Reply With Quote
1. this is info from 1994
2. can't find your quote in the link.........so it's hard to tell if this is the Tobacco attorney's statement or the judge's ruling.
cliff's notes please.
please. Take your 4 year old and get out of my smoking store if you don't like it, you unAmerican commie.
if you are trying to argue on behalf of the rights of store owners, you can't have it both ways. You'd be laughed out of the courtroom.
1. this is info from 1994
2. can't find your quote in the link.........so it's hard to tell if this is the Tobacco attorney's statement or the judge's ruling.
cliff's notes please.
http://www.forces.org/static_page/who.phpFORCES International is an organisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited to – the defence of those who expect from life the freedom to smoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.
FORCES is an acronym of Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking.
gee, no agenda driven research being done here.....
1. The EPA report was in 1993.
2. It's from the judge.
This is his full decision with the quote coming in on pages 89-90.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafr...les/osteen.htm
I'm sure there have been studies done since then that show a weak relationship between cancer and SHS. And many more that show that such a relationship simply doesn't exist.
you gotta be kidding me.....
you dug up a research study done in France on 650 people with lung cancer in Europe back in 1998. Sorry if I don't just change my entire view on this study.
my turn.
From the EPA? I agree.
Read the report and stop being a slap on where the info is posted.
I can have it both ways you one track minded ignorant . Its called compromise. Perhaps you shouldn't just have it one way. Your inability to compromise and be reasonable because of your preference shows what short-comings you possess. Your sense of en lement is so ing wrong its sick.
The bars are willing to give you every other single place of establishment in the city but no you insist on ing with them too because having 95% of your city smoke free isn't enough. You selfish selfabsorbed egotistical ing unamerican asshole.
The WHO isn't credible?
see, when looking up sources to studies being done, you have to take account the source of the info and who is funding the research:
great article regarding this matter from WebMD:
Secondhand Smoke Study Raises Ire
Study Shows No Association Between Passive Smoke and Health Risks; Others Criticize Research
By Sid Kirchheimer
WebMD Health NewsMay 15, 2003 -- A controversial new study that questions the health risks of being exposed to secondhand smoke -- a factor often said to contribute to some 50,000 American deaths each year -- has outraged some health officials.
The new study, to be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal, shows no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Many health agencies, including the U.S. Surgeon General's Office, have long said that secondhand smoke boosts the risk of heart disease by about 30% and lung cancer risk by 25% in nonsmokers.
"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."
However, the American Cancer Society blasted the study -- and Enstrom -- for misusing its own data in an attempt to "confuse the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke." And former U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond, MD, is expected to join other medical experts in calling the study "bogus" in a news conference on Friday.
The study was funded in part by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which the American Cancer Society says is an arm of Philip Morris and other tobacco companies. Enstrom requested and received funding for the study in 1997.
For his finding, Enstrom used data from an ACS study -- the Cancer Prevention Study I that began in 1959 as one of the first major smoking studies. It involved some 1 million Americans across the country; Enstrom focused on some 36,000 nonsmoking Californians whose spouses had smoked, part of the 118,000 state residents in the trial. Although the study ended in 1972, Enstrom traced the cause of death of some 7,000 of those participants until 1998.
"ACS scientists and in particular, myself, had repeatedly asked him not to use the data to study the effects of secondhand smoke because it would lead to unreliable results," Michael Thun, MD, head of epidemiological research for the ACS, tells WebMD. "And it did." ..............
......In fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were funded by tobacco companies. In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease.
more.....
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/new...udy-raises-ire
Last edited by Blake; 12-19-2008 at 09:40 AM.
I read the report and found agenda oozing out of it.
If you're gonna keep posting links from sites run by people that want to smoke wherever they want to, I think we are done.
Agenda from a federal judge or from the US Congressional Review?
One case study of 650 people done in 1998 in France is not enough on it's own.
I could run circles around you all day on the case studies done that do show secondhand smoke is harmful..........although there is really no point. I think you are the only one here that thinks secondhand smoke is ok.
Blake wants the ability to tell adults what to do. He wants to control the ability of every adult out there to make a choice and that choice is his choice only.
He wants a world that does what he wants it to do. He wants to be a dictator of peoples free will to enter or not enter an establishment by choice.
He wants private property to be public property where himself and his people have controlling interest in what goes on there.
Blake is the epitome of a disabler of an adults right to make decisions on their own because his preference in an adults only establishment should be up to him and him only not the owner of the private property and not the people that choose to enter its doors. Blake decides whats right and wrong.
You can no longer exercise your adult ablity to make decisions on your own two feet. Blake does that for you. Its his way or the highway
Blakemerica:
Blakians don't like something and Blakians who feel that they are the majority refuse to open their own establishment and profit off the "majority". Blakians will ing tear your place up until it meets their standard because its a fundamental Blakian right to control your business and your ability to be an adult and make your own sound decisions.
Blakemerica: anyone who isn't Blakian.
Oh ok, so it's cons utionally wrong to take the rights away from an owner if he wants to have people smoke if they are adults, but when it's a restaurant during the day, you call it a "compromise".
If you can't see the hypocrisy, sorry, but you are an idiot.
You do too apparently.....
the difference is that you are calling it a "compromise"
nice job.
for the record, I like Blakemerica.
It has a very nice ring to it.
Now get you and your smelly smoking ass out of here.
Yes because it is a compromise. Its cons utionally wrong to tell a restaurant they have to be non-smoking. Its a compromise because there is a benefit to protecting underage kids who likely don't have to ability to choose for themselves.
When a right affects people who cannot willfully protect themselves then you have a gray area that should be addressed. Its addressed with compromise.
Willfully: Obstinately bent on having one's own way. (this is somewhat removed from 90% of the open public because kids cannot exercise their free will.)
Its not hypocrisy if I'm flat pointing out that yes its uncons utional but there is a strong matter of how it affects people who have no control over your will to allow smoking. Lets compromise on this and allow the smoking only in places where we are guaranteed that free will can be exercised to its fullest without question.
That is a bar. That is adults only where you have 100% of the choice to make by yourself and no one else.
I bet you do. You, Bush and Hitler should play 18 sometime and share philosophies.
It was weird reading that "Blakian" post, as that is my namesake as well.
Although this Blake and that Blake differ enormously in how government and peoples preferences should applied society-wide.
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...TICS/812190426Anti-smoking bill dies in Lansing todayGary Heinlein / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
LANSING -- State lawmakers this morning abandoned, for this year, efforts to ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars, restaurants and casinos.
As the hours ticked down on what likely is their final meeting of the two-year session, they also gave up on legislation to boost road repair money and give a compe ive boost to Blue Cross-Blue Shield.
But they passed legislation paving the way for a Detroit light rail connection between Hart Plaza and the New Center area, and a law needed for a $288-million expansion of Detroit's Cobo Center appeared headed for approval.
House and Senate members conceded defeat on the anti-smoking legislation, after talks carried well into the pre-dawn hours, when both sides refused to bend: The House stuck with its plan to exempt casinos, race tracks and cigar bars while the Senate insisted on a blanket prohibition on smoking in all workplaces.
The failure was a stinging disappointment for proponents who've sought the ban for a decade, and worked tirelessly in the last few weeks to see it through. Polls have shown consistently that a strong majority of Michiganians support such a law.
"People have a right to expect us to do our jobs," said Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, a proponent. "The reason all those other states and countries are going smoke-free is not just because it's the right thing to do. It's also the millions of dollars in health care costs (caused by smoking) that they save." (DR edit: ie Insurance Companies lobbying on behalf of themselves)
No one believes the issue is dead forever.
"We realize it's an issue a lot of our cons uents want to see resolved," Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said of the smoking ban. "There's a drive to get it done. I'm certain this is an issue that will come back to us."
I'm sorry friend. You know who its intended for.
, I know that. If one John took responsiblity for all Johns, Joe would have it a uva lot better.
Nobody is forcing you to take your kids to the restaurant and it's a compromise then too to ban it in bars because it effects others health.
You're done.
Please do. Any where the relative risk is over 2.0? 1.5? Should be a ton since it's a class A carcinogen.
And when did I say it was ok? I simply said the effects have been grossly overstated.
hey jeenyus, did you read the part of your story that also said that polls indicate the majority of Michigan residents want the ban?
Even though that's the opinion of the senator, I also figure saving millions in health care cost to be a good thing.
it's either harmful or it's not. which is it?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
