Posted on 02/13/2017 5:49:16 PM PST by DeweyCA
(Skip)
A decade later, comprehensive smoking bans have proliferated globally. And now that the evidence has had time to accumulate, it’s also become clear that the extravagant promises made by anti-smoking groups—that implementing bans would bring about extraordinary improvements in cardiac health—never materialized. Newer, better studies with much larger sample sizes have found little to no correlation between smoking bans and short-term incidence of heart attacks, and certainly nothing remotely close to the 60 percent reduction that was claimed in Helena. The updated science debunks the alarmist fantasies that were used to sell smoking bans to the public, allowing for a more sober analysis suggesting that current restrictions on smoking are extreme from a risk-reduction standpoint.
(Skip)
When the Helena study and its heirs were originally published, a few scientists noted that the results were wildly implausible and the methodologies deeply flawed. Yet their criticism was generally ignored. Studies reporting miraculous declines in heart attacks made global headlines; when better studies came along contradicting those results, they barely registered a blip in the media.
(Skip)
There were good reasons from the beginning to doubt that smoking bans could really deliver the promised results, but anti-smoking advocacy groups eagerly embraced alarmism to shape public perception. Today’s tobacco control movement is guided by ideology as much as it is by science, prone to hyping politically convenient studies regardless of their merit and ostracizing detractors.
This has important implications for journalism. As health journalists take on topics such as outdoor smoking bans, discrimination against smokers in employment or adoption, and the ever-evolving regulation of e-cigarettes, they should consider that however well-intentioned the aims of the tobacco control movement are, its willingness to sacrifice the means of good science to the end of restricting behavior calls for skeptical scrutiny.
(Skip)
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Gives me migraines I thank God for no smoking indoors
Restaurants here in Nevada had separate smoking and non-smoking areas. There was a clear and ventilated area for non-smokers.
Tobacco is evil. If you so called Free pers think addiction to a cancer causing product is so very wonderful then I think you should reconsider your thought processes. Seriously, how many of you are still smoking and or chewing?! Talk about stupid.
Smell of syrup, vanilla, cooking meat or musk make me gag. Olfactory senses differ.
...
Probably due to smoking damage.
It's actually pretty bad. With two parents who smoked growing up I had no idea that one didn't have to feel constantly nauseous riding in a car.
It’s not about smoking, or guns, or climate, or health, or aerosol propellent, et al ad naseam, it’s about CONTROL!
I rest my case.
I bet myself you would say that. I won! But no. Even as a child before I began the nasty habit, some things never agreed with me. Perhaps I am damaged.
I bet myself you would say that. I won! But no. Even as a child before I began the nasty habit, some things never agreed with me. Perhaps I am damaged.
So go to a non smoking restaurant.
It’s called “freedom”. Look into it sometime.
L
In this case, follow the money. Lawyers were never able to make a case against tobacco companies, because tort law had existed for hundreds of years, and they could not prove their case.
To get around the law, they bribed legislators to *change the liability standards*. The state legislators then got a cut of the money.
Billions went to the liability lawyers from cigarette taxes. A great deal of it is used to fund “progressive” causes.
I’ve heard of houses being rehabbed because the previous owners were smokers, but never because the previous owners baked cookies. Best of luck to you.
>Their habit should not intermingle with non-smokers.
Just like your habits should never cross paths with those of different opinion.
Facts be darned. The EPA wants you.
The advantage is not cardiac but cleaner air in the restaurants.
Don’t interfear with psychosis. It dangerous like waking a sleepwalking smoker or is it a smoking sleepwalker. People just love to control their neighbors. Group think has killed more people than cigarettes and Hitler combined. Yeah I went there.
According to federal regulation on federal property, if using a nicotine patch, you must be in an approved smoking area. No joke. Read then. Chew, dip, vape, smoking, any nicotine product can only be used in an area marked or designated for smoking. Dumb ass busy bodies, control freaks can’t think worth a shit.
Are you fat, ugly, stupid, mean, ... I’m sure your the very picture of virtue. I can tell from your post. No vices at all?
Rush addressed this today. He posits, that it is due to the push for legalization of pot across the fruited plain. Can’t smoke pot where ever and when ever you like, if you’ve got those atuquated smoking bans in place.
And he points out that; people who smoke pot don’t mind the second hand smoke, because; breathing it all in is kind of the point.
That’s OK, the Right does the same in reverse, so it all balances out.
No, that poster is an hysteric; what was posted is patently ridiculous and impossible to boot. Go read it again.
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.