Posted on 06/28/2006 10:39:04 PM PDT by SheLion
Psst! Hey kid! Come over here and jump off this bridge! All the cool kids've done it 'n you're the only one left! It won't hurt, it'll be fun. Anyhow, if ya don't do it, I'm gonna come back 'n bugya, 'n bugya, 'n bugya forever till ya do.
Don't worry though, they'll come back to clean up those scraps once the rest of the rowdies have been pacified and you're all alone. Meanwhile, just shut up and don't make waves!
If the smoking ban was actually based upon a concern for the health of the workers, if the studies supporting it were actually carried out and cited honestly, I would not complain. I might be unhappy, but I wouldn't complain.
So why do I complain? Simply because the above conditions don't hold true. Most of the studies cited at the City Council hearings were paid for by anti-smoking-earmarked funds: studies guaranteed to turn out results that ensure the researchers' future grant streams. In those rare cases where a study's results did not support the predetermined agenda, they were simply reinterpreted and massaged so it would appear they did support a ban.
Am I exaggerating? Not at all.
One of the flagship studies used to promote the smoking ban involved Helena, Mont. "The Great Helena Heart Miracle" made headlines and newscasts around the world trumpeting the news that protecting nonsmokers from smoke brought about an immediate drastic decrease in heart attacks and that removing that protection resulted in an immediate "bounce back" to the old higher rates of coronary episodes. In reality, the study itself made no analysis of nonsmokers, and the main "bounce back" actually occurred during, not after, the ban. Unfortunately, these observations received virtually no media coverage; they are known only to those who bother digging through the dusty cyberpages of the online British Medical Journal. The "miracle" was more fraudulent than miraculous, but it's universally used as proof of the urgent need for smoking bans.
Of course, Helena is just one study, and they've got thousands that support the need for smoking bans, don't they? No. Helena and a few others are their best and their brightest but are all similarly and deeply flawed. And they are all repeatedly paraded before legislators who rarely have the knowledge, conviction or inclination to question them.
Would you raise the question if you were in their place? Would you do so knowing you'd be accused of being a "Big Tobacco Mouthpiece" and realizing you'd be standing alone in mean-spirited opposition to the phalanx of innocent and pink-lunged children with whom Councilman Michael Nutter packed the balcony? And would you do so aware that you'd be sharing the TV screen with dozens of fresh-faced idealistic little girls wearing signs proclaiming the dread diseases you're condemning them to? What politician in their right mind would have the courage to stand up for truth when confronted with such opposition? Unfortunately, very few.
Last week, Lady Elaine Murphy of the British House of Lords chided me in an e-mail, saying that I had "completely missed the point" about the English smoking ban in talking to her about the science. She wrote that "the aim is to reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it." Now, that's quite different than the public posturings about "saving the health of the workers" and the images of oppressed teenaged waitresses being slaughtered by deadly toxins as they work their way through school. And, it's quite different than the cheap shows of pleading children in front of City Council's TV cameras.
The smoking ban is based on lies, even if they are lies that are often truly believed by those supporting it.
Philadelphians value freedom. Philadelphia is known as the birthplace of liberty. For Philadelphia to blithely trade away pieces of that individual freedom to heavily funded lobbying groups pursuing social-engineering goals based on lies is nothing short of a crime—a crime that we can only hope will be stopped by Mayor Street.
Michael J. McFadden is the author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains (Aethna Press) and the Mid-Atlantic director of The Smokers Club, Inc
It's appalling! I keep a list of the anti-smoking FReepers in here. You would NOT believe it!!!
"To compare human waste that is eventually and naturally making its way outside the body with the effects of smoking is really laughable."
Really, now...are you truly that challenged?
The statement was to address your quote about keeping the body clean, as if the body was somehow "clean" when someone doesn't smoke (although from your post, it's obvious that some people have much more waste in them than others).
I'll tell you what...if you think the comparison is so poor, ask everyone you know if they'd rather smoke a pack of cigarettes, or eat a pound of of their own human excrement. See if they're bought off by your assertion of "natural" being better.
What ever happened to principles?
"I'll tell you what...if you think the comparison is so poor, ask everyone you know if they'd rather smoke a pack of cigarettes, or eat a pound of of their own human excrement. See if they're bought off by your assertion of "natural" being better."
Your comparison is not poor, it is "absurd". Poor would be a vast improvement that would elevate you from the status of pea brain to half a brain.
For your absurd (Note: not poor but crazy) experiment to even be admissable as such, people would have to be asked if they would take a jar of black gooey tar taken from tobacco and have a doctor smear it all inside their lungs.
Because you take the end result of consuming food and absurdly (Note: not poor but crazy) try to create a test with the beginning process of self destructing your lungs by smoking cigarettes. That would be cheating and you can be absurd all you like but I am afraid I cannot allow you to cheat on top of it.
To be intellectually honest and relevant in a serious non absurd way, your experiment would need to be with the end result of both processes. The fact that you don't do so shows a high degree of being "challenged" or desperate. Which is it? I am starting to think both apply to you.
So to get back to your absurd (Note: not poor but crazy) experiment in which you cheat either from desperation or from being challenged, I think most people would go for the pound of excrement to eat rather than have a jar of gooey black tar smeared into their lungs. I know I would.
Little children in school learn that waste is produced in the body as part of the process of digesting food so a person can go on living. They are also taught that excrement can be used as fertalizer. You can take a pound of my crap and spread it around in your garden to help you grow tasty vegetables for you and your family to eat. What are people supposed to do with your tar from smoking?
"You can take a pound of my crap and spread it around in your garden to help you grow tasty vegetables for you and your family to eat. What are people supposed to do with your tar from smoking?"
No need to offer any more of your crap...you've already loaded this thread.
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.