Posted on 09/12/2002 4:21:25 PM PDT by ladysusan
BOGUS! This judge is either not up on the truth and is just another anti that sits on a bench, looking down on people and exercising his CONTROL over people. For instance, does he know about the Federal Court throwing out the EPA's 1993 study on Second Hand Smoke?
Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke
And 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?"
Oak Ridge Labs & Second Hand Smoke
John Banzhaf III, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Action on Smoking and Health, said courts in at least 15 states have ruled that secondhand smoke can be a factor in a custody proceeding. He said many divorce proceedings now include agreements not to smoke around the children.
One of the well funded anti-smoker in the U.S. It wouldn't PAY for me to have kids today. I am thankful my girl is GROWN. Funny how SHE made it in a two smoker house, eh?
Protecting children from secondhand smoke "is not that far out a concept."
How about protecting the kids from SUNSHINE, a class A Carcinogen, just like smoking. How about protecting them from exhaust fumes from passing trucks. How about just putting the teens in a BUBBLE and protect them from EVERYTHING. Hey, Judge. Yes. Put them in a damn bubble! "It's for their own good you know!" NOT!
Very good question. But we are all totally fed up, as well. What with the world in such a turmoil, all the anti's have is a one track mind to control the smokers, ban the smoking and raise our taxes through the roof. It's really sickening. But with all of their big funding, it's no wonder they want to continue on in their quest to ban smoking EVERYWHERE in the world.
This schizophrenia drives me crazy. Acquiesce to the demonization of smoking, and then fret about where else it will lead.
Once you've accepted that you're "not doing these kids any good by smoking" (implying that you're doing them harm) is a valid premise, you're cooked. The barn door's open.
But she added, "We certainly do a lot of other things that are unhealthy around our kids. No more potato chips in the house?
We have a winner! DUH!
it makes me want to reach for one....and I'm not a smoker.
outrageous....most "anti-freedom" thing I've heard today....
It is a far out concept. This is ludicrous.
Wonder if they'll get a court order to protect themselves against her?
Then, when they took the baby to get his second set of shots, the Doctor said, "You’re not smoking around this baby, are you?" Lee told him "NO! We are NOT smoking around our baby. We go out on the balcony to smoke and we do not even smoke with him in the CAR! The Doctor then proceeded to remind both of them that "Well, you know...when you hold your baby, the second hand smoke is on your clothing and you are passing it onto him!!!" You talk about ludicrous!!!
My daughter is 30 and Lee is 34. They are not kids! They are mature adults, and still, they are being ripped a new one just because they choose to smoke. And they are NOT smoking around their baby. But boy! They did NOT leave the Doctor's office in a good mood, let me tell you!
Don't you just love an activist judge? Maybe he should throw in a no fast-food rule, a violent video games injunction, and maybe even mandate bed time stories.
Of course, this will only get worse. In our law school class yesterday, one of the lovely liberal ladies actually said that if the judge in a particular case were female, it wouldn't matter that the elements of the claim were not met, she would have to find for the plaintiff. What amazed me was that the professor didn't even challenge the idea. (Apparently, "every idea is equally valid", as another student said.) We're in for a looooong fight in the judiciary, folks.
I can understand a doctor asking questions about lifestyle to help along with a diagnosis, but I have seen many people get the same results - if you smoke that is the problem, take these meds and never smoke again and life will be grand. Oh, and don't drink, only eat certain foods, don't be in traffic for more then 10 min because of the fumes from other cars, move to a place where the climate is drier, etc and so on.
We can choose to kill unborn children, but we cannot choose (or won't be able to someday) what we put in our own bodies. My mom smoked while I was growing up, wonder if I can sue her for my allergies and other problems. And when it becomes a crime to smoke then I can look back at all my relatives over the many years and proclaim they were all criminals. Ok, done ranting, need a smoke ;)
Some Doctors are ANTI'S, but most our not. Most of them are being "programmed” by the Head Honcho of each hospital to lean on the patients about smoking.
This all came about a few years ago when the American Medical Association joined forces with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Currently, there are 46 states in the pocket of the RWJF. The more control, bans and higher taxes imposed upon a smoker, the more GRANT (I call it BLOOD MONEY), the hospitals will receive for renovations, MRI machines, etc. So, the hospitals chopped off the heads of the smokers in order to receive funding.
Here in Maine, there is NO smoking anywhere on a hospital property. Not for the patients, not for the staff and not for stressed out visitors. Can’t even smoke in your private car while your parked on “their” property! (And they wonder why we are short on Doctors and nurses!)
Now, the Surgeon General brought out his report that Obesity has passed smoking for health care and health cost. So, what are the hospitals going to do? Ban the obese? Or “staple” their stomachs as they come through the door. But of course, it’s all about the war on the smokers. There ARE no grants for the obese. Pity.
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.