Posted on 11/13/2002 9:23:09 AM PST by SheLion
UK Sunday Telegraph...
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998
The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
-------
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
-------
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."
-------
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
What a turnip. Did you ever hear of slavery? Like how long has man had slavery? Say since the beginning of time. And when did we, in America anyways, end it? Just a little over a hundred years ago. So, in answer, things take time. And it wasn't by law. Liberty is expanded by violence and force against those that would have others do their bidding without their consent. Every ruler has had "law" since the beginning of time. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and even Castro have laws. Law, liberty. Two different words. Two different realities. Wake up. Law is not liberty, and a state full of laws is no proof, at all, of liberty and a free state. Equating law and liberty is pathetic. Furthermore, and you know this, we are not a democratic state, but a republic. And that means that the state is limited in it's powers. Although thanks to your type, who each and every day hand over their liberty to the state, America is becoming a less free nation. Thanks for selling out for a minor friction in the public intercourse, what a hero you are.
Please post his death certificate proving your assertion.
Eaker
The anti smokers spent nearly $6 million to change the constitution of the state of Florida to remove the rights of certain business owners to permit smoking within the confines of their private property.
In other words those business owners did have the right - and whiney little nico-nazis like you worked your butts off to strip them of their rights.
I'm thrilled you are so proud of yourselves - but calling your self a conservative disgusts me.
Correct. We elect representatives to go and pass anti-smoking laws. That is the way a republic works.
If so, please cite the enumeration. If not, then take your not-so-informed opinion of Florida law and stuff it.
What smoking right? All this proves is that the state has the right to prohibit. That has been my argument all along. Or have you forgotten?
And you, provide NO analysis.
I have never seen a death certificate that has shown the cause of death as cigarette smoking. Since you state this as a fact in his case I thought that his would be the first.
Oh well, guess not.
Eaker
The anti smokers spent nearly $6 million to change the constitution of the state of Florida to remove the rights of certain business owners to permit smoking within the confines of their private property.
Have you even read the admendment? If so, you would find that you might even agree with some of it.
Eaker
No analysis needed. I stated in plain terms what each of the two amendments in question say. Your suggestion, that the non-enumeration of a right (e.g. property rights) denies that right to the people, is a contradiction of what is stated in the 9th amendment.
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.