Posted on 08/14/2006 7:32:01 AM PDT by calcowgirl
What's next?
How about fatty foods that create "beached whale" politicians?
Heart attacks.
Clogged arteries.
Clogged brains
They will have trouble with the Hispanics!
You're probably right.
You know, I don't care much for smoking inside. (I think there are ways of accomodating smokers and non-smokers without turning smokers into the equivalent of biblical-era lepers, though. ) But the absolute worst air I've ever experienced, much worse than any tobacco-smoke-filled room I've been in, was outside -- on the streets of Gatlinburg, Tennessee, gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains (I guess that's the explanation right there.) The traffic was so congested and the auto exhaust fumes so thick that I coughed and gagged while I was going down the sidewalk. I'm just thankful that I didn't run into any cigarette smokers along the way, and I hope against hope that no one in those cars was smoking and endangering their passengers.
"The study was quietly shelved, and details have never been released."
Here is part of it that I found a long time ago in a 'cached' website. It disappeared from the internet shortly after.
"UK Sunday Telegraph...
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998
The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
simple just tell the cop it's a joint and you're off scot free
We know, even though you should be.
At the same time smoking is more regulated, concealed carry is becoming more widespread. Not to mention that the smoking bans are being initiated at the local level.
In the late 19th century, the state legislature of Idaho came within one vote of declaring the value of pi, by law, to be 3.1.
It was done for the public benefit of not having to waste time with all those useless and bothersome decimal points.
Laws and "declarations" can be as stupid and insane as the individuals making them.
Most smokers are addicts. They don't listen to reason, or behave accordingly.
Seig Heil!
Has there ever been any hard evidence of the harm of second hand smoke?
I recall the original EPA report turned out to be a bunch separate studies lumped together with no clear outcome.
Anti-smokers are the addicts..........they have no concept of reason and thus act accordingly.
"I think we try to micromanage people's lives to an extent that's getting ridiculous, whether it's health or dietary or lifestyle decisions," said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg.
"Yep, cleaner air."
You sure about that? Let's see the proof. Of course, we all know you meant, "Yep, less smelly air."
"Regulating smoking unfortunately is necessary."
Says the enemies of individual liberty, private property and personal responsibility.
So you are saying that anything people can be addicted to should be regulated? Gambling? Sex (including porn)? Junk food? Sports?
Regulating smoking unfortunately is necessary.
Why?
Most smokers are addicts. They don't listen to reason, or behave accordingly.
Funny thing is, the exact same thing can be said about irrational, neurotic, rabid anti-smokers...
Didn't take long to fine 'em, did it?
;-)
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.