Anti-Smoking Campaign Is Anti-Freedom

Toogood ^ | 11/9/03 | Alan Caruba

[Max McGarrity]

"If they're sick, let's help them! But first, let's get 'em out of our air!"

We're not the sick ones, and you can stick your "help" where the sun don't shine. The problem really is that YOU seem to believe ALL AIR is YOURS and I disagree.

[Max McGarrity]

You have a very scary philosophy for anyone who loves liberty. Have you tried DU? I've heard they're looking for new members.

[Max McGarrity]

What a concept to avoid assaulting people in public places with offensive and hazardous substances they'd rather do without. Define "public places." BTW I don't smoke in public places, only in private businesses whose owners have welcomed me to do so. There is always a way to solve problems between disparate groups if a solution is truly the goal. In this issue, though, the admitted goal is to coerce smokers by whatever means are necessary into quitting. Behavior manipulation and social engineering are not valid American values. At least not to me.

I've sometimes been inclined to respond to people who ask if they may smoke around me--that it's OK with me if I can fart in their face.

Perhaps you can answer this question I've asked so many times: Why is it that anti-smokers are so fixated on body functions? Of course, when the scatalogical references begin it simply means there are no more grown-up arguments to be had. If you want to put your hard-earned money into a "fart-friendly" establishment and put a sign on the door stating your policy, I have no problem with that unless you try to FORCE me inside. CHOICE--Ain't it grand?

[Max McGarrity]

What a concept to avoid assaulting people in public places with offensive and hazardous substances they'd rather do without. Define "public places." BTW I don't smoke in public places, only in private businesses whose owners have welcomed me to do so. There is always a way to solve problems between disparate groups if a solution is truly the goal. In this issue, though, the admitted goal is to coerce smokers by whatever means are necessary into quitting. Behavior manipulation and social engineering are not valid American values. At least not to me.

I've sometimes been inclined to respond to people who ask if they may smoke around me--that it's OK with me if I can fart in their face.

Perhaps you can answer this question I've asked so many times: Why is it that anti-smokers are so fixated on body functions? Of course, when the scatalogical references begin it simply means there are no more grown-up arguments to be had. If you want to put your hard-earned money into a "fart-friendly" establishment and put a sign on the door stating your policy, I have no problem with that unless you try to FORCE me inside. CHOICE--Ain't it grand?

[Max McGarrity]

Hasn't there been a twin's study comparing twins where one partner was reared in a smoker's home and one wasn't?

No,there has been no such study. There was, however, an ad put out by the American Legacy (Lunacy) Foundation that purported to show such twins. They were forced to admit that one of the girls had been made up to look haggard and old after being called on it.

[Max McGarrity]

Hasn't there been a twin's study comparing twins where one partner was reared in a smoker's home and one wasn't?

No,there has been no such study. There was, however, an ad put out by the American Legacy (Lunacy) Foundation that purported to show such twins. They were forced to admit that one of the girls had been made up to look haggard and old after being called on it.

[Just another Joe]

Hey, Max, it's could to see you posting on the board.
I read that the fires had come very close but missed your house. Prayers do get listened to.

I sent you a FReepmail. Any chance you remember what I'm talking about?

[nkycincinnatikid]

Ever gonna give up pot?

[Quix]

How many small group "working lunches" have you been required to attend where either

1) the minority number of smokers were ranking and/or intimidating enough in their personality that the non-smokers became wimps and ascented reluctantly to sitting in the smoking section of the restaurant . . .

OR

2) the smoker majority of the group hesitated less than a micro-second to choose the smoking section . . .

OR

3) AS IS EXCEEDINGLY TYPICAL, there's little to no effective difference between the smoking and non-smoking sections. There may be some slightly significant statistical difference between the particulate count but those with allergies or even just serious annoyance/aversion responses to smoke are up a creek without nose plugs and seriously HAZ-MAT respirators.

And you call this free choice?

Interesting concept.

[Quix]

I've been exceedingly insulted in my life, but this takes the cake--DU--SHEESH! I virtually never hit the abuse button. This may be the 3rd time in years that I've considered it.

Besides all that, I have no clue what you're going on about.

[gcruse]

Haven't had any in about 20 years, thanks.

[Quix]

Please see post 69 . . .

In terms of body functions . . . what would you call smoking?

In terms of playing with one's ash . . . what would you call smoking?

In terms of smelling up the place . . . what would you call smoking?

In terms of sharp, noisey, rapid smelly expulsions of air out the ash end, . . . what would you call smoker's cough?

Behavior manipulation and social engineering? I gather you avoid stopping at red lights; throw garbage in your neighbor's yard; ride a bicycle on the sidewalk; talk loudly during a movie and play fun games yelling "fire" or "snake" during the movie's quieter moments just to get your money's worth of entertainment; go bare chested to a business lunch; wear industrial strength after shave lotion just because your nose has been blunted so much by smoking; spice up your food 2-3 times above normal because YOUR taste buds have been neutered so much by smoking;

. . . I suppose I should cheer you on in your grand freedom-loving

AVOIDANCE of ALL

BEHAVIORAL MANIPULATION and SOCIAL ENGINEERING!

Such a free-spirit, you!

[Quix]

Have asked a friend at cancer.org if he can help out with the research study aspect.

[Just another Joe]

The World Health Organization did one. HERE'S The link

The American Cancer Society did one for 38 years. HERE'S the link to that one.

And the Oak Ridge National Laboratory did one also. I don't have the link to that one off the top of my head. If you truly want the link let me know and I'll find that one also.

[Just another Joe]

Here's the list of studies and their associated risk findings.

Keep in mind that most epidemialogical studies discount a risk percent if it is lower than 2.00.
I count 94 studies that have statistics associated and 14 that have a risk of 2.00 or more.

TABLE I

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NONSMOKERS MARRIED TO SMOKERS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Number of lung cancers	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 1	1981	USA	F	153	1.18	(0.90 - 1.54)
Chan	1982	Hong Kong	F	84	0.75	(0.43 - 1.30)
Correa	1983	USA	F M	22 8	2.07 1.97	(0.81 - 5.25) (0.38-10.32)
Trichopoulos	1983	Greece	F	77	2.08	(1.20-3.59)
Buffler	1984	USA	F M	41 11	0.80 0.51	(0.34-1.90) (0.14-1.79)
Hiramaya	1984	Japan	F M	200 64	1.45 2.24	(1.02-2.08) (1.19-4.22)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	24 12	0.79 1.00	(0.25-2.45) (0.20-5.07)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	134	1.23	(0.81-1.87)
Lam W	1985	Hong Kong	F	60	2.01	(1.09-3.72)
Wu	1985	USA	F	29	1.20	(0.50-3.30)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F M	94 19	1.50 1.80	(0.90-2.80) (0.40-7.00)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	32 15	1.00 1.30	(0.37-2.71) (0.38-4.39)
Brownson 1	1987	USA	F	19	1.68	(0.39-6.90)
Gao	1987	China	F	246	1.19	(0.82-1.73)
Humble	1987	USA	F M	20 8	2.20 4.82	(0.80-6.60) (0.63-36.56)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	86	1.64	(0.87-3.09)
Lam T	1987	Hong Kong	F	199	1.65	(1.16-2.35)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	70	1.20	(0.70-2.10)
Butler	1988	USA	F	8	2.02	(0.48-8.56)
Geng	1988	China	F	54	2.16	(1.08-4.29)
Inoue	1988	Japan	F	22	2.25	(0.80-8.80)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	90	1.08	(0.64-1.82)
Choi	1989	Korea	F M	75 13	1.63 2.73	(0.92-2.87) (0.49-15.21)
Hole	1989	Scotland	F M	6 3	1.89 3.52	(0.22-16.12) (0.32-38.65)
Svensson	1989	Sweden	F	34	1.26	(0.57-2.81)
Janeric	1990	USA	F M	144 44	0.75 0.75	(0.47-1.20) (0.31-1.78)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	90	2.11	(1.09-4.08)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	144	1.13	(0.78-1.63)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	417	0.70	(0.60-0.90)
Liu Z	1991	China	F	54	0.77	(0.30-1.96)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	431	1.00	(0.80-1.20)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	62	1.60	(0.80-3.00)
Liu Q	1993	China	F	38	1.66	(0.73-3.78)
Du	1993	China	F	75	1.09	(0.64-1.85)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	651	1.29	(1.04-1.60)
Layard	1994	USA	F M	39 21	0.58 1.47	(0.30-1.13) (0.55-3.94)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	162	1.66	(1.12-2.46)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	67 39	1.08 1.60	(0.60-1.94) (0.67-3.82)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F M	185 72	1.10 1.10	(0.72-1.68) (0.60-2.03)
Sun	1996	China	F	230	1.16	(0.80-1.69)
Wang S-Y	1996	China	F	82	2.53	(1.26-5.10)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	135	1.11	(0.67-1.84)
Cardenas	1997	USA	F M	150 97	1.20 1.10	(0.80-1.60) (0.60-1.80)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F M	53 18	1.58 1.58	(0.74-3.38) (0.52-4.81)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F M	242 62	0.93 0.93	(0.66-1.31) (0.52-1.67)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	105	1.30	(0.70-2.50)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F M	89 35	1.20 1.20	(0.74-1.94) (0.57-2.55)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed. In the Swartz (1996), Jöckel-BIPS (1997) and Nyberg (1997) studies, relative risk and confidence interval data were reported for the sexes combined. These data were separated based on the respective number of cases by sex, assuming the same relative risk for each sex.

TABLE II

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NONSMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN THE WORKPLACE

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Kabat 1	1984	USA	F M	0.68 3.27	(0.32-1.47) (1.01-10.62)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.93	(0.55-1.55)
Wu	1985	USA	F	1.30	(0.50-3.30)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.63 1.61	(0.17-2.33) (0.39-6.60)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	1.19	(0.48-2.95)
Shimizu	1988	Japan	F	1.18	(0.70-2.01)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.91	(0.80-1.04)
Kalandidi	1990	Greece	F	1.70	(0.69-4.18)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	1.10	(0.90-1.60)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.79	(0.61-1.03)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.39	(1.11-1.74)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	1.23	(0.74-2.06)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.15 1.02	(0.62-2.13) (0.50-2.09)
Schwartz	1996	USA	F & M	1.50	(1.00-2.20)
Sun	1996	China	F	1.38	(0.94-2.04)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.89	(0.46-1.73)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	2.37	(1.02-5.48)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	1.51	(0.95-2.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	1.10	(0.40-3.00)
Nyberg	1997	Sweden	F & M	1.60	(0.90-2.90)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE III

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN CHILDHOOD

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Correa	1983	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	0.91	(0.74-1.12)
Wu	1985	USA	F	0.60	(0.20-1.12)
Akiba	1986	Japan	F & M	no statistically	significant association
Gao	1987	China	F	1.10	(0.70-1.70)
Koo	1987	Hong Kong	F	0.55	(0.17-1.77)
Pershagen	1987	Sweden	F	1.00	(0.40-2.30)
Svenson	1989	Sweden	F	3.30	(0.50-18.80)
Janarich	1990	USA	F & M	1.30	(0.85-2.00)
Sobue	1990	Japan	F	1.28	(0.71-2.31)
Wu-Williams	1990	China	F	0.85	(0.65-1.12)
Brownson 2	1992	USA	F	0.80	(0.60-1.10)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	1.70	(1.00-2.90)
Fontham	1994	USA	F	0.89	(0.72-1.10)
Zaridze	1994	Russia	F	0.98	(0.66-1.45)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F	1.63	(0.91-2.92)
Sun	1996	China	F	2.29	(1.56-3.37)
Wang T-J	1996	China	F	0.91	(0.56-1.48)
Jöckel-BIPS	1997	Germany	F & M	1.05	(0.50-2.22)
Jöckel-GSF	1997	Germany	F & M	0.95	(0.64-1.40)
Ko	1997	Taiwan	F	0.80	(0.40-1.60)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE IV

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN NON-HOME/NON-WORKPLACE SETTINGS

Author	Year	Location	Sex of the subject	Average Relative Risk	Relative Risk fluctuation (min/max) (95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 2	1985	USA	F	1.42	(0.75-2.70)
Lee	1986	UK	F M	0.61 1.55	(0.29-1.28) (0.40-6.02)
Janerich	1990	USA	F & M	0.59	(0.43-0.81)
Stockwell	1992	USA	F	no statistically	significant association
Fontham	1994	USA	F	1.50	(1.19-1.89)
Kabat 2	1995	USA	F M	1.22 1.39	(0.69-2.15) (0.67-2.86)

The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

[Max McGarrity]

Thanks, Joe, yep, the fire came close enough to singe my eyebrows, but we dodged the bullet. I sent you the list I have that a friend charted. Is that the one you were thinking about?

[Max McGarrity]

The incidence of lung cancer is about 10 times higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Possible this is only a coincidence.

I thought the incidence WAs higher than that. It doesn't matter, though, because even the most rabid anti-smoker understands it's not his business what an adult human does to himself. Without the junk science proclaiming environmental tobacco smoke a biohazard, the anti-freedom cartel would never have gotten a toehold.

[185JHP]

"Whole wide world" would mean smokers couldn't smoke in their own homes. At this point, we're talking about "public places." BTW thanks for your civility.

[Great Dane]

Besides all that, I have no clue what you're going on about.

And you think I need educating, think again.