| Author | Message | ||
     Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 419 Registered: 3-2004 |
the WHO, world health organization, recently ended a ten year study that concludedthat there was no empirical evidence that second hand smoke was a danger to anyone. greentree says that smokers should be responsible for their choices and then says that people arent responsible enough to make their own choices so there should be a ban. everyone should stop relying on legislation to save them fro having to be inconvenienced by choices other people make that they dont agree with. you dont like smoke, stay away from smokers. let business owners decide if they want to go smoke free. let the free market system decide. if enough people vote with their dollars then those places that choose to go smoke free will thrive and multiply. stop trying to legislate choices you disagree with like a bunch of prissy fascists. you want to pass laws that affect peoples health? make it illegal to cough without covering your mouth. ban children with runny noses from public. see how silly it sounds? | ||
| Kramer Citizen Username: Kramer Post Number: 93 Registered: 9-2002 |
Local - can you provide a link to that ten year study? And nevermind second hand smoke - how about firsthand smoke - is that bad? | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 951 Registered: 5-2001 |
local 1 - I was going to post a link, but there are so many thousands of links when you Google "second-hand smoke" that I couldn't choose which was best. | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 423 Registered: 3-2004 |
WHO proclaimed, “Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health. Supported by two decades of evidence, the scientific community now agrees that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke… The evidence is in, let is act on it.” That’s quite an ironic statement, though. It appears the WHO doesn’t even put much faith in its own research on secondhand smoke. The WHO’s World No-Tobacco day web site lists, “Comprehensive Reports on Passive Smoking by Authoritative Scientific Bodies.” The listed reports include the 1986 reports from the Surgeon General and National Research Council, the 1993 report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and two late-1990s reports from the California EPA. For those unfamiliar with the reports, the list appears formidable. Otherwise, it’s just disingenuous. The 1986 reports by the NRC and Surgeon General concluded secondhand smoke was a risk factor for lung cancer. But of the 13 studies reviewed, 7 reported no link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Given the statistical nature of these studies, this split in results is precisely what one would expect if no true link existed. Neither report produced much progress for anti-smoking activists. So they convinced the EPA to pick up the gauntlet. Thirty-three studies on secondhand smoke had been completed by 1993. More than 80 percent of the studies reported no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, including the largest of the studies. The EPA reviewed 31 studies - inexplicably omitting two studies reporting no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer - and estimated secondhand smoke caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually. Under the stewardship of the anti-tobacco Clinton administration, secondhand smoke hysteria caught fire. Observing the “success” of the EPA report, the California EPA adopted by reference the EPA’s conclusions into the state agency’s own report. Little original or independent analysis went into the Cal-EPA report. Just when it seemed anti-smoking activists finally succeeded in producing scientific reports establishing secondhand smoke as a health risk, a federal judge overturned the EPA report in 1998. He ruled the EPA cheated on the science. Later in 1998, the WHO published the largest study ever done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The study reported no statistically significant association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Oops. Now let’s go back to the WHO’s list of reports on its web page. The 1986 reports don’t carry any weight. That’s why the EPA did a new report. But the EPA report was in all important respects trashed by a federal judge - by implication, a fate also deserved of the California report that relied on the EPA report. And the WHO omitted its own report from the list of “comprehensive reports” by “authoritative scientific bodies” no doubt because the “wrong” answer was reported. If secondhand smoke really increases lung cancer risk, why all the smoke-and-mirrors? Of course, lung cancer is not the only health alarm sounded about secondhand smoke. The science on these issues is also not as it’s hyped. The WHO claims secondhand smoke causes between 35,000 to 62,000 deaths from heart disease annually in the U.S. But the WHO omits mention of an important New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the controversy. University of Chicago Hospital health studies chairman John Bailar - hardly sympathetic to the tobacco industry - dismissed the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, citing the poor quality of study data and evident researcher bias. WHO claims, “Second-hand smoke also causes and aggravates asthma and other breathing problems, particularly in children. It is also an important cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).” But researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examining data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveyreported in January’s Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine there was no association between secondhand smoke and asthma among 5,400 children aged 4 to 16 years of age. No one knows what causes SIDS. Just this week, Wake Forest University researchers reported SIDS may be related to a genetic deficiency. Reportedly, the absence of a particular muscle enzyme allows fatty acid products to accumulate, producing a toxic effect causing heart arrhythmias and respiratory arrest. Anti-smoking activists have yet to explain where were all the childhood asthma and SIDS cases in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when smoking indoors was commonplace and adult smoking rates were much higher than they are now. Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie - the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke. In debates over individual liberties, fabricated and propagandized science should play no role. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 3941 Registered: 5-2001  |
Local - I was going to ignore your post, but my emotions are so tightly strung right now that I think I'll indulge myself in one big heartfelt "kiss my •••". Now, please re-read my post. You will see that I am talking about the people who are deeply harmed and have no choice. | ||
| Kramer Citizen Username: Kramer Post Number: 94 Registered: 9-2002 |
Local - What are the studies on FIRST HAND smoke? Is that bad? Please inform us on that. I've known a few people recently who have been battling lung cancer - are you saying it probably wasn't their cigarette habit that caused it? Here's info from the American Lung Association on second hand smoke: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 424 Registered: 3-2004 |
of course smoking can cause lung cancer, but those people made a choice to smoke knowing the dangers. you think we should pass legislation to save them from themselves? if so, lets ban everything that we might choose to use that is harmful. lets start with booze and cars. why dont we stop trying to police everyones lives with legislation and start accepting that people make personal choices and are therefoe responsible for them. it is not my or your duty to pass laws in order to stop them from doing something we dont find appealing. otherwise where does it stop? what if i find people reading certain books offensive and that their subject matter could be harmful to society.? what if i think that every time you have a drink that you are causing harm to yourself and the community? puh-lease! | ||
| Carrie Avery Citizen Username: Carrie33 Post Number: 145 Registered: 1-2005  |
If they banned booze, it would be "Prohibition" all over again. If they banned books it would be "Suppresstion" all over again If they banned "smoking" entirely it would have to be "illegal" We would then be living in a time when we were not so evolved, not so free, and soon, they would ban "Freedom of Speech" and our amendments would be a joke,...after awhile. I agree with above post, live and let live, and live like you want,because the more we BAN things the less freedom we will have someday.If you don't like SMOKING, don't smoke, and go to places where they don't do this. | ||
| Dave -agent of MOL Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5396 Registered: 4-1998  |
A related story about a global ban http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/02/27/global.smoking.reut/index.html (forget all its foreign policy blunders, this along with eradicating smallpox would make the UN the most valuable organization on Earth) | ||
| Local_1_crew Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 425 Registered: 3-2004 |
yes, with millions dying from malaria, malnutrition, poverty, and war the U.N. should focus their rescources on smokers. what a joke. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 9 Registered: 2-2005  |
Someone posted above that, I paraphrase, sometimes one's pleasures can offend another person. I will remember that the next time I want to, er, pleasure myself in public. Really, can't we all just get along. I've experienced both sides of the debate (let it be known forthwith that I am a non-smoker) and I too enjoy a smoke-free meal. At the bars is another story...I deal with it. But here is one tale that made me think "what the f***?" I was at the Colorado Cafe (actually a little hesitant to admit that) where I was standing at the bar about to order a drink. About three stools away from me was an Indian fellow - which in itself made me appreciate the level of diversity we are blessed to experience in this area - who was smoking. Out of nowhere comes this 5'2" woman screaming "what are you doing?" At first I thought she was yelling at me when she said the other guy, "how can you smoke next to my leather jacket?" that was sitting 5 feet away. The dude took the high rode by nodding, taking his beer and moving on. My initial euphoric feelings went out the window as I'm standing there thinking does the jacket have more rights than the dude? It seems the lady checked her brain instead of her coat. Where has common sense gone in this world? | ||
| jamie Moderator Username: Jamie Post Number: 807 Registered: 6-2001  |
here's the latest: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1109688911277190.xml | ||
| jamie Moderator Username: Jamie Post Number: 810 Registered: 6-2001 |
New Mexico House Passes Smokefree Restaurant Legislation New Mexico, 3/3/05-- Last night, the New Mexico House of Representatives voted 49-12 in favor of smokefree restaurant and office legislation. The proposal now heads to the New Mexico Senate. Supporters of the legislation, which was sponsored by Rep. Al Park of Albuquerque, said they were happy for restaurant and office workers but felt other workers (such as bar and nightclub workers) deserved the same protection. "Either tobacco smoke causes cancer or it doesn't," said Joe Cherner, founder of BREATHE (Bar and Restaurant Employees Advocating Together for a Healthy Environment). "If it does, which even the tobacco cartel now agrees, then ALL workers deserve protection equally." The legislation is modeled on a smokefree restaurant ordinance in Albuquerque, Park said. Under terms of the bill, establishments that receive more than half of their income from selling alcohol could continue to allow smoking. Seven states-- CA, DE, NY, CT, ME, MA and RI-- require all workplaces, including restaurants and bars/nightclubs, to be smokefree. Five additional states-- FL, VT, UT, ID, and HI-- require all restaurants to be smokefree, but allow smoking in bars/nightclubs. | ||
| Kathy Leventhal Citizen Username: Kml Post Number: 37 Registered: 9-2001 |
Jaime, thanks for the good news! On Tuesday evening, the Maplewood Township Committee passed a Resolution (5-0) to support the NJ Clean Indoor Air bill. Copies of the Resolution were sent to each of the 120 NJ legislatures in preparation for the public hearing in Trenton on Monday. To lend your individual support by writing your three representatives, go to: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/SelectMun.asp Kathy Leventhal Maplewood Township Committee | ||
| mickey Citizen Username: Mickey Post Number: 238 Registered: 10-2001 |
thanks for posting the link, kathy. i got a letter from gov codey after contacting him last week asking him to support the ban. it was a form letter, but still, i knew my opinion was noted. oh, i hope this passes. i believe that sooner or later, all states will be smoke free. i hope nj will be one of the states to see the light now. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 1503 Registered: 7-2003 |
I'm in......... Smokers stink. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 1826 Registered: 9-2003 |
..and you never knew that the smell was that strong until you quit, right Brett? My co-worker still smokes and she comes in from a cig break and I think "oh, my God! I smelled like THAT?" | ||
| KingofNJ Citizen Username: Kingofnj Post Number: 14 Registered: 2-2004 |
Leave it up to the owner -- it's his place. If you don't like smoke then go somewhere smoke free. I'm willing to bet that 90% of you who want a ban do not frequent bars. When I say frequent I don't mean once every 6 months. Those of you saying you'd hang out at the Gate if there was no smoking are kidding yourselves. There is a bar culture and either you're in or out. Most people on this board are OUT. The King has spoken. Long live the King. | ||
| Strings Supporter Username: Blue_eyes Post Number: 423 Registered: 4-2004  |
I think I might agree with the King on this one... and I'm a non-smoker! I do, however, frequent bars and the majority of my friends smoke, and yes, I do hate coming home stinking like cigarettes - but it's just the way it is. Of course, I would prefer it if people just didn't smoke at all, but realistically, I think that leaving it up to the owner is definitely the best solution. I don't feel the need to reiterate the arguments that have been presented here, just expressing my opinion. | ||
| lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 1172 Registered: 3-2002 |
The king is right on. I am a non-smoker too. These anti-smoking types are very judgemental and it's always all about them. Why don't they just stay home and have a tea party and leave the real bar goers alone? They always have to spoil the party and it seems there is no middle ground or negotiation due to the self righteousness. |
