Snuff out do-gooders before cigarettes, please

The Washington Times ^ | 1/12/06 | Tom Knott

[qam1]

Here is a thumbs-down to the Smokefree D.C. do-gooders and the D.C. Council, which voted 11-1 in favor of a smoking ban that begins next year.

I am thinking of starting a Do-Gooder-free D.C. because of the scientifically proven study that shows freedom-hating do-gooders cause high blood pressure in others.

There is nothing like a smug, arrogant, condescending know-it-all to get the eyes rolling up in the back of your head. The city, unfortunately, is awash in this character type.

These self-important nitwits seem to think they know what is best for the masses and then pat themselves on the head after they have achieved their mission.

"It is a great day for everyone who works in or patronizes a bar or restaurant in the District of Columbia," said one of the co-founders of the nut-job group after 11 morally superior council members imposed legislation that mocks the celebrated individual liberties of a nation.

Sorry. It did not come across as a great day. It came across as just another amusing day in the bluest of blue precincts.

Really, I would prefer to have a Carbon Monoxide-Free D.C.
Or a Rat-Free D.C.
Or a Gang-Free D.C.
Or a Lead-Free D.C.
Or a Cholesterol-Free D.C.
Or a Body Odor-Free D.C.
Or an Ice Cream-Free D.C.
Or a Starbucks-Free D.C.

I can think of all kinds of practices and things that could be eliminated before I would be concerned with a smoky bar stuffed with drunks at midnight.

I would argue it is the right of the smoking town drunk to be a smoking town drunk, just as it is the right of servers to work in an establishment that caters to smoking town drunks.

[The Foolkiller]

You know (to quote Hillary), I never really noticed it before...but, you're right. Years ago, I smoked pot, as did most of my friends. I'm not talking about the hippie/free love days, talking about later-the 70's/80's. We/they were just average people that worked in offices, factories, sales, whatever. But that's true-every pot smoker I've known in the last 15 years has been either A). gay, or B).a prostitute, a thief, someone emotionally distraught,a con artist,or some other type of loser - someone that can't, or won't, function in mainstream society. Strange, but Interesting.

[dakine]

Why are you asking me?
And what is a "pseudo-FReepers"?

[SheLion]

Places like restaurants and bars have always been regulated as public spaces.

As well as Wal-Mart.  Highly used by the public, wouldn't you agree?

Well, during the Christmas holidays, a woman was robbed inside a Wal-Mart.  She ran to a Security Guard.  He told her "This is private property.  You entered at your own risk."

So...................just because Wal-Mart is highly used by the public, remember, it is still a private business.

As well as bars and restaurants.

[SheLion]

The smoke blown in the direction of anyone's lungs can harm/damage the person.

You are another one that has been swayed by the highly paid professional anti smokers. 

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

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?"

[humblegunner]

I wish all users of smoke producing substances peace - in privacy.

I bet you're a lot of fun on a camp out.

[SheLion]

I really don't care about the smokers out there...as long as their exhaust stays away from me.

We have no desire to meet YOU either, fellow FREEPER!

[metesky]

It never ends, does it? These people can't see the truth if it hopped naked alongside the bed with them.

That's one of the main reasons I don't frequent these threads as often as I used too. No matter how many times one tries to point out the property rights of the owner or posts links to the actual SHS studies (not the abstracts or the so-called meta-studies which twist the actual results) it all comes back to, "You stink and I don't like you."

You know that 99.44% of these dweebs would never dare talk to you in person the way they do here and I know if they did, I'd be spending most of what little I have on defense lawyers.

[SheLion]

Cigarette smoke contains about 4,000 chemical agents, including over 60 carcinogens (8). In addition, many of these substances, such as carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, and lead, are poisonous and toxic to the human body.

You still aren't exempt.  I am sure you enjoy food!

December 24, 2003 -- IT is that time of the year: parties, presents, family gatherings - and dining-room tables laden with a tempting array of mouthwatering, delicious, seasonal chemicals.

Chemicals? Yes.

We live in an intensely chemical-phobic society, one where food labels and menus brag of being "all-natural" and "purely organic." Poultry sections offer fryers from "happy, free range chickens." "Chemical-free" cuisine is in.

So it may come as a shock to you that even an all-natu- ral holiday feast (and every other meal you consume throughout the year) comes replete with chemicals, including toxins (poisons) and carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals) - most of which average consumers would reject simply on the grounds that they can't pronounce the names.

Assume you start with an appetizer, then move on to a medley of crispy, natural vegetables, and proceed to a traditional stuffed bird with all the trimmings, washing it down with libations of the season, and topping it all off with some homemade pastries.

You will thus have consumed holiday helpings of various "carcinogens" (defined here as a substance that at high dose causes cancer in laboratory animals), including:

* hydrazines (mushroom soup);

* aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides and psoralens (your fresh vegetable salad),

* heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, dihydrazines, d-limonene, safrole and quercetin glycosides (roast turkey with stuffing);

* benzene and heterocyclic amines (prime rib of beef with parsley sauce);

* furfural, ethyl alcohol, allyl isothiocyanate (broccoli, potatoes, sweet potatoes);

* coumarin, methyl eugenol, acetaldehyde, estragole and safrole (apple and pumpkin pies);

* ethyl alcohol with ethyl carbamate (red and white wines).

Then sit back and relax with some benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, l,2,5,6,-dibenz(a)anthra- cene with 4-methylcatechol (coffee).

And those, all produced courtesy of Mother Nature, are only the carcinogens you just scarfed down. Your l00-percent natural holiday meal is also replete with toxins - popularly known as "poisons." These include the solanine, arsenic and chaconine in potatoes; the hydrogen cyanide in lima beans and the hallucinogenic compound myristicin found in nutmeg, black pepper and carrots.

Now here is the good news: these foods are safe.

Four observations are relevant here:

* When it comes to toxins, only the dose makes the poison. Some chemicals, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic, are potentially hazardous at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed at low doses like the trace amounts found in our foods.

* While you probably associate the word "carcinogen" with nasty-sounding synthetic chemicals like PCBs and dioxin, the reality is that the more we test naturally occurring chemicals, the more we find that they, too, cause cancer in lab animals.

* The increasing body of evidence documenting the carcinogenicity (in the lab) of common substances found in nature highlights the contradiction we Americans have created up to now in our regulatory approach to carcinogens: trying to purge our nation of synthetic carcinogens, while turning a blind eye to the omnipresence of natural "carcinogens."

* While animal testing is an essential part of biomedical research, so is commonsense. A rodent is not a little man. There is no scientific foundation to the assumption that if high-dose exposure to a chemical causes cancer in a rat or mouse, then a trace level of it must pose a human cancer risk.

If we took a precautionary approach with all chemicals and assumed that a rodent carcinogen might pose a human cancer risk ("so let's ban it just in case"), we'd have very little left to eat. (A radical solution to our nation's obesity problem!)

The reality is that these trace levels of natural or synthetic chemicals in food or the environment pose no known human health hazard at all - let alone a risk of cancer.

So the next time you hear a self-appointed "consumer advocate" fret about the man-made "carcinogen du jour" and demand the government step in and "protect" us - remember, you just ingested a meal full of natural carcinogens without a care in the world and with no risk to your health.

Pass the methyl eugenol! Bon Appetit!

Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health

Full Story:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/14334.htm

[SheLion]

When I went to my tobacco store yesterday, the owner told me that some asswipe politico in Ohio has introduced a bill to ban smoking in your car. Don't know if he's trying the "for the children" route or the "distraction" (like cell phones) angle. They really want this state to fall bad.

Surely it has to mean if there are kids in the car.  I know Maine stopped Foster Parents from smoking in their car 24 hours before a Foster child would be present.  Crazy, eh?

[winston2]

I figured you were a dope addict. It took all of 30 seconds scanning your posts before finding the evidence of your Losertarian views on pot. Tobacco is legal you little dopehead. Get used to it.

I enjoy cannabis without bothering a single other person on the planet. Read my tag line and you will know what I'm all about.

How many cannabis users force their smoke on you? How much cannabis litter have you seen on the streets?

[Valin]

I knew there was a good reason why me and George Bush don't like broccoli.

[Zon]

No matter how many times one tries to point out the property rights of the owner

It's the same way with drug warriors. They don't acknowledge the property rights of the owner. After all, the primary primary property right which must be in place for any other right to exist is the right to ones own body/mind.

Pardon the fools for they are ignorant. When not due to ignorance they have made the choice to be parasites. They support enlisting government agents to act on their behalf to initiate harm/force against innocent people that are minding their own business and have harmed no one.

[Zon]

Thanks. Great post.

[The Foolkiller]

We have no desire to meet YOU either, fellow FREEPER!

---

Oh, I'D like to meet a few of them, just to show them their rights end where the knuckles on my fist begin.

[SheLion]

By the way, metesky, I agree-that's why I don't enter these threads much anymore, myself. I'm getting very swiftly to the point of violence with these vermin, and since I can't strangle them over the internet, all it does is raise my blood pressure.

I feel the same way of late.

[Moonman62]

"You stink and I don't like you."

No, the problem is you make everything else stink, which happens to be other people's property or person. It's your rude behavior we don't like.

Your threats of violence aren't very appealing either.

[metesky]

TFB

[mugs99]

It never ends, does it? These people can't see the truth if it hopped naked alongside the bed with them.

Michael Crichton gave a great lecture on this at the California Institute of Technology. He covers Global Warming, Nuclear Winter and Second Hand Smoke in a short speech that exposes these Do-Gooders for the fools they are. Read Aliens Cause Global Warming if you want the truth.
.

[mugs99]

How many cannabis users force their smoke on you?

The lastest cannabis reasearch shows that cannabis smoke lowers the risk of cancer in tobacco smokers. Those worried about second hand tobacco smoke need only to inhale second hand cannabis smoke to get that safety they crave. You are doing the Do-Gooders a favor with your cannabis smoking!
.