Posted on 01/05/2006 6:57:14 AM PST by SheLion
"The Fraud Examined in the BMJ"
There was a study done in Great Britain on ETS (environmental tobacco smoke). This study was done very slowly, methodically, and slowly. It took FORTY YEARS to finish. It finally finished last year, and was published in the reknowned British medical Journal. It concluded there was no great risk being exposed to ETS, and the Dr. that had headed the study even bemoaned the fact that he hated smoking-and wished it were otherwise-BUT-he reported the facts as the study showed, and their findings were true. Proving the outcry over the last 15 years to be false & misleading. What's that you say?? You never heard of this study?? Why...that's because the media in this country (and most others, I would imagine) REFUSED TO REPORT IT!! Yet the media will forever parrot the anti-smoker Taliban's garbage & hate-filled propaganda as gospel, because they hate smokers, too.
posted by Foolkiller at 05:30 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 21, 2005 #
Second Hand Smoke is NOT The Killer The Anti's Want You To Believe. Check out all the studies that have been and are being done on this issue
BUMP!
I have said all along that second hand smoke was a BS issue.
First, I hate smoking. That said, I also disagree with bans on smoking, lets businesses do as they please.
As far as the dangers of second-hand smoke, all I can say is I grew up in a chain-smoking household and I lived a very sick life up (breathing and hacking up muckus) until I turned 18 and left.
In related news, second hand smoke still disgusting and obnoxious.
It doesn't matter. This effort by the Smoke Gnatzies has taken on it's own life, even sucking in Conservatives and personal choices are declining when it comes to business owners deciding for themselves.
Like I've said before, as the left keeps curtailing choices, soon the only choice left will be to slaughter your unborn!
You know and I know that Audrey knows what she is talking about.............but alas, most will just ignore it.
Then stay away from smokers......
Nonetheless, quite benign in contrast to the ranting of anti-smokers.
Doesn't matter however, they will still tax and regulate and have one of the smallest percentages of Americans pay for everything with additional taxes.
OUCH, that hurts. More than one smoke Gnatzi has claimed my child would be better off had I had an abortion instead of being born to parents who happen to smoke.
In related news, second hand smoke still disgusting and obnoxious.
Nonetheless, quite benign in contrast to the ranting of anti-smokers.
***
I don't smoke, but I don't care if others do. I'd prefer they not do it in "my" space, though. I oppose smoking bans. It should be left to the property owner.
I'll also agree with you that the ranting of anti-smokers can be pretty shrill, but when it ends, it is over. The cigarette smoke in your clothes continues to smell, however, until they are cleaned.
bookmarked
I'm really surprised to see so many so-called Conservatives here jump on the Smoke Gnatzy band wagon and fail to see this isn't as much about smoking as it is control of the masses and denial of personal freedoms.
Smoking is only the smoke screen.
Typical. The smokers in my office huddle around the front door so that I can't get into the office without wading through the smoke. Still, I am bad for not liking the smoke and I am supposed to find a way to stay away from them.
From the article: Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
***
The bans are apparently premised on protecting smokers, but not necessarily just from health effects, but from the bothersome nature of the smoke to many people. I don't support such bans, except in public places where people don't have the choice on whether to be there or not (courthouses, city/county offices, etc.). The free market should control this behavior. If you want to smoke, go to an establishment that allows it. If you can't stand it, go to one that prohibits it.
As for "constitutional ethics" I don't know what that is. But every law is something of a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Criminal laws are addressed to a very small minority-- those who would commit crimes. I don't think this rises anywhere near a constitutional issue.
Cigar and pipe tobacco also? Or just cigarettes?
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.