In a truly free society, we don't all have to make the same decisions

Jewish World Review ^ | November, 30, 2005 | John Stossel

[GarySpFc]

Wrong! We do know for a fact second hand smoke is dangerous. The American Heart Association agrees with me on this point.

American Heart Association questions validity of new second-hand smoke study

WASHINGTON (May 15, 2003) – A new study about second-hand smoke and health is seriously flawed and contradicted by decades of credible scientific research that clearly and irrefutably shows a connection between passive smoking and serious health problems, according to the American Heart Association.

::snip::

"Respected, science-based organizations have agreed for over 20 years that second-hand smoke is linked to coronary heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory diseases,” said Robert O. Bonow, M.D., president of the American Heart Association. “Credible health organizations from around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization and several U.S. Surgeons General, have all concluded that second-hand smoke is responsible for thousands of deaths each year.”

For the complete article go to:>br>
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3011851

[mugs99]

I don't know, and what I think isn't relevant. Show me the data!
.

[mugs99]

"Respected, science-based organizations have agreed for over 20 years that second-hand smoke is linked to coronary heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory diseases,” said Robert O. Bonow, M.D., president of the American Heart Association.

Again, no scientific data...Just correlation equals causation "studies". I can use the same methodology to prove that love is an addictive and dangerous drug that should be prohibited.
.

[Billthedrill]

Governments don't just act as nannies in this sort of case because it's good for you. They do it so they can tax the snot out of you.

[GarySpFc]

Again, no scientific data...Just correlation equals causation "studies". I can use the same methodology to prove that love is an addictive and dangerous drug that should be prohibited.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! I quote further from the article.

Recent evidence has added to this scientific consensus. Just last month, researchers in Helena, Montana, showed that the incidence of heart attacks dropped by 60 percent following the city’s adoption of a smoke-free policy in local restaurants and bars.

[TKDietz]

"It seems unfair that responsible people have to pay huge sums for plans that offer negligible preventive care so that the system can afford to pay for the inevitable health crises of gluttons, smokers and drug-users."

Should we then ban overeating, candy, Twinkies, and so on, along with smoking, or should insurance companies just charge higher premiums for people engaging in these activities? Personally, I'd rather just see health insurance providers charge more for people who engage in unhealthy activities. Obviously they won't catch it all and many will get away with leading unhealthy lifestyles while paying no more than people who lead healthy lifestyles, but that's just life. We cannot legislate a completely fair world. And of course, unless you are under court order to have employer sponsored health insurance for some reason you could always just use a private insurance carrier with policies more to your liking or pay your medical costs out of your pocket. I'd prefer that to a government that meddles in every aspect of our lives.

America is looking less and less like a free country everyday, and one thing that really bugs me about that is that people are just allowing that to happen, encouraging it in fact. Instead of fighting for smaller government and less government intrusion in people's lives, so many seem to want the government to control every aspect of their neighbors' lives. To these people all I can say is be careful what you wish for because you just might get it, and odds are you won't like what this country becomes.

[MileHi]

A new study about second-hand smoke and health is seriously flawed and contradicted by decades of credible scientific research that clearly and irrefutably shows a connection between passive smoking and serious health problems, according to the American Heart Association.

So, AHA says so. And what is their financial stake in the new study being "flawed"?

[MileHi]

...showed that the incidence of heart attacks dropped by 60 percent following the city’s adoption of a smoke-free policy in local restaurants and bars.

When did the law pass? 25 years ago or are they implying that exposure to "second hand smoke" will kill you in a year? Talk about bogus science.

[mugs99]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! I quote further from the article

ROFL!!!
The Helena study has already been called into question by legitimate science. There was a thread on it right here on FR.
The Helena study is bogus.
Why can't you guys produce verifiable scientific data to back up these so called studies?
Everytime this subject comes up I ask for data. Not once has anyone produced verifiable scientific data!
Is science based fact too much to ask for?
.

[Know your rights]

And we have a DEA why, exactly?

As a make-work program for thugs.

[Know your rights]

It seems unfair that responsible people have to pay huge sums for plans that offer negligible preventive care so that the system can afford to pay for the inevitable health crises of gluttons, smokers and drug-users.

Who says you have to? Don't like what the market offers, don't buy insurance.

[GarySpFc]

Obviouly you are a smoker. I was at one time, and fully understand the bias by those who would sell their first-born for a smoke.

[ClaireSolt]

This sounds so naive and self righteous. "Those of us who DO live responsibly naturally resent it." You are the kind of person that people yearn to see hit by lightning. Life is unpredictable, so don't go getting smug.

[anonymoussierra]

Thank you"sergey1973"how are you good friend?

[mugs99]

Obviouly you are a smoker

Nope, I'm not a smoker. It just bothers me that some are willing to take a liberty from another in the name of a percieved danger. A real scientist gave an easy to understand example of what's going on with these "studies":

Ponder this - The average life expectancy of hunter/gatherers was about 20 years.
By 1900 with several thousand years of natural selection global life expectancy was about 40 years.
The automobile was invented roughly at that time. Today, global life expectancy is about 66 years.

Conclusion - the introduction of auto exhaust into the atmosphere has increased global life expectancy by 26 years, or 65%.

Of course, the conclusion leaves out a lot of factors, just like a lot of so-called studies on second hand smoke.
.

[sergey1973]

Hi Sara--I think I'm fine ! How about you ? What do you think about this article?

[sergey1973]

"I don't smoke. I don't like being around people who smoke. In general, I will choose to patronize a restaurant or work for a company that prohibits smoking in the building.
But I sure as hell don't want the government forcing said restaurant or business to be smoke-free."


Couldn't agree more. When government starts making its business micromanaging people lives, the results are predictably disastrous.

[anonymoussierra]

persons is persons Sergiej thank you