What did it ban then? Or try to ban . .. I will look into it http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926/hl_nm/newyork_fat_dc They at least trying Rocket RIver
I am answering the claim that it is accepted medical fact that second hand smoke is a health hazard. The irony is that the Big Tobacco has (rightfully) engendered such scorn that the opposition (in this instance the antismoking lobby and the government) are perpetrating the same kind of offenses that got Big Tobacco the bad rep to begin with - including everything from cherry picking data to outright fraud. The presumption against second hand smoke relies on your intuitive feeling that since first hand smoke is bad for you then second hand smoke must be bad for you. But a health hazard isn't something with a zero+ level of risk. For example, one drink (zero+) kills brain cells. That is damage to your body. But it isn't a health hazard. If you wake up in the morning and drink vodka from the bottle everyday you might get liver disease (you also might not). If you have a drink three nights a week when you go to a bar the odds are highly against you getting liver disease. Similarly, if you smoke three packs a day from 15 to 70 you might get a related illness (you might not), but if you are exposed to smoke three nights a week in a bar the odds are highly against you getting a related illness. The risk does not come near the threshold used to ban toxic substances like asbestos or other pollutants. Sure. Some of the benefits are documented across the board, like stress reduction. Some of the benefits are psychological which I don't think the government/antismoking lobby has addressed. Some are actually independent (not funded by the government, big tobacco, or the antismoking lobby). It's true that some of the connections are not well understood, like Alzheimer's and Parkinsons, but your claim was that you'd never heard of any positive health effects so I was merely answering that claim. Sam, I was pretty shocked when I first started digging into the details (it was related to my Masters Thesis). I also had the presumption that you hold but unraveling each declaration from the government, each pronouncement from the anti-smoking lobby, each piece of thier agenda being advanced, I came to be very skeptical of the 'accepted conclusions' about ETS. I literally examined thousands of pages of Congressional Testimony, court cases, most if not all major studies on the issue, government policy papers etc.
You know I did some reading up on this yesterday and it looks like a lot of the criticisms that are lobbed at the secondhand smoke studies seem to be based on the grounds that "It's just a bunch of antismoking zealots who cooked the books" regarding one particular study. I can't address the merits of the technical arugments (though the EPA or whatever did publish a lengthy rebuttal)...... ..but on the other side of the coin, the people who claim that Second hand smoke is NOT harmful (not you but the pros) are generally those who are bought and paid for by the tobacco industry, so I don't see where that gets us to just say "this study is biased because it's run by a bunch of antismoking zealots" when the criticism comes from somebody equally (and, given the disparate $$ at stake for t hem, probably more) biased. For example, I read taht the judge who, as part of a preliminary finding of fact, decided the study was inadmissible that you mentioned yesterday - was a former tobacco lobbyist himself (and the deicison was later overturned on other grounds). Anway even assuming you're right on that one study, there's a number of different studies out there on the negative effects of secondhand smoke on coronary and pulmonary function from across the globe, and I find it hard to believe that they have all been refuted or exposed as frauds.
I understand your skepticism. I'll give you an example on point about coronary and pulmonary studies. Let's say you have a heart attack. You go to the hospital. They ask you a battery of questions including if you smoke. If you say yes it's recorded as a smoking related heart problem. All I can tell you is that I found it hard to believe as well. But why is it hard to believe agenda guides findings from the anti-smoking lobby when you believe it does from the smoking lobby? Political agenda has guided mar1juana study - freezing out scientists and findings opposite the government's agenda. I can assure you the criticisms are not confined to one study, nor are they just assertions about anti-smoking zealots. Also, don't underestimate the $$$ at stake for the antismoking apparatus and the government, since you see that as a motive to use agenda to guide results.
You are arguing to a brick wall. Fishy likes to argue, period. I'm assuming because he never gets any court time. Point being, quit giving Fishy his bait. He'll go away soon enough. BTW, You've brought up some brilliant points about European smoking health hazards vs. Americans. While I'm certainly not saying cigarettes can't be harmful, they certaintly aren't definitely harmful. Hell, everyone in my family smokes. Not a one has died from a smoke related disease. Again, the only one still living is 92. Second-hand smoke being harmful is akin to pollen, or a commute through Pasadena, at best. While there may be a .00001% chance that someone dies of second-hand smoke, is this really worth the non-smokers fighting over? NO. It is just an easy way to dictate their principals on us. You guys love Bill Hicks, right? Listen to what he had to say about this crap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj2o-vo1S6I
We need to have a King/theColeman photoshopoff to resolve the issue of the smoking ban once and for all. VS. get it on.
You should have a right to go there, and the bar owner should have a RIGHT to allow people to smoke in there. Give everyone a choice. DD
Don't you have a choice not to smoke? Once someone lights up, you've made a choice for ALL of those around you. There's a big difference. You want to kill yourself fine, don’t drag the rest of us with you. You want your skin to look like leather when you're 50 fine. I personally don't. You want to not be able to go 15 seconds with out coughing, discolored teeth, smell like crap, have stains on your fingers, get irritated when you can't get your fix, spend 40 bucks a week, fine don't let me stop you. I'm glad this is taking affect. The best thing to do is quit. Then, the smoking ban won't affect you. Now that this is going into effect.....CHOOSE to go outside and spare the rest of us your nasty a$$ habit. By the way, I smoked for 7 years, so I know exactly how hard it is to quit.
