WHO CHIEF - "Smoking should be banned also in private homes"

NTB ^ | 6/15 2003 | NTB

[Domestic Church]

And what is this a smokescreen for?

[somemoreequalthanothers]

The headline says it all. Not being able to read the script is a minor detail. Maybe soon we can ban socialism and communism from private homes, also. They've killed more children than second hand smoke.

[Paleo Conservative]

Smoking should be a capital offense.

[Captain Kirk]

You seem to be watching different anti-smoking commercials than I am. None of them have a "just say no" approach and all of them attack the "greed" of tobacco company executives.

[Noumenon]

Did a møøse bite her sister?

[basil]

Actually, an intensive study taken by WHO proved that there was NO EVIDENCE of second hand smoke being harmful to anyone. The study wasn't publicized very much, of course, but Rush quotes it once in a while. There was also a new study done recently, also without much publicity, that came to the same conclusion. What little publicity this study has gotten has been demeaning towards the results, because that dirty old tobacco money paid for the study.

[avenir]

"I wonder how long it will be until they have realized how many child molestors they have offended by comparing them to smokers."

LOL! The follies of Phariseeism.

[Gabz]

What little publicity this study has gotten has been demeaning towards the results, because that dirty old tobacco money paid for the study.

That's just what the antis want everyone to believe.

What the naysayers refuse to mention is the fact that for 38 of the 40 years of the study published in the BMJ it was funded primarily by the NCI and the ACS, among other anti-smoker groups.

What happened was they antis realized that the numbers coming out of the study were not going their way and so they stripped all the funding. In order to finish the work they had been doing the scientists took money from where they could get it. some of that money happened to come from a Tobacco Company.

The money didn't change the outcome of the study, it just allowed it to be completed - something the antis didn't want to happen.

If anyone notices there has been no real attack on the science of the study, just on the funding of the researchers.

I would like to know where those same attackers are when it comes to the funding sources of research that gives the results they seek????????? There is no attack, nor question.

[Gabz]

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US and then we will be able to rid ourselves of the evils of WHO.

[Zipporah]

Hmm as the anti-smoker say, IF being exposed to 2nd hand smoke 3 or 4 more harmful than smoking.. gee maybe we should encourage nonsmokers to smoke.. LOL

[Great Dane]

And we think our fanatics are bad.

[Great Dane]

Two generations from a smoke free world......... my foot.

[giznort]

So should farting, but I don't see anyone speaking out about it.

[Principled]

Paul, C'mon dude.... you might offend the fags on FR...

[OOPisforLiberals]

I demand strict "say hello to my .45" if you try it regulations.

[Porterville]

Looks like the international community is hoping to cash in on the Phillip Morris peice of pie.

[roadcat]

"So should farting, but I don't see anyone speaking out about it."

Excellent point. Should be outlawed in elevators and buses, as a start. And farting and smoking combined is also an explosive issue! (Can't Who concentrate on real issues, like fixing potholes or something else?)

[Eurotwit]

Here is an english language version of the Aftenposten article for those interested. I read up on the original statements and it appears that it was proffesor Fuggeli that claimed that Brundtland compared smoking with sexual child molestation. In reality, it seems like Brundland only compared it with child molestation:

NORWEGIAN PROFESSOR:
«Brundtland is fanatical»
Av: Hanne Dankertsen 16. jun 10:28

Professor Per Fugelli says WHO director-general Gro Harlem Brundtland is a health fundamentalist after Brundtland stated she would like smoking to be forbidden near children, including in people's homes.

The WHO leader said in an interview that it should be possible to forbid smoking in people's homes, when children are nearby.
«Of course we should be able to forbid smoking in front of young children. Everyone agrees that one should not beat children, even it happens in the home», said Brundtland.


Fundamentalist
«Gro Harlem Brundtland has left reality and become a health fundamentalist», says Professor of Social Medicine, Per Fugelli.

«It both scares and disappoints me that Gro is saying this. For years, her trademark was to always stress the importance of science and factual documentation. Now, she speaks like a health fanatic and a fundamentalist. She has left the real world and is apparently willing to sacrifice freedom and the protection of privacy in order to ban smoking even in the private sphere», says the Professor.


Stigmatising
The Professor is shocked by the way smoking parents are stigmatised as child abusers and does not think smoking and violence can be compared:

«This is completely out of proportion. Smoking is hardly a Chernobyl disaster. My brother and I had parents who smoked but we still turned out OK», he says.

[Just another Joe]

For years, her trademark was to always stress the importance of science and factual documentation. Now, she speaks like a health fanatic and a fundamentalist. She has left the real world and is apparently willing to sacrifice freedom and the protection of privacy in order to ban smoking even in the private sphere»

This could describe many of the anti-smoking nico-nannies here on Free Republic also.

[maryz]

There was also a new study done recently, also without much publicity, that came to the same conclusion. What little publicity this study has gotten has been demeaning towards the results, because that dirty old tobacco money paid for the study.

There was also a study done in the 70s on second-hand smoke; the author of the study had a letter in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago -- in response to a report on the recent study you mention. The 70s study found that an hour of exposure to heavy second-hand was the equivalent of smoking .004 cigarettes (or maybe it was .0004). It was paid for the American Cancer Society, who apparently dropped it into the circular file because it was never heard of again.