Posted on 11/06/2003 7:28:30 AM PST by SheLion
I find it somewhat ironic that you universally think that the drug legalization crowd is dangerous (I do think Soros is, but ALL anti-WoD people? No) yet you refuse to condemn the Gestapo tactics by government to invade private property, damage or destroy private property, sticking guns in the faces of highschool students and even summary executions without trials of American citizens, even children.
I'm sorry, I don't get it! Is there a difference between the Bud Light I can buy at the grocery store for about 60 cents a bottle and the same bottle of Bud Light that costs me $3 at a bar? I don't understand!!!
I find it ironic that YOU put words in other peoples' handles.
Then we must refute ALL that you have posted due to your obvious bias. Besides, you haven't posted anything of substance; just ramblings while I have posted MANY items of fact.
I guess you will have to throw out the original story that started this thread, huh?
I find it ironic that YOU put words in other peoples' postings.
Provide a basis for your claim.
There is absolutely nothing to back up that statement in the way of scientific proof.
Second-hand smoke has been linked to asthma People whose partners smoke are nearly five times more likely to develop asthma in adulthood than those who are not exposed to passive smoking, according to new research. And those who are exposed to second hand smoke at work are more than twice as likely to develop respiratory problems.
The risks of exposing children to passive smoking are already well-documented but until now, a direct link between passive smoking and asthma in adults has not been proven.
Now a team of scientists, led by Maritta Jaakkola, from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in Helsinki, has produced the first hard evidence to prove that passive smoking does play a role in the development of adult asthma.
Exposure
The scientists studied a total of 718 people, none of whom had ever smoked, from a region in southern Finland.
A total of 231 had been diagnosed with asthma in the previous two-and-a-half years - the remaining 487 represented the control group.
The team compared the amount of exposure the two groups had had to passive smoking over a 12-month period and found that the development of adult asthma was more prevalent in those who had had the most exposure.
Maritta Jaakkola, who presented her findings at the 11th European Congress on Lung Disease and Respiratory Medicine in Berlin this week, said: "Our results demonstrate conclusively that passive smoking plays a role in the development of adult asthma."
'Ground-breaking study'
Clive Bates, from anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), believes the study will have enormous implications for employers who have not introduced anti-smoking regulations in the work-place.
He said: "This is a ground-breaking study which proves that passive smoking more than doubles the risk of developing asthma in adulthood.
"So, if employers have been negligent in reducing smoking in the work place, employees who develop asthma will have a fair chance of proving it was caused by passive smoking.
"And they will be able to claim thousands of pounds in compensation through the courts."
Mr Bates called on the government to introduce passive smoking legislation to reduce the risk of law suits to employers.
A German study, the results of which were also presented at the conference, linked passive smoking to lung cancer in women who had never smoked.
Meanwhile a study carried out in Italy reinforced the Finnish findings and also found that women were more likely to be exposed to passive smoking than men.
It has nothing to do with smoking, et al. It has to do with frenzied moral crusaders using government to force Americans to live their lives a particular way or run their business a particular way. Are we getting through that concrete noggin of yours yet?
No way, I don't date smokers. Why do you insist on all the personal questions, while continuing to dodge my politically related questions posed to you, just like a liberal Democrat (You've been NAILED!).
Just trying to help you out. Maybe I will find the 'right' one for you!
Why not? Is there something you find distasteful about smokers?
Yes. I also find the consumption of coffee and pork and beans distasteful but I don't see the point in using government to prevent people from consuming them or running a business where people are allowed to drink coffee or serve pork and beans. What if someone tried to use the power of government to force me to stop eating steaks and drinking milk?
You mean to say that the government is trying to take away your right to date smokers? Wow! This is a new one on me. Please keep me informed. I will work to defend your right to date a smoker!
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.