I edited one of my posts above a while back.
Um, no. My point is that in a mythical socialized medical system in this country - taking into account all expenses to the government a citizen is, and the fact that, ultimately, everybody get unhealthy and dies, smokers will cost LESS than non-smokers on balance.
You ever gonna comment on Social Security funding?
I edited one of my posts above a while back.
I saw a story about that on ABC once there was 1 tiny grocery store and a load of fast food restaurants. No business wants to move in cause they don't want to get jacked.
They live in South LA. Do you think they could afford a sit-down, service restaurant?Perry says that's no accident. South LA residents lack healthy food options, including grocery stores, fresh produce markets — and full-service restaurants with wait staff and food prepared to order.
I dont. God forbid you have to cook your own food...
http://www.reuters.com/article/healt...0080730?rpc=64
BOSTON (Reuters) - Scotland's 2006 ban on smoking in public places cut the heart attack rate by 17 percent within one year, with non-smokers benefiting most, researchers reported on Wednesday.
The study is the first real-time, large-scale look at how a ban on second-hand smoke might benefit smokers and nonsmokers. Earlier research looked at the effect of smoking bans in individual cities, or had other limitations.
"A total of 67 percent of the decrease involved non-smokers," Dr. Jill Pell of the University of Glasgow and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The number of people admitted to nine Scottish hospitals for a heart attack dropped 14 percent among smokers, 19 percent among former smokers and 21 percent for those who had never smoked.
In contrast, the rate declined only by 4 percent in England during that period, before a ban went into effect there. Historically, heart attack rates in Scotland had been dropping 3 percent per year.
"There are a number of countries considering whether to impose similar bans, and obviously the more evidence of the effectiveness of such intervention, the more likely they are to do that," Pell said in a telephone interview.
Among the 5,919 cases she and her colleagues studied, women seemed to benefit the most. The heart attack rate among smokers dropped 19 percent compared to an 11 percent decline among men. It dropped 23 percent among female nonsmokers versus 18 percent among nonsmoking males.
There had been concern at the start of the ban that it would increase the amount of smoking in private homes.
Using measurements of a chemical that gauges exposure to cigarette smoke, the researchers found that the fear was unfounded, and exposure to secondhand smoke declined by 42 percent.
"So it seems that the ban is not only protecting non-smokers, it is changing society's idea of what is normal," said Pell.
When New York imposed tough restrictions on public smoking, exposure levels declined by 47 percent.
The United States does not have national smoking restrictions. Limits are placed by individual states or municipalities.
----
Just, you know, FYI.
Certainly glad CA and NYC don't represent the mainstream philosophy on governance, regardless of party affiliation.
was unaware states represented political philosophies, fringe, mainstream or otherwise
at any rate, if two of the biggest states do not belong to the vast, gooey middle they are not negligible for that.
54 million people; one sixth of the country. dismissed for being "unrepresentative of the whole"
neat trick
LOL...
This is both funny and sad.
What is the 2nd wizards rule... I think it goes something like this:
The greatest harm comes from the best of intentions.
it would be a nice change from what actually does represent political philosophy.
You base your personal ethics off of fantasy novels? How does that not surprise me?
Once again, you prove to assume things you don't know. Assuming my actions/intent when you are clueless. That's OK, I'm getting used to your stupidity and ignorance.
I just thought the comparison was just. Utopia is a fantasy, and all these laws government wants to make, to protect ourselves, cause problems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)