and restaurants. We sure don't want these do-gooders get any hidden fat in their food.

[SheLion]

Ohio high court: Health boards can't ban smoking in bars, restaurants

Very good news, indeed!!!

[SheLion]

Next, these people will be trying to dictate what foods we will be permitted to serve in bars and restaurants. We sure don't want these do-gooders get any hidden fat in their food.

Well, you KNOW how bad liquor can be for a person. Liver damage, etc. Yet, they aren't screaming to blow liquor out of bars and restaurants. And if a smoker leaves a restaurant and drives, he is no threat to anyone. We all know what drinking and driving can do.

[Riverman94610]

Yes,tobacco is a legal product but as intelligent consumers we should make the choices that enhance our health,not debilitate us.
I agree that the State noses in to these affairs way more than it should and that they have ulterior motives like expanding their powers of control when they do these supposedly"for the common good"campaigns.
Yet the bottom line is that no one has yet to show me the health benefits of smoking.Thats all I am saying.

[Publius6961]

"As the evidence continues to emerge that secondhand tobacco smoke kills nonsmokers, people are worried about their health," he said.

I wonder who this "he" is.

And what evidence can he possibly be talking about?

And how can he make this claim when the Federal Courts have found this statement to be fraudulent, and the UN WHO Organization similarly found no foundation for even "harm" let alone death from second-hand smoke?

[SheLion]

Yet the bottom line is that no one has yet to show me the health benefits of smoking.Thats all I am saying.

Riverman, what can you think of today that doesn't have some kind of health warning by the Government?

I don't think you can think of much. And the government has already started on obese people. Fast Foods, SUV's the list goes on. California lawmakers are even BANNING soft drinks from schools.

Tobacco isn't good for us, but what is?

55 million Americans choose to smoke. It isn't mustard gas. :) And it's not the big killer for non-smokers that our phony health coalitions are pumping into the public.

[Publius6961]

Is there something I am just not GETTING in those messages?

Yes.

Aside from your knee-jerk control of emotionally laden adjectives, abysmal ignorance about the facts, and parrot-like repetition of numbers established in Federal Courts to be fraudulent.

Not much...

[Publius6961]

I hate to sound like I'm drifting into tinfoil territory here but this butthead Riverrock sounds awfully familiar.

Didn't we just go through all this just a few days ago?

Talk about trying to fertilize a rock...

[dsutah]

Oh don't go giving them ideas! They'll hear you, and come after you, and tax your brew!! (LOL)Seriously, I do believe I've read somewhere that in some places, they're considering that.