It's a shame that Louisiana doesn't have it's own elections.TenTallBen wrote:In offices (of course) and restaurants that don't have a liquor license. I'm not worried about where I live, its more a principle thing for me. You seem to be oblivious to what goes on in the rest of the country on matters like this. I find no fault in debating something that could very well show up in your backyard before you know it.PSUFAN wrote:So, TTB - have they banned smoking in bumfuck Louisiana yet?
If airports are an exception, they are the ONLY exception. I haven't had the need to fly since the law was changed in 2003, but I can tell you that the only places I know of where smoking is alowed indoors in NY is in specialy licenced "cigar clubs". And I can also tell you that the state hands out those licences like they are radioactive sludge.Jimmy Medalions wrote:Take a stroll through LAX or JFK sometime.BSmack wrote:Not in New York or California. Or maybe you missed that little factoid?
Since I've long since came to the conclusion that you're nothing more than a pimply faced kid striving hard for attention, I'll from this point forward relegate you to the Dins formula of "ignore"...although Dins should more closely evaluate his formula.NameThatTroll wrote: Dumbest post ever?
There are countless products that are quite legal to possess, yet restricted as to where they can be used. I can't use my air horn in a restaurant, or drive my car through a playground.mvscal wrote:It is a legal product.PSUFAN wrote:non-smokers to smokers: give us a rational argument for public smoking rights.
Excellent point. As soon as your state starts pushing legislaton making it illegal to start your car when human lungs are within 500 feet, you will see the absurdity of it.Donovan wrote:There are countless products that are quite legal to possess, yet restricted as to where they can be used. I can't use my air horn in a restaurant, or drive my car through a playground.mvscal wrote:It is a legal product.PSUFAN wrote:non-smokers to smokers: give us a rational argument for public smoking rights.
A very good idea especially during happy hour. There would be serious Bode in asking her to join me outside for a smoke as the Paramedic's busted out the Defib hardware....... :DMikey wrote:You should have just smiled and bought her a double Applebee's sample platter. Kill her with kindness. It always works. Well sometimes.
Mix in some weed and you've got a party.War Wagon wrote:I've smoked half-a-pack of Marlboro Reds and drank at least 10 cans of a Bud Lite 30 pack whilst reading this thread.
DeWayne Walker wrote:"They could have put 55 points on us today. I was happy they didn't run the score up. . . .
DeWayne Walker wrote:"They could have put 55 points on us today. I was happy they didn't run the score up. . . .
So? I don't want to breathe it in and stinks up my clothes. I could not care less about the "strain" or lack thereof on the country's health care. There is no right to smoke in public places and it is clearly wihtin the governement's power ot place restrictions on it's use, like they do for lots and lots and lots of other otherwise legal products. I would protest against restrictions against smoking in your own home, I even have problems with restrictions on smoking in restaurants. But in public areas? Sorry, you have no inherent right to smoke in a public area.mvscal wrote:You're full of shit. Second hand smoke was proven to be a complete crock of shit.
No, you're the dumbass. I was referring to the smoking ban in bars. Supposedly it was to protect waitresses and bartenders from "secondhand smoke." If one doesn't want to be around such "filth" that person should have chosen a more suitable line of work. It's like saying "I wanna be a lifeguard, but I don't want to go near the water"Jimmy Medalions wrote:I'm still laughing over TenTardBen saying non-smokers should change jobs if their co-workers smoke. What an ignorant douche.
"Proven" for credulous simpletons like you that is. Most folks out there are willing to accept basic common sense, even when they don't like what it means for them. Then, there are those who are willing to be told what they want to hear. It's no surprise that you carry their banner into the fight against the facts.mvscal wrote:You're full of shit. Second hand smoke was proven to be a complete crock of shit.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
Jimmy Medalions wrote:Read it and weep.
They drew definitive conclusions based upon something that they fully admit to not being able to measure?Scientists do not know what amount of exposure to secondhand smoke, if any, is safe.
Your logic here is what's complete junk.Dinsdale wrote:Jimmy Medalions wrote:Read it and weep.They drew definitive conclusions based upon something that they fully admit to not being able to measure?Scientists do not know what amount of exposure to secondhand smoke, if any, is safe.
You're right -- I did weep that people will fall for about any scrap of junk-science that gets thrown out there.
Ha ha...mighty tough talk. The problem for you is, most people in this country are willing to move this thing forward. It's happening town by town, according to the will of the people (shh, don't tell TarddowenTallBen, please).mvscal wrote:Tough shit.See You Next Wednesday wrote:So? I don't want to breathe it in and stinks up my clothes.mvscal wrote:You're full of shit. Second hand smoke was proven to be a complete crock of shit.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
Or, tough shit for the smoker in Calabasas and everywhere else this law might take hold.mvscal wrote:Tough shit.See You Next Wednesday wrote:So? I don't want to breathe it in and stinks up my clothes.mvscal wrote:You're full of shit. Second hand smoke was proven to be a complete crock of shit.
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
The CDC, NIH, HHS and EPA all say you're completely full of shit.mvscal wrote:You've been played, dimwit.
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htmThe methodology used to "prove" the alleged dangers of second hand smoke was complete garbage. You are a fucking sucker for lawyers and activist douchebags like Rob Reiner.THE DATA THAT WENT UP IN SMOKE
Risks From Passive Smoke Unfounded: WHO Study
by John Berlau
Copyright 1998 Investor's Business Daily
April 8, 1998
Californians can't smoke in bars. Why? Lawmakers in Sacramento think they're protecting the health of patrons who don't smoke.
But breathing secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer. At least there's no proof of it.
That's not the politically incorrect propaganda of the smokers' lobby. It's the conclusion of a major study by the World Health Organization, a smoking foe. And it has the data to back it up -data that California bar and nightclub owners would no doubt like to get their hands on.
If they knew more about the study, that is.
Far from California, across the Atlantic, the British press has amplified the results of the WHO study. But you'd be hard pressed to find the story in the American media.
Overseas interest might be greater because WHO tracked 2,000 people in six European countries. But some suspect anti-smoking bias is behind scarce coverage here.
After all, the WHO study casts doubt on the Environmental Protection Agency's ''meta-analysis'' that called passive smoke a carcinogen and led to personal injury lawsuits. In effect, WHO found that nonsmokers breathing in a smoke-filled room are at no greater risk of developing lung cancer than they are breathing in a clear room.
WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer stated in its recent biennial report that the risk of lung cancer did increase slightly among those exposed to secondhand smoke at work, at home from a smoking spouse, or both. But none of these increases was ''statistically significant.''
This means that ''there's a good chance that there's no association whatsoever'' between passive smoke and lung cancer, said Michael Gough, a senior associate and program manager at Congress' now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which advised committees on scientific policy.
Gough, now director of risk and science studies at the free-market Cato Institute, can hardly be accused of being a tool of the tobacco industry. He directed OTA's landmark '81 study, which found that direct smoking was behind 30% of U.S. cancer cases.
''It's very clear that smoking is bad,'' Gough said. But passive smoke is a different matter, he adds.
WHO's findings, first reported in early March, have received wide coverage in British papers such as the London-based Sunday Telegraph. The full study has yet to be published because it is ''still in the process of peer review,'' said Enrique Madrigal, U.S. regional adviser to WHO for alcohol, tobacco and substance abuse.
But on this side of the Atlantic, most of the press has yet to lift the fog.
''There's no question'' that the American media would have jumped on the study's results if they had gone the other way, said Reason magazine senior editor Jacob Sullum, who wrote ''For Your Own Good,'' a critique of the anti-smoking movement.
Despite the scant coverage so far, observers say the study could weaken the case for smoking bans and passive-smoke suits.
The prospect may have prompted WHO, which has long crusaded against tobacco, to issue a press release headlined in all-capital letters: ''Passive Smoke Does Cause Lung Cancer; Do Not Let Them Fool You.''
The release conceded that the findings were not statistically significant, but said that results were ''very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere'' that show increased risk.
Skeptics agree that the results are in line with other studies. But they add that most other studies also show the risk of lung cancer is so small as to be scientifically meaningless.
When it pooled the results of several passive smoke studies a few years ago, the EPA had to double its margin of error in order to show a small, albeit statistically significant, risk.
''The bottom line on all the evidence on secondhand smoke and lung cancer is that it doesn't prove anything,'' Sullum said.
The link hasn't held up in court either.
Last month a Muncie, Ind., jury found that cigarette makers were not liable in the '91 lung cancer death of nonsmoker Mildred Wiley.
Lawyers for her husband, who brought the injury suit, claimed that Wiley contracted lung cancer through exposure to passive smoke at a veterans' hospital, where she worked as a nurse. She died at 56.
Upon hearing the verdict, ''I was just shocked,'' said Joseph Young, one of the plaintiff's lawyers. ''I thought that we were going to win. We've been working on this for six years.''
Young, who is considering an appeal, thought the case would be easier to win than direct smoking cases. How so? Wiley was a victim who did not assume the risk of other people's smoking, he explained.
But defense attorney William Ohlemeyer hammered away at the lack of scientific proof.
''On the news, the public doesn't hear the other side of the story or the entirety of the science,'' Ohlemeyer said. ''But in a courtroom, where you get the chance to tell both sides of the story, I was pretty confident a fair jury would find (that the scientific evidence was) very weak, very equivocal and just doesn't quite prove what people expected it to prove.''
Ohlemeyer latched onto the WHO study, getting an expert witness to walk jurors through the findings in the final days of the trial.
Michael Thomas, whose father smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and died of lung cancer at 49, was just the type of juror plaintiff's lawyers were aiming for when they argued that jurors should in effect send a message to tobacco companies.
But Thomas, a nonsmoker like the rest of the jurors, did not think the plaintiff's lawyers presented a convincing scientific case.
''The defense leaned a lot on the studies that had been done (that showed) that risks involved in terms of secondhand smoke were inconclusive,'' Thomas said in an interview. ''The plaintiffs didn't do enough to contradict that.''
In addition to lawsuits, the WHO study could play a role in state rows over smoking bans.
Some are up in arms because of a California smoking ban that has now extended to all bars as well as restaurants. Even lighting up in a cigar bar violates the law.
''You're starting to see an awful lot of civil disobedience,'' observed Kate Nelson, president of the California Licensed Beverage Association and owner of the Hollywood Palace, a 1,500-seat theater with six bars.
A bill recently passed the state Assembly to temporarily allow smoking in bars until a state regulatory agency comes up with a ventilation standard. It appears to be stalled in a Senate committee.
Nelson is hopeful that the WHO study will help her convince the public and lawmakers that the risks of passive smoke are overblown.
But she isn't holding her breath.
''People simply have it in their minds that cigarette smoke is the deadliest legal substance available,'' Nelson said.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/berlau.htm
Good job, idiot.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/s ... tsheet.htmSecondhand Smoke
Fact sheet
February 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition
Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of tobacco products (sidestream smoke) and the smoke exhaled by smokers (mainstream smoke).1,2
Secondhand smoke contains a complex mixture of more than 4,000 chemicals, more than 50 of which are known or probable human cancer-causing agents (carcinogens).1,2
People are exposed to secondhand smoke in the home, workplace, and in public venues such as bars, bowling alleys, and restaurants.3
Health Effects
Secondhand smoke is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and coronary heart disease in nonsmoking adults.1,2,4 Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).2,4
Because their lungs are not fully developed, young children are particularly susceptible to secondhand smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia in young children.1,5
Current Estimates
An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and more than 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.6
Each year, secondhand smoke is associated with an estimated 8,000–26,000 new asthma cases in children.4 Annually an estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months (7,500–15,000 of which will require hospitalization) are associated with secondhand smoke exposure in the United States.4
Approximately 60% of non-smokers in the United States have biological evidence of secondhand smoke exposure.7
Among children aged less than 18 years, an estimated 22% are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes, with estimates ranging from 11.7% in Utah to 34.2% in Kentucky.8
References
1 National Cancer Institute. Health Effects of Exposure to Environment Tobacco Smoke. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 10 ( PDF - 71k). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1999. NIH Pub. No. 99-4645. Accessed: February 2004.
2 National Toxicology Program. 10th Report on Carcinogens. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, December 2002. Accessed: February 2004.
3 Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, Brody DJ, Etzel RA, Maurer KR. Exposure of the U.S. population to environmental tobacco smoke: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. Journal of the American Medical Association 1996;275(16):1233–1240.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;1992. Pub. No. EPA/600/6-90/006F. Accessed: February 2004.
5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General; 2001. Accessed: February 2004.
6 CDC. Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs—United States, 1995–1999 ( PDF - 225k). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2002;51(14):300–303. Accessed: February 2004.
7 CDC. Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals: Tobacco Smoke. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Environmental Health; 2003:80. NCEH Pub No. 03-0022. Accessed: February 2004.
8 CDC. State-specific prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults, and children’s and adolescents’ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke—United States, 1996 ( PDF – 266k). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1997;46(44):1038–1043. Accessed: February 2004.
Note: More recent information may be available at the CDC'S Office on Smoking and Health Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco.
For Further Information
Office on Smoking and Health
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Mailstop K-50
4770 Buford Hwy., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717
770-488-5705
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco
Media Inquiries: Contact the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health press line at 770-488-5493.
Words could never convey what a complete and utter dumbfuck you are. Smokers have no right to dictate the profession another person chooses. On the other hand, citizens of a Republic have every right to pass laws that benefit the majority.TenTallBen wrote:If one doesn't want to be around such "filth" that person should have chosen a more suitable line of work.
DeWayne Walker wrote:"They could have put 55 points on us today. I was happy they didn't run the score up. . . .
Here's a link for you.Jimmy Medalions wrote:Smokers have no right to dictate the profession another person chooses. On the other hand, citizens of a Republic have every right to pass laws that benefit the majority.
Did you just make that up for effect?Mikey wrote: They also don't know what amount of mercury, if any, is safe.
