Posted on 07/09/2006 10:11:30 AM PDT by SheLion
The Surgeon General showed up very regal looking to provide a press release rehashing the tired old argument that secondhand smoke is deadly and must be banned. And with his next statement:
Separate "no smoking" sections DO NOT protect you from secondhand smoke. Neither does filtering the air or opening a window.
It seemed a feable attempt to pre-empt any action short of a total smoking ban.....as if to confirm that pro-smoking ban activists' credibility in the public is failing miserably.
Well I am sorry to report that the American Cancer Society conducted air quality testing at several smoking venues which prove the Sugeon General flat out wrong.
Liar Liar pants on fire!
Good post, She Lion!
BTTT!
THANK YOU!!!
And the moron brigade is passing LAWS because of this jackass!
Seriesly?
Physicians and lawyers are in competition to see who becomes the elite class of the new dark age.
Nanny Statist Smackdown PING!!!!!
It's not the facts.
It's the headlines.
Businesses have lost money since the nine-day-old Colorado smoking ban took effect!
better question yet...is just WHO the surgeon general is working for.....
I recognize that, as a smoker, you have a much greater risk of acquiring a number of conditions that a non-smoker has a much lower risk of. But smokers are breathing in the carcinogens at a much greater concentration for a much longer time period than the people they live with, let alone those of us who occasionally eat with them in a restaurant.
Consider the following statistics from ASH (Action on Smoking and Health):
|
Time since quitting |
Beneficial health changes that take place |
|
20 minutes |
Blood pressure and pulse rate return to normal. |
|
8 hours |
Nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in blood reduce by half, oxygen levels return to normal. |
|
24 hours |
Carbon monoxide will be eliminated from the body. |
|
48 hours |
There is no nicotine left in the body. |
|
72 hours |
Breathing becomes easier. |
|
2 - 12 weeks |
Circulation improves. |
|
3 - 9 months |
Coughs, wheezing and breathing problems improve as lung function is increased by up to 10%. |
|
1 year |
Risk of a heart attack falls to about half that of a smoker. |
|
10 years |
Risk of lung cancer falls to half that of a smoker. |
|
15 years |
Risk of heart attack falls to the same as someone who has never smoked. |
If this is correct for smokers, what are the timelines like for people that don't inhale directly from cigarettes multiple times a day?
I can buy the fact that prolonged exposure in enclosed spaces can pose health risks (to some extent) for non-smoking family members, but come on! The level of non-smoking deaths we've been quoted don't pass the smell test at all.
I'm not a doctor. In fact, I have no medical aptitude whatsoever. I do know a behavior-modification con-job when I smell one, though.
Thank you! I'm tired of these people in zoot suits trying to make life more miserable for legal smokers of a legal commodity!
Yep! And I don't even think this idiot is a real DOCTOR for heaven's sake!
Physicians and lawyers are in competition to see who becomes the elite class of the new dark age.
They are making it DARK alright! And we all know they won't stop at smokers! They are already into our food and jumping on parents for having obese kids. Yes, very dark days ahead indeed.
Me too, and I enjoy your pings, but I don't often comment on those threads because I would come off sounding like a broken record.
LOL.
That's all I have been reading of late. How the smoking ban is affecting businesses and forcing the business owners to lay off, cut back and even close.
Hugh...just hugh...
He works out of the White House. He was appointed by the President. Not sure if he is a Clintoon hang over or not. But he was appointed by the President and sits on his council.
No one has even HEARD of this idiot until he jumped on the second hand smoke bandwagon!
In phase II of this con job, local governments all over the place will cite his finding as the basis for promulgating new rules, thus accomplishing the same effect - further restrictions on smokers.
This is a planned strategy, IMHO. And the blatant dishonesty makes me ill.
I guess the surgeon general has ignored the 39-year study that shows the passive-smoking problem to be a lie: http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html.
You bet!
And by the time the challenges to the laws that kicked smokers out are successfully challenged, the relevent businesses will have already closed and they can make a NEW law via referendum.
The Colorado law CAN be tossed out for it's unconstitutionality alone -it exempts casinos.
Equal protection clause.
Your link didn't work for me.
This is nothing more than a 40-plus-year-old social experiment.
One of the ballot ammendments in CA appears to make the CA government liable for damages when regulations reduce property values (a business is a property...)
I see! Ya put a period at the end of your link.
We are the healthiest population on the planet! Why do we need a Surgeon General anyway? What is he a General of?
That's cool. I'd seen the information elsewhere, and ASH just happened to come up on the search. I know nothing about them, actually.
This narrow example of information they're giving, though, doesn't sound particularly political or propogandish. It states simply that body fixes itself pretty spectacularly, and in very short order.
What it tells me is that if the recovery rate for smokers is this fast, that the disease rates for non-smokers has been wildly exaggerated.
Nil
Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
PLEASE! Show me ONE autopsy report that says that a person died from being exposed to secondhand smoke.
I'm with you my friend.....I'm with you.
My friend down the road is really funny about all of this. She's in her 20s and is a non-smoker. If she catches something on the news about the bogus BS from the antis she's ont he phone to me immediately to see if I caught. Even she knows most of it is hogwash and is sickened over it.
Who said anything about second hand smoke?
Whoops - the period got included in the URL. Thanks for reposting.
A "conservative" that buys into the liberal dogma. Interesting.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION BURIES SECOND-HAND SMOKE STUDY
Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
When I said it would make things interesting for the rest of us, I meant to watch.
Again, provided that a certain number of cigarettes are poisoned... Otherwise watching someone smoke would be as dull as dishwater. Every thousandth one, however, would be sheer entertainment.
Oh, I'm sorry. You referred to murdering smokers. Nothing less.
Mixed you up there with another tobaccophobic.
Sho me one that says a person died from smoking first hand.
Here we go again. They gotta have a "cause" no matter how stupid it is. I was raised in a home where my parents smoked, our children (both non-smokers) were raised in a home where we smoked and I hate to tell these tobacco "Carrie Nations" of today, but my own grandkids who all live in non-smoking homes have more respiratory problems than we or our children did. Figure that one out. This is a sham, a shake-down but what REALLY bugs me is the gooberment infringing on the rights of business owners......dictating what they can and cannot do in their establishments! Wake up people......this is serious....gooberment here, there and everywhere in peoples private lives. My Hub firmly believes (after dealing with different environmental groups through some new construction at his office), they'll be telling us exactly how to set our thermostats, if we can cut trees on our own property and God know what else in the very near future. It's already happening in some parts of the country now. ENOUGH intrustion already and damn the politicians who cater and pander to these groups.......this JUNK SCIENCE crowd!
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION BURIES SECOND-HAND SMOKE STUDY
Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
Interesting indeed. A "conservative" who quotes a U.N. Study (The world Health Organization) to prove that smoking is A-OK. (Great source, Comrade Citizen!)
Make no mistake, I'm all in favor of smokers doing what they do. I just want them to do it quicker and with no additional costs to taxpayers.
Thanks for the ping.
So, the scourgeon general's a fibbin'....
Who woulda thunk it?
No one talked about murder, so don't be a drama queen.
Smoking poison-laced cigarettes would be entirely voluntary. It would merely be a way to further enhance the "bad boy" image and make cigarettes more entertaining... in a Russian Roulette sorta way.
That is another good point. Entirely in keeping with the 'Modest Proposal' of the poison-laced brand of smokes.
Why would anyone assume smoke gnatzies would let something as trivial as truth interfere with their socialist takeover of peoples lives?
The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated
The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs.
An in-depth analysis of 400,000 U.S. smoking-related deaths by National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute Robert Levy identified a disturbing number of flaws in the methodology used to estimate these deaths. Incorrectly classifying some diseases as smoking-related and choosing the wrong standard of comparison each overstated deaths by more than 65 per cent.
Failure to control for confounding variables such as diet and exercise turned estimates more into a computerized shell game than reliable estimates of deaths.
Marimont and Levy also found no adjustments were made to the costs of smoking resulting from the benefits of smoking -- reduced Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, less obesity, depression and breast cancer.
If it were possible to estimate 45,000 smoking-related Canadian deaths as some health activists imagine -- and Marimont, Levy and other respected researchers think it is not -- then applying an identical methodology to other lifestyle choices would yield 57,000 Canadian deaths due to lack of exercise and 73,000 Canadian deaths blamed on poor diets.
The point is that it was buried because it did NOT back their view. Or yours. Face it, you have more in common with the UN than I do.
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.