Smoking Ban Faces Little Protest (???) Boston

Yahoo News ^ | 16 October 2002

[MacDorcha]

http://www.cosmiverse.com/news/science/science05150205.html

[Great Dane]

#6....... Last I heard, smoking is on the increase again, the fanatic ANTI'S has admitted their attempt at brainwashing has failed.

[MacDorcha]

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/issue.htm


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

plz note on the second link, accidents are number five, and involve all forms (cars, ladders, air planes, drowings) and three of the top 5 are related to/ easier to come across when smoking.

[Great Dane]

Uh-oh... SheLion doesn't want your support for her legal rights unless you vigorously agree that smoking is a wonderful thing. Your personal dislike of it is a thoughtcrime, you see.

What nonsense, you sound a little cranky...... past bedtime maybe.

[MacDorcha]

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/1motorac.html


and for some balanced research for motor vehicles...

[Great Dane]

its less "lion-ess" more "she-dog"

Another rude newcomer.

[Great Dane]

Its always a hoot listening to you libbies rant and retch about "big government" yet don't realize that it is *I* (the non-smoker) who have to foot YOUR effin health bills 40 years down the line!!! Retch!!!

Not very observant are you, it has long ago been agreed by the best, that smokers pay for their own illnesses and then some.

[MacDorcha]

thats nice, im not here to make friends, just voice myself. what you see is what you get, and i don't cater to people who dont respect me. perhaps you'd like to read where she called me a "poor baby" and then make a judgement? or would being unbiased be too difficult for someone who just thinks what they first see is all there is to it?

[MacDorcha]

agreed by whom? names? any at all? i know i wasnt called to vote on that opinion. what good is it if a smoker says they'll pay their health bills if they are to sick to work? its up to the taxpayers (working people, which that smoker now isn't) to keep their ignorant corpse breathing until they die their painful little death. unproductive, and unable to correct their ways.

[MacDorcha]

"When you generalize about a group of people you do ALL people a disservice. "

the ugly truth about stereotypes is that they're often true, thats why they're stereotypes. i dont need to be PC in here, this isnt CNN.

[Just another Joe]

The first link didn't work.
Don't point me to "the truth.com" as they are biased to the nth degree.
If you want to find out about the WHO (World Health Organization) go find their study on ETS. (If you can. They wouldn't print it or make it available after they figures out it said there was no statistical risk from ETS)

[Just another Joe]

Cotinine? It's a scientific fact that many vegetables contain cotinine. Using their own reasoning eating your vegetables will cause the same "disability".

It is well known that second-hand smoke has a negative affect on the physical health of children, but can it actually have harmful effects on their cognitive abilities as well?

Well known how? The most comprehensive study available says otherwise.

They claim that second-hand smoke can adversely affect a child's learning ability in the areas of reasoning, math and especially reading.

They CLAIM? Point me to the study not the article. I can do my own analyzation.

The researchers relied on the data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics.

So they didn't use their own data. Another "Hmmmm". Not saying that it made a difference but most researchers use their own data.

[Just another Joe]

Oh, c'mon. The rats were fed a "low, medium, or high" dose of nicotine? In an HOUR?
What would have been comparable intake of cigarettes. Could that many cigarettes even be smoked in an hour?
I said it before, the dose is what makes the poison.
Plus, considering that ASH is involved, it makes it suspect.

[Just another Joe]

Don't point me to the CDC. The CDC is the one that MAKES UP statistics on smoking deaths.
That lets them out right there, IMO.

[Just another Joe]

i dont need to be PC in here, this isnt CNN.

You're right, you don't need to be PC here.
Speaking of respect, you get what you give.

[MacDorcha]

it was the low doses that cause half the brain damage, it actually went down proportionatly as they increased it.

i gave all due respect. i still respect(ed?) you. i see that you guys can knock down the info i present, and yet, and yet.... no info from your side. just claims. regardless of what you say, i gave my side when asked, and i asked your side, and have not recieved. im lead to conclude you have no stats to support your claims. and im sorry, but people who devote their time to presenting me with statistics (regardless of what hand they got it from, first, second, or third) its still more than what has been brought to the table by your side.

liberals say that fox news is biased when all it does is present both sides and find the right wingers correct. you guys claim thetruth.com is biased, and yet..... all it also does is present the side you dont (can't?)think of. you can not sit there in full honesty while being a rational being and insist that smoking poses no real threat to anyone at all. think about it.

people can die from smoke inhalation befor they burn to death in a fire. smoke at all = NOT GOOD TO BREATH. thats even just wood and carpet burning. the stuff in cigs? it has chemicals and asbestos. it contains drugs, not just some basic, common elements that happen to be bad for us, but actual poisons. it has rat poison in it for God's sake. (for "flavor") ever wonder why the rat would eat the poison flat out? cause it tastes good. thats the rasinish taste you get from cigs.

ever wonder why you couldnt feel good without one for a long period of time? ill give you a hint, it has to do with your heart and lungs "needing" it. the shemicals replace natureal chemicals in your system, and your body likes it, and thats the addiciton. an alien form being exploite in your body. without them, youd be like a roid head without steroids. weak, trembling. worthless. it makes you rely on them.

now heres one from left field.

as conservatives, we believe we should all be self sufficient enough to get by on our own if need be. no government should dish uot the money ours does to the people that are just lazy and dont wanna work. you know what a chemical dependance is? the same idea. you give up your selfworth, and rely instead on how well a pack of smokes can make you feel. you dont try to go through a day without "help". its asking for someone else to take your troubles away. ever notice how when you take a childs toy away, they get grumpy and they think noone loves them? have any of you smokers ever realized thats what you look like if someone tries to take your cigs away? you need to grow up, and get rid of your security blankets and face the world like you have a spine. if you cant at least try to make it yourself, then give up now, cause they cant always be there for you.

one more thing. people can force you out of their establishments for smoking, but noone EVER forced you to smoke. just remember, either way, its at least part your fault, even if the government decides to arrest all smokers, its your fault for smoking in the first place.

[MacDorcha]

ill take into consideration the chance that you actually did not look at the cdc site. now, if they make up statistics, then who the hell would we ver believe ever again? in that case, lets just blow up the government right now, cause if you cant trust a federaly appointed organization to provide facts when requested for facts, we all need to start putting on tin-foil hats and ask for the gnomes that control the cows who are the true rulers of the world to have mercy on us now. its paranoia if you act like that. you should be locked up in such a case. its a FEDERAL ORG. if you dont trust them to do whats right, what they hell are you doing here? go back into a George Orwell novel and stay there then. even if the feds may lie to us, whatever the reason, chances are, its for our own good. question authority only if it presents a plausable danger. these guys are providing plausable help. think before you blurt.

[Just another Joe]

OK. The thing is, you can't prove a negative.
Here's some facts, figures, and links for your perusal.

Of the purported 400,000 "premature" deaths from smoking each year - 70,000 are over the age of 85, over 200,000 are between the ages of 75 and 85, and another 115,000 are between 65 and 75.
The SAMMEC computer program which CDC uses to estimate the number of smoking-attributed deaths is dependent on input from the anti-smoking operators of the system and naturally the figures will be frightening. They're intended to be. That doesn't make them accurate--and until actual deaths of actual people by actual caregivers are counted, allowing for the confounding factors that are also to blame for those deaths, the cannot be more than "guesstimates." Most smokers do NOT die young, as many believe, and "premature death" is a guess at best. Far fewer "young" people die from smoking than from automobile accidents or underage drinking.

80% OF SMOKERS WANT TO QUIT AND CAN'T -- FALSE
The Gallup poll (of 292 smokers, when a minimum of 1000 subjects are normally required for the proper extrapolation of data) which reported this figure also states that 77% of smokers feel they can quit when they're ready. The second part of this myth is that smokers are addicts who cannot give up their drug of choice, that Big Tobacco has somehow caused one-quarter of the citizenry to lose its self-determination. This debate has nothing to do with Big Tobacco and nothing to do with the alleged "addiction" suffered by smokers--it has to do ONLY with one segment of the population who believe their opinion has absolute intellectual authority over others. Smokers in the year 2001 know the risks inherent in smoking and choose to smoke anyway. They CHOOSE. From the first wave of anti-smokerism until now, half the smokers in the population quit: Those are the ones who wanted to quit. The fifty-one million smokers who continue to smoke do not want to quit and if they do, they will.
I routinely go for two to four days twice a year without tobacco of any kind. Normally when floating or canoeing.

Stanton Glantz, notorious anti-smoker, performed a meta-analysis which was published in the journal Circulation in 1991, and republished in JAMA in 1995. (Of the 12 studies on fatal myocardial events used by Glantz in this review, 8 showed NO statistically significant risk for ets exposure in non-smokers; of the 11 studies covering non-fatal myocardial events, 10 failed to show a significant link.) Relying heavily on questionable research about a tiny increase in arterial deposits, Glantz came to the conclusion that if a non-smoker exposed to secondary smoke had 20% increase in arterial deposits, then 20% of the 1,000,000 heart disease deaths each year must be attributed to secondary smoke. Disregarding the concept of "threshold," he wrote a massive paper on it and his conclusions have been used since to claim more than 50,000 deaths due to secondary smoke each year.
Realizing the flimsy basis for such a claim, no agency of the U.S. government--including the EPA and the CDC--has officially endorsed Glantz's misrepresentation of the facts. However, even with this most blatant misuse of science, the American Heart Association still uses Glantz's biased figure of 50,000 deaths a year as does the anti-smoker cartel of NGOs, pharmaceutical companies, once-respected charities, and paid professional anti-smoking activists.

In 1995 the Congressional Research Service (a 741 person, $62 million per year think tank that works exclusively for Congress) rejects EPA and 3 other studies as not statistically significant and tainted by poor research and analysis. After 20 months and several million dollars, the CRS stated: "It is very possible that no deaths have been caused by environmental tobacco smoke." It found no basis for a proposed OSHA smoking ban in federal workplaces.

In 1998, the World Health Organization study on environmental tobacco smoke, purportedly the largest such ever undertaken, comprising 20 years in 38 centers in 21 countries was denounced by anti-smoking activists because it minimized the allegedly detrimental effects of environmental tobacco smoke. It actually showed no statistically significant increase (1.16)(it doesn't START to be significant until it reaches 2.00 and epidemiologists prefer 3.00) in lung cancer in non-smokers who had lived and worked with smokers for 40-50 years. WHO didn't release the study at all until it was leaked to a newspaper, and when they did release the study, it was accompanied by a press release whose headline screamed: "Passive Smoke Does Cause Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You," which was published verbatim by the popular press here and abroad. Apparently not one of the journalists took the trouble to read the actual study.

You might also take a look here. From the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds

That's all for tonight. I have to get some sleep to be ready for work tomorrow.

[bonfire]

Your friend actually buys a pack?? My friends just smoke mine when we are partying. You hang around a better class of people.