Skip to comments.
Second Hand Smoke Scam
Fox News ^
| October 17, 2003
| Steven Milloy
Posted on 10/17/2003 9:51:26 AM PDT by CSM
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: falsification; mediafraud; medialies; newyorktimes; nyt; nytschadenfreude; pufflist; schadenfreude; secondhandsmoke; smoking; thenewyorktimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 341 next last
To: RedBloodedAmerican
When I got life insurance, they asked me if I or anyone in my house smoked. Why?
Follow the money. Blackbird.
To: RedBloodedAmerican
Bandwagon.
To: aruanan
The larger picture is not whether second hand smoke is dangerous or not.
Because even if it were not dangerous (and I am not ready to concede that point)--even were it not dangerous, the opponents of smoking would still seek laws against smokers on the basis of the offensive odor of cigarette smoke, if nothing else.
The real problem here is this: The denser the population, the more a person's habits and activities will irritate others, and the more those others will turn to big government as a means to control you.
To: Mears
Actually, insurance companies pay all claims based on future revenues while investment income runs the business; if the day were to come when the claims exceeded the assets, they would simply default and go into bankruptcy.
To: Age of Reason
Oh,Lord,you are really opening up a can of worms now.
Why don't you come right out and say it."It's the smell,stupid,not the danger".
65
posted on
10/17/2003 11:09:08 AM PDT
by
Mears
To: aruanan
The use of bad reasoning is just as dangerous. So tell me: In what way is my question evidence of bad reasoning?
I'll repeat my question:
If sex were as dangerous to one's health as smoking, would you then advise we not have sex?
To: RedBloodedAmerican
I knew that and so did you when you posted your assertion.
67
posted on
10/17/2003 11:14:12 AM PDT
by
metesky
(Belligerence is a state of mind - mine.)
To: Old Professer
Thanks for you explanation,OP,sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut.
68
posted on
10/17/2003 11:14:43 AM PDT
by
Mears
To: Age of Reason
Yes; but would you listen?
To: RedBloodedAmerican
Please don't take this the wrong way, but how was it proven that your family member died from SHS? I am a physician interested in this, and I have not heard of a cause of death as "second hand smoke".
70
posted on
10/17/2003 11:15:57 AM PDT
by
boop
To: Old Professer
To you I'll listen!
71
posted on
10/17/2003 11:15:59 AM PDT
by
Mears
To: r9etb
There are no doubt data available -- for example, correlations of the absences or medical costs -- that would show whether or not there was a significant difference between when smoking was, and was not, allowed in the workplace. Actually, that data is what is conspicuously missing.
To: Mears
Why don't you come right out and say it."It's the smell,stupid,not the danger". It's people getting in each other's way, not the smell and not the danger.
In the same way you can play loud music at 3 am in the middle of nowhere--but not around other people who want to get some sleep.
The more people around, the more conflicts will arise.
A compromise needs be assessed between the extra benefits of greater population density vs. the detriments of greater population density.
On the one extreme, you are all by yourself on a desert island and totally free of the will of others.
At the other extreme, living in a crowded lifeboat with next to no individual freedom.
Somewhere in the middle is the happy medium.
To: Age of Reason
As an urban dweller all of my life I get your point,but the topic here is the DANGER of ETS,not the annoyance factor.
74
posted on
10/17/2003 11:20:35 AM PDT
by
Mears
To: Age of Reason
And now the nanny-class has a new cause - suburbsn sprawl; to alleviate it they are conducting massive surveys with the anticipated result being a change in local zoning laws that will force people back into high-density housing to protect the new commons they hope to create from the then worthless (unbuildable) land.
Light up! While you can.
To: Old Professer
Yes; but would you listen? Apparently many people don't listen to the warnings about smoking.
Those same people might not listen to those same warnings about sex, were sex as dangerous.
But as an ex-smoker of more than a decade, I confess that some of the most blissful moments of my life were spent smoking.
And I often wonder if it is not better to die young from having too much fun.
And I confess, I might even prefer smoking to sex--and I am serious.
When one lives an unnatural life, as we do in civilization, then one might expect to depend upon unnatural activities, such as smoking, as a means of solace.
To: Old Professer; All
Suburban; sorry for the sloppy editing.
To: Old Professer
You smoke, don't you?
78
posted on
10/17/2003 11:26:20 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Age of Reason
I firmly believe that more people die prematurely from boredom than do from any minor vice.
Second to boredom is loneliness; but that, of course, only for those who were first bored.
To: Age of Reason
Does that mean they'll stop taxing them soo much?
80
posted on
10/17/2003 11:29:35 AM PDT
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 341 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson