harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/3...

concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers.....

meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

October 20, 2009 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their 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 Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.ph...

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

October 20, 2009 at 7:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Outdoor bans are even crazier than indoor bans. The chemical make-up of shs is nearly 94% water vapor and A SLIGHT AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE with about 3% being carbon monoxide AND 3% CONTAINING THOSE SUPPOSED KILLER CARCENOGENS.........

n-nitrosomines which you hear so much about is actually arsenic..what they dont tell you is that the measurements they took match the naturally occuring arsenic in the air outside everywhere.
they measured levels at 0-29 picograms....which is totally safe...the amount has to be 5 million times that to be harmful to humans........you see how they switched it and they did this with most of the so called chemicals they claim to be in shs. Trying to blame shs for what is actually a natural thing. The levels of other things in shs if they can be measured at all are millions if not billions of times smaller than the amounts needed to harm anyone......just remember this second hand smoke is a joke within nano seconds from the burn it turns into WATER VAPOR.....Even the exhaled smoke is loaded down with water vapor...osha has said nothing in shs/ets is going to harm you or anyone else.....what shs will do is irritate those with weak immune responces.......thats why shs is classified as a class 3 IRRITANT BY OSHA AND THE EPA.....Remember this a prohibition movement must rely on scare tactics and big money in order to succeed to the level of getting legislation....These outdoor regulations are even crazier than the first claims made for indoor bans.......

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

October 20, 2009 at 7:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

generalsn (anonymous) says...

Just a reminder of the sources of the bans, the RWJ Foundation, owned by big pharma, and the coalitions, more concerned with "social change" than the bans themselves:

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia...

And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the "inside -out", provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses. You may need to CTRL and scoll to enlarge it.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Funda...

Here's the "model ban" from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the "smoking ban for dummies" It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?...

October 20, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Landon13 (anonymous) says...

In Response to harleyrider1978:
Its no joke my man. For every 8 smokers killed one non-smoker is killed as well – Think about it like this that one person could be a 3 year old child with breathing difficulties or a single mother taking care of three children forced to work in a place with no smoking regulations.

You said “ “Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006” “

Actually Secondhand smoke (SHS) has been labeled as a Class A carcinogen. This means it is a substance known to cause cancer in humans and thus there is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure. To make this more clear, the short time of 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke is enough to trigger heart attacks in people with heart conditions and the elderly

www.smokefreehousingNE.org.

You said “ ........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ”

Wrong Harley. Secondhand smoke contains than 250 chemicals known to be toxic or cancer causing. This chemicals include but are not limited to formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide

http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O...

You said “ ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated “

2008? Really? How about just days ago a report published by the Institute of Medicine detailing that “Study results consistently indicate that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of Cornary heart disease by 25-30%”. In addition the same report explains that after a smoking ban has been put in place that there is a decrease in the rate of heart attacks. http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Repo...

October 20, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Landon13 (anonymous) says...

You said “ meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. “

Damage to business, jobs, and the economy? There are multiple sources that have reported no ill effect to smoking bans and a few who have had increased business. Where are your facts coming from? I think you should look up more recent sources my friend.

You said “ Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study: Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their 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. “

Taken directly from “Surgeon General Carmona, vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults”

You said “ The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations. “

There may not be association between lung cancer risk but that does not mean ETS does not hurt children. Secondhand smoke increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma; also, studies show secondhand smoke may be a major factor in the development of asthma in children under five. Under 5 years old! (http://www.makemiairsmokefree.org/kno...). Other studies have shown that children with asthma who are exposed to secondhand smoke require more asthma medicines, have more emergency room visits and lower lung function. So your correct its not lung cancer, just Asthma and increased medical costs for a child. A kid who had the opportunity at birth to run and play to his/her fullest is now burdened with a chronic respiratory disease for the rest of their lives … I don’t think that’s fair. Do you Harley?

October 20, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Landon13 (anonymous) says...

You said “ The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke. This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. “

False again. Never been found? Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic. For anyone that does not know Philip Morris is one of those labeled ‘Big Tobacco’.

You said “ To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.) “

To bring into a real world perspective those grains of salt or Secondhand smoke has been estimated to cause 46,000 (ranging from 22,700 to 69,600) deaths per year from heart disease in adult nonsmokers

You said “ The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.ph... “

I’m just going to go ahead at site a real source. Please visit http://www.healthnews.com/disease-ill... or http://www.healthnews.com/disease-ill... or even here http://www.healthnews.com/medical-upd... or even here http://environment.about.com/b/2009/1...

You said “ As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997 “

OSHA has determined that "workers should not be involuntarily exposed to tobacco smoke” and that “the best method for controlling worker exposure to ETS is to eliminate tobacco use from the workplace and to implement a smoking cessation program”. (http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/home.htm)

October 20, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Landon13 (anonymous) says...

It is sad when someone like you pollutes the webpages of the internet just like secondhand smoke has been polluting the air waves of the world. Cigarette smoking and illness from secondhand smoke is the #1 cause of preventable disease in the United States. A 2005 study estimated the total cost of secondhand smoke exposure in the United States at $10 billion annually, $5 billion in direct medical costs, and $5 billion in indirect costs such as lost productivity (http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O...).
It’s a shame that such a terrible habit is still supported by millions of intelligent and educated people. I would like to point out another great article published a little while ago. It has an excellent and humurous analogy about smoking in public:

Also, Harley stick to the facts my man and please stop spreading biased information that might influence others to believe falsehoods. For the sake of the health of everyone I hope that you do.

October 20, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Landon13 (anonymous) says...

article link from last post is here
http://news.peacefmonline.com/health/...

October 20, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

A little known fact:

EVERY Internet message board that mentions tobacco is logged, filtered and categorized ("hate" near "tobacco" would shift the listing toward a negative rating) by various site-scraping companies. Yes, even the message boards of colleges and universities--like the Daily Kansan--are found, databased and automatically massaged. Access to this underground information is sold, at quite a high price, to interested parties.

Who then, I'm sure, get the word out to their minions and sympathizers. Time for damage control! It's just ordinary, smart "viral marketing."

One nice thing about the serious amount of time notorious spammers harleyrider and generalsn spend on their work despoiling the internet--at least it keeps them off the streets.

Can you imagine if harleyrider rode his (reputed) bike the way he reads scientific studies?

Every motorist in his area (nowhere near Lawrence, thank goodness) would be at risk.

October 20, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

And thanks, Landon13, for taking the time to address harleyrider's garbage. These spammers count on the fact that most scientists are busy doing important work, and aren't out there replying to such ephemera as message board postings.

But for spammers, boilerplate does the job they want it to do: it helps convince the dimmer bulbs. That way the tobacco companies can hold onto the only base they have left--the poor, the uneducated, the mentally unstable. It's despicable, but that's business these days.

To quote your fine source, the consumer-friendly healthday site, about a recent study:

"'Smoking tends to be a disease of poverty and lack of education.' . . .

" these groups often specifically targeted by Big Tobacco . . . "

http://healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=...

October 20, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

snowbird (anonymous) says...

Smoking bans and the heart attack fraud

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.ph...

October 20, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Its no joke my man. For every 8 smokers killed one non-smoker is killed as well – Think about it like this that one person could be a 3 year old child with breathing difficulties or a single mother taking care of three children forced to work in a place with no smoking regulations.

Care to name one death by shs/ets....carmona couldnt do it and neither can you.....carmona was forced to state all the deaths in his report were computer generated..please quit spreading this lie that shs/ets is a killer it is NOT.

[Actually Secondhand smoke (SHS) has been labeled as a Class A carcinogen. This means it is a substance known to cause cancer in humans and thus there is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure. To make this more clear, the short time of 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke is enough to trigger heart attacks in people with heart conditions and the elderly]

YET AGAIN YOU SPREAD FALSEHOODS....

care to go to the CDC website on toxicology and please come back and list the amounts that it takes to harm anybody...please do.......after you have to admit that shs levels are millions and billions of times less than what it takes to harm somebody....you will know you spread propaganda...SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE....No safe level would you say the same about cooked food in the same restaraunts..smoke from grills.....come on your double standard is showing.....all smoke from organic materials is natural and it doesnt harm anyone....

October 20, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

[ Wrong Harley. Secondhand smoke contains than 250 chemicals known to be toxic or cancer causing. This chemicals include but are not limited to formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide]

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

October 20, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

[ 2008? Really? How about just days ago a report published by the Institute of Medicine detailing that “Study results consistently indicate that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of Cornary heart disease by 25-30%”. In addition the same report explains that after a smoking ban has been put in place that there is a decrease in the rate of heart attacks. ]

Data from Denmark Show No Apparent Effect of Smoking Ban on Heart Attacks

http://sst.dk/publ/Publ2009/CFF/Rygni...

Data from a government study of the effects of the smoking ban in Denmark show no apparent impact of that smoking ban on heart attack hospital admission rates

...Providing the whole story behind tobacco news.

Sunday, October 18, 2009
Data from Denmark Show No Apparent Effect of Smoking Ban on Heart Attacks
Data from a government study of the effects of the smoking ban in Denmark show no apparent impact of that smoking ban on heart attack hospital admission rates.

The study analyzed rates of hospitalization for heart attacks in all hospitals in Denmark for a period of five years prior to the smoking ban (implemented in August 2007) and 18 months after implementation of the ban. A statistical model controlled for age, month, and secular trends in heart attack rates. No effect of the smoking ban was detected for either 35-64 year-old males, 35-64 year-old females, 65-84 year-old males, or 65-84 year-old females.

The trends in heart attacks among one of these four groups - men ages 35-64 -- is shown in Figure 6 of the report. As can be seen, there is a clear trend of decreasing heart attack rates over time. Seasonal variation in heart attacks is also clear. There is no apparent effect of the smoking ban on the trend in heart attacks. According to the report, the graphs for each of the other three demographic groups are similar, with no apparent effect of the smoking ban on heart attacks in any of the four study groups.

October 20, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

An advantage of this study is that Denmark has an excellent national registry of heart attack admissions. In addition, the report notes that there were few changes in treatment of heart disease in the country during the period surrounding the implementation of the smoking ban.

The Rest of the Story

This is now the fourth country for which data show no short-term effect of the smoking ban on admissions for acute coronary events. The others are England, Scotland, and Wales. None of these findings were included in the Institute of Medicine report which concluded that smoking bans cause an immediate and substantial decline in heart attacks.

An important observation is that the few studies which found large effects of the smoking bans were in very small communities. None of the studies that covered larger populations -- states or countries -- found large effects and many of these studies found no effect. This suggests that the findings from isolated communities - like Helena and Pueblo - are merely random phenomena. The fact that these results cannot be confirmed in any population-based study is concerning.

This pattern of findings also confirms that there is a severe publication bias present. We now have data from four countries showing no short-term effects of the smoking ban on acute cardiovascular events, yet none of these studies have been published. Researchers have a hard time getting excited about negative results and so they are much less likely to decide to publish such data. In contrast, when they find an effect, they are excited about publishing the findings. This is clearly what is going on with these smoking ban and heart attack studies.

(Thanks to Klaus K. for kindly providing the English translation of this report).

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2...

October 20, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

[Damage to business, jobs, and the economy? There are multiple sources that have reported no ill effect to smoking bans and a few who have had increased business. Where are your facts coming from? I think you should look up more recent sources my friend.]

Clubs: Smoking ban snuffs out profits
One year after policy went into effect, business owners say customers are leaving town to light up

http://www.dailysentinel.com/hp/conte...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/econ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssCo...

Smoking Ban Hurts Business: Missouri Study

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/a...

Jan. 23, 2008, 1:38PM
Mo. Study: Smoking Ban Hurts Business

By JIM SALTER Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS — Familiar faces are missing at Betty Hamilton's bar in Columbia.

The Tiger Club clientele is largely blue-collar workers middle-aged and older. Until January 2007, many of them smoked. But in the year since the mid-Missouri town banned smoking in most public places, business has decreased nearly one-third, Hamilton said Wednesday.

That's no surprise to economist Michael R. Pakko of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, whose recent study showed that smoking bans cause an economic impact that are detrimental to businesses.

October 20, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

[ There may not be association between lung cancer risk but that does not mean ETS does not hurt children. Secondhand smoke increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma; also, studies show secondhand smoke may be a major factor in the development of asthma in children under five. Under 5 years old! (http://www.makemiairsmokefree.org/kno...). Other studies have shown that children with asthma who are exposed to secondhand smoke require more asthma medicines, have more emergency room visits and lower lung function. So your correct its not lung cancer, just Asthma and increased medical costs for a child. A kid who had the opportunity at birth to run and play to his/her fullest is now burdened with a chronic respiratory disease for the rest of their lives … I don’t think that’s fair. Do you Harley?]

Anti-Smoking Groups Admit to Knowingly Misleading the Public About Effects of Secondhand Smoke; Wall Street Journal Highlights the Admission
In a startling turn of events, anti-smoking groups today and yesterday appeared to acknowledge that my commentary about the misleading nature of claims about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke is scientifically correct and that these groups are knowingly deceiving the public.

In a one-two punch, the British magazine New Scientist and the Wall Street Journal have run articles highlighting the misrepresentation of the scientific facts by a large number of anti-smoking groups.

It all started yesterday with the release of an editorial and an article in New Scientist.

The editorial ("Don't mangle the facts, even in a good cause") argues that although the cause of protecting people from secondhand smoke may be a good one, it is inappropriate and unjustified to communicate "bad science" to the public in support of such policies, as many anti-smoking groups are doing.

According to the editorial, "it looks as if anti-smoking campaigners have been distorting the facts to make their case. Some have claimed that a non-smoker exposed to tobacco smoke for just half an hour can permanently increase their risk of heart attack. Yet a new study suggests that such statements are not supported by science. ... It would take years of repeated exposure for the effects to become potentially lethal. ..."
"Some might say, so what? If tobacco smoke is harmful, then surely anything that reduces people's exposure to it should be welcomed. Not so. Using bad science can never be justified, even in pursuit of noble causes. It only gives ammunition to those seeking to undermine your case. When anti-smoking groups want to make their point they should stick to the solid facts. There are plenty of them."

The editorial links to a news article which highlights my research demonstrating that many anti-smoking groups are misrepresenting the scientific evidence regarding the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke.

October 20, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Mr gene borio brings along one of his associates from tobacco.org.a web site comitted to spreading anti-tobacco propaganda....check genes site out...he has gotton how many millions thru the last 20 years from the robert woods johnson foundation and the american cancer society...........Funny how he shows up wherever I go.Just me a man by himslef fighting the propaganda spread by the big bad tobacco control groups........siting their studies which are nothing more than meta analysis.............every PROHIBITION MOVEMENT NEEDS TO INSTILL FEAR INTO THE GENERAL POPULATION TO SUCEED...but once they hit the path of legislating there end is in site as the last prohibitionists found out in 1933.......here we are yet again.........following another path of history repeating itself.......I must be suceeding as the progressives have had to come chase me down........I sure hate it for them......this proves a force of one can make a diference........I will see ya around gene.......the next time your group psots more scientific fraud in the news media... Oh and you people that drink and those who are obese...the same anti-tobacco progressives their the ones after you too......heres a snipit of what they want to do to you......Principal Author: Mayhall
Additional Authors: Read, Shows

Title: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

----- Bill Text for All Versions ----
| As Introduced (Current)

Information pertaining to this measure was last updated on 01/29/2008 at 11:24
End Of Document

October 20, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Landon13 (anonymous) says...

I looked you up on google harleyrider1978 and your everywhere. Therefore, I will not both to dignifiy your nonsense after this comment. You seem to pop out of the ground like a little annoying groundhog whenever an article about smoking is published.

It amazes me the amount of time you have to spread fictious stats and quote random studies from Countries like Denmark. I apoligize to the Kansan for which they have now been infected by your rhetorical disease.

It seems you will go on forever with horrid spam and random pro-tobacco rants. I encourage everyone to contact their local representative or local American Lung, heart, or cancer society either via email or telephone to find out the true facts about this subject.

Lung - http://www.lungusa.org/
Heart- http://www.americanheart.org/presente...
Cancer - http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/in...

October 20, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Oh and gene,I forgot to mention to you that tobacco well it contains vitamin k...you know that sunstance that thickens the blood,ya its a cure to stricknin poisoning,that stuff they put in blood thinners like coumadin.........let me give you some insite here........those platlets you talk about sticking together........the doctors have known that for years and to all their patients on blood thinners they use a chart its a thrombo rate chart and in it, it says what brand do you smoke and how much per day.........then beside that it says what dosage of coumadin that smoker should be on to make the PT be where the doctor wants it to be..........now shs and blood platlets sticking together........that dog just dont hunt when you consider most smokers live into their late 70s and 80s..........yet they dont die of heart disease or lung cancer but of old age diseases..........you guys are the biggest joke in the history of the world.

October 20, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Landon13 (anonymous) says...
I looked you up on google harleyrider1978 and your everywhere. Therefore, I will not both to dignifiy your nonsense after this comment. You seem to pop out of the ground like a little annoying groundhog whenever an article about smoking is published.

It amazes me the amount of time you have to spread fictious stats and quote random studies from Countries like Denmark. I apoligize to the Kansan for which they have now been infected by your rhetorical disease.

It seems you will go on forever with horrid spam and random pro-tobacco rants. I encourage everyone to contact their local representative or local American Lung, heart, or cancer society either via email or telephone to find out the true facts about this subject.

YA I GUESS YOU WOULD RATHER RUN THAN FIGHT.............YOU WANNA debate shs/ets lets do her...........I dont spam sites I get the truth out to destroy the healthscare you anti-tobacco goons have spread thru billions of dollars world wide.
I suppose I should let the readers know that the world health orginizations anti-tobacco treaty, well they black maled every country in the world to soing on or else loose world bank loans.......remember the MSA deal where the tobacco companies paid out to the states...well the tobacco control folks made sure that part of the deal was that the tobacco companies could no longer say anything against the tobacco control propaganda studies in the future...nothing like blackmale and shutting the competition up to have the whole media at your beckon calling........such groups as the tobacco control people should be shut down and bankrupted for their attacks on the free rights of the peoples of the world....

October 20, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

NoTobaccoNet (anonymous) says...

Further information presented in full at www.NoTobacco.net

As a smoker, instead of thinking "it won't happen here", look at what has happened across the United States. In other states (like New York State for instance) you are not allowed to smoke inside ANY public building. There are even restrictions being placed on a person's residence, if that residence happens to be in an apartment building! What can you do about it? Learn more about what you as a smoker can do to protect your freedoms, and at the same time, improve your health by using the latest technological advancements in nicotine delivery. Find out more about your options at http://www.NoTobacco.net today!

It seems that everywhere we go, there are more and more "No Smoking" zones. However, new technology allows smokers to enjoy their nicotine in a familiar form, without being subjected to No Smoking laws. NO second hand smoke! If you are a smoker, you should at least be AWARE of this technology! It could change your habit completely!

Find out more at http://www.NoTobacco.net ! Use code "disc10-6135" to save 10%.

October 20, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

Gee, you'd think that secondhand smoke was blatantly, provably harmless--if you believed the postings of 3 members of this pro-smoking spammer cabal.

Yet, these anonymous Upholders of the Holy Truth _never_ seem get to their local legislatures to "enlighten" them _in public_. Way too embarrassing. Then they might have to account for their misrepresentations--and themselves. You can't testify anonymously, the way you can flood message boards without any accountability whatsoever.

So, I'll put my faith in normal, established science conducted by real scientists who have names, credits, reputations and the guts to show up in public, thank you.

And THAT's why no responsible people pay any attention to these anonymous spamming wingnuts, who after all, just recycle long-discredited tobacco industry studies and arguments.

They're just bottom-feeders, targeting the poor, the uneducated and the easily deluded--an important market segment the tobacco industry wants to hold onto.

October 20, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

So, I'll put my faith in normal, established science conducted by real scientists who have names, credits, reputations and the guts to show up in public, thank you.

I assume you mean STANTON GLANTZ anti-tobacco nazi extrordinaire........your so called professionals are doing your bidding for the money or political purpose.....the entire government is over run with anti-tobacco pundents in public health.....Your day of reckoning is comming in NOV 2010. To bad credible reasearch facilities have had to sell their good names just to get tobacco control money and produce psuedo-science. As one of tobacco controls grant requirements is an outcome that meets their healthscare HEADLINE REQUIREMENTS......but tobacco control is going bankrupt as states take their funding away and rwjf moves onto alcohol control...look for a avalanche of anti-alcohol studies over the next year.......same folks same agenda.PROHIBITION

October 21, 2009 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Wow, this is intense!

Harleyrider1978:
Would you dispute the fact that smoking (not shs but actual smoking) is a major contributor to chronic diseases such as hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), and other cardiovascular risks such as strokes and myocardial infarctions (heart attacks)?

Would you dispute the fact that smoking (again, not shs but actual smoking) as been directly linked with increased rates of lung cancer?

If it is as you stated, "all smoke from organic materials is natural and it doesn't harm anyone", then I wonder why I often have the urge to cough and sputter and my eyes burn when I get caught in the smoke of simple campfire. Could it be that smoke inhalation is actually not a natural occurrence and that smoke (from campfires, cigs, mary jane, etc) is an irritant not meant to be inhaled?

I don't know, call me stupid, but it certainly seems that smoke inhalation is not as good as you make it out to be.

p.s. The questions listed above can be answered simply Yes or No. No need to go into your pro-smoke propaganda, I've read it already.

October 21, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Landon isn't joking. Harleyrider1978, you're everywhere with this pro-smoking agenda.

How in the world do you have time to post on all these anti-smoking message boards? It makes a person think maybe you're getting paid for this work and maybe there is some merit to what gene posted about 'viral marketing' and damage control.

October 21, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Ahh gene you called in the boyz for back up I see. Or did you busily make up new names.....I am proud you guys bother to look me up,its an honor. As far as smoking causing disease.........you cant prove it and neither can the toxicologists who do that for a living.....The only thing you can say is,this many people do xx and this people dont and this xx gets these diseases where this group of xx pnly gets it this much as compared to this group of xx.......not much science in that would you say...COPD is a new made up diagnosis to cover all kinds of lung function disorders........you guys blantantly want to use it as a disease caused by shs/ets with absolutly no proof much less direct smoking.

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatem...

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

October 21, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

If it is as you stated, "all smoke from organic materials is natural and it doesn't harm anyone", then I wonder why I often have the urge to cough and sputter and my eyes burn when I get caught in the smoke of simple campfire. Could it be that smoke inhalation is actually not a natural occurrence and that smoke (from campfires, cigs, mary jane, etc) is an irritant not meant to be inhaled?

class 3 irritant........simple definition is [IT WILL IRRITATE YOU]] .....Do you go around sticking your head directly into smoke from fires.......intensity of smoke is the intensity of irritation...I dont think your gonna find any cigarette thats gonna have the intensity of your steak cooking on a grill....or those leaves you burn in your yard each fall.........try an onion if you want watery eyes so you can make some fake tears for the readers.

October 21, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

I googled you guys too, everywhere on the net is a story about second hand smoke and outlawing the free rights of the people........are you guys spamming..........it seems everywhere I am theres gene spamming the comments section yet again with more of the same nazi propaganda his web site spews daily..........talk about spammers............One man does make a diference.try googling second hand smoke.........I show up everytime....doesnt that just make you sink into the chair knowing your being challenged for your LIES.

October 21, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Well, I guess this is where we admit defeat boys. Harleyrider1978 is correct. There is no proof what-so-ever that smoking is associated with any disease at all. Smoke is completely harmless and it's one big conspiracy orchestrated by all the medical experts in the world. Bummer. (sarcasm intended)

October 21, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

nICE OF YOU TO COME TO YOUR SENCES THERE DAN..........Now go down to the capitol building in washington....find the constitution and read it.....when you get to the 14th and 9th amendments read carefully [equal protection] its quite an amazing concept........you might also read about unfair taxation too..its in there...then after you have absorbed that liberty and the rights of private property including businesses is a constitutionally protected right........you can pray for forgiveness....and maybe just maybe god will forgive your trespasses upon WE THE PEOPLE.

October 21, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

big conspiracy orchestrated by all the medical experts in the world...............

There is truth to what you say.........World Health Orginizations world tobacco treaty.............See your on the way to redemption by admitting things for a change.

October 21, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

I'm spamming? That's like being pulled over for speeding, and telling the judge the cop had to be speeding too!

This is the same logic he uses to analyze scientific data(!) It's sad.

October 21, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Trumped up meta-analysis by people like stanton glantz and other anti-tobacco groups then getting the johns hopkins people and the cdc chief to endorse bogus psuedo-science like the new/old heart study..you guys are absolute nutz........I dont have to interpret scientific studies.all I have to do is wait 3 days after you guys bombard the internet with another trash study and the real scientists debunk it for what it is trash science.

October 21, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Besides gene why should you even care what I put out on the net.......like its gonna harm your big anti-tobacco business profits...........or does it.

October 21, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

SiriusBlue (anonymous) says...
Harleyrider, you just won the internet.
Godwin's Law, look it up.

Sorry but the one who brings it up first is the loser......you did.

October 21, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

gene (anonymous) says...
I'm spamming? That's like being pulled over for speeding, and telling the judge the cop had to be speeding too!

This is the same logic he uses to analyze scientific data(!) It's sad.

Now gene, your propaganda is like this run away fugitive where the cops shot him 40 times in the back..........when the judge read the case he determined it to be ''THE WORSE CASE OF SUICIDE HE EVER SAW''.

October 21, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Me........hah you jest. I ve made the case against you fraudsters and I get daily emails and thank yous from people all over the world. They want the truth not more anti-tobacco propaganda....

October 21, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

In the very least Harleyrider, we can agree to disagree. I know I'll never change your opinion and you certainly haven't changed mine. I'm out.

October 21, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

The internet has facilitated world-wide exposure for foaming-at-the-mouth diatribes that previously would have been confined to local Hyde Parks, or hospital wards.

October 21, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sconn8 (anonymous) says...

My Aunt died this past summer from lung cancer, and she never smoked a cigarette in her life. She did, however, live with her husband who was a very heavy smoker.

Secondhand smoke is a joke, huh? Tell that to my Aunt.

October 21, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Give me an addy.........I would be more than happy to tell her she was lied to.

October 22, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

I ve seen the same rant everytime from you anti-tobacco activists.drop kick back to a sob story,the same as you do when in front of the city councils..........Surgeon general carmona was forced to admit their are no deaths as a result of shs/ets....all his numbers were computer generated......now of she can provide a death certificate that states death by second hand smoke........I would rush to ask for the doctors credentials..........as he would be a liar too.

October 22, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dan (anonymous) says...

Sirius, my suggestion: Let him "win". That's the only way he'll stop posting and the only way we'll see the end of his rant. In the end, this is the only way he can win. The pro-smoke movement wasn't big enough to stop the current legislation and won't be big enough to stop future legislation.

(I guess I'm not done here after all)

October 22, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

You just dont get it do you. The political force behind the bans was the 2006 federal election win of the democrats.After that the bans took to a nationwide tsunami....This election comming up the democrats are going to loose massive seats in the congress and with those losses will go the end of the smoking bans....REPEAL WILL BE THE NAME OF THE GAME THEN.....

October 22, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

G_E (anonymous) says...

Sirius, I think this is the first time I've *ever* agreed with something you've had to say on this site. (And I was totally with you on the TYFS jokes - I love me some Aaron Eckhart.)

October 22, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

Quite a lesson in "journalism and political science," eh, Erin? Post a simple article, and suddenly find yourself in a headlong descent into the maelstrom.

And consider: with all 5 or 6 of hareleyrider's cohorts on the job--all equally challenged, all apparently without much to do with their lives but harass message boards-- this same thing is going on all over the internet. . . .

But this fray's been interesting. I'm impressed with the courtesy, literacy and perspicacity of the responses here--even genuine humor. Not to get smarmy, but I think few media outlets anywhere could boast such well-rounded maturity and even grace under pressure as we've seen here.

October 22, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

harleyrider1978 (anonymous) says...

Gene the frey going on all over the internet isnt created by me.Its created by you progressives and your agenda.........smoking bans are but one battle in this fight against your peoples socialist movement.....battles are going on everywhere against your entire political force.

October 23, 2009 at 5:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rocky (anonymous) says...

Landon, Don’t you want to know the truth? I really do not understand why anyone would want to believe shoddy conducted studys. (EPA Study Soundly Rejected In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency” What is wrong with this picture? Wouldn’t you rather be able to trust scientific research and believe all the medicine ads we watch on TV every night? Why do you attack what OSHA has said about ETS?
Gene – here’s a real name, Judge Osteen & and OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration) and the Congressional Research Service.Enstrom-Kabat Study Kabat, G.I., et.al., American Journal of Epidemiology, Vo1.142, No.2, 1995, p.141-148; which was published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that: " no significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality" This study was one of the largest study ever done, covering 100,000 people over 38 years and was reported and published in 2003.The National Cancer Institute published a 1998 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), linked here, and again here, commissioned by the World Health Organization. The s tudy found that children were less likely to get lung cancer if both parents smoked than if neither smoked.British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/3...
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.The Congressional Research Service also published a major review of all research studies.( Of the 123 second hand smoke studies (64 spousal, 25 work, 9 social, 25 children), only 16 showed a measurable risk and even those were below 1.19 in epidemiology that’s no risk at all. That’s 13% of the studies. Please read that again.)The CRS found no proof that second hand smoke increases cancer rates.The Journal of the American Medical Association has published a 2006 report , by Dr. Saverio Stranges, which also suggests that exposure to Secondhand smoke is not as important a risk factor for heart attacks as previously thought.
Some people will still stay brainwashed from years & years of propaganda but the intelligent ones will see through the smoke & lies.

October 25, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cjohnson907 (anonymous) says...

I think this is a very legitimate topic that deserves way more respect than most on this board are willing to provide one another

October 27, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

Yet more tobacco-derived hogwash.

You dare to cite that North Carolina ex-tobacco lobbyist judge whose judgement was itself thrown out? The judgement that so closely adhered to Philip Morris' briefs that it was known as a classic case of "judicial plagiarism?" PM had such a great case that it didn't even appeal. And PM is known for appeals.

You dare to cite that tobacco-funded Enstrom/Kabat study by long-time tobacco toadies? It was one of the most vilified in BMJ's history. You tell me: how does one measure secondhand smoke exposure in 1959, when they smoked in elevators, and no one had even heard the term?? Or follow up 40 years later, without accounting for divorce, cessation, or death?? Give me a break. Even then it couldn't avoid a finding of increased respiratory disease from SHS.

The official 1995 CRS report did NOT in any way dispute the EPA's findings. It recounted a number of the industry's claims, but did not endorse any of them, and in fact emphasized the risk of SHS to children.

Brainwashed? If you don't know you posted a bunch of misleading tripe, then it's you, my gullible friend, who are the propaganda dupe. Check your sources before regurgitating again.

If you DO know the whole truth, and tailored your post to purposefully mislead readers--that's despicable. But viral marketing exists, doesn't it?

This industry has a proven history of undisclosed, paid-for books, articles and letters to the editor. Why would it ignore the modern day internet today?

October 27, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jamen (anonymous) says...

Maybe people should not smoke and just eat chocolate. Smoking = toxic and gross. Chocolate = tasty. Problem solved, no ban needed.

October 28, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

That is so true. We should totally disregard any arguments from people who think smoking is okay, because they are all shills for the tobacco companies. We should especially ignore them if they come from the internet, because as we all know the only thing ever put on the internet is lies and pornography. Hence, kansan.com

October 28, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gene (anonymous) says...

Wikipedia's SHS page has a useful section that concisely lists various tobacco-funded studies and critiques, some of which have been bruited about (without telling of their tobacco provenances, of course) here :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_...

November 2, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kennebec (anonymous) says...

Please pass a smoking-ban on campus. I dislike walking out of Wescoe or Fraser everyday to a lingering cloud of smoke.

November 2, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

virgilk (anonymous) says...

Landon13/gene. You jump all over Harley Rider but fail to notice that everything you use as proof has been shown to be biased and/or a study paid for by Pharmaceuticals or Government connected. The EPA Report is a Fraud as well as the Surgeon Generals report, both of which used the same cherry picked studies while ignoring those studies which were much larger and longer. To name just two of the hundreds that found no connection of SHS to cancer or Heart disease, the WHO and the California study both found no connection. WHO has been trying to hide their findings and the ACS study( California Study ) was defunded by the ACS when it became clear the findings were not what they wanted. The funding was completed through a third party funding from Tobacco interests so as to have no direct say in the study.

I've been keeping track of Harley and find his information as good as any on the Net Yours on the other hand are a waste of space. If you bother to check, before the EPA Report and the activity of the RWJF on Smoking Bans there were no studies connecting SHS to any disease.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR.
http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley....

Forces list of studies and Risk Factors
COMPILATION OF STUDIES.doc
http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/11455184/...

Keep riding Harley. You have great information.

November 6, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )